Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews [Bilingual ed.] 3161492153, 9783161492150

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie · Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel · Otfried Hofius · Hans-Josef Klauck

223

Scott D. Mackie

Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews Paraenetic Strategies for Christian Character Formation

Mohr Siebeck

Scott D. Mackie, born 1964; 2006 Ph.D. Fuller Theological Seminary; currently teaching Biblical Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151566-8 ISBN 978-3-16-149215-0 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. 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, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg/N. Printed in Germany.

Preface The author of Hebrews places great emphasis on the communal nature of Christian existence. In the middle of his most emotional exhortation he urges the community to “not neglect our gatherings,” as they afford vital opportunities to “encourage one another” (10:25). This present work, a revised version of a Ph.D. dissertation submitted to Fuller Theological Seminary in 2006, owes its existence to such encouragement. My advisor, Donald A. Hagner, of course merits first mention in this regard. He patiently guided and encouraged me through this entire effort. I am particularly grateful for all the practical wisdom he provided. This dissertation also greatly benefited from the keen eye and insight of Ralph P. Martin, who waded through it from beginning to end, repeatedly clarifying thought and expression. Other key people at Fuller Seminary who must be thanked: Seyoon Kim, for allowing me to work closely with him for six years as a research and teaching assistant; Inez Smith and Jeanette Scholer of the Fuller Auxiliary for faithful prayers and financial assistance; David M. Scholer and the Center for Advanced Theological Studies at Fuller, who provided me with a scholarship and research opportunities for four years. I would also like to thank Harold W. Attridge, the external reader of my dissertation, for his many helpful comments (and for not taking offense at my ill-founded criticisms of his work!). The editor of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Jörg Frey, must be thanked for including my work in this prestigious series and for offering invaluable suggestions for improvement. I must thank Rev. Koh of Choong Shin Church, and Rev. Cho of Los Angeles Gospel Mission Church, who for the past four years have provided both warm church homes and enriching ministry opportunities. Jeffrey Siker of Loyola Marymount University should be thanked for offering teaching opportunities and patiently assisting me during my stumbling entry into the profession. A number of friends must also be thanked, including: Mai Sasaki, Sam Koh, Ric Ross, Ruben Ortega, Dan Lutz, Paul Lee, Marc Lederer, Ilia Iliev, David Cano Villarroel, Tim Hershman, Dirk Hendricks, Jason Mascow, Joel Chappo, Emily Choge, and Marlene Dalton. I would also like to thank my siblings Peter, Chris, and Cindy, for their encouragement. Lastly, the deepest debt of gratitude is owed my parents, Harry and Betty Jane Mackie, for their enduring, loving support. Venice, California

September 2006

Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………..

V

Table of Contents………………………………….…………………………….

VII

Introduction: Eschatology, the Situation of the Recipients, and the Author’s Hortatory Response Prolegomenon…………………………………………………………………….

1

Chapter 1. The Eschatology of Hebrews 1. Introduction………………………………………………….…...…….…….. 2. A Platonic thought-world……………………………………….…..…..…… 3. Jewish apocalyptic two-age eschatology………………………...….…….…

3 3 5

Chapter 2. The Situation of the Recipients 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………...…… 2. The possibility and propriety of reconstructing the recipients’ situation…... 3. Threats endangering the community………………………………..……..… 4. Proposed reconstructions of the recipients’ situation……………..……...… 5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….…

9 10 11 12 17

Chapter 3. The Author’s Hortatory Response 1. Introduction…………………………..……………..……………..…….…… 2. Terminology: paraenesis or paraklesis?……………………..………….…… 3. Aspects of the author’s hortatory strategy…………………………..…….… 4. Conclusion…………………….……………………………………..…….….

19 20 22 25

Conclusion to the Introduction…………………………...………………..…

25

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation Chapter 4. Two-Age Belief in Jewish – Christian Apocalyptic Thought and in Hebrews 1. Introduction……………………………………………...…...…………….… 2. Is two-age belief the primary characteristic of apocalyptic thought? ……... 3. The origins of two-age eschatology……………………………………….… 4. Two-age eschatology in Hebrews………………………………..……….….

29 30 32 35

VIII

Table of Contents

Chapter 5. An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews 1. “In these last days God has spoken through a Son” (1:1 – 2:4)…………….. 1.1. “In these last days”……………………………………..…………..….. 1.2. “God has spoken through a Son”…………………………………….… 1.3. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 1:1 – 2:4………....….

39 39 41 41

2. The subjugation of the coming world to the Son & his identification with humanity (2:5–18)…………………………………………………….…….. 2.1. “The coming world”………………………………………….……….... 2.2. Eschatological ambiguity attending Jesus’ rule over the coming world 2.3. “For a short while”…………………………………………..……..…... 2.4. “Leading many siblings to glory”……………………………...…….… 2.5. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 2:5–18…………....…

42 42 44 45 45 47

3. Entering today and persevering until the end (3:7 – 4:11)…………….….… 3.1. The rest as a future possession……………………………………….… 3.2. The rest as a present possession…………………………..……....…… 3.3. “Partakers of Christ”……………………………………………....…… 3.4. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 3:7 – 4:11……...……

48 49 50 52 53

4. “Having tasted the powers of the age to come” (5:11 – 6:12)……………… 4.1. The origins and nature of the phrase “the age to come”…………….… 4.2. The temporal orientation of 5:11 – 6:12………………………….……. 4.3. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 5:11 – 6:12………….

54 55 56 57

5. An apocalyptic metathesis of the law: an intra-textual reading of 7:11–28 and 12:25–29…………………………………………………………………. 5.1. An anticipated objection to Christ’s high priesthood…………….…… 5.2. The critique and removal of the Jewish religious system………..……. 5.3. The Mosaic Law or the laws pertaining to priestly appointment?……. 5.4. The presence of apocalyptic language……………………..…...……… 5.5. Is Hebrews 12:25–29 apocalyptic?………………………..….………... 5.6. The “shaking” motif in apocalyptic literature….……………….……... 5.7. “Yet once more”…………………………………………….…...……... 5.8. The “divine fire” motif in apocalyptic literature………….…………... 5.9. Meta,qesij……………………………………………………….………. 5.10. The background of thought…………………………………….……... 5.11. The meaning of meta,qesij in 12:27…………………………………… 5.12. An intra-textual reading of 7:11–28 and 12:25–29…………….…….. 5.13. An eschatological perspective………………….……………….……. 5.14. The nature and benefits of Jesus’ priesthood……………….………... 5.15. The interface of eschatology & exhortation in 7:11–28 & 12:25–29..

58 59 59 60 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 71 72 74 75 76

6. An “obsolete” covenant, “close to destruction” (8:1–13)………....………... 6.1. The first covenant: fading away or facing imminent destruction? (8:13)………………………………………...….………... 6.2. Possible explanations for the apparent endurance of the first covenant………………………………………………………..

77 78 80

Table of Contents

IX

6.3. Two-age eschatology in 8:1–13………………..….…………………… 6.4. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 8:1–13………………

81 82

7. “The high priest of the good things that have come” (9:6–12)…….……….. 7.1. “The present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are being offered”………………………………………...…………… 7.2. The “parable” of the “first” & “second,” “inner” & “outer”.………… 7.3. “The time of reformation”…………………………………...………… 7.4. The Spirit’s eschatological revelation…………………………………. 7.5. The nature of the Spirit’s eschatological “insight”……….…………… 7.6. “The good things that have come”……………………….……………. 7.7. Christ’s appearance in the Heavenly Sanctuary……………………….. 7.8. The three dia, phrases: the place or means of Jesus’ accomplishment?………………………………………………… 7.9. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 9:6–12..……………..

83 84 85 86 87 90 90 91 92 93

8. “Now at the end of the ages he has appeared” (9:23–28)………..…………. 8.1. “But now . . . at the end of the ages”…………………………………... 8.2. The “manifestation” – on earth and/or in the Heavenly Sanctuary?….. 8.3. A “manifestation” visible to the eyes of faith……………….………… 8.4. Soteriology at the “end of the ages”……………………….…………... 8.5. The hortatory implications of Hebrews’ soteriology………….………. 8.6. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 9:23–28…………….. 8.6.1. Eschatological urgency…………………………….……………... 8.6.2. A “removal of sins”………………………………….…………… 8.6.3. Patient endurance………………………………….….…………...

94 94 95 98 100 100 102 103 103 104

9. “For the law is only a shadow of the good things to come” (10:1–18)…….. 9.1. “The good things to come”…………………………..….……………... 9.2. Skia,, eivkw,n and pra/gma in Platonic and Middle Platonic cosmology... 9.2.1. Plato………………………………………………….…..……….. 9.2.2. Philo…………………………………………..……..……………. 9.2.3. Timaeus of Locri, On the Nature of the World and the Soul……. 9.2.4. Plutarch……………………………………………...……………. 9.3. Does the author properly understand Middle Platonic cosmology?….. 9.4. A deliberate amalgamation of Middle Platonism & Jewish eschatology……………………………………..….………… 9.5. A comprehensive critique of the Mosaic law………………….………. 9.6. A deliberate critique of the Philonic view of the Mosaic law….……... 9.7. A critique of the Middle Platonic philosophical enterprise: the contemplative ascent of the philosopher into the noetic realm……….. 9.8. “Removing the first to establish the second” (10:9b)…….....………… 9.9. An unrivaled critique of the Jewish religious economy………………. 9.10. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 10:1–18……..……..

105 106 106 107 108 111 112 113

10. “The approaching day” and the return, “in a very little while,” of the “coming One” (10:19–39)………………………………………………….. 10.1. Confident entry into the most holy place…………………………….. 10.2. The “approaching day”………..………………………………………

114 115 117 119 120 122 123

124 125 125

X

Table of Contents 10.3. “Do not draw back”………….……………………………...………… 10.4. Apostasy as portrayed in 10:26–31………………….……………….. 10.5. 10:26–31: A warning of Jerusalem’s imminent destruction?………... 10.6. The “coming one” ……………………………………..……………... 10.7. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 10:19–39…..………

127 127 129 132 133

11. “The city that is to come” (13:9–16)……………………………………….. 11.1. A background of thought for the “lasting” city – Middle Platonism?. 11.2. Jesus as the goal of the call to “go outside the camp”……………….. 11.3. The hortatory role of the endurance motif……………..…………….. 11.4. Entering the Heavenly Sanctuary and going outside the camp……… 11.5. A polemic against Judaism? …………………………….…………… 11.6. Identification with Jesus & solidarity with the twelve disciples and the patriarchs………………………………………..………………… 11.7. A polemic against cities and citizenship?……………………………. 11.8. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 13:9–16……………

135 136 136 137 139 140

Conclusion to Part One: The hortatory program attending two-age eschatology in Hebrews………………………………..……………..………..

142 145 150

151

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation Introduction…………………………………………..….……………

155

Chapter 6. Cosmology: The Setting of the Sacrifice and Exaltation 1. Cosmology……………………………………………………………………. 1.1. The location of the Heavenly Sanctuary………………………………. 1.2. The ontological nature and creative origin of the Heavenly Sanctuary.

157 157 158

2. The Heavenly Sanctuary as cultic location…………………………………..

164

Chapter 7. The High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………...

169

2. A liturgical drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary……………………………….

170

3. The sacrifice of the high priest………………………………………………. 3.1. The incarnation of the obedient Son…………………………………… 3.2. The sacrificial self-offering of the high priest………………………… 3.3. An eschatological Yom Kippur………………………………………… 3.4. The sacral activity of the high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary……... 3.5. The origins of Hebrews’ high priest Christology………………………

172 172 175 177 181 183

4. The soteriology of the sacrifice: cultic terminology and exhortation………. 4.1. An atonement for sins………………………………………………….. 4.2. Purification, sanctification, and perfection……………………………. 4.3. Redemption and salvation……………………………………………… 4.4. An appeal to experience: “And the Holy Spirit bears witness to us”….

185 186 189 197 200

Table of Contents 5. The access provided by the high priest……………………………………… 5.1. The access provided by Jesus………………………………………….. 5.2. The exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary……………………. 5.3. The incompatibility of the exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary with Hebrews’ alleged depiction of the Christian life as a pilgrimage………………………………………………………….

XI 201 202 204

208

Chapter 8. The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary 1. The exalted and enthroned Son……………………………………………… 2. The confession and identity of the community………………………..……. 2.1. The Father’s declaration of Jesus’ Sonship……………………….…… 2.2. The Son’s confession of the Father and conferral of family membership upon the recipients……………………….………………. 2.3. Language of belonging and identification……………….…………….. 2.4. The proper response of the community: sacral and public confession of the Son………………………………………………………………. 2.5. The content and nature of the community’s confession………………. 2.6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………

213 216 217 218 220 223 226 229

Conclusion to Part Two: The hortatory program attending Heavenly Sanctuary eschatology in Hebrews………………………….…

230

Conclusion: Eschatology and Exhortation in Hebrews…………………

231

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………...

233

Index of Ancient Sources 1. Old Testament………………………………………………………………... 2. Jewish Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha……………………………………... 3. Dead Sea Scrolls …………………………………………………………….. 4. Philo ………………………………….………………………………………. 5. Josephus ……………………………………………………………………… 6. New Testament ………………………………………………………….…… 7. Greco-Roman Authors …………….………………………………………… 8. Rabbinic Writings………………………………………………………….…

257 260 263 264 267 267 276 277

Index of Modern Authors……………………………………………………...

278

Index of Subjects………………………………………………………………...

282

Introduction

Eschatology, the Situation of the Recipients, and the Author’s Hortatory Response Prolegomenon The Epistle to the Hebrews brings us into contact with the mind of one of the great creative geniuses of the NT.1 The author’s unique high priest Christology and refined literary technique have suffered no shortage of appreciation, and so also his distinctive combination of traditional two-age apocalyptic and Heavenly Sanctuary eschatology. Receiving a comparable level of critical scrutiny are the passionate exhortations and severe warnings he issues to a community apparently contemplating an abandonment of their Christian commitment. Of particular interest to this present study is the manner in which this emotional hortatory effort is situated within and empowered by the author’s eschatological convictions. In fact, as we will see, these potent and vivid eschatological convictions – centered on the person and work of the exalted high priest Jesus – are so indissolubly linked to his exhortation that the entire work can be fairly classified an “eschatological ‘exhortation’” (13:22).2 This study is offered with the conviction that Hebrews is a representative example of the fact that “perhaps the most misunderstood and neglected aspect of early Christian spiritual formation is its decidedly eschatological cast.”3 The “eschatological exhortation” offered by the author of Hebrews is directed towards a specific context. The passion and severity of his exhortation is inexplicable if dissociated from a living context: i.e., a community of believers, whose Christian commitment is under threat from a variety of circumstances, including persecution and social 1

John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5– 14,” Bib 66 (1985), 533, believes the author possesses “the most subtle and recondite mind in the NT.” 2 Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ALGHJ. Leiden: Brill, 1970), 145. Charles P. Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (JSNTSup 24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 256, deems Hebrews an “apocalyptic ‘word of exhortation.’” 3 Stanley P. Saunders, “‘Learning Christ’: Eschatology and Spiritual Formation in New Testament Christianity,” Int 56.2 (2002), 159.

2

Introduction: Prolegomenon

marginalization. This introductory section will therefore survey the textual clues pointing to the community’s situation and the various analyses of these data. It will also briefly consider the pertinent studies of Hebrews’ eschatology, as well as some recent efforts directed at properly understanding NT exhortation – of which Hebrews is a fair example. As Frank Matera has noted: “While the NT consistently establishes a relationship between doctrine and morality, Hebrews does this more explicitly than any other NT writing.”4 Therefore a full appreciation of these three factors: the situation of the recipients, the author’s eschatology, and his hortatory strategy, is crucial to understanding Hebrews as a whole, and is possible only when these three factors are considered in concert. Furthermore, the author’s eschatology is inseparable from his rich Christology, thus his passionate exhortation to a community under threat is necessarily viewed as the full flowering of this “Christ-centered eschatology” into a passionate appeal for perseverance in Christian commitment.

4 Frank J. Matera, “Moral Exhortation: The Relation between Moral Exhortation and Doctrinal Exposition in the Letter to the Hebrews,” TJT 10 (1994), 170.

Chapter One

The Eschatology of Hebrews 1. Introduction The eschatological convictions of the author of Hebrews cohere in many ways with other NT writings. He believes that the death and exaltation of Jesus has occurred at “the end of the ages” (9:26; cf. 1 Pet 1:19–21; Gal 4:4–5; 1 Cor 10:11), and in “a very little while” Jesus will return to the earth, bringing judgment and salvation (9:28; 10:37–39; cf. 1 Thess 4:13– 18; Rom 13:11–12; 1 Pet 1:3–9). In the interim the community lives in a time of eschatological ambiguity, presently experiencing “the powers of the age to come” (6:5; cf. Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 12–14), yet eagerly awaiting the full unveiling of God’s eschatological kingdom, which in Hebrews is envisioned as an “unshakeable kingdom” (12:28) and a heavenly city (13:14). These key moments in the community’s past, present, and future find expression in the vocabulary of traditional Jewish apocalyptic two-age eschatology, though with the distinctive Christological focus characteristic of the early Church. Without parallel in Second Temple Jewish and early Christian literature is the author’s depiction of Jesus the great high priest, whose sacrificial ministry largely occurs in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Almost as unique are his descriptions of this Heavenly Sanctuary, which appear to be dependent upon metaphysical Platonic cosmology. In 8:5 and 9:23–24, the author describes the Heavenly Sanctuary vis-à-vis the earthly tabernacle, demonstrating the ontological and axiological superiority of the Heavenly Sanctuary by means of Platonic terminology. This cosmological construct serves as the setting of his depiction of Jesus the high priest, whose ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary similarly surpasses the sacrificial activities conducted in the earthly tabernacle (7:26–28; 8:1–6; 9:1 – 10:25; 13:10–12).

2. A Platonic thought-world Platonic philosophical terminology appears in three locations: (1) In 8:5 the earthly tabernacle is said to be “a sketch and shadow of the heavenly

4

Introduction

one” (u`podei,gmati kai. skia/| tw/n . . . evpourani,wn). Moses was instructed to construct this earthly tabernacle “according to the pattern” (kata. to.n tu,pon) he was shown “on the mountain.” (2) 9:23–24 also characterizes the earthly tabernacle as a “sketch” (u`po,deigma) and “copy” (avnti,tupoj) of the heavenly tabernacle. (3) In 10:1 the Mosaic law is said to the possess “only a shadow (skia,) of the good things to come and not the true image (eivkw,n) of these realities (pra/gma).” One further example of Platonic cosmology has been occasionally adduced: 12:27–28, where the earth is depicted by the author as a “shakeable thing” (saleuome,nwn), soon to be “removed” (meta,qesij) and replaced by an abiding (me,nw) and unshakeable kingdom (basilei,an avsa,leuton). These occurrences have prompted a number of scholars to argue that the author’s primary frame of reference is metaphysical Platonism. Most notable in this regard are James W. Thompson,1 George W. MacRae,2 Erich Grässer,3 Gregory E. Sterling,4 and Wilfried Eisele.5 The author’s eschatology is thus conceived primarily along vertical/spatial Platonic ontological lines, with an ideal metaphysical world looming above the earthly shadow-world. While Thompson, MacRae, and Sterling recognize the presence of traditional Jewish apocalyptic-eschatological materials in Hebrews, their importance is either minimized (Thompson) or relativized (MacRae and Sterling).6 MacRae and Sterling attribute the presence of these traditional apocalyptic materials to the author’s accommodation of his audience. 1 James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982). 2 George W. MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978), 179–99; idem, “A Kingdom that Cannot be Shaken: The Heavenly Jerusalem in the Letter to the Hebrews,” in Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism, ed. Daniel J. Harrington and Stanley B. Marrow (Good News Studies 26. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987), 98–112. 3 Cf. Erich Grässer, Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief (Marburger Theologische Studien 2. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1965), 174: “Die für den eschatologischen Entwurf des Hb entscheidenden und ihn tragenden Begriffe sind nicht solche der Zeitlichkeit, sondern solche einer transzendenten Räumlichkeit.” See also idem, An Die Hebräer (Hebr 7,1– 10,18) (EKKNT 17/2. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1993), 88, 206–7. 4 Gregory E. Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between the Author and Community in Hebrews,” The Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001), 190–211. 5 Wilfried Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNT 116. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). 6 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 154; MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” 190; Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 204–8.

Chapter 1: The Eschatology of Hebrews

5

MacRae is convinced they reflect the eschatological orientation of the recipients.7 The author’s Platonic cosmology is thus deployed as a strategic response to the delayed parousia, allaying fears by conveying the nearness of the heavenly realm.8 Sterling has argued that the author’s worldview is best characterized as “eschatological Platonism,” a hybrid that has resulted from “the imposition of eschatology upon previously held Platonic views.”9 He reverses MacRae’s judgment, insisting that “Platonizing exegetical traditions were already held by the community,” while “eschatology is the primary concern of the author.”10 Thompson perceives a pervasive Platonic influence, and concludes that the author represents “a preliminary stage in the church’s adoption of a Platonic metaphysic.”11

3. Jewish apocalyptic two-age eschatology The majority of scholars have argued, in spite of the presence of the aforementioned Platonic terminology, that a traditional Jewish linear/temporal eschatological viewpoint more decisively characterizes the author’s thought-world. Two scholars in particular merit mention: C. K. Barrett12 and L. D. Hurst.13 Barrett, while prioritizing the role of Jewish eschatology, acknowledges the presence of Platonic materials, which are employed “to impress upon believers the nearness of the invisible world without insisting upon the nearness of the parousia.”14 Hurst utterly rejects a Platonic background of thought,15 and ably demonstrates the fascination 7

MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” 179. Ibid., 190–2, 196. Also, idem, “A Kingdom that Cannot be Shaken: The Heavenly Jerusalem in the Letter to the Hebrews,” 103–4. 9 Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 210. 10 Ibid. 11 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 158. So also John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14,” Bib 66 (1985), 180–2. 12 C. K. Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: Essays in Honour of C. H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 363–93; idem, “The Christology of Hebrews,” in Who Do You Say I Am? Essays on Christology: In Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury, ed. Mark Allan Powell and David R. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 110–27. 13 L. D. Hurst, “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. viii. 5 and ix. 23f.?” JTS 34 (1983), 156–68; idem, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” SBLSP 23 (1984), 41–74; idem, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its background of thought (SNTSMS 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 14 Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 391. 15 Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 42; idem, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 47–8. 8

Introduction

6

and familiarity of the Hebraic mind with the heavenly/vertical dimension, especially in apocalyptic literature.16 He therefore argues that this interpenetration of Hellenistic and Jewish thought should caution against use of “vertical/horizontal” and “spatial/temporal” as mutually exclusive categories in the effort to establish an authorial thought-world. Scholars endorsing and extending the conclusions of Barrett and Hurst are almost evenly divided.17 This study will generally follow Barrett’s lead, assuming the author’s familiarity with Platonic cosmology and his purposeful, yet limited employment of it in relation to the Heavenly Sanctuary (8:5; 9:23–24) and the law of Moses (10:1). Though Hurst is surely correct to stress the mutual coherence of spatial and temporal eschatologies in Jewish apocalyptic thought, the author’s occasional deployment of Platonic terminology and imagery merits consideration within its milieu of origin. Nevertheless, the primacy of traditional Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic eschatology will be maintained throughout. This opinion finds its basis in the sheer volume of materials that have Jewish and Christian eschatological convictions at their core, and especially in the author’s controlling conviction: that the age of the eschaton had already dawned in his own time, inaugurated by the sacrifice and exaltation of Christ (9:26). Inaugurated eschatology also explicitly surfaces in such two-age dualistic phrases as “in these last days” (evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn, 1:2), and “the powers of the age to come” (duna,meij te me,llontoj aivw/noj, 6:5). This proposed prioritization of temporal Jewish eschatology over spatial Platonic cosmology is also apparent in the author’s portrayal of “the coming world” (th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan, 2:5) and “the coming city” (po,lin . . . th.n me,llousan, 13:14). These two representations of the heavenly realm may be directly equated with the Heavenly Sanctuary into which Christ has entered and now reigns exalted (1:3; 2:9; 4:14; 6:19–20; 16

Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 42–8. Cf. the confluence of spatial and temporal eschatologies in 1 En. 1–36 and 2 Bar. 51:8: “For they shall see that world that is now invisible to them, and they will see a time which is now hidden to them.” 17 Those endorsing Barrett’s position include: Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001), 98–100; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 283; and Kenneth L. Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study After Thirty Years,” The Studia Philonica Annual 14 (2002), 114, 119. Following Hurst in his rejection of a Platonic philosophical background of thought: Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1993), 408; and William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A. Dallas: Word, 1991), cviii, 207–8.

Chapter 1: The Eschatology of Hebrews

7

7:24, 26; 8:1–5; 9:11–14, 24; 10:12–13, 20–21; 12:2). Furthermore, this same heavenly realm is in some respects vitally accessible to the recipients (4:16; 7:25; 10:19, 22; 12:22–24). Though it must therefore be considered an extant, present reality, the essential futurity of the heavenly world is signaled by the fact that it is “coming” imminently with cataclysmic finality, its full disclosure requiring the removal of the present world (1:10–12; 12:25–29). Another indication of a preponderant temporal orientation is found in the fact that the Son’s rule, while manifest in the coming world, has not yet extended to the visible realm.18 Though “crowned with glory and honor” (2:9), Jesus is presently “waiting until his enemies would be made a footstool under his feet” (10:12). It is therefore helpful to conceive of his entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary as an “act of boundary crossing” that transcends more than just the earthly and heavenly planes. As Richard D. Nelson has correctly observed, Jesus’ exaltation involved an “entry not just into sacred space, but also sacred time.”19 Therefore, despite the author’s depiction of this future kingdom as a present reality, it should not be directly equated with the Platonic “intangible metaphysical world.”20 Though the author has drawn upon the language and imagery of Hellenistic philosophical cosmological dualism, this language and imagery has been eschatologically informed and adapted.21 As our examination of the two-ages schema will show, in spite of the commanding presence of the coming world and Heavenly Sanctuary in the author’s symbolic universe, a more pervasive and influential temporal orientation – controlled largely by the two-age schema – demands that this heavenly realm be considered an eschatological reality.22 18 Robert L. Brawley, “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1: A Neglected Aspect of the Context,” CBQ 55 (January 1993), 97, has convincingly argued for the mutual consideration of both orientations, temporal and spatial, and points to the promised future subjugation of “all things” to Jesus (2:8) as proof that “the future temporal eschatology does not recede behind a transcendent spatial concept.” 19 Richard D. Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 149. 20 Brawley, “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1,” 97. 21 Difficulty in reconciling and relating these apparently mutually exclusive thoughtworlds commonly caused the scholars of two or three generations ago to charge the author with inconsistent thought. Cf. James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of the Hebrews (ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), liv, xxxiv; and E. F. Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 102, 109–12, 120. See also A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Sawing off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously Ad Hebraeos,” JTS 56.2 (2005), 400–3, 410–13, who repeatedly characterizes the author’s use of Platonic ontology/cosmology as incoherent and self-contradictory. 22 The “once for all” nature of Christ’s entry into and salvific actions in the Heavenly Sanctuary (7:27; 8:6; 9:11–15, 23–28; 10:12–15, 19–22; 12:3) also militates against an

8

Introduction

The coming world corresponds to and coheres with the “age to come.” And because of their essential coherence within the two-age framework, we will consider these two occurrences of “coming” spatial realities, the “coming world” (2:5) and the “coming city” (13:14), in the course of our treatment of two-age eschatology.

ontologically static understanding of the heavenly realm. We should also note the difficulties that emerge when the author’s multivalent terminology for “ages” and “world” is considered. That is, aivw,n, which may mean either “age” or “world” (1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 20), and oivkoume,nh (1:6; 2:5). We may assume a mundane meaning throughout for ko,smoj (4:3; 9:26; 10:5; 11:7, 38).

Chapter Two

The Situation of the Recipients 1. Introduction Attempts at reconstructing the situation of the recipients of Hebrews are frustrated on three counts: (1) the identities of both the author and (2) the recipients are nowhere clearly indicated; (3) also sorely lacking are any clear indications of the recipients’ geographical setting and historical circumstances. Therefore all responsible reconstructions of the recipients’ situation must ultimately acknowledge the tentative nature of the enterprise. In the face of these circumstances, some scholars have adopted stances of total pessimism. Pamela M. Eisenbaum contends “there is no way to disguise the lack of concrete data pointing to a specific historical moment.”1 Though she admits “certainly there were real-life circumstances that influenced the writer of Hebrews to compose his brilliant essay,”2 Eisenbaum argues the author was “much more concerned about the subject of which he writes, namely a systematic understanding of Christology, than about the behavior or well-being of his audience.”3 With this “theoretical focus,” it is the “quintessential example of a ‘theological essay,’” and as such it is “directed to an ideal audience imagined by the author.”4 In a similar vein is Hurst’s remark: “While speculative reconstructions are popular, in the end they are totally unnecessary.”5

1

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), 226. 2 Ibid., 230. 3 Ibid., 222. 4 Ibid., 222, 230–1. In her monograph, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context (SBLDS 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), Eisenbaum argues: “Even if the author did have one particular community in mind, his elaborate theological and christological reflection indicates he wanted to make a statement that could transcend any one occasion” (12). The epistle is characterized by its quest to establish “Christian identity”: Throughout Hebrews, the reigning leitmotif can be summed up in the question ‘How are Christians rooted in Judaism and ancient Israel and yet distinct from it?’ Since this issue must have been fundamental to every ancient Christian community, I strongly

10

Introduction

2. The possibility and propriety of reconstructing the recipients’ situation While such pessimistic opinions provide helpful reminders of the tentative nature of the “reconstruction” enterprise, the following factors demonstrate both the desirability and ability to attempt such a reconstruction. (1) Seemingly specific knowledge of the community’s conversion (2:3–4; 6:4– 5; 10:32–34)6 and early life are evidenced (6:10–12; 10:32–34; 12:4), an indication that the author has equally accurate information about their present circumstances (2:14–15; 3:12–13; 6:10–12; 10:25, 29, 35–39; 12:3–4, 7, 14–16; 13:2–19). One wonders if an audience would have received and perpetuated his “word of exhortation” (13:22) if it contained a fictive recital of their experience. (2) A personal relationship between author and audience is apparent in 13:18–19, 22–24. There, the author addresses the recipients as a personal acquaintance, asking them to pray for him, so that he “may be restored” to them “very soon.” (3) Unique maladies are diagnosed and specific remedies prescribed. The most notable examples being the author’s emphasis on a decisively cleansed conscience and the high priest whose self-sacrifice provides this cleansing (9:11–14; 10:1–25). And again, we may assume that his whole enterprise would have been jeopardized if this distinctive presentation failed to resonate with its first audience. (4) Contrary to Hurst’s opinion, a reconstruction of the situation is helpful, provided the dangers of mirror readings and circular arguments are guarded against. It is quite obvious that the author’s Christology is tailored for the audience’s situation.7 Knowledge of the latter is essential to fully appreciate the significance of the former. Aspects suspect that the author envisioned several communities benefiting from his speech (10). Cf. Alexander Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915), 7: “Hebrews is late, artificial, reflective; a treatise rather than a letter; . . . it smells of the study, not the open air of life where history is being made.” See also Jon M. Isaak, Situating the Letter to the Hebrews in Early Christian History (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 53. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002), 152–8. 5 L. D. Hurst, “New Testament Theological Analysis,” in Introducing New Testament Interpretation, ed. Scot McKnight (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 156. 6 Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser (WUNT 41. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987), 3–8. 7 Marie Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 22–3, argues that “the situation of those addressed and the theological exposition of the author” are “so interrelated, our view of its audience will largely condition our understanding of Hebrews’ message.”

Chapter 2: The Situation of the Recipients

11

of both the recipients’ situation and the author’s Christological response are too unique to dismiss their relationship as an “unnecessary” fact. Ultimately we should wonder why our author, possessed of an intellect matched only by Paul in the NT, had he been interested in forwarding a “theoretical treatise,” would have tailored so much of the content of his treatise to the unique conditions facing an “idealized” community (contra Eisenbaum).8 Certainly he was capable of a more mainstream presentation of the gospel, as evidenced by the profusion of Christologies in the second chapter. This same safe assumption concerning his acumen should also guard against the possibility he would construct such an elaborate response based on a misdiagnosis of their state. Surely his “word of exhortation” was a “word on target.” Finally, with regard to mirror readings, care must be exercised so that the situation inferred from specific passages does not become a solidified model that influences the interpretation of other passages. Rather, the suggestive, heuristic nature of the reconstruction enterprise must be recognized and maintained.

3. Threats endangering the community Paul Ellingworth has shown that the threats endangering the community come to expression in three ways:9 (1) Passive dangers denote “a certain weariness in pursuing the Christian goal, or making progress along the road of Christian discipleship.”10 The readers are exhorted and warned: to not “drift away” from what they have heard (2:1); to not “neglect” the message of salvation (2:3); to not “fail to reach” the promised rest (4:1); to not lose hold of their confession (4:14); to not lose their confidence and boldness (10:19, 23); to not become “dull of understanding” (5:11) or “sluggish” (6:12); to develop from spiritual childhood into maturity (5:12–14); to not prove unproductive (6:7–8) but to continue in “faith and patience” (6:9–12); to cast off the weight of sin (12:1); to not “grow weary” or “lose heart” (12:3); to straighten up and walk a straight path (12:12–13); and to not “be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching” (13:9). (2) Active dangers typically represent forces or attitudes that will potentially issue in explicit rebellion against God and his Son. These 8

Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 2, believes that the community and its situation are unlike anything else found in the NT. 9 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 78–80. 10 Ibid., 78.

Introduction

12

include the dangers of: “having an evil, faithless heart that turns away from the living God” (3:12); replicating the same pattern of disobedience as the exodus generation (3:7 – 4:11); “falling away,” “crucifying again the Son of God and holding him up to contempt” (6:6); “neglecting to meet together” (10:25); “willfully persisting in sin” (10:26); “spurning the Son of God, profaning the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraging the Spirit of grace” (10:29); and neglecting to listen to the voice of God/Jesus (12:25). These strong warnings indicate the real possibility of apostasy in the author’s mind.11 (3) External/outward pressures assault and test them (2:18; 4:16), bringing suffering through persecution (10:32–34; 12:4), torture and imprisonment (10:33–34; 13:3), and abuse (13:13).

4. Proposed reconstructions of the recipients’ situation A number of reconstructions of the recipients’ situation have attempted to attain more specificity, and point to larger, systemic forces – both internal and external – as the source of their waning commitment. (1) Impure consciences: The author’s preoccupation with purification from (1:3), and atonement for, sins (2:17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:26, 28; 10:12, 17–18), sanctification (2:11; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 13:12), and especially the purification of an unclean conscience (9:14; 10:22), has led many to conclude that this emphasis is directed towards the recipients’ sense of having “defiled consciences.” This condition is responsible for their spiritual lethargy and possible apostasy. For Barnabas Lindars, the chief proponent of this theory, it is the “root issue.”12 He believes that although the recipients received assurance of forgiveness for past sins at the time of their baptism, they were not instructed about the ongoing efficacy of Christ’s sacrificial work. They have therefore “lost confidence in the power of the sacrifice of Christ to deal with their consciousness of sin”13 and feel weighed down by their post-baptismal sin. (2) Persecution: That the epistle might be viewed as a response to a situation of persecution, and a concomitant call to bold perseverance in the face of such opposition, can also be readily inferred from the text. In 10:32–34, the author encourages the recipients to recall those earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and persecution, and 11

Ibid., 79. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 12. See also his article: “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” NTS 35 (1989), 382–406. 13 Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 12. 12

Chapter 2: The Situation of the Recipients

13

sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion for those who were in prison, and you cheerfully accepted the plundering of your possessions, knowing that you yourselves possessed something better and more lasting.

And though Marie Isaacs believes “there is nothing in the Epistle which would suggest the present experience of persecution,”14 current persecution may underlie 12:3–13. Though the passage is couched in the imagery of divine paidei,a, the reference to bloodshed in 12:4 may imply some form of corporal punishment. The role discipline is said to play in determining divine “paternity” (12:7–8) may also reflect a call to identify with the community in a time when such identification was costly. The author’s frequent references to suffering and weakness (2:10–11, 14–18; 4:14–16; 13:12–13) further increase the likelihood that the community currently faced persecution. Among those who have recognized the role of persecution in their interpretations of Hebrews are Harold W. Attridge,15 William L. Lane,16 John Dunnill,17 Craig R. Koester,18 and Patrick Gray.19 (3) A return to Judaism: The fact that a vast portion of the author’s exposition is characterized by a dialectic of superiority-inferiority with the most esteemed symbols, systems and personages of Judaism indicates he is probably addressing an audience comprised mostly, if not entirely, of Jewish Christians.20 It is often assumed these Jewish Christians were contemplating, for various reasons, an abandonment of the Christian 14

Isaacs, Sacred Space, 31. Cf. Harold W. Attridge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 13: “From the response he gives to the problem, it would appear that the author conceives of the threat to the community in two broad but interrelated categories, external pressure, or ‘persecution’ (10:36 – 12:13) and a waning commitment.” 16 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, lvii, c. Lane locates the recipients in Rome, ca. 64–68 CE. In these closing years of Nero’s reign, the community faced a “new crisis” that was “more serious than the earlier one under Claudius” (William L. Lane, “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 217). 17 John Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 22, 37. 18 Koester, Hebrews, 67–71. 19 Patrick Gray, Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition (Academia Biblica 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 155– 86. 20 Cf. Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest, 146: The deficiencies of the Jewish priestly ritual contrast at every point with the effective high-priestly achievements of Jesus. He perfects his followers (10:14), sanctifies them (10:10, 14; 13:12), and cleanses their consciences (9:13–14). Jesus serves in the true tabernacle in heaven, not in the shadowy sanctuary on earth (8:2, 5). Jesus saves completely with a single offering, having no need to atone for his own sins (7:26–27). 15

Introduction

14

community and a return to their ancestral religion, Judaism.21 This possible return is then halted by the most withering assault on Jewish religious belief and practice in the NT.22 Those espousing this view, in varying degrees and for various reasons, include: Ceslas Spicq,23 Floyd V. Filson,24 F. F. Bruce,25 Donald A. Hagner,26 Lane,27 Lindars,28 Iutisone Salevao,29 21

Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” 233–7, argues that Christian communities remained within the framework of the larger Jewish community until at least the 2nd century. Therefore, in her estimate, the “parting of the ways” upon which the “return to Judaism” theory is dependent has not yet occurred. Her argument, however, fails to construct a believable context for the initial reception of Hebrews. It is hard to imagine a work like Hebrews being favorably received in a mixed context, much less heard at all above the commotion it would have undoubtedly created. A similar view, with some variation, is offered by Norman H. Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14),” NTS 48 (2002), 253, who contends that continued ‘association’ and a failure to embrace the Christian ethos fully rather than ‘attraction’ back into a former life is probably the situation that concerns the writer. The stress throughout the epistle on going out / on (4:16; 6:1 [fe,rw]; 7:25; 10:22; 11:8; 12:22; 13:13) and even into (3:11, 18, 19; 4:1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 6:19, 20; 9:12, 24, 25) would indicate that the problem is not a turning back so much as a failure to go forward and separate from Judaism completely in the first place. According to this reading, the author’s “word of exhortation,” if read in a synagogue context, would certainly bring the issue to a head. The recipients, however, would not have been given the chance to obey the author’s command to “go out from the camp” (13:13). They would have presumably been thrown out of the “camp.” 22 With blunt logic the author’s analysis of the Jewish sacrificial system arrives at an inescapable conclusion: If there is “no forgiveness without the shedding of blood” (9:22) and “the blood of bulls and goats cannot possibly take away sins” (10:4), then the Jewish cultus is null and void. On the polemical character of Hebrews, see Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe (JSNTSup 219. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 112–18. Cf. also Richard W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 209. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 129: By challenging the undergirding symbols of first-century Judaism, the author set the stage for the definition of a new society. The levitical priesthood is dethroned from its noble status, the Holy of Holies is no longer an exclusively hieratic precinct, sin as a forensic matter is subordinated to internal, ethical matters of the conscience, and the inefficacy of the levitical sacrifices declared emphatically. The author attacks these “undergirding symbols of first-century Judaism” because they stand as “boundaries” that block the easy ingress of outsiders (73–81) into the boundaryless “weak group” that the author addresses (97). 23 Ceslas Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2 Vols. (Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 1.228–9. 24 Floyd V. Filson, “Yesterday”: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (SBT 4. Naperville: Alec R. Allenson / London: SCM Press, 1967), 61–6. 25 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed. (NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 100. 26 Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews (NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990), 242–3.

Chapter 2: The Situation of the Recipients

15

Richard W. Johnson,30 and most recently, Peter Walker.31 It has also been suggested that Judaism’s protected status, as a religio licita in the Roman Empire, would have been especially attractive in times of religious persecution.32 (4) Waning commitment: The author’s call to “not neglect our gatherings, as is the habit of some” (mh. evgkatalei,pontej th.n evpisunagwgh.n e`autw/n( kaqw.j e;qoj tisi,n, 10:25) clearly indicates that at least some members in the community were failing to persevere in their commitment. Thompson has pointed to a number of other warnings that further “suggest that the author’s major concern is with the endurance of the community, and not with a specific heresy.”33 These include: (1) mh,pote pararuw/men (“let us not drift away,” 2:1); (2) mh,pote . . . avposth/nai (“do not . . . turn away,” 3:12); (3) u`sterhke,nai (“to fall short,” 4:1); (4) mh. avpoba,lhte (“do not abandon,” 10:35); (5) mh. parafe,resqe (“do not be carried away,” 13:9). To these warnings we should add the exhortations – offered in strategic moments in the address – to “hold fast” and “firm” (kate,cw, 3:6, 14; 10:23; krate,w, 4:14; be,baioj, 3:14; bebaio,w, 13:9) to one’s Christian confession and commitment. Grant R. Osborne has argued that the “central problem was a basic ‘laziness,’”34 a condition which Brent Nongbri believes “could lead to apostasy.”35 (5) Loss of social status: In his numerous works, David deSilva has consistently interpreted Hebrews within the context of an honor-shame society, with a loss of honor constituting the recipients’ chief concern. He observes: Neither the threat of violent persecution nor a new attraction to Judaism motivates this apostasy, but rather the more pedestrian inability to live within the lower status that Christian associations had forced upon them, the less-than-dramatic (though potent)

27

William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B. Dallas: Word, 1991), 545–6. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 10–12. 29 Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews, 108–18. 30 Johnson, Going Outside the Camp, 129. 31 Peter Walker, “A Place for Hebrews? Contexts for a First-Century Sermon,” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter, ed. P. J. Williams, Andrew D. Clarke, Peter M. Head, David Instone Brewer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 235–46. 32 See Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer: Übersetzt und erklärt, 12th ed. (KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 511. 33 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 143. 34 Grant R. Osborne, “The Christ of Hebrews and Other Religions,” JETS 46/2 (June 2003), 249–67. 35 Brent Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12,” NovT 45.3 (2003), 275. 28

Introduction

16

desire once more to enjoy the goods and esteem of their society. The price was now more on their minds than the prize.36

The author responds to this threat with a radical critique of the honorshame system. The transitory honor the recipients desire from society is relativized with the recognition that the honor they have been accorded as members of God’s household (3:6; 10:21) is an “abiding possession” (10:34), secure in the unshakable realm (12:28). Moses embodies this redefinition of honor-shame with his costly renunciation of a royal Egyptian identity in favor of identification with the people of God (11:24– 26). Christ ultimately is the finest example of one who “despised shame” (12:2). He held society’s honor-shame standards to be invalid and worthless compared to the “joy set before him.” (6) Realized eschatology: Both Mathias Rissi37 and John Scholer38 argue that at least a portion of the author’s effort is expended in countering the recipients’ imbalanced, realized eschatology. However, where one would expect a corrective emphasis placed on future-oriented eschatology, instead our author promotes a textbook case of inaugurated, “now, not yet” eschatology. In fact, his reminders of the impartial nature of the recipients’ eschatological circumstances are far outweighed by his repeated recitals of the eschatological benefits they have experienced. Experiences vastly outnumber expectations.39 Additionally, an overarching pastoral attitude of pity, evinced by the author’s frequent appeals to Christ’s sympathetic 36

DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 19. This thesis is presented in greater detail in his monograph Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). See also his articles: “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Social-Scientific Perspective,” ResQ 36.1 (1994), 1–21; “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 113.3 (1994), 439–61. Osborne, “The Christ of Hebrews and Other Religions,” 254, accuses deSilva of failing to see that a retreat into society constitutes apostasy. DeSilva is clearly aware of this: e.g., Perseverance in Gratitude, 238, 346. 37 Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 15–16, 21–5, 56–9. 38 John M. Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 206. 39 Eschatological expectations include: (1) the lordship of Jesus has not been completely established (1:13; 2:8; 10:13); (2) the promise of entering God’s rest is still open (4:1–11); (3) and only at Jesus’ second coming will salvation be fully realized (9:28). Eschatological benefits that the recipients have experienced: (1) the assistance of “ministering spirits” (1:14); (2) “signs and wonders and various miracles of the Holy Spirit” (2:4); (3) purification from and forgiveness for sins (1:3; 2:11, 17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:14, 26–28; 10:10, 12, 14, 17–18, 22, 26, 29; 12:24; 13:12); (4) perfection (10:14); (5) sanctification (2:11, 10:10, 14, 19–22); (6) “partaking of Christ” (3:14). Furthermore, they are repeatedly exhorted to “draw near with confidence” to the heavenly “throne of grace” (4:16), “holy place” (10:19), and God (7:19, 25); and their worship is said to occur in the “heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22–24). Finally, the infamous “warning passages,” 6:4–6 and 10:26–32, are suffused with realized eschatology.

Chapter 2: The Situation of the Recipients

17

priesthood (4:14 – 5:10; 7:25; 10:19–21), is inapt for a hyper-spiritual people who presumably would be proud and self-sufficient (as the community in Corinth is generally portrayed). (7) Opponents: Michael Goulder believes that the community was under threat from proto-Ebionites espousing a defective “angel Christology.”40 His interpretation, however, places too much import on the alleged angel polemic of 1:5–13. Had something as dangerous as Goulder envisages threatened the community, the author would have undoubtedly offered a more direct critique. Goulder’s appeal to the “adversaries” mentioned in 10:27 is also unfounded.41 The reference made there is a general one, offered in the context of a theoretical warning of the outcome of apostasy. And it is a warning issued to the recipients, not to proto-Ebionites. And though Robert L. Brawley has also argued for the presence of opponents, he admits “the interest of Hebrews in these opponents is astonishingly slight.”42

5. Conclusion Numerous factors contribute to the possibility and propriety of an attempted reconstruction of the community’s Sitz im Leben. The first five proposals taken into consideration: impure consciences, persecution, return to Judaism, waning commitment, and loss of social status, all have a solid basis in the text of Hebrews. It is therefore possible – even probable – that a number of conditions were threatening the existence of the community. Consideration of the author’s various responses to these threats provides further proof of this possibility.43

40

Michael Goulder, “Hebrews and the Ebionites,” NTS 49 (2003), 393–406. Ibid., 395–6. 42 Brawley, “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1,” 91. 43 Craig R. Koester, “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Study,” CurBS 2 (1994), 130, identifies the purpose of Hebrews as theodicy, thus addressing all the primary threats facing the community. The author of Hebrews did not identify lethargy (5:11) or failure to meet together (10:25) as primary issues but as symptoms of a larger problem, defined theologically in terms of the apparent contradiction between the glory promised to God’s people and the reality of suffering in the world (2:8). By pitching his address at this level, the author produced a work that addressed a number of concerns simultaneously, and proved to be of abiding value to subsequent generations of readers. 41

Chapter Three

The Author’s Hortatory Response 1. Introduction The propriety of the author’s characterization of his work as a “word of exhortation” (13:22) has been universally recognized. Lindars has memorably declared: “Hebrews is a work of persuasion from start to finish.”1 While some scholars have attempted to identify structural points of division between exposition and exhortation in Hebrews,2 it has become increasingly recognized that the two are in fact inseparable. Though there are instances of pure exhortation, as indicated by such telltale devices as the so-called “ou=n paraeneticum,”3 these exhortations are always genetically linked to the “doctrine” on which they are based. As George H. Guthrie observes: In every instance in Hebrews where expositional material is followed by hortatory, the hortatory utilizes semantic material from the expositional discussion. Therefore, the expositional material serves the hortatory purpose of the whole work.4

1

Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 2. Cf. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament example of biblical interpretation (SNTSMS 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 67–8: A pattern thus begins to be apparent in which the variation in eschatological stances within the letter, the alternation between ‘realised’ and ‘futurist’ eschatologies, is completely synonymous with the theology-paraenesis disjunction. It is entirely consistent therefore that in the theological-Christological sections of the letter in which the meaning of the death of Jesus is explored, the eschatological viewpoint should be a ‘realised’ one. On the other hand, the Christian’s paradoxical awareness of his continuing historicity, that aspect of his existence which makes the ‘city’ or ‘kingdom’ appear a long way off in an anything-but-clear future, is what constitutes his membership within the eschaton as a still open question and which makes exhortation . . . the order of the day. He further contends that in the doctrinal material the “discontinuity with the old covenant is written large,” while in the hortatory material “continuity” is stressed, so much so that “one might almost think the Christian era never dawned” (70). 3 The ou=n paraeneticum appears seven times: 4:1, 11, 14, 16; 10:19, 35; 13:15. 4 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSupp 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994), 140, 143. So also Michel, Hebräer, 59: “Die 2

20

Introduction

Dunnill extends this logic even further, arguing that “the hortatory passages (are) so fully involved with the theological thought as to seem to create it.”5 The two prime examples of this inseparable linkage of doctrine and exhortation are the author’s high priest and Son of God Christologies. The high priest Christology issues seamlessly into the benefits his selfoffering provides: purification (1:3) and atonement for sins (2:17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:26, 28; 10:12, 17–18); sanctification (2:11; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 13:12); purification of an unclean conscience (9:14; 10:22); merciful representation (2:16–18; 4:15–16; 9:24; 10:21) and intercession (7:25); freedom from the fear of death (2:14–15); a “promised eternal inheritance” (6:17; 9:15); a new covenant (7:22; 8:6, 10–12; 10:9, 16–17; 13:20); perfection (10:14; 12:23); “eternal redemption” (9:12, 15) and salvation (2:10; 5:9; 6:9; 7:25; 9:28). The Son of God Christology is also devoid of any impractical abstractions. Instead, a dramatic portrayal of the Son’s exaltation in 1:5 and 2:12–13 is offered with the sole purpose of shaping and solidifying the community’s identity as the “siblings” of the Son. They are exhorted to respond to the Son’s bestowal of family membership (2:12–13) with confessions of his Sonship (4:14–16; 10:19–23; 13:15).

2. Terminology: paraenesis or paraklesis? Recent years have witnessed an increased effort to properly understand the hortatory function of early Christian literature. Most notably, a pair of Scandinavian conferences on the subject (Lund, 2000 and Oslo, 2001) have issued in a collection of essays entitled Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. One of the primary goals of these essays is to determine the appropriate terminology to describe this rhetorical activity. From the aforementioned Oslo conference a definition of paraenesis emerges. It is “a concise, benevolent injunction that reminds of moral practices to be pursued or avoided, expresses or implies a shared worldview, and does not anticipate disagreement.”6 In his essay, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” Troels Engberg-Pedersen contends that the term paraenesis has been too broadly defined and applied in NT research, and appeals to Pseudo-Isocrates’ To Demonicus as proof that a distinction should be made between parakalei/n (“to exhort”) and theologisch-didaktischen Teile des Briefes stehen also nicht auf sich selbst, sondern bilden die Voraussetzung für die Paränese.” 5 Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 46. 6 James M. Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 4.

Chapter 3: The Author’s Hortatory Response

21

parainei/n (“to advise,” “to enjoin”).7 The former is “directed towards people,” while the latter is “directed towards conduct, behavior, what should be done.”8 Thus, paraenesis “does not stand for ‘exhortation’ broadly conceived.”9 This broad sense was apparent to Paul, who avoided the term parainei/n and exclusively employed the term parakalei/n in relation to his hortatory efforts.10 In addition to the broad flexibility inherent in the term parakalei/n, which conveys both “exhortation” and “comfort,” Engberg-Pedersen finds two other possible motivations behind Paul’s deliberate avoidance of the term paraenesis: (1) He wished to distance himself from the paraenetic practices of “any Greek philosophical school” and “all forms of Greek wisdom.”11 (2) Couching his persuasive efforts in the imagery of mutual encouragement deflected attention from issues of “authority and status of the speaker” (cf. 2 Cor 7:6–13; 1 Thess 3:7; 5:11).12 With respect to Hebrews, Engberg-Pedersen characterizes the author’s hortatory efforts as “exhortation,” and not paraenesis. The author’s own explicit designation of his work as a lo,goj th/j paraklh,sewj (13:22) indicates that this term “is probably meant to cover the text as a whole.”13 Wiard Popkes’s essay notes the lack of a distinct paraenetic genre in Greco-Roman literature, and characterizes the entire NT as possessing a paraenetic function.14 He therefore believes that “it is still possible to use (the term) paraenesis for the New Testament.”15 Citing Hebrews as an example, Popkes confirms the inseparability of doctrine and paraenesis in the NT.16 Furthermore, he observes that the function of paraenesis is 7 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 48–9. 8 Ibid., 51. 9 Ibid. 10 Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 4:13, 16; 16:15; 2 Cor 2:8; 5:20; 6:1; 8:6; 9:5; 10:1; 13:11; 1 Thess 2:12; 4:1, 10; 5:14; Phlm 9–10. 11 Engberg-Pedersen, “The Concept of Paraenesis,” 69. 12 Ibid. Cf. also Engberg-Pedersen, “Why Pauline Paraklesis Is Rightly Called Paraenesis,” (Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting. Atlanta, GA., November 24, 2003), 8: “There was too much of an authoritarian tone to parainei/n. By contrast, parakalei/n had the right tone of pleading, exhorting, but in principle leaving everything up to the addressees.” 13 Ibid., 71. 14 Wiard Popkes, “Paraenesis in the New Testament: An Exercise in Conceptuality,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 15, 25. 15 Ibid., 42. 16 Ibid., 25. Cf. Seneca (Epistle 94:31), who observes that both doctrines (decreta) and precepts (praecepta) prescribe (praecipiunt).

Introduction

22

to promote attitudes and actions which secure the future of the recipient, both short-term and long-range. The present time is a time of decision which implies an element of transition. Someone has come into a state of reshaping his or her future and now needs competent advice.17

In an essay focusing specifically on Hebrews, Walter Übelacker convincingly argues that “the so-called paraenesis in Hebrews is better characterized by the term paraclesis.”18 The author “is not giving advice or a strong admonition as would be the case with paraenesis.”19 And contrary to the practice of paraenesis, which according to the Oslo description “does not anticipate disagreement,” we find the author repeatedly anticipating possible disagreements with “apt arguments.”20 Assuming that “the recipients can choose to disagree and act in another way,”21 the author offers “‘new’ or deepening and clarifying explanations, which allow for reasoning, argumentation” and “deliberation, presenting the alternatives in sharp contrast.”22 Rather than exerting his authority, the author exhorts from a position of “mutuality,” “with pastoral care.”23 Finally, the author probably characterized and summarized his work as a lo,goj th/j paraklh,sewj because of the term’s “wide scope.” In the case of Hebrews, this includes “instruction, both reminders of basic teachings and further developments of theological instruction in the form of admonitions, exhortations, injunctions (paraenesis), encouragement and consolations.” 24

3. Aspects of the author’s hortatory strategy That the author was convinced of the recipients’ possible apostasy may be easily inferred from the passionate and full-orbed hortatory response he offers. Distinctive elements of his exhortation include: 17

Ibid., 17. 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/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 333. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 337. 21 Ibid., 333. 22 Ibid., 348. Cf. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Anticipating and Presenting the Case for Christ as the High Priest in Hebrews,” Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ed. Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, Walter Übelacker (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002), 357, who draws attention to the author’s deliberate promotion of “in-depth Christological reflection.” Olbricht remarks: “The (author’s) chief end is to enhance Christological understanding as well as incite the hearers to move on out, empowered by the new gained understanding.” 23 Ibid., 349, 333. 24 Ibid., 349. 18

Chapter 3: The Author’s Hortatory Response

23

(1) The repeated use of hortatory subjunctives, which place an emphasis on mutuality and solidarity rather than the author’s authority: 2:1, mh,pote pararuw/men (“lest we drift away”); 3:6, 14, eva,nper . . . kata,scwmen (“if we hold fast”); 4:1, fobhqw/men (“let us fear”); 4:11, spouda,swmen (“let us be diligent”); 4:14, kratw/men (“let us hold fast”); 4:16 and 10:19 prosercw,meqa (“let us approach); 4:16, la,bwmen (“let us receive”), eu[rwmen (“let us find”); 6:1, ferw,meqa (“let us move one”); 6:18, e;cwmen (“we have”); 10:23, kate,cwmen (“let us hold fast”); 10:24, katanow/men (“let us consider”); 12:1, tre,cwmen (“let us run”); 12:28, e;cwmen (“let us have”), latreu,wmen (“let us worship”); 13:13, evxercw,meqa (“let us go out”); 13:15, avnafe,rwmen (“let us offer”). By means of this “language of solidarity,” the author establishes that he could also “drift away” and face judgment, should he himself fail to “hold fast” to his commitment to Jesus.25 (2) Recurring use of first person plural address, which further reinforces mutuality: 1:2; 2:1, 3, 8, 9; 3:1, 14; 4:2–3, 14–15; 6:3, 9, 11, 18–20; 7:14, 19; 8:1; 9:14, 24; 10:10, 15, 19–20, 22, 25–26, 30, 39; 11:3, 40; 12:1–2, 9, 25, 28–29; 13:10, 14–15, 20–21. (3) The so-called “ou=n paraeneticum,” employed seven times: 4:1, 11, 14, 16; 10:19, 35; 13:15. This device is used to call attention to explicit moments of exhortation, and functions as a “combining link between the explication and the exhortation.”26 Other logical particles used in this manner include: dia. tou/to (2:1); o[qen (3:1); dio, (6:1; 12:12, 28); toigarou/n (12:1); toi,nun (13:13).27 (4) The use of emotions. Koester remarks: The dynamics in Hebrews can best be seen through the interplay of positive feelings, such as confidence and sympathy, which the author uses to draw people to faithfulness, and negative feelings such as fear and shame, which he uses to create an aversion to unfaithfulness.28

(5) A recurring pattern of warning and assurance, especially evident in three locations: (1) 6:4–8 and 6:9–20; (2) 10:26–31 and 10:39; (3) 12:14–

25

Cf. also the hortatory interrogative: pw/j h`mei/j evkfeuxo,meqa (“how can we escape?” 2:3). In this regard, Walter Übelacker notes: “The author places himself under the same conditions and obligations in order to create the feeling that he and the community belong together” (“Hebrews and the Implied Author’s Rhetorical Ethos,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson [New York/London: T&T Clark International, 2005], 332). 26 Übelacker, “Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case,” 327. 27 Cf. Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 8. Rissi’s list is not exhaustive and contains two errors in citation: o[qen appears in 2:17 and 3:1, not 3:17; and dio, is not found in 4:1. 28 Koester, Hebrews, 89–90.

Introduction

24

17 and 12:18–29.29 That the author’s harshest warnings, 6:4–8 and 10:26– 31,30 are followed by comforting words of assurance, is indicative of both his pastoral attitude and general optimism concerning the recipients. And though the author of Hebrews castigates the community for their immature failure to apprehend even “the basic elements of the oracles of God” (5:11–14), the wealth and depth of his theological and hortatory instruction indicates his actual high regard for their status. In 6:9, commenting on the immediately preceding castigation and warning, the author remarks: “Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation.”31 (6) A “constant oscillation between encouragement and challenge.” Walker notes: Passages of exhortation and encouragement begin at 1:1; 2:5; 4:14; 6:9; 10:32; 12:22; 13:1 and 13:15; these are interspersed with passages of provocative challenge, beginning at 2:1; 3:1; 5:11; 10:25; 12:1, 25 and 13:9.32

(7) Two essential types of exhortation, static and dynamic, found throughout Hebrews. In 4:14–16, these two types represent distinct conceptualizations of faithfulness: “let us hold fast,” and “let us approach.” Attridge observes: On the one hand Hebrews recommends the more ‘static’ qualities of stability and resolution in maintaining the Christian life. At the same time, the addressees are called to a more ‘dynamic’ virtue, to movement in various directions.33

(8) Presented as an “oratorical performance.”34 Hans-Friedrich Weiss asserts that the self-designation, lo,goj th/j paraklh,sewj, “is virtually a terminus technicus for the reading of the sermon or homily that follows the reading of the ‘Law and Prophets.’”35 Lane draws attention to the 29

Matera, “Moral Exhortation,” 174, 181. David A. deSilva, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and PatronClient Relationships,” JBL 115.1 (1996), 114, characterizes these passages as “designed to lead the hearers to a feeling of deep dread.” 31 Cf. Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” 386, who observes that in 13:22 “the author implies that he cannot be sure of success (Parakalw/ . . . avne,cesqe).” 32 Walker, “A Place for Hebrews?” 233. 33 Attridge, Hebrews, 21–2; idem, “Paraenesis in a Homily (lovgoj paraklhvsewj): The Possible Location of, and Socialization In, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 (1990), 221. 34 Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (lovgoj paraklhvsewj),” 217. See also David Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part I,” BTB 36.3 (Fall 2006), 118–33. 35 Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer: Übersetzt und Erklärt (KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 40. See also Gabriella Gelardini, “Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av”: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological 30

Chapter 3: The Author’s Hortatory Response

25

deliberate steps the author has taken to give his written work the texture of a speech, a direct address to the recipients. He studiously avoids any reference to actions like writing and reading, which would emphasize the geographical distance that separates him from the group he is addressing. Instead, he stresses the actions of speaking and listening appropriate to persons in conversations. Moreover, he assumes a conversational tone in order to diminish the sense of distance that separates him from his audience.36

4. Conclusion In agreement with Übelacker’s assessment, we will characterize the author’s hortatory effort as essentially an “exhortation.” Given the severity of the recipients’ situation, however, we must not think of this “exhortation” as gentle “encouragement,” or “consolation.” Rather, the author is clearly convinced that the existence of the community is at stake, and his exhortation is therefore imbued with harsh warnings and urgent calls to perseverance in commitment. Nevertheless, these harsh warnings and urgent calls to perseverance are accompanied by a wealth of hortatory techniques that traverse the full range of human emotions. This full-orbed exhortation clearly betrays the hand of a skilled rhetor possessed with a pastor’s heart of concern for an endangered community.

Conclusion to the Introduction These three complex factors: the recipients’ situation, the author’s eschatological convictions and hortatory achievement, will constitute the focus of what follows. Particular attention will be paid to the manner in which they interact and mutually influence one another. And as the reach of these three components extends to every part of Hebrews, a nearly comprehensive treatment of the work will therefore be required in order to appreciate the author’s eschatology and exhortation. The following two major sections (Parts One and Two) will examine in succession the author’s two-age and Heavenly Sanctuary eschatologies. This division is admittedly artificial, as the two eschatological conceptualities are melded in the author’s mind; e.g., he is convinced that Interpretation,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 107–27. 36 William L. Lane, “Standing Before the Moral Claim of God: Discipleship in Hebrews,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 203.

26

Introduction

Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering and “manifestation” in the Heavenly Sanctuary has decisively signaled the “end of the ages” (9:24–26). The separation of these two conceptualities will however afford a clearer consideration of their constituent elements. The author’s hortatory program is similarly inseparable from his eschatological convictions, and we will highlight the manner in which his exhortation effortlessly proceeds from his “doctrine.” The fifth chapter, on two-age eschatology, will successively treat eleven pertinent passages in Hebrews. Each of these successive treatments will conclude with a focused consideration of the “interface” of eschatology and exhortation. Chapters six through eight, covering Heavenly Sanctuary eschatology, are arranged thematically. In the context of the discussions of cosmology, the high priesthood of Jesus, and the enthronement of the Son of God, we will examine the author’s accompanying hortatory strategy.

Part One

Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

Chapter Four

Two-Age Belief in Jewish – Christian Apocalyptic Thought and in Hebrews 1. Introduction The capacity of the ancient mind to comfortably house thoughts considered by us moderns to be irreconcilable is well known. Our author is a fair representative of this. For although the “end of the ages” has already occurred in his symbolic world (with the “manifestation” of Christ, 9:26), it is, as in the rest of the NT, not a completed matter. He is convinced, however, that he is living in the “final days” of this age (1:2; 10:37). Therefore, with the exaltation of Jesus in the Heavenly Sanctuary, the endless age has begun and the eschaton has been ushered in; though not until the second coming of Christ will it find full expression (9:28; 10:37– 38). We might conceive of “the turning of the ages” as a temporally elastic event, one that has occurred in the recent past, currently stretches into and penetrates the present, and will in the not-so-distant future bring human history to an end.1 It is this essential “elasticity” which necessitates use of the otherwise illogical “now and not yet” maxim by which NT eschatology is commonly characterized.

1

Bruce J. Malina, “Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?” CBQ 51 (1989), 1–31, attempts at length to reconstruct the temporal orientation of the ancient Mediterranean person. He criticizes as anachronistic the future/eschatological orientation that modern scholars have retrojected unto the ancient mindset, which he instead characterizes as entirely experiential and focused on the present (5). His depiction of the ancient Mediterranean person emphasizes the instability of their situation, as food, shelter, and safety were never taken for granted (7). This pervasive uncertainty conditions a present orientation. Malina’s characterization, though perhaps appropriate to the Galilean peasant culture of Jesus and his early followers, is less applicable to the urban setting from which our author emerged and to which our epistle is in all likelihood addressed.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

30

2. Is two-age belief the primary characteristic of apocalyptic thought? It has been frequently asserted that a dualistic conception of history, which comes to expression “above all in the doctrine of the Two Ages, in the dualistic time-scheme of world eras” is the “essential feature of Apocalyptic,” and it “dominates its thought-world.”2 Two-age/world dualistic belief surfaces repeatedly in Second Temple literature. Noteworthy expressions of this belief include: (1) “the world that is to become,” (1 En. 71:15); (2) “the Most High has not made one world/age (saeculum), but two,” (4 Ezra 7:50); (3) “the present world is not the end, . . . but the day of judgment will be the end of this age and the beginning of the immortal age to come,” (4 Ezra 7:112–113); (4) “an eternal age has been promised to us,” (4 Ezra 7:119); (5) “that period which is coming,” (2 Bar. 44:8–15); (6) “the coming world,” (2 Bar. 83:4– 9); (7) “the consummation of the ages,” (T. Levi 10:2); (8) “a time of salvation for the people of God, an age of dominion . . . and of everlasting destruction for the company of Belial,” (1QM 11:5–10). Bearing witness to the endurance of two-age/world belief in nascent Rabbinical Judaism is the oft-quoted m. Sanhedrin 10: “All Israelites have a share in the world to come, . . . and these are they that have no share in the world to come: . . .” 3 The pride of place traditionally ascribed to two-age dualism within apocalyptic thought and literature has been challenged by Christopher Rowland, who insists that the “distinguishing feature” of apocalyptic is “belief in direct revelation of the things of God” as “mediated through dream, vision or divine intermediary.”4 Furthermore, he considers futurist 2

Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, “Introduction” to “Apocalypses and Related Subjects,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. Robert McL. Wilson (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. / Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 2.549. 3 See also: Mark 10:30; Matt 12:32; Luke 18:30; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 19; 5:10; 7:31; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:21; 2:7; m. Abot 4:1; b. Ber. 9:5. 4 Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad / London: S.P.C.K., 1982), 21. He points out that two-age/world eschatological dualism has priority only in the biblical apocalypses (Daniel, Revelation) and in those apocalypses whose origins can be traced to historical situations of crisis and upheaval. The numerous apocalypses “whose origins are not so closely linked with particular historical events” are “more encyclopaedic” in nature, concerned with cosmological mysteries and anthropological issues (28). John G. Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature,” JBL 93 (1974), 357–9, has also called into question the prioritization of temporal “two age” dualism. He has also drawn attention to a number of other common dualistic beliefs: (1) cosmological (dividing the world into forces of good and evil, darkness and light); (2) social/ethical (the elect/the world; righteous/unrighteous; sons of light/sons of darkness);

Chapter 4: Two-Age Belief

31

eschatology to be of limited relevance for understanding apocalyptic thought, as apocalyptic “is as much involved in the attempt to understand things as they are now as to predict future events.”5 Rowland’s efforts have been met with both approval and criticism.6 John J. Collins considers Rowland’s de-emphasis of futurist eschatology an “overreaction.”7 He offers a more comprehensive definition of “apocalypse,” one that acknowledges the revelatory aspect while also applying equal emphasis to both the spatial and temporal dimensions: An apocalypse is defined as a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated 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.8

A further challenge to the prioritization of two-age belief has come with the recognition of a historical shift in emphasis: from the spatial to the temporal dimension. The earliest apocalyptic texts (1 En. 1–36; 72–82) clearly privilege spatial eschatology. As George W. E. Nickelsburg notes, in spite of the “organic temporal-spatial unity” that characterizes the (3) psychological (reflecting internalized good or evil); (4) spatial (heaven/earth and mundane/supra-mundane); (5) theological (God/humanity); (6) physical (matter/spirit); (7) metaphysical (god/Satan); (8) soteriological (faith or disbelief in a savior); (9) ontological cosmological (attributing the source of the cosmos to opposing forces). Cf. also the more nuanced discussion in Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library. Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen (STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997), 281–5. 5 Rowland, The Open Heaven, 2. 6 Taking Rowland’s destabilizing critique as his starting point, R. Barry Matlock (Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism [JSNTSup 127. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996]) faults much NT scholarship for its unconscientious and wholesale appropriation of apocalyptic terminology and has called for a complete moratorium on its use, except in relation to “certified and approved” apocalyptic literature (e.g., Daniel, Zechariah 14, Revelation). 7 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 10. 8 This “industry standard” definition was fashioned jointly by the members of the study group responsible for Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (1979) (cf. p. 9). See Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 4–5. Paul D. Hanson, “Genre,” and “Introductory Overview,” in the entry: “Apocalypses, and Apocalypticism,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman (New York/London: Doubleday, 1992), 1.280, offers the following definitions: the term “apocalypse” is used only to designate the proper constituents of the literary genre, while “apocalyptic eschatology” denotes an apocalyptic religious perspective, and “apocalypticism” refers to a “community or movement embodying an apocalyptic perspective as its ideology.”

32

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

“apocalyptic construction of reality” in the earliest portions of 1 Enoch, the prevalent heavenly journeys and cosmological speculations bring the spatial dimension to the fore.9 And while temporal eschatology attained a place of prominence within later apocalyptic texts such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, in almost all apocalyptic works both dimensions mutually cohere, operating within a “constellation of apocalyptic topics,” and offering a “flexible set of resources that Jews and Christians could employ for a variety of persuasive tasks.”10

3. The origins of two-age eschatology Though two-age dualistic eschatology has been thought by some to originate in Zoroastrianism,11 the Hebrew prophetic tradition offers a more likely source.12 The context in which it flourished can be established with more certitude: i.e., in conditions of persecution and/or socio-economic marginalization. Rowland has drawn attention to the formative role played by theodicy in apocalyptic thought, noting that the unveiling of divine mysteries “is not a means of satisfying curiosity,” rather it is “the way in which the impoverished character of existence and the injustices of the world are given a different perspective.”13 Nickelsburg finds the primary locus of that “different perspective” in two-age/world dualism: Religious persecution and social oppression are the matrices for much of the apocalyptic speculation in 1 Enoch and its sister apocalypses. The dualisms in 1 Enoch that look to another world and hope for a better day are driven by the dismal state of affairs here and

9 George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters, 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 37–8. 10 Greg Carey and L. Gregory Bloomquist, ed., Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse (St. Louis: Chalice, 1999), 10. 11 Norman Cohn, Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1993), 193, 220–6. 12 John J. Collins, “The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and related literature 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 74. Though Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 20, elsewhere asserts that the quest for a single source is “misdirected and counterproductive.” A “wide range of sources” may underlie any given apocalyptic work, and “while the importance of Persian dualism was greatly exaggerated in the past, it cannot be dismissed entirely.” 13 Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic, God and the World. Appearance and reality: early Christianity’s debt to the Jewish apocalyptic tradition,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context: Festschrift in honor of Morna Hooker’s 65th birthday, ed. J. Barclay and J. Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 240.

Chapter 4: Two-Age Belief

33

now. The hope that God and the angels will intervene derives from the frustration of impotent people unable to change their circumstances.14

In the earliest apocalyptic works (1 En. 6–16),15 and in portions of both the Qumran (1QS 3:20–25; CD 2:6; 4:13–19; 5:18–19; 1QM; 4Q491–496; 4Q174 4:1–5; 4Q177 2–4; 4Q181 2:1–2; 4Q510 1:5–8; 4Q544; 11Q5 19:16; 11QMelchizedek) and NT corpora (1 John 5:19; Gal 1:4; Heb 2:14) the root cause of this “dismal state of affairs” is traced to demonic influence.16 While human culpability (particularly in the socio-political sphere) is neither minimized nor excused, in this tradition fallen angelic beings bear the principal blame for maliciously and irredeemably corrupting the present age and its inhabitants.17 The Adamic tradition was perhaps more influential, and was seen as carrying equally destructive consequences. Particularly instructive in this regard is 4 Ezra 4:26–32: (The angel Uriel) answered me and said, ‘If you are alive, you will see, and if you live long, you will often marvel, because the age is hurrying swiftly to its end. It will not be able to bring the things that have been promised to the righteous in their appointed times, because this age is full of sadness and infirmities. For the evil about which you ask me has been sown, but the harvest of it has not yet come. If therefore that which has been sown is not reaped, and if the place where the evil has been sown does not pass away, the field where the good has been sown will not come. For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning, and how much ungodliness it has produced until now – and will produce until the time of threshing comes! Consider now for yourself how much

14

Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 5. Nickelsburg believes the Book of Watchers was provoked by the wars of the Diadochi (323–302 BCE). He remarks: “These two decades are a period of continued war, bloodshed, and assassination. Palestine especially felt the brunt and changed hands seven times in twenty-one years” (1 Enoch 1, 170). 15 Cf. also Jub. 1:20; 4:22; 5:1–2; 7:21–27. Demonic influence is also present in Job 1:6–12; 1 Kgs 22:19–23; Dan 7–12; Zech 3. And though much later (1st to 2nd century CE), cf. Apoc. Ab. 13:8–9. 16 Cf. Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa (CBQMS 10. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1980), 49–98; John J. Collins, “The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1992), 25–38. 17 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 46–8, demonstrates a shift of emphasis in the Enochic corpus, as the earlier portions focus on demonic influence (1 En. 6–16), while later strata place the blame on humanity (1 En. 1–5; 85–90; 92–105). The Epistle of Enoch is explicit in this regard: “Sin has not been sent into the world. It is the people who have themselves invented it” (98:4). The instruction on the two spirits, 1QS 3:13 – 4:26, also bears witness to a combination of cosmic dualism, with opposing supernatural beings, and ethical dualism, featuring the opposition of two types of human beings. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” 289–95, 302, believes that the divine “throwing of lots” mentioned in 1QS 4:26 points to another explanation for the presence of evil: it is the result of God’s election, as part of his “mysterious plan.”

