Son, Sacrifice, and Great Shepherd: Studies on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3161591895, 9783161591891

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

510

Son, Sacrifice, and Great Shepherd Studies on the Epistle to the Hebrews Edited by

David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason

Mohr Siebeck

David M. Moffitt, born 1974; 2010 PhD Duke University (Graduate Program in Religion); since 2013 Reader in New Testament Studies, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. orcid.org/0000-0001-6885-2443 Eric F. Mason, born 1969; 2005 PhD University of Notre Dame (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity); since 2002 Professor and Julius R. Mantey Chair of Biblical Studies, Judson University, Elgin, Illinois, USA. orcid.org/0000-0002-8571-8091

ISBN 978-3-16-159189-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-159190-7 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-159190-7 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................ VII Amy L. B. Peeler The Son Like No Other: Comparing the Son of God to the Angelic “Sons of God” in the Epistle to the Hebrews ............... 1 David M. Moffitt Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria: Toward an Account of Hebrews’ Cosmology ...... 13 Félix H. Cortez The Son as the Representative of the Children in the Letter to the Hebrews .............................................................. 31 Scott D. Mackie “Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”: Ekphrasis and Epiphany in Hebrews 1–2 ................................ 43 Grant Macaskill Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology in the New Testament ........................................................................ 79 Benjamin J. Ribbens The Positive Functions of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews ....... 95 Nicholas J. Moore “Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices in Hebrews 9:1–14 ................................................ 115

VI

Table of Contents

Georg Gäbel “You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”: The Tabernacle Description in Hebrews 9:1–5 and Its Function in Context .......................................................... 135 Eric F. Mason “Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit of Hebrews 9:14 ........................................................... 175 David M. Allen What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13? ........................... 191 Susan Docherty The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13 and Its Bearing on the Question of the Integrity of the Epistle .......... 207 James W. Thompson Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6 .................................... 219 Joseph R. Dodson Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca .................................................................................... 233 Bibliography .......................................................................... 253 List of Contributors ............................................................... 281 Index of Ancient Source ........................................................ 285 Index of Modern Authors ...................................................... 311

Introduction In the last few decades, the Epistle to the Hebrews has risen to a place of prominence in the larger field of New Testament studies. A number of questions and approaches, both old and new, are being put to this ancient text in fresh ways. This volume, which developed from presentations at the 2011–2013 sessions of the revived Hebrews program unit of the Society of Biblical Literature’s International Meeting, attests the ongoing and still developing fascination with Hebrews evident in these last decades. As will be clear, all of the papers have undergone significant development subsequent to those initial presentations. The volume examines three major sections of Hebrews – chs. 1–2, 8–10, and 13. Each of these sections of the text contains material that can be interpreted in ways that have important ramifications for understanding the whole of the epistle. Each of these sections also contributes a major, distinctive image of Jesus, as reflected in the title of this volume: Son, Sacrifice, and Great Shepherd.

Issues in Interpreting Hebrews 1–2 In her chapter titled “The Son Like No Other: Comparing the Son of God to the Angelic ‘Sons of God’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Amy L. B. Peeler looks at the language of sonship in Heb 1. By way of examination of some key pieces of evidence in Second Temple Jewish literature in Greek, Peeler highlights the fact that angels were called “sons of God” and that this language fostered some worry in early patristic texts regarding the status of angels. She then moves in the second section of her chapter to explore some of the primary ways in which Jesus, the Son of God, is distinct in his relationship to the Father from that of the angels. Hebrews, in order to avoid possible confusion, emphasizes aspects of the Son’s relationship with the Father that distinguish him from the angels. Three points are especially worthy of note: (1) the one Son is different from the many sons; (2) the Son is begotten (Heb 1:5), not, as is true of the angels, made (Heb 1:7); and (3) God engages in conversation with Jesus, but not with the angels. In these ways Hebrews sets the Son apart from the many angelic sons.

VIII

David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason

David M. Moffitt’s contribution “Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria: Toward an Account of Hebrews’ Cosmology” compares the discussion in Heb 1–2 of the Son’s elevation above the angels with some of the relevant evidence from Philo. While many have argued that Hebrews likely holds a cosmology and view of the redeemed human soul’s passing spiritually into heaven upon the death of the body, the evidence from Philo makes this conclusion unlikely. Philo’s cosmology, which is heavily influenced by a Platonic dualism between the material and spiritual realms, correlates with his view that upon death the soul or spirit of a human being can ascend into the heights, leaving the body and the material realm behind. Human beings in this disembodied, spiritual state are not merely like angels, but actually are angels. This kind of account of humanity, angels and the Son’s exaltation does not work in Hebrews, where the author states plainly that the place to which Jesus has been elevated has never been offered to any angel. Rather, in keeping with the author’s eschatological reading of Ps 8, Jesus is exalted in the heavens because he is a human being, not an angelic one. Hebrews does not, therefore, appear to work with a cosmology like that of Philo. Félix H. Cortez argues in his chapter “The Son as the Representative of the Children in the Letter to the Hebrews” that Davidic traditions underlie the representative connection between Jesus as the Son of God and his followers, who are identified as children of God. A close reading of 2 Sam 7 (among other texts) in the light of a biblical theology of the development of God’s covenant relationship with his people suggests for Cortez that in the Davidic covenant, God appoints a mediator between himself and his people. This irrevocable covenant means that the faithfulness required by all the people under the Mosaic covenant, as well as the punishment for failure to uphold the covenant, is now focused on the king as their representative. When applied to Hebrews, these insights suggest that Jesus can be seen not only to be the brother of the many children, but their representative – who not only bore their punishment, but even more, serves as royal mediator who faithfully upholds the covenant to which they belong. Next, in “‘Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me’: Ekphrasis and Epiphany in Hebrews 1–2,” Scott D. Mackie considers ways in which Heb 1–2 encourages a mystical vision of the ascended Christ’s enthronement in the heavenly realms and sets the scene for the later passages of the homily that exhort the audience to approach God. Identifying rhetorical elements in Hebrews that parallel techniques in the wider Greco-Roman world that make up an ekphrasis (which intends to produce visual and emotional experiences in hearers), Mackie argues that Hebrews aims to make the heavenly tabernacle and divine presence visually accessible to the community. They can approach God, enter the tabernacle that is manifest to them in their gathered worship, and experience a vision of the risen and exalted Jesus. This experience forms a central aspect of the exhortation and encouragement the author uses to help

Introduction

IX

persuade his audience to remain faithful to Jesus, as they have their identity as his siblings reconfirmed.

Issues in Interpreting Hebrews 8–10 Grant Macaskill (“Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology in the New Testament”) engages afresh the ongoing debates on the extent and nature of Hebrews’ apocalyptic commitments. The ongoing heavenly ministry of Jesus, he argues, implies that Hebrews’ cultic and revelatory aspects are inseparable. After clarifying some common misconceptions about Jewish apocalypticism, Macaskill turns to an examination of the relationship between Jesus as Son and heavenly high priest in Heb 8–10. The “Sonly” Priest’s heavenly ministry transforms Jewish apocalyptic by democratizing access to God. Now, knowledge is revealed to all members of the new covenant, not just those worthy enough to ascend, because Jesus’ cultic service offers purification that surpasses that of the law and makes it possible for the Spirit to dwell within all the people of the covenant. Intriguingly, Macaskill concludes with some reflections on how the cosmology and eschatology of Hebrews might bear on current debates about apocalyptic in Pauline studies. Benjamin J. Ribbens offers a challenge to the ubiquitous conclusion that the author of Hebrews had a negative view of Levitical sacrifice and thought that these had no power to effect atonement. Instead, he argues in “The Positive Functions of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews” that the epistle shares with its wider Second Temple context basic positive assumptions about sacrifice. The very comparative logic of Hebrews’ argument requires that sacrifice be assumed to be good in order for Jesus’ sacrificial work to be understood to be better. Moreover, Hebrews’ statements in chs. 9 and 10 that sacrifice is a means of forgiveness (especially in 9:22 and 10:18), together with the author’s emphasis on the redemption that Jesus’ sacrifice accomplishes (which should be seen in distinction from the old covenant sacrifices), suggest that Hebrews affirms the value of sacrifice in the law – even as the author highlights the surpassing effects of Jesus’ work. In “‘Vaine Repeticions’? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices in Hebrews 9–14,” Nicholas J. Moore takes aim at another common misconception concerning Hebrews’ engagement with the old covenant cult – namely, that the author opposes earthly sacrifices and cultic ritual because he opposes repetition as necessarily implying imperfection. Moore demonstrates that in Heb 9:6, in particular, one can see that aspects of the repetition in the old covenant cult actually do have a positive function in the argument of Hebrews. Additionally, Heb 13:15 implies the necessity of repeated offerings of praise as part of new covenant worship. Interpreters, Moore points out, should pay more careful attention to the subtleties of Hebrews’ typological reasoning.

X

David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason

Georg Gäbel explores in detail the depiction of the sanctuary given in Heb 9:1–5 in his chapter titled “‘You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site’: The Tabernacle Description in Hebrews 9:1–5 and Its Function in Context.” This often neglected element of Hebrews should be seen to be an essential part of the author’s argument about the superiority of the new covenant and Jesus’ heavenly service in the heavenly tabernacle. In the light of Jewish texts and traditions about the tabernacle and many of its furnishings, the description in Heb 9 can be seen to participate in the ambivalent sense of continuity and discontinuity of the temple cult and the tabernacle during the Second Temple period. Hebrews, in other words, can appeal to the earthly tabernacle as a way of highlighting the inadequacy of the first covenant’s cult. Specifically, the spatial layout of the tabernacle and the furnishings the author highlights serve to make the symbolic point that under the first covenant, access to God was severely restricted, while in the new, Jesus’ entry into the heavenly tabernacle has opened access to all. Eric F. Mason looks again at the difficult and contested interpretation of the statement in Heb 9:14 that Jesus offered himself to God διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου in his chapter “‘Through Eternal Spirit’: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit of Hebrews 9:14.” Mason first surveys all the instances of the term “spirit” in Hebrews, laying out the diversity of usages of the word in the homily. Good reasons, however, support the conclusion that in several cases (e.g., 2:4; 6:4; 9:8) the Holy Spirit is the intended referent. In keeping with the ways Hebrews speaks about the Holy Spirit, especially in connection with cleansing the conscience, the “eternal Spirit” of 9:14 should be understood as participating with Jesus in his sacrificial offering. Rather than the Spirit empowering Jesus to offer his blood, the Spirit contributes to the sacrificial work that Jesus performs.

Issues in Interpreting Hebrews 13 David M. Allen opens the section final section of the volume with a useful chapter surveying and assessing key scholarly positions on a perplexing text with his chapter “What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13?” Allen briefly traces the debates concerning whether or not Heb 13 is an original part of the book, highlighting some of the most significant studies of the last several decades that have led to the present consensus that this enigmatic chapter has always been part of Hebrews. Questions of structure and interpretation occupy the rest of Allen’s study. Hebrews 13 contains a large number of phrases that are ambiguous and difficult to understand. Allen helpfully maps and navigates the variety of opinions on many of these issues, while also stressing some of the ways Heb 13 engages themes found elsewhere in the homily.

Introduction

XI

In “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13 and Its Bearing on the Question of the Integrity of the Epistle,” Susan Docherty approaches from a new perspective the question of the originality of Heb 13 relative to the rest of the epistle. Docherty perceptively notes that the use of Scripture in Heb 13 is likely to bear on the issue of the relationship of ch. 13 to chs. 1–12, given the extent to which the rest of the text uses and interprets Jewish Scripture. She therefore works systematically through Heb 13, offering close analyses of the ways in which the author of that chapter interprets Scripture. On the basis of this careful work, she is able to demonstrate that on several levels the use of Scripture in Heb 13 is consistent with what one finds in chs. 1–12. This does not by itself prove that Heb 13 is original to Hebrews, but, as Docherty concludes, her study does suggest the value of paying more careful attention to this aspect of Heb 13 in the midst of the ongoing discussions about its place in the document. James W. Thompson turns his attention in “Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6” to the most characteristic feature of Heb 13 in comparison with the rest of Hebrews – the concrete, ethical imperatives, especially in the first six verses. After identifying vv. 1–6 as a unit, Thompson gives extensive evidence showing that the virtues encouraged and the vices discouraged in this portion of Hebrews resonate well with Hellenistic moral philosophy. In fact, Thompson concludes, Hebrews has adapted Hellenistic moral philosophy as a means of understanding torah. The ethical reflection of Hebrews – like those of Philo of Alexandria and the authors of Wisdom and 4 Maccabees – fits well within the broader Hellenistic Jewish milieu to which this homily most likely belongs. Continuing the examination of Hebrews in the light of Greco-Roman moral philosophy, Joseph R. Dodson’s chapter “Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca” concludes the volume with a detailed examination of the first part of Heb 13 in the light of Stoic moral reflection. Dodson draws primarily on the works of Seneca in order to elucidate ways in which Heb 13:1– 8 presents ideas similar to and different from Roman Stoic moral thought. Dodson looks to the broad themes of mutual affection, marriage, contentment, and imitation to provide the material for his study. Such comparative work allows him to suggest ways in which one can identify plausible assumptions underlying the terse imperatives of Heb 13.

Acknowledgments The editors wish to thank all of the contributors for their stimulating chapters as well as everyone who participated in the Hebrews sessions at the SBL International Meetings and offered discussion that helped shape the final forms of the papers. In addition, we express special thanks to R. Jarrett Van Tine for the indispensable work he did in helping to prepare the manuscript for publication.

XII

David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason

We are also particularly grateful to the editorial support given by Tobias Stäbler and Jana Trispel at Mohr Siebeck. Given that many of these essays were originally written prior to the publication of the second edition of The SBL Handbook of Style, we have generally chosen to follow the style guidelines in the first edition of The SBL Handbook of Style (ed. Patrick H. Alexander, John F. Kutsko, James D. Ernest, Shirley Decker-Lucke, and David L. Petersen; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). In keeping with this decision, all abbreviations used have also been taken from the first edition of The SBL Handbook of Style. St Andrews, Scotland, and Algonquin, Illinois, September 2019 David M. Moffitt and Eric F. Mason

Chapter 1

The Son Like No Other: Comparing the Son of God to the Angelic “Sons of God” in the Epistle to the Hebrews Amy L. B. Peeler In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is the Son. Even as the author focuses upon Christ’s priestly role, this identity remains a vital part of the Christological presentation throughout. The heaviest concentration of filial language, though, occurs in the first part of the letter, especially the first chapter. 1 Here the author extols the Son with the Scriptures of Israel to declare that he has attributes similar to God’s wisdom, word, king, and even attributes similar to God. The most explicit medium for comparison with the Son in the first section, however, are the angels. He is better than the angels because he has a better name (1:5), receives their worship (1:6), and has been invited to sit at God’s right hand (1:13). The dual concentration of sonship and angelic language is, I will argue, no coincidence. In the Jewish Greek writings in the milieu of our author, angels were also called “sons of God,” so it is plausible that in comparing the two the author of Hebrews would need to differentiate Jesus the Son of God from the angels who could also bear the filial title. The first half of this chapter gives evidence of the potential confusion that could arise with the use of the word υἱός, especially in the context of a discussion about angels, by presenting instances in which writers of the ancient world equate or closely associate “sons of God” and angels. The second half traces Hebrews’ arguments that differentiate this Son from any angelic being. These arguments focus upon the kind of Son that he is by virtue of the unique relationship God has with this Son. The author of Hebrews has ample reason from

1

For example, in 7:28 the word of the oath appoints a son as priest. See my argument for the importance of this identity throughout the author’s argument in You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Library of New Testament Studies 486; London: T&T Clark, 2014). The word υἱός occurs in the letter twenty-one times (Heb 1:2, 5 (2x), 8; 2:6, 10; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; 6:6; 7:3, 5, 28; 10:29; 11:21–22, 24; 12:5–8) and in reference to Christ thirteen times (Heb 1:2, 5 (2x), 8; 2:6 (possibly); 3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; 6:6; 7:3, 28; 10:29). Four of those instances occur in the first chapter.

2

Amy L. B. Peeler

the tradition before him (Heb 2:3) to affirm that Jesus is Son, and ample reasons to compare him to the angels.2 I would like to suggest an additional reason for doing both, namely, that in speaking of the Son and angels the author must eliminate any potential confusion between this Son of God and the angelic υἱοί by emphasizing that by virtue of God’s relationship with him he is a Son like no other.

Attestation of Angelic υἱοί In the Greek Texts of Israel’s Scripture In six occurrences in the Greek translations of the Scriptures of Israel, authors employ the word υἱός in such a way that it could refer to angelic beings. 3 One of the clearest examples, and one of the most pertinent for Hebrews, appears in Moses’ song recorded in Deut 32.4 Hebrews, like other New Testament authors, appeals to this text when (likely) quoting a line from it in the first

2 Paul, the earliest example of Christian reflection in the New Testament, makes Jesus’ status as the Son of God a regular part of his confession of faith (Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 1:9; Gal 2:20; 1 Thess 1:10, as a few examples). Interpreters of Hebrews have argued that the angels serve to highlight the Son’s superior ontological position (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008], 241; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006], 84), his superior covenant (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 104; James Thompson, Hebrews [Paideia; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008], 50; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001], 200) and his possession of flesh (David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews [NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011], 49, 118–44). 3 See the discussion that follows concerning Gen 6:4, 6; Deut 32:43; Ps 28:1 LXX; 81:6 LXX; 88:7 LXX, and Wis 5:5. 4 NA 28 lists both Deut 32:43 LXX and Ps 96:7 LXX as the possible citation in Heb 1:6b. The verse from Deuteronomy is a very close fit, the only difference being the word of interest for this chapter. Hebrews has ἄγγελοι and most Gk mss of Deuteronomy have υἱοί. Psalm 96:7 includes the ἄγγελοι, but it lacks a καί at the beginning of the phrase, has a second rather than a third person imperative, has an article with ἄγγελοι, and uses the pronoun αὐτοῦ instead of the noun θεοῦ. Although certainty is not possible (See Johnson, Hebrews, 78; Thompson, Hebrews, 47), the fewer differences favor Deut 32:43, as does the author’s citation from the same chapter (Deut 32:35) in Heb 10:30. Several interpreters of Hebrews think Deuteronomy is the most likely source of the citation (Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989], 57; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews [rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990], 56; Koester, Hebrews, 193; William L. Lane, Hebrews [2 vols.; WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991], 1:28).

The Son Like No Other

3

chapter.5 His interest lies in a statement about the ἄγγελοι, namely that they give worship to him (αὐτῷ). Originally this statement charged these beings to worship God, but here the author reconfigures it to say that the angels worship the Son (Heb 1:6). Deuteronomy 32 has a complicated transmission history. The MT version of v. 43 is the shortest, an expanded form is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutq), and mss of the Greek text are even more expansive. The following chart of the first portions of Deut 32:43 presents the different versions.6 Deut 32:43 MT

4QDuetq (4Q44)7

‫הַ ְר ִנִ֤ינוּ גֹויִ ם֙ ע ַ֔מֹּו‬

‫הרנינו שמים עמו‬ ‫והשתחוו לו כל אלהים‬

Praise his people, O Nations.8

Praise O heavens his people; Bow down to him all the gods.

Deut 32:43 LXX9

Odes 2:43

a.

εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ,

a.

b.

καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ·

b.

c. d.

Rejoice heavens together with him And let all the sons of God bow down to him Rejoice nations with his people And let all the angels of God be strong for him.

5

c. d.

Εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ·

Rejoice heavens together with him And let all the angels of God bow down to him Rejoice nations with his people And let all the sons of God be strong for him.

The Synoptics, Paul, and the Johannine writings all cite or refer to this hymn of Moses, which is unsurprising given its popularity as a liturgical text among Jews of the first century (Lane, Hebrews, 1:28). 6 See also a similar chart and discussion in Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 516; and Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 903–5. 7 See DJD 14:141; col. II, frag. 5 ii, lines 6–7. 8 Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 9 Based on the Göttingen edition. A few Gk mss preserve ἄγγελοι in line b (F V Ephiphanius I 38) and υἱοί in line d (V 15 29 82 426 707).

4

Amy L. B. Peeler

As the chart shows, both the Greek mss of Deut 32 and the text preserved in the Odes invite the angels and the sons of God to give worship and strength to God.10 If the author of Hebrews is familiar with either presentation, it seems likely that he would have noticed the complementary lines in which the singer calls upon the υἱοί of God along with the angels of God to join in the act of praise.11 Whatever his motivation for penning the precise word that he did (ἄγγελοι),12 the point stands that in the Greek versions of Deut 32 a possible connection exists between angels and υἱοί. Another close association between sons and angels occurs twice in the fantastic passage in Gen 6 (vv. 4 and 6). Here the narrator describes a time when the sons of God (‫ )בְ נֵי אֶ ֹלהִ ים‬noticed the daughters of men, took them as wives, and bore children with them (Gen 6:1–4). The Septuagint translates the phrase woodenly: the υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ perform these actions, and for many early interpreters, this was an account of malicious angels. The Book of the Watchers, the first thirty-six chapters of 1 Enoch, survives in Ethiopic, Aramaic, and Greek. Although the Greek text is preserved in later manuscripts, 13 citations of the Book of the Watchers in Jude and possible Greek fragments at Qumran (7Q8, 11–14) prompt some to assume that a Greek translation of the Book of the Watchers existed in the first century C. E.14 When reflecting upon the Genesis passage, Codex Panopolitanus of the Book of the Watchers uses the word “angels” to describe the “sons of heaven” who mate with and defile the daughters 10 The Odes are biblical songs collected and attached to the end of the Greek Psalter. The earliest mss of the collection of Odes appears in Codex Alexandrinus (5 th century), but several scholars (James A. Miller, “Let Us Sing to the Lord: The Biblical Odes in Codex Alexandrinus” [Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 2006], 27–33; Heinrich Schneider, “Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum,” Bib 30 [1949]: 28–65; idem, “Biblische Oden im syrohexaplarischen Psalter,” Bib 40 [1959]: 199–209; idem, “Die biblischen Oden seit dem sechsten Jahrhundert,” Bib 30 [1949]: 239–72; idem, “Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel,” Bib 30 [1949]: 433–52; idem., “Die biblischen Oden im Mittelalter,” Bib 30 [1949]: 479–500; Jennifer Wright Knust and Tommy Wasserman, “The Biblical Odes and the Text of the Christian Bible,” JBL 133 [2014]: 341–65) argue that collections of the Odes could have been circulating much earlier. 11 It is possible that “sons of God” could refer to human beings here, especially in the Odes version where the next line proclaims that the blood of his sons will be avenged. 12 The author of Hebrews might have been familiar with a version of Deut 32 preserved in the Odes (2:43; see the discussion in Lane, Hebrews, 1:28), or it could be the case that the author retained the language of worship but opted for the terminology of angels instead of sons in order to avoid the (further?) confusion between the Son and the many angelic sons (Koester, Hebrews, 193). 13 Codex Panopolis (5th to 6th century), Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus (c. 800). 14 James C. VanderKam, “The Book of Enoch and the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 254–76, here 258; Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 105.

The Son Like No Other

5

of men, placing both terms next to each other: “the angels, the sons of heaven” (6:2). In Questions and Answers on Genesis, when he discusses the giants of Gen 6, Philo states that Moses, in describing the angels, refers to them as the “sons of God” (1.92 [Marcus, LCL]). Josephus states that “many angels of God now consorted with women and begat sons” (Ant. 1.73 [Thackeray, LCL]). While other interpretive options for Gen 6 appeared later, John Walton concludes with respect to this passage that “the ‘angels’ view [was] the only contender into the second century.”15 A possible angelic “son of God” association appears in Wisdom of Solomon as well. Wisdom 5 compares the way of the righteous with that of the impious. The righteous receive much from God, and the impious marvel that these righteous have been afforded a place among the divine sons, the holy ones of God (5:5). Based on similar texts that describe the divine sons and the holy ones as members of the heavenly court (Deut 32:43; Ps 88:6, 7 LXX; Exod 15:11; Ps 109:3 LXX; Job 5:1; Sir 45:24; Isa 57:15), this too could be a filial reference to angels. 16 The comparative element of the impious’ astonishment would not make sense if the impious were simply saying that those they derided are like other humans; it is much more powerful that they are astonished at their elevation to an angelic realm. Three other instances of the association between “angels” and “sons” appear in the Psalms. In Ps 88 LXX, the psalmist exalts God by naming the heavenly realms that praise the Lord. The heavens (v. 6a) and the assembly of holy ones (v. 6b) acknowledge God, as the clouds and the sons of God cannot compare to him (v. 7). In The Mysticism of Hebrews, Jody Barnard argues that “the chiastic arrangement (‘who in the skies shall be compared to the Lord and who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God’) suggests a reference to the celestial sons of God, that is, the council of angels.”17 This text holds interest for Hebrews since it is a royal psalm proclaiming God’s faithfulness to David and their paternal/filial relationship to which the author alludes in Heb 1:6 with the language of “firstborn” (Ps 88:28 LXX). Athanasius quotes this verse of the psalm in his discussion of Heb 1. The Arians who want to show that the angels and the Son are of the same kind (1.55) might be emboldened by this psalm to show that these angels too are gods like the Son (C. Ar. 1.57). Athanasius goes on to argue that the author of Hebrews differentiates the Son by his nature: he is Son and they are servants (possibly he has in mind Heb 15 J. H. Walton, “Sons of God, Daughters of Man,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003), 793–98, esp. 794. 16 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 147. 17 Jody A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 161.

6

Amy L. B. Peeler

1:14). This potential confusion arising from the filial language as it appears in such scriptural texts as Ps 88:6 LXX is precisely the kind of confusion the author of Hebrews is working against with his insistence that this one bears the title of Son in ways the angels do not. Psalm 81 LXX depicts God in the midst of other gods, thereby depicting the scene of a heavenly court similar to that seen in Job 1–2. A charge – possibly spoken by God – comes to these gods to take up justice.18 In v. 6, another speech calls them gods and sons of the Most High but also proclaims that they will die like human beings. The psalm closes with a call for God to arise and judge the earth. Some read these “sons of the most high” as angelic beings. Athanasius quotes this psalm as evidence that the angels and archangels can undergo change, and therefore they are not by nature gods but derive their title “god” and “son” from their “participation in the Son” (Ep. Serap. 2.4).19 Some have seen a possible allusion to this Psalm text with an angelic association in the Latin version of the Life of Adam and Eve. Here the devil proclaims to Adam his angelic glory and his being cast down from it (12:1). Psalm 81 LXX and its description of divine glory and then death could be in the background.20 Tertullian in his treatise against Marcion quotes this psalm as a possible text that Marcion might use to show that there are other gods. In reply, Tertullian counters that “Yet not one of them is divine because he is called a god” (Marc. 1.7 [ANF 3:277–78]). His point is that greatness cannot come from this designation alone, but when he seeks to make that point he draws a comparison between those called “gods” in Ps 81 and the Creator’s angels. Finally, in Ps 28 LXX, David calls upon the sons of God to bring rams, glory, and honor to the Lord. Again, because of the language of angelic divine sons in other places, this psalm becomes a candidate as well, and later evidence exists that some interpreters wondered about the meaning of the phrase “sons of God.” Didymus the Blind queries if God is commanding angels or the spirits of adoption in humans to bring offerings to God,21 and Venerable Bede concluded the psalm indicated angels. 22

18 John Goldingay begins his commentary on this psalm with the double question: “Who speaks and who is addressed?” (Psalms [3 vols; Baker Commentary on the Old Testament and Psalms; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006–2008], 2:559). 19 The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit (trans. C. R. B. Shapland; London: Epworth Press, 1951), 157. Athanasius makes a related comment in C. Ar. 1.11.39: “And if all that are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven …” (NPNF2 4:329). 20 As suggested by the biblical references in the “Life of Adam and Eve,” OTP 2:262. 21 Ekkehard Mühlenberg, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung, Vol. 1 (PTS 15; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 259. 22 “Hence the psalmist says in a pleasing manner: ‘Bring to the Lord, O children of God, bring to the Lord the offspring of rams,’ which is clearly to say, “Bring to the Lord, O angels of God to whom the responsibility for this task has been delegated...” (On the Tabernacle

The Son Like No Other

7

With all of the psalm texts, however, interpreters also read the language of υἱοὶ θεοῦ as a phrase that describes humans. Athanasius appeals to Ps 88 LXX to talk about the elevated status of humanity (C. Ar. 3.25.10). Many can claim to be “sons of God” (he cites Ps 88:6 here), but only one is the Image “true and natural of the Father” (NPNF2 4:399). Because the Gospel according to John records Jesus citing Ps 81 and referring it to human beings (John 10:34–35), the majority of Christian interpreters follow suit. 23 Finally, many Christian interpreters also see in Ps 21 a reference to the people of God. 24 A quote from Philo adequately summarizes the evidence about the texts of Israel’s Scriptures: “But sometimes he [Moses] calls the angels ‘sons of God’ because they are made incorporeal through no mortal man but are spirits without body. But rather does that exhorter, Moses, give to good and excellent men the name of ‘sons of God,’ while wicked and evil men (he calls) ‘bodies’” (QG 1.92 [Marcus, LCL]). “Sons of God” can refer to humans or angels, but the point stands, that an angelic association existed for the term υἱός. For those conversant with the Scriptures of Israel, υἱός could indicate an angel and therefore, the author of Hebrews will need to distinguish this Son from the angels by more than just his filial title alone. In Other Hellenistic Jewish Literature The same association exists in other Hellenistic literature as well. In Philo’s On the Confusion of Tongues, in the midst of a comparison between those who know the one true God and those who do not, Philo makes a close association between a “son of god” and the angels. “But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were” (Conf. 146 [Colson, LCL]). The πρωτόγονος from whom one can learn to be a Son of God is the eldest of the angels – in other words, this angel is a son. In Agri. 51 Philo praises God for his shepherding of the universe and affirms that he employs a manager to care for everything, “his true Word and Firstborn Son Who shall take upon Him its government like some viceroy of a great king; for it is said in a certain place: ‘Behold I AM, I send My Angel before thy face to guard thee in the way” (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). Again, the son is the 2.4, cited in Craig A. Blaising and Carmen S. Hardin, eds., Psalms 1–50 [ACCS 7; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008], 215). 23 Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13; Athanasius, On the Incarnation 4; Clement of Alexandria, Paedegogue 1.6; idem, Exhortation to the Hebrews 12. 24 These include Arnobius the Younger (Commentary on the Psalms 29), Basil the Great (Homilies on the Psalms 13.2), Theodoret of Cyr (Commentary on the Psalms 29.4) (all cited in Blaising and Hardin, Psalms 1–50, 215), and Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on the Psalms 29.

8

Amy L. B. Peeler

ἄγγελος. Concerning the writings of Philo, Larry Hurtado states, “We conclude that he pictured the divine Logos as God’s vizier or chief steward over the heavenly assembly.” 25 Philo’s numerous reflections on the Logos, whom he calls the firstborn Son and an angel, show that for him these are associated terms. 26 Very similar to Philo’s accumulation of titles for the Logos in On the Confusion of Tongues, the prayer of Joseph, an apocryphal text preserved in the text of Origen, contains similar titles for an angel. Jacob introduces himself as Israel the angel who is the “firstborn” (πρωτόγονος) (frag. A. 3). Uriel, another angel (usually one of the archangels, 1 En. 9:10; 10:1, 4, 9, 11; 20:2; Grk. Apoc. Ezra 6:2; T. Sol. 2:4; Apoc. Mos. 40) challenges him over rank, including over who has the superior name. Uriel’s disagreement with him is that he has dwelt among humans. Israel in reply says that he is above Uriel. He (Israel) is the archangel and the chief captain of the sons of God (frag. A. 8). The fragmentary nature of this text makes it impossible to firmly establish a date and provenance, but Jonathan Smith argues that its parallels to Hellenistic and Aramaic materials would suggest a first century date. 27 Because it is mentioned by early Christians through citations and on lists of apocrypha, it demonstrates a similar collocation of ideas: angels who bear the name “son/firstborn” who are arguing over a superior name. The foregoing examples give evidence that in the texts available in the firstcentury world, angels were called “sons of God.” Jody A. Barnard argues similarly: “It is reasonable to maintain that the author of Hebrews was familiar with the tradition of designating angels as sons.” 28 If this association between angels and sons would have been known to his readers, then the author’s use of the term υἱός in the opening section of his letter would demand a clear articulation of the ways in which this Son differs from the angelic “sons of God.”

A Different Son; A Different Relationship One might counter that, while the author of Hebrews could know that some texts refer to angels as “sons of God,” he denies this title to them with his question in v. 5: “For to which of the angels has [God] ever said, ‘You are my son’?” The expected reply being, “None of them!” As I have endeavored to 25

Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1988), 46. 26 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2/70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 137. 27 Jonathan Z. Smith, introduction to “Prayer of Joseph,” OTP 2:700, 703. 28 Barnard, Mysticism, 161.

The Son Like No Other

9

show, however, his denial of the title “son” would be hard to maintain in light of the biblical and extrabiblical writings of his time. As the church fathers mention, others are readily able to access these texts in which angels are called the “sons of God” and use them in conversations about Christ’s sonship. 29 In light of this reality, I argue that, while his question of v. 5 clearly expects a negative answer, what he denies to the angels is not simply the title υἱός but the manner in which it is spoken, by whom, and what that divine speech implies about the relationship between God and his Son. In other words, if both the angels and Jesus could be “sons,” the author then needs to distinguish what kind of Son Jesus is. This is precisely what he does by portraying the unique type of relationship this Son has with God and that God has with him. The distinct nature of his sonship begins with the grammatical difference of number. In every case except that of Philo when he is discussing the Logos in Conf. 146, the angelic beings referred to with a filial title occur in the plural; they are the sons of god. Conversely, when the author of Hebrews refers to the one who has the better name, he is always the Son. Hence, commentators like Craig Koester argue that the number of the noun supplies enough difference between the Son and the angels: “‘sons of God’ is only used for angels collectively; in the Scripture no one angel is called God’s ‘son’ in a singular sense.”30 Against this argument, Jody Barnard counters, “This explanation relies on the rather awkward premise that angels were thought to be sons collectively and not individually … and overlooks those passages which use the singular son to refer to an angelic being.”31 Koester goes on to acknowledge that Philo refers to the Logos as both an angel and a son (so, a singular occurrence exists), but counters that “the question posed in Heb 1:5 assumes that the listeners are not familiar with it.”32 It is not clear that the author’s question can reveal if the audience was familiar with Philo’s association or not because the author’s question concerns the speech of God whereas Philo’s comments about the angelic filial Logos are his own. Moreover, the distinction between the one whom God has appointed as his heir and the angels has to do with a more excellent name (Heb. 1:4). A singular and a plural noun are different in number, but “Son” and “sons” are not two different names. The singular/plural difference does contribute to the contrast, but is not sufficient to account for the different sonship of Christ on its own.

29 Thomas Aquinas provides another example of this argument for Christ’s sonship. In Summa contra Gentiles, in a chapter refuting Arius, he states, “the name of divine sonship is suitable to many – for it belongs to all the angels and saints,” but goes on to argue for Christ’s distinction “by reason of creation” (SCG 4.7.4, cited in R. Kendall Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2011], 76). 30 Koester, Hebrews, 191. 31 Barnard mentions as examples Dan 3:25 and passages in Job (Mysticism, 161). 32 Koester, Hebrews, 191.

10

Amy L. B. Peeler

A second distinction between the Son and the many sons arises from the citation of Ps 2. The voice of God states, “I have begotten [γεγέννηκα] you.” In no other instance in which angels are called “sons of God” does the text indicate how that status came to be. Instead, the texts simply affirm that these beings are υἱοὶ θεοῦ. In Hebrews, however, this assertion about the Son stands in contrast to the angels who are made (ὁ ποιῶν, Heb 1:7).33 In the psalm’s setting in Israel’s Scriptures the claim that God has begotten the king was the medium of expressing his intimate relationship to God at the time of his inauguration (today I have begotten you).34 While interpreters ancient and modern have had to exercise theological acumen to explain this reference as it applies to Christ,35 the distinction between the begetting of a Son and the making of servants who can be known as sons contributes another notable variance between the two. Finally, and most importantly, the author describes the relationship this Son has with God that goes beyond a simple title of proximity to assert God’s direct and unique involvement with this Son. As a first example of this relationship, God engages the Son in dialogue; God speaks to the Son. In comparison, throughout this catena of texts, God does not speak to the angels. God calls for their worship with a third person imperative (προσκυνησάτωσαν) and speaks indirectly about them with the citation of Ps 103:4 LXX. The author does not explicitly deny that God ever speaks to the angels (it is possible to read Ps 81:1–4 LXX in this way), but the author’s introductions to these citations shows that God has conversation with the Son, which gives evidence of the relationship between them. In addition to the form of the citations, the content of God’s speeches to the Son differ from what God says about the angels. The first two citations in 33

David Moffitt raises a valuable point that the “nub of the contrast” between the Son and the angels resides in their spiritual status and his incarnation as flesh and blood (Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, 50, n. 7). I raise no disagreement with that argument, but I draw attention to another aspect of the contrast, namely the way in which the angels and the Son came to be related to God. 34 John Goldingay states, “The occasion was hardly the day of his physical birth, but his designation or coronation. Yhwh did not bring him into being then but did enter into a fatherly commitment to him in adopting him as son. The words uttered on that occasion made him heir to his father’s wealth and authority and are the undergirding of his position now” (Psalms [3 vols.; Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006–2008], 1:100). 35 Athanasius’ Against the Arians provides a classic example where Athanasius discusses the begottenness of the Son (C. Ar. 1.3.9; 1.5.14). See Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God in Origen and Athanasius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), especially ch. 10, “Father and Son,” 188–222. As a modern interpreter, Attridge has stated the problem starkly: “The first quotation … stands in obvious tension with the exordium’s sapiential Christology, implying the existence of the Son from all eternity. This tension raises in acute form the question of the coherence of the text’s Christology” (Hebrews, 54).

The Son Like No Other

11

Hebrews announces that Jesus is God’s Son and that God is Jesus’ Father. By selecting citations that emphasize both parties in this relationship, by structuring them so that they create a balanced pattern alternating between the Father and the Son, the author says as much about God as he does about the Son. The angels may be known as sons of God, but in none of the texts that include this title for them is the title of God affected. Here, however, the author shows that in addressing this one as Son, God is Father. 36 The implications of this relationship echo throughout this chapter. God was Father to this Son before the ages were made in partnership with him (1:2, 10) when God appointed him as heir of all things (1:2). This Son reflects God’s glory and being (1:3), and this Son reigns with him at God’s right hand (1:3, 13). God invites worship of him (1:6), proclaims the Son’s eternal throne (1:8) and unchangeableness (1:11–12), and promises to subdue his enemies (1:13). The author compares this Son to the angels by appealing to texts associated with the king of Israel. This comparison with the angels sets these royal texts the author of Hebrews utilizes into a different context and thereby modifies them. Similar to the angels, he is a divine Son in the heavenly presence of God, and like the king he is a royal Son blessed with an enduring throne. The amalgamation of both kinds of sonship creates a new category. In response to the potential confusion between a Son and angelic sons of God, Johnson states, “no angelic figure is formally declared ‘son’ in connection with the sort of royal enthronement envisaged by these two texts.” 37 His position as the royal Son in a close and blessed relationship with God vitally contributes to his superiority over the other divine “sons.” This one has been, is, and will be a greater Son, by virtue of his very different relationship with God.

Conclusion Hebrews 1 could be an example of the kind of Christological reflection suggested by Hurtado: “we need to ask … whether Jewish angelology may have assisted early Jewish Christians in coming to terms theologically with the exalted Christ. … Reflection on the exalted Christ was influenced by and developed in opposition to Jewish speculations concerning angels, perhaps especially certain chief angels and their status.” 38 The opening section of Hebrews provides a window into one possible example of these kind of conversations. If the author’s listeners knew that angels were “sons of God,” the author argues emphatically that because of his relationship with God, Jesus is a son who is superior to them, the Son par excellence. 36

Peeler, You Are My Son, 39–41. Johnson, Hebrews, 77. 38 Hurtado, One Lord, 74. 37

Chapter 2

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria: Toward an Account of Hebrews’ Cosmology David M. Moffitt * The question of the underlying cosmology held by the author of Hebrews is hardly a new one. Debates around this question are substantial. 1 The issue is a matter of essential importance for interpreting this text. One’s understanding of so many elements of this homily, particularly when examining Hebrews’ language of and about heavenly realities, depends on an account of the author’s implicit understanding of the structure and makeup of reality. These concerns can hardly be avoided when trying to understand this ancient sermon, even though they often remain implicit in the text. This chapter does not offer a robust, constructive account of Hebrews’ cosmology. Rather, it explores the contrast between the Son and the angels in Heb 1–2 with a view to showing how the argument in these chapters effectively disallows a Platonic account of the human being and so also of cosmology. The argumentation of the opening chapters of Hebrews refuses Platonic categories just to the extent that it envisions the Son’s return to the heavens after his death as a human being. The point can be seen with clarity when viewed from the perspective of some potentially important comparative reflection in Philo of Alexandria on the ontology of angels and of human beings. Whereas Philo sees death as a moment when the essential distinction between human beings and angels can be erased as the properly trained spirit (πνεῦμα) or soul (ψυχή) trapped in an individual human body has the opportunity to ascend through the *David Moffitt is currently a research associate in the Mission and Ethics Project in the Department of New Testament at the University of Pretoria. 1 For only a few of the more recent essays on the topic see, Edward Adams, “The Cosmology of Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 122–39; Jon C. Laansma, “The Cosmology of Hebrews,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology (ed. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough; Library of New Testament Studies 355; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 125–43; and Philip Church, “Hebrews 1:10–12 and the Renewal of the Cosmos,” TynBul 67 (2016): 269–86.

14

David M. Moffitt

air becoming one of the angelic hosts, Hebrews insists that even in the heavens a difference between human being and angelic being must persist in the case of the exalted Jesus. This implies, however, that Hebrews holds a very different cosmology from that of a thinker like Philo. My arguments about the nature and role of Jesus’ resurrection in Hebrews mark my own point of entry into these issues.2 As is well known, Hebrews says little explicitly about Jesus’ resurrection. This fact, some conclude, further implies the author’s relative lack of interest in this part of the confession of the earliest Christ-followers.3 A number of scholars of the last one hundred years or so have argued further that Hebrews has no place for Jesus’ bodily resurrection.4 For many, this conclusion correlates with the assumption that the cosmology and understanding of the human being that the author holds consists of a permutation of a Platonic dualism (a radical dualism between the material and immaterial realms), which makes it difficult to imagine that Jesus could rise from the dead with his physical, human body and ascend in that body through the heavens into the realm of God. 5 Some argue further that Jesus’ death and offering of himself to the Father as a sacrifice are essentially the same event. Hebrews’ language of Jesus entering the heavenly holy of holies to appear before God and offer himself as the ultimate sacrifice (9:24–26) must, therefore, be a metaphorical reference to the crucifixion. 6 On these kinds of readings, the Son’s incarnation – his participation in flesh-and-blood humanity – is often viewed as a temporary affair. 7 Jesus passed into the heavenly realm as a πνεῦμα when he expired on the cross. As I demonstrate below, this sort of concept of life after death is well represented in a thinker such as Philo, but it 2 See David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 3 The recent article by William Loader (“Revisiting High Priesthood Christology in Hebrews,” ZNW 109 [2018]: 235–83) offers a good example. Loader allows that the resurrection of Jesus stands, even if awkwardly (275), among the early Christian traditions affirmed by the author. This tradition plays little role in the argument of Hebrews, however, because the author’s primary concern is with more important matters of faith and salvation – the event and significance of Jesus’ death. 4 For a discussion of some of the most significant positions see, Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, 1–43. 5 So, e.g., Wilfried Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 116; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), esp. 421–25. 6 Many interpreters endorse a variation of this view. For a recent defense of such an interpretation, see Kenneth Schenck, “An Archaelogy of Hebrews’ Tabernacle Imagery,” in Hebrews in Contexts (ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 238–58. 7 For only one example, see James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 107–8.

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

15

does not fit coherently with Hebrews’ eschatological vision of human rule in the world to come.

Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection and Ascension in Hebrews I begin by briefly reprising one point relative to the bigger question of Jesus’ resurrection in Hebrews – the argument of Heb 1–2 for why the Son is elevated above the angels only works if the author assumed Jesus’ bodily resurrection and bodily ascension/return to the heavenly realms. The argument for the elevation of the eternal Son above the angels in the heavens requires Jesus to be the exalted human being par excellence in the heavens. As such the divine Son had not only to become a human being, but also to return to the heavenly realms as a human being. The incarnation must, that is, continue even after Jesus’ death in order for the Son to become greater than the angels. Such an argument requires the resurrection as one of its foundational premises. I cannot lay out the full case for the argument that follows, but instead summarize my account of how the argument in Heb 1–2 unfolds.8 This summary is necessary for the following comparison and contrast with Philo because the logic of the argument for the Son’s elevation above the angels in Heb 1–2 is a key piece of evidence that indicates both that Jesus’ resurrection is essential for the author’s thinking, and that this resurrection involved Jesus’ blood-andflesh humanity. Put differently, the argument that the author lays out for the Son’s elevation above the angels requires Jesus to be an embodied human being when he passes through the heavens and is exalted to God’s right hand. It should be noted here that some interpreters think Jesus’ divinity stands as the key point that distinguishes him from the angels and enables him to take his place at the Father’s right hand.9 The divine Son holds a place higher than the angels because unlike them, he is uncreated and unchangeable. 10 This view faces two problems. First, it does not take seriously enough the fact that the Son is described in Heb 1 as becoming greater than the angels (1:4). How can it be that the divine Son who created and sustains all things could become higher than the angels whom he created? Second, such an argument amounts to a tautology. On this account, the divine Son is greater than the angels 8

See Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection for argumentation. E.g., Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 411. 10 Psalm 104:4 is sometimes taken to make this distinction (e.g., Erich Grässer, An Die Hebräer [3 vols.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1990–1997], 1:81–82). Undoubtedly the Son differs from the angels on this point. Angels are “made” (1:7), while the Son is God’s agent of creation (1:2), but as Eric F. Mason has recently argued (“Hebrews and Second Temple Jewish Traditions on the Origins of Angels,” in Hebrews in Contexts [ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016], 63–93), the chief point of contrast in Heb 1:7 concerns the Son’s status above the angels, not their origins. 9

16

David M. Moffitt

because he is the divine Son. Certainly, the author of Hebrews could have intended to pose this tautology or even failed to see it as a tautology (as many of his interpreters seem to do). I am not suggesting some reason in principle why this is impossible. The language of becoming in the argument is, however, the clue that suggests a different solution. The divine Son’s status relative to the angels has undergone some kind of actual change. The divine Son is the one who, the author plainly states in Heb 2:8–9, was for a little while lower than the angels. The status of the Son, it appears, has undergone a change relative to the angels. With Ps 8 in view, however, one can see that this change occurs in the context of the incarnation. As the human being Jesus, the Son was, like all humanity, made for a time lower than the angels. Three points support this conclusion. First, it is clear from the author’s eschatological interpretation of Ps 8 in Heb 2 that the place of rule over all things – and here one must surely think of Jesus’ present, royal position at God’s right hand (1:3, 8–9, 13; 10:12–13) – is reserved for humanity, not the angels (see Heb 2:5–8). Psalm 8 is interpreted by the author as a promise that humanity, though lower than the angels for a little while, will one day be exalted above them. Thus when the homilist says in 2:5 that the place of rule in the world to come is not reserved for angels, it becomes clear from Ps 8 that this is because that place is reserved for human beings. 11 When, therefore, Heb 1:4 claims that the Son became greater than the angels, the author must be referring to the eschatological dynamic he sees in Ps 8, just as he explains this as he interprets Ps 8 in Heb 2. That is to say, it is as the human being named Jesus – a human being who was in a position lower than the angels, but who is now crowned with glory and honor – that the divine Son was for a time lower than the angels but has now been elevated above them. Jesus has, in Hebrews, advanced to the goal of the eschatological promise of Ps 8. Second, in terms of the author’s argumentation as this develops from Heb 1 through Heb 2, the logic of the preceding argument identifies exactly how it can be the case that the divine Son has become both lower than and greater than the angels. Hebrews 1–2 must work with an incarnational logic in which the divine Son took up flesh and blood, occupying a status temporarily lower than the angels, only then to be elevated above the angels to the rule in the world to come. Precisely as the incarnate Jesus, in other words, the divine Son was for a time made lower than the angels. When, however, he returned to the heavenly realms, he was elevated above the angels as the exalted, eschatologically perfected human being Jesus. According to Ps 8 this elevation was not simply a matter of the divine Son being the divine Son, but a matter of his being a human being. The Son’s elevation follows from the fact that Jesus is the first human 11

For my detailed argumentation substantiating this point see Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, 119–32.

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

17

being to be crowned with the kind of glory and honor that makes him what God intended humanity to be. Jesus’ humanity, in other words, is a central reason why Jesus is invited to sit at God’s right hand, i.e., why he is given rule and dominion over the world to come. The divine Son has come to occupy a status and location that no angel could ever occupy because he is a human being (Heb 1:13; 2:5). Third, if this reading of the argument of Heb 1–2 is correct, then the author must assume that the Son returned to the heavenly realm as a human being. Jesus must, that is, be a human being when he enters the heavens in order to be the one who, according to the promise of Ps 8, is qualified to be elevated above the angels and invited to rule at God’s right hand. The Son must have returned to the heavenly realms with his humanity in order for one to say that the Son’s status has changed relative to the angels. To put all of this differently, the claim in Heb 1 that the Son has become greater than the angels is surely ambiguous in Heb 1, particularly since the clarification of how this change in the Son’s status came to be is not developed until the author’s interpretation of Ps 8 in Heb 2. Hebrews teases us with categories that appear to be incommensurable. How can it be that the divine, creator Son could become greater than the very things he created? Yet, the explanation just given in the three points above shows how the author moves to respond to this implicit question. The claim that the Son has inherited a status and location that makes him superior to any of the angels depends upon real development in the Son’s relationship to the angels just to the extent that Hebrews draws upon the early Christian descent-ascent narrative of the incarnation and exaltation of the divine Son – Jesus. From the preceding arguments it is clear, then, that something more than just the Son’s divinity must be in play in the argumentation of Heb 1–2. In fact, the Son’s humanity stands at the heart of the argument precisely because this is what qualifies him, in terms of the eschatological hope Hebrews sees in play in Ps 8, to attain a place higher than the angels. In order for such an argument to work, Angels must also in some way be ontologically different from human beings. If this is correct so far, it follows that the development of Hebrews’ argument in these opening chapters assumes Jesus’ death and bodily resurrection precisely because his death and the resurrection of his humanity best explain how the creator Son could become both lower than and then greater than the angels. The Son, that is, had not only to have become a mortal human being, but must also have taken his humanity with him when he returned to the heavens. Stated differently, the Son would not have been able to be invited to sit on the throne at God’s right hand had he not taken the elements constitutive of his humanity with him when we returned to the Father.

18

David M. Moffitt

Human and Angelic Ontologies in Hebrews The proceeding discussion demonstrates the logical necessity of Jesus’ humanity for the claim in Heb 1 that the Son has become greater than the angels. After his death, Jesus must have risen and ascended in order for the Son to be elevated above the angels whom he created. Two additional arguments can, however, be brought forward to further strengthen the case just presented, arguments that look closely at the distinction between human and angelic ontologies. First, in Heb 1:7 the author affirms that angels are a particular kind of being – beings of fiery πνεῦμα.12 Humanity, as becomes clear in Heb 2, is another kind of being, a being of “blood and flesh” (2:14). Additional evidence in Hebrews suggests that the author thinks that humanity also has πνεῦμα and ψυχή (see 4:12; 6:19; 10:38–39; 12:9, 23; 13:17). The idea in 4:12 that the word of God can penetrate to the division of soul (ψυχή) and spirit (πνεῦμα) seems to imply that the word can penetrate between elements of a person that are tightly bound together so as to be virtually indivisible. Hebrews does not explain how ψυχή and πνεῦμα relate to one another, but as I discuss below, some GrecoRoman thinkers assumed that the ψυχή consists of πνεῦμα. In any case, Hebrews appears to identify the righteous dead in 12:23 as perfected πνεύματα – surely a reference to the faithful examples of Heb 11 – gathered at the heavenly Mt Zion. There they presently join with the angels in worship and celebration while they, together with those on earth, wait to receive the eschatological inheritance of the unshakable kingdom (so 12:23, 27–28). Given the author’s belief in the eschatological resurrection and eternal judgment (e.g. 6:2; 11:35), it hardly seems a stretch to conclude that he thinks of the heavenly state of the righteous spirits as an intermediate state. 13 Be that as it may, Hebrews appears to think that human beings consist of both flesh-and-blood body and spirit/soul, the latter of which can exist after the death of the mortal body. It is worth noting here that the view that the human being consists of both the material body and πνεῦμα/ψυχή fits well with common assumptions about human ontology in Hellenistic philosophy and apocalyptically oriented forms of Judaism. 14 I discuss below the common, though not universal, view in the 12

Some argue that Heb 1:7 intends to identify angels with wind and fire (e.g., Joshua W. Jipp, “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5–14,” NTS 56 [2010]: 557–75). Given the contrast Hebrews develops between angels and humanity in Heb 2, however, it seems best to interpret Heb 1:7 and 1:14 as a text identifying angels as fiery spirits, a notion common in Second Temple Jewish texts. 13 The idea that God protects the spirits of the righteous while they wait for the final resurrection is clearly attested in apocalyptic Jewish texts (see n. 14 for some evidence). 14 Several schools of Hellenistic philosophy held that humans were compound beings consisting of (at least) body (σῶμα) and soul (ψυχή). For some, such as Stoics and

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

19

Greco-Roman world that death separates the human body and the individual soul, giving the soul the opportunity to ascend close to the divine realm. For the time being, however, I note that in Heb 1–2 the author’s focus rests on what distinguishes humans and angels. Having flesh and blood, the very elements the Son inhabits when he participates in the human condition in order to help the seed of Abraham, is identified as the key difference between humans and angels (2:16–17). Second, when one allows that Hebrews recognizes this ontological distinction between angels and humanity, the significance of the author’s invocation of Ps 8 in support of his argument becomes even more clear. Psalm 8 is read by the author as indicating that God always intended for a being other than an angel, that is, a being other than a ministering πνεῦμα (1:7, 14), to be elevated to the position at his right hand at some point. Thus, as Heb 1:5–6 and 1:13 indicate, God never invited any angel to occupy this special status or place. The author of Hebrews therefore interprets Ps 8 as an explanation for why it is the case that no angel could be invited to sit on the heavenly throne. That special place of rule is reserved for a human being. In the context of the larger argument of Heb 1–2, it is clear that such a being is more than just a πνεῦμα. Psalm 8, in other words, implies for the author that no angel has ever been invited to sit at God’s right hand because no angelic πνεῦμα is a blood-andflesh human being. Since this place is reserved for a human being, it follows that if Jesus is qualified to take occupy this position, there must be an enduring ontological distinction between angelic beings and human beings even in the heavenly Epicureans, the compounds were all thought to be material. Stoics and Epicureans tended to differ, however, on whether or not the soul could be separated from the body at death such that an individual person continued to exist after death. Epicureans tended to deny this, believing that the soul and the body, and thus the individual, disintegrated after death. Stoics, who viewed the soul as consisting of πνεῦμα, tended to affirm the possibility of an individual existing as πνεῦμα after death. For still others, such as Middle Platonists, the compounds that constituted human being were the material σῶμα and the immaterial ψυχή, with the latter generally thought to consist of πνεῦμα (see R.W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy [London: Routledge, 1996], esp. 59– 68). Those more influenced by a Platonic account of cosmology and human ontology tended to think of death as the separation of the body and pneumatic soul such that the spiritual essence of the person (the soul) continued to exist without the body. Death, that is, marked the time when the essence of the person (ψυχή) was released from its temporary entanglement in the material σῶμα. The idea that the human being is a compound of body and spirit was also evident in apocalyptic permutations of Second Temple Judaism. This can be seen in the fact that some apocalyptic Jews and early Christians believed that the spirit could be separated from the body in order to travel into the heavens (e.g., Rev 4:1–2; Ascen. Isa. 6:10–12; cf. 2 Cor 12:2–3), as well as in the fact that many believed that upon death, the spirits of the righteous were kept safe by God while they waited for renewed bodies at the resurrection (e.g., L.A.B. 23:13; Rev 6:9–11; 4 Ezra 7:32; 2 Bar. 30:2).

20

David M. Moffitt

realms, at least for the human being who has received the eschatological or “better resurrection” (11:35). 15 This further explains why the author can claim that the angels will not rule over the world to come (2:5). As the argument of Heb 2 makes clear, that royal prerogative belongs to humanity. Even in the world to come, then, there remains an enduring distinction between angelic beings and human beings. From these two points it follows that when the divine Son was invited to sit at God’s right hand, he was invited to take this position precisely because he is an eschatologically perfected, i.e., resurrected, human being. He is, in other words, something other than a heavenly being of fiery πνεῦμα. To put the point differently, were Jesus only a πνεῦμα when he passed through the heavens and returned to God’s presence, he would not be qualified to sit on the throne reserved for humanity in accordance with Hebrews’ reading of Ps 8. Hebrews must envision Jesus entering God’s presence as a human being, for only as a human being can he be invited to sit at God’s right hand. Jesus’ elevation above the angels in God’s heavenly presence is, therefore, a function of his humanity. 16 Jesus, that is, must continue even after his death to be something no angelic πνεῦμα is – human. There is, however, another way to probe and pursue this argument. If one wants to hold that Jesus did not take his flesh and blood with him when he passed through the heavens, one has to show how what he did take is, on Hebrews’ own terms, essentially and eschatologically human. That is to say, one has to show that Jesus is now, after his death, something that is essentially different with respect to his humanness in comparison with the angels such that he could be become greater than the angels. A category other than Jesus’ divine identity seems to be required if the language of becoming is to be taken seriously.

15 In Heb 11:35 the author contrasts women who received their dead back with the “better resurrection.” He appears to contrast the resuscitation of people after they died with the hope for the permanent, eschatological resurrection of the dead. In the former case, the people raised up presumably died again at some point. In the latter case, the resurrection is “better” because it is the final resurrection to immortal life. See Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, 186–88 for detailed arguments. 16 To suggest that this kind of conclusion somehow ignores, downplays, or even stands against the Son’s eternal, divine identity (e.g., Jean-René Moret, “Le rôle du concept de purification dans l’Épître aux Hébreux: une réaction à quelques propositions de David M. Moffitt,” NTS 62 [2016]: 289–307) poses a false dichotomy and seems to me not to take the incarnational logic of Hebrews seriously enough. For Hebrews, the human being Jesus is always also the eternal, divine Son of God. I fail to see how a focus on ways in which Jesus’ humanity contributes to the logic and argumentation of this text stands in any way at odds with the author’s incarnational assumptions. For some detailed argumentation on this point see, David M. Moffitt, “The Role of Jesus’ Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Once Again: A Brief Response to Jean-René Moret,” NTS 62 (2016): 308–14.

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

21

Just here, however, the common assumption that Hebrews holds to a cosmology and understanding of human ontology that posits some kind of earthly, material vs. spiritual, immaterial dualism, like what one finds in Philo, breaks down. The point can be seen clearly when Hebrews is compared to someone like Philo, who does hold something like this kind of cosmology and dualism. If Hebrews thinks, as many at the time thought, that humanity is essentially a spirit (πνεῦμα) that is for a time trapped in a body of flesh and blood but that can be permanently freed by death from that body and the material realm, one can justifiably ask: what, in terms of this dualism, would be essentially human about the ascended Jesus such that he is something other than an angel and so can be elevated above them when he ascended if he ascended as a πνεῦμα freed from his blood-and-flesh body? In terms of Hebrews’ own logic, it cannot be the case that Jesus’ entry into the immaterial realm as a πνεῦμα would be sufficient to distinguish between his humanity and the angels’ being/essence since πνεῦμα is also what the angels are. If, however, the author of Hebrews holds to some variation of a Platonic cosmology and this sort of understanding of human ontology, how else could he imagine a human to enter the heavenly realm other than as an immaterial πνεῦμα? To put a finer point on it, it is clear that many Hellenistic thinkers believed that after people died, some spiritual aspect of them continued to exist beyond their flesh-and-blood bodies.17 There was, in other words, something essential to the human being that was distinct from and separable from the body, and that endured death. That part was often identified as the mind (νοῦς) or soul (ψυχή), which was thought by some to be composed of immaterial πνεῦμα.18 Philo can describe the νοῦς as fiery πνεῦμα (ἔνθερμον καὶ πεπυρωμένον πνεῦμα).19 On a Platonic account, this anthropology directly correlated with a dualistic cosmology wherein the divine realm was immaterial. The πνεῦμα properly belonged to that realm and could, once freed from the material body, ascend closer to its divine source. Could Hebrews be thinking in these terms?

17

See n. 14 above. As pointed out above in n. 14, not all Greco-Roman philosophies thought the πνεῦμα was immaterial. Stoics, for example, believed the πνεῦμα was the finest material and as such penetrated throughout other material. This is not, however, of great significance for my argument since even if it were the case that Hebrews held to an essentially Stoic cosmology and anthropology, which seems implausible, the point would nevertheless remain that Jesus cannot be only πνεῦμα in the heavens, as he would then essentially be the same stuff as – and so indistinguishable from – the angels. 19 Fug. 134. John Dillon argues that although Philo is not a materialist, like the Stoics he thinks of πνεῦμα as the creative, fiery divine substance in the universe (“Philo’s Doctrine of Angels,” in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis [ed. David Winston and John Dillon; BJS 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983], 197–205, here 202–3). 18

22

David M. Moffitt

A brief examination of the views of Philo of Alexandria on humanity, angels, and heaven demonstrates that the answer to this question is “no.” 20

Philo on Angels, Human Beings, and the Cosmos At this point it is fitting to explore how someone who held conceptions of the human being and cosmology indebted to elements of Platonism could think through these sorts of issues. Philo provides a good example – not only because of his Jewish identity, use of Greek Scriptures, and belief in angels, but also because he has thought through the very questions just raised in conjunction with accounts of human ontology, angelology, life after death, and heights of the cosmos that draw heavily on philosophical traditions influenced by Plato.21 Philo’s cosmological commitments unsurprisingly correlate with an account of humanity that views the material body as a dispensable part of human ontology. 22 Significantly for this study, however, these commitments correlate with Philo’s opinion that disembodied, purified humans are angels. Some of the angels, that is, are humans whose spirits were freed from bondage in the body and the material realm. As such they have ascended into the heights of the sublunar air, and some have even passed beyond the moon into heaven. 20 Clearly Philo is not representative of the wide range of philosophical positions in the Greco-Roman world of the first century C.E. (see n. 14 for a discussion of only a few of the more influential schools of thought). Moreover, as Maren R. Niehoff has recently shown, Philo’s own views underwent change, shifting in some ways away from Platonism towards Stoicism as he engaged personally with Roman Stoics (Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography [AYBRL; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2018]). I do not here assume that Philo’s views must have been consistent across all his works on the issues being discussed, nor that everyone of the time would have agreed. Rather, given (1) that Philo is often compared with Hebrews and, as a committed Jew, has much in common with the author of Hebrews, and (2) that Philo frequently express the very kinds of dualisms, anthropology, and angelology that many think Hebrews more or less affirms, Philo offers a useful point of contrast with the logic of Heb 1–2 as spelled out above. Furthermore, on the subject of angels and humans being able to become angels upon death, there is some consistency in Philo at least to the extent that he expresses similar opinions across several writings. 21 Philo’s dependence on Plato, at least earlier in his career, is well known. Scholars such as John Dillon (The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 [Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977], 139–83) may overstate the case when they identify Philo as a Middle Platonist (see the counter arguments of David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato [Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986], esp. 485–519), but Philo’s cosmology and anthropology plainly owe much to a Platonic material/immaterial dualism. 22 Runia (Philo, 465–66) notes that for Philo, as for Plato, the human being is a microcosm of the cosmos. The material body correlates with the earthly, material realm while the soul/mind is related to heaven. The latter is the divine and essential part of humanity that exists after death and can ascend into the etherial realms once freed of the corpse of the body (Philo, 469).

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

23

Philo, following Plato and in keeping with many Hellenistic thinkers, assumes that individual humans are composite beings consisting of a material and an immaterial part – the body and the soul.23 He makes the point clearly when he interprets Gen 2:7 in De Opificio Mundi 135. Humanity consists of a material, earthly substance (γεώδους οὐσίας) and divine spirit (πνεύματος θείου). The earthly substance is the body (σῶμα), which God formed from clay, while the soul (ψυχή) is the part related to the divine spirit God places in humans. 24 The visible part of humanity, the body, is mortal, while the invisible part, the spiritual soul, is immortal. Humanity is, therefore, “the borderland between mortal and immortal nature, partaking of each so far as is needful, and … created at once mortal and immortal, mortal in respect to the body, but in respect of the mind immortal” (Opif. 135 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). Thus humanity consists of an earthly, mortal body (σῶμα) and a soul (ψυχή), which itself consists of divine πνεῦμα.25

23 See n. 14 above. For the influence of Plato’s Timaeus on Philo’s understanding of humanity, see the detailed discussion in Runia, Philo, 467–75. Philo’s understanding of human ontology is more complex than can be dealt with in this chapter. I focus here on the material/immaterial dichotomy and Philo’s view that humans whose bodies have died and who ascend into the heights are angels. Runia’s study offers a much more complete account of Philo’s cosmology correlated understanding of human ontology. See also the detailed discussion of humanity as the microcosm of the universe in Ursula Früchtel, Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese (AGJU 2; Leiden: Brill, 1968), esp. 61–68. 24 Marie E. Isaacs argues that in Hellenistic Judaism one occasionally finds references to the human πνεῦμα in contexts where Greco-Roman sources would tend to speak about the human ψυχή (The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament [Heythrop Monographs 1; London: Charlesworth, 1976], 36–37). Occasional Septuagintal usage of πνεῦμα to refer to humanity as well as with reference to God may play a role here. From a Hellenistic Jewish perspective, one can see how πνεῦμα could be understood as that part of the human being that belongs to the divine realm and, as Isaacs notes, “makes contact between God and man possible” (Concept of Spirit, 37). 25 As with some other Hellenistic philosophies at the time (see n. 14), Philo thinks that the essential, immaterial ψυχή consists of πνεῦμα. In addition to Opif. 135, in Det. 80 he deduces from Gen 2:7 that God’s breathing the breath (πνεῦμα) of life (ψυχή) into Adam means that the essence or substance of the soul is spirit (πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ψυχῆς οὐσία). Notably, in Det. 80 Philo cites Gen 2:7 in a way that appears to render the Hebrew phrase ‫נשמת‬ ‫“( היים‬breath of life”) as πνεῦμα ζωῆς, rather than the more commonly attested LXX reading of πνοὴν ζωῆς. In Opif. 134 Philo quotes the reading πνοὴν ζωῆς as attested in LXX. Gregory E. Sterling is surely correct in concluding that Philo is probably paraphrasing or recalling Gen 2:7 in a way that shows the extent to which he thinks that πνεῦμα and ψυχή are interchangeable terms (“‘Wisdom Among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity,” NovT 37 [1995]: 355–84, here 363–64; cf. Her. 55 and Spec. 4.123). See also Josephus, Ant. 1.34, who, paraphrasing Gen 2:7, refers to God placing πνεῦμα and ψυχή into Adam.

24

David M. Moffitt

Philo also has quite a bit to say about angels. At a few points he directly refers to their ontology. In De Abrahamo, for example, when discussing Sarah’s denial of her laughter at the announcement that she would have a child, Philo suggests that only after she was reminded that nothing is impossible with God did she see something in the three strangers that made her realize they were not humans but instead were angels, whose spiritual and soulish substance had been changed into human form (ἀγγέλων μεταβαλόντων ἀπὸ πνευματικῆς καὶ ψυχοειδοῦς οὐσίας εἰς ἀνθρωπόμορφον ἰδέαν).26 Philo goes on to explain that even though angels are incorporeal (ἀσωμάτους ὄντας), those who visited Abraham condescended to give the appearance of eating and drinking with him in order to honor him and help him grow in wisdom. 27 Angels are bodiless, spiritual beings (οὐσία). He makes the same point in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, claiming that the οὐσία of angels is spiritual (πνευματικὴ δὲ ἡ τῶν ἀγγέλων οὐσία).28 An angel, then, is a bodiless soul, a being consisting of πνεῦμα. It is worth pausing here to note that while Hebrews does not explicitly use the language of being (οὐσία) when discussing angels, Philo’s identification of angels as spiritual beings is very similar to Hebrews’ description of angels as πνεύματα. Philo’s reflections on the relationship between angels and humans is, however, particularly interesting for the purposes of this chapter, not only because of the point of identity between angels and humans, but also because his understanding of cosmology and the tendency of some souls to incline towards the material realm shows the influence of Platonic concepts on his thought. At the level of being embodied, it is clear that Philo recognizes a distinction between angels and humans. On earth, humans dwell in mortal bodies. Yet, Philo also sees important points of essential continuity between human beings and angels. In De Somniis, when discussing Jacob’s dream about a ladder reaching to heaven with angels ascending and descending on it (see Gen 28:10–17), he identifies angels as bodiless souls that populate the air. The ladder represents the air, that is, the substance in the sublunar region, which reaches from the earth to the moon. Above the moon, the supralunar region, is heaven, the realm of the stars. Since Philo correlates cosmology and human ontology, the ladder can also be understood to represent the human soul, which is able to ascend

26

Abr. 113. Abr. 118. 28 QG 1.92. 27

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

25

and descend and itself is a point of contact between heaven and earth. 29 Thus, Jacob’s ladder represents links between earth and heaven. As for the angels, Philo states that they are imperishable and immortal souls (ἀφθάρτους καὶ ἀθανάτους ψυχάς).30 He then comments on tendencies in these immortal souls. Apparently drawing on Plato’s concept of the fall of souls, he argues that some of these souls are inclined to earthly and material things. 31 These souls descend and are bound for a time to mortal bodies (σώμασι θνητοῖς).32 Some of these souls will be trapped for a time in a cycle of reinhabiting new bodies after their old bodies perish being drawn again down to earth. They “retrace their steps, while others pronouncing that [earthly] life great foolery call the body a prison and a tomb, and escaping as though from a dungeon or a grave, are lifted up on light wings to the upper air and range the heights forever” (Somn. 1.139 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). There is, however, yet another class of these souls who have never felt any inclination to earthly existence. These angels may ascend and descend, but they do so in service to God, not out of a desire to dwell in bodies. Philo discusses these same points more succinctly in De Plantationen 14, stating that there are beings created by God who are wholly beyond the apprehension by sense. This is the host of the bodiless souls. Their array is made up of companies that differ in order. We are told that some enter into mortal bodies and quit them again at certain fixed periods, while others, endowed with a diviner constitution, have no regard for any earthly quarter, but exist on high near to the ethereal region itself. These are the purest spirits of all, whom Greek philosophers call heroes, but whom Moses, employing a well-chosen name, entitles “angels,” for they go on embassies bearing tidings from the great Ruler to his subjects of the boons which he sends them, and reporting to the Monarch what his subjects are in need of. (Plant. 14 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL])

Clearly, then, there are orders of angelic souls. The purest of these never inhabit a body. Those inclined to the earth are the souls of human beings. The line between humans and angels here is not one of ontology at the level of t he spiritual soul, but only one of the soul’s being embodied. Humans are embodied souls. Some souls may be purer than others, but notably for Philo all the living souls are in essence the same. 29 Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey offers a good discussion of the way the ladder is both cosmological and anthropological (The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews [SBLDS 25; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975], 90–91). 30 Somn. 1.137. 31 Philo’s dependence on Plato at this point, as well as some Stoic influence, is highlighted by Émile Bréhier (Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie [3d ed.; Études de philosophie médiévale 8; Paris: J. Vrin, 1950], 128), who notes the similarities between Philo and the Phaedrus and a dialogue attributed to Plato, the Epinomis (cf. Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations in Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948], 1:366–70). 32 Somn. 1.138

26

David M. Moffitt

Philo makes this very point more clearly in De Gigantibus when speaking about the angels of God who desired human women (see Gen 6:1–4). True philosophers, he explains, study from first to last how “to die to the life in the body, that a higher existence immortal and incorporeal, in the presence of him who is himself immortal and uncreated, may be their portion” (Gig. 14–15 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). These are those souls Philo spoke about in the quotations above who descended, were trapped for a while in the body, but then after a fixed period of time were able to ascend again and repudiate the desire to return to earthly realm. They are not angels in the sense that there are those angels who have never been inclined to descend to earth and be embodied, but they are angels in the sense that once they have irrevocably broken free from the body, they ascend to remain forever in the heights as angels. 33 Thus he goes on in De Gigantibus to say, If you realize that souls and demons and angels are but different names for the same one underlying object, you will cast from you that most grievous burden, the fear of demons or superstition. The common usage of men is to give the name demon to bad and good demons alike, and the name of soul to good and bad souls. And so, too, you also will not go wrong if you reckon as angels, not only those who are worthy of the name, who are as ambassadors backwards and forwards between men and God and are rendered sacred and inviolate by reason of that glorious and blameless ministry, but also those who are unholy and unworthy of the title. (Gig. 16 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL])34

Philo here claims that immortal, bodiless souls are immortal, bodiless souls. Some are better than others. There are good and bad souls, with some being purer and less prone to material temptations than others. 35 In essence, however, they are the same.36 For those currently trapped in bodies, that is, for human beings, the ideal is, very much in keeping with Plato, to train the soul to desire its proper abode in heaven so that it will stay there and not be caught again in the cycle of ascending and descending.

33

John Dillon points out Philo’s indebtedness to Plato here, especially to the Symposium (“Philo’s Doctrine,” 199). 34 Cf. QG 1.92: “But sometimes he [Moses] calls the angels ‘sons of God’ because they are made incorporeal [ἀσώματοι] through no mortal man but are spirits (πνεύματα) without body.” Here angels are described as those who are spirits without bodies not because they were mortals who have died, but because they have always been bodiless spirits. 35 Valentin Nikiprowetzky argues compellingly that Philo’s distinction in De Gigantibus between good and evil demons/souls refers only to embodied souls who have fallen (i.e., humans) and the disembodied that inhabit the heights (“Sur une lecture démonologique de Philon d’Alexandrie, De gigantibus 6–18,” in Hommage à Georges Vajda: Études d’histoire et de pensée juives [ed. Gérard Nahon and Charles Touati; Collection de la Revue des Études Juives; Louvain: Peeters, 1980], 43–71). 36 Dillon notes that whereas Plato seems to think of demons and human souls as distinct beings, Philo’s view aligns with that of some Middle Platonists who viewed these souls as the same (“Philo’s Doctrine,” 199–200).

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

27

With this account of angels in view, one can well understand Philo’s claim in De Sacrificiis that Abraham is now an angel. He writes that the comment in Scripture that “Abraham was added to the people of God” means that “when Abraham left this mortal life … he inherited incorruption and became equal to the angels, for angels – those unbodied and blessed souls [ἀσώματα καὶ εὐδαίμονες ψυχαί] – are the host and people of God” (Sacr. 5 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]). Isaac, Philo goes on to say, advanced even higher than Abraham, 37 presumably passing into supralunar space/heaven, while Moses is so great that Philo seems to envision him being sent by God and then being reabsorbed into God, thereby leaving the universe entirely. 38 The latter point about leaving the universe versus remaining in the universe is significant, because for Philo the entire universe is God’s temple with heaven as the sanctuary of that temple and the earthly realm as the forecourt. He therefore writes, The highest, and in the truest sense the holy temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments the stars, for its priests the angels who are servitors to his powers, unbodied souls, not compounds of rational and irrational nature, as ours are, but with the irrational eliminated [ἐκτετημνένας], all mind through and through, pure intelligences, in the likeness of the monad. (Spec. 1.66 [Colson, LCL])

God is not limited by his temple, the universe. Within the universe, however, those bodiless souls in the sanctuary of God’s true temple serve him as priests. They are pure mind having eliminated, literally “cut away” (ἐκτέμνω), their irrational nature.

Summary: Disembodied Humans as Angels in Philo The preceding exploration of Philo’s views on angels, humanity, life after death, and heaven is brief and far from comprehensive. There is, however, enough here for some conclusions relevant to the discussion of Hebrews’ cosmology to be drawn. First, it appears to be the case for Philo that the ideal goal for the human being is to be trained by philosophy in such a way that when the soul is released from the body by death, the soul can escape the material realm (where it has been temporarily trapped) and ascend into the heights, never desiring to descend back into a body again. Second, such souls are identified as angels for Philo. The label “angel” can be used to refer to that spiritual part that every human being has, but it is even

37 38

Sacr. 6–7. Sacr. 8–10.

28

David M. Moffitt

more appropriate to use the term to refer to those purer souls who either have never been inclined towards the earth and bodily existence, or who have been trained such that they can ascend to that company of purer souls by eliminating their irrational body. John Dillon summarizes the point well when he writes that for Philo, “Daemons, angels and souls … are only different terms for the same class of being.”39 Third, this account of the human being does not clearly distinguish between angel and human when it comes to the essential soul. The distinction between an angel and a human is one of purity and relative location in the universe, not one of the spiritual essence of the soul. The embodied human is a soul that resides for a time in the material realm, the forecourt of the temple of the universe. The purified, disembodied human is an angel who resides in the sublunar air. The purest souls can even enter heaven, i.e., supralunar space. The spiritual substance in all cases is the same for the embodied soul that is trapped in the lowest part of the universe and the purest, unbodied soul that dwells in the highest part. Fourth, those souls that were trapped in bodies but upon death ascend into heaven and never again desire to return to the body join with God’s people – those angels who are already serving God as his priests in sanctuary of the universe. They are not beyond or outside the universe, but rather are present in that part of the sanctuary of the temple complex that is the universe. In short, in their best state, angels are purified spirits who serve as God’s priests in the sanctuary of heaven. Some of these have never been human beings. Some, however, are humans who have eliminated the irrational nature (i.e., the material body) and have joined the ranks of the purest angels. The essential spirit or rational element is the key to their essential identity, as this element can rise and fall, passing between the spiritual and material realms. Fifth, from the preceding four points it should be clear that this account of angelic and human ontology directly correlates with an account of cosmology in which there is a dualism between the immaterial heaven and the material earth. Human beings are angels, immaterial, pneumatic souls who have descended to the material realm and become entrapped in mortal bodies. They can, however, return to heaven by leaving the body behind at death. The part of the human being that is in essence an angel has, in other words, the capacity to be liberated at death in order to ascend back into heaven where it belongs. This essential part of the human is the ψυχή, which consists of πνεῦμα. To be a soul that ascends into the air or even into heaven is to be an angel, a pure, disembodied πνεῦμα.

39

Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 173.

Human Beings and Angels in Hebrews and Philo of Alexandria

29

Conclusion: Hebrews, Philo, and Cosmology A number of salient points of similarity between Philo and Hebrews on angels and human beings can be noted. First, both Philo and Hebrews agree that angels consist of πνεῦμα. They are soulish beings that do not have bodies of flesh and blood. Second, they agree that angels belong to the higher realms of the cosmos. Third, both note that they serve as intermediaries between God and humanity. Fourth, it appears that both authors accept that, unlike angels, humanity consists of the material body and of πνεῦμα. Fifth, it also appears that both would agree that death for the human being results in the separation of the body and πνεῦμα. It should, however, also be clear that there are significant differences between them. Disembodied human πνεύματα in the heavens are still looking forward to their unshakable inheritance in Hebrews. For Hebrews, these spirits have not yet attained to their final goal not least because even the heavenly place where they currently are will be shaken. The eschatology of Hebrews, that is, looks forward to resurrection and the establishment of the unshakable kingdom. More significantly for this chapter, however, Philo’s account of the ongoing life of a human soul after death simply does not work in the argument in Heb 1–2 for Jesus’ elevation above the angels. On Philo’s account, were it the case that Jesus ascended to heaven as a disembodied πνεῦμα when he died, having escaped from his flesh-and-blood body, Jesus would be an angel. He might return to heaven as the highest angel, the purest soul, being advanced beyond all other angels, but he would not in essence be different from or other than an angel. Hebrews cannot be thinking in this way about Jesus’ ascent into heaven, for if Jesus were an angel when he ascended, then God’s invitation to Jesus to sit at his right hand would be a clear example of something the author says God has never done – offered an invitation to one of the angels to take that place of honor (cf. Heb 1:13–14). Jesus, as an angel, would have no right to be invited to sit at God’s right hand and rule over all things (cf. Heb 2:5). If, on the other hand, Jesus possesses something that is essentially different from what the angels are when he ascends, then it seems that one is again forced back to the categories Hebrews itself uses to identify humanity – flesh and blood.40 Psalm 8, when read eschatologically, looks for a time when humanity is elevated above the heavenly πνεύματα to the status of rule over the world to 40

One might object that on Philo’s account of Moses leaving the universe, he was elevated above the angels but was not himself an angel. If Hebrews thought that Jesus had, like Moses, returned to God in that sense, it could be a case of a being who is exalted above the angels although not himself an angel. Nevertheless, this kind of account also will not work in Hebrews because, as with Philo’s disembodied souls, this would be another account of heavenly exaltation that depends on leaving the material of the human body behind upon ascension and thus does not align either with the author’s interpretation of Ps 8.

30

David M. Moffitt

come.41 This eschatological exaltation is now a reality for the Son precisely because he returned to the heavens after his death not only as the divine Son, which he always was and will be, but now also as the perfected and exalted human being, Jesus. As I argued above, this change in status (the Son’s becoming greater than the angels) and the author’s exegesis of Ps 8 are significant factors that require the conclusion that the author assumes Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Only as the eschatological, exalted human being/incarnate Son can Jesus be elevated by God to the place of rule at his right hand – a place above even the angels – for it is only as a human being that his status can undergo change relative to the angels. All of this, however, has further implications for the larger topic of Hebrews’ cosmology. As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, a positive account of Hebrews’ cosmology falls outside the scope of this brief study. The foregoing conclusions suggest, however, that Hebrews does not work with a Platonic conception of the cosmos like that of Philo. Whatever the heavens are for Hebrews, these cannot be a place unfit for a human body of flesh and blood. To be sure, the pattern established by Jesus’ resurrection indicates that flesh and blood must be perfected, that is, resurrected, something that brings a transformation of the body that can allow it to enter the heavens. But for Jesus that entrance is not one of the spirit or soul devoid of the very body that was for a little while lower than all the angels. The cosmology of Hebrews, then, does not assume the dualism one tends to find in variations of Middle Platonism. Rather, the author appears to imagine reality in terms of God’s kingdom space and a present age in which humanity is ruled by an evil power who keeps them enslaved by the fear of death (see 2:14–16; 11:28). True salvation and liberation from this age and this spiritual power involves not losing one’s body, but having it transformed such that it can be in the presence of God and the angels as a human body. For the author of Hebrews, then, resurrected flesh and blood will inherit the kingdom of God, something that Philo would seem unable to imagine.

41 Runia makes the following observation: “The central thrust of Philo’s Platonizing anthropology, that man is related to God in virtue of his rational part and his capacity for reasoning, has consequences for his thought, the importance of which can hardly be overestimated. … Man has a special place in the cosmos not because of his dominance over the creation, … but because he contemplates the worlds of thought and sense and so can reflect on his own nature and situation” (Philo, 472). This assessment of Philo only highlghts the stark contrast between Philo and Hebrews, particularly with respect to the logic of the argumentation of Heb 1–2.

Chapter 3

The Son as the Representative of the Children in the Letter to the Hebrews Félix H. Cortez The relationship between the Son and the children lies at the center of the theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. The most important Christological title in the Letter to the Hebrews is “Son” or “Son of God.” 1 Jesus is the “Son,” “the heir of all things” (1:2), who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (1:3), and rules at God’s right hand (1:5–14).2 The importance of this title is evident in the fact that when Jesus is compared to Moses or the Levitical high priests, it is his sonship that is used to argue his superiority to them (Heb 3:1–6; 5:5; 7:3, 26–28).3 The author, on the other hand, refers to the audience as God’s “children” (2:10, 13–14; 12:5–8).4 They are members of God’s household (3:6) who endure his discipline (12:5–11) and look forward to their inheritance as children (1:14; 6:17; 9:15; 11:40; 12:11, 22–24, 28). Thus both Jesus and the believers are described as God’s children and heirs, and therefore “brothers” (2:11–12, 17; 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22). The important thing, however, is that Jesus’ relationship and faithfulness to the Father has made it possible 1 See, for example, James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), 51–52; Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 178; William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 1:cxxxix; Donald A. Hagner, “The Son of God as Unique High Priest: The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; McMaster New Testament Studies; Grand Rapids, Mich., Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 248–49; Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), 59; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 236; Amy L. B. Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Library of New Testament Studies 486; London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 4–5. 2 Unless otherwise noted, the biblical text is quoted from the English Standard Version. 3 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 178. 4 The author uses υἱός (son) to refer to Jesus and believers in Heb 2:10 and 12:5–8.

32

Félix H. Cortez

for believers to become children and inheritors of God (2:10–18; 9:15–22). The author argues that the Son tasted death “for all” (ὑπὲρ παντός, 2:9), appears before the face of God “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμών, 9:24), and ever lives to make intercession on behalf of his siblings (ὑπὲρ αὐτών, 7:25). This chapter suggests that the familial language of Hebrews echoes Davidic traditions, which provide important insights into the nature of the relationship between the Son and the children as their representative in the argument of the letter.

Jesus and Davidic Traditions in the Letter to the Hebrews Amy L. B. Peeler’s recent monograph on the familial relationships in Hebrews demonstrates that Jesus’ status as Son is fundamental for the argument of Hebrews.5 She shows that Jesus’ incarnation, obedience, and sacrifice have made it possible for him to obtain the children as his own inheritance. Hebrews thereby offers the children encouragement and hope in the midst of their difficulties.6 As part of her argument, Peeler notes that the notion that the Son receives the children as his own inheritance has its origins in the Davidic covenant traditions where the king receives the nation as his inheritance. 7 Second Samuel 7 contains four promises that comprise God’s covenant with David (cf. 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 89:3; 132:11–12): (1) a great name (7:9), (2) a place for Israel (7:10), (3) rest from his enemies (7:11), and (4) a son (7:12). The fourth promise is developed further. God will prepare (ἑτοιμάζω) a kingdom for David’s son (7:12), the son will build God’s house, God will establish his throne forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 7:13), and God will be a Father to him (7:14). Peeler correctly observes that David’s response to these promises contains significant verbal parallels that imply a connection between the permanent establishment of David’s house and the establishment of the people of Israel as God’s people. Thus, in his response, David praises God because he has prepared (ἑτοιμάζω) his people Israel for himself, established them forever (ἓως αἰῶνος), and become God to them (ἐγένου αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν). In Peeler’s view, then, there is “a correspondence between God’s establishment of David’s heir and God’s

5 Peeler, You Are My Son. The familial theme in Hebrews was also explored in J. Scott Lidgett, Sonship and Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Epworth, 1921). I am not aware of other extended treatments of this theme in the literature on Hebrews. 6 Peeler, You Are My Son, 6–7. 7 Peeler, You Are My Son, 95–96. It is not clear to me whether Peeler understands the Davidic covenant simply to be one among the many comparisons that we find in Hebrews or whether she understands the author to identify Jesus as a Davidic king, the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.

The Son as Representative of the Children

33

establishment of the people of Israel.”8 There are, however, further connections with the Davidic traditions in the argument of Hebrews that we should explore.9 There are other points of contact between the argument of Hebrews and the Davidic covenant traditions. God has adopted Jesus as his own son (Heb 1:5; cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7),10 has appointed him “heir of all things” (Heb 1:2; cf. Ps 2:8), has given him a great “name” (Heb 1:4; cf. 2 Sam 7:9), has established his throne forever (Heb 1:8–12; cf. 2 Sam 7:13–16), and has seated him at his “right hand” (Heb 1:13–14; cf. Ps 110:1).11 Furthermore, according to Heb 4 Jesus leads the people into God’s rest (cf. 2 Sam 7:11), and in Heb 3:3–4 the author argues that Jesus is the builder of the house of God (cf. 8:2; 2 Sam 7:13).12 These points of contact suggest that Hebrews identifies Jesus as the 8

She continues, “This correspondence suggests that when God promised an eternal throne to David’s heir that lasting sovereignty included an intention for him to reign over God’s eternal people, Israel” (Peeler, You Are My Son, 95). 9 Some sectors of Second Temple period Judaism expected the restoration of the Davidic line in the last days (cf. Heb 1:2, 5; 2 Sam 7:14). Among the Qumran sectarian writings, 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7 were quoted in Florilegium (4Q174), expressing a hope for the restoration of the Davidic line in the last days (cf. Heb 1:5). Words of the Luminaries a (4Q504 1–2 IV, 5-8), Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252), Commentary on Isaiah (4Q161), and probably Sefer Hamilhama (4Q285) and the Apocryphon of Daniel or “Son of God” Document (4Q246), also expressed hope for the restoration of the Davidic line. The same hope is expressed in Pss. Sol. 17. 10 See George Bradford Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke (ed. W. C. Weinrich; 2 vols.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:73–82, esp. 76; Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 111–20. 11 Psalm 110 is understood as messianic throughout the New Testament (Matt 22:42–45 [par. Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44]; Matt 26:64 [par. Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69]; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34–35; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1). Ancient Jewish interpretation of the psalm is varied, however. Some detect allusions to Ps 110 in the description of the enthronement of the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 45:1, 3; 51:3; 52:1– 7; 55:4; 61:8). Testament of Job 33:3 (first century B.C.E. or C.E.) applies Ps 110 to Job, who is described as king of a heavenly kingdom. It is probable that 1 Macc 14:41 alludes to Ps 110:4 and applies it to Hasmonean rulers. A messianic interpretation of Ps 110 appears frequently in rabbinic writings after ca. 250 C.E. See David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1973), 19–33. For the use of other Davidic (Zion) traditions in the catena, see Son, Zion Symbolism, 111– 24. 12 Hebrews 3:3 has a proportional argument: Jesus has more glory than Moses just as a builder of a house has more honor than the house built. The proportional argument is further developed in v. 4: God is the builder of all things implying he has the greatest honor. It is not clear, however, what the exact relationship between vv. 3 and 4 is. Verse 4 probably argues that Jesus, as the creator of all things (Heb 1:2, 10–12), is God himself and, therefore, worthy of more honor than everything or everyone, not only Moses. Another possibility is

34

Félix H. Cortez

ruler who is bringing to fruition the Davidic promises.13 In the rest of this chapter, I argue that the relationship between David and Israel in the context of the Davidic covenant provides further insights into the relationship between the Son and the children in the Letter to the Hebrews.

The Son and the People in the Davidic Covenant An analysis of the Davidic promises shows that the Davidic king came to embody the nation in the covenant relationship between God and Israel. In the context of the Davidic covenant, God designated the Davidic heir his “son” and “firstborn” (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:6–7; 89:27) embodying Israel, the covenant that v. 4 is simply a parenthetic statement referring to God, without affirming the divine creatorship of the Son (e.g., Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief and die Hebräer [KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991], 248 n. 38) or simply evoking it without affirming it (Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989], 104). The second view is less likely since it would simply be a truism and an awkward digression from the argument (see Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews [NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], 166–67). For the idea in Matthew that Jesus, as Davidic Messiah, is the builder of “the house of God,” see Michael Patrick Barber, “Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16–19,” JBL 132 (2013): 935–53. 13 Hebrews would share then the common early Christian notion that God had fulfilled in Jesus the promises he made to David. This notion appears in pre-Pauline and Pauline formulations in Rom 1:3 and 2 Tim 2:8; also in Acts 13:33–34; Mark 12:35–37 and par.; Luke 1:32, 69; Rev 5:5; 22:16. See Eduard Lohse, “υἱὸς Δαυιδ,” TDNT 8:482–88. The literature on Jesus as the son of David in whom the Davidic promises are fulfilled is plentiful. Some of the more prominent examples include Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, (new updated ed.; ABRL; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1993), 505–12; Christoph Burger, Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (FRLANT 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); Young S. Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2/216; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Son of David Tradition in Mt 22:41–46 and Parallels,” in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (SBLSBS 5; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974), 113–26; Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im Frühen Christentum (3d ed.; FRLANT 83; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 242–79; Hay, Glory at the Right Hand; Martin Karrer, Der Gesalbte: Die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT 151; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991); Lidija Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Cleon L. Rogers, Jr, “The Davidic Covenant in the Gospels,” BSac 150 (1993): 458–78; idem, “The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation,” BSac 151 (1994): 71– 84. Hebrews, however, does not seek to prove the point of Jesus’ Davidic sonship; rather, it assumes it. That is to say, the Davidic promises seem to function as a subtext of Hebrews more than as a part of its argument.

