LI BRARY OF NEW TESTAM ENT STUDIES
387 f ormerly t he j ounMI for t hf'" Study of t he N c,ow Test.tmf'llr Supplemetlt se,.ic>s
Edicor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board Joh n M.G. Barela)•. Craig BlombC'rg, R. Alan Culpcpp<.•r. j ames D.G . Dunn, Cr-.lig' A Evans, Stepht-n Fowl. Robcn. Fowler, Simon J. Gathcffolc, Mich.-.t"' Labahn, John ~. KloppcnborS. Robcn Wall. St('VC Walton, Robcn_ L \Vt"hb, Cinrin H. Williams
This page ilttemiollai(J' hifi bla11k
A CLOUD OF WITN ESSES
The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts
Ed ited by
Richard Bauckham Daniel Driver Trevor Hart Nathan MacDonald
.\\ 1& 1 clark
Copyright ;&; Richard Bauckham. Daniel Driver. Trevor Hart, Nathan MacDonald and contributors. 2008 l'ublished by T&T Clark A Coutinuum imprilll TI1e Tower Building. II York Road, London SEI 7NX 80 Maiden lane. Suite 704, New York, NY I0038 www.continuumbooks.com All rights re.<erved. No pan of this publication may be reproduced or tmnsmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo<.'lOpying. recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Oato A catalogue record for this book is :wailable from the British library. ISBN-1 3: HB: 97&-0-567-033-88-8 Typeset by Data St,mdards Ltd. Frome, Somerset. UK. Printed on acid-Ji·ee paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd. King's Lynn, Norfolk
CONTENTS
Abbreviations
vu
list of Contributo rs Introduction Nathan MacDonald I. H u>OJ: N S·roRI~ tN
xiii I Httw.kws:
CosMoLOGY ANO THH>touv
9
Jon Laansma 2 . T t.J E STRUCI L 'RI:.Ot- H E:BRt~ws: A WoROOf' ExuoR'I A 'IION IN L!ull'f Ot-·'r Ht: D.·\ \' Of AI'Ox E~tf:N I
19
Paul D'wid Landgr•f 3. T 1.J E E..~cHATOLO<-ii<.::-\L Wo Rto A LREAOY SunJH<.:'t'I::.O ·ro ., HE SoN: T~o-~t:. OiKOUIJivn of H t:JtRHws 1.6 ANU ·ntt:. Sox•s EN"t J.I RONEME.N'r
28
Ardel B. Canedoy 4.
Cumstos AS P1s1'os. THE F'Ait"H (Pt....LNEss) o..- J Esus IN 1'Ht:. E1•JsTtf:
1o 1 H t::
Ht:.BRJ: ws
40
Todd D. Still 5. T t·IE PASSION: R Ec:ONSJUERINU Christopher Richardson
6. ' IF A~O'II·II!R PRIEST A RisEs•:
H EBREWS
5.7-!i
51
JJ:svs· R I:.SUR REC'I ION ANU 'I HI~
HtuH P RJES'ILY CH R I~1'0L(XJY ot- H EBRE.ws
68
David M. Mollilt 7. PtoNJ~ER A :>it> P ERfl!;<-"'l 't:R: JosHUA TRAornoNs ..-\ NJ) 'II·I E C H RIS'I'O LOCiY Of H~IU{~WS
80
Bl)'"" J. Whitfield
8. ' Bu·r We. S~:.t:. J £sus· : THE R~LA.IIOXSHII' uE~IWEI:.N T l-IE SoN of MAN I N
H EBRt WS 2.6 ANO 2.9 ..-\ NI) 'II·I E fMI) I.ICA'fJ ONS f O I{ ENGLISH
TkANSLA IIO~S
Craig L. Blomberg
88
A Cloud of Witnesses
VI
9.