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

34

fruit of ungodliness a grain of evil seed has produced. When heads of grain without number are sown, how great a threshing floor they will fill!’18

The pervasive emphasis on the final judgment in both this passage and throughout 1 Enoch testifies to the belief that the bleak situation inspiring the two varying aetiologies of sin and suffering (demonic and Adamic) would require a cataclysmic rectification, one not possible within the present time frame.19 Therefore, as Collins notes, in “all the apocalypses” we find “a transcendent eschatology that looks for retribution beyond the bounds of history.”20 Though the shape of the hoped-for future varies widely in apocalyptic texts, it typically features an overt manifestation of divine justice – a cataclysmic day of judgment – whereupon “the usurped world will be restored; the corrupted universe will be cleansed; the created world will be re-created.”21 And with regard to Rowland’s emphasis on revelation, Martinus C. de Boer has correctly noted that apocalyptic revelation does not involve “the mere disclosure of information,” rather, it refers primarily to God’s expected eschatological activity itself. That is, the final events themselves, when they occur, will constitute God’s eschatological revelation

18

A similar confluence of Adamic fall, human devastation, and eschatological rectification is apparent in 2 Bar. 23–25; 48:42–43; 54:15–16; 56:5–6; 4 Ezra 3:21, 26; 7:118; Rom 5:12–21. Reflecting an awareness of human culpability is 2 Bar. 54:15, 19: Every human “who has been born from (Adam) has prepared for himself the coming torment. Each of us has become our own Adam.” Paolo Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History, trans. William J. Short (JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 107, notes: “The roots of apocalyptic thought are here, in the awareness that sin is an autonomous reality with respect to humans and at the same time is linked to them in such a way that they must endure it.” Regarding the varying theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, cf. Tom W. Willett, Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (JSPSup 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). 19 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 37, remarks: “Thus scarcely a page in 1 Enoch is not in some sense related to the expectation of an impending judgment that will deal with human sin and righteousness and the angelic rebellions that are related to them.” 20 Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 11. Cf. also Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 40, who highlights the role of temporal dualism in the theodicy of 1 Enoch. 21 D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC – AD 100 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 280. The age to come, according to Russell, was understood as either a “restitution of the perfect order of the original creation” (T. Levi 18:10–14; Jub. 23:26–31); or a “transformation of the old creation” (1 En. 45:4–5; Isa 60:19). The new creation can be either heavenly (2 En. 8; 2 Bar. 4:3; 4 Ezra 7:28–44) or earthly (T. Levi 18:10–14) (264–84). Though cf. the cautious stance adopted by Mark Adam Elliott (The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism [Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000], 515–21) with regard to the varying views and visions of the end.

Chapter 4: Two-Age Belief

35

(apokalypsis) of divine justice or righteousness, and of God’s sovereign claim on the whole created world.22

Finally, it is worth noting that the NT stands alone in its bold claim that in the Christ event the “ruler of this world” has been rendered ineffectual (1 John 3:8), judged (John 16:11), cast out (John 12:31), and destroyed (Heb 2:14). Jesus’ achievement is considered similarly efficacious with regard to the contaminating effects of the Adamic fall (Rom 5:12–21). And almost perfectly conforming to the aforementioned apocalyptic expectations is Heb 9:26, which construes the Christ event as an eschatological, divine “manifestation,” with Jesus’ self-offering providing a conclusive “annulment of sins,” “now . . . at the end of the ages.”23

4. Two-age eschatology in Hebrews A dualistic temporal orientation profoundly shapes the thought of Hebrews. Explicit expressions of two-age eschatology include: (1) “the world to come” (th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan, 2:5); (2) “the powers of the age to come” (duna,meij te me,llontoj aivw/noj, 6:5); (3) “but now once for all at the consummation of the ages” (nuni. de. a[pax evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, 9:26). Implicit expressions of two-age eschatology appear throughout Hebrews: (1) in the proclamation of the eschatological salvation that has been accomplished by the Son in “these last days” (1:1 – 2:4); (2) with the temporal urgency created by the repeated refrain: “Today, if you hear (God’s) voice,” occurring in a section, 3:7 – 4:11, that contains a singular admission that entry into the eschatological rest has already occurred (4:3); (3) by juxtaposing the ineffectual cultus operating in the “present time” (to.n kairo.n to.n evnesthko,ta, 9:9) with “the good things that have come” (tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n) in the “time of correction” (9:10) through the high priestly ministrations of Christ (9:11); (4) in contrasting the earthly Jerusalem (that could not countenance the death of Jesus within its gates) with “the city that is to come” (th.n me,llousan po,lin, 13:12–14; cf. also 22

Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse,” Int 56 (2002), 24. De Boer argues that Rowland’s understanding of apocalyptic is “curiously focused on the human experience of the divine world rather than on God’s own revelatory action of rectifying a world gone awry.” 23 This epochal statement is perhaps matched only by Gal 1:3–4 (“. . . the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age”) and 4:3–5 (“while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law”).

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

36

11:10, 16; 12:22); (5) by describing the law as having “only a shadow of the good things to come” (tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n, 10:1); (6) in the exhortation to confidently approach the eschatological sanctuary of God which occurs in close proximity to a warning concerning the imminently approaching final “Day” of the Lord (10:19–39); (7) and in the use of such phrases as me,cri te,loj (3:14), a;cri te,loj (6:11), and eivj to.n aivw/na (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28). Also of note is the manner in which the two-age conception has influenced the author’s claim that the Jewish religious system has been superseded (7:11–28; 8:13; 9:9–11; 10:1–9). Thus even his discussions of purely cultic matters are expressed in an apocalyptic tongue. The pervasive presence of these dualistic temporal materials adequately justifies the opinion that “no other NT writing more systematically and thoroughly embodies the conception of the two ages and the conviction that the transition between them is now in process.”24 And although Hebrews fails to conform to the genre of apocalypse,25 its author’s theology is thoroughly impressed by apocalyptic thought,26 and especially by the apocalyptic belief that this present age/world is slated for an imminent cataclysmic replacement, perhaps even removal.27 We should therefore characterize the author as engaging in “apocalyptic discourse.” 28 24

Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” 255. With regard to the definition of apocalypse offered by Collins and the contributors to Semeia 14, Hebrews possesses both overt and veiled references to supernaturally mediated revelation. The eschatological revelation (1:2) and manifestation of the Son (9:26) are overt. More suggestive is the pneumatological revelation (dhlo,w) of the “parable” of 9:6–9, wherein the inner and outer portions of the tabernacle are revealed as symbolically representing the frustration of access to God. The pneumatological “insight” of 9:6–9 is imbued with both two-age and Heavenly Sanctuary eschatology and it may have either helped generate or provide legitimation for the temporal and spatial dualisms that surface throughout Hebrews. 26 Cf. John McRay, “Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews,” ResQ 23.1 (1980), 1–2: “Hebrews cannot, of course, be consigned to traditionally defined apocalyptic literary categories. It is by no stretch of the imagination an apocalypse.” However, “echoes of apocalyptic thought resound from every quarter of Hebrews.” See also Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 375–6, 389, 393. 27 Other clear examples of apocalyptic influence: (1) the references in chapters 1 – 2 to angelic beings (cf. also 12:22 and 13:2); (2) the ancient cosmic war myth which resides beneath the surface of the dramatic events presented in the first two chapters (1:13; 2:14–15); (3) cosmological speculation (1:11–12; 6:19–20; 8:1–2, 5; 9:11–12, 23– 24; 10:1, 12, 19–22; 11:3, 10, 16; 12:1–2, 18–24; 13:10, 14); (4) resurrection from the dead (6:2; 11:35; 13:20); (5) and the expectation of an imminent, cataclysmic, final judgment (1:10–13; 2:3; 4:13; 6:2, 8; 9:27; 10:13, 25, 27–31, 37, 39; 12:25–29; 13:4). 28 Carey and Bloomquist, ed., Vision and Persuasion, 10. Cf. James D. Hester, “Apocalyptic Discourse in 1 Thessalonians,” in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, ed. Duane F. Watson (Symposium Series 14. Atlanta: 25

Chapter 4: Two-Age Belief

37

Furthermore, this complex and ambiguous conception, proclaiming that the “future age” has been inaugurated, but has not yet fully arrived, is ideally suited to the author’s hortatory program. Providing an acute sense of urgency and immediacy, these expressions of eschatological ambiguity almost always emerge in a context of exhortation, warning, and/or moral instruction. The suggestion of Ernst Käsemann – approved and clarified by Koester – that the two ages provide both the imagery of a battleground and represent impersonal forces/powers, further heightens the sense of eschatological urgency.29 The first lengthy section of the epistle (1:1 – 2:4) concludes its presentation of the enthroned Son on this unsure footing of ambiguity and exigency, and an abundance of examples follow, appearing throughout this lo,goj th/j paraklh,sewj. Examination of these occurrences reveals that almost all of them appear in conjunction with doctrinal instruction concerning the enthroned Son who is the eternal high priest. Thus the eschatological conception of the two ages/worlds fuses exhortation to doctrine, at once creating a mood of impending urgency, relativizing the present age and the honor-shame system it offers, and establishing the temporal and spatial milieu for the heavenly enthronement and high priestly activities of the Son, the one who abides forever (to. me,nein auvto.n eivj to.n aivw/na, 7:24).

Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 138: “Apocalyptic discourse exists in early Christian literature outside of the context of an apocalyptic literature and without necessary recourse to the full conceptual matrix of an apocalypse.” 29 Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 44, rather cryptically depicts the two ages as impersonal forces at war, with the believer caught in the middle. Since the past of the diaqh,kh and the future of the consummation stand firm for it (faith), it finds the power to overcome the earthly present. Again and again it overcomes the earthly present by an evxelqei/n (11:8, 22). Indeed, the visible and invisible do not confront each other in static fashion, but rather as powers contending for each other. But that God’s people traverse this zone of conflict and death for the sake of the Word is taken for a sign of victory. Koester, Hebrews, 101, approves this conception and refines it with his observation that the conflict between the visible realities of the present time and faith’s perception of the reign of Christ will be resolved through Christ’s return and related events. Hebrews does not personify the powers as Paul does, but exhibits a comparable sense of conflict between future hope and present reality.

Chapter Five

An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews 1. “In these last days God has spoken through a Son” (1:1 – 2:4) 1.1. “In these last days” Our author sets his appeal to flight under the wind of the above-mentioned forces. The Son, through whom God made the ages/worlds (tou.j aivw/naj, 1:2),1 is indeed he in/by whom God has spoken “in these last days” (evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn, 1:2). This latter phrase, whose origins can be traced to the scriptural expression for the future in general: ~ymiY"h; tyrIx]a;B. (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14)2 – which would later acquire an

1 Both meanings, “ages,” and “worlds,” are possible. The author may be thinking comprehensively here, as Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14,” 178–9, has argued, contra Ellingworth, Hebrews, 96, who insists there “is little doubt that the derived spatial sense of ‘world’ best suits the context here” (in 1:2). The appearance of the temporal phrase eivj to.n aivw/na tou/ aivw/noj, shortly thereafter, in 1:8 (describing the duration of God’s rule), may point to a deliberate multivalence for tou.j aivw/naj in 1:2. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14,” 179, also points out that in 1.2c, tou.j aivw/naj, “for all its difference in theological nuance, is basically identical with the pa,ntwn of v. 2b.” Cf. John J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff.: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” NovT 21 (1979), 33: The author never seems to employ aivw,nioj in a purely temporal sense. The predominant focus or emphasis in each case seems to be upon an eschatological state or event. In each case aivw,nioj is pointedly associated with the world-age to come. Because of this association with the coming world-age, it not only has the qualitative meaning of ‘eschatological’ but also the temporal meaning of ‘everlasting.’ However, the latter nuance is, in Hebrews derivative from and subsidiary to the former. 2 George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (AB 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), 4, discusses the etymology of this phrase: The idiom ‘in the last of these days’ reflects a Semitic attitude toward time. Semitic words for past are words meaning ‘before’ or ‘in front of’ (qdm, lpnym) as if the Semite were looking toward his ancestral origins when he talked of the past. The past had happened; it was known and could be faced. The future, on the other hand, could not be seen, so it was considered ‘behind’ or ‘in back of’ the person who stood in the present.

40

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

eschatological texture (Isa 2:2; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Dan 10:14; 1QpHab 2:5– 6; 1QSa 1:1; 4Q174 1:12)3 – establishes from the very outset an atmosphere of impending eschatological fulfillment. Laying the temporal framework for the rest of the epistle, this heraldic program statement stands unmatched until the appearance of its near equivalent, nuni. de. . . . evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, in 9:26. Unmistakable immediacy is further conveyed by the demonstrative pronoun tou,twn, “in these last days” (1:2).4 The concluding observation of the exordium (1:1–4) – that the Son’s superiority to the angels is reflected in the “more excellent name” that has been conferred upon him – provides linkage to the following section, 1:5– 13, whose focus is an extended demonstration of Christ’s superiority to angels.5 Comprised of a lengthy catena of OT quotations,6 1:5–13 vividly describes a “celebration of the enthroned Son” in the heavenly oivkoume,nh (1:6).7 Buchanan translates ~ymiY"h; tyrIx]a;B. literally as “in the afterness of days” (ibid.). See also Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 88. 3 Moffatt, Hebrews, 4, notes that the plural form evpV evsca,twn tw/n h`merw/n is more common, and that occurrences of the genitival phrase evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n are limited to Num 24:14; Jer 23:20; 25:19 (B); 37:24 (B); Dan 10:14; Hos 3:5 (Codex Marchalianus) and T. Dan 1:1 (Paris MS 938). Cf. also Deut 4:30 (A). A similar phrase, !wrxa #q, occurs in 1QS 4:16–17 and 1QpHab 7:7, 12. A number of comparable phrases occur in 2 Baruch: “after this time” (20:5; 23:7); “the end of days” (25:1; 27:15; 30:3); “that which has not yet come” (48:8; 59:9; 83:9); “the time which is now hidden” (51:8); “the end of the periods” (54:1; 59:8); “the end of the times and the periods” (83:6); “the coming of the times” (85:10). Numerous references to the “last days” are found in the NT (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48; 2 Tim 3:1; Jas 5:3; 1 Pet 1:5, 20; 2 Pet 3:3; Jude 1:18). Though cf. 1 John 2:18, where the author pushes the eschatological timetable one chronological category forward, with his reminder that the community is living in “the last hour” (evsca,th w[ra evsti,n). 4 Moffatt, Hebrews, 4, observes that this instance of tou,twn qualifying the phrase evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n is without precedent. In 9:26, nuni. de. functions in a manner comparable to tou,twn in 1:2. 5 Albert Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux, 2nd ed. (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1976), 53, identifies the two repetitions of avgge,lwn in 1:4 and 1:5 as a mot-crochet, a “hook word,” linking 1:4 to 1:5–13. 6 The OT texts are: Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Deut 32:43 (LXX); Ps 104:4 (LXX); Ps 45:6– 7; Ps 102:25–27 (LXX); and Ps 110:1. 7 Following the title of Kenneth L. Schenck’s article, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” JBL 120.3 (Fall 2001), 469–85. Schenck emphasizes the programmatic role played by the catena. It is a hymnic celebration of the accomplishment of salvation, . . . while not incorporated extensively into the subsequent discourse, is nevertheless highly appropriate in the way it subtly announces the accomplishment of salvation and thus sets the mood for

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

41

1.2. “God has spoken through a Son” The exordium of 1:1–4 is clearly connected to and concluded by the warning of 2:1–4. The Son’s salvific address, denoted by corresponding occurrences of lale,w, forms an inclusio that links 1:2 and 2:3. The author begins the brief warning passage of 2:1–4 with a firm reminder that this salvific speech has been heard by the recipients (Dia. tou/to dei/ perissote,rwj prose,cein h`ma/j toi/j avkousqei/sin, 2:1).8 Thus, the great salvation which has been spoken (lalei/sqa) by the Son must be heeded, and neither neglected (avmele,w) nor drifted away (pararre,w)9 from (2:1–3). The author’s portrayal of the unparalleled position of the exalted Son has effectively shut the door on any possibility of a shift of allegiances. There can be no “escape” (evkfeu,gw) to an alternative lordship or neutral territory. Concluding with a reminder of the miraculous deeds that have demonstrated the veracity of God’s testimony concerning his Son (2:3– 4),10 this severe, unequivocal warning is characterized by its stark juxtaposition of the Father’s conferral of divine glory upon the Son and the attendant angelic worship, with the timid, lackluster, ungrateful response of the recipients.11 1.3. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 1:1 – 2:4 This majestic portrayal of the Son’s exaltation firmly establishes the identity of the one to whom the recipients have pledged themselves. In a the argument proper . . . whose main teaching point is the definitive atonement provided through Christ (471, 473). 8 Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 144. Guthrie insists “the overlap between expositional and hortatory material in the book lies in the relationship of the community to whom God has spoken his word, with the Son, of whom and to whom God has also spoken” (143). In the interest of his thesis that 2:5–9 constitutes the “proposition,” or main theme, of Hebrews, Craig Koester (“Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” CBQ 64.1 [2002], 107), draws attention to the fact that the introduction (1:1 – 2:4) of the epistle “is framed by periods that deal with God’s mode of speaking (lale,w) in the past through the prophets and angels, and in the present through his Son (1:1–4; 2:2–4).” 9 Cf. BDAG, 770: the “imagery of flowing water,” is present in this hapax; thus, the possible meaning, “be washed away, drift away.” Cf. also the LXX of Isa 44:4: w`j ivte,a evpi. pararre,on u[dwr. 10 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC. Waco: Word, 1988), 863, believes the phrase “signs and wonders and various miracles” in 2:4 reflects a deep “immersion in the whole Exodus theology.” Cf. the negative overtones that attend the same phrase in Mark 13:22; Matt 24:24; and 2 Thess 2:9. 11 The “strong” language in 2:2–3, found in both substantive and verbal forms of the be,baio– root, is also intended to form a dramatic contrast with the recipients’ indecisive attitude.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

42

world full of cultic possibilities and crowded with deities, the exalted Son reigns supreme. As the decisive eschatological revelation of the Father, the Son perfectly reveals the divine word (1:2; 2:3) and represents the very character of the “majesty on high.” The extent of this conferred authority is manifested in the divine exaltation of the Son, and its authenticity is itself attested by God’s eschatological “giftings” within the community. The unrivalled position of the Son is therefore commensurate with the undivided allegiance he demands of his people. The salvific life he offers must not be treated nonchalantly or neglected. Should one attempt to abandon or transfer allegiance, there is no other deity within which one can find safe harbor. The verbs of motion in the warning of 2:1–4 are aptly chosen, both exposing the futility of a lackluster attempt at “escaping” the lordship of Jesus, and forming a marked contrast with the reminder of the approach and inauguration of the eschaton, whose dawning day has just begun.

2. The subjugation of the coming world to the Son & his identification with humanity (2:5–18) The setting of the Son’s enthronement, “the coming world” (th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan, 2:5), is firmly established in the next unit (2:5–9). Though the language implies a future orientation (me,llw), the fact that the Son has entered this coming world places it firmly within the author’s “now, not yet” inaugurated eschatological framework. Though not yet a physical reality, it is nevertheless an experiential reality for the recipients.12 More importantly, the path trod by Jesus in his pilgrimage to heavenly glory and perfection has entailed a full identification with the human condition and all its attendant suffering (2:6–18). This passage’s repeated emphasis on Jesus’ identification with humanity, as well as the application of the title “the pioneer of their salvation” (to.n avrchgo.n th/j swthri,aj auvtw/n), together ensure the recipients that their pilgrimage will also issue in heavenly glory (2:10). 2.1. “The coming world” Oivkoume,nh appears to have traversed a sizable piece of semantic terrain during the history of its usage. Initially used in reference to the “inhabited region,” by the 4th century BCE it was apparently narrowed in scope to 12

Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 146: “The ‘world to come’ is something which it is already possible for believers, not only to ‘speak’ about, but to some extent to experience.”

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

43

denote only the “Greek world” (Demosthenes, On Halonnesus 35). By the 1st century CE oivkoume,nh was used to denote both the entire “inhabited world” (Ps. Aristotle, On the Cosmos 392b 27), and the “Roman Empire” (Luke 2:1; Lucian, Octogenarians 7).13 The term appears at least once in the LXX with reference to the eschatological inhabited realm, in Isa 62:4 (ga.r klhqh,setai qe,lhma evmo,n kai. th/| gh/| sou oivkoume,nh).14 In the author’s only other use of oivkoume,nh, in 1:6 (“When he again brings the firstborn eivj th.n oivkoume,nhn, he says, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him’”), an eschatological setting is strongly suggested by both the presence of angels and the enthronement imagery. Furthermore, as Bruce observes, “the clause ‘of which we are speaking’ in 2:5 could point back to this prior mention of the oivkoume,nh.”15 It is therefore most likely that th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan of 2:5 and th.n oivkoume,nh of 1:6 both refer to the place of the heavenly exaltation and enthronement.16 Finally, deSilva makes an important distinction: that the oivkoume,nh is “coming” (me,llw) “from the perspective of the author and his audience, but already present for God, his Son, and the angels, is a function of the author’s peculiar eschatology.”17 13

Liddell, Scott, Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1205. Though Albert Vanhoye, “L’oivkoume,nh dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” Bib 45 (1964), 252, contends that in Ps 23:1 (24); 88:12 (89); 89:2 (90); 92:1 (93); Jer 10:12; and 28:15 (51) “le verbe utilisé avec oikouménè avait des résonances eschatologiques,” the context in each case seems more mundane than eschatological. A mundane sense, “the inhabited world,” is also consistently maintained by Philo in his frequent employment of the term. The phrase, “the coming world,” appears in 2 Bar. 44:15 and 4 Ezra 8:1. 15 Bruce, Hebrews, 58. 16 Attridge, Hebrews, 56, identifies the first occurrence (1:6) with the incarnation. Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son,” 479, interprets the whole catena (1:5– 13) in terms of the heavenly enthronement of the Son. Koester, Hebrews, 100, believes that in the catena, the author “offers a glimpse of the ‘world to come’ through a portrayal of the heavenly ‘world’ where the Son now reigns (1:5–6).” Vanhoye, “L’oivkoume,nh dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 251–2, observes: “l’interprétation obvie est que l’oikouménè désigne ici l’éon à venir, la réalité eschatologique. Le terme est peut-être plus apte qu’aucun autre à designer la réalité eschatologique, telle que la conçoit l’auteur de Héb.” Erich Grässer, An Die Hebräer (Hebr 1–6) (EKKNT 17/1. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1990), 1.114, draws attention to the parallel uses of the “coming” concept, in 9:11 and 13:14, and ascribes a Hellenistic background of thought to this phrase. He remarks: “Die dahinterstehende Vorstellung vom ai`w.n me,llwn ist charakteristisch transformiert in die hellenistische Form einer mehr jenseitigen, stabilen Räumlichkeit.” Randall C. Gleason, “Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2,” NTS 49 (2003), 101, is perhaps motivated by millenialist presuppositions in siding with Buchanan’s (Hebrews, 26) long discredited equation of th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan with Jerusalem in the messianic age. 17 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 97. Forms of me,llw occur nine times, most notably in 6:5 (duna,meij te me,llontoj aivw/noj); 10:1 (tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n); 11:20 14

44

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

2.2. Eschatological ambiguity attending Jesus’ rule over the coming world That this coming world stands under the rule of the enthroned Son may be safely assumed, for, as Guthrie has noted, “the negative Ouv ga.r avgge,loij u`pe,taxen th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan may be turned around to state positively his underlying supposition that th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan has been submitted to the Son.”18 However, eschatological ambiguity is also apparent with regard to the nature and extent of the Son’s rule. The triumphant, perhaps even pleonastic, declaration drawn from Psalm 8 – “You subjected everything under his feet, while subjecting all things to him, he left nothing unsubjected to him” – is immediately followed by an interpretative qualification, “but we do not yet see all things that are subjected to him” (nu/n de. ou;pw o`rw/men auvtw/| ta. pa,nta u`potetagme,na, 2:8). This interpretive qualification, nu/n de. ou;pw o`rw/men, also serves to preserve continuity with Ps 110:1 – quoted in 1:13 – whose e[wj clause clearly indicates the Son’s present enthronement still awaits its full expression, when God will “make his enemies a footstool for his feet.”19 As Guthrie has recently noted in regard to the author’s handling of these two key psalms, “a full interpretation of scriptural truth can only be had by reflection on both scriptural texts, which together witness to the now and not yet nature of Christ’s rule over all things.”20 (peri. mello,ntwn); and 13:14 (po,lin th.n me,llousan). Koester, Hebrews, 213, comments concerning this verb: “that which is ‘to come’ is not, strictly speaking, future since through Christ and the Spirit believers experience the powers of the age ‘to come’ (6:4– 5; 9:11; 10:1). Yet there remains a future consummation in ‘the city that is to come’ (13:14).” 18 Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 63. Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 (WUNT 2.160. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003), 78–9, argues that this verse reflects belief in the angelic dominion of the earthly oivkoume,nh. His attempt to demonstrate allusions to Deut 32:8 (LXX) is however not altogether convincing. 19 This is made even more explicit in 10:13, where Ps 110:1 reappears with an expanded preface: “And since then has been waiting ‘until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet’” (to. loipo.n evkdeco,menoj e[wj). Cf. Barrett, “The Christology of Hebrews,” 119, who notes that 2:6–8 sets out a timetable for the work of the Son of God/Son of Man: He will be made lower than the angels; he will be crowned with glory and honor; all things will be set under his feet. The first two stages have already been accomplished; the third has not. 20 George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 1.2 (April 2003), 281. Though this admission of an incomplete exercise of Jesus’ lordship is adequately balanced by the conviction that “Jesus Christ is an integral part of the eternal divine realm that is unchanging” (Attridge, Hebrews, 393). Cf. the phrases eivj to.n aivw/na and eivj to. dihneke,j, used repeatedly in relation to Christ’s priesthood, reign, and sacrifice. Eivj to.n aivw/na describes the duration

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

45

2.3. “For a short while” The temporal adjective bracu, ti (“short while,” 2:7, 9) serves double duty: (1) encouraging and warning the recipients of an impending eschatological telos (2:7);21 (2) and emphasizing in both occurrences (2:7, 9) that Jesus’ own short subjection to a state lower than angels has decidedly ended with his salvific, victorious death and glorious enthronement. This “Christ event” culminates in the declaration that “we see Jesus, . . . now crowned with glory and honor” (2:9). The path trodden by Jesus to arrive at this place of enthronement was one of suffering and death, with a vicariously salvific purpose, “so that by the grace of God, he might taste death for everyone” (2:9).22 2.4. “Leading many siblings to glory” Jesus’ identification with humanity is emphasized throughout 2:6–18, as he is depicted as the “pioneer” (avrchgo,j, 2:10) who leads “many siblings” (pollou.j ui`ou.j, 2:10) towards heavenly glory.23 He is therefore set forth in 2:10–18 as the crowning example of human faithfulness and endurance in the contest of suffering. Furthermore, the motivation behind the catena’s repeated reference to angelic beings is finally disclosed, though gradually, of Christ’s priesthood (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28); while three variations: eivj to.n aivw/na tou/ aivw/noj (1:8), eivj tou.j aivw/naj (13:8), and eivj tou.j aivw/naj [tw/n aivw,nwn] (13:21), respectively describe the Son’s eternal reign, his unchanging nature, and the unending praise he receives. Eivj to. dihneke,j is used in 10:12 of Christ’s eternally efficacious sacrifice, and in 10:14 of the “eternal perfection of those being sanctified.” 21 L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 154, notes the eschatological intent of the temporal adjective bracu, ti. It is not to be understood as an expression of degree (i.e., the spatial sense “lower” as per the original Hebrew), “but as a period of time according to the Jewish two-age theory.” 22 C. Marvin Pate, Communities of the Last Days: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament & the Story of Israel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 205, suggests that “another Adamic theme informs Hebrews 2:5–18, that of the apocalyptic belief that righteous suffering in this age recaptures the lost glory of Adam in the age to come (cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:3–14; 4 Ezra 7:1–98; T. Levi 18:2–14; Rom 5:1–21; 8:17–39; 2 Cor 4:7 – 5:21; Col 1:15–29).” Pate asserts that “such an idea wonderfully explains the intricate relationship between the concepts of suffering and glory occurring in Hebrews 2:5–18.” 23 Regarding the NT preference for male designations (i.e., “brothers,” “sons”), John H. Elliott notes: “Reference to sisters in the faith is implied when brothers in the faith are addressed, . . . This implied inclusion is a consequence of the perception of ancient patriarchal societies that all honorable females were socially ‘embedded’ in, and under the ‘tutelage’ of, honorable males” (“The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian But Family-Oriented,” BibInt 11.2 [2003], 177).

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

46

in an Adamic/Messianic interpretation of Ps 8:4–6 (LXX) that emphasizes a salvific representation of humanity in Jesus’ humiliation and subjection to angels. This gradual unveiling is accomplished by means of the recurring pronoun auvto,j, whose referent is left open-ended, thus possibly referring to both humanity and Jesus. Auvto,j appears five times in 2:6–8a, a quote from Ps 8 which describes in an arc-like manner the short subjection of “him” to a state lower than angels, followed by a glorification and subjection of all to “him.” It then appears three times in 2:8bc, a midrashic elaboration on the same psalm.24 The author has probably left the designation of the pronoun unresolved so as to establish a sense of mutual identification: i.e., Christ with the human condition, and the recipients with the path of suffering Jesus faithfully endured. This mutuality is maintained throughout 2:5–18.25 Though the author will elsewhere explicitly enjoin the recipients to follow Jesus along this same path of faithful suffering (12:1–3; 13:12–13), the connection is loosely made in 2:10–18. The author’s depiction of the frail human condition (“flesh and blood,” 2:14; “being held in slavery by the fear of death,” 2:16; and “those who are being tested,” 2:18) is intended to resonant with and respond to the exemplary pattern of Jesus’ own path through suffering and death unto glorious enthronement. The logic of this argument is certainly not exhausted in the appeal to Jesus as exemplar of faithfulness, rather its chief rhetorical aim, in all likelihood, is to assure the recipients of the absolute surety of God’s promises, despite all the evidence to the contrary. In spite of their ignominious earthly circumstances (2:8–9; cf. 10:32–34), the recipients are 24

In an article of enduring value (despite its brevity – only eight pages in length!) G. B. Caird, “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CJT 5.1 (1959), 49, observes that Ps 8 controls the argument of the preceding chapter, for from the first mention of angels at 1:5 throughout the formidable catena of texts in ch. 1 the author’s one aim is to illustrate the theme of the psalm that man has been destined by God to a glory excelling that of angels and that this destiny has been achieved by Christ, both individually and representatively. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” 152, exceeds Caird’s assessment of this psalm’s value for the epistle, deeming it the “most misunderstood (and important) Old Testament passage in the epistle.” Regarding the Christology of chapters 1 and 2, Hurst believes the emphasis is entirely on Christ’s humanity. He asserts that an ascription of pre-existence in the exordium (1:1–4) renders the account of the enthronement over the angels “anti-climactic” (156). It also distracts from the author’s main interest, which is to portray Christ as a “human figure who attains to an exalted status” (163). 25 Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 216, 221. Concerning the unspecified referent of the pronoun auvto,j, Ellingworth (Hebrews, 152) concludes that “the primary reference is to Christ, but what is said of Christ has immediate implications for believers. Such a double application would be in character for the author.”

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

47

beckoned to look upon the exaltation and enthronement of Jesus as the signal fulfillment of God’s glorious promise and purpose for humanity, the sure sign that their situation would also be dramatically altered with the imminent salvific arrival of Jesus from heaven (9:28).26 The immediacy engendered by the temporal adjective bracu, ti, coupled with the vivid portrayal of the near and now familiar “coming world” (one ruled in sympathetic beneficence by the omnipotent enthroned Son, and not vagarious angels), likewise serve to increase confidence in the dependability of God’s promises, and their impending fulfillment. 2.5. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 2:5–18 This section’s wealth of christologies all issue in one common end: the Son’s full identification with humanity and the human condition.27 In the short span of just fourteen verses, 2:5–18, no less than seven Christologies appear: (1) Adam (2:6–11); (2) “pioneer of salvation” (2:10); (3) Son of God (2:11–13); (4) Christus Victor (2:14–16);28 (5) Isaianic Sin-bearer 26

In his programmatic essay, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” Koester considers how the recipients’ situation shaped 2:5–9. Although “God’s intention is that people should be crowned with glory and honor, . . .” the author recognized that his listeners could not ‘see’ the realization of God’s promises in their own experiences. Nevertheless, he declared, they could ‘see’ in Jesus’ death and exaltation the assurance that God will be faithful and bring his suffering people to the glory that has been promised to them. Jesus suffered with people and for people, so that they might come to the glory for which God created them (123). Brawley, “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1,” 98, believes this section defines the content of faith and salvation for Hebrews. The subjection of everything, seen (2:5) and unseen (2:8) to the heir Jesus (1:2), and by association, his siblings (2:11, 14; 3:14; and possibly co-heirs, 1:14), represents the content of salvation, and as such it is “the underlying reality of things hoped for but yet unseen” (90–1). Barrett, “The Christology of Hebrews,” 119, finds a call to obedience underlying both this section and the discussion of “rest” which follows in 3:7 – 4:11. He states: Human beings are thus confronted with the final outworking of God’s purpose and thereby challenged to accept their place in it. This situation is analogous to that contained in the story of Moses and the exodus, especially as this is set out in Psalm 95 (quoted in Heb. 3:7–11). There remains, as yet unachieved, a ‘rest,’ a katapausis, for the people of God; the old story shows that it is possible, by disobedience and lack of faith, to miss this rest. The new, Christian, story shows that human beings are still subject to the same decision of faith. 27 Lane, “Standing Before the Moral Claim of God,” 205. 28 Anders Aschim, “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 141–3, draws attention to the numerous parallels between the “heavenly-warriorpriest Melchizedek” in 11QMelchizedek and Christus Victor in Heb 2:10–18. Aschim

48

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

(2:9, 17); (6) high priest (2:17–18). (7) Jesus’ identification with humanity is perhaps most explicit in his portrayal as the “brother” of the community (evx e`no.j pa,ntej\ diV h]n aivti,an ouvk evpaiscu,netai avdelfou.j auvtou.j kalei/n, 2:11–13). In each successive Christological portrait, the Son’s human experience is chiefly characterized by the suffering he endured (2:9, 10, 14, 18). And in almost every case his suffering is said to have issued in some distinct form of divine vindication. Thus, the last Adam is “crowned with glory and honor” (2:9), the pioneer has been made perfect (2:10), and the victor has conquered the devil and freed captive humanity (2:14–15). A final act of vindication might be seen in the Son’s appointment to high priest (2:17). With Christ as the exemplar of the life of faith, the author firmly establishes a hortatory pattern of “suffering/vindication” that what will become an enduring rhetorical strategy. That this same Son is said to be the Lord of the imminently “coming world” lends further credibility and urgent impetus to the author’s implied promise of the glorious heavenly vindication that awaits those who patiently and faithfully endure the various sufferings that attend discipleship to the Son. 29

3. Entering today and persevering until the end (3:7 – 4:11) Eschatological ambiguity is again harnessed in the service of an exhortation to enduring faithfulness in the lengthy appeal to enter the divine rest in 3:7 – 4:11.30 This appeal is characterized by the repeated thus argues for their mutual dependence on traditions concerning this mysterious figure. In 11QMelchizedek, Melchizedek successfully wages war against Belial, “freeing” the sons of light “from his hand” (2:12–14), brings deliverance to those in exile and captivity (2:4–6), and “atones on that day (Yom Kippur) . . . for the sons of [light and] the men [of] Mel[chi]zedek’s lot” (2:8). Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (WUNT 163. Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 186, believes that 1 En. 10 also provides an example of an eschatological Yom Kippur, whose central figure is also a victorious priestly redeemer. He highlights the differences between 11QMelchizedek, 1 En. 10 and Hebrews: In the former two it is not the death of the redeemer figure that destroys the lord of evil and liberates his prisoners, but his military power. The idea of the high priest sacrificing himself is a development of Hebrews, which clothed the traditional imagery of an eschatological Yom Kippur in the Christian proprium of a messianic self-sacrifice (186). 29 This hortatory pattern of suffering/vindication is explicitly applied to the recipients in 10:32–39. 30 This “rest” may be construed spatially, as a place of rest perhaps corresponding to the Heavenly Sanctuary, or qualitatively, denoting God’s own state of rest.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

49

refrain, “Today, if you hear his voice,”31 and an attendant note of clarification which asserts that this “today” may be in fact the last “today” of the present age (avlla. parakalei/te e`autou.j kaqV e`ka,sthn h`me,ran( a;crij ou- to. Sh,meron kalei/tai, 3:13).32 The eschatological urgency and uncertainty wrought by this temporal motif encompasses and nearly overwhelms the voice of a singular, stunning declaration of eschatological fulfillment, found in the author’s claim that “we who have believed have entered that rest” (eivserco,meqa ga.r eivj Îth.nÐ kata,pausin oi` pisteu,santej, 4:3). Interestingly, this combination of the temporal elements that typically express two-age belief, and the hortatory language of “entry” (eivse,rcomai) that often accompanies discussion of the Heavenly Sanctuary (4:16; 7:25; 10:19–22; 12:22–24), is unique in the epistle and may provide a link between these two respective thought-worlds (i.e., two-age and Heavenly Sanctuary eschatologies). 3.1. The rest as a future possession Though essentially hortatory in purpose, the exposition on the promised rest (3:7 – 4:11) is pervaded by unresolved eschatological tension. This passage oscillates between two poles, alternatively speaking in the indicative and the imperative, offering promise and then announcing eschatological fulfillment. Contingency and future/imminent fulfillment are conveyed in several ways: (1) the conditional “if” of 3:6 (eva,n) and 3:14 (eva,nper); (2) the three occurrences of verbs with the leip– root (kataleipome,nhj, 4:1; avpolei,petai, 4:6, 9) that indicate both the “openness” and the unfulfilled nature of the promise; (3) the note of fear struck in 4:1, prompted by the possibility that some “might seem to have fallen short” of entering the promised rest; (4) and the strong exhortation, “Let us therefore diligently strive to enter that rest,” which ends the section (Spouda,swmen ou=n eivselqei/n eivj evkei,nhn th.n kata,pausin, 4:11). Further indications that the author sees the kata,pausij as a future possession can be detected in the clear parallel drawn between the situation of the addressees and the wilderness generation (3:7–14; 4:2),33 and the “promise 31 Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son,” 475, has noted, though in a different context, that “‘Today’ is an in-between category for the author.” Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” 256, insists “‘Today’ is identical to the ‘last days,’ that relatively brief period between the two appearances of Jesus.” 32 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 42, considers 3:13 (“But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today’”) representative of two-age conceptuality. 33 Cf. Jon Laansma, “I will give you rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with special reference to Matthew 11 and Hebrews 3–4 (WUNT 2.98. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1997), 264, who remarks:

50

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

and demand” inherent in the repeated refrain: “Today, if you hear his voice” (3:7, 15; 4:7; cf. also “today,” 3:13; 4:7), drawn from the ex eventu account of Psalm 95. In what is perhaps the most detailed recent examination of the rest motif, Jon Laansma argues that the author portrays the rest as an unfulfilled, yet imminent, promised entrance into “God’s own resting place, where he celebrates his own Sabbath.”34 Laansma believes that the corporate character of the promise, signaled by the verb sugkera,nnumi (“united together”) in 4.2, provides essential proof of the future orientation of the promise.35 The “message heard” by the wilderness generation “did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened”; therefore the eschatological “Sabbath celebration” (sabbatismo,j) “still remains for the people of God” (4:9). 3.2. The rest as a present possession The declaration that the addressees have indeed “entered the rest” of God, expressed with the present tense verb eivserco,meqa (4:3; cf. also 4:10), stands as the primary counter-testimony to the contingent elements that densely populate the passage. Though a desire for conceptual uniformity has led a majority of interpreters to interpret the present tense verb as

The OT passages are exploited in such a manner that the present situation of the readers is seen to virtually merge with the situation of the ‘Fathers’ at Kadesh. Whatever gap remains between then and now is all but completely closed with the use of Gen 2. The result is the revelation of a world prepared and promised long ago, a mirror in which the present situation is seen to correspond to an historical paradigm as recorded in God’s word, and thus a poignant warning against making the same mistake. 34 Laansma, “I will give you rest,” 334. Laansma rejects all attempts to equate the rest with any other eschatological goals in Hebrews, e.g., the Heavenly Sanctuary, the coming city (278–83). Pate, Communities of the Last Days, 205, links the “coming eschatological rest” with “the true, heavenly temple or some similar metaphor.” Buchanan, Hebrews, 71–4, equates the rest with Jewish national sovereignty. Cf. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 397: The author skillfully changes and develops the images for the final destiny of the believers and the content of the promise as the context of his discussion changes. Thus in chapters 3 and 4, in the context of the example of the wilderness generation, the promise is conceived of as ‘rest’; in the context of the presentation of Jesus’ work and the hearers’ advantage in cultic imagery, the goal becomes the heavenly ‘holy of holies.’ Finally, in chapters 11–13, “as the author more directly addresses the believers’ experience of loss and abuse in their current city, the image is again transformed into a secure city and homeland where they shall enjoy perpetual honor in God’s presence.” 35 Laansma, “I will give you rest,” 287, 295, 306.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

51

denoting either a future act,36 or a “true present,” representing progressive/continuous activity,37 this imposition fails to recognize that throughout his “word of exhortation,” the author has allowed a larger, allencompassing, and even ambiguous conception of eschatological chronology and fulfillment to control his thought. Andrew T. Lincoln has asserted that eivserco,meqa in 4:3 “is to be taken as a true present and not simply viewed as having future force”; thus “the rest has already become a reality for those who believe.”38 Lane draws attention to the designation of the recipients as oi` pisteu,santej (4:3) and extends the implications of their faith to a present experience of “the reality of that which is future, unseen, or heavenly.”39 Following Lincoln’s assignation of a “true present tense” for eivserco,meqa, Lane insists that “God’s promise is predicated upon reality” and the recipients “are already to enjoy the rest referred to in the quotation of Ps 95:11.”40 Lincoln also notes that the essentially promissory nature of the text ensures continuity with the traditional NT “now, not yet” eschatological tension; for although “the rest has become a reality for those who believe,” it “remains a promise that some may fail to achieve through disobedience, so that all are exhorted to strive to enter it.”41 Finally, Guthrie has drawn attention to the extensive verbal parallels linking 3:7 – 4:13 with 4:14–16 and 10:19–25. 36

Moffatt, Hebrews, 51; Koester, Hebrews, 270. So David A. deSilva, “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews,” TJ 21 (2000), 32, who translates the phrase: “we who believe are entering that rest.” See also Hugh Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (HNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964), 83; Attridge, Hebrews, 126; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 246; Koester, Hebrews, 270. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 203–4, considers all attempts to see a “now, not yet” eschatology in this passage “confused thinking.” He compounds his error by equating the rest with the “establishment of a renewed earth.” In her lengthy treatment of the rest motif, Judith Hoch Wray also emphasizes the futurity of the promised rest (Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest [SBLDS 166. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998]). 38 Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 212, 210. B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1892), 95, also contends that eivserco,meqa reflects “the expression of a present fact.” 39 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 99. 40 Ibid. Also considering the rest as presently available: Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 99; Pate, Communities of the Last Days, 209; Albert Vanhoye, “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” in Quelle Maison Pour Dieu? ed. Camille Focant (LD. Paris: Cerf, 2003), 361. 41 Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament,” 212. So also Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 372, who notes that the rest is “both present and future: men enter it, and must strive to enter it.” 37

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

52

Thus the rest motif of 3:7 – 4:13 “foreshadows the entrance of new covenant believers with Christ, by faith, into the heavenly Holiest Place, experienced now but consummated at the end of the age.”42 3.3. “Partakers of Christ” The first listeners would have welcomed and found hope in the slim “minority report” of 4:3, with its suggestion that the promised rest was not as distant as thought, but was even in their midst and among their eschatological experiences. Another, perhaps even greater, piece of encouragement arrives in the author’s assurance that “we have become partakers of Christ” (me,tocoi ga.r tou/ Cristou/ gego,namen, 3:14), “if” (eva,nper) he and the community faithfully persevere “until the end” (me,cri te,loj).43 The second half of a pattern of reciprocity, one that works only for the benefit of the faithful, is completed.44 The enthroned Son who had partaken (mete,cw) entirely in the human condition (2:14) – “being made in every respect like his siblings” (2:17) – is now said to offer those who are “partaking” in him (me,tocoi)45 the hope of sharing in the “honor and 42

George H. Guthrie, “Strive to Enter – What?: Hebrews’ Appropriation of the ‘Entering Rest’ Motif.” (Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting. Atlanta, GA., November 24, 2003), 18. 43 With me,cri te,loj an eschatological “end of the age” may perhaps be in mind, rather than the destiny of the individual. So Koester, Hebrews, 261. Multivalence is favored by Attridge (Hebrews, 118) and Ellingworth (Hebrews, 228). 44 Cf. G. W. Grogan, “The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity in Hebrews,” TynBul 49.1 (1998), 171: “In Hebrews the consequences of solidarity are almost all conceived as blessing.” 45 Me,tocoi may be taken as either an adjective, “sharing” or “participating in,” or a noun “(business) partner” or “companion” (BDAG, 643). Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 87, appeals to occurrences of me,tocoi in secular papyri to support the translation “partners.” Attridge, Hebrews, 106, posits a Platonic background for this word, noting that this “terminology of participation thus has . . . some of the connotations associated with the Platonic notion that things in the material world of change and decay have their reality by ‘participation’ in an ideal realm.” The appearance of u`po,stasij (“reality”), a term commonly employed in philosophical discussion, in the following conditional clause, 3:14b, further convinces Attridge of the validity of his claim (118). So also Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 94, who believes u`po,stasij refers to the Christ event, and the phrase th.n avrch.n th/j u`posta,sewj “is a description of the reality on which the existence of the community rests in the same way that Christ is the reality of God (1:3). It thus stands in contrast to the metaphysically inferior experience of Israel.” Bruce, Hebrews, 101, and Ellingworth, Hebrews, 228, both argue for a subjective, psychological sense: “confidence.” The absence of a subjective usage in early sources, and a strong bias against the philosophical program causes Lane (Hebrews 1–8, 82) to look elsewhere for the solution. He finds it in the observation that u`po,stasij in v 14 presents the antithesis to avposth/nai, ‘to turn away, to fall away,’ in v 12 . . . avrch.n th/j u`posta,sewj signifies the beginning of the Christian

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

53

dignity that he has attained through his death and exaltation (2:8–9) and . . . his inheritance in the world to come (1:2, 14).”46 More immediate consequences probably also attend this conceptuality, as “partaking in Christ” quite possibly reflects something comparable to Paul’s participatory soteriology. Me,tocoi tou/ Cristou/ may then be loosely equated with Paul’s evn Cristw/|.47 3.4. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 3:7 – 4:11 As in the first section, 1:1 – 2:4, the recipients’ lackadaisical response to the demands of discipleship is met with a sobering warning that receives much of its urgency from a repeated reminder of the “eschatological time,” i.e., “Today!” And again, as in the first section, the verbs of motion that characterize their aimless commitment stand in harsh contrast to the surety of the eschaton’s arrival, which effectively serves to reign in the “wandering” recipients like so many careless sheep. Negatively, they are said to be “distancing” (avfi,sthmi)48 themselves from the “living God” (3:12). They are therefore in grave danger of “falling short” (u`stere,w)49 of an entrance into the promised rest (4:1) and being hardened (sklhru,nw)50 by sin into a statue-like posture of failure (3:13). Positively, a verb of motion, eivserco,meqa, is repeatedly employed as a counter-proposal, stand of the believers, when they placed themselves under the obligation of giving the confession that Jesus is the Son of God. Koester, Hebrews, 472, translates the term “assurance,” and ascribes both objective (as coming from a source beyond the recipient) and subjective (denoting steadfastness) meanings to the term. 46 Koester, Hebrews, 266. 47 Matera’s failure to recognize the soteriological potential in this conceptuality constitutes at least one factor that eventually leads to his negative evaluation of Hebrews’ hortatory program in relation to Paul (“Moral Exhortation,” 172–3, 178–9, 181–2). Cf. Enrique Nardoni, “Partakers in Christ (Hebrews 3:14),” NTS 37 (1991), 462–5, who considers me,tocoi to be a nearly comprehensive salvific term for the author. 48 This verb appears in one of the darker moments of the wilderness years, in Moses’ command to destroy the Midianite women, who “caused the sons of Israel, . . . to depart from and despise the word of the Lord” (avposth/sai kai. u`peridei/n to. r`h/ma kuri,ou, Num 31:16). It also finds employment in the phrases “turn the heart(s) away” (avpe,sthsan th.n kardi,an, Num 32:9; Deut 1:28; 4:9); and “turn away from the Lord” (avpe,sth avpo. qeou/, Deut 32:15; Josh 22:18, 19, 23, 29; 2 Chr 26:18; 28:19, 22). Surely this lengthy history of ignominious use informs our author’s employment of avfi,sthmi in 3:12. 49 Num 9:13 reports that those who fail to keep the Passover will be “cut off (u`stere,w) from the people.” The verb is also used in Heb 11:37 and 12:15. 50 Sklhru,nw appears thirteen times in Exodus, describing the hardening of Pharaoh’s kardi,a (4:21; 7:3, 22; 8:19; 9:12, 35; 10:1, 20, 27; 13:15; 14:4, 8, 17). The verb is also frequently used with tra,chloj, “neck” (cf. Deut 10:16; 2 Chr 36:13; Neh 9:16–17, 29; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15).

54

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

commanding an “About face!” The promise of “entry” into the divine rest is laid before the recipients, said to be both presently realized (4:3) and awaiting ultimate fulfillment (4:1, 9, 11). And despite this section’s relative lack of Christological focus, it contains in its center and is framed before and after by powerful exhortations to “hold fast” (kate,cw, 3:6, 14; krate,w, 4:14) and “draw near” to Jesus the Son of God (prose,rcomai, 4:16).51 Finally, we must note the author’s repeated use of hortatory subjunctives in this section: 3:14, eva,nper . . . kata,scwmen (“if we hold fast”); 4:1, fobhqw/men (“let us fear”); 4:11, spouda,swmen (“let us be diligent”). By means of this hortatory technique the author binds himself to the destiny of the community and expresses complete solidarity with them in their life of faith.

4. “Having tasted the powers of the age to come” (5:11 – 6:12) The most severe warning in the epistle (5:11 – 6:12) surrounds a brief enumeration of the recipients’ eschatological experiences (6:4–5). In fact, these eschatological experiences – arranged in a string of four participial phrases (fwtisqe,ntaj, geusame,nouj, genhqe,nta, geusame,nouj), with each possibly suggesting a unique supernatural experience – are hemmed in by a construction that begins with avdu,naton (“it is impossible,” 6:4) and concludes with the controlling infinitive avnakaini,zein (“to renew,” 6:6).52 Furthermore, the aforementioned eschatological experiences are almost equally balanced by three participles denoting the shape of the proposed apostasy. It is “impossible to renew unto repentance” those who have “fallen away” (parapeso,ntaj), “crucified again” (avnastaurou/ntaj), and “treated contemptuously” (paradeigmati,zontaj) the Son of God (6:6).53 Though it is impossible to ascertain whether or not this threat of irrevocable apostasy was theoretical in nature,54 we can be certain that it 51 Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth, 53–5, 58. Wray draw attention to the fact that an “explicit reference to Christ as the one who gives rest never happens.” Therefore rest is “not defined as an integral result of participation in Christ” (83, 91). 52 6:4–6a: VAdu,naton ga.r tou.j a[pax fwtisqe,ntaj( geusame,nouj te th/j dwrea/j th/j evpourani,ou kai. meto,couj genhqe,ntaj pneu,m atoj a`gi,ou kai. kalo.n geusame,nouj qeou/ r`h/ma duna,meij te me,llontoj aivw/noj kai. parapeso,ntaj( pa,lin avnakaini,zein eivj meta,noian . . . 53 Attridge, Hebrews, 167. 54 The presence of two more warnings of similar tenor, 10:26–29, and 12:16–17, suggests that this passage was not conceived in a temporary fit of passion. DeSilva interprets this passage against the backdrop of the patron-client relationship, and argues convincingly that nothing less than genuine apostasy is envisaged here (cf. “Exchanging

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

55

would be entirely ineffectual if the eschatological experiences described by the four participles did not resonate with the recipients’ own experience of the eschaton. For as Lane observes, this passage demonstrates the author’s conviction that “the present period was already pervaded by the power of the coming age, which, through Christ, had made a profound inroad into the community.”55 4.1. The origins and nature of the phrase “the age to come” The last eschatological experience mentioned in the list: “having tasted . . . the powers of the age to come” (geusame,nouj . . . duna,meij te me,llontoj aivw/noj, 6:5), obviously betrays belief in a two-age thoughtworld. These “powers” may correspond to the “signs and wonders and various miracles” (poiki,laij duna,mesin) that were said to serve as God’s testimony (2:4).56 Locating a precise referent for “the powers” is impossible, and a more general and comprehensive meaning may be intended. In contrast, the origins and nature of the genitival phrase “the age to come” (6:5) can be traced and developed with slightly more confidence. Deriving from the Hebrew phrase aB'h; ~l'A[h;57 (the foil of which is hZ,h; ~l'A[h;), and evincing belief that “the present state of things and the present world order will suddenly come to an end and be superseded by another of an essentially different kind,”58 the age to come “is not simply the completion of this present age; it is altogether different from it.”59 According to later Jewish apocalyptic two-age belief – the locus classicus Favor for Wrath,” 91–116; “Hebrews 6:4–6: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation [Part 1]” TynBul 50.1 [1999], 33–57; “Hebrews 6:4–6: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation [Part 2]” TynBul 50.2 [1999], 225–35; Perseverance in Gratitude, 219–44). 55 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 142. 56 Though du,namij appears in both verses, a connection between the two is obscured by the fact du,namij is commonly translated “miracle” in 2:4 (cf. KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NLT). Observing the link between 2:4 and 6:5 are: Moffatt, Hebrews, 79; Michel, Hebräer, 243; Attridge, Hebrews, 170; Bruce, Hebrews, 147; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 321; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 225; and Koester, Hebrews, 314. Cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1:32: the earthly-human mind becomes a living soul by virtue of God breathing into it “the power of real life” (o` qeo.j evmpneu,seien auvtw|/ du,namin avlhqinh/j zwh/j). 57 Though this phrase does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, near equivalents include: ~yaiB' ~ymiy" hNEhi (Isa 39:6; Jer 7:32; 16:14; 19:6); ~yaiB'h; ~ymiY"h; (Eccl 2:16); tAaB'h; (Isa 41:22); and ~yaiB'h (Isa 27:6). Interestingly, Codex Alexandrinus (and all Alexandrian texts except Miniscule 26), as well as the corrected reading of Sinaiticus, list path.r tou/ me,llontoj aivw/noj among the Messianic predicates of Isa 9:6. Cf. also Matt 12:32 and Eph 1:21. 58 Russell, Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 266. 59 Ibid., 213.

56

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

being 4 Ezra 760 – the beginning of the “coming age” clearly demarcates the end of the “present age.” With decisive finality, “time itself will end and eternity begin.”61 This stands in marked contrast to the “now, not yet” inaugurated eschatology that pervades the NT, typified in the Johannine Jesus’ declaration that “the hour is coming and now is” (avlla. e;rcetai w[ra kai. nu/n evstin, John 4:23; 5:25).62 Finally, Gregory K. Beale stresses the import and distinctiveness of Heb 6:5 with his observation that “this is the closest the New Testament comes to formally identifying the Holy Spirit as a mark of the inbreaking of the eschatological age.” 63 4.2. The temporal orientation of 5:11 – 6:12 Temporal imagery dominates this passage, as the whole section “is in effect a discussion of the readers’ progress, or lack of progress, towards their heavenly goal.”64 Temporal elements include: (1) the twice-repeated perfect tense gego,nate (“you have become hard of hearing,” 5:11; “you have become needful of milk and not solid food,” 5:12); (2) the entire admonition of 5:12: “For though by this time (dia. to.n cro,non) you ought to be teachers, you have need again (pa,lin65 crei,an e;cete) for someone to 60 Saeculum, appearing throughout 4 Ezra, is almost always used by the Vulgate to translate aivw,n. Saeculum shares with aivw,n the same dual meaning: “world” and “age.” It appears in the classic formulation of 4 Ezra 7:50: “For this reason the Most High has made not one saeculum, but two.” See also 4 Ezra 4:11, 26–27; 6:20, 25; 7:13, 31, 112; 8:1; 9:13; and 14:10. Bruce Metzger’s translation of 4 Ezra alternates between the two possibilities (Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth [ABRL. New York/London: Doubleday, 1983]). Michael E. Stone, Features in the Eschatology of IV Ezra (HSS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 151, considers saeculum “the most interesting and difficult” of the “earth, age, world” terms used in 4 Ezra. He further notes that “it is often difficult or impossible to decide whether in a given passage the meaning ‘world’ or ‘world age,’ ‘aeon’ is involved.” In 7:50 it can refer to either “world,” or “world age,” for the context in this case disallows a “definite decision” (179). However, in most cases, Stone believes saeculum represents the “world,” as the author of 4 Ezra wanted to stress the “material nature of the coming age” (180). He concludes: “In general, the differences of the two ages were found to be differences of world order and not based on ‘material’ – ‘spiritual’ oppositions or the like” (219). Cf. idem, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 92–3; 218–19. 61 Russell, Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 213. 62 Cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 338: “The decisive shift of eschatology from the future alone to the future-in-the-present was the work of Jesus, not of Paul and John.” 63 Gregory K. Beale, “Eschatology,” in The Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 334. 64 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 322. 65 Pa,lin occurs three times in this section: 5:12; 6:1, 6.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

57

teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God (ta. stoicei/a th/j avrch/j tw/n logi,wn tou/ qeou/); (3) the nh,pioj – te,leioj contrast of 5:13–14, which is predicated on the necessity of constant practice of moral discernment (tw/n dia. th.n e[xin, 5:14);66 (4) the exhortation of 6:1: “Let us leave behind (avfe,ntej) the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on (ferw,meqa) to maturity, not laying again a foundation (mh. pa,lin qeme,lion kataballo,menoi) of repentance”; (5) the note of hope struck in 6:3: “this we will do, if God permits” (kai. tou/to poih,somen( eva,nper evpitre,ph| o` qeoj); (6) the string of aorist participles in 6:4–6, indicating past eschatological experiences: fwtisqe,ntaj, geusame,nouj, genhqe,ntaj, and geusame,nouj; (7) the examples of bountiful and unfruitful vegetation, indicating God’s prior cultivation, and future expectation of fruitfulness (6:7–8); (8) the aorist and present participles, diakonh,santej and diakonou/ntej, representing past and present Christian service (6:10); (9) and finally, the reminder of eschatological urgency and imminence that appears near the close of this section, as the recipients are commended to “demonstrate eagerness toward the full assurance of the hope until the end” (a;cri te,loj, 6:11) and thereby “inherit the promises” (klhronomou,ntwn ta.j evpaggeli,aj, 6:12). Again, as in 3:14, the “end of this present age” may be what is intended with the phrase a;cri te,loj. Given this surplus of evidence, a temporal meaning for aivw,n in 6:5 can be safely assumed. 4.3. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 5:11 – 6:12 The hortatory effort in this section, 5:11 – 6:12, is varied: in close proximity we find reproofs for spiritual sluggishness67 and neglect of office; warnings against possible apostasy; and encouragement, via a recollection of the eschatological experiences and the unreserved confidence of the author. These varying approaches serve one goal: the restoration of the community to a path of diligent, faithful pursuit of the promises and presence of God. The pervasive temporal materials ultimately serve the author’s exhortation, creating an overwhelming sense of temporal finitude that should force an immediate decision.68 66 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 213, emphasizes the “element of constancy” in the word e[xij. Therefore, “a central characteristic of the ‘mature,’ then, is their constancy in terms of their commitments, habits, and assessments of advantage.” 67 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 210, observes that 5:11 – 6:12 is “held together by an inclusio formed by the words ‘you have become sluggish’ (nwqroi. gego,nate, 5:11) and ‘in order that you might not become sluggish’ (nwqroi. ge,nhsqe, 6:12).” 68 Contra Koester, Hebrews, 319, who argues that the author “did not base his warnings concerning apostasy” on his eschatological convictions.

58

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

Also essential to the hortatory strategy of 5:11 – 6:12 is an appraisal of the recipients’ past, present, and future. The passage begins with a dismissive, almost patronizing assessment of their present spiritual state (5:11 – 6:1). The author then waxes nostalgically about the past eschatological glories they have shared (6:4–5).69 Immediately thereafter two opposing portrayals of the future are offered: first, a grim destiny involving divine curse and destruction (6:4–8), which is then overruled by a more hopeful “conviction” (pepei,smeqa, 6:9) concerning the “beloved ones” – a confidence that they will “inherit the promises” (klhronomou,ntwn ta.j evpaggeli,aj, 6:12) and the “better things which belong to salvation” (ta. krei,ssona kai. evco,mena swthri,aj, 6:9).70 Brent Nongbri believes this passage may reflect the author’s familiarity with the conventions of GrecoRoman moral exhortation: The most effective means of moral exhortation allowed for extremely harsh language, but such language ought not be the last word; if that was the case, the harshness would alienate the audience and render the entire exhortation useless.71

And it is probably not coincidental that the threatened “impossibility” (avdu,naton) of post-enlightenment repentance (6:4–6) is ultimately counterbalanced by a reminder of the “impossibility” (avdu,naton) “that God should prove false after having sworn to give many blessings” (6:18).72

5. An apocalyptic metathesis of the law: an intra-textual reading of 7:11–28 and 12:25–29 The influence of the apocalyptic two-age/world conception would appear to extend even to the terminology and thought-forms employed by the author in his repeated assertions that the Jewish religious system has been superseded in the Christ event. This influence is apparent in his discussions of covenant (8:6–13), law (10:1), and cult (7:11–28; 9:9–11).

69 Johnson, Going Outside the Camp, 71, believes the author recalls the shared experiences of the community (2:1–4; 10:32–36) as a hortatory strategy intended to supplement “the fictive familial relationships” that unite “the believers into a community.” 70 Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” 392, deems 6:9–12 a captatio benevolentiae: At one moment (the author) almost accuses them of apostasy, although he knows that they have not actually done so, and the next moment he speaks of his assurance that they are not doing so, although he fears that it might actually be the case! 71 Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation,” 276. 72 Koester, Hebrews, 321.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

59

5.1. An anticipated objection to Christ’s high priesthood In chapter seven the author offers his first full-fledged discussion of Christ’s high priestly ministry73 with a preemptive rebuttal of what would undoubtedly constitute a primary objection: priestly duties were reserved for members of the tribe of Levi.74 By enlisting the example of Melchizedek, who offers a typological resemblance to Christ, a scriptural precedent for a non-Levitical/Aaronic priesthood is established (7:1–10).75 The assumed objection is stated explicitly in 7:13–14, followed by an appeal to the precedent established by Melchizedek (7:15–17). 5.2. The critique and removal of the Jewish religious system Coursing throughout the second portion of chapter seven, 7:11–28, is perhaps the author’s sharpest critique of the Jewish religious complex.76 The author details the supersession of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood by Christ’s eternal high priesthood, a supersession enforced by an “annulment” of the laws that appointed, upheld and guided the Jewish priesthood. Unable to perfect

73 The title avrciereu,j was applied to Christ without elaboration in 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20. It also surfaces twice in the brief discussion of 5:1–10. Christ is referred to as an i`ereu,j in 5:6. 74 The locus classicus is Num 18:1–7, especially v. 7. See Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest, 3–15, for a brief summary of the various critical opinions concerning the origins of the Levitical and Aaronic traditions. 75 Bruce, Hebrews, 160, applies the rabbinic principle Quod non in Thora, non in mundo (Sanh. 107b; Philo, Worse 178) to the passage, stating that “the important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ; to him the silences of Scripture were as much due to divine inspiration as were its statements.” Thus, “Melchizedek remains a priest continually for the duration of his appearance in the biblical narrative; but in the antitype Christ remains a priest continually without qualification.” Attridge, Hebrews, 191, observes that the author appears to be deliberately noncommittal about the figure of Melchizedek himself. Furthermore, he does not advance any explicit speculation about Melchizedek. He would appear, like Philo, to be uninterested in the person of Melchizedek himself and only concerned with what he represents. 76 J. C. McCullough, “Anti-Semitism in Hebrews?” IBS 20 (January 1998), 43, considers it “the closest the author comes to harsh polemic.” Maxine Grossman, “Priesthood as Authority: Interpretive Competition in First-Century Judaism and Christianity,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, ed. James R. Davila (STDJ 46. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 123–4, 131, believes Acts 6:8 – 8:1 constitutes an even more potent renunciation of the priesthood. There the authority of the Temple priesthood is undermined by both the critique of the Temple and the claim that a “great many priests” were joining the Messianic community.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

60

anything (telei,wsij, 7:11; ouvde.n ga.r evtelei,wsen o` no,moj, 7:19),77 the “weak and useless” law (7:18) is said to be “changed”/“removed” (meta,qesij, 7:12) and “annulled” (avqe,thsij, 7:18). Positively, the annulment of this law has allowed for the “introduction of a better hope” (evpeisagwgh. de. krei,ttonoj evlpi,doj, 7:19), one predicated on the eternal high priesthood of the enthroned Son.78 The temporal and qualitative superiority of Christ and his priesthood is repeatedly expressed, in a variety of ways: “eternal” (Su. i`ereu.j eivj to.n aivw/na, 7:17, 21); “permanent,” (avpara,batoj, 7:24); “indestructible,” (zwh/j avkatalu,tou, 7:16); “ever living,” (pa,ntote zw/n, 7:25); “made perfect forever,” (eivj to.n aivw/na teteleiwme,non, 7:28).79 Furthermore, Christ’s effective mediation affords salvific access to God (diV h`j evggi,zomen tw/| qew/|, 7:19; sw,|zein eivj to. pantele.j du,natai tou.j prosercome,nouj diV auvtou/ tw/| qew/|, 7:25). The lengthy defense of Jesus’ appointment to high priest, and subsequent description of the nature of his priesthood reaches its culmination with the mention of his “once for all” priestly sacrifice (tou/to ga.r evpoi,hsen evfa,pax e`auto.n avnene,gkaj, 7:27). 5.3. The Mosaic Law or the laws pertaining to priestly appointment? Considerable debate has been waged over the key issue in this section: namely, what “law” is being referred to in 7:12, 16, 19, and 28? Is it only the laws that pertain to the priesthood, or is the whole Mosaic law in mind here? The author’s initial argument, 7:11–12, is the interpretative crux and may be reduced to the following: Now if perfection was attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it [evpV auvth/j] the people received the law [nenomoqe,thtai]), what further need was there for

77

Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 382: “The aorist evtelei,wsen views the (cultic) Law as a thing of the past.” 78 David R. Anderson, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (Studies in Biblical Literature 21. New York/Washington, DC/Baltimore/Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 227, draws attention to structural markers in the author’s discussion of the two priesthoods. He states: “Now, finally, after a focus on the priesthood of Melchizedek (7:1–10) and a focus on the priesthood of Aaron (7:11–19), the author is ready to focus on the priesthood of Jesus (7:20–28).” He also notes that the latter two sections are framed by inclusios, the Aaronic priesthood by telei,wsij (7:11) and evtelei,wsen (7:19), while the discussion of Jesus’ priesthood is framed by o`rkwmosi,aj (7:20, 28). So also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 382. 79 Victor (Sung Yul) Rhee, Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology, and Ethics (Studies in Biblical Literature 19. New York/Washington, DC/Baltimore/Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 138–40, believes the eternality of Jesus’ high priesthood is attributable to: (1) the divine oath (7:20–22); (2) the eternality of Christ himself (7:23–25); (3) the character, accomplishment and status of Christ (7:26–28).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

61

another priest to arise? For when the priesthood is changed (metatiqeme,nhj), of necessity there also takes place a change of law (no,mou meta,qesij).

A strong case has been made for limiting the referent of no,moj to the precept that reserved membership in the priesthood to the tribe of Levi. The lengthy recital of the hypothetical case against Jesus’ priesthood, 7:13–15, following directly on the heels of his initial assertion of succession would tend to suggest that is what is on the author’s mind.80 Especially relevant to our inquiry is a determination of the antecedent of evpV auvth/j in the parenthetical clause o` lao.j ga.r evpV auvth/j nenomoqe,thtai. If the antecedent is telei,wsij, implying that the law was intended to provide perfection and failed (“concerning perfection, the people received the law”), then a considerable case for the annulment of the whole Mosaic law is lodged.81 James Kurianal appeals to the depictions in 7:28; 8:5; 9:9; and 10:1 of the law as a “shadowy sketch” and “parable” of the good things to come, and contends that such a view does not square with the author’s overall presentation of the law, as something “intrinsically incapable of providing perfection.”82 We should then assume the antecedent to be the phrase th/j Leuitikh/j i`erwsu,nhj, thus: “concerning the Levitical priesthood, the people received the law.” Further complications arise with the translation of the preposition evpi, in conjunction with the genitive auvth/j. Specifically, should evpi, be translated as “concerning,” or “on the basis of”? The relation of the law to the priesthood (and vice versa) is determined by one’s choice. Those favoring a limited annulment opt for the former sense, thus: “concerning this (Levitical priesthood) the people were given a law” (7:11). The law is thereby accorded a place of primacy over the priesthood, a view confirmed by the statement in 7:28 that “the law appoints men as high priests” (o` no,moj ga.r avnqrw,pouj kaqi,sthsin avrcierei/j).83 Those who equate no,moj with the Mosaic law in its entirety prefer instead to translate evpi, as “on the basis of,” a choice which can convey either the impression that the priesthood is superior to the law,84 or at least

80

James Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest: Ps 110,4 As The Substructure of Heb 5,1 – 7,28 (European University Studies Series 22. Vol. 693. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang, 2000), 109, stakes nearly his whole lengthy argument on this point. 81 So P. Andriessen, En lisant L’Epître aux Hébreux: Lettre au R. P. A. Vanhoye, . . . sur l’interprétation controversée de certain passages (Vaals, NL: Abbey St. Benedictusberg, 1977), 27–30. 82 Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 108. 83 Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 110, also observes that the “the Law has (9:1: ei=ce; 10:1: e;cwn o` no,moj) the institutions, and not vice versa” (his emphasis). 84 Cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, xl: “the covenant or law is subordinated to the priesthood.”

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

62

“interdependent.”85 Therefore, “the levitical priesthood . . . was the basis of the Law given to the people.”86 A revocation of the priesthood therefore implies an annulment of the Mosaic law. Those following this line of thought often appeal to the direct logical connection that exists between the priestly ministrations and the Mosaic law as a whole. Thus, for the author “cultic matters are the essence of the Mosaic law,”87 and the “law’s provisions for priesthood cannot be neatly separated from ethical matters because priests offer sacrifices for sins (5:3), and sins include transgressions of the so-called ethical commandments.”88 Additionally, it should be pointed out that although the passive verb nenomoqe,thtai (o` lao.j ga.r evpV auvth/j nenomoqe,thtai, 7:11) appears in the same form in 8:6, to describe an “enactment” of the new covenant, Septuagintal use of the verb nomoqete,w is generally Torah-centered, often conveying the sense of “legal instruction.” This is what one might expect given that it is in every instance translating the verb hr'y' (Hiphil), “to direct, teach, instruct.”89 Nomoqete,w is employed seven times in the LXX to describe the instruction and guidance that either the law or God provides (Exod 24:12; Deut 17:10; Pss 25:8, 12 [LXX 24]; 27:11 [LXX 26]; 119:33, 102 [LXX 118]). It also is used participially three times in the LXX to denote the divine “Law-giver” (Ps 84:6 [LXX 83]; 2 Macc 3:15; 4 Macc 5:25). Most importantly, it appears in the covenant inaugurating ceremony of Exod 24, in conjunction with the giving of the Decalogue at Sinai

85

William Horbury, “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JSNT 19 (1983), 55, makes a strong case for their mutuality, noting that it may be said that ‘the law makes men high priests’ (7.28) or, from the other side, that the levitical priests ‘have a commandment,’ one of their privileges (7.5); again, the law should make perfect (7.19), yet this should come about through the priestly ministration (7.11; 10.1). 86 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 372. 87 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 374. See also Barrett, “The Christology of Hebrews,” 121, and Erich Grässer, An Die Hebräer (Hebr 7,1–10,18) (EKKNT 17/2. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1993), 2.39, who states: “Sie stehen und fallen miteinander – für jüdisches Verständnis mehr als anstößig, da der Tora ewige Dauer und Gültigkeit eignen.” 88 Koester, Hebrews, 114. See also Grässer, Hebräer, 2.39. Moffatt, Hebrews, 96, states that “a no,moj . . . depends for its validity and effectiveness upon the i`ereu,j or i`erei/j by whom it is administered.” An entirely different approach is applied to the problem by Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 53, who considers the reference to the “levitical priesthood” in 7:11 to be “one of the clearest uses” of synecdoche in Hebrews. The reference to the Levitical priesthood thus represents “the entire OT system.” 89 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951), 434–5.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

63

(24:12).90 We might also note that Philo, though employing nomoqete,w more than fifty times to denote a variety of laws, never uses the word with regard to the laws of priestly appointment.91 Therefore, attempts at limiting the significance of nomoqete,w to “legislation” concerning the priesthood are without any textual basis.92 5.4. The presence of apocalyptic language The intensity of this critique of the Jewish religious complex increases dramatically when attention is paid to the verbal and conceptual affinities it shares with the warning of impending eschatological judgment in 12:25– 29. The Levitical critique and its accompanying high priest Christology, when read in light of the “small apocalypse” (12:25–29), take on a decidedly apocalyptic character, imbuing the religious and cultic supersession that has taken place in the Christ event with cataclysmic finality, and reinforcing the cosmic dimensions of chapter seven’s portrayal of Jesus’ heavenly high priesthood.93

90 Exod 24:12 (LXX): Kai. ei=pen ku,rioj pro.j Mwush/n avna,bhqi pro,j me eivj to. o;roj kai. i;sqi evkei/ kai. dw,sw soi ta. puxi,a ta. li,qina to.n no,mon kai. ta.j evntola,j a]j e;graya nomoqeth/sai auvtoi/j. 91 On three occasions nomoqete,w is used in relation to the giving of the law at Sinai (Alleg. Interp. 3:142; Posterity 143; QE 2:45). The majority of Philo’s uses of nomoqete,w deal with various individual legislative decrees, for example: prohibiting blasphemy (Moses 2:203), idolatry (Decalogue 156) and usury (Virtues 81–82); enumerating the Sabbath laws (Migration 91; Moses 2:218) and the Sabbath for the land (Virtues 97); and the Jubilee (Spec. Laws 2:39, 110). Nomoqete,w occurs three times in Spec. Laws in relation to priestly matters: regarding priestly vestments (1:82); enumerating the physical defects causing exclusion from priestly service (1:117); discussing the allotment of land and support for Levites (2:120). Philo never uses nomoqete,w in conjunction with the precepts relating to priestly appointment. 92 Contra Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” 269, who contends that the passive verb nenomoqe,thtai means “to legislate,” and should here be translated as “to be instituted by Law.” In so doing he seems to have changed the subject of the passive verb from the “people” (“concerning this priesthood the people were given a law”) to the priesthood (“for on the basis of this the priesthood was instituted by law”). As we can see, his translation “to be instituted by Law,” is entirely unfeasible here. 93 It must of course be admitted at the outset that the first listeners would probably not have made the connection initially, but perhaps only after recollecting and meditating on the contents of the Levitical critique with the “small apocalypse” still fresh in their ears. Our principal point is that the author thought through and expressed the implications of his high priest Christology in a thoroughly apocalyptic manner.