The Son as Representative of the Children

35

people, who was also called “son” and “firstborn” (Exod 4:22–23; cf. Jer 3:19; 31:9, Hos 11:1). Accordingly, God confirmed to him – as the embodiment of the nation – the promises previously given Israel of a “place” where they would “rest” from their enemies (2 Sam 7:9–11a; cf. Deut 12:8–10) and his permanent presence in their midst by accepting a “house” to be built for his “name” (2 Sam 7:12a–16; Ps 132:11–14; cf. Exod 25:8; 33:12–23; Deut 12:5).14 In this way, God legitimized the Davidic king as Israel’s proxy. 15 This implied a modification in the relationship between God and Israel. The establishment of the Davidic covenant did not make God’s covenant with Israel through Moses obsolete or irrelevant because, according the biblical accounts, its requirements continued to apply. 16 God granted his covenant to David and his house because of David’s exceptional covenant loyalty. David was a man according to God’s “own heart” who became the benchmark for the faithfulness of future kings (e.g., 1 Sam 13:14; 16:7; 1 Kgs 3:6; 9:4; 14:8). His piety was especially evident in his wish to build a “house” for the “ark of God” (2 Sam 7:1) that represented God’s covenant with the nation – made when God brought them out of Egypt (1 Kgs 8:21; 2 Chr 6:11) – and enshrined its Mosaic laws (1 Kgs 8:9; 2 Chr 5:10). The king – and the people as well – continued to be bound by the regulations consecrated in the Mosaic legislation, especially regarding social justice (e.g., 1 Kgs 6:12–13). Though the Davidic covenant was established with promises of eternal favor to the Davidic lineage, God explicitly preserved the right “to punish him [i.e., the Davidic King] with a rod” should he forsake his law (2 Sam 7:14; cf. Ps 89:30–32). Thus, the Mosaic covenant did not cease to exist; instead, God’s covenant with David engrafted

14 Deuteronomy connected the fulfillment of the promise of rest to the election of a place for God’s name to dwell (12:9–10). This promise was only partially fulfilled with Israel’s conquest and repartition of the land under the leadership of Joshua. See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 204. 15 Avraham Gileadi, “The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K Harrison (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1988), 157–64, esp. 160. A similar example of the identification of the king with the nation is implied in Gen 20. When Abimelech, king of Gerar, took Sarah for himself, God appeared in a dream and said to him, “you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken” (Gen 20:3). Abimelech, however, argued that he was unaware of the fact that Sarah was married and pleaded with God, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people [gôy]?” (v. 4). For further discussion of the solidarity between king and people see Peter J. Gentry, “Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13–53:12),” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 11 (2007): 20–47. 16 See Lyle Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOTSup 164; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 89.

36

Félix H. Cortez

the monarchy into the existing (Mosaic) covenantal relationship between God and the nation.17 David’s plan to build a temple for the ark was also an act of legitimation of his rule and of his capital city because it identified them with the symbol of God’s (Mosaic) covenant with Israel. 18 He wished to establish a permanent relationship and continuing access to the God of Israel. The plan was rejected, however. The initiative had to be God’s, not David’s (2 Sam 7:4–7). Nonetheless, God legitimated David’s rule and dynasty by letting his son build the temple and choosing it as his resting place forever (1 Kgs 8:12–13, 29; 9:3; 2 Chr 6:1–2, 20, 41–42; 7:12, 16). The temple, then, became the new symbol of God’s covenant with the nation. The permanent “house” (as opposed to “tent”) symbolized the permanence of God’s presence (2 Sam 7:9, 14), the permanence of Israel in the land (2 Sam 7:10), and the permanence of the dynasty (2 Sam 7:16).19 All of these testified to the permanence of the Mosaic laws enshrined in the temple. Therefore, God made clear to Solomon after the dedication of the temple that unfaithfulness to the Mosaic covenant would result in the temple’s destruction (1 Kgs 9:6–9; 2 Chr 7:19–22).20 This is what finally happened. Because of the threat of Nebuchadnezzar, Zedekiah – the last Davidic king (597–586 B.C. E.) – made a covenant with the people in the temple to proclaim liberty to their slaves according to the requirements of the Mosaic law (Jer 34:8–10; Lev 25:39–41). The people obeyed and God promised Zedekiah that he would “die in peace” (Jer 34:5). Later on, however, they forsook the covenant and “took back the male and female slaves they had set free” (Jer 34:11) in open rebellion to the Mosaic law. This act sealed the fate of the king and Jerusalem. They would now endure the covenant curses (vv. 17–22).21 Therefore, the Davidic king’s participation in the eternal promises made to 17

William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1984), 127. Lyle Eslinger has argued that the Mosaic covenant was broken when Israel requested a king in order to be “like the other nations” (1 Sam 8:6): “The request of Yahweh’s people (cam yhwh) to become like the nations (kekol-haggôyim) in political structure is, therefore, not only a rejection of theocracy and its judges, but even more it is a rejection of the covenant” (Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12 [Bible and Literature Series 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 257). This does not seem to be the case, however. Deuteronomy 17:14–20 (cf. 28:36) allows the possibility of a king over Israel in the context of the Mosaic covenant. Also, Israel suffers no covenant curses as a result of the establishment of the monarchy. 18 Regarding the building of the temple as an act of legitimation, see Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1990), 254–61. 19 McCarter, II Samuel, 210. 20 Note that in both cases unfaithfulness is defined as an abandonment of the “Lord the God of their ancestors who brought them out of the land of Egypt” and gave them Canaan as their land. 21 See Hans K. LaRondelle, Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2005), 48.

The Son as Representative of the Children

37

David and the permanence of Jerusalem were contingent on the king’s obedience to the Mosaic laws. The Mosaic covenant required the faithfulness of all Israel to receive God’s protection. Joshua 7 registers a case in which the nation was imputed with the transgression of the covenant because of the sin of one man: Achan (vv. 1, 11–13). When the offender was punished, the covenantal relationship was restored (Josh 7:24–8:1).22 The Davidic covenant, however, secured God’s covenantal blessings upon Israel through the faithfulness of one person, the king. Note the promise to David and its relationship to the nation: I will make for you [sg.] a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you [sg.] rest from all your [sg.] enemies. (2 Sam 7:9b–11a, emphasis mine; cf. 1 Chr 17:9–10b)

The connection between the faithfulness of the king and the perpetuation of God’s covenant with the nation is particularly evident in God’s confirmation of the covenant to Solomon: Concerning this house that you are building, if you [sg.] will walk in my statutes, obey my ordinances, and keep all my commandments by walking in them, then I will establish my promise with you, which I made to your father David. I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. (1 Kgs 6:12–13, emphasis mine)

God explicitly informs Solomon that if he is faithful, God’s covenantal relationship with the nation will remain. Avraham Gileadi’s conclusion is apt: “The Davidic covenant did away with the necessity that all Israel – to a man – maintain loyalty to YHWH in order to merit his protection.” 23 Thus, the Davidic covenant introduced a significant change in the covenantal relationship between God and his people. The covenantal blessings were now contingent not on the nation’s faithfulness, but on the faithfulness of the Davidic king (1 Kgs 6:12–13; cf. 9:4–7; 2 Chr 7:17–22). In this sense, the Davidic king became the mediator of the covenant. The insertion of a proxy/mediator in the relationship between God and Israel made possible the perpetuation of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. The unfaithfulness of the king did not imply the revocation of the covenant. The apostasy of the Davidic scion did not make void God’s promise to David 22 Similarly, when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh built an altar beside the Jordan River, the rest of the tribes considered that it was an act of rebellion against God and feared that God would be “angry with the whole congregation of Israel” (Josh 22:10–34, esp. v. 18). They in fact mentioned the case of Achan: “Did not Achan son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity!” (v. 20; emphasis mine). A further example could be found in the apostasy concerning the Baal of Peor in Num 25. 23 Gileadi, “The Davidic Covenant,” 160.

38

Félix H. Cortez

of an eternal dynasty. It did disqualify, however, the apostate king from participating in the promises of the Davidic covenant and annulled God’s covenantal protection over the people during his time of infidelity. 24 God would punish him “with a rod” (2 Sam 7:14). None of his children would rule and God would choose another Davidic faithful heir to continue his promise. One example is the judgment on Coniah (=Jehoiachin). Jeremiah 22:1–9 contains an exhortation to the “king of Judah, sitting on the throne of David” (and his officials) to “administer justice and righteousness.”25 The Davidic covenant had the purpose of giving “rest” to the people and that “evildoers … afflict them no more” (2 Sam 7:10–11). The king, however, had not only failed to administer justice to the oppressed but had himself done “violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, … [and had] shed innocent blood” (Jer 22:3). God, therefore, exhorts the king to correct his ways. If the king repents, God promises: “Through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David” (v. 4; cf. Jer 17:25). (The house here refers more probably to the palace.) If he failed to reform his government, God’s ultimatum was “I swear by myself, says the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation” (Jer 22:5). The participation of the king in the promises of the Davidic covenant was contingent on his faithfulness to God and his administration of justice to the people. Yet, God’s promise to David, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me,” were not conditioned on the faithfulness of the individual king (see 2 Sam 7:14–16). It is not David’s house (the dynasty) that God will make desolate, but the “house” of the king addressed (palace and dynasty). 26 God will punish the king and his house. None of his children will sit anymore on the throne of David (Jer 22:4); yet, God will still fulfill his promises to David: “I will raise 24 Note that because of David’s transgression regarding the census of Israel (2 Sam 24:1), God’s covenantal protection over Israel is jeopardized (2 Sam 24:13). See Gileadi, “The Davidic Covenant,” 159. It is possible to understand two dimensions in the Davidic covenant that explain the conditional elements in it: The Davidic covenant was unconditional when referring to David’s progeny in general; but conditional, when referring to individual Davidic rulers (see W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 150). That is to say, unfaithfulness may prevent an individual Davidic ruler from participating in the Davidic promises but this will not invalidate God’s promises to David. God can choose another son of David to fulfill them. 25 Note that the “you” in vv. 4–5 is plural referring to the officials in addition to the king. 26 Contra Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 21–22. See William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1986), 582. Some consider “house” to refer only to the palace, e.g., Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 317. Others see here a reference to the destruction of the temple, e.g., Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1–25 (WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 298. Others are unsure, e.g., Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1986), 417–18.

The Son as Representative of the Children

39

up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (Jer 23:5). 27 The context implies that this king will come through a line different from that of Coniah (=Jehoiachin). This practice finds parallels in the provisions of the treaty between Hattusili III of Hatti and Ulmi-Teshshup of Tarhuntassa: I, My Majesty, will [not depose] your son. [I will accept] neither your brother nor anyone else. Later your son and grandson will hold [the land] which I have given [to you]. It may not be taken away from him. If any son or grandson of yours commits an offense, then the King of Hatti shall question him. And if an offense is proven against him, then the King of Hatti shall treat him as he pleases. If he is deserving of death, he shall perish, but his household and land shall not be taken from him and given to the progeny of another. Only someone of the progeny of Ulmi-Teshshup shall take them. Someone of the male line shall take them; those of the female line shall not take them. But if there is no male line of descent, and it is extinguished, then only someone of the female line of Ulmi-Teshshup shall be sought out. Even if he is in a foreign land, he shall be brought back from there and installed in authority in the land of Tarhuntassa.”28 (emphasis mine)

Note, then, that God’s punishment on Coniah (=Jehoiachin) did not imply the end of the Davidic dynasty. The Davidic covenant made possible the perpetuation of hope, as long as God may find (or provide) a faithful Davidic king to represent the nation.29 27 Jeremiah 23:1–8 is the end of the section entitled “To the house of the king of Judah” (Jer 21:11–23:8). It contains oracles addressed to several kings (Johoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin [Coniah], see Patrick D. Miller, “The Book of Jeremiah,” The New Interpreter's Bible [ed. Leander E. Keck; 12 vols.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2001], 6:553–926, esp. 739). Towards the end of the section (23:1–4), Jeremiah refers “to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep.” This provides a collective summary of the indictments to the evil kings previously mentioned. Then the section closes with the promise that God “will raise up shepherds over them [Israel] who will shepherd them,” especially a “righteous Branch” for David who “shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (vv. 5–8). 28 Gary Beckman, ed., Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2d ed.; SBLWAW 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999), 109. M. Weinfeld calls this type of unconditional promise a “covenant of grant” and cites several examples from the ANE. See “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. 29 In view of the evident human failure, some Second Temple Jews debated the fate of the Davidic covenant. Some did not have a Davidic hope. Josephus refers several times to the Davidic dynasty but in none of them states or implies a hope for its restoration (Ant. 5.336; 10.143; 11.112). He clearly considers that the Davidic promise was conditional (Ant. 6.165; 7.93–95; 8.126–127) and refers to the end of the dynasty (Ant. 10.143). He also avoids the Chronicler’s reference to an eternal dynasty (Ant. 7.337; cf. 1 Chr 22:10). For further analysis, see Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty Tradition, 222–29. For others, the Davidic covenant was part of a glorious past that continued to live in the heroics of present rulers (1 Macc 2:57), or they considered that its functions had been taken over by the present priesthood (Sir 45:25; 49:4–5; 50:1–4). Finally, a third group still clung to the Davidic covenant as a source of an eschatological hope that promised either a holy and righteous ruler that would restore Israel (Pss. Sol. 17), a military figure who would lead in the war against

40

Félix H. Cortez

In summary, we could say that the Davidic covenant renewed the Mosaic covenant – by confirming its laws and requirements – but under “better promises” by providing a covenant mediator. Walter Brueggemann’s dictum is highly appropriate here: “With David, however, the ‘if’ has disappeared.… In this astonishing promise, Yahweh has signed a blank check to the David enterprise and has radically shifted the theological foundations of Israel.”30 I am suggesting then that Hebrews understands Jesus as fulfilling the promises that had been granted to the nation in the context of the Davidic covenant. He has been enthroned at the “right hand” of God (1:3; 14; 8:1; 10:11–14). Family language in Hebrews, then, should be understood in the context of the covenantal relationship between God and his people. 31 Note that God refers to the people as his son in the context of the promise of the new covenant in Jer 38:31–34 LXX.32 Just as was the case in the Davidic covenant, the same fatherson relationship that exists between God and Jesus (Heb 1:5) exists between God and the believers (Heb 2:10). Hebrews is clear, however, that Jesus’ relationship with the Father does not replace God’s relationship with the believers but mediates it (7:22; 8:6; 9:15); that is to say, Jesus’ relationship with God makes that of believers possible. 33 Thus, the relationship between Jesus and the children in Hebrews should be understood as an expression of the relationship between the Davidic heir and Israel. This implies that Jesus is not only the consummate older brother of Hellenistic ideals who cares for his brothers as appointed guardian as in the Roman legal institution of tutela impuberum,34 but eschatological enemies (Qumran, see above n. 10), or a figure that would pronounce judgment but whose function was only temporary (4 Ezra 11:1–12:3). A variety of New Testament texts argued, however, that God decided to provide Jesus as a faithful “Son” to be a righteous king over Israel “forever” (e.g., Luke 1:30–33; Acts 2:29–36; Rom 1:3–5). See n. 13. 30 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 257. 31 Note that Israel, God’s covenantal people, may be referred to as God’s firstborn (Exod 4:22–23; Hos 11:1). Frank Moore Cross’s definition of covenant is significant in this regard: “Oath and covenant is … a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinship may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens” (emphasis mine). See From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 8. See also Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (AYBRL; New Haven, Conn., Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 28. 32 Jeremiah 38:20 LXX. See also Jer 3:19, 22 LXX. 33 The relationship between the Son and the other children in Hebrews would be the same to the relationship between the “servant” in the fourth servant song of Isaiah and Israel (see John H. Walton, “The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song,” JBL 122 [2003]: 734–43; Gentry, “Atonement”) and between “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13 and the saints of the Most High in Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27. Hebrews alludes to Isa 53 in Heb 9:28 and to Dan 7 in Heb 12:28. 34 So Patrick Gray, “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews,” JBL 122 (2003): 335–51, esp. 340.

The Son as Representative of the Children

41

he is also, and more importantly, the children’s (or brothers’) proxy who represents them in their covenantal relationship with God. This understanding of the relationship between the Son and the children in Hebrews would support Scott W. Hahn’s reading of Heb 9:15–22.35 Hahn suggests that Jesus’ death in this passage should be understood in the context of the cult and the covenant and not in the context of the Greco-Roman law regarding testamentary practices. The Son embodies God’s people, and his perfect faithfulness has made it possible for him to bear in their stead the penalty for their breaking the covenant. This is how the Son has been able to renew the covenant for them (Heb 2:9; 9:14–22). He has made them once again part of God’s family. By embodying God’s people and being perfectly faithful, he has reclaimed and received the inheritance they had forfeited (Heb 1:2; 2:6–9; 9:15; cf. Heb 4:14–16; 6:19–20; 9:11–14). Jesus truly has become for the children the “sure and steadfast anchor of the soul” (Heb 6:19). By becoming their substitute, Jesus has made available to them all the benefits of his faithfulness and his rights as heir of the Father. Thus, just as a place of rest was promised to Israel (Deut 12:9–10), and then made available through faithful Davidic kings (2 Sam 7:10; cf. 1 Kgs 5:4; 8:56; 2 Chr 14:1, 6, 7; 15:15, 19; 32:22), it is through Jesus, the faithful Davidic king, that the children can now enter the rest of God (Heb 4). Jesus’ faithfulness is very important for the argument of the letter. It provides the children a good example to follow (12:3), 36 makes it possible for him to be a sacrifice “without blemish” in behalf of the children (9:14), and more importantly perpetuates God’s covenant relationship with the people. The Son’s affirmation in Heb 2:13 (“I will put my trust in him”) is important in this regard. This is a quotation of Isa 8:17, 37 whose context describes the failure of Ahaz to trust God.38 Jesus, instead, is a faithful ruler who makes possible the 35 “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22,” Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 65–88. 36 See Matthew C. Easter, Faith and Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews (SNTSMS 160; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 141–42. 37 Hebrews 2:13a could be quoting the words of Isaiah (8:17; 12:2) or David (2 Sam 22:3). The fact that the author quotes Isa 8:18 in Heb 2:13b suggests to many scholars that the author is quoting here Isa 8:17. For a summary of the arguments used by the different views, see Peeler, You are My Son, 89 n. 86; Cockerill, Hebrews, 143–44. 38 The relationship between Isaiah and Ahaz during the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis is debated. Some believe that Isaiah confronted Ahaz with a message to trust in God and not to put his hope in an alliance with Assyria (Isa 7:1–9) and that Ahaz failed to trust in God (e.g., Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah [OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001], 75–77; see also G. von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel [ATANT 20; Zurich: Zwingli, 1951], 56–58; E. Würthwein, “Jesaja 7:1–9. Ein Beitrage zu dem Thema: Prophetie und Politik,” in Wort und Existenz: Studien zum Alten Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970], 138–43; H. W. Wolff, Frieden ohne Ende: Jesaja 7:1–17 und 9:1–6 ausgelegt

42

Félix H. Cortez

extension of the covenant relationship between God and the nation, just as the Davidic heir was expected to be (2 Sam 22:21–26; 23:3–5; Isa 11:1–5).39

[Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962], 23–25). Others suggest that Isaiah supported Ahaz’s policy of no support to Israel and Syria and of submission to Assyria (e.g., Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis [SBLDS 123; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990]; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 [rev. ed.; WBC; Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 2005], 115–32). My reading follows the first view. 39 Regarding the comparison between Jesus’ and David’s faithfulness, see Christopher A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/338; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 93–95.

Chapter 4

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”: Ekphrasis and Epiphany in Hebrews 1–2 Scott D. Mackie Nearly every aspect of Heb 1–2 is capable of eliciting superlatives, and perhaps this is appropriate for a work which is itself in large part governed by a rhetoric of comparison (synkrisis). While exhibiting “rhetorical artistry” which “surpasses that of any portion of the New Testament,”1 the exordium (1:1–4) extols Jesus in terms that are matched by only three other New Testament texts: John 1:1–18; Phil 2:6–11; and Col 1:15–20. A dramatized portrayal of Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement in Heb 1:5–13 gathers together the lengthiest collection of Old Testament texts in the New Testament, one whose deliberate structuring reflects “the most subtle and recondite mind in the NT.”2 In ch. 2 the author enlists his formidable rhetorical and theological skills in a pastorally oriented exposition that is imbued with a love for Jesus and his “siblings.” A nuanced presentation in 2:5–9 of the “now, not yet” eschatological tension that characterizes and challenges Christian existence is balanced in 2:10–18 by the most warm-hearted portrayal of Jesus in New Testament (excepting perhaps the Gospels). In 2:10–18 the Adam Christology that supports the argument of 2:5–9 is joined by a profusion of other Christologies (“pioneer of salvation,” Son of God, Christus Victor, Isaianic sin-bearer, and high priest), the extent of which is unmatched in the New Testament. Every aspect of this nearly exhaustive collection of Christologies is carefully crafted to meet the needs of the addressed community, bringing “the good things that have come” through the Christ event (9:11) to bear upon their personal circumstances. 3 Thus, in the short span of some thirty-two verses, the author of Hebrews’ inestimable

1

Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1989), 36. See also Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 2:2; John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14,” Bib 66 (1985): 168–89, esp. 170. 2 John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5– 14,” Bib 66 (1985): 504–33, here 533. 3 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.

44

Scott D. Mackie

rhetorical skills, subtle theological acumen, and passionate pastoral heart find full expression. The first two chapters of Hebrews also contain in nuce an elaborate mystical program which is equally extraordinary, quite possibly surpassing all other New Testament documents in its scope and scale. This experientially oriented rhetorical effort manifests the author’s ultimate hortatory goal: to bring the addressed community into the heavenly sanctuary where they will see Jesus enthroned and be united with him in the family of God, as the siblings of the Son. This union is effected by means of the community’s substantial and experiential participation in the Son’s enthronement ceremony, which is transformed into an adoption ceremony (2:12–13). Essential to this effort are the author’s repeated portrayals of Jesus’ ascent to the heavenly sanctuary (1:6; 2:8–10; 4:14; 6:19–20; 7:26; 9:11–12, 24; 10:19–21) and its hortatory complement, the community’s “drawing near” and entering the same heavenly locus (4:14–16; 10:19–23; 12:22–24). This theology of access is evident from the outset of Hebrews, and it is aided by an overarching visual emphasis that pervades the first two chapters. Supplying epistemic certainty to the entry experience, this visual orientation reaches its apex in the announcement that “now we see Jesus” (2:9), and in the dramatized actor Jesus’ exhortation to “Behold!” the enthronement ceremony which is unfolding in their midst (2:13). The community’s visual apprehension of, and substantial participation in the enthronement drama, are also elicited and guided by the author’s visually oriented rhetoric, which employs vivid, pictorial imagery and a number of other ekphrastic techniques throughout chs. 1–2.

Hebrews’ Entry Exhortations and Theology of Access The heavenly sanctuary dominates the rhetorical landscape of Hebrews, as both the Son’s exaltation and sacrificial self-offering are primarily situated in this supramundane realm. 4 It also occupies a prominent place in Hebrews’ hortatory agenda, as repeated assertions of the addressed community’s ability to access God in the heavenly sanctuary (2:10–13; 4:1–11; 6:18–20; 7:19, 25; 11:6) are met with two exhortations to confidently enter that heavenly locale, in

4 On the importance of temples and sanctuaries in the ancient Mediterranean, Gregory Stevenson (Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation [BZNW 107; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001], 16), observes: “As an institutional reality, operating within the social, political, and economic life of a community, a temple impacted virtually every aspect of everyday life. On the other hand, a temple was also a religious phenomenon that mediated between heaven and earth, offering access to the divine. Consequently, no other symbol was more appropriate for addressing the social needs of a people and for offering access to a transcendent perspective on the world.”

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

45

4:14–16 and 10:19–23. That the community’s entry is mimetically aligned with and empowered by Jesus’ own pioneering entry into the heavens adds further coherence, clarity, and confidence to these exhortations. Furthermore, in one remarkable text, 12:22–24, the community’s presence in the heavenly sanctuary is presented as an accomplished fact. This programmatic effort first emerges in chs. 1–2. The Son’s heavenly ascent is implied in 1:6, with the declaration that he has been “led [εἰσάγω] into the heavenly realm [οἰκουμένη].”5 The hortatory foil to the Son’s ascent emerges in 2:10, as Jesus’ obedient endurance of suffering and “pioneering” (ἀρχηγός) entry into the heavenly sanctuary is attributed with instrumental power to “lead [ἄγω] many children into glory.” Despite their near ubiquity and obvious rhetorical significance, these assertions of the community’s present ability to access and enter the heavenly throne room have been all too often misinterpreted, underestimated, or totally ignored. They have been most commonly construed as an elaborate metaphor for prayer or worship, 6 and a significant number of scholars have even argued that they represent “drawing near, but not actually entering” the heavenly sanctuary.7 While prayer and worship were in all likelihood instrumental in the attainment of this communal mystical achievement, the context and content of the access and entry texts indicate that an extraordinary experience was expected, one exceeding the conventionally ascribed bounds of prayer and worship. 8 These 5 That οἰκουμένη in 1:6 refers to the heavenly realm has been conclusively established by David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 53–118. See also Albert Vanhoye, “L’οἰκουμένη dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” Bib 45 (1964): 248–53. 6 See Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser (WUNT 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 97; John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 11; Hermut Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 73; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 253; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 329; Craig R. Koester, “God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to Hebrews,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology (ed. Jan G. van der Watt; NovTSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 361–87, here 372; James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 105. 7 So Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 11, 144–45, 149, 201; Marie Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 219; Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde, 269; David A. deSilva, “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews,” TJ 21 (2000): 25–43, here 28; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 337; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews (NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 131. 8 As Jody A. Barnard (The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews [WUNT 2/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], 186) notes in this regard, “mystical experience of the divine is typically preceded, initiated, sustained and expressed through prayer and worship.”

46

Scott D. Mackie

access and entry texts are in fact essential to the author’s hortatory effort and therefore must represent a real and substantial access to the heavenly realm and God’s enthroned presence.9 At least seven factors, drawn from throughout Hebrews, serve to substantiate this claim: (1) The community’s actual presence in the heavenly sanctuary represents the irrefutable proof and climax of the author’s comparative critique of the tabernacle/temple cultus. The exhortation to enter the holy place in 10:19–23 constitutes the conclusion to a lengthy argument begun in 9:6. The impeded access frustrating the efficacy of the Levitical cult (9:6–11; 10:1–4) has been unfavorably contrasted with the efficacious entry of Christ (6:18–20; 7:19, 25; 9:12–14, 24; 10:11–14) and the open access he now provides. This access must qualitatively supersede that of the Jewish cultus (which once a year afforded entry into the holy of holies solely to the high priest), disallowing the possibility that the entry terminology refers metaphorically to prayer or worship. 10 Furthermore, an entirely “spiritualized” entry is no match for the vivid and tangible cultic experience of the participants in the tabernacle/temple cultus (9:1– 10, 18–21; 10:1–4). (2) The author’s calls to “boldly” enter the heavenly sanctuary (παρρησία, 4:16; 10:19), in “full confidence … without wavering” (πληροφορία, 10:22; ἀκλινής, 10:23), provide an exact rhetorical foil to his graphic depictions of disobedience, which repeatedly employ the language of movement to represent rebellious withdrawal from God: “drift away” (2:1); “flee away from” (2:3; 12:25); “turn away” (3:12); “fail to reach” (4:1; 12:15); “fall” (4:11); “fall away” (6:6); “neglecting to meet together” (10:25); “shrink back” (10:38); “turn away” (12:25); and “carried away” (13:9). In these many texts disobedience is figured as backwards, cowardly movement, while obedience comes to expression in the confident forward and upward movement of the community into the heavenly sanctuary. (3) It has been increasingly recognized that doctrinal elements are seamlessly interwoven by Hebrews into his hortatory effort.11 Thus the community’s entry into the heavenly sanctuary constitutes the expected hortatory complement to the “doctrinal” presentation of Jesus’ triumphal “passage through the 9 Gareth Lee Cockerill (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], 328, 472) characterizes the access and entry texts as reflecting “an experienced reality,” one that is absolutely “vital because life in God’s presence is the essence, means, and end” of the community’s “existence.” 10 So also Cockerill (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 327): “faithful believers have a direct access to God unexperienced even by the high priests before Christ.” 11 See my Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 19–20. I extend this mutual dependence of Christology and exhortation to include the community’s eschatological experiences in “Early Christian Eschatological Experience in the Warnings and Exhortations of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” TynBul 63 (2012): 93–114.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

47

heavens” and entry into the heavenly sanctuary, which is mentioned repeatedly and described in great detail throughout Hebrews (1:3–13; 2:9–10; 4:14; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11–12, 24; 10:12, 19–21; 12:2, 24). This link is first established in the Adam Christology of 2:5–10, in which Jesus’ paradigmatic passage from obedient suffering to exaltation is closely joined to the community’s vindicating entry into the same heavenly glory. This mimetic link is explicitly indicated by means of the recurring use of ἄγω terminology in chs. 1–2, which joins both Jesus’ entry (εἰσάγω, 1:6) and identity (ἀρχηγός: a compound of ἀρχή + ἄγω, 2:10), to the community’s own entry (ἄγω, 2:10). In 2:10, the connection between Jesus the ἀρχηγός and the community as those “being led” (ἄγω) is unmistakable and undoubtedly intentional, as these two words occur in close succession in the text: πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας. (4) The author’s high priest Christology is also structurally joined to a distinct hortatory program, though one ultimately issuing in the same end as the exaltation Christology. Inseparable from Hebrews’ high priest Christology – and providing experiential confirmation of its veracity – are the soteriological benefits of Jesus’ priestly self-sacrifice, which are primarily intended to facilitate access to God in the heavenly sanctuary. In 9:11, the author programmatically describes Christ as the “high priest of the good things that have come,” and those “good things” that the community has already experienced include atonement for sins, purification of an unclean conscience, sanctification, and perfection. Cultic soteriology pervades Hebrews. It traces its roots to 1:3 and 2:18, texts in which Jesus is said to have “made purification” and “atonement for the sins of the people,” and reaches its climax in 10:19–23, which is the most detailed entry exhortation in Hebrews. This latter text represents the rhetorical outcome and “happy ending” to a lengthy “history of access to God” that was begun in ch. 7, and in it the author recalls past instances of mystical encounter and transformation in order to evoke a decisively transformative encounter between God, the Son, and the community, during the reading of his “word of exhortation.” The crucial role of the sacrificial victim’s blood in the “history of access” carries over into 10:19–23, as the “blood” of Jesus is twice appealed to as affording confident entry (10:19, 22).12 (a) It is the blood of Jesus, that he himself carried into the holy place (9:12), “through the eternal Spirit” (9:14), that has brought “eternal redemption” (9:12) and “confidence to enter [εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον] the sanctuary … by the new and living way [ὁδός] that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh)” (10:19–20). (b) And like Moses’ sacral “sprinkling” (ῥαντίζω) of the blood of sacrificial animals (9:13, 19, 21) that 12 Forms of the term “blood” (αἷμα) occur twelve times in 9:12–14, 18–22, 25; 10:4. Heightening the rhetorical impact of this cluster of occurrences is the fact that the term appears just once before Heb 9, in 2:14.

48

Scott D. Mackie

“inaugurated” (ἐγκαινίζω) the “first covenant” (9:21), the “inauguration” (ἐγκαινίζω) of the “new and living way” into the most holy place (10:20) is available to those whose “hearts have been sprinkled [ῥαντίζω] clean from an evil conscience” (10:22). The community’s past experience of the psychological benefits of Jesus’ self-offering is therefore accorded an indispensable role in substantiating the extraordinary claim of their present access to the heavenly sanctuary, wherein they will actualize their membership in the “better,” “second,” “new,” and “eternal” covenant (7:22; 8:6–8, 13; 9:15; 12:24; 13:20). The effect of Jesus’ self-offering has presumably penetrated into the innermost depths of the community’s psyche, fundamentally transforming the very nature of their relationship with God. (5) The author’s deliberate transformation and repurposing of a number of motifs found in ancient Jewish visionary accounts of the heavenly throne room constitutes a fifth proof of mystical intent. These motifs include the throne of God, the temple veil, the glory of God, and participation in angelic worship. In ancient Jewish texts, like Isa 6, Ezek 1, 1 En. 14, T. Levi 2–3, and Qumran’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, these themes are almost always characterized as presenting obstacles to the presence of God and/or engendering fear and a sense of inadequacy on the part of the visionaries. The author of Hebrews, however, deliberately transforms these conceptions, and instead depicts them as encouraging, facilitating, and even ensuring access to a welcoming God in the heavenly sanctuary. Particularly relevant is the manner in which the ancient Jewish texts characterize God, as well as the psychological states and emotional responses of the visionaries. 13 That three of these four motifs figure prominently in the first two chapters of Hebrews indicates something of their overarching importance. Jesus’ superiority to the angels, their role as worshipers in the Son’s exaltation ceremony, and their presence in the lives of the community, are all recurring themes in chs. 1–2.14 This latter motif, which emerges in 1:13 (the angels are “ministering spirits, sent to serve those about to inherit salvation”), receives decisive shape in 12:22–24, where the angels are depicted as worshiping Jesus together with the community. This sharply contrasts with the most developed angelology in 13

These repurposed themes are examined in greater detail in my essay “Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations,” NTS 58 (2012): 88–104. 14 On angels in Heb 1–2, see Georg Gäbel, “Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karen Schöpflin; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 357–76. On angelic veneration and invocation in popular religious practice in the Greco-Roman world, see Rangar Cline, Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 172; Leiden: Brill, 2011).

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

49

Second Temple Judaism, Qumran’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400– 407; 11Q17). In these mystical texts, angels seem to assume and supplant the role typically played by God in ancient Jewish ascent accounts. In addition to providing the primary visual focus of these texts, angels serve to remind humanity of their sinful inadequacies and distance from the divine. The divine throne and God’s glory are similarly reconfigured in Heb 1–2. The divine throne, which causes Ezekiel to “fall on his face” (1:26, 28), and elicits from Isaiah the awe-struck exclamation, “Woe is me, for I am silenced! I am a human with unclean lips” (6:5), is a prominent accoutrement in the heavenly landscape of Heb 1. Furthermore, the ancient Jewish visionary portrayals of the throne, and the responses of visceral terror it evokes, stand in stark contrast to Hebrews’ “throne of grace” (4:16), and the bold and confident approach to that throne which constitutes the heart of his hortatory effort. That Jesus, the sympathetic elder brother of the community, is seated on the heavenly throne (1:3, 8, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), would further increase the likelihood that the community obeyed the author’s exhortation to “approach” that throne “with boldness” (4:16). The glory of God has also been transformed, from an overwhelmingly radiant and repelling manifestation of God’s “otherness” (Isa 6; Ezek 1:26–28; 1 En. 14; T. Levi 2), to the vindicating reward and status that has been conferred upon Jesus (2:5–10). Moreover, the Son, who perfectly radiates and reflects his Father’s brilliant majesty (1:3), is leading the community into that same reward (2:10). We can be certain that the author’s transformation of these motifs was deliberate, given their prominence in passages promoting his primary hortatory goal, the community’s entry into the heavenly sanctuary and participation in the Son’s enthronement ceremony (2:10–13; 4:14–16; 10:19–23; 12:22–24). We may also speculate that this thorough revision of the traditional contents and occupants of the heavenly throne room was necessitated by the author’s awareness of the extraordinary nature of his “theology of access” and entry exhortations. Undoubtedly the community would have shared this conviction; however, if they were sufficiently attentive to these particular details of Hebrews’ hortatory effort they would have experienced an appreciable diminishment of their doubts and fears. (6) In 12:22–24 the community’s entry is depicted as an accomplished fact: they “have come” (προσέρχομαι in the perfect tense) to “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,” and are thus presently part of a “joyous gathering” of angels, the righteous dead, and God and his Son. 15 This declaration triumphantly confirms the offers of access issued earlier (2:5–13; 4:14–16; 10:19–23; 12:22–24) and signals the author’s confidence in the 15 Robert Jewett (Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [New York, N.Y.: Pilgrim, 1981], 223) contends that 12:22 offers “one of the most dramatic and radical statements of realized eschatology in the New Testament.”

50

Scott D. Mackie

success of his exhortation: the “church of the firstborn” is truly present in the heavenly sanctuary, and they are joined there by an “innumerable company of angels” voicing praise. (7) Perhaps the most significant piece of evidence, as I have argued at length elsewhere, is that these entry exhortations are essential to the author’s ultimate hortatory goal: the community’s participation in the Son’s exaltation, which culminates in their adoption into the family of God.16 Figuring prominently within the dramatic enactment of the Son’s exaltation are mutual confessions of familial relatedness exchanged between the Father (1:5) and the Son (2:12–13). The presence of the community in this drama is implied by the manner in which the Father and Son’s declarations are presented. After the Father directly addresses the exalted Son in 1:5: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” he speaks of the Son in the third person: “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son.” The Son’s response, dramatically enacted in 2:12–13, follows the same pattern: “I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you … I will put my trust in him … I am with the children whom God has given me.” In both passages, the speeches of the dramatis personae shift from second person to third person address, a shift strongly inferring the community’s presence in the heavenly sanctuary, as participants in the drama and the objects of divine address.17 Their presence also may be explicitly indicated by the final statement of 2:13: “Behold! I am with the children whom God has given me.” The author’s hortatory goal would then be reached in the community’s confession of Jesus as the Son of God, which is realized as they “draw near” and enter the heavenly sanctuary (4:14–16; 10:19–23). This confession is reciprocative in nature, responding to Jesus’ conferral of family membership in 2:12–13, and thereby actualizing their adoption into the family of God. In “saying the same things” (ὁμο–λογία) that God (1:5) and the Son (2:12–13) have said, the community will find their true and enduring identity. As to the metaphysical nature of the “drawing near” experience, there is some ambiguity. Though it may have entailed a heavenly ascent (as in 1 Enoch, T. Levi, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 4Q491, and the Hekhalot literature), a manifestation of the heavenly sanctuary in the midst of the community is equally likely (cf. Isa 6). Hebrews depicts Jesus’ exaltation as involving an ascent “through the heavens” (4:14; cf. also 1:6; 7:26) and “into heaven itself”

16

Eschatology and Exhortation, 216–30; “Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 114–29; “Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews,” JSNT 30 (2008): 437–53. 17 That the two passages are each composed of two separate LXX quotations further increases the likelihood that the shift from second to third person was deliberate. Hebrews 1:5 draws upon Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14, while Heb 2:12–13 quotes Ps 22:22 (Ps 21:22 LXX) and Isa 8:17–18.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

51

(9:24). He is also depicted as “leading [ἄγω] many children” into the same “glory” he possesses (2:10). That the two key entry exhortations, 4:14–16 and 10:19–23, both commend an act of entry that follows and imitates Jesus’ own heavenly ascent is surely significant. However, a manifestation of the heavenly sanctuary on earth is also possible. In the author’s account of the community’s divine adoption, Jesus announces that he is “in the midst of the congregation” (ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας) and present “with the children whom God has given me” (2:12–13). This passage appears to either document or evoke a “Christophanic” manifestation in the midst of the community. 18 Ultimately, we are lacking any clear indications of praxis. Nevertheless, the heightened emotional tenor, crucial hortatory importance, and extraordinary theological content of the access and entry texts (2:9–13; 4:14–16; 10:19–23; 12:22–24) allow us to be reasonably certain of some sort of mystical function. A liminal border crossing, from the mundane to the supramundane, from the earthly gathering into the very presence of God and his Son in the heavenly sanctuary, undoubtedly represents the author’s intention in these texts.

Mystical Visuality in the Heavenly Sanctuary The author of Hebrews is convinced that God may be seen by those “living holy lives” (12:14; cf. Matt 5:8). He also repeatedly expresses the conviction that Jesus would appear epiphanically to the community during the reading of his “word of exhortation.” This latter conviction is expressed by explicit commands to “look at/gaze upon” the exalted Jesus (3:1; 12:2), as well as repeated observations that he is “now” visible (2:9, 12–13; 9:24, 26). Equally significant is the author’s attribution of Moses’ “endurance” in faith to his vision of the “invisible God” (11:27). This aspect of his portrayal of Israel’s “king, lawgiver, high priest, and prophet” (Philo, Mos. 2.292) appears to be “custom-cut” for the community’s situation. Given their experience of suffering, which was threatening their commitment, the author wants them to “see” into the heavenly future, past their earthly present – and nearly engulfing – experience of suffering. A vision of Jesus’ victory over suffering, conquest of death, and glorious exaltation would confirm beyond all doubt that their suffering would also ultimately result in vindication, if they endure like Moses.

18 Both interpretive choices preclude the possibility that the heavenly sanctuary was merely metaphorical in nature. A literal understanding of the heavenly sanctuary has recently been defended by Eric F. Mason, “‘Sit at My Right Hand’: Enthronement and the Heavenly Sanctuary in Hebrews,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (ed. Eric F. Mason et al.; 2 vols.; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2:901–16, esp. 910–12.

52

Scott D. Mackie

In this regard, Hebrews is firmly situated within a vast stream of visually oriented, ancient Mediterranean mystical traditions. 19 In ancient Jewish texts and traditions, seeing God is often figured as the preeminent mystical experience, one that not only decisively shapes and transforms the recipient’s identity but also authorizes and empowers their mission (Gen 16–18; 32; Exod 3–4; 19; 24; 33–34; Judg 6; 13; 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6; Ezek 1; 1 En. 12–14; T. Levi 2–5).20 Epiphanies are also attested throughout the literary and material remains of ancient Greece and Rome, where they are often depicted as foundational cultic and political events, occurring unexpectedly and accompanied by supernatural phenomena (Herodotus 2.91; 6.105–106, 117; 8.38; Cicero, Nat. d. 2.6, 166; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.68.2; 6.13.1–5; Pausanias 5.5.4; 6.22.8; 6.26; 7.18.12, 7.24–25; 8.37.9; 9.38.4).21 Epiphanies are also associated with cultic worship, particularly the mysteries (Apuleius, Metam. 11.23; Diodorus Siculus 5.49.5; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 9.7; Aelius Aristides, Or. 40.12– 13). In fact, Dionysus – whose cult was arguably the most popular in the Mediterranean region ca. first century C. E. – is commonly characterized as “the 19

That the author of Hebrews should be considered an apocalyptic visionary has been convincingly demonstrated by Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews. His contention that the author was a recipient of mystical visions of Jesus as an exalted high priest is particularly persuasive (156–57, 169–216, 270–75). 20 The Old Testament contains disparate testimonies concerning God’s visibility. An apt comparison may be made between Gen 32:30, where Jacob asserts, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved,” and Exod 33:20, in which Yahweh tells Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” 21 Fritz Graf (“Epiphany,” in Brill’s New Pauly: Antiquity [ed. Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider; Leiden: Brill 2004], 4.1122–1223, here 1222) defines epiphany as “the manifestation of a deity in a spontaneous vision, or during an actual ritual process, as well as in stories; such appearances are the essence of superhuman beings.” A mid-second century C. E. inscription from Ephesus declares that many “shrines, sanctuaries, temples, and altars” had been built for Artemis “because of the visible manifestations [ἐπιφανείας] effected by her” (see G. H. R. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979, vol. 4 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 74–75). A contemporary inscription from Miletus contains the claim that “the gods are appearing in visitations as never before, to the girls and women, but also to men and children” (quoted in Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians [New York, N.Y.: Knopf, 1987], 102). H. S. Versnal (Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology [Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 173; Leiden: Brill, 2011], 128) asserts: “In Hellenistic and particularly Imperial times seeing gods and receiving instructions from gods assumed epidemic proportions.” See also Versnal, “What Did Ancient Man See When He Saw a God? Some Reflections on Greco-Roman Epiphany,” in Effigies Dei: Essays on the History of Religions (ed. Dirk van der Plas; Studies in the History of Religions 51; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 42–55. The definitive treatment of Greco-Roman epiphanies is now Verity J. Platt, Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature, and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); see in particular 147–69, where she discusses a number of epigraphic testimonies of epiphanies.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

53

most manifest god” (cf. Ovid, Metam. 3.658–659; Euripides, Bacch. 22, 42, 50–54; Diodorus Siculus 4.3.2; Horace, Odes 2.19.1–4).22 Also noteworthy is the fact that seeing the ultimate reality is valorized by Plato (Symp. 210a–212a; Phaedr. 246a–251b),23 and in the Platonic tradition, as evidenced in the works of Philo of Alexandria (a near contemporary of Hebrews and fellow Jewish Alexandrian), who considers seeing God the “beginning and end of human happiness” (QE 2.51), and the “most precious of all possessions” (Legat. 4).24 Given the evidence, then, it is fair to assert that “sight is … paramount within” the Greek and Roman “vocabulary of divine presence.” 25 Visual encounters with the resurrected and exalted Jesus are considered by some to have been prevalent in the early church, and decisive in the formation of both early Christology and Christian identity (cf. Luke 24:13–49; John 20–21; Acts 7:55–60; 9:3–6, 10–19, 27; 18:9–10; 22:6–21; 23:11; 26:12–18; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:5–8; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4–6; 12:1–12; Gal 1:12–16; Rev 5). Larry W. Hurtado believes that visions of Jesus “seem to have formed a regular part of Christian worship gatherings in the first century especially,” and of the religious experiences that influenced early Christian Christological belief and

22 Richard Seaford, Dionysos (Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World; London: Routledge, 2006), 39. As Walter Burkert (Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985], 162) notes: “Dionysus is of his very essence the epiphany god.” See also Albert Henrichs, “‘He Has a God in Him’: Human and Divine in the Modern Perception of Dionysus,” in Masks of Dionysus (ed. Thomas H. Carpenter and Christopher A. Faraone; Myth and Poetics; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993), 13–43, esp. 13–22. Susanne Moraw (“Visual Differences: Dionysos in Ancient Art,” in A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism [ed. Renate Schlesier; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011], 233–52, esp. 239–43) assesses the vast material testimony to Dionysus’ epiphanic presence among his human worshipers. She contends that Dionysus’ popularity is in fact attributable to his propensity for epiphany and willingness to “allow mortals to enter the divine sphere” (243). 23 See Andrea Wilson Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Cf. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson; London: SCM Press, 1962), 187: “From the beginning onwards the tradition of philosophy has been oriented primarily towards ‘seeing’ as a way of access to beings and to being.” 24 See my essays “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” SPhA 21 (2009): 25–47; “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: Means, Methods, and Mysticism,” JSJ 43 (2012): 147–79; “The Passion of Eve and the Ecstasy of Hannah: Sense Perception, Passion, Mysticism, and Misogyny in Philo of Alexandria, De ebrietate 143–52,” JBL 133 (2014): 141–63. 25 Verity Platt, “Sight and the Gods: on the Desire to see Naked Nymphs,” in Sight and the Ancient Senses (ed. Michael Squire; The Senses in Antiquity; London: Routledge, 2016), 161–79, here 170.

54

Scott D. Mackie

worship, such visions “were surely among the most powerful in effect.” 26 Andrew Chester further insists, It is above all, seeing Jesus transformed and embodying the divine Glory, and as set alongside God on the divine throne in the heavenly world, that allows a ‘Christology of exaltation’ to develop so rapidly. It is these visions of Jesus transformed that are a formative factor for New Testament Christology.

Although the Jewish Scriptures “authenticate, explicate, and justify” these visually based convictions,27 it is nevertheless “possible to argue a case for high Christology as emanating simply and solely from such post-resurrection visions” of Jesus.28 The influence of these visions extended beyond belief and practice, as Paul accords them a transformative potential in 2 Cor 3:18: “And we all, with unveiled faces, beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed [μεταμορφόω] into the same image from glory to glory, even as the Lord, the Spirit.”29 With regard to the formation of a distinctive Christian identity, in instigating and authorizing the early church’s “binitarian” worship of Jesus and God, these visions occasioned the church’s mutation of

26

Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (2d ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 121–22. See also idem, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 70–74, 588–94; idem, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 193–95, 197, 199–203; idem, “Revelatory Experiences and Religious Innovation in Earliest Christianity,” ExpTim 125 (2014): 469–82. April D. DeConick (“Jesus Revealed: The Dynamics of Early Christian Mysticism,” in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism: In Honor of Rachel Elior [ed. Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov; Ekstasis 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011], 299–324, here 305) characterizes early Christian mystical experiences as “ongoing, and participatory. … But first and foremost, they were visionary.” The “apostolic closure” of visions of Jesus described by Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 (“Last of all … he was seen by me also”), and Luke in Acts 1:1–11, has commonly been interpreted as normative for the entire early church, and even ascribed canonical status, despite the occurrence of post-ascension visions of Jesus to Stephen (Acts 7:55–60), Ananias (Acts 9:10–19), Paul (Acts 18:9–10; 22:17–21; 23:11), and the author of Revelation (passim). A representative example of the failure to adequately account for these post-ascension visions can be found in Daniel Kendal and Gerard O’Collins, “The Uniqueness of the Easter Appearances,” CBQ 54 (1992): 287–307. 27 Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT 207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 105; see also 80–105, 119–21. 28 Andrew Chester, “High Christology – Whence, When and Why?,” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 22–50, here 49. 29 On this text, see Jane M. F. Heath, Paul’s Visual Piety: The Metamorphosis of the Beholder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 215–25.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

55

and eventual departure from the exclusive monotheistic belief and praxis of first century Judaism. 30 Such an emphasis on seeing the deity is appropriate, and perhaps even to be expected, given the “ocularcentric” perspective that pervaded the Mediterranean from ancient Greece through the Second Sophistic.31 This vision-centered perspective is readily apparent in a variety of contexts, including spectacles, pilgrimages, statues and monuments, tragedy (both performed and read), the philosophic valorization of sight (in the sensorium, epistemology, and noetic contemplation), the foundational role of epiphanies in religious traditions and the preeminence of seeing God in mystical belief and praxis, as well as the elaborate theorizations that informed belief in the power of the gaze and the threat of the evil eye. 32 Succinct expressions of the priority and preeminence of sight appear across a spectrum of sources, including philosophy (Plato, Phaedr. 250d: sight is the “clearest” and “sharpest of the physical senses”), history (Herodotus 1.8: “Humans trust their eyes more than their ears”), and 30 So Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 99–124; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 27–78, 134–53; 649–53; Hurtado, How on Earth, 179–204. 31 Harriet I. Flower (“Spectacle and Political Culture in the Roman Republic,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic [ed. Harriet I. Flower; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 322–43, here 322) notably characterizes the Romans of the Republican era as “above all a visual culture, a culture of seeing and being seen.” Jaś Elsner (Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450 [Oxford History of Art; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998], 11) similarly describes Imperial Rome as a “visual culture,” one “which theorized the visual more intensely than at any other time in antiquity.” 32 On spectacle, see Carlin A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993). On pilgrimage, see the essays in Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman & Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods (ed. Jaś Elsner and Ian Rutherford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). On statuary, see Graham Zanker, Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004). On statues and monuments, see Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988). On tragedy, see Colleen Chaston, Tragic Props and Cognitive Function: Aspects of the Function of Images in Thinking (Mnemosyne Supplements 317; Leiden: Brill, 2010); and the essays in Visualizing the Tragic: Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature: Essays in Honour of Froma Zeitlin (ed. Chris Kraus, Simon Goldhill, Helene P. Foley, and Jaś Elsner; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). On theories of vision and epistemology, see David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1976). On the prioritization of sight in contemplative philosophy, see Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth. On epiphanies, see Platt, Facing the Gods. On the gaze, see Helen Lovatt, The Epic Gaze: Vision, Gender and Narrative in Ancient Epic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Shadi Bartsch, The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, SelfKnowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2006); and the essays in David Fredrick, ed., The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).

56

Scott D. Mackie

Second Temple Jewish literature (Philo, Abr. 57, 150: sight is “the most excellent of all the senses,” and “the queen of the other senses”). 33 The privileging of vision also extended into the literary and rhetorical realm, influencing not only the production of texts and speeches, but also affecting their reception by readers and hearers. For example, Ann Vasaly asserts that “assumptions by ancient rhetoricians about the way vivid descriptions worked in the minds of an audience suggest that ancient, nonliterate society may well have possessed powers of pictorial visualization much greater and more intense that our own.”34 Ruth Webb similarly suggests that “things were different in the ancient world and that ancient audiences were more consciously attuned to visual effects and did ‘see’ the subject of poems and speeches in their mind’s eye.”35 The wealth of evidence supporting this valorization of sight, essential ocularcentric perspective, and conviction of the metaphysical potential of the written and spoken word, might lead us to speculate that in comparison to the visually saturated world and satiated eyes of modern humans (e.g., television, cinema, media, internet), ancient Mediterraneans were visually starved and experienced the world through “hungry eyes.”36 Ekphrasis Ancient orators and writers fed these “hungry eyes” with a number of visually oriented rhetorical techniques, most notably ekphrasis and enargeia. An ekphrasis (ἔκφρασις), according to Graham Zanker, is a “vividly pictorial literary 33 In comparison with the attention that has been lavished on vision and visuality by scholars of Greco-Roman history, philosophy, and literature, studies of ancient Judaism and early Christianity have hitherto operated with an almost complete disregard for the visual orientation that permeated the ancient Mediterranean. Noteworthy exceptions include Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Paul in Critical Contexts; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2010); Rachel Neis, The Sense of Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish Ways of Seeing in Late Antiquity (Greek Culture in the Roman World; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Heath, Paul’s Visual Piety; and Robyn J. Whitaker, Ekphrasis, Vision, and Persuasion in the Book of Revelation (WUNT 2/410; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 34 Ann Vasaly, Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993), 99. 35 Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 24. 36 On the “devouring gaze” (tovus oculus) in ancient Roman society, see Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans, 85–106. Helen Morales (Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon [Cambridge Classical Studies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 10) characterizes the milieu in which Leucippe and Clitophon was written and first read (Alexandria, ca. 150 C.E.) as “supremely spectacular” and “visually voracious.”

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

57

description” which offers “the ocular presentation in literature of any phenomenon in nature and culture.”37 In evoking the vividness of vision, an ekphrasis has the potential to turn hearing into seeing, and to transform listeners into spectators as it brings an otherwise absent subject almost palpably before the senses. The second century C. E. rhetorician Hermogenes of Tarsus defines ekphrasis at length: Ekphrasis is a descriptive account; it is visible – so to speak – and brings before the eyes the sight which is to be shown. Ekphrases are of people, actions, times, places, seasons, and many other things.… If we describe places or seasons or people, we will present the subject through a description and an account that is beautiful or excellent or unexpected. The special virtues of ekphrasis are clarity [σαφήνεια] and visibility [ἐνάργεια]; the style should contrive to bring about seeing through hearing. (Prog. 10)38

The importance of ekphrasis in ancient rhetoric and writing is evident in the fact that all the extant Progymnasmata (rhetorical handbooks of “preliminary exercises”) contain sections dedicated to describing and prescribing its use. 39 Visually oriented rhetorical practices are also defined and developed by a number of Greco-Roman orators and authors, including Cicero (De. or. 3.202; Part. or. 6.20), Quintilian (Inst. 6.2.29–33; 8.3.61–90; 9.1.27; 9.2.40–44), Ps.-Longinus ([Subl.] 15.1–12), Demetrius (On Style 209–220), and Rhet. Her. 4.55.40 37

Zanker, Modes of Viewing, 6–7. The most famous ekphrases are the Homeric description of Achilles’ shield (Il. 18.477–617) and Ps.-Hesiod’s Shield. 38 Quoted in Jaś Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity (Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 25. See also George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (SBLWGRW 10; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 86. 39 Cf. Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 42: “As exercises, the Progymnasmata were a keystone of the education process of the elite, marking the transition from grammar to rhetoric and presenting the student with a set of literary, linguistic and ethical concepts at a formative stage in his career.” 40 On Cicero, see Vasaly, Representations, 89–104, 128–30. On Quintilian, who offers the most detailed ancient account of visually oriented rhetoric, see Bernard F. Scholz, “‘Sub Oculos Subiectio’: Quintilian on Ekphrasis and Enargeia,” in Pictures into Words: Theoretical and Descriptive Approaches to Ekphrasis (ed. Valerie Robillard and Els Jongeneel; Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1998), 73–99; Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 87–130. Appeals to the senses were considered essential to effective rhetorical and literary practice. Werner H. Kelber (“Modalities of Communication, Cognition, and Physiology of Perception: Orality, Rhetoric, and Scribality,” Semeia 65 [1994]: 193–216, here 201–2) notes that one of “rhetoric’s principal missions” was to “discover and cultivate” the “sensory potential of words.” An orator was therefore “always expected to engage the human sensorium and to play the sensory register in the interest of persuasion.” Cf. Cicero’s discussion of “brilliant/evident oratory” (illustris oratio) in Part. or. 6.20: “it is this aspect of oratory which almost sets the facts before our eyes [ante oculos], since it is the sense of sight that is most commonly appealed to, although it is possible for the rest of the senses and also particularly the mind itself to be affected.”

58

Scott D. Mackie

It should come as no surprise then, that ekphrasis has generated a significant body of contemporary scholarship; in fact, Froma I. Zeitlin insists that “it would not be hyperbole to suggest that no other rhetorical term has aroused such interest in recent years among classicists and non-classicists alike.”41 Enargeia Enargeia, “vividness,” “clarity,” is similarly a literary/rhetorical technical term, used to describe “the power to bring an event before the eyes of an audience as if they were there themselves.”42 Dionysius of Halicarnassus offers what is perhaps the fullest definition of enargeia: Vividness [ἐνάργεια] is a quality which the style of Lysias has in abundance. This consists in a certain power he has of conveying the things he is describing to the senses of his audience, and it arises out of his grasp of circumstantial detail. Nobody who applies his mind to the speeches of Lysias will be so obtuse, insensitive or slow-witted that he will not feel that he can see the actions which are being described going on [ὃς οὐχ ὑπολήψεται γινόμενα τὰ δηλούμενα ὁρᾶν] and that he is meeting [παροῦσιν] face-to-face the characters in the orator’s story. (Lys. 7, LCL)

Enargeia is a “far more flexible” term than ekphrasis, as a “narrative could be full” of instances of enargeia “without being what the rhetors called an ekphrasis.”43 In fact, all the extant Progymnasmata assert that the primary quality, or virtue, of ekphrasis is enargeia (Theon, Prog. 11; Hermogenes, Prog. 10; Aphthonius, Prog. 12; Nicolaus, Prog. 11).44 It is therefore the essential “quality

41

Froma I. Zeitlin, “Figure: Ekphrasis,” Greece & Rome 60 (2013): 17–31, here 17. In addition to the aforementioned works by Vasaly, Morales, Bartsch, and Webb, noteworthy treatments of ekphrasis include Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer; Elsner, Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007); Simon Goldhill, “The Naive and Knowing Eye: Ecphrasis and the Culture of Viewing in the Hellenistic World,” in Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture (ed. Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne; Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 197–223, 304–09; Goldhill, “The Erotic Eye: Visual Stimulation and Cultural Conflict,” in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (ed. Simon Goldhill; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 154–94; Goldhill, “What Is Ekphrasis For?,” Classical Philology 102 (2007): 1–19; Philip Hardie, Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Though attempts have been made to restrict the use of the term to literary descriptions of works of art, no such restrictions are found in any ancient Greco-Roman rhetorical texts, as Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 28–38) conclusively demonstrates. 42 Chris Kraus, Simon Goldhill, Helene P. Foley, and Jaś Elsner, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Visualizing the Tragic, 1–15, here 7. 43 Zanker, Modes of Viewing, 172. 44 Cf. Zanker, Modes of Viewing, 25, 174; Zanker, “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 124 (1981): 297–311, here 298, 300.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

59

that makes an ekphrasis an ekphrasis,”45 and Zanker is not overstating the case when he asserts that “the concept of ἐνάργεια is central to all ancient theory on pictorial vividness in literature.”46 The term also possesses an impressive pedigree. It was used as a technical term in the epistemology of Epicurus (Diogenes Laertius 10.33, 48, 52), who in turn probably had borrowed it from ancient Greek epiphany accounts.47 From the Epicureans the term made its way into the Stoic vocabulary, where it was used in both epistemology (Cicero, Acad. 2.17; Plutarch, Mor. 1083c; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 7.257)48 and in a proof for the existence of the gods (Antipater of Tarsus, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 38).49 Enargeia later found employment in forensic contexts, bringing otherwise absent evidence into the courtroom and transforming both judge and jury into eyewitnesses (Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.62; cf. 6.2.31, 34–35; Cicero, Inv. 1.104, 107).50 It also wended its way into Hellenistic literary criticism, functioning as the “verbal counterpart to the sensory reception of clear and striking images.” 51 The Emotional Power and Psychological Mechanics of Ekphrasis and Enargeia When deployed in a narrative, ekphrasis and enargeia were seen as particularly persuasive, since they are able to “reach beyond the listener’s intellect to their emotions by involving them in the scene evoked.”52 Webb in fact contends that “this combination of a feeling of presence and the arousal of the appropriate

45

Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 107. Zanker, “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” 304. 47 Cf. Zanker, “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” 308–310. Epicurus uses the related term ἐναργής to denote incontrovertible “clear evidence,” as presented to the senses (particularly sight) by a real object. Cf. also his assertion that “truly the gods exist and the knowledge of them is vividly manifest” (ἐναργής, Diogenes Laertius 10.123). In Homeric epiphany accounts ἐναργής denotes the clarity of the divine appearance (cf. Il. 20.131; Od. 7.201; 16.161). 48 According to these sources, the Stoics commonly used the term to describe a true impression emanating from a “real object,” one “clearly evident” and worthy of assent. 49 See Zanker, “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” 309. 50 Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 90) notes that when used in legal contexts, “enargeia attempts to achieve the unattainable ideal of a judge who has witnessed the crime and thus can reach a decision that is certain and not subject to the vagaries of interpretation and probability.” 51 Vasaly, Representations, 94. Cf. Zanker, “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” 309. 52 Liz James and Ruth Webb, “‘To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places’: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium,” Art History 14 (March 1991): 1–17, here 7. 46

60

Scott D. Mackie

emotions is the key to the rhetorical function of ekphrasis.” 53 The power of ekphrasis and enargeia to transport hearers/readers and emotionally involve them in the scene being described is noted by a number of ancient authors. Indeed, Quintilian claims that the orator skilled in visually oriented rhetoric “will have the greatest power over the emotions” (Inst. 6.2.30; cf. also 6.2.32, 35–36; 9.1.27), and Plutarch describes Thucydides as always striving for vividness [ἐνάργεια] in his prose, since it is his desire to make the reader a quasi-spectator [οἷον θεατὴν ποιῆσαι τὸν ἀκροατήν], and to produce in the minds of those who read his narrative the vivid emotions of amazement and confusion that were experienced by those who originally saw them. (Mor. 347a)54

Plutarch similarly characterizes Xenophon as possessing the ability to transform the “reader” into a “fellow-participant in the emotions and dangers of the struggle, as though it belonged to the present, and not the past” (Art. 8.1). Taking this a significant step further are Ps.-Longinus, who contends “rhetorical visualization” (ῥητορικὴ φαντασία) possesses the ability to “enslave” (δουλόω) audiences ([Subl.] 15.9), and Quintilian, who asserts enargeia may “penetrate” the audiences’ emotions (in adfectus penetrare) and “fully dominate” (plene dominatur) them (Inst. 8.3.62, 67).55 Not surprisingly, the “attainment of such effects” is valorized by Quintilian, who characterizes them as “the highest of all oratorical gifts” (8.3.71). 56 A number of recent works have attempted to chart the psychological and metaphysical mechanics involved in the practice and phenomenon of ekphrasis and enargeia. Essential to the process is the evocation of a phantasia (φαντασία), a “visual sense impression,” “appearance,” or “representational image,” which is stored in the memory of both the orator and his/her audience. Rhetorical employment of this conceptuality traces its origins to Stoic epistemology and linguistic theory, wherein phantasia addresses and elicits both

53

Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 90. Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 99) even asserts that “the mental image itself is almost superfluous. Its function is to arouse the desired feeling in the listener.” 54 The “confusion” in this instance is appropriate to the Thucydidean battle scene Plutarch is considering, contra Goldhill (“What Is Ekphrasis For?,” 5–6), who cites this text as evidence of the power of ekphrases to “conceal facts” and violently manipulate an audience. 55 On the emotional power of ekphrasis and enargeia, see Ruth Webb, “Imagination and the Arousal of the Emotions in Greco-Roman Rhetoric,” in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature (ed. Susanna Morton Braund and Christopher Gill; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 112–27; Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 88–90, 94, 98–100, 104, 160–63, 193, 195. 56 Goldhill (“What Is Ekphrasis For?,” 3) notes that ekphrasis “is one of the orator’s most important weapons of persuasion.”

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

61

perceptual and conceptual capacities. 57 In Stoic epistemology a phantasia denotes an “impression,” derived from the senses or any other faculty of awareness, which possesses varying degrees of reliability. 58 According to Epictetus, the philosopher’s “greatest and primary function” involves “testing and discriminating between impressions” (φαντασίαι), and accepting only those that have been tested (Diatr. 1.20.7).59 A true impression, one worthy of assent, is a καταληπτικὴ φαντασία, a “cognitive impression,” with which one can “grasp” something real.60 A “cognitive impression” is (1) actual, since it derives from an object which really exists; (2) is in conformity with that object, both imprinted and stamped in accordance with the object, and stamping and imprinting itself, like a seal, on the soul/mind of the percipient; (3) and could not be the same if it derived from a non-existent object (Cicero, Acad. 2.18, 77; Diogenes Laertius 7.46, 50; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 7.249–252).61 It will 57 In his discussion of rhetorical appropriation of the Stoic concept of phantasia, Goldhill (“The Erotic Eye,” 179) observes that the philosophical terminology of the Stoics functioned as the “most evident lingua franca” of the first and second centuries C. E. 58 Forms of the term are used by both Plato (Theaet. 152c; Soph. 260c–e, 264a; Resp. 382e) and Aristotle (De an. 3.3 427b15–429a9), where it operates within their largely pessimistic epistemologies. The prominent place of phantasia within the more optimistic epistemology of the Stoics constitutes the basis of the term’s rhetorical appropriation. On the history and development of the term, see Gerard Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought (Galway: Galway University Press, 1988); Watson, “The Concept of ‘Phantasia’ from the Late Hellenistic Period to Early Neoplatonism,” ANRW 2.36.7 (1994): 4765–4810. On phantasia in Stoicism, see Diogenes Laertius 7.49–51, and the admission made by Sextus Empiricus, Math. 7.241: “The Stoic theory of φαντασία is hard to define.” See also A. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 133, 214; Long, Stoic Studies (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996), 265–75; Anna-Maria Ioppolo, “Presentation and Assent: A Physical and Cognitive Problem in Early Stoicism,” Classical Quarterly 40 (1990): 433–49. 59 On the “correct use of impressions” in Epictetus, see Long, Stoic Studies, 275–85. On the Stoic “psychology of action,” which is of crucial importance to their ethical program, see Brad Inwood, Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 42–101. Heath (Paul’s Visual Piety, 77–79) discusses the therapeutic task of “educating” visual practices. 60 R. J. Hankinson (“Stoic Epistemology,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics [ed. Brad Inwood; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 59–84, here 60) makes an important distinction: “It is not the impression which we can grasp, but rather the impression with which we can grasp.” 61 A. A. Long (Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics [2d ed.; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1986], 127) discusses the nature of this “grasping”: it is metaphorical in that we do not physically take hold of the object prompting the impression. Nevertheless, a καταληπτικὴ φαντασία is an impression that guarantees “there is some actual object which corresponds to itself.” The process by which knowledge is acquired is akin to a hand gradually tightening its grip around an object: first an impression presents itself to the senses, assent is then given to it, followed by comprehension, or cognition (κατάληψις), and then, finally, knowledge (cf. Cicero, Acad. 2.145). Michael Frede (“Stoic

62

Scott D. Mackie

also cohere in some way with the memory’s “treasury of impressions” (θησαυρισμὸς φαντασιῶν, Sextus Empiricus, Math. 7.373; cf. also Cicero, Tusc. 1.61; Philo, Deus 42–43; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.7–8; Plutarch, Mor. 1085a–b; Aëtius 4.11.1–4 [SVF 2:83]; Seneca, Ep. 120). Phantasia was also integral to Stoic linguistic theory, as it was accorded a foundational role in thought and the production of speech: “for the impression/presentation [φαντασία] comes first, and then thought [διάνοια] – which has the power of talking – expresses in language what it experiences by the agency of the impression/presentation” (Diogenes Laertius 7.49). 62 The metaphysics underlying these epistemological and linguistic conceptions were expanded in later rhetorical theory, where phantasiai were reputed to possess or convey an ideal quality and identity, akin to the Platonic Forms (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.19; Cicero, Or. 8–10; Seneca, Ep. 65.7; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.70–71).63 Thus the orator/writer who drew on a phantasia in the production of an ekphrasis and/or enargeia would hope and even expect that their hearers/readers should experience the very same phantasia as their ekphrasis/enargeia was read or heard.64 Epistemology,” in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy [ed. Keimpe Algra et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 295–322, here 302–3) notes that the “object which really exists” (τὸ ὑπάρχον) is not necessarily material in nature, but more fundamentally denotes a “fact.” 62 See Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 114. Aristotle also considered phantasiai integral to thought. Cf. Mem. rem. 449b31–450a1: “it is impossible even to think without mental images” (καὶ νοεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνευ φαντάσματος); and De an. 432a8–10: “for this reason no one could ever learn or understand anything without the exercise of perception. Even when we think speculatively, we must have some mental image [φαντάσματα] with which to think.” 63 Vit. Apoll. 6.19 is the locus classicus, with its assertion that phantasia grants the artist access to the noetic realm: unlike “mimesis,” which is “dependent upon what it sees, phantasia will represent that which cannot be seen, since it proceeds with existent reality as its basis” (ὑποθήσεται … πρὸς τὴν ἀναφορὰν τοῦ ὄντος). Discussions of this text are found in Platt, Facing the Gods, 320–29; Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer, 26–27; Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 62–93. Distinguishing Stoic and later rhetorical understandings of phantasia is the relation of the mental image to reality. Whereas the Stoics emphasized the “factual” and real connection of the “cognitive impression” (καταληπτικὴ φαντασία) with its generative source, in rhetorical contexts the relation of the image to reality was not relevant. This is especially evident in legal contexts, where the orator’s persuasive success would occasionally depend on “actually believing that the misfortunes of which we complain have happened to ourselves, and persuading our minds that this is truly the case” (Quintilian, Inst. 6.2.34; cf. 4.2.63–65; 8.3.70; 9.2.41). 64 On the reciprocal role of a phantasia in the production and reception of an ekphrasis, see Vasaly, Representations, 96–99, 102; Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer, 26–28, 37; Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 93–97, 110–14. With regard to Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.61–70, Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 93) notes: “he seems to assume that the orator’s imagination (the scene that appears to him …), its verbal expression

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

63

Ps.-Longinus’ discussion of rhetorical phantasia succinctly captures this dynamic of inspiration and mediation: “when, under the effects of inspiration and emotions, you seem to see what you are describing, and bring it vividly before the eyes of your audience.” Euripides’ description of the Furies, in Orestes, provides a flagship example of poetic phantasia functioning in this manner; in fact, Ps.-Longinus remarkably claims that Euripides was inspired by an actual vision of the Furies, and his text effectively mediates this same fantastic visual experience, “compelling the audience to almost see what he imagined” (ἐφαντάσθη, [Subl.] 15.2). Quintilian similarly characterizes a φαντασία as an “experience … whereby things absent are presented to our imaginations with such extreme vividness that we seem to see them with our eyes and to be in their presence” (Inst. 6.2.29). Moreover, the orator “who is really sensitive to such impressions will have the greatest power over the emotions,” and such a person is fairly characterized as an εὐφαντασίωτος, someone “most skilled in summoning up phantasiai” (6.2.30).65

Visually Oriented Rhetoric and Mystical Visuality in Hebrews 1–2 The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was by all appearances well-versed in these visually oriented rhetorical techniques. 66 Throughout his “word of and the image which ‘appears’ in the audience’s mind as a result of these words are both simultaneous and identical, and that this image can be equivalent to the direct perception of a thing.” Also quite remarkable is Elsner’s interpretation of the significance of phantasia in Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.19, in which Apollonius claims his interpretations of artworks are authorized and empowered by his grasp of the same phantasia that inspired the artist. In this instance, the phantasia impinges upon and affects three subjects: the artist, Apollonius the exegete, and the listener (Art and the Roman Viewer, 26–28). On the ideal and objective quality of phantasia, Elsner (Roman Eyes, 187) remarks: “What the listener ‘sees’ in ekphrasis is the vision which the orator himself ‘sees,’ … Despite the fact that this vision was subjective (it appeared only in the mind of speaker, listener, and artist), it was nevertheless objective in that it bore the stamp of truth: it was (in each case) the same vision.” 65 As Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 95) observes concerning this text: “effective enargeia in oratory … is the result of a controlled and conscious process of visualization.” Cf. also Aristotle, Poet. 17.1: when composing tragedy, a “poet” must “keep the scene before his eyes. Only by seeing these things most vividly, as if present at the actual event, will he find what is appropriate and detect contradictions.” 66 In 11:32 the author laments that “time will not permit” him to continue his “detailed description” (διηγέομαι) of the “heroes of faith.” According to Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 39), διηγέομαι was commonly used by authors to describe an ekphrasis. By contrast, use of the word ἔκφρασις “was mostly confined to the vocabulary of the classroom, the tools of the teacher’s trade, used to teach composition, and to dissect the works of the classical canon.” Hebrews’ familiarity with Greco-Roman literary techniques

64

Scott D. Mackie

exhortation,” this manifestly visual thinker and communicator deploys vivid ekphrases of his subject matter and “summons up phantasiai,” with the apparent intention of stirring the visual imaginations of the addressed Christian community and substantively involving them in the sacred drama being described. This pervasive visual orientation is perhaps nowhere more evident than in chs. 1–2.67 Hebrews 1:5–13 The first ekphrasis occurs in Heb 1:5–13, a passage which employs a chain of Old Testament quotations to describe the Son’s enthronement in the heavenly sanctuary.68 Though this dramatized representation of the Son’s exaltation occurs within a comparative argument (synkrisis), contrasting the Son with angels, the description of the exaltation, by virtue of its poetic vividness, bursts its bounds and overshadows the synkrisis.69 The stage is set for the catena in 1:3 with a hymnic pronouncement of the Son’s unique visual representation of God (“who being the radiance/reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being”), and a précis of his royal enthronement (“he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high”). 70 Then in 1:5–13, with bold, broad strokes, the author plots the course of the Son’s heavenly exaltation, beginning with a dramatized “naming ritual,” as the dramatic actor God publicly declares his family relationship with Jesus, his Son (1:5). The Son is then identified in 1:6 as the “firstborn” who was “brought into the heavenly realm,” a reference to his exaltation, whereupon angelic praise is commanded by God. Two further actions complement this scene of royal coronation and investiture: the Son is “anointed with the oil of gladness” (1:9) and enthroned beside his Father (1:13). Moreover, the magisterial tone and temper of this enthronement drama conforms to the oft-stated expectation that an ekphrasis has been frequently acknowledged. The most recent survey is David A. deSilva, “How Greek was the Author of ‘Hebrews’? A Study of the Author’s Location in Regard to Greek παιδεία,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts; Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 9; Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 629– 49. 67 Analyses of the ekphrases in Heb 3–4, 9–10, and 12:18–24 are offered in my essay “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JTS 62 (2011): 77–117, esp. 106–16. 68 Kenneth L. Schenck (“A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” JBL 120 [2001]: 469–85, here 484) has memorably characterized the catena as a “hymnic celebration of the now enthroned Christ.” 69 Nicolaus’ treatment of ekphrasis begins by noting the close compatibility of ekphrasis and synkrisis (Prog. 11). 70 Barnard (The Mysticism of Hebrews, 149–57) contends 1:3 may reflect the author’s own visionary experiences.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

65

should make the style reflect the subject, so that if what it describes is colorful, the word choice should be colorful, but if it is rough or frightening or something like that, features of the style should not strike a discordant note with the nature of the subject. (Theon, Prog. 11; cf. Hermogenes, Prog. 10; Nicolaus, Prog. 11)71

The author’s creative use of a number of texts drawn from the authoritative LXX, to give voice to and personify God, and to thus translate and transfer this ancient text to the personal circumstances of the community, is comparable to the recurring appropriation of Homer and other classic texts by the authors of the Progymnasmata and a number of other ancient texts. 72 As Webb observes: Young readers were encouraged not to approach texts as distanced artifacts with a purely critical eye, but to engage with them imaginatively, to think themselves into the scenes and to feel as if they were present at the death of Patroklos, the making of the shield of Achilles … Whether performed by students in schools or by professional sophists these speeches show a creative attitude towards classical history. For all the reverence paid to the past, history was not a fixed, inalterable object; events could be freely manipulated to serve the needs of the present. One particular manifestation of this attitude towards the past is the habit of reading for the sensation of being plunged into the scene or transported back into the moment, which emerges clearly from the rhetoricians’ discussions of ekphrasis and is evident in other sources as well. This habit of responding imaginatively to the written or spoken word forms a vital part of the background to the teaching and use of ekphrasis in rhetorical contexts …73

Particularly relevant to the “performance” of Heb 1:5–13, as it was read aloud to the community, are Webb’s remarks concerning Theon, Prog. 13. This text recommends that the student reading the text of a classical orator should think himself into the skin of the original speaker … at the original moment of performance. The point of this method acting is to involve him totally in the text, emotionally as well as intellectually. 74

Similarly, the vivid enactment of the Son’s royal coronation was intended to arouse the community’s visual imagination, plunging them into the scene and transporting them into the midst of the Son’s exaltation ceremony. In so doing, they would be brought “face-to-face” with the principal dramatic personae: 71

Trans. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 47. The rhetorical practice of “speech in character” is treated in detail in the Progymnasmata, in dedicated sections on prosopopoeia and ethopoeia (cf. Theon, Prog. 8; Hermogenes, Prog. 9; Aphthonius, Prog. 11; Nicolaus, Prog. 10). The close connection of this practice with ekphrasis is evident in the fact that these treatments always either follow or precede discussions of ekphrasis. 73 Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 19. Webb (Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 20–22) provides examples of this practice in the work of Plutarch (Mor. 347a), Ps.-Longinus ([Subl.] 26.2), and “the best-known and most explicit account of such imaginative supplementation of a text,” Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.64–65. 74 Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 25. She further notes that this section of Theon’s Progymnasmata is not preserved in the Greek manuscripts, but survives only in the Armenian translation. 72

66

Scott D. Mackie

God, the Son, and the angels. This vision, though instigated and guided by the author, nevertheless requires the community to be participants in its completion. Though God is depicted as speaking and acting throughout, his appearance is never described. Conversely, the angels are vividly portrayed, as “winds” and “flames of fire” (1:7), but the content of their praise is not supplied.75 Other important details also served in sketch form include the throne (1:8; see also 1:3, 13) and the royal scepter (1:8). This deliberate descriptive reticence adheres to an important ekphrastic device that Zanker has identified as “reader supplementation.” By deliberately withholding some pieces of descriptive information, a rhetor/author provokes the imaginative involvement of their audience, so that the “viewer’s personal input would … commit him or her to entering into the images.”76 It honors their intelligence as well, as the community is acknowledged as fully familiar with the heavenly sanctuary, including its occupants and accoutrements. 77 It also should be noted that this visually rich portrayal of Christ’s heavenly enthronement would serve to reinforce the propriety of offering Jesus the worship that was reserved for God alone in ancient Jewish praxis. Pertinent in this regard are Hurtado’s observations concerning Stephen’s vision of Christ “standing at the right hand” of the enthroned God in Acts 7:55–56. Hurtado believes this vision “may be taken by us as at least an indirect reflection of the sorts of visionary experiences that were reported among early Christians and were felt as divine disclosures of the exalted status of Jesus and the cultic honors due him.”78 Moreover, Stephen’s prayer to Jesus reflects a “collocation of the vision of the glorified Jesus and cultic devotional action,” one that suggests the original connection between the two, and also the impact of such visionary experiences in generating the ‘binitarian’ devotional practice of the early Christian movement in which prayer and other cultic actions were directed to Jesus as well as to God in response to God’s exaltation of Jesus to heavenly glory. 79

The author’s exclusive reliance on authoritative scripture to describe the Son’s exaltation in 1:5–13 would also seem to reflect his familiarity with the conventions of rhetorical practice. In contrast to modern conceptions of imagination 75 The author’s failure to describe God may be intentional, thereby focusing all visual attention on the Son. 76 Zanker, Modes of Viewing, 33. Quintilian discusses an instance of enargeia in Cicero’s Verrine Orations that would undoubtedly provoke the reader/hearer to “not only seeing the people, the place, and their dress, but also imagining other details that have been left undescribed” (Inst. 8.3.64). 77 According to Demetrius, such judicious reticence helps earn the audience’s respect, as they will “think themselves intelligent because you have provided them with an opportunity to use their minds. It is insulting to tell your audience everything as though they were idiots” (On Style 222). 78 Hurtado, How on Earth, 199. 79 Hurtado, How on Earth, 199.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

67

as free and boundlessly creative, ancient rhetors/authors believed their audiences’ visual imagination was limited to “a pre-existing reality and bounded by accepted truths.”80 Therefore, the subject matter that was being evoked “had to correspond … to shared values and cultural norms which could be recognized by the audience and mobilized by the speaker.”81 For the addressed community, their “pre-existing reality,” “accepted truths,” and “shared values and cultural norms” were primarily constituted by the sacred Scriptures of Israel. The author of Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus’ exaltation therefore enlists these sacred texts to establish the reality of that exaltation firmly and unshakably within their visual imagination. With regard to the psychological mechanics attending a phantasia, GrecoRoman philosophers and rhetors equally emphasize the role of memory. As Samuel Byrskog observes, “The present act of recall was thus essentially a search for the visual images of the past stored in the memory.”82 However, disparate memories, deriving from both personal and common cultural experiences, can be evoked by the orator to form new composite images. Through this process, as Webb notes, “it is possibly to visualize things that one has never seen.” Thus, imagination is thought to work by a process of recombination, rather than creation ex nihilo. The imagination involved in the production of ekphrasis and enargeia is therefore conceived as neither entirely free and creative, nor as simply reproductive of sensation, but lies between these two poles.83

The author of Hebrews, as an εὐφαντασίωτος, one “most skilled in summoning up phantasiai” (Quintilian, Inst. 6.2.30), may then be seen as both evoking the memories of the community, which were presumably saturated with visuallyrich representations (phantasiai) of Israel’s sacred traditions of the heavenly 80

Webb, “Imagination and the Arousal of the Emotions,” 124. Webb, “Imagination and the Arousal of the Emotions,” 125. 82 Samuel Byrskog, Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 165. Detailed discussions of the visual orientation of memory in ancient Greco-Roman thought are offered by Jaś Elsner and Michael Squire, “Sight and Memory: The Visual Art of Roman Mnemonics,” in Sight and the Ancient Senses, 180–204; Tom Thatcher, “John’s Memory Theater: The Fourth Gospel and Ancient Mnemo-Rhetoric,” CBQ 69 (2007): 487–505. See also Froma I. Zeitlin (“The Artful Eye: Vision, Ecphrasis and Spectacle in Euripidean Theatre” in Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture [ed. Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne; Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994], 138–96, 295–304, here 163) who discusses some “general principles for secure recollective procedures: a strong affective engagement of the viewer (visual intensity, pleasure in seeing), ‘sensorily derived and emotionally charged’ associations both verbal and visual, marked positions in a series constituted as ‘scenes,’ and an experience that can be ‘re-enacted’ later in the mind.” 83 Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 119–20. 81

68

Scott D. Mackie

sanctuary as well as visual encounters with Israel’s God (Gen 16–18; 32; Exod 3–4; 19; 24; 33–34; Judg 6; 13; 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6; Ezek 1; 1 En. 12–14; T. Levi 2–5), and skillfully shaping those memories to include Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement in the visual landscape. And if the metaphysical presuppositions attending phantasiai that Greco-Roman philosophers and rhetors held were also shared by the author of Hebrews and the addressed community – a likely assumption – then we may presume that they experienced this heavenly vision of Jesus’ exaltation with a sure conviction of its reality. The exaltation would be as real and powerful for them “as if” they were actually there, overwhelming and “penetrating” them with “vivid emotions of amazement” (Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.67; Plutarch, Mor. 347a), and bringing them “face to face” with Israel’s God and his Son (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lys. 7). Hebrews 2:1–4 A brief warning and exhortation to persevere (2:1–4) also employs pictorially rich imagery with the goal of stirring the imagination and emotions of the community. They are depicted as potentially “drifting away” (παραρρέω), like a ship lost at sea, from the gospel (2:1). 84 In 2:2–3, the author places them back on terra firma, as he warns against the folly of attempting to “flee” (ἐκφεύγω) to an alternative lordship or neutral territory. In 2:4 he reminds them of the “signs and wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” that they have been experiencing, both past and present, by means of which God himself is “providing corroborating evidence” (συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος; present tense) of the veracity of the salvific message. Although the emphasis on this text is on “hearing” (ἀκούω, 2:1, 3) and “speaking” (λαλέω, 2:2–3), the community’s experience of the miraculous undoubtedly extended to the visual realm. Unlike 1:5–13, which is almost purely ekphrastic, this text, along with the remainder of chapter two, contains a mixture of didactic and ekphrastic materials. This unlikely combination might be regarded as working at cross-purposes; Ps.-Longinus, however, contends that when combined with an “argumentative treatment,” a “rhetorical phantasia” will “not only convince the audience, it will positively enslave them” ([Subl.] 15.9). He further describes the process and its effect, even contending that the “argumentative” portion is ultimately absorbed into the ekphrasis: The stronger element seems naturally to catch our ears, so that our attention is drawn from the reasoning to the enthralling effect of the phantasia, and the technique is concealed in a

84

Cf. the nautical imagery in 6:19: “We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul.”

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

69

halo of brilliance. And this effect on us is natural enough; set two forces side by side and the stronger always absorbs the virtues of the other. (15.11, LCL) 85

Hebrews 2:5–9 The enthronement drama resumes in 2:5, with a brief rehearsal of the nature of Jesus’ earthly path to glory. Psalm 8:4–6 is quoted in Heb 2:6–7 and presented as direct speech, in this case providing an anonymous, dramatized testimony of the Son’s personal involvement in the theodicean nature of human existence. Although his Adamic participation in human existence involved his subjection to the angels for “a little while,” he has representatively fulfilled humanity’s created purpose, culminating in his exaltation over “all things” (τὰ πάντα), including the angels (2:7–8). The inclusion and visual participation of the community in Christ’s achievement is artfully accomplished by means of the recurring pronoun αὐτός, “him,” whose designation is left open-ended throughout 2:5–8, thus possibly referring to both humanity and Jesus. By leaving the referent of the pronoun unresolved, Hebrews establishes a sense of mutual identification and participation – Christ with the human condition, and the community with the path of suffering Jesus faithfully endured – which closely coheres with the important ekphrastic principle of “reader or viewer integration,” wherein “the reader is turned into an eyewitness,” or in this case, a virtual participant.86 This inclusive, participatory evocation of the Son’s path to enthronement culminates in the first declaration of Jesus’ present visibility to the eyes of faith. Though in their earthly circumstances the community is presently unable to “see” the effects of Jesus’ representative exaltation to lordship (2:8), they can, however, “now see Jesus [νῦν … βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν] crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death” (2:8–9).87 In so doing, the community’s vision of Jesus provides experiential clarity to the “now, but not yet”

85 Cf. Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion, 8: “the strict division between narration and description and the association of description with static, non-human or dehumanized referents – are absent from the ancient accounts” and examples of ekphrases. There is instead “a marked continuity between ekphrasis and narration,” one also encounters “explicit statements that the two modes” of discourse “share the same group of referents.” 86 See Zanker, Modes of Viewing, 33; cf. also pp. 103–23. 87 Craig R. Koester, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” CBQ 64 (2002): 103–23, here 110, considers 2:5–9 the propositio (“proposition”) of Hebrews, which “identifies the principal issue to be addressed in the speech.” Cf. also Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 133: “Nothing is more important than the fact that ‘we’ do now ‘see’ with the eyes of faith the incarnate Son of God in the state of ultimate exaltation because of his obedient suffering and death.”

70

Scott D. Mackie

eschatological tension within which they presently exist, and it substantiates by sight the reality of the heavenly goal toward which they are striving. 88 The theodicy of 2:5–9 is expressed in a comprehensive temporal narrative that spans the beginning and telos of human history, with three visual pillars supporting that vast span. The author starts with the middle pillar, utilizing Ps 8:4–6 to give voice to the community’s assumed complaint, which may be paraphrased as: “Does God know what we are going through? And if he is aware, does he care?” (2:6). 89 The “protological pillar” is then recounted, as the community is reminded that God’s original intent for humanity was to exercise dominion over all creation, while possessing a positional status slightly below that of angels (2:7–8a). In 2:8b, the author returns to the middle, present tense pillar, and reengages the community’s complaint, noting that the frustration of God’s creational intent is plainly and painfully apparent: “But we do not yet see this exercise of human dominion” (2:8b). 90 The narrative then presses forward to its conclusion, the “teleological pillar,” and again addressing the same perceptual organ, sight, he invites the recipients to look straight into the eschaton: “But we do see Jesus, though made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor” (2:9). Almost all of the discussions of ekphrasis in the extant Progymnasmata similarly prescribe a comprehensive and teleologically oriented recitation of pertinent historical detail. For example, Theon advises, “When composing an ekphrasis we shall treat events both from the point of view of what has gone before, what was included within them, and what results from them” (Prog. 11; cf. Hermogenes, Prog. 10; Aphthonius, Prog. 12).91 The ekphrastic display of the historical and eschatological events shaping the community’s circumstances in Heb 2:5–9 would presumably help them process and reappraise their present experience in light of their assured destiny, with doubt and cognitive dissonance resolved by a visual confirmation of the immanent and imminent benefits of endurance.92 88 This reading appears to be at odds with 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance/reality of things hoped for [ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις], the conviction of things not seen [πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομέμων].” The tension is resolved, however, if πραγμάτων is translated as “events.” Thus “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of events not yet seen.” This text then comfortably coheres within the author’s “now not yet” eschatology, as the “unseen events” represent God’s imminent “subjection of all things to Jesus” (1:13; 2:8; 10:13). So Robert L. Brawley, “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1: A Neglected Aspect of the Context,” CBQ 55 (1993): 81–98. 89 Hebrews 2:6: “What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them?” 90 Cf. 4 Ezra 6:53–59, which also utilizes Ps 8 in a theodicy. 91 Trans. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 46. See also Rhet. Her. 4.55. 92 In her survey of recent analyses by cognitive psychologists of the use and effects of visual imagery in problem solving, Chaston (Tragic Props and Cognitive Function, 36–65)

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

71

Hebrews 2:10–11 The visual certainty of Jesus’ exaltation receives further substantiation in 2:10–11, as the community is told that the same God who “led” (ἄγω) Jesus into heaven (1:6) and vindicating “glory” (2:9), is presently “leading” (ἄγω) the “many sons and daughters” of the community into the same heavenly “glory” (2:10). Though this claim of access to the heavenly realm will be decisively reinforced and even enacted in the entry exhortations of 4:14–16 and 10:19–23, it is firmly substantiated in 2:10–11 by means of the close mimetic alignment and participatory fusion of the community with Jesus. He is the “pioneer/forerunner” (ἀρχηγός) of their “salvation,” “blazing the trail” before them into the heavenly realm (2:10). Any perceived distance between them and their “leader” is removed in 2:11; far from simply leaving a “bread-crumb trail,” he is inseparably and immanently joined to them, as “those being sanctified” (i.e., the community), and “the one sanctifying” (i.e., Jesus), share the same heavenly Father (ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες). Furthermore, the family relationship they share is characterized by a deep affective bond; despite their past failures, Jesus is “not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.” The embodied “sanctification” they are presently experiencing is hereby joined to psychological, emotional content. The visually oriented, pictorially rich imagery of Jesus’ heavenly ascent thus merges with this embodied, affective detail, providing a convincing and holistic hortatory guarantee of their ability to access the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 2:12–13 Ekphrasis and epiphany coalesce in 2:12–13, as Jesus’ visibility is yet again confirmed with a dramatic portrayal of his epiphanic manifestation in the midst of the community. This text – yet another charismatically inspired dramatization utilizing the LXX – affords Jesus his first opportunity to speak in the enthronement drama, a speech that deliberately includes the community in the divine family. Epiphanically standing “in the midst of the congregation” (2:12), the actor Jesus personally addresses the community and issues a striking exhortation to visualize the scene described: “Behold!” (ἰδού, i.e., “See what I am seeing!”): “I am with the children whom God has given me!” (2:13). 93 Jesus marshals a considerable body of evidence in support of the view that visual imagery surpasses the ability of purely verbal content in facilitating the processing of complicated and dissonant information, at least in the initial stages of problem solving. The pictorial imagery of Heb 1–2, especially Jesus’ exaltation and the community’s adoption into the family of God, would be particularly effectively in helping them reason through the “now, not yet,” eschatological dilemma. 93 In T. Levi 2:6 ἰδού also introduces and invites participation in a heavenly vision. Cf. T. Naph. 5:2, 6, 8; 6:2, 10. Also relevant is Euripides, Ion 2:190–225, where commands to “behold” (ἰδού) are answered by the chorus, who acknowledge the sight. According to

72

Scott D. Mackie

thereby invites the community to participate in his own viewing experience, and to see themselves – and one another – as he sees them: as members of the family of God.94 This visually oriented text centrally locates the community in a network of viewing subjects, which includes Jesus, God, and the angels. It would thereby trigger deeply entrenched religious and cultural convictions about divine omnividence (2 Chr 16:9; Job 28:24; Pss 11:4; 14:2; 33:13–14; 102:19; Prov 15:3; Jer 16:17; Zech 4:10; 2 En. 66:3, 5) – a conviction that will be confirmed by the description of God as “all-seeing” in Heb 4:13.95 In this comprehensive network of viewing subjects, which transcends all cosmological and ontological barriers, the community is figured as both beholders and beheld. Ancient conceptions of vision and the transformative power of the gaze would have undoubtedly informed the addressed community’s perception of this gaze-saturated scene. Despite a variety of opinions about the mechanics of vision (i.e., extramission, intromission, and a blend of the two), nearly all theories of vision share one curious conviction: sight involved some manner of

Anthony Corbeill (“Political Movement: Walking and Ideology in Republican Rome,” in The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body [ed. David Fredrick; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002], 182–215, here 185), Roman orators held the attention of their audiences “with continual reminders to ‘look’ at the evidence offered as either visible to the eye or accessible to the imagination.” 94 Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo similarly appears to both document and elicit an epiphany, as noted by Peter Bing, “Impersonation of Voice in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo,” Transactions of the American Philological Society 123 (1993): 181–98; Bing, The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009), 33–48. A comparable confluence of ekphrasis and epiphany is evident in the Homeric Hymns and Philostratus’ On Heroes. On these texts, see Platt, Facing the Gods, 60–76, 240–52; and Froma I. Zeitlin, “Visions and Revisions of Homer,” in Being Greek under Rome, 195–266, esp. 215–16. Platt (Facing the Gods, 62) describes the Homeric Hymns as “performative texts,” designed to “make epiphany happen, calling upon the god to be present, whilst simultaneously providing their audience with a sophisticated representation (in narrative form) of divine activity that prefigures the epic performance.” 95 Cf. Aristotle’s flat assertion: “For we ascribe to the gods the power of seeing everything” (Poet. 15.10 1454b). The Homeric deities are also depicted as all-seeing (cf. Il. 11.336–337); see the discussion in Lovatt, The Epic Gaze, 29–77. Particularly relevant to Heb 2:12–13 is her comment, “The ancient awareness of existing in a field of vision is closely tied to the divine gaze” (31). Belief in this all-encompassing field of vision is possibly evident and enacted in the homes of aristocratic Romans, which were filled with paintings of gazing deities. According to Elsner (Roman Eyes, 175), “both within the space of specific paintings and within the living space of the house itself which those paintings adorned, there was an intense visual awareness of events existing above all in the ocular dispensation of their being witnessed, of things happening always in a panopticon of spectatorship (both real and imaged).”