H EURt:.WS
7- 10 ANO
11·11= TRANSI-'OIU\'IA II0:-1 01~ 1'11t. L AW
JOO
Bany C. Joslin
I0. T 1-1E Nt:.w Covf~NA:>: 1 ..-\ NI) CmusTI.·\N I fJEN' n 'fY IN HJ::JmEws Peter Grabe I I. Ml:.LCl-IIZI:Uii K W II HOU1. Si•ECL LATION:
H EUR€WS
J 18
7. 1-2 5 ANO
GENESIS
14.17-24 Gareth Lee Cockerill
128
12. ''f1-11::. T J{ UE TtN'r WHIC H t i.J E LoRu H As Pn'<:I·IJ~o·: BALAAM>s 0RActes IN SecoNu TE~ti'Lfi JuuAtSM ANU IN HJ:BRt:ws
145
Philip A. F. Church
13. Pts·rts ANO
'E.IIUNAH:
T1-u: NA ruRH. of F..\1 fi.J
IN tHE Ei•lsTI.E.1'o
158
I J.J£ H EhRF.WS
Dennis R. Lindsay 14 . T i·IE ANTI-I~ti'I!RIAL RI·IE'l'ORIC Of H l~URI:WS 1.3: xapaKT~P AS A · D ouBLE- t.:.O(if.J) SwoJ{u·
170
Steven Muir
15. HEuREws 5.7, JEsus· PRAYER o N'IJ.JE
Mou~n
CwusTI.-\NII y : H E.-\RING EMu.Y C HRis"! JAN
Of 0LJVEs ANO JEwisH
VotCJ!s tN CANONJ<.:.>\L
187
ANO A POCR\' I'HAL T Ex"l s
Claire Clivaz 16. ' fi·IE
UNIVI!RS.'\L A:>:O E I'I! K NAL
VAuun'Y<>f hsus·
PR1Es·1LV SACRifiCE: T 1-1E E 1:o1sTLE '1'0 "HIE H EIHtr:ws IN SUI'I'OR'I of 0RKii: N·s T I·II!ORY <>P AI'<>KA1'As'rAsl s
210
llaria L. £. Rumelli Index o r A uthors
222
Index or Biblic-al Citations
227
Index or Other Citations
235
AUBR~VIATIONS
I En. 1- 2 Clem.
J £n. 3 Matf.
4 £:w
l.
I ( £1/iiopic) Enoch 1- 2 Clemen/ 3 ( Hebrew) Enoch 3 Macmbees 4 E:ra[ = 2 Esd. 3- 141 1st AJIOt'alrpsc• of James 2nd Apocalypse
(~{James
Genesis Apoayphon ( IQ20) H)mnsj flodayol
War Scroll Community Rulej Mamwl of Discipline Communify Rule ( IQ28a) Communif.r Rul" ( IQ2Sb) Visions of 'Amram (4Q544) War Sc.,.oll (4Q49 1) 4QI77 Songs of fill' Sobbmh Sacrifice (4Q40 1) Con.wlmions (4Q 176) 4Q280 Melc!Ji:edt•k (I IQJ3) Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), Tlw Andwr Bible Dicfiunary (New York: Doubleday. 1992) An<::ienl Christian Commentary on Scripture: Ne.w Testament Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistisc.:hen Judenlutns Analecta biblic~• Apocalypse of Abraham
Apomlypse o( Sedrach Apocryphon of E:ekii!l Aramaic Li_•vi
Walter Bauer, William F'. Arndt. F. William Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Gmek-
A Cloud of Wilncsscs
VIII
English Lexicon of the New Tr:stamelll ami 01her Early Chrisriau Litermure (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1979)
BBR
Bull"'i" for Bibliml Researd•
BCNH
L;,1
Bib Bib Res
Biblicu Biblical ReJ·r:twch
BIS BiTS BJS
Biblical Interpreta tion Series Biblical Tools and Studies Brown Judaic St udies
Bibliotheque copte de Nag Hammadi
BL£
Bulletin de Uuerarun! Ecdesiasrique
BNTC
Black's New Testament Commentaries
BT BTB BZ CBQ CJT
The Bible Twnslulor Biblictd Tlu:olog)' Bulle!in Bibliscile Zeilscilri(l C(/ffJOiic Biblical Quum:rlr Clllilolic Biblical Quamrlr, Mono~.raph Series Cairo Damasru.\· Documenl Canadian Joumal of Theolog)'·
Clement
Clement
CBQMS
co
Quis a;.,.., sail'. S1r.
Didymus the Blind
In Ps. EKKNT £.¥~Bib Esv
ETL E:usebius Ecd. lfwol. Hiu. Ecd.
ErQ ExpTim FRLANT
GTJ GusSm' HALOT HNT HNTC HSM
Quis dires saf~·etur Srromata Didymus the Bli nd
Comcnlllrii in Psalmos Evang,elisch-K:uholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
E.mulios biblic·os English Standard Ve rsion .f."'phemerides rheofogirae Joranienses Eusebius
Di• etc/(!siasrica theologia Historia Erdesias·rii·a Erdngelicaf Quarlerly Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Allen und. Neuen Testaments Grafe Theo!O,f{icttf Journal
Gospel of the Sm·iour Ludwig Koehler eta/. (eds . ). Hebri~W ami Aramaic Lexicon of/he Old TeswmeJJI (5 vols; Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1994-2000) Handbuch :wm Neuen Testament Harper's New Testament Commentaries Harvard Semitic Monographs
A bbr(!~·iat ions
HSS
Harvard Sernilic Studies
HTR HUCA
Harrard Tlwologiml Re~·irw Hebrew Union College Annual
IBC ICC
lnle rpretalion Bible Commenlary Internationa l C ritical Commentary
1111 lnvLU('
lntr:rpretation fm,igilaia Lua!mis
lren
lrenaeus Adw•nw.s Haerl!ses
Ad•'· Haer. JBL JBMW J£CS Je rome Comm. !\{au.