64

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

5.5. Is Hebrews 12:25–29 apocalyptic? The small apocalypse (12:25–29) begins with a warning not to “turn away” (avpostre,fw, 12:25) from the God who “warns from heaven.” From the earth-shaking (saleu,w) “voice” of God comes the promise to “shake” (sei,w) “not only the earth but also the heaven” (ouvrano,j, 12:26). Everything that can be shaken (tw/n saleuome,nwn, 12:27), “that is, created things” (w`j pepoihme,nwn, 12:27), will be “removed” (meta,qesij), “so that only that which is unshakable may remain” (i[na mei,nh| ta. mh. saleuo,mena, 12:27). Since the recipients are expected to survive this cataclysmic shaking and receive an “unshakable kingdom” (basilei,an avsa,leuto), they are commended to reciprocate (e;cwmen ca,rin)94 by acceptably worshipping God with “reverence and awe” (12:28). This short section closes with the final warning that “our God (o` qeo.j h`mw/n) is a consuming fire” (12:29). 5.6. The “shaking” motif in apocalyptic literature The assertion of an apocalyptic background for our small apocalypse rests on a number of points. The entire text takes its cue from an apocalyptic passage in Haggai: “Yet once more I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land” (e;ti a[pax evgw. sei,sw to.n ouvrano.n kai. th.n gh/n kai. th.n qa,lassan kai. th.n xhra,n, 2:6), which is placed almost exactly in the middle of our passage. Though the quotation in Heb 12:26 uses the same verb as the LXX text of Haggai, sei,w, the “shaking” theme is elsewhere represented by saleu,w, which appears in verbal form three times (12:26–27), and once adjectivally (basilei,an avsa,leuto, 12:28). Both words find almost equal employment in LXX translations of apocalyptic texts, thus the semantic differences are negligible.95 Sei,w can be found in Isa 13:13; 17:4; 24:18, 20; Ezek 38:20; Joel 2:10; 4:16; and Hag 2:6, 21; while saleu,w appears in Amos 9:5; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:5; Hab 3:6; and Zech 12:2.96 94 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 473–7, discusses at length the role played by ca,rij in patron-client relationships, denoting acts of reciprocity performed by the client. 95 Cf. Isa 33:20 (LXX): “Behold the city of Zion, . . . tabernacles which shall not be shaken” (skhnai. ai] ouv mh. seisqw/sin). A variant reading appearing in the texts of Theodoret of Cyprus and Minuscule 93 (London) replaces seisqw/sin with saleuqw/sin. Second Baruch also depicts the final judgment in terms of a “shaking.” “He shall protect you in the time in which the Mighty One shall shake the entire creation. For a short time, the building of Zion will be shaken in order that it will be rebuilt. That building will not remain” (32:1–3). “But also the heaven will be shaken from its place at that time” (59:3). 96 Eccl 12:2–3 uses saleu,w and other apocalyptic imagery figuratively to describe the decrepitude of old age. In 12:2, old age is described as the “darkening” of “the sun and the light, the moon and the stars.” Old age also brings a “trembling” (saleu,w) of the watchmen (12:3).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

65

5.7. “Yet once more” Further evidence of an apocalyptic mindset is apparent in the temporal adverbs e;ti a[pax, “yet once more,” which is first quoted and then subjected to midrashic interpretation in 12:26–27. The author considers this phrase the signal proof of an imminent meta,qesij. He states: “This expression, ‘Yet once more,’ reveals (dhloi/) the removal of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (12:27). Undoubtedly the “insight” (dhlo,w)97 provided by this innocuous adverbial phrase relates to the certainty of a final saleu,w and meta,qesij. What has happened before will happen once again, as promised by the divine voice (12:26). 5.8. The “divine fire” motif in apocalyptic literature The texture of this “shaking” and “removal” is slightly modified by the final verse in the passage, which sternly warns that “our God is a consuming fire” (o` qeo.j h`mw/n pu/r katanali,skon, 12:29). Though our passage is probably an adaptation of a warning issued against trifling with the divine covenant partner, found in the covenant ratification of Deut 4:24: [Oti ku,rioj o` qeo,j sou pu/r katanali,skon evsti,n qeo.j zhlwth,j,98 an apocalyptic intent for our passage may also be deduced. The fire of judgment promised for worthless vegetation in Heb 6:8 seems to bear a similar dual meaning.99 Severe finality is emphasized in this threat of an apocalyptic “consuming/destructive fire.”100 Further terminological 97

Cf. 9:8, where dhlo,w is employed to denote pneumatological revelation. The author’s description of the frightful Sinai event is obviously based on the same passage. Cf. Deut 4:11: Kai. prosh,lqete kai. e;sthte u`po. to. o;roj kai. to. o;roj evkai,eto puri. e[wj tou/ ouvranou/ sko,toj gno,foj qu,ella fwnh. mega,lh; and Heb 12:18: Ouv ga.r proselhlu,qate yhlafwme,nw| kai. kekaume,nw| puri. kai. gno,fw| kai. zo,fw| kai. que,llh|. Deut 4:24 is later echoed in Deut 9:3: Kai. gnw,sh| sh,meron o[ti ku,rioj o` qeo,j sou ou-toj proporeu,etai pro. prosw,pou sou pu/r katanali,skon evsti,n. Pu/r and katanali,skw appear in close proximity in a number of LXX passages (Lev 6:10; Esth 8:13; Wis 16:16; Sir 45:19). 99 Both verses occur at the end of warning passages. Another warning passage, 10:27, threatens the “adversaries” of God with a “consuming, furious fire” (puro.j zh/loj evsqi,ein me,llontoj). 100 A well-circulated apocalyptic belief held that the earth would bear two cataclysmic judgments. The first had already occurred in the Noachic flood, while the second judgment would be accomplished through the instrumentality of fire. Cf. Life of Adam and Eve 49:3: “Our Lord will bring over your race the wrath of his judgment, first by water and then by fire; by these two the Lord will judge the whole human race.” Josephus locates the origin of this belief in a “prediction” made by Adam (Ant. 1:70). See also 2 Pet 3:5–7, which forecasts a conflagration that includes the ouvrano,j as well. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983), 300, considers this the sole NT 98

66

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

parallels with 12:29 may be sought in Zeph 1:18 (evn h`me,ra| ovrgh/j kuri,ou kai. evn puri. zh,louj auvtou/ katanalwqh,setai pa/sa h` gh/); 3:8 (dio,ti evn puri. zh,louj mou katanalwqh,setai pa/sa h` gh/); and a marginal reading in the Alexandrinus text of Isa 66:16 (evn ga.r tw/| puri. kuri,ou katanalwqh,setai pa/sa h` gh/).101 The closely related verb avnali,skw also occurs in conjunction with pu/r in a small handful of apocalyptic texts: Joel 1:19;102 2:3;103 and Ezek 15:4–5;104 19:12.105 And in their offer to avenge the spurned Jesus, the “Sons of Thunder” manifest an apocalyptic “spirit” that is schooled in the same tradition: Ku,rie( qe,leij ei;pwmen pu/r katabh/nai avpo. tou/ ouvranou/ kai. avnalw/sai auvtou,j (Luke 9:54). Finally, this final predicate forms something of a conceptual inclusio, framing the whole section of Heb 12:18–29. The Sinai event disclosed the frightening wholly otherness of God (12:18–21), a divine characteristic which is not entirely a thing of the past.106 The listeners are therewith reminded that they face the same moral demands, instituted by the same holy God, as the people of the first covenant. In fact, their “superior” opportunity carries with it the expectation of a corresponding, and perhaps even greater, degree of probity (12:25). 5.9. Meta,qesij The presence of these two traditional apocalyptic judgment motifs, “divine fire” and “shaking,” would clearly seem to tip the scales against those who argue that a Platonizing mindset underlies 12:25–29. However, Platonic witness to a cosmological conflagration. The finality of the fiery cataclysm depicted here stands at odds with the recurring, cyclical cosmological conflagration espoused in the Greek concept of evkpu,rwsij. The notion of evkpu,rwsij perhaps originated with the 5th century BCE philosopher Heraclitus, possibly predicated on his belief that change was necessary for maintenance of the cosmic order. The doctrine enjoyed common currency among the early Stoics and fell from favor with the Middle Stoa. 101 The other major codices read kriqh,setai instead of katanalwqh,setai. 102 [Oti pu/r avnh,lwsen ta. w`rai/a th/j evrh,mou. 103 Ta. e;mprosqen auvtou/ pu/r avnali,skon kai. ta. ovpi,sw auvtou/ avnaptome,nh flo,x. 104 In brief, avnali,skei to. pu/r (15:4); kai. pu/r auvto. avnalw,sh| eivj te,loj (15:5). 105 Pu/r avnh,lwsen auvth,n. For other instances of this apocalyptic fiery judgment motif, cf. Isa 10:17; 26:11; 34:4 [LXX]; 66:15–16; Ezek 30; 38–39; Amos 1–2; Obad 1:18; Nah 3:15; Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Mal 3:19; Apoc. El. 5:22–24, 37; Sib. Or. 2:196; 4:175–180; 1QH 11:29–32. John J. Collins, “Eschatology,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 Vols. (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1.260, has noted that 1QH 11:29–32 is the “only passage in the scrolls that attests” to a belief in the eschatological conflagration of the universe. 106 Cf. William Klassen, “To the Hebrews or Against the Hebrews? Anti-Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, 2 Vols., ed. Stephen G. Wilson, (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1986), 2.14.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

67

influence may be detected in the ambiguous and rare term meta,qesij,107 possibly the determinative expression of the coming judgment, and me,nw, which is apparently the primary ontological characteristic of the coming world. Use of meta,qesij is without parallel in the NT. Our author employs it five times, to describe the law’s “removal” in 7:12; Enoch’s “removal”/“taking up” in 11:5; and the “removal” of the “shakable” cosmos in 12:27. It also appears twice in an a–privative form, avmeta,qetoj, in 6:17–18, to express the “unchangeable” nature of God’s purpose.108 5.10. The background of thought Perhaps the most formidable case for a Platonic background has been made by James W. Thompson. He maintains that in the author’s “most detailed description of the eschaton,” 12:25–29, the juxtaposition of the eternally abiding realm (the basilei,an avsa,leuton) with the shakable realm (tw/n

107

The general paucity of evidence on the substantival form of this word prohibits us from drawing any conclusions regarding allegiances it might have to a particular thoughtworld. Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1111–12, offers the following definitions for meta,qesij: “change of position, transposition, change (in general), change of sides or opinions, amendment, going over, exchange, barter, etc.” Notable occurrences include: Ps. Aristotle, On the Cosmos 400b 29 (no,moj ga.r h`mi/n ivsoklinh.j o` qeo,j, ouvdemi,an evpideco,menoj dio,rqwsin h] meta,qesin, krei,ttwn de,, oi=mai, kai. bebaio,teroj tw/n evn tai/j ku,rbesin avnagegramme,nwn); Aristotle, Metaphysics 1024a 4 (with me,nw) (e;sti de tau/ta o[swn h` me.n fu,sij h` auvth. me,nei th/| metaqe,sei h` de. morfh. ou;, oi-on khro.j kai. i`ma,tion); and 2 Macc 11:24. The word appears eleven times in the writings of Philo. It appears twice in Eternity 113–116, together with me,nw and avsa,leutoj, in a defense of the indestructibility of the ko,smoj. Interestingly, avnaire,w, which is used in Heb 10:9 to denote the “abolition” or “annulment” of the “first” manifestation of the divine economy, is also used in this same passage of Eternity, as Philo questions whether “anything outside the ko,smoj can destroy (avnaire,w) it?” Meta,qesij is also used to denote Enoch’s “removal”/“translation” (Abraham 18; Rewards 17); the “changing” of a person’s name, e.g., Abram to Abraham (Abraham 81; Names 60, 130; QG 4:67); and the transient nature of human affairs (Joseph 136). Meta,qesij also occurs in the Letter of Aristeas 160 and Josephus Ag. Ap. 1:286. 108 The verbal form metati,qhmi appears to have enjoyed greater circulation. It occurs three times in Hebrews, twice in 11:5 (of Enoch), and once in 7:12, where it is stated that a “change” (metati,qhmi) in the priesthood requires an attendant “removal” (meta,qesij) of the law that governs such a succession. In the NT it appears in Acts 7:16; Gal 1:6 (Qauma,zw o[ti ou[twj tace,wj metati,qesqe avpo. tou/ kale,santoj u`ma/j); and Jude 1:4. It also appears some seventeen times in the LXX. In Gen 5:24, Wis 4:10, and Sir 44:16 it describes the “removal”/“translation” of Enoch. Also of note is Ps 45:3: “Therefore we will not fear when the earth is disturbed, and the mountains are removed (metati,qesqai) into the heart of the seas.” Philo uses metati,qhmi twenty-seven times. Most notably, it appears together with me,nw in Unchangeable 26 to express the unchangeable nature, will, and purpose of God.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

68

saleuome,nwn and tw/n pepoihme,nwn) points to a “dualistic world view.”109 Tw/n pepoihme,nwn represents the realm of what is “merely made” and is synonymous with such terms as ceiropoi,htoj (9:11, 24), tau,thj th/j kti,sewj (9:11), and yhlafwme,noj (12:18). The author thereby “distinguishes that which abides from that which is ‘made.’”110 The chief characteristic of the abiding heavenly realm is its “stability,” a quality of crucial importance to the portrayals of the noetic realm by Plato (Timaeus 38A), Philo (Posterity 23; Dreams 2:221, 237), the Hermetica (CH 11:2), and Plotinus (Ennead 3.7.6; 6.3.27).111 The shaking of the created order is intended to remove the inferior material realm so that only the “stable” heavenly realm, the basilei,an avsa,leuton (12:28), may remain (i[na mei,nh| ta. mh. saleuo,mena, 12:27). That both key terms, avsa,leutoj and me,nw, are widely used in Gnostic and Platonic literature, further convinces Thompson that an essentially dualistic cosmological construct underlies our author’s depiction of the heavenly realm.112 As befitting such a dualistic cosmology, the basilei,an avsa,leuton is a present reality; therefore the eschatological meta,qesij is to be understood as a “removal” of “that which is shakable,” and not a “transformation” of the created order into a “new heavens and new earth” (as in Rom 8:19–23).113 L. D. Hurst, in his essay, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” stands opposed to almost every one of Thompson’s claims. He questions the literalness of the “earthquake” assumed by Thompson, preferring instead to ascribe a symbolic sense to the whole complex, one akin to Matt 27:45, 51–53. Therefore, Hebrews’ “shaking,” as well as that of Haggai, is not intended to denote the end of human history, but the judgment of God in history. Thus “the coming of the new order means the inauguration of an earthquake-like judgment within the cosmos whereby all which occupies an improper relation to the new work will be shaken 109

Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 42–3. Ibid., 49. 111 Ibid., 50–1. Thompson erroneously cites a Seventh Ennead of Plotinus. 112 Ibid., 51. Appearing five times in the Philonic corpus, avsa,leutoj is used variously to describe the stability of the faithful person (Good Person 28); the laws of Moses (Moses 2:14); and the eternal nature of the ko,smoj (Eternity 116) that “remains strongly” (me,nw) through the divine impartation of “the power of remaining unshaken” (Dreams 1:158). Forms of me,nw occur 107 times, denoting the immutable nature of God (Dreams 2:221; Planting 91; Names 46, 87; Spec. Laws 1:300); his unchanging purpose (Unchangeable 26); the permanence of creation (Heir 156; Eternity 61, 81); the everlasting nature of Moses’ laws (Moses 2:14); and the impermanence of human affairs (Dreams 1:154, 192; Joseph 134; Virtues 151). Me,nw and avsa,leutoj appear together with meta,qesij in a defense of the indestructibility of the ko,smoj, in Eternity 113–116. The closely related word diame,nw is used in nearly identical circumstances. 113 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 48–9. 110

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

69

and removed.”114 Hurst also considers the presence of key motifs shared by Heb 12:18–29, the LXX of Zech 14 (earthquake, Jerusalem, and remaining [me,nw]), and 2 Bar. (shaking and remaining, 32:1–3; 59:3) further proof of a non-Platonic background to our passage.115 Appealing to the non-Platonic use of ouv ceiropoi,htoj in Acts 7:48; 17:24 and avceiropoi,htoj in Mark 14:58; 2 Cor 5:1; and Col 2:11, Hurst questions Thompson’s ready assignation of a dualistic “made/unmade” Platonic distinction to this conceptuality, as well as those in the same semantic field: tw/n saleuome,nwn, tw/n pepoihme,nwn, tau,thj th/j kti,sewj, and yhlafwme,noj.116 Additionally, he draws attention to the absence of traditional Platonic cosmological terminology. Except for fai,nw in 11:3, such key terms as u[lh, aivsqhta,, swmatiko,j, and ta. no,hta are all conspicuously absent.117 And although me,nw densely populates Platonic and Gnostic cosmological discourse, we cannot endorse Thompson’s claim that the Hebrews uses me,nw “exclusively for the non-material world,” the “abiding of the supercelestial reality.”118 If 12:27 and 13:14 (me,nousan po,lin, the “abiding city”) constituted the sole occurrences of the verb in Hebrews, we might be forced to concede. However, me,nw is employed in at least three other contexts, describing the endless priesthoods of both Melchizedek and Jesus (7:3, 24), the impermanent priesthoods of the Levitical priests (7:24), and the “better and enduring possession” of the recipients (10:34). Most importantly, it is used in 13:1, only two verses after 12:27, in an entirely non-metaphysical manner, in the exhortation to “Let brotherly love continue” (~H filadelfi,a mene,tw). This flexibility and

114

Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 71. He states further: “This removal, symbolized by the destruction of the temple, was about to be accomplished in Auctor’s own day” (70). Randall C. Gleason, “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” TynBul 53.1 (2002), 111, limits the symbolic destruction to the Temple. 115 Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 73. Hurst fails to point out the occurrence of saleu,w in Zech 12:2, which introduces the apocalyptic vision of the attack on Jerusalem by the nations. It is said there that the Lord “will make Jerusalem as trembling door-posts to all the nations around it” (ivdou. evgw. ti,qhmi th.n Ierousalhm w`j pro,qura saleuo,mena pa/si toi/j laoi/j ku,klw|). The key terms also occur in fairly close proximity in Isa 13–14, the oracle of judgment against Babylon (13:13, kai. h` gh/ seisqh,setai evk tw/n qemeli,wn auvth/j dia. qumo.n ovrgh/j kuri,ou sabawq th/| h`me,ra| h-| a'n evpe,lqh| o` qumo.j auvtou/; 14:16, kai. evrou/sin ou-toj o` a;nqrwpoj o` paroxu,nwn th.n gh/n sei,wn basilei/j; 14:20, ouv mh. mei,nh|j eivj to.n aivw/na cro,non; 14:24, ou[twj e;stai kai. o]n tro,pon bebou,leumai ou[twj menei/). Saleu,w also appears in Symmachus’ translation of Isa 14:9. 116 Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 73. 117 Ibid., 72. 118 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 51.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

70

variety of usage strongly suggests that the author is bound to neither Platonic/Gnostic conventions nor conceptualities when using this word.119 We should also note how Thompson’s proposed material/immaterial distinction becomes especially “shaky” when he applies it to the two contrasting revelations described in 12:18–24. He characterizes the first as yhlafwme,noj, “that which can be touched,” and the second as evpoura,nioj, “heavenly,” and then asserts that the “material objects” that appear in the Sinai revelation: “thunder, lightning, earthquake, trumpet, and voice,” are “inferior agents for the expression of the nature of God.”120 His premise suffers ruin with the recognition that these “inferior agents” have infiltrated 12:25–29, thus linking both revelatory tableaux by means of the “speaking,” “shaking” and “fire”121 motifs. The voice of warning resounds no less in the New Covenant than in the first covenant. The imminent cataclysm promised in 12:25–29 will be effected by a shaking corresponding to, and exceeding, the Sinai event. The unendurable commanding voice (ouvk e;feron ga.r to. diastello,menon, 12:20) that “shook the earth then” (to,te, 12:26) is the same voice (fwnh,, 12:19, 26) that will shake the earth “once again.”122 Far from being an “inferior agent for the expression of the nature of God,” the voice of God, whether warning from earth or heaven (12:25), is the very voice of God, and as such demands to be heeded.123 Drawing on Hurst’s observations, deSilva has aptly identified the nature of Thompson’s error: the author does not oppose created to uncreated things, as would Plato, but rather two orders of created things – that which belongs to ‘this creation’ and that which is ‘not of this creation’ (9:11) but rather of that better creation which is God’s realm, ‘heaven itself’ (emphasis mine).124

Furthermore, as Hurst and others have noted, the heavenly realm that remains after the eschatological shaking should not be understood as a 119

Cf. the related verb diame,nw in 1:11: The heaven and earth “will perish,” but God “will remain (diame,neij).” 120 Ibid., 46–7. 121 According to Thompson’s criteria, pu/r should also be considered a “material expression of the nature of God.” 122 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 683, equates the present to.n lalou/nta of 12:25a with to.n crhmati,zonta of 12:25b, as to.n crhmati,zonta is the antecedent of to.n in the third clause of 12:25: Ble,pete mh. paraith,shsqe to.n lalou/nta\ eiv ga.r evkei/noi ouvk evxe,fugon evpi. gh/j paraithsa,menoi to.n crhmati,zonta( polu. ma/llon h`mei/j oi` to.n avpV ouvranw/n avpostrefo,menoi. 123 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, cxxvii, considers “the importance of listening to the voice of God in scripture and in the act of Christian preaching” to be the “central theme” of Hebrews. 124 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 29.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

71

timeless, pre-existent, eternal sphere. It is essentially a future reality (though one proleptically experienced by the recipients), as attested by the temporal language (me,llw) that denotes its impending manifestation (2:5; 13:14).125 However, contra Hurst’s assertion of a symbolic eschatological judgment, we rather insist on the literal cataclysmic event suggested by the abundance of traditional apocalyptic terminology and the temporal adverbial phrase e;ti a[pax (12:26–27). In so doing the author betrays his essential faithfulness to the teaching of Jesus concerning the nature of the “consummation of the ages” (Mark 13).126 General adherence to prophetic expectations (Isa 24–27; 65:17–25) and consistency with most of the NT (Rom 8:19–25; 1 Cor 7:31; 2 Pet 3:7–13; 1 John 2:17; Rev 21) can also be assumed.127 5.11. The meaning of meta,qesij in 12:27 We are now reasonably able to determine the meaning of meta,qesij in 12:27. In this particular context it clarifies the meaning of the leitmotif e;ti a[pax, providing a note of finality to the apocalyptic judgment described in 12:25–29. That which is to be shaken and burned will be “removed,”128 and that which is unshakable and abiding shall be manifest in its stead. There will be no return, reformation, re-creation, or transformation of what has 125

“Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 56, 61, 71. Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 213. 126 Cf. Matt 24:3 (suntelei,aj tou/ aivw/noj) and Heb 9:26 (suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn). 127 Edward Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language (Studies of the New Testament and its world. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 44–69, helpfully traces the main outlines of Greek cosmology. Both Plato and Aristotle denied the possibility of a conclusive destruction of the ko,smoj. In the Timaeus, Plato appeals to the goodness and providence of the demiurge (32C) in his assertion of the indestructibility of the ko,smoj (33A). Stoic cosmology, however, strongly asserted the need for a periodic evkpu,rwsij, to be followed by an identical reconstitution of the ko,smoj. Philo follows and vigorously defends Plato’s assertion of indestructibility. Adams concludes by insisting that Greek philosophy, as a whole, can be characterized as having an entirely optimistic outlook concerning the ko,smoj (68–9). Paul’s attitude towards the ko,smoj varies according to his audience. In Corinth the term was used to legitimate unjust power structures. Paul therefore strategically transformed (“defamiliarized”) the concept of ko,smoj, using it as “the main negative term of the epistle.” Thus, “salvation consists in being rescued from this world/age and being relocated in God’s kingdom” (148). The perilous socio-political situation faced by the church in Rome necessitated a more conciliatory stance towards Roman society. Both ko,smoj and kti,sij are therefore used positively. 128 Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 71, points out the thematic parallels shared with Haggai: the shaking of the earth (2:6, 21) is followed by the removal of the “power of the kingdoms” (2:22).

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

72

been decisively “removed.”129 The future has come, and will shortly be fully entered into, and the imminent meta,qesij of what is past will shut the door on any chance of return. 5.12. An intra-textual reading of 7:11–28 and 12:25–29 With an apocalyptic background for 12:25–29 presumably settled, we may redirect our attention to the author’s presentation of the high priesthood of Jesus in 7:11–28. This lengthy discussion of the basis and implications of Christ’s priesthood appears to be cut from the same linguistic cloth and occupy precisely the same symbolic world as the small apocalypse. Instead of “turning away” from God (12:25), the recipients are exhorted to make pilgrimage in the opposite direction, to “draw near to” (evggi,zw, 7:19) and “approach” (prose,rcomai, 7:25) God through the “better hope” introduced (evpeisagwgh.) as a consequence of Jesus’ high priesthood. That high priesthood has its basis in the “sworn oath” of God (o` de. meta. o`rkwmosi,aj dia. tou/ le,gontoj pro.j auvto,n\ w;mosen ku,rioj, 7:21), a divine speech-act that may be contrasted with the fearful warnings issued by “the one speaking” (to.n lalou/nta, to.n crhmati,zonta, 12:25), “whose voice once shook the earth, but who has now promised . . .” (nu/n de. evph,ggeltai le,gwn, 12:26). The high priesthood and life of Jesus are variously designated as “eternal” (7:17, 21), “permanent” (7:24),130 “indestructible” (7:16, 25), and “made perfect forever” (7:28), all in marked contrast to both the Jewish priests, who are hindered by human mortality from “continuing (parame,nw) in office forever” (7:23), and the shakable heaven and earth (12:26–28). Like the axiologically inferior “created things” that are “removed” in the cataclysmic judgment (12:27), the “weak and ineffectual” (7:18) Mosaic law that appointed, upheld and guided the Jewish priesthood is also said to be “removed” (meta,qesij, 7:12) and “annulled” (avqe,thsij, 7:18).131 In the 129

Completely absent from Hebrews’ cosmological vocabulary are any and all expressions of a “transformation” of the created order. As Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 120–1, has observed: “the context of Heb 12:27 points to removal rather than transformation. The context divides reality into two mutually exclusive categories – shakeable/created and unshakeable. Only the unshakeable remains after God’s cataclysmic judgment.” 130 Paul Ellingworth, “The Unshakable Priesthood: Hebrews 7.24,” JSNT 23 (1985), 126, has argued for the active meaning of avpara,batoj (“permanent,” or “unchangeable”), over the passive sense (“without a successor”). Ellingworth concludes that “if avpara,batoj is taken actively, it becomes more natural to see Christ’s priesthood as one of the ‘things that cannot be shaken’ (12:27), with which so much of the Epistle to the Hebrews is concerned.” 131 Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 20, contends that here “the relatively moderate meta,qesij language has given way to the much more radical term avqe,thsij.”

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

73

divine economy, the correlate of this “taking away” (meta,qesij) of the entire Jewish religious system is the “bringing in” (evpeisagwgh,) of a “better hope” (7:19).132 The counterpart to the “unshakable” realm that remains (i[na mei,nh| ta. mh. saleuo,mena, 12:27) is of course the high priesthood of Jesus, he who abides eternally (to. me,nein auvto.n eivj to.n aivw/n, 7:24), “exalted in the heavens” (ouvrano,j, 7:26), far beyond the “shakable heavens” of 12:26. It is also possible that the unshakable kingdom (12:28) may bear some axiological resemblance to the “Son who has been made perfect forever” (7:28). Furthermore, we can assume that the author sees this basilei,an avsa,leuton as ruled by the high priest Jesus – whose typological precursor, Melchizedek, was also “the King of Salem” (basileu.j Salh,m, 7:1).133 Finally, the genitival “our God” (o` qeo.j h`mw/n) of 12:29 might call to mind the previous mention of “our Lord” (o` ku,rioj h`mw/n) in 7:14, a rare However the former term’s employment in 12:25–29 indicates that it is every bit as radical as avqe,thsij. Nevertheless, the importance of avqe,thsij should not be diminished by this comparison. The only other occurrence of avqe,thsij in the NT is in 9:26, the author’s definitive program statement of two-age apocalyptic eschatology, where the object of the avqe,thsij is sin. The verb avqete,w is used in 10:28 to denote “the willful rejection” of the law of Moses. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 123, confers upon this verb a much “weaker sense,” translating it as “acting against.” He then attempts to transfer this meaning to the substantive in 7:18: All the evidence suggests that the author accepts that the Levitical priests still exist and that they are appointed according to the law. Therefore, the old law still exists. What has happened is that God has acted against this law by declaring Christ to be priest through the oracle in Ps 110,4b. Thus, the meaning of avqe,thsij is better understood in the weaker sense, as in Heb 10,28. Kurianal does admit that for God to “act against” his own law is tantamount to the removal of that law. We should also keep in mind that in 10:28 the author is alluding to Deut 17:6, a passage whose prohibition of idolatry and attendant threat of lethal consequences carries a much stronger meaning than “acting against.” Recognition of the original context effectively disallows Kurianal’s attempted nuanced meaning of avqete,w, and by extension, avqe,thsij. 132 Cf. 10:9, where Christ is said to have “taken away” (avnaire,w) the “first” so as to “establish” (i[sthmi) the “second.” 133 Deborah W. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Bib 81 (2000), 82–3, believes the author’s primary purpose in enlisting the example of Melchizedek was to establish a “sacral kingship” Christology. She remarks: The characteristics of Jesus’s priesthood which are enumerated in the extended description of him as ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek’ are those not merely of high priesthood but of royal priesthood; in other words . . . the picture of Jesus given in Heb 7 depicts what modern scholarship would call a sacral king. In this way, the two major christological strands in Hebrews of Sonship and priesthood are seen to belong together, since both divine sonship and priesthood are elements of the ancient royal ideology.

74

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

genitival construction appearing elsewhere only in the benedictory doxology (13:20). The results of our proposed intra-textual reading may be charted as follows: The “small apocalypse” (12:25–29)

Jesus’ superior priesthood (7:11–28)

“Turning away” (avpostre,fw) from God (12:25)

“Drawing near” (evggi,zw, 7:19) and “approaching” (prose,rcomai, 7:25) God The speaking, promising and The oath-making and vowing God warning God (12:25–26) (7:21) The earth and heaven will be shaken The “weak and ineffectual” (7:18) (12:26–27) and the axiologically law that appointed, upheld and inferior “created things” will be guided the impotent Jewish “removed” (meta,qesij, 12:27). priesthood has been “removed” (meta,qesij, 7:12) and “annulled” (7:18), and a “better hope brought in” (7:19). Christ reigns “exalted in the heavens” (7:26) that are far beyond the “shakable heavens” of 12:26. Only “that which is unshakable may The high priesthood and life of Jesus remain” (me,nw, 12:27). are “eternal” (7:17, 21), “permanent” (7:24), “indestructible” (7:16, 25), “made perfect forever” (7:28), and he abides forever (to. me,nein auvto.n eivj to.n aivw/n, 7:24). The unshakable kingdom (12:28) The Son who has been made perfect forever (7:28). Jesus’ symbolic precursor, Melchizedek, was the “King of Salem” (7:1). The genitival “our God” (12:29) “Our Lord” (7:14) 5.13. An eschatological perspective This comparison also serves to expand our appreciation of the cosmic nature of the high priesthood of Jesus. Paul Ellingworth, in his article “Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews,” points out the close connection between Christ and the ko,smoj in Hebrews: it is remarkable . . . how often the author’s view of who Jesus was and what he did does involve presuppositions about the universe. The author thinks synthetically, not

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

75

analytically: for him, what Jesus did, who he was, and how the universe is framed belong together.134

This lofty “universal” perspective must be kept in mind when considering the author’s relation to and understanding of Judaism. His firm conviction of the eschaton’s arrival, and Jesus’ instrumental role both in its shaping and administration, serve to remind us that our author was not involved in an exercise of sibling rivalry with the Judaism of his day. Rather, the unmatched depth of his critique of his ancestral religious-cultural identity is predicated on an equal measure of certitude concerning the inauguration and shape of the coming age/world.135 He possesses the same “eschatologically privileged hermeneutical perspective” that Richard B. Hays has detected in Paul.136 Also, the author should not be accused of alleging his fellow Jews to have “misunderstood” their ancestral religion, for our author’s entire presentation might be characterized as a “Christological and eschatological extrapolation” of the deepest truths and purest longings inherent in the Jewish religious system.137 5.14. The nature and benefits of Jesus’ priesthood Far from being an abstract treatise on the arrival of the eschaton, or the legal basis for and eternality of Jesus’ high priesthood, the discussion in this section is colored by its warm portrayal of the nature and benefits of 134

Paul Ellingworth, “Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews,” EvQ 58.4 (October 1986),

340. 135

Robert W. Wall and William L. Lane, “Polemic in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 184–5, emphasize this eschatological perspective, stating that the recipients could not turn back the hands of the clock and deny their Christian understanding and experience. The premise that Hebrews engages in any form of anti-Judaic polemic, however, is untenable. Certainly the writer appreciated the historical and theological lines of differentiation between Jewish Christianity and Judaism. He clearly believed that God had acted decisively in Jesus to accomplish salvation and to create the people of the new covenant. Only from such an eschatological perspective could he speak of God’s final word, or of the coming of the new that had made the old obsolete, or of the incarnation of the Son of God. But this is not anti-Judaism; it is the reflection of a distinctive reading of scripture in the light of the writer’s convictions about Jesus. 136 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989), 109. 137 The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period. 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E., 2 Vols. ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 1.40, defines Christian anti-Judaism as “based on the conviction that the Jews misunderstand their own religion, and it proves its thesis from elements in Jewish scripture and tradition.”

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

76

Jesus’ priesthood. The motif of Jesus’ total identification with humanity (2:10–18) is resumed with the genitive “our Lord” (o` ku,rioj h`mw/n) in 7:14. He has also: (1) introduced the “better hope” that affords access into the presence of God (7:19); (2) become the sure “guarantee” (e;gguoj) of a better covenant between humanity and God (7:22); (3) provided salvific entrance into the presence of God (7:25).138 Finally, the priestly nature of Christ’s ministry is poignantly expressed in the declaration that he “continually lives in order to plead (evntugca,nw) for them” (7:25).139 This verse, according to Lane, reveals that his “capacity for effectively acting on behalf of his people is unlimited.”140 That the recipients are the intended objects of this whole complex of incomparable priestly ministration becomes apparent in the opening declaration of the next section: “We have such a high priest” (toiou/ton e;comen avrciere,a, 8:1). 5.15. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 7:11–28 & 12:25–29 Though this section appears to lack overt exhortation, if one considers the cumulative impact of its apocalyptic assertions coupled with its presentation of an indestructible, yet entirely approachable high priest, its hortatory power becomes inestimable. As Timothy W. Seid has observed: The main purpose of this argument is not so much a polemical or dogmatic one, but it consists of moral exhortation: since Jesus is a superior high-priest, he is able to provide a constancy of mediation by which the people of God will be able to endure temptation to sin and the hardship of suffering in order to remain faithful to God to the very end.141 138

The comparisons between the two priesthoods surely meets their end here, as the Levitical priesthood only mediated salvation through their sacrificial ministry. Similarly, a priest could only invoke (through performative speech, as in the “Benediction of Aaron” in Num 6:22–27) and pronounce the salvation/wholeness wrought by God (Lev 14:7, 11). See Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest, 44–6. 139 In Heir 30, Philo has Abraham “draw near” (evggi,saj) and “plead” (evntugka,nein) with the Lord. 140 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 190. The intercessory ministry of the ascended Christ has already been appealed to in the exhortation to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (4:16). David G. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ (SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 115, has drawn attention to the author’s synergistic portrayal of the heavenly Christ. With Christ the enthroned savior, the emphasis rests on the “finished nature of Christ’s atoning work” (10:11–14) and its beneficial effects, while the ongoing work of Christ the intercessor reveals “Christ’s willingness and ability to go on applying those benefits” which issue from the “once for all” atonement. 141 Timothy W. Seid, “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and Strategy,” The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (JSNTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 327–8.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

77

The novum of the Christ event precipitated the hitherto unimaginable removal of an entire religious system, whose laws were thought to be eternal (4 Ezra 9:36; 2 Bar. 77:15; Philo, Moses 2:14–15), and the “bringing in” of a new heavenly cult whose grace-filled efficacy was equally inconceivable. From this profound matrix of apocalyptic meta,qesij and hope-infused evpeisagwgh, a new symbolic universe is birthed, one purged of ineffectual religious practice and suffused with confident and hope-filled divine possibility. In this regard it provides a foreboding presage of the author’s most stark comparison drawn between the two divine “dispensations”: the fearful manifestation at Sinai and the mystical entry into the heavenly Jerusalem (12:18–24).

6. An “obsolete” covenant, “close to destruction” (8:1–13) Comparisons continue in the following section, 8:1–13, and the covenant motif, which had been briefly introduced in 7:22, is resumed. Christ’s ministry is thus interpreted primarily in terms of his mediation of a “better covenant.”142 He is said to have “attained a better ministry” (diaforwte,raj te,tucen leitourgi,aj) than the Levitical priesthood, as he occupies the role of the “mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises” (krei,ttono,j evstin diaqh,khj mesi,thj( h[tij evpi. krei,ttosin evpaggeli,aij nenomoqe,thtai, 8:6).143 Though the first covenant has

142 The “new covenant” concept is represented via such terms as: kaino,j (8:8, 13; 9:15); krei,ttwn (7:22; 8:6); prw/toj (8:7, 13; 9:1, 15, 18; 10:9); deu,teroj (8:7; 10:9); ne,oj (12:24); evgkaini,zw (9:18). Susanne Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (JSNTSup 44. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 53, notes that “the adjectives kaino,j and ne,oj are reserved exclusively for diaqh,kh.” 143 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Jesus, the Mediator of a ‘Better Covenant’: Comparatives in the Book of the Hebrews,” Faith & Mission 21.2 (2004), 30, observes: “Hebrews uses comparatives (adjectives and adverbs) more frequently than any other writer in the New Testament.” The most popular comparative is krei,ttwn, which is used to express: (1) the superiority of Christ over the angels (1:4); (2) the “better things” that accompany salvation (6:9); (3) Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham (7:7); (4) the “better hope” that permits believers to “draw near to God” (7:19); (5) the “better covenant” (7:22; 8:6); (6) the “better promises” upon which the new covenant is based (8:6); (7) the “better sacrifice” which has purified the heavenly realm (9:23); (8) the “better and enduring possession” the recipients have based their lives on (10:34); (9) the “better country” (11:16); (10) the “better resurrection” awaiting the saints of old (11:35); (11) the “better thing” God held in abeyance until the time of Christ (11:40); (12) and Jesus’ sacrificial “blood of sprinkling that speaks a better word than that of Abel” (12:24). Cf. Seid, “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7,” 347, concerning this rhetoric of comparison (synkrisis):

78

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

obviously been displaced by this “better covenant,” this section appears to lack, and might even be in discord with, the note of apocalyptic finality that was struck in the previous section. 6.1. The first covenant: fading away or facing imminent destruction? (8:13) A surface reading of the key verse in this section, 8:13, seems to indicate that the author believed that the first covenant was in some manner still in force, though presently suffering a lingering death. The first covenant is “being made obsolete, growing old, and soon to disappear” (palaiou,menon kai. ghra,skon evggu.j avfanismou/, 8:13).144 Two apparently inconsistent tenses of the verb palaio,w, occurring side by side in 8:13, help to muddle the passage’s meaning. A perfect indicative, pepalai,wken, appears first, clearly indicating a past declaration of the first covenant’s obsolescence. This state of obsolescence is seemingly deduced by our author from the mere fact of the new covenant’s “newness” (evn tw/| le,gein Kainh.n pepalai,wken th.n prw,thn).145 Following close on the heels of this apparent fait accompli, palaio,w appears a second time, though this time as a present passive participle (palaiou,menon), thus implying the obsolescence is an ongoing operation. The present participle ghra,skon, “growing old,” also suggests a gradual process is afoot. The

Comparisons are to be made with items which are considered to be equal. Aphthonius remarks that it is ridiculous to compare an obviously inferior subject to one which is clearly superior. Comparisons are drawn between subjects concerning which there is difficulty assessing which is superior. 144 This sense of imminence is conveyed in most English translations: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (KJV). “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (NKJV). “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” (NIV). “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” (NAS). “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (RSV). “In speaking of ‘a new covenant,’ he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear” (NRSV). “When God speaks of a new covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and ready to be put aside” (NLT). 145 Attridge, Hebrews, 228.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

79

concluding phrase of the verse, evggu.j avfanismou/, “close to disappearing,” also points to a gradual demise.146 However, Randall Gleason has recently argued that in the LXX avfanismo,j “is never used to denote a gradual disappearance as suggested by most English renderings of Hebrews 8:13. To the contrary, it always denotes the demise of persons or things by violent means usually due to God’s judgement.”147 Given our author’s immersion in the LXX, an apocalyptic end to the first covenant, one involving decisive judgment and destruction, is probably what is envisioned.148 And as the “final word” on 146

Michel, Hebräer, 296, contends that the passage “neither threatens with an imminent removal of the sacrificial services, nor does it promote cataclysmic theology,” rather a historical progression towards judgment is forecasted. See also Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood, 356; Moffatt, Hebrews, 111; Käsemann, The Wandering People of God, 34; Buchanan, Hebrews, 139; Bruce, Hebrews, 195; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 211; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 419; Marie E. Isaacs, Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New Testament. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 109. Cf. Moffatt (Hebrews, 111) and Attridge (Hebrews, 228–9) for texts in which both verbal and substantival forms of avfanismou/ are used to denote a law’s obsolescence. Following Attridge’s lead, deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 287, suggests: “The old covenant is likened to a law that is outdated and practically out of use. All that remains is to erase it from the books.” Cf. Grässer, Hebräer, 2.104: “was alt und abständig wird, ist dem Verschwinden nahe. Es gehört zum Bereich des IrdischVergänglichen.” He interprets 8:13 against a cosmological dualistic background, one that juxtaposes the vanishing “earthly-transitory” with the abiding realm. Grässer deems evggu.j avfanismou/ “eine bemerkenswerte terminologische Variation der Zweiäonenlehre!” Cf. also Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 13, 135. 147 Gleason, “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” 108–9. Appearing almost sixty times in the LXX, avfanismo,j is used to translate forms of hM'v; (“desolation,” “devastation,” “destruction”) in all but four instances. Moffatt, Hebrews, 111, cites Jer 28:37 (MT 51:37), as providing an LXX precedent for the translation “disappearance.” However, the word occurs most frequently in Jeremiah (eighteen times), often in the formula eivj avfanismo,j, and always in the context of destructive judgment. Koester, Hebrews, 384, 388, stands alone among modern commentators in his translation of the phrase as “near obliteration.” 148 Gleason, “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” 109, attempts to extend the implications of this verse: “The author’s point is that the superiority of the New Covenant would soon be sealed by the complete destruction of the Old Covenant including its priests, sacrifices and Temple.” Gleason must surely be faulted for foisting upon our author a Johannine attitude towards the religious hierarchy of Jerusalem. Attempting to locate the recipients of Hebrews in pre–70 CE Jerusalem, Gleason pits the author against the religious leaders of Jerusalem. Thus “those believers seeking safety in Judaism are warned that the Jewish leaders had produced ‘thorns and thistles’ by their rejection and crucifixion of Christ and therefore their nation was doomed to be ‘burned’ (6:8)” (107). Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 209, believes this verse constitutes a “prophetic warning” of the Jerusalem Temple’s imminent destruction.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

80

the subject, avfanismo,j, so understood, imbues the whole verse with an overarching apocalyptic texture. Further support for an apocalyptic construal of the first covenant’s end might be sought in the suggestion that the two uses of palaio,w in 8:13 are perhaps intended by the author to recall the only other occurrence of the same verb, which appears within the first chapter’s grand ascription of absolute lordship to the Son (1:10–12). In the ultimate assertion of his lordship over creation, as both creator and destroyer, it is said that the heavens and earth “will perish, . . . they will all grow old like a garment” (auvtoi. avpolou/ntai, . . . kai. pa,ntej w`j i`ma,tion palaiwqh,sontai, 1:11). Finally, the author will resume the use of unequivocal language in 10:9, with his declaration of the “annulment” (avnaire,w) of the “first” in order to “establish” (i[sthmi) the “second,” further indicating that the ambiguity of 8:13 is exceptional. It should therefore be interpreted within the greater context of, and in reference to, the author’s overall presentation. 6.2. Possible explanations for the apparent endurance of the first covenant The author’s reluctance in 8:13 to explicitly draw his usual supersessionist conclusions might be attributable to his belief that covenant preeminently defines membership in the people of God. He may thus be enlisting covenant as a larger conceptual framework to signal his conviction that, although the whole tabernacle/Temple cult (and the law upon which its stands) has been fulfilled and replaced by the high priesthood of Christ, the people of Israel are still the people of God. A less conjectural answer has been offered by George B. Caird, who finds the author’s logic to be based on the “self-confessed inadequacy of the old order.”149 In contrast to Paul, who faults the law for its professed completeness (Gal 3–4), the author of Hebrews is convinced that “part of the validity of the old order is its constant disclaimer of finality.”150 At the risk of over-extending Caird’s 149

Caird, “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 47. Ibid., 46. The elegance of Caird’s assessment of the structure and argument of Hebrews is matched only by its deceptive simplicity. He states: It is not the purpose of the author to prove the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old, nor to establish the inadequacy of the old order. His interest is in the confessed inadequacy of the old order. His argument falls into four sections, each having as its core an Old Testament passage which declares the ineffectiveness and symbolic or provisional nature of the Old Testament religious institutions. All other scriptural references are ancillary to these four (Pss. 8, 95, 110, and Jer. 31), which control the drift of the argument (47). All four scriptural passages point to an unfulfilled promise, and the argument controlling the usage of the latter three passages finds ultimate expression in a repeated device: “if Joshua had given them rest . . .” (4:8; Ps 95); “if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood . . .” (7:11; Ps 110); “if that first covenant had been faultless . . .” 150

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

81

thesis, the first covenant might be envisioned as an “adversary” who admits defeat, and therefore does not need to be “exterminated.” 6.3. Two-age eschatology in 8:1–13 This passage’s one clear trace of two-age belief resides in the temporal orientation established in the recitation of the initial divine promise, made through Jeremiah.151 The promises of imminent fulfillment – “Behold, the days are surely coming” (8:8) and “after those days” (8:10) – at first glance appear to have found their telos in the time of the author, achieved through the appointment of Christ as mediator of the new covenant. Furthermore, the entire epistle’s hortatory strategy presumes the inauguration of the new covenant and the availability of its eschatological provisions.152 However, two important promises appearing within the lengthy quote of Jer 31 have not yet come to fruition: (1) the interior placement of the divine laws (8:10); (2) and the universal knowledge of the deity (8:11). This is evidenced by two bare facts: (1) the recipients’ imminent lapse; (2) and the

(8:7; Jer 31) (48–9). Perhaps we should add that the elegance and simplicity of Caird’s thesis is matched only by the inexplicable neglect it has suffered! Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” TynBul 50.1 (1999), 21, acknowledges this neglect, and calls Caird’s thesis the “most stimulating suggestion” yet offered for understanding the author’s use of the OT. Motyer expands on it, asserting that the author looks for tensions, even the contradictions, between texts, which allow him (a) to assert that Jesus is the fulfillment, the answer to the puzzle, and (b), paradoxically, to reinstate the OT as ‘word of God’ witnessing in its ‘partial and fragmentary’ way (1:1) to the Son who is the final Word. The remarks of Marie Isaacs (“Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” HeyJ 38 [1997], 56) are typical of those who have ignored Caird’s thesis: “Hebrews’ principal argument is not, therefore, with the sacrificial system as such, but with its failure to fulfill its intended purpose.” 151 Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History, 92, notes how the author consistently depicts OT quotations as “the literal words of God.” Though initially she claims God is presented as the speaker of 8:8–12 (92–3), she later asserts: “in Heb 8:8 it is Christ who utters the words from Jeremiah 31” (110–12). 152 Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 48, compares the New Covenant concept in Qumran with Hebrews and observes: “The New Covenant has clear eschatological dimensions in both instances (DSS and Hebrews). It is thought of as realized in the present and concretely actualized in the life of the sect and of the Christian community respectively.” Without any basis in the text of Hebrews is the opinion of Peter J. Tomson: “the new covenant, . . . is valid only in heaven, not yet upon earth” (‘If this be from Heaven . . .’: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism, trans. J. Dyk [The Biblical Seminar 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 362).

82

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

epistle’s inherent didacticism.153 Nevertheless, in the face of these present ambiguities, the author consistently betrays a clear conviction that the new covenant has been inaugurated.154 This becomes especially apparent when the promises of Jeremiah’s new covenant are recited again in 10:16–17, though this time in an abbreviated form. On the first occasion, the promise that God “will remember their sins no more” (8:12) receives no elaboration, while the later recitation concludes with the assurance that the promised forgiveness of sins (10:17) has been decisively achieved with the “once for all” sacrifice of Christ (10:18). 6.4. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 8:1–13 This section’s hortatory power emanates from its initial declaration of the high priest’s solidarity with his people (toiou/ton e;comen avrciere,a, 8:1). This line of hortatory logic then flows directly into the discussion of Christ’s mediatorial role in the inauguration of the new covenant, the particulars of which constitute the primary interest of this chapter. Thus this proof of the new covenant’s inauguration supplies a counterweight to balance the doubts caused by (1) the partial fulfillment of the promised benefits; (2) and the continuing existence of the Jerusalem cult. The eschatological ambivalence of the final verse (8:13) may then represent a nuanced attempt to comprehend and contain the counter-testimony created by these ambiguous facts.

153 Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 56, believes that chapter 8 reflects the realized eschatology of the recipients. Thus “Im 8. Kapitel stellt der Verfasser alles, was die Leser besonders hochhalten, zusammen, um es in den Kapiteln 9–10 kritisch durchzudenken und zu modifizieren.” The assumption that the recipients were possessed of a realized eschatology is both unnecessary and implausible. The earnest entreaties and fierce warnings against “drifting away” (2:1); having an “evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God” (3:12); being “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3:13); mimicking Israel’s wilderness disobedience (4:1–11); becoming “sluggish” (6:12) and “wavering” in faith (10:23); “abandoning” their confidence (10:35); and “shrinking back” into perdition (10:39), would all be unnecessary and inappropriate for a people who believe they are living in the eschaton. And where one would expect a corrective emphasis placed on future-oriented eschatology, our author instead forwards a balanced, “now, not yet” eschatology. 154 Though noting the presence of an “inaugurated eschatology” in Hebrews (as “heavenly realities . . . are already proleptically possessed and celebrated”), Lehne draws attention to the “problematic nature” of the new covenant promises that have not yet been realized in the new covenant community (The New Covenant in Hebrews, 34, 106).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

83

7. “The high priest of the good things that have come” (9:6–12) Chapter nine continues and develops the comparison between the two covenants, with the focus shifting to the locale, primary actors and manner in which the respective covenants are actuated and expressed. Situated near the center of the ninth chapter, in 9:9–11, three eschatological twoage phrases form a hinge that connects the discourse on the first covenant to that of the second. The three phrases are: (1) “the time having become present” (to.n kairo.n to.n evnesthko,ta, 9:9); (2) “a time of reformation” (kairou/ diorqw,sewj, 9:10); (3) “the good things that have come” (tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n, 9:11). Laden with more grammatical difficulties than possibly any other in the whole epistle, this passage centers on the frustration and subsequent allowance of access to the most holy place. This restriction of access is manifested in two ways: (1) in the hierarchical relationship between the two “tents,” with nearly all cultic activity restricted to a sphere outside God’s immediate presence (in the first tent – h` prw,th skhnh,, 9:2, 6, 8);155 and/or (2) in the tabernacle as a whole,156 typified in the Yom Kippur ceremony, with its tentative approach (once a year, 9:6) and inconclusive results (the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of the red heifer that can only sanctify the “flesh” of the “one serving,” 9:9, 13). Furthermore, this restriction of access into the presence of God (mh,pw pefanerw/sqai th.n tw/n a`gi,wn o`do.n) within the first “tent” is now revealed (dhlo,w) by the Spirit (9:8) as presenting a “parable,”157 or “illustration,” for “the time 155 Montefiore, Hebrews, 149; Attridge, Hebrews, 241; Hagner, Hebrews, 133; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 223–4. Steve Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6–10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle,” NovT 37.4 (1995), 398, finds that “in the parabolh,, those daily sacrifices, paling in significance before the Day of Atonement offerings, correspond to the entire levitical system, and the Day of Atonement sacrifices, which came but once a year, correspond to the sacrifice of Christ.” 156 Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960), 147–8; Bruce, Hebrews, 208–9; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 439. Norman H. Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” NTS 27 (1981), 201–2, states: “the ‘first tent,’ symbolically, designates the place of cultic performances which are not only insufficient for salvation, but also conceal the true way into the inner sanctuary.” Furthermore, “it is the outer tent that is the parabolh,; but in thus using this spatial description the author pronounces the whole order of the old ritual ‘impotent and useless’ (7:19 NEB) as regards the expiation of sin and the gaining of access to God.” Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6– 10,” 399, notes that “it is the divisions in the functions of the levitical priests within the tabernacle on which our author depends, divisions related to the architecture of the tabernacle, and divisions related to the nature of the sacrifices.” 157 Parabolh, occurs also in 11:19, in the discussion of Abraham’s offering of Isaac and his faith in God’s ability to effect a resurrection.

84

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

having become present” (h[tij parabolh. eivj to.n kairo.n to.n evnesthko,ta, 9:9). 7.1.“The present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are being offered” The question of whether the Temple cultus was actually in operation at the time Hebrews was written is the subject of much debate, though typically in relation to the issue of the epistle’s dating. The matter is complicated by the fact that the author’s portrayal of the Jewish cultus is based almost entirely on the scriptural accounts of the wilderness “tent,” primarily Exodus and Leviticus (cf. Philo, Moses 2.71–179). Hebrews demonstrates no personal knowledge of the Herodian Temple cultus.158 Moreover, the author carefully casts the entire mechanism in the present tense: eivj me.n th.n prw,thn skhnh.n dia. panto.j eivsi,asin oi` i`erei/j ta.j latrei,aj evpitelou/ntej (9:6); o` avrciereu,j . . . prosfe,rei (9:7); dw/ra, te kai. qusi,ai prosfe,rontai (9:9).159 The value of this particular piece of evidence, however, is diminished with the recognition that Josephus is also capable of a similar presentation, post–70 CE (Ag. Ap. 2:193–198). A number of plausible explanations for the author’s “scripturalized” portrayal of the Jewish cultus have been offered. Both Aelred Cody and John Dunnill believe the “tent” cultus functions as an integral component within a framework of larger conceptualities in the author’s thought-world, namely covenant and priesthood. Cody, appealing to the primacy of covenant, argues: “It is only natural that the tent be used rather than the temple because of the association of the tent with the origin of the Old Covenant in the desert at Sinai.”160 Dunnill attributes the choice to the author’s overarching effort to relocate the priesthood in the “individual and informal priestly mediation witnessed to in the early parts of the OT (for example, Eli in 1 Sam. 1:6–18).” The fountainhead of this more primitive priesthood is of course “Melchizedek (who) represents a time when the priest-king rules a nation of secular priests.”161 Perhaps the most satisfactory explanation has been offered by Peter Walker, who believes 158 The sole exception may be the red heifer purification ritual, which originally appears to have been independent of the Day of Atonement. See Num 19. Bruce, Hebrews, 215–6, appeals to Maimonides (Yad ha-Hazaqah 1, halakah 4) and claims: “In the course of time a closer connection seems to have developed between the red heifer ceremony and the Day of Atonement than the written law prescribed.” The author’s conflation of the red heifer ritual and the Day of the Atonement in 9:12–13 may then reflect Second Temple practice. 159 Cf. also r`anti,zousa tou.j kekoinwme,nouj a`gia,zei (9:13); kaqari,zetai . . . gi,netai (9:22); w[sper o` avrciereu.j eivse,rcetai eivj ta. a[gia (9:25). 160 Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 146. 161 Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 38.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

85

the author’s choice of the tabernacle, rather than the Temple, allowed him to “develop his argument at a strictly theological level.” The author was not wanting to cast any aspersions on the contemporary Temple in practice, but rather making a far more fundamental point concerning the very essence of the Temple. By concentrating his attention on the ‘tabernacle’ in the wilderness, he could argue that the Tabernacle system of worship, even when considered in its most pristine and pure form under Moses . . . had been declared redundant by God through Jesus.162

Thus “Hebrews’ analysis goes right to the root, . . . It is a bombshell – but one dropped with exceeding caution.”163 Walker’s argument therefore provides both an irenic motive for the choice and also a reasonable rhetorical scenario for the author’s apparent neglect of the still-extant Herodian Temple. And though absolute certainty concerning the latter issue is impossible, as we will see in the following sections, the force of the author’s argument in 9:6–12 is somewhat dependent on the assumption that the Temple cult is still being performed. The self-offering of Jesus the great high priest is conceptualized entirely within the framework of the Jewish cultus, and as such is presented as the soteriological and eschatological fulfillment of that whole mechanism. Finally, if the Jerusalem cultus was a “thing of the past,” the potency of the author’s argument would be defused, and it would render his choice of the wilderness cultus even more inexplicable and idiosyncratic.164 7.2. The “parable” of the “first” & “second,” “inner” & “outer” In this “time having become present,” Norman H. Young argues that the “first” and “second” tent terminology (th.n deute,ran, 9:7) is intended to recall the two covenants. And although the parabolh, should properly be confined to providing illumination concerning the cultic limitations of the first, outer tent – this “outer tent” is itself symbolic of “the present age . . . the time when h` prw,th diaqh,kh is operative.”165 Extending the 162

Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 207–8. Walker, “A Place for Hebrews?” 240. Cf. also Steve Motyer, “The Temple in Hebrews: Is It There?” in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 189, who asserts that “the Temple does not appear in Hebrews precisely so that the profound message of the letter about the Temple may actually be heard in its scriptural depths, and not rejected out of hand.” So also Barnabas Lindars, “Hebrews and the Second Temple,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury (JSNTSup 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 425. 164 Cf. Ellingworth’s comment, offered in the course of his discussion of 13:10: “The author shows little interest in the contemporary Jerusalem cultus” (Hebrews, 710). 165 “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” 201. Determination of the antecedents of the pronoun h[tij and the prepositional phrase kaqV h]n has also been vigorously debated. Though the entire arrangement, as detailed in 9:6–8, provides a logical answer, Young 163

86

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

parabolh, even further, though following a Jewish apologetic tradition evident in both Philo and Josephus,166 deSilva ascribes cosmological and eschatological significance to the two-tent dichotomy, asserting that “the outer tent is a symbol of the present age when the visible creation itself still hides entry into the heavenly, permanent, unseen realm.”167 The symbolic riches of the skhnh, dichotomy are still not exhausted in these comparisons of the two covenants, the two ages, and the visible/earthly and invisible/heavenly realms; it can also symbolize the difference between the external fleshly cleansing provided under the first economy and the decisive inner purgation of the conscience achieved through the second “dispensation.”168 For within “this present time” the true need of those participating in the cult – open access to God – requires a cleansed conscience (9:9, 14). This cleansed conscience, and the open access it affords, are both provided through the “once for all,” abiding, and entirely effectual priestly achievement of Christ (as presented in the following section, 9:11–15, 23–28). It is his self-offering that offers the complete inner sanctification necessary for bold interaction with God in the most holy place. 7.3. “The time of reformation” The second temporal phrase in our passage refers to a coming “time of reformation” (9:10). This phrase clearly reflects the author’s conviction that the frustration of divine access and the first tabernacle’s cultic arrangements (and by extension the Temple) are both temporary. These

argues forcefully for limiting the antecedent of both to prw,th skhnh, (9:8), as it is the only possible antecedent whose gender and number match h[tij and kaqV h]n. Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6–10,” 393, 397, agrees that h[tij in 9:9 designates the prw,th skhnh, of 9:8, but contends that the antecedent of kaqV h]n is the parabolh, itself. 166 A number of lengthy expositions on the cosmological significance of the Temple can be found in Philo, the best examples being QE 2:51–106; Moses 2:71–108; Heir 221– 229. Josephus also discusses the subject in Ant. 3:123, 181–183. For a discussion of the “Temple as cosmos” motif in these two authors, see Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989), 59–63. 167 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 302. So also Darrell J. Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993), 57. In what is perhaps the best recent comparative analysis of Philo and Hebrews, Schenck (“Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 125), argues that this passage is “straightforwardly allegorical.” Thus, “the outer room of the tabernacle becomes an allegory for the current age and perhaps also the earthly realm, while the inner chamber comes to symbolize the age to come and perhaps the highest heaven.” 168 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 108.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

87

conditions were intended to persist only until “the imposition of a time of reformation” (me,cri kairou/ diorqw,sewj evpikei,mena, 9:10). With the author’s first full account of Christ’s high priestly accomplishment following right on the heels of this statement, we need not expend much energy wondering whether he thought this “time of a new order” had already arrived.169 All the details of the earthly cult meet their match and are bested in the author’s vivid evocation of the heavenly cultic drama. These two temporal phrases, “the time having become present,” and “the time of reformation” (9:9–10), are then somewhat synonymous.170 And in contrast to the veiling mentioned in 9:8 (mh,pw pefanerw/sqai th.n tw/n a`gi,wn o`do.n), it is implied in 9:9–10 that the way into the holy place has been “unveiled” for those whose consciences have been cleansed by the sacrificial work of Christ (9:11–15, 23–28). 7.4. The Spirit’s eschatological revelation While the first temporal phrase, eivj to.n kairo.n to.n evnesthko,ta, undoubtedly refers to the “present time” in which the epistle was written, the unexpected replacement of the Jewish cult that has allegedly occurred in this “time” should caution against limiting its meaning to a mundane, “technical” sense.171 For although the author’s claims concerning the 169

Cf. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 236: The installation of Christ as high priest indicates that ‘the time of correction’ has begun. This understanding of v 11a is confirmed by the parallel statement in v 26 that Christ ‘appeared at the climax of the ages,’ where the reference is clearly eschatological in character and corresponds to ‘the time of correction’ in v 10. 170 Attridge, Hebrews, 241; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 441; Stanley, “Hebrews 9:6–10,” 393–4; and Martin Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews: Prophet and Interpreter,” WTJ 64 (2002), 64, all believe the two temporal phrases are identical. Those who make a distinction between the terms include: Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 224; and Michel, Hebräer, 307, who directly equates the two phrases with the two ages. Thus “Der alte Äon (hZ,h; ~l'A[) heißt in Hebr o` kairo,j o` evnesthkw,j; der neue Äon (aB'h; ~l'A[) ist der kairo.j diorqw,sewj.” Cf. also Buchanan, Hebrews, 146, who interprets the phrase me,cri kairou/ diorqw,sewj without any regard for context, equating it with the “jubilee,” when “the ‘captives’ were set free and the land was restored to its ‘original’ owners.” Koester, Hebrews, 398, considers it “preferable to take them as overlapping rather than identical. Listeners had already experienced ‘the powers of the age to come’ (6:5), but had not yet received their inheritance in the world to come (1:14; 2:5).” Grässer, Hebräer, 2.135, also recognizes the “now, not yet” tension inherent in this passage. BDAG, 251, in defining dio,rqwsij as “a process leading to a new order viewed as something yet to be realized,” applies a strictly future sense to the phrase. 171 Westcott, Hebrews, 252, confidently states that the meaning “the season now present,” (or “the present age,”) “is established beyond all doubt. In technical language all time was divided into ‘the past, the present (evnestw,j), and the future.’” See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 440–1, for a detailed discussion of this phrase.

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

88

limited ritual purity provided by the sacrificial cultus represent no new revelatory advancement (9:9–10, 12–14) – similar assessments predate him by at least four centuries (cf. Ps 51; Isa 1:10–17; Amos 5:21–27; Mic 6:6– 8) – his Spirit-given insight concerning the frustration of access inherent in the cultic arrangements is entirely novel. As Martin Emmrich has recently observed: The conclusion that the architecture and the temporary cultic validity of the portable sanctuary somehow entailed a ‘not yet’ (mh,pw, 9:8) in regard to the disclosure of the ‘way into the holy place’ is not obvious and can only be drawn via this pneumatic rendering of Scripture.172

We might reasonably infer that the profound nature of this “pneumatic rendering” reflects a change in eschatological orientation.173 Nothing short of an eschatological revelation granted by the divine Pneu/ma can account for or authorize such an adventurous, even hubristic conceit.174 The change in location of the cult, from the earthly to the heavenly, further testifies to the reality of the aforementioned “change in eschatological orientation.” 172

Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 64. He adds: “At the very least we can say that the author attributes a typological approach to the Spirit” (66). 173 Contra Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 65, who believes this passage is devoid of any trace of the two-ages doctrine, as it lacks the word aivw,n, characteristically “used elsewhere to express this notion (cf. 6:5; 9:26).” 174 The out-pouring and activity of the Spirit in the eschaton held a prominent place in Jewish belief, extending from Joel (2:28–32) and Ezek (36:26–28; 37:6) into the Qumran community, who “saw themselves as the eschatological heirs of Ezekiel’s promise of the Spirit” (Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran [SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989], 88.) Cf. 1QH 12:11–13: “And I, the Instructor, have known you my God, through the Spirit which you gave to me, and I have listened loyally to your wonderful secret through your holy spirit. You have [op]ened within me knowledge of the mystery of your wisdom” (Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed. and trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 Vols. [Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998], 1.193). Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran, 85, notes that in the preceding passage, the clause containing xwrb is poetically parallel to the following clause containing hkvdwq xwrb. In both clauses the psalmist claims spiritual knowledge, and in both the b preceding their respective expressions of ruah can have an instrumental sense indicating the means by which the psalmist has this knowledge. Particularly relevant to our present context, with its hidden/revealed polarity, is 1QS 8:11, 15–16: And every matter hidden from Israel but which has been found out by the Interpreter, he shall not keep hidden from them for fear of a spirit of desertion, . . . This is the study of the Law which he commanded through the hand of Moses, . . . and according to what the prophets have revealed through his holy spirit (trans. García Martínez, 1.89–91). See also: 1QH 14:12–13; 16:7; 4Q504 (Words of the Luminaries); 1 En. 61:11; 4 Ezra 6:26; T. Levi 18:11; T. Jud. 24:3; and Jub. 1:23.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

89

Our case is further strengthened when the full import of the revelatory verb dhlo,w (9:8) is recognized. The term can denote the purely mundane act of providing clarification, “making something clear for the understanding,”175 as is the case in 12:27, where a midrashic “insight” (dhlo,w) is provided by the short phrase e;ti a[pax in Hag 2:6. Its appearance in 9:8, however, is not descriptive of an interpretive technique. Neither should it be considered an instance of pneumatically aided extrapolation from the testimony of scripture; i.e., the author highlighting, as he does in 3:7, what Caird refers to as the “self-confessed inadequacy of the old order.”176 Rather, we have in 9:8 an anomalous example of pneumatological revelation, where the Holy Spirit has made an eschatological pronouncement on the sacral center of the author’s scriptural world.177 Dhlo,w here follows the predominant pattern established in the LXX, Philo, and the NT. In the LXX dhlo,w is almost exclusively employed to designate divine revelation (Exod 6:3; 33:12; 1 Sam 3:21 [LXX 1 Kgs]; 1 Kgs 8:36 [LXX 3 Kgs]; 2 Chr 6:27; Pss 25:14 [LXX 24]; 51:6 [LXX 50]; 147:20; Isa 42:9; Jer 16:21; Dan 2 [passim]; 7:16; 2 Macc 2:8; 1 Esd 3:16;).178 For Philo, true prophecy has its origins in divine dh,lwsij; in contrast, counterfeit forms of prophecy, such as divination, are of human manufacture (Spec. Laws 4:49). In the NT, more than half of the occurrences of dhlo,w denote some form of supernatural or divine revelation (1 Cor 3:13; 2 Pet 1:14), with 1 Pet 1:11 bearing the closest resemblance to Heb 9:8. Finally, in the LXX of Exod 28:30 and Lev 8:8, a nominative form of the word, dh,lwsij, is substituted for the preeminent 175

BDAG, 222. Caird, “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 47. 177 Buchanan, Hebrews, 144, recognizes the unique nature of this passage. He remarks: “When ‘the Holy Spirit’ communicates, according to the author, it usually means that the scripture says (3:7; 10:15), but here there is no scriptural proof text, so it is not certain on what basis ‘the Holy Spirit makes it clear.’” So also Grässer, Hebräer, 2.133. Westcott, Hebrews, 251, makes a suggestive distinction here, between the “words of scripture and the ordinances of worship,” as well as the ability of the “Spirit which fixed the ritual” to disclose its meaning. Most scholars, however, make little distinction between this revelatory incident and the pneumatological pronouncement in 3:7. See for example: Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Vols. trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868–1870), 2.66; Moffatt, Hebrews, 117–18; Michel, Hebräer, 306; Hagner, Hebrews, 130; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 223; Weiss, Hebräer, 456–7; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 437; Koester, Hebrews, 397. On 10:15, which may represent a pneumatologically-aided, experiential confirmation of the author’s cultic soteriology, see below, pages 200–1, chapter seven: “An appeal to experience.” 178 Mundane uses of dhlo,w occur in Deut 33:10 (though cf. the use of the substantive form in 33:8); Josh 4:7; Tob 10:9; Esth 2:22; 2 Macc 2:23; 4:17; 7:43; 10:10; 4 Macc 7:16. 176

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

90

revelatory cultic object, the Thummim; while in Num 27:21, dh/loj translates its companion, the Urim – perhaps representing the earliest recorded attempts to interpret these enigmatic cultic devices.179 7.5. The nature of the Spirit’s eschatological “insight” Given the term’s history of usage and its key locale in the argument of this chapter, we are all the more justified in our speculations concerning the extent of the “insight” provided by the Holy Spirit. In addition to establishing a template upon which to dualistically evaluate the two religious economies, this pneumatological revelation may have helped generate the historical and spatial dualisms that surface throughout the epistle. With the coming of the end of the ages, a breach in the fabric of time has occurred which corresponds to the unveiling of the way into the most holy place. The future has invaded the present, and the “powers of the coming age” have been manifest among the recipients (6:5). Additionally, the sacred space of heaven has been opened by Jesus the avrchgo,j (2:10) and pro,dromoj (6:20), and his earthly followers are able to enter the heavenly holy of holies (4:16; 7:19, 25; 10:22; 11:6). They are even numbered among the residents of the “city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22–24). If these somewhat adventurous assertions are correct, then the possibility should also be entertained that the revelatory verb dhlo,w, appearing here in this decisive point in the presentation, may signal the presence of a recollection, subtly and somewhat obscurely, of the author’s “Damascus” moment, from whence issued his unique theology of Heavenly Sanctuary and its concomitant high priest Christology. 7.6. “The good things that have come” With the last of the three “two-age” phrases the discussion advances into the particulars of the “reformation,” as the Great Reformer’s high priestly accomplishments are amassed under the sunny rubric “the good things that have come” (Cristo.j de. parageno,menoj avrciereu.j tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n, 9:11). Ellingworth appeals to the LXX background of avgaqa,, 179

Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 83. The pair are most commonly translated th.n dh,lwsin kai. th.n avlh,qeian. See also Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 28:6; 1 Esd 5:40; Sir 33:3; 45:10. Philo frequently employs dh/loj to represent the Urim, and occasionally uses the phrase th.n dh,lwsin kai. th.n avlh,qeian (Moses 2:113; Spec. Laws 1:88; 4:69). More often than not, however, Philo allegorizes the Urim and Thummim, relating them in various ways to human reason (Moses 2:128–130; Spec. Laws 1:89; 3:132; 4:69).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

91

where it is a frequent descriptive of the promised land (Exod 3:8; 10:12; Num 14:7; Deut 1:25; 8:1), and invests this phrase, tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n, with eschatological meaning. Therefore, “in his self-offering Christ acts to place at the disposal of true worshippers possessions of greater value than the promised land.”180 Tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n reappears in 10:1, and though slightly altered to tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n,181 both phrases should be seen as referring to the benefits issuing from Jesus’ high priestly achievement. Thus in the critique of the law offered in 10:1, the law does not possess the “image” (eivkw,n) of the “good things to come,” rather it is only a “shadowy representation” (skia,) of the “very things” (pragma,twn); i.e., the benefits of Christ’s high priestly ministry. 7.7. Christ’s appearance in the Heavenly Sanctuary Emphasizing the distance that separates the two cultic systems, the adversative de, in 9:11 signals a decisive progression into what might be deemed eschatological time and space.182 Forming one long periodic sentence, 9:11–12 announces the “appearance” of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary and his “once for all entry” into the holy of holies. The aorist participle parageno,menoj, in conjunction with de,, “indicates the arrival at a destination”183 – in this case the Heavenly Sanctuary. The aorist eivsh/lqen (9:12) denotes a further progression of action, reporting the dramatic entry of the high priest184 into the heavenly holy of holies.185

180

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 450. Though the variant reading, which substitutes mello,ntwn for genome,nwn, is more widely attested (a, A, D2, Ivid, K, L, P, 0142), Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 598, believes “the presence of the expression tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n in 10:1, . . . seems to have influenced copyists here (in 9:11).” Additionally, “genome,nwn appears to have superior attestation on the score of age and diversity of text type (P46, B, D*, 1739)” (ibid.). Moffatt, Hebrews, 120, believes a copyist may have been motivated by “a pious feeling that mello,ntwn was too eschatological.” Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” 202, argues that even “if mello,ntwn is accepted, the reference is descriptive not temporal, i.e., the future good things (now present).” 182 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 236, observes that with this transition “the writer draws a temporal contrast between two successive periods of redemptive history and their respective provisions for salvation.” 183 Koester, Hebrews, 407. Moffatt, Hebrews, 120, claims that “parageno,menoj (as Lk 12:51, Mt 3:1 suggest) is more active than pefane,rwtai of v. 26.” 184 This is the last time the title avrciereu,j is ascribed to Christ in Hebrews. 185 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 236, reduces the sentence to its main components: Cristo.j de. parageno,menoj avrciereu.j . . . eivsh/lqen . . . eivj ta. a[gia. 181

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

92

7.8. The three dia, phrases: the place or means of Jesus’ accomplishment? In keeping with previous appearances of skhnh, (8:2, 5; 9:2, 3, 6, 8), a local meaning has commonly been applied to the first of the three dia, phrases in 9:11–12, dia. th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j. Thus th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j stands in opposition to the a[gion kosmiko,n, and at least in this context, the “superiority of Christ’s cultic action derives from the uniqueness of the sanctuary he entered and from the uniqueness of the sacrifice he offered.”186 Furthermore, the skhnh, “through which Christ passed is mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj because it more perfectly fulfilled its function: it actually led Christ, and ultimately his people into the presence of God.”187 Deeming it “tautological to say that (Christ) entered the heavenly a[gia by means of the heavenly skhnh,,”188 Young connects all three dia, phrases (dia. th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j, 9:11; ouvde. diV ai[matoj tra,gwn kai. mo,scwn dia. de. tou/ ivdi,ou ai[matoj eivsh/lqen, 9:12) to the final verb, eivsh/lqen, and ascribes to each an instrumental sense. He sees the phrase dia. th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j as symbolizing “the eschatologically new cultic means of access.”189 It depicts “the new eschatological order’s ability to cleanse the very conscience from sin and to open the portals of heaven itself.”190 However, the centrality of Christ in this whole matter should not be forgotten, as James Moffatt long ago suggested: “The bliss and benefit are mediated not through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal skhnh,.”191 And with 186

Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 237. He adds: “Christ passed through the skhnh, ‘compartment,’ in order to enter ‘once for all into the [real] sanctuary.’” 187 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 238. Teleiote,raj, a hapax legomenon, is somewhat illogical conceptually. For how can something be “more perfect” than something else? Klassen, “To the Hebrews or Against the Hebrews?” 2.7, points out that “perfect” “cannot be a comparative” in English. One might even wonder if this word unintentionally subverts the author’s argument, back-handedly complimenting the earthly tabernacle. Thus by inference, the earthly tabernacle was “perfect,” while its heavenly counterpart is deemed “more perfect.” 188 Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” 203. 189 Ibid., 204–5. 190 Ibid., 210. Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 160, asserts that if the author intended to represent a purely local meaning he could have easily written evn th|/ skhnh||/ instead of dia. th/j . . . skhnh/j. Cody attempts to ascribe both instrumental and local meanings to the dia, phrase. Thus the skhnh, of Heb. 9.11 is not exactly to be equated with the body of Christ or the humanity of Christ, but it is a figure primarily of the humanity of Christ as an instrument in the work of salvation (dia, instrumental) and secondarily of the entire span of Christ’s saving passage through the earthly plane (dia, local) and on into heaven (164–5). 191 Moffatt, Hebrews, 120.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

93

the strong note of fulfillment struck in the declaration that “Now when Christ appeared as high priest of the good things that have come,” there can be no doubt on the part of the recipients that the benefits of Christ’s high priestly accomplishment are presently available with the arrival of the eschaton. 7.9. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 9:6–12 From the beginning of chapter nine until the mention of the approaching “Day” in 10:25, the author’s primary frame of reference is the cultic drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary. For this reason we will restrict our analysis of the author’s hortatory effort until we treat the Heavenly Sanctuary as a whole. The hortatory materials following 9:6–12, being largely cultic in nature (kaqari,zw, latreu,w, 9:14), pertain more closely to the heavenly cultic setting constructed in 9:1 – 10:25, and their explication will be on surer footing when considered in that milieu. The sole possible exception to this pervasive cultic orientation occurs in 9:12 with the mention of the “eternal redemption” (aivwni,an lu,trwsin)192 that Christ is said to have “secured” (eu`ra,menoj) through his self-offering. A complete dislocation from the sacral milieu is possible if the phrase is taken as a reference to Christ’s heroic deliverance from enslavement to the fear of death (avpalla,ssw, 2:14–15). However, cultic connotations are clearly present in the phrase.193 The presence of eu`ra,menoj suggests possible synonymity with “forgiveness of sins.”194 The deliverance Christ has wrought in freeing his worshippers from a futile cultus may also be intended.195 Absolute certainty in either direction is not presently possible, for as Ellingworth has noted, “the language of redemption is not prominent

192

Cf. 5:9: evge,neto pa/sin toi/j u`pakou,ousin auvtw/| ai;tioj swthri,aj aivwni,ou. Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements,” BBR 11.2 (2001), 189, connects the three successive occurrences of aivw,nioj in 9:12–15: “The sacrifice that provided ‘eternal redemption’ (aivwni,an lu,trwsin, v.12) because it was offered ‘through the eternal Spirit’ (dia. pneu,matoj aivwni,ou, v.14) enables God’s people to receive the promised ‘eternal inheritance’ (th/j aivwni,ou klhronomi,aj, v.15).” 193 Cf. Weiss, Hebräer, 468. 194 Eu`ri,skw occasionally appears in sacrificial contexts within the LXX, denoting the ability of an offerer to “provide,” “secure,” or “find” a suitable offering (Lev 5:11; 12:8; 14:21, 22, 30, 32). 195 The sheer volume of details regulating worship in the “earthly sanctuary” (9:1–7), which fail to issue in a cleansing of conscience (9:9), as well as the frustration of access inherent in the symbolic skhnh, dichotomy (9:8–11), both represent situations in want of redemption.