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

73

physical contact between the eye of the observer and the object of sight. 96 In fact, as Bartsch notes, “almost all the ancient schools of thought about optics, from the atomists through Plato, Euclid, and Ptolemy, put an emphasis on the tactile nature of sight.”97 Vision is therefore construed as a “species of touch,” often involving “as physical and as intimate a process as its close cousin, sexual consummation.”98 This tactile and immanent conceptualization of sight underlies an oft-stated conviction, found in both classical and philosophic sources, that vision and visuality possesses transformative powers, capable of effecting either moral health or physical harm in the viewer. A representative example may be located in the second century C. E. novelist Achilles Tatius’ descriptions of the mechanics of sight and erotic visuality: The pleasure that comes from vision floods in through the eyes and settles in the breast, ever drawing with it the image of the beloved. This pleasure is impressed upon the mirror of the soul, leaving its form there. Then the beauty floods out again, drawn towards the lovesick heart by invisible beams, and imprints the shadowy image deep down inside. (5.13.4)

Moreover, as lovers gaze upon each other, the “emanation of beauty floods down through the eyes to the soul, and it effects a kind of union without contact” (1.9.4–5).99 If this theorization of the gaze is read into Heb 2:12–13, then the gazes of Jesus and God would have been experienced by the community as restorative and empowering, transforming their doubts and fears into feelings of courage and conviction, experienced in the depths of their being. Their surprising inclusion in the Son’s exaltation would be confirmed by these benevolent and accepting gazes, assuring them of their place in the family of God, and

96

The two prevailing theories, intromission and extramission, and their attendant conceptualizations of the viewer as either passive participant or active agent, are summarized by the second century C.E. physician Galen: “A body that is seen does one of two things: either it sends something from itself to us and thereby gives an indication of its peculiar character, or, if it does not itself send something, it waits for some sensory power to come to it from us” (De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 7.5). 97 Bartsch, The Mirror of the Self, 59. 98 Bartsch, The Mirror of the Self, 57. So also Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993), 30: “there was a certain participatory dimension in the visual process, a potential intertwining of view and viewed.” Cf. Aristotle’s critique of the atomists: “They make all sensible objects the object of touch. All the senses are a species of touch” (Sens. 4.442a.30–442b.1–3). 99 On these texts, see Morales, Vision and Narrative, 130–35. Similar metaphysical presuppositions color Plato’s description of the mutual gazes exchanged between the philosophic lover and his beloved, in Phaedr. 251a–c; 255c–d. The same metaphysical belief in the power of the gaze is apparent in Plutarch’s defense of the “reasonableness” of the widespread belief in the efficacy of the evil eye, in Mor. 680c–683b.

74

Scott D. Mackie

empowering them to confidently confess the sonship of Jesus, not only within the enthronement ceremony, but in their daily circumstances as well. 100 This whole section, 2:5–13, also accomplishes what Simon Goldhill considers the primary task of ekphrasis: the formation of viewing subjects. 101 Goldhill characterizes this formative task as involving a number of elements, which include modeling “looking as a practice of interpreting … a way of seeing meaning,” the dramatization of “the viewing subject seeing himself seeing,” and selecting “what to look at and how to look.” 102 All three of these aspects are present in the ekphrasis of Heb 2:5–13: (1) 2:5–9 teaches the community how to interpret what they see happening in their lives as they straddle the eschatological divide; thus their sufferings are expected and even normative. They also are able to see in the visible example of Jesus that their path of suffering will lead to vindicating glory. (2) The dramatization of their adoption ceremony in 2:12–13 – with Jesus’ invitation to “behold” the divine scene and “see what he is seeing” – would promote a self-conscious gaze in which one both sees oneself and others “seeing meaning.” Seeing what Jesus sees not only involves seeing the other members of the community as Jesus sees them – as fellow members in the family of God – but it crucially entails a reflexive seeing: each member of the community should individually see him/herself as Jesus sees him/her.103 (3) The observation that they “cannot see all things subjected to Jesus’ rule,” but they “can now see Jesus exalted” may offer a lesson in selectivity, i.e., developing their “viewing habits,” and training them to fully focus their gaze on the goal toward which they are striving, and not on the hardships they are presently facing. This is an ongoing project, and the author is providing in 2:5–13 a foundational example of seeing and evaluating the visible and invisible.

100 Worth considering in this regard are the metaphysics attending Lucian’s contention that a beautiful hall possessed the power to shape and evoke beautiful speech, in Dom. 4: “Certainly something of its beauty flows through the eyes into the soul, and then shapes into its own likeness the words it sends out.” On this text, see Zahra Newby, “Testing the Boundaries of Ekphrasis: Lucian On the Hall,” Ramus 31 (2002): 126–35, esp. 127. 101 Goldhill, “The Naive and Knowing Eye,” 223; “What is Ekphrasis For?,” 2. 102 Goldhill, “What is Ekphrasis For?,” 2. 103 Seneca, Ep. 83.1–2, similarly fuses the “reality” of divine omnividence with an ethical program of visually oriented self-evaluation. He asserts that “nothing is hidden from the sight of God; he is the witness of our souls, and he comes into the very midst of our thoughts.” Accordingly, “I will observe myself continually and … I will review each day. What makes us bad is that no one directs their gaze upon his/her own life” (83.2). Divine surveillance is therefore actualized in the project of self-evaluation that is central to Seneca’s ethics. On this, see Bartsch, The Mirror of the Self, 202–3.

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

75

Hebrews 2:14–18 In the conclusion to chapter two, Hebrews places before the visual imaginations of the community a matched pair of Christological images, Christus Victor and high priest. These two Christological portrayals contain corresponding summaries of Christ’s accomplishment, and directly apply the benefits of that accomplishment to the community’s lives. Both portrayals are characterized by a tight interweaving and interdependence of three elements: Christology, exhortation, and the eschatological experience of the community. The passage begins with an emphatic assertion of Jesus’ full immersion in the human condition, thus extending and amplifying chapter two’s most prominent recurring themes: belonging and identification. 104 Like his “siblings,” Jesus “partook in flesh and blood,” and it was as humanity’s representative that Christus Victor triumphed. His victory, however, was paradoxically preceded by defeat: “so that though death he might destroy the one who has the power of death – that is the devil” (2:14). In 2:15, the hortatory goal of the Christus Victor portrayal is vividly pronounced: Jesus’ defeat of death and the devil has “freed those who all their lives have been enslaved by their fear of death.”105 The emphasis on the fragility and frustration of human existence in 2:5–9, 14– 18 reaches its nadir in this visceral characterization of the darkest terror haunting human existence. Though the emotional impact of this assertion is somewhat muted to modern ears, who know nothing of ancient mortality rates, it would have surely resonated with and assuaged the deepest fears of the addressed community. 106 The depth of those fears undoubtedly conditioned the author’s otherwise unlikely close combination of two wildly disparate

104 Cf. the ambivalent pronoun αὐτός in 2:5–8, Jesus’ “tasting of death on behalf of all” (ὑπὲρ παντός, 2:9), the affirmation in 2:11 that “the one who sanctifies and those being sanctified all share one [Father],” and the claim that Jesus “is not ashamed to call” the members of the community his “brothers and sisters” (2:11). That shared family identity is then enacted and realized in the adoption ceremony of 2:12–13. 105 In his discussion of enargeia, Demetrius places great value on repetition (On Style 211–215). Hebrews’ use of θάνατος three times in rapid succession, in 2:14–15, coheres closely with the examples Demetrius provides. Also comparable are the repeated assertions of Jesus’ immersion in the human condition (2:14, 17–18). 106 Walter Scheidel (“Demography,” in The Cambridge Economic History of the GrecoRoman World [ed. Walter Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007], 38–86) estimates “that throughout the Greco-Roman world, average life expectancy at birth fell in a bracket from about twenty to thirty years” (39), resulting in “large numbers of orphans and widows” (41). See also Scheidel, “Progress and Problems in Roman Demography,” in Debating Roman Demography (ed. Walter Scheidel; Mnemosyne 211; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1–81. The “foreignness” of these staggering mortality rates to us moderns is readily apparent in cinematic (mis)representations of ancient Mediterranean city life, which are without exception predominately populated by older adults, ca. 25–60 years of age.

76

Scott D. Mackie

components in this portrayal: the full expression of Christ’s frail humanity and the most “super-human” Christology. Jesus’ full participation in human existence is reiterated twice in the second christological portrait: the merciful and faithful high priest. In both instances the implications for the community are directly connected to Christ’s representative accomplishment. In 2:17, Jesus “became like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest … to make an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the people.” And his “testing in suffering” (an important theme which will be revisited in 4:15 and 5:8) is described in 2:18 as both equipping and disposing him toward “helping those who are being tested.” This passage forms a fitting climax to chapter two. The language of belonging and identification, which unites Christ with the human condition, and the community with the path of suffering Jesus faithfully endured, permeates 2:5–18, and is especially pronounced in 2:14–18. Just as Christ’s accomplishment was rooted in his human body, 2:5–18 appropriately addresses the whole human person, engaging the eyes and ears, head and heart, and body and soul, thereby eliciting from the community a wholly embodied response. Their emotional life, and even their whole habitus, which was characterized by a fear of death and a sinful separation from God, has now been brought into the salvific realm of Christ’s victorious and self-sacrificial accomplishment.

Conclusion It is almost universally acknowledged that Hebrews was addressed to an actual community whose cohesion and commitment were endangered by a variety of circumstances. That the author’s hortatory response is primarily focused on eliciting a stance of faithful perseverance is also widely recognized. However, the manner in which that hortatory effort was intended to be received and actuated in the community’s worship assembly has been somewhat underappreciated. This chapter has attempted to demonstrate that the extraordinary circumstances of the community occasioned an equally extraordinary hortatory effort, one that preeminently recognizes the indispensable role played by Jesus’ transformative presence in the midst of the worshiping community. It is in this respect aligned with the growing scholarly recognition of the prevalence and importance of visions of Jesus in the worshiping life of early Christian communities. It has been argued, therefore, that the author responded to the community’s crisis of commitment with a powerful and participatory vision of Jesus’ exaltation and enthronement in the heavenly sanctuary, one which not only employs a variety of Greco-Roman visually oriented rhetorical practices, but which also expresses a clear confidence that Jesus would epiphanically

“Behold! I Am with the Children God Has Given Me”

77

manifest himself in the midst of his worshiping community. The author’s visually rich language and imagery was thus intended to function as a “springboard” for an actual visual encounter with Jesus, stirring their visual imaginations and opening their “eyes of faith.” To these open and faith-filled eyes Jesus would visibly demonstrate that his obedient endurance of suffering and death led to his vindication and divine glory. In addition to providing experiential clarity to the “now, but not yet” eschatological tension within which the community presently exists, this vision would substantiate by sight the reality of the heavenly goal toward which they are striving. Finally, this is a participatory vision, as it extends an invitation not only to see Jesus’ vindicating exaltation, but to take part in that event. The depiction of Jesus’ ascent into the heavens, and its hortatory complement, the community’s entry into heavenly sanctuary, are essential to this participatory involvement. The community is therefore exhorted to “draw near” and follow Jesus into the heavenly sanctuary, where they will join in the heavenly chorus of angels who are proclaiming the sonship of Jesus, and offer a confession of that sonship. That confession is commensurate with the Father’s declaration of Jesus’ sonship, and responsive to the Son’s conferral of family membership. In the participatory performance of this conferral and exchange of divine family identity the community will find their enduring identity, as siblings of the Son of God. This is also a transformative vision, one that not only changes the community’s perception of their identity and circumstances, but fundamentally transforms their existence through an experiential visual encounter with the risen and exalted Son of God.

Chapter 5

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology in the New Testament Grant Macaskill This chapter is concerned with the intersection of two key themes in the Epistle to the Hebrews: the revelation associated with the person of Jesus and the cultic ministry that he performs in heaven. This intersection is interesting, for it represents a particular outworking of the apocalyptic theology of the author, one that may have a number of contact points with other texts in the New Testament. This development is, quite specifically, the identification of the new covenant established by the heavenly ministry of Jesus as one that is unblemished and under which, therefore, covenant members can enjoy full access to both the presence and the knowledge of God. True knowledge of God is hence linked to the offering of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, a link that brings together the cultic and the revelatory. The combination is developed through a cluster of texts deployed elsewhere in the New Testament; as such, what we encounter in Hebrews may be illuminating for the study of other parts of the New Testament, particularly those parts that are often considered shaped by apocalyptic thought. Perhaps the greatest potential lies in the overlap with Pauline soteriology. Recent years have seen a swelling of interest in what has been labeled the “apocalyptic” reading of Paul (or some variation on this). The approach has been particularly associated with the names of J. Louis Martyn, 1 Martinus de Boer, Beverly Gaventa,2 and recently Douglas Campbell, the title of whose massive book illustrates the movement well: The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Re-reading of Paul.3 It is a movement that considers Paul to have 1 J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1997); Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). 2 For bibliography on the contributions of de Boer and Gaventa, see now Beverly R. Gaventa, ed., Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8 (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2013). 3 Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Re-Reading of Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010).

80

Grant Macaskill

been misunderstood through the centuries as a result of the failure to appreciate the apocalyptic substructure of his theology; it pushes for a thoroughly revised interpretation, particularly in terms of the place of the law in Paul’s thought. As a “theologian of God’s apocalypse” (to borrow the title of one of de Boer’s articles),4 Paul understands the present time to be one of divine inbreaking, one in which the problem of corruption has been decisively dealt with by the sovereign and invasive action of God; this cosmic drama between God and the spiritual powers of evil is one in which humans participate and, importantly, the law, torah, and halakah are considered to be part of the old age, the corrupt cosmic order that God has broken into. This reading of Paul has taken hold in some quarters of New Testament scholarship, attended by theological works that have been popular in some circles and that see the apocalyptic approach as opening fresh avenues for dealing with modern dualisms. 5 But it has been criticized by those whose research is particularly focused on Jewish apocalyptic literature, with an emergent body of scholarship that articulates such concerns. 6 I will isolate some of the points that have been made in this scholarship below, because they are relevant to the study of Heb 8–10. But while this comparison with Jewish apocalyptic literature has rightly been at the core of responses to the apocalyptic reading of Paul, another important strand to the discussion has not yet been paid sufficient attention: the evidence of the wider New Testament and the presence of apocalyptic elements therein. It is here that the evidence of Hebrews may have particular significance. I begin this study by laying out some important points about the discussion of apocalyptic literature and ideas in the Second Temple period. I then turn to a discussion of Hebrews that centers on chs. 8–10, but that seeks to identify how these chapters are pivotal to the apocalyptic themes developed in the book, and specifically to how they bring together the theme of revelation with that of the heavenly cult. By doing so, I will identify some points that bear contextually on the discussion of Pauline apocalyptic. I hope that the eccentricity of this angle of approach will stimulate some fresh discussion of the issues in both Hebrews and Pauline studies.

4

Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul: Theologian of God’s Apocalypse,” Int 56 (2002): 21–33. The point is made in several of the contributions to Joshua B. Davies and Douglas Harinck, eds., Apocalyptic and the Future of Theology: With and Beyond J. Louis Martyn (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2013). 6 An important survey and development of this is found in James P. Davies, Paul Among the Apocalypses? An Evaluation of the ‘Apocalyptic Paul’ in the Context of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (Library of New Testament Studies 562; London: T&T Clark, 2016). 5

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

81

Key Points in the Study of Jewish Apocalyptic I begin, then, by outlining some key points in the study of Jewish apocalyptic literature. The points that I am going to make are basic, but they are points that have been seriously neglected in the discussions around Paul and have been part of the reason for the relative neglect of the significance of Jewish apocalyptic for the study of Hebrews. 7 First, it is wrong to assume that Jewish apocalyptic is primarily characterized by eschatological interests of a kind that can be neatly categorized as “apocalyptic eschatology.” In fact, although the eschatological element was prominent in John J. Collins’ classic Semeia definition of apocalypse,8 it has been among the most debated components of that definition. Christopher Rowland’s classic study, The Open Heaven, probably constitutes the best known challenge.9 In a more recent study, Rowland writes: Apart from a handful of passages, their doctrine of the future hope seems to be pretty much the same as that found in other Jewish sources … The conviction about a glorious future for the people of God is there, but it remains something hardly ever elaborated in detail – a strange phenomenon for works whose primary interest is supposed to be in the future. 10

There is indeed an interest in glory, in restoration, in the establishment of justice at some point in the future, but these elements are not particularly distinguishable from what we find in the prophets, the psalms, and so on. Furthermore, the eschatology that we find cannot be reduced to a standardized schema of “two ages.” We encounter a range of eschatological scenarios and periodizations. So, for example, in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1– 10 and 91:11–17),11 time is split into a series of weeks, not just two; similarly, in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90) we read of multiple periods of transformation and decline, moving towards a specific series of final events. Importantly, within such texts there is a connection between eschatology and protology, between Endzeit and Urzeit that is typological, rather than 7 More recent scholarship has begun to reverse this tendency. See the fine study by Jody A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). See also the treatment of Hebrews in Christopher Rowland and Christopher Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (CRINT 12; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 8 John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14, (1979), 1–20, here 9: “‘Apocalypse’ is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is meditated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.” 9 Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982). 10 Rowland and Murray-Jones, The Mystery of God, 15. 11 Redaction has disrupted the order and placement of the verses.

82

Grant Macaskill

schematic: the angelic judgement associated with the flood in the Book of the Watchers 9–16, for example, merges with the expectation of eschatological judgement, for which it serves as pattern. The relevance of these observations for the study of apocalyptic in the New Testament cannot be overstated: they challenge the idea that Paul might have inherited a neat schema of two ages (an idea that Schweitzer inherited from Kabisch and passed on to Käsemann) 12 and that this can be applied heuristically to his writings, but they also require us to bring into the discussion material that has been neglected because of its seemingly modest (or, at least, “nonapocalyptic”) interest in eschatology, such as Hebrews. Second, it is wrong to assume that apocalyptic is hostile to, or even uninterested in, the torah. Certainly there have been extensive discussions about the relationships between various works of Second Temple Judaism and how these might have emerged from competing Judaisms. Gabriele Boccaccini, for example, argued in the late 1990s for two families of Judaism, Enochic and Zadokite, associated with the early Enochic literature and the Mosaic torah respectively, distinguished by their understanding of the ontology and origin of evil (to which I will return in a moment). 13 Boccaccini’s proposals sparked important discussions and debates that have reverberated in Second Temple studies since, and they led to the establishment of the Enoch Seminar, a context in which they could be examined and discussed. But what has emerged through those discussions is a far muddier reality, a far more complex web of relationships.14 Boccaccini himself, even prior to the refinement of his proposals since the beginning of the Enoch Seminar, acknowledged that a book like Jubilees attests the fusion of these streams of thought, which may reveal something about their potential mutuality. This has significant implications for the attempts of Martinus de Boer to differentiate between forensic and cosmological apocalypses, based on the ascribed origin of sin, and to allow this distinction to inform his reading of Galatians. 15 If the two ways of thinking about the nature of sin and its origins do not function in competition, but in collusion, then it may be risky to draw conclusions from one in isolation from the other, 12 See my discussion of this in Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 21–24. 13 Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judiasm (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998). 14 See the published outputs of the Seminar, particularly in Gabriele Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd-mans, 2005); and Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba, eds., Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009). See also the collection of studies in Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, eds., The Early Enoch Literature (JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 15 See Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2011).

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

83

particularly when that isolation proceeds from a decision about their compatibility. Again, this is important for the question of Paul’s theology of law, but it is also relevant to a work like Hebrews, where the place of the law in relationship to the heavenly reality and the revelation that has taken place in Jesus is a conspicuous theme. Third, while the apocalyptic genre is a conspicuous one in the period, the generic classification of works is (largely) a modern enterprise and this genre cannot, then, be sealed off from other genres with which it may share worldview, language, and imagery. This, in fact, takes us to one of the most fraught areas of discussion of apocalyptic: how do we relate the genre “apocalypse” to the adjective “apocalyptic,” where the latter is applied to works/ideas that do not belong within the strict generic limits of the former and is often used substantively to designate an ideological movement? This is a tough debate, and one that we can hardly resolve here, but nested within it is the question of how Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions are related, and this is of some significance for the study of Hebrews. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that Jewish apocalyptic and Jewish mysticism are closely related and interwoven with one another. So, early apocalyptic texts contain mystical elements and inform our understanding of early Jewish mysticism, but our understanding of Jewish apocalyptic is also informed by early mystical and liturgical texts that are not generically considered to be apocalypses, such as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.16 Fourth, the liturgical elements in the texts just mentioned reflect the ongoing interest in the law, which is intimately connected to a persistent interest in the temple and cult, both on earth and in heaven. There are a number of examples of this in the noncanonical apocalyptic literature, such as 1 Enoch17 or the Aramaic Levi Document, and in some of the literature that is not apocalyptic per se but is connected to these, such as Jubilees. Importantly, though, this interest in the temple and the cult can be traced back into the biblical antecedents of such literature, notably Zechariah, 18 and also forward in the Jewish mystical material, such as the Hekhalot and merkabah texts, the origins of which might 16 Sensitivity to these overlaps marks the works of Barnard and of Rowland and MorrayJones, cited above in note 7. 17 See the discussion of 1 En. 9–16 in George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001). Nickelsburg argues that the symbolism attached to the angelic Watchers represents them as priestly figures and that the story of their marriage to human wives reflects concerns about the intermarriage of priestly families with those outside of their own legitimate circle. While there continue to be debates about priestly elements in the Book of the Watchers, particularly in relation to Enoch himself, this point has been quite widely accepted. 18 See the discussion of Zechariah in Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic (OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996).

84

Grant Macaskill

have been in the Second Temple period.19 Consequently, it is appropriate to speak of a cultic strand to Jewish apocalyptic, one that changes and develops through time, influenced, not least, by the fate of the earthly temple. This development is not necessarily a linear one. Rather, strands emerge and twist back, according to the relative interest of the author in the fate of the earthly temple or the heavenly one. This leads us to a final important observation. While the genre of apocalypse is characterized by dualities (light/dark, heaven/earth, etc.), these are permeated20 – the realities that they denote interpenetrate and are vulnerable to each other’s presence and influence – and so it is dangerous to speak too casually of dualisms. Much of the work on the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice has made precisely this point: earthly worshipers participate in heavenly worship and share communion with angelic beings. This requires some care with the scholarly use of terms like “invasive” or “irruptive.” What is revealed, or “apocalypsed,” is not that God has broken in, but rather that God has always been present, that the sensory world deceives the blind into believing him to be absent. It also, though, frames one of the dominant motifs in apocalyptic literature, that of the relationship between the earthly temple and the heavenly one and, indeed, between both of these temples and the cosmos. The idea that different levels of heaven correspond to different elements of the cosmos and, simultaneously, different zones of the temple surfaces at points in apocalyptic literature.21 A standard feature of the heavenly ascent is some kind of vision of the divine throne room. Now, it is important to stress that this theme is developed in terms of holiness and glory: to enter the heavenly temple is a privilege attended by certain requirements, involving personal righteousness, ritual purity, or legal knowledge. This is a theme that becomes more conspicuous in the later rabbinic writings, as Arbel notes with regard to the Hekhalot and merkabah texts: Regardless of the adept’s individual nature and literary biography, all qualified “descenders to the chariot” resemble one another in their disposition, goals, deeds, and accomplishments. They are characterized as people of superior stature, who attempt an inconceivable journey to divine domains in order to obtain celestial secrets as well as to behold God and the Merkavah in a personal manner.22

19 For the range of views on this, see Vita Daphna Arbel, Beholders of the Divine Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2003). For a fascinating study of the texts in relation to the New Testament generally, see Rowland and Morray–Jones, The Mystery of God. 20 This particular term is used by James P. Davies, Paul Among the Apocalypses?, passim. 21 See the discussion of the macrocosmic temple in James R. Davila, “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” DSD 9 (2002): 1–19. 22 Arbel, Beholders, 71.

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

85

Any correspondence to Platonic conceptuality and terminology, then, must be handled with sensitivity to the ways in which this has been appropriated to this distinctive religious sensibility and with an awareness of the extent to which this invites and fosters reflection or speculation on the relationship between heavenly and earthly realities. That speculation, we might add, is not unrestricted. It is shaped by exegetical activity, governed by the reading strategies of the time. 23

Hebrews 8–10 in Context Hebrews 8–10 is concerned with the high-priestly work of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary. That concern is embedded in the wider context of the book, and it is worth picking out some key points. The first is the distinctive way in which Jesus’ heavenly location and identity are represented in 4:14: Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. The language of “going through the heavens” reflects the motif of heavenly ascent. As such, it is not simply a description of Jesus’ present heavenly location, but of his passage to the place of investiture, which is connected to his worthiness as a human being, a theme that we have already noted as marking Jewish accounts of heavenly journeys. It is noteworthy that in the early part of ch. 5, the perfection of Jesus in the earthly realm and his pure service to God are presented as the grounds of his appointment to the role of high priest in the order of Melchizedek. As well as the important points of correspondence with other literature involving ascent to or through the heavens, this has a specific correspondence with the traditions concerning the investiture of Levi that are attested in the Testament of Levi and in the Aramaic Levi Document,24 in which Levi is taken 23

The character of Second Temple Jewish reading practices has received much attention in recent years, both in relation to Qumran and in relation to the evidence of the later portions of the Hebrew Bible. On the former, see George J. Brooke’s important study, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); on the latter, see Michael A. Fishbane, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” JBL 99 (1980): 343–61. Regrettably, little of this discussion has found its way into the study of the New Testament, and particularly the study of apocalyptic. A better understanding of the textual and hermeneutical dynamics of apocalyptic Judaism might prompt a very different reading of the New Testament writings. 24 The relationship of these two documents is complicated and controversial, with the Testament clearly the result of Christian reworkings of Levi traditions that are sufficiently extensive to cast doubt on whether a real textual (rather than traditional) relationship can be established. For a thorough discussion of the relevant manuscript evidence and pertinent bibliography, see Henryk Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document (JSJSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004); and Jonas C.

86

Grant Macaskill

into the heavens in a dream and there is dressed in the priestly robes appropriate to his role. The preparedness of Levi for this role is maintained through the description of his ritual and moral purification, a description that has slipped from most versions of the Testament of Levi, but is attested by one manuscript tradition paralleled by Aramaic fragments from Qumran: 1 Then I washed my garments, and having purified them in pure water, 2 I also bathed myself completely in running water, and I made straight all my ways. 3 Then I raised my eyes and my face towards heavens and I opened my mouth and spoke; 4 and I spread out faithfully the fingers of my hands and my hands in front of the sanctuary and I prayed and said, 5 “O Lord, you know all the hearts and all the intentions of the thoughts you alone know. 6 And now, my children are with me. And give me all the ways of truth; 7 remove from me, o Lord, the unrighteous spirit and evil intention, and turn fornication and pride away from me. 8 Let the holy spirit, o Master, be shown to me, and give me counsel and wisdom and knowledge and strength 9 to do what pleases you and find grace before you and praise your words with me, o Lord.”25

This prayer precedes Levi’s visionary journey into heaven and ensures that the one who so ascends is understood to be particularly worthy. It is, of course, not unimportant that Levi is considered to be particularly zealous, on account of the Shechem incident of Gen 34. There is, however, a significant difference between Levi’s ascent and investiture and that of Jesus in Hebrews, to which we must pay attention. This Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 25 The material is notoriously fragmentary and requires extensive reconstruction, which is obviously subject to some debate. This version of the text, and the numbering of the lines, is reproduced from Drawnel, Aramiac Wisdom Text, 100, who also highlights through the use of bolded letters (which I have not reproduced here) the corroboration of this reading, principally reliant on a Greek recension of the Levi tradition, by one of the Aramaic fragments found at Qumran. Drawnel’s reconstruction of the text is somewhat different to the one published by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 59–63. One of the most notable differences concerns the location of this prayer, with Drawnel positioning it at the beginning of the document and Greenfield et al. locating it somewhat later. In both cases, though, the prayer immediately precedes Levi’s ascent to heaven and shapes the reader’s perception of the identity of the one who so ascends. For a fuller discussion of the manuscripts and recensions, including a review of prior scholarship, see Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 14–84, and for those that pertain to this particular section, see 43–51 and 97–103.

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

87

difference lies in the real and somatic character of the ascent of Jesus to a heavenly role, by contrast to the visionary and non-somatic ascent of Levi that is connected to an earthly role. The point takes us to David Moffitt’s recent study of the resurrection in Hebrews, which involves a compelling argument that the physical dimension of the resurrection – the fact that there is a real human body now present in the heavenly sanctuary – is important to the author.26 The ascent through the heavens and into the sanctuary is not merely a visionary one but, precisely because of the priestly responsibilities that Jesus will undertake, is one that involves bodily presence and, hence, bodily transition. Consequently, a true and complete human being occupies the heavenly space in a full natural state. This sets the account of Hebrews somewhat apart from the demonstrably early apocalyptic account of the Aramaic Levi Document and also, interestingly, from that of Enoch in the Book of the Watchers: in both of these accounts, the ascent takes place while the seer sleeps and involves a visionary, rather than bodily, experience. The seer, of course, describes the experience as one that involves both physical location and bodily perceptions of the environment, but the context is that of a dream state. There are texts that involve bodily ascent to heaven, such as 2 Enoch, but these are either demonstrably later or of questionable date.27 Viewed in the context of the literature of the period, the bodily ascension of Jesus remains an unusual feature of the New Testament (for which, see especially John 3:13). This requires some caution in comparing what we encounter in the Aramaic Levi Document or in the Book of the Watchers with what we find in Hebrews, but that caution should not be pressed to the point where we do not recognize the correspondences: all of these accounts involve human beings being given access to heavenly realities that are not ordinarily available to those of the earthly realm. In Levi’s case, in particular, that access involves a participation in the cultic dimension of this, with his own investiture as a priest and the bodily donning of the priestly garments taking place in his vision. 28 His earthly 26

David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 27 I discuss the issues relating to 2 Enoch in “Paradise in the New Testament,” in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 64–81. There I suggest that the story of the Four Who Entered Paradise is more likely to be early, and hence more likely to offer some parallels to the New Testament material, than is 2 Enoch. Even this remains a matter of some debate, however, and it is not clear that the story of the Four provides a clear analogue to the bodily ascension of Jesus. 28 Martha Himmelfarb has argued that Enoch, similarly, is presented as performing the role of priest. See her articles “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem,” Hen 24 (2002): 131–35; and “Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks,” in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. Gabriele

88

Grant Macaskill

role as priest is, thus, represented as one that corresponds to a heavenly reality, but it is important to the narrative that he performs this function in the earthly space, where his body is located and remains. Moffitt’s case for the bodily character of the ascension is connected precisely to the necessity of a true human being performing the tasks of the high priest. For this reason, he traces a number of further ways in which the real humanity of Jesus is asserted in the text. 29 Yet, it is also striking that the author affirms that this same human being, Jesus, is the Son of God. Such a designation, of course, takes us back to the opening of the epistle, to the presentation of the superiority of the “Son” as revelation of God. While this presentation of Jesus as the revealing Son does, indeed, prepare the way for the concept of Jesus’ fraternal relationship with those he has redeemed, his “brothers,” 30 it also points towards the uniqueness of Jesus and his inclusion in the divine identity, to borrow the language of Richard Bauckham. 31 This is affirmed by the revelatory emphasis of Heb 1, by the extent to which the author is concerned with the “Sonly” 32 character of the apocalypse that has taken place. It is, perhaps, important to note that the revelatory or apocalyptic character of the community’s perception of Jesus appears to be, if not a given, then at least the defensible starting point for all that follows. Importantly, the capacity to act as a revealer of God is connected to the origin and ontology of the Son and not to anything witnessed during his ascent. To put this in slightly different terms: his revelatory function is, on one level at least, connected to the descent of incarnation and not to the ascent that follows his death. 33 This same emphasis on the divinity of Jesus is affirmed by the Melchizedek parallel that is drawn in ch. 5 and that is developed in ch. 7, setting the scene for what we encounter in Heb 8–10. Without being drawn too far into the Boccaccini and John J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 219–36. The point has been subject to some heavy criticism, notably from John J. Collins in, for example, “Theology and Identity in the Early Enoch Literature,” Hen 24 (2002): 57–62. 29 Perhaps most notably, he recognizes the importance of Ps 8 to the author’s argument (see Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, 118–44). 30 See particularly Heb 2:11 and 2:17, where the likeness of Jesus to these brothers is affirmed. 31 See Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 15–36. The category of divine identity draws on the arguments that Bauckham developed in God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998). 32 This is stressed and explored by John Webster, “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 69–94. 33 Cf. John 1:18.

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

89

question of how 11QMelchizedek, with its preoccupation with an angelic mediator figure, might relate to this, it is important to note, with Neyrey, 34 that the writer uses Hellenistic true-god language of this figure. He is “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.” Alongside the Son’s real humanity, then, the author is concerned to affirm his real divinity. Crucially, this is important to the priestly activity of Jesus – he is a priest of the order of Melchizedek. The intersection of these two points is particularly interesting. Both the real divinity and real humanity of Jesus are connected to both the revelatory and the priestly roles that he fulfills, and this invites some reflection on how these roles might themselves be connected. Hebrews 8–10 presents some particularly significant material in this regard.

Apocalypse and Cult in Hebrews 8–10 Chapters 8–10 draw upon the themes of priesthood that have already been established in the earlier parts of the letter. What we encounter in these chapters specifically moves into reflection on the correspondence between earthly and heavenly structures. It is important to recognize that this, itself, is an exegetically inspired reflection. The presence of the word τύπος (for ‫ )תבנית‬in Exod 25:40 is its key warrant. While the word undoubtedly has Platonic associations, these should not be allowed to displace the visionary dimension asserted in the context, which is also maintained in the text through the participle δειχθέντα.35 This is something that has been “shown” or “revealed” to Moses. Hence, we have some conscious reflection on how one revelation (that made in Jesus) relates to another (that made to Moses). In part, this is a matter of appreciating how the representation of Moses as a recipient of revelation in Heb 8:5 is to be related to the representation of Jesus as the ultimate agent of revelation, which we have seen to develop from Heb 1:1 onwards. It is also, though, a matter of appreciating how Heb 8:5 relates to what follows: what was revealed to Moses as a pattern of heavenly things is now understood with respect to those heavenly things themselves, to which access is now available through Jesus (Heb 10:20). The representation of the temple in the law revealed to Moses is, therefore, located apocalyptically in relation to Jesus and his heavenly work. The apocalyptic dimension cannot be reduced simply to that of temporal eschatology, of old and new realities, but involves also an element of spatial or cosmological typology. 34 Jerome H. Neyrey, “‘Without Beginning of Days or End of Life’ (Hebrews 7:3): Topos for a True Deity,” CBQ 53 (1991): 439–55. 35 The form is aorist passive. The Greek translation of Exodus has the perfect participle, δεδειγμένον.

90

Grant Macaskill

The apocalyptic emphasis of these verses immediately leads into a discussion of the deficiencies of the first covenant. Interestingly, the phrase used of the first covenant is that it was not perfect or unblemished, ἄμεμπτος, a word of cultic significance. This move to discussing the imperfections of the first covenant is interesting. In part, contextually, it must be linked to the close traditional connection between the tabernacle and Moses, between the law or covenant and the temple, this ensuring the quick transition to Jer 31:31–34 in Heb 8:8–10 (cf. also Heb 10:16–17), which refers back to the exodus and to the institution of the law and the prior covenant. It is, I would suggest, vital to this that the new covenant is represented in terms of the realization of true knowledge: This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach one another or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (Heb 8:10–11 [NRSV], quoting Jer 31:33–34)

That is, the accomplishment of the unblemished purity of the new covenant is connected to the accomplishment of true interior knowledge of the laws of God and of God himself. The quotation from Jer 31:31–34 provides the terminology of the “new covenant” that is encountered also in the account of the last supper in Luke 22:20 and in the parallel words of institution of the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:25, as well as in the extended discussion of the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:6 and its context. It is perhaps also important to bear in mind that the language of Exod 24:8, quoted in Heb 9:20, is itself closely associated with the last of those texts and also with the different form of the words of institution that are found in the Matthean and Markan accounts of the last supper. The recent development of performance criticism draws attention to the eucharistic context of the reading and hearing of the New Testament, in itself giving institutional prominence to the community’s self-identification as the people of the new covenant. 36 This may give a fresh layer of significance to Heb 9:20, in turn inviting reflection on the significance of Jer 31, as a text read through the lens of the words of institution, and related to the account of Exod 24. The Jeremiah quote is 36 For this, see David Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part I,” BTB 36 (2006): 118–33; and “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part II,” BTB 36 (2006): 164– 84.

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

91

lengthy and emphasizes the democratization of access to divine presence. Ultimately, the discussion of the relationship between the heavenly and earthly temple furniture, the maintenance of the covenant in heaven by the purification of such items that has been secured by Jesus’ blood, builds towards the radical access to divine presence and the accompanying perfection of knowledge that is anticipated by Jeremiah. I have argued in my recent book, Union with Christ in the New Testament, that this theme is strikingly associated in the New Testament with the experience of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, I think that much of the exegesis found in the New Testament represents retrospective logic seeking to find textual grounds for (or perhaps better to say, simply rereading texts in the light of) the radically democratized experience of the Holy Spirit. Acts 15 is a good example. The Gentile experience of the Spirit pressurizes a very Jewish reading of Amos 8 and the prophets. It is noteworthy, then, that Heb 10:15 speaks of the testimony of the Spirit in relation to Jeremiah’s prophecy immediately after the reference to the perfecting effects of the sacrifice of Jesus: For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified; and the Holy Spirit also testifies to us … μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους. Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον·

Similarly, 10:29 describes those who sin (something defined in the previous verse as “defiling the law of Moses”) after receiving knowledge of the truth as “defiling the blood of the covenant” and “insulting the Spirit of grace”: πόσῳ δοκεῖτε χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καταπατήσας καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος ἐνυβρίσας;

These are modest examples, but perhaps more significant than some would recognize, particularly in the consistently close connection they make between the sacrifice of Jesus, the new covenant and the Spirit. Importantly, what they are connected to is a concept of divine access that moves beyond the standard fare of the apocalypses, though, interestingly, is part of the standard discourse of Christian piety in the New Testament. Where the apocalypses confine access to the divine presence and the acquisition of true knowledge to those few visionaries who have been sufficiently special and prepared, or where the mystical texts confine such access to those who belong to a particular elite, who have properly prepared themselves for worship, Hebrews speaks of a radical access open to all readers. It does so because, under the unblemished conditions of the new covenant, the Spirit is enjoyed by all believers. The limited references to the Spirit in Hebrews may simply be explained by the fact that such a belief is largely presumed rather than articulated; this makes good sense of the pattern that is observable in both 10:15 and 10:29.

92

Grant Macaskill

I would suggest that this is the key to appreciating the correspondence of the revelatory and priestly functions of Jesus as the one who is the Sonly Priest, after the order of Melchizedek. By offering the definitive sacrifice that brings about the unblemished reality of the new covenant, Jesus makes possible the realization of the knowledge of God that Jeremiah describes; but this knowledge is inseparable from his own personal identity, for Jesus is in himself the ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ.

Conclusions Rather than simply rehearsing the conclusions reached on the Epistle to the Hebrews, I close by noting some possible implications for the study of this material – a New Testament epistle shaped by apocalyptic conceptuality – for the study of Paul and apocalyptic that was discussed at the beginning of this chapter. Firstly, and most obviously, Paul is not the only one to use language that describes Jesus in terms of revelation. That point should not be underestimated in significance. If Paul is not an oddity in the New Testament (and the overlapping language would suggest that he is not), then his stated commitment to a theology informed by an act of revelation requires to be considered in relation to its parallels. Secondly, once this point is granted, it is noteworthy that the author of Hebrews remains committed to the normativity of Scripture or of torah. Scripture is certainly reread in the light of the revelation that has been disclosed in Jesus, but it retains its force and authoritative status. Indeed, one of the challenges that devolve upon the author following the revelation made in Christ is precisely to demonstrate that this revelation is intelligible in relation to torah, with a warrant found for this in the presence of the word τύπος/‫ תבנית‬in Exod 25. Thirdly, it is further noteworthy that the new reality that comes into being, articulated as it is in terms of Jer 31:31–34, involves an internalization of the law that is accomplished through the giving of the Spirit. Those who sin continue to do so in violation of the law of Moses, not a new law (Heb 10:28). What is different is the mode of operation of the law that is now in place through the reality of the Spirit. All of this may open some helpful avenues for reflection on the apparent oppositions that are encountered in Paul, particularly when the common apocalyptic theme of eschatological disclosure is recognized to be at work in each author. It is not particularly novel to suggest that the seeming oppositions (e.g., of law and gift, or of flesh and spirit) in Paul are less strict than they have sometimes been considered to be, with Paul’s eschatological framework being the key to the resolution. Exploring the parallels with Hebrews, though, may allow a clearer picture to emerge of how this eschatological framework shapes

Hebrews 8–10 and Apocalyptic Theology

93

Paul’s understanding of the operation of law and grace in relation to the disclosure that has been made through Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12). Very specifically, what these parallels might open is some fresh reflection on the cosmological and cultic dimensions of Paul’s eschatology, and how these bear on his understanding of the gospel. The correspondence that the author to the Hebrews finds between the earthly and heavenly temples and the ministry of the risen Jesus is – importantly – eschatological in character, with the key temporal transition being centered on the ascension of Jesus. But the eschatological dimension is developed in terms of a cosmic and cultic typology, not just a temporal one. Spatial and temporal dimensions, then, function together. It is, I think, most important that the apocalyptic dimension does not involve an invasion of earth, but rather an opening of heaven. The great high priest goes through the heavens and purifies the true sanctuary. In doing so, he opens the way for others to access the throne of grace. This example of New Testament apocalyptic may open the way for some fruitful reflection on the cultic imagery used by Paul within his own apocalyptic account.

Chapter 6

The Positive Functions of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews Benjamin J. Ribbens Hebrews is well known for its critique of Levitical sacrifices. The author states explicitly that the old covenant sacrifices were never able to perfect (τελειόω) the worshipers or their consciences (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1), they could not ultimately cleanse (ἅπαξ καθαρίζω) those offering the sacrifice (10:2), and they were unable to take away sins (10:4,11) or the consciousness of sins (10:2). Based on these negative statements, most scholars conclude that Hebrews considers the Levitical sacrifices not to have accomplished atonement for or forgiveness of sins. 1 The sacrifices were merely external rituals that were unable to address the problem of sin. This understanding of Hebrews is so prevalent in New Testament scholarship that one might forget how radical it would have been if Hebrews actually did come to this conclusion. Leviticus in particular, along with the rest of the Old Testament, repeatedly declares that the sin offering, burnt offering, and

1 For examples of scholars who draw this conclusion explicitly, see Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. Chrysostom Baer; South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006), 443; Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, “Shadow and Reality: Reflections on Hebrews 10:1–18,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17 (1972): 215–30, esp. 224–27; David Peterson, “The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews,” Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979): 74–81; Susan Haber, “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant and Cult in Hebrews,” JSNT 28 (2005): 105–24, esp. 119–21; Fulvio Di Giovambattista, Il giorno dell’espiazione nella Lettera agli ebrei (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 61; Rome: Pontificia università gregoriana, 2000), 146; Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2007), 205; Angela Rascher, Schriftauslegung und Christologie im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 153; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 180–81; cf. Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer (3 vols.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1990–1997), 2:206; Thomas Knöppler, Sühne im Neuen Testament: Studien zum urchristlichen Verständnis der Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu (WMANT 88; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 211; Philip Church, Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews (NovTSup 171; Leiden: Brill, 2017), esp. 428, 431.

96

Benjamin J. Ribbens

guilt offering achieved atonement (ἐξιλάσκομαι) and forgave (ἀφίημι) sins. 2 Further, the sin offering on the Day of Atonement atoned for all their sins (περὶ πασῶν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, Lev 16:16 LXX; cf. 16:30, 34). These Levitical texts are significant because the author of Hebrews had a great knowledge of and reverence for the texts he took as Scripture. He repeatedly quotes and alludes to them in Greek, and he even introduces LXX quotations as the words of God.3 The Scriptures that the author of Hebrews considers to be the words of God ascribe to old covenant sacrifices efficacies that most modern scholars of Hebrews consider the author to disallow. Further, Second Temple literature demonstrates that readers of the Jewish Scriptures understood that sacrifice accomplished three primary things (among others): atonement, forgiveness, and purification. 4 Some scholars have suggested that, by the time of the first century, there was a movement away from the importance of the Levitical sacrifices. These scholars consider Hebrews an extrapolation of the prophetic critique of sacrifice, and they read into the history (either explicitly or implicitly) a steady process of spiritualization or dematerialization of sacrifices that led to a gradual diminishment of the importance of sacrifice. 5 However, such a diminishment did not occur. There is 2 For the achievement of ἐξιλάσκομαι and ἀφίημι through sin offerings, see Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13 (just ἐξιλάσκομαι, see 6:30 [6:23 LXX]; 7:7; 10:17; 14:19, 31; 15:15, 30); through burnt offerings, see 5:10 (just ἐξιλάσκομαι, see 1:4; 7:7; 14:19–20, 31; 15:15, 30); through guilt offerings, see 5:16, 18; 6:7 [5:26 LXX]; 19:22 (just ἐξιλάσκομαι, see 7:7); also, e.g., Exod 30:10, 15, 16; Num 5:8; 6:11; 8:12, 19, 21; 15:25, 26, 28; 28:22, 30; 29:5, 11; 1 Sam 3:14; 6:3; 1 Chr 6:34; 2 Chr 29:24; Ezek 43:20, 22, 26; 45:15, 17, 18, 20; Mal 1:9. 3 E.g., Heb 1:5–13; 3:7–11; 4:3–7; 5:5–6; 7:21; 8:5, 8–12; 10:15–17. 4 For an extensive justification of this claim, see Benjamin J. Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews (BZNW 222; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), esp. 20–51. For atonement, see Sir 28:5; 45:16; 2 Macc 12:45; Jub. 6:2, 14; 7:3; 16:22; 34:18; 50:11; Sib. Or. 3:624–29; 1QM II, 5; 4Q512 29–32; 11QTa XVI, 12–18; XVIII, 2–8; 11QTa XXV, 15; XXVI, 7–10; XXVII, 2; 1Q22 (1QDM) III, 7–IV, 12; 11Q13 (11QMelch) II, 4–8; Philo, Plant. 162; Mut. 233–36; Spec. 1.234; Josephus, Ant. 3.238, 241, 246, 247; cf. 1QS II, 25– III, 12; CD IV, 6–12; Philo, Mos. 2.147; Spec. 2.17, 193–203; Josephus, Ant. 3.238, 241, 246, 247; 7.333; 13.230. For forgiveness, see T. Job 42:5–8; 11QTa XVIII, 7–8; XXVI, 9– 10; XXVII, 2; Philo, Somn. 2.299; Mos. 2.134; Spec. 1.187, 190, 193, 215, 229, 236, 237, 242; 2.193–203; cf. 2 Macc 12:45; T. Job 43:4, 17. For purification, see 1QS III; 4Q512 29– 32 VII, 9–10; Philo, Mut. 235; Spec. 1.187, 228, 229, 233, 234, 241; Josephus, Ant. 3.205, 224, 258, 273; T. Job 43:4, 17. 5 E.g., Hans Wenschkewitz, “Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe, Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament,” Angelos 4 (1932): 70–230; Robert J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background Before Origen (Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 18; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1978), esp. 159–71, 273–85. For focus on the prophetic critique, see Gottlieb Lünemann, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. Maurice J. Evans; Meyer’s Commentaries on the New Testament; London: T&T Clark, 1882), 61; Hans Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief (HNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913), 85; James Moffatt, A

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

97

not space to rehearse all of the data in this chapter, so for now it will suffice to say that the sacrificial cult was a significant institution in the first century. No Jewish texts prior to 70 C. E. speak negatively about the sacrificial cult. While there were plenty of texts critiquing the contemporary administration of the cult in Jerusalem, the depth of concern over temple issues speaks to the pride of place that the temple and cult served in Second Temple Judaism. Even the Qumran community, which had separated itself from the Jerusalem temple, esteemed the sacrificial cult in its essence as prescribed by Scripture. There was by no means a trajectory of diminished concern for the Levitical sacrifices. Rather, as Josephus says about his contemporaries, they would have preferred to lose their lives than to stop offering sacrifices (Ant. 15.248; 16.35). Second Temple texts continued to ascribe to sacrifices the efficacies given them in Leviticus: atonement, forgiveness, and purification. 6 This positive understanding of Levitical sacrifices was so engrained in firstcentury readers of the LXX7 that I want to suggest that it was a shared assumption between the author of Hebrews and his audience. Because the positive functions are assumed, the author does not highlight them. He assumes and implies the positive functions of sacrifice while highlighting the critique, how sacrifice is insufficient compared to Christ’s sacrifice. Unfortunately, readers have taken the author’s (partial) silence on the positive functions of sacrifice to suggest that he denies the cult any efficacy or positive characteristics. To counter the prevailing negative understanding of Levitical sacrifices in Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; London: T&T Clark, 1924), xli–xlv; Robert P. Gordon, Hebrews (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 28; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 319–20; Lloyd Kim, Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism? (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 64; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2006), 184– 89. 6 For positive views of the cultic practice in Second Temple literature, see, e.g., Robert Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996); Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 267–84; Jutta Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); Francesca Calabi, “Les sacrifices et leur signification symbolique chez Philon d’Alexandrie,” in Car c’est l’amour qui me plait, non le sacrifice (ed. Eberhard Bons; JSJSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 97–117; Michael A. Knibb, “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings from Before the Common Era,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 367–87; Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2006), 145–74; Paul Heger, Cult as the Catalyst for Division: Cult Disputes as the Motive for Schism in the Pre-70 Pluralistic Environment (STDJ 65; Leiden: Brill, 2007), esp. 345; Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, 20–51. 7 See n. 4 above.

98

Benjamin J. Ribbens

Hebrews, this chapter will argue that a positive understanding of the Levitical sacrifices underlies the author’s thinking.

Synkrisis: The Rhetoric and Logic of Sacrificial Comparisons The first key to seeing Hebrews’ positive understanding of Levitical sacrifice is to understand the rhetorical purpose behind its comparing Christ’s sacrifice to Levitical sacrifices. Rhetorical scholars have identified the comparisons in Hebrews – including the comparison of sacrifices – with the rhetorical device of synkrisis, which “is a traditional device of encomiastic Greek and Latin rhetoric: the person, or object, to be praised is placed beside outstanding specimens of comparable kind and his, or its, superiority (‘ὑπεροχή’) urged.”8 Encomiastic synkrisis requires the author to contrast that which he wants to promote with something of honor and validity. Thus, when Hebrews compares Christ’s sacrifice to the Levitical sacrifices, it does so because the Levitical institution is esteemed. The rhetoric of synkrisis does not diminish the value of the old covenant sacrifices; rather, it depends on a positive understanding of the Levitical sacrifices to create the foundation for a positive rhetorical comparison. Once reverence is established for the God-ordained Levitical system, the author can demonstrate the worth and validity of Christ’s sacrifice. The author seeks to demonstrate the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice, so the readers would want to persevere and not fall away from the sacrifice that is greater than those of the highly regarded Levitical institution (10:19–39). Thus, synkrisis gives 8 Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1953), 286. Typical characteristics of synkrisis include μέν-δέ contrasts, qal wahomer arguments, arguments of superiority (κρείττων), and the application of the comparison through paraenesis. Hebrews’ discussion of sacrifice includes all of these: μέν-δέ in 8:4–6; 9:1–14; 9:6–7; 9:23; 10:11–12; a qal wahomer argument in 9:13–14; the use of κρείττων in 8:6 and 9:23; and the application through paraenesis in 10:19–39. For discussions of synkrisis in Hebrews, see Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht; JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 375–87; Timothy W. Seid, “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and Strategy,” in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 323–47; deSilva, Perseverance, 48; Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A SocioRhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), 48; Eric F. Mason, “The Epistle (Not Necessarily) to the ‘Hebrews’: A Call to Renunciation of Judaism or Encouragement to Christian Commitment?” PRSt 37 (2010): 5–18, esp. 13–16; also Michael W. Martin and Jason A. Whitlark, “The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews,” NTS 57 (2011): 415–39; idem, “Choosing What Is Advantageous: The Relationship between Epideictic and Deliberative Syncrisis in Hebrews,” NTS 58 (2012): 379–400.

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

99

us a framework for understanding how Hebrews could have a positive understanding of Levitical sacrifice while also making numerous critical statements and evaluations about it. The critical statements are the part of the rhetoric emphasizing the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice, but the larger frame of the rhetoric is dependent on the worthiness and honor of Levitical sacrifice. Similarly, a positive understanding of Levitical sacrifice is necessary to the logic of Hebrews’ comparison. Hebrews goes to great lengths to demonstrate how Christ’s sacrifice follows the pattern of the Levitical sacrifice, particularly the Day of Atonement (esp. 9:1–14, 23–28).9 The purpose of drawing this analogy is to demonstrate that Christ offered a sacrifice that atones and forgives. 10 For the logic of the analogy to cohere, the author must have understood the Levitical sacrifices to achieve some efficacy. If the author did not think the Levitical sacrifices achieved anything, there is no benefit to arguing that Christ followed their pattern, because following the model of inefficacious rituals would not suggest that the new action achieves any efficacy. 11

Old Covenant Sacrifices for Sins We now turn our attention to a few texts in Hebrews that demonstrate that the author holds a positive understanding of Levitical sacrifice. In several locations, Hebrews notes that old covenant sacrifices were for sins. The first of these is in Heb 5:1, where the author states that “every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God [τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν], to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins [ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν]” (NRSV). Gifts and sacrifices here ought to be understood together as a general expression that identifies all types and kinds of sacrifices. 12 The 9 David Moffitt argues convincingly that Hebrews’ description of Jesus’ sacrifice is not metaphorical but analogical (“Serving in the Tabernacle in Heaven: Sacred Space, Jesus’s High-Priestly Sacrifice, and Hebrews’ Analogical Theology,” in Hebrews in Contexts [ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016], 259–74). Key to Moffitt’s adopting the analogical as opposed to metaphorical reading is his identifying Hebrews with a Jewish apocalyptic background (ibid., 266–74). Elsewhere, I have adopted a similar apocalyptic background (Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, esp. 89–99) and analogical understanding (ibid., esp. 129–36). 10 Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 94; Christian Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 37–64, here 59. 11 Some scholars have argued that Hebrews’ comparison of Christ’s sacrifice to Levitical sacrifices is self-contradictory (e.g., A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Sawing Off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously ad Hebraeos,” JTS 56 [2005]: 393–414). Cf. nn. 41 and 50 below. 12 Cf. 8:3; 9:9. Moffatt, Hebrews, 62; Ceslas Spicq, L’épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 2:107; Hugh Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the

100

Benjamin J. Ribbens

prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, then, would modify both δῶρα and θυσίας (gifts and sacrifices) and not solely the latter, 13 which suggests that the author is identifying sacrifice in general to be for sins and that ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν is not a slight modification of the technical term in the LXX for the sin offering (περὶ ἁμαρτίας).14 According to the Pentateuch, not all sacrifices were for sins, so the author of Hebrews here either speaks solely of those sacrifices that address sins or applies a primary function of the Levitical cult to sacrifice in general. Such a generalization was not without precedent, as Ezek 45:15–17 applies the function of atonement (ἐξιλάσκομαι) to the sin offering, grain offering, burnt offering, and fellowship offering. 15 The author of Hebrews does not explicitly state what the sacrifices accomplished regarding sins; however, atonement and forgiveness may be implied, 16 since the primary effects of sacrifices concerning sins – both in Leviticus and in Second Temple literature – are atonement and forgiveness. Further, there are strong parallels between Heb 5:1 and 2:17. In 2:17, Christ is the merciful and faithful high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) who serves concerning the matters pertaining to God (τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν) to make atonement for the sins of the people (εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ). Similarly, in 5:1 the high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) is appointed to serve concerning the matters pertaining to God (τὰ Hebrews (HNTC; New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1964), 94; Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 175; Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984), 130; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989), 143; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 89 n. 6; Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (15th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 304; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 274; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: An New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), 285; Mitchell, Hebrews, 108. 13 Montefiore, Hebrews, 94; Attridge, Hebrews, 143; Bruce, Hebrews, 89; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 274–75; cf. David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews” (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 81; contra Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1892), 118. 14 Bruce, Hebrews, 89; Grässer, Hebräer, 1:273–74. Ceslas Spicq suggests that ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν is a modification of the technical term περὶ ἁμαρτίας. The singular ἁμαρτίας becomes the plural ἁμαρτιῶν, because the sin offering on the Day of Atonement takes care of all sins (Lev 16:21; similarly, Montefiore, Hebrews, 94), and the author changes περί to ὑπέρ in order to correspond or assimilate to ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων (Spicq, Hébreux, 2:107). 15 For the generalization of atonement to all sacrifices, see Knöppler, Sühne, 193; Christian Eberhart, Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT 94; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 218; Rascher, Schriftauslegung, 109 n. 33. 16 Weiss, Hebräer, 30; cf. Montefiore, Hebrews, 93; Hughes, Hebrews, 176; Kistemaker, Hebrews, 130; William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 1:116.

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

101

πρὸς τὸν θεόν) to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins (ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν). These parallel constructions suggest that “matters pertaining to God” (τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν) are sacrifices that atone for sins. 17 Therefore, the mention of τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν in 5:1 along with describing sacrifices as addressing the problem of sin strongly implies that the old covenant sacrifices atoned for sins. 18 The author, however, does not make this connection explicit. The author’s silence in this regard should not be interpreted as a rejection of the effects of sacrifice; rather, the absence of an explicit description of how sacrifices related to sins is likely the result of a shared assumption between author and audience – i.e., sacrifices atone and forgive sins. On three other occasions, Hebrews states generally that Levitical sacrifices are for sins. Hebrews 5:3 states that, because the high priest is subject to weakness and, therefore, commits sin (5:2), “he must offer sacrifice for his own sins [περὶ αὐτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν] as well as for those of the people [καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ]” (5:3).19 Similarly, Heb 7:27 notes that Christ – unlike the Levitical high priest – “has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins [ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν], and then for those of the people [τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ].”20 Hebrews 9:7 describes the Day of Atonement sacrifices, 17 Westcott, Hebrews, 118; similarly Montefiore, Hebrews, 93; Hughes, Hebrews, 176; Lane, Hebrews, 1:116; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 273. 18 Rascher, Schriftauslegung, 109; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 143. 19 Some scholars argue that περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν here identifies the sin offering in particular (Weiss, Hebräer, 306 n. 18; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 278; Hermut Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief [BZNW 73; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994], 11). However, the technical term for the sin offering in the LXX is περί with the genitive singular ἁμαρτίας, whereas Heb 5:3 has περί with the genitive plural ἁμαρτιῶν. In Heb 10:6, 8, when quoting Ps 40:6 (39:7 LXX), the technical term περὶ ἁμαρτίας identifies the sin offering. Additionally, the author employs the term himself in 13:11 to refer to the Day of Atonement sacrifice as a sin offering (cf. Lev 16:27). The author, therefore, appears to use the technical term περὶ ἁμαρτίας in a way consistent with the LXX, thereby suggesting that περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν is not a modified form of the technical term for the sin offering and does not refer to the sin offering. Rather, περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν is more likely used as an equivalent construction to ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν in 5:1 (cf. 7:27; 10:12, 26) and, therefore, is identifying the end or goal of the sacrifice – i.e., they were for sins (Westcott, Hebrews, 120; Grässer, Hebräer, 1:281). 20 Some scholars think 5:3 refers to the Day of Atonement, but 7:27 suggests that the high priest’s need to sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people is not restricted to the Day of Atonement, but it is the result of sinfulness and weakness that plagued the people throughout the year, thereby requiring sacrifices “day after day” (καθ’ ἡμέραν) (Ellingworth, Hebrews, 277; Grässer, Hebräer, 1:281–82; deSilva, Perseverance, 188; Koester, Hebrews, 287). Several traditions mention that the high priest offered sacrifices on days other than the Day of Atonement (Sir 45:14 [καθ’ ἡμέραν ἐνδελεχῶς δίς]; Philo, Spec. 3.131 [καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν]; Josephus, J.W. 5.230; m. Yoma 1.2, 3.4–5; cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.257 [δίς ἑκάστες ἡμέρας]). Further, Lev 4:3 makes provision for how the high priest would deal with his own sins. However, it is unlikely that the high priest in practice did perform daily sacrifices (see in particular Josephus, J.W. 5.230; m. Yoma 1.2).

102

Benjamin J. Ribbens

when the high priest enters the holy of holies with blood in order to offer “for himself and for the sins committed unintentionally by the people [ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων]” (cf. 13:11).21 Just as in 5:1, none of these three passages clarifies what the author thought the sacrifices accomplished as they relate to sin. However, it is significant that the author acknowledges that the very purpose of the sacrifices was to address the problem of sin and that they were not simply external purifications. Forgiveness and atonement may again be implied, since Leviticus and Second Temple literature highlight these effects for all sacrifices for sins (Heb 5:1, 3; 7:27) and, in particular, the Day of Atonement sacrifices (Heb 9:7; 13:11). 22

Whether the high priest in particular offered daily sacrifices for himself and for the people does not seem to be the concern of Heb 7:27. Rather, the author appears to speak of the high priest as a representative head for the Levitical priesthood in order to contrast Jesus’ priesthood with the Levitical priesthood. As the representative of the Levitical priesthood, the high priest embodies all the actions and weaknesses of the Levitical priesthood. Thus, Heb 7:27 is not trying to identify the high priest as performing any particular kind of sacrifice (tamid, meal offering, guilt offering, etc.); rather, Heb 7:27 is describing the general state under the old covenant. That the author states that the high priest offered sacrifices for himself before offering sacrifices for the people is a natural extrapolation of Lev 9:7–14 and Lev 16:6, 11 (where the high priest offers sacrifices for himself and then for the people) and is an application of Lev 4:3 – the priest must atone for his sins so as not to bring guilt on the people. Such a reading of Heb 7:27 is different than saying that the author takes the Day of Atonement sacrifices and generalizes, conflates, or assimilates them to the daily sacrifices (e.g., Ellingworth, Hebrews, 395; Koester, Hebrews, 367). 21 Hebrews 13:11 mentions the sin offering performed on the Day of Atonement: “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin [περὶ ἁμαρτίας] are burned outside the camp.” In this instance, the author notes that the blood comes from the sin offering, and the technical term for the sin offering (περὶ ἁμαρτίας) as well as the function of the sin offering connote efficacy for sin. For περὶ ἁμαρτίας as a reference to the sin offering on the Day of Atonement, see Westcott, Hebrews, 439; Spicq, Hébreux, 2:426–27; Hughes, Hebrews, 575; Kistemaker, Hebrews, 418–19; Attridge, Hebrews, 397; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 712–13; Koester, Hebrews, 570. 22 For those who note the atoning function of old covenant sacrifices when discussing Heb 5:3 and 7:27, see Hughes, Hebrews, 276; Kistemaker, Hebrews, 207; Lane, Hebrews, 1:193–94. For 9:7, see Moffatt, Hebrews, 117; Attridge, Hebrews, 239; Lane, Hebrews, 2:222; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 434; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:128; Koester, Hebrews, 397; Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2/212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 277; Barry C. Joslin, Hebrews, Christ and the Law: The Theology of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:1–10:18 (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008), 228.

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

103

Old Covenant Sacrifices and Forgiveness While the verses mentioned so far may imply positive functions for Levitical sacrifices, Heb 9:22 and 10:18 directly attribute the function of forgiveness to old covenant sacrifices. Hebrews 9:22 makes the axiomatic statement that “under the law almost everything is purified [καθαρίζεται] with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness [ἄφεσις].” Most scholars consider the second half of the axiomatic statement – “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” – a reiteration of the blood canon of Lev 17:11: “For the life of all flesh is its blood, and I have given it to you for making atonement [ἐξιλάσκεσθαι] for your souls on the altar, for it is its blood that makes atonement [ἐξιλάσεται] for the soul” ( NETS).23 This maxim is central to Leviticus’ sacrifice theology and is reiterated in later Jewish writings. 24 All atoning sacrifices required blood. The author of Hebrews articulates this principle but in his own terms. Rather than referring to blood in general (αἷμα), he speaks of αἱματεκχυσία, and, rather than using the verb for atonement (ἐξιλάσκομαι), he speaks of ἄφεσις. Both of these terms require further attention. Αἱματεκχυσία provides a unique challenge for interpreters, because Heb 9:22 is the first occurrence of this term in extant Greek literature. The singularity of this term creates difficulty in determining its precise meaning, as two options prevail. First, it could denote the application of blood on the altar that occurs during sacrifice.25 In the LXX of Leviticus, the verb ἐγχέω (a cognate of ἔκχυσις) is used in construction with αἷμα several times (Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; cf. Exod 24:8; 29:12), where it always refers to pouring blood on the altar. Second, αἱματεκχυσία could refer to the slaughter of a sacrificial victim. In 1 Kgs 18:28 and Sir 27:15, the noun ἔκχυσις is found in construction with αἵματος to refer to bloodshed – the pouring out of blood that kills a person. In similar fashion, αἱματεκχυσία in Heb 9:22 could refer to the slaughter of a

23

Kistemaker, Hebrews, 259–60; Attridge, Hebrews, 258; Bruce, Hebrews, 217 n. 144; Lane, Hebrews, 2:246; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:128–29; Di Giovambattista, Giorno dell’espiazione, 190–91. 24 Jub. 6:7–8, 12–13; 7:27–33; 21:6, 17–20; Philo, Spec. 1.205; 3.150; 4.122–23; Det. 91–92; Her. 55; Josephus, Ant. 1.102; 3.260; b. Yoma 5a; b. Menahot 93b; b. Zevahim 8a, 26b, 36a, 36b, 51a, 51b, 61, 89b; Sifra 4:9. 25 Spicq, Hébreux, 2:265; T. C. G. Thornton, “The Meaning of Αἱματεκχυσία in Heb. ix.22,” JTS 15 (1964): 63–65; William G. Johnsson, “Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews” (PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973), 322–24; Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 279–80; Weiss, Hebräer, 482 n. 32; Lindars, Hebrews, 94 n. 96; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 474; Koester, Hebrews, 420; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 418; David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 291–92 n. 157.

104

Benjamin J. Ribbens

sacrificial victim. 26 While this latter interpretation fits the author’s connection between blood and death in Heb 9:16–21, the former option – the application of blood – is more likely. The verses immediately preceding 9:22 speak of the sprinkling of blood that purified the scroll, people, and tabernacle (9:19–21; cf. 9:13). In addition, the cultic background of Heb 9 and the likely allusion to the blood canon of Lev 17:11 suggest that αἱματεκχυσία should be read with the cultic background and Levitical texts so that it refers to the application or manipulation of blood. Still, it may be that deciding between these two options is unnecessary, as αἱματεκχυσία may function synecdochically to allude to the whole of the sacrificial act, which includes both the slaughter (pouring out of the blood from the animal) and the blood manipulation (pouring out of the blood onto the altar).27 Further, with either meaning, the main point of the passage is that the pouring out of the blood in sacrifice – either exemplified by the slaughter or the application of blood – is necessary for ἄφεσις.28 The term ἄφεσις has both a general-profane meaning of “release” and a particular-cultic meaning of “forgiveness or remission of sins.” The profane sense dominates the usage in Hellenistic Greek, 29 and the LXX uses this term solely in its profane sense.30 In Heb 9:22, ἄφεσις is not in construct with any other terms, which is similar to its general-profane usage in the LXX. As a result, some scholars have argued that ἄφεσις in Heb 9:22 does not refer to the forgiveness of sins but has the general-profane sense of “release.”31 William Johnsson, for instance, appeals to the general sense of ἄφεσις to argue for a close connection between purification and ἄφεσις. Since ἄφεσις is sandwiched between two occurrences of the verb καθαρίζω, Johnsson argues that the general meaning “to

26

Johannes Behm, “αἱματεκχυσία,” TDNT 1:176–77; Norman H. Young, “Αἱματεκχυσία: A Comment,” ExpTim 90 (1979): 180; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:185. For the use of the verb ἐγχέω with αἷμα to refer to killing humans or animals, see Gen 37:22; Lev 17:4; Num 35:33. 27 Cf. Thornton, “Αἱματεκχυσία,” 65. 28 Behm, TDNT 1:177. 29 While some sources speak of the release from a debt or punishment (e.g., Plato, Laws 9:869D; Demosthenes, Orations 24, 45), such usages never occur in a religious context (Rudolf Bultmann “ἀφίημι, κτλ,” TDNT 1:509; cf. Sebastian Fuhrmann, Vergeben und Vergessen: Christologie und Neuer Bund im Hebräerbrief [WMANT 113; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007], 158). 30 Johnsson, “Defilement,” 326–27; cf. Koester, Hebrews, 420; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 159. This is true even in Lev 16:26, where ἄφεσις refers to the release of the scapegoat (cf. ἀφίημι in Lev 16:10). 31 Brooke Foss Westcott argues that ἄφεσις refers to the release “not so much from special sins as from the bondage of which wrongdoing is a result. In this sense ‘cleansing’ is to a certain degree opposed to ‘release.’ The one marks the removal of the stain, the other the enabling for action” (Hebrews, 269).

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

105

release,” paired with a context that emphasizes purity, results in the meaning “definitive putting away” (of defilement) or “decisive purgation.” 32 Still, ἄφεσις in 9:22 likely goes beyond purification of impurity to denote the forgiveness of sins.33 The main argument against this conclusion is that ἄφεσις is used absolutely with no mention of “sin” or its equivalent in the immediate context, leading some to argue that the author is careful “to avoid stating that the old cultus offered forgiveness of sins, in any real sense of the word.”34 Yet, several considerations suggest this argument is incorrect and affirm the meaning forgiveness. First, the cognate verb ἀφίημι is used throughout the LXX for the forgiveness or remission of sins, most notably throughout the Levitical descriptions of the efficacy of sacrifice (e.g., Lev 4:1–6:7; 19:22; cf. Num 15:25, 26). Second, Philo uses ἄφεσις in construction with words for sin to refer to the forgiveness of sins that comes as a result of bloody animal sacrifice (Mos. 2.147; Spec. 1.190, 215, 237),35 thereby demonstrating that the noun ἄφεσις, and not only the verb ἀφίημι, was used in the particular-cultic sense in first-century Jewish Greek texts. Third, the term ἄφεσις in apostolic preaching refers to the forgiveness of sins. Nearly without exception,36 the New Testament authors use ἄφεσις to speak of the forgiveness of sins (usually in construction with a noun for sin such as ἁμαρτία or παράπτωμα).37 Fourth, ἄφεσις can be used absolutely and still refer to the remission of sins. Mark 3:29 uses ἄφεσις absolutely, but it is clear from the context that remission of sins is meant because the notion of sin (ἁμάρτημα) is supplied by the context. Therefore, the meaning forgiveness or remission (of implied sins) is not entirely dependent on a grammatical construction but can be derived from the context. Fifth, the context of Heb 9:22 intimates the meaning forgiveness. The cultic context and mention of bloodshed strongly suggest reference to sacrifice and its efficacy of forgiveness. Further, the author applies the axiomatic statement 32 Johnsson, “Defilement,” 325–28; similarly Lane, Hebrews, 2:232, 246; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 472–74; cf. Koester, Hebrews, 420. 33 Moffatt, Hebrews, 130; Spicq, Hébreux, 2:265–66; Montefiore, Hebrews, 158; Kistemaker, Hebrews, 261; Attridge, Hebrews, 259; Weiss, Hebräer, 482 esp. n. 33; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:185–86; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 410; Guido Telscher, Opfer aus Barmherzigkeit: Hebr 9,11–28 im Kontext biblischer Sühnetheologie (FB 112; Würzburg: Echter, 2007), 267; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 160. 34 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 472; similarly Johnsson, “Defilement,” 325–28; Lane, Hebrews, 2:232, 246. 35 In one non-cultic text, Philo uses ἄφεσις absolutely (not in construct with words for sin) to denote forgiveness (Flacc. 84). 36 Only once does ἄφεσις have its general meaning “release” in the New Testament, and this usage occurs in Luke 4:18, which is a quotation of Isa 61:1–2 that alludes to the freedom for the prisoners and oppressed. The word ἄφεσις means “forgiveness” in all thirteen other occurrences. 37 Matt 26:28; Mark 1:4; 3:29; Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14.

106

Benjamin J. Ribbens

of 9:22 to Christ’s new covenant sacrifice; therefore, when the author demonstrates how Christ’s sacrifice addresses the problem of sin (9:12, 14, 15, 26, 28; 10:17–18; cf. 9:7; 10:2, 4, 11), the implication is that the ἄφεσις in 9:22 concerned sins. Sixth, if 9:22 is a reiteration of the blood canon of Lev 17:11, then 9:22 is concerned with the removal of sin through sacrifice. 38 While Lev 17:11 uses the verb for atonement (ἐξιλάσκομαι), Hebrews draws on the notion of forgiveness, which is paired with atonement throughout Leviticus. Thus, ἄφεσις in Heb 9:22 almost certainly means forgiveness.39 Hebrews 9:22, therefore, functions as a general principle that was applicable under the old covenant (κατὰ τὸν νόμον) and is applicable in the new covenant.40 Of note, then, in our discussion of the old covenant sacrifices is the author’s programmatic assumption that old covenant sacrifices achieved the forgiveness of sins.41 38 N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 101–9; Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (Hebrew Bible Monographs 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005), 163–82. 39 I am not here arguing that sacrifice does not achieve purification. Rather, I am arguing that ἄφεσις in cultic contexts does not have the general-profane meaning of “release” but the particular-cultic meaning of “forgiveness of sins.” This linguistic argument overlaps with arguments concerning the theology of Levitical sacrifice. For instance, Jacob Milgrom argues that Levitical sacrifice had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins and did not purify the offerer; rather, sacrifice purified the cultic furniture (e.g., Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1– 16 [AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001], 253–61; “Atonement in the OT,” IDBSup 78–81; “Sacrifices and Offerings, OT,” IDBSup 78–81). However, scholars such as N. Kiuchi, Roy Gane, and Jay Sklar have argued that Levitical sacrifice did not merely purify the sanctuary and its furniture, but the sacrifices purified the offerer. Further, since sin and impurity are interrelated, sacrificial purification was accompanied by forgiveness and/or redemption (Kiuchi, Purification Offering, esp. 36–37, 59-66; Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005], 50–52, 273–75; Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, esp. 139–40, 154, 157, 181–84). Thus, I am not arguing that forgiveness and purification are unrelated but (1) that Levitical sacrifice not only achieved purification but also forgiveness of sins and (2) that ἄφεσις denotes “forgiveness of sins.” 40 E.g., Rascher, Schriftauslegung, 172. 41 Many scholars have highlighted the fact that this very assumption seems to be in tension with the author’s statements elsewhere. Hebrews 10:4 and 10:11 are most often cited as contradictory to 9:22, because the author in those two places says that the old covenant sacrifices were never able to take away sins (ἀδύνατον … ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας, v. 4; οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, v. 11), which these scholars identify with forgiveness. Erich Grässer, Jordi Cervera i Valls, and Christian Eberhart consider these statements in 10:4 and 10:11 to relativize or entirely negate the effect of sacrifices as a help against sin (Grässer, Hebräer, 2:186, cf. 2:205, 210, 213; Jordi Cervera i Valls, “Jesús, gran sacerdot i víctima, a Hebreus: Una teologia judeocristiana de la mediació i de l’expiació,” Revista de cultura biblica 34 [2009]: 477–502, esp. 498; Eberhart, “Sacrificial Metaphors,” esp. 59–60; Christian Eberhart, Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

107

Hebrews 10:18 affirms this connection between old covenant sacrifices and the forgiveness of sins, stating that “where there is forgiveness [ἄφεσις] of these, there is no longer any offering for sin [προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας].” The demonstrative pronoun τούτων (“these”) refers to sins (ἁμαρτίας) and lawless deeds (ἀνομίας), which God no longer remembers under the new covenant (10:17). Thus, by means of the demonstrative pronoun τούτων, ἄφεσις is in construction with a noun for sins; therefore, ἄφεσις here clearly refers to the forgiveness or remission of sins. 42 The connection between ἄφεσις and sin is affirmed by the second half of the phrase, which attests a cultic context (προσφορά) that addresses the problem of sin (περὶ ἁμαρτίας). Hebrews 10:18 is the culmination of the author’s comparison (synkrisis) of sacrifices (8:1–10:18) before he gives an exhortation based on Christ’s superior sacrifice (10:19–39). This concluding statement presumes the entire argument that preceded and, therefore, highlights similarities while affirming the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice. The phrase “where there is forgiveness [ἄφεσις] of these” refers to Christ’s sacrifice that accomplishes forgiveness, while the Levitical sacrifices are represented by the phrase “there is no longer any offering for sin [προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας].”43 The logic of Heb 10:18 is based on a Testament [WUNT 306; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 138). Similarly Stylianopoulos, “Shadow and Reality,” 224–25; Attridge, Hebrews, 258–59; Joslin, Law, 252; cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 472; Di Giovambattista, Giorno dell’espiazione, 146; deSilva, Perseverance, 311; Knöppler, Sühne, 206, 211; Weiss, Hebräer, 482 n. 31. Such scholars propose that the principle of 9:22 establishes the manner – not without blood – by which forgiveness happens, but the author ultimately judges the old covenant sacrifices negatively in terms of their effect (Grässer, Hebräer, 2:186). While Heb 10:4 and 10:11, along with other statements critical of the old covenant cult, raise significant issues for the statement here in 9:22, it seems best to allow 9:22 to stand as a programmatic statement describing the connection between sacrifice and forgiveness (Moffatt, Hebrews, 131; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 289, 418; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 215; Rascher, Schriftauslegung, 172–73; cf. Koester, Hebrews, 427), especially since the author appears to have been working with this logic previously in the statements that sacrifice was for sins (5:1, 3; 7:27; 9:7). 42 Westcott, Hebrews, 316; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:234; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 158–60; Sebastian Fuhrmann, “Failures Forgotten: The Soteriology in Hebrews Revisited in the Light of Its Quotation of Jeremiah 38:31–34 [LXX],” Neot 41 (2007): 295–316, esp. 302; Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 188. Contra Johnsson, “Defilement,” 350–51; Lane, Hebrews, 2:269. Since “it seems incontestable that 10:18 echoes 9:22b as its corollary,” Johnsson concludes that ἄφεσις must again mean “definitive putting away,” as he argues it must in 9:22b (“Defilement,” 350). 43 The προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας is not a reference to a specific kind of sacrifice (e.g., the sin offering), but it refers to any offering that is for sins. Lane suggests that the term προσφορά refers particularly to the sacrifice of Jesus, since this term is used for his selfoffering in 10:14 (Lane, Hebrews, 2:269). However, προσφορά in 10:14 originates for the author from the quotation of Ps 40:6–8, where the term refers to the old covenant offerings (Heb 10:5, 8), and the author uses its cognate verb προσφέρω to refer to both old covenant

108

Benjamin J. Ribbens

similarity between Christ’s sacrifice and Levitical sacrifices: i.e., they forgive sins. Christ’s sacrifice, however, is superior to the old covenant sacrifices, in part because Christ’s sacrifice had an ongoing effect. His sacrifice was once for all, not needing repetition (9:12, 25–26; 10:1–4, 12–14). Since Christ’s sacrifice attained a perpetual forgiveness, there is no longer need for the previous means of attaining forgiveness – i.e., Levitical sacrifices for sins. 44 This negative conclusion concerning the old covenant cultic system often leads scholars to argue that the author strips old covenant sacrifices of any efficacy. 45 In contrast, the very act of bringing up the old covenant sacrifices in the context of discussing forgiveness demonstrates the author’s assumption that the Levitical sacrifices accomplished ἄφεσις. The author is working with the principle established in 9:22 that the blood of sacrifice forgives, and under the first covenant the blood of Levitical sacrifice was the means of forgiving sins. That Christ’s sacrifice is greater does not diminish the old covenant sacrifices, as if they achieved something less than forgiveness while Christ achieved true forgiveness. 46 Rather, old covenant sacrifices achieved actual, real forgiveness until Christ’s sacrifice granted perpetual forgiveness.

According to the Law Hebrews’ positive view of Levitical sacrifices is also presumed in the way the author roots Levitical sacrifice in the law. The author understood the Levitical sacrifices to be commanded by God in the law (νόμος). In Heb 8:4, the author notes that the earthly priests “offer gifts according to the law [κατὰ νόμον].” Likewise, in Heb 10:8 the author states that the sacrifices, offerings, burnt offerings, and sin offerings “are offered according to the law [κατὰ νόμον].” The author clearly attests the fact that the Levitical sacrifices were ordained by God, which suggests that they achieved the efficacy that was ascribed to them in the law (νόμος). “The point then is that, whether or not the blood-ritual has any value in itself, it is what is prescribed in the Law for atonement and thus has divine sanction for the period of operation of the old covenant.” 47 Hebrews and new covenant sacrifice. Therefore, the term is here likely used generally with the old covenant sacrifices particularly in mind. The author is noting the cessation of old covenant sacrifices and is not stating (at this point in his argument) that Christ’s self-offering cannot happen a second time (see 10:26–31). 44 Hughes, Hebrews, 404; Attridge, Hebrews, 282; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:234. 45 E.g., Moffatt, Hebrews, 131. 46 Joslin, Law, 236, 252. 47 Lindars, Hebrews, 94; cf. Montefiore, Hebrews, 135 regarding 8:4. Scholars often diminish the efficacies and functions of the Levitical sacrifices by contending that Hebrews describes them as a shadow or a foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice (e.g., Church, Hebrews and Temple, 431; for a list of others see Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, 16 n. 48). However, if

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

109

9:10, in the midst of a critique of the old covenant sacrifices, affirms this understanding. The author describes the Levitical sacrifices as “only concerning food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of correction or reformation” (my translation). There is not space to discuss what the author means by his critical description of sacrifices as regulations of the body or flesh. What is pertinent at this juncture is to note that, while critiquing the sacrifices, the author of Hebrews acknowledges that the sacrifices were imposed or had legal standing until the time of the new covenant.48 As part of the God-ordained and legally valid law, the sacrifices must have achieved what God promised they would – i.e., atonement and forgiveness.49

Redemption I have argued so far that Hebrews ascribes to Levitical sacrifices positive efficacies including purification, atonement, and forgiveness. For this reason, one cannot make a blanket statement regarding the inefficacy of the Levitical sacrifices in Hebrews. Rather, scholars need to make more nuanced statements that account for both the author’s positive understanding of the Levitical sacrifices and his numerous negative statements about the inability of the old covenant sacrifices. 50 In particular, we need to be more precise about what the one holds to such a prospective typology (see Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, 13–17 for an explanation of this term), one has to account for God’s ascribing to those shadows/foreshadowings certain efficacies. 48 Attridge, Hebrews, 242; BDAG 373. 49 I mention atonement and forgiveness here in a pair primarily to follow the pattern established in Leviticus of pairing ‫כִ ֶפר‬/ἐξιλάσκομαι and ‫סָ לַח‬/ἀφίημι as the results of sacrifice (see n. 2 above). Scholars have defined and differentiated these two terms in various ways. Roy Gane, for instance, identifies atonement (‫ )כִ ֶפ ר‬as the purification or purgation effected by the priest’s performance of the sacrifice, while forgiveness (‫ )סָ לַח‬is the pardon or release from punishment that is given by God (Cult and Character, 49–52). Jay Sklar adds to the definition of ‫כִ פֶר‬, noting that it is not only purification but also a ransom “delivering [the offerer] from punishment and appeasing the offended party” (Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 184). In this way, “atonement” is an appropriate translation of ‫ כִ פֶר‬that includes purification and redemption, expiation and propitiation. 50 Some scholars have noticed the positive function of sacrifices in Hebrews only to conclude that these statements are self-contradictory with the author’s critique of sacrifice: see n. 41 as well as Wedderburn, “Sawing Off the Branches,” 393–414; Gerd Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief (ZBK; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002), 18. For other scholars who acknowledge the existing tension between the positive mention of sacrifice and its critique, see Ernest Findlay Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance (London: T&T Clark, 1922), 137; Walther von Loewenich, “Zum Verständnis des Opfergedankens im Hebräerbrief,” Theologische Blätter 12 (1933): 167–72; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 453; Joseph

110

Benjamin J. Ribbens

author thinks Christ’s sacrifice accomplished that the old covenant sacrifices could not. One key distinction that may help this discussion is a distinction between forgiveness (ἄφεσις) and redemption (λύτρωσις; ἀπολύτρωσις). Hebrews describes how sins were not redeemed (ἀπολύτρωσιν) under the first covenant (9:15) but were finally and eternally redeemed (λύτρωσιν) by Christ’s sacrifice (9:12). Hebrews uses the terms λύτρωσις (9:12) and ἀπολύτρωσις (9:15) interchangeably, 51 and they mean either (a) deliverance or (b) deliverance that comes by means of a payment or a cost.52 While some scholars have argued that the redemption language in Heb 9:12 and 15 refers to deliverance alone,53 the contexts of 9:12 and 15 provide the payment (αἵματος in 9:12 and θανάτου in 9:15), so that redemption is the liberation of the guilty party by removing sin through the payment of Christ’s self-offered life. 54 Hebrews 9:15 states that “a death has occurred that redeems [the called] from the transgressions under the first covenant [εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαωήκῃ παραβάσεων].” Many scholars argue that, since sins cannot be redeemed, the ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν … παραβάσεων must refer to the remission or

Moingt, “La fin du sacrifice,” LumVie 217 (1994): 15–31, esp. 27–28; Jennifer L. Koosed, “Double Bind: Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in A Shadow of Glory: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust (ed. Tod Linafelt; London: Routledge, 2002), 89–101, esp. 94; cf. Windisch, Hebräerbrief, 85; Ruben Zimmermann, “Die neutestamentliche Deutung des Todes Jesu als Opfer: Zur christologischen Koinzidenz von Opfertheologie und Opferkritik,” Kerygma und Dogma 51 (2005): 72–99, esp. 91. 51 These two words – λύτρωσις and ἀπολύτρωσις – appear interchangeable in all extant Greek literature. See Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (3d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 40–41; David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 71; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 189. 52 Cf. Büchsel, “λύτρον, κτλ,” TDNT 4:340–56; BDAG 117, 606; Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 11–62; Hill, Greek Words, 49–81; I. Howard Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (ed. Robert J. Banks; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), 153–69; Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 395–96. 53 Hill, Greek Words, 68–69; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 191–98; cf. Westcott, Hebrews, 296; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 453. 54 Spicq, Hébreux, 2:257; Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 40–41; Marshall, “Redemption,” 165–66; Hughes, Hebrews, 367; Kistemaker, Hebrews, 250; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:154; similarly Montefiore, Hebrews, 154; Lane, Hebrews, 2:241–42. The idea that Christ’s life is the payment or cost that allows for the deliverance of believers is confirmed elsewhere in Hebrews (2:9, 14–15; 5:7–9; cf. 13:12). Similarly, there appears to be a New Testament tradition that connects λυτρ- terms to Jesus giving (δίδωμι) of himself (1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14), his life (Mark 10:45), and his precious blood (1 Pet 1:19; cf. Eph 1:7). The implication is that Christ’s life is the payment for redemption.

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

111

forgiveness of sins, essentially equating ἀπολύτρωσις with ἄφεσις.55 However, a couple of considerations suggest that ἀπολύτρωσις in Heb 9:15 is not equivalent with the forgiveness of sins (ἄφεσις) in 9:22 and 10:18. First, the ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν παραβάσεων was not possible during the regime of the old covenant (ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ),56 and, therefore, the old covenant sacrifices could not attain this reality. In contrast, as discussed above, Hebrews describes ἄφεσις as a benefit that was attained by blood through the sacrifices for sins during the old covenant. Thus, the author of Hebrews seems to distinguish between these two salvific realities. Second, although some scholars have argued ἀπολύτρωσιν cannot mean redemption since sins cannot be redeemed (ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν παραβάσεων [9:15]),57 the author likely means that Christ redeems people – οἱ κεκλημένοι (“those who are called”) – from their sins. 58 The author frequently speaks of Christ’s efficacy as it relates to sins in this way. For instance, Heb 1:3 describes how Christ provided “purification for sins” (καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν). Here again the salvific good of purification (καθαρισμόν) is modified by a word for sins in the genitive plural. The author does not mean that sins are purified, but that people are purified from their sins (cf. Heb 2:17).59 The genitive construction is flexible, and one ought not to be too dogmatic about such a grammatical construction. Hebrews, therefore, appears to distinguish between ἀπολύτρωσις and ἄφεσις. Whereas Levitical sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice achieved forgiveness (9:22; 10:18), the sins committed by God’s people (οἱ κεκλημένοι)

55 Büchsel, TDNT 4:354–55; Moffatt, Hebrews, 126; Hill, Greek Words, 69; Marshall, “Redemption,” 165; Peterson, Perfection, 137; Bruce, Hebrews, 208–9; Weiss, Hebräer, 476; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 460; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:154, 171–72; Di Giovambattista, Giorno dell’espiazione, 146; Koester, Hebrews, 408, 417; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 184 n. 48; Telscher, Opfer aus Barmherzigkeit, 262; Fuhrmann, Vergeben, 190; cf. Westcott, Hebrews, 265; Lane, Hebrews, 2:239, 251–52; Koester, Hebrews, 412–13; Mackie, Eschatology, 93. 56 Some scholars think the prepositional phrase functions conditionally or causally to denote the cause of the trespasses – i.e., the old covenant caused sins (Moffatt, Hebrews, 126; cf. Westcott, Hebrews, 264; Spicq, Hébreux, 2:261; Hughes, Hebrews, 366–67; Koester, Hebrews, 417). However, Heb 9:15 is not critiquing the first covenant for causing sin but for its inability to take sin away. Therefore, ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ functions temporally to identify the era (of the first covenant) under which the sins were committed that could not be redeemed (Braun, Hebräer, 272; Weiss, Hebräer, 476–77 n. 10; Attridge, Hebrews, 255; Grässer, Hebräer, 2:171; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 183–84; Telscher, Opfer aus Barmherzigkeit, 262; Ole Jakob Filtvedt, The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews [WUNT 2/400; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 120; Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, 183–84). 57 See n. 55. 58 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 255 n. 13. 59 Morris, Apostolic Preaching, 46.