JETS JJS JSJSup
JNSL Jos. Ascm. Josephus Am.
Apion War
.IQR JSNT JSNTSup
JSOT JSOTSup
Jub. Juslin /)i(ll.
KEK
LAB LCL LNTS LSJ
Journal of Bibliml Literature Joumal of Bibliml j\{(m/wod am/ J.Yomanlwod Jtmmal of Ear!J Christian Swdies Jerome
Comnu:nwriorum in Emugelium Mallhei libri quatuor Journal of lilt! Ewmgelica/ Theological Society Journal of Je~..:ish Studie..Y Jtmmalfor the Studr ofJudaism. Supplement Se ries Journal of Norlfuresr Semith' Languages Joseph aud Aseueth Josephus
Antiquities of tht• Ji~Jrs Against Api(Ju Thr! Jt.•Jrish War Jeu·ish Quaru~r~r Rerit.•Jr Jouma/ for the• Swdy of Ehe Ne~r 1(::aamelll Jounwlfor tht• StJu~r of the Ne~r Te.wmu:nt. Supplement Series Joumul{i>r the S11ulr ~(the Old 1i:swment Jtmmul for the Study o{the Old Testament, Supplement Series Jitbilees Justin Dialogue 1rith Tryplw Krilisch-e.xeg.etischer Kommentar Uber das Neue Teslamenl Liher Antiquitawm Biblitarum Loeb Classic"! Library
Library of New Testamenl Series H.G. Liddell. Robert Scoll and H. Stuart Jones. Greek-tlr[!;lis/r Lexium (Oxford: Clarendo n Press. 9th edn. 196H)
LTK
LXX
IX
Lexikon fiir Tlu:o!O,f:il! rmd Kirdtl! Septuagint
A Cloud of Witnesses
X
m. yonur
.\f'r .NAH
!\fis/mah, Yoma .~.
.XEh
edn National Associa tion of Ba ptist Prolessors of Religion. Dissertation Se ries New American Standard Bible New English Bible
Ne(ll
Neott!stamen1it a
NJCNT
New Interna tio nal Commentary on t he New Testament The New lnterna tion;ll Greek Testa ment Commenta ry
NA BPR ~AS IJ
NIGTC .XIV
New Internatio nal Version
NIVAC
N l V A pplica tion Commentary
.NIVI
NovTSup
Nl V Inclusive language Version New Jerusalem Bible Novum Testwmmtum Nc)vwu Tcstamelllum, Supplements
NRSV
New Re-•ised Sta ndard Version
NRT
La mmrtdlc rerue !lu~ologique Neutestame-nlliche Abhandlung.e-n Das Neue Testame-nt Oeulsch Novum Teslamentum et orbis antiquus Neu· Tesranumt Studies
NJ U
NorT
NTAbh NTD NTOA
NTS
Nn
New Testament Theology
Num.R Numbers Rabbaii Origen Origen Comnumtarium in Camit·wn Cantieorum Comm. in Canr. Cmmn. in /o. Commenlllrii in ewmgclium lommis Comm. in tlfal. Sm·. Comnumtariorum series in ewmgelium !Htwhaei Camm. in Rom. Commentarii in Rommws Commeutarium in £pi:itulam ttd Thesst1ltmiceses Comm. in Tlu:ss. (lost work)
C. Ceis. De or. H om. iu Job
Hom. in Lel'. Phifoe. Prine. Sel. in Ps. OTP
Contra Cl!lsum De orllfione Homiliae in Job Htnniliae in Lt!l'ilicum Philo<·a/ia De principiis Stdecllt iu Psa/mos James Charlesworth (ed .). Old Tesumw11
Pseudepigrapha
Pesiq.R.
Pesiqta Rabbati
Abbn!~·iat ions
PG
Xl
J.-P. Migne (ed .). Palrologia c·ursus tomp/rltl . .. Series gracca (166 vols: Paris: Pelit-Montrouge,
1857- 83) Philo Abr.
Couf Ling. Congr.
Philo Dc Abralwmo
DC! <'OI~{ftsiom~ linguarum
Del . Pol. Jus.
De <·ongressu (!rudiJiouis ,(lratia Quod deterius potiori insidiari so/eat
Ebr.
De ebrielflte
Fug.