94

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

in Hebrews”;196 for this reason Hebrews has yet to receive a dedicated treatment of the concept.197

8. “Now at the end of the ages he has appeared” (9:23–28) What is undoubtedly the epistle’s most significant articulation of two-age eschatology appears near the middle of the cultic drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary (9:11 – 10:25). With bold flourish the author announces that the “manifestation” of Christ has decisively signaled the “end of the ages” (nuni. de. a[pax evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn . . . pefane,rwtai, 9:26). This manifestation is closely coupled with his “once for all” sacrificial act, which has effected the “removal of sins” (eivj avqe,thsin Îth/jÐ a`marti,aj). 8.1. “But now . . . at the end of the ages” The remarkable two-age phrase of 9:26, evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, closely parallels the exordium’s declaration of eschatological imminence: “in these last days” (evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn, 1:2). The same phrase appears in identical form, evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, in T. Levi 10:2,198 and in essentially the same form five times in the Gospel of Matthew.199 Though belief that the Christ event has inaugurated the eschaton is implied in much of the NT, explicit expressions are found only in Hebrews, Paul (1 Cor 10:11; Gal 1:4; 4:4), and in a near parallel to Heb 9:26, 1 Pet 1:20: proegnwsme,nou me.n pro. katabolh/j ko,smou fanerwqe,ntoj de. evpV evsca,tou tw/n cro,nwn diV u`ma/j.200 This core belief, that the “end of 196 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 453. The related word avpolu,trwsij is used in 9:15 and 11:35, and the verb avpolu,w is used in the report of Timothy’s release from prison in 13:23. 197 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33. New York/London: Doubleday, 1993), 122– 3, provides a concise background for this term, tracing its usage in both the GrecoRoman world, where it denoted both the emancipation of war prisoners and the sacral manumission of slaves, and the LXX, the core image projected being the deliverance from Egypt by Yahweh, the “redeemer” of Israel. 198 Grässer, Hebräer, 2.196, points out that suntelei,a, translating #qe, is an apocalyptic technical term, and as such can be found in the LXX of Dan 8:19; 11:27, 35; 12:4. Suntelei,a also appears in T. Zeb. 9:9 and in the nearly identical phrase e[wj suntelei,aj tw/n aivw,nwn in T. Benj. 11:3. Grässer also notes that the singular form, suntelei,a tou/ aivw,noj, can be found in T. Mos. 12:4 as well as in a variant reading of Sir 43:7. 199 Matthew’s Jesus uses variations of the same phrase, suntelei,aj tou/ aivw/noj, four times (13:39, 40, 49; 28:20). It appears once on the lips of oi` maqhtai., in 24:3. 200 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 30–1, for a comparison of 1 Peter and Hebrews.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

95

the ages” has already arrived, is without parallel in Second Temple literature. Dale C. Allison emphasizes this distinctive feature: In teaching that the Messiah has come, that resurrections have taken place (Matt. 27:51b– 53), . . . and that the judgment has been accomplished (John 3:15; 5:24; 12:31), the New Testament does set itself apart. There is really no adequate parallel to the claim that the decisive turning point lies in the past. At Qumran, the advent of the messianic figures and of the judgment remains outstanding. Therefore, the marshaling of Jewish parallels, although highly instructive, will not of itself fully illuminate the rise of ‘realized eschatology.’201

8.2. The “manifestation” – on earth and/or in the Heavenly Sanctuary? The close coupling of Christ’s “manifestation” (fanero,w) and his selfoffering clearly indicates that the purpose and culmination of his manifestation is a “sin-abolishing” sacrifice (eivj avqe,thsin Îth/jÐ a`marti,aj dia. th/j qusi,aj auvtou/). However, we should not assume an exclusively earthly locus for that sacrifice. Although the author depicts the sacrificial act as beginning on earth – locating the suffering of Jesus and his vicarious bloodshed specifically “outside the gate” (of Jerusalem) in 13:12 – he carries the sacrificial event forward, extending its reach to the Heavenly Sanctuary. It is here, within the most holy place, that Christ’s priestly presentation of “his own blood” effectuates his sacrifice and secures “eternal redemption” (9:11–14). This serial conception of the “once for all”202 sacrificial act of Christ follows the same course of events as the Yom Kippur ritual (Leviticus 16:11–19). (1) The death of the victim is followed by (2) the entry of the priest into the most holy place, (3) where the victim’s blood is presented and manipulated.203 This basic pattern is adhered to throughout the epistle, 201

Dale C. Allison, Jr. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion & Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 91. The one possible exception in the Qumran corpus is 4QMMT (col. 13–15). So Collins, “The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 80. Though see the text provided by García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2.802–3, where a future emphasis is maintained. They specify the text in question as 4Q398, fragments 11–13. The text reads: ~ymyh tyrxa awh hzw. 202 The “once for all” nature of Christ’s sacrifice is represented specifically through the two related terms evfa,pax (7:27; 9:12; 10:10) and a[pax (9:26, 28). Cf. also the phrases eivj to. dihneke.j (10:12, 14); eivj to. pantele.j (7:27). 203 Richard D. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” Int 73.3 (July 2003), 252, draws attention to the “complex ritual events” that constitute animal sacrifice in the OT. These include: the presentation of the animal by the donor, its slaughter by the donor or a priest, the capture of the blood, the conveyance of all or a part of the animal by the priest to the altar in order to effect its transfer to God, a shared meal, and the manipulation of the victim’s blood as a ritual agent.

96

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

as the author almost always mentions Christ’s suffering/death and exaltation in the same breath, conjuring heaven and earth in one sweep (1:1–3; 2:9; 5:8–9; 7:27–28; 10:12–14, 20–21; 12:2, 24). The sole exceptions are the aforementioned passages, 9:11–14 and 13:12, which limit their report of the sacrificial act to their respective spheres – heaven and earth.204 Further proof that the sin-abolishing manifestation of Christ described in 9:26 is not limited to the incarnation and cross emerges with the joint consideration of two facts: (1) Jesus’ self-offering is cast in decidedly sacral terms (5:1–10; 7:26–27; 9:11–14; 10:10–14, 19–21);205 (2) and his priesthood is portrayed as non-earthly and everlasting (7:15–17, 23–24;

He notes, however, “the real center of gravity in sacrifice was the priestly act of bringing the victim and its blood before God at the altar” (253). Similarly, for the author of Hebrews the cross was neither the totality of Jesus’ sacrificial work nor even its central focus. Rather, the cross was the first component in a larger sacrificial script (254). Hebrews thus binds Christ’s cross and exaltation as elements of a single sacrificial script and as successive stages in a ‘single sacrifice’ (10:12) and a ‘single offering’ (v.14) made ‘once for all.’ His willing death was the first phase of a complex priestly action that continued in his ascension through the heavenly realms and entrance with blood into the heavenly sanctuary. It concluded with a decisive act of purification and being seated beside God’s throne, where Christ can continually intercede for his followers (255). So also A. N. Chester, “Hebrews: The Final Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology, ed. S. W. Sykes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 61; Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 14–15; and Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 231–2, who succinctly observes that “death without offering is guilty death (Lev. 17:3ff); offering without blood is not atoning (Lev. 17:11). This is the logic of Hebrews’ ‘double soteriology.’” Among those contending the author limits Christ’s sacrificial work to the cross: Franz Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung: Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen 15. Regensburg: Pustet, 1980), 205; Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” 209–10; Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 181. 204 In addition to the aforementioned passages that plainly demonstrate the inseparability of Jesus’ suffering/death and exaltation, see also 4:14–16 (which portrays Christ as sympathetic by means of his earthly trials, and occupying the heavenly “throne of grace”) and 9:28 (where the sacrificed sin-bearer is said to be coming a second time, bringing salvation – thus implying a return from a position of supremacy over the limitations of earthly life). 205 In only two instances is Christ’s death not interpreted as a priestly self-offering: in the “Adam Christology” of 2:6–18, and the “hero Christology” of 2:14–15. Following close on the heels of the Christus Victor passage, however, Christ is called a “high priest” for the first time (2:17) and mention is made of his “sacrifice of atonement.”

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

97

8:4). These two points, when taken together, illustrate the author’s careful coherence of the earthly act with the heavenly accomplishment. A final support for this serial conception of Jesus’ sacrificial act is provided by the phrase evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn. This eschatological phrase controls the final three verses of chapter nine, which together contain all the components that configure the Christ event. (1) Christ’s priestly accomplishment is described as a “removal of sins through his self-sacrifice” (9:26);206 (2) and a “once for all offering up to carry away the sins of many” (a[pax prosenecqei.j eivj to. pollw/n avnenegkei/n a`marti,aj( 9:28).207 (3) Closely linked to this sacrificial work is the final judgment (9:27), which is itself contingent upon and concurrent with the salvific “second appearance” of the enthroned Son (evk deute,rou . . . ovfqh,setai . . . eivj swthri,an, 9:28).208 It is therefore quite obvious that the manifestation refers to “the Christevent in its totality.”209 It is a manifestation that begins with (1) his suffering on earth and includes both (2) his exaltation (which our author considers the apex of human history [1:3; 2:9; 9:11–12; 10:12–14]) and (3) entrance into the Heavenly Sanctuary.210 As Grässer has noted, a

206 Hagner, Hebrews, 147, remarks: “Where sin has been definitively cancelled, as it has in Christ, the aeons have reached a turning point.” Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 115, rightly recognizes the importance of this passage, noting that “Hebrews’ entire argument is premised on the idea that Christ’s death has taken place at the ‘consummation of the ages.’” 207 A passive participle, prosenecqei.j, is used here in 9:28, thus portraying the sacrifice as an “offering” made by God. This is in marked contrast to the self-sacrifice forwarded two verses previous in 9:26 (th/j qusi,aj auvtou). It is likely that DeuteroIsaiah’s song of the “Suffering Servant,” whose innocent death “bore the sins of many” (53:12), is intentionally echoed in 9:28. 208 Note how the author has seamlessly woven this dramatic portrayal of the enthroned Son, coming to judge his creation and save his subjects, into the otherwise wholly sacral drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary, with its lead figure the eternal high priest. 209 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 483. However, Ellingworth claims that 9:28 refers “to the cross at a point in time.” See also Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 2.86. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), 93. Koester, Hebrews, 422, finds all the key moments of the Christ event in the larger context of this verse: the incarnation (9:26), the appearance of Christ in heaven (9:24), and his second coming (9:28). Appealing to 1 Tim 3:16 and 1 Pet 1:20, Koester claims that the verb “‘appeared’ almost certainly refers to Christ’s incarnation.” So also Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 249. 210 Cf. 2 Tim 1:10: “But now (His own purpose and grace) has been revealed by the appearing (dia. th/j evpifanei,aj) of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 295, observes:

98

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

fulfillment motif also marks this eschatological manifestation; it stands in opposition to the aforementioned veiling (also fanero,w) of the way into the holy places (now “spiritually disclosed,” 9:8), and represents the basis for the offer of access that will be extended in 10:19–22.211 8.3. A “manifestation” visible to the eyes of faith The author’s use of the perfect tense verb pefane,rwtai in 9:26 may indicate that he considers the exalted Jesus to be, in some sense, presently visible. In fact, the immediate context, 9:24–28, contains a cluster of extraordinary visions and appearances described by three passive verbs: (1) evmfani,zw in 9:24 denotes the “appearance” of Christ before the face of God,212 thereby commencing his ongoing heavenly session; (2) the eschatological, sin-abolishing fanero,w appears next in 9:26; (3) followed by a soteriological o`ra,w of Christ in 9:28. The future tense of this final passive verb, o`ra,w, betokens the salvific parousia of Christ, his “second” coming (evk deute,rou).213 This emphasis on the visibility of Jesus should recall the author’s earlier claim: “but we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor” (2:9). There the temporal framework is established by both the present tense verb ble,pomen, and the phrase nu/n de, (2:8), an adversative conjunction and temporal adverb. These two factors combine to highlight both the recipients’ visual privileges and limitations.214 Interestingly, the same adverb, nu/n, also appears in the first two “visionary” scenes drawn in chapter nine: (1) with reference to Jesus’ The execution is closely linked to the epiphany of Jesus Christ as saviour (2 Tim. 1.10); the thought, however, is not confined to the actual historical event of the life of Jesus but encompasses the ongoing effects that are brought about by the gospel. In this sense there is one epiphany inaugurated by the coming of Jesus and continuing throughout the present and future time. 211 Cf. Grässer, Hebräer, 2.195: “Dabei hebt Perfektform pefane,rwtai die Endgültigkeit (des jetzt geöffneten Weges ins Allerheiligste 10,19) gegenüber dem ‘noch nicht’ in 9,8 hervor.” 212 Remarkably, this passive follows the aorist active form of eivse,rcomai. The author seems to balance Christ’s glorious and bold “entry” into the heavenly realm with his cautious “appearance” before the “face” of the Almighty. This reading may be placing more theological weight on the verb tenses than they can bear, but our author’s linguistic sophistication should never be underestimated. 213 This is the sole instance in the NT where the parousia is described as a “second coming.” 214 The use of ble,pw (present active) in 2:9 can be profitably compared to 2 Sam 14:24 (LXX): kai. to. pro,swpo,n mou mh. blepe,tw. In the latter context it is used as a technical term in the context of “oriental court life,” signifying the ability “to have access constantly” to the king (BDAG, 179).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

99

“appearance now before the face of God” (nu/n evmfanisqh/nai tw/| prosw,pw| tou/ qeou/, 9:24); (2) and then again emphatically in 9:26 (nuni. de. a[pax evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn . . . pefane,rwtai). These appearances of nu/n and nuni,, in such varied contexts, project temporal and spatial fluidity – perhaps even ambiguity – upon the text. Understood literally, Christ is manifesting his presence both in the Heavenly Sanctuary and to those in the earthly sphere whose eyes are turned to him. Therefore, far from being solely a reference to his death on the cross, or the example shown by Jesus’ righteous suffering, vindication and exaltation by God,215 these two verses, 2:9 and 9:26, dramatically illustrate Christ’s present visibility to “the eyes of faith.”216 We should also not discount the possibility that the author intends his vivid evocation of the cultic drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary to be in some sense a “manifestation” of Christ.217 The remarks of James Swetnam, though offered with partial reference to the Eucharist, may be redirected toward this end: “Christ has been manifested in a cult sacrifice, and he is still manifest in relation to that cult sacrifice.”218 In “turning hearing into sight” (Longinus, On the Sublime 26:2), our author appears to promote a faith journey informed and augmented by sight, the “queen of the other senses” (Philo, Abraham 150).219 215

So Koester, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” 123, in reference to

2:5–9. 216

Attridge, Hebrews, 265, also connects 2:8–9 and 9:26. He finds the hortatory value of 9:26 in the presentation of Christ as “the model of the virtue necessary for the covenantal way.” However, he notes that “the manifestation to the eyes of faith of Christ in his exalted state, where he now serves as intercessor (vs 24), provides the objective grounds for undertaking the covenantal life of faith” (ibid.). Contra Albert Vanhoye, “Anamnèse Historique et Créativité Théologique dans L’Épître aux Hébreux,” in La Mémoire et le Temps: Mélanges offerts à Pierre Bonnard, ed. Daniel Marguerat and Jean Zumstein (MdB 23. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), 228, who contends that ble,pomen in 2:9 represents the “contemplation” of Jesus’ glory. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 1198–1203, examines the repeated occurrences of w;fqh (from o`ra,w) in 1 Cor 15:5–8 and argues that the public nature of the resurrection appearances disallows any figurative construal of w;fqh. 217 We therefore disagree with Barrett’s overly dualistic depiction of the Christ event as “an event that belongs at once to the realms of the visible and the invisible, of the phenomenal and the ideal, . . .” which moves “from the visible world of historical event to the interior hiddenness of heaven” (“The Christology of Hebrews,” 125). 218 James Swetnam, “Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Observations and Surmises on Hebrews 9,26,” CBQ 30 (1968), 233. Cf. also James Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bib 70 (1989), 74–94. 219 Though cf. 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” This claim, that faith finds its focus in the unseen realm, may be seen as

100

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

8.4. Soteriology at the “end of the ages” The final benefit on offer in 9:26–28, swthri,a, is spoken of as an unrealized future hope. Our author seems to have deliberately reserved this preeminent soteriological term for the final act of Christ’s salvific deliverance of humanity. The future orientation in view here is also readily apparent in two other occurrences of swthri,a: 1:14 and 6:9. In the first instance, angelic servants are said to minister to “those about to inherit salvation” (tou.j me,llontaj klhronomei/n swthri,an, 1:14); the second occurrence speaks generally, “if it is permissible to so speak” (eiv kai. ou[twj lalou/men, 6:9), concerning the behavior that attends the “better things that accompany salvation” (ta. krei,ssona kai. evco,mena swthri,aj, 6:9). Only one possible instance of salvific attainment can be found, in 7:25. Here, the verbal form sw,|zw is employed by the author to establish a logical connection between the eternally abiding priesthood of Jesus and his ability to “completely save” those who approach God through him (sw,|zein eivj to. pantele.j du,natai tou.j prosercome,nouj diV auvtou/ tw/| qew/|). In this case, the author’s emphasis on the eternal priesthood of Jesus has clearly influenced his presentation, and salvation is depicted as a present possibility, one predicated upon on a quasi-cultic approach towards God through Jesus’ priesthood. A thoroughgoing christocentric perspective controls the author’s use of swthri,a / sw,|zw. (1) This “great salvation” has been promised in Jesus’ preaching (thlikau,thj . . . swthri,aj( h[tij avrch.n labou/sa lalei/sqai dia. tou/ kuri,ou, 2:3); (2) is “authored” by him (to.n avrchgo.n th/j swthri,aj auvtw/n, 2:10); (3) finds its “source” in him (ai;tioj swthri,aj aivwni,ou, 5:9); (4) is presently attained via salvific entrance into the presence of God through his permanent priesthood (sw,|zw, 7:25); (5) but will come to full expression only in his second coming (swthri,a, 9:28).220 8.5. The hortatory implications of Hebrews’ soteriology In four of the seven relevant contexts where swthri,a and sw,|zw occur, a future-orientation is joined with sober reminders that faithful perseverance is required to ensure reception of the awaited salvation.221 Although in the refuting the assertion of Jesus’ present visibility. However, Brawley (“Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1,” 98) has convincingly argued the “unseen things” represent “God’s subjection of all things to Jesus.” It therefore coheres within the author’s inaugurated eschatology, the “now” of 2:9 and 9:26 being balanced by the decisive “not yet” of 1:13; 2:8; 10:13; and 11:1. 220 See Grässer, Hebräer, 2.195–6. 221 On two occasions swthri,a and sw,|zw appear in contexts not directly related to the recipients: (1) in 5:7, describing Jesus’ earthly sufferings and his cries to “the one who

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

101

warning and exhortation of 10:26–39 the author’s portrayal of the eschaton’s imminent approach causes time to collapse into an existential present, the hortatory complement to his soteriology possesses a broader temporal horizon. It would appear to be premised upon the belief that the recipients were in danger of gradually sliding away from a vibrant faith into lackluster, noncommittal indifference. This is reflected especially in the warnings not to “neglect” their great salvation (thlikau,thj avmelh,santej swthri,aj, 2:3), nor become “lazy” (i[na mh. nwqroi. ge,nhsqe, 6:12) as they pursue the “full assurance of the hope until the end” (6:11).222 They are instead to “obey” the source of salvation (u`pakou,w, 5:9), and “eagerly await” his return (avpekde,comai, 9:28). Thus, the author sets before the recipients the grand benefit, the victorious crown of salvation, as a motivation to persevere. And though they have already imbibed deeply at the well of eschatological blessing (6:4–5), they have not yet attained the ultimate benefit.223 Finally, the author’s reservation of swthri,a for future-oriented contexts is more than equally balanced by a wealth of soteriological terms and concepts that are considered the present possessions of the community. From these “present possessions” the recipients might extrapolate outwards to properly evaluate their final salvation. Personal acquaintance with the following soteriological concepts is assumed by our author: (1) “partnership” with Christ (2:14–18; 3:14); (2) eschatological “rest” (4:3); (3) and a conscience-cleansing removal of sins though Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering (9:14; 10:22). Especially relevant in this regard are the complex of soteriological terms that have their origin in Israel’s cultus: (1) purification (kaqarismo,j, 1:3; kaqari,zein, 9:14; cf. 10:22); (2) sanctification (a`gia,zein, 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12); (3) and perfection (teleiou/n, 10:14). As these terms occur primarily in the context of the author’s presentation of the drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary, we will reserve our comments until then.

could save him from death”; (2) and 11:7, which attributes Noah’s salvation to his reverent faith. 222 The telling assessment made in 12:3–4 merits our attention: “For consider him who has endured such hostility from sinners against himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” Osborne, “The Christ of Hebrews and Other Religions,” 253, believes “the central problem was a basic ‘laziness.’” So also Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation,” 275, who notes that laziness could eventually “lead to apostasy.” 223 Therefore, our epistle cannot be legitimately appealed to in the debate whether salvation can be “lost.” See deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 103.

102

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

8.6. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 9:23–28 Set within the epistle’s most sustained presentation of the cultic drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary (9:11 – 10:25), this section, 9:23–28, is of inestimable value to the author’s hortatory purposes. One of the most striking features of this section is its repeated emphasis upon the visibility of Jesus. The key moments in the installation and ministry of Jesus the eternal high priest – his appearance before God (9:24), self-sacrifice (9:26), and second appearance as the judging and saving Son (9:27–28) – are all represented with verbs of vision intended to highlight Jesus’ essential visibility. We may therefore surmise that our author is clearly untroubled by the idea of a faith journey informed and augmented by the senses, especially sight. In fact, we can even imagine him countering the Pauline admonition, “For we walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7), with the following assertion: “Our pilgrimage of faith must be guided by our eschatological vision of the exalted Son who is high priest.” He regards the senses as neither a distraction from true faith, nor a crutch for those with crippled faith. Instead, his whole rhetorical program is predicated upon providing an eschatological vision of the exalted Son’s high priestly ministry and exhorting the recipients to look heavenward in order that they may now “see him as he is” (to borrow and subvert the language of another NT work, 1 John, with whom our author would also perhaps disagree).224 Indeed, the author unequivocally promises this eschatological vision to those living holy lives (diw,kete . . . to.n a`giasmo,n( ou- cwri.j ouvdei.j o;yetai to.n ku,rion, 12:14). Finally, our emphasis upon sight finds additional support in the observation that this eschatological unveiling of the enthroned Son and high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary rhetorically functions as a dramatic foil to the veiling, or literal concealment, of the way into the holy place in the earthly tabernacle (9:8).

224 Christopher A. Frilingos, Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), has recently emphasized the role of sight and vision in the apocalyptic “spectacle” constructed in Revelation. Frilingos points to ancient theories of sight, as involving the “materiality of viewing relations” (73), and argues: “The relationship between the characters in the text and the audience outside the text is established through viewing” (42). Thus Revelation offers a ‘lesson’ in viewing practices, conveyed by a series of narrative spectators who gaze upon the rise and fall of the Roman monster. Further, . . . this lesson was absorbed mimetically by Revelation’s ancient audience, who themselves ‘watch’ as these textual viewers encounter the end of the world” (ibid.).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

103

8.6.1. Eschatological urgency In the context of these salvific appearances the author constructs a comprehensive temporal bracket around the community by means of: (1) the appearances of nu/n and nuni, in 9:24, 26, which signal immediacy; (2) the three successive occurrences of a[pax in 9:26–28,225 that stress the “once for all” finality of the Christ event and create an emphatic contrast with the repetitious and ineffectual tabernacle/Temple cult; (3) the mention of the imminent final judgment (9:27); (4) and the striking placement of the whole stream of events at the “end of the ages” (9:26).226 By these means the author temporally encircles the recipients, tactfully and forcefully hemming them entirely within the soteriological presence and eschatological purposes of the enthroned Son who is high priest, whose manifestation has signaled the “end of the ages.” 8.6.2. A “removal of sins” This section, 9:23–28, reaches its apex in 9:26, with what is undoubtedly the epistle’s most profound expression of two-age eschatology. The hortatory emphasis in this passage falls on the “removal of sins” (eivj avqe,thsin Îth/jÐ a`marti,aj) that has been effected by Jesus’ self-offering. It should also call to mind the exordium’s précis of the Christ event, which similarly establishes the eschatological moment (evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn, 1:2), and in one breath connects it to both the sin-cleansing sacrificial work of the high priest and the enthronement of the Son (kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj evka,qisen evn dexia/| th/j megalwsu,nhj evn u`yhloi/j, 1:3).227 This decidedly sacral language and imagery employed in relation to Christ’s sacrifice should prohibit any metaphorical interpretations. The cult of Israel is solely responsible for this vocabulary and its range of meaning is fairly limited to within its sacred courts. Here we observe the collapse of N. T. Wright’s theory: i.e., for Jesus and his immediate followers any mention of “forgiveness of sins” would have been equated with a “return from exile.” This misbegotten notion does not square with our author’s

225

We note again that this key term, a[pax, occurs elsewhere only five times: 6:4; 9:7; 10:2; and 12:26–27. 226 With these emphases in mind, the passage may be summarized: “Jesus has been manifested now, once for all time at the end of ages in a sacrifice for sins and he shall come again soon in judgment and for salvation!” 227 Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 170, briefly notes the similarities between the two passages, 1:1–4 and 9:26, observing that “both signify the end of the old aeon and distinguish themselves over against it by their finality in contrast to the partial, drawn out qualities which characterised the institutions of that age.”

104

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

agenda in the least.228 In fact, he considers dislocation and disassociation from one’s earthly home to be the mark par excellence of the pilgrim. Consequently the equation of the key benefit of Christ’s sacrifice with a return to one’s earthly patri,j is unthinkable for our author. Rather, a cleansed conscience clearly represents the direct and most pertinent consequence of Jesus’ self-sacrifice. This cleansed conscience the author employs as an integral component, perhaps even the primary one, in his complex hortatory strategy. His oft-repeated exhortations to make a bold entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary are predicated on an awareness of one’s cleansed conscience. 8.6.3. Patient endurance Finally, we should note that in contrast to the author’s ubiquitous entry language, (prose,rcomai, 4:16; 7:25; 10:22; 11:6; 12:18–24; evggi,zw, 7:19; and eivse,rcomai, 4:1, 3, 10–11; 6:19229), which almost uniformly enjoins forward movement into the Heavenly Sanctuary,230 our passage ultimately commends a static stance of motionless endurance. The faithful to whom the enthroned Son will appear (ovfqh,setai) and bring salvation, are depicted as “eagerly waiting” (avpekdecome,noij, 9:28), a participle seemingly incompatible with the entry terminology.231 This more static

228

For the argument that most first-century Jews considered themselves in “exile,” see The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God: Vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 268–70; and Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God: Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 268– 74. Wright’s logic appears in this distilled form: “If Israel went into exile because of her sins, then forgiveness consists in her returning” (Victory, 434). He further argues that if first-century Jews sought “‘forgiveness’ as private individuals within the existing system, the means were available” (Victory, 272). The author of Hebrews of course offers a dissenting opinion on this latter matter. Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2002), has convincingly argued against the long-standing consensus that the Diaspora experience was largely a negative one, fraught with fears and indignities, and filled with longing to return to Palestine. Gruen marshals considerable evidence to the contrary, characterizing the Diasporean Jews as content, prosperous, comfortable with their heritage, and generally untroubled by their neighbors and rulers. 229 The referent of this verb may be either the “hope that has been laid before the faithful” (th/j prokeime,nhj evlpi,doj, 6:18) or the forerunner who entered into the holy of holies on their behalf (pro,dromoj u`pe.r h`mw/n eivsh/lqen, 6:20). 230 The sole exception being the use of eivse,rcomai in the discussion of rest in 4:1, 3, 10–11. 231 Both Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 250, and Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 190, note that the author’s depiction of the return of Christ deliberately draws upon the imagery of Yom Kippur, with the people waiting expectantly

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

105

imagery is of a piece with earlier exhortations to “hold fast” to the “confession” and “conviction” (kate,cw, 3:6, 14; 10:23; and krate,w, 4:14; 6:18) of hope and faith, and the forthcoming calls to “endurance” (u`pomonh,) which will appear in 10:36 and 12:1.232 Interestingly, however, verbs of movement are solely applied to Jesus in half of these contexts, namely 4:14, 6:20, and 9:28. (1) In 4:14, Christ has “passed through the heavens” (:Econtej ou=n avrciere,a me,gan dielhluqo,ta tou.j ouvranou,j);233 (2) while in 6:20 he is the “forerunner on our behalf” who has entered the holy of holies (pro,dromoj u`pe.r h`mw/n eivsh/lqen). Both these occurrences properly belong to “act one” in our author’s heavenly drama. (3) In the final instance, Jesus’ “second” appearance constitutes the concluding act of his drama (evk deute,rou cwri.j a`marti,aj ovfqh,setai, 9:28). Thus, Jesus is the one “on the move,” so to speak. Perseverance is the fit response on the part of the recipients.

9. “For the law is only a shadow of the good things to come” (10:1–18) Two instances of two-age conceptuality occur in the midst of this decidedly cultic setting, wherein the author employs Ps 40 to dramatize what may be a pre-incarnate, “declaration of obedience” made by the Son (10:5–7). The first occurrence of two-age thought appears in 10:1, where the law is said to possess only a “shadow” (skia,) and “not the very image” (ouvk auvth.n th.n eivko,na) of “the good things to come” (tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n)Thus the law and the sacrifices it commands are emblematic of the Old Covenant’s prefatory and partial character. The second instance, in 10:9, avnairei/ to. prw/ton i[na to. deu,teron sth,sh|( contains within a sparse chiasmus what is probably the “strongest negative statement the author has made or will make about the OT cultus.”234 for the emergence of the high priest from the holy of holies. His reappearance signaled the efficacy of his offering. Attridge, Hebrews, 21–2, observes: The paraenetic transition of 4:14–16 contains two hortatory subjunctives, ‘let us hold fast,’ and ‘let us approach,’ that exemplify the two types of exhortation found throughout the text. On the one hand Hebrews recommends the more ‘static’ qualities of stability and resolution in maintaining the Christian life. At the same time, the addressees are called to a more ‘dynamic’ virtue, to movement in various directions. 232 We should note that 12:1 combines both imageries: resolute endurance and vigorous forward movement. In 12:1 the recipients are enjoined to “run with endurance the race” (diV u`pomonh/j tre,cwmen to.n prokei,menon h`mi/n avgw/na). 233 Though cf. the exhortation of 4:16, to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace.” 234 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 504.

106

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

9.1. “The good things to come” The reference in 10:1 to “the good things to come” (tw/n mello,ntwn avgaqw/n) clearly evinces two-age eschatological belief, and recalls the designation of Christ as the “high priest of the good things to come,” in 9:11 (Cristo.j de. parageno,menoj avrciereu.j tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n). The content of the participial phrase tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n, though centered on the Christ event, varies according to the temporal perspective one adopts. If one’s point of orientation is the time when the Mosaic law was promulgated, then the “good things to come” would undoubtedly refer to the whole of the Christ event and its benefits.235 If the author’s present time is in view, then the “good things” would include only that which is yet to unfold, i.e., complete salvation with the coming of Christ (9:28), the promised rest (3:7 – 4:11), and participation in the city/world to come (2:5; 13:14).236 9.2. Skia,, eivkw,n and pra/gma in Platonic and Middle Platonic cosmology These “good things to come” are contrasted with the Mosaic law, and the philosophical language (u`po,deigma and skia,) that was used in 8:5 and 9:23 to discuss the relationship of the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries emerges once again from the shadows. The law is said to possess only a “shadow,” or “foreshadowing” (skia,), and “not the true image of these realities” (ouvk auvth.n th.n eivko,na tw/n pragma,twn), namely “the good things to come.” These philosophical terms, skia,, eivkw,n, and pra/gma, have been subjected to considerable scrutiny. Their manner of employment has lead many, including Moffatt,237 Gerd Theissen,238 Thompson,239 Attridge,240 Weiss,241 Grässer,242 deSilva,243 Sterling,244 Koester,245 and Kenneth L. Schenck,246 to assert, in varying degrees, the presence of a Middle Platonic mindset. 235

Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 260. Koester, Hebrews, 430, outlines both positions. Moffatt, Hebrews, 135; and Ellingworth, Hebrews, 492, argue for the latter position, emphasizing only that which is yet to come. 237 Moffatt, Hebrews, xxxi–xxxiv, 135. 238 Gerd Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (SNT 2. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969), 108. 239 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 160. 240 Attridge, Hebrews, 271. 241 Weiss, Hebräer, 502–3. 242 Grässer, Hebräer, 2.206–7. 243 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 317; though see his introductory remarks, pp. 27–32, where an overarching apocalyptic framework is commended. 244 Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 198–9. 245 Koester, Hebrews, 98–9. 246 Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 131–2. 236

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

107

Examples of skia,, eivkw,n, and pra/gma used as termini technici in philosophical literature abound, where they are often employed to denote the various realms (and objects therein) within three-tiered Platonic and Middle Platonic cosmologies. While skia, is consistently consigned to the lowest realm, representing the “shadowy” nature of objects in the senseperceptible world, eivkw,n possesses a little more upward mobility; in the course of four centuries it is occasionally allowed to ascend from the sense-perceptible world, the ko,smoj aivsqhto,j, into the ko,smoj nohto,j, the middle, intermediate noetic realm, where it shares a place with the “truly real things,” ta. pra,gmata. The relationship shared by these two realms is both protological and epistemological. It is protological, as the noetic realm serves as the model and instrument for the creation of the senseperceptible realm, and epistemological, with the ko,smoj nohto,j as the object of philosophical contemplation for those inhabitants of the senseperceptible realm who seek the true nature of being. 9.2.1 Plato In Plato’s Theory of Ideas/Forms, skia, and eivkw,n are essentially synonymous, representing the imperfect and transitory nature of the created, sense-perceptible realm. However, positive connotations can occasionally attend the use of eivkw,n. Such is the case in Plato’s most influential work, the Timaeus, where the ko,smoj aivsqhto,j is said to be an eivkw,n, an “image” of a para,deigma, a “model” existing in the ideal realm, the nohto,j to,poj (29B).247 In creating the ko,smoj aivsqhto,j, the creator god (dhmiourgo,j) “fixed his gaze” on the “models” (para,deigma,twn) that exist in the eternal, noetic realm (29A). The quality and nature of the noetic realm can be deduced from the fact that the sense-perceptible cosmos “is beautiful and its Constructor (dhmiourgo,j) good.”248 The ideal realm must necessarily be “eternal” (avi-~Ay concept. 328 Even closer parallels, using the verb evggi,zw instead of the adverb evggu,j, are to be found in Ezek 7:7 (h[kei o` kairo,j h;ggiken h` h`me,ra ouv meta. qoru,bwn ouvde. meta. wvdi,nwn); 13:23; 22:4. 329 Cf. Donald A. Hagner, “Matthew’s Eschatology,” SBLSP 35 (1996), 174: “The reality of present eschatology that is short of consummation itself implies not only a necessary future eschatology, but even its imminence. Where the end is announced as having begun, its final aspect cannot easily be thought of as distantly future.” 330 Cf. Westcott, Hebrews, 327: “The mention of ‘the day’ in v. 25 calls out the sad severity of the warning which follows.” 331 The apocalyptic “consuming fire” motif will reappear at the conclusion of the eschatological judgment described in 12:25–29 (kai. ga.r o` qeo.j h`mw/n pu/r

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

127

are also prominently featured (fobera. de, tij evkdoch. kri,sewj, 10:27; krinei/ ku,rioj to.n lao.n auvtou/, 10:30; fobero.n to. evmpesei/n eivj cei/raj qeou/ zw/ntoj, 10:31). The portrayal of the “living God” (10:31) in 10:26–31 is equally sobering: he dispenses judgment (10:27, 30) “without mercy” (cwri.j oivktirmw/n, 10:28), and will “repay” (avntapodi,dwmi, 10:30) the lawlessness (10:28) and hubristic disrespect (10:29) of “the adversaries” (tou.j u`penanti,ouj, 10:27), i.e., “his people” (10:30), with “punishment” (timwri,a, 10:29) and “vengeance” (evkdi,khsij, 10:30). 10.3. “Do not draw back” The complementary motifs of cultic entry and the approaching day of apocalyptic judgment are dramatically juxtaposed with the warning against “drawing back” from the presence of God. This imagery of timid retreat is conveyed by a number of means throughout 10:19–39, though most forcefully at its conclusion: (1) “Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering” (avklinh,j, 10:23); (2) “not neglecting the gathering together” (10:25); (3) “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (evmpi,ptw, 10:31); (4) “Do not, therefore, abandon that confidence of yours” (Mh. avpoba,lhte ou=n th.n parrhsi,an u`mw/n, 10:35); (5) “For you need endurance” (u`pomonh,, 10:36);332 (6) “My soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back” (kai. eva.n u`postei,lhtai ouvk euvdokei/ h` yuch, mou evn auvtw/|, 10:38);333 (7) “But we are not among those who shrink back into destruction” (h`mei/j de. ouvk evsme.n u`postolh/j eivj avpw,leian, 10:39).334 10.4. Apostasy as portrayed in 10:26–31 The timid retreat and general neglect portrayed in the “drawing back” passages should not be construed as an innocuous retreat into a stance of cautious indifference. Rather, it is characterized as “shrinking back into destruction” (u`postolh/j eivj avpw,leian, 10:39). So also with those who have been “neglecting to gather together” with the community (mh. katanali,skon, 12:29). “Zealous fire” (puro.j zh/loj) appears in Zeph 1:18; 3:8; and Ps 78:5 (LXX). Both themes, “zealous” and “consuming” fire, coalesce in Deut 4:24: o[ti ku,rioj o` qeo,j sou pu/r katanali,skon evsti,n qeo.j zhlwth,j. 332 For the use of u`pomonh, / u`pome,nw in a context of persecution, see: 4 Macc 1:11; 5:23; 6:9; 7:9, 22; 9:6, 8, 22, 30; 13:12; 15:30–32; 17:4, 12, 17, 23; Philo, Unchangeable 13. 333 A relatively rare word in the NT, u`poste,llw, appears elsewhere only in Acts 20:20, 27 (positively, of Paul’s refusal to “retreat” from his bold stance); and Gal 2:12 (negatively, of Peter’s timid “retreat” from Gentile table fellowship). 334 This word, u`postolh,, is not found anywhere in Jewish literature. Lane, Hebrews 9– 13, 280, considers its use here deliberately aimed at heightening the recipients’ attention.

128

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

evgkatalei,pontej th.n evpisunagwgh.n e`autw/n , 10:25). The flow of logic, as well as the repetition of the lei,pw– root in 10:25 (evgkatalei,pw, “neglecting”) and 10:26 (avpolei,pw, “remains”), clearly connects those who are “neglecting” community gatherings to the severe threat issued in 10:26–31. Those who “leave” the community will find there is no sacrifice “left” for them.335 Neglect of the community is thus characterized as “willfully persisting in sin” (e`kousi,wj ga.r a`martano,ntwn h`mw/n, 10:26), “trampling on the Son of God, profaning the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraging the Spirit of grace” (o` to.n ui`o.n tou/ qeou/ katapath,saj kai. to. ai-ma th/j diaqh,khj koino.n h`ghsa,menoj( evn w-| h`gia,sqh( kai. to. pneu/ma th/j ca,ritoj evnubri,saj, 10:29).336 Particularly noteworthy is the portrayal of the apostate trampling the Son of God underfoot. This represents a perverse inversion of the Son’s exercise of lordship, as depicted in 1:13: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (cf. also 10:13).337 This willful rejection of God’s gracious bestowal of forgiveness through his Son is forcefully highlighted by the direct juxtaposition of grace and hubris in 10:29 (ca,ritoj evnubri,saj).338 There can be no remedy for the “enlightened” person (meta. to. labei/n th.n evpi,gnwsin th/j avlhqei,aj, 10:26) who turns their back on the sole, eschatological provision of forgiveness of sin.339 And although this warning in 10:26–31 is theoretical in nature, as “it looks ahead toward a potential apostate, not backward toward an actual penitent,”340 it nevertheless presents a unified and unmitigated vision of 335

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 531. The key verb, katapate,w, “trample on,” also appears in the admonition of the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample (katapath,sousin) them under foot and turn and maul you” (Matt 7:6). 337 Koester, Hebrews, 452–3. 338 Spicq, Hébreux, 2.325, notes: “On ne peut faire un plus saisissant contraste entre u[brij et ca,rij.” 339 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 292. The claim of 10:26, “that there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,” is not necessarily paralleling the “impossibility of a second repentance” motif found in 6:4–6. It is instead most likely reiterating the sentiment of 10:1–18, that the tabernacle/Temple cultus is ineffectual (10:1–4, 11) and has been abolished (10:9); in contrast, the “once for all” self-offering of Jesus is entirely efficacious (10:10, 12–18). So Attridge, Hebrews, 293. 340 Charles Edwin Carlston, “Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 78 (1959), 302. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 79: “It is true that the writer never states that anyone in the community has actually committed apostasy; yet the language in places is so strong that the author must have considered it a real danger.” Contra Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” TJ 13 (1992), 41, who contends that “evidence from the 336

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

129

destructive judgment. Therefore, John Proctor’s attempts at softening the severity of this warning – accomplished by translating kri,nw in 10:30 as “vindicate,” rather than “judge,”341 and by postulating the presence of a third party in the middle of the passage, i.e., “the opponents” (tou.j u`penanti,ouj, 10:27)342 – are predicated on a number of oversights. (1) The author’s argument involves a qal vahomer contrast between the punishment attending violations of the Mosaic law (10:28) and the “much more” severe judgment expected for those who “willfully sin” after “having received the knowledge of the truth,” “sanctification,” and “forgiveness” through Christ’s sacrifice. That Christians are in view throughout this passage is beyond question.343 (2) The argument is structured around a pair of sequential proofs, occurring in 10:26–27 and 10:29–31, which unfold the implications of the recipients’ timorous retreat. The logic of these matching sequences of “sin leads to judgment” is undone by the artificial insertion of a promised “vindication” in 10:30.344 (3) Finally, the author’s change of tone in 10:32–39, to comfort and exhortation, signals the theoretical nature of the warning in 10:26–31, thus obviating any mitigation of its singular note of judgment. 10.5. 10:26–31: A warning of Jerusalem’s imminent destruction? Randall Gleason has recently attempted to interpret 10:26–31 as a literal warning issued in the first stages of Jerusalem’s destruction, in 66–67 CE.345 The warning is then an interpretation of “the signs of the coming crisis (that) were already visible to the readers,”346 and “rather than a future warning passages permits us to say that spiritual lethargy had, for some, grown into outright apostasy.” 341 John Proctor, “Judgement or Vindication? Deuteronomy 32 in Hebrews 10:30,” TynBul 55.1 (2004), 65–80. Thus: “the Lord will vindicate (kri,nw) his people.” Proctor argues that kri,nw in the LXX almost always denotes “vindication” (though cf. Ezek 38:22). Vindication is clearly intended in Deut 32:26, the passage from which Heb 10:26 is drawn: “Indeed the Lord will vindicate his people, have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, neither bond nor free remaining.” 342 Ibid., 79. Identifying the opponents with an external third party “creates some rhetorical space between readers and text.” It “distances the readers a little from the gravity of his warning” and “invites (them) to stand over against ‘the opponents’” (ibid.). 343 Cf. Michel, Hebräer, 350: “Vor der Taufe sind alle Sünden ‘Unwissenheitssünden,’ weil das Gnadenangebot Gottes im Kreuz Jesu dem Menschen unbekannt ist. Erst nach der Taufe gibt es eine ‘mutwillige Sünde,’ die sich bewußt aus der Gnade und Vergebung entfernt.” See also Gleason, “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” 103, who notes “the strongest indications” that the recipients are “genuinely Christian . . . appear within the warnings.” 344 Cf. Proctor, “Judgement or Vindication?” 79. 345 Gleason, “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” 97–120. 346 Ibid., 110.

130

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

event the fiery judgment is viewed as a present reality by the author.”347 The call to “go outside the camp,” i.e., Jerusalem, offered some three chapters later, in 13:13–14, is also interpreted literally by Gleason, representing the author’s recommended course of action in light of the coming destruction.348 His argument is hobbled by its neglect of the greater context surrounding the passage, where an entirely different hortatory program is presented. The course of action enjoined in the immediate context surrounding 10:26–31 is bold entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary (10:19– 25) and a concomitant fearless allegiance to the people of God that rejects any “shrinking back” (10:19–39). Exhortations to flee a city under siege are nowhere to be found in the immediate context. Equally suspect is Gleason’s argument that the events were “currently unfolding before the readers.”349 This assertion is partially based on three present tense verbs: ble,pete and evggi,zousan in 10:25b (“as you see the approaching day”),350 and evsqi,w in 10:27 (“a zealous fire consuming”).351 But the convictions expressed in 10:25b are clearly consistent with the “now, not yet” inaugurated eschatology found throughout Hebrews. Just as a present tense form of ble,pw was employed in 2:9 to denote the present visibility of Jesus’ eschatological reign, so also in 10:25b the imminently approaching day is presently visible to those whose sight is informed by faith. And as for 10:27, Gleason ignores the fact that evsqi,w is qualified by the verb me,llw, which indicates imminence, not present occurrence. The “zealous fire is about to consume (evsqi,ein me,llontoj) the adversaries.” Gleason characterizes the alternative to this “currently unfolding” interpretation as belief in a “distant future judgment”352 – one that “diminishes its relevance to the first-century audience facing the dangers arising from the first Jewish revolt.”353 But even if the eschatological destruction depicted in 10:26–31 is construed as a more general warning, it suffers no diminishment of its relevance when the following factors are taken into consideration: (1) Consistent with the “now, not yet” inaugurated eschatology found throughout Hebrews, the judgment is clearly imminent (10:25b, 37), not in the “distant future.” (2) The OT textual background upon which 10:26–31 is based is pervasive and authoritative. (3) The most fearful portion of the passage is presented as 347

Ibid., 115. Ibid., 97, 103, 120. 349 Ibid., 110. 350 Ibid., 110. 351 Ibid., 115. 352 Ibid., 97, 120. 353 Ibid., 97, 120. 348

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

131

the direct address of God: “For we know the one who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people’” (10:30). Furthermore, in response to the author’s qal vahomer contrast, in 10:28–29, between the punishments attending violations of the Mosaic law and the New Covenant, Gleason cites Josephus’ horrific account of Jerusalem’s destruction (“no other city ever endured such miseries, nor since the world began” J. W. 5:442) as proof that “the severity of the physical punishment” facing the recalcitrant Christians “would have far surpassed that experienced by those stoned under the Mosaic Law or burned during the wilderness wanderings.”354 According to this reading, a deep concern for the recipients’ physical safety motivates the author’s warning. But again, we may fault Gleason’s proposal for failing to square with the immediate context, which evinces a complete disregard for bodily health and earthly wealth. First, in 10:32–34, the recipients are commended for their previous endurance (u`pome,nw) of “sufferings” (10:32) and “public insults and persecution” (10:33), as well as their “joyful acceptance” (meta. cara/j prosede,xasqe) of lost possessions (10:34). Second, this same attitude of disregard for weal and wealth is enjoined upon the recipients in 10:35–39, with “endurance” (u`pomonh,, 10:36) – not flight – again the controlling course of action. The point of the qal vahomer contrast between the punishments is that something much worse than the most painful and ignominious death awaits the disobedient and hubristic Christian: i.e., damnation.355 We should also question the appropriateness of 13:13–14 to Gleason’s program. Though certainly not espousing martyrdom, it is nevertheless a call to emulate Jesus’ own sacrificial disregard for personal safety. The envisioned exit from “the camp” will not bring relief from threatened judgment, it will rather entail “bearing” the same “abuse” Jesus encountered (to.n ovneidismo.n auvtou/, 13:13).356 As we will see in the next section, where the “coming city” is considered, this exhortation to “go

354

Ibid., 118. Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Eschatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews,” Grace Theological Journal 3.1 (Spring 1982), 77. Similar qal vahomer contrasts are made in at least two other warning passages: (1) 2:1–3, “Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, . . . For if the message declared through angels was valid, . . . how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” (2) 12:25– 29, “See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven!” 356 It is also worth noting that a word denoting “fleeing from danger, taking refuge,” is in the author’s vocabulary. This word, katafeu,gw, is used metaphorically in 6:18 to describe the recipients’ “flight” to the refuge of God’s sure promise. 355

132

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

outside the camp” entails a distancing of the community from the status and false security offered by the Jewish community and Pax Romana. 10.6. The “Coming One” Our consideration of 10:19–39 as a discreet unit affords an appreciation of the entire section as a calculated emotional appeal. The pathos of 10:19–39 traverses a full circuit: following the hopeful exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary (10:19–25) the emotional path proceeds in a downward direction, to the author’s most severe warning (10:26–31); a reascent is begun in 10:32–34, with the fond recollection of the community’s solidarity and endurance in persecution. It reaches the apex of its circuit once again in 10:35–39, where a call to perseverance is made, based on the promise of Jesus’ imminent return.357 This passage, 10:35–39, concludes with a pair of juxtaposed imageries of movement: the “Coming One” (10:37) and those contemplating a timid retreat (10:38–39). The focal point of 10:35–39, verses 37–38, is drawn primarily from Hab 2:3–4 and depicts Christ as “the Coming One who is coming” (o` evrco,menoj h[xei, 10:37). This clearly recalls the mention of Jesus’ “second” coming in 9:28. As with the previous context’s emphasis on the soteriological benefits attending the parousia, so here too we see a predominantly salvific orientation. In his detailed study of Hebrews’ appropriation of Hab 2:3–4, Radu Gheorghita notes the “substantial modifications” the author has deliberately made to the LXX text. (1) By adding the definite article to the participle evrco,menoj, the author “transforms the messianic potential of the Habakkuk text into a clear messianic reference to the climactic eschatological event of Christ’s Parousia.”358 Thus, the “coming vision/theophany” of the MT, emended by the LXX to refer to the coming of the Messiah,359 now becomes a messianic title, i.e., ‘the Coming One.’” (2) The order of the clauses of Hab 2:4, eva.n u`postei,lhtai ouvk euvdokei/ h` yuch, mou evn auvtw/| and o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stew,j mou zh,setai, has also been inverted, resolving any ambiguities concerning the referents in the LXX text.360

357 Proctor’s (“Judgement or Vindication?”) proposed mitigation of the warning in 10:26–31 would of course disrupt this circular structure. 358 Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 220. 359 See Gheorghita’s close analysis of LXX emendations to the MT text (The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 153–5). 360 Because of its close proximity to evrco,menoj in the LXX text, the identity of those “shrinking back” is unclear. It may even refer to the “Coming One.” Cf. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 216–17.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

Habakkuk 2:3b–4 (LXX) o[ti evrco,menoj h[xei kai. ouv mh. croni,sh| eva.n u`postei,lhtai ouvk euvdokei/ h` yuch, mou evn auvtw/| o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stew,j mou zh,setai

133

Hebrews 10:37–38 o` evrco,menoj h[xei kai. ouv croni,sei\ o` de. di,kaio,j mou evk pi,stewj zh,setai( kai. eva.n u`postei,lhtai( ouvk euvdokei/ h` yuch, mou evn auvtw/|Å

The conditional phrase eva.n u`postei,lhtai (“if anyone shrinks back”), now separated from o` evrco,menoj, stands in an antithetical relationship to o` di,kaioj. These two clauses represent two options and identities laid before the recipients: they may be either “my righteous ones” who “live by faith,” or “those who shrink back” and find the Lord’s displeasure. The Habakkuk quote is prefaced by a brief excerpt from Isa 26:20, “for yet in a very little while” (e;ti ga.r mikro.n o[son o[son), which is perhaps the author’s most explicit and emphatic assertion of the eschaton’s imminent arrival. That this small clause was intentionally attached to the Habakkuk passage is a fair assumption. Besides plainly expressing his conviction of the eschaton’s imminent arrival, it may also serve another authorial purpose. T. W. Lewis has theorized that while “waiting out the time before the parousia,” the recipients were responding to persecution by adopting “a lifestyle of withdrawal and concealment.” Their chosen “mode of endurance” was perhaps based on the counsel of Isa 26:20: “Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until the wrath is past.”361 The author’s short excerpt from Isa 26:20 is intended to recall the entire verse, whose “survival strategy” is pointedly condemned in the quotation from Hab 2:3b–4: The Lord “takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back.” And the manner in which “the righteous one will live by faith,” is defined as what the community had been doing in “those earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured (u`pome,nw) a hard struggle with sufferings” (10:32).362 Bold, public endurance is the only safe course of action for the community. It alone will bring “great reward” (10:35). 10.7. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 10:19–39 In this section it is especially apparent that the certainty and immediacy of the author’s eschatological convictions control his perception of the nature 361 362

T. W. Lewis, “‘. . . And if he shrinks back’ (Heb X.38b),” NTS 22 (1976), 92. Ibid., 91–3.

134

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

and outcome of the community’s timidity and apathy. His certainty of the eschatological significance of Christ’s saving sacrifice – as an entirely effectual, “once for all” divine disclosure of forgiveness, cleansing, and heavenly access – leads him to the bold claim that true access to God is only one step of faith away (10:19–23). This same conviction underlies his blunt interpretation of the recipients’ casual indifference. There are no other sacrificial means of access to God and a failure to avail oneself of this access is equivalent to “trampling the Son of God underfoot” (10:26– 31). The author’s sense of immediacy concerning the imminence of the apocalyptic day of judgment also manifests itself in both exhortation and warning: positively, the return of Jesus in a “very little while” will bring vindication and reward; negatively, even the slightest hint of neglect is construed as permanent abandonment (10:35–39).363 It would therefore appear the author perceives the path leading from casual indifference to outright apostasy is, at best, an extremely short and slippery slope. The brusque portrayal of the situation in 10:19–39 even seems to disavow the very existence of a “slope.” Michel’s assertion that the author views apostasy as a “process” and “not a single event,” is uninformed by the situation sketched in 10:19–39.364 Even an innocuous “shrinking back” of the recipients, or a mere “neglect” of the community gatherings, will be met with immediate and irrevocable repercussions. Our analysis of 10:19–39 has also demonstrated both the prominence of the movement imagery as well as the presence of a calculated emotional appeal. The full orbit of the author’s emotions is traversed, from his purest expressions of hope-filled exhortation and commendation, to his most severe warning. This emotional journey is empowered by a pervasive imagery of movement that even includes a personification of the eschaton, as an entity also on the move. The underlying hortatory message attending this imagery may be summarized as: “‘Draw near’ to God and do not ‘draw back,’ because the day of judgment and the ‘Coming One’ are both ‘drawing near’ to you.” And so the author again encircles the recipients with bare eschatological facts, forcing a reconsideration of unexamined lives and half-hearted commitments,365 and providing well-reasoned

363

Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 319: “Although the author understood himself to be living in the final days (1:2; 3:13; 9:26–28; 10:37–38), he did not base his warnings concerning apostasy on this idea.” 364 Michel, Hebräer, 82, remarks: “Allerdings mag man bedenken, daß Abfall nicht einziges Geschehen meint, sondern einen ganzen Prozeß, der seine Folgen nach sich zieht.” 365 So Walker, “A Place for Hebrews?” 236, who suggests the recipients “were contemplating an action without having thought through its implications; their intended action was not the result of a conscious theological decision.”

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

135

motivation for them to step boldly into the eschatological realities Jesus has provided them.366

11. “The city that is to come” (13:9–16) Mention is made of an “abiding” and “coming city” towards the end of a nearly indecipherable stream of consciousness that courses through 13:9– 16. Disparate themes are linked, in midrashic style, by shared motifs: (1) “various and strange teachings,” possibly concerning food regulations, are judged to be without benefit (13:9);367 (2) the food motif continues in the next verse, as the recipients are reminded that they “have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat” (13:10); (3) discussion of the Jewish sacrificial system extends into 13:11, with a partial paraphrase of the Yom Kippur ritual: “the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp” (e;xw th/j parembolh/j); (4) the “outside the camp” motif is harnessed to discuss the ignominy of Jesus’ death, which occurred “outside the city gate (e;xw th/j pu,lhj) in order to sanctify the people by his own blood” (13:12); (5) the “outside the camp” (e;xw th/j parembolh/j) theme is then directed towards the recipients, who are exhorted in 13:13 to fearlessly “go outside the camp,” i.e., to boldly identify themselves with Jesus and his community, and no longer shelter themselves in any other socio-religious identity; (6) this rejection of all other competing socio-religious identities, and the safety and status they might bring, is based on the conviction that “here we have no lasting city, but we are looking for the one that is to come” (13:14); (7) the cultic motif is resumed in 13:15–16, as the vocabulary of Israel’s cultus is used to exhort the recipients to confess their identity as followers of Jesus, and “do good and share with one another.” Thus Koester has aptly characterized 13:9–16 as a “complex and allusive passage that engages listeners more by images that stimulate the imagination than by logical argument.”368 And as we will see, the main thrust of this passage is to remind the recipients of 366

These two factors: the emotional circuit, and the repeated emphasis on movement imagery, form the basis for the consideration of 10:19–39 as a discreet unit. Admittedly the passage contains great rhetorical variety, from exhortation to warning (10:19–31), and remembrance of past glory to future encouragement (10:32–39). Koester, Hebrews, 454–5, classifies 10:26–39 as a digression. 367 The “many” teachings polemicized against here may form a deliberate contrast with the previous verse’s assertion of the singularity of “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). 368 Koester, Hebrews, 575. See also Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 141; and Ellingworth, Hebrews, 704–6, 716.

136

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

their identity as followers of Christ, and to exhort them to renounce all other competing socio-religious identities, regardless of the cost. 11.1. A background of thought for the “lasting” city – Middle Platonism? In 13:14 the “coming city” (th.n me,llousan) is characterized by inference as “abiding” (me,nw). This has led some, most notably Thompson, to interpret this passage within a Middle Platonic framework.369 The primary characteristic of the coming city, according to this reading, is its permanence and stability. Thus a “heavenly/earthly” polarity is emphasized, while the fact that the city is said to be “coming” is given little consideration.370 Thompson insists that this “heavenly/earthly” polarity also controls the exhortation to go “outside the camp” (e;xw th/j parembolh/j, 13:13). Towards this end, he appeals to Philo’s repeated use of the phrase, which in its original context, Exod 33:7, described the location of the “tent of meeting.” This separation of the divine and mundane spheres is allegorized by Philo, providing the basis for an exhortation to renounce bodily passions in the quest for virtue (Alleg. Interp. 2:54–55; Worse 160; Giants 54; Drunkenness 99–101). Thompson therefore believes that “for both Philo and Hebrews, ‘outside the camp’ means outside the earthly sphere.”371 11.2. Jesus as the goal of the call to “go outside the camp” Thompson’s “heavenly/earthly” polarity results, however, in a generalization that fails to locate the immediate goal towards which the call to “go outside the camp” points: Jesus himself (evxercw,meqa pro.j auvto.n e;xw th/j parembolh/j, 13:13).372 With a hortatory subjunctive, the author exhorts: “Let us go to him outside the camp.” And that this “exit” is characterized as “bearing the abuse that Jesus endured” (lit. “bearing his reproach/shame,” to.n ovneidismo.n auvtou/ fe,rontej) further roots it in the recipients’ earthly experiences. The exhortation shares strong conceptual affinities with 12:2: “Let us look to Jesus . . . who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame.” The stakes are raised in 13:13, however, as Christ the supreme example of one who has rejected societal standards of honor-shame (“let us look to Jesus,” 369 Erich Grässer, An Die Hebräer (Hebr 10,19–13,25) (EKKNT 17/3. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1997), 3.388, emphasizes the “interweaving” of “hellenistische Eschatologie und Apokalyptik” in this passage. 370 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 150. 371 Ibid., 148. He further characterizes this is as giving up “earthly securities.” And “to ‘go out’ from earthly securities is at the same time to ‘enter’ the heavenly world” (149). 372 So Weiss, Hebräer, 735.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

137

12:2), is now cast as the goal to which such behavior should lead (“let us go to him”). And the path towards that goal will involve both an “exit” from the safe shelter of compliance with society’s honor-shame system and an “entry” into, or participation in, Jesus’ shame.373 Finally, further rooting in the earthly world is apparent in the exhortations to “do good and to share what you have” (13:16), and “confess his name” (13:15) – both being practical measures intended to solidify community cohesion. 11.3. The hortatory role of the endurance motif Given this depiction of earthly existence – as “bearing Jesus’ shame” – the statement that “we do not have here a lasting city” (ouv ga.r e;comen w-de me,nousan po,lin, 13:14), is more a word of encouragement for the beleaguered recipients than a description of the coming city’s ontological nature.374 It is only by inference that the coming city can be called “lasting.” Rather, it is the recipients’ present city that is characterized as “not lasting.” That the pressures and persecutions they faced were occurring in a transitory city indicates their imminent end. The bearing of Jesus’ shame will be of limited duration. This present world will soon be catastrophically destroyed; it is therefore not a place of safe retreat (12:25– 29). Furthermore, as we have already established, the author’s varied use of me,nw is clearly not controlled by Platonic suppositions. In the immediate context, 13:1, it is used to exhort the recipients to an enduring identification with the community, characterized by “brotherly love” (h` filadelfi,a mene,tw).375 Additionally, the depiction of Christ as “the same yesterday, today, and forever,” may suggest “endurance” constitutes his very being (13:8).376 And the exemplary “outcome” (e;kbasij) of the

373

Cf. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 148, who claims that “the style of life of the pilgrim people . . . may involve bearing the ‘shame’ of Christ” (emphasis mine). 374 Cf. the assonance between the two key terms in 13:14, me,nousan and me,llousan, which may signal the deliberate juxtaposition of two opposing cosmological realities: this earthly world that is not lasting, and the coming heavenly world. 375 As mentioned before in our discussion of 7:11–28 and 12:25–29, me,nw is used by the author to describe the endless priesthoods of both Melchizedek and Jesus (7:3, 24), the impermanent priesthoods of the Levitical priests (7:24), and the “better and enduring possession” of the recipients (10:34). It is also used in Jewish apocalyptic discourse, in Zech 14 and 2 Bar. 32:1–3; 59:3. 376 Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 143, connects 13:8 and 13:9 (“Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings”): “Because Christ is unchangeable (13:8), the teaching should also be unchanged.”

138

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

community’s leaders’ lives is also held before the recipients in 13:7.377 These practical applications of the “endurance” motif strongly suggest the author is bound to neither Middle Platonic conventions nor conceptualities when using this word. In fact, the depiction of the recipients’ city, as one that is not “enduring,” is probably intended to serve as a foil to these many hortatory materials exhorting the recipients to an “enduring” stance of identification with Christ and his community.378 The recipients will “outlast” their hostile surroundings in a “contest of endurance.” Concurrent with the acceptance of Christ’s shameful treatment, as a condition of identification with his community, is possession of an “earnest desire” (evpizhte,w) for the coming city. As the eschatological people of God, the recipients are not consigned to a hopeless state of resigned acceptance of Jesus’ shame. Their persecution is relativized by their proleptic experience of the coming city. This coming city, like the coming world of 2:5, though essentially a future reality from the perspective of the recipients, is a present eschatological reality.379 It is realized and experienced in the worship lives of the recipients, for it is in this context that they “have come . . . to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (proselhlu,qate . . . po,lei qeou/ zw/ntoj( VIerousalh.m evpourani,w|, 12:22).380 In their worship assembly, we see the fulfillment of aspirations expressed in a contemporary Second Temple text, 2 Bar. 51:8, which looks forward to a time when the faithful “shall see that world which is now invisible to them, and . . . a time which is now hidden to them.” 377 Concerning this verse, Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 527, remarks: “The accent falls specifically on the firmness of faith, which characterized the exemplary conduct of the leaders throughout their lives” (emphasis mine). He also argues that 13:8 has in view “the immutability of the gospel message proclaimed by the deceased leaders in the recent past” (528). 378 To his merit, Thompson (The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 143) does draw attention to the prevalence of the stability/endurance theme in the author’s exhortation. Its influence is apparent in the following warnings: (1) mh,pote pararuw/men (“let us not drift away,” 2:1); (2) mh,pote . . . avposth/nai (“do not . . . turn away,” 3:12); (3) u`sterhke,nai (“to fall short,” 4:1); (4) mh. avpoba,lhte (“do not abandon,” 10:35); (5) mh. parafe,resqe (“do not be carried away,” 13:9); as well as with terminology emphasizing the necessity of a firm commitment: e.g., be,baioj (3:14); bebaio,w (13:9); kate,cw (3:6, 14; 10:23); krate,w (4:14). Thompson believes the widespread use of these terms “suggests that the author’s major concern is with the endurance of the community, and not with a specific heresy.” 379 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 719: “The evidence is cumulative that in Hebrews’ usage, me,llw refers to that which is not wholly future, but promised and anticipated.” 380 Belief in a “heavenly city/Jerusalem” is apparent in 2 Bar. 4:2–7; 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 10:27, 54; 13:36; 2 En. 55:2; Tob 13:10–16; Sib. Or. 5:250; Gal 4:26; Rev 3:12; 21:2.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

139

11.4. Entering the Heavenly Sanctuary and going outside the camp A number of scholars, including Franz Laub,381 Grässer,382 deSilva,383 Knut Backhaus,384 and Benjamin Dunning,385 have recently argued for the essential equivalence of the two “decisive” exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary, 4:14–16 and 10:19–25,386 and the exhortation in 13:13 to “go to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured.” Though these exhortations share a similar goal, i.e., “to him,”387 the sacral milieu presupposed in 4:14–16 and 10:19–25 is clearly not what is in view in 13:13. And unless the presumed setting of the community’s worship gatherings is a synagogue – an unlikely presumption – then a public, social setting is the intended locus for the costly stance of identification prescribed in 13:13. Although the confession called for in 4:14–16 and 10:19–25 will ultimately carry over into the public sphere,388 these two passages are surely rooted in the worship life of the community. Thus entirely different milieus are presupposed. More importantly, the texture of the activities and the results that are said to follow upon faithful execution of either movement are also at odds, especially in two respects: (1) In entering the Heavenly Sanctuary, the recipients find cultic cleansing and access to a God who is favorably disposed towards them. When exiting the camp, they will be met with the same shameful treatment – and possibly violence – that Jesus encountered. In the sacral location they “receive mercy and find grace,” while in the profane sphere they receive abuse and (possibly) find beatings. (2) In the sacral sphere their identity is formed and solidified; in a social setting it is tested and punished. The latter 381

Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 270. Grässer, Hebräer, 1.258. 383 Cf. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 502: “The three e;rcomai verbs” (i.e., prose,rcomai, eivse,rcomai, evxe,rcomai) “ultimately all move in the same direction, creating a clear trajectory for the addressees.” 384 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), 157, argues that the exhortation of 13:13 “corresponds” with the “eisodos into the sacred space (10:19).” “The entrance into the divine presence, the imitation of Christ, and the search for the eternal homeland assume the form of an exodus from urban Roman culture, thereby leading to the social stigmatization of the ‘wandering people’” (167). 385 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), 190–1. 386 Weiss, Hebräer, 52, refers to these two passages, 4:14–16 and 10:19–25, as “decisive control centers” (“entscheidenden Schaltstellen”) in the epistle’s hortatory strategy. 387 Attridge, Hebrews, 398. 388 Cf. pages 228–9 below, in chapter eight. 382

140

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

context presupposes the former. The call to “exit the camp” is issued to those whose identities are established. The conflation of these two spheres, and their respective exhortations to “enter” and “exit,” is impossible when close consideration is paid to these two factors. 11.5. A polemic against Judaism? The author’s “generalizing paraphrase” of the Yom Kippur ritual in 13:11,389 indicates that he is yet again using Jewish religious practice as a foil to the sacrifice of Jesus and Christian praxis. This same antithesis characterizes a number of other elements found in 13:9–16: (1) In 13:9, the warning: “It is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them,” is somewhat in tension with the claim of Ps 104:14–15: “He . . . brings bread out of the earth; . . . and bread strengthens the human heart.” This psalm, according to Lane, typically informed Second Temple prayers preceding meals. Thus in 13:9 the author “declares that the grace of God was not mediated through the celebration of cultic meals.”390 (2) In 13:10, the present participle latreu,ontej characterizes the service offered by “those in the tent” (oi` th/| skhnh/| latreu,ontej). This representation of the cultus from the wilderness wanderings – in its ideal and pristine state – is in line with the depiction in chapter 9 (vv. 6–10, 13, 22, 25). There, numerous present and perfect verbs are used in recounting the operation of the Jewish cultus, which despite a stated context of the wilderness “tent,” is represented in the thought-world of our author as currently in operation.391 (3) In 13:10, the “altar” (qusiasth,rion) at which the recipients “eat” (evsqi,w) is said to be inaccessible to those “those serving in the tent” (oi` th/| skhnh/| latreu,ontej). This imagery, conveying a claim to exclusive access to divine service and presence, is considered by Lindars to represent

389 Attridge, Hebrews, 397. “For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.” 390 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 535. Cf. the numerous Second Temple examples supplied by Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 533–4. That brw/ma is never used in the LXX of sacrificial meals is of little consequence, for as Lane observes: “It is unnecessary to distinguish sharply between ordinary Jewish meals and special cultic meal times. Every Jewish meal possessed a cultic character” (534). So also Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” 388. 391 A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” NTS 50.3 (2004), 402, argues that the author’s representation of the cult – at least in chapter 13 – reflects contemporary practice. See the discussion of this issue above, in pages 84–5, where it was argued that despite the lack of conclusive evidence, numerous factors suggest the author wrote while the Herodian Temple was still in operation.

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

141

eucharistic practice;392 in all likelihood 13:10 refers instead to the “multiple dimensions of Christ’s death,”393 “the source of the saving and sustaining grace by which the heart is strengthened.”394 That an altar functions symbolically as a liminal zone, where the divine and human spheres overlap, is in line with the author’s dual conception of Christ’s sacrifice, as spanning heaven and earth.395 Furthermore, the metaphoric usage of the verb evsqi,w here in 13:10 is comparable to both the use of geu,omai in 6:5, describing the recipients “tasting” of “the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,” and the promise of 3:14, that “we have become partakers (me,tocoj) of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.” (4) Finally, the imagery of sacrifice, central to the Jewish cultus, is redirected in two ways. First, in 13:12, Christ’s “Day of Atonement” sacrificial offering (VIhsou/j( i[na a`gia,sh| dia. tou/ ivdi,ou ai[matoj to.n lao,n( e;xw th/j pu,lhj e;paqen) is presented in a subversive manner, via the inversion of the sequence of sacrificial events and their effects. Dunning notes that the “role of the space e;xw th/j parembolh/j” has been shifted “to highlight the cleansing function of Jesus’ sacrifice.” The space e;xw th/j parembolh/j “is transformed: what was once a place which created a need for cleansing prior to one’s return inside has now become the site of the sacrifice that actually brings about the people’s purification.”396 A second transformation of sacrificial imagery occurs through the spiritualization of the sacrificial cultus in the worship life of the community (avnafe,rwmen qusi,an aivne,sewj, karpo.n ceile,wn, qusi,aij euvarestei/tai, 13:15–16). This transformation of Jewish cultic terminology and imagery indicates the certain presence of a polemic against Second Temple Jewish belief and practice.397 Moreover, the logic of the author’s repeated emphasis on the 392 Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” 388–9. Ronald Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 21 (1974–75), 300–12, has effectively demonstrated the absence of any eucharistic thought or practice in Hebrews. 393 Koester, Hebrews, 569. 394 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 538. So also Attridge, Hebrews, 396; Bruce, Hebrews, 378– 80; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 711. A less polemical interpretation is offered by Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14),” 246–7, who points to the Levitical prohibition against eating the Yom Kippur offering. Young argues: “Since Jesus is a Day of Atonement offering, the priests by Levitical law are excluded from partaking of it.” 395 Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest, 61. Contra Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14),” 248. 396 Dunning, “The Intersection of Alien Status and Cultic Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 192. Cf. also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 709; Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 192. 397 Contra Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” 234–6, who argues for a late dating for the epistle, and a general polemic in 13:9.