112

Benjamin J. Ribbens

under the first covenant (i.e., before Christ inaugurated the second covenant) 60 are redeemed not by Levitical sacrifices but by Christ’s sacrifice (9:12, 15). The forgiveness (ἄφεσις) of sins is release from the guilt or punishment due sins. Forgiveness does not, however, fully deal with sin or trespass. For the sins to be fully removed and the scales of justice balanced, redemption is necessary. While ἄφεσις releases the guilty party from the punishment due sins, ἀπολύτρωσις liberates the guilty party by removing sins through a payment. Thus, there could be ἄφεσις without ἀπολύτρωσις, but ἀπολύτρωσις would necessarily include ἄφεσις, since removal of the sin would also include removing the punishment due a sin. Hebrews, therefore, can speak of an ἄφεσις occurring under the first covenant that did not include ἀπολύτρωσις. Sins that were forgiven during the first covenant in some sense were not removed.61 The proper punishment for sin is death (Rom 6:23) so, until the proper payment is made, sins are not fully taken away and the scales of justice are not balanced. By means of his self-offering, Christ achieves the redemption that pays the price, balances the scales of justice, and fully removes sin. Thus, while forgiveness and redemption are not the same thing, Christ’s redemption also includes forgiveness. 62 The final removal of sins (redemption) results in the removal of punishment due those sins (forgiveness). This redemption is eternal (αἰωνίαν; 9:12), covering both the sins committed prior to Christ under the first covenant (9:15) and the sins committed after Christ. 63 60 Hebrews 9:15 describes those who are redeemed as “called” (κεκλημένοι) and receiving the “promise” (ἐπαγγελίαν). These two words (καλέω and ἐπαγγελία) describe pre- and post-Sinai persons in Heb 11:8, 9, 13, 17, 18, 33, and 39, where those who are called and promised are not perfected (τελειωθῶσιν) until the time of the new covenant (11:40). The author does not distinguish between pre- and post-Sinai realities, so that in Heb 9:15 the author likely has the patriarchs as well as those who lived under the Sinai covenant in view – i.e., all those who lived before the time of the new covenant (esp. Telscher, Opfer aus Barmherzigkeit, 262; contra Wolfgang Kraus, Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25-26a [WMANT 66; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990], 105). 61 Spicq, Hébreux, 2:261; cf. Acts 13:38–39; Rom 3:24–26; Gal 3:19–22. 62 Colossians 1:14 and Eph 1:7 place ἀπολύτρωσιν in appositional relationship with τὴν ἄφεσιν of sins (τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν in Col 1:14 and τῶν παραπτωμάτων in Eph 1:7). However, this appositional relationship does not mean that ἀπολύτρωσις and ἄφεσις are equivalent or that Hebrews disagrees with Colossians and Ephesians; rather, while there can be ἄφεσις without ἀπολύτρωσις, the redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) achieved by Christ also includes forgiveness (ἄφεσις). 63 Jay Sklar argues convincingly that the ‫ כִ פֶר‬achieved by Levitical sacrifices is both purgation and ransom (Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, esp. 139, 154, 181–83; see Moffitt’s application of Sklar’s argument to Hebrews [Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, 259– 71]). Sklar defines the ransom aspect of atonement (‫ )כֹּ ֶפר‬as follows: “a legally or ethically legitimate payment that delivers a guilty party from a just punishment that is the right of the offended party to execute or to have executed. It is further noted that the acceptance of this payment was entirely dependent upon the choice of the offended party” (183–84). This

The Positive Function of Levitical Sacrifice in Hebrews

113

Conclusion Although many scholars have argued that Hebrews denies the Levitical sacrifices any efficacy, the author does consider the Levitical sacrifices to have had positive functions and efficacies during the time of the νόμος, the time of the old covenant. Not only are positive efficacies – including purification, atonement, and forgiveness – ascribed to the Levitical sacrifices in the Old Testament, but they are also clearly affirmed throughout Second Temple literature. Thus, the author and audience of Hebrews certainly shared the common assumption that Levitical sacrifices achieved these positive efficacies. Further, the rhetoric and logic of Hebrews presume those positive efficacies. Synkrisis depends on a high view of Levitical sacrifice in order to establish Christ’s sacrifice as worthwhile, and there is no reason to go to such great lengths to pattern and compare Christ’s sacrifice to the Levitical sacrifices if those Levitical sacrifices were inefficacious. Then, we saw several texts that describe Levitical sacrifices as for sins (5:1, 3; 7:27; 9:7; 13:11), and, since sacrifices for sins achieved atonement and forgiveness, there is the implicit assumption that these texts allude to atonement and forgiveness. In addition, Heb 9:22 and 10:18 explicitly identify forgiveness of sins as one of the efficacies of Levitical sacrifice. Thus, while Hebrews does make clear distinctions between what old covenant sacrifices and Christ’s new covenant sacrifice accomplished, it also affirms positive functions for Levitical sacrifices.

understanding of atonement is not at odds with the argument presented in this chapter. Rather, it can fit quite nicely, when one views Levitical sacrifices as sacramental Christological types (see my development of this proposal in Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, esp. 13–17, 136– 40, 236–40). Sklar contends that the Levitical sacrifice is a payment that is accepted by the offended party (i.e., God). Yet, even though God accepts the payment and does not punish the sinner, this does not mean that justice has been done. As Sklar notes, the logic of the ransom is that the life of the animal is a ransom (or substitute) for the life of the offerer (Lev 17:11; Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, 181–83; similarly Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 101–9). But how is an animal life a valid substitute for a human life? Rather, the Levitical cult serves as a typological model employed to demonstrate what was necessary for redemption (i.e., a life must be substituted for a life). Until that true, ultimate redemption, God accepts the Levitical sacrifice as payment. Still, true redemption or ransom could only be achieved through Christ’s sacrifice (James R. Schaefer, “The Relationship between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 30 [1968]: 359–85, esp. 377–81; Lane, Hebrews, 2:241–42; Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-ofDeath: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights [ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 65–88, esp. 87; Scott D. Mackie, “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JTS 62 [2011]: 77–117, esp. 111; Ribbens, Levitical Sacrifice, esp. 178–84, 218–20).

Chapter 7

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices in Hebrews 9:1–14 Nicholas J. Moore Thomas Cranmer, in his preface to the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, criticized medieval Roman Catholic worship for (among other things), containing “vaine repeticions.” This phrase was no doubt a rallying cry against Roman Catholicism amongst Reformers, and it found its way into the Geneva Bible, written by exiled English Protestants. In Matt 6:7, earlier English translations render the injunction μὴ βατταλογήσητε “bable not moch as the hethen do”;1 but in the Geneva Bible of 1560 we find “vse no vaine repetitions,” and from here it makes its way not only into the revised Geneva Bible of 1599, but also into the King James translation of 1611. 2 This phrase is evocative of the bad press that repetition has had in certain streams of theological tradition, and it is cited at the beginning of a study on Hebrews because this letter, perhaps more than any other early Christian document, has helped create and sustain such a tradition, and because this tradition in turn has affected how many interpreters read Hebrews.3 Particularly in its cultic section, Hebrews appears to

1 So, with some variation in spelling, the Tyndale Bible (1525), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), and Great Bible (1539); a marginal note in the 1560 Geneva Bible offers “bable not muche” as an alternative translation. The Wycliffe Bible reads “do not ye speak much.” 2 This translation was not uncontroversial, as witness the exchange between the future Archbishop of Canterbury John Whitgift, a high churchman, and the Puritan Thomas Cartwright; see The Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition against the Replie of T.C. By Iohn Whitgift Doctor of Diuinitie (London: Henry Binneman, 1574), 803–5. 3 For Hebrews’ use in controversies over repetition in the Mass, see John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter (ed. William B. Johnston, David W. Torrance, and Thomas F. Torrance; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994), ix–xii. Note its dedication to King Sigismund II of Poland in direct response to Johann Eck, De sacrificio missae libri tres (1526) (ed. Erwin Iserloh, Vinzenz Pfnür, and Peter Fabisch; CCath 36; Münster: Aschendorff, 1982). Note also Cranmer’s emphatic language of “once-for-all” in the Prayer Book eucharistic prayer and in Article 31,

116

Nicholas J. Moore

denigrate repetition irredeemably: the tabernacle sacrifices were repeated, and therefore they did not cleanse, whereas Christ’s sacrifice was once-for-all, and therefore superior and eternally effective. The old covenant cultus, if you like, was the ultimate instantiation of vain repetition, and Roman Catholic worship falls into the same category as that of Jews and pagans. Before going any further with Hebrews, however, the ambivalence of this tradition must be noted. Cranmer’s critique comes in the preface to a new liturgy which was to be repeated daily throughout England. 4 And Matt 6:7 is part of the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. As Stephen Sykes has put it: “It is ironic that the most frequently repeated prayer of all in the Christian tradition should follow an injunction against vain repetition.” 5 Clearly then, certain forms of repetition are vain and others are valuable – the difficulty is telling the one from the other. This chapter proceeds in three parts. First, I indicate the complexity and polyvalence of repetition in Hebrews: I offer brief comments on God’s plural speech through the prophets in Heb 1, and then, turning to the central cultic section of the letter, Heb 7–10 (where repetition features most prominently), I outline the broader pattern of the author’s argument and situate his references to repetition in this context. Second, I examine Heb 9:1–10 and argue that the regular service of the priests in Heb 9:6 indicates the desirability of continual access to God. Finally, drawing this together with the comparison made with Christ in Heb 9:11–14, I suggest that this understanding of continual priestly service better enables us to appreciate the way in which the tabernacle cult foreshadows not only the atonement but also the life of the Christian community.

Repetition Elsewhere in Hebrews A Plurality of Prophetic Speech “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son” ( NRSV).6 So Hebrews and how in his amendment of the Sarum lectionary he introduces large parts of Heb 9 and 10 into the Passiontide eucharistic readings (my thanks to Kenneth Padley for this last point). 4 The Preface makes clear that his criticism is not of repetition per se, but of “vaine” repetition, which gets in the way of reading sufficient Scripture in the course of church services. 5 Stephen Sykes, “Ritual and the Sacrament of the Word,” in Christ: The Sacramental Word (ed. David Brown and Ann Loades; London: SPCK, 1996), 156–67, here 160. 6 All biblical translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. For more detailed argumentation undergirding the points made in this and the following subsection, see Nicholas J. Moore, Repetition in Hebrews: Plurality and Singularity in the Letter to the Hebrews, Its Ancient Context, and the Early Church (WUNT 2/388; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015),

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

117

begins. Or does it? As many and various commentators have pointed out, there is in the Greek no indication of syntactical contrast between the two parts of this statement. Gene Smillie has pressed this point further, noting that “the author of Hebrews demonstrates a singular capacity to define with precision the contrasts between the different elements he is comparing.”7 The absence of any such indicators suggests that no contrast ought to be understood here. 8 In particular, the absence of the word ἐφάπαξ is notable; this is a favorite term of Hebrews, which would have made clear the contrast between the two parts of Heb 1:1–2a by reinforcing both the contrast between singularity and repetition and the e-sound alliteration of the second half of the phrase. Furthermore, although some have argued that the terms πολυμερῶς and πολυτρόπως in Philo bear connotations of imperfection and inferiority9 – and on this basis many scholars continue to read contrast into Heb 1:1–2 – the evidence in Philo is not as uniform as alleged: sometimes cognate terms are used to describe things that are evil, sometimes they are neutral, and yet at other times they qualify the actions of God himself. 10 Additionally, there are other parallels valuing plurality, such as the prologue to Sirach. It begins, “Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them” (NRSV).11 For all these reasons it can be confidently affirmed that repetition is not contrasted with singularity in the exordium, and is not denigrated. This is an important point, because, as scholars agree, the exordium sets the tone for the rest of Hebrews.

93–105, 166–78. 7 Gene R. Smillie, “Contrast or Continuity in Hebrews 1.1–2?,” NTS 51 (2005): 543–60, here 550–51. 8 Alongside Smillie, “Contrast or Continuity,” see also Beate Kowalski, “Die Rezeption alttestamentlicher Theologie im Hebräerbrief,” in Ausharren in der Verheissung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief (ed. Rainer Kampling; SBS 204; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 39–43; Tomasz Lewicki, Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden! Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief (Paderborner Theologische Studien 41; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004), 13–22; David Wider, Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 87; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 12–22. 9 Most scholars taking this line are dependent on Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews (SBLDS 25; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 129–34. 10 Ebr. 85–87 contrasts the coloured garment the high priest wears when outside the sanctuary with the plain white garment he wears inside. The former represents the manifold wisdom of God in the world. Cf. also Mos. 1.117, not mentioned by Dey, which describes how nature rejoices in manifoldness. 11 Cf. also Luke 1:1; texts valuing plurality in connection with God’s speech, wisdom, or nature include Job 33:14; Wis 7:22; Eph 3:10; Josephus, Ant. 10.142. See also the references to other speeches in antiquity opening with a positive reference to “many” in Johannes Bauer, “POLLOI Luk 1:1,” NovT 4 (1960): 263–66; Loveday Alexander, “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing,” NovT 28 (1986): 48–74, here 72–74.

118

Nicholas J. Moore

Cultic Repetition in Hebrews 7–10 The above considerations suggest that repetition does not function in a uniform fashion throughout Hebrews, such that Heb 1 should not be subordinated to the contrast between singularity and repetition that is found elsewhere in the letter. Indeed, if anything, the direction of influence should flow from the exordium to other parts of the letter.12 However, while this demonstrates that repetition functions polysemously in Hebrews as a whole, it does not prove that repetition is valued in the cultic section of Hebrews, where the contrast is at its strongest both rhetorically and theologically. The primary concern of this chapter is the way in which regular Levitical sacrifices function in the complex comparison between the tabernacle and Christ’s sacrificial work in Heb 9:1–14. However, before we turn to this some comments are in order on the cultic section generally and the striking portrayal of repetition it contains. There is increasing hesitancy in scholarship about the traditional “relapse” theory of Hebrews’ occasion (i.e., that the letter seeks to dissuade a return to, or even remaining within, Judaism).13 This re-evaluation is based in part on plausible (though ultimately unprovable) suppositions of a Jewish Christian audience and a post-70 date,14 but also finds support internally in the now widespread recognition of the importance of the rhetorical device of synkrisis.15 12 “Die Bedeutung der implizit komparativischen Figur des Ansatzes beim ‘Reden Gottes’ sollte nicht auf der Basis späterer expliziter Antithesen ausgezogen werden” (Wider, Theozentrik und Bekenntnis, 21; emphasis original). So also Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 89. 13 Though this view continues to be robustly defended by scholars such as Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Peter W. L. Walker, “Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle,” TynBul 45 (1994): 39–71; Norman H. Young, “Bearing His Reproach (Heb 13.9–14),” NTS 48 (2002): 243–61. 14 A majority of scholars reckon a Jewish Christian audience likely, though see the significant dissent registered by David A. deSilva, “Hebrews 6:4–8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),” TynBul 50 (1999): 33–57, here 39–41; Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 2–7. A reading of Hebrews as consolation following the temple’s destruction is offered by, among others, Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992); Gabriella Gelardini, Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht: der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomilie zu Tischa beAw (BibInt 83; Leiden: Brill, 2007); Kenneth L. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice (SNTSMS 143; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 15 For classical treatments see Aelius Theon, Prog. 10.8–24; Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.38–41; Isocrates, Hel. enc. 22; Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.16. For the importance of synkrisis for Hebrews see Christopher F. Evans, The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Dr Williams’s Trust, 1988); Timothy W. Seid, “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and Strategy,” in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; JSNTSup 180; Sheffield:

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

119

Hebrews gives so much attention to comparing Christ with foundational Jewish institutions not because it seeks to disparage them or dissuade its audience from adhering to them, but because they hold such great symbolic significance that comparison with them constitutes the superlative demonstration of Christ’s excellency. This tendency within scholarship arguably fosters a more detailed and nuanced appreciation of Hebrews’ treatment of the institutions of the old covenant. Nevertheless, even those scholars who have sought to re-evaluate Hebrews’ relationship to first-century Judaism often see some degree of critique or attack on the tabernacle in these chapters. Take, for example, Richard Hays’ publication emerging from the St Andrews conference on Hebrews and theology, in which he criticizes his earlier self for portraying Hebrews as a supersessionist document and a foil for his reading of Paul. In place of this he advocates reading Hebrews as an example of “new covenantalism.” He notes that the letter contains no debate over circumcision, Sabbath observance, or food laws, and no polemic against central Jewish figures or institutions. Indeed, he says that Hebrews “criticizes nothing in the Mosaic Torah except for the Levitical sacrificial cult.”16 But that “except” is a rather large exception. It is often assumed that a uniform stream of polemic against the tabernacle cult and Levitical priesthood runs through Heb 7–10, including in its deployment of repetition. In this light the function of Hebrews’ treatment of the Levitical system, including the role of repetition, needs to be clarified. Hebrews indicates that the old covenant and especially its cultic regulations are inherently transitory, and that this is divinely intended. The tabernacle is the earthly counterpart (ὑπόδειγμα, σκιά, 8:5; ἀντίτυπος, 9:24) of the true, heavenly sanctuary (the τύπος seen by Moses, 8:5). It mirrors the celestial cult and extends the reach of divine worship into the earthly realm, whilst at the same time foreshadowing the greater and more perfect cult at the eschaton (σκιά, 10:1).17 Moreover, the earthly system’s weakness, imperfection, and Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 322–47; Michael W. Martin and Jason A. Whitlark, “The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews,” NTS 57 (2011): 415–39; Michael W. Martin and Jason A. Whitlark, “Choosing What Is Advantageous: The Relationship between Epideictic and Deliberative Syncrisis in Hebrews,” NTS 58 (2012): 379–400. 16 Richard B. Hays, “‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 151–73, here 154 (emphasis added). 17 These verses and terms are the focus of much attention in discussions regarding Hebrews’ supposed Middle Platonist background. The language does not quite fit normal Platonic usage, but undoubtedly has a Platonic ring to it. Lincoln Hurst, in particular, hotly contests any hint of Platonism here, but he does so by vastly overemphasizing the horizontal or eschatological nature of 8:1–5 and 9:23–24 (The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought [SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], 13–17, 24–42).

120

Nicholas J. Moore

provisional nature are fully revealed and understood only when Christ himself arrives, fulfills the tabernacle system, and makes the heavenly sanctuary “visible” and accessible (9:11, 26; 10:19–22). Put another way, the imperfection of the old covenant system is derivative, both ontologically (it was instituted according to the pattern of the heavenly sanctuary, and foreshadows the eschatological ministry in that sanctuary) and epistemologically (its imperfection is understood only in the light of the coming of the perfected priest). This has three implications for cultic repetition. First, it is important to stress that repetition is not singled out as part of a wider opposition to ritual. Indeed, the direct association of repetition with ritual is problematic since not all rituals are repeated, and not all repetition constitutes ritual. 18 Rather, Hebrews stresses that Christ’s crucifixion, exaltation, and session constitute the supreme ritual act, in fulfillment of old covenant rites. Second, cultic repetition derives from the weakness inherent in the old covenant regulations, namely the priests’ mortality and sinfulness (7:23–28), the law’s foreshadowing role, and the consequent categorical inability of animal blood to remove sins (10:1–4). That is to say, repetition must be understood as indicative of rather than itself constitutive of the weakness of the old system. Third, repetition takes on this indicative status only where there is direct comparison to Christ (as in 7:23–24, 27; 9:25– 28; 10:1–14); it demonstrates the imperfection of the old order only in contrast to the perfection of the new. Repetition does have negative connotations in these parts of Hebrews, but this is not because of an attack on ritual, or because repetition itself impedes the efficacy of the tabernacle system. Rather, it serves as a rhetorically effective post factum illustration of the imperfection of the former dispensation.

Cultic Repetition in Hebrews 9:1–10 The description of the tabernacle in Heb 9:1–10 includes the following description of the regular Levitical service: “the priests continually enter the first tent to perform their services” (9:6). This statement is usually subsumed under the treatment of repetition elsewhere in Heb 7–10, examined briefly above. For example, Guthrie states that Heb 9:6 “brings out the repetitive character of the

Similarly, see Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology, 117–22, 165–68. In fact, metaphysical dualism is equally at home in Jewish apocalyptic, and the notion of a dual cult even more so; thus the relationship between earthly and heavenly sanctuaries in Hebrews can be understood both “vertically” and “horizontally” without subscribing to a Platonist metaphysics. 18 In this regard see the practice-based approach to ritual developed by Catherine M. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), esp. 81–92. This model clarifies that while repetition is one frequently employed strategy by which ritual practice is differentiated from other forms of practice, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to constitute ritual.

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

121

Mosaic order … to contrast with the finality of the new way.” 19 Young similarly suggests that “the daily ritual by its very functioning and repetition (10.11) was … sure testimony that the way into the holy of holies was blocked.”20 Yet, in contrast to other places where repetition is highlighted, this regular service is neither stressed nor developed in direct contrast with Christ and the singularity of his sacrificial work, and it therefore ought to be treated separately. Indeed, my contention in this chapter is that the continual entrance of the priests in 9:6 needs to be understood in a positive light for the intricate argument of 9:1–14 to function. This will be established by examining the context immediately preceding and following the verse, and then the verse itself. On Cutting Oneself Short (v. 5b) Hebrews 9:1 states that the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary, and the author proceeds to describe first the sanctuary in vv. 2–5 and then the worship in vv. 6–10. In vv. 2–5 the author briefly evokes the tabernacle and its furniture, breaking off in v. 5 with the statement that “we cannot speak about these things in detail now.” Some commentators take this to be a derogatory gesture, disparaging the tabernacle, 21 but there is no explicit indication to this effect.22 Scholars generally classify this rhetorical figure as paraleipsis, “passing by something without detailed comment.”23 Its 19 Donald Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 184. 20 Norman H. Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” NTS 27 (1981): 198–210, here 200. Gareth Lee Cockerill states that the old covenant “was characterized by repetition of the Levitical rituals. … Everything in v. 6 emphasizes the continuous, repetitive nature of the priests’ ministry and its consequent limitation to ‘the First Tent’” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], 379 [emphasis added]). The implication that repetition is the reason why the ordinary priests’ ministry was limited to the first tent is somewhat cryptic and implausible. Herbert Braun takes the intensity of cultic activity to contrast drastically with its “Effektlosigkeit” (An die Hebräer [HNT; Tübingen: Mohr, 1984], 254). 21 Hans-Friedrich Weiss thinks this phrase “spricht entschieden gegen alle Neigung, in der Benennung der einzelnen Kultgegenstände in den VV. 2–5 zugleich ein eigenes Interesse des Autors des Hebr an einer bestimmten Kultsymbolik zum Ausdruck kommen zu sehen” (Der Brief an die Hebräer [KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991], 452). 22 Braun suggests an implied contrast between the grandeur of the tabernacle and the inefficacy of its worship (Hebräer, 251, 254). Erich Grässer appears to agree with this assessment (An die Hebräer [3 vols.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1990–1997], 2:127). Samuel Bénétreau also inclines towards this view (L’Épître aux Hébreux [2 vols.; Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible; Vaux-sur-Seine: ÉDIFAC, 1988], 2:67; cf. 2:70, where he interprets Heb 9:5b as the author’s invitation to moderation). 23 Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), 404; cf. Knut Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009), 307. “We say that we are passing by, or do not know, or refuse to say that which precisely now we are saying” (Rhet. Her. 4.27.37).

122

Nicholas J. Moore

originating use would seem to be in legal contexts where a matter is usefully evoked but best not gone into in detail because it cannot be proved or can even be easily refuted (cf. Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.75). Paraleipsis can also be used to avoid tedium, indecorum, or confusion, or simply “because there is advantage in making only an indirect reference” (Rhet. Her. 4.27.37) – which indicates that it could in effect serve any number of purposes. A clearer instance of paraleipsis is Heb 11:32, where the author states that “time would fail me [ἐπιλείψει με ὁ χρόνος] to tell of …” and then lists additional old covenant exemplars of faith, without commenting further. 24 Listing (epitrochasmos or enumeration)25 is also found in Heb 9:2–5, although here occurring before the phrase in v. 5b.26 Attention to classical rhetoric in this case suggests both the relevance and relativization of the subject in hand. Yet even where a rhetorical figure is precisely identified, how it is used in a particular text remains paramount. 27 Reading Heb 9:5b on its own terms and in its own context, it is certain the author means he could speak at greater length about the cultic furniture and vessels (especially from his use of νῦν, which implies that while it is not necessary or appropriate to speak about them now, he could speak about them later – though in fact he does not in the rest of the letter). It is also certain that the thing of greater importance to which he proceeds is the ministry within the two compartments, which foreshadows the work of Christ (9:6–14). Yet, given that there was no need to mention the cultic vessels at all (9:2 from ἐν ᾗ to ἄρτων, and 9:4–5a), or indeed to include 9:5b, it also seems likely that this phrase should be taken as an indication of their importance. One would need more explicit indication in order to argue that it should be read as an attempt to disparage the tabernacle or to dismiss allegorical speculation, or as an invitation to moderation. As it stands, the phrase suggests there are occasions when it is

24

So William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC 47; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 2:383. Cf. Philo, Sacr. 27, for the very close ἐπιλείψει με ἡ ἡμέρα; Spec. 4.238 for a similar expression with καταλείπω. 25 Percursio and praeteritio (the Latin for epitrochasmos and paraleipsis, respectively) often occur together. See Backhaus, Hebräerbrief, 307. 26 A related figure is aposiopesis, “when something is said and then the rest of what the speaker had begun to say is left unfinished. … Here a suspicion, unexpressed, becomes more telling than a detailed explanation would have been” (Rhet. Her. 4.30.41). If this implies actual rupture or breaking off, then it does not describe Heb 9:5b. I am indebted to Georg Gäbel for personal conversation and correspondence, and for further discussion of the precise rhetorical device used at Heb 9:5b I refer the reader to his chapter in this volume. 27 Deploying paraleipsis himself, Quintilian indicates that a lengthy search for a precise categorization is ultimately perhaps best abandoned: “I will pass by those authors who set no limit to their craze for inventing technical terms” (Inst. 9.3.99).

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

123

appropriate to go into detail about cultic furniture (an invitation which many commentators readily take up!). 28 The Inaccessibility of “the Second (Tent)” (v. 7) The immediately preceding context to Heb 9:6 is therefore a brief but wellinformed and sympathetic evocation of the tabernacle. The importance of the priests’ regular service becomes particularly apparent when v. 6 is considered as part of the wider contrast that is made in vv. 6–7, and the interpretation of this given in vv. 8–10. With a μέν … δέ construction, the continual entrance of the priests is contrasted with the annual entrance of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. When we come to v. 8, this arrangement is said to show that τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν, “the way into the sanctuary” (NRSV), has not yet been revealed. This is best understood as a reference to the most holy place, given the contrast with the “first tent” later in v. 8 and the usage of the neuter plural τὰ ἅγια elsewhere in Hebrews.29 That is to say, the arrangement of the tabernacle shows the inaccessibility of the holy of holies, and in preparation for this point the author stresses the accessibility of the first tent or outer sanctuary in v. 6. 30 This emphasis on continual access is reinforced by the description of the cultic service that occurs in each place: the present tense of εἴσειμι emphasizes the continuous aspect,31 which is reinforced by the phrase διὰ παντός, and the priests

28

Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text (3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1920), 244, says that the author “describes with affectionate reverence the ordered arrangements of the Old Sanctuary and its furniture.” 29 So Koester, Hebrews, 397; Weiss, Hebräer, 457; Bénétreau, Hébreux, 2:72; Young, “Hebrews 9,” 198–99. Hugh Montefiore notes that “our author consistently uses the neuter plural with the article to mean the sanctuary, that is the inner and not … the outer Tent” (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1964], 144). Richard J. Ounsworth argues that the six occurrences of τὰ ἅγια (with the article) in Hebrews occur only when the distinction between the two parts of the tabernacle is not in view, and thus the term refers to the sanctuary as a whole (Joshua Typology in the New Testament [WUNT 2/328; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], 160). However, in all of these cases the entrance of the high priest (9:25; 13:11) or of Christ as high priest (8:2; 9:12; 10:19) is in view, and what is important is not that he enters the sanctuary in general but the most holy place in particular. Ounsworth correctly notes that the occurrences of ἃγια and ἃγια ἁγίων (9:2–3) are not instances of Hebrews’ own usage, but rather terminological labels indicating what these tents are called in general or by others. 30 This point escapes most commentators. Bénétreau, however, states correctly that, “L’intérêt se concentre sur l’accès permanent … avec toutefois limitation à la première tente” (Hébreux, 2:71). 31 Notably Hebrews uses εἴσειμι here and not εἰσέρχομαι, which it reserves for believers’ entrance into rest (Heb 3:7–4:11) and in a cultic context for the entrance of Christ into the heavenly most holy place (6:19–20; 9:12, 24–25; also once of his incarnation, 10:5). See further my essay “‘In’ or ‘Near’? Heavenly Access and Christian Identity in Hebrews,” in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. (ed.

124

Nicholas J. Moore

are said to “perform their services” without hindrance. The description of the most holy place, by contrast, is carefully constructed to emphasize the barriers to access: entrance is once a year; it is only the high priest (not just any priest) who may enter, and that not without blood; and this blood must be offered for himself before it can be offered for the people. The desired access or atoning act occurs only at the end of a long sequence of barriers and conditions. What is more, this interpretation of the tabernacle so as to stress the inaccessibility of the most holy place is not some innovation on Hebrews’ part; rather, it is a commonplace of first-century Judaism. Leviticus 16:2 states that Aaron is not to enter the most holy place at any time (‫ בכל־עת‬/ πᾶσαν ὥραν) lest he die. His entry is to be ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ (Lev 16:34 LXX; cf. Exod 30:10 [2x]; Heb 9:7). In 3 Macc 1–2, Ptolemy IV Philopator tries to enter the most holy place. The protestations of the Jews bear a resemblance to language in Hebrews: “not even members of their own nation were allowed to enter, not even all of the priests, but only the high priest who was preeminent over all – and he only once a year” (κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἅπαξ, 3 Macc 1:11, NRSV). Philopator is not persuaded and attempts to enter, only to suffer a stroke or fit which prevents him, and this is hailed by the Jews as a divine deliverance. A similar objection is raised by Philo (Legat. 306–307) to persuade the emperor not to place a statue within the holy of holies: no one else may enter, not even Jews, not even priests, not even the first rank of priest; even the high priest may not enter on two separate days of the year, or indeed three or more times on the Day of Atonement.32 Pompey entered the most holy place in 63 B.C.E. Tacitus notes that there was no image within, a point that would have been of great interest for his Roman readers (Hist. 5.9). Josephus decries this as an excess and unlawful. He notes that Pompey did not disturb anything and ordered that the temple be cleansed and the offerings restored (J.W. 1.152–153; Ant. 14.71–73). Other references to the once-yearly entrance are found in Josephus (J.W. 5.236) and Philo (Ebr. 136; Gig. 52), the latter of whom also describes the Passover as once-yearly (Spec. 2.146). The Invisibility of “the Way in to the Most Holy Place” (v. 8) It is not simply the restricted access to the most holy place which Hebrews stresses, but its invisibility. Hebrews 9:8 claims that the arrangement of the tabernacle demonstrates that “the way into the most holy place has not yet been revealed while the first tent is still standing.” Commentators often object that Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson; Library of New Testament Studies 587; London: T&T Clark, 2017), 185–98. 32 This passage reveals that Philo thought the high priest entered the most holy place only twice on Yom Kippur, once with the blood of the bull for himself, and once with the blood of the goat for the people. Other interpreters reckoned he must have entered at least three times, first with incense (cf. Lev 16:12–14), and m. Yoma 1.1–4; 7.4 counts four entries.

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

125

the literal understanding of this verse is nonsensical – it makes no sense to think of the outer tent of the tabernacle being knocked down or somehow not existing so that the second, inner tent can be accessed. 33 They therefore conclude that ἡ πρώτη σκηνή can only be a reference to the first tabernacle taken as a whole. Yet ἡ πρώτη σκηνή refers to the outer tent when it occurs earlier in 9:2 and 6, so we should presume it has the same referent here unless and until we have reason to think otherwise. 34 Harold Attridge takes this view: “The point then is that as long as the cultic system connected with the outer portion of the earthly tabernacle ‘has standing,’ the way to both the earthly and heavenly ἅγια is blocked.”35 But this contradicts what has just been said: the high priest does have access to the most holy place, however heavily restricted this may be. Attridge is forced to qualify: “The access that the high priest has to that sacred realm does not signify its openness, but is only, as it were, the exception that proves the rule.”36 Rather than labelling the high priest’s entrance “the exception that proves the rule,” however, the difficulty can be resolved by taking seriously the term πεφανερῶσθαι.37 It is not simply that the way into the most holy place had not yet been “revealed,” in a figurative sense, but that it quite literally was not visible – and it is not visible as long as the first tent is standing. The assertion that the most holy place, or even the entrance to it, is unseen while the outer tent can be seen is found widely in contemporary texts. In his description of the tabernacle, Josephus points out that there was a plain linen veil over the curtain at the entrance to the outer tent, which protected the actual curtain from snow and other inclement weather, yet which could be drawn back so that the sanctuary could be seen (πρὸς τὸ κατοπτεύεσθαι, Ant. 3.128–129). Inside the tabernacle, however, there was a veil which concealed the most holy place, so that no one could see it (μηδενὶ κάτοπτον, 3.125). In describing Herod’s temple, Josephus notes that one gate in the wall surrounding the temple itself has no doors, representing the invisible and uncontainable nature of heaven. Through this gate, the “first house” in all its grandeur is visible 33

Koester describes this sense as “peculiar” and an “incongruity” (Hebrews, 405). Young, “Hebrews 9,” 200, though he puts it perhaps too strongly when he states that “it would be intolerable for the meaning to fluctuate unannounced in such short compass.” Ellingworth takes it to refer to the tabernacle as a whole, pointing out that those taking other views “tend to underestimate the facility with which the author can glide from one meaning of an expression to another” (Hebrews, 438). I do allow for the author’s transition from one sense to another, but in a less abrupt way; see below. 35 Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989), 240. 36 Attridge, Hebrews, 240. 37 I owe this point to Ounsworth, Joshua Typology, 160–62. Although he does not appeal to the contemporary literature which supports this point, he expresses it well: “the way in, though it exists, is not only of extremely limited availability but is, more importantly, hidden from the view of the People of God” (emphasis original). Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 438. 34

126

Nicholas J. Moore

(καταφαίνω); but he immediately goes on to note that only the outer part of the temple can be seen, because it is divided into two inside: the most holy place is veiled by a curtain, and he later describes it as invisible (ἀθέατος, J.W. 5.208–212, 219).38 Similarly, Philo describes the innermost part of the temple as beautiful beyond description, and invisible (ἀόρατος) to everyone except the high priest (Spec. 1.72), who sees what is invisible to others (τὰ ἀθέατα ἄλλοις, Ebr. 136). Indeed, on Yom Kippur the high priest makes a cloud of smoke with incense, preventing others from seeing into the most holy place (Spec. 1.72). In the same context Philo stresses the visibility (τὴν … ἀκριβῆ θέαν) of the temple due to the wide open spaces that surround it (1.74–75). The Mishnah reinforces this same point by describing a double veil in front of the inner sanctuary, with a space of one cubit between the two drops (m. Yoma 5.1; m. Mid. 4.7; cf. b. Yoma 54a).39 These examples demonstrate that it is not impossible or incomprehensible to take Heb 9:8 in its literal, spatial sense: no one can see the entrance to the most holy place because the holy place shields it from view. However, this is not to say that 9:8 must have a uniquely spatial sense. The reference to the Holy Spirit indicates that the author is beginning to interpret the significance of the tabernacle, and the adverbs μήπω and ἔτι suggest that a temporal sense is being introduced.40 The author of Hebrews shows himself to be adept at subtly shifting meanings through the recurrence of a particular term. 41 Understood in this sense, 9:8 indicates that just as the most holy place cannot be seen because of the outer tent, so also the true or heavenly most holy place could not be seen while the “first tent” (i.e., the whole tabernacle system) existed. That the author has begun to move on to symbolic interpretation of the tabernacle is made clear by the next verse, 9:9. It is only here that he explicitly states that this is a παραβολή for the present time. 42 Furthermore, whereas the most holy place was 38

Josephus also says that the outer altar in Solomon’s temple was positioned so as to be visible when the doors were open, such that when fire descended and consumed the sacrifices, all could see it (Ant. 8.105, 118). 39 According to R. J. McKelvey, “The purpose of the double veil was to prevent anyone seeing into the sanctuary were the high priest to enter through an opening in a single veil” (Pioneer and Priest: Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2013], 191). 40 Young, “Hebrews 9,” 200. Bénétreau states that “il y a double référence” (Hébreux, 2:72). Steve Stanley suggests that μήπω “shows that the author understands the old covenant as temporary and emphasizes the time element in the progression of God’s covenant dealings” (“Hebrews 9:6–10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle,” NovT 37 [1995]: 385–99, here 394). 41 The referent of πρῶτος has already shifted between Heb 8 and 9:1–2. See Stanley, “Parable,” 386. 42 Stanley wonders which reading is correct (two parts of the earthly tabernacle, or earthly vs. heavenly tabernacle) before concluding: “They both are, since the full significance of the παραβολή is understood by substituting corresponding referents for the two ambiguous terms” (“Parable,” 395).

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

127

not visible, Heb 2:9 states that “we see Jesus.” More pertinent to this context, the only other occurrence of φανερόω in the letter comes in 9:26. Whereas the high priest entered the most holy place unseen once a year, this verse describes Jesus as the one who has appeared once for all to put away sin by his sacrifice. Before venturing too far into the comparison with Jesus, however, let us pause and take stock. I have argued that Heb 9:8, understood literally and spatially, is a statement that would not be particularly new or surprising to a Hellenistic Jewish audience. Taken together with earlier comments, it can be affirmed that there is nothing in the description of the tabernacle’s arrangement, furnishings, service, and significance in Heb 9:1–8 that is out of place in the context of first-century Jewish understandings of the tabernacle. 43 The passage is descriptive rather than polemical, and it is extremely unlikely that the author would take a deprecating sideswipe at the repetition of sacrifices in 9:6. Διὰ παντός and the Tamid (v. 6) With this context established, let us return to Heb 9:6. The adverbial phrase διὰ παντός, which describes the ongoing entrance of the priests, also occurs in Hebrews in 2:15 (humans are continually under slavery through the fear of death) and in 13:15 (a command continually to offer to God a sacrifice of praise). These instances demonstrate that the term in and of itself is neutral, with its particular connotation determined by its immediate context. However, when we consider occurrences of the term in the LXX, particularly in the Pentateuch, διὰ παντός clusters in cultic sections and almost always translates ‫תמיד‬, referring to the regular tabernacle service. 44 The usage of the Hebrew word is so ubiquitous that the term tamid on its own comes to refer to the regular, daily sacrifices. Awareness of this fact makes clear that Hebrews’ use of διὰ παντός is not hyperbole.45 Rather, in a cultic context διὰ παντός is a technical term 43 The placement of the incense altar (the most likely meaning of θυμιατήριον here) inside the most holy place (Heb 9:4) is somewhat unusual. It is, however, a possible reading of Exod 30:1–10. See Attridge, Hebrews, 234–38. 44 Within the Pentateuch, the phrase διὰ παντός qualifies the lamp, the showbread, the fire on the altar, priestly garments, and especially regular offerings, 25x in Exod 25:30; 27:20; 28:30, 38; 30:8; Lev 6:6, 13; 24:2, 8; Num 4:7; 28:10, 15, 23–24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Deut 33:10. Other occurrences of the term (6x) which are not related to the cult are found in Lev 11:42; 25:31–32; Num 9:16; Deut 11:12. Dennis Hamm counts 118 occurrences within the LXX as a whole, of which 72 translate ‫ ;תמיד‬of these, 35 are in a cultic context (“Praying ‘Regularly’ [not ‘Constantly’]: A Note on the Cultic Background of dia pantos at Luke 24:53, Acts 10:2 and Hebrews 9:6, 13:15,” ExpTim 116 [2004]: 50–52, here 51 n. 5). Outside the Pentateuch the phrase does occasionally denote regular sacrifices, as in 1 Chr 23:30–31; Isa 30:29. In the Psalms it tends to be used in a more general sense; cf., e.g., Pss ( LXX) 18:15; 33:2; 34:27; 39:17; 69:5; 70:6; 118:117. 45 A hyperbolic usage of εἰς τὸ διηνεκές is found in Heb 10:1, reinforcing κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτόν. Note, however, that the same term is used in Heb 10:12 of the eternal effects of Christ’s sacrifice.

128

Nicholas J. Moore

which is simply descriptive of the tamid. The regular, daily offering was greatly valued by Jewish writers – again, this is something of a commonplace in writings of the period.46 Of course, Hebrews makes statements about the regular sacrifices that differ widely from what other contemporary texts say, but in this context in Heb 9:1–10 there is no indication of a critique of the tabernacle cult, and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the author associates with the cult values similar to those of his contemporaries.

Typology and the Tabernacle Thus far I have argued that Heb 9:6 should be understood to value the regular tamid service fulfilled by the priests, in contrast to the restricted access represented by the high priest’s once-yearly entrance into the most holy place. This restriction is made all the more clear by the way the outer tent prevents the inner tent from being seen. Moreover, I have suggested that in all this Hebrews does not differ significantly from contemporary understandings found within the broad spectrum of Judaism. In this final section we turn to the ways Hebrews does differ, which begin to be seen in vv. 9–10. An Incomplete Typology? Hebrews 9:9–10 suggests a relativization of the efficacy of the Levitical cult, the basis for which becomes clear in v. 11. Χριστὸς δέ corresponds to the phrase Εἶχε μέν in v. 1, indicating that the whole of the tabernacle described in vv. 1–10 is being compared with Christ. Verses 11–12 demonstrate how the Christ event corresponds to and fulfills the tabernacle, while vv. 13–14 make clear using an explicit qal waḥomer argument the greater significance or effect of Christ’s sacrificial offering. 47 The relationship between the tabernacle and Christ is typological, but the typology does not exist simply between the high priest’s entrance ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ (once a year) and Christ’s entrance ἐφάπαξ (once and for all). This is the focal point for the correspondence, but it is not the whole of it. Indeed, taken on its own this correspondence is somewhat problematic. If an entrance once a year represents restricted access, then an entrance once for all surely means even less access. Furthermore, this typology does not explain why Hebrews describes both parts of the tabernacle in vv. 2–5, in preparation for its description in vv. 6–7 of the cultic service which takes place in both tents. 46 They are an indication of the piety of the Jewish nation (Philo, Legat. 157, 280). Josephus describes them at length (Ant. 3.224–257). Attacks on the temple cult in the Qumran documents (e.g., 1QpHab, 4Q174) focus on its impurity, and many of the texts look forward to the restoration of a pure cult, showing the value placed on the correct practice of the tamid. 47 So, e.g., Weiss, Hebräer, 463.

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

129

Félix Cortez highlights this problem with the traditional understanding of the Day of Atonement in Hebrews as a type of Christ’s crucifixion and entrance into heaven, which he describes as “an incomplete typology.” 48 He notes both that various aspects of the Day of Atonement are missing in Hebrews, and that in certain regards Hebrews’ description is inconsistent with the rite as described in the Old Testament. Six inconsistencies are listed: (1) in Hebrews the blood is “offered” not “sprinkled” (9:7); (2) sprinkling of blood, when mentioned, is associated with covenant inauguration and not the Day of Atonement (9:15–23); (3) sacrifices of “male goats” described by Hebrews were not in fact offered on the Day of Atonement; (4) purification of sins is effected before Christ’s entrance into the most holy place; (5) the purification offering (9:11– 23) conflates images from the Day of Atonement, the red heifer ceremony, covenant institution, and the ordination of priests; (6) the ratification of the covenant plays a dominant role in Hebrews, as seen in Christ’s description as mediator of a new covenant.49 In place of the traditional understanding he proposes that the tabernacle and its cult function as an illustration (this is a possible sense for παραβολή, 9:8) of the transition from the old to the new age, and that only the one-off covenant inauguration ceremony functions typologically. 50 Cortez’s study correctly recognizes that the identification of the Day of Atonement on its own as a type does not adequately account for Hebrews’ use of other features of the tabernacle cult, both spatial (outer as well as inner sanctuary) and temporal (festivals and ceremonies such as covenant inauguration, red heifer, ordination). The solution he proposes is that interpreters should not regard the Day of Atonement as a type. By contrast, this chapter suggests that a better solution is to regard the entire tabernacle cult as typological. That is to say, Cortez resolves the difficulty by reducing the scope of typology in Hebrews, whereas here I argue that we should instead extend it. An All-embracing Typology To begin with, let us examine the inconsistencies Cortez identifies. The fourth item in his list of inconsistencies states that Hebrews envisages purification 48

Félix H. Cortez, “From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period of Hebrews 9:6–10 and the Day of Atonement as a Metaphor of Transition,” JBL 125 (2006): 527–47, here 528. 49 Cortez, “From the Holy,” 528–29. 50 This part of Cortez’s thesis is hard to sustain given the extensive usage of (ἐφ)άπαξ in Hebrews to describe Christ’s atoning action (7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10), which is clearly derived from the Day of Atonement, described as ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ in Exod 30:10 (2x) and Lev 16:34. Cf. 3 Macc 1:11 (κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἅπαξ); Philo, Spec. 1.72; Ebr. 136; Gig. 52; Legat. 306. Philo also speaks of Passover as once-yearly (Spec. 2.146), as does Jub. 49:7–8, 15. Covenant inauguration, by contrast, is never described as occurring “once-yearly” or even “once.” Jubilees describes the Festival of Weeks as “once a year” (6:17, 20; cf. 16:13), but it regards this festival as covenant renewal and not inauguration.

130

Nicholas J. Moore

occurring before the high priest’s entrance into the most holy place. Yet the verses cited do not support this claim. 51 Hebrews 1:3 states that after Christ had effected purification for sins (ποιησάμενος, aorist participle preceding main verb, most likely indicating temporal precedence) he sat down (ἐκάθισεν). This verse reflects Hebrews’ deliberate conflation of images of a messianic enthronement based on Ps 110:1 with cultic elements from the Day of Atonement. Significantly, the verse does not imply that Christ entered the heavenly most holy place/throne room after providing purification; rather, it does not mention entrance at all and is thus entirely consistent with Hebrews’ view of Christ’s entrance into heaven occurring before purification and session, something which in turn coheres with the Old Testament understanding of the Day of Atonement.52 As for 9:12, εὑράμενος could imply that Jesus entered the (heavenly) sanctuary after he had found redemption; in fact, however, the aorist participle can indicate subsequent action, especially when it follows the main verb.53 All of the other inconsistencies Cortez identifies are cases where Hebrews integrates aspects of other cultic festivals or ceremonies into its account of Jesus’ atoning action. That is to say, these should be considered not as inconsistent with the Day of Atonement, nor as based exclusively on covenant inauguration, but as deliberately combining various images. This brings us to a discussion of typology. Typology serves as a heuristic device for understanding the way in which biblical authors drew correspondences between a (scripturally) recorded event, figure, or institution and a more recent one, in order to explicate the

51 Cortez (“From the Holy,” 528) cites Heb 1:3 and 9:7, though the latter says nothing about the sequencing of Christ’s atoning work. One other verse that could support this view is 9:12, which will therefore be examined below. 52 On understanding Hebrews in line with the sacrificial logic of the Old Testament, see Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspectives (St Meinrad, Ind.: Grail, 1960), 170–202; Walter Edward Brooks, “The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 89 (1970): 205–14; Richard D. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself’: Sacrifice in Hebrews,” Int 57 (2003): 251–65; David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011). Cody and Brooks have a rather vague notion of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice “becoming eternal” on his entrance to heaven, whereas Hebrews holds together both the decisively finished nature of that sacrifice and its ongoing effects (including Christ’s intercession, Heb 7:25). For wider context, see Michael Kibbe, “Is It Finished? When Did It Start? Hebrews, Priesthood, and Atonement in Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Perspective,” JTS 65 (2014): 25–61; for a summary of five positions on sequence and atonement in Hebrews see R. B. Jamieson, “When and Where Did Jesus Offer Himself? A Taxonomy of Recent Scholarship on Hebrews,” Currents in Biblical Research 15 (2017): 338–68. 53 Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang, 1989), 385–87, esp. 387. So NRSV, ESV, NIV (2011); contrast NIV (1984).

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

131

significance certainly of the latter, and also (possibly) of the former. 54 Although it is a modern term, it draws on ancient usage of the τύπος word group to describe such relationships. It is not claimed that New Testament authors used terminology of τύπος and ἀντίτυπος in a technical sense, but it is plausible that the kinds of relationship it describes would have been perceived by firstcentury Christians.55 While typology requires the identification of analogies or correspondences between two entities, it does not require similarity in every respect; in fact, absolute identity would entail not so much a typological relationship as one of simple iteration. Indeed, G. B. Caird noted sixty years ago that the exegetical procedure of Hebrews involves expounding Old Testament texts so as to reveal a “self-confessed inadequacy” out of which typology emerges, an insight which has been affirmed by more recent scholars. 56 The antitype thus does not need to correspond in a complete or systematic way to its type. Given this observation, the Day of Atonement can continue to be understood as a type, in line with the view of most commentators. The importance of analogy but not absolute correspondence also allows other ceremonies to function typologically, including aspects of covenant inauguration as noted by Cortez. Most significantly for my argument, Caird’s observation can be applied to Heb 9:1–10. If the whole of the tabernacle in its arrangement and service functions as a type for the atonement achieved by Christ, we should expect to see analogies and “self-confessed inadequacies” in both its parts. This is precisely what we do see. The priests’ service is unlimited temporally, but spatially restricted to the first tent. The high priest’s service is unlimited spatially – he can access the most holy place – but temporally it is restricted to just one day in the year. Similarly, the outer tent is visible, but does not provide access to the very presence of God, while the inner part is accessed once a year, but it cannot be seen. Put another way, tabernacle service is neither sufficiently continuous, nor sufficiently once-for-all; it makes God’s presence neither fully visible nor fully accessible. In these ways its inadequacy is revealed, and thus it points beyond itself; but it points to something analogous to, yet greater than itself. Continuity and singularity cohere perfectly in Christ: 9:12 states that he

54

Christopher A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/338; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 7–8. 55 Ounsworth elaborates a careful typology based on the usage of τύπος and cognate terms in the NT (Joshua Typology, 19–54, esp. 32–54). 56 George B. Caird, “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CJT 5 (1959): 44–51; cf. Stephen Motyer, who builds on Caird’s suggestion (“The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?,” TynBul 50 [1999]: 3–22, esp. 12–13, 21–22). Richardson (Pioneer, 8) notes that typology involves “contrast, superiority, and finality.” Cf. also Ounsworth, Joshua Typology, 78–89, 96.

132

Nicholas J. Moore

entered once for all into the most holy place, thus obtaining an eternal redemption.57 Because Christ’s sacrifice is perfect, its effects are permanent. 58 New Covenant Worship as a Secondary Antitype Given that repetition in the old covenant can have a positive and valuable function in Hebrews’ thought, as has been argued with regard to Heb 9:6, what are the implications for the worship of God’s people in the new covenant? Hebrews 13:15 exhorts the audience to worship in overtly cultic terms: “through [Christ] let us offer a sacrifice of praise διὰ παντός to God, that is the fruit of lips that confess his name.”59 Like its usual English translation “continually,” διὰ παντός can have the nuance of “unceasingly,” “without a break,” or it can be used in the sense “regularly.” 60 As noted above, the occurrence in 9:6 comes directly from the LXX translation of the term ‫תמיד‬, which often describes the regular morning and evening sacrifices and from which their name tamid derives. In a cultic context διὰ παντός is thus simply descriptive of the tamid, and this means that in 13:15 – with its language of offering a sacrifice to God – we should also read the term in this sense. It is moreover striking that διὰ παντός is not found in any other New Testament exhortation to pray or praise continually or without ceasing. 61 Taken together, these observations suggest that the exhortation “to offer a sacrifice of praise διὰ παντός to God” would have been heard as an injunction to pray at the times of the regular daily sacrifice.62 This contention is made more likely by widespread evidence that Jews in the Second Temple period, especially when separated from Jerusalem, prayed at these times. The angel Gabriel appears to Daniel when he is praying “at the 57 In his voluminous exegesis of Hebrews, John Owen makes this comment on Heb 9:6: “Now all this daily service was typical. And that which it did represent was the continual application of the benefits of the sacrifice and whole mediation of Christ unto the church here in this world” (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews [ed. W. H. Goold; 7 vols., reprint of the 1855 ed.; London: Johnstone & Hunter; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1980], 6:228, emphasis added). 58 This same correspondence between the one sufficient sacrifice of Christ and the perpetuity of its effects is found in 10:12, 14. 59 The term θυσία αἰνέσεως, or the two words in close proximity, refers to a physical sacrifice of thanksgiving in Lev 7:12–15; 2 Chr 29:31; 33:16; 1 Macc 4:56; Jer 17:26. The term could refer to the thanksgiving sacrifice or simply to praise in Pss 50:14, 23 (49:14, 23 LXX); 107:22 (106:22 LXX); 116:17 (115:8 LXX). Praise is contrasted with sacrifice in Ps 51:15–16 (50:17–18 LXX). For καρπὸς χειλέων in the context of sacrifice, cf. Hos 14:3 LXX. 60 Both senses are found in Hebrews: “ceaselessly” in 2:15 and “regularly” in 9:6 (see above). See Jukka Thurén, Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von Hebräerbrief 13 (Acta Academiae Aboensis 47.1; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1973), 172. 61 Thurén, Lobopfer, 172. See Eph 6:18 (διὰ πάσης); 1 Thess 5:17 (ἀδιαλείπτως); 2 Thess 1:11 (πάντοτε); cf. Rom 1:9–10. 62 “[T]he author of Hebrews urges his readers to let praise be their sacrifice – regularly, like the Tamid service of the former temple” (Hamm, “Praying ‘Regularly,’” 52). Hamm shows that διὰ παντός in Luke 24:53 and Acts 10:2 also has a cultic connotation.

“Vaine Repeticions”? Re-evaluating Regular Levitical Sacrifices

133

time of the evening sacrifice” (‫ כעת מנחת־ערב‬/ ἐν ὥρᾳ θυσίας ἑσπερινῆς, Dan 9:21), just as Judith also prays at the exact same time as the incense is being offered in the temple (ἦν ἄρτι προσφερόμενον ἐν Ιερουσαλημ εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ θυμίαμα τῆς ἑσπέρας, Jdt 9:1; cf. Ps 141:2). In Acts the followers of the Way appear to align their times of prayer with those of the sacrifice. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go up to the temple “at the hour of prayer, the ninth [hour].” Most strikingly, in Acts 10:2–3 Cornelius is introduced as a pious man who prays διὰ παντός, and in the very next phrase an angel appears to him at the ninth hour (cf. 10:30).63 It thus becomes clear that Hebrews envisages its audience as participating in a heavenly cult with a new kind of repeated sacrifice. This regular praise is enabled by and is the appropriate response to the perpetual effects of the one sacrifice of Christ. It is founded however not simply on the atoning work of Christ, but on this work in fulfillment and continuation of the old covenant cultus that prepared it: “Die ganze ständige Liturgie des alten Bundes wird im ständigen Lobopfer der Christen erfüllt.”64 I argued above that the priestly tamid service in the outer sanctuary (9:6) is an integral part of the typology that Hebrews develops, and not just a foil for the high priestly once-a-year entrance into the most holy place (9:7). This typological potential of the regular tabernacle cult finds further confirmation in the ongoing praise and deeds of Christians in 13:15–16. In Hebrews itself, and in its understanding of salvation history, the former prepares and finds its fruition in the latter.65

Conclusion: Repetition in Covenants Old and New The regular cultic service of the Levitical priests in Heb 9:6 does not serve as an indication of the imperfection of the old order. Instead it forms part of an intricate typological comparison between the tabernacle system as a whole and Christ in whom that system finds fulfilment. It indicates the desirability and, 63

As Hamm notes, “The picture of a Roman army officer praying without interruption is scarcely plausible” (“Praying ‘Regularly’,” 51). Cf. the practice of praying “at night and in the day” in 1 Thess 3:10; Luke 18:7; 1 Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3. This tendency, already established in Second Temple Judaism, is developed in the morning prayer of the synagogue liturgy, Siddur beit Yaakov, which speaks of the fulfilment of the tamid in the speech of lips (Backhaus, Hebräerbrief, 475). 64 Thurén, Lobopfer, 174; cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:550: “In v 15 διὰ παντός connotes simply and succinctly that the whole continuous liturgy of the old covenant is fulfilled in the continual praise offering of Christians.” So also John W. Kleinig, Hebrews (Concordia Commentary; St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 2017), 406, 416–18, 709–11. 65 “Die Formel wird also in 9:6 nicht ohne Bezug auf ‘unsere’ Liturgie gebraucht. Der Verfasser hat schon unseren vollkommenen Gottesdienst in den Gedanken, wenn er den unvollkommenen täglichen Gottesdienst des alten Bundes beschreibt” (Thurén, Lobopfer, 174 n. 605).

134

Nicholas J. Moore

after Christ’s coming, the full availability of ongoing access to God. This point would have been deeply pertinent to the letter’s audience. Whether Hebrews pre- or postdates Jerusalem’s destruction, its probable Diaspora destination suggests that in either case its original readers were separated to some degree from the regular worship that took place in the temple. The letter consoles its addressees that this distance is in fact not a problem and exhorts them to perpetuate and extend the regular worship of God in synchrony with the temple and on the basis of the reality and accessibility of the heavenly cult. Hebrews 13:15 is not “spiritualization” or metaphor; rather, it affirms that through Christ their high priest the audience can participate in the tamid wherever they are. This regular praise is enabled by and is the appropriate response to the perpetual effects of the one sacrifice of Christ. This consideration demonstrates that repetition – and not just repetition, but repetition which is appropriately described as liturgical and cultic – has a central place in the life of God’s people.

Chapter 8

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”: The Tabernacle Description in Hebrews 9:1–5 and Its Function in Context Georg Gäbel* The brief and selective description of Israel’s desert tabernacle and some of its furnishings in Heb 9:1−5 is not among biblical passages famous for attracting scholarly attention. Part of the reason for this doubtlessly lies in the remark ending the tabernacle description, “of these things we cannot now speak in detail” ( ESV). Engagement with our passage is sometimes short and restricted to enumerations of biblical and parabiblical parallels. 1 Exegetes seem so preoccupied with the relevance of the heavenly sanctuary and of Christ’s priestly service therein2 that they hardly pause to reflect why τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν (v. 1) should merit the description we get in the introductory verses of the central part * Dedicated to Martin Karrer in gratitude. A prepublication version of this chapter was dedicated to Martin Karrer on the occasion of his 65th birthday in 2019. Martin Karrer is known for, among other things, his important contributions to Hebrews scholarship, not least among them his commentary on the epistle (Der Brief an die Hebräer [2 vols.; ÖTK; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002–2008]). With this chapter, I wish to express my gratitude for an ongoing conversation spanning many years, together with my very best wishes for a scholar I am glad to call a teacher. Ad multos annos! 1 Cf., e.g., the brief treatment by Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989), 157−58; and also the commentary by James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 178−79. Cf. also David A. deSilva’s comment, “Hebrews 9:1–10 is rich with references to the furnishings of the tabernacle and to the activities and regulations that distinguish the first holy place from the inner sanctum drawn from Exod 25–26, especially Exod 26:31–35. Since the author does not develop the significance of most of the accoutrements (Heb 9:5b), we will not dwell on the intertexture here” (“The Invention and Argumentative Function of Priestly Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” BBR 16 [2006]: 295– 323, here 306). 2 Cf. Thompson, Hebrews, 180: “The author of Hebrews does not speak ‘in detail’ because his interest lies not in the furnishings of the tabernacle but in the sacrifice of Christ.” His interest certainly lies in the sacrifice of Christ, but it does not follow that the tabernacle and its furnishings are devoid of interest for him.

136

Georg Gäbel

of the cultic discourse of Hebrews. 3 Referring to the items said by Hebrews to have been kept in the ark, one commentator remarks: “Aber alles das scheint unseren Verf.[asser] nicht zu interessieren.”4 It has even been claimed that the items mentioned in Heb 9:1−5 are “extraneous to the immediate argument.”5 I disagree. I submit that the description of the tabernacle and its furnishings is very much part of the immediate argument. I propose, then, that we read Heb 9:1−5 as a conscientiously composed, integral part of the argument of Hebrews. In order to justify this proposal, I look at that passage from a variety of perspectives. First, I argue that stories concerning the history of the tabernacle and its accoutrements are used in early Jewish literature to express notions of continuity and discontinuity with the ideal beginnings of Israel’s cult, to criticize what was seen as the insufficiency of that cult, and (sometimes) to express expectations of future renewal and fulfillment. Hebrews 9:1−5, 6–10 should be read in light of such texts, I submit, in order better to understand why Hebrews uses the description of the tabernacle as part of a comparison between two covenants and their respective cults. Second, I analyze the ways in which the tabernacle description itself bears witness to the preliminary and insufficient character of the first covenant and its cult on earth according to Hebrews. I use one approach to critical spatiality to describe the connection between the tabernacle description and the ensuing argument concerning the gradation of authority to enter and to perform cultic rituals. I argue that the tabernacle description in Heb 9:1–5 emphasizes space and relations of items within space, and that repeated ritual actions determined by the layout of that space produce social inequality with regard to access to the divine presence in the sanctuary. I then turn to three of the items mentioned in Heb 9:4–5, the rod of Aaron, the altar of incense, and the “cherubim of glory.” I argue that these items may be understood as “social goods,” i.e., material goods bearing symbolic value. I 3 Yet, in this short passage Hebrews offers more information about the sanctuary on earth than the whole epistle gives us about the one in heaven, about which we learn very little indeed, whatever its importance for the epistle. Cf. Hermut Löhr, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel: Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt (ed. M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer; WUNT 55; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 185−205, esp. 194. 4 Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer (3 vols.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlagshaus, 1990–1997), 2:124. 5 “It is important to note that Hebrews does not utilize these items [i.e., the furnishings of the tabernacle] in the typological exposition that follows; they are, as it were, extraneous to the immediate argument but may serve some larger rhetorical purpose” (Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights [ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 131−48, here 143). Aitken suggests that Heb 9:1−5 be read in the context of Flavian dynastic and imperial propaganda.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

137

further argue that their symbolic value may be elucidated by considering the narrative and legal contexts in which these items are rooted, and that they serve to express priestly election and prerogative, emphasizing the exclusion of nonpriests and indeed even of most priests (with regard to the inner sanctum) from access to the divine presence. In sum, then, I propose that, on several levels, Hebrews uses the description of the tabernacle and its furnishings to express the preliminary and insufficient nature of the cult on earth, which fails to open access to the divine presence to worshipers. Finally, I argue that this critique of the tabernacle and cult on earth is the complement of a theology of access to the heavenly cult. Before I begin to discuss these matters, I must first clarify the use of tabernacle symbolism in Hebrews and the interconnection between covenant, cult, and sanctuary which is so important for the argument unfolding in Heb 8–9. And since the last words of Heb 9:5 have misled some into believing that the desert tabernacle is of minor importance for Hebrews, I offer an analysis of the way in which the rhetoric of omission in 9:5 helps readers to appreciate the brevity of the tabernacle description and its function for the comparatio in the context.

The Tabernacle Symbolism in Context Tabernacle Symbolism in Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 9:6−10 Hebrews mentions τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν, the sanctuary on earth (Heb 9:1), as well as the “greater and more perfect tent not made by hands, that is, not of this creation” (Heb 9:11), the “true tent, which the Lord has erected, not a human” (Heb 8:2).6 The quotation of Exod 25:40 LXX in Heb 8:5 further informs us that the tabernacle on earth was built according to a τύπος, a heavenly reality shown to Moses. This should be read in correlation with the mention of the ἀντίτυπα in Heb 9:24. As Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer shows, ἀντίτυπος denotes that which is temporally or axiologically/ontologically subordinate to a τύπος since at least New Testament times.7 Given that correlation, the τύπος in Heb 8:5 cannot denote a mere heavenly plan or model. Hebrews envisages a veritable heavenly sanctuary that the tabernacle on earth represents. 8 6

All translations of biblical texts are my own unless otherwise noted. See Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer, Taufe und Typos: Elemente und Theologie der Tauftypologien in 1. Korinther 10 und in 1. Petrus 3 (WUNT 2/118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), esp. 9–52. 8 Jonathan Klawans correctly distinguishes the concept that an actual sanctuary exists in heaven from the concept of a plan, image, or model existing in heaven. He thinks the two concepts may have been linked for the first time in Heb 8:5 (Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006], 128, cf. 289 n. 142). Jared C. Calaway argues that 7

138

Georg Gäbel

This concept is different from cosmological sanctuary symbolism, 9 according to which the sanctuary on earth is understood as a model of the whole universe, itself a cosmic temple consisting of two parts, heaven and earth, to which the two parts of the sanctuary on earth correspond. 10 The characteristic brevity of Heb 9:1−5 has rightly been contrasted11 with the elaborate cosmological interpretation of the tabernacle and its furnishings given by Philo (and, less elaborately, by Josephus).12 Intensely debated is the question of whether the relationship between the sanctuary on earth and the heavenly sanctuary should be understood in spatialontological or/and temporal-eschatological terms. Hebrews 8:5 calls the tabernacle a ὑπόδειγμα and σκιά. This, together with the use of ὑπόδειγμα in Ezek 42:15 LXX, has been adduced as evidence for a temporal-eschatological understanding of ὑπόδειγμα in Heb 8:5.13 But in Heb 9:23, τὰ ὑποδείγματα refers to

the two concepts come together already in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and its Priestly Context (WUNT 2/349; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 127. 9 Klawans (Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 111) writes, “While the two ideas are not contradictory, there are many tensions between them, and, as we will see, it is a general rule that ancient Jewish sources will articulate only one or another of these approaches, and not both.” Cf. further Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, esp. 128−38. 10 Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann interpret Heb in this way: “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 13–23, esp. 18−23. Others who argue that cosmological symbolism may be found at least at some points in Hebrews include George W. MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978): 179−99; Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, esp. 110, 114; Kenneth L. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice (SNTSMS 143; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), esp. 151−54 (though somewhat tentatively); cf. Kenneth L. Schenck, “An Archaeology of Hebrews’ Tabernacle Imagery,” in Hebrews in Contexts (ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 238–58. 11 Cf., e.g., Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989), 232; Thompson, Hebrews, 179–80; Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews, 154–55. 12 On Philo and Josephus see C. T. Robert Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996), esp. 108−53; Gregory W. Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between Author and Community in Hebrews,” Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001): 190–211, esp. 199–204; and Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, esp. 114−23. For my own discussion of some aspects of Philo’s use of tabernacle symbolism, see Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetischreligionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT 2/212; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 120−26. 13 See Lincoln D. Hurst, “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. viii.5 and ix.23f?,” JTS (1983): 156−68, esp. 161–62. Church thinks that ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιά means a “symbolic foreshadowing” in time of eschatological realities. See Philip Church, Hebrews and the

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

139

the “tent” on earth and its accoutrements (cf. 9:21), made by human hands, and is set over against the heavenly things themselves. Similarly, it is τὰ ἐπουράνια of which the tabernacle is said in Heb 8:5 to be an outline, exemplar, sketch, or representation.14 As George MacRae remarks, if the word ὑπόδειγμα “is given its normal meaning of ‘example’ – or … ‘image’” (or exemplar, outline, etc.), “the presupposition of a true tabernacle in heaven remains.” 15 It makes the best sense, therefore, to assume that the author has in mind here a representation of the τύπος (8:5) in heaven.16 This interpretation is in agreement with the designation of the tabernacle on earth as a “shadow” (8:5). That word is used in a temporal sense in Heb 10:1, 17 but, as David Runia argues, in Heb 8:5 Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews (NovTSup 171; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 405–11. 14 The range of meaning of ὑπόδειγμα includes “example,” “outline,” “pattern,” “sketch,” “instance,” “specimen,” “exemplar.” Cf. (in addition to the dictionaries) James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914−1929), 656; Hurst, “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. viii.5 and ix.23f?,” 156–64; Attridge, Hebrews, 219; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2010), 99, 377, 383; Hermut Löhr, “‘Umriß’ und ‘Schatten.’ Bemerkungen zur Zitierung von Ex 25,40 in Hebr 8,” ZNW 84 (1993): 218−32, esp. 221–24; Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 2:110; David T. Runia, “Ancient Philosophy and the New Testament: ‘Exemplar’ as Example,” in Method and Meaning: Essays on New Testament Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge (ed. Andrew B. MacGowan and Kent Richards; SBLRBS 67; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 347–61, esp. 354– 59; Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, 106–7; Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 405–11. 15 MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” 187. 16 As David Runia writes, “it is difficult … when 8:5 and 9:23 are read together, not to read them in terms of a contrast between a model or pattern and an example based on that model.” See Runia, “Ancient Philosophy and the New Testament: ‘Exemplar’ as Example,” 158. Cf. further MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” 186–88; Koester, The Dwelling of God, 154–57; Beate Ego, Im Himmel wie auf Erden: Studien zum Verhältnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum (WUNT 2/34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), esp. 56−57; Attridge, Hebrews, 219–24; Löhr, “‘Umriß’ und ‘Schatten’,” 221–24; Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 193–99; Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, 104–9; Jody A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), esp. 110–13; Gert Steyn, “‘On Earth as it is in Heaven …’: The Heavenly Sanctuary Motif in Hebrews 8:5 and its Textual Connection with the ‘Shadowy Copy’ (ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ) of LXX Exodus 25:40,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2011), http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/ 885, accessed 22 January 2015 (but the words ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ are a quotation of Heb 8:5, not Exod 25:40 LXX). Martin Karrer suggests that the author of Hebrews thought of a heavenly model distinct from the heavenly sanctuary itself, and that he conflated this with the tabernacle on earth, a mere shadow (σκιά) of heavenly reality (Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 2:110). 17 On the use of σκιά in Heb 10:1 and 8:5, cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 219.

140

Georg Gäbel

it is best understood as expressing the relationship between the heavenly sanctuary and its representation on earth,18 regardless of whether we render ὑπόδειγμα (with Runia) as “exemplar,”19 or as “specimen,” or, more generally, as “representation.” Spatial and temporal categories are not mutually exclusive in Hebrews, however. The author foregrounds one or the other in different passages. In Heb 9:1–10, he is primarily concerned with the temporal relationship between the first covenant and its cultic rules (represented by the sanctuary on earth) and the new covenant and its cult, implied in the mention of the “time of correction” in 9:10. In this context, the cult in the tabernacle on earth, due to its imperfection, points towards the death, exaltation, and high priestly entry of Jesus into the heavenly sanctuary where access to the divine presence has finally been realized in “these last days.” The spatial and temporal aspects are intertwined. This is most conspicuously the case in the verses already mentioned, Heb 9:8– 10. In Heb 9:8 we read that the way to τὰ ἅγια “has not yet been revealed while the first tabernacle maintains its standing” (στάσις).20 Implied in this sentence are the different notions of the first tent of the tabernacle on earth as barring access for human priests to the second, of the quest for access to the divine presence in heaven, and of the inability of the cult on earth under the first covenant to reveal that access. The focus here, however, clearly is on the time of “standing” (στάσις) of the first tent, i.e., the time of the “normative status”21 of the inadequate cultic rules under the first covenant represented specifically, according to 9:9, by the first tent. The author does not say, however, that access to τὰ ἅγια in heaven is barred by physical creation. 22 Rather, he argues that the τῶν ἁγίων ὁδός has not become apparent or manifest (πεφανερῶσθαι) so long

18

As Runia notes, a shadow is that which is derived from something else, not a basis for imitation. So, if we were to understand ὑπόδειγμα in Heb 8:5 as a preliminary sketch later to be fully realized, this would seem to imply a contradiction between the use of the two terms. See Runia, “Ancient Philosophy and the New Testament: ‘Exemplar’ as Example,” 358–59. While the terminology of Hebrews is not strictly Platonic, there may be points of contact with Platonic usage (as well as deviations from it), and, as Attridge and others have pointed out, the word σκιά, “shadow,” can be used in Platonic philosophy for the phenomenal, material world (cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 219). Moreover, the use of that word in Heb 8:5 is reminiscent of Philo’s comments on the name of Bezalel, the builder of the desert tabernacle. Philo translates his name as “working in shadow” or “in the shadow of God,” arguing that the tabernacle built by him is but a shadow of the ideas in the divine mind seen by Moses. See Philo, Leg. 3.102; Plant. 26–27; Somn. 1.206. 19 See Runia, “Ancient Philosophy and the New Testament: ‘Exemplar’ as Example,” esp. 359. 20 Translation by Attridge, Hebrews, 230. 21 Attridge, Hebrews, 240 (interpreting the στάσις of the first tent). 22 Calaway argues that the argument “suggests the removal of the first tent in order to gain total access to the second tent” (The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, 110).

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

141

as the first tent maintains its “standing.” Such revelatory language 23 is adequate because what needs to be remedied is the inadequacy of the cult on earth (cf. vv. 9−10), based as it is on the “normative status” of the cultic precepts previously revealed (cf. 9:1). Hebrews is contrasting, then, two covenants and their respective cultic institutions. At the same time, however, the spatial aspect is also implied in Heb 9:8, where access to the heavenly holy of holies is in view, and this aspect will subsequently be foregrounded once more in Heb 9:11–12, 24, where Hebrews speaks of Jesus’ entry into the heavenly sanctuary.24 The focus of the argument in Heb 9:1−12 is on access to the divine presence, and in this context, the circumstances described in 9:1−10 in their totality signify the predicament of the old cultic order. 25 The first tent on earth, barring access to the second, stands for the inadequate cultic institution on earth, since the resulting state of affairs determines the conditions for worship in the earthly sanctuary as a whole. Indeed, it is the whole ἅγιον κοσμικόν (9:1) which is connected by Hebrews with the first covenant, just as the “tent” mentioned in Heb 9:11 is the heavenly sanctuary as a whole. 26 Thus, the contrast here is between the whole heavenly tabernacle, mentioned in 9:11, and the whole 23

Cf. Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, “φαίνω κτλ.,” TWNT 9:1−11, esp. 4−6 (on φανερόω); Attridge, Hebrews, 240; Paul-Gerhard Müller, “φανερόω,” in Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; 2d ed.; 3 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 3:988−91. 24 This, together with the ambivalent wording of Heb 9:24, leads some scholars to assume that the second tent stands for the world to come and for eschatological fulfilment, or for the heavenly realm (see, e.g., Koester, The Dwelling of God, 158; Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, 110–13). The connection in Heb 9:8 between restrictions of entry into the holy of holies on earth and the lack of revelation of access to the heavenly inner sanctum indeed resonates with such traditions (cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.181). Insofar as this is the case, however, this serves the purpose to deny emphatically the accessibility of the heavenly divine presence in the cult on earth. According to Hebrews, the tabernacle on earth represents the heavenly sanctuary, not a cosmic temple consisting of heaven and earth. We may therefore at best speak here of vestiges or overtones of cosmological symbolism that do not, however, determine the understanding of the heavenly sanctuary in Heb. Cf. Otfried Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f und 10,19f (WUNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972), esp. 63. 25 Norman Young puts it well: “The language of ‘first tent’ has a clear eschatological purpose: it means the old covenant order now in process of dissolution by the καιρὸς διορθώσεως (9.10) and because it pictures the old order it includes the earthly ritual in its entirety.” See Norman H. Young, “The Gospel of Hebrews 9,” NTS 27 (1981): 198−210, esp. 202. See further Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews, esp. 110−13, for a critique of Schenck’s reading of Heb 9:1−10; Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes, 62−64. 26 See Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes, 65–67. Young writes, “It is the outer tent that is the παραβολή; but in thus using this spatial description the author pronounces the whole of the old ritual order ‘impotent and useless’ (7.19 NEB) as regards the expiation of sin and the gaining of access to God” (Young, “The Gospel of Hebrews 9,” 202; emphasis original). Indeed, it is the whole sanctuary on earth that is compared with the whole sanctuary in heaven.

142

Georg Gäbel

structure on earth,27 described in Heb 9:1−10.28 It is the symbolic meaning of the tabernacle on earth that the exegesis of Heb 9:1−5 in the present chapter will seek further to elucidate. Tabernacle and Covenant The beginning of our passage, εἶχεν μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν (Heb 9:1), refers back to – and continues – the preceding discussion of two covenants29 in Heb 8:7−13.30 Indeed, the discussion of cultic matters in the central section of Hebrews is set within the brackets 27

Hebrews 9:3 mentions a second veil in the tabernacle on earth and, behind it, the holy of holies, and Heb 9:11−12 sets Jesus’ entry into the divine presence in heaven in parallel to the high priest’s entry into the holy of holies on earth (εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν in 9:7 refers back to v. 3). See Young, “The Gospel of Hebrews 9,” esp. 199. The wording τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος (Heb 6:19) closely parallels Lev 16:2 LXX, which mentions Aaron’s entrance into τὸ ἅγιον ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος εἰς πρόσωπον τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου, i.e., the holy of holies in the tabernacle on earth. The veil is mentioned again in Heb 10:20. (For discussions of the veil in front of the holy of holies and/or the throne, see Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, 127−35; Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes; Löhr, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel,” 195.) The εἴσοδος τῶν ἁγίων mentioned here (10:19) parallels τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν in 9:8; in both cases, the referent of τὰ ἅγια is most likely the holy of holies. It is unlikely, therefore, that the “tent” (9:11) and τὰ ἅγια (9:12) have the same referent. It seems more likely that the “tent” is the heavenly sanctuary as a whole, whereas τὰ ἅγια is the heavenly inner sanctum. Accordingly, προσερχώμεθα in Heb 10:22, referring to the holy of holies reached by Jesus after his passage through the veil, is analogous to προσερχώμεθα in Heb 4:16, referring to access to the heavenly throne. It seems plausible to assume, then, that the author envisages a bicameral heavenly sanctuary. These observations notwithstanding, the reference to “heaven itself” in 9:24 is open to diverse interpretations; it may refer to the heavenly holy of holies, or it may indicate that the author is not always bound to strict terminological accuracy and conceptual consistency. 28 Cf. Hofius, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes, 65−67; Löhr, “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel,” 190−92. 29 On the concept of διαθήκη in Hebrews, and on some recent assessments of it, see Wolfgang Kraus, “Die Bedeutung von Διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. E. Bons, R. Brucker, and J. Joosten; WUNT 2/367; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 67–83. Further on διαθήκη in Hebrews, see Wolfgang Kraus, “Die Rezeption von Jer 38,31–34 (LXX) in Hebräer 8–10 und dessen Funktion in der Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes,” in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (ed. J. Cook and H.-J. Stipp; VTSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 447–62; Wolfgang Kraus, “Zur Aufnahme von Ex 24f. im Hebräerbrief,” Heiliger Raum. Exegese und Rezeption der Heiligtumstexte in Ex 24-40 (ed. M. Hopf, W. Oswald and S. Seiler; Theologische Akzente 8; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 91–112. 30 It is to the first covenant that the words ἡ πρώτη in Heb 9:1 refer, linking back to ἡ πρώτη in 8:7, 13 (cf. κρείττονος διαθήκης in 8:6 and διαθήκη in 8:8−10). In fact, ch. 9 will precisely discuss the cult as a means to achieve the forgiveness of sins which, of course, is the subject of the quotation from Jer 31 in Heb 8:8−13, esp. v. 12. Thus, the cult is the content of the covenant, and the covenant is performed in the cult.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

143

formed, as it were, by the citations in Heb 8:8−12 and 10:16−17 from Jer 31 (38 LXX):31−32, 33−34 concerning two covenants. Hebrews thus indicates that underlying its cultic theology is the temporal dynamic leading from the first covenant towards the inauguration of a new, eschatological covenant. Not surprisingly, then, in Heb 9, the mention of the tabernacle, the ark and its contents form part of an ongoing comparison between the two covenants, their cultic institutions, and rituals.31 The law given and promulgated with the first covenant, according to v. 1, is a cultic law: the first covenant is characterized by its “regulations for worship” (δικαιώματα λατρείας).32 These apparently include provisions for the making of the tabernacle, as the following verses suggest. At this point, the author tacitly begins to read the covenant texts from Jer 31 together with the description of the covenant ceremony in Exod 24. In fact, the transition from covenant to tabernacle in Heb 9:1 follows the narrative sequence of the book of Exodus: Exod 24 describes the covenant ceremony; this is immediately followed by the instructions for the making of the tabernacle, its vessels, and other appurtenances (Exod 25−30) and, in Exod 35−40, by the making of the tabernacle and its furnishings as instructed. 33 The author of Hebrews no doubt has in mind this sequence and the interrelationship of covenant, tabernacle, and worship when he closely links the δικαιώματα λατρείας with τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν (he will indeed come back to Exod 24 in Heb 9:18−22, quoting Exod 24:8 in Heb 9:20). According to v. 8, it is through the rituals performed in the tabernacle (subdivided into two “tents”), and the corresponding gradation of authority to enter, that the Holy Spirit indicates the lack of revelation of “the way into τὰ ἅγια.”34 Since the making of the tabernacle and its accoutrements is grounded in the “regulations for worship” which,

31

Cf. the discussion below on comparatio (σύγκρισις), comparison. Susan Haber correctly notes: “In Hebrews the Mosaic covenant is a cultic order” (“From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant and Cult in Hebrews,” JSNT 28 [2005]: 105−24, here 109; emphasis original). 33 Cf. L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus (BTS 15; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 253. He notes that the covenant ceremony of Exod 24 should be read as “a preparation in worship for the establishment of the tabernacle cult.” 34 The referent of τὰ ἅγια in v. 8 (in spite of v. 2) is the inner part of the tabernacle (see Young, “The Gospel of Hebrews 9,” 198−99; Attridge, Hebrews, 240, 233 n. 46.) What, according to v. 9, serves as a παραβολή may be either the first tent (barring access to the second) or the whole situation created by the partitioning of the tabernacle. In effect, the difference is small. Cf. Steve Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6−10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle,” NovT 37 (1995): 385−99; Attridge, Hebrews, 241−42; Gareth L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 383−84; Otfried Hofius, “Das ‘erste’ und das ‘zweite’ Zelt: Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Hbr 9,1–10,” ZNW 61 (1970): 271–77. Pace Félix H. Cortez, I do not think that ὁδός in v.8 is “the antecedent” (the referent) “of ἥτις” in v. 9 (cf. “The Period of Hebrews 9:6−10,” JBL 125 [2006]: 527–47, esp. 538 n. 51). 32

144

Georg Gäbel

according to v. 1, were given with the first covenant, the tabernacle may be called an outward, material expression of the character of that covenant. The Rhetoric of Omission There still remains the question why the author chose to terminate the tabernacle description with what may almost seem a disparaging remark at the end of v. 5.35 We are dealing here with a rhetorical figure which has been identified before36 as praeteritio or occultatio37 (παράλειψις),38 “the express declaration of the intention to refrain from a comprehensive treatment of a subject mentioned.”39 The speaker may be briefly mentioning, or alluding to, precisely the things which he claims to be passing over (Rhet. Her. 4.27. 37);40 this is a form

35

On the rhetorical analysis of Hebrews, see, e.g., Lauri Thurén, “The General New Testament Writings,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.−A.D. 400 (ed. S. E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 587−607, esp. 589−92; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 39−58; Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 1:69−71; Ben Witherington III, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2009), 195−212; Craig R. Koester, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students (ed. Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden; SBLRBS 66; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 99−120. 36 See Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A SocioRhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 265–66. Thompson, Hebrews, 179, merely speaks of “a common rhetorical maxim.” 37 While most handbooks now speak of praeteritio, occultatio is the term used in the Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.27.37. Cf. what Quintilian has to say about ἀντίφρασις in Inst. 9.2.47. 38 For the following, see esp. B. Czapla, “Praeteritio,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015), 7:27−32, esp. 27−29. 39 My translation of a portion of Heinrich Lausberg’s definition: “Die praeteritio … besteht in der ausdrücklichen Kundgabe der Absicht, die ausführliche Behandlung eines genannten Gegenstandes oder mehrerer (in der Form der percursio …) genannter Gegenstände zu unterlassen.” (Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie [2d ed.; Munich: Max Hueber Verlag, 1963], 137 [§ 410]. See also Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft [3d ed.; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990], 436 [§ 882]). 40 According to this definition, occultatio occurs cum dicimus nos praeterire aut non scire aut nolle dicere id quod nunc maxime dicimus. Similar definitions may be found in most modern handbooks. Cf., e.g., Galen O. Rowe, “Style,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.−A.D. 400 (ed. S. E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 121−57, esp. 149; Richard A. Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms (2d ed.; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991), 104.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

145

of rhetorical irony. 41 Praeteritio is thus used to emphasize the importance of the things the speaker mentions.42 A speaker may also pass over things without in fact mentioning them, restricting himself to what is necessary. 43 In both cases, praeteritio implies additional knowledge.44 It is one of the figurae per detractionem,45 or “figures through omission,”46 that belong to the wider field of brevitas (βραχυλογία).47 These also include percursio (ἐπιτροχασμός), enumeration, and reticentia (ἀποσιώπησις), leaving a sentence or a thought unfinished.48 In fact, the brief mention of subjects not to be treated in detail, often in the form of a percursio, is typical of praeteritio.49 A percursio50 typically 41 On praeteritio as a form of rhetorical irony, see Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.46−48; Lausberg, Handbuch, 436−37 (§ 884); Czapla, “Praeteritio,” 28. 42 See “Paralipsis,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 877; Lanham, “Occultatio”; Czapla, “Praeteritio,” 28; C. Kallendorf, “Brevitas,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015), 2:53−60, esp. 56 (praeteritio = “Betonung einer Sache durch scheinbares Übergehen”). 43 Czapla, “Praeteritio,” 27−29. Lausberg, Handbuch, 174 (§ 308), mentions John 20:30−31 and 21:25 as examples of this kind of praeteritio. 44 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 238: “That much could be said about the significance of these cultic furnishings is suggested by the remark that it is ‘not possible’ (οὐκ ἔστιν) to discuss them ‘in detail’ (κατὰ μέρος).” 45 Lausberg, Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik, 136−37 (§§ 407 [brevitas], 409 [percursio], 410 [praeteritio], 411 [reticentia]). 46 Cf. Rowe, “Style,” 148−49. 47 Czapla, “Praeteritio,” 29. On brevitas, cf. E. Hagenbichler, “Brachylogie,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015), 2:50−53, esp. 50−51; Kallendorf, “Brevitas,” esp. 53−56. 48 Reticentia is frequently defined as “stopping suddenly in midcourse, leaving a statement unfinished” (Lanham, “Aposiopesis,” A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, 20), or in similar terms (cf., e.g., A. Grün-Oesterreich, “Aposiopesis,” in Encyclopedia of Rhetoric [ed. T. O. Sloane; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 29). Such definitions follow Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.54. This clearly does not apply to Heb 9:5. There are other uses of reticentia, however (cf. L. Drews, “Aposiopese,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik [ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015], 1:828−30). According to Demetrius (Eloc. 2.103), “In certain cases conciseness, and especially aposiopesis, produce elevation, since some things seem to be more significant when not expressed but only hinted at” (W. Rhys Roberts, Demetrius on Style: The Greek Text of Demetrius De Elocutione edited after the Paris Manuscript with Introduction, Translation, Facsimiles, etc. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902], 118−19). Cf. “Aposiopesis,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 81. While most ancient and modern handbooks distinguish between praeteritio and reticentia, according to Czapla, one ancient author (Hermogenes) identifies them (cf. Czapla, “Praeteritio,” 28; cf. 31 n. 5). 49 Cf. Lausberg, Handbuch, 436 (§ 882). 50 On percursio, cf. Quintialian, Inst. 6.1.2; B. Czapla, “Percursio,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015), 6:748–50, esp. 748.

146

Georg Gäbel

consists of asyndetical main clauses, appositions and participles. It may even be restricted to nouns.51 Similar characteristics can be named for descriptio (ἔκφρασις), “description of appearance and form.”52 Where more abstract entities are described, descriptio is characterized by sequences of characteristics and by a predominantly nominal style. 53 Hebrews 9:1−5, then, gives a descriptio in the form of a percursio which ends in a praeteritio. The overall intention here is detractio or omission of what does not seem strictly necessary, which serves to achieve brevitas.54 Also relevant here is significatio (ἔμφασις), emphasis, which is achieved by omission, prompting the hearer or reader to make connections and to fill in relevant information. 55 This rhetorical analysis accounts well for the characteristic brevity and syntactical density of Heb 9:1−5 as well as the concluding remark in v. 5. As to the latter, we may hear in it overtones of rhetorical irony56 while at the same time appreciating the intention to achieve brevitas57 and to prepare the transition to a new paragraph. 58 The praeteritio can surely not be said to downplay the importance of the preceding tabernacle description. It indicates that, while more could be said, the brief 51

Lausberg, Handbuch, 171 (§ 299). Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1984), 221 (§ 63). 53 Berger, Formgeschichte, 222 (§ 64). 54 On praeteritio serving brevitas, see Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.49 (quaedam vero ex ordine praetermittenda); Kallendorf, “Brevitas,” 56. On brevitas (βραχυλογία) generally, see Hagenbichler, “Brachylogie.” 55 Cf. T. Schirren, “Emphase,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015), 2:1121−23. On brevitas and significatio, cf. Hagenbichler, “Brachylogie,” 51. See also Lanham, “Significatio,” in A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, 138−40. 56 Consider the way Hebrews elsewhere alleges the immaturity of the addressees, claiming that it would be hopeless to teach them advanced doctrine (Heb 5:11−14), which the author then nevertheless goes on to expound at some length. Similarly, Hebrews impresses upon the addressees the possibility of their future condemnation by God, only to conclude that better things do in fact await them (Heb 6:4−12). In both cases, we should not take everything that is said at face value. Hearers/readers are supposed to understand the ends such rhetorical means serve. On the rhetorics of metus (“fear”) in Hebrews, see Knut Backhaus, “Zwei harte Knoten: Todes- und Gerichtsangst im Hebräerbrief,” NTS 55 (2009): 198−217, esp. 212−17; and Brent Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4−12,” NovT 45 (2003): 265−79. 57 Hebrews does mention in a brief percursio what pertains to the subject, the discussion of which is then cut short, but refrains from speaking about the tabernacle and its accoutrements in detail. Cf. Lausberg, Handbuch, 436 (§ 882): “Die Kundgabe der Absicht der Auslassung gewisser Dinge schließt die Nennung dieser Dinge ein: worauf verzichtet wird, ist die Detaillierung dieser Dinge. Handelt es sich um mehrere Dinge, so enthält die praeteritio eine Aufzählung, d.h. eine percursio.” 58 Cf. Lausberg, Handbuch, 436 (§ 882): “Meist folgt eine Kundgabe darüber, daß der Redner sofort zur Behandlung anderer Dinge übergeht.” 52

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

147

foregoing description, such as it is, includes all that is essential for the argument unfolding in the context. That context is clearly epideictic.59 Epideictic rhetoric includes comparatio (σύγκρισις), comparison.60 Descriptio (ἔκφρασις) is a necessary part of comparatio.61 The description given in Heb 9:1−5 forms part of an ongoing comparison between two covenants and their respective cultic institutions. The function of the tabernacle description within that ongoing comparison will be elucidated if, prompted by the rhetorics of omission, we make the connections and fill in the relevant information which percursio,62 brevitas, and significatio hint at while withholding them. 63

The History of the Tabernacle, the Ark, and the Holy Vessels Biblical Intertexts and Early Jewish Contexts Hebrews 9:1−5 is based primarily on the instructions for the making of the tabernacle and its furnishings in Exod 25−30 (cf. Exod 36−38), and especially on Exod 25.64 Beyond these intertexts, however, there are relevant biblical and extrabiblical contexts. Hebrews 9:4−5 goes beyond what is mentioned in Exod 59 Thus, Berger, Formgeschichte, 221 (§ 63), cites Heb 9:1−5 as an example of epideictic rhetoric, and more specifically of descriptio, ἔκφρασις. On the importance of epideictic rhetoric for Hebrews, see, e.g., deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 52−56; Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric, 196−208; Michael W. Martin and Jason A. Whitlark, “Choosing What Is Advantageous: The Relationship between Epideictic and Deliberative Syncrisis in Hebrews,” NTS 58 (2012): 379–400 (without reference to Heb 9:1–11). 60 Cf. A.W. Halsall, “Descriptio,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding et al.; 12 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015), 2:549−53, esp. 549. 61 Berger, Formgeschichte, 222 (§ 64). On comparatio in Hebrews, cf. Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric, 203−5. On visually oriented rhetoric, see Scott D. Mackie, “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JTS 62 (2011): 77−117, esp. 100−103. I would disagree with Mackie, however, concerning Heb 9:1−5, which is not “an exact narration overlooking no detail” (so Mackie, “Heavenly Sanctuary,” 110 n. 87), but is restricted to chosen items which are deemed necessary to help the author achieve his goal. 62 Cf. Lausberg, Handbuch, 435 (§ 881), according to whom it is characteristic of percursio “gerade daß sich über jedes einzelne dieser Themen noch viel sagen ließe und eben darauf verzichtet wird … .” 63 Cf. Hagenbichler, “Brachylogie,” 51: the listener should “Gedanken erkennen …, die nicht expressis verbis ausgedrückt sind.” According to Lanham (“Significatio,” 140), underlying significatio is “the idea of interactivity, of a metasignal multiplexed onto the plain utterance which invites the reader to complete the meaning.… we feel the need for a term which will describe those patterns which seek, one way or another, to make the interactivity noticed.” In our particular case, “intertextuality,” I suggest, might be a candidate. 64 Ellingworth writes, “Ex. 25:10–40 is drastically summarized in Heb. 9:1–5” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 408). In fact, Heb 9:2 draws on Exod 25:23−39, Heb 9:4 draws on Exod 25:10−16, and Heb 9:5 draws on Exod 25:17−22. But the description of the bipartite structure of the tabernacle and of the veil between the two “tents” draws on Exod 26.