De jitga el intrtmtione Dt! giganribus De ./osepho Legum allegoriae Dr. migration(! Abralwmi Dr: mutatioue uominum D(' opifido mwuli D(! Plantatione Dl! poslrrilllte Caiui De Pral!miis N Poeuis Quis rerum di~·inarum /l(:rrs sit Dr: sacrijiciis Abefl:r l'l Caini D(• :wmuiis D(! specia/ibu... legihus Dl! \'illl JHosis
G(~.
Jos. Leg. All. Migr. Abr. Mul . Nom. Op. Mwrd. Plwlf. I'Mier. C. Praem. Rer. [)i••. HN. Sau.
Somu. Sjwr. Leg. Vii. Mos. Pss. Sol.
QO Re••Exp Re~·Q
RTR SBL
SBLOS SBD-!S SBLSCS
SBT
sc
SJT SKA B
SNT
SNTS~·!S
SPll
SrDJ SwdBib'l'lr
SVTP
Psalms of Solomon Quaestiones dispulatae Rt·~·iew ami Expositor Reme drt Qumran the Reformed Theologicol Revicll'
or
Society Biblical Litera ture SllL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Se ries SBL Septuagint and Cognate St udies
Studies in Biblk-.al Theology Sources chnhiennes Scouish Joumal of Theology Schriflen der K~ttholischen Akademe in Bayern Studien zum Neuen Testament Society lOr New Testament Studies 'Monograph Series Studia postbiblica Studies in the Texts the Desert Studia Bihfi('(t et Tlleolo_s:i('(l
or
or Judah
Studia in Veteris Testamenli pseudepigrapha
xii
A Cloud of Wifnesses
1'. Dan T. Gad T. Jos. T. Le"i 1'. Naph. T. Reub. 1'. Sim.
Ti!stamenl of Dan T,•swmellf of Gad T!!sltlmenf of Jusi!ph Tc:Wtmelll of Levi Testament of ."laphtali T(:stamenl of Reuben Ti!stamenl of Simeon
fCN'I'
Twentieth Century New Testa ment Gerhard Kille) and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological DictimUuJ oft/U' New Te:;Fmm:lll (twns. GeoiTrey W. Bro miley; 10 vols; Grand Rapids: Eerdma ns, 1964- )
TDNT
Tes1. XII Pair.
Tg. Tg. Neof
Tg. Onq. Tg. Ps-Jo. ThZ
nz
Ti!stamems of t/1(! Twelre Pmriarchs Targunt Targum Neojiti Targum Onqe/os Targuut Pseudo-Jonathan Theologisrhe ZeiHchrifl Theologisclte Lileratur:t~i!ung
I NIV
Tod;iy's New lntemationa l Version
TQ
Theo/ogische Quarwlschri(t Theologisrlte Realenzyklopli'dil! Texte und St udien zum antiken Judentum
TR£ TSA.I TWNT 1)-nBul
vc
VC$
VD
V£ Vis£:
VT VTSup
Gerhard Kiuel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds),
Tlwologisches WO'rterbudt :um Nemm Teswmeltl (I I vols; StullgarL Kohlhammer, 1932- 79) Trmlale Bulletin Ji((!iliat~ clrriSiilUwe Vigiliae chri:ilianae. Supplement Series Verbum domini Vo.r Emugelim
Vision of E:ra Yews Tesumumtwu Yew.~ Tesumumfrlm. Suppleme nts
WllC WMANT
Word Biblical Commenta ry Wissenschaftliche ~·lonographien z um Allen und Neue.n Testa ment
WTJ
W{•stminster Th(!ologi('a/ Journal WissenschaCtliche Untersuchun~.en zum Neuen
WONT
Testament
ZAC ZNW
Ztdts!·hrijt jli'r Amikes Cltrisle!Uum Zeit:u:hrifl fli'r die neutestameutlich(!
Wiss.l!nsc/u~fi
CO:-
Craig L. Blomberg. Oistin~uished Professor or New Te.starnent. Denver Seminary. Colorado. USA Rkhard IJauckham. Wardlaw Professor of New Testament Emeritus. University of St Andrews. UK Ardel 1!. Caneday. Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical Theolosy. Northwestern College. St Paul. Minnesota . USA Philip A. F. C hurch , Senior Lecturer in Biblic·al Studies. ·r yndale-Carey G raduate School. Auckland. NZ
Claire Clivaz.. Professor or New Testament and Early Christian literature, Universil y of Laus.anne, Switzerland Gareth l ee Cockerill, Professor of New Testament a nd Biblical Theology, Wesley lliblical Seminary. Jackson, .\•lississippi. USA Daniel R. Driver, Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Tyndale University College. Toronto, Canada
Peter Oriibe-, Professor of New Testament. Regent University. Virginia Beach, Virginia. USA Trevor Hart. Professor of Divinity. University of St Andrews. UK Barry Joslin. Assistant Professor of Christian Theology, Boyce College, louisville. Kentucky, USA Jon La:msma, Associate Professor of Ancient Languages and New Testament, Wheaton College. Illinois. USA
Paul David Landgraf. Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Covenlry. UK Dennis R. l indsay. Vice President ((>r Academic All'airs. Nonhwest Christian Unh•ersity. Eugene. Oregon . USA David Moffit t. Doctoral candidate.