142

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

Jewish cult’s ineffectiveness and obsolescence, found throughout chapters 7–12,398 is taken one step further by the argument of 13:9–16. In his statement, “We have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat” (13:10), the author moves from a rhetoric of ineffectiveness and obsolescence to one of restriction and exclusivity. The symbolic figureheads of the Jewish cultus, i.e., “those serving in the tent,” and by extension all those whom they represent by proxy, are excluded from participation in the benefits of Jesus’ conclusive self-sacrifice.399 In no uncertain terms, a complete break with Second Temple Judaism has been made.400 11.6. Identification with Jesus & solidarity with the twelve disciples and the patriarchs That the metaphoric exit from the camp enjoined upon the recipients is immediately characterized as “bearing Jesus’ shame” (to.n ovneidismo.n auvtou/ fe,rontej, 13:13) indicates the social function of the passage. It would appear that the author expects identification with Christ will necessarily result in a renewal of the persecution described in 10:32–34. The persecution they had endured, in “the earlier days,” is described in 10:32–34 as “a great struggle of suffering” (pollh.n a;qlhsin . . . paqhma,twn), involving “both insults and persecutions, being made a public spectacle” (ovneidismoi/j te kai. qli,yesin qeatrizo,menoi) and the “seizure of assets” (th.n a`rpagh.n tw/n u`parco,ntwn). The recipients rose to the occasion, enduring the harsh persecution “with joy” (meta. cara/j) and showing solidarity with those who were imprisoned for their faithfulness to Jesus (toi/j desmi,oij sunepaqh,sate; cf. Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus 12–13). Willing endurance of these conditions will also afford the recipients opportunity to emulate Jesus, who “disregarded the shame” (aivscu,nhj katafronh,saj) of his humiliating crucifixion (12:2) and “endured the 398

Specifically: 7:11–28; 8:5, 7, 13; 9:8–14, 23–26; 10:1–25; 11:13, 39–40; 12:18–24. Attridge (Hebrews, 397) understates the case. He contends there is “an element of polemic involved” in 13:10, “but it is indirect.” Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” 402, compares this passage with 1 Cor 1:20–21, where “Paul stresses the incompatibility between participation in Christian cultic meals and the pagan ones of demons.” His view of chapter 13 as a later addition leads him to believe that Ch. 13 takes a further step for which nothing in chs. 1–12 has really prepared us: there the adherents of the old cult may have been poorly served by that cult and have not been ‘perfected’ by it, but of the sheer incompatibility of participation in their cult with participation in the Christian one that transcends and supercedes it there is no mention. 400 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 709. 399

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

143

hostility of sinners” (u`pomemenhko,ta u`po. tw/n a`martwlw/n eivj e`auto.n avntilogi,an, 12:3). As the “founder and perfecter” of their faith (th/j pi,stewj avrchgo.n kai. teleiwth,n), “Jesus’ actions were not governed by society’s views of what was shameful, but by what it meant to obey God.”401 The exhortation to “go outside the camp and bear Jesus’ shame” is therefore a piece of community formation based on identification and solidarity with Christ and his exemplary rejection of societal standards of shame (12:2). And though ovneidismo,j, strictly understood, denotes “an act of disparagement that results in disgrace,”402 “going outside the camp and bearing Jesus’ ovneidismo,j” will most likely result in reprisals that extend beyond the sphere of social stigmatization and verbal abuse. The author’s emphasis on the corporeal dimension of Christ’s suffering, especially apparent in his direct equation of “suffering” and “death” (2:9–10, 18; 5:8; 9:26; 13:12), suggests that physical suffering, possibly even death, should also be considered a constituent element of the “shame of Jesus.”403 This exhortation also recalls the situation of the twelve disciples, whose obedient response to Jesus’ call to follow him entailed both “persecutions” and the loss of “home, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, and fields” (Mark 10:28–30). Halvor Moxnes has aptly illustrated the consequences of obeying Jesus’ call to follow him: That is the reason why leaving the household is so unsettling, since it means to be displaced from one’s place of identity. And the trouble with these sayings is that they do not immediately open up a new place into which a disciple might settle. Jesus invites or calls people to ‘follow me,’ to ‘become my disciple,’ but this does not in itself provide a new place. It seems more a call to follow him into his lack of place.404

Furthermore, the exhortation to “go outside the camp and bear Jesus’ shame” stands in continuity with the exemplary actions of the patriarchs of Israel, as rhetorically constructed by the author in his discourse on faith in chapter 11. There the patriarchs are cast as “strangers and foreigners on the earth,” who “are seeking a homeland . . . a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he has prepared a city (po,lij) for them” (11:13–16). In particular, the author’s portrayal of Abraham and Moses appears to be expressly tailored to the recipients’ present situation. Abraham, the pilgrim par excellence, is said to have 401

Koester, Hebrews, 524. BDAG, 710. 403 Contra Norman H. Young, “Suffering: A Key to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ABR 51 (2003), 55–7, who contends that the “reproaches” faced by the recipients were “largely verbal,” coming in the form of “insults” offered by their fellow Jews. 404 Halvor Moxnes, Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 68. 402

144

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, . . . For he looked forward to the city (po,lij) that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God (11:8–10).

The author’s depiction of Moses resonates even more deeply with the recipients’ experience: When he was grown up, he refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to share ill treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproaches of Christ to be greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking ahead to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, unafraid of the king’s anger; for he persevered as though he saw him who is invisible (11:24–27).

Here the theme of faithful pilgrimage is modified and considerably expanded. Moses’ “exit from the camp” of Egypt was predicated on both (1) his costly unwillingness to identify with the oppressors/persecutors of the “people of God” (11:24), which entailed forsaking “the pleasures of sin” (a`marti,aj avpo,lausin, 11:25) and the “treasures of Egypt” (tw/n Aivgu,ptou qhsaurw/n, 11:26); (2) and his fearless identification with God’s people, with whom he shared “ill treatment” (sugkakoucei/sqai, 11:25).405 On both counts, the author’s portrayal of Moses can be profitably juxtaposed with that of Esau. Characterized as “sexually immoral and profane” (po,rnoj h' be,bhloj), Esau traded his essential identity, his “birthright” (avpe,deto ta. prwtoto,kia e`autou/), for “one meal” (12:16). Moses, on the other hand, counted his identity as a member of the family of God more valuable than “pleasure” and “treasure.” Remarkably, the author construes Moses’ identification with the people of God as bearing “the shame of Christ” (to.n ovneidismo.n tou/ Cristou/, 11:26). Thus an unmistakable connection is made with the exhortation of 13:13, to “bear Jesus’ shame” (to.n ovneidismo.n auvtou/).406 Another point of contact may be discerned in Moses’ “sharing ill treatment” with the people of God, and the recipients’ past acts of solidarity with those imprisoned (10:34).407 A further parallel is apparent in Moses’ “persevering” pilgrimage (evkarte,rhsen, 11:27) towards the “invisible” God (to.n avo,raton), and the recipients’ “earnest desire” (evpizhtou/men, 13:13) for the coming city, which by implication is also invisible. Therefore, in both movements of Moses’ pilgrimage, “out from the camp – Egypt,” and “into the people of God,” the author’s agenda for the recipients is mirrored. The 405

See Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History, 168. This obvious parallel, clearly showing continuity between the example of Moses and the crucial exhortation of 13:13 severely weakens Wedderburn’s argument against the integrity of the 13th chapter (“The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter”). 407 DeSilva, Despising Shame, 310. 406

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

145

values and rewards of society are to be “exited from,” and the values and worship of God are to be “entered into” (13:14–16). In so doing, society’s “court of reputation” is relativized and an “alternate court of opinion,” namely God’s, is established in its place. In this regard, Backhaus observes: Thus Hebrews redefines the standards that provide social acknowledgment and so transforms the values that give orientation to ethical practice. The ‘court of reputation’ for those who ‘approach’ is no longer the plausibility structure of the urban majority but God as the founder of the better or heavenly homeland.408

11.7. A polemic against cities and citizenship? The portrayals of Abraham and Moses as model pilgrims may also be informed by the author’s experience as an Alexandrian Jew.409 Specifically, the author’s construction of their pilgrim existence may be shaped by his own experience within the Jewish community of Alexandria, particularly reflecting the manner in which that community’s political and social standing was rhetorically marginalized by the Emperor Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians, issued in the wake of the racial tumult of 38–41 CE.410 This humiliating experience was then radically redefined and relativized by his Christian experience, as one called by the risen Jesus to “follow him” into “his lack of place,” i.e., “outside the camp/city.” Both Josephus and Philo trace the origins of the Jewish settlement in Alexandria to the historic founder of the city, Alexander the Great (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2:35, 72; J. W. 2:487; Ant. 19:281; Philo, Flaccus 45).411 And though Josephus claims they possessed Alexandrian citizenship (Ag. Ap. 2:65; Ant. 14:188),412 it was commonly thought that the Jewish 408

Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 172. See the extended treatment of this motif in deSilva, Despising Shame, 276–313. He defines the key issues in the following questions: “In whose eyes are the addressees called to seek to be recognized as honorable? Whose opinion and evaluation matter? What actions or attitudes are defined as honorable?” (278). 409 A speculative proposition to be sure, though a likely one given his affinities with Philo. 410 See John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California, 1996), 51–7; and Gruen, Diaspora, 54–83, for reconstructions of the events leading to Claudius’ letter. 411 Though this claim is debated, a Jewish presence in Alexandria can be ascertained as early as the reign of Ptolemy I, ca. 304–283 BCE. See Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 2 Vols. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), 2.399. 412 Certainly citizenship was possessed by some wealthy Jews. Cf. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 50, 60, 66–70; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 2000), 121.

146

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

community was organized as a semi-autonomous and distinct poli,teuma (Let. Aris. 310). The existence of such a governmental body, a poli,teuma, has recently been called into question,413 though undoubtedly the Alexandrian Jews enjoyed a measure of political standing in the city, as well as civic privileges.414 In spite of these rights and freedoms, the Jews of Alexandria could still be considered “outsiders” in the great city, as evidenced by Josephus’ response to the charges of Apion in Against Apion.415 A rhetoric of marginalization is especially evident in Claudius’ letter to the city written in 41 CE. The pertinent passages are found in lines 88–89 and 94–95: kai. VIoude,oij de. a;ntikruj keleu,wi mhde.n plh,wi w-n pro,teron e;scon . . . karpoume,nouj me.n ta. oivki/a avpola,[u]ontaj de. evn avllotri,a| po,lei periousi,aj avpqo,nwn avgaqw/n. “The Jews, on the other hand, I explicitly order them not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed . . . since they enjoy what is their own, and in a city which is not their own they possess an abundance of all good things.”416 This imperial edict was provoked by recurring racial rioting that began with the pogrom of Flaccus in 38 CE. Though in this initial pogrom the Jewish community was “humiliated . . . and grievously abused,” when the opportunity presented itself a few years later, with the accession of Claudius, the Jews of Alexandria “took heart again, armed themselves” and exacted revenge (Josephus, Ant. 19:278). Claudius’ response was calculated to secure the peace. He decreed that the Jews could continue to 413 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 120, asserts that the existence of a Jewish poli,teuma has been “universally rejected.” So also Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. Robert Cornman (Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 82; Sarah Pearce, “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. John M. G. Barclay (Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 26. 414 Cf. Gruen, Diaspora, 75: Whether or not politeuma is the proper term, the Alexandrian Jews plainly had governing officials of their own: an ethnarch, a gerousia, or both. And they possessed political standing in the city, including the exercise of (unspecified) civic privileges, . . . this did not amount to an autonomous entity, although Jewish officials could act almost as if it were. So also Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Thus are Israel’: Jewish Self-Definition in Alexandria,” The Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995), 11–12. 415 An analysis of Josephus’ response to this crisis is offered by John M. G. Barclay, “The Politics of Contempt: Judeans and Egyptians in Josephus’s Against Apion,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. John M. G. Barclay (Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 120–7. 416 Papyri no. 153, in Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. V.A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern, 3 Vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1957–1964), 2.94–5. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 116, considers this letter “indisputably authentic.”

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

147

enjoy their previous privileges, but they were “explicitly ordered” to no longer “agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed.” An implicit demarcation of the boundaries between “Alexandrians” and “Jews” is evident in the me,n – de, construction of the argument (lines 82, 87). The explicit rhetorical marginalization of the Alexandrian Jews is accomplished, however, in Claudius’ assertion that they lived in “a city that belongs to others” (evn avllotri,a| po,lei). The Jewish claim to foundational membership in the city was thereby dismissed with a stroke of the pen, and Collins interprets this phrase as a forthright declaration that “the Jews, in short, are not citizens, and are not Alexandrians.”417 From this blow the Jews of Alexandria never recovered; in John M. G. Barclay’s estimation, this little phrase . . . sounded the death knell to their long and successful attempts to integrate into the social and political life of the city. Although guaranteed religious freedom, they were now denied permission to give their children the educational and social advancement they had themselves enjoyed. To Philo and those of his social class it was a disaster. In effect Claudius had halted the social and cultural integration of the Jews.418

In at least three instances, Claudius’ assessment of the Jewish Alexandrian situation resonates with the author’s depiction in chapter 11 of the pilgrim existence:

Letter of Claudius (Col v. 95) evn avllotri,a| po,lei periousi,aj avpqo,nwn avgaqw/n karpoume,nouj me.n ta. oivki/a avpola,[u]ontaj

Hebrews 11 parw,|khsen eivj gh/n . . . w`j avllotri,an (11:9) tw/n Aivgu,ptou qhsaurw/n (11:26) pro,skairon e;cein a`marti,aj avpo,lausin (11:25)

417 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 120. Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ 7. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985), 326, argues that this phrase, evn avllotri,a| po,lei, “has nothing to do with (Jewish) civic status.” Rather, it reflects the Emperor’s perception that “Alexandria, like all of Egypt,” was his “private possession, and (the Jews) therefore could not do as they liked in it.” Gruen, Diaspora, 80, softens the impact of the statement. He claims that it does not intend to revoke any privileges already enjoyed by the Jewish community, rather it serves solely to undercut any further striving for political advantage. Though he does admit “Jewish privileges, however bountiful, still fell short of full identification with the city in which they dwelled” (73). 418 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 60. Sterling, “‘Thus are Israel’: Jewish Self-Definition in Alexandria,” 17, attributes the revolt of 115–117 CE to this “loss of the right to participate in Hellenism.”

148

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

Especially noteworthy is the manner in which Claudius justifies the imperial imposition of an alien identity upon the Alexandrian Jews, by appealing to the “abundance of goods” they have “enjoyed.” This “carrot” is qualified however, by the outsider status that infers an illegitimate acquisition of these “abundant goods.” The author’s précis of Moses’ life appears to bear the imprint of this experience. Moses’ parents were “unafraid of the edict of the king/Caesar” (11:23), and Moses himself is chiefly characterized by his unwillingness to allow “carrots” to shape his identity. He renounced both an identity of privilege: “the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” (11:24), and the attendant rewards: the “treasures of Egypt” (11:26) and “fleeting pleasures of sin” (11:25). He chose instead an identity defined by and an existence shaped by God. According to this proposal then, it would appear that the author’s construction of the patriarchs is deliberately crafted to address a community on the margins of Roman society, as viewed through the lens of his own experience of marginalization. On the basis of this scenario, the thrust of his subtle exhortation may be paraphrased as follows: The dominant society has power to define you and your identity to the extent that you allow them to do so. Thus if you desire to live under the rule of the Roman emperor, as ‘citizens,’ you must also accept his definition of your identity. As followers of a crucified Jewish rebel, you are viewed by Rome as innately opposed to its rule. The emperor will define you as an ‘alien.’ Inevitably then, you will find yourself faced with a choice: either compromise your identity as a Christian or face marginalization and persecution as an alien. However, since God is the true definer of reality, you must allow him, as has Moses, to define your identity, regardless of the earthly consequences. You should then live as a ‘stranger and exile on the earth,’ ‘unafraid of the king’s edict,’ and ‘his wrath.’ Like Moses, you should reject the ‘passing pleasures of sin’ and value the ‘shame of Christ’ to be of greater merit than ‘the wealth of Egypt.’ Thus rejecting a Roman identity, you must choose to identify yourself with the ‘people of God,’ and ‘share ill treatment’ with them.

This somewhat speculative construct envisages an implicit polemic subtly and suggestively lodged against the Roman Empire, though surely this is not all the author has to say about the Empire. In fact, his critique is elsewhere more overt: (1) The Roman sword has lost its edge with the claim that Jesus, through his death, has “destroyed the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and freed those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death” (2:14–15). (2) Roman citizenship is completely devalued by the author’s portrayal of the recipients’ membership in the family of God: they are the “siblings of the Son” (2:11– 12), his “children” (2:13–14; 12:5–11), the “house of God” (3:1–6), “partakers” of Christ (3:14), and “the heirs of God’s promise” (6:17). (3) Pax Romana is also relativized with the claim that “we who have believed have entered God’s rest” (4:3). (4) The Roman throne is drained of all its

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

149

authority by the assertion that the crucified Jewish rebel Jesus is in fact the one who occupies the true throne, the throne of heaven (1:3, 8; 2:9; 4:16; 8:1; 12:2). Furthermore, Jesus is the savior (2:10; 5:9; 9:28), lord (1:10; 2:3; 7:14; 13:20) and Son of God (1:2, 5, 8; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5, 8; 6:6; 7:3, 28; 10:29) – not Caesar – and Jesus’ enemies shall soon find his sandals resting on their backs (1:13; 10:13). (5) The emperor’s titular role as pontifex maximus of the Roman Empire is usurped by the author’s elaborate presentation of Jesus’ effectual high priesthood. (6) The open access to God afforded by Jesus’ priestly ministry, and the favorable disposition of God towards those who approach him (4:14–16; 6:19; 7:19, 25; 10:19–23; 12:22–24) starkly contrasts with inaccessible misanthropes like Gaius Caligula (Philo, Embassy 178–186, 191–192).419 (7) If the recipients are located in Rome, as some have argued,420 then the claim that “here we have no lasting city” (13:14) potently counters the characterization of Rome as the “eternal city” (urbs aeterna), the capital of the “eternal empire” (imperium sine fine). The persecutions suffered there in 49 CE (Suetonius, Claudius 25:4) and under the reign of Nero, after the fire of 64 CE (Tacitus, Annals 15.44.6), would make the author’s advice even more appropriate. This proposal then assumes the presence of a deliberate and multi-faceted assault against the basis and nature of Roman rule, one in no wise inferior to that offered by the Gospel of Mark.421 The benefits and privileges assumed to cohere with Roman rule and citizenship are also irrevocably diminished. The Roman Empire’s offer of citizenship, peace and prosperity to those who comply with its rule has been emptied of 419 Philo and the Jewish Alexandrian delegation waited at least one year, possibly even a year and a half, to gain an audience with Gaius Caligula. Philo reports Gaius as saying: “I will hear your statement of the case myself when I have free time (proseukaire,w)” (Embassy 181). 420 Among those arguing for a Roman destination: Attridge, Hebrews, 10; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, lviii–lx; idem, Hebrews 9–13, 301. A Roman destination is suggested by Hagner, Hebrews, 7; Koester, Hebrews, 51–2. A critique is offered by deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 1, 21. 421 See Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27 – 16:20 (WBC. Nashville: Nelson, 2001), lxxx– xciii. Cf. Richard A. Horsley, “Introduction,” in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, ed. Richard A. Horsley (SemeiaSt 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 14: According to the scholarly consensus, the Gospel of Mark and speeches of Jesus paralleled in Matthew and Luke (‘Q’) arose from and addressed communities of Jesus-followers who were opposed to and opposed by the (ruling elite). The later literate leadership and literary products of what had become ‘early Christianity,’ (i.e., Luke and the Pastoral Epistles), have clearly acquiesced in various ways to the dominant order. As has been suggested, Horsley’s accusation of “acquiescence” to the Roman Empire cannot be leveled against Hebrews.

150

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

all its promise and power. Thus an exit from this camp/city/empire, regardless of the immediate cost, is the only safe and sane course of action. 11.8. The interface of eschatology and exhortation in 13:9–16 If residence in imperial cities was as difficult and dangerous as has been proposed, then the author’s exhortation to “go outside the camp to Jesus and bear the shame he endured” would be no empty warning. And while this exhortation does promote “an ethic of crossing an important civic boundary from the world of perceived honor into the world of shame,”422 it is surely not solely concerned with societal attributions of honor-shame. Conditions more severe are envisioned. The author’s recital of the persecutions that the recipients had endured “in those earlier days” (10:32– 34), and the corporeal nature of the abuse Jesus is said to have endured are indicators that the author expects the possibility of bloodshed. This call to embrace and endure the shameful and violent treatment that accompanies identification with Jesus and his community would however be offset by the author’s reminder of a core eschatological conviction: their present city was not an “enduring” one. The recipients are exhorted to dislocate themselves from a society that punishes them for their full identification with Jesus, and to set their bearings on the “coming” eschatological city, one with “foundations,” whose “builder and maker” is God.423 The path towards that goal will involve both an exit from the safe shelter of compliance with society’s honor-shame system, and an entry into Jesus’ “shame.” Thus an eschatological goal, and all that involves its pursuit, serves to relativize the recipients’ earthly situation.

422

Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, “The Hero in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Jesus as an Ascetic Model,” in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols. Essays in Honor of François Bovon, ed. David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, David W. Pao (BibInt 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003), 187. 423 The depiction, in 11:10, of God’s creation of the eschatological city (tou.j qemeli,ouj e;cousan po,lin h-j tecni,thj kai. dhmiourgo.j o` qeo,j) echoes the traditions surrounding Alexander’s founding of Alexandria. Arrian, Anabasis 3.1.5; 3.2.1, reports: “he himself marked out the ground plan of the city” (kai. auvto.j ta. shmei/a th|/ po,lei e;qhken) and then “left behind for the builders the ground plan of the fortification” (ta. shmei/a tou/ teicismou/ toi/j te,tosin).

Chapter 5: An Exegetical Examination of Two-Age Eschatology in Hebrews

151

Conclusion to Part One: The hortatory program attending twoage eschatology in Hebrews We can now safely state that the depths of the author’s two-age eschatology may be adequately sounded only when examined in concert with his related exhortation. This “apocalyptic ‘word of exhortation’ was written in the conviction that the present generation was experiencing the fundamental apocalyptic event, the transition to the new age.”424 And this conviction is nowhere more apparent than when it is expressed in the context of exhortation. The first two chapters of Hebrews reveal at the outset the author’s core convictions: his eschatology is Christological eschatology and his “word of exhortation” might best be deemed a “Christ-centered eschatological word of exhortation.” Moreover, almost all the author’s major eschatological and hortatory themes appear first in these two chapters: (1) The Christ event has both signaled the influx of the eschaton (2:5–9) and provided the community with the true basis and motivation for their existence (cf. 9:26). (2) The hortatory corollary to the lofty Christology of chapter 1 is offered in 2:1–4: the exalted Son’s unrivalled position and authority demands the undivided allegiance of his people (cf. 10:19–23 and 10:29). (3) The verbs of motion in the warning of 2:1–4, “drift away,” and “escape,” also work in concert with the exalted Christology, exposing the futility of a lackluster attempt at “escaping” the lordship of Christ (cf. 10:37–39). (4) The mention of an approaching and imminent “coming world” in 2:5 would further reinforce the folly of a lame-legged retreat from the Lord of that coming world: Jesus (cf. 9:24–28; 13:14). (5) An emphasis on Jesus’ identification with his people, his “siblings,” pervades 2:9–18 (cf. 3:1–6, 14; 4:14–16; 6:20; 8:1; 9:24–28; 10:10–14; 13:12). (6) The exalted Son is in some sense visible to the recipients (2:9; cf. 9:26, 28). (7) Eschatological ambiguity in 2:8–9 serves to open a temporal window of possibility for the recipients (cf. 3:7 – 4:11). (8) The author’s recurring reminders of the recipients’ experience of the eschaton – central to his hortatory program – make their first appearance in 2:4 (cf. 4:3; 6:4–5; 10:32). (9) Finally, the first two chapters proclaim that the Christ event has brought a conclusive solution to the universal problem provoking two-age belief: sin’s destructive power. Jesus’ self-offering “in these last days” has brought “purification for sins” (1:3; 2:11; cf. 9:14; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 12:24; 13:12), an “atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17; cf. 7:27;

424

256.

Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?”

152

Part One: Two-Age Eschatology and Exhortation

8:12; 9:26–28; 10:12, 17–18, 26), and an annulment of its ultimate consequence: death (2:9; 2:14–15; cf. 5:9; 9:12, 27–28). Though the author occasionally portrays the recipients as inhabiting “normal” time, even telling them in 3:13 to “encourage one another, each and every day” (kaqV e`ka,sthn h`me,ran), his pervasive two-age eschatology more commonly inculcates a sense of eschatological immediacy and existential irrevocability. In those instances where the eschatological moment is most pronounced, time is collapsed and the community is portrayed as precariously perched on the edge of the eschaton. Eschatological urgency is most apparent in 9:24–28 and 10:19–39. In the former passage, the author constructs an eschatological-temporal bracket with which he encircles his listeners, forcefully hemming them entirely within the soteriological presence and eschatological purposes of the enthroned Son who is high priest, whose manifestation has signaled the “end of the ages.” In 10:19–39, the eschaton takes on the characteristics of a personified being, a fearful entity “on the move” whose imminent approach effectively disallows casual retreat. The exhortation that attends this imagery urges the recipients not to “draw back” because the day of judgment is “drawing near” and will shortly overcome them in their retreat. “In a very little while” the eschaton will be fully unveiled, and the community’s existence will be irrevocably determined. From these two examples, we may wonder if the gravity of the recipients’ situation served to heighten the author’s own eschatological convictions, lending an even greater urgency to his perception and portrayal of the eschatological moment. The hortatory intent underlying these fearsome portrayals of eschatological imminence extends beyond their immediate role as warnings. As we will see in the next section, the author’s exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary are all the more purposeful when seen as the intended goal of a process begun with the eschatological warnings. These warnings are then the first step in a deliberate chain of hortatory intent, reminding the community of the eschatological moment, and intensifying the call for firm commitment to Jesus and his community. This unshakeable commitment will find its durative power in the transformative experience the author commends via entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Part Two

Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

Introduction

Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation The Heavenly Sanctuary dominates the symbolic landscape of Hebrews. It is the presumed setting of the author’s dramatic rendering of the Son’s exaltation and enthronement (1:5–13; 2:12–13). It is even more prominently featured as the location of Jesus’ cultic achievement, his efficacious sacrificial self-offering (1:3; 4:14; 6:19–20; 7:26; 8:1–2; 9:11– 14, 23–28; 10:12–14, 19–21; 12:2–3, 24). The ultimate purpose of this elaborate portrayal of the Heavenly Sanctuary is found in the author’s hortatory proclamation of the soteriological benefits of Jesus’ priestly sacrifice (1:3; 4:16; 5:9; 7:25, 27; 8:6; 9:12, 14–15, 24, 26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14, 19–25, 29), which facilitate access to God, and the corresponding exhortation to confidently enter the Heavenly Sanctuary. It is there that the recipients’ identity as the family of God, the “siblings of the Son,” will be realized and solidified through sacral confession of the Son of God (3:1–6, 14; 4:14–16; 10:19–25). Unlike the previous section, which treated the author’s various expressions of two-age eschatology within their immediate contexts, this section is thematically arranged. These themes will be developed under three headings: (1) Cosmology: the setting of the sacrifice and exaltation; (2) The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary; (3) The enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Chapter Six

The cosmology of the Heaven Sanctuary: the setting of the sacrifice and exaltation 1. Cosmology As noted earlier, the cosmology attending the author’s depiction of the Heavenly Sanctuary is essentially eschatological in orientation. Its probable association with “the coming world” (th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan, 2:5) and “the coming city” (po,lin . . . th.n me,llousan, 13:14) colors the whole complex with an essentially future orientation. However, the fact that Christ has already entered the coming world (1:6; 2:5–9; 7:26; 8:1; 9:24; 10:12; 12:2, 24) and the Heavenly Sanctuary (4:14–16; 6:19–20; 8:1; 9:11–12; 9:24; 10:20–21), and that the recipients are presently able to access its inner sanctum (4:14–16; 7:19; 10:19–25; 12:22–24), indicates that the Heavenly Sanctuary must be viewed as a typical piece of NT inaugurated eschatology. It is both “now and not yet.” A similarly comprehensive temporal orientation may reside in the author’s use of the plural aivw/naj in 1:2c – denoting the “ages” made by Jesus – which “may be intended to conjure both the present age/world” (to.n kairo.n to.n evnesthko,ta, 9:9) “and the future age/world” (th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan, 2:5).1 1.1. The location of the Heavenly Sanctuary The Heavenly Sanctuary is said to be located in “heaven itself” (ouv ga.r eivj ceiropoi,hta eivsh/lqen a[gia Cristo,j( avnti,tupa tw/n avlhqinw/n( avllV eivj auvto.n to.n ouvrano,n, 9:24). Lane contends this use of the singular form of ouvrano,j is significant, for “only in v. 24 does (the author) make use of the singular to denote the highest heaven in which the true sanctuary as the dwelling place of God is located.”2 Plural forms of ouvrano,j represent “the heavens” that Christ “passed through” (dielhluqo,ta tou.j ouvranou,j, 4:14) and “has become exalted over” (u`yhlo,teroj tw/n ouvranw/n geno,menoj, 7:26). A multi-tiered heaven would appear to be envisaged, though ultimately a cautious stance should be adopted. For unlike the detailed 1 2

Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14,” 178. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 248.

158

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

accounts of the various tiers of heaven found in such apocalyptic texts as T. Levi 2:6–10; 3:1–8; 2 En. 3:1–2; Ascen. Isa. 7–9, “Hebrews’ language about heaven is impossible to fit into a single consistent schema.”3 1.2. The ontological nature and creative origin of the Heavenly Sanctuary Despite our inability to ascertain the exact “cosmographic” shape of the author’s universe, we can however safely surmise that at the center of his construction of the heavenly realm resides an actual temple.4 Explicit expressions of this belief can be found in Ps 11:4: “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven,”5 and T. Levi 3:4: “In the uppermost heaven of all (avnwter,w| pa,ntwn) dwells the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies superior to all holiness.” Heavenly temple cosmology surfaces in a wide variety of ancient texts: Isa 6; 1 En. 14:8–23; 3 En. 1; 7; Wis 9:8;6 4Q400–407 (Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice); Philo, Moses 2:66– 108; Josephus, Ant. 3:179–187; Seneca, De beneficiis 7.7.3; Cicero, De republica 3:14; and throughout Revelation (3:12; 7:15; 11:19; 14:15, 17; 15:5–8; 16:1, 17). These texts thus reflect “a phenomenon common during the Hellenistic and Roman periods in which temples were seen as symbols of the cosmos and vice versa.”7 Therefore attempts at viewing Hebrews’ Heavenly Sanctuary, and the high priestly sacrificial ministry of Jesus, as “sustained metaphors” (i.e., a creative elaboration of the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death), are inadequate.8 That the author consistently portrays Jesus’ self-offering

3

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 476. Ellingworth contends there is “almost certainly no distinction of meaning between the singular and plural” forms of ouvrano,j (476). So also Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 129. 4 Timo Eskola, Messiah and Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Discourse (WUNT 2.142. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001), 252. 5 MT: Aaïs.Kiñ ~yIm:áV'B; éhw"hy> Avªd>q' lk;Ûyhe«B.( hw"Ühy> 6 “You have given command to build a temple on your holy mountain, and an altar in the city of your habitation, a copy of the holy tent that you prepared from the beginning” (mi,mhma skhnh/j a`gi,aj h]n prohtoi,masaj avpV avrch/j). 7 Tobin, The Creation of Man, 147. See also Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 9–46. The two most common manifestations of this phenomenon are: (1) a temple resides at the center of the heavens; (2) the universe is itself structured like a temple. 8 See the discussion of Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 48–55, who methodically demonstrates the shortcomings of the metaphoric view. Contra Attridge, Hebrews, 223–4, 262; Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews, 80–7. Cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, xxxi: While the author of (Hebrews) often turned the literal into the figurative, his theological interpreters have often been engaged in turning the figurative expressions of the epistle into what was literal. There is no consistent symbolism, indeed, not even

Chapter 6: Cosmology: The Setting of the Sacrifice and Exaltation

159

holistically, with his suffering/death and exaltation always inseparably linked within a “single sacrificial script,”9 lends further support for a literal understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary. As the place where Jesus’ sacrifice is completed, the Heavenly Sanctuary must be as “real” for both author and audience as the cross where Jesus’ self-offering began.10 Conversely, the author’s reluctance to provide detailed descriptions of either the Heavenly Sanctuary or Jesus’ sacral ministry there should serve to caution against overly literalistic interpretations.11 With regard to this cultic re-casting of Jesus’ death and resurrection, deSilva insists the author “uses objective language to assist the subjective appropriation of this good news in terms that the hearers can grasp and apply to their standing before God.”12 As the “house of God” (to.n oi=kon tou/ qeou/, 3:6; 10:21), the Heavenly Sanctuary is the “true tent, pitched by God and not by human beings” (kai. th/j skhnh/j th/j avlhqinh/j( h]n e;phxen o` ku,rioj( ouvk a;nqrwpoj, 8:2). The earthly tabernacle is “a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one” (u`podei,gmati kai. skia/| latreu,ousin tw/n evpourani,wn, 8:5), and its in the case of the avrciereu,j; in the nature of the case, there could not be. But symbolism there is, and symbolism of a unique kind. Though cf. Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the NT,” CBQ 38 (1976), 162, who asserts that the authors of the NT “do not so much re-interpret cultic institutions and terminology but express a new reality in cultic language.” 9 Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 255. 10 Though Schenck (Understanding the Book of Hebrews, 14–15) initially acknowledges the author’s holistic representation of Jesus’ sacrifice, he later appears to divide the earthly and heavenly aspects in his effort to defend a metaphorical interpretation of the Heavenly Sanctuary. The earthly death on a cross reflects “traditional Christian imagery,” while the heavenly aspects of the self-offering are attributable to the “high priestly metaphor” (81). Schenck argues that 9:27–28 and 10:10 indicate an exclusively earthly locale for Jesus’ death, and “the author’s contrast between the earthly and heavenly makes it highly unlikely that he thought earthly blood could or should be brought into the heavenly realm,” thus this sort of image is “part of his high priestly metaphor” (81–2). 11 William G. Johnsson, “The Heavenly Sanctuary – Figurative or Real?” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank L. Holbrook (Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 4. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 35–51, proposes the Heavenly Sanctuary be viewed in a “literalizing manner,” one that “affirms the reality of the heavenly sanctuary, but confesses that we have little data about the appearance of the celestial reality” (35). 12 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 306. Cf. the recent discussions of this issue in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005): Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems,” 13–23; Ina Willa-Plein, “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis,” 25–35; Christian A. Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” 37–64.

160

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

construction derived “according to the pattern shown” to Moses (kata. to.n tu,pon to.n deicqe,nta, 8:5). The Heavenly Sanctuary is “the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation” (th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j ouv ceiropoih,tou( tou/tV e;stin ouv tau,thj th/j kti,sewj, 9:11). The foregoing sentiments reappear in 9:23–24: Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Of particular interest to our discussion are two passages, 8:2, 5 and 9:23– 24, in which the author uses what appears to be Platonic metaphysical terminology to establish an ontological relationship between the Heavenly Sanctuary and the tabernacle of Israel’s wilderness wanderings. In 8:5, the author draws upon the LXX of Exod 25:40 (o[ra poih,seij kata. to.n tu,pon to.n dedeigme,non soi evn tw/| o;rei) to describe the origins of the earthly tabernacle. The tu,poj shown to Moses may represent either the actual Heavenly Sanctuary, or simply its “blueprint.”13 This imagery reappears in 9:24, where the earthly tabernacle is called an avnti,tupoj of the heavenly one. And though the tabernacle of the wilderness wanderings was “based on God’s pattern and built in response to God’s command,”14 the author deems it merely “a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one” (u`podei,gmati kai. skia/| . . . tw/n evpourani,wn, 8:5). `Upo,deigma appears again in 9:23, also in reference to the “sketches” of the “heavenly things.” Finally, in 8:2 the Heavenly Sanctuary is characterized as “the true tent, set up by the Lord, not by humans” (th/j skhnh/j th/j avlhqinh/j). The word avlhqino,j creates a contrast, though “not between true and false, but between original and copy.”15 This wealth of Platonic terminology and imagery in 8:2, 5 and 9:23–24 – avlhqino,j, u`po,deigma, skia,, tu,poj, and avnti,tupoj – has been seen by some as “lending itself most naturally to a Platonic interpretation.”16 A three-tiered spatial construct may thus be envisaged, with the earthly 13

Attridge, Hebrews, 220. Cf. also Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 46–8. 14 Koester, Hebrews, 383. 15 Ellingworth, “Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews,” 344. 16 Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 132. Though Schenck argues the author is thinking “exegetically” and not “ontologically.” His argument emanates from scripture and not cosmology (133). Those proposing (in varying degrees) a Platonic background for these passages include: Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 41, 113, 160; Attridge, Hebrews, 219; Isaacs, Sacred Space, 55; Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 194–5.

Chapter 6: Cosmology: The Setting of the Sacrifice and Exaltation

161

tabernacle representing an inferior “shadowy sketch”17 of the Heavenly Sanctuary, the “blueprint” for which resides in the ideal Platonic realm. A three-tiered spatial scheme appears to underlie Philo’s use of the same verse, Exod 25:40, in Alleg. Interp. 3:95–105. Philo contends that Moses “received a clear vision of God,” and was therefore “the articifer of the archetypes” (ta. avrce,tupa, 3:102). Bezalel, after being “instructed by Moses,” then constructed the tabernacle as a “copy” (mimh,mata) of these “archetypes” (3:102–103).18 This same three-tiered spatial construct may underlie Hebrews’ portrayal of the earthly tabernacle’s origins, though in the service of an entirely different agenda, one suggesting “the tabernacle created by Moses was based on what was merely an imitation and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary.”19 Despite this unmistakable spatial imagery in Heb 8:2, 5 and 9:23–24, a temporal orientation ultimately predominates. In opposition to Philo’s “serene and unhistorical” metaphysical convictions concerning the Mosaic tabernacle, the author of Hebrews stresses the transitory nature of the tabernacle.20 Like an artist’s preliminary sketch of a planned work, the earthly tabernacle is only a preparatory “shadowy sketch” of the “true tent,” whose inauguration awaited the ministry of the “high priest of the good things that have come” (9:11).21 Jesus’ entrance into and priestly ministry within the Heavenly Sanctuary is represented as a historical novum (9:12–14, 24), a conception completely foreign to the “atemporal” cosmology of Plato and Philo. Williamson emphasizes this inversion of temporal priority: If the contrast in 8:5 were really Platonic we should have found the Writer of Hebrews explaining that the ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary had been going on eternally, that the priestly ministry of the Jewish priests over the centuries had been all the time an imperfect copy and shadow of an eternal and timeless ministry exercised by Christ in heaven. But this is not Platonism, for in Platonism the Idea is always antecedent 17 Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 194, contends that u`podei,gmati kai. skia/| is “a good example of a hendiadys.” 18 See also the account in Moses 2:74–76, where Philo casts Moses in the role of a Platonic philosopher, who “sees with the soul’s eye the immaterial forms (ivde,aj) of the material objects about to be made, and these forms (avrce,tupou) had to be reproduced in copies (mimh,mata) perceived by the senses (nohtw/n . . . aivsqhta,), taken from the original draught (paradeigma,twn).” 19 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 55. 20 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 207. 21 See Hurst, “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. viii. 5 and ix. 23f.?” 157, 162–3. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 51, observes that for the Platonic model earthly phenomena are the forms which correspond with the eternal ideas, whereas for Hebrews they are partial and temporary manifestations of God’s intentions. From this point of view they may give valuable guidance with regard to the future.

162

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

to the copy, the copy always an earthly object which can exist only in virtue of the prior and fuller reality of its related Idea.22

Moreover, as the center of the religious system upon which Israel’s covenant depends, the earthly tabernacle’s fate is bound up with the “first” covenant (8:7),23 which our author considers “obsolete, growing old, and soon to disappear” (8:13). His addition of the qualifying adjective pa,nta to the LXX text of Exod 25:40 – poih,seij pa,nta kata. to.n tu,pon – may also reflect his belief that “everything” pertaining to the performance of the first covenant is a thing of the past (cf. 7:11, 18–19; 9:9–10; 10:1–11). Koester believes this overarching temporal contrast is not intended to denigrate the earthly tabernacle and the Jewish cultus, rather it serves to establish both the “continuity between Christianity and Israel’s cultic heritage” and “the identity of Christians as heirs of Israel’s rich and ancient heritage.”24 Albert Vanhoye suggests however that the language of 8:2, 5 and 9:23–24 undeniably points to a pejorative contrast, and notes that the author never associates the “name of God” with the worship of the “culte ancien” (cf. 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10).25 A final piece of evidence weighing against a proposed Platonic background of thought may be sought in the author’s claims that the Heavenly Sanctuary was “not made with hands, that is, not of this creation” (ouv ceiropoih,tou( tou/tV e;stin ouv tau,thj th/j kti,sewj, 9:11), and that it was “set up by the Lord, not by humans” (h]n e;phxen o` ku,rioj( ouvk a;nqrwpoj, 8:2). Had the author solely stated the Heavenly Sanctuary was ouv tau,thj th/j kti,sewj, then a case could be made for its coherence within a Platonic cosmological scheme.26 His prior statement, in 8:2, attributing its construction (ph,gnumi) to o` ku,rioj, rules out this possibility. Though the 22

Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 158. See also his article: “Platonism and Hebrews,” 418–21. 23 Cf. Koester, The Dwelling of God, 186: “The author of Hebrews assumed that the tabernacle was inseparable from the (Mosaic) covenant.” So also Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 148; Susan Haber, “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant and Cult in Hebrews,” JSNT 28.1 (2005), 109–12, 120–1. 24 Koester, The Dwelling of God, 185–6. 25 Vanhoye, “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 369– 71. 26 So MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” 189; Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 197. Sterling fails to fully reckon with the author’s construction of the Heavenly Sanctuary as an eschatological entity, whose inauguration occurs with the entry of Jesus as the “high priest of the good things that have come” (9:11–12). This oversight is evident in an observation he makes concerning the tu,poj / avnti,tupoj relationship of the two tabernacles (8:5; 9:24): “It would be difficult to argue for a temporal framework in Hebrews since it would require that the antitype precede the type” (198).

Chapter 6: Cosmology: The Setting of the Sacrifice and Exaltation

163

Heavenly Sanctuary is “not of this creation,” it was nevertheless created at a point in time, and inaugurated with the entry of Jesus the high priest’s entry into its sphere.27 As deSilva notes, the author does not oppose created to uncreated things, as would Plato, but rather two orders of created things – that which belongs to this creation and that which is not of this creation but rather of that better creation which is God’s realm, ‘heaven itself.’28

Therefore, as we have asserted earlier in our discussion of 10:1, the presence of Platonic terminology and imagery does not necessarily indicate the presence of Platonic presuppositions. As has been shown in the discussion of 10:1, the author’s employment of Platonic imagery occurs within a larger framework of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, and is ultimately subservient to his eschatological convictions. And as in 10:1, his use of Platonic terminology and imagery in 8:2, 5 and 9:23–24 appears to be deliberate, in this case creating a protological and ontological distancing of the earthly tabernacle and its heavenly counterpart.29 Any notions of a “convergence of heavenly temple and earthly tabernacle”30 are thereby severely threatened by the ontological distancing afforded by this suggestion of the ideal realm, with its “blueprint” of the Heavenly Sanctuary. And although the ministry of the earthly tabernacle temporally precedes that of Christ’s in the Heavenly Sanctuary, the fact that the earthly tabernacle is only a “shadowy sketch,” possibly based on the “blueprints” for the Heavenly Sanctuary, indicates both its ontological dependence upon the Heavenly Sanctuary as well as its axiological inferiority.31 The Platonic imagery thus serves to create a sort of protective 27

See Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 60–5. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 29. 29 Williamson, “Platonism and Hebrews,” 421, underestimates the author’s abilities with his claim that 9:23–24 is the point in the Epistle when the Author comes nearest to allowing philosophical terms and ideas to obscure the clarity of his exposition of the significance of the Person and Work of Christ and to distort his otherwise sure understanding of the historical character of the Christian religion and his firm grasp of the essential nature of Christian eschatology. 30 Carol Meyers, “Temple, Jerusalem,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6.360. The direct equation, however, of the two locations is less common than the belief in a distinction between heavenly temple, as the place where God dwells, and the earthly temple, the place where God appears. See Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11–12. 31 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 420–1, helpfully summarizes Platonic belief in this regard: This is a view of reality that draws a sharp distinction, indeed, a dividing line, between the phenomenal world, which is the realm of materiality, characterized by movement, change, corruption – and therefore, only partial knowledge – and the 28

164

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

“axiological/ontological envelope” around the recent performance of Christ’s “once for all time” (a[pax / evfa,pax) ministry in Heavenly Sanctuary, insulating it from any arguments that might attempt to equate its relative novelty with fraudulence. This same purpose is even more effectively accomplished via the eschatological cast given to the whole complex: i.e., the Heavenly Sanctuary’s eschatological orientation (as part of the “coming world/city” [2:5; 13:14]), and Christ’s eschatoninaugurating self-offering (9:26).

2. The Heavenly Sanctuary as cultic location The heavenly realm is portrayed in a number of ways throughout Hebrews: as an august throne room in which God reigns (1:3, 4:16; 8:1; 12:2); a “coming world” in which the exalted Son of God reigns (1:5 – 2:13; 4:14– 16); God’s house (3:1–6); a place or state of eschatological “rest” (3:7 – 4:11); a “festal gathering,” occurring in “Mount Zion,” “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,” attended by a “myriad of angels” and redeemed humanity (12:22–24); an “unshakeable kingdom” (12:25–29); and a “coming city” (13:14; cf. 11:10, 16; 12:22). Of course the most common means by which the author represents the heavenly realm is as a Heavenly Sanctuary, the place of Jesus’ priestly ministry. This heavenly temple does not receive its first explicit cultic designation until 8:2, when the author refers to it as “the true tent” (th/j skhnh/j th/j avlhqinh/j). This term, “tent” (skhnh,), is then repeatedly applied to the earthly tabernacle of Israel’s wilderness wanderings (8:5; 9:2–3, 6, 8) before it appears once again in reference to the Heavenly Sanctuary. Following a recital of the earthly tent’s architecture and appurtenances

noumenal world, characterized by changelessness and incorruptibility because it is not material but spiritual. This is the world of pure ‘forms’ and ‘ideas.’ The distinction is metaphysical: one realm is denser and more ‘real’ than the other. It is epistemological: the world of change allows only approximate perceptions, therefore, ‘opinions’; but ideas can truly be ‘known.’ The distinction is also axiological: the noumenal is ‘better’ than the phenomenal. . . . The perceived world, in fact, is only a ‘shadow’ or ‘reflection’ of the noumenal world. . . . The two realms are related by a certain formal causality. Noumenal world is primordial; the phenomenal world derivative. If the ideal world is the stamp, the phenomenal world bears its seal. The spiritual realm is one of types; the material realm has antitypes, which correspond only roughly to their ideal models (emphasis mine). See also Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 77–84.

Chapter 6: Cosmology: The Setting of the Sacrifice and Exaltation

165

(9:1–5),32 its heavenly counterpart is referred to as “the greater and more perfect tent” (th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j, 9:11).33 The first reference to the heavenly “tent” in 8:2 occurs in conjunction with the first mention of its innermost sanctum, the “holy place” (ta. a[gia). This “holy place” corresponds to a similar inner sanctum in the earthly tabernacle, which is mentioned five times (9:1–3, 25; 13:11). The “holy place” in the Heavenly Sanctuary is also referred to five times (8:2; 9:8, 12, 24; 10:19). In the first instance, 8:2, the plural form, tw/n a`gi,wn, is used, possibly suggesting a reference to the “holy things” in the Heavenly Sanctuary.34 However, the term undoubtedly designates the “holy place” within the “true tent”; thus the phrase tw/n a`gi,wn . . . kai. th/j skhnh/j th/j avlhqinh/j “refers to the division between the inner sanctuary and the tabernacle as a whole.”35 Enforcing this division within the Heavenly Sanctuary is a “curtain” (katape,tasma), which Christ is said to have “passed through” (6:19), and which has now been “opened” to those who follow him (10:20). A similar curtain also demarcated the sacred geography of Israel’s wilderness tent (9:3),36 and figures prominently in mystical ascent literature (cf. 3 En. 45:1).37 Jesus’ entry into the “heavenly holy of holies” (9:12; 10:19) deliberately recalls the high priest’s yearly entry into the most holy place 32

Cf. his allegedly misplaced “altar of incense” (9:4), which according to Exod 30:1– 8 was a part of the daily priestly ministry (“a perpetual incense before Yahweh throughout your generations”), but which Hebrews has placed out of the reach of these ministrants, within the “holy of holies.” For a review of the possible solutions to this problem, see Koester, The Dwelling of God, 175; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 425–7; Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 88–9. 33 Vanhoye, “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 374, mistakenly asserts that the two appearances of skhnh, in 8:2 and 9:11 represent a “double parallelism.” He believes the “greater and more perfect tent” in 9:11 describes the first part of the tabernacle, while the “true tent” of 8:2 designates the second part of the tent, the “holy of holies.” 34 As in Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3:135, where Aaron is said to “minister in the holy things” (leitourgo.j tw/n a`gi,wn). 35 See Attridge, Hebrews, 218. So also Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology,” 194. 36 The author’s reference to a “second curtain” (deu,teron katape,tasma) in 9:3 fails to square with OT accounts. Cf. the discussion of Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 87–8, for plausible solutions. 37 In his introduction to 3 Enoch in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, P. Alexander summarizes the significance of the “curtain” for 3 Enoch: A curtain hangs before God’s throne separating his immediate presence from the rest of the heavenly world. This curtain shields the angels from the full glare of the divine glory. It also symbolizes the ultimate inscrutability of God and of the mysteries known only to him (1.240). See also Margaret Barker, “The Veil as the Boundary,” in The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 202–28.

166

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

on Yom Kippur (9:7; Lev 16). And as we have shown in our discussion of 9:6–9, the earthly tabernacle’s two distinct holy areas, the “holy place” and the “most holy place,” and the restricted access enforced by the curtain, indicates that the “very structure of the tabernacle becomes a metaphor for its inadequate function.”38 The presence of the throne of God within this holy place may be assumed (qro,noj, 4:16; 8:1; 12:2). On four occasions Jesus is said to have “sat down” beside God (kaqi,zw, 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), and in each case this regal enthronement is directly connected with his cultic self-offering. The OT virtually equates the ark of the covenant, and especially its lid, the mercy seat, with the throne of God.39 As Timo Eskola asserts, “the theocratic reign of God was expressed by the image of a throne that was located in the Holy of Holies.”40 In Exod 25:22, God promises Moses and the people of Israel that he “will meet with you, from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will deliver to you all my commands for the Israelites.” Other instances where the mercy seat and the throne of God are linked include 2 Sam 4:4 (“the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim”) and Ps 99:1 (“The Lord is king; . . . He sits enthroned upon the cherubim!”).41 Hebrews’ references to the throne in two largely cultic contexts, 4:14–16 and 8:2, are additional proof of its place within the “holy place” in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Its characterization in 4:16, as a “throne of grace” (tw/| qro,nw| th/j ca,ritoj) where mercy may be found (la,bwmen e;leoj), supplies further indication of its association with the mercy seat covering the ark of the covenant.42 The presence of a final cultic appurtenance in the Heavenly Sanctuary, “the altar” (qusiasth,rion), may be inferred from 7:13. There it is said that no one from Jesus’ ancestral tribe, Judah, “has ever served at the altar.” This altar, if the inference is allowed, should be associated with the altar of

38 39

Haber, “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus,” 118. In a description of the Yom Kippur ritual 4Q156 (4QTargum of Leviticus) replaces

tr,PoK;, “mercy seat,” with aysK, “throne.” 40

Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 264. In Lev 16:2, God tells Moses that he will “appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.” 42 Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 254, attributes the equation of throne and ark in Hebrews to the author’s dual Christology: Son of God and high priest. He asserts: It is quite obvious that the unity of exaltation and atonement, or the unity of the themes of royal enthronement and priestly ministry have their rationale in the conception that the ark (and mercy seat) is actually God’s throne (261). The unity of exaltation and atonement is justified by the help of the metaphor that is most central to them all, the throne of Glory (264). 41

Chapter 6: Cosmology: The Setting of the Sacrifice and Exaltation

167

burnt offering, located in the inner forecourt of the tabernacle (Lev 16:18– 20, 25, 33). Although the argument of 8:2, 5; 9:1–26 and 10:1–23 seems to indicate a correspondence between the architecture and appurtenances of the earthly tabernacle and the Heavenly Sanctuary, the author is ultimately reluctant to describe the Heavenly Sanctuary in any detail. The only certain components are the “holy place,” the “curtain,” and the “throne of grace” (i.e., the “mercy seat,” or “altar”), presumably occupied by God (tw/| prosw,pw| tou/ qeou/, 9:24).43 Although the author mentions that Jesus brought his own blood into the heavenly “holy place” (9:12), he fails to press the Yom Kippur analogy any further. Though later he will remind the recipients of their “sprinkled hearts” (10:22), and the “sprinkled blood” they “have come to” (12:24), here in the course of the dramatic presentation of Jesus’ entry into the holy place the author makes no mention of any manipulating or “sprinkling” of his blood on an altar in the Heavenly Sanctuary (cf. Lev 16:14–15, 18–19).44 This reticence is all the more noteworthy when compared with contemporary apocalyptic accounts of heaven. In contrast to the abundant cosmological speculations found in such works as 1 Enoch and T. Levi, Hebrews’ reluctance to “gild the heavenly lily” is remarkable.45 Collins believes the wealth of cosmological detail in apocalyptic literature serves an apologetic purpose, enhancing the credibility of the overall message via its supposed supernatural origin.46 The author of Hebrews’ cautious avoidance of such speculation may be attributed to two related reasons: (1) such extraneous details would distract attention from his portrayal of Jesus’ high priestly accomplishment; (2) the efficacy of that portrayal is self-authenticating. A supernatural, life-transforming encounter with Jesus the high priest is on offer, and cosmological detail cannot in any way augment that encounter. The author’s construction of the Heavenly Sanctuary does nevertheless serve a hortatory purpose, representing a liminal zone, or transcendent sphere, into which the recipients are called to 43 Cf. Jon D. Levenson, “The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 43: “The apogee of the spiritual experience of the visitor to the Temple was a vision of God. In fact, ‘to see the face of YHWH’ is an idiom that indicates a visit to the Temple (e.g., Deut 16:16).” Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 248, notes: “To see the face of God is to be certain of his presence and grace.” Cf. also C. L. Seow, “Face mynp,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1995), 607–13. 44 So Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 256; Vanhoye, “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 368. 45 Cf. Horbury, “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 47. 46 Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 58, 251.

168

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

enter. It also operates within the author’s comparative rhetoric, vividly locating the sphere of Jesus’ high priestly ministry in a sanctuary of superior axiological value than the earthly tabernacle/Temple of Israel.

Chapter Seven

The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary 1. Introduction The author’s unique presentation of the high priestly ministry of Jesus courses throughout his “word of exhortation,” from beginning to end. It is first hinted at in the exordium, where Jesus is said to have “made a cleansing for sins” (kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj, 1:3). Its first explicit statement arrives in 2:17, where the author asserts that Jesus was “obligated” (ovfei,lw) to fully identify with humanity, thus equipping him to be “a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God” (evleh,mwn . . . kai. pisto.j avrciereu.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo,n), and affording him opportunity “to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (eivj to. i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/). After a brief “reminder” (katanoe,w) of Jesus’ high priesthood in 3:1, his acquaintance with the human condition is once again appealed to, in 4:14–16, as proof of his sympathetic, merciful and gracious disposition towards humanity. This theme continues in chapter five, where it is joined to a discussion of the filial obedience of the “historical Jesus” (5:7–8). The confirmation of Jesus’ Sonship in 5:5 is then scripturally connected to a conferral of priestly ministry upon him by God (5:6, 10). After a “veiled” reference to his entry into the holy place in the Heavenly Sanctuary at the end of chapter six (6:19–20), Jesus’ high priestly ministry dominates the next four chapters (7 – 10). His role as a priestly mediator is briefly mentioned in 12:24, followed by a final reference to his cultic accomplishment in 13:12, where he is said to have “sanctified the people through his own blood” (a`gia,sh| dia. tou/ ivdi,ou ai[matoj to.n lao,n). Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering comprises the heart of this presentation of his high priestly ministry. His righteous life and willing self-offering constitute the basis for his superior and entirely efficacious sacrifice (5:7– 10; 7:26–27; 10:5–10). Jesus’ sacrifice and exaltation are linked, jointly constructed as the two key moments of a single sacrificial act. Although the author depicts Jesus’ self-offering as beginning on earth, specifically locating his suffering and vicarious bloodshed “outside the gate” (of Jerusalem) in 13:12, it is within the holy place of the Heavenly Sanctuary that the exalted Christ’s priestly presentation of “his own blood”

170

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

effectuates his sacrifice and secures “eternal redemption” for his people (9:11–14). This comprehensive conception of Jesus’ “once for all” sacrifice is apparent throughout the epistle, as the author almost always mentions his suffering/death and exaltation in the same breath, conjuring heaven and earth in one sweep (1:3; 2:9; 5:8–9; 7:27–28; 10:12–14, 20–21; 12:2, 24).

2. A liturgical drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary It has been recently suggested that a significant portion of the author’s “word of exhortation” should be understood as a liturgical invocation of a drama occurring in a symbolic universe, namely the Heavenly Sanctuary. Most notably, John Dunnill and Luke Timothy Johnson have shown the value of understanding Hebrews as “a liturgy, a symbolic action in the sacred sphere.”1 Johnson draws attention to the fact that “literary compositions, after all, do not simply report on the world that produces them; they also produce a world.”2 He characterizes the world produced by Hebrews as “a world constructed by scripture.”3 One of the more obvious ways the author constructs this world is with his unique introductory formulae, which uniformly present OT scripture as the direct speech of God (1:5–13; 4:3; 5:5–6; 7:21; 8:8–12; 12:5–6, 26), Jesus (2:12–13; 10:5– 7), and the Holy Spirit (3:7–11; 10:15–17). Johnson challenges the “contemporary reader” to acknowledge the hindrances that impede entry into the author’s scripturally constructed world. That we no longer perceive the world “as scripture perceives it,” as “mystery,” is the chief impediment. Johnson perceptively asks: “If we no longer live in a world

1

Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 261. Dunnill characterizes Hebrews’ vision of worship as face-to-face relationship between humanity and God expressed in a pattern of speech-acts – oaths, promises, blessings, curses and praise – a whole economy of verbal exchange which is tacitly offered here in place of the subpersonal mediation of ‘goats and calves,’ an interchange of gifts replacing the trade in blood, and which fills in the sense of what is really meant by the metaphor of ‘drawing near the throne of grace’ (262). See also Koester, Hebrews, 201; Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews, 2–23; Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part I,” 118–33. 2 Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” Int 73.3 (July 2003), 238. 3 Ibid., 241.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

171

that at least in that measure is enchanted, can we do more than explain Hebrews as a quaint expression of antique views?”4 Dunnill’s assertion that Hebrews represents “a symbolic action in the sacred sphere” leads him to recommend the development of “ways of reading suitable for participation in such an action.”5 Towards this end it will be argued that the author’s two appeals to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary and “draw near to God” (4:14–16; 10:19–23) were intended to promote the sort of participation Dunnill commends. With these two exhortations the recipients are invited to cross the threshold from the profane into the sacred and take their place in the liturgical drama (cf. also 7:19; 12:22–24). According to Crispin Fletcher-Louis, the eschatological presuppositions underlying this hortatory intent would be entirely consonant with ancient Jewish belief, particularly as expressed in the literature of the Qumran community. Fletcher-Louis questions any dualistic paradigms that would divide the heavenly sphere from the earthly one with his proposed pair of “interlocking hypotheses”: 1) the theology of ancient Judaism took for granted the belief that in its original, true, redeemed state humanity is divine (and/or angelic), and that 2) this belief was conceptually and experientially inextricable from temple worship in which ordinary space and time, and therefore human ontology, are transcended because the true temple is a model of the universe which offers its entrants a transfer from earth to heaven, from humanity to divinity and from mortality to immortality.6

Viewing Hebrews as “a symbolic action in the sacred sphere” that calls for “participation in such an action” is of obvious benefit to nearly the entirety of chapters 9 and 10, which are characterized by their vivid report of the cultic events occurring in the Heavenly Sanctuary. It is equally profitable when applied to the first two chapters of the epistle, where the same heavenly milieu provides the dramatic backdrop to the exaltation of the Son. And as we have already mentioned, this reading is arguably the only way to make proper sense of the two exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary and make sacral confession (4:14–16; 10:19–23).

4 Ibid., 249. Cf. April D. DeConick, “‘Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism’: A Collage of Working Definitions,” SBLSP 40 (2001), 284: The actuality of the mystic experiences recorded in the biblical and extrabiblical materials is not really a substantive question for me. In fact, the distinction that has been made between literary and experiential literature seems to me to be a modern imposition altogether. I think it is more historically accurate to regard this literature as part of ancient living religious traditions, to acknowledge that the texts are filled with feelings about and hopes for religious experience. 5 Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 122. 6 Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002), xii.

172

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

3. The sacrifice of the high priest 3.1. The incarnation of the obedient Son If the author’s presentation of the Christ event is dramatic in nature, then this portrayal’s chronological point of origin – the first act in the drama – is found in the self-presentation of the faithful Son in 10:5–7. There the pre-incarnate Son, at the time of his “entry into the world,”7 issues a “declaration of dependence” to God, exclaiming: Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘See, God, I have come to do your will, O God’ (in the scroll of the book it is written of me).

Johnson aptly deems this passage “Jesus’ own scriptural epigraph for his human existence.”8 In the verses that follow, the author extends the implications of this declaration, claiming that Jesus’ obedient self-offering has “abolished” (avnaire,w) the sacrificial system of Judaism, and with it the Mosaic covenant, and established (i[sthmi) a new covenant.9 The irony of this logic has not escaped notice. Chester observes: “What supersedes sacrifice is Christ doing the will of God, and this, precisely, by offering himself as the supreme sacrifice.”10 Furthermore, this sacrificial language 7

Concerning eivserco,menoj eivj to.n ko,smon, Attridge, Hebrews, 273, remarks: “While this phraseology could be used in Jewish tradition simply for birth, Christ’s ‘entry’ is that of the eternal Son.” Cf. also Meier “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5–14,” 532: “The same Son who can speak to God ‘in the days of his flesh’ (5:7), and who can plead before God for us now in his exalted state (7:25), can also speak to God as he enters the world at his incarnation (10:5–10).” 8 Johnson, “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” 242. 9 Harold W. Attridge, “The Use of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” HTR 79:1–3 (1986), 8–9, believes 10:1–10 serves as “the climactic point in the author’s argument. The opposition between the basic antitheses” of chapters 8–10 is “overcome” by the incarnation. “Internal and external, heavenly and earthly are united in the action of Christ.” 10 Chester, “Hebrews: The Final Sacrifice,” 68. The author does acknowledge that the sacrificial cultus was “commanded” by God (9:20). Cf. Isaacs, Sacred Space, 92: So it is not sacrifice per se that the author of Hebrews attacks. To do so would hardly enable him to present the death of Christ as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices! Rather he works within the system, both affirming and transforming it. She defines the “true purpose” of the author as his attempt “to move his readers away from an understanding of the sacrificial system as an essential part of maintaining contact with God, to an acceptance of the death and ascension of Christ as its replacement” (92). Cf. the critique of Scott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 137: The weakness of his argument consists in this – that while he shows the inadequacy of the old ritual conceptions, he never definitely escapes from them. He has failed to understand, as Paul did, the essential newness of Christianity, and assimilates it to Judaism, even while he aims at proving its superiority.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

173

fuses the Son of God and high priest Christologies before the incarnation, and places the pre-incarnate Son on a trajectory towards his eventual appointment as high priest (7:21).11 Though 10:5–7 quite clearly emanates from an incarnational Christology, the author is careful to ensure that the central actor in this cultic drama is not perceived as a mystical, heavenly redeemer. In what may be construed as the second act in his drama, the earthly career of Jesus is presented in abridged form, emphasizing his costly filial obedience (5:7– 9; cf. also 7:26). In 5:7–8 – the longest epistolary consideration of the “historical Jesus” in the NT – the author asserts that in the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

Though both Gethsemane and the cross have been suggested as the setting for these verses, a conclusive identification cannot be made. Both settings may be inferred here, therefore Spicq’s claim that Hebrews is devoid of any mention of the passion is unwarranted.12 And though the primary emphasis of the passage is Sonship Christology, priestly activity is implied with the language of “offering up prayers and supplications” (prosfe,rw).13 More importantly, the theme of obedience continues to dominate the author’s dramatic ordering of Jesus’ life. His obedient life resulted in “perfection,” a possible reference to his exaltation (5:9).14 A hortatory purpose immediately issues from this presentation, as it is said that the perfected Son “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” The obedience that has characterized Jesus’ life necessarily comes to

Wedderburn, “Sawing off the Branches,” 405–14, criticizes at length the author’s appropriation of cultic imagery. In so doing, the author has relied on “the same framework of thought” that his “argument has undermined.” Thus the “basis of his argument seems to crumble in his hands and to turn into absurdity and self-contradiction” (411). As the title of Wedderburn’s essay implies, the author is “sawing off the branch on which he is sitting.” 11 Harold W. Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 210–11, argues instead that 10:5–7 represents the Son’s response to the “performative utterance” of 5:6, i.e., “the act by which God makes the Son a High Priest.” 12 Spicq, Hébreux, 1.85. 13 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 120, believes that in 5:7 “Jesus’ passion is described in its entirety as priestly prayer.” 14 Weiss, Hebräer, 206–7. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 253, compares Heb 5:7–10 to Phil 2:6–11. Both passages trace the “downward and then upward movement of the heavenly redeemer.”

174

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

define the existence of those who are “partakers of Christ.” Gray draws attention to the fact that this call to obedience has as its focus Jesus himself; in so doing, it “fills a gap created by Hebrews’ insistence on the supersession or incompleteness of the Mosaic Law and the covenant of which it was a part.”15 A further hortatory purpose attends the author’s presentation of the incarnation. In two locations, 2:17–18 and 4:15–16, Jesus’ full identification with humanity is said to have fitted him with a sympathetic disposition towards the frail human condition. At the end of a passage stressing Jesus’ solidarity with humanity, 2:14–18, the author states that Jesus has become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, . . . Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested (2:17–18).

A similar sentiment emerges in the course of the author’s first exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary (4:14–16). The exhortation to “boldly approach the throne of grace” is predicated on the claim that the high priest/Son who occupies that throne is able to “sympathize with our weaknesses,” as he has “in every respect been tested as we are, yet without sin.” In this regard the author’s distance from Philo is readily apparent. Betraying the influence of Stoic apathy, Philo’s high priest “is precluded from all outward mourning,” and “he will have his feeling of pity under control and continue throughout free from sorrow” (Spec. Laws 1:113, 115).16 These two passages, 2:17–18 and 4:14–16, further emphasize the fusion of the author’s Son of God and high priest Christologies. The Son’s obedient endurance of all that pertains to “human being-ness” not only demonstrated his divine Sonship (5:7–9), it has also imparted to his high priestly ministry an authentic ability to represent humanity before God. The Son’s path to his appointment as high priest began with his preincarnate pledge to offer himself as an obedient sacrifice (10:5–7), and this costly path to high priesthood is maintained throughout his earthly life. The high priesthood of Jesus is clearly not an afterthought for the author, rather it has been thoroughly integrated into every strata of his Christology, from top to bottom, beginning to end.17

15 Patrick Gray, “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews,” JBL 122.2 (2003), 344. 16 See Ronald H. Nash, “The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” WTJ 40 (Fall 1977, Spring 1978), 107–8. 17 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 193, fails to appreciate the author’s carefully nuanced dual Christology: “From his incarnation onward, Jesus’ entire service was that of a high

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

175

3.2. The sacrificial self-offering of the high priest The author’s portrayal of Jesus’ death is almost entirely couched in the cultic language and imagery of “sacrifice” and “offerings.” The primary frame of reference for his presentation is of course Israel’s Day of Atonement ritual. Though this sacrificial terminology and imagery is entirely foreign to modern, Western eyes and ears – a foreignness compounded through its association with the fantastical Heavenly Sanctuary – it would have undoubtedly resonated with the original recipients. And as we have previously argued, his construction of the liturgical drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary would have been more a help than hindrance to the recipients’ comprehension of this central portion of the Christ event. The author is careful, however, to not allow the cultic cast given to Jesus’ death to overwhelm the reality of its concrete historicity. This is especially apparent in the author’s initial references to Jesus’ death, in chapter two, which are mingled and suffused with the language of suffering (pa,qhma and pa,scw). (1) 2:9–10, “Jesus . . . because of the suffering of death (to. pa,qhma tou/ qana,tou), so that by the grace of God he might taste death (geu,shtai qana,tou) for everyone. It was fitting that God . . . should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings (dia. paqhma,twn).” (2) 2:18, following a discussion of Jesus’ conquest of Death, it said that “he himself was tested by what he suffered (pe,ponqen . . . peirasqei,j).” Three subsequent references to Jesus’ suffering, all using the verb pa,scw (5:8; 9:26; 13:12), should also be seen as “ciphers” for his death on the cross, highlighting the visceral nature of that event.18 The Christ event is further rooted in the concrete and historical by means of: (1) the six references to Jesus’ “death” (qa,natoj, 2:9, 14; 5:7; 9:15–16); (2) the reference, in 13:20, to his deliverance from the sphere of nekro,j; (3) the key role attributed to Jesus’ “flesh” (sa,rx) in granting the community access to God in the Heavenly Sanctuary (10:20); (4) the seven references to Jesus’ “blood” (ai-ma, 9:12, 14; 10:19, 29; 12:24; 13:12, 20); (5) the implied reference to his crucifixion in 6:6; (6) and the explicit account in 12:2–3, of his “endurance of the cross” (u`pe,meinen stauro,n), disregard for the shamefulness associated with such a death (aivscu,nhj

priest, so that his ‘designation’ as heavenly high priest (5:9–10) was simply the divine manifestation and affirmation of his true being.” 18 James R. Schaefer, “The Relationship Between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” CBQ 30 (1968), 380, notes this equation of suffering with death, and argues the author “stresses” Jesus’ suffering “more poignantly than any other NT author.”