148

Georg Gäbel

25 and contradicts the claim, made in 1 Kgs/3 Kgdms 8:9 and in Josephus, Ant. 8.104, that the ark contained nothing but the tablets of the law. In so doing, Heb 9:4−5 betrays knowledge of lists of items belonging to the tabernacle and its furnishings, found in a number of early Jewish writings (and in rabbinic works also).65 These early Jewish parabiblical texts narrate the fate of the tabernacle, the ark, and some of their appurtenances. 65 While I will restrict my discussion to early Jewish writings, rabbinic works containing lists of items said to be related with the tabernacle and the ark, or to have been hidden away with them, may be briefly mentioned here: – ’Abot R. Nat. 41 (recension A) lists five things “which (first) were made and (later) hidden away,” viz.: “the tent of meeting and the furnishings therein; the ark, and the broken tables of the Commandments in it; the jar of manna; the cruse of anointing oil; the rod (of Moses); Aaron’s staff, its almond blossoms and flowers; the priestly vestments; and the vestments of the anointed priest.” See Judah Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (YJS 10; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1955), 173. – According to m. Šeqal. 6:1−2; b. Yoma 54a, the ark was hidden within the temple precincts. According to b. Soṭah 9a, the tabernacle was hidden under the (first) temple. – t. Yoma 3:7 mentions the bowl of manna, the cruse of anointing oil, the staff of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, and a box of presents from the Philistines. These items are said to have been hidden together with the ark. – b. Yoma 52b and b. Hor. 12a claim that the manna, the anointing oil, the staff of Aaron and the box of presents from the Philistines had been hidden by Josiah. – Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, a tannaitic midrash on Exodus, in tractate Vayassa‘ ch. 6, on Exod 16:32, contains a similar list which includes, among other things, the rainbow, the manna, the stone tablets, the cave in which Moses and Aaron stood and, according to some, the garments of the first man and the rod of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms (but not the ark). See Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition (2 vols.; Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1933), 2:124−25; Günther Stemberger, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Jishma‘el. Ein früher Midrasch zum Buch Exodus (Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2010), 213. Different versions of this list are preserved in different manuscripts; cf. Stemberger, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Jishma‘el, 511. There follows in the Mekilta another list which includes the “bottle” of manna, the bottle of sprinkling water (made with the ashes of the red heifer; cf. Heb 9:13−14) and the “bottle” of anointing oil. These will be restored by Elijah. Cf. Lauterbach, Mekhilta, 2:126; Stemberger Mekhilta de-Rabbi Jishma‘el, 214. – The later rabbinic version of the Jeremiah legend as told in Pesiq. Rab. 26 does not mention the motif of the hidden temple furnishings/vessels. (On Pesiqta Rabbati, see Günther Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch [8th ed.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992], 292−97.) – There is also a late (ancient, medieval, or later) legend concerning the hiding of furnishings, vessels, and treasures of the tabernacle and of the first temple. See James Davila, “The Treatise of the Vessels (Massekhet Kelim),” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (ed. Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 1:393–420. For pertinent secondary sources, see Friedrich Böhl, “Die Legende vom Verbergen der Lade,” FJB 4 (1976): 63−80; Steven D. Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (JSJSup 147; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 523−54.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

149

Before they encounter the tabernacle description in Heb 9:1–5, readers of Hebrews learn that the first covenant that prompted the making of the desert tabernacle is “aged” and “close to vanishing” (Heb 8:13). They cannot but be aware, moreover – though Hebrews does not explicitly mention this – that the tabernacle and the sacred items belonging to it had a long and varied history and that indeed they had been lost. Beginning with the Exodus tabernacle texts themselves, relevant traditions are concerned with that history and loss, and with the broken continuity and contested cultic legitimacy it caused. The mention of these items thus not only leads us back to the ideal beginnings of Israel’s cult in the desert period. It also reminds us of the history of that cult, a history that is interpreted and evaluated – as we will see – in stories about the fates of the items mentioned. The Tabernacle Imagined A remark on the function of the tabernacle accounts in Exodus is in order. 66 I do not wish to take part here in discussions on the dating of the priestly source or on the provenance and history of the traditions incorporated in it.67 Exodus 25−40 may be read as an attempt to reconnect the writer’s or the readers’ own present with the ideal foundations of Israel’s cult. The loss of continuity due to the destruction of the first temple stands in the background, whether we assume an exilic situation or an early post-exilic date, and indeed the time of the building of the second temple. 68 It is the combination of these two aspects – the awareness of a broken continuity and, at the same time, the attempt to 66 On the Exodus tabernacle texts, see Mark K. George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space (AIL 2; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009); Franziska Bark, Ein Heiligtum im Kopf der Leser: Literaturanalytische Betrachtungen zu Ex 25−40 (SBS 218; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009); Michael B. Hundley, “Sacred Spaces, Objects, Offerings, and People in the Priestly Texts: A Reappraisal,” JBL 132 (2013): 749−67; Peter Welten, “Lade – Tempel – Jerusalem: Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher,” in Textgemäß. Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. A. H. J. Gunneweg and O. Kaiser; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 169−83; Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 46−60. 67 For a discussion of these debates, see Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (‘P’),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger et al; KStTh 1/1; 4th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 142−62. Issues of dating and historical context are also discussed in Bark, Ein Heiligtum, esp. 118−22; George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, esp. 9−12; and Cory D. Crawford, “Between Shadow and Substance: The Historical Relationship of Tabernacle and Temple in Light of Architecture and Iconography,” in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (ed. Mark Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton; AIL 9; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 117−33. 68 Cf. Bark, Ein Heiligtum, esp. 12−14, 122−32; George, Israel’s Tabernacle, esp. 9−10. While Bark and George assume an exilic date, Zenger thinks that the tabernacle texts may have been a contribution to discussions concerning the building of the (as yet unfinished) second Jerusalem temple (Zenger, “Das priester[schrift]liche Werk [‘P’],” 153).

150

Georg Gäbel

reestablish continuity, or even the claim that, on one level, continuity remained intact – which is characteristic of the ways the tabernacle, the ark and other sacred items are used in early Jewish literature also. While the earliest version of traditions concerning the tabernacle, the ark, and various other furnishings69 may be found in one fragment from Eupolemos,70 for my purpose, the starting point is the version of the story found in 2 Macc 1:10−2:18.71 In 2 Maccabees,72 this story is embedded into a wider narrative strategy concerning the continuity and legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple and cult.73 We are told (2 Macc 1:19−36) that the fire of the altar of burnt 69 For pertinent secondary sources, see Christian Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (TU 118; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976); Koester, The Dwelling of God, esp. 48−58; Peter Söllner, Jerusalem, die hochgebaute Stadt: Eschatologisches und himmlisches Jerusalem im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum (TANZ 25; Tübingen: Francke, 1998), 287−96; Philip Church, “The Temple in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in Hebrews,” TynBul 64 (2013): 109−28; J. Cornelis de Vos, “Jerusalem: Why on Earth is it in Heaven?,” in Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages (ed. E. van der Steen et al.; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 583; London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 326−37, esp. 330−32. 70 Cf. Fragment 4 (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.2−5). For an English translation, see Francis Fallon, “Eupolemus,” in OTP 2:861−79, esp. 871. See further Robert Doran, “Eupolemus,” Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 611−12; Koester, The Dwelling of God, 44−45. The temple vessels are also mentioned – as is Jeremiah – in 4Q385b (4QApocryphon of JeremiahC), but the text is fragmentary. It appears to mention in 16 I, 5−6 that the vessels were brought to Babylon. Cf. Devorah Dimant, “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385 B = 4Q385 16),” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumranic Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11−30; Lutz Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten. Mündliche und schriftliche Toraparänese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie: Mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (ed. W. Kraus and K.-W. Niebuhr; WUNT 162; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 50−79. See also Eibert Tigchelaar, “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” JSJ 43 (2012): 519–50. 71 Cf. Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, 43−47. 72 Datings differ. Helmut Engel, “Die Bücher der Makkabäer,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger et al.; KStTh 1/1; 4th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 275−90, esp. 288−89, dates the book (in its present state) to shortly after 124 B.C. E. Daniel R. Schwartz thinks that the book may have been written, in successive stages, between 160 and 124 B.C.E. (“Maccabees, Second Book of,” The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism [ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 905−7, esp. 907). Jonathan A. Goldstein argues that 2 Macc 1:10b−2:18 was probably written in 103−102 B.C.E. (II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983], 162−63). 73 Goldstein (II Maccabees, 160) thinks that this strategy aims to counter the claims of the Oniads and “the partisans of the temple of Leontopolis.” He adds, “They must have claimed that insecure Judaea and the contemporary temple of Jerusalem, lacking the sacred

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

151

offerings in the first temple was hidden away before the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, and that it was later retrieved by Nehemiah and reused on the altar of the second temple. The sacrificial cult of the second temple thus used the same fire which had miraculously come down from heaven during the dedication of the first temple according to 2 Chr 7:1−3 and 2 Macc 2:10. (Leviticus 9:24 makes a similar claim for the altar fire of the desert tabernacle.) After t he purgation and rededication of the temple after the Maccabean revolt, however, the altar fire had to be rekindled, as 2 Macc 10:3 notes. Thus, the cultic continuity stressed in 2 Macc 2, going back to the times of the first temple and indeed to the desert period, appears to have been broken during the Maccabean crisis according to ch. 10. As Goldstein observes, The brevity of the accounts here … probably conceals embarrassing religious problems. God should take note of the dedication of His altar by sending miraculous fire. If God does not do so, how can the pious light the altar fire without risking the fate of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1−2)?74

Like the heavenly altar fire, the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense also go back to the time before the institution of the Jerusalem cult. According to 2 Macc 2:1−8, Jeremiah himself hid these items in a cave in the mountain from which Moses had seen the promised land. While the temple is rebuilt after the exile, the tabernacle, ark, and original incense altar are not retrieved. They are missing from the second temple, but their hidden existence elsewhere allows for a future, more perfect restoration. There remains a degree of ambiguity. Second Maccabees clearly has a positive attitude towards the restoration of the temple, but it also communicates an awareness that the second temple cannot claim full continuity with the ideal foundations of Israel’s cult. “Even loyal adherents of the holiness of the second temple recognized that it lacked important attributes of the first temple.”75 The most sacred furnishings, going back to the ideal foundations, remain in hiding until they will be brought forth again by God (v. 8).76 The version of the motif found in the Lives of the Prophets 9−14 is much less friendly towards the Jerusalem temple. This work was written probably in

attributes, were no longer ‘the rest and the inheritance’ or ‘the place which the LORD will choose.’” 74 Goldstein, II Maccabbees, 378, commenting on 2 Macc 10:3. 75 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 160. 76 “The point of the legends of the miraculous fire in the time of Nehemiah (1:19−36) and of the hiding of the tabernacle, ark, and incense altar (2:4−8) is to show from authoritative tradition that the second temple, whatever its deficiencies, still is chosen and favored by God, Who in His own time will restore what is lacking.” See Goldstein, II Maccabees, 160. Further on the argumentative strategy of 2 Maccabees, see Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (BJS 302; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), esp. 56−64; and Koester, The Dwelling of God, 51.

152

Georg Gäbel

the first half of the first century C.E., using earlier material. 77 Again, Jeremiah is said to have taken away the ark and its contents to a place near the graves of Moses and Aaron, from which it will be “resurrected” in the resurrection of the dead. It will then be placed on Mt. Sinai, and the cloud of God’s glory and the pillar of fire will once more appear above the law. The ark is thus hidden only in order to return to its place of origin, Mt. Sinai. The end times will renew the ideal desert period, and the ongoing relevance of the law is strongly emphasized.78 While the hidden ark and its contents make continuity possible in spite of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, this continuity does not seem to include a future temple or cult, 79 or an ongoing role for Jerusalem, 80 about which we hear nothing – the second temple is not even mentioned here. According to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 25:10−12; 26:4−15),81 God ordered one Kenaz to put twelve sacred stones into the ark. When the (first) temple will be built, Kenaz is told, the ark together with the stones will be kept in it (26:12). The temple, however, will come under the power of “enemies” due to the sins of God’s people (26:13). God will take away the stones together with the tables of the law. These items will remain hidden together with the ark (26:15). The twelve stones will be taken to the place from which they were taken in the beginning. They, together with the tables of the law, are said to have a future, eschatological role (26:13). The Jerusalem temple, however, is known to be

77 As in many other writings, issues of dating are complex, and the collection contains later interpolations. On dating, see Anna M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden (2 vols.; TSAJ 49–50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995–1996), 1:65, 68−69; Anna M. Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum (JSHRZ 1/7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997), 547−48; Douglas R. A. Hare, “The Lives of the Prophets,” OTP 2:379−99, esp. 380−81. 78 Liv.Pro.Hab. 12−13 claims that, after the destruction of the temple, the “two columns” will be brought by angels to the place where the tabernacle had been made “in the beginning.” Thus, continuity with the ideal origins in the desert period is once more established. 79 Liv.Pro.Jer. 13−14 does mention the cloud, however, which traditionally indicates the presence of God (cf. Exod 16:10; 24:17; 25:22) and which will appear at the place where the ark had first been made. 80 “Während die palästinischen Erwartungen über die Wiedergabe der Lade diese eher mit dem Jerusalemer Tempel verbinden, ist die Jeremia-Vita ganz auf das Gesetz und den Sinai konzentriert” (Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum, 582). As Schwemer shows, this version of the legend presupposes 2 Maccabees, but is earlier than the ones found in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch (Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden, 1:203; Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum, 579−80). 81 The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is usually dated to the 1st century C.E., but it is difficult to say whether or not it reflects the destruction of the second temple. Cf. Frederick J. Murphy, “Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo),” Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 440−42, esp. 440; Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 154; Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” OTP 2:297−377, esp. 299.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

153

destined to perish even before it has been built. It will remain, according to Pseudo-Philo, a mere episode in Israel’s history. 82 According to Josephus (Ant. 18.85), one Samaritan claimed that Moses had hidden holy vessels in Mt. Gerizim. 83 The Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus; moreover, the legitimacy of Gerizim was contested due to the rival claims of the Jerusalem temple. The claim mentioned by Josephus would seem to be an attempt to establish and to legitimize an ongoing local continuity at the site of the Samaritan temple, after its destruction and in the face of contestation. 84 Thus, the motif of the hidden vessels appears to have been used in Samaritan tradition under circumstances comparable to those that arose for Judaism after the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem. We hear of the hiding of the temple furnishings again in 2 (Syriac) Baruch.85 The list of hidden items in 2 Bar. 6:7 includes the veil, the ephod, the mercy seat, the tablets of the law, the priestly raiment, the incense altar, the jewels belonging to the priestly raiment, and all the sacred vessels of the tabernacle. We have to do here with a comparatively late version of the list (2 Baruch is usually dated to the beginning of the second century C.E.) which aims at a degree of comprehensiveness and which comes close to similar lists in rabbinic writings.86 In view of the peculiar location of the incense altar according to 82

On the sacred stones and their significance, which is closely connected with astrology and divination, see Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, 84−91. On the episodic nature of the Jerusalem temple according to L.A.B., cf. Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 166−67; Manuel Vogel, “Tempel und Tempelkult in Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 251–63, esp. 257. 83 Cf. Marilyn F. Collins, “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Tradition,” JSJ 3 (1972): 97−116; Koester, The Dwelling of God, 55−58. 84 Koester, The Dwelling of God, 55−58, even thinks that the motif is used here in order to express hope for future restoration. It has to be said, however, that this goes beyond the evidence provided by Josephus. Remarkably, rabbinic texts later employ a similar strategy. As mentioned above (n. 65), according to m. Šeqal. 6:1−2 and b. Yoma 54a, the ark had been hidden within the temple precincts, and according to b. Soṭah 9a, the tabernacle was hidden under the (first) temple. Here, too, the presence of the hidden ark and other vessels would support the enduring legitimacy and continuity of Mt. Zion as a holy place. 85 Second Baruch was written after the destruction of the second temple and is usually dated to the decades between 70 (or 100) and 130 C.E. Cf. Albertus F. J. Klijn, “Die Syrische Baruch-Apokalypse,” in Himmelfahrt Moses, Die griechische Esra-Apokalypse, Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse (ed. Egon Brandenburger, Ulrich B. Müller, and Albertus F. J. Klijn; JSHRZ 5/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976), 103−84, esp. 113−14; Albertus F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” OTP 1:615−52, esp. 616−17; Matthias Henze, “Baruch, Second Book of,” Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 426−28, esp. 427. 86 See n. 65 above.

154

Georg Gäbel

Heb 9:4, it is noteworthy that the items mentioned (including the altar of incense) are said in 2 Bar. 6:7 to be taken out of the holy of holies of the first temple. These items are hidden in the earth, which is told to guard them “until the last time,” when Jerusalem will be restored forever (6:8−9). We learn in ch. 4 that a heavenly Jerusalem exists, which God showed to Adam, Abraham, and Moses, who was also shown “the likeness of the tabernacle” according to 2 Bar. 4:5.87 This refers to Exod 25:40 (where Moses was shown the ‫תבנית‬/τύπος of the desert tabernacle); it follows that a heavenly sanctuary is part of the heavenly Jerusalem. Referring to the heavenly Jerusalem and sanctuary, 2 Baruch insists that God’s promise for the city (cf. Isa 49:16) remains valid in the face of its destruction. Second Baruch does criticize the second temple, however, which, according to 32:2−3; 68:5−6, cannot claim to be a fully adequate replacement of the first. The motif of the hidden vessels both underscores the inadequacy of the second temple, and passing over it, is used to bridge the gap between the destruction of the first temple and the eschatological future.88 An eschatological restoration of the city of Jerusalem 89 is likely envisaged in 2 Bar. 6:9; 32:4 (although there is some debate about this point).90 No eschatological temple on earth is explicitly mentioned, however. 87

Translation by Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” 622. Similarly also Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel. Reading Second Baruch in Context (TSAJ 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 86−87. 89 I will not discuss 4 Ezra, although the relationship between Jerusalem on earth and in heaven plays an important role there, too. Fourth Ezra 7−13 does not concern us here, however, since it does not refer to the hiding of the furnishings of the sanctuary. 90 Second Baruch 32:3 and 68:5−7 refer to second temple times. But in 2 Bar. 32:4, an eschatological and eternal Jerusalem on earth seems to be in view. Read in this light, 2 Bar. 6:9 also likely refers to an eschatological renewal of Jerusalem on earth. Cf. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” 617; Söllner, Jerusalem, die hochgebaute Stadt, 293; Rita MüllerFieberg, Das “neue Jerusalem”: Hoffnung für alle Herzen und Zeiten? (BBB 144; Berlin and Vienna: Philo, 2003), 162, 169; Koester, The Dwelling of God, 53; J. Cornelis de Vos, Heiliges Land und Nähe Gottes: Wandlungen alttestamentlicher Landvorstellungen in frühjüdischen und neutestamentlichen Schriften (FRLANT 244; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 80−83; J. Cornelis de Vos, “Jerusalem: Why on Earth is it in Heaven?,” esp. 330−32. Klijn thinks that 2 Bar. 6:8 implies the building of the second temple, whereas ch. 4 draws on a tradition according to which a preexistent heavenly temple will come down to earth. Cf. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” 617. But 2 Bar. 4:3 does not explicitly say that the heavenly Jerusalem will come down to earth (cf. Söllner, Jerusalem, die hochgebaute Stadt, 288−92; Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel, 78−79). Henze argues that, according to 6:8−9, the temple furnishings “will be put to use again in the new temple,” i.e., in the eschaton; but he also thinks that this expectation will not be realized (Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel, 86). Henze reads 2 Bar. 32:4, too, as referring to Second Temple times (79 n. 28). Cf. further Frederick J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS 78; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985), esp. 71−116; Jacob Chanikuzhy, Jesus, the Eschatological Temple: An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13−22 in the Light of the Pre-70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action (CBET 58; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 59−61. There may be different 88

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

155

Fourth Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), written in the early decades of the second century C. E.,91 mentions how Jeremiah is told to entrust the temple vessels to the earth before the destruction of the first temple. No list of sacred items is provided, and neither the tabernacle nor the ark is mentioned. Jeremiah is told to ask the earth to guard the vessels until the coming, or gathering (συνέλευσις), of “the Beloved” (3:7−8, 14).92 Similarly, the sun is told by Jeremiah to guard the temple keys until the day “when the Lord will ask you for them” (4:3). No restitution of the temple is mentioned. 93 After the return from exile (ch. 8), Jeremiah, who is called a “priest of God” (9:8), prays and offers incense in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur 94 (9:1−6). His prayer asks for divine mercy and for access to heavenly Jerusalem. 95 The temple vessels are not mentioned any more,96 and it remains unclear what their future may ultimately be.97 For the time being, they appear to remain hidden in the earth below the temple site (3:14). Together with the return to Jerusalem after exile, this appears to indicate an interest in some form of local continuity. 98 strands of eschatological expectations in 2 Baruch that remain unreconciled; cf. Koester, The Dwelling of God, esp. 53−54. 91 More precisely, between 130 and 135 C.E. according to Jens Herzer, “Baruch, Fourth Book of,” Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 430−32. See further Stephen E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2: 413−25, esp. 414–15; and Jens Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 177–92. 92 Different verse numbers are used in different editions; I am following here the editions and translations by Berndt Schaller, Paralipomena Jeremiou (JSHRZ 1/8; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998); and Jens Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou) (WGRW 22; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005). For different translations and for textual variants, compare the translations by Schaller and Herzer; cf. also Robinson, 4 Baruch, 419 with n. 3b. 93 The brief remark that after “seven epochs” the earth will once more receive her “beauty” (3:8) may or may not allude to hopes for a future restitution after the end of a predetermined period of time. Schaller (Paralipomena Jeremiou, 717 n. 8b) sees an analogy here to 2 Bar. 6:8, which refers to the future restoration of Jerusalem. Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou), 64, argues that “beauty” refers to “the perfection that will characterize the new creation.” Herzer (“Baruch, Fourth Book of,” 431) thinks that, reacting to 2 Baruch, 4 Baruch wishes to critique apocalyptic expectations. 94 On this date, cf. Schaller, Paralipomena Jeremiou, 747 n. 2a; Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou), 144. 95 Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou), 144−46. 96 Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou), 144, suggests that this “silence” helps to orient readers’ attention to the heavenly Jerusalem. 97 Koester (The Dwelling of God, 55) thinks that 4 Baruch may expect a future renewal of the temple cult on earth. 98 This interest seems to have been emphasized by those responsible for one textual variant in a Greek manuscript (C, “Jerusalem Taphos [Patriarchal Library, S. Sepulchre] cod. 6, fol 242r–247r, 10th century,” according to Herzer, 4 Baruch [Paralipomena Jeremiou],

156

Georg Gäbel

Preliminary Results Early Jewish (and Samaritan) traditions concerning the tabernacle, the ark, and other cultic accoutrements are remarkably ambivalent. Believed to epitomize Israel’s divinely ordained cult, these items provide continuity with the first Jerusalem temple and indeed with the foundation of the sacrificial cult in the desert period. They continue to do so even in the face of loss and destruction since they are said to have been saved and hidden before the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. The necessity to refer to the tabernacle, the ark, and other hidden items arises, however, precisely because continuity with the ideal origins of the cult has in fact been broken. The emphasis on continuity thus indicates an awareness of existing discontinuity. This sits well with a broader tendency in parts of Second Temple literature to question the validity and legitimacy of the second temple, the cult performed in it, or the priests serving in it.99 The fact that the ark and other furnishings were indeed missing from the second temple served as constant reminder of this predicament. Thus, several of the writings mentioned above call into question the full continuity of the (second) temple and Jerusalem with the ideal beginnings of Israel’s cult, and not all of them are interested in bridging the gap or in fostering hope for a future restoration of Jerusalem and/or the temple on earth. Lives of the Prophets and L.A.B. show little or no interest in the continuing or future relevance of the temple and the cult performed in it. Discourses about the lost or hidden tabernacle, ark, and other furnishings thus navigate pressing questions of loss and hope, continuity and discontinuity. In so doing, they express ambivalent notions about Israel’s sanctuaries and sacrificial cult. Their history, condensed in the fates of their most sacred cultic objects, is rooted in ideal beginnings; indicates insufficiencies, loss, and broken continuities; and points to diverse future possibilities. The enumeration of items in Heb 9:1−5 betrays knowledge of traditions similar to those mentioned above. It seems evident that Hebrews must have known, and drawn upon, similar lists of sacred furnishings, and that the sample of items

xxxviii) and in the Ethiopic version of 4 Bar. 3:8 (and cf. v. 14). According to this variant (accepted by Herzer in his reconstructed text, but not by Schaller or Robinson), the vessels were entrusted to the earth “and to the altar.” The altar is the place where Jeremiah later, after the return from exile, says his prayer according to 4 Bar. 9:2, 7. 99 Cf., e.g., Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 145−74; Martha Himmelfarb, “Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks,” in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 219–35; Peter Schäfer, Die Ursprünge der jüdischen Mystik (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2011), esp. 100–02, 103– 8, 136–37, 165–69 (and cf. 506 n. 58); Church, “The Temple in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in Hebrews;” Church, Hebrews and the Temple, esp. 79–198; Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, esp. 109−11.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

157

mentioned in Heb 9:1−5 was carefully chosen. 100 Among the early Jewish and rabbinic sources mentioned, 2 Bar. 6:7 is of particular interest. The list of items in this latter passage not only includes (among other things) the veil, the mercy seat, the two tables (of the law), and the altar of incense. Second Baruch 6:7 also appears to claim that the incense altar was kept in the holy of holies, similarly to Heb 9:4.101 The claim of Heb 9:4 that the staff of Aaron and the manna receptacle were kept in the ark finds parallels, as mentioned above, in rabbinic lists of lost items. Hebrews 9:1−5 is not a mere look back at ideal beginnings. The argument unfolding in the context suggests as much. It leads us from the first to the new covenant (Heb 8:6–13), from the description of the desert tabernacle and the cult therein to Jesus’ high priestly entry into the heavenly tabernacle (Heb 9:1–10, 11–12), from the making of the first covenant to the consecration and cleansing of the “heavenly things” (9:18–23). The desert tabernacle was made according to the “legal provisions for worship” given with the first covenant, a covenant “aged” and “close to vanishing” (Heb 8:13). Read in this perspective, the mention of the tabernacle, the ark, and the other cultic items resonates with the memories, ambivalences, and hopes of Israel’s cultic history, not least among them the awareness of the loss of some of the most essential symbols of cultic continuity and legitimacy. In light of such memories, ambivalences, and hopes (though without claiming direct literary dependence), we may appreciate the tabernacle description as a medium particularly suitable to convey the divine constitution of the cult on earth as well as its shortcomings, and to foreshadow the hope for eschatological fulfillment in a heavenly sanctuary and cult under the new covenant. One more corollary follows. The fact that Hebrews never mentions the Jerusalem temple, but speaks of the desert tabernacle instead, should not be taken to indicate that the epistle is not interested in the actual cult on earth. This clearly is part of the strategy, so characteristic of Hebrews, to avoid any explicit mentioning of the land of Israel, its institutions, and, specifically, the city of Jerusalem. 102 Since traditions concerning the tabernacle, the ark, and other furnishings are frequently used to express contemporaneous cultic concerns, we must not assume that Heb 9:1−5 indicates a lack of genuine interest in Israel’s sanctuaries and cult, their history, present, and future. 103 To express such 100

So also Koester, The Dwelling of God, 175. On the location of the incense altar, see the section on “The Altar of Incense in Hebrews 9:4” below. 102 Cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 49–51. 103 I am not arguing here that Heb 9:1–5 can help us to determine the date of the composition of Hebrews. I am arguing, however, that neither can the fact that Hebrews talks about the desert tabernacle rather than the Jerusalem temple, since it does not follow that interest in cultic matters in Hebrews is of a merely antiquarian or scribal nature. Similarly also Church, Hebrews and the Temple, 16–17, 198. Cf. further Ole J. Filtvedt, The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews (WUNT 2/400; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 101

158

Georg Gäbel

interest in a discussion of the desert tabernacle seems particularly apt in a context in which, in Hebrews, faithful existence is envisioned as new exodus, a sojourn in the wilderness.104

The Tabernacle as Social Space I have argued that, according to Hebrews, the desert tabernacle is an outward, material expression of the character of the first covenant. Hebrews uses the tabernacle description to make visible the insufficient character of the cult on earth performed in it. Paying attention to the way tabernacle space is described by Hebrews will help us to unravel the argument. The Emphasis on Space in Hebrews 9:1−5 Drawing on the instructions for the making of the tabernacle and its furnishings in Exod 25−30 (especially Exod 25), Heb 9:1−5 nevertheless is a quite different kind of text. Rather than detailing instructions for a sequence of activities necessary to produce the individual parts of the sanctuary, Hebrews describes their completed result, the tabernacle itself. 105 In fact, what immediately arrests readers’ attention in Heb 9:1−5 is the complete lack of action taking place in time, and the emphasis on spatial relations between parts of the tabernacle and items within. The manna jar, the staff of Aaron, and the tablets of the covenant are “in” the ark (ἐν ᾗ, v. 4), “above” which are the cherubim (ὑπεράνω, v. 5); the second tent “has/holds” the ark (which, put differently, is contained in the tent), and the second tent also is “behind” the curtain and thus behind the first tent (μετά, v. 3), “in” which other items are also kept (ἐν ᾗ, v. 2). The tabernacle is presented as a hierarchy of spaces within spaces.

esp. 161–64. Filtvedt does not discuss the functions of early Jewish discourses concerning the tabernacle, but he nevertheless arrives at the conclusions that “the temple in Jerusalem ... is the best and closest analogy for the earthly sanctuary spoken of by the author” (162), whatever the time of writing. 104 Cf., e.g., Matthew Thiessen, “Hebrews and the End of Exodus,” NovT 49 (2007): 353−69; David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation (WUNT 2/238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 105 Cf. Bark’s analysis of the Exodus texts detailing the instructions for the making of the tabernacle. Bark writes: “Wir haben es … mit keiner ekphrastischen Beschreibung des miškan zu tun. … Die Tora lesend[,] durchläuft der … Leser nicht die geheiligten Raumsegmente des imaginären Wüstenheiligtums. Stattdessen wird der Leser mit der Dramatisierung eines Handlungsgeschehens konfrontiert. Das Wüstenheiligtum wird nicht als ein portabler Raum, sondern als eine Beschreibung seiner Herstellung exkarniert” (Bark, Ein Heiligtum, 128; emphasis in the original). This is an excellent characterization of the Exodus tabernacle texts – and at the same time, it helps to throw into relief the difference between Exod 25−30 and Heb 9:1−5, where the opposite is the case.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

159

Moreover, the description itself, without mentioning an agent, appears to be moving forward in space, from the first to the second tent and to the mercy seat, the place of the invisible divine presence. This points to another important difference between Heb 9:1−5 and Exod 25−30 (and Exod 36−38): the Exodus texts proceed from the furnishings of the innermost room of the sanctuary (the ark, mercy seat, and cherubim) to those of the outer room (the table and lamp stand) and finally to the altar of burnt offerings and the court. 106 That is, the instructions proceed from the inside to the outside. Similarly, the enumeration of sacred furnishings and vessels in the Temple Scroll107 also proceeds from the mercy seat on the ark to the altar of incense, the table, the vessels, the lamp stand and the altar of burnt offerings, i.e., from the inside to the outside. 108 Again similarly, Josephus and Philo also describe the furnishings of the tabernacle in the same order.109 It should come as a surprise, then, that Hebrews reverses this order and proceeds from the outside to the inside, to the center of holiness, the ark and the mercy seat. This may be explained by the emphasis which Hebrews in the subsequent verses lays on entering into the holy of holies (vv. 7, 11, 24, 25). Such emphasis is in agreement with the ritual instructions 106

Ark, mercy seat and cherubim: Exod 25:10−22; 26:31−34; 35:12; 37:1−9; table and lamp stand: Exod 25:23−40; 26:35; 35:13−15; 37:10−29; altar of burnt offerings and court: Exod 27:1−18; 35:16−17; 38:1−29. In Exod 28−29 there follow the instructions for the priestly garb and for the consecration of the priests, and the altar of incense is then mentioned in Exod 30:1−10 (in both the MT and the LXX). This, of course, comes much too late, in view of the pattern otherwise followed. No doubt this is because the altar of incense was missing from the earliest version of the tabernacle instructions and was added later. It is conspicuously missing from the Samaritan Pentateuch, where, in von Gall’s edition, Exod 30 begins with v. 11 (see A. Freiherr von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner [Gießen: Töpelmann, 1918]). In Exod 35:15; 37:25−28 MT, however, the incense altar is mentioned, as it were, in its rightful place, together with the other furnishings of the tabernacle. Here the Samaritan Pentateuch sides with the MT, mentioning ‫ את מזבח הקטרת‬in Exod 35:15 and in Exod 37:25 (according to von Gall). In Rahlfs’ edition of Exod 35 LXX, however, v. 15 is omitted, and v. 12a mentions τὸ θυμίαμα instead of an incense altar, which is not mentioned in Exod 37–38 LXX either (Exod 37:25−28 MT is missing from Exod 37 LXX). 107 Based on the tabernacle instructions in Exodus, as Lawrence H. Schiffman has shown: “The Furnishings of the Temple According to the Temple Scroll,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid 18−21 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992), 2:621−34. 108 Mercy seat (‫)]ה[כפרת‬: 11Q19 III, 9; altar of incense, table, vessels, lampstand, and altar of burnt offerings: 11Q19 III, 10−15. The manuscript is very lacunose. The words “altar of fragrant incense” (‫ )]מזבח[ קטורת הטמים‬are partially lost, whereas only the last letter of the word “table” ([‫ )השולח]ן‬is missing (both in line 10); the lampstand (‫ )המנרה‬is mentioned in line 13, the altar of burnt offerings in line 14. Note that lines may be counted differently in different editions. 109 Beginning with the furnishings belonging to the holy of holies and proceeding to those belonging to the outer room and finally to the altar of burnt offerings in front of the entrance to the tabernacle proper: Josephus, Ant. 3.134−149; Philo, Mos. 2.95−108.

160

Georg Gäbel

of Lev 1−16, in which the cultic personnel typically penetrate more or less deeply into the sanctuary. Hebrews 9:1−5 may be called a reading of the tabernacle instructions (especially Exod 25) in light of the ritual texts in Lev 16, the instructions for the ritual actions of the high priest on Yom Kippur. This results in a descriptive text which, as it were, follows the high priest’s movement through the tabernacle, from the outside to the inside, as if virtually proceeding through tabernacle space. According to Heb 9:8, access to τὰ ἅγια has not yet been revealed as long as the first tent has “standing,” and this message is conveyed by the Holy Spirit in the rituals performed by the priests and by the high priest in the tabernacle: under the cultic system represented by the first tent, it is impossible for anyone but the high priest to enter into the inner sanctum, or to do so more often than once a year (vv. 6−7). Of considerable importance here are the words at the beginning of v. 6, τούτων δὲ οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων: ritual action in the tabernacle signifies the restriction of access to the divine presence on the basis of the way the tabernacle and its furnishings had been made. This, I submit, is the key to understanding the function of vv. 1−5. The rituals performed in the tabernacle are determined by the way the tabernacle had been made – and indeed by the way the furnishings had been placed within the tabernacle. That is, the description of the tabernacle and its furnishings in vv. 1−5 serves as the foundation for the claim made in vv. 6−10 concerning the lack of access to God’s presence (and the corresponding lack of perfection of the conscience of the worshiper). We may take the claim made by Hebrews – that movements in ritual space are determined by the way the sanctuary was built (cf. vv. 6−7) – more seriously than has sometimes been the case by reformulating it in terms of critical spatiality. Sociology of Space A number of different approaches to critical spatiality have been applied to biblical (and predominantly Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) texts. 110 For my purposes, I have chosen as a theoretical framework the sociology of space developed by Martina Löw.111 This allows us to decode the interconnection 110 I am not aware of previous applications of critical spatiality to Heb 9:1−5. A study by Annang Asumang, “The Tabernacle as a Heuristic Device in the Interpretation of the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews” (M.Th. diss., South African Theological Seminary, 2005), deals with some theoretical and methodological issues as well as some passages in Hebrews, but not with Heb 9:1−5. 111 See Martina Löw, Raumsoziologie (7th ed.; suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft 1506; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 2012). Space, according to Löw, is a product of human activity. She therefore entirely dismisses the notion of space as physical space objectively existing “out there,” and hence, unlike some others, she does not distinguish between what has been called “first,” “second,” and “third” space. Michaela Geiger writes: “Löw ... overcomes ... the understanding of space as a ‘container’ within which people live and act. Rather, space originates in the first place when people order things, that is, by

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

161

between the construction of space, inclusion or exclusion (inscribed in space) of persons or groups of persons, and the social inequality thus (re-)produced. This interconnection is at the center of the description of the desert tabernacle in Hebrews also. Löw defines space as “a relational order(ing) of living beings and social goods in places.”112 This definition serves to explain “spacing,” the bodily activity of ordering living beings or social goods in places in relation to other placements.113 “Synthesis” is the mental activity of constructing space in human perception, imagination, or memory. 114 “Social goods” are products of both material and symbolic actions, or, put differently, they are material goods bearing symbolic meaning.115 Order(ings) of social goods and living beings in places may be institutionalized, connected as they are with routines, the repetitive character of which helps to habitualize actions and thus to reproduce institutions. In the case of institutionalized space, order(ing) remains effective beyond individual actions, resulting in standardized syntheses and spacings that serve to negotiate power relations. Thus, spatial structures 116 are also social structures.117 Actions that are organized in routines and that produce spaces thus reproduce social structures, and social institutions owe their existence, among other things, to reproduction in repeated actions. 118 Spaces are both constructed through actions and (as spatial structures) serve to regulate subsequent action.119 In so doing, spaces serve to produce relations between social goods and human beings: the constitution of space always leads to inclusion or exclusion. Persons who are not included in spaces, or who do not have access to them (and to the social goods they contain), are excluded. 120 Access may be regulated by means of hierarchic organization. 121 Thus, order(ings) – spaces actions creating space, such as constructing, building, or putting in position. ... Löw’s concept of space is particularly helpful for analysing texts in which the constitution of space is oriented towards actions and bodies.” See Michaela Geiger, “Raum,” §4. Cited 22 January 2015. Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/65517/ (my translation from the German). 112 My translation from the German; cf. Löw, Raumsoziologie, 271: “eine relationale (An)Ordnung von Lebewesen und sozialen Gütern an Orten” (cf. 153−59). I have chosen the wording “order(ing)” to render the German “(An)Ordnung,” which includes both “Ordnung” – an existing arrangement or a state of order – and “Anordnung,” the act of arranging or ordering things, or the order resulting from such acts. 113 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 158. 114 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 158. 115 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 153−54. 116 “Structures,” according to Löw, are rules and resources for actions encoded in institutions. Cf. Löw, Raumsoziologie, 167, 171. 117 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 164−66. 118 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 166−72. 119 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 172. 120 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 212−14. 121 Löw, Raumsoziologie, 213.

162

Georg Gäbel

and spatial structures – objectify themselves by means of repetitive placings and syntheses, leading to inclusion and exclusion and thus to social inequality. 122 The Tabernacle as Social Space Read in the light of Löw’s sociology of space, the claim made in Heb 9:6 – that ritual action and access to the parts of the sanctuary are determined by the spatial layout of the tabernacle – gains remarkable plausibility. Sacred space, too, is produced through repeated, institutionalized patterns of ritual behavior, described by Hebrews as repeated entry into, and patterns of movement within, tabernacle space, resulting in the relational order(ing) of persons (the priests and the high priest) and social goods (the furnishings of the tabernacle and the items said to have been kept in the ark). Rules for repeated patterns of ritual action are encoded in the institutions of the cult and priesthood. These determine the spatial layout of the tabernacle and serve to reproduce the social and spatial structures encoded in the institution. This leads to inclusion and exclusion and, hence, to social inequality: priestly hierarchy determines access to sacred space and to social goods within that space, and authority to interact with these social goods. The tabernacle as a whole as well as its parts and its furnishings embody and reproduce social inequality, inclusion and exclusion, through repeated patterns of ritual action. Hebrews 9:2−4 briefly summarizes those aspects of the tabernacle that reinforce this effect – the partitioning into two rooms, or “tents” (the first barring access to the second); the passageways between them and the curtains sealing off holy tabernacle space from the outside, and the second tent from the first; the gold used for the furnishings of the second tent. The resulting correlation of spatial structure and social inequality may be described in the words of Mark K. George: The screens and curtains dividing tabernacle spaces demarcate the boundaries where new social criteria are introduced. … The more narrowly defined the class of persons who can cross those boundaries, the more unique those persons, with the result that they gain closer proximity to the deity. Material status, signified by more precious and elaborately made objects, corresponds to the social status of each space. … The more unique the person (or persons), that is, the more social status a person holds, as signaled by the boundaries that person may cross, the greater degree of holiness ascribed to that person. 123

122

Löw, Raumsoziologie, 216−17. “Für die Entstehung und Reproduktion sozialer Ungleichheit sind insbesondere jene Verknüpfungen von Bedeutung, die institutionalisiert sind, also ständig wiederholt werden” (idem, Raumsoziologie, 214). 123 George, Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space, 112. Cf. also Hundley, “Sacred Spaces, Objects, Offerings, and People in the Priestly Texts: A Reappraisal.”

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

163

The Prerogative to Draw Near: The Rod of Aaron, the Altar of Incense, and the Cherubim of Glory Overshadowing the Mercy Seat Social Goods and Hyperlinks In addition to the spatial layout of the tabernacle, some of the items said to have been kept in it also contribute to the sense of exclusion of non-priests from the divine presence (cf. Heb 9:4‒5). In the present section I concentrate on three of these items, the rod of Aaron, the altar of incense, and the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.124 We may refer once more here to Löw’s concept of “social goods,” that is, material goods bearing symbolic value. What do the three items mentioned tell us about the construction of tabernacle space, about access (and restriction of access) to the sanctuary and the cult? In order to grasp their symbolic value with regard to the construction of sacred space, I will assume here that the rod of Aaron as well as references to the sacrifice of incense and to the cherubim and the divine glory associated with them may be used, as it were, as working hyperlinks: if we “click” on them, they will transport us back to the narrative and/or legal contexts in which they are originally embedded. We may describe this in terms of metalepsis as understood by Richard B. Hays: “one text alludes to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited.” “The result is that the interpretation of a metalepsis requires the reader to recover unstated or suppressed correspondences between the two texts.” 125 In recovering those “unstated correspondences,” we will find that the rod of Aaron, the altar of incense, and the cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat are closely related to the exclusive election of the Aaronide priests and to the contested privilege of entering into sacred space, of approaching the divine presence and of officiating before it.

124 More could be said about other items mentioned. Thus, the handling and eating of the bread of the presence on the golden table in the first tent (v. 3) is a priestly prerogative, and so is the touching and even the seeing of all the furnishings (see the section on “Visual Access and Priestly Privilege” below). 125 Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 2. In his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), 20, Hays further argues, “When a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of resonance between the two texts. … Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed.”

164

Georg Gäbel

The Rod of Aaron and the Prerogative of Offering Incense The ritual instructions in Lev 16 for the high priest’s ministry in the tabernacle on Yom Kippur begin with a reference (vv. 1−2) to a previous episode concerning the right to offer incense before God. According to Lev 10:1−7, Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, attempted to sacrifice incense with “strange fire.” As a consequence, they were killed by fire that went forth from God. This episode is cited in Lev 16:17 as the reason why no one except Aaron is entitled to come into the inner sanctum. According to Lev 16:1−2, it is also the reason why the burning of incense, as a high priestly prerogative, is necessary to ensure survival during the encounter with the divine presence. While the action of Aaron’s sons expresses a desire to participate in a core priestly function, Lev 16 limits access to the divine presence, and the right to perform the pertinent ritual actions, to one person once a year. Entry into the sanctuary, the sacrifice of incense, (high) priestly privilege, and the exclusion of possible competitors are closely connected themes. The rod of Aaron is said to have been deposited in the ark (Heb 9:4). This remark serves as a “hyperlink” to a story (Num 16−17) that is also concerned with the themes mentioned above. Korah and his company, said to be Levites (Num 16:1, 8−10), criticize Moses and Aaron, claiming holiness for the whole congregation. The question at stake is who may draw near to God in priestly service (Num 17:5; 18:2−7). When the leaders of the revolt attempt to offer incense before the tabernacle, they are swallowed up by the earth with their families, while their followers are consumed by fire (Num 16:16−35). Only Aaron’s legitimate sacrifice of incense has the power to atone for the people and to protect Israel from the wrath of God (Num 16:41−50; 17:6−15). Finally, the exclusive election of Aaron and his kin to serve as priests (18:1−10) is visibly affirmed when the rod of Aaron sprouts and bears fruit (17:1−10). This rod is then deposited “before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels, that you may make an end of their murmuring” (Num 17:10 RSV).126 The rod indicates the election of the Aaronides. It is a symbol of priestly privilege and of exclusive access to the divine presence. Not surprisingly, instructions concerning the respective rights and duties of priests and Levites follow in Num 18.127

126

Verse numbers in the Vulgate (and in English Bibles, here v. 10) differ here from those in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint (and in German Bibles, here v. 25). 127 This includes tithing (Num 18:25−32), a priestly prerogative mentioned in Heb 7:2, 4−10. Finally, in Num 19 there follows the ritual with the ashes of the red heifer, referred to in Heb 9:13−14. The restriction of access to God, based on the potentially destructive power of divine holiness, is also expressed in Num 8:19, according to which verse the service of the Levites is necessary in order to protect ordinary Israelites from the consequences of too close a proximity to the sanctuary. The LXX makes this even more explicit, rendering the end of that verse: “and there will be no one among the children of Israel who approaches the holy things” (καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ προσεγγίζων πρὸς τὰ ἅγια).

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

165

The significance of the rod of Aaron was understood by early Jewish and early Christian authors. Pseudo-Philo refers to the rod of Aaron and to the privilege of the Aaronide priests, concluding that “the priesthood was established through almond rods” (L.A.B. 17:4, cf. 52:3; 53:9).128 The author of 1 Clement cites the same episode in support of his views concerning the divine authorization of Christian ministers (1 Clem. 43:2−5).129 Both episodes (Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1−7, and Korah and his company in Num 16−17) stress the exclusive nature of priestly access to the divine presence. Both episodes also deal with the question of who is entitled to offer the sacrifice of incense. 130 The Altar of Incense in Hebrews 9:4 According to Exod 30:7−8, incense was offered twice daily, in the mornings and in the evenings. Philo claims that the high status of the offering of incense is indicated by the fact that the sacrifice of incense always precedes the daily burnt offerings (Spec. 1.275−277; cf. Exod 30:7−8). One of the best known examples is, of course, the story of Zachariah in Luke 1 (esp. 1:9−11). Similarly, the Mishnah describes the ritual of the tamid offerings, including the offering of incense, as performed by priests. 131 Emphasizing the importance of the sacrifice of incense, Deut 33:10 LXX defines priestly activity as teaching Israel God’s commandments and law, and forever offering the sacrifice of incense when the wrath of God is aroused. 132 Similarly, in his praise of Aaron, Ben Sira emphasizes the election of Aaron, whose task it is “to bring offerings to the Lord, incense and a sweet smell as a memorial, to atone for your people” (Sir 45:16 LXX).133 In the vision in which Levi is consecrated a priest according to T. Levi 8:2−10, his hands are filled with incense “so that I might serve the Lord as a priest” (ὥστε ἱερατεύειν με κυριῷ, 8:10).134 On Yom Kippur, the hands of the high priest are filled with incense before he enters the holy of holies (Lev 16:12−13). As illustrated in the stories of Nadab and Abihu and of Korah and his company, the right to offer incense epitomizes the priestly prerogative of drawing near to the divine presence in the sanctuary. Thus, while it is Aaron in Exod 30:7−8 who is supposed to bring offerings on the altar of 128

Translation by Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” OTP 2:297−377. Read in the context of 42:5−44:5. 130 Cf. also the reception of Lev 10:1−7 and Num 16−17, and the emphasis placed on the importance of the incense cult for (high-) priestly self-understanding, in Sir 45:16, 18−21 LXX. 131 On the sacrifice of incense, see m. Tamid 5.2, 4; 4.3. 132 δηλώσουσιν τὰ δικαιώματά σου τῷ Ιακωβ καὶ τὸν νόμον σου τῷ Ισραηλ· ἐπιθήσουσιν θυμίαμα ἐν ὀργῇ σου διὰ παντὸς ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριόν σου. 133 ἐξελέξατο αὐτὸν ἀπὸ παντὸς ζῶντος προσαγαγεῖν κάρπωσιν κυρίῳ, θυμίαμα καὶ εὐωδίαν εἰς μνημόσυνον, ἐξιλάσκεσθαι περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ σου. 134 Traditionally, making someone a priest was called “filling the hands” of that person, in the LXX: τελειοῦν τὰς χεῖρας. This probably refers to the right to receive a portion of the sacrifices for priestly consumption (cf., e.g., Exod 29:33; Lev 8:33). 129

166

Georg Gäbel

incense, every priest could, in principle, officiate in the first “tent,” or part of the sanctuary, according to early Jewish and rabbinic sources. 135 Hebrews 9:4 specifically highlights the incense offering, placing the incense altar in the holy of holies. This may be the detail that most conspicuously deviates from other tabernacle descriptions. While the Hebrew Bible does not make it explicit beyond doubt that the altar of incense was placed in the first tent,136 this was clearly the understanding of early Judaism. 137 Much ink has been spilled, from Codex Vaticanus (B 03), which tacitly “corrects” this apparent blunder,138 to modern exegetes who try to explain it away. 139 But there is no way of avoiding it, learned attempts to exonerate the author notwithstanding. While the word θυμιατήριον differs from θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος as used in Exod 30:1−10 LXX, it is clear in the context that Hebrews is describing the tabernacle and its furnishings. Thus the θυμιατήριον of Heb 9:4 must be the altar of incense,140 and it is supposed by the author to be in the holy of holies just as the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, and the cherubim. Add to this the conspicuous way in which the θυμιατήριον is called “golden,” in line with Exod 30:3−5 and with the other furnishings in the holy of holies mentioned in Heb 9:4, and the fact that both Josephus and Philo can similarly use 135 Exod 30:7−8 (both MT and LXX) mentions only Aaron (the high priest), not his “sons” (the other priests). The above sources (Philo, Luke 1:8−9, and m. Tamid), however, assume that ordinary priests could and indeed did offer the sacrifice of incense. 136 The wording of Exod 30:6, while it appears to indicate a position before the veil separating the two tents, but within the first tent, is not devoid of ambiguity. 137 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.147−148; J.W. 5.216; Philo, Mos. 2.101. 138 B 03 reads the following text in Heb 9:2−4: [v. 2] σκηνη γαρ κατεσκευασθη η πρωτη εν η … και το χρυσουν θυμιατηριον … [v. 3] μετα δε το δευτερον καταπετασμα σκηνη η λεγομενη τα αγια των αγιων [v. 4] [ε]χουσα την κιβωτον της διαθηκης [κτλ.]. 139 Cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 376−77. Cockerill contends that Hebrews does not actually say that the altar of incense was in the holy of holies, only that the holy of holies “had” the altar of incense. This hardly solves the problem, since the same is also said about the ark of the covenant which undoubtedly is in the holy of holies. According to Attridge (Hebrews, 236−38), texts concerning the rights and duties of priests and Levites in Numbers LXX might be interpreted so as to indicate that the Levites form a minor clergy, the service of which would be restricted to the area outside the holy of holies, whereas priestly functions connected with the incense altar take place “within the veil” and are restricted to the Aaronide priests. As Attridge concedes, however, it “might be difficult to reconcile” this exegesis with the instructions for the making of the tabernacle in Exodus, on which Heb 9:1−5 draws (Attridge, Hebrews, 238). 140 Θυμιατήριον in Heb 9:4 is usually (and correctly) translated as “altar of incense.” In comparison with θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος, θυμιατήριον is the more general term which may mean either an altar or some smaller, portable device used for incense offerings. See, most recently, Christian J. Gruber, “Ein ungewöhnlicher Terminus? Thymiatērion in Heb 9,4,” in Reading New Testament Papyri in Context. Lire des Papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur Contexte (ed. C. Clivaz and J. Zumstein; BETL 242; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 339−51. Similarly already Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 294 s.v. θυμιατήριον.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

167

the term θυμιατήριον when they mean the altar of incense in the tabernacle.141 There are, to be sure, a number of late LXX manuscripts that agree with Hebrews on the position of the incense altar. 142 Whether this is evidence for an early exegetical tradition is a different question. 143 To my knowledge, the only other early Jewish source which appears to claim that the incense altar was in the holy of holies (in the first temple, not in the tabernacle) is 2 Bar. 6:7.144 It is to be assumed, therefore, that Hebrews avails itself of the ambiguity in the wording of Exod 30:6 and, in so doing, draws on a tradition which has influenced other early Jewish texts about the tabernacle, the ark, and related items also. Instead of “explaining” the apparent blunder committed by the author of Hebrews, that is, historically “justifying” it, we may more profitably ask what its rhetorical function might be within the argument unfolding in the context. We may do this by reading it in terms of the rhetoric of ritual, that is, in terms of ritual understood as performance of contested prerogative, and of ritual instructions as legitimation of such prerogative. 145 The altar of incense symbolically stands for the priestly prerogative of officiating in the sanctuary. To relocate it to the holy of holies (Heb 9:4) may seem a minor detail. In terms of the sociology of space, however, the consequence of this seemingly minor detail amounts to a new relational order(ing) of persons and social goods that results in a new and different construction of sacred space. The “social good” that is the altar of incense is positioned by Hebrews beyond the

141

See Philo, Her. 226−227; Mos. 2.94, 101; Josephus, Ant. 3.147−148, 198; J.W. 5.216−218. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 234; Grässer, An die Hebräer, 2:120−21; Cockerill, Hebrews, 376. 142 See Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, 258−59; also briefly mentioned by Attridge, Hebrews, 235. 143 The text of late LXX manuscripts of Leviticus may, of course, have been influenced by Heb 9:4. 144 Attridge (Hebrews, 235) and Koester (Hebrews, 404) further refer to 1 Kgs 6:22; 2 Macc 2:4−8; Rev 8:3. Attridge is convinced that there were earlier traditions placing the incense altar within the holy of holies, but these additional passages seem to me considerably less helpful for the problem at hand than 2 Bar. 6:7. 145 I am following here James W. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), esp. 103−29. Watts argues that we should read texts concerned with priestly ritual with a view to their rhetorical properties. According to him, these texts serve to convince their audience of a specific and (presumably) contested point, viz., “that the Aaronide priests hold a legitimate monopoly over Israel’s cult” (129). While Watts specifically emphasizes the importance of Lev 8−10 (concentrating, as he does, on Leviticus), he also mentions Num 16−18 and its close connection with Lev 8−10 (Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus, 125−26). Watts concludes that these episodes (together with 1 Chr 15−16) have one aim in common, viz. “legitimating the prerogatives of the Aaronide priesthood” (Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus, 125, cf. 126.) Cf. also James W. Watts, “Ritual Rhetoric in the Pentateuch: The Case of Lev 1−16,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Römer; BETL 215; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 305−18.

168

Georg Gäbel

reach of almost everybody almost all of the time. Access to it would be restricted to the high priest on one day of the year, Yom Kippur. Taken literally, this would exclude all other priests from performing the priestly privilege of the sacrifice of incense at all times. The “Cherubim of Glory” While the cherubim are not mentioned in Lev 16, 146 prominence is given to them, as the final items mentioned in the description, in Heb 9:5. According to this verse, the cherubim were “overshadowing the mercy seat.” 147 In the language of the Psalms, a supplicant finds shelter and protection under the shadow of God’s wings.148 Similar language is used149 in the Septuagint to describe the cover and protection given to the mercy seat by the cherubim and their wings.150 Hebrews 9:5 does not mention the wings, but it implies that by “overshadowing” the mercy seat, the cherubim serve as guardians, covering and protecting the focal point of the Yom Kippur ritual performed within the sanctuary.151 Hebrews calls the cherubim Χερουβὶν δόξης. They are not so called in the LXX Pentateuch, nor are they explicitly connected with the “glory” there. 146 According to Lev 16, the sequence of the high priest’s activities within the tabernacle on Yom Kippur climaxes and ends with the sprinkling of blood onto the mercy seat (Lev 16:14−15). The remainder of the chapter describes the high priest’s activity outside the tent, beginning in v. 18. 147 The wording in Heb 9:5 is dependent on Exod 25:20 LXX: ἔσονται οἱ χερουβιμ ἐκτείνοντες τὰς πτέρυγας ἐπάνωθεν, συσκιάζοντες ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου. 148 Pss 16:8; 35:8; 56:1; 62:8 LXX; cf. Pss 139:8; 90:4 LXX. On the protective function of the “shadow,” cf. S. Schulz, ‟σκιά, ἀποσκίασμα, ἐπισκιάζω,” TWNT 7:396−403, esp. 401−402 sv. ἐπισκιάζω 1, 2. 149 Exod 25:20 LXX; cf. Exod 38:8 LXX. Forms of (συ-)σκιάζω are used in Exod 25:20; 38:8 LXX to render the verb ‫סכך‬, “to cover, shelter,” in Exod 25:20; 37:9 MT. 150 The cherubim guard and protect, and they serve as thrones, or carry thrones. The protective function of the cherubim was traditionally connected with Paradise and with the Tree of Life guarded by them (Gen 3:24). See Friedrich Hartenstein, “Cherubim and Seraphim in the Bible and in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karen Schöpflin; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 155–88; Morales, The Tabernacle Pre-Figured, 107−12. 151 As Zwickel writes, the authors of the priestly source “orientierten sich nun an altorientalischen Bildern, bei denen geflügelte Mischwesen ihre Flügel über einen besonders zu beachtenden Gegenstand schützend ausbreiten.” See Wolfgang Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel (Mainz: von Zabern, 1999), 108−9. Similarly, in Ant 7.378, based on 1 Chr 28:18, Josephus says that the cherubim cover/hide (καλύπτοντας) the ark. Their protective function is emphasized in Ant 8.73, where they are said to give shelter/protection (σκέπη) to the ark, and in Ant 8.103, where Josephus says that the cherubim covered the ark with their wings like a tent or a cupola.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

169

Conceptualizations of the cherubim in early Jewish literature 152 are frequently influenced by Ezekiel’s vision of four “beings” and of the divine throne (Ezek 1), however. Thus, Ben Sira describes Ezekiel’s vision (Sir 49:8 LXX): Ιεζεκιηλ ὃς εἶδεν ὅρασιν δόξης, ἣν ὑπέδειξεν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ ἅρματος χερουβιν. Ben Sira closely connects the “beings” seen by Ezekiel (the cherubim) with the “chariot” and the “glory.”153 Also drawing on Ezek 1, the throne vision of 1 En. 14 characterizes the holy of holies of the heavenly temple as glorious beyond human description (1 En. 14:16). Here, too, the cherubim are associated with the divine throne (14:18).154 God himself is identified in 1 En. 14:20 as the “great glory” on the throne.155 This description of the holy of holies and of the “glory” on the throne results in a sense of fear and awe, making access to the divine presence, both actual and visual, impossible: None of the angels was able to come in and see the face of the Excellent and Glorious one; and no one of the flesh can see him. … No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him. 156 (1 En. 14:21−22)

152 Apocalypse of Abraham 18:12 describes the throne chariot and the four “beings.” A “chariot of cherubim” is used by Michael and Abraham as a kind of flying device in Test. Abr. (Rec A) 9:8; 10:1. In relevant passages of the Sabbath Shiroth from the Dead Sea, the cherubim are closely attached to the divine throne and at the same time belong to the angels serving before God and uttering blessings and praise. See 4Q405 20 II-21-22, 3−9 with 11Q17 VII, 5−12; cf. 4Q403 1 II, 15. (4Q511 41 is too fragmentary to allow conclusions.) Cf. Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1−36, 72−108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 250−51; David Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (TSAJ 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 52−55; Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary, 135−37. Ezekiel’s influence is also unmistakable in the throne vision in Rev 4:2−11. Josephus (Ant. 7.378) mentions the chariot associated with the cherubim (under the Chronicler’s influence, cf. 1 Chr 28:18), but he also claims, in his description of the desert tabernacle, that Moses had seen the cherubim in a throne vision (Ant 3.137). In this he is clearly influenced by Ezekiel and his interpreters, as in the word he uses for the cherubim, “beings” (ζῷα). 153 In Ezek 1, the description of four beings is followed in vv. 26−27 by the description of the divine throne and of “one who looked like a human” on a throne. Ezekiel 1:28 LXX then adds the term δόξα, stating that “this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (αὕτη ἡ ὅρασις ὁμοιώματος δόξης κυρίου). The connection of the cherubim and the glory is stated again, more clearly, in Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18, 19; 11:22. In these verses, the glory is placed above the cherub or the cherubim. 154 In 1 En. 14:11, the cherubim seem to be part of the ceiling of a “house” which is the heavenly temple; in v. 18, the cherubim are associated with the throne of God in the second “house,” the inner sanctum of the heavenly temple (cf. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, 81). 155 God is similarly mentioned as the “great glory” in the heavenly holy of holies in T. Levi 3:4. 156 Translation by Ephraim Isaac, ‟1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:5−89 (citation from p. 21).

170

Georg Gäbel

Referring specifically to access to the sanctuary in the context of cultic ritual, the stories about the dedication of the tabernacle and of the first temple also express the notion of inaccessibility associated with the divine glory. As mentioned above, Heb 9:1‒5 draws on the instructions for the making of the tabernacle and on the description of the construction of it in Exod 25−30, 36−38. In the immediate context, the description of the dedication of the tabernacle in Exod 40 applies the language of ‘overshadowing’ to the presence of the ‘cloud’ of the divine glory said to have appeared in the tabernacle. We are told in Exod 40:35 LXX that “the tent was filled by the glory of the Lord [δόξης κυρίου ἐπλήσθη ἡ σκηνή]” and that “the cloud overshadowed [ἐπεσκίαζεν]” the tent. Even Moses was not able to enter the tent when it was filled by the glory. This scene is repeated in the dedication of the first temple according to 1 Kgs/3 Kgdms 8:10−11 and 2 Chr 7:1−2. Every time, entry into the sanctuary and priestly service therein are rendered impossible due to the coming of the cloud/glory. In sum, speaking of “cherubim of glory” and using the language of “overshadowing,” the author infuses the tabernacle description with a sense of the forbidding divine majesty, emphasizing the danger and indeed the near impossibility of access to the divine presence.157 Visual Access and Priestly Privilege The description of the holy of holies and of the ark with the mercy seat and the cherubim ends on a fitting note. The tabernacle is charged with powerful and indeed dangerous holiness. In fact, according to the Pentateuch and early Jewish sources, even visual access to the furnishings of the sanctuary and the items kept therein was restricted. Thus, Josephus stresses that it was sacrilegious for anyone but priests even to see the holy vessels and the inside of the sanctuary.158 This appears to be based on Num 4, esp. vv. 15−20. According to this passage, one group of Levites – the Kohathites – have to carry the tabernacle and its furnishings, but they must not themselves see or touch these sacred items, which therefore have to be covered by priests before they can be handled by Levites (vv. 15, 20).159 Access (including visual access) to the tabernacle 157 In a more polemical (and perhaps satirical, but nevertheless revealing) vein, b. Yoma 19b claims that the “beings” of Ezek 1, identified with the cherubim, hit one high priest because he offered incense in a halakhically wrong way. 158 Josephus, Ant. 14.71−72; J.W. 1.354 (cf. J.W. 1.152); Ant. 14.482−483. 159 Josephus also mentions (Ant. 3.128) that the veil before the temple entrance could be drawn back, and that this was done on feast days so as to make it possible to look inside. Daniel R. Schwartz and Israel Knohl argue that there were two approaches to participation in the cult and to priestly purity, an “elitist” one which restricted seeing the holy vessels and access to them to the priests, and an “egalitarian” one which opened visual access even to lay persons at certain times. See Daniel R. Schwartz, “Viewing the Holy Utensils (P.Ox. V, 840),” NTS 32 (1986): 153−59; Israel Knohl, “Post-Biblical Sectarianism and the Priestly Schools of the Pentateuch: The Issue of Popular Participation in the Temple Cult,” in The

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

171

and its furnishings is a priestly prerogative. It is this prerogative, as well as the resulting exclusion of non-priests (and even, with regard to the holy of holies, of most priests), that is at stake both in the context of Num 4 and in the tabernacle description of Heb 9:1−5. The Wider Context: Theology of Access The critique of the tabernacle and cult on earth performed by Hebrews finds its place within the wider context of the cultic theology of Hebrews. This theology is grounded in the conviction that the eschatological cult in the archetypal sanctuary in heaven has been inaugurated through the death and exaltation of Jesus. This prompts the auctor ad Hebraeos to perform a profound reconfiguration of cultic theology. What is at stake now (the author argues) is the participation of the addressees in the heavenly cult. So, while Heb 9:1−5, 6−10 speaks of denied and restricted access to the desert tabernacle on earth, this is contrasted with access granted to heavenly sacred space. 160 The critique of the cult on Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid 18−21 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992), 2:601–9. See also Gary A. Anderson, “Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004 (ed. Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz; STDJ 84; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 161−94. For their reconstructions of Second Temple cultic practices, Schwartz and Knohl rely on rabbinic sources and on questionable readings of one passage of 11Q19, and of P.Oxy. V 840. I am more inclined to agree with Ra‘anan S. Boustan, who thinks that rabbinic texts about “seeing” the temple vessels should be read as evidence for an ongoing fascination with the temple, its furnishings, and specifically with visual contact with these items, which has roots in literature of second temple times, but lasted well into late antiquity. See Ra‘anan S. Boustan, “The Dislocation of the Temple Vessels: Mobile Sanctity and Rabbinic Rhetorics of Space,” in Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History: Authority, Diaspora, Tradition (ed. Ra‘anan S. Boustan et al.; Jewish Culture and Context; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 135−46; Ra‘anan S. Boustan, “The Spoils of the Jerusalem Temple at Rome and Constantinople: Jewish CounterGeography in a Christianizing Empire,” in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World (ed. G. Gardner and K. Osterloh; TSAJ 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 327−72. Cf. also Steven D. Fraade, “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 C.E.: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz; TSAJ 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 237–65. 160 As Isaacs says, Hebrews “has created a new and powerful theology of access.” See Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 67. She further says that “the author of Hebrews does not abolish the notion of sacred time/space; he relocates it” (219 n. 4). Scholars who, in different ways, stress the importance of the theology of access include Scott D. Mackie, Jody Barnard, and Jarred Calaway. Cf., e.g., Scott D. Mackie, “Ancient

172

Georg Gäbel

earth presupposes the claim that the addressees have already been granted access to the cult in heaven. Indeed, readers of Hebrews come to the description of the tabernacle on earth in Heb 9:1−5 after having read the previous statement about Jesus’ high priestly entry into the heavenly holy of holies in 6:19−20. Jesus, readers are told, has entered the holy of holies in heaven as “our” forerunner. Equipped with such knowledge, readers then approach the construction of tabernacle sacred space on earth; that is, they do so as persons to whom future access to the heavenly sanctuary on a par with high priestly prerogative has already been ascribed. In fact, the two Greek composite verbs, προσέρχεσθαι and εἰσέρχεσθαι, are typically used in Hebrews where access to heavenly realities is in view. While the addressees are never expressly called priests, they are persons who have arrived already at the heavenly Jerusalem and its festal gathering (12:22−24), who are called to “serve God” and to “offer sacrifice of praise” (12:28; 13:15), whose status is expressed with reference to the altar and to the prerogative of eating sacred food (13:10),161 who have been authorized, and are exhorted, to draw near to the presence of God (10:19−22) and to the heavenly “throne of grace” (4:16), and who will, in the eschatological consummation, follow Christ into the very heavenly holy of holies (6:19−20). Scholer therefore describes the addressees – aptly, I think – as “proleptic priests.”162 Priestly status is ascribed to them not by means of a title, but in exhortations to, and promises of, ritual access and movements into heavenly sacred space which will ultimately reenact the entry of the heavenly high priest into the heavenly holy of holies. We may say, then, that, in Hebrews, tabernacle space – sacred space – on earth is set over against sacred space in heaven; but while priestly prerogative and exclusion of non-priests are inscribed into the former, the heavenly High Priest’s access to the latter opens heavenly sanctuary space for access by others, who are then consequently granted (proleptic) priestly status also. Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations,” NTS 58 (2011): 88−104; idem, “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JTS 62 (2011): 77–117; Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews; Calaway, The Sabbath and the Sanctuary. 161 Here the author speaks of “those who serve the tent” (οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες). In the context, he juxtaposes “us” and “those who serve the tent,” claiming that “we” have an altar from which they do not have authority (ἐξουσία) to eat (13:10). This clearly refers to the priestly prerogative of eating portions of the sacred food, the other portions of which were sacrificed on the altar. For details, see Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, esp. 455−57. 162 John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), cf. esp. 201−7 (conclusions). It should be borne in mind that (as Isaacs insists, following Attridge) “for all its call to holiness, our Epistle has no developed notion of the priesthood of believers. Its focus remains the high priesthood of Jesus.” See Marie E. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” NTS 42 (1997): 268−84, here 283. I would like to stress the word “developed,” though.

“You Don’t Have Permission to Access This Site”

173

The critique of the cult on earth performed by Hebrews should not be misunderstood as a (‘Christian’) critique of the ‘Jewish’ cult. 163 Neither the first and new covenants nor the cult on earth and in heaven (or participation therein) should anachronistically be taken to refer to “Judaism” and “Christianity,” respectively. Hebrews is concerned with two priesthoods, two sanctuaries, and the cults performed therein, but not with two religions. 164 Moreover, while the cult on earth, according to Hebrews, is insufficient and transitory, Hebrews does not (as has sometimes been claimed) 165 call into question the validity of cultic and sacrificial categories as such.166 163 Pace Haber, who thinks that Hebrews offers a “sustained polemic against Judaism” (“From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus,” 123). 164 More precisely, the argument of Hebrews is concerned with the question in which sanctuary and by which priesthood the cult given to Israel is most fully realized. It does not follow that exclusive affiliation with the heavenly cult, in the author’s understanding, constitutes a “Christian” self-understanding outside Judaism. As Martin Karrer writes, “Der Hebr sieht sein Christentum – pointiert gesagt – innerhalb des Judentums. Innerhalb des Judentums trennen sich die Stränge des himmlischen und der irdischen Priester” (Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 1:90). Cf. further Richard B. Hays, “‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 151−73; Manuel Vogel, “Der Hebräerbrief als ständiger Gast im Haus der Kirche,” ZNT 29 (2012): 46−52; Richard B. Hays, “New Covenantalism: Eine Wiederentdeckung,” ZNT 29 (2012): 53−56; Wolfgang Kraus, “Das Heil für Israel und die Völker nach dem Hebräerbrief,” in Der eine Gott und die Völker in eschatologischer Perspektive: Studien zur Inklusion und Exklusion im biblischen Monotheismus (ed. L. Neubert and M. Tilly; BthSt 137; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 113–47. 165 Andrew N. Chester contends that Hebrews “uses above all cultic categories to interpret the impact and significance of Christ; yet in doing so, … it renders this cultic model redundant.… According to the author, it has been brought to an end.” See Andrew N. Chester, “Hebrews: The Final Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology (ed. S. W. Sykes; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 57–72, here 69−70. Klawans thinks that Hebrews displays an “antitemple, antisacrificial, and antipriestly polemics” which is “simply unmistakable.” See Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 213−54, here 243. Alexander J. M. Wedderburn thinks that Hebrews is entangled in selfcontradictions, not least when it comes to the use of cultic concepts. Cf. Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Sawing Off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously Ad Hebraeos,” JTS 56 (2005): 393−414, esp. 404−9. Cf. also Nehemiah Polen, “Leviticus and Hebrews … and Leviticus,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 213−25. 166 Cf. Gabriele Faßbeck, Der Tempel der Christen: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Aufnahme des Tempelkonzepts im frühen Christentum (TANZ 33; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 55−57, 61−62. Faßbeck writes, “Die Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes führt … geradezu zu einem intensivierten kultischen Modell” (62; emphasis original). That is, rather than of a reductio ad absurdum of cultic categories or of a spiritualization of the cult, we may speak here of a model which intensifies the use and importance

174

Georg Gäbel

Conclusion With rhetorical properties typical of descriptio (ἔκφρασις) and comparatio (σύγκρισις), Heb 9:1–5 is an integral part of the comparison made by Hebrews between two covenants, their cults, sanctuaries, and priesthoods. Relating, as it does, to an ongoing discourse in early Jewish (and rabbinic) literature about the ambivalent history of Israel’s cult and the fate of its most sacred objects, the tabernacle description serves as a medium to convey the divine foundations and the shortcomings of the cult on earth and to foreshadow the hope for eschatological fulfillment. Thus Hebrews understands the desert tabernacle as an outward, material representation of the character of the first covenant and of the soteriological insufficiency of the cult on earth. According to Hebrews, the cult performed within the tabernacle is characterized by the exclusion of nonpriests and even of most priests (with regard to the holy of holies). The epistle grounds this claim both in the way tabernacle sacred space is constructed and in the symbolic value – and the position in tabernacle space – of some of the furnishings and accoutrements of the sanctuary. For Hebrews, all of this signifies an inability to reveal access to the divine presence. In contrast, heavenly sacred space is described by the epistle as opened up for access, enabling both the addressees’ present participation in the heavenly cult and their future entrance into the heavenly presence of God.

of cultic categories. I have myself argued this point in Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, esp. 435−66. Faßbeck approvingly cites (57) Isaacs, Sacred Space, 92, to similar effect. Cf. also Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” esp. 282−84. Also helpful in this regard is George Heyman, The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), esp. 102−9.

Chapter 9

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit of Hebrews 9:14 Eric F. Mason The Holy Spirit is so rarely the focus of scholarly discussion of the Epistle to the Hebrews that Jack Levison could begin his recent article on the topic with the following observation: With an air of finality, H. B. Swete wrote in 1909 that “in Hebrews there is no theology of the spirit.” Nearly a century later, Barnabas Lindars determined with equal decisiveness that “the Spirit plays no part in the argument of the letter [to the Hebrews].” These bookend assessments exemplify, with few exceptions, a century of scholarship on pneumatology in the letter to the Hebrews.1

Certainly the author’s major goal in Hebrews is to present Jesus as the heavenly high priest in a way that encourages the recipients of the book to remain faithful to their Christian confession, and Levison can similarly cite B. F. Westcott and Paul Ellingworth as another set of centennial bookend scholars who propose that Christology has “supplanted” pneumatology in the book. 2 Yet, it seems better to argue that, as in other New Testament texts, the author of Hebrews describes a role for the Spirit in conjunction with the work of Jesus. How this should be understood is very much impacted by one’s interpretation of Heb 9:14 and its difficult phrase διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου. When Levison speaks of a century of scholarly discussion of the Spirit in Hebrews, it should be noted that he means commentaries almost exclusively. Indeed, I have found only a handful of scholars in recent decades who have written with particular focus on the Spirit in this book, and my perception is 1 Jack [John R.] Levison, “A Theology of the Spirit in the Letter to the Hebrews,” CBQ 78 (2016): 90–110, esp. 90; citing H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (1909; repr., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 248–49; and Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 56. 2 “Supplanted” is Levison’s term for their view, but it is not his own position. See Levison, “Theology,” 90–91. See also B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1892), 322; and Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 66.

176

Eric F. Mason

affirmed by the fact that they very frequently cite each other. 3 My purpose here is not to address the theology of the Holy Spirit in Hebrews but rather to illuminate interpretation of the author’s mention of “eternal spirit” in 9:14. 4 In order to do this, however, it is necessary first to consider other passages in the book that may speak of the Spirit.

Πνεῦμα in Hebrews The term πνεῦμα appears twelve times in Hebrews, and the author can use it in a variety of ways. Indeed, most scholars agree that the first appearance of the word is best understood not to mean “spirit” but rather “wind.” This appears in Heb 1:7, when the author quotes the Greek translation of Ps 104 (103 LXX):4,

3 See David M. Allen, “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews?,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51–66; and his earlier article “The Holy Spirit as Gift or Giver? Retaining the Pentecostal Dimension of Hebrews 2.4,” BT 59.3 (2008): 151–58. Allen (“Forgotten Spirit,” 52) writes that “to my knowledge, the only published full study on Hebrews and the Spirit” is that of Martin Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Amtscharisma, Prophet, & Guide of the Eschatological Exodus (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2003). Emmrich’s 89-page volume consists of three chapters, each of which overlaps significantly with a previously published journal article. These are “‘Amtscharisma’: Through the Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14),” BBR 12.1 (2002): 17–32; “Pneuma in Hebrews: Prophet and Interpreter,” WJT 63 (2002): 55–71; and “Hebrews 6:4–6 – Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry),” WJT 65 (2003): 83–95. Emmrich frequently refers readers seeking more details to his Ph.D. dissertation written at Westminster Theological Seminary (2001), titled “Pneumatological Concepts in Hebrews.” All citations of Emmrich in this chapter reference the published book. More recently, see Steve Motyer, “The Spirit in Hebrews: No Longer Forgotten?,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner (ed. I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelius Bennema; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 213–27; Alan K. Hodson, “Hebrews,” A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit (ed. Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2014), 226–37; and Madison N. Pierce, “Hebrews 3.7–4.11 and the Spirit’s Speech to the Community,” in Muted Voices in the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews (ed. Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson; Library of New Testament Studies 565; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 173–84. Levison earlier published a lengthy monograph on the Spirit but included only four brief citations from Hebrews. See John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009). 4 To illustrate just once more the obscurity of scholarship on this topic, the only monograph on the Spirit in 9:14 is the 1961 volume by the Jesuit scholar John J. McGrath. It is based on his Pontifical Gregorian University dissertation that chiefly surveyed the history of interpretation of the verse from the patristic era through about 1900, then it concludes with a synthesis of interpretative approaches and McGrath’s own reading. The published version omits much of the historical survey and abruptly begins with the Reformation era. See John J. McGrath, “Through the Eternal Spirit”: An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Hebrews 9:13–14 (Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961).

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

177

“he makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” 5 Yet a few verses later one reads in Heb 1:14 that angels are “ministering spirits” for those who will inherit salvation. The renderings of πνεῦμα differ in these two verses, yet both are drawn one way or the other from the Ps 103:4 LXX quotation. The author of Hebrews has utilized the flexibility of the term in his later statement in v. 14 that functions both to conclude his comparisons of the Son and angels in 1:5–14 and to set the stage for his subsequent emphasis in ch. 2 on God’s glorious plan for humanity. (That plan is explained by means of a quotation from Ps 8:5–7, and its fulfillment was set in motion by the Son, who himself is said in Heb 2:9 to have been for a little while lower than the angels.) Thus in Heb 1:7 the author can quote the LXX to mean “he makes his πνεύματα (angels) [to be or become] winds, and his λειτουργούς (servants) [to be or become] flames of fire,” whereas in 1:14 the author separately can draw terminology from both parts of the quotation to identify angels as “ministering spirits” (λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα).6 The language is interesting, but neither usage speaks to the Holy Spirit. Likewise, πνεῦμα may be used in Hebrews in reference to humans in 4:12, albeit in a metaphorical context, when the author writes that the word of God “divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow.” Elsewhere, in Heb 12:23 the “spirits of the righteous made perfect” are among the heavenly throng present at the spiritualized Mount Zion and heavenly Jerusalem, here also contrasted rhetorically with Sinai. This evokes the earlier discussion of the faithful believers who have reached their heavenly goal, the “great cloud of witnesses” in Heb 12:1. More difficult is Heb 12:9, where God is contrasted with human fathers in a passage exhorting obedience to divine discipline. The passage is strong rhetorically – the recipients were disciplined by human fathers (literally “fathers of our flesh,” τῆς σαρκος ἡμῶν πατέρας), so how much more should they be obedient to God the “Father of spirits.” “Spirits” most likely refers to

5 Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. The wording of the quotation differs slightly from the reading in most Septuagint manuscripts, where the verse ends with πῦρ φλέγον, but it matches that in a number of Lucianic manuscripts. This reading in the LXX reverses the intent of the original Hebrew, where elements of nature are put into God’s service, thus “he makes the winds his messengers, and flames of fire his servants.” I have addressed Heb 1:7 more fully in Eric F. Mason, “Hebrews and Second Temple Jewish Traditions on the Origins of Angels,” in Hebrews in Contexts (ed. Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge; AJEC 91; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 63–93. Unless otherwise noted, English translations are adapted from the NRSV. 6 In light of Heb 1:14, Craig R. Koester translates ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα in 1:7 as “he makes his angels spirits.” See Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), 190.

178

Eric F. Mason

humans here and not to, e.g., angels, but one may find similar phrases in other texts to support either option. 7 These passages account for five of the twelve occurrences of πνεῦμα in Hebrews. Of the remaining seven, most usually are deemed by interpreters as denoting the Holy Spirit (though, of course, one should be careful not to read assumptions from later theological discussions into this first-century text). In Heb 3:7, the Holy Spirit is credited with speaking the words of Ps 95 (94 LXX):7–11, about the wayward wilderness generation that serves as a negative example to warn the audience of Hebrews to remain faithful. 8 Again in Heb 10:15–17 the Holy Spirit is said to speak Scripture, here Jer 31 (38 LXX): 33–34, though earlier the longer quotation of Jer 31 (38 LXX):31–34 had been credited to God in Heb 8:8–12. (I will return to these quotations later.) Levison notes that many scholars traditionally have inferred from these two passages (along with 9:8, which does not include a quotation) that the author of Hebrews understands the Holy Spirit as the source of the inspiration of Scripture. He commends Martin Emmrich and Stephen Motyer for moving beyond this toward a recognition that Hebrews’ emphasis instead is on how the Spirit uses Scripture. He concludes that language that presents the Spirit speaking in the present tense by means of altered quotations, with additional comments that extend the application of the quotations, indicates that Hebrews has “a theology in which the Spirit speaks directly, via Scripture, to the community of faith at the time of the letter.”9 I am very sympathetic to Levison’s overall point that the Spirit has a vital role in relating to humans on a salvific level in this book, as will be evident in the subsequent discussion. The presence of Greek articles and the adjective “holy” in Heb 3:7 and 10:15 (and in 9:8, discussed more fully below) leaves little doubt that the πνεῦμα intended in these passages is the Holy Spirit. 10 The situation is less clear, however, in 2:4; 6:4; and 10:29. Most – but not all – interpreters understand these also to be three references to the Holy Spirit, and if so they do seem related 7 See, for example, the discussion in Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989), 362–63 nn. 60–62. 8 See now especially Pierce, “Hebrews 3.7–4.11,” 174–80, who responds to scholars who minimize the importance of the Spirit’s role in this passage. She proposes that Isa 63:10–14 and several passages in Wisdom of Solomon justify Hebrews’ presentation of the Spirit as speaker of a text about the wilderness generation. 9 Levison, “Theology,” 93–100, esp. 100. 10 One should nevertheless note the caution of Alan K. Hodson: “Any attempt to use the presence or absence of the article alone to suggest than an author was referring in one place to the Holy Spirit and in another to a holy spirit (or power, impulse or motivation) is destined to fail. The use or non-use of the article is basically a matter of style and personal choice.” See Hodson, “Hebrews,” 227. On Heb 9:14 (and similar passages), Paul Ellingworth adds, “No significance can be attached to the absence of the article, especially after prepositions; cf. 2:4, 6:4.” See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 456.

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

179

thematically. In 2:4, the author writes that “distributions of holy spirit” (πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς) were experienced by those among the community addressed in Hebrews. Along with “signs, wonders, and various miracles [literally “powerful deeds”],” this πνεῦμα was granted by God to those who believed the gospel. Admittedly the language here is unusual, with the lack of articles and the plural “distributions.” Harold W. Attridge is a prominent representative of those who do not consider this a reference to the Holy Spirit. Rather, he asserts that “the syntax of the phrase and the context in the traditional list of confirmations of the divine message indicate that the verse refers not to a divine hypostasis, but to an eschatological gift of God’s power and life.”11 Attridge understands the anarthrous phrase “distributions of holy spirit” as an objective genitive, and he finds similar understandings of (lower case) “holy spirit” in 6:4 and 10:29.12 David M. Allen agrees that the phrase must be understood as an objective genitive, i.e., believers receive this spirit itself. As such, he critiques the common English translation of the phrase as “gifts of the Holy Spirit,” a rendering that appears in these or very similar words in the NRSV, NAB, NIV, NASB, and KJV. This sort of rendering could be misunderstood as a subjective genitive, with the Spirit actively giving something else, and thus is misleading. 13 Allen departs from Attridge, however, by arguing that the passage is about the Holy Spirit, and he explains the plural “distributions” as indicating the experience of “repeated Pentecosts for the communities who have received the message of salvation.” He continues: “The fundamental gift of the Spirit (albeit perhaps evidenced by spiritual gifts) becomes the foundational testimony of the inauguration of the new age (cf. 1.1–2).”14 While his comment about spiritual gifts (i.e., gifts of or from the Holy Spirit) may appear to blur the objective/subjective distinction, still his point is clear that the Holy Spirit is in view here. Furthermore, Allen’s observation that reception of the Holy Spirit functions as a divine sign of Christian experience for the community addressed in Hebrews is valid. This certainly seems to be the case in Heb 6:4, where the experience of having “shared in the Holy Spirit” ( NRSV; literally “having become partakers of holy spirit,” μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου) is one of 11 Attridge rightly cautions against reading later Trinitarian formulations into the passage (contra the approach of Ceslas Spicq). See Attridge, Hebrews, 67–68; and Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 2:28. 12 Attridge, Hebrews, 68 nn. 67–68. 13 Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 56. 14 Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 56. Allen’s article is written to demonstrate the importance of Hebrews for contemporary Pentecostal theology and appears in a journal oriented to that community. Elsewhere (62–63) he considers the possibility that Hebrews affirms the Pentecostal teaching that reception of the Holy Spirit by believers is a second stage subsequent to the confession of Christian faith and (water) baptism, but he concludes that support for this doctrine cannot be found in Heb 6:1–5.

180

Eric F. Mason

several phrases used to describe the kind of person for whom restoration to repentance is deemed impossible. The point here is to stress that those whose faith in Christ was once validated by such spiritual experiences – but who later renounce such faith – face an awful specter. This theme is reiterated elsewhere in this book (after being introduced gently in 2:1–4), and the author exhorts the audience to continued faithfulness. Admittedly the link between the discussion of the certifying function of the πνεῦμα in 2:4 and 6:4 is legitimate regardless of whether one follows Attridge or Allen. The discussion of “the spirit of grace” (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος) in Heb 10:29, however, tips the scales toward Allen’s interpretation. Again, the wording of the phrase is unexpected (though here with an article), but the context is familiar – a warning passage. The description of one who rejects God after having experienced faith is reminiscent of that in 6:4, and now the offense of having “outraged the Spirit of grace” stands alongside charges against those who “have spurned the Son of God” and “profaned the blood of the covenant.”15 Multiple scholars note possible allusions here to Zech 12:10 (where the phrase “spirit of grace” appears) and Joel 2:28; these two passages concern God’s intent to pour out spirit on the people. 16 The latter verse is interpreted elsewhere in the New Testament as fulfilled with the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:14–21, 33), and the use of the definite article in Heb 10:29 would seem to mark this spirit as something distinctive and identifiable. 17 Allen observes that the Spirit has now been discussed in three of the book’s “warning passages” (with the appearances in 2:4; 6:4; and 10:29) and is credited with speaking Scripture in a fourth (3:7–11, a quotation of Ps 95:7–11). As such, Allen writes, “the Spirit, new covenant inauguration and apostasy are all inextricably linked.”18 Elsewhere he is even more direct: Hebrews’ Holy Spirit emerges not just as an (important) agent of divine action; the Spirit is also the one whose very presence and reception testifies to the inauguration of the new covenant dispensation. For Hebrews, as for Paul, the Spirit is a figure that evidences or demarks the break between the ages, testifying to the era-inaugurating efficacy of the Christ event. 19

15 On Heb 6:4–6 and 10:28–29, Levison (Filled with the Spirit, 231) notes, “The inclusion of the spirit in both texts alongside enlightenment, Jesus, and his blood is an indication of how integral the spirit is to the process of initiation and the prospect of future salvation.” 16 For example, Attridge, Hebrews, 295; Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 59. 17 Attridge notes that the promised bestowal of divine spirit was “a standard feature of Jewish and early Christian eschatology.” Further, he observes that “at this point Hebrews’s warnings offer a distant parallel to the Synoptic sayings about the sin against the Holy Spirit [in Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10b], although the basis for our author’s rigorism is clearly christological” (emphasis mine). See Attridge, Hebrews, 295. 18 Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 59. 19 Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 63. He also notes (following James D. G. Dunn) that one can find a similar understanding of the role of the Spirit in Paul (64–65).

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

181

Allen’s assertion finds additional validation in Heb 9:8. Here one finds clear mention of the Holy Spirit, though now in a passage in which the function of this spirit is much less clear than in those addressed already. After some important initial (and positive) comparisons of Jesus and Aaronic priests in Heb 5:1–10, the author turned in Heb 7 to contrast Jesus and the Levitical priesthood. There Jesus’ identity as a “priest in the order of Melchizedek” is explained (both are outside the Levitical genealogy, are superior to it, and have an eternal priesthood) in contrast to the numerous, mortal Levitical priests. Jesus is sinless and need not offer sacrifices on his own behalf, thus his single self-sacrifice has once-for-all significance. In ch. 8 the author says more, introducing the contrast between the earthly sanctuary of the Levities and the heavenly one Jesus entered. The author also links the Levitical cultus with the first covenant and Jesus’ ministry with the new covenant of Jer 31 (38 LXX), concluding that the arrival of the new makes the earlier one antiquated (Heb 8:13). This sets the stage for a brief recital of the arrangement of the earthly tabernacle furnishings, then the statement that Levitical priests continually enter the outer tent to perform their duties but the inner tent is entered only once a year by the high priest, with blood that he offers for himself and for the people. At this point in 9:8 one finds the statement that “by this the Holy Spirit indicates [δηλοῦντος] that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first [or outer] tent is still standing.” Certainly this comment has been much scrutinized by later interpreters for hints about the dating the book and whether the Jerusalem temple still stood when it was written, etc., but such matters need not detain us here. What is most important for the present discussion is the assertion that the Holy Spirit has a signaling function relating to the first sanctuary – and ultimately to the covenant of which it is a part. Hebrews continues in the next two verses, 9:9–10, This is a symbol [παραβολή] of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience [μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι] of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body [literally “flesh,” δικαιώματα σαρκός] imposed until the time comes to set things right.

The point, then, is that the author is concerned with the symbolism of the tabernacle service and its efficacy. It is part and parcel of the old covenant that deals with things of the flesh. Sacrifices are repeated regularly in the earthly tabernacle, but they lack ultimate effectiveness, thus Hebrews presents the Spirit as providing an indication that Levitical sacrifices of the old covenant are unable to purify the conscience. The author quickly contrasts this with Jesus’ entrance into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, where he offers once-for-all his own blood rather than that of animal sacrifices and thereby secures an “eternal

182

Eric F. Mason

redemption” (9:11–12). This sets the stage for the remaining use of the term πνεῦμα for this investigation: For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified [πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα], how much more will the blood of Christ, who through [the] eternal Spirit [διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου] offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience [καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν] from dead works to worship the living God! (Heb 9:13–14)

The contrasting elements are striking. In the old covenant, sacrifices pertaining to the flesh are performed repeatedly in the earthly sanctuary to purify those who have been defiled. In the new covenant – discussed again immediately after the passage just quoted, and already addressed as rooted in interpretation of Jer 31 (38 LXX):31–34, portions of which (vv. 33–34) are proclaimed by the Holy Spirit in Heb 10:15–17 as noted earlier – Jesus offers his own blood, without blemish, to purify the conscience. In Heb 9:9 the author had just stated that the Levitical sacrifices could not purify the conscience, an implication of something indicated by the Holy Spirit, whereas Jesus’ sacrifice that does purify the conscience somehow is related to “eternal spirit” in 9:14. This brings our focus to four things: sprinkling, the conscience, the heart, and the πνεῦμα. First, though, it is helpful to consider more closely the scriptural pronouncement of the Holy Spirit in Heb 10:15–17. As just noted, in Heb 9:8 the author speaks of the Levitical service in the earthly sanctuary and says that “by this the Holy Spirit indicates [τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου] that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing.” This negating symbolism implies that the Holy Spirit will also have a role in symbolizing a positive affirmation, and this indeed is the case later in Heb 10:15–17. In the two verses that precede this positive affirmation, the author writes that Jesus has offered his sacrifice, perfecting “for all time those who are sanctified,” and has “sat down at the right hand of God” (10:12–14). The author then turns to the role of the Spirit in vv. 15–18: And the Holy Spirit also testifies [μαρτυρεῖ] to us, for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on [NRSV: in] their hearts, and I will write them on their minds,” he also adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

It is important to note two significant adaptations that the author of Hebrews makes to this quotation. Earlier in Heb 8:8–12, the author has quoted Jer 31 (38 LXX):31–34 with only very minor differences from the wording preserved in LXX manuscripts. There the speaker in Hebrews is not identified explicitly, but almost certainly it is God. Now in Heb 10:15–18 we find a portion of that quotation repeated and attributed to the Holy Spirit, but here with two significant changes in wording from the earlier quotation. First, the covenant now will be made with “them” (10:16) rather than with “the house of Israel” (8:10).