·n,e
Graduate School, Duke
XI V
A Cloud of Witnesses
University. North Carolina, USA and Visiting Lecturer, The Divinity School. Duke University, North Ca rolina, USA Steven .:\·tuir. Assochtte Professor or Religio-us Studies, Concordia University College of Alberta. Canada Nath'm MacDonald , ucturer in Old Testa ment. University o f St And rews. UK lla ria L. E. Ra melli. Assistant Professor o f Ancient Philosophy, Catho lic University of the Sacred Heart. Milan. llaly
Christopher Richardson. Doctoral candidate, Universit}r of Aberdeen. UK Todd D. Still. Associate Pro les.sor of Christian Scriptures. George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Waco. Texas. USA
Bryan Whitfield. Assistant Professor or Christianity, Mer(·er University. Macon. Georgia, USA
I NTKOL>UCrJO;.J
Nathan ~·lacDonald T he book or Hebrews o ile rs. its readers numerous puzzles. Its date, provenance and authorship a re unknown. 1~he solutions o lli?red to these questions of introduction <.~an make a signitkant dillerence to how the epistle is re~1d. To select but o ne e;(ample. the question of whether thebook iS Wrillen befo re Or after the fall Of Je ruSalem in AI) 70 makes nO little difference to the writer's condudin~ observation that ' he-re we have no lasting city'. A d ifferent puzzle is preSented by the book's lo rm. Often tailed the 'epistle to the Hebrewf, a nomenclature establishing a relationship to the Pauline epistles. the book is more often seen today as a homily, or as Hebrews i(selr puts it •a word o r e;(hortation· (13.22). Yet our knowledge of Jewish ;md Christian sennons in the first ~.:entury i.s poor and many questions remain about its homiletical purpose and structure. ~n1e question of conceptual inHuence is more cornplic~lled still. fo r a variety or inlluences have been d iscerned in the epistle. Platonism, Alexandrian Judaism, the Juda isms represented ~it Qumran, pre-Christian Gnosticism a nd various early Christian trad itions jostle with o ne a nothe-r in scho larly reconstructio ns o f the con<.".Cptual backg.round of a book that is bo th tho most Hellenistic and the most indebted to the Old Testa ment of the New Testarnenl corpus. T he essays in the present volume touch upon t hese interpretative questions and many others. Ea<.~h o f t he essays was originally deli vered as a short pa per a t a conference on the epistle to t he Hebrews and Christian Theolo!iy held in the University of St Andrews in the summer of 2006. Each of the essays is conc:emed with some aspect o f t he t heology or the epistle when viewed within its ancient historica l context.
Cosmology tuul Su·uctttrt! in Jiebreu·s T he cosmology of Hebrews has been ~· particular challenge to interpreters o f the book. With a contrast between earthly and heavenly - t he latter judged better than the fo rmer - the book's cosmology appears to owe
2
A Cloud of Witnesses
muc.h to Platonic. ideas. On the other hand. Hebrews does not seem to rellect :l negative dualism whe-n it describes the materia l world. In opposition to the widespre-a d opinion that Hebrews foresees the annihilation or the material universe and the relo<.~at i on or persons into the heavenly realm , Jon Laansma argues that in Hebrews creation is being reclaimed as God's temple. By examining Hebrewf a rgument, the positive a pproat'h to c reation in c:hs 1- 4. the bat'k~:round of the resting_place idea of 3.7-4.11, the use o f Haggai in 12.25-29, a nd indic,.tions interna l to 4.14- 10.25 he concludes that the homily does not expect the end of the (.XlSmos. but ra ther God 's j udgement. cleansing. removal of that whkh opposes God. and then enlr.tn<:e into the pla<.-.e of salvation which goes under various names, su<.~h as the hea,•e nly tabemacle and city. Rather than a world-negating dualism in the writi ng;·s cultic symbolism. the writer works with the idea that the heavenly world was a patlern fo r t he earthly tabernacle/ law, whic h was itself a shadow or the state o r t he world to <.~me ( 10.1 ), a world identified with the pre-existing pattern shown to Moses on the mountain. In dispensing with a shadow or copy the write r is not dispensing wilh t he world but wilh a (foature of it tha t had provisional typological import. Hi~hlighting a possible implication of s uch cosmology. Paul Landgraf gives partic:ular a ue ntion to t he topical s tructure o f the epistle. All interpreters agree that the book of Hebrews is carefully constructed by :1 writer with considerable rhetorkal s kill. Yet how is one to understand the structure of this 'word of exhortation··? Why docs the epistle start \\~th a oompa rison o r Jesus to the angels (ch. l). then proceed to his lowering (chs 2-4). and then to focus on his exaltation. that he is the s reatest High Priest (c:hs 5- JO)'? In Landgrafs view the ansv.