176

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

katafronh,saj), and the “hostility” (avntilogi,a) directed at him “from sinners.” This stress on concrete historicity notwithstanding, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are more commonly constructed as cultic events, emphasizing the vicarious sacrifice of a willing victim, and the victim’s presentation of his obedient self-offering to God in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The course of these events, according to Nelson, constitutes “a single sacrificial script,” and are the successive stages in a ‘single sacrifice’ (10:12) and a ‘single offering’ (v.14) made ‘once for all.’ His willing death was the first phase of a complex priestly action that continued in his ascension through the heavenly realms and entrance with blood into the heavenly sanctuary. It concluded with a decisive act of purification and being seated beside God’s throne, where Christ can continually intercede for his followers.19

Four terms principally convey this imagery of sacrifice, and they occur in conjunction with every cultic presentation of Jesus’ self-offering: avnafe,rw, prosfe,rw, prosfora,, and qusi,a. The bulk of these occurrences are found in three major “sacrifice sections”: (1) 8:3–6; (2) 9:11–15; (3) 9:25 – 10:14.20 First, avnafe,rw, “to offer up,” “to take up as a burden,” occurs twice: (1) 7:27, “once for all, he offered himself” (evfa,pax e`auto.n avnene,gkaj); (2) 9:28, “Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many” (o` Cristo.j a[pax prosenecqei.j eivj to. pollw/n avnenegkei/n a`marti,aj). Second, prosfe,rw, “to offer,” appears in four locations: (1) 9:14, “Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God” (e`auto.n prosh,negken a;mwmon tw/| qew/|); (2) 9:25, the purpose of Jesus’ “appearance” in the Heavenly Sanctuary was not to “offer himself again and again” (ouvdV i[na polla,kij prosfe,rh| e`auto,n); (3) 9:28, o` Cristo.j a[pax prosenecqei,j; (4) 10:12, “when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins” (mi,an u`pe.r a`martiw/n prosene,gkaj qusi,an eivj to. dihneke,j). Third, the substantive prosfora,, “offering,” appears twice: (1) 10:10, “it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (dia. th/j prosfora/j tou/ sw,matoj VIhsou/ Cristou/ evfa,pax); (2) 10:14, “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (mia/| ga.r prosfora/| tetelei,wken eivj to. dihneke,j). Finally, qusi,a, “sacrifice,” occurs five times: (1) by inference in 7:27, interpreting his self-offering (“Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, . . . this he did once for all when he 19

Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 255. See Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 179–201, for an analysis of the role played by these three “sacrifice sections” in the larger argument. 20

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

177

offered himself”); (2) 9:23, “the heavenly things themselves need better sacrifices than these”; (3) 9:26, “he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself” (eivj avqe,thsin Îth/jÐ a`marti,aj dia. th/j qusi,aj auvtou/); (4) 10:12, “when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins”; (5) 10:26, “if we willfully persist in sin . . . there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” Further cultic imagery and terminology reside behind 1:3, “When he had made purification for sins” (kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj); and 2:17, “so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest . . . to make a sacrifice of atonement (eivj to. i`la,skesqai) for the sins of the people.” The verb i`la,skomai, “to make atonement,” is not as commonly used in the LXX as the substantival form, i`lasth,rion, which represents the “mercy seat” on the ark of the covenant, the center of the universe on Yom Kippur (Exod 25:10–22).21 Though atonement can be offered to propitiate an angry deity, in the context of the second chapter the verb represents the steps taken by Jesus to effect “the removal of obstacles that threaten the relationship between God and God’s people.”22 3.3. An eschatological Yom Kippur This term, i`la,skomai, and the imagery it imparts to 2:17, provide the first hint of what will develop into the primary frame of reference from 6:19 until 10:24: the portrayal of Jesus’ self-offering as an eschatological Yom Kippur sacrifice. The principal points of correspondence are of course the priestly sacrifice and entry into the holy of holies. The otherwise inscrutable act of cleansing the Heavenly Sanctuary that Jesus performs is also part of this sacred script (9:23; cf. Lev 16:16, 20, 33).23 However, the author is not beholden to the entire Yom Kippur script, as evidenced by his omission of the incense (Lev 16:12–13) and scapegoat rituals (Lev 16:8– 10, 21–22), as well as the high priest’s atonement for his own sins (Lev 16:6, 11, 17, 24; cf. Heb 7:26–27; 9:14). Furthermore, he interpolates components of other sacred events and rituals, most notably that of the red 21

Cf. the use of i`la,skomai in Exod 32:14; 2 Kgs 5:18; 24:4. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 258–9. Nelson points to similar usage in Gen 32:20; Deut 21:8; 2 Sam 21:3. 23 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 247; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 313. Attridge, Hebrews, 262, argues that the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary represents the purification of human “hearts and minds.” Thus, “In Hebrews, as in Platonically inspired Jews such as Philo, language about cosmic transcendence is ultimately a way of speaking about human interiority.” Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 122, also contends the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary is “a metaphor for the cleansing of the conscience – that rational/spiritual element of a human being that potentially pertains to the heavenly realm.” He later claims that “Heb 9:23 almost equates the human conscience with this heavenly ‘space’” (134). 22

178

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

heifer (Num 19; cf. Heb 9:13), the ordination of priests (Lev 8; cf. Heb 9:21), and the covenant inauguration (Exod 24; cf. Heb 9:18–22).24 That the latter event is invested with an expiatory significance not present in its original performance demonstrates the influence and primacy of Yom Kippur.25 As Isaacs asserts: “The theme of Jesus’ priesthood should not therefore be isolated from the whole Day of Atonement tapestry of which it is a part.”26 Of the successive cultic acts performed on Yom Kippur, Nelson believes “the real center of gravity . . . was the priestly act of bringing the victim and its blood before God at the altar.”27 The author’s dramatic presentation of Jesus’ priestly ministry correspondingly attributes the greatest significance to his priestly entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary. After briefly mentioning Jesus’ entry into “the inner shrine behind the curtain” at the beginning of his cultic exposition in 6:19–20, it receives decisive elaboration in 9:11–12, a passage Vanhoye believes is “the center of the whole epistle.”28 But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

The phrase, dia. th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j, though perhaps affording the metaphoric interpretation of skhnh, as representing Jesus’ flesh (cf. 10:20, h]n evnekai,nisen h`mi/n o`do.n . . . dia. tou/ katapeta,smatoj( tou/tV e;stin th/j sarko.j auvtou/),29 undoubtedly employs dia, in a spatial 24

Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 187. Haber, “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus,” 120–1, discusses the author’s systematic revision of the Israelite cult. Levitical distinctions between different types of sacrifices are blurred or not recognized, daily and annual rites are conflated, and communal sin offerings are portrayed as an essential component of the daily rites. These are not random modifications of the priestly Torah resulting from ignorance of Levitical law on the part of the author. Rather, they are intentional revisions that reinvent the Israelite cult in the shadow of Christ’s sacrifice, portraying it as a system dedicated exclusively to communal atonement, but failing to provide anything more than superficial purification. 26 Isaacs, “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 55. Davidson, “Christ’s Entry ‘Within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19–20,” 175–90, argues against the primacy of Yom Kippur, and claims “the complex of inauguration services of the sanctuary” (Exod 40; Lev 8:10–11; Num 7:1) underlies the cultic imagery of Heb 6:19 – 10:24. See the critique offered by Norman H. Young, “The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? The Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,” AUSS 40 (2002), 61–8. 27 Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 253. 28 Vanhoye, “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 392. 29 Vanhoye (“Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 387– 9, 394, believes the “greater and more perfect tent” represents Jesus’ resurrection body. 25

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

179

sense, denoting Christ’s movement into the holy place in the Heavenly Sanctuary.30 Moreover, this passage, in conclusively demonstrating the inferiority and ineffectuality of the tabernacle/Temple cultus, “marks the decisive turning point in the history of salvation.”31 Nelson’s observations concerning the cosmological and eschatological implications of Jesus’ sacral entry merit repeating: Jesus has transmuted the priestly pattern of boundary crossing onto the heavenly plane. His act of boundary crossing meant entry not just into sacred space, but also sacred time. Christ’s priestly act takes place in an unearthly temporal world in which something can be done once for all (7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10). The rules of ordinary time simply do not apply.32

Of preeminent importance is the manner in which the author transforms Yom Kippur into an apocalyptic, eschatological Day of Atonement. This eschatological reorientation is most evident in the author’s conviction that Jesus’ “once for all” sacrifice for sins has been offered “at the end of the ages” (evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, 9:26). The eschatological transformation of Yom Kippur is also apparent in the author’s repeated emphases on the “everlasting” nature of the whole complex: i.e., the eternal high priest, his eternally efficacious “once for all” sacrifice, the eternal salvation it brings, and the heavenly locale in which it is conducted. The author’s Christological adaptation of the declaration of Ps 110:4, that Jesus is a “priest forever,” is central to this construction and is therefore repeatedly stated (i`ereu.j eivj to.n aivw/na, 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21). The parallel motifs of Jesus’ eternal priesthood and his everlasting high priestly accomplishment are elaborated in a variety of ways: (1) Jesus holds his priesthood through the “power of indestructible life” (ge,gonen . . . kata. du,namin zwh/j avkatalu,tou, 7:16); (2) his priesthood is permanent because he abides forever (o` de. dia. to. me,nein auvto.n eivj to.n aivw/na avpara,baton e;cei th.n i`erwsu,nhn, 7:24; cf. 13:8); (3) he is “able for all time to save (sw,|zein eivj to. pantele.j du,natai)33 those who approach God through him, Also arguing for dia, used instrumentally are Koester, Hebrews, 408–9; and Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” 204–5, who contends dia. th/j mei,zonoj kai. teleiote,raj skhnh/j represents “the eschatologically new cultic means of access” into the presence of God. 30 So Attridge, Hebrews, 245–6; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 236–8; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 450–1; Grässer, Hebräer, 2.145. 31 Vanhoye, “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” 392. So also Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 236. 32 Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest, 149. 33 The phrase eivj to. pantele,j may be understood in a temporal sense: “for all time,” or qualitatively: “completely.” Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 365: “The salvation provided by Christ is everlasting precisely because it is complete.” Cf. however the numerous temporal elements in the immediate context: the mortality of the Levitical priests

180

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

since he always lives (pa,ntote zw/n) to make intercession for them” (7:25); (4) and he himself has been “made perfect forever” (eivj to.n aivw/na teteleiwme,non, 7:28; cf. 2:10; 5:9). Furthermore, (5) his priestly selfoffering is eternally efficacious (mi,an u`pe.r a`martiw/n prosene,gkaj qusi,an eivj to. dihneke,j, 10:12); (6) as it “makes perfect forever (tetelei,wken eivj to. dihneke,j) those who are being sanctified” (10:14). (7) His high priestly accomplishment brings with it “the good things that have come,” the blessings of the eschaton (tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n, 9:12); (8) including “eternal redemption” (aivwni,an lu,trwsin, 9:12); (9) and “eternal salvation” (swthri,aj aivwni,ou, 5:9). (10) Jesus’ ministry was conducted “through the eternal Spirit” (dia. pneu,matoj aivwni,ou, 9:14);34 (11) and his death inaugurates an “eternal covenant” (diaqh,khj aivwni,ou, 13:20); (12) that brings the “promised eternal inheritance” (th.n evpaggeli,an . . . aivwni,ou klhronomi,aj, 9:15). (13) His ministry is primarily located in the supreme eschatological locale, the holy place in the Heavenly Sanctuary (4:14–16; 6:19–20; 7:25 – 8:2; 9:11–14, 23–28; 10:12–13, 19–23; 12:2–3, 24; cf. 1:8). (14) And again, it was “at the end of the ages” (evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, 9:26) that he offered his “singular and everlasting” (evfa,pax, 7:27; 9:12; 10:10; a[pax, 9:26, 28; cf. eivj to. dihneke,j, 10:12, 14) sacrifice for sins. It is important to recognize, as has Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra, that despite this emphasis on “eternality,” “Christ’s high priesthood is eivj to.n aivw/na (5:6), . . . not avpo, tw/n aivw,nwn, i.e., his priesthood is not preexistent, since he was appointed (3:2; 5:5).”35 Likewise, the effects of his high priestly accomplishment do not belong to “any ‘timeless’ sphere involving preexistence.”36 Rather, they represent “realities that come in time and are everlastingly valid.”37 In this respect they are comparable to the locus in which they are inaugurated, the Heavenly Sanctuary. Stökl Ben Ezra has located parallels for Hebrews’ apocalyptic Yom Kippur in 1 En. 10, 11QMelchizedek, and Zech 3. These texts “derive from a common imaginaire – one that longed for an eschatological Yom Kippur when a high priestly figure would liberate his followers, atone for their

prohibits them from “continuing” in office (7:23); Jesus is not constrained by such limitations – he “continues forever in a permanent priesthood” (7:25) and “always lives” (7:26). The salvation he offers should also be characterized by its temporal duration: “for all time.” 34 Martin Emmrich, “‘Amtscharisma’: Through the Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14),” BBR 12.1 (2002), 23, 32, notes that this is “the only verse in the NT that affirms the Spirit’s involvement in the atonement,” indicating that “the Holy Spirit sustained the high priest in the execution of his most critical cultic appointment.” 35 Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 184. 36 Hurst, “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 61. 37 Ibid.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

181

sins and destroy the Devil.”38 He further argues that this “apocalyptic myth of an eschatological purification was the root from which the high priest Christology (of Hebrews) sprang, not its framework.”39 Thus: According to the myth of Hebrews, by his death, the high priest Christ conquered the devil, ‘passed through the heavens,’ and somehow purified the heavenly sanctuary on entering with his blood the heavenly sanctuary.40

He also believes Hebrews’ depiction of Jesus’ parousia is interwoven with the fabric of Yom Kippur, as it evokes “the imagery of the people waiting for the exit of the high priest from the holy of holies” (9:28).41 The appearance of the high priest, as Lane asserts, “provided assurance that the offering he had made had been accepted.”42 Finally, Cody believes the author’s transformation of Jesus’ resurrection into an exaltation is attributable to his desire to reshape the Christ event into an eschatological Yom Kippur. Jesus’ “crossing over” into the Heavenly Sanctuary “fits very well into the type-complex of the Day of Atonement’s sin-expiating ritual, while the Resurrection from the dead does not.”43 3.4. The sacral activity of the high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary As evidenced by our prior discussion, the permanence of Jesus’ high priesthood is of central importance to the author. In a variety of ways he expresses his conviction that Jesus is “a priest forever.” However, his portrayal of Jesus’ sacrificial ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary is chiefly characterized by its restraint. There is mention only of his entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary’s holy place with his blood; the author fails to speak 38

Daniel Stökl, “Yom Kippur in the Jewish Apocalyptic Imaginaire and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood. Yom Kippur in Zechariah 3, 1 Enoch 10, 11QMelkizedeq, Hebrews and the Apocalypse of Abraham 13,” in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, ed. Jan Assmann and Guy G. Stroumsa (SHR 83. Leiden: Brill, 1999), 358. See also Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 186. 39 Stökl, “Yom Kippur in the Jewish Apocalyptic Imaginaire and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood,” 366. 40 Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 193. 41 Ibid., 187. 42 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 250. 43 Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 174. On two occasions the author employs resurrection terminology, 6:2 and 13:20, the latter of which speaks of “the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus” (avnagagw.n evk nekrw/n). Gareth Lee Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb 11:35): A Key to the Structure and Rhetorical Purpose of Hebrews 11,” TynBul 51.2 (2000), 234, asserts: “although the resurrection of Christ plays little part in the Christology of Hebrews, it is certainly assumed by the writer.” Cf. Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 122, who believes 13:20 describes “a passage upward from the realm of the dead rather than a corporeal reconstitution of some sort.”

182

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

of any ritual manipulation of his blood offering (9:12). Moreover, the author’s repeated emphasis on the conclusive, “once for all” nature of Jesus’ sacrifice – which was followed by his “sitting down at the right hand of God” (10:12) – effectively closes the door on the possibility that his sacrificial ministry is ongoing.44 Nevertheless, certain aspects of a traditional priestly ministry continue to be exercised by Jesus, though always in relation to his people. (1) In 2:11 and 10:14 he is depicted as being presently involved in the activity of “sanctifying those who are being sanctified” (a`gia,zwn kai. oi` a`giazo,menoi, 2:11). (2) In 2:17–18 and 4:14–16 his sympathetic disposition towards human frailty is stressed: he is a “merciful and faithful high priest” (2:17) who has been “tested in every respect as we have” (4:15); he is therefore able to “help those who are being tested” (2:18). (3) The primary emphasis in 4:14–16, however, is on how Jesus’ sympathetic disposition affords bold approach to God. As we will see in a good portion of what follows, the primary hortatory purpose underlying Jesus’ priestly ministry is the granting and facilitating of access to God in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Jesus’ cultic actions of cleansing, sanctification, and perfection are ultimately concerned with facilitating access to God. (4) Finally, Jesus is prominently depicted as an intercessor, presently pleading on behalf of his people. This is explicit in 7:24–25: He holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

The emphatic nu/n in 9:24 also indicates Jesus’ priestly intercession is ongoing: he is “now appearing in the presence of God on our behalf” (nu/n evmfanisqh/nai tw/| prosw,pw| tou/ qeou/ u`pe.r h`mw/n ). Though not apparent in these two contexts, the author’s numerous depictions of Christ’s full immersion in the human experience would necessarily engender confidence in his ability to effectively plead for his followers. The oft repeated claim that Jesus is “seated at the right hand of God” (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12, 12:2) would have a similar effect. Peterson’s suggestion, that “the image of the intercessor is used to emphasize Christ’s willingness and ability to go on applying (the) benefits” of his atonement, probably overextends the intended imagery.45 More plausible is Kurianal’s contention, based on the overall thrust of 7:25, that evntugca,nw denotes “intervention,” rather than “intercession.” Thus his “intervention” on behalf of those “drawing near to God through him” chiefly entails

44 45

So Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 199–201. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 115.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

183

“providing a means for approaching God.”46 Finally, Hebrews’ depiction of Jesus as an intercessor provides the clearest link between his high priest Christology and other NT authors, the most notable example being Rom 8:34: “Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us” (cf. also 1 John 2:1; John 17:9). 3.5. The origins of Hebrews’ high priest Christology The origin of Hebrews’ unique high priest Christology has been the topic of much speculation. The literature of ancient Judaism amply attests to belief in an eschatological high priestly figure (1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:12–13; 4QTest 9–13; CD 12:23 – 13:1; 14:19; 19:10–11; T. Levi 8:11–17; 18:1– 14; T. Gad 8:1; T. Jos. 19:11). A wealth of parallels connect Hebrews’ high priest Christology to chapter 18 of T. Levi. These include: (1) a revelatory function (18:2, 5, 7–9; Heb 1:1–2); (2) an emphasis on sanctification (18:6–7; Heb 2:11; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 13:12); (3) the finality and ultimacy of the eschatological high priesthood (18:8; Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:16–17, 24–25); (4) a conclusive removal of sins (18:9; Heb 2:17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:26, 28; 10:12, 17–18); (5) the bestowal of eschatological rest on the righteous (18:9; Heb 3:7 – 4:11); (6) the defeat of death (18:10) and the devil (18:12; Heb 2:14–15); (7) participatory Adam anthropology (18:10; Heb 2:5–18); (8) the use of familial language (18:12–13; Heb 2:12–13). As impressive as these parallels may be, Attridge looks instead to the even more prevalent Jewish traditions of an angelic priesthood. These traditions depict angels engaged in heavenly liturgy, intercession, and bloodless sacrifice (Isa 6; Jub. 2:2; 31:14; 1 Enoch; T. Levi 3:4–6).47 However, the author’s emphasis on the earthly existence of Jesus and his costly self-offering somewhat mitigates the value of this background. It is perhaps best to assign these priestly traditions a marginal role in the formation of Hebrews’ high priest Christology. This inquiry finds more sure footing in the prevalent NT portrayal of Jesus’ death as a sacrificial self-offering (Luke 24:14–20; Rom 3:24–25; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 John 2:2).48 And as mentioned before, Jesus’ heavenly role as an intercessor is also within the compass of NT belief. Thus, the idea that Jesus occupied a priestly role, both in his earthly 46

Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 218. So also David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 132. 47 Attridge, Hebrews, 99–100. 48 Schaefer, “The Relationship Between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 378–85, argues for the influence of Deutero-Isaiah’s suffering servant. Though he admits “the priestly Christology of Hebrews seems totally to have absorbed its servant Christology” (383).

184

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

sacrifice and in his heavenly intercession, is not entirely unique to Hebrews.49 What is unique, according to James R. Schaefer, is “what the others hint, Hebrews affirms; what the others intimate, Hebrews articulates; what the others imply in passing, Hebrews makes the central theme of its message.”50 Lindars has famously pointed to the community’s perceived need for conclusive atonement as motivating the author’s high priest Christology.51 This hortatory purpose need not be seen as provoking the whole cloth invention of a high priest Christology. Lindars argues that it is “both a metaphor and more than a metaphor.”52 He also detects a progressive unfolding of the reality of Jesus’ priestly ministry through the course of Hebrews. Since this Christology is somewhat foreign to the recipients, in 2:17; 3:1; 4:15, “the concept of high priest is used metaphorically . . . so that the readers have time to get accustomed to the idea before it is proved that Jesus really is the high priest in 5:1–10.”53 Emphasizing the “mutually interpretative relationship” that scripture and experience share in establishing the priesthood of Jesus, Johnson notes:

49 Cf. the depiction of Jesus clothed in priestly accoutrements in Rev 1:13: “In the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest.” 50 Schaefer, “The Relationship Between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 373. Barker’s (The Great High Priest, 225) assertion, that “Jesus as the great high priest is a major theme in the New Testament,” requires appeal to “the secret traditions of the high priests” that she finds scattered and submerged throughout Jewish sacred literature. Though not entirely convincing, her case is nevertheless appealing. 51 Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” 403, flatly unfolds the logic: It is a matter of requirements. Atonement requires the ministry of the high priest; Jesus is a high priest. Atonement requires the death of a sacrificial victim to release the blood; Jesus’ blood was shed. Atonement requires the entry of the high priest through the veil into the holy of holies; . . . The author simply selects details which the readers are certain to respect as central to Jewish understanding of atonement and which can be readily applied to the death of Jesus. 52 Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 137; cf. also pp. 58, 63, 126. 53 Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” 392. Cf. Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son,” 479: “Christ’s heavenly high priesthood is at root a metaphor built on the efficacy of his atoning death coupled with his ascension to the highest heaven – the heaven’s Holy of Holies.” So also Willibald Beyschlag, New Testament Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), 2.331, who argues that for the author himself the High Priesthood of Christ was only an image, and indeed an insufficient one, which he used in order to make plain to his Hebrew readers the saving activity of Christ which went behind every Old Testament figure; and therefore if we press this figure dogmatically we are departing from his intention.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

185

Scripture is needed in order to perceive Jesus the Messiah as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. But without the experience of Jesus as the Messiah who dies violently and then enters into God’s life, scripture could not be properly or profoundly understood.54

One can easily trace the scriptural end of this equation to 5:5–6. Possibly reflecting the genesis of Hebrews’ high priest Christology, in this passage the author employs gezerah shavah55 to link the divine declaration/confirmation of Sonship in Ps 2:7 with the declaration of priesthood in Ps 110:4. ui`o,j mou ei= su,( su. i`ereu.j

evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se\ eivj to.n aivw/na kata. th.n ta,xin Melcise,dek

The two psalms share the pronoun su,, and a certain measure of assonance attends the first phrase in each quotation: ui`o,j mou ei= su, and su. i`ereu.j. The most obvious point of contact between the two verses is the conceptualization of a regal conferral of status.56 The priority of the Son of God Christology is not only apparent in this probable exegetical reconstruction, it is also evident in the fact that Jesus the high priest is never the object of worship.57

4. The soteriology of the sacrifice: cultic terminology and exhortation Every aspect of the author’s high priest Christology is informed by a hortatory purpose. This is readily apparent in the numerous soteriological benefits that issue from Jesus’ high priestly accomplishment. In his strategically placed program statement, 9:11, the author appropriately describes Christ as the “high priest of the good things that have come” (Cristo.j de. parageno,menoj avrciereu.j tw/n genome,nwn avgaqw/n). Many, if 54

Johnson, “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” 247–8. Literally, “identical category,” i.e., the interpretative method whereby one text receives illumination from another text sharing a word or phrase in common. Gezerah shavah enjoyed currency in the Qumran writings, examples include: 4QFlorilegium, the Community Rule, the War Scroll, and the Damascus Document. See Elieser Slomovic, “Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ 7 (1969– 1971), 3–15. 56 Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 54, states that in 5:5–6, “the Author explicitly indicates that the verbal similarity between the two passages stands as the main reason for their fusion.” See also Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 208. 57 Aschim, “Melchizedek and Jesus,” 145. The Son is worshipped, glorified, and honored in 1:6; 2:9; 3:3–6. 55

186

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

not most of the soteriological benefits are directly related to the Jewish cultus. Thus, the cultic achievement of Jesus has brought purification from (1:3) and atonement for sins (2:17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:26, 28; 10:12, 17–18); sanctification (2:11; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 13:12); purification of an unclean conscience (9:14; 10:22); merciful representation (2:16–18; 4:15–16; 9:24; 10:21) and intercession (7:25); a “promised eternal inheritance” (6:17; 9:15); a new covenant (7:22; 8:6, 10–12; 10:9, 16–17; 13:20); perfection (10:14); “eternal redemption” (9:12, 15) and salvation (2:10; 5:9; 7:25; 9:28). 4.1. An atonement for sins The recurring role played by “atonement for sins” in the author’s most august pronouncements of Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering is a fair indication of its soteriological significance. In the exordium, the whole cultic accomplishment is summarized in just four words: kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj (“having made a purification of sins,” 1:3). The classical expression, “atonement for sins” (i`la,skesqai ta.j a`marti,aj), drawn straight from the Yom Kippur ritual, arrives in conjunction with the first explicit designation of Jesus as high priest (2:17). The epochal statement of 9:26 – which equates the “manifestation” of Jesus with the “end of the ages” – locates the purpose of his manifestation in “an annulment/removal of sin” (avqe,thsij), effected through his self-offering. The atonement is further characterized as: (1) the “offering up of a sacrifice for sins” (qusi,a, avnafe,rw, 7:27; 10:12); (2) God’s “remembering sins no more” (mimnh,|skomai, 8:12; 10:17); (3) Jesus being “offered up to carry away the sins of many” (prosfe,rw, avnafe,rw, 9:28); (4) bringing “forgiveness” (a;fesij) of “lawless deeds” (avnomi,a), thus obviating further “offerings” for sin (prosfora,, 10:17–18). The description of Jesus’ “atonement for sins” (i`la,skomai) in 2:17 is derived from the world of Yom Kippur. The related noun i`lasth,rion is used in the LXX to denote the “mercy seat” upon which the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrificial bull and goat (Lev 16:14–15).58 The substantive can be translated as either the “means of expiation,” or the “place of propitiation.”59 Within the contexts of the key passages (1:3; 2:17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:26, 28; 10:12, 17–18), we find no conclusive indication of whether the author intends the atonement to be seen as either propitiation or expiation. An element of propitiation – signifying the averting of divine wrath – must surely be intended, given the repeated “no58

The LXX does not use i`la,skomai to denote the Aaron’s act of offering. Instead evxila,skomai is used (Lev 16:6, 11, 16–18, 24, 30, 32–33). 59 BDAG, 474.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

187

nonsense” portrayals of God (3:7 – 4:13; 6:8; 10:26–31; 12:5–11, 18–21, 25–29). In these passages God is said to be angry (3:10–11, 17; 4:3); vengeful (10:27–31; 12:25); fearful (12:21); a disciplinarian (12:5–11); and destructive in his judgment (6:8; 10:27; 12:26–29). However, an expiatory function – involving the removal of sin, a cleansing/healing from its effects, and the restoration of relationship with God – coheres more closely with the warp and woof of Hebrews.60 This is apparent in the fact that the atonement is considered, along with the Jesus’ entire cultic accomplishment, a “purification for sins” (kaqarismo,j, 1:3). The prominence of sanctification (2:11; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 13:12), purification (9:14; 10:22), and access to God (4:14–16; 6:19–20; 7:19; 10:19–23; 12:22–24) in the author’s soteriology provide further proof of an expiatory meaning.61 Two other terms figure prominently in relation to the cultic achievement: avqe,thsij, “annulment, removal” (9:26), and a;fesij, “forgiveness” (10:18).62 The appearance of the first, avqe,thsij, in conjunction with a`marti,a, is without parallel in the LXX and NT. Though Johnsson and Lane contend avqe,thsij refers to the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary mentioned previously in 9:23, a more comprehensive, objective, and eschatological “removal” of Sin as a force, or power to bring defilement, is necessary given the context.63 The decisive declaration, in 9:26, of the eschaton’s presence demands nothing less. With Jesus the high priest’s manifestation at the end of the ages, Sin has been dealt a crushing blow. This statement of Sin’s eschatological removal is conceptually akin to the author’s assertion that Jesus has “through death destroyed (katarge,w) the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (2:14).64 It is also congruent with Paul’s belief that Jesus has “destroyed the body of sin” (katarghqh/| to. sw/ma th/j a`marti,aj, Rom 6:6) and “condemned sin in the flesh” (kate,krinen th.n a`marti,an evn th/| sarki,, 60

David Janzen, The Social Meaning of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: A Study of Four Writings (BZAW 344. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 252–3, briefly discusses Hebrews, emphasizing the role Jesus’ sacrifice plays in establishing and maintaining the relationship between God and his people. 61 Mary Douglas, “Atonement in Leviticus,” JSQ 1.2 (1993–94), 117, defines atonement in Leviticus as “to cover or recover, cover again, to repair a hole.” It “does not mean covering a sin so as to hide it from the sight of God; it means making good an outer layer which has rotted or been pierced.” 62 Two similar terms, avfaire,w (10:4) and periaire,w (10:11), are used to denote the inability of the Jewish cult to “remove” sins. 63 William G. Johnsson, Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973), 336; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 249. 64 The only other use of avqe,thsij in the NT is in Heb 7:18: avqe,thsij me.n ga.r gi,netai proagou,shj evntolh/j.

188

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

Rom 8:3). The Testament of Levi similarly claims that through the eschatological priest’s ministry “all sin shall cease (evklei,yei pa/sa a`marti,a), and lawless men shall rest from their evil deeds” (18:9). The second term, a;fesij, emerges in 10:18 as an authorial comment on the quoted promise of Jer 31:34: “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” In light of the eschatological fulfillment of this promise, the author claims: “Where there is a;fesij of these (i.e., sins and lawless deeds), there is no longer any offering for sin” (o[pou de. a;fesij tou,twn( ouvke,ti prosfora. peri. a`marti,aj). His only other use of a;fesij occurs also as a comment, in 9:22. Moses is said to have “inaugurated” the “first covenant” and all that pertained to its performance, by “sprinkling” (r`anti,zw) everything with blood (9:18–21). The author comments in this regard: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified (kaqari,zw) with blood, and without the shedding of blood (ai`matekcusi,a) there is no a;fesij.” Johnsson argues that this first occurrence determines both uses of a;fesij. The close conjunction of a;fesij with kaqari,zw in 9:22–23 thus indicates the propriety of a cultic meaning for a;fesij: “decisive purgation.”65 He further contends this meaning for a;fesij applies to 10:18, as “it is incontestable that 10:18 echoes 9:22b as its corollary.”66 This argument, however, fails to reckon with the second context in which a;fesij appears. Though Johnsson’s claim is based on the absence of a`marti,a in the context of 9:22,67 in 10:18 a;fesij clearly refers to the “sins and lawless deeds” (tw/n a`martiw/n . . . kai. tw/n avnomiw/n) that God promises to “remember no more” (10:17), and the “offering for sin” (prosfora. peri. a`marti,aj) that is no longer required (10:18).68 Therefore, Johnsson’s assertion that “forgiveness is a category outside the conceptual scheme of Hebrews” cannot be endorsed.69 Surely here we are dealing with an act of forgiveness on God’s part, based on Jesus’ sacrificial selfoffering. God’s promise to “remember no more” the “sins and lawless deeds” of his people must be related to an act of divine forgiveness.70 Finally, Johnsson argues that within the context of chapter 9, a;fesij represents “the summit of the previous benefits available by means of blood (access, inauguration, purgation).”71 Though perhaps appropriate to 65

Johnsson, Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews, 328. Ibid., 350. 67 William G. Johnsson, “The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” ExpTim 89 (October 1977 – September 1978), 108. 68 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 474, argues that in 10:18 a “reference to sin is at least strongly implied.” 69 Johnsson, “The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” 106. 70 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 515, contends a;fesij in 10:18 is “summing up ouv mh. mnhsqh,somai e;ti in v.17.” 71 Johnsson, Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews, 326. 66

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

189

the argument of chapter 9, this claim is also inapplicable to chapter 10. There, the author’s exhortation to boldly “enter the sanctuary” (10:19) represents the “summit” of benefits issuing from Jesus’ sacrificial selfoffering.72 As we will shortly see, the author’s rhetorical strategy is narratival, with the recipients’ cultic cleansing and forgiveness constituting the basis for their confident entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary. It is there that they will have interaction with God, finding and solidifying their identity in relation to the Son of God. This conclusive construction of their identity as “siblings of the Son” represents the summit of the author’s hortatory narrative. Forgiveness and cleansing, though absolutely crucial, constitute a preliminary stage in this process. 4.2. Purification, sanctification, and perfection The complex of terms and imagery denoting purification, sanctification, and perfection is central to the author’s soteriology and his understanding of Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering.73 This is immediately apparent in 1:3, as Jesus’ cultic achievement is summarized as a “purification for sins.” Cleansing imagery is also invested with soteriological significance in 9:14 and 10:22. In 10:14 teleio,w is used to signify the perfection of the community. The cultic imagery of sanctification, denoted by the verb a`gia,zw, is far more prevalent (2:11; 10:10, 14, 22, 29; 13:12). The close connection between atonement and purification established in 1:3 is indicative of the importance that cleansing imagery possesses. This same close connection between the two, atonement and purification, is maintained in the two instances where the author discusses the recipients’ cultic cleansing, in 9:14 and 10:22. In 9:14 the author asserts: “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience (kaqariei/ th.n sunei,dhsin h`mw/n) from dead works to worship the living God.” The use of the future tense of kaqari,zw is attributable solely to its location within a rhetoric of comparative amplification (i.e., qal wahomer, or a fortiori). That the community’s cultic cleansing is a past event is evident in 10:22, where it forms the basis for the author’s exhortation to confidently enter 72

Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 265. Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), has amassed a substantial body of evidence pointing to a pervasive concern in the ancient Hellenistic world for ritual purity (both physical and metaphysical). He ultimately concludes, however, that the avoidance of pollution and the attendant quest for purity do not “derive from anxiety or a sense of guilt.” Rather they are the “by-products of an ideal of order” (325–6). He finds the greater part of this concern coming to expression in the liminal areas of life: birth, death, intercourse, madness, and diet. 73

190

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

the holy place. Both passages locate the object of the cleansing in the human conscience, the innermost depths of the human person; both directly attribute the agency of the conscience’s cleansing to the death of Jesus. Conversely, it is the tabernacle/Temple cult’s inability to effect a cleansing of the conscience that demonstrates its ineffectuality (9:9; 10:2– 3).74 Sunei,dhsij, “conscience,” is arguably the most complex anthropological term in the NT. Philip Bosman, in his study of the su,noida word group in Philo and Paul, notes that in Philo’s writings this inner faculty does not act preventively;75 instead it operates as an “inner court of law,”76 convicting one of wrongdoing (Creation 128; Worse 146; Posterity 59; Drunkenness 125; Spec. Laws 1:235; Flaccus 7). In Paul’s thought, the sunei,dhsij occupies the role of an “inner monitor,” registering “all the states of the inner person” and reporting “on them in an impartial and reliable manner” (Rom 2:15; 9:1; 13:1–7; 1 Cor 4:1–5).77 For Philo it also plays the role of an “agent of inner punishment,” inflicting anguish on wrongdoers (Unchangeable 100; Confusion 121; Spec. Laws 2:49; cf. Plutarch, Divine Vengeance 554.10). Conversely, the sunei,dhsij is capable of conferring a sense of righteousness, or “inner harmony,” via a pure (kaqaro,j) conscience (Good Person 99; Spec. Laws 1:203; Rewards 84; Embassy 165).78 Directly related to the state of one’s sunei,dhsij is the ability to live in and speak with parrhsi,a, “confidence” (Good Person 99; Heir 6–7; cf. Euripides, Hippolytus 419–430; Lysias, On the Olive Stump 16; Epictetus 74 The author’s argument stresses the irony of the whole matter. The sacrifices offered to cleanse consciences were performed “continuously,” providing an ongoing reminder of their inefficacy (10:2–3). 75 In Philo, this role is occupied by e;legcoj. Philip Bosman, Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group (WUNT 2.166. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003), 164, 185–6. R. T. Wallis, “The Idea of Conscience in Philo of Alexandria,” in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Qoud Deus Sit Immutablis (BJS 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 207–16, focuses almost exclusively on e;legcoj in his study of conscience in Philo. Wallis’s discussion centers on one ambiguity attending Philo’s presentation: the conscience is presented as both entering and leaving the human soul, thus raising the question of whether the conscience is immanent, as an innate possession of human nature, or a transcendent gift of God (210–14). 76 Bosman, Conscience in Philo and Paul, 123, 184–90. 77 Ibid., 250–1, 263, 265, 270–3. Bosman notes that for Paul, the sunei,dhsij can be “defiled” through deliberate wrongdoing (1 Cor 8:7). Its role, however, as an “impartial and reliable inner monitor” is not a “private matter.” It is subservient to the greater good of the community, as the misinformed sunei,dhsij of the “weak” must be deferred to in questionable matters (1 Cor 8:1–3; 10:23–33) (203–26, 267–71, 274–5). Finally, the sunei,dhsij, as a human faculty, is not an entirely reliable moral judge. God’s judgment is ultimate. 78 Ibid., 173, 187.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

191

3.22.94–96).79 In both Philo and Paul, the possession of parrhsi,a in relation to God is seen as the finest function of a clean conscience (Spec. Laws 1:203; Rewards 163; Joseph 265), though for Paul this function of the sunei,dhsij more decisively operates in conjunction with God’s “searching Spirit” (Rom 9:1; 13:1–7; 2 Cor 1:12; 4:2; 5:11–15).80 The possession of this confidence in one’s relationship with God is implied in Heb 9:14, as the cleansing of sunei,dhsij provided by Jesus’ death is said to allow one to “worship the living God.” This function and attribute of a “clean conscience” is made explicit in the other occurrence of cleansing imagery, in 10:22: “Let us approach with a true heart in full assurance (plhrofori,a) of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (avpo. suneidh,sewj ponhra/j) and our bodies washed with pure water.” Although Christian baptism undoubtedly underlies the reference to the “washing of our bodies with pure water” (cf. Heb 6:2),81 Yom Kippur’s preparatory and concluding priestly washings are also possible points of reference (Lev 16:4, 24, 26).82 Yom Kippur imagery also informs the purgative “sprinkling” presumably performed by Jesus (cf. Lev 16:14–15, 19, r`ai,nw). The “purification” (kaqari,zw) of conscience mentioned in 9:14 is also linguistically connected with Yom Kippur (Lev 16:19–20, kaqari,zw). And while Christian baptism confers a subjective sense of cleansing, it is Jesus’ blood that ultimately provides the objective basis for this decisive cleansing which has as its object the entire person, including the innermost depths of the human person, the kardi,a and its conscience,83 even an “evil conscience” (10:22).84 The true goal of this cleansing, however, is to facilitate confident access to God; as the greater argument of 9:1–14 and 10:19–23 indicates, “access to God is possible only through the medium of blood.”85 79

Ibid., 90–5. Ibid., 189, 267, 283. 81 Contra Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 100. 82 Attridge, Hebrews, 289; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 287; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 523–4; Koester, Hebrews, 445. 83 The OT lacks a word for conscience. Occupying a comparable role are the heart (1 Sam 24:5; 25:31; 2 Sam 24:10) and kidneys (Ps 16:7). See Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 2.113. 84 Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity, 188, fails to note that r`erantisme,noi is a passive participle. He therefore mistakenly argues that in the author’s “deviations from the temple ritual” of Yom Kippur, “Hebrews does not specify the place in which the blood is sprinkled. It is not the holy of holies. The sprinkling is performed neither by the high priest nor by Moses, but by the believers themselves.” This leads him to mistakenly equate the sprinkling with baptism. 85 Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 218. Cf. Parker, Miasma, 19, who appeals to Homer (Iliad 6:266–268; Odyssey 4:750–752) for the widespread belief in ancient Greece that “without purification there is no access to the sacred.” For the role of purification in Philo, see 80

192

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

Conceptually inseparable from this cleansing imagery and terminology is another transformed cultic term: sanctification.86 This cultic activity, expressed primarily through the verb a`gia,zw, “to make a[gioj,” is far more prevalent (2:11; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12).87 It perhaps represents a second stage of the process begun with the cleansing: the people who have been cleansed are subjected to a further act, of “being made holy.”88 There are distinct connotations of acquiring an attribute – holiness – that makes a person capable of properly relating to God.89 This notion is made explicit in 12:10, in which the author offers an apology for the paidei,a of God, as it allows the recipients to “partake in his holiness” (eivj to. metalabei/n th/j a`gio,thtoj auvtou/, 12:10), and 12:14, where the author exhorts the recipients to “pursue . . . the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (diw,kete . . . to.n a`giasmo,n( ou- cwri.j ouvdei.j o;yetai to.n ku,rion). An even more fundamental characteristic of sanctification is the idea of “consecration,” the dedication of something or someone to God, “as belonging exclusively to him.”90 The means by which this state of holiness is acquired is Jesus, who in the first occurrence of this imagery is designated o[ a`gia,zwn, “the one sanctifying” (2:11). In two instances the preposition dia, locates the agency Jutta Leonhardt, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001), 256–72. 86 For the OT background to this term, see Dunn, Romans 9–16, 861. 87 Of a`gia,zw, David Peterson (Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 33) says: “More than any other New Testament book, (Hebrews) has more to say about the sanctification of believers, using transformed cultic terms.” The seven appearances of a`gia,zw in Hebrews constitute 25% of the total NT usage. Cf. also Lev 20:8: evgw. ku,rioj o` a`gia,zwn u`ma/j. 88 Peterson, Possessed by God, 34; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 202, remarks: The difference between cleansing and sanctification is that the former merely restores one to the normal state of being clean, while the latter moves one from the normal state of being profane to the marked state of being holy. Admittedly the LXX of Lev 16:19 appears to conflate the two terms: “(Aaron) shall sprinkle some of the blood on (the altar of burnt offering) with his finger seven times, and cleanse it (kaqariei/) and hallow it (a`gia,sei) from the uncleannesses (avkaqarsiw/n) of the people of Israel.” However, Johnsson (Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews, 265) fails to convincingly substantiate his claim that kaqari,zw and a`gia,zw are used interchangeably in 9:13–14. 89 Cf. the function of two terms that can be considered antonyms: “defiled” (miai,nw, 12:15) and “profane” (be,bhloj, 12:16). In the context of 12:14–17 these terms describe those who have forfeited their relationship with God. 90 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 163. So also Grässer, An Die Hebräer, 2.223–4. Cf. Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia biblica 12. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 9: “God is holy; to enter unscathed into a relation with him a preliminary condition must be met: to be impregnated with holiness through some kind of ‘consecration.’”

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

193

of the sanctification in “the offering of Jesus’ body” (10:10) and “his own blood” (13:12). Moreover, Jesus’ role as o[ a`gia,zwn is directly connected to his own obedient life (10:5–10), for as Lane notes: “Only one who is himself fully consecrated to the service of God may exercise the power of making others holy.”91 This is also evident in the description of him as o[sioj a;kakoj avmi,antoj( kecwrisme,noj avpo. tw/n a`martwlw/n (7:26).92 The primary idea of “consecration” is nowhere more evident than in the context of the first occurrence, 2:10–11. In this passage, “those being sanctified” (oi` a`giazo,menoi) are depicted as “belonging” to God through three means: (1) the designation of God as the one “for whom and through whom all things exist” (2:10); (2) God’s identity as the paternal “source” of all (evx e`no.j pa,ntej, 2:11); (3) and through two instances of family terminology applied to the recipients: “children” (ui`o,j, 2:10) and “siblings” (avdelfo,j, 2:11). The author’s aforementioned apology for the paidei,a of God begins and ends with indications of consecration (12:5– 11): the recipients are addressed by God as ui`o,j (12:5) and are “partakers in his holiness” (12:11). It is also evident in the close connection established between sanctification and covenant made in 10:29. There the author warns the recipients of the judgment awaiting those who have “profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified/consecrated” (to. ai-ma th/j diaqh,khj koino.n h`ghsa,menoj). Finally, consecration is apparent in the three designations of the community as “holy ones” (a[gioj, 3:1; 6:10; 13:24). There is some ambiguity as to whether the act of “being made holy” is completed or ongoing. In 10:10 it is spoken of as an accomplished fact: “we have been sanctified” (h`giasme,noi evsme,n). In 2:10 and 10:14 the community is identified as “those being sanctified” (oi` a`giazo,menoi / tou.j a`giazome,nouj), thus suggesting an ongoing process.93 Peterson believes however that the phrase represents “a general designation of believers as the ‘sanctified.’”94 Perhaps the decisive piece of evidence is the emphasis on the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice, which in 10:10 and 10:14 is characterized as “once for all” (evfa,pax), “single” (ei-j), and “for all time” (eivj to. dihneke,j). This stress on the singular and eternal nature of Jesus’

91

Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 58. Furthermore, the Spirit is holy (2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15). And of course the milieu in which the recipients interact with God is the heavenly “holy place” (10:19, cf. 8:2; 9:12, 24). 93 Michel (Hebräer, 341) and Attridge (Hebrews, 280–1) both see sanctification as a process. Grässer, An Die Hebräer, 2.231, detects a “now not yet” tension in the two tenses of a`gia,zw. Though Christians already possess “das ganze Heil, aber noch nicht das letzte Ziel erreicht. Insofern sind sie h`giasme,noi und a`giazo,menoi zugleich.” 94 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 150. 92

194

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

sacrifice appears to be directly related to its object: the “once for all” sanctification of the community. The final soteriological cultic term, “perfection,” is closely connected to both kaqari,zw and a`gia,zw. The verb teleio,w is complex, as teleological, soteriological, cultic and ethical meanings are all possible.95 The three references to Jesus’ perfection, 2:10, 5:9, and 7:28, highlight teleological attainment and cultic soteriology. Furthermore, all three references use either passive constructions or imagery in relation to teleio,w, with Jesus as the object of God’s actions.96 In 2:9–10, “through his sufferings” Jesus was “crowned with glory and honor” (2:9) and perfected by God (2:10). His perfection may here be equated with his teleological attainment of glory.97 Access imagery is also unmistakably present, with God “leading (a;gw) into glory the many children” who follow their avrchgo,j of salvation, Jesus (2:10). These same factors – teleological attainment and cultic soteriology – are foremost in the thought of both 5:9, “having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation,” and 7:25–28, “he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him . . . when he offered himself . . . a Son who has been made perfect forever.” Though the argument of 5:5–10 might indicate the perfection of Jesus involved his “appointment” as high priest, Kurianal argues that the two passive participles of 5:9–10: teleiwqei,j and prosagoreuqei,j . . . avrciereu,j, “are presented as two distinct actions and not as identical.” Kurianal claims “teleiwqei,j is what happened to Christ before being declared high priest.”98 It is also important to recognize that Jesus’ perfection does not involve “moral perfection.”99 Instead, he “proved” his obedience “through what he suffered” (5:7–8) and thereby demonstrated his “full acquaintance with the entire range of human existence and depravity, his brothers’ very situation.”100 Teleio,w is used in relation to the community only once, in 10:14. There the perfection of the community is closely associated with its sanctification: “For by a single offering he has perfected (tetelei,wken) for all time those who are being sanctified (a`giazome,nouj).” The mixed tenses in 10:14 – tetelei,wken is perfect while a`giazome,nouj is present – leads 95

Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 102, notes of “perfection”: “Sie ist in der Auslegungsgeschichte der am meisten umstrittene Begriff der Heilslehre des Hebr.” 96 Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 227. 97 So Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976–1977), 65; Weiss, Hebräer, 206–7; Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 228–9. 98 Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 223, 225. Contra Albert Vanhoye, “La ‘Teleiôsis’ du Christ: Point Capital de la Christologie Sacerdotale d’Hébreux,” NTS 42 (1996), 334. 99 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 151; Attridge, Hebrews, 86; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 198–9. 100 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 188.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

195

Peterson to believe the author “clearly locates this perfecting in the past with respect to its accomplishment and in the present with respect to its enjoyment.”101 The community’s perfection is also here indissolubly linked to Jesus, “the author (avrchgo,j) and perfecter (teleiwth,j) of our faith” (12:2). Finally, the reference to “the spirits of the righteous made perfect” in 12:23 may represent the community’s proleptic attainment of “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22),102 though it is more likely that dead saints are envisioned.103 Apocalyptic accounts of heaven occasionally mingle dead saints with angels (1 En. 39; 104:6; 4Q403 [Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice] 1.2.14). While it may appear the author equates perfection with sanctification (10:14) and cleansing (9:9, 14; 10:1–2), a clearer indication of his understanding of teleio,w emerges within his critiques of the tabernacle/Temple cultus. The cult’s inability to perfect the conscience is faulted in 9:9 and 10:1, but a larger problem looms in both these contexts, and in 7:19: the cultus and the Law upon which it has its basis are deemed incapable of granting worshippers access to God.104 And in contrast to the Law, which “made nothing perfect,” Jesus’ cultic accomplishment “has introduced a better hope,” through which the community “may approach God” (7:19). This emphasis on access in the critiques of 7:19, 9:9, and 10:1 would appear to disallow any complete equation of perfection with either sanctification or cleansing.105 Additionally, the close proximity of 10:14 to the exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary in 10:19–23 increases the possibility that the author’s conception of perfection is closely linked to his theology of access. And as we have shown, access imagery is at the forefront in two of the three passages discussing Jesus’ perfection (2:10; 7:25–28).106 Peterson’s analysis of perfection therefore properly accentuates the access presently available to the community: 101

Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 167. So also Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 199. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 680–1. 103 Attridge, Hebrews, 376. 104 Contra Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” 67: The perfecting of human conscience (9:9; 10:1, 14) is not a reference to forgiveness or fitness to approach God, which Old Testament saints did experience, but to the enjoyment of the time of fulfillment, the new epoch introduced by the Messiah through his exaltation. 105 Contra Ellingworth, Hebrews, 511, who contends “a`gia,zw and teleio,w are used interchangeably in Hebrews.” Grässer, An Die Hebräer, 1.234, considers the verbs “to sanctify,” to perfect,” and “to lead,” to be “mutually interpretive.” 106 Cf. Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 102: “Jesu Vollendung ist sein Verherrlichung, genauer sein Eingang in das Allerheiligste des Himmels. Darum kann die Vollendung der Glaubenden nur im selben gemeint sein, . . .” 102

196

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

Perfection is not synonymous with cleansing from sin, though it involves the latter as a most significant element. Perfection is also not synonymous with sanctification, though the two concepts are closely related. The terminology of perfection is used to proclaim the fulfillment or consummation of men and women in a permanent, direct and personal relationship with God.107

This close association of teleio,w with unhindered access to God provides further indication of a narratival flow to the author’s exhortation. Though appearing in a segmentary manner, the author’s hortatory logic may be pieced together into a coherent narrative. Each cultic soteriological term, kaqari,zw, a`gia,zw and teleio,w, has its place in this hortatory narrative. Jesus’ atonement and cultic accomplishment courses through and empowers this entire process. It has provided a cleansing from sin and the removal of anything – even a defiled conscience – that might hinder a relationship with God. The sanctification of the community, accomplished through the work of Jesus, o[ a`gia,zwn, confers a state of holiness necessary for interaction with a holy God in the holy place. Jesus also consecrates his “siblings,” transferring them into the possession of God. The perfection of Jesus may be equated with his glorification in the Heavenly Sanctuary, thus outfitting him as the avrchgo,j and teleiwth,j of those who confidently follow him into the heavenly holy place.108 The perfection of the community is a cultic conferral, which is then realized in their “drawing near” to God.109 107

Peterson, Possessed by God, 36. In his earlier, and more thorough examination of perfection, Hebrews and Perfection, Peterson closely connects perfection to sanctification. He insists there exists “an inner connection” between kaqari,zw and teleio,w (136), and some “overlap of meaning” in the author’s use of a`gia,zw and teleio,w (167). Thus “the concept of perfection refers to the whole process by which a person is consecrated to God” (259). See also Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 224–5; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 202. Johnsson, Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews, 261–2, argues for a more static conception of perfection. He believes perfection is best represented by the idea of “incorporation,” signifying a “state rather than an act of becoming, of entering into.” 108 Koester, Hebrews, 123, also recognizes the sequential role of each of the cultic terms. He remarks: “If purification removes sin from the conscience and if sanctification puts a person in a proper condition to approach God, then (perfection) is the positive relationship that results from these actions.” 109 It is perhaps best to view the community’s perfection as a two-stage process. Perfection is first conferred on the community, providing them with the privilege to access God. This conferral then finds its fulfillment in the obedient response of the community: in drawing near to God they actualize their perfection. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 199–200, recognizes the latter half of this proposal. Kurianal, Jesus Our High Priest, 226, allows only a passive sense for teleio,w. He therefore disallows the equation of perfection with the exercise of access to God, as “perfection is always given to somebody, whereas in drawing near and entering God’s presence, the grammatical subject is the real subject of the verb.”

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

197

4.3. Redemption and salvation The coherence of redemption and salvation within the author’s two-age eschatology has already been noted. Final salvation is clearly deferred, reserved for the second coming of Jesus, at the eschaton (9:26–28; cf. 1:14; 6:9). Of all the occurrences of redemption (lu,trwsij, 9:12; avpolu,trwsij, 9:15) and salvation (swthri,a, 2:10; 5:9; 6:9; 9:28; sw,|zw, 7:25), only in 7:25 is salvation considered a present possession of the recipients. This ultimate soteriological benefit is also closely linked to Jesus’ priesthood. In only one passage, 6:9, is it not directly connected to his priestly work. The remaining contexts: 2:10; 5:9; 7:25; 9:12, 15, 28, all emphasize the role Jesus the high priest plays in granting and facilitating salvific access to the community. In the cultic context of 2:10, Jesus is referred to as “the avrchgo,j of their salvation” (th/j swthri,aj auvtw/n). The term avrchgo,j is a compound word, comprised of avrch,, “first,” and a;gw, “to lead.”110 Thus, “leader, founder, pioneer.” It is also applied to Jesus in 12:2, where it is somewhat coterminous with his role as teleiwth,j, “perfecter.”111 In 2:10 it clearly applies to his path-breaking journey into God’s do,xa. In line with the greater burden of 2:5–18, which is to demonstrate Jesus’ complete identification with humanity, his characterization as the “avrchgo,j of swthri,a” in 2:10 is intended to illustrate his indispensable and unique role as the path-breaking “pioneer,” revealing (ble,pw, 2:9) the way into God’s heavenly glory. Jesus’ identification with humanity is also prominent in 5:1–10; as a “priest forever” (5:6) he is aptly identified as the “source (ai;tioj) of eternal salvation” (swthri,aj aivwni,ou, 5:9).112 Moreover, his life of proven obedience is paradigmatic for those seeking salvation through him (5:8–9). He is the ai;tioj of “eternal salvation” solely to “those who obey him” (toi/j u`pakou,ousin auvtw/|), the obedient Son. Access imagery is presumably present in his characterization as the ai;tioj. Jesus’ singular capacity to provide salvific access is again prominent in 7:25, which attributes to his priesthood the ability to “save for all time those who approach God through him,” and 9:12, where Jesus the high 110

Koester, Hebrews, 228. The only other two uses of avrchgo,j in the NT are found in the primitive apostolic preaching of Acts. In 3:15, Jesus is called the “avrchgo,j of life,” while in Acts 5:31, he is the “avrchgo,j and swth,r.” 112 Cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1:252, where God is referred to as th/j swthri,aj ai;tion. The same phrase is applied to Antipater by Josephus (Ant. 14:136) in describing Antipater’s victory over the Egyptians. In a discussion of the etymology of wvsi,a (i.e., ouvsi,a), Plato asserts that “pushing power” (wvqou/n) is the “source” (ai;tioj) and “ruler” (avrchgo,j) of things (Cratylus 401D). 111

198

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

priest’s entry into the holy place issues in him “obtaining eternal redemption” (aivwni,an lu,trwsin eu`ra,menoj). The former passage, 7:25, represents the sole instance where salvation is portrayed as a present possession. This anomaly may perhaps be attributable to the author’s desire to establish a direct and immediate connection between the eternally abiding priesthood of Jesus (7:16–17, 23–24) and his ability to “save for all time” (sw,|zein eivj to. pantele.j du,natai, 7:25) those who approach God through him. In so doing he momentarily eases the “now not yet” tension between the two eternal realities: the “now” of Jesus’ everlasting priesthood, and the “not yet” of his everlasting salvation. The “eternal” motif reaches a full flowering in 9:12–15. As Cockerill notes: “The sacrifice that provided ‘eternal redemption’ (9:12) because it was offered ‘through the eternal Spirit’ (9:14) enables God’s people to receive the promised ‘eternal inheritance’ (9:15).” 113 This “eternal redemption” acquires covenantal dimensions in 9:15, as Jesus’ death qualifies him as “the mediator of a new covenant.” The designation “mediator” (mesi,thj) further emphasizes Jesus’ role as the sole provider of access to God. Though priestly imagery of mutual representation is surely present in mesi,thj, deSilva’s appeal to the GrecoRoman system of patronage has been especially fruitful. Occupying the role of an intermediary between patrons and clients, the mesi,thj “brokered” access to people of means. So also “Christ’s greatest benefit for his clients” is the gift of access to God, which Christ’s death as a purificatory sacrifice has made possible. He is the broker, the mediator (mesi,thj, 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), who secures favor from God on behalf of those who have committed themselves to Jesus as dependent clients. As Son, Jesus stands closest in relationship to God and is thus a more effective broker of God’s favor than even God’s trusted and faithful servants (the angels or Moses, 1:5–14; 3:2–5). In the ancient world, the close relatives of the emperor, especially his sons, were sought after as mediators of the emperor’s favor: their close, familial relationship to the patron gave great hope of success to suitors.114

Jesus’ efficacious self-offering also effected the redemption of “the called” (oi` keklhme,noi, 9:15) who had “transgressed” the “first covenant.” According to Scott W. Hahn’s construction of the enigmatic passage 9:15– 18, the death penalty due the Israelites for their violation of the Sinai covenant was “not enforced” (mh,pote ivscu,ei, 9:17) because of Moses’ appeal to God’s promise to bless Abraham’s descendants, a divine, “self-

113 114

Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” 189. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 62.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

199

sworn” oath performed as a consequence of the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18; Exod 32:13).115 Hahn believes the Levitical cultus functioned as a symbolic or pedagogical apparatus designed to remind Israel of her covenant violations (Heb 10:3) until one could come who was capable of bearing the curse-of-death of the (broken) covenant on behalf of the whole nation (Heb 2:9; 9:15), thus enabling God to enforce the first covenant without undermining his self-sworn oath to bless the ‘seed of Abraham’ (Gen 22:15–18; Heb 6:13–20).116

Therefore, Jesus’ death is “simultaneously the legal execution of the curses of the old covenant and the liturgical ritual sacrifice which establishes the new.”117 Finally, in 9:28, the imagery of Jesus as “salvific access provider” is stretched across the temporal divide of the two ages. The one whose selfoffering occurred “at the end of the ages” (evpi. suntelei,a| tw/n aivw,nwn, 9:26) is characterized as the “coming one” who will save (swthri,a) those “eagerly waiting for him” (toi/j auvto.n avpekdecome,noij, 9:28). Here the access imagery is transformed: salvation is depicted as a rescue from the present evil age, and conveyance into the coming age. This is perhaps loosely related to an earlier claim, made in 2:15, that Jesus has “set free” (avpalla,ssw) his people from the “fear of death.” That particular act of redemption may be viewed as a removal of the final obstacle to an eternal relationship with God. This examination of Hebrews’ soteriology reveals again the author’s preoccupation with access to God. We may speculate that his careful reservation of final salvation represents a deliberate qualification of his cultic soteriology. It would especially serve to qualify the common denominator of all the cultic soteriological terminology: access. This deferment of salvation would then signify that the recipients’ present access to God, though vital and authentic, is of a somewhat lesser degree than the complete access and encounter they will enjoy on the other side of the eschaton, in heaven. The emphasis on the eternal in Hebrews’ soteriology may subtly signal the presence of a divide between “this age” and the “age to come,” between “earth” and “heaven.” The repeated designations of Jesus’ priesthood as eternal would then reflect the conviction that he is uniquely able to bridge these temporal and spatial divides.

115

Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse of Death: Diaqh,kh in Heb 9:15– 22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 86. 116 Ibid., 87. 117 Ibid., 88.

200

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

4.4. An appeal to experience: “And the Holy Spirit bears witness to us” As mentioned earlier in our discussion of soteriology in the section on two-age eschatology, the deferment of ultimate salvation is more than adequately compensated for by the benefits on offer in the author’s elaborate cultic soteriology: atonement, forgiveness, cleansing, sanctification, perfection. And we can assume, as has James Dunn with Paul’s communities, that these soteriological “metaphors” would hardly have been living and fruitful metaphors had they not corresponded to experiences of conscience set at rest, of release and liberation, of reconciliation . . . the doctrine of atonement was not independent of the experience of atonement. 118

In this regard we have already argued that the persuasiveness of the warning passages, 2:1–4; 6:4–6; 10:26–31, is almost entirely dependent on the authenticity of the supernatural benefits the recipients are presumed to have experienced. The severity of the threatened punishment is predicated on the superiority of the eschatological gifts: “so great salvation,” “signs, wonders, various miracles,” “gifts of the Holy Spirit” (2:3–4); “enlightenment,” “tasting the heavenly gift,” “partaking in the Holy Spirit,” “tasting the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” (6:4–5); “receiving the knowledge of the truth” (10:26). A similar assumption can be made with regard to the cultic soteriological benefits: atonement, forgiveness, cleansing, etc. The recipients’ experience of these benefits is perhaps inferred in 10:15–17, the abbreviated reiteration of Jeremiah’s promised new covenant. As Motyer has recently suggested, the prefatory “and the Holy Spirit bears witness to us” (marturei/ de. h`mi/n kai. to. pneu/ma to. a[gion, 10:15a) does not necessarily represent a quotation formula.119 That function is performed by the following phrase, “for after saying” (meta. ga.r to. eivrhke,nai, 10:15b), whose subject, “the Lord,” is found within the quote itself (10:16).120 The “witness” of the Holy Spirit then, according to Motyer, pertains to the “tangible experience” of the conditions promised in the new covenant: “inner renewal and forgiveness of sin.”121 Motyer also believes that the 118 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 232. 119 Motyer, “The Temple in Hebrews,” 186. In 3:7 the Holy Spirit is presented as the speaker of Ps 95, though a different attribution formula is used: Dio,( kaqw.j le,gei to. pneu/ma to. a[gion. 120 Cf. Motyer’s translation: “For after saying, ‘This is the covenant I will make with them after those days,’ the Lord then says, ‘I will put my laws in their hearts . . . and will remember their sins no more’” (ibid.). 121 Ibid. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 513: “The dative is used rarely after marture,w of the person to whom witness is given; more commonly of the person about whom witness is given” (emphasis mine).

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

201

reach of this “testimony” would almost certainly extend throughout the greater context. Thus, “the cleansing of the conscience is clearly a tangible experience of renewal.”122 Motyer fails, however, to note a crucial role the Spirit’s witness would play in 10:19–23: providing preparatory confirmation of the reliability of the promise of access. The author’s exhortation to participate in the liturgical drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary would entail a slightly more manageable “leap of faith” from the recipients if they allow the Spirit’s testimony to recall and re-enact the cleansing, sanctification, and perfection they have received from Jesus the high priest of the new covenant.

5. The access provided by the high priest Marie Isaacs’s characterization of Hebrews as a “theology of access” has been shown to be not without its merits.123 This is however only half of the equation. The counterpart to the author’s theology of access is his exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary and “draw near” to God. This two-sided effort seeks to both (1) demonstrate Jesus’ ability to grant and facilitate access, and (2) inspire the recipients to take advantage of this opportunity to “draw near” to God. As mentioned before, a good portion of Hebrews is best viewed as “a symbolic action in the sacred sphere” that calls for “participation in such an action.”124 This call for participation is nowhere more apparent than in 4:14–16 and 10:19–23 – passages without equal in Hebrews’ hortatory strategy, appropriately deemed by Weiss “decisive control centers.”125 In 4:14–16 and 10:19–23 the author combines “access soteriology” with “entry exhortation.” In both passages, access is assured by appeal to Jesus’ entry and presence in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The “entry exhortation” calls the recipients to participate in the sacred 122

Motyer, “The Temple in Hebrews,” 186. Cf. 10:1–3, where the author assumes that the worshippers in the Jewish cultus – presumably unaided by the Holy Spirit – are capable of discerning their defilement. Their enduring “consciousness of sins” is reflected in the unceasing sacrifices they offer. 123 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 67. Cf. also G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 152: for Hebrews “religion consists in access to God.” 124 Though offered with respect to Ephesians, Saunders’s remarks are applicable to Hebrews: The author “develops images that affirm the new (eschatological) reality in which the recipients live while using language that draws them into that transformed reality. Eschatological imagination is at once being defined and induced” (“‘Learning Christ’: Eschatology and Spiritual Formation in New Testament Christianity,” 165). 125 Weiss, Hebräer, 52: “entscheidenden Schaltstellen.” Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 81, demonstrates that 4:14–16 and 10:19–23 constitutes a structural inclusio.

202

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

drama through the use of cultic entry/entrance terminology (prose,rcomai, 4:16; 10:22; eivj th.n ei;sodon tw/n a`gi,wn, 10:19). 5.1. The access provided by Jesus As we have seen, the author uses a number of means to affirm Jesus’ ability to grant and facilitate access into the Heavenly Sanctuary. Besides the cultic soteriology, the numerous affirmations of Jesus’ entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary (1:6; 2:8–10; 4:14; 6:19–20; 7:26; 9:11–12, 24; 10:19–21) and present situation there, at the right hand of God (1:3, 13; 4:14–16; 8:1; 10:12, 12:2), would adequately serve this purpose. Also specifically intended to increase the recipients’ confidence in their ability to successfully access God are the three instances, 4:14–16, 6:19–20 and 10:19–21, in which the author provides details about the architecture of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the events connected with Jesus’ entry into the holy place. In 4:14–16, the Heavenly Sanctuary into which Jesus has ascended is portrayed as possessing a “throne of grace,” where the recipients will be met with “mercy and grace to help in time of need.” In one of the more difficult passages in Hebrews, 6:18–20, the author states: . . . we who have fled might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us. We have this hope, a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest . . .

The recipients are said to have “fled” (katafeu,gw),126 presumably toward the Heavenly Sanctuary, and are encouraged to “seize,” or “hold fast” (krate,w) to a “hope” based on God’s oath (6:13–18). In the immediate context, this oath would appear to reflect the unconditional and “immutable” (avmeta,qetoj) divine promises made to Abraham at the Aqedah, as recounted in 6:13–15. The imagery of 6:18–20 seems however to have another divine oath in view: God’s oath to confer the high priesthood on Jesus, which surfaces in 7:19–22.127 Thus the recipients’ hope functions as a rope, connecting them to Jesus and his high priestly ministry – a ministry carried out within “the innermost reaches” of the Heavenly Sanctuary, beyond the “curtain” (eivj to. evsw,teron tou/ katapeta,smatoj, 6:19). This hope is within the recipient’s grasp, and as 126

Katafeu,gw can also denote “to take shelter.” Cf. BDAG, 529. According to this reading, the “two immutable things” of 6:18 are two oaths, made to Abraham (6:13–14) and Jesus (7:19–22). Though Ellingworth (Hebrews, 342) argues against this interpretation, 6:13–20 and 7:19–22 contain two significant points of contact: (1) the instrumentality of “hope” in entering into the holiest place (6:19) and drawing near to God (7:19); (2) the unchangeable plans of God that come to expression in selfsworn oaths (6:17–18; 7:21). 127

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

203

they seize it, it will become “anchored” within their innermost being (yuch,, 6:19), solidly connecting them to their “forerunner” (pro,dromoj, 6:20), Jesus. Moreover, by this hope the recipients presently enter (eivsercome,nhn) “the innermost reaches” beyond the curtain (6:19). The access imagery set forth in 10:19–21 is a little easier to piece together. We have confidence eivj th.n ei;sodon (to enter/for an opening into) the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way (o`do,j) that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), and since we have a great priest over the house of God, . . .

In the first verse eivj th.n ei;sodon can be understood either verbally, denoting the act of entry, or spatially, as the place of access. The first option is commonly preferred and is well attested (Philo, Spec. Laws 1:261; Josephus, Ant. 19:332; 1 Thess 1:9; 2:1; 2 Pet 1:11).128 The recipients’ “confidence to enter the sanctuary” has its basis in Jesus’ blood (10:19) – his very life (10:20) – by which he has “inaugurated” (evgkaini,zw) the “new and living way” through the “curtain” (katape,tasma) that hangs in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Our cursory sketch of the architectural details of the Heavenly Sanctuary, and Jesus’ entry into its holy place, reveals the author has provided yet a further level of support for his assertion of God’s accessibility. The Heavenly Sanctuary’s veil has for the recipients shed its image of impenetrability.129 It no longer represents a barrier to fellowship with God, as it has presumably been drawn aside by Jesus. Perhaps most surprising is the author’s suggestion that the recipients are connected to – and are even entering into – the holy place by a figurative rope, representing Jesus’ certain occupation of the heavenly high priesthood.130 128

Cf. the detailed consideration offered by Wilhelm Michaelis, “o`do,j, ktl,” TDNT 5.75–8, 106, who emphatically argues for the verbal sense. Koester, Hebrews, 442, believes the occurrence of o`do,j in the following verse – “the new and living way” – indicates a spatial meaning. Attridge, Hebrews, 284, suggests the ambiguity is deliberate. 129 Cf. the account of Enoch’s ascent to the heavenly temple in 1 En. 14:8–23, where a multitude of meteorological and cosmological metaphors (fire, hailstones, lightning, shooting stars) convey the transcendence and inaccessibility of God. These forbidding phenomena cause Enoch to characterize the heavenly temple as devoid of “delight of life” (14:13). Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 263, thus remarks: “To ascend to the heavenly temple is a cause for sheer terror rather than joy. This is no visit to the paradise of delight.” Enoch even claims that most angels are incapable of approaching God in his holy place (14:21–23). 130 This rope imagery used in relation to the holy place represents an almost humorous inversion of a tradition found in the Zohar, i.e., a rope was attached to the high priest for the purpose of dragging him out of the holy place should he die there (Zohar Achrei Mot 67a; Zohar Emor 102a).

204

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

5.2. The exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary The hortatory corollary to the cultic soteriology, with its promise of access, is found in the author’s two exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary, in 4:14–16 and 10:19–23. By means of these exhortations the recipients are at last invited to participate in the liturgical drama, via a “bold approach” (prosercw,meqa . . . meta. parrhsi,aj, 4:16; 10:19, 22) into the most holy place (10:19), all the way to the “throne of grace” (4:16).131 Additional instances of entry terminology applied to the recipients can be located in 4:1, 3, 11; 6:19 (eivse,rcomai); 7:19 (evggi,zw); and 7:25; 11:6; 12:22 (prose,rcomai). Scholer’s detailed analysis of Hebrews’ entry language emphasizes the OT cultic background, though his assertion of a cultic context for every occurrence of prose,rcomai is debatable (cf. 11:6).132 In the LXX, prose,rcomai is often used to translate brq (Exod 16:9; Lev 9:5, 7–8; 21:17–18; 22:3) and vgn (Lev 21:21), which when used in a cultic context “refer to the approach by the priest to the altar, or the approach of the nonpriests for worship.”133 This approach typically represents a “drawing near” which is “descriptive of the ministering, sacrificing and offering function of the priest.”134 According to Scholer, however, this priestly act of drawing near is carefully circumscribed by the LXX translators: prose,rcomai is never used “in conjunction with the i`lasth,rion or kibwto,j which are situated in the holy of holies.”135 Scholer believes this same restraint characterizes Hebrews’ employment of prose,rcomai. Every occurrence of the term: 4:16; 7:25; 10:22; 11:6; 12:22 (and also evggi,zw, 7:19), signifies an exhortation to “draw near” and participate “proleptically” in the heavenly cultus.136 Thus prose,rcomai, as “proleptic participation,” “refers to a preliminary access into the holy of 131

Weiss, Hebräer, 471–2, notes that these exhortations are unique in the NT. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 11. So also Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 91, who claims that “the language associated with the word ‘approach’ (prose,rcomai) implies throughout a liturgical setting.” Scholer’s attempt at demonstrating a cultic context for 11:6 is somewhat unconvincing (131–7). Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 79, argues instead “a relationship with God in a more general and non-cultic sense” is implied in 11:6. Peterson appeals to similar uses of prose,rcomai in Sir 1:28; 2:1, where general service of God is implied, and Sir 1:30, which has synagogue attendance in view (230). 133 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 91. It is used of priests in Lev 10:3–5; 16:1; Num 16:40; and of Israelites in general, in a cultic context, in Exod 16:9; 34:32; Lev 9:5; Num 10:3. Cf. also 4Q400 (Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), 1.1.19–20: “He has established for himself priests of the inner sanctum of the holy of holies, . . . who approach” (~ybrqh). 134 Ibid., 93. 135 Ibid., 94. 136 Ibid., 144–5, 149. 132

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

205

holies, into the direct presence of God through inner spiritual service such as worship and prayer, to be superseded by a still future and greater access.”137 The “still future and greater access” represents “being in the very presence of God and his throne in heaven,” though only Jesus, the “angelic hosts, . . . dead Christians and the Old Testament faithful of Heb. 11 who are teteleiwme,noi”138 presently enjoy this access. Scholer argues that the author maintains a “careful distinction” between the living and the dead. Those living draw near or approach God. They have been granted access to God which is appropriate to their still tangible, corporeal form of present, earthly existence. They have access to God as far as conscience is concerned, that is through prayer and worship . . . The deceased . . . have ‘entered’ into the heavenly holy of holies, i.e. into God’s very presence (12:23).139

This distinction between the living and the dead, though quite sensible, is incapable of cohering with the claim of 12:22–24, which places the recipients in the immediate proximity of dead saints: “You have come (proselhlu,qate) to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, . . . and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.”140 In addition to dissolving the barriers dividing living and dead saints, this remarkable passage also closes the eschatological gap separating angels and humans.141 Though Scholer admits the perfect indicative proselhlu,qate reflects a “continuous” connection with heaven, he claims: “The unfulfilled access of their approach is seen clearly in the preceding verses, 12:10–17.”142 The latter passage’s exhortation to endure divine discipline is seen by Scholer as pointing “to the fact that the readers are not yet in direct contact with

137

Ibid., 11. Ibid., 149. 139 Ibid., 201. 140 Philip E. Esler, New Testament Theology: Communion and Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) goes to great lengths to defend the possibility of communion between dead and living saints: i.e., “the souls of faithful dead” possess “some knowledge of what is occurring in this world and would be susceptible of invocation” (278). Though he believes the “great cloud of witnesses” “surrounding” the community in 12:1 represents a “form of communion” between the living and the dead, Esler fails to appreciate the implications of 12:22–24 (199–200, 202–3). His lengthy discussion of this passage is devoid of any consideration of prose,rcomai. Thus the “author and his audience . . . were hoping” they “would eventually be found in the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (200). 141 Cf. again Fletcher-Louis’s challenge to any dualistic paradigms that would rigidly divide the heavenly and earthly spheres (All the Glory of Adam, xii). 142 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 144. 138

206

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

the Lord.”143 This assertion is also contradicted by testimony of 12:22–24: the recipients “have come . . . to God the judge of all . . . and to Jesus.” Similarly unsatisfactory are claims that the author has carefully differentiated between eivse,rcomai (“enter”) and prose,rcomai (“draw near”); i.e., the recipients may “draw near,” but cannot actually enter the heavenly holy place.144 Those offering this argument either neglect the author’s use of eivse,rcomai in 6:19,145 or “spiritualize” it.146 The confident act of “entry” (eivj th.n ei;sodon) held forth in 10:19 also disallows this alleged distinction between merely “drawing near” and actually entering the Heavenly Sanctuary. Nevertheless, the restriction of the entry terminology to denote “approach, but not attainment” is quite common.147 When so circumscribed, however, the entry language is incapable of performing the absolutely crucial role it is ascribed in both the author’s hortatory strategy and his critique of the tabernacle/Temple cultus. On both counts, some manner of meaningful, experiential presence in the Heavenly Sanctuary is required. (1) The exhortation to enter the holy place in 10:19–23 constitutes the climactic 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 free access he

143

Ibid. DeSilva, “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews,” 28; idem, Perseverance in Gratitude, 337. 145 DeSilva, “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews,” 28. 146 Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 181–4. 147 Isaacs, Sacred Space, 219. Cf. also Hermut Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 73. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 269. Isaacs’s (Sacred Space, 185, 218–19) “theology of access” falls disappointingly short in this regard. Her interpretation of the exhortation to “draw near” in 4:16 appears to be entirely non-experiential. The addressees are to look not only to God’s future for inspiration but to the present glory of Jesus, and to aspire to a similar glory. . . . What saves Hebrews’ exalted Christ from being a wholly distant figure is the author’s conviction of his imminent return to earth. Heaven is not discouragingly ‘far’ because it is ‘soon.’ But in the meantime salvation is not to be located in this place nor identified with this time. . . . In exhorting them to look to heaven he is not inviting them to abandon the world, either in some mystical experience achieved through worship, or in a life beyond the grave. . . . In the meantime heaven is inhabited only by God, His son, and the angels. . . . His followers are encouraged to draw near to God via worship. . . . Yet it remains the language of approach rather than attainment. . . . For the present the gospel of promise is experienced only as hope since salvation, the time and space of heaven, has yet to be attained by the believer. 144

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

207

now provides.148 This access must qualitatively supersede that of the Jewish cultus, disallowing the possibility that only prayer or worship underlies the entry terminology.149 (2) The issue of efficacy aside, an entirely “spiritualized” entry is no match for the vivid and tangible cultic experience of the participants of the tabernacle/Temple cultus (9:1–10, 18– 21; 10:1–4). And though the author claims that the recipients have “not come to a palpable” (yhlafwme,nw|) encounter with God, as did those at Sinai (12:18–21), his depiction of their “arrival” (proselhlu,qate) at “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22– 24) is no less vivid or substantial.150 (3) The author’s exhortations to “boldly” enter the Heavenly Sanctuary (parrhsi,a, 4:16; 10:19), in “full confidence . . . without wavering” (plhrofori,a, 10:22; avklinh,j, 10:23), provide an exact rhetorical foil to his graphic depictions of disobedience, which repeatedly employ the language of movement to denote rebellious withdrawal from God: “to drift away” (pararre,w, 2:1); “flee away from” (evkfeu,gw, 2:3; 12:25); “turn away” (avfi,sthmi, 3:12); “fall short, fail to reach” (u`stere,w, 4:1; 12:15); “fall” (pi,ptw, 4:11); “fall away” (parapi,ptw, 6:6); “neglecting to meet together” (mh. evgkatalei,pontej th.n evpisunagwgh.n e`autw/n, 10:25); “shrink back” (u`poste,llw, 10:38); “turn away” (avpostre,fw, 12:25); and “carried away” (parafe,rw, 13:9). (4) The author’s other depictions of the recipients’ sacral life presumably correspond to and describe the activity expected in the entry exhortations. And these depictions of their cultic activities are not spiritualized; rather, they are portrayed as properly enacted (e;cwmen ca,rin( diV h-j latreu,wmen euvare,stwj tw/| qew/| meta. euvlabei,aj kai. de,ouj, 12:28) and fully embodied acts of worship (avnafe,rwmen qusi,an aivne,sewj dia. panto.j tw/| qew/|( tou/tV e;stin karpo.n ceile,wn o`mologou,ntwn tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/, 13:15). (5) 148 Cf. Motyer’s (“The Temple in Hebrews,” 184) remarks concerning the designation of Jesus as a “forerunner” (pro,dromoj) in 6:20. “The high priest was not the first of a crowd to enter. Nothing in the Old Testament cult prepares us for this idea . . . that the entry of this high priest paves the way for others.” 149 Cf. Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief, 253, who equates prose,rcomai with “Gottesdienst oder Gebet.” So also Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 97. Peterson (Hebrews and Perfection, 79) contends prose,rcomai in 10:22 is “not particularly related to prayer, though the context may indicate something like ‘the reception of the gifts of salvation in the act of divine worship,’ which may involve prayer.” He later argues that prose,rcomai and evggi,zw describe “those invisible acts of faith by which an individual appropriates the benefits of Christ’s work” (140). Weiss, Hebräer, 299, though initially asserting that “drawing near” is restricted to “Gottesdienst,” shortly thereafter extends its reach to “die ganze christliche Existenz.” 150 Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 550, who believes the perfect indicative proselhlu,qate in 12:22 is rhetorical. He appeals to Demetrius, On Style 214, who advises “the use of an actual past tense” to heighten the vividness of a narrative, “since what has already happened is more forceful than what will happen or is still happening.”