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

183

Second, whereas the longer quotation of Jeremiah (in Heb 8:10) and the LXX state that laws will be “put ... in” (διδοὺς ... εἰς) minds and “written … on” (ἐπὶ ... ἐπιγράψω) hearts, this is reversed when the words are attributed in Heb 10 to the Holy Spirit: now the laws will be “put … on” (ἐπί, not εἰς) hearts and “written … on” minds.20 Thus these changes imply two very important things: they focus God’s work on those who hear the Holy Spirit, and they give primary emphasis to the heart as the locus of this experience. The larger significance of these changes will be addressed shortly. In the elaboration following this quotation, the author further clarifies his understanding of the cleansing of the conscience so important earlier in Heb 8–9. I propose that he connects this to the fulfillment of the statement in Jer 31:33 that God’s laws will be applied to hearts, interpreted through the lens of the purifying efficacy of Jesus’ blood (Heb 9:13–14). Earlier in 9:8 the Holy Spirit had indicated that access to the inner sanctuary was not yet open during the time when sacrifices that could not cleanse the conscience were being offered, but in 10:19–21 one reads that Jesus has now made it possible for believers to enter the sanctuary with confidence. Thus the author writes in Heb 10:22, “let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience [ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπο συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς] and our bodies washed with pure water.” Again, the details of the wording are significant. Note first that the author locates the conscience in the heart, not in the mind as modern readers might expect. 21 Also, the imagery of sprinkling for purification (whether literal or metaphorical) has deep roots in the Hebrew Bible and Levitical cultic practice. 22 That said, I can find no other passage in the Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, or Philo for the image of “sprinkling the heart.” The closest passage for comparison is Ezek 36:25–27: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your unclean acts and from all your idols, and I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will give in you, and I will remove the stone heart from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will give my spirit in you and will act so that you walk in my statutes and keep my judgments and perform them. (NETS)23

20

A third change is the addition of “and their evildoing” in 10:17. Also, compare the wording of the “minds” phrase in Heb 8:10 with that of Jer 38:31 LXX (διδοὺς δώσω). 21 For brief discussion of “conscience” language in the LXX and its relation to Hebrew discussion of the heart, see Christian Maurer, “σύνοιδα, συνείδησις,” TDNT 7:898–919, esp. 909–10. 22 See Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “ῥαντίζω, ῥαντισμός,” TDNT 6:976–84. 23 This connection is cited by Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 474. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 289: “the language of Ezekiel’s prophecy of moral purification and interior renewal may play a role here, but our author is no doubt alluding as well to baptism.”

184

Eric F. Mason

Here we find sprinkling used metaphorically to speak of purification and discussion of a new heart. While the imagery is not exactly what one finds in Hebrews, there are numerous points of resonance between the language from Ezek 36, Jeremiah’s new covenant language, and the language of Hebrews.24 In both Ezek 36 and Jer 31 (38 LXX), there is much emphasis on what “new” thing or things God will do, and in both passages God will “put” things in his people, using the future form of δίδωμι. In both LXX passages God acts so that his people will internalize and obey his expectations. The Ezekiel passage picks up on the heart language of Jeremiah but makes it central to the discussion (comparable to how the author of Hebrews inverts the mind/heart language the second time he quotes from Jeremiah), while the Ezekiel passage also adds emphasis on washing as purification and God’s implanting of the spirit in God’s people. I propose that the author of Hebrews has interpreted the Jeremiah prophecy through the lens of the Ezekiel language so that the internalization of God’s will is now equated with purification by sprinkling – described in Hebrews as the cleansing of the conscience – and this is somehow connected with the Holy Spirit. Ezekiel correlates this cleansing with the giving of “a new heart” and “a new spirit.” Similarly, Hebrews presents the Holy Spirit as testifying to Jeremiah’s new covenant in which God will put his laws “on their hearts” (10:16). Thus believers may have confidence by the “blood of Jesus” (10:19) to approach God “with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (10:22). Since the language of “sprinkling the heart” is unique to Hebrews but seems prompted by the heart language of Jer 31 (38 LXX) by means of Ezek 36, it seems that Hebrews equates a cleansed conscience with the new covenant fulfillment of Jeremiah’s inscribed heart. This serves also to link the new covenant language to the statement in Heb 9:14 that the blood of Jesus purifies the conscience, which – as noted earlier – Hebrews locates in the heart. Other things also find clarity here. The Holy Spirit functions to indicate when the old covenant is still in effect (Heb 9:8) but also when the new covenant has been inaugurated by the completion of Jesus’ sacrifice (Heb 10:15). The author’s comment immediately after the Holy Spirit’s restatement of Jer 38:33–34 LXX is also instructive – when sins have been forgiven by Jesus’ sacrifice and inauguration of the new covenant, “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb 10:18). This would seem to explain why apostasy also involves an offense against the Holy Spirit, as in 6:4 and 10:29. Rejection of the one

24 Cockerill (Hebrews, 474) charts the common vocabulary in Heb 10:22 and Ezek 36:25–26a LXX and demonstrates that both used common cultic language. He seeks to correlate linguistically the “evil conscience” of Hebrews and the “uncleanness” of Ezekiel even though different language is used. More obvious is the correlation of water in both passages; the stronger reference in Hebrews may be to the water of baptism, but even that motif is influenced by earlier cultic practice.

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

185

ultimate means of atonement (the sacrifice of Jesus) also means rejection of the Spirit who announces and confirms that new covenant benefit.

The “Spirit” in Hebrews 9:14 What remains is to consider the meaning of the phrase “through eternal spirit” (διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου) in Heb 9:14. Admittedly this phrase was troublesome to many ancient scribes, and a number of manuscripts read instead “through holy spirit” (διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου), including the original hand of D and the second corrector of Sinaiticus. This reading also was followed in a number of Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, and it was known to Chrysostom and Cyril. That said, “eternal spirit” has strong, early support, and it almost certainly is original. It appears in P 46, probably also P17, and in the original hand of Sinaiticus. It is the reading in Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and the second correction to D. Also, it was followed in other Old Latin and Syriac manuscripts as well as the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, and it was known to fathers including Athanasius and Ambrose. Certainly “eternal spirit” is the more difficult reading, and even those manuscripts that read “holy spirit” are split on whether the term is written fully or abbreviated as a nomen sacrum.25 Already we have seen that the author of Hebrews can use the term πνεῦμα elsewhere in various ways – to describe angels, as either winds or spirits; humans, whether in anthropological terms or to denote their heavenly existence; and the Holy Spirit. Historically this particular use of πνεῦμα in 9:14 has been the most debated in the book, and still there is no consensus. The variety of interpretative proposals is vast, but fortunately the chief options can be corralled into two major categories, those that identify the “eternal spirit” in 9:14 as the Holy Spirit and those that do not.26 Scholars who do not identify the “eternal spirit” with the Holy Spirit tend to understand the phrase figuratively in some manner, which naturally contributes to a wide variety of articulations that I will not seek to catalog here. It will suffice to note that these interpretations generally understand the phrase “eternal spirit” to define a characteristic of Jesus (such as his divine nature or his obedient disposition in offering his sacrifice) or else to comment on the

25 On the use of nomen sacrum here, see Philip Wesley Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2015), 378–79. 26 I do not seek to provide exhaustive bibliography in the following survey but instead defer to the broad historical treatment in McGrath’s monograph (cited above in note 4) and the extensive bibliography (chiefly of treatments in commentaries since the early 1800s) in Brian Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews (BibInt 128; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 172–73.

186

Eric F. Mason

(spiritual) realm in which Jesus offered his sacrifice. The major problem with such proposals is that they require one to read an admittedly difficult phrase in an even more awkward way. For example, one might very reasonably expect the author to have written “through his eternal spirit” had the phrase been intended as a statement about Jesus himself. Also, it is difficult to reconcile such a statement here – if it be read to speak of Jesus’ sacrifice via his eternal nature – with the overwhelming emphasis elsewhere in the book on the importance of Jesus’ humanity for his priestly service, as evident in passages like 2:5–18 and 4:14–5:10.27 Even the statement about Jesus’ “indestructible life” in 7:17 speaks to his ontology and ongoing intercession (cf. 7:25), not the means by which he offers himself. Other scholars assert that the “eternal spirit” is the Holy Spirit, and this was the dominant assumption of interpreters until the era of the Reformation (though admittedly some of them, as discussed by McGrath ad loc., were reading biblical manuscripts with “holy spirit” as the wording of the text). Normally those making this assertion say the Holy Spirit divinely empowers Jesus’ sacrificial act, but they differ on how and why. Many follow the suggestion of Albert Vanhoye (who in turn appeals to Chrysostom) that the “eternal Spirit” language recalls the perpetual fire of the altar of burnt offering, something also evident in the mention of ashes in Heb 9:13, and the similar “eternal [or perpetual] fire” language of 1 Esd 6:24. 28 Others reject that connection as too vague; Gareth Cockerill writes aptly that the author of Hebrews “has hardly given sufficient contextual clues to make this identification.” 29 Yet others find a connection with the Spirit’s empowerment of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah. F. F. Bruce writes: When this Servant is introduced for the first time, God says: “I have put my Spirit upon him” (Isa. 42:1). It is in the power of the Divine Spirit, accordingly, that the Servant accomplishes every phase of his ministry, including the crowning phase in which he accepts death for the transgression of his people, filling the twofold rôle of priest and victim, as Christ does in this epistle.30

27 On Hebrews’ emphasis that Jesus offers his sacrifice in his physical body, see especially David M. Moffitt, “Unveiling Jesus’ Flesh: A Fresh Assessment of the Relationship Between the Veil and Jesus’ Flesh in Hebrews 10:20,” PRSt 37 (2010): 71–84. 28 See Albert Vanhoye, “Esprit éternel et feu du sacrifice en He 9,14,” Bib 64 (1983): 263–74; followed by Ellingworth, Hebrews, 457–58; Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (15th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 473 n. 36; and Koester, Hebrews, 410, 415. 29 Cockerill, Hebrews, 398 n. 52. 30 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 217; followed by William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 2:240; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 58; and Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 62.

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

187

Martin Emmrich offers still another explanation for how the Holy Spirit empowers Jesus’ sacrificial activity, but his focus is on empowerment of Jesus specifically in his role as high priest rather than divine empowerment more generally. Emmrich calls his approach “amtscharisma,” and while asserting that it is found only in Heb 9:14 among New Testament texts, he argues that the idea that the Spirit rests on the high priest is a common Jewish notion evident in the Hebrew Bible, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, and rabbinic literature.31 He then explains the role of the Spirit, which is called “eternal” in order to “bring out the (extraordinary) eschatological significance of the Spirit’s assistance in Christ’s once-for-all priestly action ‘at the conclusion of the ages’ (9:26).”32 Paul Ellingworth (who otherwise follows Vanhoye’s “eternal fire” interpretation) offers a different explanation for the appellation “eternal.” Noting that in Hebrews the word normally has “temporal overtones,” he nevertheless argues that “what is probably more important in this context is that it denotes the Godward side of reality, that which is ‘not of this creation’ (v. 11).”33 Admittedly one cannot rule out the possibility that the author of Hebrews may introduce in 9:14 an understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit not mentioned elsewhere in the book, that of empowering Jesus for his sacrifice (in whichever form one might prefer). Two things, however, argue against that proposal. First, as Emmrich himself notes, otherwise in Hebrews it is God who empowers Jesus as high priest – God appoints the Son as priest (5:4–6), makes him perfect through sufferings (2:10; 5:8–9), confirms his priesthood as eternal (7:20–25), and brings him up from the dead (13:20). 34 In light of this, it would be surprising for emphasis to shift abruptly to the Holy Spirit as the one empowering Jesus. Second, as discussed above, the book is remarkably consistent in its description of the function of the Holy Spirit in relation to Jesus’ sacrifice and the advent of the new covenant. We have just explored how the Holy Spirit indicates things both negative and positive about the efficacy of the sacrifices of the old and new covenants to cleanse the conscience, and earlier we also noted how the Holy Spirit is experienced by those who believe and thus enjoy the benefits of the new covenant. Likewise, rejection of these covenant gifts by those who formerly believed is an offense against the Holy Spirit. As such, it seems best to seek an interpretation of Heb 9:14 that accords with what is said elsewhere in the book about the connection between Jesus’ sacrifice and the Holy Spirit. This of course assumes that the “eternal spirit” indeed

31

Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts, 7–13. Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts, 13. 33 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 457. He adds, “Even if the temporal element in αἰώνιος is given greater weight here, the text still speaks of the action in time of an eternal Spirit, not an action which is itself eternal, which would require προσφέρει.” 34 Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts, 4. 32

188

Eric F. Mason

is the Holy Spirit, something that seems to be demanded by the context of the passage, particularly with discussion of cleansing the conscience. In Heb 9:8–9, the Holy Spirit reveals the symbol of the old covenant and its inability to perfect the conscience, and in 10:15 the Holy Spirit announces the new covenant that includes this benefit. In 9:14, purification of the conscience again is effected by the blood of Christ, now offered “through eternal spirit” (διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου).35 How then may the phrase be construed? Most who understand the “eternal spirit” to be the Holy Spirit seem to assume that the Spirit empowers Jesus’ sacrificial act.36 This implies the idea – normally left unstated – that Jesus was perhaps unable to do so without the empowerment of the Spirit. This, though, does not fit the use of διά plus the genitive. 37 Setting aside the note earlier that God (not the Spirit) empowers Jesus elsewhere in Hebrews, if this were the intent in 9:14 regardless, one might expect ὑπο plus the genitive.38 The διά plus genitive construction can function to indicate temporal or spatial matters, such as “through Galilee” or “through the night,” but those kinds of uses are not relevant for our passage.39 Another major use of διά plus genitive, however, is that of an instrumental sense, denoting “means” (in the language of Smyth), “intermediary or instrumental causality” (Zerwick), or “secondary or intermediate agency of means” (Porter).40 The emphasis in such a genitive construction is the completion of the action by the named figure through the agency of the figure in the genitive. Thus in Heb 9:14, Christ offered himself διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου without 35

Συνείδησις appears only twice elsewhere in Hebrews, in 10:2 (again in a critique of the efficacy of Levitical sacrifices) and 13:18 (in the author’s request for the prayers of the recipients). 36 For example, Ellingworth (Hebrews, 457) observes, “it was the power of the eternal Spirit which enabled Christ to be at the same time both high priest and offering.… or conversely, it was the power of the eternal Spirit which make Christ’s unique sacrifice eternal in its effect.” 37 Διά may be used with the accusative case to indicate cause, but that is not relevant here because the genitive is the case used. Furthermore, were such the case, this would require that something about the “eternal spirit” prompted – not empowered – Jesus to offer his sacrifice. 38 Consider the example of Matt 1:22 (cited by Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2d ed.; London: Continuum, 1994], 179) where the primary (ὑπό plus genitive) and secondary (διά plus genitive) agencies are distinguished: τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (“the thing spoken by the Lord through the prophet”). See also the similar discussion in Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012), 222. 39 Admittedly BDF §223 also allows for manner, something that approaches an adverbial usage. 40 Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. Gordon M. Messing; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 374 (§1685d); Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (adapted by Joseph Smith; Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblica 114; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1990), 38 (§113); Porter, Idioms, 149 (§4.5.3); cf. BDF §223.

“Through Eternal Spirit”: Sacrifice, New Covenant, and the Spirit

189

blemish to God, with the emphasis being that Christ completed the sacrifice, utilizing the “eternal spirit” but not empowered by it. It is important that we acknowledge that Christ’s own sacrificial action is the clear focus in the phrase, and this reading of the role of the Spirit accords with the instrumental use of διά plus genitive. Likewise, it fits the overall argument of the book, that Jesus offered himself in his humanity (not in his spirit, however that be construed) as the ultimate sacrifice for his brothers and sisters. Yet, the immediate context of 9:13–14 presents a comparison between the efficacy of animal sacrifices (the blood of goats and bulls and ashes of a heifer) to purify the flesh and the much greater power of the blood of Jesus to purify the conscience. Though unstated here (because the author has already turned from describing the work of Levitical priests to focus on Jesus’ work instead), the implied agents of the purificatory work of the animal sacrifices are the Levitical priests. Similarly, has our author mentioned the Spirit here ultimately not to say something about the way Jesus died but instead to say something about the purificatory application of Jesus’ blood? Admittedly the syntax of the Greek here is an obstacle. While we have noted already the textual variant that changes “eternal spirit” to “holy spirit,” neither the Nestle-Aland nor UBS editions of the Greek New Testament cite any variants that move the spirit phrase to the next clause so that it connects directly with the language of purification of the conscience rather than the language of how Christ offers his sacrifice. Yet, as we have already seen, elsewhere in the book the author does connect the Holy Spirit with announcing that very act of purification, and in Ezek 36:25–27 God gives his spirit to those who are sprinkled, purified, and receive new hearts. Also, the subject of the sentence (and the broader comparison) is blood, admittedly “blood of Christ.” The mention of Christ allows for the brief digression on how his unblemished sacrifice was offered, but the overall thrust of the comparison with animal sacrifices concerns how (much greater) Jesus’ blood purifies, and purifies the conscience. We have seen already that the Holy Spirit both announces the new covenant (and this cleansing of the conscience) and is experienced by those who receive it. As such, the Holy Spirit may be said to participate in Jesus’ sacrificial action in these ways – announcing the new covenant and being experienced by believers, in some way related to the heart and the cleansing of the conscience, but not empowering or enabling Jesus’ work.

Conclusion Certainly some awkwardness of expression remains, and the phrase in Heb 9:14 probably should continue to be translated as “through the eternal spirit [or ‘Spirit’],” but this reading has two important advantages over the others surveyed. First, it conforms with similar discussions of the Holy Spirit in the

190

Eric F. Mason

broader context of the book. Second, it does so while keeping primary emphasis on the action of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit participating in Jesus’ sacrificial and cleansing work but not empowering it. That leaves one final thing to consider, why the Spirit is called “eternal.” Admittedly this qualifier seems unnecessary if the Holy Spirit is in view. Yet several scholars have noted the frequency in which the word “eternal” appears in this passage – Jesus brings “eternal redemption” in 9:12, and those called to the new covenant have an “eternal inheritance” in 9:15, so repetition of the term in 9:14 may be rhetorical. 41 Emmrich notes the use of σάρξ in the immediate context in 9:10, 13, “which belongs to the old and imperfect order,” but he does not elaborate.42 Allen dismisses F. W. Horn’s suggestion that “the contrast of sacrifice under the old covenant and sacrifice in the person of the mediator Jesus Christ illustrates the surpassing worth of the latter through the implicit antithesis between the sphere of the flesh (v. 13) and the sphere of the pneuma aionion (v. 14).”43 Much of what Horn writes in his brief paragraph about the Spirit in Hebrews differs from the perspective for which I have argued here, but on this point we are in agreement. Indeed, we have noted above other statements in Hebrews aligning “flesh” with the old covenant and “Spirit” (along with “conscience”) with the new covenant. Perhaps this is another way rhetoric has influenced the author’s choice of wording. The old covenant’s sacrifices for the flesh, in a system already revealed by the Holy Spirit to be passing away, are contrasted with the eternal, once-for-all action of Jesus that includes cleansing of the conscience, something announced by the Holy Spirit as an aspect of the new covenant. As Allen states, the eternal Spirit “evidences, or testifies to, participation in the eternal age.”44 With this clear delineation of things associated with the old, earthly, and temporal covenant and the new, heavenly, and eternal covenant, affixing the adjective “eternal” to “Spirit” is a very reasonable – even if somewhat awkward – expression.

41 This is addressed by Ellingworth, Hebrews, 457. See also Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 198; following Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements,” BBR 11 (2001): 179–201, esp. 189. 42 Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts, 5. Allen (“Forgotten Spirit,” 64–65) rejects the presence of a flesh/spirit dichotomy in Hebrews (at least in the Pauline sense). 43 F. W. Horn, “Holy Spirit,” ABD 3:260–80, esp. 276.; Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 64 n. 43. 44 Allen, “Forgotten Spirit,” 62.

Chapter 10

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13? David M. Allen Despite its pariah status within Hebrews studies more generally, the thirteenth chapter of the anonymous epistle promises much in terms of addressing the letter’s introductory matters and concerns. The chapter’s epilogue notably contributes to questions regarding both the text’s genre (the λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως, 13:22) and its destination or provenance (the mysterious οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας, 13:24), while the reference to Timothy (13:22) offers suggestive parallels to the Pauline corpus and putative associations with that material. Likewise, the earlier exhortations to go outside the camp (13:13) or to abstain from particular food practices (13:9) form part of discussions as to the community or context addressed by the author ad Hebraeos. As such, in a letter famously absent of personal or corporate identifiers in chs. 1–12, it is the elusive ch. 13 upon which many scholars tend to rely as they seek to construct any “backstory” to the text. 1 Ironically perhaps, the historical hesitation as to its integrity within the letter has been matched by a recent enthusiasm to utilize its content to reconstruct the situation and context of those addressed. 2 The scholarly consensus now seems to view Heb 13 as a genuine – if still somewhat idiosyncratic – part of the epistle. It can no longer be dismissed (not easily, at least) as merely a late, unrelated addition to chs. 1–12, nor as a simplistic hortatory addition to the erudite, complex theologizing of the previous dozen chapters. However, with such a return to the epistolary fold, key interpretative questions remain, and this chapter will offer a consideration of how recent scholars have set about answering or addressing ch. 13’s particular quirks.

1

It is notable, however, that Pamela Eisenbaum makes no appeal to Heb 13 (save for the epistolary contribution of 13:18–25) when trying to situate Hebrews within the broad landscape of early “Christian” origins. See Pamela M. Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 213–37. 2 See for example, Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (NTT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 6–15.

192

David M. Allen

Relationship with the Rest of the Letter It remains the case, of course, that the most significant scholarly issue regarding the chapter has been the relationship of ch. 13 with the rest of the epistle. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of scholars have attended to the apparent differences between ch. 13 and chs. 1–12, with some seeing it as an appendage added to convey Pauline authorship for the rest of the text, and thus ascribing the letter status within early church practice. 3 The Beispielreihen of skeptics is familiar to most Hebrews scholars and warrants little restating,4 but one might mention in proverbial dispatches E. D. Jones’ famous – and even more so, improbable – claim that it derived from Paul’s sorrowful letter to the Corinthians, 5 or F. J. Badcock’s similarly creative suggestion that 13:22–25 were a Pauline postscript to a letter voiced by Barnabas and transmitted by Luke.6 A. B. Bruce’s regard for ch. 13 is ably demonstrated by the fact that his commentary ends at 12:29, with the thirteenth chapter not even granted the courtesy of a mention.7 More recently, George Wesley Buchanan gives fresh voice to it being a subsequent addition; the author(s) of the chapter is not the monk responsible for the previous twelve, but is rather a church leader who particularly opposed Jewish eating customs. Buchanan further splits 13:1–19 off from the benediction (13:20–21) and the “Pauline postscript” (13:22–25), and the chapter becomes fundamentally divorced from that which has gone before it.8 In the second half of the twentieth century, however, robust defenses of the integrity and authenticity of ch. 13 arrived through Floyd V. Filson and Jukka Thurén,9 and they remain, Filson especially, the standard considerations of the chapter as a whole. Filson, for example, draws a number of parallels between the chapter and the material preceding it. He proposes that ch. 13 enables “a

3 For example, Wilhelm Wrede, Das Literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs (FRLANT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906). 4 For a useful review of literature on the question of the letter’s integrity, see Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon (WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 45–62; William L. Lane, Hebrews (WBC 47; 2 vols.; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 1:lxvii– lxviii; 2:495–507. 5 E. D. Jones, “The Authorship of Hebrews xiii,” ExpTim 46 (1934–1935): 562–67. 6 F. J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in Their Historical Setting (London: SPCK, 1937), 198. 7 Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews. The First Apology for Christianity: An Exegetical Study (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899). 8 George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972), 267–68. 9 Floyd V. Filson, Yesterday: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (SBT 2/4; London: SCM, 1967); Jukka Thurén, Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von Hebräerbrief 13 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1973).

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

193

better picture of the writer, his purpose, and his pastoral concern,” 10 and one is thus better placed to make sense of the rest of the epistle through ch. 13’s presence and contribution. Thurén’s argument for the integrity of ch. 13 takes a different form; he suggests that it may pre-date the rest of the epistle and may have subsequently contributed to the composition of the letter as a whole. 11 Scholars have remained unpersuaded by Thurén’s particular chronological reconstruction, but it nonetheless affirms the way in which ch. 13 remains integral to the whole letter. Consequently, the scholarly consensus views Heb 13 as a core, if still somewhat idiosyncratic, part of the epistle. It can longer be dismissed (not easily, at least) as merely a late, unrelated addition to chs. 1–12. Even those who consider it an appendix or postscript still seem to think of it as deriving from the same author,12 and therefore contributing to the letter’s overall message. Luke Timothy Johnson’s recent commentary testifies to this, deeming ch. 13 as: far from an afterthought. It brings the hearers to a direct engagement with the behaviors that are consistent with the dispositions of faith, hope, and love that the author has consistently encouraged among them. … Virtually everything said here echoes earlier passages in which the author praises what his hearers are doing or exhorts them to do. 13

Moreover, those features once viewed as unique to the thirteenth chapter are now found to have “presence” or “import” in the earlier parts of the letter. The dual reference to leaders (13:7, 17), for example, has a parallel in 6:12 14 while the references to memory in ch. 13 suggest that the author is telling them nothing new. Jason A. Whitlark likewise observes that the benediction of 13:20–21, formerly seen as a foreign imposition to the letter, is actually “predicated upon the fulfillment of … [the] new covenant promises” and “picks up on the divine inner working predicated in the new covenant.”15 One of the most recent and robust defenses of the letter’s integrity comes, surprisingly perhaps, from Michael Goulder, who ventures: chapter 13 is not a disconnected, general pious exhortation, which might well be divided from chapters 1–12. It carries the same particular, polemical message as the rest of the letter. Jewish Christians should identify themselves with their Gentile brethren in prison, accepting fines if necessary, and getting married so that they can entertain their brethren. It is grace, 10

Filson, Yesterday, 83. Thurén, Lobopfer, 53–55. 12 See, for example, James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 24; Hugh W. Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (BNTC: London: A&C Black, 1964), 237–38. 13 Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 337. 14 Johnson, Hebrews, 337. 15 Jason A. Whitlark, Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 147. 11

194

David M. Allen

not kosher food, that gives strength to the heart, and no one should be seduced by alien teachings. Jesus Christ is an eternal unity, the same yesterday, before his incarnation, and today, in the new era.16

Although for Goulder the presenting issue to which ch. 13 and the rest of the letter point is a refutation of Ebionite Christology (he places particular attention on 13:8 as a riposte to Jewish-Christian – read Ebionite – claims that Jesus was merely an “apocalyptic prophet” rather than the unchanging pre-incarnate One), the integrity of chapter remains an integral tenet of his argument. 17 Thus in terms of relationship to the rest of the letter, “the burden of proof has fallen to the skeptics.”18 Consequently, recent commentators now invariably assume ch. 13 to be an integral part of the letter and therefore customarily offer very little analysis to demonstrate that to be the case. An exception to the consensus position comes from A. J. M. Wedderburn, who appeals to John 21 as a potential parallel of a putative later addition to the core text. He argues that Heb 13 derives from a different author than chs. 1–12 (and results from different circumstances); the later author takes the previous twelve chapters and makes them his own. To present his case, Wedderburn points to stylistic differences between the two parts (the complex interwoven argumentation becomes abrupt, staccato expression) and to differences in vocabulary and perspective (Wedderburn lists many words found only in the thirteenth chapter of this letter, but which are found elsewhere in the New Testament). He notes how thematic concepts seem to change (the covenant is no longer “better” but rather “eternal,” basic teachings have become strange ones) and how ch. 13 seems attuned to leaders and to personal contact with the recipients in a way not especially manifest previously in the letter. Wedderburn also suggests that where there are commonalities between ch. 13 and the rest of the letter, such commonalities are merely the reapplication of what has gone before; all this need evidence is that the later author knew of the preceding material, but it offers no proof beyond that in terms of authenticity. 19 It is perhaps fair to say that Wedderburn’s arguments, whilst not having held sway, do at least invite that the question of the integrity of ch. 13 be readdressed. Yet it is notable how recent commentators tend merely to note his work, rather than actively engage with it. Indeed, his (equally) provocative

16

Michael Goulder, “Hebrews and the Ebionites,” NTS 49 (2003): 393–406, here 406. Goulder, “Hebrews,” 393–406. 18 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 134. Robert P. Gordon, Hebrews (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 162 observes that ch. 13, and its themes of continuity and constancy, offer an appropriate balance to the emphasis on discontinuity in the rest of the epistle. 19 A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and its Thirteenth Chapter,” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405. 17

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

195

work on Hebrews’ suggested self-contradiction20 has probably generated more interest and engagement than the material outlined in his ch. 13 article. Scott Mackie does offer some critique of Wedderburn’s thesis, especially in affirming the parallels between the Moses exemplar of 11:24–27 and 13:13,21 but even this criticism remains couched in fairly generalized terms, and perhaps the only person to have significantly engaged with Wedderburn’s proposal in detail is Clare Rothschild. 22 She considers Wedderburn’s principles in detail and defends the integrity of the letter accordingly, but her analysis is part of a bigger project that seeks to consider why the epistle ad Hebraeos was, for so long, viewed as Pauline and grouped as such within the tradition. In doing so, Rothschild differentiates between two groups of scholars: those who accept ch. 13’s “secondary” status (and that it may be Pauline of sorts) yet reject any association with or relation to the rest of the letter, and those who make it a primary or core part of the letter but do not countenance any significance for the Pauline association. She demands instead a quasi-third option, namely that one must account for both the unity of ch. 13 with 1–12 and for the apparent resonance with Paul’s letters. Thus she takes Wrede’s view on Pauline ascription not just seriously, but pushes it to its ultimate conclusion, venturing that Hebrews is a quintessential piece of Pauline pseudepigraphy, the character of which is manifest especially in ch. 13: “Citations and other verbal allusions to Paul’s letters in Heb 13 are intended to convince readers that all directives of the chapter are issued by Paul.”23 She also reads 13:1–19 as a series of 12 oracles (13:1; 13:2; 13:3; 13:4; 13:5; 13:7; 13:8; 13:9; 13:13; 13:15–16; 13:17; 13:18–19), proposing that such oracular character is consistent with the previous epistolary chapters.24 Others, though, are less persuaded of putative Pauline links within the chapter. Apropos of Timothy’s release (13:23), Thompson contends that nowhere else in the New Testament is Timothy placed in prison, and as such, contra Rothschild, notes: “If 13:22–25 were the work of a scribe attempting to make this work more Pauline, one must ask why the redactor did not place the Pauline stamp on this unit more clearly.” 25 Alternatively, Knut Backhaus argues that ch. 13 is integral to the whole letter, but is not intended to give Hebrews a Pauline character. Rather, it exists to demonstrate interaction and contact with a Pauline “school.” He suggests that there are strong enough elements in the 20 A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Sawing Off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously Ad Hebraeos,” JTS 56 (2005): 393–414. 21 Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in Hebrews (WUNT 2/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 144–45. 22 Rothschild, Hebrews, 51–55. 23 Rothschild, Hebrews, 89. 24 Rothschild, Hebrews, 198–204. 25 James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 276.

196

David M. Allen

letter itself (2:3; 13:7, 17) to ascribe an apostolic status to the letter, thus it does not need any further addition from Paul himself. 26 Despite the consensus on ch. 13’s integrity, the “separateness” of 13:22–25 remains a point of contention. Those who affirm the importance of the chapter still commonly construe vv. 22–25 as a later appendage or separate unit in its own right. Gert Steyn, for example, appeals to a variety of criteria (the apparent ending at 13:21; the Timothy reference; the suggestion that the “brevity” of 13:22 may pertain just to 13:22–25) to argue that 13:22–25 is “a postscript that was added later and which reminds of a kind of letter closure.” 27

Structure Allied to such questions of the relationship to chs. 1–12 is the way in which ch. 13 contributes to the structure of the letter, and commentators have drawn different responses accordingly. Craig Koester, for example, locates the start of the peroration of the epistle at 12:28 rather than 13:1. He suggests that it is characteristic of Hebrews to begin a section with a concept that has ended the previous one, and thus the unshaken/shaken contrast marks both the end and beginning of the respective units. 28 Such structuring, of course, serves to tie further the chapter to what has gone before, rather than to construe it as the token addition. Cynthia Westfall makes the same decision but for a different reason. She likewise starts the section at 12:28, with 13:16 “the formal conclusion of the discourse”; the pairs of hortatory subjunctives give it a frame, and thus she offers a different structuring to Koester. 29 Other recent work on the letter’s structure, however, still places the break at 13:1. Walter Überlacker’s location of the beginning of the peroratio at this point would be one such example. 30 George Guthrie’s analysis groups ch. 13 as part of the overall paraenetic strand of the letter. He calls 13:1–19 “practical exhortations,”31 but this may not do full justice to the “effective” nature of 13:9–14. The recent work of John Paul Heil likewise places the break at 13:1. Heil conjectures a series of 26

Knut Backhaus, “Der Hebräerbrief und die Paulus-Schule,” BZ 37 (1993): 183–208. Gert Jacobus Steyn, “The Ending of Hebrews Reconsidered,” ZNW 103 (2012): 235–53, here 252. 28 Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), 554–56. 29 Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (Library of New Testament Studies 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 283. 30 Walter Überlacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 319–52. 31 Guthrie, Structure, 134, 144. 27

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

197

chiastic patterns within the letter, and 13:1 marks the beginning of one such chiasm. 32 One might say that, in general, scholars concur that 12:28–29 sets the foundation of worship that is then unpacked in 13:1–21. Similar differences emerge as to how the chapter itself may be divided into constituent units. Albert Vanhoye, for example, argues for an inclusio between 13:7 and 13:19 based on the theme of leaders, 33 but Thompson makes a similar inclusio argument premised upon just 13:7–17.34 Johnson instead proposes that 13:8–14 is the defined unit, as it is “framed” by the parallel references to that which is eternal, respectively the status of Jesus (13:8) and the city to come (13:14).35 From a different perspective, I argue in my own work that 13:1–8 forms a composite unit, as the bookending verses both offer imagery of continuity before 13:9 switches to the problematic discourse of strange teaching and foods.36

Outside the Camp If the relationship of ch. 13 to the rest of the letter has, for most commentators, been resolved, attention has instead become focused upon how ch. 13 adds to the letter or contributes to its overall interpretative function. In particular, the central part of the chapter (variously located between 13:7 and 13:19) has become the primary locus for such exploration; the interpretation of these verses, rather than the relationship to chs. 1–12, has now become the cause celèbre of Heb 13 scholarship and debate. Marie Isaacs, for example, proposes that 13:7–19 is central to the theme of the letter and offers “a summary of the essentials of what has been said,”37 while Thompson surmises that it “recapitulates much of the argument of the homily,” especially that from 7:1–10:18.38 Suzanne Lehne equally avers that 13:9–16 (alongside 12:18–24, but in a different sense) “contain the gist of Heb. in a nutshell.” 39 These central “core” 32 John Paul Heil, Hebrews: Chiastic Structures and Audience Response (CBQMS 46; Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010). 33 Albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. Leo Arnold; Miami, Fla.: Convivium, 2011), 409–10. Note, though, that Vanhoye does not think that 13:19 forms part of the original ch. 13; it was added prior to the sending of the epistle. In that sense, the inclusion ends at 13:18b. 34 Thompson, Hebrews, 273. 35 Johnson, Hebrews, 346. 36 David M. Allen, “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations: The Use of Old Testament Narratives in Heb 13,1–8,” Bib 49 (2008): 401–9. 37 Marie E. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13:9–16 Revisited,” NTS 43 (1997): 268–84, here 272. 38 Thompson, Hebrews, 273. 39 Susanne Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (JSNTSup 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 157 n. 129.

198

David M. Allen

verses, however, remain notoriously ambiguous; Helmut Koester famously calls 13:9–14 “among the most difficult passages of the entire New Testament,”40 and its content has proved suitably problematic for recent interpreters seeking to reconstruct the context and situation of the audience. As we shall see, much interpretation of 13:9–14 depends upon how metaphorically one reads the various instructions given, with the composition of the so-called διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις (13:9) and food regulations (13:9) demonstrative of such ambiguity. A primary voice in such matters has been Barnabas Lindars, who perhaps most strongly articulates the view that the strange teachings were those instructions from Levitical priests which set out a different portrayal of the atonement; the food regulations were likewise synagogue meals undertaken in the Diaspora, probably at times of festivals, but which endorsed and supported the Levitical regime. 41 Others, though, have seen this as a more general reference to those inefficacious parts of the old covenant, the “material things that the author regards as ineffective for the perfection of persons.” 42 Alternatively, it has been construed as exhibiting the contrast between the unchanging nature of Jesus Christ (13:8) and the plurality of strange teachings (13:9). 43 It may even be merely a general message about the negative impact that strange teaching has on the heart (and therefore nothing specifically about food per se).44 Indeed, Eisenbaum sees the reference as not necessarily focused on Judaism. The verse “does not necessarily point to the observance of kashrut,” 45 though the degree to which one views a Jewish context to 13:9 does impact upon one’s interpretation of 13:10–14 and the extent to which that unit addresses formal tenets of Judaism. The reference to the altar is similarly another crux interpretum, and scholars tend to split several ways as to its location. Thompson famously locates it within the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus offers his own sacrifice, 46 and he has often been credited as the principal exponent of this view, even though

40

Helmut Koester, “‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13:9–14,” HTR 55 (1962): 299–315, here 299. 41 Lindars, Theology, 10–11. 42 Johnson, Hebrews, 348. So also David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A SocioRhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 497, who points back to Heb 9:10 and the incapacity of food and drink to bring about perfection of the conscience. 43 Mackie, Eschatology, 135 n. 367. 44 Koester, Hebrews, 567. 45 Eisenbaum, “Locating,” 235. This is part of her argument that locates Hebrews prior to the parting of the ways. Cf. also Eric F. Mason, “The Epistle (Not Necessarily) to the ‘Hebrews’: A Call to Renunciation of Judaism or Encouragement to Christian Commitment?” PRSt 37 (2010): 7–20, esp. 20: “As in the rest of the book, much Jewish language is incorporated in 13:7–16, but here it is not the framework – it is only a veneer.” 46 Thompson, Hebrews, 282.

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

199

Filson had posed such an interpretation fifteen years or so earlier. 47 The view has not been well received, however, if only because Hebrews has no altar (except the altar of incense) inside the holy of holies. Likewise, Swetnam’s contention that the altar was the Eucharist celebration48 has not been deemed persuasive, as Hebrews has been found to be little interested in such sacramental matters. Interestingly, however, the Eucharistic perspective has been revisited by deSilva, particularly to caution Hebrews’ audience from viewing the sacrament as a purely materialistic affair, but rather as one that did permit access to the divine. 49 Alternatively, the altar may be Golgotha, the physical location of Christ’s place of death, or even a “metonym” 50 for the whole cross event of Christ’s death.51 The exclusion of those in the “tent” (13:10) is also problematic, particularly in terms of their mooted Jewish identity. Norman H. Young, for example, suggests that it refers to the Levites’ inability to eat Day of Atonement food (i.e., it is a [critical] statement about the former covenant, rather than a critique of Judaism), but it may still reflect a more widespread distancing from Levitical priesthood as a whole.52 It may function as a possible (anti-)Eucharistic reference,53 but others advise that the very ambiguity of the phrase cautions against a particularly “Jewish” view and may instead be critical of those who have oppressed the audience (such as government representatives). As such, it would not be a formal call to split from Judaism. 54 Such Jewish questions persist in 13:11–13, however, with the thrice-recurring exhortation to proceed “outside the camp” (13:11, 13) and “outside the city gate” (13:12), potentially an allusion to the historical Jesus and to his death.55 Some have read this exit call in essentially figurative terms. Thompson, for example, advocates for a more “spiritual” rendering; like many other scholars, he reads “altar” as a metonym for the atoning death of Christ. He 47

Filson, Yesterday, 48–50. James Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bib 70 (1989): 74–95. 49 deSilva, Perseverance, 499–500. 50 Isaacs, “Hebrews 13:9–16,” 280. 51 Koester, Hebrews, 568–69; Lindars, Theology, 11. 52 Norman H. Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14),” NTS 48 (2002): 243–61, here 246–49. 53 See the discussion in John Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 75; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 240–41. 54 See, for example, Koester, Hebrews, 573. 55 Cf. Claire Clivaz, “A New NT Papyrus: P126 (PSI 1497),” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 158–62. Following the fourth-century manuscript P126, Clivaz suggests that the more likely rendering of 13:12 is “he suffered outside the gate of the camp” (ἔξω τῆς πύλης τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἔπαθεν). She further argues that this provides an allusion to Exod 32:26 (where Moses was said to stand at the gate of the camp when he summoned the Levites to action against those responsible for the golden calf). 48

200

David M. Allen

avers that its usage is metaphorical and relocates the altar of the heavenly realm as the place where Hebrews’ recipients’ confidence may be found.56 Thompson does not read 13:7–17 as polemical, especially because he does not find such a tone elsewhere in the letter. Rather, it is synkrisis, the use of comparison in respect of the Jewish practice. Lehne concurs with Thompson, proposing that the “outside the camp” exhortation is about moving beyond synagogue allegiance and encountering Jesus instead in the heavenly realm. 57 Johnson adopts an even more metaphorical usage; he suggests that the altar is a metaphor for the heart, and thus the recipients of Hebrews are to embrace the suffering that is the mark of Jesus’ discipleship. 58 Alternatively, reading in light of LXX parallels, I argue that the exhortation to go “outside the camp” picks up Exod 33:7–11 and the “external” tent of meeting discussed there. Such a tent offers a different place of covenantal encounter, one to which Joshua (construed as a typological Ἰησοῦς figure) has already gone, and one to which Hebrews’ audience is metaphorically to follow. 59 Others have sought to attend to the “secular” implications of the exit imperative, with Helmut Koester’s seminal article on such matters becoming the primary work to which more recent interpreters have sought to respond. Finding the imagery of Lev 16:27–28 to be key for the interpretation of the passage, Koester opines that Hebrews drew a profound contrast with the Levitical ancestors. In Leviticus, one goes back into the camp to become clean, whereas in Hebrews one goes out and becomes clean. Such a conclusion is premised upon Jesus’ efficacious death outside the city, whereby his “act of sanctification marks the abolition of the necessity of holy places for sanctification.” 60 Hebrews’ audience is therefore to follow Jesus and to embrace worldliness and secular reality, rather than supposedly sacred places or cultic performance. The same approach is advocated by Richard Nelson, who construes that the readers are to leave the comforts of sacred loci for the “cruciform ‘disgrace’ of profane space.”61 More recently, Benjamin Dunning offers a more overtly sociological reading of the paragraph, specifically outlining an appeal to the marginality of the letter. In a letter of sojourning, ch. 13 reminds the readers where their journey is headed. To go outside the camp is to determine group identity at the

56

Thompson, Hebrews, 281–82. Lehne, New, 115–16. 58 Johnson, Hebrews, 347–49. 59 David M. Allen, “Why Bother Going Outside?: The Use of the Old Testament in Heb 13:10–16,” in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J. J. Menken (ed. Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden; NovTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 239–52. 60 Koester, “Outside,” 301. 61 Richard D. Nelson, Raising up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 152. 57

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

201

margins and create a “usable social identity” 62 within the vast mass of firstcentury cultures. It does not therefore bespeak a rejection of Judaism; instead, by using Abraham, a paradigmatic “outsider” figure, the letter (and especially ch. 13) nurtures the rhetoric of an “alien” or fringe identity. Allied to this is Knut Backhaus’ work on the ethical discourse of 13:1–6. He argues that rather than a series of generalized exhortations, the unit enables the establishment of a marginal identity, a societal construction that legitimizes the particular group.63 It is in the practice of the ethical discourse, in the seeking after the reproach of Christ, that the readers will “find both the polis that remains and their real ‘civic pride.’”64 Thompson arrives at a not dissimilar exposition of the paraenetic material of 13:1–6, viewing it as “ethics for aliens,” an exhortation “to maintain communal solidarity as it experiences abuse from the outside world.”65 What then of Judaism? Dunning’s reading does not necessitate an exit from Judaism, as the intended audience may remain on the fringes or margins of society, but it still constructs social identity over and against formal Judaism. Isaacs, meanwhile, classifies the “outside the camp” language as embracing Jesus’ death as a criminal and argues that 13:13 is not a call to abandon Judaism per se, but rather to withdraw from the trappings of the Jerusalem cult. 66 Where Koester argues for an exhortation to worldliness, she finds instead the “relocation of the sacred,”67 no longer in the cult but in heaven itself. For many interpreters, however, there is present in 13:9ff. the pressing exhortation to leave behind Judaism, or something akin to it. Iutisone Salevao, for example, reads the pericope in social terms, viewing 13:13 as a call “for the readers to go outside the camp of Judaism, to completely sever their ties with their former religion, to leave the safe-haven of a recognized socio-religious group.”68 More forcefully, Norman Young surmises how “the writer is directing his readers to a worship detached, distinct and independent from Judaism.” 69 It is also a call – historical, rather than metaphorical – to leave Jerusalem, to depart from the 62

Benjamin Dunning, “The Intersection of Alien Status and Cultic Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 178–98, here 197. 63 Knut Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels: Ethics in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 149–75. 64 Backhaus, “Angels,” 172. 65 James W. Thompson, “Insider Ethics for Outsiders: Ethics for Aliens in Hebrews,” ResQ 53 (2011): 207–19. 66 Isaacs, “Hebrews 13:9–16,” 268–84. 67 Isaacs, “Hebrews 13:9–16,” 283. 68 Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe (JSNTSup 219; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 147. 69 Young, “Bearing,” 248.

202

David M. Allen

place that represents the very heart of the old system. Young elsewhere takes his argument further, suggesting that the call to go outside the camp is a rallying cry to expect and embrace persecution, actively bearing the reproach; the appeal to Ps 117:6 LXX (Heb 13:6) is a reminder of divine presence in the expected persecution to come.70 Goulder’s work on Hebrews also assumes this backdrop, as he views 13:9–14 as a call to disavow a particular (Ebionite) form of apocalyptic Judaism. 71 Allied to this is the destiny of Jerusalem, with some commentators proposing that the pericope demands not merely a disassociation from Judaism, but also a rejection of the holy city itself. Like Young, Peter Walker rejects any metaphorical association, surmising that the “author was referring to a current phenomenon which was of direct concern and practical relevance to his audience.”72 For Walker, ch. 13 infers that the idea of temple worship is now over; by dying outside the city, Jesus has made the unholy holy, and the holy place (Jerusalem) unholy. Thus to go “outside the camp” means leaving a people and a place, Jerusalem and the Jewish community. Carl Mosser arrives at similar conclusions, but for different reasons. 73 Focusing on the exemplary figure of Rahab, he highlights how in Josh 6:22–25 LXX she is taken “outside of the camp” (the same phrase used in Heb 13:11 and 13:13). Her city is then burned – it is not a lasting city (cf. Heb 13:14). “[Rahab] did precisely what the readers are told to do; she went outside the camp, knowing her city would not endure.”74 Mosser argues that Rahab’s exemplary role in 11:31 is thus intertextually linked to the exhortation of 13:11–13; the recipients of Hebrews are consequently required to mimic Rahab (a prostitute who stood with a “Jesus/Joshua” figure) and leave behind Jerusalem. Such historical specificity may, however, place too much interpretative burden on 13:11–13. Scott Mackie, for example, concludes that ch. 13 warrants that “in no uncertain terms, a complete break with Second Temple Judaism has been made,”75 but he conjectures that the breach is ultimately geared to relativizing this-worldly experience within expectation of a new eschatological

70 Norman Young, “Suffering: A Key to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” AusBR 51 (2003): 47–59. It remains, though, verbal, rather than physical abuse (55–57). 71 Goulder, “Hebrews,” 393–406. 72 P. W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), 205. This forms part of an argument for a pre-70 date to the letter. See also Peter W. L. Walker, “Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle,” TynBul 45 (1994): 39–71. 73 Carl Mosser, “Rahab Outside the Camp,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 383–404. 74 Mosser, “Rahab,” 397. 75 Mackie, Eschatology, 142.

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

203

order.76 More neutrally perhaps, Ben Witherington ventures that since many of the letter’s concepts have been metaphorical, any reference to Jerusalem must be treated similarly so,77 with the exhortation to follow after Jesus actually being the primary motif. Indeed, 13:11–13 may emphasize less what one leaves behind and more to where one goes; 13:13 is often noted as an exhortation that stands in contrast to the “arrival” motif found earlier on in the letter (cf. 10:22; 12:22). As such, Loveday Alexander views the exhortation as a call to embrace “solidarity with the victims of violence” rather than an exit from a religious grouping. 78 Andrew Lincoln endorses a similar approach to 13:13. 79 It articulates a positive affirmation to follow after Jesus (and hence share in his shame), rather than requiring a deliberate rejection of Judaism. Alternatively, of course, the lasting city of 13:14 may not be contrasted to Jerusalem but may instead refer to Rome. If so, this might be part of a wider anti-imperial critique.80 Instead of the supposed “eternal” city of Rome, Hebrews offers its audience a different city to come for which they are to look and/or journey. Richard Johnson takes a different approach to the pericope. While his overall study does not focus specifically on ch. 13, the title of Johnson’s work harnesses its imagery and he defines “going outside the camp” as essentially boundary-crossing language (13:11–13). He notes that the repetitive aspect is key; the third use of the phrase in 13:13 is unnecessary unless it is for emphasis. To go outside the camp is to leave the city behind and embrace instead the eternal one; the exhortation is unto a brave new world order, but one that is now open to outsiders.81 Thus Johnson argues that 13:11–13 encourages the audience to cross social and cultural boundaries, and this ultimately becomes a mandate for mission. Instead of an exit call, either to a sect mentality or to

76

Mackie, Eschatology, passim. Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), 362–63. 78 Loveday Alexander, “Prophets and Martyrs as Exemplars of Faith,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 405–21, here 420. 79 Andrew T. Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 33, though he notes such an approach is still “outside the Jewish religious system.” 80 Jason A. Whitlark, “‘Here We Do Not Have a City That Remains’: A Figured Critique of Roman Imperial Propaganda in Hebrews 13:14,” JBL 131 (2012): 161–79. See also Jason A. Whitlark, Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter to “the Hebrews” (Library of New Testament Studies 484; London: T&T Clark, 2014). 81 Richard W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 209; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 129–53. The weakness of Johnson’s position is that he offers very little – if any – exegetical work on 13:11–13. 77

204

David M. Allen

leave Judaism behind, the exhortation anticipates that Hebrews’ recipients “would be better equipped to carry out the world mission of the church.”82

Themes Elsewhere in the Letter Other approaches have considered the way in which ch. 13 addresses themes or ideas previously addressed in the epistle and/or which give clarity to such matters. One example of this has been the work of David Moffitt, specifically on the function of Christ’s resurrection within the epistle and the way in which it has generally been neglected within treatments of the letter. 83 Although the brunt of his analysis extends beyond ch. 13, Moffitt’s starting point includes 13:20 and the explicit claim of resurrection found there. Moffitt argues that Jesus resolves the dualism the writer recognizes between heaven and earth and between angels and humans. The resurrection enables the presentation of a human body, one that allows humans to access the heavenly realm and thus the resurrection must comprise a core concept with the author’s thinking. 84 Elsewhere, Mackie appeals to 13:15 as part of his analysis concerning the nature of Hebrews “confession,” particularly the question of the name that is confessed.85 Alternatively, part of the recovery of ch. 13 within the discourse has been to focus on its use of the Jewish Scriptures. This has been manifest in a number of different ways. For example, I argue that the chapter’s opening exhortations, often seen as general and unspecific behavioral exhortations, 86 actually derive from the actions of personages commended (or critiqued) earlier in the letter, and thus, the hortatory spirit particularly of Heb 11 lingers on into the thirteenth chapter. Whereas Heb 1–12 portrays its various narratival protagonists as looking forward to perfection under Christ, Heb 13:1–8 exhorts the readers to look backwards and learn from the model (or otherwise) behavior of these same figures.87 Consideration of textual forms of scriptural quotations has also been a salient concern. Gert Steyn, for example, considers the textual form of the quotation of Ps 117:6 LXX in Heb 13:6. In so doing he identifies a link between Deut 31:6 (cited in the previous verse, Heb 13:5) and Ps 118 (a Hallel psalm), with 82

Johnson, Going Outside the Camp, 153. David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovTSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 84 Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection, passim. 85 Scott D. Mackie, “Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 114–29. He notes that 13:15 is “the sole unequivocal designation and description of that confession” (125). 86 Though note the positive construal of Backhaus, “Angels,” 149–75. 87 Allen, “Janus,” 401–9. 83

What Are They Saying about Hebrews 13

205

both texts being associated with the Festival of Tents (Succoth). Steyn argues that these texts were not conjoined elsewhere in a testimony book, but rather the author of Hebrews connected them because of their common liturgical tradition.88 I also revisit the question of the text form of Heb 13:5, specifically as to whether the Vorlage is Josh 1:5 or Deut 31:6. I find the case for Deut 31:6 to be the more persuasive, but I note that in terms of textual comparison at least, the Hebrew of Josh 1:5 and Heb 13:5 are the same. 89 Such equivalence has thus been part of the recent unpublished thesis of Adam de Jong that points to the (apparent) use of Josh 1:5 in Heb 13:5 as further evidence the writer ad Hebraeos knew Hebrew and actually exploited such knowledge within his use of scriptural testimony. 90

Conclusion What more may we say? I do not have time to speculate on interfaith readings of ch. 13 such as that of Rashied Omar, 91 nor on Timothy Willis’ work on how 13:17 suggests a model of leadership that derives from a leader’s power to persuade rather than from the nature of the office, 92 nor on Erich Seitz’s close exegetical examination of Heb 13:3. 93 But if one were to return to the question posed in the title of this chapter (“What are they saying about Hebrews 13?”), it is notable how most scholarly discourse on the chapter has tended to focus merely on particular verses, rather than on the whole of it. As has been suggested, discussions remain concentrated around 13:9–14, but detailed examination does not go much beyond this pericope. As such, despite the general consensus as to the integrity of ch. 13, some hesitation about it still remains. It is notable, for example, that George Guthrie’s comprehensive review of recent

88

Gert Jacobus Steyn, “The Occurrence of Psalm 118(117):6 in Hebrews 13:6: Possible Liturgical Origins?,” Neotestamentica 40 (2006): 119–34. 89 David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: An Exercise in Narrative Re-Presentation (WUNT 2/238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 68–71. 90 Adam de Jong, “The Writer of Hebrews as a Reader of Hebrew: An Inquiry into the Linguistic and Hermeneutical Use of the Old Testament Quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews” (MTh[R] thesis, University of Glasgow, 2011), 169–73; he ventures that a Hebrew Vorlage did indeed influence the way in which the citation is offered. 91 A. Rashied Omar, “Embracing the ‘Other’ as an Extension of the Self: Muslim Reflections on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13:2,” ATR 91 (2009): 433–41. 92 Timothy M. Willis, “‘Obey Your Leaders’: Hebrews 13 and Leadership in the Church,” ResQ 36 (1994): 316–26. 93 Erich Seitz, “Das doppelte Hos (zu Hebr 13,3),” BZ 45 (2001): 251–55.

206

David M. Allen

Hebrews research,94 produced in 2004, has to make barely any mention of ch. 13 in order to fulfill its charged duty. Patrick Gray offers an analysis of “brotherly love” in the epistle but notably refrains from considering 13:1 or 13:3 within his analysis. 95 Likewise, Richard Hays’ otherwise insightful assessment of “new covenantalism” in Hebrews fails to offer any reference to Heb 13:14 despite quoting the verse and its expectation of the city to come in the title of his article.96 Thus one might instead speculate on what people are not saying about Heb 13. It continues to be the case, for example, that a developed analysis of the chapter, one that considers it as an integrated unit of discourse, still remains outstanding. The works of Filson and Thurén, while rightly significant at their time, still remain the standard treatments of the chapter. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the expansion of work on Hebrews in the last few decades, there surely remains a place for a monograph specifically dedicated to the chapter and its particular contribution. One suggests that there is also future mileage in a reexamination of the chapter’s use of scriptural motifs, and perhaps further exploration of the way in which the exhortations of 13:1–6 pertain to other parts of the New Testament literature. Some further intra-analysis of the chapter would likewise be of value. Why, for example, is the audience to show love of foreigners (13:2), but to be suspicious of foreign doctrine (13:9)? As someone somewhere said, more or less, it remains open for someone to enter into a developed analysis of Heb 13.

94 George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews in Its First-Century Context: Recent Research,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne; Leicester: Apollos, 2004), 414–43. 95 Patrick Gray, “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews,” JBL 122 (2003): 335–51. 96 Richard B. Hays, “‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 151–73.

Chapter 11

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13 and Its Bearing on the Question of the Integrity of the Epistle Susan Docherty For well over a hundred years, New Testament commentators have been raising questions about the nature of the relationship between Heb 13 and the rest of the epistle.1 It has been argued, on the basis of differences in style, vocabulary, and content, that all or part of this final chapter is a later addition, composed either to make the work read more like a typical Pauline letter, or to apply the original text to a particular situation. 2 Throughout this long-running debate, however, very little consideration has been given to the subject of the compatibility of the scriptural interpretation in ch. 13 with the exegetical practices and axioms employed elsewhere in Hebrews. Lane is one of very few commentators even to allude to this question, when he draws a parallel between Heb 3:1–6; 12:18–29; and 13:10–16, suggesting that these passages all provide examples of the author linking a scriptural text to Christ or the community for a hortatory purpose, by means of what he terms a “descriptive analogy.”3 Given the centrality of the Scriptures for the whole structure and argument of Hebrews, this lack of attention to their treatment in ch. 13 is somewhat surprising. On the other hand, relatively few citations and allusions occur in this section of the letter, and none are expounded at great length, so on the surface this subject may appear to be an unpromising avenue for further exploration. The fact that the author uses the Scriptures in so many different ways throughout the epistle also makes it difficult to draw any meaningful overall conclusions about his exegesis: the catena of citations in ch. 1, for example, does, after all, come from the same hand as ch. 3, with its lengthy exposition of just one main text. The impossibility of fitting the interpretative methods of the writer of Hebrews into a single category is well illustrated by the dazzling array of terms which have been employed by commentators to describe it. Thus, his 1

For an early discussion of this question, see Wilhelm Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908), 1–13, 60–64. 2 See, e.g., George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972). 3 William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 1:500.

208

Susan Docherty

exegetical approach has been variously characterised as fundamentally Christological, 4 typological, 5 apocalyptic,6 Alexandrian, 7 rabbinic, 8 or Philonic.9 Little wonder then that Schröger’s extensive study of this subject concludes simply that he drew on all the exegetical techniques available to him, including those which are employed also in the rabbinic corpus, the Qumran scrolls, and Hellenistic Jewish literature. 10 While it is clear that no one overarching term, no matter how broad, can ever do justice to the variety and creativity of the uses of Scripture in Hebrews, some recent studies have nevertheless demonstrated that it is possible to identify and precisely describe significant and recurring features of its exegetical method.11 There would seem, then, to be potential value in attempting a fresh examination of the extent to which these characteristic interpretative techniques are found also in ch. 13. In what follows, therefore, all the references to Scripture in this final chapter, both direct citations and allusions, will be analysed in turn. The results of this investigation may then inform the wider debate about the integrity of the Epistle to the 4

See, e.g., Markus Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper (ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder; London: SCM, 1962), 53–78; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 32–33; Anthony T. Hanson, “Christ in the Old Testament According to Hebrews,” SE 2 (1964): 393–407; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), 117–18. 5 Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” TynBul 50 (1999): 3–22. 6 Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (6th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 81–86. 7 James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), xxxi-xxxiv, lxi–lxii. 8 See, e.g., the discussion in Lane, Hebrews, 1:cxix–cxxxi. 9 Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 1:39– 91; cf. Sidney G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Basel Studies of Theology 1; Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1965); and Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews (WUNT 2/269; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 55–248. 10 Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968). Other detailed surveys of the various scholarly conclusions about the exegetical methods and approach of the author of Hebrews can be found in George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CurBS 1 (2003): 271–94, esp. 279–83; and Motyer, “Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1.” 11 See, e.g., two studies by the present author and the works cited there: Susan E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews (WUNT 2/260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); and idem, “Genesis in Hebrews,” in Genesis in the New Testament (ed. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise; Library of New Testament Studies 466; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 124–48.

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13

209

Hebrews, providing further information about whether the author of Heb 1–12 is likely to have been responsible also for the composition of the text’s current ending.

Scriptural Citations and Allusions in Hebrews 13 Hebrews 13:2 The first allusion to Scripture in Heb 13 comes in v. 2. The author grounds his exhortation to “show hospitality to strangers” in what is probably a reference to Abraham’s welcome of three men who turn out to be divine messengers, as described in Gen 18:1–15. Alternatively, this verse may be an echo of the account of Lot providing shelter in his home on the evening before the destruction of Sodom to two angels, apparently the same ones who had visited Abraham (Gen 19:1–23). There are also other scriptural examples of Israelites encountering angels in human form, including Gideon and Manoah in the Book of Judges (Judg 6:11–24; 13:2–20). It is not clear, therefore, which one of these episodes the author of Hebrews has specifically in mind, although the idea of entertaining angels “without knowing it” (ἔλαθόν) is strongest in the case of Abraham. 12 Perhaps the intention is to remind the audience of all of these instances through the plural reference to “some people” (τινες). This motif of angelic appearance to humans receives some elaboration in the early postbiblical tradition, as attested, for instance, in the book of Tobit (Tob 5:4–12:22; cf. Jos. Asen. 14:3–17:9; T. Abr. 1:4–15:15), and it is also a theme familiar from Greco-Roman literature, in which gods are able to appear on earth. 13 This vague and generalized allusion might be considered untypical of the author of Hebrews, given the detail and nuance which distinguishes his exegesis. It is not, however, uncharacteristic of the way in which Scripture is used within the exhortatory sections of the epistle. In the latter part of ch. 11, for instance, he alludes rather indefinitely to several scriptural events and characters. Thus in Heb 11:32–37, some of the exemplars of faith are unnamed, so that there is simply a summary of what was achieved or undergone by “the prophets” (τῶν προφητῶν, 11:32), “women” (γυναῖκες, 11:35), “others” (ἄλλοι, 11:35; ἕτεροι, 11:36), and “all these” (οὗτοι πάντες, 11:39). This serves, as does Heb 13:2, to give the impression that there are multiple

12 As argued by, e.g., Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989), 386. This aspect of the narrative, Abraham’s ignorance of the heavenly origins of his visitors, is emphasised in some postbiblical writings, such as the Testament of Abraham (see e.g. T. Abr. 2:2). 13 As indicated by, e.g., Acts 14:11. Attridge (Hebrews, 386) cites examples from Homer, Plato, and Ovid; cf. Koester, Hebrews, 558.

210

Susan Docherty

examples of such admirable behavior, and to invite the audience to call to mind all the episodes evoked by means of these brief allusive references. While he sometimes employs definite citations to support his words of exhortation (as in 10:37–38 or 12:5–6, for example; see too the clear allusion to Esau in 12:16–17), the author of Hebrews can also make use of more general or even stereotypical scriptural allusions, similar to this one in 13:2. The agricultural metaphor for divine blessing and judgment at 6:7–8 in the warning against apostasy, for instance, echoes the biblical account of Adam’s punishment for eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. It is not a clear reference to the Genesis narrative, however, as this imagery occurs more than once elsewhere in the Scriptures (see, e.g., Isa 5:6; Hos 10:8) and is also common in both later Jewish and classical Greek sources. 14 Furthermore, the unquestioned assumption of Heb 13:2 that Scripture retains its authority as a source of ongoing moral instruction for the followers of Jesus certainly fits with the outlook of Hebrews as a whole. Hebrews 13:5 The first direct scriptural citation in Heb 13, at v. 5, is also used to support an ethical exhortation, in this case the injunction that the audience should be content with what they have and live free from the “love of money” (ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος), because God can be trusted to look after them, having promised that: “I will never fail you nor forsake you.” The source of this quotation is not certain, as a similar phrase occurs in several texts, including Gen 28:15; Deut 31:6–8; and 1 Chr 28:20. The MT of Josh 1:5 could also be translated into a Greek form identical to Heb 13:5, so it has been suggested that it may be reflected here, in an otherwise unattested Septuagintal variant. 15 The various possibilities are outlined below: Heb 13:5 Gen 28:15 1 Chr 28:20 Josh 1:5 Deut 31:6

οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ᾽οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μετὰ σοῦ… ὅτι οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω κύριος ὁ θεός μου μετὰ σοῦ οὐκ ἀνήσει σε καὶ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὁ προπορευόμενος μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ

14 Albert Vanhoye has drawn together some relevant examples of rabbinic parallels in “Heb 6:7–8 et le mashal rabbinique,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honour of Bo Riecke (ed. W. C. Weinrich; 2 vols.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984), 2:527– 32; for Philo’s use of this imagery, see especially Her. 204; cf. Spec. 1.246; Leg. 3.248; and Agr. 17. Moffatt (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8) notes particularly Euripides, Hecuba 592, and Quintillian, Institutio Oratoria 5.11.24. 15 See, e.g., David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-presentation (WUNT 2/238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 69–70.

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13 Deut 31:8

211

καὶ κύριος ὁ συμπορευόμενος μετὰ σοῦ οὐκ ἀνήσει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃ σε

The verses in Deuteronomy seem to provide the closest match in Greek, although the wording in Hebrews does not agree exactly with extant versions of the Septuagint, where the verbs are given in the third person rather than the first. A form of the Deuteronomy text employing the first person is also found in the writings of Philo (Conf. 166), however, and it is perhaps worth noting that the author of Hebrews draws heavily on Deuteronomic material throughout, as demonstrated most comprehensively by Allen. 16 Current Septuagintal study also emphasizes the diversity of forms in which the Scriptures circulated in both Hebrew and Greek in the late Second Temple period, as attested, for example, at Qumran.17 Thus there is an increasing scholarly acceptance of the view that differences between the form of an Old Testament citation in the New Testament and the reading given in Rahlfs’ Septuaginta are as likely to be due to the author’s use of an extant variant form as to any theologically motivated modification of a fixed original text. 18 Most commentators now agree, therefore, that the wording of Heb 13:5 probably reflects neither the author’s direct dependence on Philo, nor any deliberate alteration of his Vorlage, but rather his use of a form of Deuteronomy known to him. 19 Significantly, this verse contains first person direct speech, a feature common to the majority of scriptural citations in Hebrews. This may be indicative of a hermeneutical concern to present God as speaking directly to the audience, through both the Son (as in Heb 1:2) and the Scriptures. 20 It may also be a result of the fact that such texts are particularly open to being excerpted from their original context and applied by an interpreter to a new situation through the 16

Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation. See, e.g., Emmanuel Tov, “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (ed. George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 11–46; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999); for the impact of this view on New Testament study, see also R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), esp. 9–36. 18 See, e.g., J. Cecil McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews,” NTS 26 (1980): 363–79; idem, “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Part I,” IBS 2 (1980): 141–65; Gert J. Steyn, “A Quest for the Vorlage of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) Quotations in Hebrews,” Neot 34 (2000): 263–72; idem, “Psalm 2 in Hebrews,” Neot 37 (2003): 262–82; idem, “The Vorlage of Psalm 45:6–7 (44:7–8) in Hebrews 1:8–9,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 60 (2004): 1085–1103; idem, “The Occurrence of Ps 118(117):6 in Heb 13:6: Possible Liturgical Origins,” Neot 40 (2006): 119–34. 19 See, e.g., Attridge, Hebrews, 388–89; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 699–70. 20 It seems to me most natural to take God as the speaker in this verse, although Christ has also been proposed; see Attridge, Hebrews, 388. 17

212

Susan Docherty

provision of additional “co-text,” such as the identification of a different speaker, addressee, or setting for the utterance. 21 In addition, the author manifests a striking tendency to reproduce narrative passages by means of paraphrase and allusion, but to cite scriptural speech formally. This is perhaps most evident in Heb 11, where various episodes about Israel’s patriarchs are retold, with hardly any explicit citation of Scripture. 22 This distinction between the presentation of narrative and direct speech in Hebrews is not absolute, of course, since non-speech texts are occasionally formally quoted, such as Gen 2:2 at Heb 4:4, and Gen 5:24 at Heb 11:5. Nevertheless, both the concentration of citations which contain first person direct speech and the particular use of allusive summaries are noteworthy aspects of the epistle’s exegetical method. As elsewhere in Hebrews, then, the interpretative technique of providing a new context for a quotation which can have multiple referents is in operation in 13:5. None of the several possible scriptural sources for this citation identified above make any mention of the theme of the avoidance of greed and undue concern for wealth. While a case could be made that all of them have broader contextual links with the argument of Hebrews, especially with its reinterpretation of the scriptural theme of “entry” into the promised land, they do not readily appear on the surface to support a claim that God will provide for the material needs of the author’s community. This kind of reading of a text is often described as “atomistic” and is widely held to be characteristic of early Jewish exegesis. Samely’s recent research into rabbinic literature, however, now offers the prospect of a much deeper understanding of this hermeneutical approach. He makes clear, for example, that Mishnaic interpretations do not target the whole of Scripture, or any one of its larger parts, but rather segments approximately of sentence length.… [The] fundamental effect [of this] is that the segment, taken in isolation, is less determined in topic, reference, or meaning than as part of a Scriptural environment (co-text). The Mishnah, in surrounding the segment with different co-text, can thus appoint a fresh topic, reference, or meaning for the biblical words.23

To put it another way, the rabbis expected Scripture, as the source of all knowledge, to have something meaningful to say on every conceivable subject, so a necessary first step in their exegetical method was to allocate a scriptural 21

See Docherty, Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, 146–47. This explanation of the exegetical methods of the author of Hebrews owes much to the work in the field of Jewish Studies of Alexander Samely; see especially his The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); and idem, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 22 This point is discussed by Pamela M. Eisenbaum in her significant study of this chapter entitled The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context (SBLDS 156; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), esp. 89–101. 23 Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation, 31.

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13

213

text to a relevant “topic.” A similar understanding may underpin the application of this citation in Hebrews to the “topic” of God’s providence. This technique seems to be employed elsewhere in Hebrews, too, as in ch. 11, for instance, where the idea of “faith” is not obviously present in most of the scriptural passages put forward by the author as exemplars of that motif. Hebrews 13:6 The author reinforces the message of 13:5 with another citation in the following verse, here applying Ps 117:7 LXX to his audience. As discussed above, the quotation of a text containing first person direct speech is very much in keeping with the use of Scripture in Heb 1–12, as is appeal to a psalm. It is also common for a passage from the book of Psalms to be connected to one from another section of the Scriptures, just as this one follows on immediately from the Deuteronomy text. Apart from the catena of citations in the epistle’s opening chapter, for instance, Isa 8:17–18 is linked to Ps 21:23 in Heb 2:12–13, and Gen 2:2 and Ps 94:7–11 LXX are brought together in chs. 3–4. What is more unusual about this verse is that the author presents his audience as those who may confidently give voice to it, when he generally names God (e.g. 1:5–13; 2:5–6; 5:5–6; 7:21; 8:3; 12:5; 13:5), Christ (2:12–13; 10:5), or the Holy Spirit (3:7; 10:15) as the speaker of scriptural words. In all these cases, however, the same exegetical process is being followed, whereby he makes a text with an originally indefinite speaker relevant for a precise new situation by allocating it to a new speaker and context. Thus he identifies his community both with the direct addressees of God’s words of reassurance in the previous citation, and with those who respond appropriately to God’s support in the words of this psalm (cf. Heb 2:18; 4:16). The overall message of Ps 117 LXX does fit with the author’s purpose in this section, since it encourages the righteous who are feeling embattled to continue to trust in God’s saving help. This is a significant theme within the epistle as a whole, and one which is often linked to scriptural citation and interpretation. For example, Ps 8:4–6 is used in ch. 2 to assure the community that everything, including even death, will be subject to Jesus, and that “… because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted” (2:18; cf. 3:6, 14; 4:9–16; 10:19–39; 12:1–2). One further feature of this citation also deserves mention. There is considerable manuscript support for reading καί between the two clauses of the first line: κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηθός, [καὶ] οὐ φοβηθήσομαι. This conjunction is included in some versions of both the Septuagint and the MT of Ps 117 (118), so it is quite possible either that the author was quoting from a text which read καί at this point, or that καί is not original but was added by later scribes to conform the citation to their form of the Septuagint. Ellingworth provides a typically

214

Susan Docherty

detailed and judicious discussion of the options in his commentary. 24 This need not be repeated here, but it should be noted that elsewhere in Hebrews the author does deliberately divide his citations, presenting neighboring scriptural verses almost as two separate quotations, linked by a brief phrase such as καὶ πάλιν. This can be seen both in his presentation of Isa 8:17–18 in Heb 2:13, and also in Heb 10:30–31, which cites Deut 32:35–36.25 The evidence in this case is not sufficiently strong to warrant the conclusion that he definitely wishes to present this text in two sections, or as if it were two separate citations, but this possibility certainly deserves further consideration, given the other clear occurrences in the letter of this exegetical feature. Hebrews 13:11–13 In these verses, Jesus’ sanctifying death is compared with aspects of Jewish sacrificial practice, especially the Yom Kippur ritual as described in Lev 16:27. This verse is not directly cited but is instead reproduced in Heb 13:11 by means of an allusive summary. Differences between the Leviticus text and Hebrews include the use in the latter of the general term “animals” (ζῴων) rather than the more specific “goat” and “bull calf” of Leviticus, and of the plural term for the sanctuary, εἰς τὰ ἅγια, rather than the singular ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ, in keeping with the author’s preference throughout (see especially Heb 9). 26 In terms of content, these verses are most clearly related to the discussion of the atoning significance of Jesus’ death in Heb 9, but some of the exegetical techniques in evidence here also have parallels elsewhere in the epistle. Where the author paraphrases a scriptural passage, as in the case of the account of the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek in ch. 7, for instance, or in his retelling of the Abel narrative in 11:4, he generally follows the wording and sequence of the scriptural source fairly closely, but he can shape his audience’s understanding of it by means of minor changes and selective omissions. So, in this case, he specifies that it is the “high priest” who brings the animals’ blood into the sanctuary, whereas the Leviticus account employs the passive voice, with Aaron as the implied subject in context. This is hardly a contentious move, since these Day of Atonement rituals were indeed carried out by the high priest, who claimed descent and succession from Aaron. Nonetheless, the introduction of this term enables the author to more easily pursue his interpretation of this text as relating to the sacrificial death of Jesus, the great “high priest” of the Christian confession.

24

Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 701. This technique is discussed further in Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews, 163–65, 170. 26 For a fuller consideration of all of these minor adaptations of the Leviticus text, see Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 713; cf, 400. 25

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13

215

Similarly, another significant phrase, ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς (“outside the camp”), may be deliberately placed at the end of the verse in Hebrews to emphasize and highlight it.27 Its importance for the ensuing argument becomes clear when it is subsequently reiterated and applied to Jesus’ suffering “outside the gate” (ἔξω τῆς πύλης, Heb 13:12–13). In other sections of Hebrews also, key terms are singled out for special stress, repeated, and surrounded with the author’s own words to give them a particular interpretation, as seen, for instance, in the discussion of God’s “rest” in chs. 3–4. This adaptation of Lev 16:27 can perhaps be best compared with Heb 7:1–2, where the author likewise makes some minor alterations to the text of Gen 14:17–20 and paraphrases it selectively in order to present Melchizedek as superior to Abraham. For example, he reproduces the scriptural phrase “priest of God most high” but places it earlier in his description of Melchizedek than it occurs in Genesis, because of the significance of this point for his argument. He also specifies Abraham as the subject of the action of tithe-giving, interprets δέκατος (“tenth”) in the narrower and more precise sense of “tithe,” and replaces the Septuagint term ἔδωκεν (“he gave”) with ἐμέρισεν (“he apportioned”) to give the more formal connotation of tithing to Abraham’s gift of a share of the spoils to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20; Heb 7:2). All this enables him to link the Genesis passage more effectively to his attempted demonstration of the inherent weakness in the Levitical priesthood.28 Although Lev 16:27 is the main text underlying Heb 13:11–13, there are definite echoes of another scriptural passage, Exod 33:7–11, which also includes the phrase “outside the camp.” These verses recount the pitching of the tent of meeting, and they explain that when Moses or any other Israelite wished to “seek the Lord” they had to go ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς (Exod 33:7).29 It would seem that for the author of Hebrews, it is significant that access to God is still available only “outside the camp,” whether “the camp” is understood as representing Jewish cultic practices and beliefs, or safety and tradition more generally. 30 This idea of having to “go out” to access God’s presence also picks up the epistle’s earlier stress on the need for Abraham to “go out” (ἐξελθεῖν) from his home and all his known securities in order to inherit the divine promises (Heb 11:8–10; cf. 13:14). The use of several scriptural texts to interpret one another on the basis of shared words or themes in this way is very common in Hebrews, as indeed it is in early Jewish exegesis generally. Particularly clear examples of this technique in the letter include the interplay between Ps 94:7– 27

So also Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 713. The exegetical techniques applied to Gen 14:17–20 in Heb 7 are treated in some detail in Docherty, “Genesis in Hebrews,” 133–37. 29 The echoes of Exod 33:7–11 at Heb 13:11–13 are explored more fully in Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 714. 30 The various possible meanings of “camp” are discussed further in Attridge, Hebrews, 399. 28

216

Susan Docherty

11 LXX; Num 14; and Gen 2:2 in Heb 3–4, and the connections established between Hab 2:3–4 and Gen 5:24 in Heb 10:37–11:6. Hebrews 13:15–16 Hebrews 13:15 is made up almost entirely of scriptural allusions, drawn mainly from psalms, with the inclusion also of the phrase καρπὸν χειλέων, “fruit of lips,” apparently echoing Hos 14:3 LXX. The call to offer God a “sacrifice of praise,” θυσίαν αἰνέσεως, occurs several times in the book of Psalms, in a metaphorical (e.g., Pss 49:14, 23 LXX; 106:22 LXX) and perhaps also literal sense (e.g., Ps 115:8 LXX). The idea that God prefers praise to bloody sacrifices occurs in Ps 50:17–19 LXX and is further developed in later Jewish tradition.31 This verse therefore illustrates several of the exegetical features already identified as present within this chapter and the epistle more widely, such as the frequency of appeal to psalms, the linking together of texts from different parts of Scripture, and the use of scriptural texts to reinforce ethical exhortation. The interpretation of these allusions continues into v. 16, where the kind of “sacrifices” which please God are equated with the actions of “doing good and sharing what you have.” The author thus focuses on the key phrase “sacrifice of praise” from the psalm text and repeats it, surrounding it with his own words in order to narrow down its meaning. This serves to give the hearer the impression that Scripture itself defines “sacrifices of praise” in this way. This interpretative technique has been fully explored by Samely because of its prevalence in the Mishnah. As he explains: “The integration of Scriptural words into Mishnaic speech … can lead to a blurring of the boundaries between author and reader, as when the biblical term’s meaning is ‘defined’ by the rabbinic voice.”32 A further example of this operation at work in Hebrews can be found in 3:13, where significant words from the citation of Ps 94:7–11 LXX are repeated, interwoven with the author’s own words, and given precise new meanings: ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖται, ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνθῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (with interpretative additions highlighted in italics). Psalm 8:5–7 LXX is treated in a similar fashion in Heb 2:8–9. Hebrews 13:20 Finally, Heb 13:20 refers to Jesus as “the great shepherd of the sheep” (τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν). “Shepherd” is a scriptural image used both for God, especially in the psalms, and for Israel’s kings and rulers in passages

31 For more detailed discussion of this point, see Attridge, Hebrews, 400. He cites several relevant references, including Sir 34:18–35:11; 2 En. 43:5; T. Levi 3:5–6; 1QS IX, 4–5. 32 Samely, Interpretation of Scripture, 81.

The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews 13

217

such as Jer 23 and Ezek 34. 33 The image came to assume messianic connotations, fueled by hopes for the future arrival of an ideal king or shepherd. 34 This verse seems to allude particularly to the people’s deliverance at the time of the exodus, when God “brought up from the land the shepherd of the sheep” Moses (Isa 63:11 LXX).35 Since Jesus is called “shepherd” in early Christian tradition, it is also possible that the author is using a traditional designation for Jesus here, perhaps drawing on a prayer or blessing familiar to his audience. 36 Other titles applied to Jesus in Hebrews are very fully expounded, notably “high priest” and “son,” but a parallel to this use of ποιμήν might be drawn with the way the term ἀρχηγός, “pioneer” or “leader,” is introduced without explanation in Heb 2:10.

Conclusions This study has explored the ways in which Scripture is used and interpreted in Heb 13, with a view to establishing how closely the approaches employed here match with those found throughout the epistle. The evidence points to a significant level of overlap in exegetical techniques and axioms between this chapter and the rest of the letter. Thus, the pattern and distribution of citations in this section have been shown to be comparable to that of the work as a whole, with a high proportion of quoted texts deriving from the Book of Psalms and/or containing first person direct speech, both noteworthy features of the use of Scripture generally in Hebrews. 37 As is the case throughout the epistle, texts containing direct speech are formally cited, and a new or more precise speaker identified for them, while other passages are paraphrased or echoed. The author is relatively faithful to all of his scriptural sources, but in these allusive summaries he can be selective about how much of a text he reproduces, and also make some changes to wording and sequence which, although minor, are significant for his interpretation. The purpose for which he employs Scripture in Heb 13 is primarily to ground and reinforce ethical injunctions, as in the other exhortatory sections of the letter. This positive attitude to the continuing 33 See, e.g., Pss 23:1; 28:9; 78:71; 80:1; cf. Gen 49:24; Num 27:17; 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Chr 11:2; 17:6; Isa 40:11; Jer 3:15; 10:21; 12:10; 22:22; 25:34–36; 31:10; 50:6; Ezek 37:24; Zech 10:3; 11:4–9, 16–17; 13:7. 34 See, e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:40. 35 See, e.g. Koester, Hebrews, 573; and Gareth L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), 715–16. 36 For early Christian ascription of shepherd imagery to Jesus, see, e.g., Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27; John 10:11–16; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 7:17. See also Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 728–29. 37 Lane also notes the “sustained appeal to texts from the Pentateuch and the Psalms in chapter 13 as in the letter as a whole” (Hebrews, 2:496).

218

Susan Docherty

relevance of the Scriptures, and their ongoing authority for the early Christian community, is characteristic of Hebrews as a whole. A number of interesting exegetical techniques in operation in Heb 13 have been identified in this investigation, such as the focus on a small “segment” of Scripture, which can then be surrounded with new co-text and applied to a particular situation or take on a specific new meaning. Thus key scriptural phrases like ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς (“outside the camp”) or θυσίαν αἰνέσεως (“sacrifice of praise”) are stressed, repeated within a new authorial co-text, and precisely defined. Several examples from other sections of Hebrews have been presented to support the claim that these methods are typical of the exegesis of the epistle more widely, as also is the linking together of texts from different parts of Scripture. While no definite claims about the authorship of Heb 13 can be made on the basis of this analysis alone, it appears that it is at least possible to conclude that, in terms of scriptural interpretation, there is nothing to suggest that the same person who wrote chs. 1–12 could not also have composed the letter’s ending. Further detailed consideration of the rather neglected question of the use of Scripture in Heb 13 may prove to have the potential, then, to make an unexpectedly fruitful contribution to the wider debate about the issue of its relationship to the rest of the epistle.

Chapter 12

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6 James W. Thompson With its soaring rhetoric, Heb 12:18–29 is an ideal conclusion to the homily that began with the elegant periodic sentence in Heb 1:1–4. Like the introduction (1:1–2), this passage compares the word spoken in the past to the fathers with the word that now addresses the community (12:25–29), bringing the message of Hebrews to a rhetorical climax. 1 However, as interpreters have observed, the climactic words of 12:18–29 are followed by a change of tone in ch. 13. Whereas chs. 1–12 contain a pattern of biblical exposition followed by the hortatory subjunctive (4:14–16; 10:19–23; 12:1–2), ch. 13 has a concentration of imperatives. While the primary exhortation in chs. 1–12 is to “hold firmly” (3:6, 14; 6:18; 10:23; cf. 2:1–4; 6:1–12) to the confession, 13:1–6 has a series of specific ethical instructions on varied topics. Knut Backhaus has stated the problem in a graphic image: “The theological mountain is in labor – but what is born is a moral mouse.”2 Interpreters have observed that both the exhortations in 13:1–6 and the final instructions in 13:18–25 resemble the conclusion of a Pauline letter. Like the concluding section of a Pauline letter, the final chapter of Hebrews contains brief paraenetic instructions delivered in the imperative (13:1–6, 16–17) and the typical features of a Pauline letter closing (13:18–25), including a request for prayer (13:18; cf. Rom 15:30), anticipation of a visit by the author (13:19; cf. Rom 15:22–29; 1 Cor 16:5–9; 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1; Phil 2:19–30; Phlm 22), a doxology (13:20–22; cf. Rom 16:25–27), greetings (13:24; cf. Rom 16:3–23; 1 Cor 16:19–20), and the prayer of grace (13:25; cf. 1 Cor 16:23–24; 2 Cor 13:13). According to A. J. M. Wedderburn, “One is forced to ask: has the author who has so skillfully composed the preceding 12 chapters suddenly dropped a stitch?” 3 He concludes that all of ch. 13 is a later addition. Edmund 1 See A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405, here 391. 2 Knut Backhaus, “‘How to Entertain Angels’: Ethics in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BibInt 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 149–75, here 149. 3 Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews,” 394.

220

James W. Thompson

D. Jones concluded that ch. 13 actually is a fragment of a Pauline letter. 4 Some have maintained that the chapter is an epistolary appendix to the homily, written either by the author himself or an imitator. 5 Clare Rothschild has argued that all of Hebrews is a pseudepigraphic imitation of Paul.6 Others maintain the authenticity of 13:1–17, while arguing that all or part of 13:18–25 is added by a later hand.7 Thus among those who regard all or part of Heb 13 as a separate text, no consensus exists on the specific passages that were written after chs. 1–12.8 This question is especially pertinent with respect to the specific ethical instructions in 13:1–6, which are introduced without a transition from 12:29 and written in the asyndetic style that is characteristic of Pauline paraenesis (cf. Rom 12:9–21; Phil 4:4–9; 1 Thess 5:14–22). The general topics – φιλαδελφία, φιλοξενία, πορνεία, and φιλαργυρία – are present in the Pauline corpus (including the disputed letters), although all of the topics are not present in any Pauline paraenesis. When one considers the length of Heb 1–12, the brevity of the ethical instruction is noteworthy. Only five imperatives (including implied imperatives in 13:4–5) delineate the concrete behavioral demands for the community, to which the author adds additional imperatives in 13:16–17. Despite the high Christology of chs. 1–12, these exhortations have no christological motivation, but appeal to Scripture instead. These features of 13:1–6 provide the background to the questions that I will address in this chapter. To what extent does the paraenesis reflect the author’s own style and the intellectual milieu reflected in the first twelve chapters? That is, does the paraenesis continue the echoes of Philo, 4 Maccabees, and other texts by Hellenistic Jewish writers? Or is the paraenesis composed of traditional material randomly selected and unrelated to the situation of the readers and major themes of the book? I shall focus on the ethical instructions in 13:1–6, comparing them with both Pauline paraenesis and the moral advice common in Hellenistic Judaism.

4

Edmund D. Jones, “The Authorship of Hebrews xiii,” ExpT 46 (1934–1935): 562–67. See A. J. M. Wedderburn, “‘Letter’ to the Hebrews,” 390–405. Cf. Jukka Thurén, Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von Hebräer 13 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1973), 51–53. 6 Clare Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon (WUNT 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 215–17. 7 Erich Grässer (An die Hebräer [3 vols.; EKKNT; Neukirchen: Benziger, 1990–1997], 3:409–10) maintains that 13:22–25 is by a later hand. 8 Gert J. Steyn, “The Ending of Hebrews Reconsidered,” ZNW 103 (2012): 235–53, here 236. [Editors: For a helpful overview of these debates, see the essay in this volume by David M. Allen.] 5

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6

221

Moral Instruction in Hellenistic Judaism The literature of Hellenistic Judaism demonstrates the urgency with which Hellenistic Jewish writers attempted to maintain Jewish identity by sustaining the boundary markers between them and the larger society. Although the communities were diverse in many ways, they shared a common commitment to the law, which they interpreted for their own situation. 9 Rather than establish an extended case law, they summarized the demands of torah. Summaries of the law in Philo and Josephus and the ethical vision of the Sentences of Pseudo– Phocylides are remarkably parallel in their selective appeal to the torah, both for what they omit and what they contain. 10 The major ethical concerns of diaspora Judaism are also evident in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 4 Maccabees, Tobit, and Wisdom. While moral instruction in Hellenistic Judaism is derived from the torah, diaspora moral instruction also reflected an openness to the categories of Hellenistic moral philosophy, equating Hellenistic virtues with the teachings of torah. Philo, 4 Maccabees, and Wisdom equate the four cardinal virtues with obedience to torah.11 Φιλαδελφία, φιλοξενία, γάμος, and (ἀ)φιλαργυρία belong to Greek moral discourse, as I will argue below, and appear in the LXX only in the books that reflect the engagement with Hellenistic culture (e.g., 4 Maccabees, Wisdom). Summaries of the law in the Diaspora did not contain the cultic regulations of circumcision and ritual purity, but presented common themes drawn from the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) and the Decalogue (Exod 20:2–17; Deut 5:6–21). The major themes include love within the covenant community, sexuality and marriage, and concern for the poor and disadvantaged. While some Jewish texts interpret the neighbor in the love command (Lev 19:18) in a universalistic sense (cf. Sir 13:15; T. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; T. Zeb. 5:1), in most instances the neighbor is the member of the covenant community (Tob 4:13; T. Reub. 6:9; T. Gad 4:2; T. Benj. 3:3–4).12 The warnings against sexual vices in all of the summaries also reflect the use of the Decalogue’s prohibition of adultery and its elaboration in the Holiness Code. Warnings that connect sexual vice with greed probably also reflect the use of the Decalogue (cf. T. Jud. 17:1; 18:1).

9

James W. Thompson, Moral Formation according to Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 19. 10 See Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT 2/28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 45–46. 11 Thompson, Moral Formation, 40. 12 Thomas Söding, “Das Wortfeld der Liebe im paganen und biblischen Griechisch: Philologische Beobachtungen an der Wurzel ΑΓΑΠ–,” ETL 68 (1992): 284–330, here 322.

222

James W. Thompson

Hebrews 13 within the Structure of Hebrews The imperatives (or implied imperatives) in 13:1–6 suggest that the author is an authority figure for the community who, like Paul, speaks as a mentor to the readers.13 Indeed, the first two (φιλαδελφία and φιλοξενία) appear in close proximity in Rom 12:9–13. Instructions on sexual ethics (13:4) and greed (13:5–6) are common in Pauline correspondence, often appearing together (cf. Eph 5:3, 5; Col 3:5). Only the concern for prisoners (13:3) has no parallel in Pauline paraenesis. Consequently, interpreters have argued that 13:1–6 is modeled on Pauline paraenesis in Rom 12:9–21 and 1 Thess 5:12–21.14 Although the specific content of the imperatives in Heb 13:1–6 is parallel to Pauline paraenesis, they have a distinctive form. In three instances, the imperatives are accompanied by γάρ, introducing a warrant from Scripture. This pattern is not limited to 13:1–6, however, but was first introduced in 12:14–18. The imperative εἰρήνην διώκετε (12:14) is followed by the participle and three consecutive μὴ τις clauses that call for communal solidarity. The last of these clauses follows the pattern that is found in 13:1–6. The injunction μὴ τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἐσαῡ is followed by the warrant introduced by γάρ, recalling the story of Esau’s failure το find repentance. The comparison of the words at Sinai and at Zion in 12:18–29 provides additional warrant for the cohesive community described in 12:14–17. The inclusio in 12:28 (λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως) and 13:16 (θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῑται ὁ θεός) challenges the readers to render acceptable worship. This is an appropriate conclusion to the homily, with its focus on the inadequacy of material sacrifices. Thus 13:1–17 is a description of acceptable worship, a contrast to the description of inadequate worship (7:1–10:18). The inclusio in 13:7–17 (μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν, 13:7; πείθεσθε τοῑς ἡγουμένοις, 13:17) offers an additional dimension of acceptable sacrifice. Amid the interlocking inclusios (12:28–13:16; 13:7–17), 13:1–6, with its specific instructions, is one dimension of acceptable worship.