·er best lining the e'•idence is that this work mirrors the most s ignilkant actions o n the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Complicated speeches in ancient times were o utlined a<.'Cording to the layout of a building, ;md the Day of Atonement draws its most signifkant elements from the layout of the tabernacle. Jesus' t"'mparison to the-ang_ els relates to the High Priest's unique line-n clothi n~ on that day. Jesus' lowering relales to the time of sacrifice. Jesus' exaltation rela te-s to t he High Priest's highly significan t e ntrance into the Most Holy Place. The Day of Atonement and t he s tructure o f the Tabernade would have allowed the epistle-· s listeners to loca•e themselves within the epistle. whilst also pointing to the Day o r Atonement's fulfi llment in Christ. Jrsus
Chn:~t
iu
f/ebr(~ll's
At the heart of the epistle to the Hebrews is Jesus C hrist and :ln ::tfl'irmatio n or his supremacy. T he p resentation o r Jesus as the 'exact
lntroduct ion
3
imprint of God's very being' alongside the emphasis on his incarnation was import~tnt for later developments in the early t.·hurt·h. Jn addition no other book gives such dose attention to Chrisfs intercessory activity as a priest or the naLUre of his sacrificial offering. These distinctive aspects o r Hebrews' Christology generate conversation wit h other New Testa ment texts and the ideas of the tlrst-eentury world. Ardel Caneday examines the relationship betwee.n t he oiKOUjlEVr) o r Heb. 1.6 and the enthronement of Chrisl. Although t he verse has several complexities, he notes that the me.anin~ of 'and again when he brings the f irstborn into T~v oiKovjlEvr)v· is key. Deceptively simplistic int uitions skew its meaning as though the. reference were to Jesus· nativity. Mo re plausibly. Caneday argues 1.6 depkts Christ's exaltation over the habitable world that is yet to come. The text portrays the Son as exalted (1\'('r the an~els who worship him, not his beingmadr /o~rer than t he angels in his incarna tion (2.9). l n contrast. \Vhen the write r wishes to depict the Son's inca rnation. he says. 'when he came into t he K0o)Jov· not 'when he carne into the oiKOUIJEvr)· (10.5). Further substantiation is provided by the o ther use or oiKOU)JiVr) in Hebrews in 2.5 - ' no t to a ngels has he subjecled the habitable world to come' (TIJV oiKou~iv~v T~v ~iiiJ.ouoav). Hebrews 1.6 depicts the Son ~iS already exalted over lhe ang.els when God brought him into Tl)v oiKou~u~VIlV. l ' his is in keeping with the Son's portrayal as ·crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death. (2.9). Jesus. the f'irstb<)rn, whom God led into nlv oiKoupEvr)v. c rowning him with glory and honor. ' feuds many sons into glory" (2.10). on whose behalf he was made perltx~t through suffering.. In his essay Todd Still gives atte ntion {O lhe n-tithrulness o r Jesus in theepistle to the Hebrews. He observes that although New Testa ment scho lars have been engaged in lively debate over the precise nua nces of the oblique Pauline phrase pistis Chriswu for some llfty years, surplisin_gly little academic a ttention has been given to the topic of Jesus' l'aith(fulness) within Hebrews. Conseq uently Still examines t he recurring comments regarding Jesus· fidelity in Hebrews with a view to d iscovering both thesubstance and t he significance or this ChristologicaJ belief ror the epistle ·s author and audience. "f his is an important task since it enables a fuller understanding of' and appreciation lOr Hebrews· signal contribution to the New Testament canon. in relation to Christology in general and Jesus· faith(fulness) in particular. Christopher Rkha rdson examines one of lhe most theologically intriguing. passages with the epistle. Heb. 5.7-8. where Jesus oners up loud cries and tears. This JXlSSage has resulted in various exeg.etical questions a nd dil1kulties which have cre-.tted constant confusion and d isagreement among exegetes and t heologians. Richa rdson seeks to resolve these d illkulties by a rguing. a~ainst the reigning consensus, that Heb. 5.7-8 is a creative reference to Jesus' high priestly sufferings a t
4
A Cloud of Witnesses