208

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

Finally, as we will see in the following section: “The enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary,” the author’s ultimate hortatory goal will be reached in the community’s confession of the Son of God. This confession, offered in response to the Son’s conferral of family identity upon the community (2:12–13), will solidify the recipients’ identity as the family of God. A supernatural encounter with the Son of God is depicted and expected, one transcending the mundane, transpiring in the Heavenly Sanctuary. We should therefore assume the author’s entry exhortations reflect a genuine and substantial encounter with the eschaton. Furthermore, his cultic soteriology, and the exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary that represents its “perfection,” must be aptly described. Would this appeal, with these terms, been made if there was not the expectation of a consonant reality in the experience of his recipients? Ultimately all responsible accounts of the author’s eschatological experience and expectations must adequately answer this question. For it is difficult to imagine the author deftly concocting elaborate eschatological abstractions, perhaps constructed from only the slimmest thread of reality – i.e., “prayer,” “approach, but not attainment” – then using these fabrications as the basis for his appeal. Converts might be appealed to with such exaggerations, but a beleaguered church cannot be expected to persevere long when fed with fanciful and/or fraudulent promises. Therefore, rhetorically and theologically, the author’s entry exhortations must reflect the actual experience of unhindered, substantial, and life-changing access to God and his Son.151 5.3. The incompatibility of the exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary with Hebrews’ alleged depiction of the Christian life as a pilgrimage Perhaps beginning with Käsemann’s famous Das wandernde Gottesvolk,152 it has been commonly asserted that Hebrews’ understanding of Christian existence is primarily determined by the idea of pilgrimage. Käsemann’s thesis is largely conditioned by the “now but not yet” nature of Christian existence, wherein “one possesses the euvagge,lion on earth only as evpaggeli,a.” Thus “it follows that the form of existence in time appropriate to the recipient of the revelation can only be that of wandering.” 153 His

151

This interpretation of the author’s entry exhortations certainly strengthens Rissi’s bold claim: “Mit dem ‘Nahen zu Gott’ stehen wir vor der erstaunlichsten Deutung der Heilsaneignung im Neuen Testament” (Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 97). Grässer, An Die Hebräer, 1.259, quotes and appears to approve of Rissi’s assertion. 152 Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (FRLANT 55. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1938). 153 Käsemann, The Wandering People of God, 19.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

209

thesis was approved and adopted by Spicq,154 Barrett,155 and a host of others.156 In an almost equally influential article, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” Johnsson characterizes the recipients as “a cultic community on the move.”157 This designation represents an amalgamation of the two disparate “sections” of Hebrews: “cultic” and “paraenetic.” The “cultic sections” focus on the recipients’ past attainment of sanctification and purgation, signifying their present state as “God’s people, even now.”158 The “paraenetic sections” evince a “particular awareness of the perils in the present which may cause the goal to be lost” and “are dominated by the motif of pilgrimage.”159 Johnsson’s bifurcation of Hebrews into two disparate sections is problematic. It leads him to locate the author’s entry exhortations solely in the “cultic section.” There, at safe remove from the “paraenetic sections,” they are not allowed to have any bearing on the alleged “pilgrimage motif.” A similar division between the two – entry and pilgrimage – is maintained by Williamson.160 These two emphases are cut from different cloth, and Williamson suggests the entry language is intended to promote a “mystical ascent” into the heavens. The “ascent mysticism” of Hebrews shares a “large number of terms, themes and ideas” in common with Jewish Merkabah mysticism, and is therefore probably dependent upon it.161 Robert Jewett and Darrell J. Pursiful have attempted to fuse the pilgrimage and entry motifs, arguing for their mutual interpenetration in the author’s exhortation to “go to (Jesus) outside the camp . . . for here we 154

Spicq, Hébreux, 1.269–80. Cf. Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 376: “The people of God are well described in the title of Dr. E. Käsemann’s penetrating study of Hebrews: they are ‘das wandernde Gottesvolk,’ a pilgrim people, like Israel in the wilderness.” 156 Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981), 235, calls 13:14, with its supposed emphasis on pilgrimage, the “central thesis of Hebrews.” So also Erich Grässer, “Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Zum Basismotiv des Hebräerbriefes,” ZNW 77 (1986), 160–79. Reprinted in idem, Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 231–50. Cf. Lane’s comments on 13:14: “‘we are expecting intently,’ expresses a habitual disposition as the driving force of the disciple’s life” (Hebrews 9–13, 547). 157 William G. Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” JBL 97.2 (1978), 249–50. 158 Ibid., 249. 159 Ibid., 250, 248. 160 Ronald Williamson, “The Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” ExpTim 87 (1975–1976), 232–7. 161 Ibid., 236, 235. Cf. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 84–5, who critiques Williamson’s thesis by pointing to the absence of any contemporary textual support. 155

210

Part Two: Heavenly Sanctuary Eschatology and Exhortation

have no lasting city, but we are looking for the city that is to come” (13:13–14).162 Pursiful asserts: “The daily pilgrimage of believers through a threatening world has become their approach to the holy of holies”163 This thesis, and the characterization of the Christian life as a pilgrimage, can be faulted on a number of grounds: (1) The author’s lengthy treatment of the wilderness generation repeatedly focuses on the fact that they did not enter the promised land (ouvk eivsh/lqon, 4:6; cf. 3:11, 18–19; 4:3, 5). This failure to enter the promised land stands in marked contrast to the promise of immediate entry that is held before the recipients (4:1–3, 6, 9– 11; cf. also 3:14).164 Those who “believe” are even said to have “already entered” the eschatological place/state of rest (eivserco,meqa, 4:3). (2) The author’s emphasis in 3:7 – 4:11 on the eschatological moment, signified by the repeated refrain “Today” (3:7, 13, 15; 4:7 [2X], cf. h`me,ra, 3:8, 13; 4:4, 7–8), is entirely ill-suited to a construction of Christian existence as pilgrimage, where “the way is long.”165 (3) Similarly inapt are any comparisons with the author’s portrayal of the pilgrim patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – who wander about, “not knowing where they are going” (11:8), “searching for a fatherland,” and “confessing” they are “strangers and foreigners on the earth” (11:13–16). The author’s hortatory purpose in enlisting the patriarchs is their exemplary pursuit of God’s promised “city,” and “better heavenly homeland” (11:10, 13–16). In contrast to the patriarchs’ wanderings, the community knows where it is going, and is presently entering into the “city” and heavenly “fatherland” that God has “prepared” (13:14) and which Jesus has “inaugurated” (10:20; 12:22–24). The patriarchs’ confession, of rootlessness and disenfranchisement, is also no match for the recipients’ confession of Jesus’ Sonship and their membership in the family of God – a confession suffused with a sense of belonging (4:14–16; 10:19–23). (4) A further hortatory purpose underlying the author’s construction of the pilgrim patriarchs may be located in their costly identification with the “people of God” (11:24–26), the corollary of which is found in the declaration that “God is not ashamed to be called their God” (11:16). This promise finds its ultimate fulfillment in the Son’s conferral of family membership on the recipients (2:12–13), and his complete identification with them (2:14–18; 162

Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims, 234; Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews, 147. 163 Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews, 147. 164 Albert Vanhoye, “Long marche ou accès tout proche? Le contexte biblique de Hébreux 3,7–4,11,” Bib 49 (1968), 24. With regard to the author’s portrayal of the Christian community in 3:7 – 4:11, Vanhoye remarks: “La theme de la peregrination n’apparaît pas.” Christian existence is instead comparable to “entry into the promised land” (26). 165 Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” 249.

Chapter 7: The high priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

211

4:14–16). And like his Father, the Son is “not ashamed” of his siblings (2:11). Furthermore, the recipients’ identification with the family of God is also costly, as it involves a renunciation of the safe shelter afforded by participation in society’s standards of honor and shame. (5) As mentioned before in our consideration of 13:9–16, the results issuing from the two activities, cultic entry and pilgrimage, are entirely different. Entry brings access to a favorably disposed God. Pilgrimage is met with shameful treatment and possibly violence. In entering they “receive mercy and find grace,” while sojourning they “receive abuse and find beatings.” And in the sacral sphere their identity is formed and secured, while in a social setting it is tested and punished. Therefore the common construction of Christian existence as pilgrimage fails because it suggests a long-term seeking and searching, whereas the entry exhortations clearly stress and commend immediate entry and present access. The pilgrimage motif is much more limited in purpose, perhaps appearing as a subset of the more pervasive and crucial cultic entry, serving a social purpose with its construction of a counter-vision of earthly existence, as lived out in inhospitable circumstances. Its primary purpose is therefore to exhort the recipients to maintain a “loose grip” on their earthly existence.

Chapter Eight

The enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary 1. The exalted and enthroned Son The Heavenly Sanctuary is not an entirely cultic locale. It is also a place of regnal purpose, where God’s sovereign rule is exercised in conjunction with his exalted and enthroned Son. This coordination of cult and crown within the Heavenly Sanctuary is succinctly summarized in 8:1: “Now the main point of our foregoing discussion is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” The mitre and scepter meet once more in 10:12–13: “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, ‘he sat down at the right hand of God,’ and since then has been waiting ‘until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.’” Furthermore, references to the “right hand” of God (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12, 12:2) and the throne of God (1:8; 4:16; 8:1; 12:2) frequently appear in contexts where the primary frame of reference is the Heavenly Sanctuary. The author appears uninterested in establishing a timeline of Jesus’ career as high priest and exalted Son. In Attridge’s opinion, he is “much more concerned for the fact that God reveals Christ to be both Son and High Priest than he is about the points at which those titles are applicable.”1 A conferral of Sonship on Jesus at his exaltation might be inferred from 1:4–5. Thus Jesus attains a new status, divine Sonship, “inheriting a more excellent name” (1:4) with God’s declaration: “You are my Son” (1:5). It is more appropriate, however, to see in the exaltation a “confirmation of his existing position and status, rather than conferral of a new status.”2 This is supported by the assertion of 5:8: “Although he was a Son” (kai,per w'n ui`o,j), Jesus’ earthly sufferings were educative. Conversely, it is clearly indicated that Jesus did not occupy a priestly office in his lifetime (7:13–14). Although the author constructs his entire earthly existence as an outfitting, or training, for his eventual appointment 1

Attridge, Hebrews, 147. Aquila H. I. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms (WUNT 2.192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 276. 2

214

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

to heavenly high priest, the official exercise of that office did not commence until he “offered himself” as an obedient sacrificial victim. The Son’s enthronement is dramatized at length in 1:5–13, where the author strings together a number of OT texts into a catena. This catena Schenck characterizes as “a hymnic celebration of the now enthroned Christ, a poetic announcement of the accomplishment of salvation by way of Christ’s exaltation to God’s right hand.”3 That the context is the moment of the Son’s exaltation and the setting the Heavenly Sanctuary is apparent in 1:6. After the “first-born” is brought into the heavenly world (eivj th.n oivkoume,nhn), the “angels of God” are commanded to worship the Son (le,gei\ kai. proskunhsa,twsan auvtw/| pa,ntej a;ggeloi qeou/).4 Though oivkoume,nh most commonly denotes the “earthly, inhabited realm,” the author’s only other use of the term, in 2:5, for the eschatological “coming world” (th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan), strongly suggests the same eschatological setting is envisioned in 1:6. Angelic hosts populate Second Temple depictions of the heavenly throne, and the angelic presence inferred throughout the catena satisfactorily meets this expectation (1:5–7, 13).5 The author thus fills out an otherwise sparse portrayal of the Heavenly Sanctuary with the tacit imagery of an angelic chorale voicing enthusiastic approval of the Father’s declaration of Jesus’ Sonship. And while the angelic emphasis throughout the catena has led some to conclude that this passage was intended to counter either angelic veneration,6 an angel Christology,7 an incipient form of Ebionite Christology,8 or “a popular hope in angels for national deliverance and personal help,”9 all such theories ultimately suffer from a

3

Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son,” 484. Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6: Source and Significance,” BBR 9 (1999) 52– 64, argues convincingly that 1:6 draws upon a Greek translation of a Hebrew version of Deut 32:43b that is similar to 4QDeut32 (4Q44). 5 Other notable accounts include: 1 En. 39; 2 En. 17, 20–23; 3 En. 1:12; 27:2; Jub. 2:2; T. Levi 3:5; 1Q28b (1QSb) 25–26; and of course 4Q400–407 (Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice). Isaiah 6 may be the fountainhead of this tradition. 6 Cf. Col 2:18. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 194. Attridge, Hebrews, 51, contends: “it is more likely that our author was concerned about a worship that was understood to take place with angels than a worship that had angels as its object.” He thus overlooks the assertion of 12:22: the recipients “have come” (proselhlu,qate) to a “festal gathering,” populated by “innumerable angels.” 7 Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1998), 294–314. Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 354, draws attention to Gieschen’s failure to relate the resurrection to an angelomorphic Christology. 8 Goulder, “Hebrews and the Ebionites,” 393–406. 9 Gleason, “Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2,” 91. 4

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

215

lack of clear substantiation.10 One can scarcely imagine our author responding to such formidable threats to the community with the suggestive and oblique responses presupposed by the above proposals.11 The OT textual basis for Jesus’ exaltation is of course Ps 110:1: “The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’” Hebrews alludes and refers to Ps 110:1 more often than any other NT author (1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2), leading David M. Hay to deem it the “crowning document for the study of the early church’s use of the psalm.”12 The first and second references, 1:3 and 1:13, position the exalted Jesus at God’s “right hand,” a common designation connoting divine favor and strength.13 In the first reference Jesus appears to seat himself, while in the second he does so at God’s bidding. As we will see in the following discussion of “the confession and identity of the community,” God’s proclamation of Jesus’ enthronement name represents the pinnacle of the enthronement ceremony (1:5). Here also we witness the fusing of Sonship and kingship Christology.14 The third and fourth references to Ps 110:1 occur in the midst of the author’s development of Jesus’ priesthood. They are therefore notable for their fusion of Son of God and high priest Christologies. The final reference, in 12:2, emphatically contrasts Jesus’ “endurance” of the cross with his permanent status as the enthroned Son.15 Larry W. Hurtado emphasizes the role played by the royal-messianic Psalms in the development of the early church’s Christology. These Psalms 10 So Attridge, Hebrews, 51–2; Grässer, An Die Hebräer, 1.72; 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: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), 126–7. 11 More plausible estimations of the catena’s emphasis on angels take their cue from passages in the following chapter, namely 2:1–4 and 2:5–11. The former contrasts the Law which was mediated by angels (2:2) with the “great salvation declared at first through the Lord” (2:3), the neglect of which carries a commensurately greater punishment. The latter passage, 2:5–9, provides the “back-story” to the catena, tracing the arc of Jesus’ incarnation to his exaltation: though “he was made lower than the angels,” he is now “crowned with glory and honor” (2:9). Attridge, Hebrews, 52, suggests this lengthy angelic comparison reveals the author “in dialogue with the bases of his own complex christological picture,” anticipating objections and clarifying the nature of Jesus’ relationship with the preeminent mediators of Judaism (e.g., angels, Moses, the Levitical priesthood). 12 Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 85. Cf. also Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” 199, who notes that Ps 110 provides the author with both “elements of the surface structure . . . and leverage for the conceptual claims that undergird the text’s Christology.” 13 Cf. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 52–6. 14 Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 206. 15 Cf. the aorist form of u`pome,nw with the perfect form of kaqi,zw.

216

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

were employed in a worship setting “in which the Spirit was expected to inspire believers and bestow revelations.” They were thus “‘unlocked’ as predictions of Jesus and as descriptions of his glory.”16 Of the early church’s Psalms-based, pneumatologically aided “predictions” and “descriptions” of Jesus glory, Ps 110:1 is unrivaled. Furthermore, Richard Bauckham demonstrates that the early church’s use of Ps 110:1 – seen as “referring to the participation of a human figure in the unique cosmic sovereignty of God” – is unparalleled in ancient Jewish literature.17 The only Second Temple precedent for the enthronement of an exalted human figure is the Son of Man in 1 En. 62:6–9.18 Since 1 Enoch does not employ Ps 110:1, it is unlikely to have exerted any influence on NT exaltation Christology.19 More importantly, the Son of Man in 1 Enoch is worshipped solely by evil rulers, who “beg and plead for mercy at his feet” (62:9). In contrast, Jesus is portrayed in the NT as receiving worship from all creation (Phil 2:5–11), even angels (Heb 1:6). Thus, according to Bauckham: The Christian texts draw out the full consequences of Jesus’ exaltation to the divine throne, and deliberately deploy the strongest Jewish theological means of placing Jesus on the divine side of the line between the one God of Israel and the rest of reality, his creation. These texts place Jesus unequivocally within the unique divine identity.20

2. The confession and identity of the community Ultimately a hortatory purpose motivates and informs the author’s Son of God Christology. This hortatory agenda courses throughout Hebrews, from beginning to end, and seeks to elicit a confession of Jesus as the Son of God. Its starting point is found in the dramatic portrayal of the Father’s 16

Larry W. Hurtado, “The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 206. Elsewhere, Hurtado (“Religious Experience and Religious Innovation in the New Testament,” Journal of Religion 80.2 [2000], 200) asserts: “The early Christians were more concerned to proclaim Christ’s significance and to express their devotion to him than to provide explanations of how they came to the convictions that prompted them to do so.” 17 Richard Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 62–3. See also Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 209. 18 Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” 58–60. 19 Ibid., 60, 63. 20 Ibid., 66–7.

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

217

declaration of Jesus’ Sonship, a “naming ritual” which commences the celebration of the Son’s exaltation/enthronement in the Heavenly Sanctuary (1:5). Corresponding to the divine declaration of 1:5 is the enactment of Jesus’ reciprocal confession of the fatherhood of God, presented shortly thereafter in 2:12–13. The hortatory corollary of this Sonship Christology also emerges in the Son’s confession in 2:12–13. Interwoven within this same confession is an implicit conferral of family membership upon the recipients. The recipients’ family identity is further reinforced by the language of belonging and identification that permeates the surrounding context (2:5–18). This language of belonging and identification, the Son’s conferral of family membership, and the pattern of reciprocal familial confessions exchanged between the Father and Son in 1:5 and 2:12–13, all directly lead to and inform the two most important hortatory passages in the epistle: 4:14–16 and 10:19–23. In these two passages the Heavenly Sanctuary is invoked, and the recipients are called to participate in the aforementioned drama by means of entry language (4:16; 10:19, 23). In response to the Son’s conferral of family membership, the “siblings” of the Son (2:11, 14, 17) are exhorted to vocalize their commitment to and identification with the Son (4:14; 10:23). This reading assumes the presence of a more general, yet nonetheless critical, threat to the commitment of the recipients. The sacral act of confession and identification commended by the author should bring a halt to their waning commitment, and solidify their resolve to publicly confess and identify with the Son of God and his family (3:1–6; 10:24–31; 12:1–11; 13:13– 16).21 2.1. The Father’s declaration of Jesus’ Sonship Our proposed liturgical drama begins in 1:5, where the two preeminent monarchical sonship texts of the OT, Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14, are presented as proclamations from the very mouth of God: ei=pe,n . . . ui`o,j mou ei= su,( evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, seÈ kai. pa,lin\ evgw. e;somai auvtw/| eivj pate,ra( kai. auvto.j e;stai moi eivj ui`o,n.22 This forthright declaration of Jesus’ Sonship develops the final theme of the exordium (1:1–4), where Jesus is said to have “inherited” an unspecified “more excellent name” (o[sw| diaforw,teron parV auvtou.j keklhrono,mhken o;noma, 1:4). The prominent ui`o,j / path,r terminology and familial imagery in 1:5 strongly suggest that

21

Attridge, “God in Hebrews,” 204, observes the dialogical nature of the epistle, deeming it “the most creative theological work of this complex text.” However, he fails to develop the hortatory purpose motivating the Father/Son dialogue. 22 2 Sam 7:11–14 and Ps 2:1–2 are used as Messianic proof texts in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174).

218

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

the unspecified name of 1:4 is “Son”;23 it also ensures that no one will miss the author’s central point: the declaration of Jesus’ Sonship by God the Father is the preeminent moment in the exaltation drama. Furthermore, the presence of the recipients in this drama may be inferred through a transition in address, as the Son is first addressed in the second person in 1:5a, and then in the third person in 1:5b. The principal actor in this scene, God the Father, may be envisioned as turning towards those in attendance – recipients included – and while gesturing towards the Son, he proclaims: “Jesus is my Son!”24 2.2. The Son’s confession of the Father and conferral of family membership upon the recipients The dramatic milieu of the Son’s heavenly exaltation is revisited in 2:12– 13. As with the first portion of the drama (and the entire catena: 1:5–13), the author places scripture in the mouth of the principal actor, thus imparting ancient authority to the dramatic speech. And as before, the first words to flow from the principal actor’s mouth are an unreserved confession of familial relatedness: in this case, Jesus the Son confesses the Fatherhood of God.25 The presence of the recipients is also inferred here, as the Son “brings the name of God to the public.”26 23 Cf. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 274, who focuses on the context of the second quotation, 2 Sam 7:14 (especially the preceding verse, 7:13: “He shall build a house for me for my name [tw/| ovno,mati, mou], and I will establish his throne forever”), and contends that the unspecified “superior name” of Heb 1:4 is not to be understood as an allusion to the title ‘Son,’ but rather an honor conferred by God on the Messiah as the Davidic heir, at the establishment of his throne, and a designator connoting God’s identification with Messiah’s building of God’s house. While this suggestion resonates well with the Christology of Heb 3:1–6, in the immediate context the author’s chief concern is to establish Jesus’ divine Sonship, as indicated by the conspicuous ui`o,j / path,r terminology in 1:5. 24 Cf. 12:5–6, which presumably represents God’s direct address to the recipients: “And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as children: ‘My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts.’” 25 I have recently argued that the reciprocal pronouncements of family relatedness exchanged by the Father and the Son in 1:5 and 2:12–13 are presaged in the heart of the exordium, 1:3ab: “Whom being the radiance of God’s glory, the express image of his being and upholding all things by his powerful word.” Cf. “Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews,” JSNT (forthcoming). 26 Markus Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honor of Otto A. Piper, ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 62. As to the actual name of God, which is left unspecified in 2:12–13,

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

219

First, Ps 22:22 comes to life in the declaration: avpaggelw/ to. o;noma, sou toi/j avdelfoi/j mou( evn me,sw| evkklhsi,aj u`mnh,sw (2:12). Notably, the author replaces the more mundane dihge,omai (“to tell, relate”) of the LXX with the vivid verb avpagge,llw (“announce”), a term consonant with Jesus’ earthly ministry.27 The second text placed on the Son’s lips, Isa 8:17–18, combines an expression of trust in God with an affirmation of the recipients’ membership in the family of God: evgw. e;somai pepoiqw.j evpV auvtw/|( kai. pa,lin\ ivdou. evgw. kai. ta. paidi,a a[ moi e;dwken o` qeo,j (2:13).28 That the Son’s three confessions of the Fatherhood of God in 2:12–13 are perfectly balanced by three matching expressions of his identification with humanity is illustrative of the basic inseparability of doctrine and exhortation in Hebrews. Corresponding to the flow of events in 1:5, a change in addressees in 2:13 signals once more the implied presence of the recipients in the drama. The second person pronouns of 2:12, representing the Son’s address to the Father, are replaced by a third person pronoun in 2:13, indicating the Son has transferred his attention to the evkklhsi,a.29 The presence of the recipients may also be explicitly indicated by the final statement of 2:13: “Here (ivdou,) am I and the children whom God has given me.” Moreover, the wealth of family terms and imagery in the surrounding context leaves little option other than the name “Father.” 27 Attridge, Hebrews, 90. In the LXX avpagge,llw is used frequently in the proclamation of someone’s name or identity (Gen 12:18; 29:12; 43:7; Exod 18:6; Judg 13:6; 2 Sam 2:4; 7:11; 1 Kgs 1:20; Neh 7:61; Esth 2:10; Isa 30:7; Wis 6:22). Because Ps 22 repeatedly appears in the passion narratives (e.g., Matt 27:35, 39, 43, 46; John 19:24), many have concluded that the same setting is intended here. Cf. Spicq, Hébreux, 2.29, 41–2; Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: van Soest, 1961), 83–4; Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 60; Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 63. However, the celebratory activity of hymnic praise (u`mne,w) seems out of place in the grim starkness of the passion. And certainly a more explicit portion of the same psalm could have been employed had this been the author’s intent. Though the passion is inferred throughout 2:5–18 (especially 2:9–10, 14, 17–18), the greater burden of this passage is to establish the extent of Jesus’ identification with humanity. 28 See Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 64–5, for a discussion of the possible textual sources underlying 2:13. 29 Paul S. Minear, “An Early Christian Theopoetic?” Semeia 12 (1978), 203–5, traces the genesis of 2:12–13 to a Christophany experienced by the author. His “vision of Jesus standing in the midst of the ecclesia” is characterized by a “triangular conversation,” with Jesus “speaking to God and the congregation.” This “poetic vision” is “designed to induct his listeners into the presence of the risen Lord.” Minear, however, fails to connect this declaration of the risen Jesus with the corresponding speech of God in 1:5 and the paradigmatic significance of both speeches for the later exhortations to confess the Son (3:1–6; 4:14–16; 10:19–23). See also Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History, 112–13.

220

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

the pronouncements of family relatedness in 2:12–13 are the first thing the “actor” Jesus says in direct address to the community in the epistle. We may envision Jesus first speaking to the Father, vowing to make known his name to “his brothers and sisters” (toi/j avdelfoi/j mou, 2:12) and to praise him “in the midst of the congregation.” Then turning to address his siblings, Jesus declares his trust in the Father, and expresses gratitude for the “children” (ta. paidi,a) entrusted to his care (2:13). 2.3. Language of belonging and identification The language of belonging and identification permeates the second chapter of Hebrews. By means of this language the reality of the Son’s declaration of family relatedness is reinforced. Seven instances of familial terminology occur in 2:10–18: pollou.j ui`ou,j (2:10); avdelfou,j (2:11); toi/j avdelfoi/j mou (2:12); ta. paidi,a . . . moi (2:13); ta. paidi,a (2:14); avdelfoi/j; laou/ (2:17). The language and imagery of identification is even more pervasive: u`pe.r panto,j (2:9); to.n avrchgo.n th/j swthri,aj auvtw/n (2:10); o[ a`gia,zwn kai. oi` a`giazo,menoi evx e`no.j pa,ntej (2:11); evkklhsi,a (2:12); koinwne,w / mete,cw (2:14); evpilamba,nomai (2:16); o`moio,w (2:17); pe,ponqen auvto.j peirasqei,j( du,natai toi/j peirazome,noij bohqh/sai (2:18). The generative core of this complex of mutuality and identification can be traced to the initial designation of God as diV o]n ta. pa,nta kai. diV ou- ta. pa,nta, the source and teleological goal of all humanity,30 who desires that “many siblings be led to glory” (pollou.j ui`ou.j eivj do,xan avgago,nta, 2:10). Furthermore, our author considers it “fitting” (pre,pw) that this task should be accomplished in the “perfection through sufferings” (dia. paqhma,twn teleiw/sai) of the “founder of salvation” (to.n avrchgo.n th/j swthri,aj). This motif is resumed in 2:17, where it is said that the Son was “obligated” (ovfei,lw) to fully incorporate himself into humanity, so as to inform his “merciful and faithful” high priesthood (i[na evleh,mwn ge,nhtai kai. pisto.j avrciereu,j) with the requisite sympathy for the human condition.31 These remarkable appeals to propriety and necessity forestall any objections lodged against the offence of the cross by pointing to the logic behind Christ’s full identification with humanity.32 Koester also believes the 30

Both prepositional phrases occur in Philo, Cherubim 125–127. Similar appeals to logical propriety appear in 7:26 (pre,pw) and the closely related references to “necessity” (avna,gkh) in 7:12, 27; 9:16, 23. 32 Spicq, Hébreux, 1.53, notes that arguments appealing to divine propriety are “inconnu de la Bible.” James W. Thompson, “The Appropriate, the Necessary, and the Impossible: Faith and Reason in Hebrews,” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris, and James W. Thompson (NovTSupp 90. Leiden: Brill, 1998), 305, draws attention to the incongruity of this appeal within the “ancient context, where the association of God with 31

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

221

appeal in 2:10 addresses the central question motivating the epistle: i.e., “whether God will bring people to the glory for which he created them.”33 VAdelfo,j, the most prominent familial term, occurs three times in the course of the immediate exposition (2:11, 12, 17). This term’s strategic employment elsewhere in the epistle indicates its importance to the author. It appears in both his first and final direct addresses to the recipients (3:1; 13:22), and at the head of his most emotional exhortation and warning (10:19–31). Fictive usage of avdelfo,j can trace its origins to the Jesus tradition,34 and forms the core of Paul’s understanding of the church, as a “society of siblings.”35 A relative short supply of comparably aged, true siblings in Greco-Roman families would no doubt contribute to the power and attraction this term possessed.36 Finally, all three occurrences of avdelfo,j in the second chapter appear in relation to Jesus, the brother of the community. The depth of this portrayal of Jesus as brother is perhaps unparalleled in the NT, and was quite possibly influenced by GrecoRoman conventions of ideal brotherhood.37 Also of note is ui`o,j, applied to the recipients in 2:10 and six times in 12:5–11, where the “sons and daughters” are exhorted to follow the same filial pattern established by Jesus (12:1–2). While both Jesus and the recipients have received an education in humiliation and shame at the hands of their oppressors (12:2–4; 10:32–34), this ill treatment served the greater purpose of God, defining and refining allegiance to God.38 human suffering would have been abhorrent.” Alan C. Mitchell, “The Use of pre,pein and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” CBQ 54 (1992), 682–3, 694–7, locates the core of the author’s rhetorical strategy in his emphasis on the propriety of God’s involvement in Jesus’ representative sufferings and glorification. 33 Koester, Hebrews, 291. Minear, “An Early Christian Theopoetic?” 211, finds the promise of imminent glorification reinforced by the resurrected Lord’s presence in the evkklhsi,a in 2:12–13. 34 Cf. Mark 3:34–35: “And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’” 35 S. Scott Bartchy, “Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings,” BTB 29 (Summer 1999), 68–78; Elliott, “The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian But Family-Oriented,” 173–210. 36 Cf. Beryl Rawson, “‘The Roman Family’ in Recent Research: State of the Question,” BibInt 11.2 (2003), 129: “Few of our sources evoke a picture of a household full of brothers and sisters in the way that some more modern sources do. If in Roman families close sibling relationships were more rare, that might, of course, have made them more precious.” 37 See the extended discussion in Gray, Godly Fear, 125–38, where Plutarch’s On Brotherly Love is profitably compared with Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus as brother. 38 N. Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1–13 in its rhetorical, religious, and philosophical context (SNTSMS 98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 220, argues that 12:1–11 depicts a non-punitive view of suffering. The

222

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

Perhaps to an even greater degree than the familial language, the language of identification is inseparably interwoven with the benefits of familial relatedness conferred by the Son upon his siblings. He has “tasted death on behalf of all” (u`pe.r panto,j, 2:9) and is the “pioneer of their salvation” (2:10). Because “the one sanctifying and those being sanctified share the same heavenly parent,” Jesus is “not ashamed to publicly identify them as his siblings” (ouvk evpaiscu,netai avdelfou.j auvtou.j kalei/n, 2:11). They are the evkklhsi,a (2:12), presently sharing in the glory of the exaltation drama in the Heavenly Sanctuary.39 And as they have “partaken” (koinwne,w) of all that pertains to the human condition, so their brother Jesus has “likewise partaken” (paraplhsi,wj mete,scen) in the human condition, so that in dying, he might “destroy the one who has the power of death,” o` dia,boloj (2:14), and “release” (avpalla,ssw) his siblings from their enslaving fear of death (2:15).40 The Son has “taken an interest” (evpilamba,nomai, 2:16) in the spe,rmatoj VAbraa,m, “becoming like them in every respect” (kata. pa,nta toi/j avdelfoi/j o`moiwqh/nai, 2:17). He has become a fully sympathetic high priest, efficaciously expiating (i`la,skomai) the “sins of the people” (ta.j a`marti,aj tou/ laou/, 2:17). Finally, in his sufferings he was tested and is now able to help those who are similarly tested (2:18).41 As we have noted before, in the short span of just fourteen verses, 2:5– 18, our author intermingles and colors his Son of God Christology with no less than five other Christologies: (1) Adam (2:6–11); (2) “pioneer of salvation” (2:10); (3) Christus Victor (2:14–16); (4) Isaianic Sin-bearer (2:9, 17); (5) high priest (2:17–18). Present as well are three of the primary NT interpretations of Jesus’ death: (1) a sacrifice for sins; (2) Christus Victor; (3) an example. These diverse depictions work together to demonstrate the reality of Jesus’ full identification with humanity, and the efficacy of his identification to convey “many siblings to glory.”42 Indeed, these fourteen verses are suffused with proofs and reminders that despite author of Hebrews considers suffering educative, for the paidei,a of 12:1–11 offers an “education into sonship.” 39 Their implied presence here in the Heavenly Sanctuary may be equated with presence in the panegyric heavenly Jerusalem in 12:22–24 (cf. again 12:22, proselhlu,qate, “you have come”). 40 Cf. Wis 2:23–24: “For God created us for immortality, . . . but the envy of the devil brought death into the world, and those who are in his possession experience it.” 41 Peter Balla, The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment (WUNT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 210, believes 2:18 represents the “goal” of 2:5–18. He thereby mistakenly limits the purpose of the family imagery in 2:5–18 to providing “comfort.” 42 See Koester, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” 123; Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews, 25–6.

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

223

their ignominious earthly circumstances (cf. 10:32–34), and the uncertainty of their eschatological situation (cf. 1:13; 2:8–9), the “siblings” are well along the path towards heavenly do,xa. 2.4. The proper response of the community: sacral and public confession of the Son Ultimately, a single purpose controls the author’s elaborate invocation of the Son’s exaltation in the Heavenly Sanctuary: to induce the recipients to enter into and participate in the heavenly drama by making a sacral confession commensurate with the Son’s declarations of their familial relationship.43 The author brings his participatory drama to a climax and stakes his entire presentation on the power inherent within this symbolic act of confession to actualize the recipients’ sense of familial relatedness. This liminal experience should serve to solidify their resolve to publicly confess and identify with the Son of God and his family. To elicit this response, the author first constructs a semantic structure, a field of meaning (3:1–6, 14), which is then carried forward into a pair of invocations of the Heavenly Sanctuary (4:14–16; 10:19–23). These latter two passages, the “decisive control centers” in the epistle’s hortatory strategy,44 exhort the recipients to participate in the sacred drama through the use of cultic entry terminology (prose,rcomai, 4:14; 10:22; eivj th.n ei;sodon tw/n a`gi,wn, 10:19). The preparatory section (3:1–6, 14), though lacking entry terminology, is joined to the other two passages by an interlocking web of significations. Maintaining the language of mutual identification and participation (me,tocoj, 3:1, 14; avdelfo,j, 3:1; 10:19; e;cw, 4:14; 10:19; duna,menon sumpaqh/sai tai/j avsqenei,aij h`mw/n( pepeirasme,non de. kata. pa,nta kaqV o`moio,thata, 4:15; h]n evnekai,nisen h`mi/n, 10:20; cf. avllh,lwn, 10:24; th.n evpisunagwgh.n e`autw/n, 10:25), these three passages uniformly call for a confident and firm (parrhsi,a, 3:6; 4:16; 10:19; be,baioj, 3:14) holding fast (kate,cw, 3:6, 14; 10:23; krate,w, 4:14) to the confession (o`mologi,a, 3:1; 4:14; 10:23), boast (kau,chma, 3:6) and conviction (u`po,stasij, 3:14) of Jesus’ Sonship (3:2–6; 4:14–16; 10:21, 23). That the use of the key terms, o`mologi,a, parrhsi,a, krate,w and 43

Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” 211–12, contends that the recipients’ response to the Father/Son dialogue is enacted in 13:6: “So we can say with confidence, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can anyone do to me?’” However, this proposal fails to cohere with the familial focus of the Father and Son’s dramatic dialogue. It also “over-scripts” the recipients’ response in the participatory drama. Though the author hopes to elicit a Sonship confession from the recipients, the drama is open-ended, ongoing, and participatory. These qualities are severely diminished by a precise “report” of the recipient’s expected response. 44 Weiss, Hebräer, 52.

224

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

kate,cw, is almost entirely restricted to these three contexts is further indication of the author’s deliberate intent. The semantic groundwork is first laid in 3:1–6, 14. The key theme of the preceding chapter, familial relatedness, is subsumed within the imagery of the divine “household” (6X: oi=koj, 3:2–6).45 The author directly addresses the avdelfoi. a[gioi for the first time in the epistle, and exhorts them to “consider” the “apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus.” Despite this initial designation of their o`mologi,a in 3:1 as to.n avpo,stolon kai. avrciere,a, a Sonship Christology predominates, expressed in the Son’s faithfulness “over the household of God” (3:6).46 This passage, 3:1–6, can be linked to the closely following parallel passage, 3:14: as the partakers (me,tocoj)47 of the “heavenly calling” (3:1) and of Christ (3:14), the recipients are commended to confidently (3:6) and firmly (3:14) hold fast (kate,cw, 3:6, 14) to their boast (3:6) and conviction ( 3:14). The language and imagery of 3:1–6, 14 undergirds the author’s first hortatory invocation of the Heavenly Sanctuary drama, in 4:14–16. The recipients are at last invited to participate in the drama, by means of a “bold approach” (prosercw,meqa . . . meta. parrhsi,aj, 4:16) to the “throne of grace.” This depiction of dynamic approach contrasts with the static “hold fast” (krate,w, 4:14) imagery that characterizes their o`mologi,a (4:14).48 And again as in 3:1–6, high priest and Son of God Christologies intermingle (e;contej ou=n avrciere,a me,gan . . . VIhsou/n to.n ui`o.n tou/ qeou/, 4:14), though this time the corresponding imagery is evenly divided 45 Cynthia Long Westfall, “Moses and Hebrews 3:1–6: Approach or Avoidance?” in Christian – Jewish Relations through the Centuries, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. R. Pearson (JSNTSup 192. Roehampton Papers 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 193, finds a “a semantic chain” linking 3:1–6 to chapter 2: a[gioi (3:1) and oi` a`giazo,menoi (2:11); avdelfo,j (3:1 / 2:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17); me,tocoi (3:1) and mete,cw (2:14). The “heavenly calling” of 3:1 may be equated with the fulfillment of Ps 8 in Jesus in 2:9–10. Westfall fails to connect the evkklhsi,a in 2:12 with the oi=koj in 3:1–6. Dunnill, Covenant and sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, 32, considers the image of the oi=koj to be the primary “literal and metaphorical description of the church as the end-time community.” So also Elliott, “The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian But FamilyOriented,” 205: “The household provided one of the chief models, if not the root metaphor, for depicting the communal identity, unity, intimacy, and loyalty of the believer in relation to God, Jesus Christ, and one another.” 46 Attridge, Hebrews, 110. 47 The concepts of partaking and sharing recur in the epistle. In addition to these two instances, 3:1, 14, me,tocoj denotes the recipients’ experience as “partakers” of the Holy Spirit (6:4) and the paidei,a of God (12:8). The Son has “partaken” of the human condition (mete,cw, 2:14). The recipients “share flesh and blood” (koinwne,w, 2:14) and as “partners” (koinwno,j, 10:33) with the persecuted church they should share in their sufferings. They will also share in their heavenly Father’s holiness (metalamba,nw, 12:10) should they submit to his paidei,a. 48 Attridge, Hebrews, 21–2.

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

225

between these two disparate portrayals. He is successively the sympathetic high priest (4:15) and the merciful and gracious Son ruling from God’s throne (4:16).49 Thus this passage reflects both conceptual realms, regnal and cultic. In the second invocation of the Heavenly Sanctuary drama, 10:19–23, a cultic context appears to dominate the symbolic landscape. The recipients are reminded of their conclusive sanctification (r`erantisme,noi ta.j kardi,aj avpo. suneidh,sewj ponhra/j kai. lelousme,noi to. sw/ma u[dati kaqarw/|, 10:22) through the self-offering of Jesus the great priest (evn tw/| ai[mati VIhsou/, . . . th/j sarko.j auvtou/ . . . i`ereu,j me,gaj, 10:19–21), which allows their confident entry into the holiest place in the Heavenly Sanctuary (parrhsi,an eivj th.n ei;sodon tw/n a`gi,wn, 10:19; evnekai,nisen h`mi/n o`do.n . . . dia. tou/ katapeta,smatoj, 10:21; prose,rcomai, 10:22). The key role played by the approach terminology here absolutely requires some manner of experiential presence in the Heavenly Sanctuary. “Approach, but not attainment” simply will not do. A high priest Christology might then be presupposed by the pervasive cultic imagery found in 10:19–23. Moreover, the sole explicit designation of Jesus in this passage refers to him as “the great priest” (10:21). However, in this same verse, 10:21, and again in 10:23, the author draws upon the primary semantic context of 3:1–6, 14, and in so doing implicitly invokes his Son of God Christology. Though in 10:21 Jesus is called “the great priest over the household of God” (i`ere,a me,gan evpi. to.n oi=kon tou/ qeou/), the lengthy discussion of the “household of God” in 3:1–6 concludes with the assertion that Jesus’ Sonship forms the basis for his rule “over the household” (evpi. to.n oi=kon). In 10:23 the “faithfulness of the one who has promised” (pisto.j o` evpaggeila,menoj) i.e., Jesus, provides both the model and impetus for the recipients’ “unwavering confession of hope” (th.n o`mologi,an th/j evlpi,doj avklinh/). In 3:6 it is Jesus’ faithfulness “as a Son” that both proves his superiority over Moses and establishes the surety of the recipients’ “firmly held boldness and boast of hope” (th.n parrhsi,an kai. to. kau,chma th/j evlpi,doj kata,scwmen). These verses, 10:21, 23, would then appear to connect the recipients’ confession to Sonship Christology. Although pisto.j o` evpaggeila,menoj in 10:23 may refer to God, who has been previously described as a “promise 49 Eskola, Messiah and Throne, 251–4, equates the throne with the mercy seat and contends that an entirely cultic milieu is envisaged here. However, all three other occurrences of qro,noj (1:8; 8:1; 12:2) appear to be evoking the regnal exaltation, with the latter two verses clearly dependent upon Ps 110:1. This subsumption of the throne into the mercy seat underestimates the import of the enthronement of Jesus for the author. So Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” 64–7. Cf. deSilva, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath,” 100, who believes “throne” refers by “metonymy to the One seated on the throne” (100).

226

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

maker” in 6:13–18, and will again be designated as such in 11:11 and 12:26, in this instance the referent is undoubtedly Jesus. The reciprocative contours of 10:23 – the “unwavering confession of hope” responding to the “faithfulness of the promise maker” – vividly encapsulates the intended goal of the whole drama: the confession of Jesus’ Sonship in response to his conferral of familial relatedness (2:12–13). Immediately following the entry exhortation, in 10:24–25, the author deliberately extends the familial dimensions of their confession, exhorting the recipients not to neglect their gatherings (mh. evgkatalei,pontej th.n evpisunagwgh.n e`autw/n), which provide vital opportunities to “consider” (katanoe,w) and “encourage” (parakale,w) “one another” (avllh,lwn).50 2.5. The content and nature of the community’s confession The content and nature of the recipients’ o`mologi,a has been the source of much debate. Appeal to the sole unequivocal designation and description of that confession, in 13:15, reveals that “his name” (tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/) is the content and a spiritualized cultic sacrifice of praise (avnafe,rwmen qusi,an aivne,sewj) describes the nature of the confession.51 Although the content of the confession appears to be “o` qeo,j,” the author’s failure to designate a specific name for God in the previous twelve chapters signals the implausibility of this designation.52 Nowhere in Hebrews do we encounter anything akin to Paul’s pneumatological cry, “Abba, Father!” (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). To commend an imprecise confession of o` qeo,j at this late stage would be strangely inconsistent with the author’s christologically-focused hortatory strategy. In addition to the Sonship emphasis within the “decisive control centers” (4:14–16; 10:19–23), misconceptions and “mis-confessions” of the Son of God are diagnosed in the two key warning passages, 6:4–8 and 10:26–31, as the non plus ultra of apostasy. Furthermore, this undesignated confession, tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/, 50

Throughout this passage, the recipients’ identity as the family of God is reinforced with terminology (avdelfo,j, 10:19; h`mi/n, 10:20; avllh,lwn, 10:24; th.n evpisunagwgh.n e`autw/n, 10:25) and a string of first person plural subjunctives (prosercw,meqa, 10:22; kate,cwmen, 10:23; katanow/men, 10:24). 51 13:15, DiV auvtou/ Îou=nÐ avnafe,rwmen qusi,an aivne,sewj dia. panto.j tw/| qew/|( tou/tV e;stin karpo.n ceile,wn o`mologou,ntwn tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/Å That this verse provides the essential definition of the activity of confession is recognized by Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, 47. Attridge, “God in Hebrews,” 208, however, deems it the “response” of the recipients to the divine promise of 13:5: “I will never leave you or forsake you.” 52 Those arguing that God’s name is in view include Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 43; Attridge, Hebrews, 401; Grässer, Hebräer, 3.391; Koester, Hebrews, 572. Weiss, Hebräer, 742, also believes that 13:15 reflects a community confession of God, though one that is “christologically grounded and mediated.” Käsemann, The Wandering People of God, 169, considers “Kyrios” Jesus the focus of the confession in 13:15.

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

227

seems to intentionally recall the beginning of the exaltation drama, where the “superior name” of 1:4 is revealed as “Son” (1:5).53 And while some have argued for the inseparability of the high priest and Sonship Christologies in the confession,54 as they are often seamlessly coordinated (e.g., 4:14–16), it is readily apparent that the Son of God Christology is in every way antecedent to the high priestly Christology.55 That the act of confession is depicted in 13:15 as a spiritualized cultic sacrifice of praise provides insight into nature of the two exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary (4:14–16; 10:19–23). Though the entry exhortations have often been interpreted as advocating prayer,56 the activity described in 13:15 is clearly confessional in nature. And while the substantive o`mologi,a, employed in all the previous contexts (3:1; 4:14; 10:23), may denote either the content or the act of confession, the close proximity of the verbal form, o`mologe,w, to the content of the confession, tw/| ovno,mati auvtou, in 13:15 suggests both senses, act and content, are intended in 4:14 and 10:23.57

53

Arguing for the priority of Jesus’ Sonship in the confession: Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 75; Koester, Hebrews, 126, 450. 54 Weiss, Hebräer, 293, contends that the high priest and Son of God Christologies are identical in the community’s confession. Similarly asserting their inseparability in the confession: Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 14–15; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (WMANT 53. Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1981), 206–8. Grässer, Hebräer, 1.251, perhaps over-generalizes in his conclusion that “Jesus himself” forms the content of the confession. Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 156, locates the confession solely in the high priest Christology. Otto Michel, “o`mologe,w, o`mologi,a, ktl,” TDNT 5.215–16, argues that the “o`mologi,a of Hb. is a firmly outlined, liturgically set tradition by which the community must abide.” Attridge, Hebrews, 289, stands on firmer ground with his assertion that “the whole interpretive program of Hebrews indicates that our author knows that the content of a confession must be ever reinterpreted in order to be preserved.” The intricacies of his high priest Christology and the recasting of the Son’s exaltation into a participatory drama both provide proof of the author’s creative and practical adaptations of confessional traditions. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 31, thus correctly characterizes 7:1 – 10:19 as “an expansion of the confession.” 55 As mentioned before in our discussion of the origins of Hebrews’ high priest Christology, the scriptural basis for the author’s high priest Christology rests on a prior assumption of Jesus’ Sonship. Also, Jesus the high priest is never the object of worship (cf. 1:6; 2:9; 3:3–6). 56 Both Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 107–8, 110–12, and Gray, Godly Fear, 144, argue that the activity of prayer solely underlies the imagery of 4:14–16, while admitting “communal worship” may also be present in 10:19–25 (Scholer, 128; Gray, 147). 57 Attridge, Hebrews, 108.

228

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

The author’s exhortation to unceasingly offer this confession (dia. panto,j, 13:15),58 when connected with the static terminology (krate,w, kate,cw) describing the sacral confessions of 4:14 and 10:23, provides further insight into the nature of the exhortation. As the recipients have long been convinced of Jesus’ divine Sonship, a single, first-time confession is not in view. Rather, what is envisaged is an ongoing orientation toward Sonship confession.59 A general setting, one of communal worship, is therefore preferred over a specific setting, whether eucharistic or baptismal.60 The phrase dia. panto,j may also extend the range of this exhortation beyond the sacral milieu, to the public sphere, thus denoting a bold, unwavering stance of identification with Jesus the Son of God. As the Son confessed the Father in both word and deed,61 so also the recipients will see their familial relatedness come to its fullest expression in the hostile public sphere (3:6, 14; 12:5–11), responding to avntilogi,a with o`mologi,a.62 Further indication of a dual setting for the confession is evident in the key term parrhsi,a, “boldness, confidence.” Characterizing both the confession (3:6) and entry (4:16; 10:19), parrhsi,a is also commended in a public context (10:35).63 Both subjective and objective elements adhere to this term’s use. It denotes an affective state of confidence as well as the underlying beliefs that provide a lasting basis for the confidence.64 Certainly both subjective and objective elements attend the author’s presentation of the high priestly achievement of Christ. They are equally apparent in the Son’s conferral of family membership, and the recipients’ 58

The priestly duties in the first tent are also performed dia. panto,j (9:6). Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung, 234, believes the exhortation to hold fast to the confession is the “paraenetic center of gravity for the letter.” 60 Grässer, Hebräer, 1.251. Though baptismal language and imagery undoubtedly inform 10:22, Williamson (“The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 300–12) has convincingly demonstrated the improbability of finding eucharistic faith or practice within Hebrews. 61 See 5:7–9. This passage is characterized by an intertwining of Sonship and high priest Christologies. In 5:7, the Son “offers” (prosfe,rw) “prayers and pleadings” (deh,seij kai. i`kethri,aj) with a “loud cry and tears.” His status as Son is confirmed by the fact that “because of his reverence” (euvla,beia), his pleadings were heard by the “One able to save him from death” (5:7). Sonship Christology is prominent in 5:8, for “although being a Son,” Jesus is said to have “learned obedience from the things he suffered.” 62 Cf. the exemplary behavior of Moses in 11:24–26. The author focuses on Moses’ rejection of a sonship associated with privilege and sin in favor of costly identification with the “people of God” and the “reproach of Christ.” 63 A public context of confident testimony may also be envisioned in 3:6. So Attridge, Hebrews, 112; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 139. 64 Cf. Weiss, Hebräer, 53, 251–3, 298. Weiss considers parrhsi,a the “Schlüsselbegriff” of the author’s exhortation (53). 59

Chapter 8: The Enthroned Son in the Heavenly Sanctuary

229

expected bold confession. And though both Christological presentations promote confident sacral entry and confession, in a public milieu the Sonship Christology would be especially effective. The recipients’ sense of belonging in the family of God would undoubtedly provide the surest footing in hostile circumstances requiring bold identification with Jesus the Son of God.65 One final piece of evidence points in the direction of a public confession of Jesus’ Sonship. The author’s prefatory remarks in 2:11, immediately preceding his dramatization of the Son’s conferral of family membership, may have been intended to recall Jesus tradition specifically suited to a context of public confession. That “Jesus is not ashamed” (evpaiscu,nomai) of publicly identifying with his “brothers and sisters” would help engender the positive expectation that the community would not be “ashamed” (evpaiscu,nomai) of Jesus and “his words in this adulterous and sinful generation” (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26). The closely related promise in Q: “Whoever confesses (o`mologe,w) me before others, I too will confess them before my Father in heaven” (Matt 10:32; cf. Luke 12:8) would be actualized in the context envisioned by the author.66 2.6. Conclusion In his dramatic account of the Son’s exaltation, the author of Hebrews establishes a pattern of reciprocative confessions of familial belonging, modeled successively by the Father and the Son. The remedy to the recipients’ waning commitment is provided by their surprising inclusion in the cast of this “sacred action,” as they are offered a “speaking part” in the unfolding drama. In response to the Son’s conferral of membership in the family of God they are exhorted to offer a reciprocative confession of familial mutuality and identification. Perhaps operating at an unconscious level in its appeal to the innate familial instincts of the recipients, this 65

Locating the recipients’ parrhsi,a solely in the high priestly work of Christ are Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 32–3; Attridge, Hebrews, 284; Weiss, Hebräer, 252, 298; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 10–15, 59, 85, 113; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 79, 115–16; idem, Hebrews 9–13, 283; Alan C. Mitchell, “Holding on to Confidence: PARRHSIA in Hebrews,” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, ed. John T. Fitzgerald (NovTSupp 82. Leiden: Brill, 1996), 217, 220, 223–6. Recognizing the importance of both high priest and Son of God Christologies to the recipients’ parrhsi,a are deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 336; Koester, Hebrews, 253. Though he acknowledges the relationship of familial belonging and parrhsi,a in his discussion of 3:1–6, Gray neglects it entirely when treating 4:14–16; 10:19–25 and 10:35 (Godly Fear, 140–1, 143–8, 154–5). 66 Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993), 288, believes the context of this Q passage possibly reflects a “court defense.”

230

Part Two: The Heavenly Sanctuary: Eschatology and Exhortation

potent exhortation addresses their deepest needs, providing the surest basis for bold interaction with God the Father in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and enduring, fearless identification with the Son and his family in a hostile world. The preservation of this unique epistle perhaps testifies to its immediate and lasting success at forming and maintaining the family of God.

Conclusion to Part Two: The hortatory program attending Heavenly Sanctuary eschatology in Hebrews Pursiful has fittingly remarked: “If Pauline theology makes Jesus the te,loj of the law (Romans 10:4), for Hebrews Jesus is the te,loj of the cultus.”67 Our examination of the high priesthood of Jesus has demonstrated that Jesus’ “perfection” of the cultus relates entirely to his ability to both grant and facilitate his siblings’ access to God in the Heavenly Sanctuary. This represents a perfection of the tabernacle/Temple cultus in that the access to God it affords is of an entirely different order from that offered the worshippers in the Jewish cultus. It is for this reason that the access cannot be located merely in “worship and prayer,” as both activities are presented throughout the OT as vibrant and efficacious encounters with hwhy. Furthermore, it is precisely at this te,loj that Jesus the high priest steps offstage and the enthroned Son of God appears, thus attaining his particular te,loj. A failure to recognize the importance of the author’s dual Christology and the respective roles each Christological portrait plays in his hortatory strategy is apparent in Nelson’s singular ascription of these functions to the high priest Christology. He ascribes soteriological, psychological, and social functions to Jesus’ high priestly self-offering: The soteriological effects of sacrifice provides Hebrews with language of atonement, sanctification, cleansing, and the access to God available to Christians. Hebrews uses the psychological aspect to assert that Christ’s sacrifice cancels out feelings of guilt. The social aspects of sacrifice are used to build up a community of worship.68

It is our contention that this final attribute is solely the province of Jesus the enthroned Son of God. He alone forms and solidifies the community’s identity as his “siblings,” the family of God. And it is in Jesus the Son of God that the community’s identity as the family of God finds its unique te,loj. The author’s construction of the Heavenly Sanctuary is integral to this whole project – for it is in this liminal, sacral sphere that the community will encounter Jesus, their high priest and elder sibling. 67 68

Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews, 164. Nelson, “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” 259.

Conclusion: Eschatology and Exhortation in Hebrews Our analysis has revealed Hebrews’ resolute and pervasive eschatological convictions. Coursing through and coloring the author’s entire “word of exhortation,” these convictions are ultimately determinative for human existence. The author’s hortatory program is in essence an exposition of the eschatological consequences of Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering and exaltation. The eschatological consequences of the Christ event are twofold: (1) With Jesus’ death and exaltation, the “end of the ages” has arrived: human existence is now eschatological existence, lived out in a place of temporal liminality, where the powers of the “age to come” break into the present time, and people experience eternal and heavenly life in the present, on earth. (2) Jesus’ vicarious death and victorious exaltation also represent the starting point for the author’s high priest Christology – a cultic re-casting of Jesus’ heavenly existence that is entirely hortatory in nature. These eschatological convictions are inseparably linked to all the author of Hebrews believes about human existence. Though our analysis required the separation of these two eschatological realities, they are inseparable in the author’s presentation. Jesus’ sacrificial self-offering and “manifestation” in the Heavenly Sanctuary have decisively signaled the “end of the ages” (9:26). The author’s hortatory program is likewise inseparable from his eschatological convictions. And though the two-fold eschatological convictions seem to possess entirely different hortatory agendas, closer consideration reveals their mutuality. The exhortation that emanates from the author’s two-age eschatology issues warnings and provides hope. Two-age belief imbues Hebrews with both eschatological immediacy and existential irrevocability. The warning of 10:26–31 is representative: the portrayal there of the eschaton’s fearsome and imminent approach effectively disallows any manner of retreat from the community. Furthermore, the validity of these warnings is reinforced by the author’s reminders of the recipients’ own experience of the eschaton. The heavenly and future benefits they have experienced in the past and present not only put teeth on the warnings, they should serve to inspire the recipients to persevere in their commitment as they press forward into their appointed heavenly glory (2:4; 4:3; 6:4–5; 10:32). Warning and hope are therefore both closely related to the activity of movement.

232

Conclusion

It is at this point that we see the intertwining of the two eschatological frameworks and their hortatory corollaries. The verbs of motion that characterize cowardly disobedience meet their perfect foil in the repeated exhortations to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary. Obedience is thus enacted through the verbs of entry that have as their goal the Heavenly Sanctuary. Furthermore, the eschatological immediacy that disallows even a moment of retreat also provides propulsion for the author’s exhortation to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary. The access he promises is immediately available to the community, and represents the only sane course of action for the recipients. The author’s Son of God and high priest Christologies are also intertwined in both eschatological frameworks. The Son of God who obediently fulfilled the purposes of his Father has been exalted to the throne of God; his pursuit of those purposes has also issued in his priestly provision of atonement for his people. This heavenly high priest is now actively involved in the community’s forward movement into the Heavenly Sanctuary. The cleansing, sanctification, and intercession he provides will ultimately issue in the community’s perfection, realized in their entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary. Upon their entry they will be met by the exalted Son of God, whose conferral of family membership will solidify their identity as siblings of the Son. We must therefore characterize the author’s entire effort as a “Christ-centered eschatological word of exhortation.” The two eschatological frameworks work in concert throughout, establishing both the time and place of the participatory drama he has enacted. The author’s “Christ-centered eschatological word of exhortation” is an organic whole, akin to a plant whose invisible roots nourish from below, anchoring the strong stalk whose leaves nourish from above and whose flowers perpetuate the species. It is a complex microcosm of existence, with parts that appear to be amenable to isolated analysis, but which on closer inspection require a consideration of the whole. When fit together, the seemingly disparate and segmentary pieces of the author’s “Christcentered eschatological word of exhortation” come together into a coherent and comprehensive narrative of exhortation, one that commends confident access and exhorts substantial entry into the most holy place. Once there, the exhortation reaches its full flowering, as the community finds their enduring identity, one based on identification with the Son of God.

Bibliography Adams, Edward. Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language (Studies of the New Testament and its world. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. “The Hero in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Jesus as an Ascetic Model,” in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols. Essays in Honor of François Bovon, ed. David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, David W. Pao (BibInt 66. Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179–88. . “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 131–48. Allison, Dale C. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion & Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) Anderson, Charles P. “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (JSNTSup 24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 255–77. Anderson, David R. The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (Studies in Biblical Literature 21. New York/Washington, DC/Baltimore/Bern: Peter Lang, 2001) Anderson, Gary A. “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings (OT),” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 Vols. ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5.870– 86. Anderson, Hugh. “The Jewish Antecedents of the Christology of Hebrews,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 512–35. Annas, Julia. “Plato,” in A Guide to Greek Thought: Major Figures and Trends, ed. Jacques Brunschwig and Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd (Cambridge, MA/London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003), 150–70. Aschim, Anders. “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 129–47. Attridge, Harold W. “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II.16.1 (Berlin/New York: Walter DeGruyter, 1978), 45–78. . “‘Let Us Strive to Enter That Rest’: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980), 279–88. . “The Use of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” Harvard Theological Review 79:1–3 (1986), 1–9. . A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989)

234

Bibliography

. “Paraenesis in a Homily (lovgoj paraklhvsewj): The Possible Location of, and Socialization In, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 (1990), 211–26. . “God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory,” in The Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology. Essays in Honor of Paul J. Achtemeier, ed. A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 197–209. . “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 197–212. Aune, David. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987) Backhaus, Knut. “Per Christum in Deum: Zur theozentrischen Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbreif,” in Der Lebendige Gott: Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Wilhelm Thüsing, ed. Thomas Söding (NTAbh 31. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 258–84. . “Das Land der Verheißung: Die Heimat der Glaubenden im Hebräerbrief,” New Testament Studies 47 (2001), 171–88. . “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. Balla, Peter. The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment (WUNT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) Balz, Horst. “Early Christian Faith as ‘Hope against Hope,’” in Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow (JSOTSup 243. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 31–48. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Hellenistic Culture and Society 33. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California, 1996) . “The Politics of Contempt: Judeans and Egyptians in Josephus’s Against Apion,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. John M. G. Barclay (Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 109–27. Barker, Margaret. “The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 93–111. . The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London/NewYork: T&T Clark, 2003) Barrett, C. K. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: Essays in Honour of C. H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 363–93. . “The Christology of Hebrews,” in Who Do You Say I Am? Essays on Christology: In Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury, ed. Mark Allan Powell and David R. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 110–27. Bartchy, S. Scott. “Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 29 (Summer 1999), 68–78. . “Who Should Be Called Father? Paul of Tarsus between the Jesus Tradition and Patria Potestas,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 33 (Winter 2003), 135–47.

Bibliography

235

Barth, Markus. “The Old Testament in Hebrews: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in honor of Otto A. Piper, ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 53– 78, 263–73. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50. Waco: Word, 1983) . “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 43–69. Bauckham, Richard, and Trevor Hart. Hope against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999) Beale, Gregory K. “Eschatology,” in The Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove/Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 330–45. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Anchor Books, 1966) Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1967) Betz, Otto. “Firmness in Faith: Hebrews 11:1 and Isaiah 28:16,” in Scripture: Meaning and Method. Essays presented to Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, ed. Barry P. Thompson (Hull: Hull University Press, 1987), 92–113. Black, David A. “Hebrews 1:1–4: A Study in Discourse Analysis,” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987), 175–94. . “Literary Artistry in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Filología Neotestamentaria 7 (1994), 43–51. . “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” Faith & Mission 18.2 (2001), 3–26. Bockmuehl, Markus. “The Church in Hebrews,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J.P.M. Sweet, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 133–51. Bornkamm, Günther. “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief,” Theologische Blätter 21 (1942), 56–66. Reprinted in idem, Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum (Munich: Kaiser, 1959), 188–203. Bosman, Philip. Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group (WUNT 2.166. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003) Braun, Herbert. “Das Himmlische Vaterland bei Philo und im Hebräerbrief,” in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Otto Böcher and Klaus Haacker (Wuppertal: Rolf Brockhaus, 1970), 319–27. Brawley, Robert L. “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1: A Neglected Aspect of the Context,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (January 1993), 81– 98. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951) Bruce, F. F. “The Structure and Argument of Hebrews,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28.1 (Fall 1985), 6–12. . The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed. (NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (AB 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972)

236

Bibliography

. “The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews,” in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Jacob Neusner (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 12. Leiden: Brill, 1975), 1.299–330. Bulley, A. D. “Death and rhetoric in the Hebrews ‘hymn to faith,’” Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses 25.4 (1996), 409–23. Caird, George B. “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Canadian Journal of Theology 5.1 (1959), 44–51. . The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) . “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, 2 Vols. ed. William C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 1:73–81. . New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) Carlston, Charles Edwin. “Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959), 296–302. . “The Vocabulary of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, ed. Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 133–60. Charlesworth, James H. ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols. (ABRL. New York/London: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) Chester, A. N. “Hebrews: The Final Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology, ed. S. W. Sykes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 57–72. Clark, K. W. “Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A.D. 70,” New Testament Studies 6 (1969–1970), 269–80. Clements, Ronald E. “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28.1 (Fall 1985), 36–45. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. “Hebrews 1:6: Source and Significance,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 9 (1999), 52–64. . “The Better Resurrection (Heb 11:35): A Key to the Structure and Rhetorical Purpose of Hebrews 11,” Tyndale Bulletin 51.2 (2000), 215–34. . “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 11.2 (2001), 179–201. Cody, Aelred. Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Achievement of Salvation in the Epistle’s Perspective (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960) Cohn, Norman. Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1993) Colijn, Brenda B. “‘Let Us Approach’: Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39/4 (December 1996), 571–86. Collins, John J. “The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, ed. J. A. Emerton (VTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1992), 25–38. . “The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and related literature 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 74– 90. . Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London/New York: Routledge, 1997) . Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) . The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998)

Bibliography

237

. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Livonia, MI: Dove Booksellers, 2000) . “Eschatology,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, 2 Vols. (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1.256–61. Cornford, Francis M. Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato translated with a running commentary (New York: The Library of Liberal Arts, 1957) Cosby, Michael R. The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988) Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) Croy, N. Clayton. “A Note on Hebrews 12:2,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995), 117–19. . Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1-13 in its rhetorical, religious, and philosophical context (SNTSMS 98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) Dailey, Frances Flannery. “Non-Linear Time in Apocalyptic Texts: The Spiral Model,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 38 (1999), 231–41. Daly, Robert J. The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) . Christian Sacrifice. The Judaeo-Christian Background Before Origen (The Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 18. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1978) Danby, Herbert. trans., The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford, 1933) Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000) Dautzenberg, Gerhard. “Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief,” Biblische Zeitschrift 17 (1973), 161–77. Davidson, Richard M. “Christ’s Entry ‘Within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19–20: The Old Testament Background,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39 (2001), 175–90. Davies, Philip R. “Eschatology at Qumran,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985), 39–55. De Boer, Martinus C. “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (JSNTSup 24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 169–90. . “Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse,” Interpretation 56 (2002), 21–33. DeConick, April D. “Heavenly Temple Traditions and Valentinian Worship,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 308–41. . ed., “‘Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism’: A Collage of Working Definitions,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 40 (2001), 284. De Jonge, Martinus, in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, H. J. De Jonge, Th. Korteweg, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece. Leiden: Brill, 1978) Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Vols. trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868–1870) DeSilva, David A. “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Social-Scientific Perspective,” Restoration Quarterly 36.1 (1994), 1–21.

238

Bibliography

. “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113.3 (1994), 439–61. . Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) . “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client Relationships,” Journal of Biblical Literature 115.1 (1996), 91–116. . “Hebrews 6:4–6: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1)” Tyndale Bulletin 50.1 (1999), 33–57. . “Hebrews 6:4–6: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 2)” Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999), 225–35. . Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000) . “Entering God’s Rest: Eschatology and the Socio-Rhetorical Strategy of Hebrews,” Trinity Journal 21 (2000), 25–43. Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, rev. ed. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996) Dognin, Paul Dominique. “Épître aux Hébreux: traduction inédite du prologue (He 1,14),” Revue Biblique 112.1 (2005), 80–100. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York/London: Routledge; 1966) . “Atonement in Leviticus,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 1.2 (1993–94), 109–30. Dunn, James D. G. “Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / London: SCM Press, 1989) . The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998) 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,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 177–98. Eberhart, Christian A. “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 37–64. Ebert IV, Daniel J. “The Chiastic Structure of the Prologue to Hebrews,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992), 163–79. Eccles, Robert S. “The Purpose of the Hellenistic Patterns in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner (SHR 14. Leiden: Brill, 1968), 207–26. Edwards, James R. “The Use of PROSERCESQAI in the Gospel of Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987), 65–74. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) Eisele, Wilfried. Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNT 116. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003) Eisenbaum, Pamela M. The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context (SBLDS 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997)

Bibliography

239

. “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. Ellingworth, Paul. “The Unshakable Priesthood: Hebrews 7.24,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23 (1985), 125–6. . “Jesus and the Universe in Hebrews,” The Evangelical Quarterly 58.4 (October 1986), 337–50. . The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1993) Elliott, John H. “The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian But Family-Oriented,” Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (2003), 173–210. Elliott, Mark Adam. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000) Ellis, E. Earle. “Midrash, Targum and New Testament Quotations,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969), 61–69. . The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the light of Modern Research (WUNT 54. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991) Emmrich, Martin. “‘Amtscharisma’: Through the Eternal Spirit (Hebrews 9:14),” Bulletin of Biblical Research 12.1 (2002), 17–32. . “Pneuma in Hebrews: Prophet and Interpreter,” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002), 55–71. . “Hebrews 6:4–6 – Again! A Pneumatological Inquiry,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003), 83–95. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “Why Pauline Paraklesis Is Rightly Called Paraenesis.” (Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting. Atlanta, GA., November 24, 2003) . “The Concept of Paraenesis,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 47–72. Enns, Peter E. “Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993), 255–80. Eskola, Timo. Messiah and Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Discourse (WUNT 2.142. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001) Esler, Philip E. New Testament Theology: Communion and Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) Ferguson, Everett. “Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and its Environment,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II.23.2 (Berlin/New York: Walter DeGruyter, 1980), 1151–89. Filson, Floyd V. “Yesterday”: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (SBT 4. Naperville: Alec R. Allenson / London: SCM Press, 1967) Fischer, John. “Covenant, Fulfillment and Judaism in Hebrews,” Evangelical Review of Theology 13.2 (April 1989), 175–87. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans (AB 33. New York/London: Doubleday, 1993) Flanagan, James W. “Space,” in Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, ed. A. K. M. Adam (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000), 239–44. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002)

240

Bibliography

Flusser, David. “‘Today If You Will Listen to His Voice.’ Creative Jewish Exegesis in Hebrews 3–4,” in Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the Centuries, ed. Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning Graf Reventlow (JSOTSup 59. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 55–62. France, R. T. “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” Tyndale Bulletin 47.2 (1996), 245–76. Frankowski, Janusz. “Early Christian Hymns Recorded in the New Testament. A reconsideration of the question in light of Heb 1,3,” Biblische Zeitschrift 27 (1983), 183–94. Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 Vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Frey, Jörg. “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library. Reflections on their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez, and John Kampen (STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275– 335. Frilingos, Christopher A. Spectacles of Empire: Monsters, Martyrs, and the Book of Revelation (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) Gammie, John G. “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), 356–85. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed. and trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 Vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998) Gelardini, Gabriella. “Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av”: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 107–27. Gheorghita, Radu. The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3-4 in Heb 10:37-38 (WUNT 2.160. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003) Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1998) Gleason, Randall C. “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” Tyndale Bulletin 53.1 (2002), 97–120. . “Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2,” New Testament Studies 49 (2003), 90–107. Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935) Goulder, Michael. “Hebrews and the Ebionites,” New Testament Studies 49 (2003), 393– 406. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, 2 Vols. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992) Grässer, Erich. “Der Hebräerbrief 1938 – 1963,” Theologische Rundschau 30, (1964), 138–236. Reprinted in idem, Aufbruch und Verheissung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 1–99. . Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief (Marburger Theologische Studien 2. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1965)

Bibliography

241

. “Hebräer 1,1–4. Ein exegetischer Versuch,” in Text und Situation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973), 182–228; originally appearing in EKKNT Vorarbeiten (Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen: Neukirchener), 3.55–91. . “Rechtfertigung im Hebräerbrief,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann, ed. Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 79–93. Reprinted in idem, Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 166–80. . “Die Gemeindevorsteher im Hebräerbrief,” in Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 213–30. . “Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Zum Basismotiv des Hebräerbriefes,” ZNW 77 (1986), 160–79. Reprinted in idem, Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 231–50. . “‘Wir haben hier keine bleibende Stadt’ (Hebr 13,14). Erwägungen zur christlichen Existenz zwischen den Zeiten,” in Aufbruch und Verheissung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief (BZNW 65. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 251–64. . An Die Hebräer (Hebr 1–6) (EKKNT 17/1. Zurich: Benziger / NeukirchenVluyen: Neukirchener, 1990) . An Die Hebräer (Hebr 7,1–10,18) (EKKNT 17/2. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1993) . An Die Hebräer (Hebr 10,19–13,25) (EKKNT 17/3. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyen: Neukirchener, 1997) . “Zum Theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Hebräerbriefes,” in Paulus, Die Evangelien und das Urchristentum: Beiträge von und zu Walter Schmithals, ed. Cilliers Breytenbach (AGJU 54. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 765–75. Gray, Patrick. “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122.2 (2003), 335–51. . Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition (Academia Biblica 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) Grogan, G. W. “The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity in Hebrews,” Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1998), 159–73. Grossman, Maxine. “Priesthood as Authority: Interpretive Competition in First-Century Judaism and Christianity,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, ed. James R. Davila (STDJ 46. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 117– 31. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2002) Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews (TNTC. Leicester, UK: InterVarsity / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSupp 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Reprinted: Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) . “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 1.2 (April 2003), 271–94. . “Strive to Enter – What?: Hebrews’ Appropriation of the ‘Entering Rest’ Motif.” (Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting. Atlanta, GA., November 24, 2003)

242

Bibliography

Haber, Susan. “From Priestly Torah to Christ Cultus: The Re-Vision of Covenant and Cult in Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28.1 (2005), 105–24. Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews (NIBC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990) . Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993) . “Matthew’s Eschatology,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 35 (1996), 163–81. Hahn, Scott W. “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15– 22,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (July 2004), 416–36. . “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse of Death: Diaqh,kh in Heb 9:15–22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 65–88. Hamm, Dennis. “Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Jesus Factor,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (April 1990), 270–91. Hanson, Paul D. “Genre,” and “Introductory Overview,” in the entry: “Apocalypses, and Apocalypticism,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1.279–82. Harrisville, Roy A. The Concept of Newness in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1960) Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989) Helleman, Wendy E. “Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God,” The Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990), 51–71. Hester, James D. “Apocalyptic Discourse in 1 Thessalonians,” in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, ed. Duane F. Watson (Symposium Series 14. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 137–64. Hofius, Otfried. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1970) . “Biblische Theologie im Lichte des Hebräerbriefes,” in New Directions in Biblical Theology, ed. Sigfred Pedersen (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 108–25. Horbury, William. “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983), 43–71. Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth, ed., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) Horsley, Richard A. “Introduction,” in Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, ed. Richard A. Horsley (SemeiaSt 48. Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 1–26. Hughes, Graham. Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament example of biblical interpretation (SNTSMS 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) Hughes, John J. “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff.: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” Novum Testamentum 21 (1979), 27–96. Hughes, Philip E. “The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews. Part II: The High Priestly Sacrifice of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973), 195–212. . A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) . “The Christology of Hebrews,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28.1 (Fall 1985), 19–27. Hunt, B. P. W. S. “The Epistle to the Hebrews: an anti-Judaic treatise?” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 408–10.

Bibliography

243

Hurst, Lincoln D. “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23 (1984), 41–74. . “How ‘Platonic’ are Heb. viii. 5 and ix. 23f.?” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983), 156–68. . “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 151–64. . “New Testament Theological Analysis,” in Introducing New Testament Interpretation, ed. Scot McKnight (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 133–61. . The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its background of thought (SNTSMS 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) Hurtado, Larry W. “The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (SJSJ 63. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 187–213. . “Religious Experience and Religious Innovation in the New Testament,” Journal of Religion 80.2 (2000), 183–205. . “Does Philo Help Explain Christianity?” in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 73–92. Isaacs, Marie. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 73. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) . “Hebrews,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context: Festschrift in honor of Morna Hooker’s 65th birthday, ed. J. Barclay and J. Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 145–59. . “Priesthood and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Heythrop Journal 38 (1997), 51– 62. . “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” New Testament Studies 43 (1997), 268–84. . “Why Bother with Hebrews?” Heythrop Journal 43 (2002), 60–72. . Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New Testament. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002) Isaak, Jon M. Situating the Letter to the Hebrews in Early Christian History (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 53. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002) Janzen, David. The Social Meaning of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: A Study of Four Writings (BZAW 344. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) Jewett, Robert. Letter to Pilgrims: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981) Jobes, Karen H. “Rhetorical Achievement in the Hebrews 10 ‘Misquote’ of Psalm 40,” Biblica 72 (1991), 387–96. , “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5–7,” Trinity Journal 13 (2, ’92), 181–91. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) . “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” Interpretation 73.3 (July 2003), 237–50. Johnson, Richard W. Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 209. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) Johnsson, William G. Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1973)

244

Bibliography

. “Issues in the Interpretation of Hebrews,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 15 (1977), 169–87. . “The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” The Expository Times 89 (October 1977 – September 1978), 104–8. . “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97.2 (1978), 239–51. . “The Heavenly Sanctuary – Figurative or Real?” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank L. Holbrook (Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 4. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 35–51. . “Defilement / Purification and Hebrews 9:23,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank L. Holbrook (Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 4. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 79–103. . “Day of Atonement Allusions,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank L. Holbrook (Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 4. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 105–20. Kaiser, Walter. “The Old Promise and the New Covenant,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15 (1972), 11–23. Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ 7. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985) Kistemaker, Simon. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: van Soest, 1961) Kittel, Gerhard. “Eivkw,n,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2.392–7. Klappert, Bertold. Die Eschatologie des Hebräerbriefs (Theologische Existenz 156. Munich: Kaiser, 1969) Klassen, William. “To the Hebrews or Against the Hebrews? Anti-Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, 2 Vols. ed. Stephen G. Wilson (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1986), 2.1–16. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford/New York: Oxford, 2000) Klijn, A. F. J. trans., “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols. ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1:615–52. Kobelski, Paul J. Melchizedek and Melchiresa (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1980) Koester, Craig R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989) . “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Study,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 2 (1994), 123–45. . Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001) . “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64.1 (2002), 103–23.