Specific Instructions in 13:1–6 The ethical instructions in 13:1–6 consist of five imperatives, of which the latter two have the implied third person imperative ἔστω, corresponding to the

13

See Walter Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis: Hebrews as a Test Case,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; BZNW 125; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 319–52, here 322–23. 14 See Floyd Filson, ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (SBT Second Series; London: SCM, 1967), 23–24.

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6

223

third person imperative μενέτω in 13:1.15 Compared to Pauline paraeneses, the brevity of this unit is noteworthy. All but one of the topics (the care for prisoners, 13:3) have parallels in the Pauline correspondence. One may observe the following structure, adapted from that of A. Vanhoye.16 13:1 Ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω. 13:2 τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε, διὰ ταύτης γὰρ ἔλαθόν τινες ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους 13:3a μιμνῄσκεσθε τῶν δεσμίων ὡς συνδεδεμένοι 13:3b τῶν κακουχουμένων ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματι. 13:4 Τίμιος ὁ γάμος, ἐν πᾶσιν, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος πόρνους γὰρ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός. 13:5–6 Ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος, ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν. αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν …

As the parallel construction indicates, φιλαδελφία heads the list and is parallel to the second injunction.17 The parallel μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε and μιμνήσκεσθε introduce aspects of φιλαδελφία and reflect the parallel between the second and third injunctions. Thus the author introduces three major topics, each in parallel phrases, and in each case he supports the injunction with a scriptural warrant. While all of these have partial parallels in Paul, they are also Greek virtues that have been appropriated and transformed in the Jewish tradition, as I will demonstrate below. This carefully crafted paraenesis has no parallel in the Pauline correspondence. Ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω is an appropriate introduction to 13:1–6 and to all of 13:1–17. Φιλαδελφία is a virtue that was extolled most thoroughly in Plutarch’s On Brotherly Love and in Hierocles’s extended description of fraternal love. 18 For ancient writers, fraternal love extended to those who share the same parents and common blood. The term is employed in the LXX only in 4 Maccabees (13:23, 26; 14:1; cf. φιλάδελφος in 2 Macc 15:14; 4 Macc 13:21; 15:10), which describes the seven brothers as exemplars of this virtue. 19 Love for the covenant people is a major theme in Hellenistic Judaism. Tobit counsels his son, “Love your kindred” (4:13). In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben recalls that Joseph was the model of brotherly love: “He loved us as his own life; he extolled us more than he did his own sons, and he showered us with wealth, flocks, and produce” (T. Reub. 4:6). He then exhorts his children: “And you, my children, each of you love his brothers with a good heart” (T. Reub. 6:1). When the Jewish paraenetic tradition alluded to the command 15

See Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 341. 16 See Albert Vanhoye, “La Question Littéraire de Hébreux,” NTS 23 (1977): 121–39, here 123. 17 Vanhoye, “La Question Litteraire de Hébreux,” 124. 18 See Stobaeus, Anthology 4.84.20. 19 Thompson, Moral Formation, 81.

224

James W. Thompson

to love the neighbor (Lev 19:18), the neighbor in most instances was a member of the covenant community (cf. Tob 4:13; T. Reub. 6:9; T. Gad 4:2; T. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; T. Benj. 3:3–4).20 The early Christian paraenetic tradition followed traditions in Hellenistic Judaism in incorporating this Hellenistic virtue into the basic moral instruction. Hebrews shares this terminology not only with Paul, but with the authors of 1 and 2 Peter (1 Pet 3:8; 2 Pet 1:7). All of these writers use the term for the love that exists within the believing community. 21 Like Paul and 1 Peter, the author has appropriated a Hellenistic virtue for the fictive kinship of the community. The remainder of 13:1–17 develops this theme. Like Paul, the author employs this Greek virtue to describe the community as a family. Indeed, family images are pervasive in describing the community in Hebrews. The readers are the υἱοί (2:10; 12:5–11) of God and ἀδελφοί (3:1; cf. 2:11–12, 17) of the Son of God. The imperative μενέτω, which is not used elsewhere in New Testament paraenesis, is a reminder of the community’s past deeds of φιλαδελφία and a challenge for them to continue. In earlier days, members had assumed the role of siblings in demonstrating love for each other in acts of service (6:12–13), and they had been κοινωνοί with those who had suffered persecution (10:33). Thus they had assumed the role of siblings already. The imperative μενέτω reiterates the earlier challenge to demonstrate the same zeal until the end (6:11). The verb may also be a continuation of the author’s consistent use of μένειν, indicating that the permanent practice of φιλαδελφία corresponds to the abiding of the exalted Christ (1:10–11; 7:3, 24) and the abiding possession of believers (10:34; 12:27). The verb is reminiscent of the author’s frequent call to hold firmly (3:6; 4:14; 10:23). Φιλοξενία (13:2) is a Greek virtue that is not mentioned in the LXX, although acts of hospitality are common. Whereas it is an act of φιλαδελφία here and in Rom 12:13, in the Hellenistic world it was an act of φιλανθρωπία (Polybius, Hist. 4.20; Diodorus Siculus 3.45; 5.22, 34; 14.46; 17.64; Heraclides Ponticus, frag. 175).22 The first meaning of the verb ἀγαπάω is a welcoming love, which is manifested toward guests who are honored and given first-class treatment.23 While the word does not appear in the LXX, Hellenistic Jewish writers employed it in recalling Old Testament events. The Testament of Abraham repeatedly lists φιλοξενία among Abraham’s virtues (1:4, 9, 19; 4:25; 20

Thompson, Moral Formation, 40. Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die Bruderliebe bei Plutarch und und im vierten Makkabaerbuch,” in Alte Welt und neuer Glaube: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments (NTOA 29; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 83–98, here 84. 22 C. Spicq, “Φιλοξενία,” TLNT 3.446–47, here 447. 23 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 8.1.3–4: “Even when travelling abroad one can observe that a natural affinity and friendship exist between man and man universally” (trans. H. Rackham, LCL). 21

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6

225

17:16; 20:45 Rec. A). After recalling Abraham’s welcoming of the heavenly guests, the author concludes, “Let us, my beloved brothers, imitate the hospitality of the patriarch Abraham” (T. Ab. 20:15 Rec. A; trans. Sanders, OTP). Philo also recalls Abraham’s reception of the three guests in Gen 18 as an act of φιλοξενία (Philo, Abr. 114). Indeed, the warrant for φιλοξενία in Hebrews, “For some entertained angels without knowing it” (13:2), recalls Philo’s narrative of this event. Philo indicates that, after Sarah laughed at the announcement of the birth of her son, she “first saw in the strangers before her a different and grander aspect, that of prophets or angels, transformed from their spiritual and soul-like nature into human shape” (Abr. 113; trans. Colson, LCL). Φιλοξενία was appropriated in the early church in reference to the welcoming of traveling believers (cf. Rom 12:13; 1 Pet 4:9). In the Pastoral Epistles, it becomes one of the qualifications of the bishop (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8). The imperative τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε forms an inclusio with τῆς δὲ εὐποιίας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε (13:16) as an elaboration of φιλαδελφία. This injunction recalls the earlier promise that “God is not so unjust as to forget [ἐπιλαθέσθαι] your labor and love which you demonstrated in his name” (6:10). When the author of Hebrews speaks of those who entertained angels without knowing it, he is apparently calling on haggadic traditions that were known to the audience. While the idea of entertaining divine guests was known in ancient literature,24 the author probably has in mind either the story of Abraham or a composite of several stories. This appeal to haggadic traditions is consistent with the importance that he places on Abraham earlier in the homily (11:8–16) and on the haggadic traditions surrounding the patriarch in Philo. 25 The instruction μιμνῄσκεσθε τῶν δεσμίων (13:3) is parallel to τῆς φιλοξενίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσξε.26 It is not a part of ancient paraenesis, but is probably a reference to the specific situation of the readers as an example of φιλαδελφία. The author has already recalled that the readers in earlier days had “sympathized with the prisoners” (10:34). The parallel phrases introduced by ὡς are not used as a justification for this continued action, but function adverbially to describe the way in which the readers are to care for those who are in prison.27 It indicates the nature of the family relationship and recalls the readers’ earlier “sympathy” with the prisoners (10:34). Just as they had “sympathized” (συνεπαθήσατε) with prisoners in the past, the author challenges the 24

Cf. Ovid, Met. 8.613–715. David Allen, “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations: The Use of Old Testament Narratives in Heb 13,1–3,” Bib 89 (2008): 401–9, here 404. 26 Μιμνήσκομαι in this context means “to care for” or “be concerned about” (cf. Luke 23:42, “remember me”). Cf. also Heb 2:6, τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὅτι μιμνήσκη αὐτοῡ. See BDAG 652. Ἐπιλανθάνομαι means “to care nothing about” (BDAG 374). 27 Allen, “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations,” 404. 25

226

James W. Thompson

readers to “remember” them ὡς συνδεδεμένοι – “as though in chains with them.”28 The use of the συν– words recalls the nature of the φιλαδελφία of the seven brothers in 4 Maccabees. As “brotherly loving souls” (φιλάδελφοι ψυχαί), they were “nourished together” (συντρέφονται) through “common nourishment” (συντροφία, 13:22) and daily companionship (συνηθεία). As a result, they were “more sympathetic [συμπαθέστερον] to one another” (13:23), having been “brought up together” (συντραφέντες, 13:24). Their φιλαδελφία became more fervent because of their religion (13:26). Parallel to τῶν δεσμίων is τῶν κακουχουμένων. This passage recalls the story of Moses, who chose to “suffer with [συγκακουχεῖσθαι] his people” rather than enjoy the temporary pleasures of sin (Heb 11:25). Just as Abraham was the exemplar for the previous injunction, Moses is the exemplar for this solidarity with the people.29 Parallel to ὡς συνδεδεμένοι is the phrase ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώματι – “as though being in their bodies.”30 Φιλαδελφία requires an intense identification with siblings. Plutarch’s On Brotherly Love (De fraterno amore) describes the nature of φιλαδελφία, comparing brotherly love with the parts of the body. 31 In the body itself she has contrived to make most of the necessary parts double and brothers and twins: hands, feet, eyes, ear, nostrils; and she has taught us that she has divided them in this fashion for mutual preservation and assistance, not for variance and strife. (478D)

He adds, A man who quarrels with his brother, and takes as his comrade a stranger from the marketplace or the wrestling floor, appears to be doing nothing but cutting off voluntarily a limb of his own flesh and blood, and taking to himself and joining to his body an extraneous member. (479A)

Plutarch describes the intimacy among brothers, depicting their unity of emotions and bodies. “Brothers love one another, and insofar as nature has made them separate in their bodies, so far do they become united in their emotions and share with each other emotions and bodies” (480B). This unity of emotions and bodies makes the reconciliation of estranged brothers especially difficult. It is not easy to effect a reconciliation of brothers; for just as things which have been joined together, even if the glue becomes loose, may be fastened together again and becomes united, yet if a body which has grown together is broken or split, it is difficult to find a means for welding or joining it. (481C)32

28

BDAG 966. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.70; 18.196. Allen, “Constructing ‘Janus–Faced’ Exhortations,” 405. 30 Erich Seitz, “Das doppelte ὡς (Zu Hebr 13,3),” BZ n.f. 45 (2001): 251–55, here 255. 31 Translations of Plutarch that follow are from W. C. Helmbold, LCL. 32 Cf. Hierocles, in Stobaeus, Anthology, 4.24.80: “One must consider that, in a certain way, one’s brothers are parts of oneself, just as my eyes are parts of me and so too my legs and hands and the rest. For in fact they do have this character, at least if they are judged in 29

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6

227

Mention of the body in 13:3 may provide the link for the fourth injunction, τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, which moves from the fictive family to the literal family. The progression from care of siblings to marriage was common among ancient moralists.33 The Jewish paraenetic tradition also linked brotherly love with marital fidelity. 34 The command is stated in a chiastic manner: τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος

While one of the major themes of Pauline paraenesis is the prohibition of πορνεία (cf. 1 Cor 5:1; 6:12–18; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; 1 Thess 4:3–8), only Hebrews contains the parallelism that states the injunction in a positive way (τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν) before the negative injunction. While γάμος elsewhere in the New Testament refers to a wedding celebration (cf. Matt 22:2–9; 25:10; Luke 14:8; John 2:1; Rev 19:7), here the term is used for the state of being married.35 This usage appears in the LXX only in Wis 14:24, 26 and Hellenistic texts (Diodorus Siculus 2.5; Herodian 3.1-2). It is used for marriage in the papyri. 36 One may compare the complaint of Wis 14:24 that “they no longer keep their lives or their marriages pure” (οὔτε βίους οὔτε γάμους καθαροὺς ἔτι φυλάσσουσιν).

relation to the household. Just as eyes and hands, accordingly, if each should obtain its own soul and mind, would respect the other parts in every possible way for the sake of their declared communality, since they are not even able to perform their own function well without the presence of the other parts, so too we, who are human beings and confess to having a soul, should not omit any effort in behaving toward our brothers as one ought. For, in fact, brothers are by nature such as to cooperate with each other even more in comparison with bodily parts, since eyes see together with each other when each is in the presence of the other, and hand works together with hand when each is in the presence of the other” (trans. David Konstan in Ilaria Ramelli, Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments and Excerpts [trans. David Konstan; WGRW 28; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2009], 89). 33 See Hierocles, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γάμου in Stobaeus, Anthology, 4.502, 1–7 (Wachsmuth). 34 See T. Benj. 8:1, “But you, my children, run from evil, corruption, and hatred of brothers. For the person with a mind that is pure with love does not look on a woman for the purpose of having sexual relations.” Tob 4:12, “Beware, my son, of every kind of fornication. First of all, marry a woman from among the descendants of your ancestors.” Tob 4:13, “Love your kindred.” See Thompson, Moral Formation, 82: “Summaries of the law in Hellenistic Judaism also brought together [the command for familial love and the prohibition of adultery], following the pattern of Lev 18–19, which prohibits forbidden sexual activity and then commands love for the neighbor.” 35 BDAG 188. Cf. Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraer (12th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 482. 36 See MM 121. See also Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (15th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 704.

228

James W. Thompson

Although both Pauline and Jewish paraenesis insisted on marital fidelity and warned against πορνεία, the chiastically arranged τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος is not the customary phrase, but would resonate with a Hellenistic audience. Γάμος was also a topic for the Hellenistic moralists, belonging to the topos on family life. The parallel expression, καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, clarifies the first, for κοίτη, which is parallel to γάμος, means “marriage bed,” and ἀμίαντος clarifies the meaning of τίμιος. Ancient writers also indicated that adultery defiles the marriage bed. One may compare Wis 14:26, “They no longer keep their marriages pure.” The phrase undoubtedly echoes the story of Reuben, who “defiled the bed of his father” (Gen 49:4). The Testament of Reuben recalls this story when Reuben cries out, ἐμίανα κοίτην τοῦ πατρός μου (cf. Wis 3:13), “Blessed is the barren woman who is undefiled [ἀμίαντος].” As with the command for φιλαδελφία, the injunction on marriage is followed by a warrant introduced by γάρ. The warrant is consistent with the author’s use of the language of judgment (cf. 2:1–4; 6:4–6; 10:26–31). The story recalls the warning in 12:15–17, in which the author challenges the readers to “see to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springs up and causes trouble, and through it many become defiled [μιανθῶσιν]” (NRSV). Esau is the πόρνος who comes under the judgment of God (12:17), finding no place of repentance. Although Genesis does not describe Esau as a πόρνος, Jewish haggadic traditions provide the basis for the author’s description.37 In contrast to the positive examples of faithfulness in ch. 11, Esau is the negative example of the one who yielded to the passions and thus incurred judgment. Ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος (13:5) would also have resonated with a Hellenistic audience. While forms of φιλάργυρ– appear in the LXX only in the Maccabean literature (4 Macc 1:26; 2:8; cf. 2 Macc 10:20) and in the New Testament only in Luke (16:14) and the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3:3; 6:10; 2 Tim 3:2), the love of money was a major topic among Hellenistic moralists. 38 According to Chrysippus, φιλαργυρία is one of the passions and is similar to drunkenness and profligacy (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.111). Onasander lists one of the 37 Cf. Philo, Virt. 208; Sobr. 26. According to Gen. Rab. 63.9 on Gen 25:27, Esau was guilty of homosexuality and sexual intercourse with a betrothed woman (63.12 on Gen 25:29). 38 Cf. Plato, Resp. 347b: “Do you not know that the love of honor and love of money [φιλάργυρον] is said to be and is a reproach?” Also Gorg. 515e: “What I, for one, hear is that Pericles has made the Athenians idle, cowardly, talkative, and avaricious [φιλαργύρους].” Plato (Leg. 9.870a) refers to the most intense desire (ἐπιθυμία) as “the power that money has to give birth to a thousand and one furies of insatiable, infinite grasping.” He adds, “This love of riches is the first and greatest source of the greatest cases of murder” (9.870c). In a listing of evils (πονηρά), Tabula of Cebes 19.5 includes pain, wailing arrogance, love of money (φιλαργυρία), incontinence, and all other wickedness; cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9, 16, 18 (both cited in C. Spicq, “φιλαργυρία,” TLNT 3.446–47, here 447).

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6

229

qualifications of the good general that he be ἀφιλάργυρος (Strategus 1.1, 8–9). Marcus Aurelius said of Antoninus Pius: “He had a love of wisdom, and in the second place he was no lover of money” (P.Oxy. 33 II 11).39 It is the vice of wicked priests (T. Lev. 17.1). The adverb ἀφιλαργύρως appears in the honorific degrees of Istropolis (Dittenberger, Syl. 708, 17; first century B.C. E.) and of the region around Athens.40 The author follows Hellenistic Jewish texts in placing φιλαργυρία alongside the sexual vices, probably following common interpretations of the second half of the Decalogue. According to 4 Maccabees, Joseph embodies the principle that reason controls the passions. Thus reason enabled him to overcome the desire for illicit sexual intercourse (2:1–6). In the same way, the law enables people to overcome the desire for money. “Thus, as soon as one adopts a way of life in accordance with the law, even though a lover of money, one is forced to act contrary to natural ways and to lend without interest to the needy and to cancel the debt when the seventh year arrives” (2:8 NRSV). According to T. Jud. 17:1, the patriarch says, “I command you not to love money or gaze on the beauty of women,” Similarly, in 18:1 he counsels, “Guard yourselves against sexual promiscuity and love of money.” Philo speaks on numerous occasions of the vice of φιλαργυρία. The term appears in vice lists alongside φιλοδοξία, φιληδονία (Prob. 21; Spec. 1.281; QG 4.33; cf. Gig. 37), and other vices. He speaks of those who are driven by the desire for gold and silver as “like blind men whose mind through covetousness [φιλαργυρία] has lost the power to see that it is for lumps of earth that we forfeit peace and wage a constant and persistent war” (Prov. 2.12–13). The parallel injunction, ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν, is also common among Hellenistic moralists. Cynics and Stoics taught the value of contentment (αὐταρκείa), insisting that one should be content with simple food, clothing, and shelter.41 The Cynic Teles taught the value of contentment: ἀρκούμενος τοῖς παροῦσι.42 Epictetus asks: “Are you not willing to practice contentment [ἀρκεῖσθαι] with what you have” (Diatr. 1.1.27; cf. 2.9.13)? The Epicureans held that self-sufficiency was a great good and that one should be contented with little (ὀλιγοις ἀρκούμεθα, Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.130). This idea of contentment also appears in the moral advice of Hellenistic Judaism. The same focus on contentment is evident in the advice in Pseudo-Phocylides, “Be content with what you have [ἀρκεῖσθαι παρ’ ἑοῖσι] and abstain from what is another’s” (6).

39

Cited in Spicq, “Ἀφιλάργυος,” TLNT 1.45–48, here 46. Spicq, “Ἀφιλάργυος,” TLNT 1.245. 41 Abraham J. Malherbe, “Godliness, Self–Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth: 1 Timothy 6:3–19 (Part 1),” NovT 52 (2010): 376–405, here 395. 42 Cited in Stobaeus, Anthology 4.33.31. 40

230

James W. Thompson

One may compare this concern for the love of money and contentment with the Pastoral Epistles. One of the qualifications of the bishop is that he not only be hospitable (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8; cf. Heb 13:2), but that he also be ἀφιλάργυρος (1 Tim 3:3), in contrast to the heretics, who are lovers of money (φιλάργυροι, 2 Tim 3:2; cf. Titus 1:11, αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν). In the discussion of wealth in 1 Tim 6:6–10, the writer declares that “there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment” (αὐταρκεία). He adds, “But if we have food and clothing, we will be content [ἀρκεσθησόμεθα] with these” (1 Tim 6:8). The final scriptural citation is particularly significant, for it has both the warrant (γάρ) and the result (ὥστε). Γάρ is parallel to the previous usage in Heb 13:2 and 13:4. The conclusion in 13:5–6 is expressed in an artful way that is unlike other paraeneses, as Vanhoye has shown: 43 a b a´ b´

αὐτος γὰρ εἴρηκεν οὐ μὴ σε ἀνῶ οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ σε ἐγκαταλίπω ὥστε θαρροῦντας ἡμᾶς λέγειν κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηθός, καὶ οὐ φοβηθήσομαι, τί ποιήσει μοι ἄνθρωπος.

Both a (αὐτòς γάρ εἴρηκεν) and a´ (ὥστε θαρροῦντας ἡμᾶς λέγειν) introduce a scriptural warrant, consistent with the use of λέγειν elsewhere in Hebrews to introduce citations. As with the other citations, εἴρηκεν introduces the words of God; ὥστε θαρροῦντας ἡμᾶς λέγειν, however, introduces the response of the community. The first citation (a) does not conform to known LXX readings, but appears to be a composite of several LXX passages.44 The citation in Hebrews is also known to Philo (Conf. 166, cit. of Josh 1:5, οὐ μὴ σε ἀνῶ, οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπω). The second citation, introduced with θαρροῦντας ἡμᾶς λέγειν, recalls the author’s consistent references to the community’s boldness (παρρησία) in standing before God (cf. 3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35). Κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηθός, καὶ οὐ φοβηθήσομαι, τί ποιήσει μοι ἄνθρωπος, is from Ps 117 LXX.45 The citation is a motivation for the readers’ contentment, but also a resumption of a major theme in the letter. The author assures the readers that, because Jesus has been tested, he is able to help (βοηθῆσαι) those who are being tested (2:17). As a 43

Vanhoye, “La Question Litteraire de Hébreux,” 126. Cf. Gen 28:15, οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω; Deut 4:31, ὁ θεός σου, οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψει σε οὐδὲ μὴ ἐκτρίψει σε. Cf. Josh 1:5, ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε; Deut 31:6, κύριος ὁ θεός σου ὁ προπορευόμενος μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ. 45 Καί does not appear in the LXX, and at Heb 13:6 it is omitted by the original hand of ‫א‬, C, and some other witnesses. It appears in P46, A, D, and the second corrector of ‫א‬. The omission probably reflects the copyist’s attempt to maintain the exact wording of Ps 117:6 LXX. 44

Hellenistic Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–6

231

result, believers may now approach the throne of grace in order to find grace and help (βοήθειαν) in time of need (4:16). The citation, οὐ φοβηθήσομαι, also continues a theme in Hebrews. The death of Jesus reconciled those who live φόβῳ θανάτου (2:15). The parents of Moses hid the infant, and they “did not fear [οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν] the edict of the king” (11:23). Similarly, Moses left Egypt, not fearing [μὴ φοβηθείς] the wrath of the king (11:27). The expression of faith in the citation places the readers alongside the heroes of faith, who also trusted in the faithfulness of God. The author has assured the readers of the faithfulness of God. Jesus is the faithful high priest (2:17; 3:2), and God is faithful to his promises (6:12–20; 10:23), having guaranteed his word in the death of Jesus (cf. 7:22). Abraham, who shared the readers’ vulnerable status as an outsider in his own land, recognized the faithfulness of God (11:11).

Conclusion: The Appropriation of Hellenistic Ethics While the specific instructions in Heb 13:1–6 are common in early Christian paraenesis, the categories are also common in Hellenistic moral philosophy. Like chs. 1–12, Heb 13:1–6 employs terminology that is at home in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism. Like Philo and the authors of Wisdom and 4 Maccabees, the author adapts Hellenistic moral categories to the teachings of torah. The elegant style and language are consistent with the language of Hellenistic Judaism and with chs. 1–12. The parallels between the ethical instructions in 13:1–6 and the undisputed Pauline letters do not suggest a dependence on Paul, but a shared dependence on the summaries of the law in Hellenistic Judaism. The instructions in 13:1–6 are not randomly selected, but reflect the influence of the summaries of the law in the Diaspora. Parallels with Philo, which are common throughout the homily, are also present here in the identification of Abraham with φιλοξενία and the composite quotation in Heb 13:5. Associations with 4 Maccabees are evident in the emphasis on brotherly love, sexual morality, and the love of money. We may observe that 13:1–6 has the most parallels with the Pastoral Epistles, which are deeply indebted to Hellenistic moral philosophy. 46 The values of φιλοξενία, γάμος, (ἀ)φιλαργυρία, and contentment, which are shared by Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles, reflect their common appeal to the Greek moral tradition.

46

See Malherbe, “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed,” 377.

Chapter 13

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca Joseph R. Dodson * Scholars have often found value in comparing New Testament concepts with Stoicism in general and the thoughts of Seneca in particular. 1 While most of this work has focused on the Gospels or Paul’s epistles, 2 one recent work has * This chapter represents a modified version of a paper I presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature at King’s College London on July 6, 2011. I am grateful for the insights of those in attendance as well as the constructive criticism provided by the editors of this volume. I wrote this chapter before the publication of C. Kavin Rowe’s, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2016). For my response to Rowe, see “New Friends and Old Rivals in the Letters of Seneca and The Epistle to Diognetus,” PRSt 45 (2018): 389–405. 1 For a survey of scholars who have stressed similarities and differences between the New Testament and Stoicism, see Marcia L. Colish, “Stoicism and the New Testament: An Essay in Historiography,” ANRW 26.1:334–79. 2 E.g., several contributions to Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg, eds., Stoicism in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010); Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology & Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 8–207; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response,” HTR 101 (2008): 15–44; Peggy Vining, “Comparing Seneca’s Ethics in Epistulae Morales to Those of Paul in Romans,” ResQ 47 (2005): 83–104; Michelle V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (SNTSMS 137; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Philip F. Esler, “Paul and Stoicism: Romans 12 as a Test Case,” NTS 50 (2004): 106–24; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000); David A. deSilva, “Paul and the Stoa,” JETS 38 (1995): 549–64; S. Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung (FRLANT 147; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); F. Stanley Jones, “Freheit” in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus: Eine historische, exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie (GTA 34; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987); J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (NovTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961); Joseph R. Dodson, “The Transcendence of Death and Heavenly Ascent in the Apocalyptic Paul and the Stoics,” in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination (ed. Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2016), 157–76; and Joseph R. Dodson and David E. Briones, eds., Paul and Seneca in Dialogue (Ancient Philosophy & Religion 2; Leiden: Brill, 2017).

234

Joseph R. Dodson

demonstrated the benefit of comparing the Letter to the Hebrews with certain writings from Stoicism. In his monograph, Clayton Croy reveals strong affinities and striking parallels between Heb 12:5–11 and Seneca’s De Providentia. From his research, Croy infers that the author of Hebrews [henceforth: Hebrews] was “astute and in tune with the rhetorical, religious, and philosophical currents of his day,”3 especially the major stream of thought found in Stoicism.4 Croy goes on to conclude that Heb 12:5–11 is best understood – and even rightly interpreted – by comparing it to these intellectual currents. 5 Croy’s research leads to further questions. For instance, do such striking parallels between Hebrews and Stoicism stop in Heb 12, or do other remarkable similarities continue into the next chapter? Moreover, will any resemblances found reveal their differences more clearly so that one can understand Heb 13 better?6 If so, then how so? This chapter will seek to answer these questions. In light of Croy’s comparison of Heb 12 with De Providentia and of Seneca’s position as the most prolific professor of Stoicism, 7 my chapter will use Seneca’s writings to be representative of Roman Stoic thought. 8 In the following 3

Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12.1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context (SNTSMS 98; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 217. 4 See Niko Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus on Law (Library of New Testament Studies 405; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 3; Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 13; and Runar M. Thorsteinsson, “Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans,” in Stoicism in Early Christianity (ed. Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010), 15–38, esp. 19. 5 Cf. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy” in Stoicism in Early Christianity (ed. Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010), 1–14, esp. 12. 6 Cf. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences Between Paul and Stoicism,” ZNW 96 (2005): 35–60, esp. 37. 7 On Seneca as a Stoic, see Brad Inwood, Reading Seneca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 23–30; and John Sellars, Stoicism (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2006), 12. 8 A comparison of Hebrews with Seneca is relevant for at least two more reasons. (1) Hebrews and Seneca’s writings were composed around the same time period, the second half of the first century. (2) Furthermore, according to many commentators – although its destination cannot be known for sure – Hebrews was most plausibly written to an audience in Rome, the city where Seneca wrote and ruled. On the dating of Hebrews and on Rome as the likely destination, see Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989), 6–11; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 28–29; William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC; Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991), 1:lviii-lxvi; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), 49–54; Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

235

sections, I will (1) address methodological issues before (2) exploring pertinent ethical commands from selected passages in Seneca’s works and (3) summarizing the ethical commands found in Heb 13:1–8. I will then (4) compare the similarities and differences between the authors’ treatments. This chapter intends to demonstrate that a study of Stoic ethical instruction as typified in Seneca, although not the only useful background, 9 is indeed a good place to go to help scholars fill out the pithy imperatives found in Heb 13 so as to raise interpretative options and evince possible details either implied by the author or assumed by the audience.

Methodology Due to the dangers inherent in comparative studies of rival traditions and the abuse of such enterprises in the past, I will seek to avoid oversimplifying either author, overemphasizing the value of one to the detriment of the other, and ignoring the different functions in their respective works. 10 Further, instead of attempting to make apologetic assertions regarding the “uniqueness” of Christian theology or of arguing for the dependence of one author upon the other, I will highlight points of coherence and divergence circling around common ideas in the authors’ writings – namely, (1) mutual affection, (2) marriage, (3) contentment, and (4) imitation. 11 In this chapter, I will also consider differences of place, tradition, genre, and language, which can help the reader understand certain ideas surrounding the

Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007), 27–32; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 13–22; George H. Guthrie, Hebrews (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998), 19–23. Cf. James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 6–10; and Kevin B. McCruden, Solidarity Perfected: Beneficient Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (BZNW 159; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 122. On the dating and destination of Seneca’s letters, see Arnaldo Momigliano, “Seneca Between Political and Contemplative Life,” in Quarto Contributo Alla Storia Degli Studi Classici E Del Mondo Antico (1st ed.; Storia e letteratura 115; Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1950), 239–65, esp. 253. 9 See Lincoln D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 10 See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1977), 12–24; and Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 47, 118. 11 See Mikhail Baktin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist; trans. Vern W. McGee; Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1986), 162; and Smith, Drudgery Divine, 47, 118. Cf. the categories of “eclecticism,” “syncretism,” and “absorption” in Engberg-Pedersen, “Setting the Scene,” 6–10.

236

Joseph R. Dodson

ethics of Hebrews and Seneca. 12 These can also help provide the reader with an account of particular similarities while avoiding “parallelomania.” 13 At least two issues present difficulties to this comparison. First, Hebrews is written in Greek while Seneca wrote in Latin. 14 For this reason, while not ignoring the specific terms used by the authors, I will focus more on common themes.15 A second difficulty is that Hebrews provides a comparatively brief litany of commands at the end of a letter that fails to go into detail on these issues. Seneca, on the other hand, has written entire epistles that concentrate on some of these individual topics. Therefore, this chapter will seek to provide a representative sample of Seneca’s thoughts. It will focus on certain letters and occasional passages from the moral essays where either Seneca deals the most with the subject matter under discussion or when it is the rare occasion that he mentions the topic.16 Since Seneca wrote much more on some of these themes, the section on his writings will be longer than that on Heb 13:1–8. A comparison involves a third term that is often unstated. 17 The tacit party of this comparison is the wider Greco-Roman corpora of teachings on ethics. Although this investigation would be of greater value if it included writings by other Stoics as well as stock phrases disseminated by moral philosophers, space does not allow for that here.18 It must suffice for this chapter to acknowledge 12

“On ne saurait donc tenter de comprendre la pensée de Sénèque sans se référer à l’histoire de sa vie … Mais il convient aussi de ne pas oublier que cette étude biographique n’a pas sa fin en elle-même.” See Pierre Grimal, Sénèque (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979), 16. For details about the life, writings, and philosophy of Seneca, see Tacitus, Ann. 15.62; Pliny, Nat. 14.51; Quintilian, 10.1.126–131; James Romm, Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero (New York, N.Y.: Knopf, 2014); Robin Campbell, Seneca (London: Penguin, 2004), 7–28; and Moses Hadas, The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca (New York, N.Y.: Norton, 1968), 1–26. 13 Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Cf. Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, 18. 14 Cf. Inwood, Reading Seneca, 11–22; and Aldo Setaioli, “Modernità del pensiero del Seneca sul linguaggio e L‘espressione,” in Antikes Denken – Moderne Schule (ed. H. W. Schmidt and P. Wülfing; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1988), 236–43. 15 “The linguistic bearer of the theological statement is usually the sentence and the still larger literary complex and not the word or morphological and syntactical mechanisms.” See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 269. 16 In the interest of space, this chapter only explores Seneca’s epistles and moral essays. 17 See Smith, Drudgery Divine, 51, 99; David Frankfurter, “Comparison and the Study of Religions of Late Antiquity,” in Comparer en histoire des religions antiques (ed. Claude Calame and Bruce Lincoln; Paris: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2012), 83–98; and Bruce Lincoln, “Theses on Comparison,” in Comparer en histoire des religions antiques (ed. Claude Calame and Bruce Lincoln; Paris: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2012), 99–110, esp. 99. 18 Cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays, 1959–2012 by Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. Carl R. Holladay,

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

237

that Hebrews and Seneca shared in a diversity of viewpoints so that any similarities between the two authors might have been commonplace and any differences may be somewhat ameliorated if other first century philosophers were included in the discussion.19

Ethics in Seneca (1) Mutual Affection: When Seneca writes on mutual affection, he discusses it chiefly in terms of amicitia and amor.20 For the Stoic, solidarity and selfsacrifice comprise the two main ingredients of friendship and love. In Ep. 9, he discusses authentic amicitiam and does so in relation to prisoners, the sick, and outcasts. While explaining why a wise person should seek such amicable love, Seneca places the stress not on receiving love but on demonstrating it. He thereby rejects the Epicurean notion of seeking a friend “because of what a friend can do for you.”21 In contrast, the wise man does not seek a companion in order “that there may be someone to sit by him when he is ill, to help him when he is in prison or in need” (Ep. 9.8). Rather he seeks a friend in order that “he may have someone by whose sickbed he himself may sit, someone a prisoner in hostile hands whom he himself may set free.”22 Seneca declares: He who regards himself only, and enters upon friendship for this reason, reckons wrongly. [In this case], the end [of the friendship] will be like the beginning: he has made friends with one who might assist him out of bondage; at the first rattle of the chain such a friend will desert him. (Ep. 9.8–9)

Companionship, then, is to be sought for its inherent value – not for selfish benefits. For what purpose, then, do I make a man my friend? [I do so] in order to have someone for whom I may die, whom I may follow into exile, against whose death I may stake my own life,

John T. Fitzgerald, Gregory E. Sterling, and James W. Thompson; 2 vols.; NovTSup 150; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 2:687–88. 19 Malherbe, Light from the Gentiles, 2:687. 20 Cf. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 158–61. 21 For more on the contrast between the Epicurean concept of friendship with the Stoic one, see M. Andrew Holowchak, The Stoics (London: Continuum, 2008), 95–96. 22 All translations of Seneca are from the Loeb Classical Library edition. The Epistles are translated by Richard M. Gummere et al. (10 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917–2004); and the Moral Essays by John W. Basore et. al. (3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928–1935).

238

Joseph R. Dodson

and pay the pledge as well. (9.10)

Seneca also discusses mutual affection in Ep. 3.2–3. There, he bemoans that people have many “friends,” but know not friendship. 23 Genuine amity is the ability to trust the person just as one trusts oneself, to be able to share the whole of one’s worries and the entirety of one’s thoughts. 24 This entails admitting a friend into one’s life with all of one’s heart and soul. Thus, one should speak as boldly with the friend as one talks to oneself. The rapport should be so great that one ponders: “Why would I ever keep back any words in the presence of my friend? Should I not regard myself as alone when in his company?” (Ep. 3.3). To be sure, so close is their bond that when the person is with his friend, he is all by himself. Solidarity and self-sacrifice sound as the keynotes for mutual affection in Seneca’s other letters as well. In Ep. 48.2 he declares: “I am not your friend unless whatever concerns you concerns me too.” Friends share everything, especially their troubles.25 The Stoic explains that philosophy exists to advise one how to help others. “No one can live happily who has regard to himself alone … you must live for your friend, if you would live for yourself” (Ep. 48.3). But as we saw above in Ep. 9.10, to live for a friend means a willingness to die for a friend. “Hope, fear, and self-interest cannot sever this bond”; genuine friendship is that “in which and for the sake of which men meet death” (Ep. 6.2–3). In Ira 1.5.2–3, Seneca refers to meeting the needs of strangers as he places rage in juxtaposition to love. Man is born for mutual help; anger for mutual destruction. The one desires union, the other disunion; the one to help, the other to harm; one would succour even strangers [hic etiam ignotis succurrere], the other attack its best beloved; the one is ready even to expend himself for the good of others, the other to plunge into peril only if it can drag others along … Human life is founded on kindness and concord, and is bound into an alliance for common help, not by terror, but by mutual love. 26

23

Cf. Ep. 6.3. Cf. Seneca, Ira 2.23.2–3. 25 See also Ep. 63. 26 Emphasis mine. 24

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

239

For the Stoic, then, taking care of strangers exemplifies the mutual love essential to human nature.27 People are naturally born to love all people (Ep. 102.18). They exist as “parts of one great body” (Ep. 95.52). They are stones making up an arch, which without shared support is doomed to collapse (Ep. 95.53).28 (2) Marriage: Although Seneca does not treat marriage in detail in his epistles or essays, he does make some comments regarding adultery and divorce. In Const. 7.4, for instance, as Seneca explains how a person can become a wrongdoer without doing wrong, he writes: “If a man lies with his wife as if she were another man’s wife, he will be an adulterer.” In other words, according to the Stoic, a husband commits adultery when he fantasizes about another man’s wife while having intercourse with his own. 29 Such a thought goes beyond the definition of adultery in Roman law and probably pushes beyond the prevailing expectations of the day. 30 Seneca also mentions adultery in Ep. 94 as he deals with the importance of having precepts ready at hand rather than stagnantly placed in storage.31 His illustration opposes a glaring double standard: You know that a man does wrong in requiring chastity of his wife while he himself is intriguing the wives of other men; you know that, as your wife should have no dealings with a lover, neither should you yourself with a mistress; and yet you do not act accordingly. (Ep. 94.26)32

Seneca seems to assume here that, despite knowing better, some of the men in his audience are committing adultery. This is likely a safe bet since adultery was a common offense in Rome.33 Yet, Seneca cuts against the grain by holding an equal standard for husbands and wives. In addition to adultery, Seneca presents divorce as another threat to marriage. In Ben. 3.16.1–3, Seneca deplores the disgrace of marriage due to rampant divorce. In his discussion of how shameful actions become acceptable when they become common, he points to how even women have exchanged their marriages for divorces and traded their husbands for paramours. 27

Cf. Vit. beat. 24.3. Cf. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 28. 29 Cf. Horace, Odes 3:6. 30 E.g., Plutarch seems to consider the philandering of husbands unavoidable and therefore advises brides to turn a blind eye to such minor indiscretions (Mor. 140b, 144f). For a survey of Roman attitudes toward and laws for adultery, see Amy Richlin, “Approaches to the Sources on Adultery at Rome,” in Reflections of Women in Antiquity (ed. Helene P. Foley; New York, N.Y.: Gordon and Breach, 1992), 379–404; and Moyer V. Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010), 185. 31 See Ilsetraut Hadot, Seneca (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 8–9. 32 Cf. Ep. 94.3 and 94.15. 33 See Richlin, “Approaches,” 379–404. 28

240

Joseph R. Dodson

Is there any woman that blushes at divorce? Noble ladies reckon their years, not by number of consuls, but by the number of their husbands, [they] leave home in order to marry and marry in order to be divorced … They shrank from this scandal as long as it was rare; [but] now, since every gazette has a divorce case, they have learned to do what they used to hear so much about. Is there any shame at all for adultery now that matters have come to such a pass that no woman has any use for a husband except to inflame her paramour? (Ben. 3.16.2)

The Stoic goes on to quip that divorce was so pervasive, the only women who honored marriage were those who were too homely to find a lover or those too naive to know any better. “Chastity is simply a proof of ugliness … She is simple and behind the times who is not aware that living with one paramour is called “marriage” (Ben. 3.16.3)! Whereas Seneca addresses husbands in the previous passages discussed, here he focuses on how women seek affairs and divorces. In all of the passages considered, however, Seneca concentrates on adultery while remaining silent on other extramarital sexual licenses that Romans considered legitimate. (3) Contentment and Greed: Seneca often wrote about contentment. To be sure, there are few things he despised more than greed. 34 In his telling of the fall of humanity, all was well with the world until avarice stole in and transferred utopias into tyrannies. “The fellowship of man remained unspoiled until greed tore the community asunder” and became the cause of poverty (Ep. 90.3). Humanity had previously possessed everything because they shared in everything. Nevertheless, people ceased to possess all things the very moment individuals began to desire these things for their own. Conversely, the content person is never destitute: “It is not the man who has too little who is poor, but the one who craves more” (Ep. 2.6). Therefore, rather than having much, people should simply seek to have enough – for “enough is never too little” (Ep. 119.5–6). Elsewhere, Seneca proclaims that just as a golden bit does not make a better horse, neither do riches make a better man (Ep. 41.6). Therefore, rather than boasting in possessing comely slaves, a beautiful house, a large farm and a great income, a person should be praised for what is within – namely, the soul. For by the animus, Seneca reasons: “God is

34

Cf. Grimal, Sénèque, 18–20; and George Stock, Guide to Stoicism (Lexington: Aeterna, 2011), 17–20.

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

241

near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: 35 a holy spirit indwells within us [sacer intra nos spiritus sedet]” (Ep. 41.1). To affirm this truth, Seneca quotes Virgil. In every good person: “A God doth dwell, but what God know we not” (Ep. 41.2).36 In fact, according to the Stoic, the only way a person can stand upright is to be propped up by this divine power, which has descended upon the person and stirred her soul (Ep. 41.5).37 This appeal to the value of the animus as an attack on greed also appears in Ep. 8. “Despise everything that useless toil creates as an ornament and an object of beauty” (Ep. 8.5). Rather, Seneca continues, “reflect that nothing except the soul is worthy of wonder; for to the soul, if it be great, naught is great” (Ep. 8.5). The problem with most people, the Stoic bewails, is that they have forced their souls to become slaves to greed. Therefore, their souls are discontent with the good things that God, the father of us all, placed immediately at our hands (Ep. 110.10). Nonetheless, the Stoic offers the cure for this malady: “to see clearly for yourself what is necessary and what is superfluous,” and then learn to be content with the former and disinterested in the latter (Ep. 110.11, 18). (4) Imitation: Imitation is another major theme in Seneca’s works. For instance, he argues in Ep. 25.5 that “it is good for one to have appointed a guardian over oneself, and to have someone whom you may look up to, someone whom you may regard as a witness of your thoughts.”38 In Ep. 11, Seneca goes into more detail regarding the importance of remembering and imitating great people. Since “we can get rid of most sins, if we have a witness who stands near us when we are likely to go wrong,” we should set our thoughts on a person who can make us better – not only while that person is in our company, but even when that person is merely in our thoughts (Ep. 11.9). He quotes Epicurus to support his argument. 39 “Cherish some man of high character, and keep him ever before your eyes, living as if he were watching you, and ordering all your actions as if he beheld them” (Ep. 11.8–9). Seneca concludes with this imperative:

35 These letters to Lucilius do not constitute a genuine correspondence. See Miriam Griffin, “Philosophy for Statesmen: Cicero and Seneca,” in Antikes Denken–Moderne Schule (ed. H. W. Schmidt and P. Wülfing; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1988), 133–50. 36 Cf. Ep. 31.11: “Quid aliud voces hunc quam deum in corpore humano hospitantem?” 37 Cf. Bardo Maria Gauly, Senecas Naturales Quaestiones (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2004), 265; Aldo Setaioli, “Physics III: Theology,” in Brill’s Companion to Seneca (ed. Gregor Damschen and Andreas Heil; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 379–95; and Holowchak, The Stoics, 20–21. 38 See also Ep. 62 and Ep. 52.8. 39 On Seneca’s practice of borrowing from other schools, see John G. Fitch, ed., Seneca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 9.

242

Joseph R. Dodson

Choose therefore a Cato.40 … Choose a master whose life, conversation, and soul-expressing face have satisfied you; picture him always to yourself as your protector or pattern. For we must have someone according to whom we may regulate our characters; you can never straighten that which is crooked unless you use a ruler. (Ep. 11.10)

In sum, Seneca uses prisoners, the sick, and outcasts to illustrate the solidarity and self-sacrifice required for mutual affection. Further, for him, true friendship involves sharing all one’s troubles and concerns, even a willingness to die for them. On a larger scale, all people exist as parts of one great body. Humans were born to support other humans, including strangers. Seneca also believes that people should honor marriage. On the one hand, a husband should not fantasize about his neighbor’s wife during intercourse nor play the philanderer while expecting his wife to remain chaste. On the other hand, Seneca bemoans how Roman wives have sullied society by a spate of paramours and divorces. What is more, greed has also corrupted the community. Since the sparkle of superfluous things grows dim in light of the soul, his audience should be content with little because they know that through the soul God dwells within them. Finally, the Stoic urges his audience to remember and imitate great people who overcame their passions. They should imagine these masters as ever with them, especially in the face of temptation. Having discussed these topics in Seneca, we are ready to summarize Heb 13:1–8 and raise some preliminary questions with respect to what we have learned so far.

Ethics in Hebrews 13:1–8 Hebrews 13:1–8 contains six topics of exhortation – each of which, except for the first command, is followed by a qualification or explanation. 41 The author admonishes his audience to exhibit brotherly love on the one hand and a love for strangers on the other (i.e., to practice hospitality). 42 Moreover, the church

40

“Whereas Seneca certainly considered Socrates a true sage (e.g. Ben. 5.6), the prime example of the sapiens in his eyes was the Romans statesman Cato the Younger.” See Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 151 n. 70. Cf. Sellars, Stoicism, 39–40. 41 Cf. Albert Vanhoye, “La Question Littéraire de Hébreux XIII.1-6,” NTS 23 (1977): 121–39; Koester, Hebrews, 554–57. 42 The author of Hebrews transitions from φιλαδελφία to φιλοξενίας. “Bruderliebe und Gastfreundshaft gehören zusammen: die Bruderliebe verbindet die Glieder der einzelnen Gemeinde miteinander, die Gastfreundschaft schliesst die Christenheit als Ganzes zusammen.” See Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (8th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949), 329.

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

243

is to remember persecuted believers, to honor marriage, to avoid greed, and to imitate its leaders.43 (1) Mutual Affection: The first three groups of commands deal with mutual affection – namely, loving one another, showing hospitality to strangers, and remembering persecuted believers. Since the command to express brotherly love is the only imperative without qualification in this litany, the following commands serve to qualify v. 1. As Gerd Schunack puts it: “Die folgenden Mahnungen sind exemplarische Konkretionen der Bruderliebe.”44 In v. 2, Hebrews gives the audience a reason to practice φιλοξενία, namely the possibility of entertaining angels unaware. 45 In v. 3, the author also provides a qualification for remembering prisoners and persecuted believers (κακουχουμένων) as though they shared in their chains and possessed the same body. 46 But what does “remember prisoners” mean? Craig Koester argues that by μιμνῄσκεσθε, Hebrews asks the listeners “to think of what prison is like and to act accordingly,” such as providing food for inmates (even if it meant having to bribe the guards).47 George Guthrie provides another option: the author intends believers to keep their imprisoned friends constantly in mind as if they were right there looking at them … “as if every blow they receive puts a strip across your own back.”48 Is it possible, however, that Hebrews meant more than simply feeding prisoners and keeping them in one’s thoughts? Another question that comes to mind is the identity of the κακουχουμένων. The verb κακουχέω refers to broad suffering or maltreatment: “[A]lle möglichen Leiden, die dem Menschen von aussen zustossen, ihm von 43

Spicq simplifies these commands down to three warnings. “Dans ces quelques versets l’auteur met en garde les chrétiens contre les trois concupiscences: la amour égoïste de soi (cf. hospitalité, dévouement aux prisonniers), la luxure, l’amour désordonné des richesses.” See Ceslas L. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 2:418–19. 44 See Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2:416–17: “L’hospitalité est l’une des expressions les plus caractéristiques de l’amour fraternel, un acte de miséricorde … Autre expression de la charité fraternelle, plus coûteuse et qui demande davantage d’initiative: la visite et le secours des prisonniers.” See also Gerd Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief (Zücher Bibelkommentar NT; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2002), 220; Harald Hegermann, Der Brief an die Hebräer (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1988), 268; and Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer (3 vols.; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1990–1997), 3:348. 45 Cf. Gen 18–19; Tob 5; and Ovid, Metam. 8.626. 46 Michel writes, “μιμνῄσκεσθε verlangt wohl eine bestimmte Fürsorge und Hilf, ist also mehr als ein geistiger Akt” (Der Brief an die Hebräer, 330). See also Grässer, An die Hebräer, 3:352. Cf. Thompson, Hebrews, 278; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 487; and James Moffatt, Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 226. 47 Koester, Hebrews, 558, 564. 48 Guthrie, Hebrews, 436.

244

Joseph R. Dodson

Menschen oder von einem widrigen Geschick angetan werden.”49 Most commentators simply leave the definition as general or consider the κακουχουμένων a synonym for prisoners.50 But can we be more specific? Some scholars have sought to be. For instance, William Lane reads the lists of afflictions from Heb 11:36–37 (e.g., mocking, scourging, stoning) into the κακουχουμένων.51 James Moffatt, however, goes beyond Hebrews and draws upon Philo’s use of the word κακουχέω to suggest Hebrews refers to “exile, famine and plague.”52 (2) Marriage: Next, Hebrews insists that all the believers honor marriage and not defile the marriage bed (ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος). The author threatens that God will judge such promiscuous people. Although this is the only time Hebrews discusses marriage, he had previously warned against sexual immorality (12:16–17).53 With the mention of both πόρνος and μοιχός in v. 4, Hebrews “covers the gamut of illicit sexual behavior.”54 According to Koester, the command for all people to honor the sacred union “tacitly recognizes the importance of social support for marriage, since fidelity in marriage is more difficult if marriage is not valued in the community.” 55 Although Hebrews does not explain in detail what actually defiles the nuptial bed, most commentators conclude that this statement refers simply to extramarital affairs. 56 Again, is it possible to fill in more details regarding what the author or the audience might have had in mind with respect to these commands? (3) Contentment: In the pursuing verses, Hebrews commands the church to avoid greed and to embrace contentment. The author founds this on the promise of God being with his people as an ever-present help and faithful protector (vv. 5–6). To state these promises, the author cites passages from Deuteronomy and Psalms. Οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδʼ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω (v. 5); Κύριος ἐμοὶ βοηθός, [καὶ] οὐ φοβηθήσομαι, τί ποιήσει μοι ἄνθρωπος (v. 6). Although these OT passages concern God’s presence in overcoming Israel’s enemies, Hebrews reapplies the passages to assure the church of divine provision.57 It has been suggested that the use of the term ἀφιλάργυρος signifies that the Christians were 49

Hegermann, Der Brief, 268. Hegermann goes on to specify, “[A]lso nicht so sehr Krankheitsnot, sondern Gefängnis, Hunger, Misshandlungen, das Elend bitterer Armut u.ä.” He does not, however, state why he excludes sickness. 50 E.g., Koester, Hebrews, 558. Michel (Hebräer, 330) translates it as “plagen, quälen.” 51 Lane, Hebrews, 2:515. 52 Moffatt, Hebrews, 226. 53 See George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AB; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982), 231. 54 Guthrie, Hebrews, 437. 55 Koester, Hebrews, 565. 56 Leon Morris argues that Hebrews also confronts the ascetic rejection of sex; see his Hebrews (BSC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 128. 57 Buchanan, Hebrews, 232.

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

245

“from comfortable social strata.”58 Another question that arises regards God’s presence with his people. Does Hebrews consider God’s presence with his people as the divine Spirit dwelling in each of them? (4) Imitation: The author then goes on to encourage the congregation to remember its leaders,59 to imitate their faith, and to consider the outcome of their life (ἔκβασις). Based on the common use of ἔκβασις as a euphemism for death, scholars tend to agree that Hebrews refers to those standard-bearers who had lived faithful lives and had previously passed away, 60 possibly even as martyrs.61 The phrase in v. 8, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐχθὲς καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτός, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, has no syntactical connection with v. 7 or v. 9. Consequently, commentators struggle to find the relation of this proclamation about Christ with the other verses in the passage. 62 The attempts of scholars to make sense of this statement can be organized around four chief interpretations. First, some propose that v. 8 stresses that the teachings of the leaders endure beyond their lives. That is to say, “Although the preachers change, the preaching must remain the same.”63 In other words, “In allem Wechsel der Generationen trotz alles Sterbens der Vorsteher steht der Inhalt der Lehre und Verkündigung fest.”64 Second, rather than the enduring character of the teachings, others consider this verse as underlining the object of faith the enduring character of Christ.65 For instance, Ceslas Spicq believes this verse underscores Jesus as the leaders’ source of life and teaching. 66 Additionally, v. 8 assures the believers that even if “les hommes disparaissent, le Christ demeure.”67

58

Attridge, Hebrews, 388. Cf. Buchanan, Hebrews, 231–32. On the relationship between leaders here and other offices of ministry in the New Testament, see Grelot, L‘épître aux Hébreux, 132–33; Michel, An die Hebräer, 334–35; and Grässer, An die Hebräer, 367–68. 60 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 392; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 704; Hegermann, Der Brief, 272; Thompson, Hebrews, 280; Witherington, Letters, 357–58; Lane, Hebrews, 527; deSilva, Perseverance, 494; and Morris, Hebrews, 129. Cf. Grässer, An die Hebräer, 367. 61 See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 702. Cf. Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief, 223–24. 62 See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 704; and Buchanan, Hebrews, 233. 63 Lane, Hebrews, 528. 64 Michel, An die Hebräer, 336. 65 E.g., Morris, Hebrews, 129; deSilva, Perseverance, 494–95; Koester, Hebrews, 560. 66 I.e., “Jésus-Christ était l’objet central de la prédication des higoumènes et la source de leur sainteté de vie.” See Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2:422. See also Hegermann, Der Brief, 272. 67 Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 422. See also Grelot, L’épître aux Hébreux, 133. Cf. Guthrie, Hebrews, 439; and Thompson, Hebrews, 281. 59

246

Joseph R. Dodson

Third, others conclude that v. 8 serves as a thematic transition between the preceding verses and the following ones. 68 For example, Robert Jewett argues that the phrase is a confessional formula. It is the “word of God” which the leaders spoke to the church and that which stands in contrast to the strange teachings the author mentions in v. 9.69 Although not as prevalent as these other interpretations, a few scholars suggest a fourth view. This verse points to Jesus as the supreme model to follow. For instance, Ben Witherington states, “Following hard on the heels of the exhortation to ‘imitate your leaders’ faith,’ the author naturally thinks of the supreme model for Christian faith, Jesus himself.”70 Similarly, Gerd Schunack states: “So ist Jesus im vollendeten Tun des Willens Gottes der Anführer und Vollender des Glaubens und in dieser Weise der Grund der Gottes- und Heilsgewissheit. Deshalb ist nun im Übergang zu v. 8 nicht unvermittelt, sondern geradezu notwendig von Jesus die Rede.”71 With these interpretative options in mind, perhaps a comparison with Seneca’s ethical instruction can lend support to which notion was implied by the author or assumed by the audience. In sum, Hebrews calls the church to express mutual affection such as brotherly love, hospitality, and remembering those who are persecuted and in prison. The author also commands the believers to honor marriage and to keep the nuptial bed pure. The author then uses the promises of God as a protector and provider as reasons to remain content. Finally, Hebrews urges his audience to remember and imitate their leaders. In the survey, a number of interpretive questions arose. For instance, what exactly did the author mean by “remember,” by “the persecuted,” and by “keep the marriage bed pure”? And with respect to his teaching on contentment, how exactly does the author consider God’s presence to be with the believers? Further, how does v. 8 relate to the surrounding verses, especially to theme of imitation? Now that we have looked at these topics in Seneca and Hebrews, we are in a position to compare them and begin to attempt to answer some of the questions already raised.

68 Grässer, An die Hebräer, 370; Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952), 2:379; Johnson, Hebrews, 346; and Moffatt, Hebrews, 232. 69 Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York, N.Y.: Pilgrim, 1981), 233. See also Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief, 225. Attridge combines the latter two options: “While previous leaders have departed, the ultimate source of their faith remains forever, while many strange teachings may be afoot, Christ is ever the same” (Hebrews, 392). 70 Witherington, Letters, 359. See also Morris, Hebrews, 129. Some scholars mention the similarity of v. 7 with the call to gaze on Christ in Heb 12:2 but do not extend this inference to v. 8 (e.g., Johnson, Hebrews, 345–46). 71 Cf. Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief, 224.

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

247

Points of Convergence and Divergence (1) Mutual Affection: Both Heb 13:1–3 and Seneca’s comments on amicable love stress mutual affection and illustrate it in terms of prisoners. 72 Rather than appealing to caritas fraternitatis, however, Seneca appeals more broadly to the love between true friends. The difference here is likely due more to the difference in language than to any major semantic nuance. Even so, the distance is not great since fraternal love was considered a category under friendship. 73 Nevertheless, for Hebrews, the concept of siblings better suits the notion that believers now belong to the household of God (Heb 3:6) 74 and falls in line with the common Christian paraenesis of the day.75 Seneca’s choice of friendship, on the other hand, reflects his desire to correct Epicurus’ teaching on the matter and falls in line with much of what Aristotle teaches on the subject. 76 Although Seneca does not specifically refer to practicing hospitality as does Heb 13, Hebrews does not explicitly mention caring for the sick or exiles as does Seneca. It would be just as wrong, however, to assume that Seneca was disinterested in hospitality as it would be to assume Hebrews disregarded taking care of the sick and sympathizing with those who were exiled. Nonetheless, their examples reveal the concerns most pressing on their minds. The need for hospitality as well as a concern about prison and persecution were important for Hebrews, since some of the congregation had faced these things in the past and were beginning to encounter them again. 77 Prison, exile, and execution were real and present dangers for Seneca. His own life demonstrates how easily the ire of an emperor could cause one to face all of these sentences. Furthermore, neither Hebrews nor Seneca mentions the source of persecution. This omission may be a matter of prudence, especially if Caesar was that source. 78 Since Seneca places prisoners, sick people, and exiles in the same context, perhaps this is more reason to suspect that when Hebrews mentions the κακουχουμένων, he also means those who are sick and exiled (or that the audience might have understood it this way). 79 That κακουχουμένων includes a

72 See Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 163; Cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, 226, regarding the parallel between Heb 13:3 and Ep. 9. 73 See Aristotle, Eth. nic. 8.12.3. Cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 486. 74 Cf. Heb 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22. 75 Attridge, Hebrews, 384–85. See also Witherington, Hebrews, 353; deSilva, Perseverance, 485. 76 See Aristotle, Eth. nic. 8.3. 77 Cf. 10:34. See Pierre Grelot, Une lecture de l’épître aux Hébreux (Lire la Bible; Paris: Cerf, 2003), 131; and Koester, Hebrews, 564. 78 See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 696. Cf. Jason A. Whitlark, Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of Letter to “the Hebrews” (LSNT 484; London: Bloomsbury, 2014). 79 See Moffatt, Hebrews, 226.

248

Joseph R. Dodson

reference to the sick is even more likely since prisoners were often known to contract illness due to incarceration. 80 Furthermore, Hebrews points to unity as the reason to express love (as if one were in chains, as if one belonged to the same body). In comparison, Seneca uses unity to define friendship (when one is with a true friend it is as if one were alone). Hebrews and Seneca both mention people sharing the same body. Seneca’s reference to all people as parts of one great body raises another question. In contrast to the Stoic, does Hebrews limit the body metaphor to the church and Christian inmates? This is likely the case, which means Hebrews stresses the solidarity in a specific group of people, while Seneca focuses both on the affection between two people as well as the unity of all humankind.81 For Hebrews, the fraternal bond calls one to remember the prisoners. Seneca, however, goes further than the taking care of the needs of the disenfranchised. Genuine love means a willingness to “suffer with” and “die for” them. 82 Perhaps also, then, Hebrews or the audience understood “remember” to imply more than merely “think of” or “provide for” the inmates. In a situation increasingly hostile to Christianity, to remember prisoners was to associate with them and to associate with them placed one in danger of literally sharing their chains – or worse.83 Although Seneca does not refer specifically to hospitium, he does refer to taking care of the needs of strangers in general (ignotis succurrere). Whereas Hebrews bases the command to love strangers on the possibility of entertaining angels, Seneca appeals to the essence of natural philanthropy. The Stoic uses the example of succoring strangers to stand in contrast to destructive anger, which is a violation against human nature. 84 Therefore, while Hebrews provides a possible supernatural reward for practicing hospitality, Seneca appeals to anthropological expectations. (2) Adultery: The topic of adultery was an important subject in the Roman world.85 Therefore, it is unsurprising that, although neither author spends much time on the topic of marriage, they still make room to lambaste adulterers. While doing so, both authors focus more on the sexual aspect of marriage than they do the legal or relational ones.86 Whereas Hebrews warns sinners of the judgment of God,87 Seneca does not tend to use divine retribution as a motivation to avoid sin. 88 Rather, in Const. 7.4, Seneca is more interested in defining 80

Cf. Lucian, Tox. 29, 32. Cf. Hubbard, Christianity, 136–38. Cf. Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 27–34. 82 Cf. Philo, Spec. 3.161. 83 Cf. Buchanan, Hebrews, 230; and Koester, Hebrews, 564. 84 Cf. Stock, Stoicism, 5, 36. 85 Richlin, “Approaches,” 397. 86 Cf. Johnson, Hebrews, 341. 87 This of course was the author’s custom throughout Hebrews. 88 See, however, Seneca, Nat. III, 30.5–8. Cf. Epictetus’ warnings in Diatr. 3.1.37. 81

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

249

the sin than in preaching against it. And in Ep. 94, the Stoic is more concerned with rehearsing principles and opposing a double standard than he is with launching a full attack on adultery. Similarly, Seneca uses divorce and adultery among women to illustrate another point (i.e., how immorality permeates society). Nevertheless, the Stoic’s vitriolic criticisms of those who disregard marriage are telling. Whereas Hebrews does not explain what is meant by “defile the marriagebed,” Seneca goes into more detail and beyond the letter of Roman law. Adultery includes imagining oneself with someone else’s wife while having intercourse with one’s own spouse. Perhaps Seneca’s exile due to his alleged violation of committing adultery (with the emperor’s sister nonetheless!) influenced this stringent standard. Placing Hebrews and Seneca’s writings side by side raises a few more questions. Scholars rarely try to narrow down what Hebrews might have had in mind with ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος. Is this notion about sexual fantasy in Seneca’s writing something Hebrews or the audience would have (1) assumed in the command, (2) rejected as too rigorous a definition, or (3) not even considered?89 Further, Seneca uses divorce as an example of those who fail to honor marriage. Again then, when Hebrews refers to honoring marriage, does he also include a tacit admonishment to avoid divorce? Since Seneca also addresses rampant adultery on behalf of Roman women, does Hebrews include women in his use of the masculine nouns πόρνος and μοιχός? If so, is the command equally stressed between both genders or is it leveled more towards men? Finally, Seneca seems to take for granted that some from his audience were guilty of such accusations. Does Hebrews share this suspicion? 90 (3) Greed: Hebrews and Seneca also warn against greed and call their audiences to pursue contentment. 91 Moreover, both found these arguments on the presence of God and appeal to an outside authority (citing passages from the LXX and Virgil, respectively). 92 Whereas Seneca’s quote of Virgil implies that he does not know who this God is that dwells within them, Hebrews has spent 89

The question can also be turned around on Seneca. In his definition of adultery, does Seneca include the common sexual liaisons with slaves, younger boys, or lower class women that Hebrews likely denounces with his term πόρνος? 90 Due to the prevalence of sexual sin in the pagan world and even early churches, it might be naïve for Hebrews to assume the audience did not have a problem of promiscuity. Cf. Johnson, Hebrews, 342. 91 It has already been noted that the Stoics generally sought contentment for the sake of self-sufficiency while Hebrews calls the audience to do so for the sake of serving others and for a future reward (Heb 10:35; 11:26); see Koester, Hebrews, 559. But in Seneca, the sage also seeks self-sufficiency for the sake of others (e.g., Ep. 62). 92 Therefore, both Seneca and Hebrews have a religious motivation. One should not wrongly assume, then, that the former lacked a theological basis in comparison with the latter. See Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 140–41.

250

Joseph R. Dodson

much of the previous twelve chapters detailing God’s presence with his people through Jesus Christ. Hebrews 13 provides two reasons why believers should be content: the presence and providence of God. Seneca’s solution to greed also includes a proper understanding of provision from God, the father of all who provides sufficiently for all. Moreover, Seneca underscores the utter insignificance of earthly possessions compared to the infinite value of God’s spirit and the human soul. Whereas the promise of God’s presence in Hebrews is directed towards Christ followers, Seneca posits that all people have God within them (for all people have a soul). 93 In short, Hebrews accentuates God’s presence with the believers, and Seneca underlines God’s presence in all peoples. This raises yet another question: why does Hebrews fail to mention the indwelling of the Spirit?94 In Hebrews, the Spirit speaks, testifies, and demonstrates. 95 But it is not said to indwell. In addition to this, the audience can receive a gift from the Spirit, insult the Spirit, and partake in the Spirit.96 Nevertheless, there is little to no mention of the divine indwelling theme so prevalent in Paul’s letters. 97 (4) Imitation: Both Hebrews and Seneca underline the importance of considering great people and imitating their lives. Hebrews, however, wants his audience to do so in order that they may imitate the faithfulness of the leaders until death, while Seneca desires his audience to do so in order that they may avoid sin. Surely the admonition to imitate faithfulness in Hebrews includes avoiding sin. Seneca would also agree with the application in Hebrews, especially since at his execution, Seneca held out his own resolve in the face of death as something to be imitated. 98 Placing the topic of imitation in Hebrews and Seneca side by side gives more weight to Witherington and Schunack’s interpretation for Heb 13:8. Just as Seneca provides the name of a master to imitate (i.e., Cato), this phrase in v. 8 could primarily hold Christ up as a leader whose pattern of faithful endurance unto death should be considered and followed. Not only would this

93

For more on this see Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 19–22. Cf. Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 51. 95 See Heb 3:7; 9:8; 10:15. 96 See Heb 2:4; 6:4; 10:29. See David M. Allen, “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51–66. 97 Cf. David M. Allen, “The Holy Spirit as Gift or Giver? Retaining the Pentecostal Dimension of Hebrews 2.4,” BT 59.3 (2008): 151–58. Allen argues that Heb 2:4 refers to God distributing the Spirit to each person. Even if this is the case, the stress of God’s indwelling Spirit exemplified in Paul and Seneca is lacking in Hebrews. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 67–68. 98 Hebrews refers both to former teachers who had passed away and later goes on to refer to the current church leaders as well (Heb 13:17). Seneca, however, only mentions focusing on great masters – such as Cato, Laelius, Epicurus, and Scipio – who have already passed away. In this regard, Seneca’s instructions relate more to Heb 13:5–8 than to Heb 13:17. 94

Ethical Exhortations in Hebrews 13 and the Writings of Seneca

251

interpretation fall in line with Seneca’s treatment of imitation, it would also follow the pattern of Heb 11–12 which culminates with the command to fix one’s eyes on Jesus (Heb 12:2).

Conclusion This chapter has demonstrated that the striking parallels between Hebrews and Stoicism do not stop in Heb 12. Rather, a number of remarkable similarities continue into the next chapter even though these have tended not to be noticed by scholars. Consequently, it has attempted to show that a study of Stoic ethical instruction as typified in Seneca can help fill out the pithy imperatives found in Heb 13:1–8 by raising interpretative options and puzzling questions as well as evincing possible details implied by the author or assumed by the audience. It is difficult to discern all of the details Hebrews implied in his ethics and the degree to which they echo those in Stoicism. Nevertheless, since Roman Stoicism was the “philosophical koinē of the first century,”99 Troels EngbergPedersen concludes that if a “Christian writer felt the need to articulate and buttress his own message in philosophical terms … it would be … natural [for that author] to look to Stoicism as the best vehicle” for such an enterprise.100 If this is the case with the author of Hebrews, one cannot be sure of the extent Hebrews sincerely agrees with the Stoic teachings surrounding the resonances or how much the coherence represents Stoic influence on Jewish thought in general. 101 As regards the audience of Hebrews, given the popularity of Roman Stoicism and the similarities of its ethics with those in Heb 13:1–8, perhaps the question should not be whether these Christians have used Stoic ethics as a template for interpreting Heb 13:1–8, but rather, how could they have not have done so?102 Of course people in the audience likely responded differently to the miscellaneous exhortations in Heb 13. Some may have not recognized any coherence with Stoic teaching and therefore considered the ethics of Heb 13 as exclusive to the followers of Christ. Others, however, might have been 99

Huttunen, Paul and Epictetus, 3. Engberg-Pedersen, “Setting the Scene,” 12. 101 E.g., the use of Stoic ideas and terminology in the Wisdom of Solomon. See John J. Collins, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 93, 329; Timothy A. Brookins, Corinthian Wisdom, Stoic Philosophy, and the Ancient Economy (SNTSMS 159; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 228; and deSilva, “Paul and the Stoa,” 563–64. 102 Thorsteinsson, “Stoicism as a Key,” 34–35. At the end of my research, I was pleased to find that it had led me to a very similar conclusion to the one Thorsteinsson reached in his comparison of the ethics of Stoicism and Rom 12–15. Therefore, I have adopted and adapted his conclusion here. 100

252

Joseph R. Dodson

culturally conversant enough to identify the commands as commonplace among moral philosophers but have been unable to discern the differences and nuances between the ethics of Roman Stoicism and early Christianity. But a select few might have been more learned believers (even if only spermologoi) and therefore familiar with Stoic writings so as to consider Heb 13 to be either fully incorporating their stock exhortations or improving them in the name of Jesus. To use an example from above, this group might have taken the statement of Heb 13:8 that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever as intending to provide Christ as a model for them to imitate. To some extent, then, they could have superimposed Seneca’s words concerning imitation upon this idea.103 Borrowing from Stoicism, they would therefore consider Jesus their appointed protector and pattern, whom they should cherish and keep ever before their eyes. They would seek to live as if he were watching over them, ordering all their actions, and beholding every deed. 104 Rather than Cato, they would hold up their High Priest as their master whose life, conversation, and soul-expressing face have satisfied his people.

103 This is not to imply “that Jesus Christ and the Stoic sage had or were seen to have identical roles in every respect” (Thorsteinsson, Roman Christianity, 155). 104 See Ep. 25.5 and Ep. 11.8–9.

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. “The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme.” Pages 46−60 in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd. London: SCM, 1987. Aitken, E. Bradshaw. “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text.” Pages 131−48 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Alexander, Loveday. “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing.” NovT 28 (1986): 48–74. –. “Prophets and Martyrs as Exemplars of Faith.” Pages 405–21 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Allen, David M. “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations: The Use of Old Testament Narratives in Heb 13,1–8.” Bib 49 (2008): 401–9. –. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: An Exercise in Narrative Re-presentation. WUNT 2/238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. “‘The Forgotten Spirit’: A Pentecostal Reading of the Letter to the Hebrews?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 51–66. –. “The Holy Spirit as Gift or Giver? Retaining the Pentecostal Dimension of Hebrews 2.4.” BT 59.3 (2008): 151–58. –. “Why Bother Going Outside?: The Use of the Old Testament in Heb 13:10–16.” Pages 239–52 in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J. J. Menken. Edited by Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden. NovTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Anderson, Gary A. “Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture.” Pages 161– 94 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11–13 January, 2004. Edited by Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz. STDJ 84. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Arbel, Vita Daphna. Beholders of the Divine Secrets: Mysticlism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2003. Asumang, Annang. “The Tabernacle as a Heuristic Device in the Interpretation of the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” MTh diss., South African Theological Seminary, 2005. Athanasius. The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit. Translated by C. R. B. Shapland. London: Epworth, 1951. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by A. Robertson, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Second Series) 4. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1989. Backhaus, Knut. Der Hebräerbrief. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2009.

254

Bibliography

–. “Der Hebräerbrief und die Paulus-Schule.” BZ 37 (1993): 183–208. –. “How to Entertain Angels: Ethics in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 149–75 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. “Zwei harte Knoten. Todes- und Gerichtsangst im Hebräerbrief.” NTS 55 (2009): 198– 217. Badcock, F. J. The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Historical Setting. London: SPCK, 1937. Baktin, Mikhail. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1986. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3d ed. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. Barber, Michael Patrick. “Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16–19.” JBL 132 (2013): 935–53. Bark, Franziska. Ein Heiligtum im Kopf der Leser. Literaturanalytische Betrachtungen zu Ex 25−40. SBS 218. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Barnard, Jody A. The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT 2/331. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barth, Markus. “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics.” Pages 53–78 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper. Edited by W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder. London: SCM, 1962. Barton, Carlin A. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993. Bartsch, Shadi. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Bauckham, Richard. “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 15– 36 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard J. Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. –. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. –. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Bauer, Johannes. “POLLOI Luk 1:1.” NovT 4 (1960): 263–66. Beckman, Gary, ed. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2d ed. SBLWAW 7. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999. Bell, Catherine M. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Bénétreau, Samuel. L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible. Vaux-sur-Seine: ÉDIFAC, 1988. Berger, Klaus. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1984. Bing, Peter. “Impersonation of Voice in Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo.” Transactions of the American Philological Society 123 (1993): 181–98. –. The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 2009. Blaising, Craig A., and Carmen S. Hardin, eds. Psalms 1–50. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 7. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008. Boccaccini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judiasm. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. –, ed. Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. Boccaccini, Gabriele, and John J. Collins, eds. The Early Enoch Literature. JSJSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bibliography

255

Boccaccini, Gabriele, and Giovanni Ibba, eds. Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Boer, Martinus C. de. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2011. –. “Paul: Theologian of God’s Apocalypse.” Int 56 (2002): 21–33. Böhl, Friedrich. “Die Legende vom Verbergen der Lade.” FJB 4 (1976): 63−80. Boustan, Ra‘anan S. “The Dislocation of the Temple Vessels: Mobile Sanctity and Rabbinic Rhetorics of Space.” Pages 135−46 in Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History: Authority, Diaspora, Tradition. Edited by Ra‘anan S. Boustan et al. Jewish Culture and Context. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. –. “The Spoils of the Jerusalem Temple at Rome and Constantinople: Jewish Counter-Geography in a Christianizing Empire.” Pages 327−72 in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by G. Gardner and K. Osterloh. TSAJ 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. HNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Brawley, Robert L. “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1: A Neglected Aspect of the Context.” CBQ 55 (1993): 81–98. Bréhier, Émile. Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie. 3d ed. Études de philosophie médiévale 8. Paris: J. Vrin, 1950. Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Brookins, Timothy A. Corinthian Wisdom, Stoic Philosophy, and the Ancient Economy. SNTSMS 159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Brooks, Walter Edward. “The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JBL 89 (1970): 205–14. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. New updated ed. ABRL. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1993. Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The First Apology for Christianity. An Exegetical Study. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. IBC. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1990. Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: A New Tranlsation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972. Burger, Christoph. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985. Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. WUNT 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Caird, George B. “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” CJT 5 (1959): 44–51. –. “Son by Appointment.” Pages 73–82 in vol. 1 of The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. Edited by William C. Weinrich. 2 vols. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984. Calabi, Francesca. “Les sacrifices et leur signification symbolique chez Philon d’Alexandrie.” Pages 97–117 in Car c’est l’amour qui me plait, non le sacrifice. Edited by Eberhard Bons. JSJSup 88. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Calaway, Jared C. The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and its Priestly Context. WUNT 2/349. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter. Edited by William B. Johnston, David W. Torrance, and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994.

256

Bibliography

Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Re–Reading of Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Campbell, Robin. Seneca. London: Penguin, 2004. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1986. Cervera i Valls, Jordi. “Jesús, gran sacerdot i víctima, a Hebreus: Una teologia judeocristiana de la mediació i de l’expiació.” Revista de cultura bíblica 34 (2009): 477–502. Chae, Young S. Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 2/216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Chanikuzhy, Jacob. Jesus, the Eschatological Temple: An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13–22 in the Light of the Pre-70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action. CBET 58. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Chaston, Colleen. Tragic Props and Cognitive Function: Aspects of the Function of Images in Thinking. Mnemosyne Supplements 317. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Chester, Andrew N. “Hebrews. The Final Sacrifice.” Pages 57–72 in Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology. Edited by S. W. Sykes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. –. “High Christology – Whence, When and Why?” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 22–50. –. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Church, Philip. “Hebrews 1:10–12 and the Renewal of the Cosmos,” TynBul 67 (2016): 269– 86. –. Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews. NovTSup 171. Leiden: Brill, 2017. –. “The Temple in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in Hebrews.” TynBul 64 (2013): 109−28. Cline, Rangar. Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 172. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Clivaz, Claire. “A New NT Papyrus: P126 (PSI 1497).” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 158– 62. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012. –. “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements.” BBR 11 (2001): 179–201. Cody, Aelred. Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspectives. St Meinrad, Ind.: Grail Publications, 1960. Colish, Marcia L. “Stoicism and the New Testament: An Essay in Historiography.” ANRW 26.1:334–79. Collins, John J. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1– 20. –. Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2001. –. “Theology and Identity in the Early Enoch Literature.” Hen 24 (2002): 57–62. Collins, Marilyn F. “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Tradition.” JSJ 3 (1972): 97–116. Comfort, Philip Wesley. A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2015. Corbeill, Anthony. “Political Movement: Walking and Ideology in Republican Rome.” Pages 182–215 in The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Edited by David Fredrick. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Cortez, Félix H. “From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period of Hebrews 9:6–10 and the Day of Atonement as a Metaphor of Transition.” JBL 125 (2006): 527–47.

Bibliography

257

Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. Jeremiah 1–25. WBC. Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1991. Crawford, Cory D. “Between Shadow and Substance: The Historical Relationship of Tabernacle and Temple in Light of Architecture and Iconography.” Pages 117–33 in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition. Edited by Mark Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton. AIL 9. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Cross, Frank Moore. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Croy, N. Clayton. Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12.1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context. SNTSMS 98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Czapla, B. “Percursio.” Pages 748–750 in vol. 6 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. –. “Praeteritio,” Pages 27–32 in vol. 7 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. Daly, Robert J. Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background Before Origen. Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 18. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1978. Davies, James P. Paul Among the Apocalypses? An Evaluation of the ‘Apocalyptic Paul’ in the Context of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature. Library of New Testament Studies 562. London: T&T Clark, 2016. Davies, Joshua B., and Douglas Harinck, eds. Apocalyptic and the Future of Theology: With and Beyond J. Louis Martyn. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Davila, James R. “The Macrocosmic Temple, Scriptural Exegesis, and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” DSD 9 (2002): 1–19. –. “The Treatise of the Vessels (Massekhet Kelim).” Pages 393–420 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Edited by Richard Bauck-ham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013. Davidson, Maxwell J. Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1−36, 72−108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran. JSPSup 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. DeConick, April D. “Jesus Revealed: The Dynamics of Early Christian Mysticism.” Pages 299–324 in With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism: In Honor of Rachel Elior. Edited by Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov. Ekstasis 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952. deSilva, David A. “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews.” TJ 21 (2000): 25–43. –. “Hebrews 6:4–8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1).” TynBul 50 (1999): 33–57. –. “How Greek was the Author of ‘Hebrews’? A Study of the Author’s Location in Regard to Greek παιδεία.” Pages 629–49 in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 9; Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 1. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. “The Invention and Argumentative Function of Priestly Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” BBR 16 (2006): 295–323. –. “Paul and the Stoa.” JETS 38 (1995): 549–64. –. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBLDS 25. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Di Giovambattista, Fulvio. Il giorno dell’espiazione nella Lettera agli ebrei. Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 61. Rome: Pontificia università gregoriana, 2000.

258

Bibliography

Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. –. “Philo’s Doctrine of Angels.” Pages 197–205 in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis. Edited by David Winston and John Dillon. BJS 25. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Dimant, Devorah. “An Apocryphon of Jeremiah from Cave 4 (4Q385 B = 4Q385 16).” Pages 11−30 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumranic Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Docherty, Susan E. “Genesis in Hebrews.” Pages 124–48 in Genesis in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. Library of New Testament Studies 466. London: T&T Clark, 2012. –. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. WUNT 2/260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Dodson, Joseph R. “New Friends and Old Rivals in the Letters of Seneca and The Epistle to Diognetus,” PRSt 45 (2018): 389–405. –. “The Transcendence of Death and Heavenly Ascent in the Apocalyptic Paul and the Stoics.” Pages 157–76 in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Edited by Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2016. Dodson, Joseph R., and David E. Briones, eds. Paul and Seneca in Dialogue. Ancient Philosophy & Religion 2. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Doering, Lutz. “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten. Mündliche und schriftliche Toraparänese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C.” Pages 50−79 in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie. Mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti. Edited by W. Kraus and K.W. Niebuhr. WUNT 162. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Doran, R. “Eupolemus.” Pages 611–12 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Drawnel, Henryk. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. JSJSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Drews, L. “Aposiopese.” Pages 828–30 in vol. 1 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants. Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1984. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989. Dunnill, John. Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Dunning, Benjamin. “The Intersection of Alien Status and Cultic Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 178–98 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Easter, Matthew C. Faith and Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews. SNTSMS 160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Eberhart, Christian. “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews.” Pages 37–64 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament. WUNT 306. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen. WMANT 94. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Eck, Johann. De sacrificio missae libri tres (1526). Edited by Erwin Iserloh, Vinzenz Pfnür, and Peter Fabisch. Corpus Catholicorum 36. Münster: Aschendorff, 1982.

Bibliography

259

Ego, Beate. Im Himmel wie auf Erden. Studien zum Verhältnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum. WUNT 2/34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Eisele, Wilfried. Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief. BZNW 116. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Eisenbaum, Pamela M. The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context. SBLDS 156. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997. –. “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins.” Pages 213–37 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich., 2000. Elsner, Jaś. Art and the Roman Viewer: The Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to Christianity. Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. –. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450. Oxford History of Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. –. Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007. Elsner, Jaś, and Ian Rutherford, eds. Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman & Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Elsner, Jaś, and Michael Squire. “Sight and Memory: The Visual Art of Roman Mnemonics.” Pages 180–204 in Sight and the Ancient Senses. Edited by Michael Squire. The Senses in Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2016. Emmrich, Martin. “‘Amtscharisma’: Through the Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14).” BBR 12 (2002): 17–32. –. “Hebrews 6:4–6 – Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry).” WJT 65 (2003): 83–95. –. “Pneuma in Hebrews: Prophet and Interpreter.” WJT 63 (2002): 55–71. –. Pneumatological Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Amtscharisma, Prophet, & Guide of the Eschatological Exodus. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2003. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology & Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. –. “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1–8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response.” HTR 101 (2008): 15–44. –. Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. –. “The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences Between Paul and Stoicism.” ZNW 96 (2005): 35–60. –. “Setting the Scene: Stoicism and Platonism in the Transitional Period in Ancient Philosophy.” Pages 1–14 in Stoicism in Early Christianity. Edited by Thomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010. Engel, Helmut. “Die Bücher der Makkabäer,” Pages 275−90 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by Erich Zenger et al. 4th ed. KStTh 1/1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Esler, Philip F. “Paul and Stoicism: Romans 12 as a Test Case.” NTS 50 (2004): 106–24. Eslinger, Lyle. House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7. JSOTSup 164. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. –. Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12. BLS 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Evans, Christopher F. The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Dr Williams’s Trust, 1988. Fallon, Francis. “Eupolemus.” Pages 861−79 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985.

260

Bibliography

Faßbeck, Gabriele. Der Tempel der Christen: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Aufhahme des Tempelkonzepts im Frühen Christentum. TANZ 33. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. Filson, Floyd V. Yesterday: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. SBT 2/4. London: SCM, 1967. Filtvedt, Ole J. The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews. WUNT 2/400. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Fishbane, Michael A. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” JBL 99 (1980): 343–61. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Son of David Tradition in Mt 22:41–46 and Parallels.” Pages 113– 26 in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. SBLSBS 5. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. Flower, Harriet I. “Spectacle and Political Culture in the Roman Republic.” Pages 322–43 in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Edited by Harriet I. Flower. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Fox, Robin Lane. Pagans and Christians. New York, N.Y.: Knopf, 1987. Fraade, Steven D. Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sage. JSJSup 147. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity Before and After 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination.” Pages 237–65 in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Edited by Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz. TSAJ 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Frankfurter, David. “Comparison and the Study of Religions of Late Antiquity.” Pages 83– 98 in Comparer en histoire des religions antiques. Edited by Claude Calame and Bruce Lincoln. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2012. Frede, Michael. “Stoic Epistemology.” Pages 295–322 in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Edited by Keimpe Algra et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Fredrick, David, ed. The Roman Gaze: Vision, Power, and the Body. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Früchtel, Ursula. Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese. AGJU 2. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Fuhrmann, Sebastian. “Failures Forgotten: The Soteriology in Hebrews Revisited in the Light of its Quotation of Jeremiah 38:31–34 [LXX].” Neot 41 (2007): 295–316. –. Vergeben und Vergessen: Christologie und Neuer Bund im Hebräerbrief. WMANT 113. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Gäbel, Georg. Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie. WUNT 2/212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 357–76 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karen Schöpflin. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Gall, A. Freiherr von. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1918. Gane, Roy E. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Gauly, Bardo Maria. Senecas Naturales Quaestiones. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2004.

Bibliography

261

Gaventa, Beverly R., ed. Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2013. Geiger, Michaela. “Raum.” Cited 22 January 2015. Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/65517/. Gelardini, Gabriella, ed. Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht: Der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomilie zu Tischa be-Aw. BibInt 83. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Gelardini, Gabriella, and Harold W. Attridge, eds. Hebrews in Contexts. AJEC 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Gentry, Peter J. “Atonement in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13–53:12).” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 11 (2007): 20–47. George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. AIL 2. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Gileadi, Avraham. “The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection.” Pages 157–64 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by Avraham Gileadi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1988. Goldhill, Simon. “The Erotic Eye: Visual Stimulation and Cultural Conflict.” Pages 154–94 in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Edited by Simon Goldhill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. –. “The Naive and Knowing Eye: Ecphrasis and the Culture of Viewing in the Hellenistic World.” Pages 197–223, 304–9 in Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Edited by Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne. Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. –. “What Is Ekphrasis For?” Classical Philology 102 (2007): 1–19. Goldin, Judah. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. YJS 10. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1955. Goldingay, John. Psalms. 3 vols. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006–2008. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. Gordon, Robert P. Hebrews. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Goulder, Michael. “Hebrews and the Ebionites.” NTS 49 (2003): 393–406. Graf, Fritz. “Epiphany.” Pages 1122–1223 in vol. 4 of Brill’s New Pauly: Antiquity. Edited by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. Leiden: Brill 2004. Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer. 3 vols. EKKNT. Zurich: Benziger, 1990–1999. Gray, Patrick. “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews.” JBL 122 (2003): 335–51. Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, eds. Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. SVTP 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Grelot, Pierre. Une lecture de l’épître aux Hébreux. Lire la Bible. Paris: Cerf, 2003. Griffin, Miriam. “Philosophy for Statesmen: Cicero and Seneca.” Pages 133–50 in Antikes Denken–Moderne Schule. Edited by H. W. Schmidt and P. Wülfing. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1988. Grimal, Pierre. Sénèque. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979. Gruber, Christian J. “Ein ungewöhnlicher Terminus? Thymiatērion in Heb 9,4,” Pages 339−51 in Reading New Testament Papyri in Context. Lire des Papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur Contexte. Edited by C. Clivaz and J. Zumstein. BETL 242. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Grün-Oesterreich, A. “Aposiopesis.” Page 29 in Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Edited by T. O. Sloane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

262

Bibliography

Guthrie, Donald. The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983. Guthrie, George H. Hebrews. New International Version Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998. –. “Hebrews in its First-Century Context: Recent Research.” Pages 414–43 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Leicester: Apollos, 2004. –. “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” CurBS 1 (2003): 271– 94. –. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. NovTSup 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Haber, Susan. “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant and Cult in Hebrews.” JSNT 28 (2005): 105–24. Hadas, Moses. The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca. New York, N.Y.: Norton, 1968. Hadot, Ilsetraut. Seneca. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. Hagenbichler, E. “Brachylogie.” Pages 50–53 in vol. 2 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. Hagner, Donald A. “The Son of God as Unique High Priest: The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 247–67 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. Hahn, Ferdinand. Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im Frühen Christentum. 3d ed. FRLANT 83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Hahn, Scott W. “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22.” Pages 65–88 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. AYBRL. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009. Halperin, David. The Faces of the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision. TSAJ 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Halsall, A.W. “Descriptio.” Pages 549−53 in vol. 2 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. Hamm, Dennis. “Praying ‘Regularly’ (Not ‘Constantly’): A Note on the Cultic Background of dia pantos at Luke 24:53, Acts 10:2 and Hebrews 9:6, 13:15.” ExpTim 116 (2004): 50–52. Hankinson, R. J. “Stoic Epistemology.” Pages 59–84 in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Edited by Brad Inwood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Hanson, Anthony T. “Christ in the Old Testament According to Hebrews.” SE 2 (1964): 393–407. Hardie, Philip. Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hare, Douglas R. A. “The Lives of the Prophets.” Pages 379−99 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Harrington, Daniel J. “Pseudo-Philo.” Pages 297−377 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983– 1985. Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012.

Bibliography

263

Hartenstein, Friedrich. “Cherubim and Seraphim in the Bible and in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources.” Pages 155–88 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karen Schöpflin. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1973. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989. –. “‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews.” Pages 151–73 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “New Covenantalism: Eine Wiederentdeckung.” ZNT 29 (2012): 53–56. Hayward, C. T. Robert. The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. Heath, Jane M. F. Paul’s Visual Piety: The Metamorphosis of the Beholder. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Heger, Paul. Cult as the Catalyst for Division: Cult Disputes as the Motive for Schism in the Pre-70 Pluralistic Environment. STDJ 65. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hegermann, Harald. Der Brief an die Hebräer. THKNT. Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1988. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. London: SCM, 1962. Heil, John Paul. Hebrews: Chiastic Structures and Audience Response. CBQMS 46. Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010. Henrichs, Albert. “‘He Has a God in Him’: Human and Divine in the Modern Perception of Dionysus.” Pages 13–43 in Masks of Dionysus. Edited by Thomas H. Carpenter and Christopher A. Faraone. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993. Henze, Matthias. “Baruch, Second Book of.” Pages 426−28 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. –. Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel. Reading Second Baruch in Context. TSAJ 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Herzer, Jens. 4 Baruch (Paralipomena Jeremiou). SBLWGRW 22. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. –. “Baruch, Fourth Book of.” Pages 430–32 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. –. Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redacktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums. TSAJ 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Heyman, George. The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. SNTSMS 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Book of the Watchers and the Priests of Jerusalem.” Hen 24 (2002): 131–35. –. “Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks.” Pages 219–35 in The Early Enoch Literature. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins. JSJSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hodson, Alan K. “Hebrews.” Pages 226–37 in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington. Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2014.