Gu/gotha. Rat her than evoking the a nguish or Gethsemane. or conlhning. the l WO events or Gethsemane and Golgotha. the author has situated his t"'mments into a larger d iscourse concerning t he maile rs of priesthood and S:tl'rilke (4. 14-5.10). Consequently, this enables the audience to compare and contrast Jesus with Aaron and Ylekhizede-k . The author·s depiction o r Jesus on the cross is a ltogether unique and unpa ralleled in the canon. but the histo rical referent is unaffected as the autho r seeks to emphasize the importan('e of Jesus learning to obey (and trust) God during his most agonizing test (2.18. 4.15). By presenting Jesus in this manner. his superlative ex~amp l e of "piety' or ·re\'e rence· has tx..~n established. esped a lly in relation to dnl\~t'ing ne~r to God wilh "<.~onli dell(.-e· (4.16) - the very thing that the author exhorts his a udience to do. David ·MollilCs essay moves us from Hebrews· unique po rtrayal of the crucifixion to the epistle's understatement about restln ection. Hebrews co nta ins almost no explicit reference to Jesus· resurrection. Among other factors. this silence has led to a t2,enera l consensus th~1t Jesus· resurrection per se docs not significa ntly lig.'Ure in this text~s distin<.~tive C hristology. Monltt ar~ues. however.. that Jesus· resurrection is crucial for Hebrews· priestly Christolog.y. T he affirmation of Jesus' resurrection funt·tions as a necessary assumption for the logic and progression o f the a rgument of Hebrews 5- 7 that Jesus became the High Priest or Melchizedek·s order. An exegetical study of this argument suggests t hat the author locates Jesus· atx·e-ssion to the priesthood a t ;.t point a fter his s uffering had ceased a nd o nce he had been perfected. Additionally. the writer~s comments a bo ut a priest ';uising' and showin~ himself to be a priest by ' the power or an indestructible life' (7.11, 15- 16) imply tha t it is Jesus· resurreetion that facilita te-S the author's identification of Jesus with Psalm IIO"s 'priest forever·. As High Priest, Jesus then e ntered heaven to sit and minister at God 's right hand (S. I -2). Thus. Mol11tt concludes. l
-
lntroduct ion
5
Whit lleld a rgues t hat a return to Harris.' answer may provide a way forw~m.l . Harris argued that traditions about Joshua son o f Nun a nd Joshu~L son of Jehosedek elucidate the llow of the a rgument. Setting Hebrews 3 ;md 4 against the backd rop or texts a bout Joshua underscores the plausibility of Harris' proposal. as caret'u l study of Hebrews 3 and 4 slwuests allusions ~md echoes both to the spy, stories of Numbers 13--14 and to the prophetic ,;;ion of Zechariah 3. c~
flehrelfS, the Old Testament (lfl
Hebrews· use of the Old T~tament and Jewish tr.tditions r.tiscs a whole host of impo rtant questions. Craig Blomberg raises the most basic o r issues of text and translation. Should the quota tion of Ps. 8.4-6 in Heb. 2.6-8 refer to the male gender 'wha t is m~m . . .a nd the son or man'?' Is meaning lost if this is translated as ·a human being· or its equivalent? Blomber~ o bserves t ho.1t a lmost a ll scholars agree that Psalm S was no t inte nded to be Messianic but alludes to the unique creation of man a nd woman in God 's irna~e (Genesis 1). But is Jesus. the pre-eminent Son o f Man, in view in Hebrews· reapplication'? Probably not, argues Blombe rg. Hebrews 2.8b-9 refe rs to the f~tll of humanity. which me~mt <:.re->ltion was no longer s ubject to humans. Verse 9. however. introdu<·es the. key contrast: 'but we see Jesus·. As the perfect man who atoned for huma nity's sin, Jesus began the process of restoring humanity to its rightful position exercising godly dominion over creation. ~n1us. according to Blomberg, the tmnslation ·son of man• in verse 6 actually blurs this lr~msition. making readers think of Jesus before the author intended them to. In his essay, Barry Joslin examines the theology of the Mosaic Law in Heb. 7.1 - 10.18. He a rg.ues !hat in these c hapters the work of Christ has transformed the Law. and that this t nmsfonnation involve-s. both its intermdization a nd fullillment in t he New Covenant. h is averred that Hebrews envisions a 'change in the Law• in the sense of 'transfOrmation· in Hebrews 7: that in Hebrews S the interna lized nomos in t he New Covenant believer is the Law tha t has been tntnsfo rmed in t he Ne.w Covenant: and that in Heb. 9.1 - 10.18 the author foc uses on t he matter o r Christ's fuHillrnent of the c ullus that foreshadowed the good things to tome. and as such t he shadow that the law possesses has been revealed. At·cording to Joslin. what the writer of Hebrews envisions fo r t he Law in the New Covenant is its tmmformllfion. and not its complete abrogation. The Law has been 'transposed into a higher key" in light of t he Ouist event and is now to be viewed t hrouQh t he lens o r his work. Thus. there a re continuous ;md disco ntinuous a~petts of the Law t hat turn on !hehinge o f Christ in the New Co\'e nant age.