Bibliography

245

. “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 (NovTSupp 121. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 361–87. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Jesus, the Mediator of a ‘Better Covenant’: Comparatives in the Book of the Hebrews,” Faith & Mission 21.2 (2004), 30–49. Kurianal, James. Jesus Our High Priest: Ps 110,4 As The Substructure of Heb 5,1 – 7,28 (European University Studies Series 22. Vol. 693. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang, 2000) Laansma, Jon. “I will give you rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with special reference to Matthew 11 and Hebrews 3–4 (WUNT 2.98. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1997) Lane, William L. Hebrews 1–8 & 9–13 (WBC 47A&B. Dallas: Word, 1991) . “Standing Before the Moral Claim of God: Discipleship in Hebrews,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 203–24. . “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in FirstCentury Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 196–244. Lau, Andrew Y. Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 2.86. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996) Laub, Franz. Bekenntnis und Auslegung: Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief (Biblische Untersuchungen 15. Regensburg: Pustet, 1980) . “‘Ein für allemal hineingegangen in das Allerheiligste’ (Hebr 9,12) – Zum Verständnis des Kreuzestodes im Hebräerbrief,” Biblische Zeitschrift 35 (1991), 65– 85. . “Glaubenskrise und neu auszulegendes Bekenntnis: Zur Intention der Hohepriesterchristologie des Hebräerbriefs,” in Theologie im Werden: Studien zu den theologischen Konzeptionen im Neuen Testament, ed. Josef Hainz (Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1992), 377–96. Lee, Aquila H. I. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms (WUNT 2.192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) Lehne, Susanne. The New Covenant in Hebrews (JSNTSup 44. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) Leithart, Peter J. “Womb of the World: Baptism and the Priesthood of the New Covenant in Hebrews 10:19–22,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 78 (2000), 49–65. Leonhardt, Jutta. Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (TSAJ 84. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001) Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Creation, the Logos and the Foundation of a City: A Few Comments on Opif. 15–25,” in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 323–44. Levenson, Jon D. “The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), 32–61. Levison, John R. “Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy According to Philo,” The Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994), 83–9. Lewis, T. W. “‘. . . And if he shrinks back’ (Heb X.38b),” New Testament Studies 22 (1976), 88–94.

246

Bibliography

Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Atonement and Sacrifice in the Qumran Community,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 2 Vols. ed. William S. Green (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 2.159–71. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with Revised Supplement (Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press, 1996) Lieu, Judith. “‘Impregnable Ramparts and Walls of Iron’: Boundary and Identity in Early ‘Judaism” and ‘Christianity,’” New Testament Studies 48 (2002), 297–313. Lincoln, Andrew T. “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 197–220. Lindars, Barnabas. “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 382–406. . The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (NTT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) . “Hebrews and the Second Temple,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury (JSNTSup 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 410–33. Loader, William R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (WMANT 53. NeukirchenVluyen: Neukirchener, 1981) Loane, Marcus L. “The Unity of the Old and New Testaments: As Illustrated in the Epistle to The Hebrews,” in God Who Is Rich In Mercy: Essays presented to Dr. D. B. Knox, ed. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 255– 64. Löhr, Hermut. “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. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer (WUNT 55. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991), 185–205. . Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 73. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994) . “Anthropologie und Eschatologie im Hebräerbrief. Bemerkungen zum theologischen Interesse einer frühchristlichen Schrift,” in Eschatologie und Schöpfung: Festschrift für Erich Gräßer, ed. Martin Evang, Helmut Merklein, and Michael Wolter (BZNW 89. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 169–99. . “Reflections of Rhetorical Terminology in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 199–210. Long, Thomas G. “Bold in the Presence of God: Atonement in Hebrews,” Interpretation 52 (1998), 53–69. Mackie, Scott D. “Confession of the Son of God in the Exordium of Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (forthcoming) Macky, Peter W. The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought: A Method for Interpreting the Bible (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 19. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990) MacRae, George W. “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978), 179–99.

Bibliography

247

. “A Kingdom that Cannot be Shaken: The Heavenly Jerusalem in the Letter to the Hebrews,” in Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism, ed. Daniel J. Harrington and Stanley B. Marrow (GNS 26. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987), 98–112. Malina, Bruce J. “Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989), 1–31. Marshall, Bruce D. “Christ and the cultures: the Jewish people and Christian theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 81–100. Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles (ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) Martens, John W. One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria and Greco-Roman Law (Studies in Philo of Alexandria 2. Leiden: Brill, 2003) Matera, Frank J. “Moral Exhortation: The Relation between Moral Exhortation and Doctrinal Exposition in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Toronto Journal of Theology 10 (1994), 169–82. Matlock, R. Barry. Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism (JSNTSup 127. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) McCullough, J. C. “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 26 (1980), 363–79. . “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship (part 1),” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (April 1994), 66–85. . “Hebrews in Recent Scholarship (part 2),” Irish Biblical Studies 16 (June 1994), 108–20. . “Anti-Semitism in Hebrews?” Irish Biblical Studies 20 (January 1998), 30–45. . “Isaiah in Hebrews,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 159–73. McKnight, Scot. “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992), 21–59. McRay, John. “Atonement and Apocalyptic in the Book of Hebrews,” Restoration Quarterly 23.1 (1980), 1–9. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1983) Meier, John P. “Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1–14,” Biblica 66 (1985), 168–89. . “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1,5–14,” Biblica 66 (1985), 504–33. Ménégoz, Eugene. La théologie de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Fischbacher, 1894) Metzger, Bruce M. “The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Mishnah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951), 297–307. . trans., “4 Ezra,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols. ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1.516–59. . A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer: Übersetzt und erklärt, 12th ed. (KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) Miller, James C. “Paul and Hebrews: A Comparison of Narrative Worlds,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 245–64.

248

Bibliography

Minear, Paul S. “An Early Christian Theopoetic?” Semeia 12 (1978), 201–13. Mitchell, Alan C. “The Use of pre,pein and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992), 681–701. . “Holding on to Confidence: PARRHSIA in Hebrews,” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, ed. John T. Fitzgerald (NovTSupp 82. Leiden: Brill, 1996), 203–26. Modrzejewski, Joseph Mélèze. The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. Robert Cornman (Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1995) Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of the Hebrews (ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924) Montefiore, Hugh. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (HNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964) Motyer, Stephen. “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” Tyndale Bulletin 50.1 (1999), 3–22. . “The Temple in Hebrews: Is It There?” in Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 177–89. . “‘Not apart from us’ (Hebrews 11:40): physical community in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Evangelical Quarterly 77.3 (2005), 235–47. Najman, Hindy. “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?” The Studia Philonica Annual 15 (2003), 54–63. Nairne, Alexander. The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915) Nardoni, Enrique. “Partakers in Christ (Hebrews 3:14),” New Testament Studies 37 (1991), 456–72. Nash, Ronald H. “The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (Fall 1977, Spring 1978), 89–115. Nelson, Richard D. Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993) . “‘He Offered Himself.’ Sacrifice in Hebrews,” Interpretation 73.3 (July 2003), 251–65. Newman, Carey C. Paul’s Glory-Christology. Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSupp 69. Leiden: Brill, 1992) Newsom, Carol. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) Neyrey, Jerome H. “‘Without Beginning of Days or End of Life’ (Hebrews 7:3): Topos for a True Deity,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991), 439–55. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) . “Philo among Greeks, Jews and Christians,” in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 53–72. Nicole, Roger. “Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Doctrine of the Perseverance of God with the Saints,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 355–64. Nongbri, Brent. “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12,” Novum Testamentum 45.3 (2003), 265–79.

Bibliography

249

Olbricht, Thomas H. “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 Press, 1993), 375–87. . “Anticipating and Presenting the Case for Christ as the High Priest in Hebrews,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ed. Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002), 355–72. Omanson, Roger L. “A Superior Covenant: Hebrews 8:1–10:18,” Review and Expositor 82.3 (Summer 1985), 361–73. Osborne, Grant R. “The Christ of Hebrews and Other Religions,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46/2 (June 2003), 249–67. Parker, Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983) Parsons, Mikeal C. “Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews,” The Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988), 195–216. Pate, C. Marvin. Communities of the Last Days: The Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament & the Story of Israel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) Pearce, Sarah. “Belonging and Not Belonging: Local Perspectives in Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period, ed. Siân Jones and Sarah Pearce (JSPSup 31. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 79–105. . “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. John M.G. Barclay (Library of Second Temple Studies 45. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 19–36. Peterson, David G. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ (SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) . Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) Popkes, Wiard. “Paraenesis in the New Testament: An Exercise in Conceptuality,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 13–46. Porter, Stanley E. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79–96. Porton, Gary G. “Defining Midrash,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism, Vol. I: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, ed. Jacob Neusner (New York: Ktav, 1981) 1.55–92. . “Midrash,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4.818–22 Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology, trans. Leo G. Perdue, 2 Vols. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995–1996) Proctor, John. “Judgement or Vindication? Deuteronomy 32 in Hebrews 10:30,” Tyndale Bulletin 55.1 (2004), 65–80. Pursiful, Darrell J. The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993) Rad, Gerhard von. “There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Concept,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and other essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh/London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 94–102. Radice, Roberto. “Observations on the Theory of Ideas as the Thoughts of God in Philo of Alexandria,” The Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991), 126–34.

250

Bibliography

Rawson, Beryl. “‘The Roman Family’ in Recent Research: State of the Question,” Biblical Interpretation 11.2 (2003), 119–38. Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology, and Ethics (Studies in Biblical Literature 19. New York/Washington, DC/Baltimore/Bern: Peter Lang, 2001) . “Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (July – September 1998), 327–45. Rhoads, David. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies – Part I,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 36.3 (Fall 2006), 118–33. Rissi, Mathias. Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser (WUNT 41. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987) Robbins, Vernon K. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) . The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology (London/New York: Routledge: 1996) Robinson, William. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. A Study in the Christian Doctrine of Hope,” Encounter 22 (1961), 37–51. Rooke, Deborah W. “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Biblica 81 (2000), 81–94. Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad / London: S.P.C.K., 1982) . “Apocalyptic, God and the World. Appearance and reality: early Christianity’s debt to the Jewish apocalyptic tradition,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context: Festschrift in honor of Morna Hooker’s 65th birthday, ed. J. Barclay and J. Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 238–49. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986) . “God and Man in Philo of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 39.1 (1988), 48–75. . Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) . “Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A difficult question revisited,” The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993), 112–40. . “A Brief History of the Term Kosmos Noétos from Plato to Plotinus,” in Traditions of Platonism: Essays in Honour of John Dillon, ed. J. J. Cleary (Aldershot/Brookfield/Singapore/Sydney: Ashgate, 1999), 151–71. . “The Idea and Reality of the City in the Thought of Philo of Alexandria,” Journal of the History of Ideas 61.3 (2000), 361–79. . Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001) . “The Beginnings of the End: Philo of Alexandria and Hellenistic Theology,” in Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath, ed. Dorothea Frede and André Laks (Philosophia Antiqua 89. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2002), 281–316. Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. 200 BC – AD 100 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) . Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992)

Bibliography

251

Sacchi, Paolo. Jewish Apocalyptic and its History, trans. William J. Short (JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) Salevao, Iutisone. Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe (JSNTSup 219. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) Sanders, Jack T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (SNTSMS 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) Sandmel, Samuel. Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) Saunders, Stanley P. “‘Learning Christ’: Eschatology and Spiritual Formation in New Testament Christianity,” Interpretation 56.2 (2002), 155–67. Schaefer, James R. “The Relationship Between Priestly and Servant Messianism in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968), 359–85. Schenck, Kenneth L. “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 66 (1997), 91–117. . “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” Journal of Biblical Literature 120.3 (2001), 469–85. . “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study After Thirty Years,” The Studia Philonica Annual 14 (2002), 112–35. . Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2003) Schiffman, Lawrence H. The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of the Congregation (SBLMS 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) Scholer, John M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth. “Cultic Language in Qumran and in the NT,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976), 159–77. Schwarz, Hans. Eschatology (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000) Scott, E. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922) Seid, Timothy W. “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 Press, 1999), 322–47. Sekki, Arthur Everett. The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLDS 110. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) Selby, Gary S. “The Meaning and Function of Sunei,dhsij in Hebrews 9 and 10,” Restoration Quarterly 28.3 (Third Quarter 1985/1986), 145–54. Sensing, Tim. “Toward a Definition of Paraenesis,” Restoration Quarterly 38.3 (1996), 145–58. Seow, C. L. “Face mynp,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1995), 607–13. Sharp, Jeffrey R. “Typology and the Message of Hebrews,” East Asia Journal of Theology 4 (1986), 95–103. Silva, Moises. “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976–1977), 60–71. Smalley, Stephen S. “The Atonement in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” The Evangelical Quarterly 32 (1960), 36–43. Smillie, Gene R. “‘ `O LOGOS TOU QEOU’ in Hebrews 4:12–13,” Novum Testamentum 46.4 (2004), 338–59.

252

Bibliography

. “‘The One Who Is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25,” Tyndale Bulletin 55.2 (2004), 275–94. . “‘The Other LOGOS’ at the End of Heb. 4:13,” Novum Testamentum 47.1 (2005), 19–25. . “Contrast or Continuity in Hebrews 1.1–2?” New Testament Studies 51 (2005), 543–60. Snyman, Andries H. “Hebrews 6:4–6: From a Semiotic Discourse Perspective,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed (JSNTSup 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 354–68. Spencer, William David. “Christ’s Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1– 18,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 40/2 (June 1997), 189–97. Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2 Vols. (Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1952– 1953) Stanley, Steve. “The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives,” Tyndale Bulletin 45.2 (1994), 245–71. . “Hebrews 9:6–10: The ‘Parable’ of the Tabernacle,” Novum Testamentum 37.4 (1995), 385–99. Starr, James M. “Was Paraenesis for Beginners?” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 73–111. Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann, “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. Sterling, Gregory E. “Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism,” The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993), 96–111. . “‘Thus are Israel’: Jewish Self-Definition in Alexandria,” The Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995), 1–18. . “Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts,” The Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997), 219–38. . “Hellenistic Philosophy and the New Testament,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter (NTTS 25. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1997) . “Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between the Author and Community in Hebrews,” The Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001), 190–211. . “The Place of Philo of Alexandria in the Study of Christian Origins,” in Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 21–52. Stern, Josef. Metaphor in Context (Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press, 2000) Stevenson-Moessner, Jeanne. “The Road to Perfection. An Interpretation of Suffering in Hebrews,” Interpretation 73.3 (July 2003), 280–90. Strack, H. L., and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991) Stökl, Daniel. “Yom Kippur in the Jewish Apocalyptic Imaginaire and the Roots of Jesus’ High Priesthood. Yom Kippur in Zechariah 3, 1 Enoch 10, 11QMelkizedeq, Hebrews and the Apocalypse of Abraham 13,” in Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, ed. Jan Assmann and Guy G. Stroumsa (SHR 83. Leiden: Brill, 1999), 349–66.

Bibliography

253

Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (WUNT 163. Mohr Siebeck, 2003) Stone, Michael E. Features in the Eschatology of IV Ezra (HSS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) . Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990) 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: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995) Sturm, Richard E. “Defining the Word ‘Apocalyptic’: A Problem in Biblical Criticism,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards (JSNTSup 24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 17–48. Sullivan, Clayton. Rethinking Realized Eschatology (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988) Swetnam, James. “On the Imagery and Significance of Hebrews 9,9–10,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966), 155–73. . “Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Observations and Surmises on Hebrews 9,26,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968), 227–34. . “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Biblica 70 (1989), 74–94. . “The Crux at Hebrews 5,7–8,” Biblica 81 (2000), 347–61. Theissen, Gerd. Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (SNT 2. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969) Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000) Thompson, James W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982) . “The Hermeneutics of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Restoration Quarterly 38.4 (1996) 229–37. . “The Appropriate, the Necessary, and the Impossible: Faith and Reason in Hebrews,” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris, and James W. Thompson (NovTSupp 90. Leiden: Brill, 1998), 302–17. . “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Legacy,” Restoration Quarterly 47.4 (2005), 197–206. Thüsing, Wilhelm. “‘Laßt uns hinzutreten . . .’ (Hebr 10,22): Zur Frage nach dem Sinn der Kulttheologie im Hebräerbrief,” in Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (WUNT 82. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), 184–200. Thurén, Lauri. “Motivation as the Core of Paraenesis – Remarks on Peter and Paul as Persuaders,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 353–71. Thurén, Jukka. Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von Hebräerbrief 13 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1973) Thurston, Robert W. “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” The Evangelical Quarterly 58.2 (April 1986), 133–43. Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS 14. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983)

254

Bibliography

. Timaios of Locri: On the Nature of the World and the Soul. Text, Translation, and Notes by Thomas H. Tobin (Texts and Translations 28. Graeco-Roman Series 8. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985) Tomson, Peter J. ‘If this be from Heaven . . .’: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism, trans. J. Dyk (The Biblical Seminar 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) Toussaint, Stanley D. “The Eschatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews,” Grace Theological Journal 3.1 (Spring 1982), 67–80. Übelacker, Walter G. Der Hebräerbrief als Appell: Untersuchungen zur Exordium, Narratio, und Postscriptum (Hebr 1–2 und 13,22–25) (Coniectanea Biblica 21. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1989) . “Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (BZNW 125. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 319–52. . “Hebrews and the Implied Author’s Rhetorical Ethos,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson (New York/London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 316–34. Van Dam, Cornelis. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997) VanderKam, James. “Apocalyptic Tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 113–34. Vanhoye, Albert. “L’oivkoume,nh dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” Biblica 45 (1964), 248–53. . “Long marche ou accès tout proche? Le contexte biblique de Hébreux 3,7– 4,11,” Biblica 49 (1968), 9–26. . Situation du Christ: épître aux Hébreux 1–2 (Lectio divina 58. Paris: Cerf, 1969) . Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia biblica 12. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989) . “Anamnèse Historique et Créativité Théologique dans L’Épître aux Hébreux,” in La Mémoire et le Temps: Mélanges offerts à Pierre Bonnard, ed. Daniel Marguerat and Jean Zumstein (Le Monde de la Bible 23. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), 220–31. . “La ‘Teleiôsis’ du Christ: Point Capital de la Christologie Sacerdotale d’Hébreux,” New Testament Studies 42 (1996), 321–38. . “Sanctuaire terrestre, sanctuaire céleste dans l’épître aux Hébreux,” in Quelle Maison Pour Dieu? ed. Camille Focant (Lectio divina. Paris: Cerf, 2003), 351–94. Via, Dan O. “Revelation, Atonement and the Scope of Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Deconstructive and Reader-Response Interpretation,” Biblical Interpretation 11.3 (2003), 515–30. Vielhauer, Philipp, and Georg Strecker, “Introduction” to “Apocalypses and Related Subjects,” in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. Robert McL. Wilson (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. / Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 2.542–602. Walker, Peter. “Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle,” Tyndale Bulletin 45.1 (1994), 39–71. . Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996)

Bibliography

255

. “A Place for Hebrews? Contexts for a First-Century Sermon,” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter, ed. P. J. Williams, Andrew D. Clarke, Peter M. Head, David Instone Brewer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 231–49. Wall, Robert W. “Conscience,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1.1128–30. Wall, Robert W., and William L. Lane, “Polemic in Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 166–98. Wallace, David. “The Use of Psalms in the Shaping of a Text: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1,” Restoration Quarterly 45 (2003), 41–50. Wallis, R. T. “The Idea of Conscience in Philo of Alexandria,” in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Qoud Deus Sit Immutablis (BJS 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 207–16. Wedderburn, A. J. M. “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter,” New Testament Studies 50.3 (2004), 390–405. . “Sawing off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously Ad Hebraeos,” Journal of Theological Studies 56.2 (2005), 393–414. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer: Übersetzt und Erklärt (KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) Weiss, Herold. “Sabbatismos in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996), 674–89. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, and Geoffrey Wigoder, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1892) Westfall, Cynthia Long. “Moses and Hebrews 3:1–6: Approach or Avoidance?” in Christian – Jewish Relations through the Centuries, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. R. Pearson (JSNTSup 192. Roehampton Papers 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 175–201. Whittaker, John. “The Terminology of the Rational Soul in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” The Studia Philonica Annual 8 (1996), 1–20. Wider, David. Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 87. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997) Willa-Plein, Ina. “Some Remarks on Hebrews from the Viewpoint of Old Testament Exegesis,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (BibInt 75. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 25–35. Willett, Tom W. Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (JSPSup 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) Williamson, Clark M., and Ronald J. Allen, Interpreting Difficult Texts: Anti-Judaism and Christian Preaching (Philadelphia: Trinity Press / London: SCM Press, 1989) Williamson, Clark M. “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Interpretation 73.3 (July 2003), 266– 79. Williamson, Ronald. “Platonism and Hebrews,” Scottish Journal of Theology 16 (1963), 415–24. . Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ALGHJ 4. Leiden: Brill, 1970) . “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 21 (1974–75), 300–12. . “The Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” The Expository Times 87 (1975–1976), 232–7. Wintermute, O. S. trans., “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols. ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2.35–142.

256

Bibliography

Winston, David. “Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philo’s Thought,” The Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990), 1–19. . “Aspects of Philo’s Linguistic Theory,” The Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991), 109–25. . “Philo’s Mysticism,” The Studia Philonica Annual 8 (1996), 74–82. Witherington III, Ben. “The Influence of Galatians on Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 37 (1991), 146–52. Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) Wray, Judith Hoch. Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS 166. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) Wright, Christopher J. H. “A Christian Approach to Old Testament Prophecy,” in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God, ed. P. W. L. Walker (Carlisle: Paternoster / Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 1–19. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) . Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) . The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol. 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) Wyatt, Nicolas. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) Young, Norman H. “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981), 198–210. . “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14),” New Testament Studies 48 (2002), 243–61. . “The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? The Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19–20 Revisited,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 40 (2002), 61–8. . “Suffering: A Key to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Australian Biblical Review 51 (2003), 47–59.

Index of Ancient Sources 1. Old Testament Genesis 1:26–27 1:27 2:7 5:24 6:18 9:11 12:18 17:7 17:9 22:15–18 29:12 32:20 43:7 49:1

108 108, 110 108 67 121 121 219 121 121 199 219 177 219 39

Exodus 3:8 4:21 6:3 6:4 7:3 7:22 8:19 9:12 9:35 10:1 10:12 10:20 10:27 13:15 14:4 14:8 14:17 16:9 18:6 24 24:12

91 53 89 121 53 53 53 53 53 53 91 53 53 53 53 53 53 204 219 178 62–63

25:10–22 25:22 25:40 28:30 30:1–8 32:13 32:14 33:7 33:12 34:32 40

177 166 160–162 89 165 199 177 136 89 204 178

Leviticus 5:11 6:10 8 8:8 8:10–11 9:5 9:7–8 10:3–5 12:8 14:7 14:11 14:21 14:22 14:30 14:32 16 16:1 16:2 16:4 16:6 16:8–10 16:11 16:11–19 16:12–13

93 65 178 89 178 204 204 204 93 76 76 93 93 93 93 166 204 166 191 177, 186 177 177, 186 95 177

Index of Ancient Sources

258 16:14–15 16:16 16:16–18 16:17 16:18–19 16:18–20 16:19 16:19–20 16:20 16:21–22 16:24 16:25 16:26 16:30 16:32–33 16:33 20:8 21:17–18 21:21 22:3 26:9

167, 186, 191 177 186 177 167 167 191–192 191 177 177 177, 186, 191 167 191 186 186 167, 177 192 204 204 204 121

Numbers 6:22–27 7:1 9:13 10:3 14:7 16:40 18:1–7 19 24:14 27:21 31:16 32:9

76 178 53 204 91 204 59 84, 178 39–40 90 53 53

Deuteronomy 1:25 1:28 4:9 4:11 4:24 4:30 8:1 8:18 9:3 9:5 10:16 17:6 17:10

91 53 53 65 65, 127 40 91 121 65 121 53 73 62

21:8 29:1 32:8 LXX 32:15 32:26 32:43 33:8 33:10

177 121 44 53 129 40, 214 89–90 89

Joshua 4:7 22:18 22:19 22:23 22:29

89 53 53 53 53

Judges 13:6

219

1 Samuel 3:21 24:5 25:31 28:6

89 191 191 90

2 Samuel 2:4 4:4 7:11 7:11–14 7:14 14:24 21:3 24:10

219 166 219 217 40, 217 98 177 191

1 Kings 1:20 8:36 22:19–23

219 89 33

2 Kings 5:18 24:4

177 177

2 Chronicles 6:27 26:18 28:19 28:22 33:7

89 53 53 53 117

Index of Ancient Sources 36:13

53

Nehemiah 7:61 9:16–17 9:29

219 53 53

Esther 2:10 2:22 8:13

219 89 65

Job 1:6–12

33

Psalms 2:1–2 217 2:7 40, 185, 217 8 224 8:4–6 LXX 46 11:4 158 16:7 191 22:22 219 23:1 43 25:8 62 25:12 62 25:14 89 27:11 62 45:3 67 45:6–7 40 51 88 51:6 89 78:5 LXX 127 84:6 62 88:12 43 89:2 43 92:1 43 95 50, 200 95:11 51 99:1 166 102:25–27 LXX 40 104:4 LXX 40 104:14–15 140 110:1 40, 44, 215–216, 225 110:4 179, 185 119:33 62 119:102 62 147:20 89

259

Ecclesiastes 2:6 12:2–3

55 64

Isaiah 1:10–17 2:2 6 8:17–18 9:6 10:17 13:13 14:9 14:16 14:20 14:24 17:4 24–27 24:18 24:20 26:11 26:20 27:6 30:7 33:20 34:4 39:6 40:19 41:22 42:9 44:4 53:12 60:19 62:4 65:17–25 66:15–16 66:16

88 40 158, 183, 214 219 55 66 64, 69 69 69 69 69 64 71 64 64 66 133 55 219 64 66 55 117 55 89 41 97 34 43 71 66 66

Jeremiah 7:26 7:32 10:12 16:14 16:21 17:23 19:6 19:15 23:20 25:19 28:15

53 55 43 55 89 53 55 53 40 40 43

Index of Ancient Sources

260 31 31:34 37:24

81 188 40

Ezekiel 7:7 13:23 15:4–5 19:12 22:4 30 36:26–28 37:6 38:20 38:22 38–39

126 126 66 66 126 66 88 88 64 129 66

Daniel 2 7:16 7–12 8:9 10:14 11:27 11:35 12:4

89 89 33 94 40 94 94 94

Hosea 3:5

40

Joel 1:15 1:19 2:3 2:10 2:28–32 2–3 4:16

126 66 66 64 88 125–126 64

Amos 1–2

5:18–20 5:21–27 9:5

125 88 64

Obadiah 1:18

66

Micah 1:4 4:1 6:6–8

64 40 88

Nahum 1:5 3:15

64 66

Habakkuk 2:3–4 2:4 3:6

124, 132–133 132 64

Zephaniah 1:14–18 1:18 3 3:8

126 66, 127 180 66, 127

Haggai 2:6 2:21 2:22

64, 71, 89 64, 71 71

Zechariah 3 12:2 14

33 64, 69 69, 137

Malachi 3:19

66

66

2. Jewish Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha Wisdom of Solomon 2:23–24 222 4:10 67 6:22 219 9:8 158

16:16

65

Tobit 10:9 13:10–16

89 138

Index of Ancient Sources Sirach 1:28 1:30 2:1 33:3 43:7 44:16 45:10 45:19

204 204 204 90 94 67 90 65

1 Maccabees 2:27

121

2 Maccabees 2:8 2:23 3:15 4:17 7:43 10:10 11:24

89 89 62 89 89 89 67

4 Maccabees 1:11 5:23 5:25 6:9 7:9 7:16 7:22 9:6 9:8 9:22 9:30 13:12 15:30–32 17:4 17:12 17:17 17:23

127 127 62 127 127 89 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127

1 Esdras 3:16 5:40

89 90

1 Enoch 1–5 1–36 6–16 10

33 31 33 48, 180

261

14:8–23 14:13 14:21–23 39 45:4–5 61:11 62:6–9 62:9 71:15 72–82 85–90 92–105 104:6

158, 203 203 203 195, 214 34 88 216 216 30 31 33 33 195

2 Enoch 3:1–2 8 17 20–23 55:2

158 34 214 214 138

3 Enoch 1 1:12 7 27:2 45:1

158 214 158 214 165

4 Ezra 3:21 3:26 4:11 4:26–27 4:26–32 6:20 6:25 6:26 7:13 7:26 7:28–44 7:31 7:50 7:112 7:112–113 7:118 7:119 8:1 8:52 9:13 9:36

34 34 56 56 33–34 56 56 88 56 138 34 56 30, 56 56 30 34 30 43, 56 138 56 77

Index of Ancient Sources

262 10:27 10:54 13:36 14:10

138 138 138 56

Jubilees 1:20 1:23 2:2 4:22 5:1–2 7:21–27 23:26–31 31:14

33 88 183, 214 33 33 33 34 183

Sybilline Oracles 2:196 66 4:175–180 66 5:250 138 2 Baruch 4:2–7 4:3 20:5 23:7 23–25 25:1 27:15 30:3 32:1–3 44:8–15 44:15 48:8 48:42–43 51:8 54:1 54:15 54:15–16 54:19 56:5–6 59:3 59:8 59:9 77:15 83:4–9 83:6 83:9 85:10

138 34 40 40 24 40 40 40 64, 69, 137 30 43 40 34 6, 40, 138 40 34 34 34 34 64, 69, 137 40 40 77 30 40 40 40

Apocalypse of Abraham 13:8–9 33 Apocalypse of Elijah 5:22–24 66 5:37 66 Testament of Levi 2:6–10 158 3:1–8 158 3:4 158 3:4–6 183 3:5 214 8:11–17 183 10:2 30, 94 18:1–14 183 18:2 183 18:5 183 18:6–7 183 18:7–9 183 18:8 183 18:9 183, 188 18:10 183 18:10–14 34 18:11 88 18:12 183 18:12–13 183 Testament of Judah 24:3 88 Testament of Zebulon 9:9 94 Testament of Dan 1:1 40 Testament of Gad 8:1 183 Testament of Joseph 19:11 183 Testament of Benjamin 11:3 94 Testament of Moses 12:4 94

Index of Ancient Sources Letter of Aristeas 160 67 310 146

263

Ascension of Isaiah 7–9 158

Life of Adam and Eve 49:3 65

3. Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 3:13 – 4:26 3:20–25 4:16–17 4:26 8:11 8:15–16 9:11

33 33 40 33 88 88 183

1QSa (1Q28a) 1:1 2:12–13

40 183

1QSb (1Q28b) 25–26

4Q156

166

4Q174 1:12 4:1–5

217 40 33

4Q175 (4QTest) 9–13 183 4Q177 2–4

33

4Q181 2:1–2

33

4QMMT (4Q398) 11–13

95

4Q400–407

158, 214

4Q400 1.1.19–20

204

4Q403 1.2.14

195

4Q491–496

33

4Q504

88

4Q510 1:5–8

33

4Q544

33

11Q5 19:16

33

214

CD 2:6 4:13–19 5:18–19 12:23 – 13:1 14:19 19:10–11

33 33 33 183 183 183

1QH 11:29–32 12:11–13 14:12–13 16:7

66 88 88 88

1QM 11:5–10

33 30

1QpHab 2:5–6 7:7

40 40

4Q44

214

Index of Ancient Sources

264 11QMelch 2:4–6

33, 180 48

2:8 2:12–14

48 48

4. Philo Creation 3 8–9 12 15 16 16–18 18 19 20 21–22 22 24 25 28 29 31 34 35 36 69 69–71 70 71 128 134 134–135 139 146

118 119 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 119 120 109, 120 109–111, 120 119 120 110 120 120 120 110 108–110, 119 119 120 190 108, 110 108 120 110

Allegorical Interpretation 1:31 108, 110 1:32 55 1:42–43 110 1:43 110 1:53 108, 110 1:90 110 2:4 108, 110 2:54–55 136 3:35 121 3:95–105 161 3:96 109–110 3:96–103 111

3:102 3:102–103 3:135 3:142

161 161 165 63

Cherubim 28 125–127

109 109, 220

Sacrifices 8 57–58

109 122

Worse 83–87 87 146 160 178

110 111 190 136 59

Giants 54

136

Posterity 23 59 112–114 112–119 143

68 190 111 111 63

Unchangeable 4 13 26 57 100 177

110 127 67 109 190 111

Planting 3 5 19 27

119 119 108 111, 118

Index of Ancient Sources 44 50 91

108 110 68

Drunkenness 99–101 125 132–134

136 190 110

Confusion 40–41 62 62–63 97 121 146–147 190

108 110 108 110 190 108, 110 111

Migration 12 40 91

111 110 63

Heir 6–7 30 56–57 62 71–72 72 111 112 133–134 140 156 157 160 187 221–229 231

190 76 110 111 118 111 110 110 119 119 68 119 119 110 86 110

Preliminary Studies 132 119 Flight 12 101

110 110

Names 46

68

265

60 87 130 183 223

67 68 67 110 110

Dreams 1:1–2 1:74–79 1:79 1:115 1:154 1:158 1:192 1:206 1:232 1:239–241 2:1–2 2:45 2:115–116 2:123 2:221 2:237

119 110 110–111 110 68 68 68 111, 118 110 110 119 110 111 121 68 68

Abraham 3 5 18 81 119–120 153

110 118 67 67 111, 118 110

Joseph 134 136 140 146 265

68 67 111 111 191

Moses 1:300 2:11 2:14 2:14–15 2:48–52 2:51 2:66–108 2:71–108 2:71–179 2:74–76

121 118 68 77 118 110, 118 158 86 84 161

Index of Ancient Sources

266 2:113 2:128–130 2:188–191 2:203 2:218 2:267

90 90 119 63 63 110

Rewards 17 29 84 114 163

67 110–111 190 110 191

Decalogue 81 82 101 156

121 111 110 63

Good Person 28 62 79 99

68 110–111 121 190

Special Laws 1:81 1:82 1:88 1:89 1:96 1:113 1:117 1:171 1:203 1:235 1:252 1:261 1:300 1:319 2:39 2:49 2:110 2:120 2:176 2:237 3:83 3:132 3:180 4:49 4:69 4:146 4:204

109–110 63 90 90 110 174 63 110 190–191 190 197 203 68 121 63 190 63 63 110 110 110 90 110 89 90 110 121

Eternity 61 81 113–116 116

68 68 67–68 68

Flaccus 7 41 45 165

190 111 145 111

Embassy 165 178–186 181 191–192 320

190 149 149 149 111

QG 2:62 4:67

110 67

QE 2:45 2:51–106

63 86

Virtues 4 81–82 97 151

110 63 63 68

Index of Ancient Sources

267

5. Josephus Antiquities 1:70 3:123 3:179–187 3:181–183 14:136 14:188 18:257–260 18:259 19:278 19:281 19:332

65 86 158 86 197 145 117 117 146 145 203

Jewish Wars 2:487 5:442

145 131

Against Apion 1:286 2:35 2:65 2:72 2:193–198

67 145 145 145 84

6. New Testament Matthew 7:6 10:32 13:39 13:40 13:49 24:3 24:24 27:35 27:39 27:43 27:45 27:46 27:51–53 28:20

128 229 94 94 94 71, 94 41 219 219 219 68 219 68 94

Mark 3:34–35 8:38 10:28–30 13 13:22 14:58

221 229 143 71 41 69

Luke 9:26 9:54 12:8 24:14–20

229 66 229 183

John 4:23 5:25 6:39 6:40 6:44 6:54 11:24 12:31 12:48 16:11 17:9 19:24

56 56 40 40 40 40 40 35 40 35 183 219

Acts 3:15 5:31 6:8 – 8:1 7:16 7:21 7:48 17:24 20:20 20:27

197 197 59 67 121 69 69 127 127

Romans 2:15 3:24–25 3:31 5:12–21 6:6

190 183 121 34–35 187

Index of Ancient Sources

268 8:3 8:11 8:15 8:19–23 8:19–25 8:34 9:1 10:4 13:1–7 13:11–12 13:12

187–188 3 226 68 71 183 190–191 121, 230 190–191 3 126

2:6–11

173

Colossians 2:11 2:16–17

69 117

1 Thessalonians 1:9 2:1 3:7 4:13–18 5:11

203 203 21 3 21

1 Corinthians 1:20–21 3:13 4:1–5 8:1–3 8:7 10:11 10:23–33 12 – 14 15:5–8

142 89 190 190 190 3, 94 190 3 99

2 Thessalonians 2:9 41

2 Corinthians 1:12 4:2 5:1 5:11–15 7:6–13 7:31

191 191 69 191 21 71

Galatians 1:3–4 1:4 1:6 2:12 2:20 3–4 3:23–25 4:3–5 4:4 4:4–5 4:6 4:26

35 33, 94 67 127 183 80 121 35 94 3 226 138

Ephesians 5:2

183

Philippians 2:5–11

216

1 Timothy 3:16

97

2 Timothy 1:10 3:1

97 40

Hebrews 1:1 1:1–2 1:1–3 1:1–4 1:1 – 2:4 1:2

1:3

1:4 1:4–5 1:5 1:5–7 1:5–13 1:5 – 2:13 1:6 1:8

24 183 96 40–41, 46, 103, 217 35, 37, 41, 53 6, 8, 23, 29, 36, 39–42, 47, 53, 94, 103, 125, 149, 157 6, 12, 20, 97, 101, 103, 149, 151, 155, 164, 166, 169–170, 177, 182, 186–187, 189, 202, 213, 215, 218 40, 77, 213, 217–218, 227 213 20, 40, 149, 213, 215, 217–219, 227 214 17, 40, 155, 170, 214, 218 164 8, 40, 43, 157, 185, 202, 214, 216, 227 8, 39, 45, 149, 180, 213, 225

Index of Ancient Sources 1:10 1:10–12 1:11 1:13 1:14 2:1 2:1–3 2:1–4 2:2 2:2–3 2:3 2:3–4 2:4 2:5

2:5–9 2:5–11 2:5–18 2:6–8 2:6–11 2:6–18 2:7 2:7–10 2:8 2:8–9 2:8–10 2:9

2:9–10 2:9–18 2:10

2:10–11 2:10–18 2:11

149 7, 80 70, 80 44, 100, 128, 149, 182, 202, 213–215, 223 47, 53, 100, 197 11, 15, 23–24, 41, 82, 138, 207 41, 131 41–42, 58, 151, 200, 215 215 41 11, 23, 41–42, 100– 101, 149, 207, 215 10, 41, 200 41, 55, 151, 193, 231 6, 8, 24, 35, 42–43, 47, 71, 106, 138, 151, 157, 164, 214 41–42, 47, 151, 157, 215 215 45–47, 183, 197, 217, 219, 222 44, 46 47, 222 42, 45 45, 119 119 7, 23, 44, 46–47, 98, 100 46, 53, 99, 151, 223 202 6–7, 23, 45, 48, 96– 100, 130, 149, 151– 152, 170, 175, 185, 194, 197, 215, 220, 222, 227 143, 175, 194, 219, 224 151 20, 42, 45, 47–48, 90, 100, 119, 149, 180, 186, 193–195, 197, 220–222, 224 13, 193 45–47, 76, 220 12, 20, 47, 101, 151, 182–183, 186–187,

2:11–12 2:11–13 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 2:16–18 2:17

2:17–18 2:18 3:1 3:1–6 3:2 3:2–6 3:3–6 3:6

3:7 3:7–11 3:7–14 3:7 – 4:11 3:7 – 4:13 3:8 3:10–11 3:11 3:12 3:12–13

269 189, 192–193, 211, 217, 220–222, 224, 229 148 47–48 219–222, 224 20, 155, 170, 183, 208, 210, 217–221, 226 219–220, 224 148 33, 35, 46–48, 52, 175, 187, 217, 219–220, 222, 224 10, 20, 48, 93, 96, 148, 152, 183 47, 222 13, 101, 174, 210 199, 222 46, 220, 222 20, 96, 186 12, 20, 48, 52, 59, 96, 151, 169, 177, 182– 184, 186, 217, 220– 222, 224 48, 174, 182, 219, 222 12, 46, 48, 143, 175, 182, 220, 222 23–24, 59, 169, 184, 193, 221, 223–224, 227 148, 151, 155, 164, 217–219, 223–225, 229 180 223–224 185, 227 15–16, 23, 49, 54, 105, 138, 149, 159, 223– 225, 228 50, 89, 125, 193, 200, 210 170 49 12, 35, 47–49, 106, 151, 164, 183, 210 51–52, 187 210 187 210 12, 15, 53, 82, 138, 207 10

270 3:13 3:14

3:15 3:17 3:18–19 4:1 4:1–3 4:1–11 4:2 4:2–3 4:3

4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:7–8 4:8 4:9 4:9–11 4:10 4:10–11 4:11 4:14

4:14–15 4:14–16

4:14 – 5:10 4:15 4:15–16 4:16

5:1–10

Index of Ancient Sources 49–50, 53, 82, 125, 152, 210 15, 23, 36, 47, 49, 52, 54, 57, 101, 105, 138, 141, 148, 151, 155, 210, 223–225, 228 50, 125, 210 187 210 11, 15, 23, 49, 53–54, 104, 138, 204, 207 210 82 49–50 23 8, 35, 49–52, 54, 101, 104, 148, 151, 170, 187, 204, 210, 231 210 210 49, 210 50, 125, 210 210 80, 125 49–50, 54 210 50 104 23, 49, 54, 204, 207 6, 11, 15, 23–24, 54, 59, 105, 138, 149, 155, 157, 202, 217, 223, 227–228 23 13, 20, 24, 51, 96, 139, 149, 151, 155, 157, 164, 166, 169, 171, 174, 180, 182, 187, 201–202, 204, 210– 211, 217, 219, 223– 224, 226–227, 229 17 182, 184, 223, 225 20, 174, 186 7, 12, 23, 49, 54, 90, 104–105, 149, 155, 164, 166, 202, 204, 206–207, 213, 217, 225, 228 96, 184, 197

5:3 5:5 5:5–6 5:5–10 5:6 5:7 5:7–8 5:7–9 5:7–10 5:8 5:8–9 5:9

5:9–10 5:10 5:11 5:11–14 5:11 – 6:1 5:11 – 6:12 5:12 5:12–14 5:13–14 5:14 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:4–5 6:4–6 6:4–8 6:5 6:6 6:7–8 6:8 6:9 6:9–12 6:9–20 6:10 6:10–12 6:11 6:12 6:13–14 6:13–15 6:13–18

62 149, 169, 180 170, 185 194 8, 36, 45, 169, 173, 179–180, 183, 197 100, 173, 175, 228 169, 173, 194 173–174, 228 169 143, 149, 175, 213, 228 96, 170, 197 20, 93, 100–101, 149, 152, 155, 173, 180, 186, 197 194 169, 194 11, 24, 56 24 58 54, 57–58 56 11 57 57 23, 56–57 181, 191 23, 57 54, 103, 193, 224 10, 54, 58, 101, 151, 200, 231 54, 57–58, 128, 200 23–24, 58, 226 3, 6, 8, 35, 43, 55–57, 90, 141 12, 54, 56, 149, 207 11, 57 65, 187 20, 23–24, 58, 77, 100, 197 11, 58 23 193 10 23, 36, 57, 101 11, 57–58, 82, 101 202 202 202, 226

Index of Ancient Sources 6:17 6:17–18 6:18 6:18–20 6:19 6:19–20 6:19 – 10:24 6:20

7:1 7:1–10 7:1 – 10:19 7:3 7:7 7:11 7:11–12 7:11–28 7:12 7:13 7:13–14 7:13–15 7:14 7:15–17 7:16 7:16–17 7:17 7:18 7:18–19 7:19

7:19–22 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23 7:23–24 7:24 7:24–25 7:25

20, 148, 186 67, 202 23, 58, 104, 131, 202 23, 202, 206 104, 149, 165, 177, 202–204, 206 6, 155, 157, 169, 178, 180, 187, 202 178 8, 36, 45, 59, 90, 104– 105, 151, 179, 183, 203, 207 73–74 59 227 69, 137, 149 77 60–62, 80, 162 60 36, 58–59, 72, 74, 122, 137, 142 60, 67, 72, 74, 122, 220 166 59, 213 61 23, 73–74, 76, 149 59, 96 60, 72, 74, 179 183, 198 8, 36, 45, 60, 72, 179 60, 72–74, 122, 187 162 23, 60, 72–74, 76–77, 90, 122, 149, 157, 171, 187, 195, 202, 204, 206 202 60 8, 36, 45, 60, 72, 74, 170, 173, 179, 202 20, 76–77, 186 72, 180 96, 198 7–8, 36–37, 45, 60, 69, 72–74, 137, 179 182–183 7, 17, 20, 49, 60, 72, 74, 76, 90, 100, 104, 149, 155, 180, 182, 186, 197–198, 204, 206

7:25–28 7:25 – 8:2 7:26 7:26–27 7:26–28 7:27

7:27–28 7:28 8:1

8:1–2 8:1–5 8:1–6 8:1–13 8:2 8:3–6 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:6–13 8:7 8:8 8:8–12 8:10 8:10–12 8:11 8:12 8:13 9:1 9:1–3 9:1–5 9:1–7 9:1–10 9:1–14 9:1–26 9:1 – 10:25 9:2 9:2–3 9:3 9:4 9:6

271 194–195 180 7, 73–74, 155, 157, 173, 180, 193, 202, 220 96, 169, 177 3 7, 12, 20, 60, 95, 151, 155, 176–177, 180, 183, 186, 220 96, 170 8, 36, 45, 60–61, 72– 74, 149, 180, 194 23, 76, 82, 149, 151, 157, 164, 166, 182, 202, 213, 215, 225 155 7 3 77 92, 159–167, 193 176 97 3, 6, 61, 92, 106, 142, 159–164, 167 7, 20, 62, 77, 155, 186 58 77, 81, 121, 142, 162 77, 81, 125 170 81 20, 186 81 12, 20, 82, 152, 183, 186 36, 77–80, 82, 122– 123, 142, 162 77 165 165 93 207 191 167 3, 93 83, 92 164 92, 165 165 83–84, 92, 164, 206, 228

272 9:6–8 9:6–9 9:6–10 9:6–11 9:6–12 9:7 9:8 9:8–11 9:8–14 9:9 9:9–10 9:9–11 9:10 9:11 9:11–12 9:11–14 9:11–15 9:11 – 10:25 9:12

9:12–13 9:12–14 9:12–15 9:13 9:13–14 9:14

9:14–15 9:15 9:15–16 9:15–18 9:16 9:17 9:18 9:18–21 9:18–22 9:20 9:21 9:22 9:22–23

Index of Ancient Sources 85 36, 166 140 206 85, 93 84–85, 103, 166 65, 83, 86, 89, 92, 98, 102, 164–165, 193 93 142 35, 61, 83–84, 86, 93, 157, 162, 190, 195 87–88, 162 36, 58, 83 35, 83, 86–87 35, 43, 68, 83, 90–92, 106, 160–162, 165, 185 91–92, 97, 157, 162, 178, 202 7, 10, 95–96, 155, 170, 180 7, 86–87, 176 94, 102 20, 91–93, 95, 152, 155, 165, 167, 175, 180, 182, 186, 193, 197–198 84 88, 161, 206 93, 198 83–84, 101, 140, 178 192 12, 20, 23, 86, 93, 101, 151, 175–177, 180, 186–187, 189, 191, 195, 198 155 20, 77, 94, 180, 186, 197–198 175 198 220 198 77 188, 207 178 172 178 14, 84, 140, 188 188

9:23 9:23–24 9:23–26 9:23–28 9:24

9:24–26 9:24–28 9:25 9:25 – 10:14 9:26

9:26–28 9:27 9:27–28 9:28

10:1

10:1–2 10:1–3 10:1–4 10:1–9 10:1–11 10:1–18 10:1–23 10:1–25 10:2 10:2–3 10:3 10:4 10:5 10:5–7 10:5–8 10:5–10 10:7 10:7–10 10:8

77, 106, 160, 177, 187, 220 3, 4, 6, 160–163 142 7, 86–87, 102–103, 155, 180 20, 24, 68, 97–99, 102–103, 155, 157, 160–162, 165, 167, 182, 186, 193, 202, 206 26 98, 151–152 84, 140, 165, 176 176 3, 6, 8, 12, 20, 29, 35– 36, 40, 71, 73, 94–100, 102–103, 143, 151, 155, 164, 175, 177, 179–180, 183, 186– 187, 199, 23 100, 103, 152, 197 97, 103 102, 152, 159 3, 12, 20, 29, 47, 95– 98, 100–101, 104–106, 132, 149, 151, 176, 180–181, 183, 186, 197, 199 4, 6, 36, 43, 58, 61, 91, 105–106, 113–118, 122, 163, 195 195 116, 201 122, 128, 206–207 36 162 123, 128 167 10, 142 103, 162 118, 190 116 14, 187 8 105, 170, 172–174 120 169, 193 122 173 122

Index of Ancient Sources 10:9 10:10

10:10–14 10:10–18 10:11 10:11–12 10:11–14 10:12

10:12–13 10:12–14 10:12–18 10:13 10:14

10:15 10:15–17 10:16 10:16–17 10:17 10:17–18 10:18 10:19

10:19–20 10:19–21 10:19–22 10:19–23

10:19–25 10:19–31

20, 67, 73, 77, 80, 105, 120–123, 128, 186 12, 20, 23, 95, 101, 116, 122–123, 128, 151, 155, 159, 176, 180, 183, 186–187, 189, 192–193 96, 151 124 116, 128, 187 116, 123 76, 206 7, 12, 20, 45, 95, 116, 152, 155, 157, 166, 176–177, 180, 182– 183, 186, 202, 213 7, 180, 213, 215 96–97, 155, 170 128 44, 100, 128, 149 12, 20, 45, 95, 101, 116, 122–123, 151, 155, 176, 180, 182– 183, 186–187, 189, 192–195 23, 193, 200 170, 200 123, 125, 200 20, 82, 186 82, 186, 188 12, 20, 116, 122–123, 152, 183, 186 82, 187–188 7, 11, 23, 116, 124– 125, 165, 175, 189, 193, 202–204, 206– 207, 217, 223, 225– 226, 228 23 17, 96, 155, 202–203, 225 7, 49, 98 20, 134, 149, 151, 171, 180, 187, 191, 195, 201, 204, 206, 210, 217, 219, 223, 225–227 51, 124–125, 130, 132, 139, 155, 157, 227, 229 135, 221

10:19–39 10:20 10:20–21 10:21 10:22

10:23

10:24 10:24–25 10:24–31 10:25

10:25–26 10:26 10:26–27 10:26–29 10:26–31 10:26–39 10:27 10:27–31 10:28 10:28–29 10:29

10:29–31 10:30 10:31 10:32 10:32–34 10:32–36 10:32–39 10:33 10:33–34

273 36, 124, 127, 130, 132, 134–135, 152 125, 165, 175, 203, 210, 223, 226 7, 96, 157, 170 16, 20, 159, 186, 223, 225 7, 12, 20, 23, 90, 101, 104, 116, 124–125, 151, 167, 183, 186– 187, 189, 191, 202, 204, 207, 223, 225– 226, 228 11, 15, 23, 82, 105, 124, 127, 138, 207, 217, 223, 226–228 23, 177, 223, 226 226 217 10, 12, 15, 24, 93, 124–125–128, 130, 207, 223, 226 23 12, 128–129, 152, 177, 200 129 54 23–24, 124, 126–132, 134, 187, 200, 226, 231 101, 135 17, 65, 126–127, 129– 130 187 73, 127, 129 131 10, 12, 20, 101, 127– 128, 149, 151, 155, 175, 183, 186–187, 192–193 129 23, 126–127, 129, 131 127 24, 131, 133, 151, 231 10, 12, 46, 131–132, 142, 150, 221, 223 58 48, 124, 129, 135 131, 224 12

274 10:34 10:35 10:35–39 10:36 10:37 10:37–38 10:37–39 10:38 10:38–39 10:39 11:1 11:3 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:8 11:8–10 11:9 11:10 11:11 11:13 11:13–16 11:16 11:19 11:20 11:23 11:24 11:24–26 11:24–27 11:25 11:26 11:27 11:35 11:37 11:38 11:39–40 11:40 12:1 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–11 12:2

12:2–3 12:2–4

Index of Ancient Sources 16, 69, 77, 131, 137, 144 15, 23, 82, 127, 133, 138, 228–229 10, 131–132, 134 105, 127, 131 29, 124, 130, 132 29, 132–133 3, 151 127, 207 132 23, 82, 127 99–100 8, 23, 69 67 90, 104, 204 8, 101 210 144 147 36, 150, 164, 210 226 142 143, 210 36, 77, 164, 210 83 43 148 144, 148 16, 210, 228 144 144, 147–148 144, 147–148 144 77, 94 53 8 142 23, 77 11, 23–24, 105, 205 23, 221 46 217, 221–222 7, 16, 96, 136–137, 142–143, 149, 157, 164, 166, 170, 182, 195, 197, 202, 213, 215, 225 155, 175–176, 180 221

12:3 12:3–4 12:3–13 12:4 12:5 12:5–6 12:5–11 12:7 12:7–8 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:10–17 12:11 12:12 12:12–13 12:14 12:14–16 12:14–17 12:15 12:16 12:16–17 12:18 12:18–21 12:18–24 12:18–29 12:19 12:20 12:21 12:22 12:22–24

12:23 12:24 12:25 12:25–26 12:25–29

12:26 12:26–27 12:26–28 12:26–29

7, 143 10, 101 13 10, 12–13 193 170, 218 148, 187, 193, 221, 228 10 13 224 23 192, 224 205 193 23, 11 102, 192 10 23–24, 192 53, 192, 207 144, 192 54 65, 68 66, 187, 207 70, 77, 104, 142 24, 66, 69 70 70 187 24, 36, 138, 164, 195, 204, 207, 214, 222 7, 49, 90, 149, 157, 164, 171, 187, 205– 207, 210, 222 20, 195 77, 96, 151, 155, 157, 167, 169–170, 175, 180 12, 23–24, 64, 66, 70, 72, 74, 187, 207 74 7, 63–64, 66–67, 70– 74, 122, 126–127, 131, 137, 164, 187 64–65, 70, 72–73, 170, 226 64–65, 71, 74, 103 72 187

Index of Ancient Sources 12:27 12:27–28 12:28 12:28–29 12:29 13:1 13:2–19 13:3 13:5 13:6 13:7 13:8 13:9 13:9–16 13:10 13:10–12 13:11 13:12

13:12–13 13:12–14 13:13 13:13–14 13:13–16 13:14

13:14–15 13:14–16 13:15 13:15–16 13:16 13:18–19 13:20 13:20–21 13:21 13:22 13:22–24 13:23 13:24

64–65, 67–69, 71–74, 89, 122 4 3, 16, 23, 64, 68, 73– 74, 122, 207 23 64–66, 73–74, 126– 127 24, 69, 137 10 12 226 223 138 8, 45, 135, 137–138, 179 11, 15, 24, 135, 137– 138, 140–141, 207 135, 140, 142, 210 23, 135, 140–142, 162 3 135, 140, 165 12, 20, 95–96, 101, 135, 141, 143, 151, 169, 175, 183, 186– 187, 189, 192–193 13, 46 35 12, 23, 131, 135–136, 139, 142, 144 130–131, 210 217 3, 6, 8, 43–44, 69, 71, 106, 135–137, 149, 151, 157, 164, 209–210 23–24 145 20, 23, 137, 207, 226– 227–228 135, 141 137 10 8, 20, 74, 149, 175, 180–181, 186 23 45 1, 19, 21, 24, 221 10 94 193

275

James 5:3

40

1 Peter 1:3–9 1:5 1:11 1:19–21 1:20 2:24

3 40 89 3 40, 94, 97 183

2 Peter 1:11 1:14 3:3 3:5–7 3:7–13

203 89 40 65 71

1 John 2:1 2:2 2:17 2:18 3:2 3:8 5:19

183 183 71 40 102 35 33

Jude 1:4 1:18

67 40

Revelation 1:13 3:12 7:15 11:19 14:15 14:17 15:5–8 16:1 16:17 21 21:2

184 138, 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 71 138

Index of Ancient Sources

276

7. Greco-Roman Authors Aeschines Against Ctesiphon 3:39 121 Aristotle Metaphysics 1024a 4

Ps. Aristotle On the Cosmos 392b 27 43 400b 29 67

Cicero De republica 3:14

Euripides Hippolytus 419–430 Homer Iliad 6:266–268

121

Longinus On the Sublime 26:2 99 Lucian Octogenarians 7

43

On Sacrifices 11

117

The Passing of Peregrinus 12–13 142

158

Lysias On the Olive Stump 16 190

207

Demosthenes On Halonnesus 35 43 Epictetus 3:22.94–96

Isaeus Cleonymus 1:14

150 150

Corpus Hermeticum 11:2 68 Demetrius On Style 214

191

67

Athenian Constitution 29:4 121

Arrian Anabasis 3.1.5 3.2.1

Odyssey 4:750–752

Plato Phaedrus 246A – 249D 249C

119 119

Symposium 211A

120

Cratylus 401D 432B 439A

197 108 108

190–191

190

191

The Republic 6.508C 107 6.509E – 510E 108 7.515–517 108 Timaeus 28A 29A 29A–B

110, 120 107 114

Index of Ancient Sources 29B 30A 32C 33A 37C 37D 38A 48E 51D 51D – 52C 92C

107 119 71 71 120 107 68 120 119 119 107

Epistles 7.341C

118

Plotinus Ennead 3.7.6 6.3.27 Plutarch Isis and Osiris 372F 373A 373B

Divine Vengeance 554.10 190 Table Talk 718F 113 Seneca De beneficiis 7.7.3

158

Epistles 94:31

21

Suetonius Claudius 25:4

149

68 68

Tacitus Annals 15.44.6

149

112 113 113

Timaeus of Locri On the Nature of the World and the Soul 1–41 112 43 [99D] 112 43–86 112

8. Rabbinic Writings m. Sanhedrin 10

277

30

Index of Modern Authors Adams, E. 71 Aitken, E. B. 150 Alexander, P. 165 Allison, D. C. 95 Anderson, C. P. 1, 36, 49, 63, 151 Anderson, D. R. 60 Anderson, G. A. 122 Andriessen, P. 61 Annas, J. 108 Aschim, A. 47–48, 185 Attridge, H. W. 13, 24, 51–52, 54–55, 59, 78–79, 83, 87, 94, 99, 105–106, 113–115, 121–122, 128, 139–142, 149, 158, 160, 165, 172–173, 177, 179, 183, 191, 193–195, 203, 213– 215, 217, 219, 223–224, 226–229 Backhaus, K. 139, 145, 227 Balla, P. 222 Barclay, J. M. G. 145–147 Barker, M. 165, 184 Barrett, C. K. 5–6, 36, 44, 47, 51, 99, 116, 120, 209 Bartchy, S. S. 221 Barth, M. 218 Bauckham, R. J. 65–66, 216, 225 Beale, G. K. 56 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 56 Beyschlag, W. 184 Bloomquist, L. G. 32, 36 Bosman, P. 190–191 Brawley, R. L. 7, 17, 47, 100 Bruce, F. F. 14, 52, 55, 59, 79, 83–84, 115, 141 Buchanan, G. W. 39, 50, 79, 87, 89, 121 Caird, G. B. 46, 80–81, 89, 114, 201 Carey, G. 32, 36 Carlston, C. E. 128 Chester, A. N. 96, 116, 172 Cockerill, G. L. 93, 176, 181, 198, 214

Cody, A. 83–84, 92, 158, 162–164, 181–182 Cohn, N. 32 Collins, J. J. 31–34, 36, 66, 95, 145– 147, 167 Cornford, F. M. 107 Croy, N. C. 221–222 Davidson, R. M. 125, 178 De Boer, M. C. 34–35 DeConick, A. D. 170–171 Delitzsch, F. 89, 121 DeSilva, D. A. 6, 15–16, 24, 50, 54–55, 57, 64, 70, 79, 86, 101, 106, 121, 139, 144–145, 149, 159, 163, 177, 192, 194, 196, 198, 206, 225, 228– 229 Dillon, J. 110, 112–113, 119 Douglas, M. 187 Dunn, J. D. G. 41, 192, 200 Dunnill, J. 13, 20, 84, 96, 170–171, 224 Dunning, B. 139, 141 Eberhart, C. A. 159 Ehrman, B. D. 114 Eisele, W. 4, 113 Eisenbaum, P. M. 9, 11, 14, 81, 141, 144, 219 Ellingworth, P. 6, 11–12, 39, 42, 46, 51–52, 55–56, 60, 62, 70, 72, 74–75, 79, 83, 85, 87, 89–91, 94, 97, 105– 106, 121–122, 125, 128, 135, 138, 141–142, 158, 160, 165, 179, 188, 191–192, 195, 200, 202 Elliott, J. H. 45, 221, 224 Elliott, M. A. 34 Emmrich, M. 87–88, 180 Engberg-Petersen, T. 20–21 Eskola, T. 158, 166, 185, 214–216, 225 Esler, P. E. 205 Evans, C. A. 149 Filson, F. V. 14

Index of Modern Authors Fitzmyer, J. A. 94 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 171, 205 Frey, J. 31, 33 Frilingos, C. A. 102 Gammie, J. G. 30 Gelardini, G. 24–25 Gheorghita, R. 44, 132, 165, 185, 219 Gieschen, C. A. 214 Gleason, R. C. 69, 79, 129–131, 214 Goulder, M. 17, 214 Grabbe, L. L. 145 Grässer, E. 4, 62, 79, 87, 89, 94, 98, 100, 106, 113, 121, 136, 139, 179, 192–193, 195, 208–209, 215, 226– 228 Gray, P. 13, 174, 221, 227, 229 Grogan, G. W. 52 Grossman, M. 59 Gruen, E. S. 104, 145–147 Guthrie, G. H. 19, 41, 44, 51–52, 201, 218 Haber, S. 162, 166, 178 Hagner, D. A. 14, 83, 89, 97, 121, 126, 149, 229 Hahn, S. 198–199 Hanson, P. D. 31 Hay, D. M. 183, 215 Hays, R. B. 75 Hester, J. D. 36 Horbury, W. 62, 167 Horsley, R. A. 149 Hughes, G. 19, 72, 103 Hughes, J. J. 39 Hurst, L. D. 5–6, 9–10, 45–46, 62, 68– 71, 114–115, 158, 160–161, 163, 180, 209 Hurtado, L. W. 117, 215–216 Isaacs, M. E. 10, 13, 79, 81, 121, 125, 160–161, 178, 201, 206 Isaak, J. M. 10 Janzen, D. 187 Jewett, R. 209–210 Johnson, L. T. 163–164, 170–171, 172, 184–185 Johnson, R. W. 14–15, 58 Johnsson, W. G. 159, 187–188, 192, 196, 209–210 Kaiser, W. 123 Käsemann, E. 37, 79, 121, 208–209, 226

279

Kasher, A. 147 Kistemaker, S. 219 Kittel, G. 113 Klappert, B. Klassen, W. 66, 92 Kobelski, P. J. 33 Koester, C. R. 6, 13, 17, 23, 37, 41, 44, 46–47, 51–53, 55, 57–58, 62, 71, 79, 86–87, 89, 91, 97, 99, 106, 114, 121, 128, 134–135, 141, 143, 149, 160, 162, 165, 170, 179, 191, 196–197, 203, 207, 221–222, 226–227, 229 Köstenberger, A. J. 77 Kurianal, J. 61, 73, 182–183, 194, 196 Laansma, J. 49–50 Lane, W. L. 6, 13–14, 24–25, 47, 51– 53, 55, 70, 75–76, 79, 83, 87, 89, 91–92, 97, 104, 114–115, 121, 127– 128, 138, 140–141, 149, 157, 161, 167, 173, 177, 179, 181, 187, 191, 193, 196, 209, 227, 229 Lau, A. Y. 97 Laub, F. 96, 139, 189, 226–228 Lee, A. H. I. 213 Lehne, S. 77, 81–82 Leonhardt-Baltzer, J. 109, 192 Levenson, J. D. 167 Levison, J. R. 119 Lewis, T. W. 133 Lincoln, A. T. 51 Lindars, B. 11–12, 14, 19, 24, 58, 85, 115, 121, 140–141, 161, 184, 229 Loader, W. R. G. 227 Löhr, H. 206–207 Mackie, S. D. 218 MacRae, G. W. 4–5, 162 MacRay, J. 36 Malina, B. J. 29 Marshall, B. D. 123 Marshall, I. H. 97–98 Martens, J. W. 188 Matera, F. J. 2, 24, 53 Matlock, R. B. 31 McCullough, J. C. 59 McKnight, S. 128–129 Meier, J. P. 1, 5, 39, 157, 172 Ménégoz, E. 117 Metzger, B. M. 56, 91, 114 Meyers, C. 163 Michaelis, W. 203

280

Index of Modern Authors

Michel, O. 15, 19–20, 55, 79, 87, 89, 115, 129, 134, 193, 227 Minear, P. S. 219, 221 Mitchell, A. C. 221, 229 Modrzejewski, J. M. 146 Moffatt, J. 7, 40, 51, 55, 61–62, 79, 89, 91–92, 106, 115, 120–121, 158 Montefiore, H. 51, 83, 121 Motyer, S. 81, 85, 200–201, 207 Moxnes, H. 143 Nairne, A. 10, 79 Najman, H. 118 Nardoni, E. 53 Nash, R. H. 174 Nelson, R. D. 7, 13, 59, 76, 95–96, 141, 159, 167, 173, 176–179, 230 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 31–34, 117, 203 Nongbri, B. 15, 58, 101 Olbricht, T. H. 22 Osborne, G. R. 15, 101 Parker, R. 189, 191 Pate, C. M. 45, 50 Pearce. S. 146 Peterson, D. G. 76, 182, 192–196, 204, 207 Popkes, W. 21 Preuss, H. D. 126, 191 Proctor, J. 129, 132 Pursiful, D. J. 86, 209–210, 230 Radice, R. 117 Rawson, B. 221 Rhee, V. 60 Rissi, M 10, 16, 23, 82, 191, 194–195, 207–208, 219, 226 Rhoads, D. 24, 170 Rooke, D. W. 73 Rowland, C. 30–32, 34–35 Runia, D. T. 107–110, 112–113, 117, 119–120 Russell, D. S. 34, 55–56 Saachi, P. 34 Salevao, I. 14 Saunders, S. P. 1, 201 Schaefer, J. R. 175, 183–184 Schenck, K. L. 6, 40–41, 49, 72, 86, 96–97, 106, 113, 117–118, 158–160, 170, 177, 181, 184, 214, 222 Scholer, J. M. 16, 51, 174–175, 194– 196, 204–206, 227 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 159

Scott, E. F. 7, 172 Seid, T. W. 76–77 Sekki, A. E. 88 Seow, C. L. 167 Silva, M. 194–195 Slomovic, E. 185 Spicq, C. 14, 117–118, 128, 173, 209, 219–220 Stanley, S. 83, 86–87 Starr, J. M. 20 Stegemann, E. W. 159 Stegemann, W. 159 Sterling, G. E. 4–5, 106, 111–112, 114– 115, 117, 146–147, 160–162, 165 Stöckl Ben Ezra, D. 48, 96, 104, 141, 178, 180–181, 191 Stone, M. E. 56 Strecker, G. 30 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 215 Swetnam, J. 99, 204 Theissen, G. 106 Thiselton, A. C. 99 Thompson, J. W. 4–5, 15, 49, 51–52, 67–70, 79, 86, 106, 135–138, 158, 160, 220–221, 227, 229 Tobin, T. H. 108–110, 112, 115, 158 Tomson, P. J. 81 Toussaint, S. D. 131 Übelacker, W. 22–23, 25 Van Dam, C. 90 Vanhoye, A. 40, 51, 99, 162, 165, 167, 178–179, 192, 194, 210 Vielhauer, P. 30 Walker, P. W. L. 15, 24, 79, 84–85, 134 Wall, R. W. 75 Wallis, R. T. 190 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 7, 140, 142, 144, 173 Weiss, H.-F. 24, 89, 93, 106, 115, 121, 136, 139, 173, 194, 201, 204, 207, 223, 226–229 Westcott, B. F. 51, 87, 89, 121, 126 Westfall, C. L. 224 Whittaker, J. 110 Willa-Plein, I. 159 Willett, T. W. 34 Williamson, R. 1, 118, 120, 141, 161– 163, 209, 214, 228 Winston, D. 112, 118–119

Index of Modern Authors Wolff, H. W. 40 Wray, J. H. 51, 54 Wright, N. T. 103–104

281

Young, N. H. 14, 83, 85–86, 91–92, 96, 141, 143, 178–179

Subject Index aivw,nioj 39–40, 55–56, 94–95, 97 Angels 40, 43, 205, 214–215 avrchgo,j 45, 90, 194, 197, 220 Author of Hebrews – as pastor 22, 24–25 – as skilled rhetor 24–25, 58, 115 – personal acquaintance with community 1–2, 10–11, 56–58, 142, 184, 208 – use of LXX 44, 80–81, 132–133, 185, 200, 215–220 Christology 47–48, 96, 222 Coming world/city 6–8, 42–45, 47–48, 135–138, 151, 157 Community – eschatological views 4–5, 16–17 – as the family of God 189, 193, 210– 211, 218–230 – opponents 17, 129 – persecution 12–13, 131, 137–140, 142–145, 211, 222–223, 228–229 – possible apostasy 11–12, 53–55, 57, 81, 127–129, 134, 207 – situation in life 9–17, 79, 82, 129– 132, 217, 229–230 – waning commitment 11, 15, 23, 41, 56–57, 101, 127, 133–134, 217, 228– 230 Confession 139, 216–220, 223–230 Conscience 12, 86, 116, 119, 177, 190– 191, 201 Critique/Polemic – against the first covenant 77–82, 123, 198–199 – against the Jewish cult 13–15, 59–63, 72–75, 77, 85–88, 93, 103, 116–117, 120–123, 140–142, 162–163, 168, 172–173, 178–179, 195, 199, 206– 207

– against the Mosaic law 60–63, 72–75, 77, 115–123, 174 – against philosophic ascent 119–120 – against the Roman empire 145–150 dhlo,w 65, 88–90 Demons/Devil 33–35, 37, 181, 187 eivkw,n 106–115 Entry language 49–52, 54, 139–140, 202, 204–211, 223–225, 232 Eschatology – ambiguity 44, 48–51, 82, 193 – future 7–8, 34–35, 49–50, 71 – imminence 37, 45, 47, 49, 57–58, 65, 79–80, 103, 125–127, 133–135, 137, 151–152 – inaugurated/“now but not yet” 6–7, 16, 29, 36–37, 42, 44, 51, 56, 81, 87– 88, 90, 94–95, 130, 151–152, 157, 180, 198–199, 205, 208, 231 – Jewish apocalyptic 5–6, 30–35, 55– 56, 64–66, 115–117, 124–127, 158, 163 – realized 16–17, 50–52, 54–55, 82, 138, 198 – spatial/temporal 4–6, 31–32 – two-age/world 29–37, 39–40, 55–56, 87–88, 94–95, 151–152, 231 Exhortation – early Christian 21 – Greco-Roman 20–21 – Hebrews’ hortatory strategy 19–26, 48, 81, 102–103, 132, 134–135, 151– 152, 167–168, 189, 196, 201–202, 208, 216–217, 223, 226, 228–232 – perseverance 15, 24, 52, 54, 100–101, 104–105, 131, 137–138, 142–143, 228, 231

Subject Index – relation to doctrine 2, 19–20, 209, 219 – warning 23–25, 41–42, 53, 57–58, 65–66, 127–129, 134, 200, 226, 231 Fictive kinship 221 Genre, of Hebrews – apocalyptic discourse 36 – Christ-centered eschatological exhortation 151, 232 – eschatological exhortation 1–2 – liturgical drama 99, 170–171, 201– 202, 204, 217–220, 223–230 – speech/sermon 24–25 God – access to 83, 85–86, 88, 90, 124–125, 139, 182–183, 189, 191, 196, 199, 201–203, 218–220, 223–225, 229–230 – discipline of 13, 192–193, 221–222 – as Father 193, 215–220, 228–230 – as Judge 58, 66, 70, 124, 126–129 – requiring propitiation 186–187 – speaking 64, 70, 72, 81, 131, 170, 217–218, 229 Heavenly Sanctuary 157–168 – architecture and contents 92, 165– 168, 202–203 – as God’s dwelling place 158–159, 166–167, 213 – Hebrews’ reluctance to describe in detail 167–168 – location 157–158 – metaphor 158–159, 177 – origins of Hebrews’ theology of 90 High Priest Christology 59–60, 72–77, 122–123, 169–211 – entry into Heavenly Sanctuary 91–93, 161, 165, 167, 178–179, 196–197, 201–203 – everlasting nature 60, 72, 137, 179– 181, 198–199 – intercessory ministry 76, 182–183 – metaphor 158–159, 184 – ministry in Heavenly Sanctuary 98, 164, 181–183, 192–193 – providing access into Heavenly Sanctuary 72, 76, 90, 182–183, 189, 197–199, 201–208

283

– sacrifice 95–98, 175–181, 183–184 – scriptural basis/origins 180–181, 183–185, 213–214, 227 Holy Place 83, 165–166, 177–181, 196, 202–208, 225 Holy Spirit 56, 87–90, 193, 200–201, 216 Honor-shame 15–16, 136–137, 148– 150, 211 Jerusalem Temple 84–85, 140 Jesus’ identification with humanity 42, 45–48, 52–53, 151, 174, 182, 197, 210–211, 219–222 Jewish community in Alexandria 145– 148 Lordship of Jesus 41–42, 48, 80, 151 Melchizedek 59, 73, 84 me,nw 67–70, 73–74, 136–138 mesi,thj 198–199 meta,qesij 66–68, 71–73, 122 me,tocoi / mete,cw 52–53, 224 Midrash 36, 46, 65, 89, 135 New Covenant 77, 81–82, 200–201 oivkoume,nh 42–43, 214 Parousia 5, 97–98, 105, 132–135, 181, 199 parrhsi,a 191, 228–229 Philo of Alexandria 108–111, 117–120 Pilgrimage 143–145, 208–211 Platonic cosmology 3–4, 7–8, 67–71, 106–120, 123, 136, 160–164 Propriety/Necessity 220–221 Rest, eschatological 48–54 skia, 106–108 Son of God Christology 213–230 – enthronement/exaltation 7, 40, 42–45, 47, 181, 213–220 – incarnation 172–173 – obedience of the Son 172–174, 194 – relation to High Priest Christology 103, 166, 173–174, 185, 215, 224– 225, 227, 230, 232

284

Subject Index

– scriptural basis/origins 213, 215–216 – speaking 172–173, 218–220, 229 Soteriology 100–101, 200–201 – atonement 177, 186–187, 189 – cleansing/purification 187, 189–191 – forgiveness of sins 103–104, 186–189 – participatory 53 – perfection 194–196 – redemption 93–94, 197–199 – sanctification 182, 192–194 – swthri,a / sw,|zw 100–101, 197

Suffering – Jesus 42, 45–48, 96, 136–137, 139, 142–143, 150, 173, 175–176, 221 – community 12–13, 131, 137–140, 142–145, 221 u`po,stasij 52–53 Yom Kippur 83, 95–96, 135, 140–141, 177–181, 186, 191