264

Bibliography

Hofius, Otfried. “Das ‘erste’ und das ‘zweite’ Zelt: Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung von Hbr 9,1– 10.” ZNW 61 (1970): 271–77. –. Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f und 10,19f. WUNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1986. Holowchak, M. Andrew. The Stoics. London: Continuum, 2008. Horn, F. W. “Holy Spirit.” Pages 260–80 in vol. 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992. Horsley, G. H. R., ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Hubbard, Moyer V. Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010. Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977. Hundley, Michael B. “Sacred Spaces, Objects, Offerings, and People in the Priestly Texts: A Reappraisal.” JBL 132 (2013): 749−67. Hurst, Lincoln D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. SNTSMS 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. –. “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. vii.5 and ix.23f?” JTS (1983): 156–68. Hurtado, Larry W. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. –. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1988. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –. “Revelatory Experiences and Religious Innovation in Earliest Christianity.” ExpTim 125 (2014): 469–82. Huttunen, Niko. Paul and Epictetus on Law. Library of New Testament Studies 405. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Inwood, Brad. Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. –. Reading Seneca. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Ioppolo, Anna-Maria. “Presentation and Assent: A Physical and Cognitive Problem in Early Stoicism.” Classical Quarterly 40 (1990): 433–49. Irvine, Stuart A. Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis. SBLDS 123. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990. Isaac, Ephraim. ‟1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch. A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 5−89 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Isaacs, Marie E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament. Heythrop Monographs 1. London: Charlesworth, 1976. –. “Hebrews 13:9–16 Revisited.” NTS 43 (1997): 268–84. –. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Jamieson, R. B., “When and Where Did Jesus Offer Himself? A Taxonomy of Recent Scholarship on Hebrews,” Currents in Biblical Research 15 (2017): 338–68. James, Liz, and Ruth Webb. “‘To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places’: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium.” Art History 14 (March 1991): 1–17. Jay, Martin. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993. Jewett, Robert. Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York, N.Y.: Pilgrim, 1981.

Bibliography

265

Jipp, Joshua W. “The Son’s Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5–14.” NTS 56 (2010): 557–75. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Johnson, Richard W. Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 209. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Johnsson, William G. “Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews.” PhD diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973. Jones, E. D. “The Authorship of Hebrews xiii.” ExpTim 46 (1934–1935): 562–67. Jones, F. Stanley. “Freheit” in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus: Eine historische, exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie. Göttinger theologischer Arbeiten 34. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Jong, Adam de. “The Writer of Hebrews as a Reader of Hebrew: an Inquiry into the Linguistic and Hermeneutical Use of the Old Testament Quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” MTh(R) thesis, University of Glasgow, 2011. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Joslin, Barry C. Hebrews, Christ and the Law: The Theology of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:1–10:18. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2010. Kallendorf, C. “Brevitas.” Pages 53–60 in vol. 2 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. Karrer, Martin. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 2 vols. ÖTK. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002–2008. –. Der Gesalbte: Die Grundlagen des Christustitels. FRLANT 151. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Kelber, Werner H. “Modalities of Communication, Cognition, and Physiology of Per-ception: Orality, Rhetoric, and Scribality.” Semeia 65 (1994): 193–216. Kendal, Daniel, and Gerard O’Collins. “The Uniqueness of the Easter Appearances.” CBQ 54 (1992): 287–307. Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. SBLWGRW 10. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Kibbe, Michael. “Is It Finished? When Did It Start? Hebrews, Priesthood, and Atonement in Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Perspective.” JTS 65 (2014): 25–61. Kim, Lloyd. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Super-sessionism? Princeton Theological Monograph Series 64. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2006. Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1984. Kittel, Gerhard, and G. Friedrich, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979. Kiuchi, N. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function. JSOTSup 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Die Bruderliebe bei Plutarch und im vierten Makkabaerbuch.” Pages 83–98 in Alte Welt und neuer Glaube: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments. NTOA 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Kleinig, John W. Hebrews. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 2017.

266

Bibliography

Klijn, Albertus F. J. “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch.” Pages 615−52 in vol. 1 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985. –. “Die Syrische Baruch-Apokalypse.” Pages 103−84 in Himmelfahrt Moses, Die griechische Esra-Apokalypse, Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse. Edited by Egon Brandenburger, Ulrich B. Müller, and Albertus F. J. Klijn. JSHRZ 5/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976. Knibb, Michael A. “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings from Before the Common Era.” Pages 401–16 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Knohl, Israel. “Post-Biblical Sectarianism and the Priestly Schools of the Pentateuch: The Issue of Popular Participation in the Temple Cult.” Pages 601−9 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. Knöppler, Thomas. Sühne im Neuen Testament: Studien zum urchristlichen Verständnis der Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu. WMANT 88. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. Knust, Jennifer Wright, and Tommy Wasserman. “The Biblical Odes and the Text of the Christian Bible.” JBL 133 (2014): 341–65. Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God. The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Inter-testamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament. CBQMS 22. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989. –. “God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to Hebrews.” Pages 361–87 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. NovTSup 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001. –. “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity.” Pages 99−120 in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden. SBLRBS 66. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Koester, Helmut. “‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13:9–14.” HTR 55 (1962): 299–315. Koosed, Jennifer L. “Double Bind: Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 89–101 in A Shadow of Glory: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Edited by Tod Linafelt. London: Routledge, 2002. Kowalski, Beate. “Die Rezeption alttestamentlicher Theologie im Hebräerbrief.” Pages 35– 62 in Ausharren in der Verheissung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief. Edited by Rainer Kampling. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 204. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Kraus, Chris, Simon Goldhill, Helene P. Foley, and Jaś Elsner, eds. Visualizing the Tragic: Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature: Essays in Honour of Froma Zeitlin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. –. “Editor’s Introduction.” Pages 1–15 in Visualizing the Tragic: Drama, Myth, and Ritual in Greek Art and Literature: Essays in Honour of Froma Zeitlin. Edited by Chris Kraus, Simon Goldhill, Helene P. Foley, and Jaś Elsner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Kraus, Wolfgang. “Die Bedeutung von Διαθήκη im Hebräerbrief.” Pages 67–83 in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature. Edited by E. Bons, R. Brucker, and J. Joosten. WUNT 2/367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. “Das Heil für Israel und die Völker nach dem Hebräerbrief.” Pages 113–47 in Der eine Gott und die Völker in eschatologischer Perspektive. Studien zur Inklusion und Exklusion im biblischen Monotheismus. Edited by L. Neubert and M. Tilly. BthSt 137. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. –. “Die Rezeption von Jer 38,31–34 (LXX) in Hebräer 8–10 und dessen Funktion in der

Bibliography

267

Argumentation des Hebräerbriefes.” Pages 447–62 in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. Edited by J. Cook and H.-J. Stipp. VTSup 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25-26a. WMANT 66. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. –. “Zur Aufnahme von Ex 24f. im Hebräerbrief.” Pages 91–112 in Heiliger Raum. Exegese und Rezeption der Heiligtumstexte in Ex 24–40. Edited by M. Hopf, W. Oswald, and S. Seiler. Theologische Akzente 8. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 vols. WBC. Dallas. Tex.: Word, 1991. Laansma, Jon C. “The Cosmology of Hebrews.” Pages 125–43 in Cosmology and New Testament Theology. Edited by Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough. Library of New Testament Studies 355. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Lanham, Richard A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. 2d ed. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991. LaRondelle, Hans K. Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2005. Lausberg, Heinrich. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. 2d ed. Munich: Max Hueber Verlag, 1963. –. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. 3d ed. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1990. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition. 2 vols. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1933. Lee, Michelle V. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ. SNTSMS 137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lehne, Susanne. The New Covenant in Hebrews. JSNTSupp 44. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Leonhardt, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. TSAJ 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Levison, Jack [John R.]. “A Theology of the Spirit in the Letter to the Hebrews.” CBQ 78 (2016): 90–110. Levison, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Lewicki, Tomasz. Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden! Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief. Paderborner theologische Studien 41. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004. Lidgett, J. Scott. Sonship and Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth, 1921. Lincoln, Andrew T. Hebrews: A Guide. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Lincoln, Bruce “Theses on Comparison.” Pages 99–110 in Comparer en histoire des religions antiques. Edited by Claude Calame and Bruce Lincoln. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2012. Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. NTT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Lindberg, David C. Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Loader, William. “Revisiting High Priesthood Christology in Hebrews.” ZNW 109 (2018): 235–83. Loewenich, Walther von. “Zum Verständnis des Opfergedankens im Hebräerbrief.” Theologische Blätter 12 (1933): 167–72. Löhr, Hermut. “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel: Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran.” Pages 185−205 in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum

268

Bibliography

und in der hellenistischen Welt. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. –. Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief. BZNW 73. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. –. “‘Umriß’ und ‘Schatten.” Bemerkungen zur Zitierung von Ex 25,40 in Hebr 8.” ZNW 84 (1993): 218–32. Long, A. A. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. –. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. 2d ed. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1986. –. Stoic Studies. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996. Lovatt, Helen. The Epic Gaze: Vision, Gender and Narrative in Ancient Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Löw, Martina. Raumsoziologie. 7th ed. suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft 1506. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2012. Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013. Lünemann, Gottlieb. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Maurice J. Evans. Meyer’s Commentaries on the New Testament. London: T&T Clark, 1882. Macaskill, Grant. “Paradise in the New Testament.” Pages 64–81 in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. –. Union with Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Mackie, Scott D. “Ancient Jewish Mystical Motifs in Hebrews’ Theology of Access and Entry Exhortations.” NTS 58 (2011): 88−104. –. “Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews.” NTS 53 (2007): 114–29. –. “Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews.” JSNT 30 (2008): 437–53. –. “Early Christian Eschatological Experience in the Warnings and Exhortations of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” TynBul 63 (2012): 93–114. –. Eschatology and Exhortation in Hebrews. WUNT 2/223. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JTS 62 (2011): 77–117. –. “The Passion of Eve and the Ecstasy of Hannah: Sense Perception, Passion, Mysticism, and Misogyny in Philo of Alexandria, De ebrietate 143–52.” JBL 133 (2014): 141–63. –. “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: Means, Methods, and Mysticism.” JSJ 43 (2012): 147–79. –. “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” Studia Philonica Annual 21 (2009): 25–47. MacRae, George W. “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews.” Semeia 12 (1978): 179−99. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth: 1 Timothy 6:3–19 (Part 1).” NovT 52 (2010): 376–405. –. Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays, 1959–2012 by Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by Carl R. Holladay, John T. Fitzgerald, Gregory E. Sterling, and James W. Thompson. 2 vols. NovTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Marshall, I. Howard. “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament.” Pages 153–69 in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology. Edited by Robert J. Banks. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975. Martin, Michael W., and Jason A. Whitlark. “Choosing What Is Advantageous: The Relationship between Epideictic and Deliberative Syncrisis in Hebrews.” NTS 58 (2012): 379–400. –. “The Encomiastic Topics of Syncrisis as the Key to the Structure and Argument of Hebrews.” NTS 57 (2011): 415–39. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1997.

Bibliography

269

–. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Mason, Eric F. “2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Three Approaches to the Interpretation of Psalm 104:4. Pages 61–71 in Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: International Studies. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Jason M. Zurawski. Library of Second Temple Studies 87. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. –. “The Epistle (Not Necessarily) to the ‘Hebrews’: A Call to Renunciation of Judaism or Encouragement to Christian Commitment?” PRSt 37 (2010): 7–20. –. “Hebrews and Second Temple Jewish Traditions on the Origins of Angels.” Pages 63– 93 in Hebrews in Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge. AJEC 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. –. “‘Now Faith Is’: Faith and Faithfulness in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” BR 61 (2016): 4– 26. –. “‘Sit at My Right Hand’: Enthronement and the Heavenly Sanctuary in Hebrews.” Pages 901–16 in vol. 2 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason et al. 2 vols. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984. McCruden, Kevin B. Solidarity Perfected: Beneficient Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews. BZNW 159. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. McCullough, J. Cecil. “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews.” NTS 26 (1980): 363– 79. –. “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Part I.” IBS 2 (1980): 141–65. McGrath, John J. “Through the Eternal Spirit”: An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Hebrews 9:13–14. Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961. McKelvey, R. J. Pioneer and Priest: Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2013. McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. Meier, John P. “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14.” Bib 66 (1985): 168–89. –. “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5–14.” Bib 66 (1985): 504–33. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 12th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Milgrom, Jacob. “Atonement in the OT.” Pages 78–81 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim et al. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1976. –. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001. –. “Sacrifices and Offerings, OT.” Pages 763–71 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim et al. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1976. Miller, James A. “Let Us Sing to the Lord: The Biblical Odes in Codex Alexandrinus.” PhD diss., Marquette University, 2006. Miller, Patrick D. “The Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 553–926 in vol. 6 of The New Interpreter's Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2001. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. SP. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2007. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. Moffitt, David M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. NovTSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “The Role of Jesus’ Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Once Again: A Brief Response to Jean-René Moret.” NTS 62 (2016): 308–14.

270

Bibliography

–. “Serving in the Tabernacle in Heaven: Sacred Space, Jesus’s High-Priestly Sacrifice, and Hebrews’ Analogical Theology.” Pages 259–79 in Hebrews in Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge. AJEC 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. –. “Unveiling Jesus’ Flesh: A Fresh Assessment of the Relationship Between the Veil and Jesus’ Flesh in Hebrews 10:20.” PRSt 37 (2010): 71–84. Moingt, Joseph. “La fin du sacrifice.” Lumière et vie 217 (1994): 15–31. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Seneca Between Political and Contemplative Life.” Pages 239–65 in Quarto Contributo Alla Storia Degli Studi Classici E Del Mondo Antico. 1st ed. Storia e letteratura 115. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1950. Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1964. Moore, Nicholas J., “‘In’ or ‘Near’? Heavenly Access and Christian Identity in Hebrews.” Pages 185–98 in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson. Library of New Testament Studies 565. London: T&T Clark, 2017. –. Repetition in Hebrews: Plurality and Singularity in the Letter to the Hebrews, Its Ancient Context, and the Early Church. WUNT 2/388. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Morales, Helen. Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Morales, L. Michael. The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus. BTS 15. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Moraw, Susanne. “Visual Differences: Dionysos in Ancient Art.” Pages 233–52 in A Different God? Dionysos and Ancient Polytheism. Edited by Renate Schlesier. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Moret, Jean-René. “Le rôle du concept de purification dans l’Épître aux Hébreux: une réaction à quelques propositions de David M. Moffitt.” NTS 62 (2016): 289–307. Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3d ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965. –. Hebrews. Bible Student’s Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983. Mosser, Carl. “Rahab outside the Camp.” Pages 383–404 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Motyer, Stephen. “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” TynBul 50 (1999): 3–22. –. “The Spirit in Hebrews: No Longer Forgotten?” Pages 213–27 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner. Edited by I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens, and Cornelius Bennema. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012. Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Illustrated from Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914−1929. Mühlenberg, Ekkehard. Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung. Vol. 1. Patristische Texte und Studien 15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Müller-Fieberg, Rita. Das “neue Jerusalem:” Hoffnung für alle Herzen und Zeiten? BBB 144. Berlin and Vienna: Philo, 2003. Murphy, Frederick J. “Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo).” Pages 440−42 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. –. The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch. SBLDS 78. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985. Niehoff, Maren R. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography. AYBRL. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2018.

Bibliography

271

Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “Sur une lecture démonologique de Philon d’Alexandrie, De gigantibus 6–18.” Pages 43–71 in Hommage à Georges Vajda: Études d’histoire et de pensée juives. Edited by Gérard Nahon and Charles Touati. Collection de la Revue des Études Juives. Louvain: Peeters, 1980. Neis, Rachel. The Sense of Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish Ways of Seeing in Late Antiquity. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Nelson, Richard D. “‘He Offered Himself’: Sacrifice in Hebrews.” Int 57 (2003): 251–65. –. Raising up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Newby, Zahra. “Testing the Boundaries of Ekphrasis: Lucian On the Hall.” Ramus 31 (2002): 126–35. Neyrey, Jerome H. “‘Without Beginning of Days or End of Life’ (Hebrews 7:3): Topos for a True Deity.” CBQ 53 (1991): 439–55. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1– 36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur. WUNT 2/28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Nightingale, Andrea Wilson. Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Nongbri, Brent. “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12.” NovT 45 (2003): 265−79. Novakovic, Lidija. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Olbricht, Thomas H. “Hebrews as Amplification.” Pages 375–87 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Omar, A. Rashied. “Embracing the ‘Other’ as an Extension of the Self: Muslim Reflections on the Epistle to the Hebrews 13:2.” ATR 91 (2009): 433–41. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich. Taufe und Typos. Elemente und Theologie der Tauftypologien in 1. Korinther 10 und in 1. Petrus 3. WUNT 2/118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Ounsworth, Richard J. Joshua Typology in the New Testament. WUNT 2/328. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edited by W. H. Goold. 7 vols. Reprint of the 1855 ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1980. Peeler, Amy L. B. You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Library of New Testament Studies 486. London: T&T Clark, 2014. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews.” SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. –. “The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews.” Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979): 74–81. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Pierce, Madison, N. “Hebrews 3.7–4.11 and the Spirit’s Speech to the Community.” Pages 173–84 in Muted Voices in the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by Katherine M. Hockey, Madison N. Pierce, and Francis Watson. Library of New Testament Studies 565. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Platt, Verity J. Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature, and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. –. “Sight and the Gods: On the Desire to See Naked Nymphs.” Pages 161–79 in Sight and the Ancient Senses. Edited by Michael Squire. The Senses in Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2016.

272

Bibliography

Polen, Nehemiah. “Leviticus and Hebrews … and Leviticus.” Pages 213–25 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. SBLEJL 7. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. London: Continuum, 1994. –. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang, 1989. Preminger, A., and T. V. F. Brogan, eds. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993. Rad, G. von. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel. ATANT 20. Zurich: Zwingli, 1951. Ramelli, Ilaria. Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments and Excerpts. Translated by David Konstan. WGRW 28. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Rascher, Angela. Schriftauslegung und Christologie im Hebräerbrief. BZNW 153. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Rasimus, Thomas, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg, eds. Stoicism in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Ribbens, Benjamin J. Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews. BZNW 222. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Richlin, Amy. “Approaches to the Sources on Adultery at Rome.” Pages 379–404 in Reflections of Women in Antiquity. Edited by Helene P. Foley. New York, N.Y.: Gordon and Breach, 1992. Rhoads, David. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part I.” BTB 36 (2006): 118–33. –. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part II.” BTB 36 (2006): 164–84. Richardson, Christopher A. Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT 2/338. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Rissi, Mathias. Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser. WUNT 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Roberts, W. Rhys. Demetrius on Style. The Greek Text of Demetrius De Elocutione edited after the Paris Manuscript with Introduction, Translation, Facsimiles, etc. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902. Robinson, Stephen E. “4 Baruch.” Pages 413–25 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. “The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation.” BSac 151 (1994): 71–84. –. “The Davidic Covenant in the Gospels.” BSac 150 (1993): 458–78. Romm, James. Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero. New York, N.Y.: Knopf, 2014. Rothschild, Clare K. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon. WUNT 235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Rowe, C. Kavin. One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2016. Rowe, Galen O. “Style.” Pages 121−57 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Edited by S. E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1982. Rowland, Christopher, and Christopher Morray-Jones. The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament. CRINT 12. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Bibliography

273

Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. BJS 302. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. Runia, David T. “Ancient Philosophy and the New Testament: ‘Exemplar’ as Example.” Pages 347–61 in Method and Meaning: Essays in New Testament Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge. Edited by Andrew B. MacGowan and Kent Richards. RBS 67. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. –. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Salevao, Iutisone. Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe. JSNTSup 219. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Samely, Alexander. The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis. TSAJ 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. –. Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1977. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Schäfer, Peter. Die Ursprünge der jüdischen Mystik. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2011. Schaefer, James R. “The Relationship between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” CBQ 30 (1968): 359–85. Schaller, Bernd. Paralipomena Jeremiou. JSHRZ 1/8. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998. Scheidel, Walter. “Demography.” Pages 38–86 in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Walter Scheidel, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. –. “Progress and Problems in Roman Demography.” Pages 1–81 in Debating Roman Demography. Edited by Walter Scheidel. Mnemosyne 211. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Schenck, Kenneth L. “An Archaeology of Hebrews’ Tabernacle Imagery.” Pages 238–58 in Hebrews in Contexts. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold W. Attridge. AJEC 91. Leiden: Brill, 2016. –. “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1.” JBL 120 (2001): 469– 85. –. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice. SNTSMS 143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple.” Pages 267–84 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. –. “The Furnishings of the Temple According to the Temple Scroll.” Pages 621–34 in vol. 2 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid 18−21 March, 1991. 2 vols. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill; Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992. –. “Temple, Sacrifice and Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 165–76 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schirren, T. “Emphase.” Pages 1121–23 in vol. 2 of Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Edited by G. Ueding et al. 12 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992–2015. Schneider, Heinrich. “Biblische Oden im syrohexaplarischen Psalter.” Bib 40 (1959): 199– 209. –. “Die biblischen Oden im christlichen Altertum.” Bib 30 (1949): 28–65.

274

Bibliography

–. “Die biblischen Oden im Mittelalter.” Bib 30 (1949): 479–500. –. “Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel.” Bib 30 (1949): 433–52. –. “Die biblischen Oden seit dem sechsten Jahrhundert.” Bib 30 (1949): 239–72. Scholer, John M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Scholz, Bernard F. “‘Sub Oculos Subiectio’: Quintilian on Ekphrasis and Enargeia.” Pages 73–99 in Pictures into Words: Theoretical and Descriptive Approaches to Ekphrasis. Edited by Valerie Robillard and Els Jongeneel. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1998. Schröger, Friedrich. Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Schunack, Gerd. Der Hebräerbrief. Zücher Bibelkommentar NT. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 2002. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Maccabees, Second Book of.” Pages 905–7 in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. –. “Viewing the Holy Utensils (P.Ox. V, 840).” NTS 32 (1986): 153–59. Schwemer, Anna M. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. TSAJ 147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. –. Vitae Prophetarum. JSHRZ 1/7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997. Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance. London: T&T Clark, 1922. Seaford, Richard. Dionysos. Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World. London: Routledge, 2006. Seid, Timothy W. “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and Strategy.” Pages 322–47 in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps. JSNTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Seitz, Erich. “Das doppelte hos (zu Hebr 13,3).” BZ 45 (2001): 251–55. Sellars, John. Stoicism. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2006. Seneca. Moral Epistles. Translated by Richard M. Gummere et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917–2004. –. Moral Essays. Translated by John W. Basore et. al. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928–1935. Setaioli, Aldo. “Modernità del pensiero del Seneca sul linguaggio e L’espressione.” Pages 236–43 in Antikes Denken–Moderne Schule. Edited by H. W. Schmidt and P. Wülfing. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1988. –. “Physics III: Theology.” Pages 379–95 in Brill’s Companion to Seneca. Edited by Gregor Damschen and Andreas Heil. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Sevenster, J. N. Paul and Seneca. NovTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Sharples, R.W. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1996. Sklar, Jay. Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. Hebrew Bible Monographs 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Small, Brian. The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews. BibInt 128. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Smillie, Gene R. “Contrast or Continuity in Hebrews 1.1–2?” NTS 51 (2005): 543–60. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956. Söding, Thomas. “Das Wortfeld der Liebe im paganen und biblischen Griechisch: Philologische Beobachtungen an der Wurzel ΑΓΑΠ-.” ETL 68 (1992): 284–330.

Bibliography

275

Söllner, Peter. Jerusalem, die hochgebaute Stadt. Eschatologisches und himmlisches Jerusalem im Frühjudentum und im frühen Christentum. TANZ 25. Tübingen: Francke, 1998. Son, Kiwoong. Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Soulen, R. Kendall. The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Sowers, Sidney G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Basel Studies of Theology 1. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1965. Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953. –. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Stanley, Steve. “Hebrews 9:6−10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle.” NovT 37 (1995): 385– 99. Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems.” Pages 13–23 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stemberger, Günther. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. 8th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992. –. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Jishma‘el. Ein früher Midrasch zum Buch Exodus. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2010. Sterling, Gregory W. “Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between Author and Community in Hebrews.” Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001): 190–211. –. “‘Wisdom Among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity.” NovT 37 (1995): 355–84. Stevenson, Gregory. Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation. BZNW 107. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Steyn, Gert Jacobus. “The Ending of Hebrews Reconsidered.” ZNW 103 (2012): 235–53. –. “The Occurrence of Psalm 118(117):6 in Hebrews 13:6: Possible Liturgical Origins?” Neot 40 (2006): 119–34. –. “‘On Earth as it is in Heaven …’: The Heavenly Sanctuary Motif in Hebrews 8:5 and its Textual Connection with the ‘Shadowy Copy’ (ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ) of LXX Exodus 25:40.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67 (2011). 6 pages. Online: http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/ view/885. –. “Psalm 2 in Hebrews.” Neot 37 (2003): 262–82. –. “A Quest for the Vorlage of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) Quotations in Hebrews.” Neot 34 (2000): 263–72. –. “The Vorlage of Psalm 45:6–7 (44:7–8) in Hebrews 1:8–9.” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 60 (2004): 1085–1103. Stock, George. Guide to Stoicism. Lexington, Ky.: Aeterna, 2011. Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2013. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. “Shadow and Reality: Reflections on Hebrews 10:1–18.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17 (1972): 215–30. Svendsen, Stefan Nordgaard. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews. WUNT 2/269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Swete, H. B. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. 1909. Repr., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1998.

276

Bibliography

Swetnam, James. “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Bib 70 (1989): 74–95. Sykes, Stephen. “Ritual and the Sacrament of the Word.” Pages 157–67 in Christ: The Sacramental Word. Edited by David Brown and Ann Loades. London: SPCK, 1996. Telscher, Guido. Opfer aus Barmherzigkeit: Hebr 9,11–28 im Kontext biblischer Sühnetheologie. Forschung zur Bibel 112. Würzburg: Echter, 2007. Tertullian: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Ante-Nicene Fathers 3. Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Thatcher, Tom. “John’s Memory Theater: The Fourth Gospel and Ancient Mnemo-Rhetoric.” CBQ 69 (2007): 487–505. Thiessen, Matthew. “Hebrews and the End of Exodus.” NovT 49 (2007): 353–69. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Chrysostom Baer. South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2006. Thompson, James W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQMS 13. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. –. Hebrews. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008. –. “Insider Ethics for Outsiders: Ethics for Aliens in Hebrews.” ResQ 53 (2011): 207–19. –. Moral Formation according to Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011. Thornton, T. C. G. “The Meaning of αἱματεκχυσία in Heb. ix.22.” JTS 15 (1964): 63–65. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. –. “Stoicism as a Key to Pauline Ethics in Romans.” Pages 15–38 in Stoicism in Early Christianity. Edited by Thomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, and Ismo Dunderberg. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010. Thurén, Jukka. Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von Hebräerbrief 13. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1973. Thurén, Lauri. “The General New Testament Writings.” Pages 587–607 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.−A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Classifications of the Collection of Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.” JSJ 43 (2012): 519–50. –. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic. Oudtestamentische Studiën 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Tov, Emmanuel. “The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX.” Pages 11–46 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Überlacker, Walter. “Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case.” Pages 319–52 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by James Starr and Troels EngbergPedersen. BZNW 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Ulrich, Eugene, Frank M. Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie A. Duncan, Patrick W. Skehan, Emmanuel Tov, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, eds. Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy to Kings. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. VanderKam, James C. “The Book of Enoch and the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 254–76 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Vanhoye, Albert. A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Leo Arnold. Miami, Fla.: Convivium, 2011.

Bibliography

277

–. “Esprit éternel et feu du sacrifice en He 9,14.” Bib 64 (1983): 263–74. –. “Heb 6:7–8 et le mashal rabbinique.” Pages 527–32 in vol. 2 of The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Riecke. Edited by W. C. Weinrich. 2 vols. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984. –. “L’οἰκουμένη dans l’épître aux Hébreux.” Bib 45 (1964): 248–53. –. “La Question Littéraire de Hébreux XIII.1–6.” NTS 23 (1977): 121–39. Vasaly, Ann. Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993. Versnal, H. S. Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 173. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “What Did Ancient Man See When He Saw a God? Some Reflections on Greco-Roman Epiphany.” Pages 42–55 in Effigies Dei: Essays on the History of Religions. Edited by Dirk van der Plas. Studies in the History of Religions 51. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Vining, Peggy. “Comparing Seneca’s Ethics in Epistulae Morales to Those of Paul in Romans.” ResQ 47:2 (2005): 83–104. Vogel, Manuel. “Der Hebräerbrief als ständiger Gast im Haus der Kirche.” ZNT 29 (2012): 46–52. –. “Tempel und Tempelkult in Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Pages 251–63 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Vollenweider, S. Freiheit als neue Schöpfung. FRLANT 147. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Vos, J. Cornelis de. Heiliges Land und Nähe Gottes. Wandlungen alttestamentlicher Landvorstellungen in frühjüdischen und neutestamentlichen Schriften. FRLANT 244. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. –. “Jerusalem: Why on Earth is it in Heaven?” Pages 327–37 in Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Edited by E. van der Steen et al. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 583. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Walker, P. W. L. “Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle.” TynBul 45 (1994): 39–71. –. Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 1996. Walton, John H. “The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song.” JBL 122 (2003): 734–43. –. “Sons of God, Daughters of Man.” Pages 793–98 in Dictionary of Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Watson, Gerard. “The Concept of ‘Phantasia’ from the Late Hellenistic Period to Early Neoplatonism.” ANRW 2.36.7:4765–4810. –. Phantasia in Classical Thought. Galway: Galway University Press, 1988. Watts, James W. Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. –. “Ritual Rhetoric in the Pentateuch: The Case of Lev 1–16.” Pages 305–18 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Edited by T. Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Rev. ed. WBC. Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 2005. Webb, Ruth. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. –. “Imagination and the Arousal of the Emotions in Greco-Roman Rhetoric.” Pages 112– 27 in The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Edited by Susanna Morton Braund and Christopher Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

278

Bibliography

Webster, John B. “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 69–94 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard J. Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Wedderburn, A. J. M. “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and its Thirteenth Chapter.” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405. –. “Sawing Off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously Ad Hebraeos.” JTS 56 (2005): 393–414. Weinfeld, M. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 15th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Welten, Peter. “Lade – Tempel – Jerusalem. Zur Theologie der Chronikbücher.” Pages 169– 83 in Textgemäß. Festschrift für Ernst Würthwein zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by A. H. J. Gunneweg and O. Kaiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text. 3d ed. London: Macmillan, 1920. Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning. Library of New Testament Studies 297. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Whitgift, John. The Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition against the Replie of T.C. By Iohn Whitgift Doctor of Diuinitie. London: Henry Binneman, 1574. Whitlark, Jason A. Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. –. “‘Here We Do Not Have a City that Remains’: A Figured Critique of Roman Imperial Propaganda in Hebrews 13:14.” JBL 131 (2012): 161–79. –. Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter to “the Hebrews.” Library of New Testament Studies 484. London: T&T Clark, 2014. Widdicombe, Peter. The Fatherhood of God in Origen and Athanasius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Wider, David. Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief. BZNW 87. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Willis, Timothy M. “‘Obey Your Leaders’: Hebrews 13 and Leadership in the Church.” ResQ 36 (1994): 316–26. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979. Witherington, Ben, III. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2007. –. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament. Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2009. Wolff, Christian. Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. TU 118. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1976. Wolff, H. W. Frieden ohne Ende: eine Auslegung von Jes. 7:1–17 und 9:1–6. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations in Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. Wrede, Wilhelm. Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs. FRLANT 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. Würthwein, E. “Jesaja 7:1–9. Ein Beitrage zu dem Thema: Prophetie und Politik.” Pages 127–43 in Wort und Existenz: Studien zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Young, Norman H. “Αἱματεκχυσία: A Comment.” ExpTim 90 (1979): 180. –. “‘Bearing his Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14).” NTS 48 (2002): 243–61.

Bibliography

279

–. “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9.” NTS 27 (1981): 198–210. –. “Suffering: A Key to the Epistle to the Hebrews.” ABR 51 (2003): 47–59. Zanker, Graham. “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 124 (1981): 297–311. –. Modes of Viewing in Hellenistic Poetry and Art. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004. Zanker, Paul. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Mich-igan Press, 1988. Zeitlin, Froma I. “The Artful Eye: Vision, Ecphrasis and Spectacle in Euripidean Theatre.” Pages 138–96, 295–304 in Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Edited by Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne. Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. –. “Figure: Ekphrasis.” Greece & Rome 60 (2013): 17–31. –. “Visions and Revisions of Homer.” Pages 195–266 in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Edited by Simon Goldhill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Zenger, Erich. “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (‘P’).” Pages 142–62 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by E. Zenger et al. KStTh 1/1. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Adapted by Joseph Smith. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblica 114. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1990. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Die neutestamentliche Deutung des Todes Jesu als Opfer: Zur christologischen Koinzidenz von Opfertheologie und Opferkritik.” Kerygma und Dogma 51 (2005): 72–99. Zuntz, Günther. The Text of the Epistles. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1953. Zwickel, Wolfgang. Der salomonische Tempel. Mainz: von Zabern, 1999.

List of Contributors David M. Allen (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh) is Academic Dean at the Queen’s Foundation for Ecumenical Theological Education, Birmingham, UK. He is the author of According to the Scriptures: The Death of Christ in the Old Testament and the New (SCM, 2018), The Historical Character of Jesus: Canonical Insights from Outside the Gospels (SPCK, 2013), and Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: An Exercise in Narrative Re-Presentation (Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Félix H. Cortez (Ph.D., Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University) is Associate Professor of New Testament Literature and Director of the MA (Religion) Program and Seminary Affiliations and Extensions at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA. He is author of several articles and essays on Hebrews and of the forthcoming commentary The Letter to the Hebrews (Pacific Press). Susan E. Docherty (Ph.D., University of Manchester) is Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at Newman University, Birmingham, UK. She is the author of The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (Mohr Siebeck, 2009), and of The Jewish Pseudepigrapha: An Introduction to the Literature of the Second Temple Period (Fortress, 2014). She has also written several articles and essays on Hebrews and on early Jewish interpretation of Scripture. Joseph R. Dodson (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen) is Associate Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado, USA. He is the author of The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans (De Gruyter, 2008) and editor (with David E. Briones) of Paul and Seneca in Dialogue (Brill, 2017). Georg Gäbel (Dr. theol., Kirchliche Hochschule, Wuppertal) is Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter on the Akademie-Projekt Novum Testamentum Graecum – Editio Critica Maior of the North-Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Evangelischtheologische Fakultät, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. He is a member of the editorial committee for the Editio Critica Maior of the Greek New Testament and author of Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes. Eine

282

List of Contributors

religionsgeschichtlich-exegetische Studie (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), as well as several articles and essays on Hebrews and on textual criticism. Grant Macaskill (PhD, University of St Andrews) holds the Kirby Laing Chair of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, having previously taught at the University of St Andrews. He is the author of 6 monographs, including Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in the New Testament and Ancient Judaism (Brill, 2007), The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch (Brill, 2013), Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2013) and The New Testament and Intellectual Humility (Oxford University Press, 2018). Scott D. Mackie (Ph.D. Fuller Theological Seminary) teaches biblical studies at Chapman University in Orange, California, USA. He is the author of Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Mohr Siebeck, 2007) and more than a dozen essays, and editor of The Epistle to the Hebrews: Critical Readings (Bloomsbury, 2018). Eric F. Mason (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is Professor and Julius R. Mantey Chair of Biblical Studies at Judson University, Elgin, Illinois, USA. He has written numerous articles on Hebrews as well as the monograph ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Brill, 2008; reprint SBL Press, 2014), and he is editor (with Kevin B. McCruden) of Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students (Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). David M. Moffitt (Ph.D., Duke University) is Reader in New Testament Studies at the University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK. He is the author of Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Brill, 2011), as well as numerous peer-reviewed articles, essays, and book chapters on Hebrews and other New Testament texts and issues. Nicholas J. Moore (Ph.D., University of Oxford) is MA Director and Tutor at Cranmer Hall, St John’s College, Durham University, Durham, UK. In addition to several articles on Hebrews, he is the author of Repetition in Hebrews: Plurality and Singularity in the Letter to the Hebrews, Its Ancient Context, and the Early Church (Mohr Siebeck, 2015). He is also the editor and translator (with Richard J. Ounsworth) of a volume of Albert Vanhoye’s essays entitled A Perfect Priest: Studies in the Letter to the Hebrews (Mohr Siebeck, 2018). Amy L. B. Peeler (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary) is Associate Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, USA. She is the author of “You are My Son”: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews (T&T Clark, 2014) as well as several articles on Hebrews. She is co-author (with

List of Contributors

283

Patrick Gray) of the forthcoming Hebrews: An Introduction and Study Guide (Bloomsbury, 2020). Benjamin J. Ribbens (Ph.D., Wheaton College Graduate School) is Associate Professor of Theology at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois, USA. He is the author of Levitical Sacrifice and Heavenly Cult in Hebrews (De Gruyter, 2016) as well as several articles and essays on Hebrews, sacrifice in the New Testament, and theological interpretation of Scripture. James W. Thompson (Ph.D., Vanderbilt University) is Scholar in Residence and Professor of New Testament in the Graduate School of Theology at Abilene Christian University. He is the author of The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), the commentary on Hebrews in the Paideia series (Baker Academic, 2008), and numerous articles on Middle Platonism and Hebrews.

Ancient Sources Index Old Testament Genesis 2:2 2:7 3:24 5:24 6 6:2 6:1–4 6:4 6:6 14:17–20 14:20 16–18 18 18–19 18:1–15 19:1–23 20 20:3 20:4 25:27 25:29 28:10–17 28:15 32 32:30 34 37:22 49:4 49:24

212, 213, 216 23 165 212, 216 4–5 5 4, 26 2, 4 2, 4 215 215 52, 68 225 243 209 209 35 35 35 228 228 24 210, 230 52, 68 52 86 101 228 217

Exodus 3–4 4:22–23 15:11 16:10 16:32

52, 68 35, 40 5 152 148

19 20:2–17 24 24:8 24:17 25 25–26 25–30 25–40 25:8 25:10–16 25:10–22 25:10–40 25:17–22 25:20 25:22 25:23–39 25:23–40 25:30 25:40 26 26:31–34 26:31–35 26:35 27:1–18 27:20 28–29 28:30 28:38 29:12 29:33 30 30:1–10 30:3–5 30:6 30:7–8

52, 68 221 52, 68, 90, 143 90, 103, 143 152 92, 144, 158, 160 135 143, 147, 148, 158, 159, 170 149 35 147 159 147 147 168 152 147 159 127 89, 137, 139, 154 147 159 135 159 159 127 159 127 127 103 165 159 127, 159, 166 166 166, 167 165, 166

286

Index of Ancient Sources

30:8 30:10 30:11 30:15 30:16 32:26 33–34 33:7 33:7–11 33:12–23 33:20 35 35–40 35:12 35:13–15 35:15 35:16–17 36–38 37 37–38 37:1–9 37:9 37:10–29 37:25 37:25–28 38:1–29 38:8 40 40:35

127 96, 124, 129 155 96 96 199 52, 68 215 200, 215 35 52 159 143 159 159 159 159 144, 159, 170 159 159 159 168 159 159 159 159 168 170 170

Leviticus 1–16 1:4 4:1–6:7 4:3 4:7 4:18 4:20 4:25 4:26 4:30 4:31 4:34 4:35 5:6 5:10 5:13 5:16 5:18

160 93 105 101, 102 103 103 96 103 96 103 96 103 96 96 96 96 96 96

5:26 6:6 6:7 6:13 6:23 6:30 7:7 7:12–15 8–10 8:15 8:33 9:7–14 9:9 9:24 10:1–2 10:1–7 10:17 11:42 14:19 14:19–20 14:31 15:15 15:30 16 16:1–2 16:2 16:6 16:10 16:11 16:12–13 16:12–14 16:14–15 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:21 16:26 16:27 16:27–28 16:30 16:34 17–26 17:4 17:11 18–19 19:18 19:22 24:2 24:8

96 127 96 127 96 96 96 132 167 103 165 102 103 151 151 164, 165 96 127 96 96 96 96 96 160, 164, 168 164 124, 128, 142 102 104 102 165 120, 124 164, 168 96 164 168 100 104 101, 214, 215 200 96 96, 124, 129 221 101 103, 104, 106, 113 227 221, 224 96, 105 127 127

287

Index of Ancient Sources 25:31–32 25:39–41

127 36

Numbers 4 4:7 4:15–20 4:15 4:20 5:8 6:11 8:12 8:19 8:21 9:16 14 15:25 15:26 15:28 16–17 16–18 16:1 16:8–10 16:16–35 16:41–50 17:1–10 17:5 17:6–15 17:10 17:25 18 18:1–10 18:2–7 18:25–32 19 25 27:17 28:10 28:15 28:22 28:23–24 28:30 28:31 29:5 29:6 29:11 29:16 29:19 29:22

170, 171 127 170 170 170 96 96 96 96, 164 96 127 216 96, 105 96, 105 96 164, 165 167 164 164 164 164 164, 165 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 37 217 127 127 96 127 96 127 96 127 96, 127 127 127 127

29:25 29:28 29:31 29:34 29:38 35:33

127 127 127 127 127 101

Deuteronomy 4:31 5:6–21 11:12 12:5 12:8–10 12:9–10 17:14–20 28:36 31:6 31:6–8 31:8 32 32:35 32:35–36 32:43 33:10

230 221 127 35 35 35, 41 36 36 204, 205, 210, 230 210 211 2, 3, 4 2 214 2, 3, 5 127, 165

Joshua 1:5 6:22–25 7 7:1 7:11–13 7:24–8:1 22:10–34 22:18 22:20

205, 210, 230 202 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

Judges 6 6:11–24 13 13:2–20

52, 68 209 52, 68 209

1 Samuel 3:14 6:3 8:6 13:14 16:7

96 96 36 35 35

288 2 Samuel 5:2 7 7:1 7:4–7 7:9 7:9–11 7:10 7:10–11 7:11 7:12 7:12–16 7:13 7:13–16 7:14

Index of Ancient Sources

7:14–16 7:16 22:21–26 22:3 23:3–5 23:5 24:1 24:13

217 32 35 36 33, 32, 36 35, 37 32, 36, 41 38 32, 33 32 35 32, 33 33 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 50 38 36 42 41 42 31 38 38

1 Kings 3:6 5:4 6:12–13 6:22 8:9 8:10–11 8:12–13 8:21 8:29 8:56 9:3 9:4 9:4–7 9:6–9 14:8 18:28 22:19

35 41 35, 37 167 35, 148 170 36 35 36 41 36 35 37 36 35 103 52, 68

1 Chronicles 6:34 11:2 15–16 17:6

96 217 134 217

17:9–10 22:10 23:30–31 28:18 28:20

37 39 127 169 210

2 Chronicles 5:10 6:1–2 6:11 6:20 6:41–42 7:1–2 7:1–3 7:12 7:16 7:17–22 7:19–22 14:1 14:6 14:7 15:15 15:19 16:9 29:24 29:31 32:22 33:16

35 36 35 36 36 170 151 36 36 37 36 41 41 41 41 41 72 96 132 41 132

Nehemiah 1:19–36 2:4–8

151 151

Job 1–2 5:1 28:24 33:14

6 5 72 117

Psalms 2 2:6–7 2:7 2:8

8:4–6 8:5–7 LXX

10 34 33, 50 33 8 16, 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 70, 86 69, 70, 213 177, 216

289

Index of Ancient Sources 11:4 14:2 16:8 18:15 LXX 21 LXX 21:22 LXX 21:23 22:22 23:1 28 LXX 28:1 LXX 28:9 33:2 LXX 33:13–14 34:27 LXX 35:8 39:7 LXX 39:17 LXX 40:6 40:6–8 49:14 LXX 49:23 LXX 50:14 50:17–18 LXX 50:17–19 LXX 50:23 51:15–16 56:1 62:8 LXX 69:5 LXX 70:6 LXX 78:71 80:1 81 LXX 81:1–4 LXX 81:6 LXX 88 LXX 88:6 LXX 88:7 LXX 88:28 LXX 89:3 89:27 89:30–32 90:4 LXX 94:7–11 LXX 95:7–11 96:7 LXX 102:19 103:4 LXX

72 72 168 127 7 50 213 50 217 6 2 217 127 72 127 168 101 127 101 107 132, 216 132, 216 132 132 216 132 132 168 168 127 127 217 217 6, 7 10 2, 6, 7 5, 7 5, 6, 7 2, 5 5 32 34 35 168 178, 215, 216 178, 180 2 72 10, 176, 177

104:4 106:22 LXX 107:22 109:3 LXX 110 110:1 110:4 115:8 LXX 116:8 117 LXX 117:6 LXX 117:7 LXX 118 118:117 LXX 132:11–12 132:11–14 139:8 141:2

15, 176 132, 216 132 5 33 33, 130 33 132, 216 132 213, 230 202, 204, 230 213 204, 213 127 32 35 168 133

Proverbs 15:13

72

Isaiah 5:6 6 6:5 7:1–9 8:17 8:17–18 8:18 11:1–5 12:2 30:29 40:11 42:1 49:16 53 57:15 61:1–2 63:10–14 63:11

210 48, 49, 50, 52, 68 49 41 41 50, 213, 214 41 42 41 127 217 186 154 40 5 105 178 217

Jeremiah 3:15 3:19 3:19 LXX 3:22 LXX 10:21 12:10

217 35 40 40 217 217

290 16:17 17:25 17:26 21:11–23:8 22:1–9 22:3 22:4 22:4–5 22:5 22:22 23 23:1–4 23:1–8 23:5 23:5–8 25:34–36 31 31:9 31:10 31:31–32 31:31–34 31:33 31:33–34 34:5 34:8–10 34:11 34:17–22 38 LXX 38:20 LXX 38:31 LXX 38:31–34 LXX 38:31–32 LXX 38:33–34 LXX 50:6 Ezekiel 1 1:26 1:26–27 1:26–28 1:28 9:3 10:4 10:18 10:19 11:22 34 36

Index of Ancient Sources 72 38 132 39 38 38 38 28 38 217 217 39 39 39 39 217 90, 142, 143, 181, 184 35 217 143 90, 92, 178, 182 183 143, 178, 182 36 36 36 36 181, 184 40 183 40, 178, 182 143 143, 178, 182, 184 217

48, 52, 68, 169, 170 49 169 49 49, 169 169 169 169 169 169 217 184

36:25–26 36:25–27 37:24 42:15 LXX 43:20 43:22 43:26 45:15 45:15–17 45:17 45:18 45:20

184 183, 189 217 138 96 96 96 96 100 96 96 96

Daniel 3:25 7 7:13 7:18 7:22 7:25 7:27 9:21

9 40 40 40 40 40 40 133

Hosea 10:8 11:1 14:3 LXX

210 35, 40 132, 216

Joel 2:28

180

Amos 8

91

Habakkuk 2:3–4

216

Zechariah 4:10 10:3 11:4–9 11:16–17 12:10 13:7

72 217 217 217 180 217

Malachi 1:19

96

291

Index of Ancient Sources

Septuagint Additions 1 Esdras 6:24

15:10

223

Judith 9:1

133

186

1 Maccabees 2:5–7 4:56 14:41

39 132 33

Odes 2:43

3, 4

2 Maccabees 1:10–2:18 1:19–36 2 2:1–8 2:4–8 2:8 2:10 10 10:3 10:20 12:45 15:14

150 150 151 151 167 151 151 151 151 228 96 223

Sirach 13:15 27:15 28:5 34:18–35:11 45:14 45:16 45:18–21 45:24 45:25 49:4–5 49:8 50:1–4

221 103 96 216 101 96, 165 165 5 39 39 169 39

3 Maccabees 1–2 1:11

124 124, 129

4 Maccabees 1:26 2:1–6 2:8 13:21 13:22 13:23 13:24 13:26 14:1

Tobit 4:12 4:13 5 5:4–12:22

227 221, 223, 224, 227 243 209

228 229 228, 229 223 226 223, 226 226 223, 226 223

Wisdom 3:13 5 5:5 7:22 14:24 14:26

228 5 2, 5 117 227 227, 228

Dead Sea Scrolls CD IV, 6–12

96

1QpHab 128

1QM II, 5

96

1QS II, 25–III, 12 IX, 4–5

96 216

292

Index of Ancient Sources

1Q22 III, 7–IV, 12

96

4Q44 II, frag. 5 ii, 6–7

3

4Q512 29–32

96

7Q8 4 11QTa

4Q161 33 4Q174 33, 128 4Q246 33

(Temple Scroll) 159 XVI, 12–18 96 XVIII, 2–8 96 XVIII, 7–8 96 XXV, 15 96 XXVI, 7–10 96 XXVI, 9-10 96 XXVII, 2 96

4Q252 33

11Q13 II, 4–8

96

4Q285 33 4Q385b

11Q17 VII, 5–12

49 169

150 11Q19 4Q400–407 49

171 159 159 159 159

4Q403 1 II, 15

169

III, 9 III, 10–15 III, 13 III, 14

4Q405 20 II-21-22, 3–9

169

Aramaic Levi Document 83, 85–86, 87

4Q504 33 4Q411 41

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 48, 49, 50, 83, 84, 138, 169

169

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 18:12 169

Ascension of Isaiah 6:10–12 19

Apocalypse of Moses 40 8

2 Baruch 152, 153

293

Index of Ancient Sources 4 4:3 4:5 6:7 6:8 6:8–9 6:9 30:2 32:2–3 32:3 32:4 68:5–6 68:5–7

154 154 154 153, 154, 157, 167 155 154 154 19 154 154 154 154 154

4 Baruch 3:7–8 3:8 3:14 4:3 8 9:1–6 9:2 9:7 9:8

152 155 156 155, 156 155 155 155 156 156 155

1 Enoch 4, 50, 83 1–36 (Book of the Watchers) 4, 83, 87 9–16 82, 83 9:10 8 10:1 8 10:4 8 10:9 8 10:11 8 12–14 52, 68 14 48, 49, 169 14:11 169 14:16 169 14:18 169 14:20 169 14:21–22 169 20:2 8 45:1 33 45:3 33 51:3 33 52:1–7 33

55:4 61:8 85–90 91:11–17 93:1–10

33 33 81 81 81

2 Enoch 43:5 66:3 66:5

87 216 72 72

4 Ezra 7–13 7:32 6:53–59 11:1–12:3

154 19 70 40

Greek Apocalypse Ezra 6:2 8 Joseph and Aseneth 14:3–17:9 209 Jubilees 6:2 6:7–8 6:12–13 6:14 6:17 6:20 7:3 7:27–33 16:13 16:22 21:6 21:17–20 34:18 49:7–8 49:15 50:11

82, 83 96 103 103 96 129 129 96 103 129 96 103 103 96 129 129 96

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 152, 156 17:4 165 23:13 19 25:10–12 152

294 26:4–15 26:12 26:13 26:15 52:3 53:9

Index of Ancient Sources 152 152 152 152 165 165

Life of Adam and Eve 12:1 6 Lives of the Prophets 156 9–14 151 Liv.Pro.Hab 12–13

152 Psalms of Solomon 17 33, 39 17:40 217

96

Testament of Abraham 1:4 224 1:4–15:15 209 1:9 224 1:19 224 2:2 209 4:25 224 9:8 169 10:1 169 17:16 225 20:15 225 20:45 225 Testament of Job 33:3 42:5–8 43:4 43:17

33 96 96 96

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs Reuben

223 223 221, 224

Levi 2 2–3 2–5 2:6 3:4 3:5–6 8:2–10 8:10 17.1

50, 85–86 49 48 52, 68 71 169 216 165 165 229

Judah 17:1 18:1

221, 229 221, 229

Issachar 5:2 7:6

221, 224 221, 224

Zebulon 5:1

221

Naphtali 5:2 5:6 5:8 6:2 6:10

71 71 71 71 71

Gad 4:2

221, 224

Benjamin 3:3–4 8:1

221, 224 227

152

Liv.Pro.Jer

Sibylline Oracles 3:624–28

4:6 6:1 6:9

Testament of Solomon 2:4 8

295

Index of Ancient Sources

New Testament Matthew 1:22 5:8 6:7 22:2–9 22:42–45 25:10 26:28 26:31 26:64

188 51 115, 116 227 33 227 105 217 33

Mark 1:4 3:29 10:45 12:35–37 14:27 14:62 16:19

105 105, 180 110 33, 34 217 33 33

Luke 1 1:1 1:8–9 1:9–11 1:30–33 1:32 1:69 1:77 3:3 4:18 12:10 14:8 16:14 18:7 20:41–44 22:20 22:69 23:42 24:13–49 24:47 24:53

165 117 166 166 40 34 34 105 105 105 180 227 228 133 33 90 33 225 53 105 132

John 1:1–18 1:18

43 88

2:1 3:13 10:11–16 10:34–35 20–21 20:30–31 21 21:25

227 87 217 7 53 145 194 145

Acts 1:1–11 2:14–21 2:29–36 2:33 2:34–35 2:38 3:1 5:31 7:55–56 7:55–60 9:3–6 9:10–19 9:27 10:2 10:2–3 10:30 10:43 13:33–34 13:38 13:38–39 14:11 15 18:9–10 22:6–21 22:17–21 23:11 26:12–18 26:18

53, 54 180 40 180 33 105 133 105 66 53, 54 53 53, 54 53 123, 132 133 133 105 34 105 112 209 89, 91 53, 54 53 53, 54 53, 54 53 105

Romans 1:3 1:3–4 1:3–5 1:9–10 3:24–26 6:23

34 2 40 132 112 112

296

Index of Ancient Sources

8:34 12–15 12:9–13 12:9–21 12:13 15:22–29 15:30 16:3–23 16:25–27

33 251 222 220, 222 224, 225 219 219 219 219

Philippians 2:6–11 2:19–30 4:4–9

43 219 220

Colossians 1:14 1:15–22 3:1 3:5

105, 112 43 33 220

1 Corinthians 1:9 5:1 6:12–14 9:1 11:25 15:5–8 15:8 15:25 16:5–9 16:19–20 16:23–24

2 227 227 53 90 53 54 33 219 219 219

1 Thessalonians 1:10 3:10 4:3–8 5:12–21 5:14–22 5:17

2 133 227 222 220 132

2 Thessalonians 1:11

132

1 Timothy 2:6 2:8 3:2 3:3 5:5 6:6–10 6:8 6:10

110 34 225, 230 228, 230 133 230 230 228

2 Timothy 1:3 3:2

133 228, 230

Titus 1:8 1:11 2:14

225, 230 230 110

Philemon 22

219

2 Corinthians 3:6 3:18 4:4–6 12:1–12 12:2–3 12:14 12:21 13:1 13:13

90 53, 54 53 53 19 219 227 219 219

Galatians 1:12 1:12–16 2:20 3:19–22 5:19

93 53 2 112 227

Ephesians 1:7 1:20 3:10 5:3 5:5 6:18

105, 110, 112 33 117 222 222 132

Hebrews 1

5, 11, 15, 16, 18, 49, 88, 116, 118, 207

Index of Ancient Sources 1–2

1–12

1:1 1:1–2 1:1–4 1:2 1:3

1:3–13 1:4 1:5 1:5–6 1:5–13 1:5–14 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:8–9 1:8–12 1:9 1:10 1:10–11 1:10–12 1:11–12 1:13 1:13–14 1:14 2 2:1 2:1–4 2:2–3 2:3 2:4 2:5

13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 30, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 64, 71 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 204, 209, 213, 218, 219, 220, 231 89 117, 179, 219 43, 219 1, 11, 31, 33, 41, 211 11, 16, 31, 40, 47, 49, 64, 66, 70, 111, 130 47 9, 15, 16, 33 1, 8, 9, 33, 40, 50, 64 19 43, 64–68, 96, 213 31, 177 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 44, 45, 47, 50, 64, 71 10, 15, 18, 19, 66, 176, 177 1, 11, 49, 66 16 33 64 10 224 33 11 1, 11, 16, 17, 19, 48, 49, 64, 66 29, 33 6, 18, 19, 31, 40, 177 16, 17, 18, 177, 213 46, 68, 70 68–69, 180, 219, 228 68 2, 46, 68, 196 68, 178, 179, 180, 250 16, 17, 20, 29, 69

2:5–6 2:5–8 2:5–9 2:5–10 2:5–13 2:5–18 2:6 2:6–9 2:7–8 2:8 2:8–9 2:8–10 2:9

2:9–10 2:9–13 2:10

2:10–11 2:10–13 2:10–18 2:11 2:11–12 2:12 2:12–13 2:13 2:13–14 2:14 2:14–15 2:14–16 2:14–18 2:15 2:16–17 2:17 2:17–18 2:18 3 3–4 3:1 3:1–6 3:2 3:3 3:3–4 3:4 3:6

297 213 16, 69, 75 43, 69–70, 74, 75 47 49, 74 76, 186 1, 70, 225 41, 69 69, 70 69, 70 16, 69, 216 44 32, 41, 44, 51, 70, 71, 75, 110, 127, 177 47 51 1, 31, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51, 71, 187, 217, 224 71 44, 49 32, 43 71, 75 31, 224 71 44, 50, 51, 71–74, 75, 213 41, 44, 50, 71, 214 31 18, 47, 75 75, 110 30 75–76 75, 127, 132, 231 19 31, 76, 100, 111, 224, 230, 231 75 47, 76, 213 207 64, 213, 215 31, 51, 224, 247 31, 207 231 33 33 33 1, 31, 213, 219,

298 3:7 3:7–11 3:7–4:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 4 4:1 4:1–11 4:3–7 4:4 4:9–16 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:14–16 4:14–5:10 4:15 4:16 5 5:1 5:1–10 5:2 5:3 5:4–6 5:5 5:5–6 5:7–9 5:8 5:8–9 5:11–14 6:1–5 6:1–12 6:2 6:4 6:4–6 6:4–12 6:6 6:7–8 6:10 6:11 6:12

Index of Ancient Sources 224, 230, 247 178, 213, 250 96, 180 123 31, 46, 247 216 213, 219 33, 41 46 44 96 212 213 46 18, 177 72 1, 44, 47, 50, 85, 224 41, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 71, 219 186 76 46, 49, 142, 172, 213, 230, 231 85, 88 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 113 181 101 101, 102, 103, 113 187 1, 31 96, 213 110 1, 76 187 146 179 219 18 178, 179, 180, 184, 250 180, 228 146 1, 46 210 225 224 193

6:12–13 6:12–20 6:17 6:18 6:18–20 6:19 6:19–20 6:20 7 7–10 7:1–2 7:1–10:18 7:2 7:3 7:5 7:11 7:17 7:19 7:20–25 7:21 7:22 7:23–24 7:23–28 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:26–28 7:27 7:28 8 8–9 8–10 8:1 8:1–5 8:1–10:18 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:4–6 8:5 8:6 8:6–8 8:6–13 8:7 8:7–13 8:8–10 8:8–12

224 231 31 219 44, 46, 172 18, 41, 68, 142 41, 44, 123, 172 47 47, 88, 181, 214, 215 116, 118–20 215 197, 222 164, 215 1, 31, 224 1 95 186 44, 46, 95 187 96, 213 40, 48, 231 120 120 224 32, 44, 46, 186 44, 47, 50 31 101, 102, 107, 113, 120, 129 1 126, 181 137, 183 80, 85–92 40, 47, 49 119 107 33, 123, 137 99, 213 108 98 89, 96, 119, 137–40 40, 98, 142 48 157 142 142 90, 142 96, 143, 178, 182

Index of Ancient Sources 8:8–13 8:10 8:10–11 8:12 8:13 9 9–10 9:1 9:1–2 9:1–5

9:1–8 9:1–10

9:1–11 9:1–12 9:1–14 9:2 1 9:2–3 9:2–4 9:2–5 9:3 9:4 9:4–5 9:5

9:6

9:6–7 9:6–10 9:6–11 9:6–14 9:7

9:8

142 182, 183 90 142 48, 142, 149, 157, 181 47, 116, 142, 143, 214 64 121, 135, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144 126 135, 136, 138, 142, 146, 147, 149, 156, 157, 158–60, 166, 171, 172, 174 127 46, 116, 120–28, 128, 131, 140–42, 157 147 141 98, 99, 118, 121 122, 125, 143, 158, 66 123 166 121, 122, 128 142, 158, 163, 166 127, 147, 154, 157, 158, 164, 165–68 122, 136, 148, 163 121–22, 136, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 168 46, 116, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 127– 28, 128, 132, 133, 160, 162 98, 123, 128, 160 121, 136, 137, 160, 171 46 122 101, 102, 106, 107, 113, 123–24, 129, 130, 133, 142, 159 123, 124–27, 129, 140, 141, 142, 143,

9:8–9 9:8–10 9:9 9:9–10 9:10 9:11

9:11–12 9:11–14 9:11–23 9:12

9:12–14 9:13 9:13–14 9:14

9:14–22 9:15 9:15–22 9:15–23 9:16–21 9:18–21 9:18–22 9:18–23 9:19 9:19–21 9:20 9:21 9:22 9:23 9:23–24 9:23–28 9:24 9:24–25 9:24–26 9:25 9:25–26

299 160, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 250 188 123, 140 95, 99, 126, 140, 143, 182 128, 141, 181 109, 140, 141 43, 47, 120, 128, 137, 141, 142, 159, 187 44, 47, 128, 141, 142, 157, 182 41, 116 129 47, 106, 108, 110, 112, 123, 129, 130, 131, 142, 190 46, 47 47, 104, 186, 190 98, 128, 148, 164, 182, 183, 189 41, 47, 106, 175, 176, 178, 182, 184, 185–90 41 31, 40, 41, 48, 106, 110, 111, 112, 190 32, 41 129 104 46 47, 143 157 47 104 90, 143 47, 48, 139 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113 98, 138, 139 119 99 32, 46, 47, 51, 119, 137, 141, 142, 159 123 14 47, 123, 159 108

300 9:25–28 9:26 9:28 10 10:1 10:2 10:1–4 10:1–14 10:4 10:5 10:6 10:8 10:10 10:11 10:11–12 10:11–14 10:12 10:12–13 10:12–14 10:14 10:15 10:15–17 10:15–18 10:16 10:16–17 10:17 10:17–18

10:19 10:19–20 10:19–21 10:19–22 10:19–23 10:19–39 10:20 10:22 10:23 10:25 10:26–31 10:28 10:28–29 10:29

Index of Ancient Sources 120 51, 106, 120, 127, 129, 187 40, 106, 129 183 95, 119, 127, 139 95, 106, 188 46, 108, 120 120 47, 95, 106, 107 107. 123, 213 101 101, 107, 108 129 95, 106, 107, 121 98 40, 46 47, 49, 127, 132 16 108, 182 107, 132 91, 178, 184, 188, 213, 250 96, 178, 182 182 182, 184 90, 143 107, 183 106 10:18 103, 107, 111, 113, 184 31, 46, 47, 123, 142, 184, 230, 247 47 44, 183 120, 172 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 71, 219 98, 107, 213 48, 89, 142 46, 47, 48, 142, 183, 184, 203 46, 219, 224 46 108, 228 92 180 1, 91, 178, 179,

10:30 10:30–33 10:33 10:34 10:35 10:37–38 10:38 10:38–39 11 11–12 11:1 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:8 11:8–10 11:8–16 11:9 11:11 11:13 11:17 11:18 11:21–22 11:23 11:24 11:24–27 11:26 11:27 11:28 11:31 11:32 11:32–37 11:33 11:35 11:36 11:36–37 11:39 11:40 12 12:1 12:1–2 12:2 12:3 12:5 12:5–6 12:5–8

180, 250 2 214 224 224, 225 230, 249 210 46 18 18, 204, 209, 212, 213 251 70 214 212 44 112 215 225 112 231 112 112 112 1 231 1 195 249 51, 231 30 202 63, 122, 209 209 112 18, 20, 209, 226 209 244 112, 209 31, 112 234, 251 177 213, 219 47, 49, 51, 246, 251 41 213 210 1, 31

Index of Ancient Sources 12:5–11 12:9 12:11 12:14 12:14–17 12:14–18 12:15 12:15–17 12:16–17 12:17 12:18–24 12:18–29 12:22 12:22–24 12:23 12:24 12:25 12:25–29 12:27 12:27–28 12:28 12:28–29 12:28–13:16 12:29 13

13:1 13:1–3 13:1–6

13:1–17 13:1–19 13:1–21 13:2 13:3 13:4 13:4–5 13:5

31, 224, 234 18, 177 31 51, 222 222 222 46 228 210, 244 228 64, 197 207, 219, 222 203 31, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 172 18, 177 47, 48 46 219 224 18 31, 40, 172, 196, 222 197 222 192, 220 191–206, 207–218, 219, 220, 234, 235, 247, 250, 251, 252 195, 196, 197, 206, 223, 243 247 201, 206, 219, 220, 222, 223, 231 13:1–8 204, 235, 236, 242– 46, 251 220, 222, 223, 224 192, 195, 196 197 195, 206, 209–10, 223, 224, 230, 243 195, 205, 206, 222, 223, 225, 227, 243 195, 222, 223, 230, 244 220 195, 204, 205, 210– 13, 228, 231, 244

13:5–6 13:5–8 13:6 13:7 13:7–17 13:7–19 13:8 13:8–14 13:9

13:9–14 13:9–16 13:10 13:10–14 13:10–16 13:11 13:11–13 13:12 13:12–13 13:13 13:14 13:15 13:15–16 13:16 13:16–17

13:18 13:18–19 13:18–25 13:19 13:20 13:20–21 13:20–22 13:21 13:22 13:22–25 13:23

301 222, 223, 230, 244 250 204, 213–14, 230, 244 193, 195, 196, 197, 222, 245, 246 200, 222 197 194, 195, 197, 198, 246, 250, 252 197 46, 191, 195, 197, 198, 201, 206, 245, 246 196, 198, 202, 205 197 172, 199 198 207 101, 102, 113, 123, 199, 202, 214 199, 202, 203, 214– 16 110, 199 215 191, 195, 199, 201, 202, 203 197, 202, 203, 206, 215 127, 132, 134, 172, 204, 216 133, 195, 216 196, 216, 222, 225 219, 220 13:17 18, 193, 195, 196, 205, 222, 250 188, 197, 219 195 191, 219, 220 197, 219 48, 187, 204, 216– 17 192, 193 219 196 31, 191, 196, 247 192, 195, 196 195

302

Index of Ancient Sources

13:24 13:25

191, 219 219

1 Peter 1:19 3:8 4:9 5:4

110 224 225 217

2 Peter 1:7

224

Revelation 4:1–2 4:2–11 5 5:5 6:9–11 7:17 8:3 19:7 22:16

19 169 53 34 19 217 167 227 34

Philo and Josephus Philo Abr. 57 113 114 118 150

56 24, 225 225 24 55

Agri. 17 51

210 7

Conf. 146 166

7, 9 211, 230

Det. 80 91–92

23 103

Deus. 42–43

62

Ebr. 85–87 136

117 126, 129

Flacc. 84 136

105 124

Gig.

14–15 16 37 52

26 26 229 124, 129

Her. 55 204 226–227

23, 103 210 167

Leg. 3.248

210

Legat. 4 157 280 306 306–307

53 128 128 129 124

Mos. 1.117 2.94 2.95–108 2.101 2.134 2.147 2.292

117 167 159 166, 167 96 96, 105 51

Mut. 233–36

96

Opif.

303

Index of Ancient Sources 134 135

23 23

Plant. 14 26–27 162

25 140 96

Prob. 21

229

Prov. 2.12–13

229

QE 2.51

53

1.237 1.241 1.246 1.275–277 1.281 2.17 2.146 2.193–203 3.131 3.150 3.161 4.122–23 4.123

105 96 210 165 229 96 124, 129 96 101 103 248 103 23

Virt. 208

228

Josephus

QG 1.92 4.33

5, 7, 24, 26 229

Sacr. 5 6–7 8–10

27 27 27

Sobr. 26

228

Somn. 1.137 1.138 1.139 1.206 2.299

25 25 25 140 96

Spec. 1.66 1.72 1.74–75 1.187 1.190 1.193 1.205 1.215 1.229 1.233 1.234

27 126, 129 126 96 96, 105 96 103 96, 105 96 96 96

Antiquities 1.73 1.102 1.113 2.70 3.125 3.128 3.128–129 3.134–149 3.137 3.147–148 3.181 3.198 3.205 3.224 3.224–257 3.238 3.241 3.246 3.247 3.257 3.258 3.260 3.273 5.336 6.165 7.93–95 7.333 7.337 7.378

5 103 23 226 125 170 125 159 169 166, 167 141 167 96 96 128 96 96 96 96 101 96 103 96 39 39 39 96 39 169

304 8.73 8.103 8.104 8.105 8.118 8.126–127 10.142 10.143 11.112 13.230 14:71–72 14.71–73 14.482–483 15.248

Index of Ancient Sources 168 168 148 126 126 39 117 39 39 96 170 124 170 97

16.35 18.85 18.196

97 153 226

Jewish War 1.152 1.152–153 1.354 5.208–212 5.216 5.216–218 5.219 5.230 5.236

170 124 170 126 166 167 126 101 1

Rabbinic Literature Mishna m. Mid. 4.7

126

m. Šeqal. 6 :1–2

148, 153

m. Tamid 4.3 5.2 5.4

166 165 165 165

m. Yoma 1.1–4 1.2 3.4–5 5.1 7.4

124 101 101 126 124

b. Yoma 5a 19b 52b 54a

103 170 148 126, 148, 153

b. Zevahim 8a 26b 36a 36b 51a 51b 61 89b

103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103

Tosefta t. Yoma 3:7

148

Talmud

Other

b. Hor. 12a

’Abot R. Nat. 41

148

228 228

148

b. Menahot 93b

103

Gen. Rab. 63.9 63.12

b. Soṭah 9a

148, 153

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael

305

Index of Ancient Sources Vayassa’ 6

148

Sifra 4:9

103

Greco-Roman Sources Aelius Aristides

Poet. 15.10 1454b 17.1

72 63

118

Or. 40.12–13

52

Flavius Aëtius 4.11.1–4

62

Rhet. 1.9.38–41

Achilles Tatius 1.9.4–5 5.13.4

73 73

Sens. 4.442a.30–442b.1–3

Aelius Theon Progymnasmata 10.8–24

Cicero 118

Antipater of Tarsus De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 38 59 Aphthonius Prog. 11 12

73

65 58, 70

Acad. 2.17 2.18 2.77 2.145

59 61 61 61

De. or. 3.202

57

Inv. 1.104 1.107

59 59

Nat. d. 2.6 166

52 52

Or. 8–10

62

Part. or. 6.20

57

Tusc. 1.61

62

Apuleius Metam. 11.23

52

Aristotle De an. 3.3 427b15–429a9 61 3.3 432a8–10 62 Eth. nic. 8.1.3–4 8.3 8.12.3

224 247 247

Demetrius Mem. rem. 449b31–450a1

62

On Style

306 209–220 211–215 222

Index of Ancient Sources 57 75 66

Euripides Bacch. 22 42 50–54

53 53 53

62

Hecuba 592

210

Ion 2:190–225

71

Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.70–71 Diodorus Siculus 2.5 3.45 4.3.2 5.22 5.34 5.49.5 14.46 17.64

227 224 53 224 224 52 224 224

Diogenes Laertius 7.46 7.49 7.50 10.33 10.48 10.52 10.123 10.130

61 62 61 59 59 59 59 229

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 2.68.2 6.13.1–5

52 52

Lys. 7

58, 68

Epictetus Diatr. 1.1.27 1.14.7–8 1.20.7 2.9 2.9.13 2.16 2.18 3.1.37

229 62 61 228 229 228 228 248

Galen De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 7.5 73 Heraclides Ponticus Frag. 175 224 Hermogenes of Tarsus Prog. 10

57, 58, 65, 70

Herodian 3.1–2

227

Herodotus 1.8 2.91 6.105–106 6.117 8.38

55 52 52 52 52

Homer Il. 11.336–337 20.131

72 59

Od. 7.201 16.161

59 59

Horace Odes 2.19.1–4 3.6

53 239

307

Index of Ancient Sources Isocrates Hel. enc. 22

9.870c

228

Gorg. 515e

228

Phaedr. 246a–251b 250d 251a–c 255c–d

53 55 73 73

52

Resp. 382e

61

65 58, 64, 65

Soph. 260c–e 264a 347b

61 61 228

Symp. 210a–212a

53

Theaet. 152c

61

118

Lucian Tox. 29 32

248 248

Maximus of Tyre Or. 9.7 Nicolaus Prog. 10 11 Onasander Strategus 1.1 1.8–9

229 229

Ovid Metam. 3.658–659 8.613–715 8.626 Pausanias 5.5.4 6.22.8 6.26 7.18.12 7.24–25 8.37.9 9.38.4

Timaeus 53 225 243

52 52 52 52 52 52 52

Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.19

62, 63

Plato Leg. 9.870a

228

23 Plutarch Art. 8.1

60

Frat. amor. 478D 479A 480B 481C

226 226 226 226

Mor. 140b 144f 347a 680c–683b 1083c 1085a–b

239 239 60, 68 73 59 62

Polybius

308 Hist. 4.20

Index of Ancient Sources Seneca 224

Ps.-Longinus Subl. 15.1–12 15.2 15.9 15.11

57 63 60, 68 68–69

Ps.-Phocylides 6

229

Quintilian Inst. 3.7.16 4.2.49 4.2.63–64 5.11.24 6.1.2 6.2.29 6.2.29–33 6.2.30 6.2.31 6.2.32 6.2.34 6.2.34–35 6.2.35–36 8.3.61–90 8.3.62 8.3.64 8.3.64–65 8.3.67 8.3.70 8.3.71 9.1.27 9.2.40–44 9.2.41 9.2.46–48 9.2.47 9.2.54 9.2.75 9.3.99

118 146 62 210 145 63 57 60, 63, 67 59 60 62 59 60 57 59, 60 66 65 60, 68 62 60 57, 60 57 62 145 144 145 122 122

Rhet. Her. 4.27.37 4.30.41 4.55

121, 122, 144 122 57, 70

Ben. 3.16.1–3 3.16.2 3.16.3 5.6

239 240 240 242

Const. 7.4

248

Ep. 2.6 3.2–3 3.3 6.2–3 6.3 8 8.5 9 9.8 9.8–9 9.10 11 11.8–9 11.9 11.10 25.5 31.11 41.6 41.1 41.2 41.5 48.2 48.3 52.8 62 63 65.7 83.1–2 83.2 90.3 94 94.3 94.15 94.26 95.52 102.18 110.10

240 238 238 238 238 241 241 237 237 237 237–38 241 241, 252 241 242 241, 252 241 240 241 241 241 238 238 241 241, 249 238 62 74 74 240 239, 249 239 239 239 239 239 241

309

Index of Ancient Sources 110.11 110.18 119.5–6 120

241 241 240 62

Ira 1.5.2–3 2.23.2–3

238 238

Nat. III, 30.5–8 Vit. beat. 24.3

Stobaeus Atnthology 4.24.80 4.33.31 4.502.1–7

226 229 227

Tabula of Cebes 19.5

228

Tacitus

248

Hist. 5.9

239

124

Theon. Sextus Empiricus Math. 7.241 7.249–252 7.257 7.373

61 61 59 62

Prog. 8 11 13

64 58, 65, 70 6

33 II 11

229

Papyri P.Oxy. V 840

171

Early Christian Literature Athanasius Epistulae ad Serapionem 2.4 6

Commentary on the Psalms 29 7 Basil the Great

On the Incarnation C. Ar. 1.3.9 1.5.14 1.11.39 1.55 1.57 3.25.10

7 10 10 6 5 5 7

Arnobius the Younger

Homilies on the Psalms 13.2 7 1 Clement 42:5–44:5 43:2–5

165 165

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Hebrews

310

Index of Ancient Sources

12

7

Paedegogue 1.6

7

Frag. A. 8

8

Tertullian Against Praxeas 13

7

Commentary on the Psalms 29 7

Marc. 1.7

6

Praep. ev. 9.39.2–5

Theodoret of Cyr 150

Prayer of Joseph Frag. A. 3

8

Eusebius

Commentary on the Psalms 29.4 7

Medieval Sources Aquinas Summa contra Gentiles 4.7.4 9

Index of Modern Authors Ackroyd, P.R. 149 Aitken, E.B. 136 Alexander, L. 117, 203 Allen, D.M. 154, 176, 179, 180, 181, 186, 190, 191, 197, 199, 200, 204, 205, 210, 211, 220, 225, 226, 250 Anderson, G.A.171 Arbel, V.D. 54, 84 Asumang, A. 160 Attridge, H.W. 2, 10, 14, 15, 34, 43, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 125, 127, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 166, 167, 172, 177, 178, 179, 180, 183, 209, 211, 215, 216, 234, 245, 246, 247, 250 Backhaus, K. 121, 122, 133, 146, 195, 196, 201, 204, 219 Badcock, F.J. 192 Baktin, M. 235 Balz, H. 141 Barber, M.P. 34 Bark, F. 149, 158 Barnard, J.A. 5, 8, 9, 45, 52, 64, 81, 83, 139, 141, 171, 172 Barr, J. 236 Barth, M. 208 Barton, C.A. 55, 56 Bartsch, S. 55, 58, 73, 74 Bauckham, R. 2, 13, 31, 88, 119, 148, 173, 202, 203, 206 Bauer, J. 117 Beckman, G. 39 Bell, C. 120 Bénétreau, S. 121, 123, 126 Berger, K. 146, 147 Bing, P. 72 Blaising, C.A. 7

Boccaccini, G. 82, 88, 156 Boer, M.C. de 79, 80, 82 Böhl, F. 148 Boustan, R.S. 171 Braun, H. 103, 111, 121, 250 Brawley, R.L. 70 Bréhier, É. 25 Briones, D.E. 233 Brogan, T.V.F. 145 Brooke, G.J. 85, 150, 211 Brookins, T.A. 251 Brooks, W.E. 130 Brown, D. 116 Brown, R.E. 34 Bruce, A.B. 192 Bruce, F.F. 100, 103, 111, 186, 235 Brueggemann, W. 36, 40 Buchanan, G.W. 192, 207, 244, 245, 248 Burger, C. 34 Burkert, W. 53 Byrskog, S. 67 Caird, G.B. 33, 131 Calabi, F. 97 Calaway, J.C. 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 169, 171, 172 Campbell, D.A.79 Campbell, R. 236 Carroll, R.P. 38 Cervera i Valls, J. 106 Chae, Y.S. 34 Chanikuzhy, J. 154 Chaston, C. 55, 70 Chester, A.N. 54, 173 Childs, B.S. 41 Church, P. 13, 95, 108, 138, 139, 150, 156, 157 Cline, R. 48

312

Index of Modern Authors

Clivaz, C. 166, 199 Cockerill, G.L.34, 41, 46, 69, 110, 121, 143, 157, 166, 167, 183, 184, 186, 190, 217 Cody, A. 130 Colish, M.L. 233 Collins, J.J. 81, 82, 88, 150, 152, 155, 156, 251 Collins, M.F. 153 Comfort, P.W. 185 Corbeill, A. 72 Cortez, F.H. 39, 129, 130, 131, 143 Craigie, P.C. 38 Crawford, C.D. 149 Cross, F.M. 40 Croy, N.C. 234 Czapla, B. 144, 145 Daly, R.J. 96 Davies, J.B. 80 Davies, J.P. 80, 84 Davila, J.R. 84, 148 Davidson, M.J. 169 DeConick, A.D. 54 Delitzsch, F. 246 deSilva, D.A. 45, 64, 97, 98, 101, 107, 118, 144, 147, 198, 199, 208, 233, 243, 245, 247 Dey, L.K.K. 25, 117 Dillon, J. 21, 22, 26, 28 Dimant, D. 150 Docherty, S.E. 207, 212, 214, 215 Dodson, J.R. 233 Doering, L. 150 Doran, R. 150 Drawnel, H. 85, 86 Drews, L. 145 Drinkard, J.F. 38 Dumbrell, W.J. 36, 38 Dunderberg, I. 233, 234 Dunn, J.D.G. 31, 180 Dunnill, J. 199 Dunning, B. 200, 201 Easter, M.C. 41 Eberhart, C. 99, 100, 106 Ego, B. 97, 139, 153 Eisele, W. 14, 15 Eisenbaum, P.M. 191, 198, 212

Ellingworth, P. 2, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 111, 118, 125, 147, 175, 178, 186, 187, 188, 190, 211, 213, 214, 215, 217, 234, 245, 247 Elsner, J. 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 67, 72 Emmrich, M. 176, 178, 187, 190 Engberg-Pederson, T. 196, 222, 233, 234, 235, 250, 251 Engel, H. 150 Eshel, E. 86 Esler, P.F. 233 Eslinger, L. 35, 36 Evans, C.F. 118 Fallon, F. 150 Faßbeck, G. 173, 174 Filson, F. 192, 193, 199, 206, 222 Filtvedt, O.J. 111, 157, 158 Fishbane, M.A. 85 Fitzgerald, J.T. 239 Fitzmyer, J.A. 34 Flower, H.I. 55 Foley, H.P. 55, 58, 239 Fox, R.L. 52 Fraade, S.D. 148, 171 Frankfurter, D. 236 Frede, M. 61 Fredrick, D. 55, 72 Fretheim, T.E. 38 Frilingos, C.A. 56 Früchtel, U. 23 Fuhrmann, S. 104, 105, 107, 110, 111 Gäbel, G. 48, 100, 101, 105, 107, 111, 122, 135, 138, 150, 153, 156, 167, 172, 174 Gall, A.F. von 159 Gane, R.E. 106, 109 Gauly, B.M. 241 Gaventa, B.R. 81 Geiger, M. 160, 161 Gelardini, G. 14, 15, 41, 99, 113, 118, 136, 138, 177, 191, 201, 219 Gentry, P.J. 35, 40 George, M.K. 149, 162 Gileadi, A. 35, 37, 38 Giovambattista, F. di 95, 103, 107, 111 Giovanni, I. 82 Goldhill, S. 55, 58, 60, 61, 67, 74

Index of Modern Authors Goldin, J. 148 Goldingay, J. 6, 10 Goldstein, J.A. 150, 151 Gordon, R.P. 97, 188, 194 Goulder, M. 193, 194, 202 Graf, F. 52 Grässer, E. 15, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 121, 136, 167, 220, 243, 245, 246 Gray, P. 40, 206 Greenfield, J.C. 86 Grelot, P. 245, 247 Griffin, M. 241 Grimal, P. 236, 240 Gruber, C.J. 166 Grün-Oesterreich, A. 145 Guthrie, D. 120, 121 Guthrie, G.H. 194, 196, 205, 206, 208, 235, 243, 244, 245 Haber, S. 95, 143, 173 Hadas, M. 236 Hadot, I. 239 Hagenbichler, E. 145, 146, 147 Hagner, D.A. 31 Hahn, F. 34 Hahn, S.W. 40, 41, 113 Halperin, D. 169 Halsall, A.W. 147 Hamm, D. 127, 132, 133 Hankinson, R.J. 61 Hanson, A.T. 208 Hardie, P. 58 Hare, D.R.A. 152 Harinck, D. 80 Harrington, D.J. 152, 165 Harris, M.J. 188 Hartensteing, D.J. 168 Hay, D.M. 33, 34 Hays, R.B. 119, 163, 173, 206 Hayward, C.T.R. 97, 138, 152, 153 Heath, J.M.F. 54, 56, 61 Heger, P. 97 Hegermann, H. 243, 244, 245 Heidegger, M. 53 Heil, J.P. 196, 197 Henrichs, A. 53 Henze, M. 153, 154 Herzer, J. 155, 156

313

Heyman, G. 174 Hill, D. 110, 111 Himmelfarb, M. 87, 156 Hodson, A.K. 176, 178 Hofius, O. 141, 142, 143 Holladay, C.R. 238 Holladay, W.L. 38 Holowchack, M.A. 239, 241 Horn, F.W. 190 Horsley, G.H.R. 52 Hubbard, M.V. 239, 248 Hughes, P.E. 100, 101, 102, 108, 110, 111 Hundley, M.B. 149, 162 Hurst, L.D. 119, 138, 139, 235 Hurtado, L.W. 8, 11, 53, 54, 55, 66 Huttunen, N. 234, 236, 251 Inwood, B. 61, 234, 236 Ioppolo, A.-M. 61 Irvine, S.A. 42 Isaac, E. 169 Isaacs, M.E. 23, 31, 45, 118, 171, 172, 174, 197, 199, 201 Jamieson, R.B. 130 James, L. 59 Jay, M. 73 Jewett, R.49, 246 Jipp, J.W. 18 Johnson, L.T. 2, 11, 45, 193, 197, 198, 200, 223, 246, 248, 249 Johnson, R.W. 203, 204 Johnsson, W.G. 103, 104, 105, 107 Jones, E.D. 192, 220 Jones, F.S. 233 Jong, A. de 205 Joslin, B.C. 102, 107, 108 Kahl, B. 56 Kallendorf, C. 145, 146 Karrer, M. 34, 135, 139, 144, 173 Kelber, W.H. 57 Kelley, P.H. 38 Kendal, D. 54 Kennedy, G.A. 57, 65, 70 Kibbe, M.130 Kim, L. 97 Kistemaker, S. 100, 102, 103, 110 Kiuchi, N. 106, 113

314

Index of Modern Authors

Klauck, H.-J. 224 Klawans, J. 97, 137, 138, 156, 173 Kleinig, J.W. 133 Klijn, A.F.J. 153, 154 Knibb, M.A. 97 Knohl, I. 170, 171 Knöppler, T. 95, 100, 107 Knust, J.W. 4 Koester, C.R. 2, 4, 9, 45, 69, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 121, 123, 125, 135, 139, 141, 144, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 167, 177, 186, 196, 198, 199, 208, 209, 217, 234, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249 Koester, H. 198, 200, 201 Koosed, J.L. 110 Kowalski, B. 117 Kraus, C. 55, 58 Kraus, W. 112, 142, 150, 173 Laansma, J.C. 13 Lane, W.L. 2, 3, 4, 31, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 110, 112, 113, 122, 133, 186, 192, 207, 208, 217, 234, 244, 245 Lanham, R.A. 144, 145, 146, 147 LaRondelle, H.K. 36 Lausberg, H. 144, 145, 146, 147 Lauterbach, J.Z. 148 Lee, M.V. 233 Lehne, S. 197, 200 Leonhardt, J. 97 Levison, J.R. 175, 176, 178, 180 Lewicki, T. 117 Lidgett, J.S. 32 Lincoln, A.T. 203 Lincoln, B. 236 Lindars, B. 99, 102, 108, 118, 175, 186, 191, 198, 199, 211 Lindberg, D.C. 55 Loader, W. 14 Loades, A. 116 Loewenich, W. von 109 Löhr, H. 45, 100, 136, 139, 142 Long, A.A. 61 Lovatt, H. 55, 72 Löw, M. 160, 161, 162 Lundbom, J.R. 3 Lünemann, G.96

Macaskill, G. 79, 82 Mackie, S.D. 43, 107, 111, 113, 147, 171, 190, 195, 198, 202, 203, 204 MacRae, G.W. 138, 139 Malherbe, A.J. 229, 231, 236, 237 Marshall, I.H. 110, 111, 176 Martin, M.W. 98, 119, 147 Martyn, J.L. 79 Mason, E.F. 15, 51, 98, 144, 175, 177, 198 McCarter, P.K., Jr. 35, 36 McCruden, K.B. 144, 235 McCullough, J.C. 211 McGrath, J.J. 176, 185, 186 McKelvey, R.J. 126 McLay, R.T. 211 Meier, J.P. 43 Michel, O. 208, 227, 242, 243, 244, 245 Milgrom, J. 106 Miller. J.A. 4 Miller, P.D. 39 Milligan, G. 139, 166 Mitchell, A.C. 95, 100 Moffatt, J.A. 96, 99, 102, 107, 108, 111, 193, 208, 210, 243, 244, 246, 247 Moffitt, D.M. 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 45, 87, 88, 99, 103, 112, 130, 186, 204 Moingt, J. 110 Momigliano, A. 235 Montefiore, H.W. 99, 100, 101, 105, 108, 110, 123, 193 Moore, N.J. 115, 116 Morales, H. 56, 58, 73 Morales, L.M. 143, 168 Moraw, S. 53 Moret, J.-R. 20 Morray-Jones, C. 81, 83, 84 Morris, L. 110, 111, 244, 245, 246 Mosser, C. 202 Motyer, S. 131, 176, 178, 208 Moulton, J.H. 139, 166 Mühlenberg, E. 6 Müller-Feiberg, R. 154 Murphy, F.J152, 154 Niehoff, M. 22 Nikiprowetzky, V. 26 Neis, R. 56 Nelson, R.D. 130, 200 Newby, Z. 74

Index of Modern Authors Neyrey, J.H. 89 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 83 Niebuhr, K.-W. 150, 221 Nightingale, A.W. 53, 55 Nongbri, B. 146 Novakovic, L. 34 O’Collins, G. 54 Olbricht, T.H. 98 Omar, A.R. 205 Ostmeyer, K.-H. 137 Ounsworth, R.J.123, 125, 131 Peeler, A.L.B. 1, 11, 31, 32, 33, 41 Peterson, D. 95, 100, 111 Pierce, M.N. 124, 176, 178 Platt, V.J. 52, 53, 55, 62, 72 Polen, N. 173 Pomykala, K.E. 38, 39 Porter, S.E. 64, 98, 118, 130, 144, 188 Preminger, A. 145 Rad, G. von 41 Ramelli, I. 227 Rascher, A. 95, 100, 101, 106, 107 Rasimus, T. 233, 234 Reed, A.Y. 4 Ribbens, B.J. 95, 96, 97, 99, 108, 109, 111, 113 Richlin, A. 239, 248 Rhoads, D. 90 Richardson, C.A. 42, 131 Rissi, M. 45 Roberts, W.R. 145 Robinson, S.E. 155, 156 Rogers, C.L., Jr. 34 Romm, J. 236 Rothschild, C.K. 192, 195, 220 Rowe, C.K. 233 Rowe, G.O. 144, 145 Rowland, C. 81, 83, 84 Rubenstein, J.L. 151 Runia, D.T. 22, 23, 30, 139, 140 Salevao, I. 201 Samely, A. 212, 216 Sanders, E.P. 225, 235 Sandmel, S. 236 Schaefer, J.R. 113

315

Schäfer, P. 156 Schaller, B. 155, 156 Scheidel, W. 75 Schenck, K.L.14, 64, 118, 120, 138 Schiffman, L.W. 97, 159 Schirren, T. 146 Schneider, G. 141 Schneider, H. 4 Scholer, J.M. 45, 172 Scholz, B.F. 57 Schröger, F. 208 Schunack, G. 109, 243, 245, 246 Schwartz, D.R. 150, 170, 171 Schwemer, A.M. 136, 152 Scott, E.F. 109 Seaford, R. 53 Seid, T.W. 98, 118 Seitz, E. 205, 226 Sellars, J. 234, 242 Setaiolia, A. 236, 241 Sevenster, J.N. 233 Sharples, R.W. 19 Sklar, J. 106, 111, 112, 113 Small, B. 185 Smillie, G.R. 117 Smith, J.Z. 8, 235, 236 Smyth, H.W. 188 Söding, T. 221 Söllner, P. 150, 154 Son, K. 33 Soulen, R.K. 9 Sowers, S.G. 208 Spicq, C. 43, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 110, 111, 112, 179, 208, 224, 228, 229, 243, 245 Stanley, S. 126, 143 Stegemann, E.W. 138 Stegemann, W. 138 Stemberger, G. 148 Sterling, G.W. 23, 138, 139, 237 Stevenson, G. 44 Steyn, G.J. 139, 196, 204, 205, 211, 220 Stock, G. 240, 248 Stone, M.E. 86 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 8 Stylianopoulos, T.G95, 107 Svendsen, S.N. 208 Swete, H.B. 175 Swetnam, J. 199

316

Index of Modern Authors

Sykes, S. 116, 173 Telscher, G. 105, 111, 112 Thatchter, T. 67 Thiessen, M. 158 Thompson, J.W. 2, 14, 45, 135, 138, 144, 195, 197, 198, 200, 201, 219, 221, 223, 224, 227, 235, 237, 243, 245 Thornton, T.G.C. 103, 104 Thorsteinsson, R.M. 234, 237, 239, 242, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252 Thurén, J. 132, 133, 192, 193, 206, 220 Thurén, L. 144 Tigay, J.H. 3 Tigchelaar, E. 83, 150 Tov, E. 211 Überlacker, W. 196 Ulrich, E. 211 VanderKam, J.C. 4 Vanhoye, A. 45, 186, 187, 197, 210, 223, 230, 242 Vasaly, A. 56, 57, 58, 59, 62 Versnal, H.S. 52 Vining, P. 233 Vogel, M. 153, 173 Vollenweider, S.233 Vos. J.C. de 150, 154 Walker, P.W.L. 118, 202 Walton, J.H. 5, 40 Wasserman, T. 4 Watson, G. 61, 62 Watts, J.D.W. 42 Watts, J.W. 167

Webb, R. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69 Webster, J.B. 88 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 99, 109, 180, 194, 195, 219, 220 Weinfeld, M. 39 Weiss, H.-F. 34, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111, 121, 123, 128, 186, 227 Welten, P. 149 Westcott, B.F. 100, 101, 102, 104, 107, 110, 111, 123, 175 Westfall, C.L. 196 Whitlark, J.A. 98, 119, 147, 193, 203, 247 Widdicombe, P. 10 Wider, D. 117, 118 Willis, T.M. 205 Winston, D. 5, 21 Witherington, B. 98, 144, 147, 203, 234, 245, 246, 247, 250 Wolff, C. 150 Wolff, H.W. 41 Wolfson, H.A. 25 Wrede, W. 192, 195, 207 Würthwein, E. 41 Young, N.H. 104, 118, 121, 123, 125, 126, 141, 142, 143, 199, 201, 202 Zanker, G. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 69 Zanker, P. 55 Zeitlin, F.I. 58, 67, 72 Zenger, E. 149, 150 Zerwick, M. 188 Zimmerman, R. 110 Zuntz, G. 98 Zwickel, W. 168