6
A Cloud of Witnesses
Peter G riibe maintains the lOcus o n the New Covena nt in his essa y. The oovenant con<.".epl belongs originally. he observes, to the Jearish tratlilion. It is, therel(>re. understandable tha t the process through which the New Covenant concept bec.ame part of a sped tk ally Christian identity was ma rked by ce rtain tensions. The histo rian Eusebius mentions that lrenaeus (c. 140-200) was praised in a leller to t he Bishop in Rome as 'a zealot of the co>'CIItmt of Christ' (~~l.om]v oVTo: Tij; O>a fulKllS Xpton>ii). ·nle autho r o r the e pistle lO the Hebrews ho.IS chosen the tenn ' New Covenant• in o rder to con(irm the self-unde-rstanding the church he addresses. Hebrews. however, gives primacy to the fact that the d lUr<:h participates in a new, qualitatively s uperior. worship and identity rooted in a heavenly reality. The New Covenant concept builds. a conceptual bridge- with the continuity a nd discontinuity of t he readers o f Hebrews' Jewish origins. T hro ugh a creative re.interpretation o f the covena nt term from a cultic perspective the a uthor s ucceeds in describing the continuity of the Christ event with t he c uhic backgro und o f fs rael. The discontinuity of the newness o r the <.~ovena nt lies in the llnal. lasting, and s uperior s ta tus of the salvatio n esta blished by Christ ~IS. lhe s ummation of the soteriologi<.-.:.-tl heritage o f Is rael. G areth Cockerill exa mines Hebrews· presentation o r t-.,1ekhizedek a nd ma kes the case llun Hebrews· ide-a s. arise fro m exegetical a nd Christolog.ica l j udgements abo ut the Old Testament text and do no t require the s uppo rt of o ther Me khizedek s peculations. If we accept Ps. 110.4 as God's. address to the Son. Hebrews 7 is logically co nsiste.n t. requires no Melc.hize
a co ntextua l examination of Gen. 14.1 7.24 oonllrms the legjtimacy of Hebrews· interpretation. Melchizedek"s origin o utside Abr~Lham·s llne-.tge. s urprising appearance in. and then disappearance from the texl a re appropriate Cor his Genesis ro le as d ispenser o f G oc.rs blessing. These elements. form the foundation o r He b. 7. 1-25. Philip Church m<•kes t he t·ase tha t the allusion to Ba laam's third oracle (Num. 24.6) in Heb. 8.2 plays a more signilkant ro le in t he epistles a rgument tha n interpreters have previously re-alized . In its canonical oontext Balaam·s t hird o racle has clear sam:tua ry conno ta tions. connotations which a re mo re explicit in the LXX a nd in the Targums.
or
lntroduction
7
T he widespread appeardnt"-e of Sa laam's third a nd IOurt h oracles in liter.tltlre of t he Second Temple period indica tes that lhere was a n ongoing conversation a bout them. pa rticularly with reference lO the 'm:m' tha t Balaam predicted would arise (N um. 24.7. 17 LXX). A cluster of echoes o r Bala::un 's oracles in escha tological contexts in He brews. including a n o blique referent'e to this 'man·. indicates tha t the a uthor of Hebrews a lso had a contribution to ma ke to this conversa tion. Hebrews· contribution, a<..'l'o rding. to Churc h. is t hat B~-tlaam's ' man· has ~trisen and can be identified with the- High Priest Jesus, who is a minister of the heavenly sanctuary. a nd th~1t this heavenly sanct uary is to be seen as the eschato logka l co unterpart to the wilderness sanctua ry which Ba laam saw in his vision. T he language o f la ithfulne-S. "i is a prominent <:o mponent of the theological orientation o f the e pistle to t he Hebrews. theological significa nce of this terminology presents itself with references to God as a fait hful promise keeper (10.23. 11.11 ) and to Ch rist as a l:tit hful High Priest (2.17, cr. 3.2). E ven more obvious is t he 'by faith' re frain o f c hapter I I that accompanies t he rehearsal of the fai thful feats of patri:uc hs, ma tria rchs. heroes. and ma rtyrs. In his essay Dennis Lindsay examines the author o r Hebrew's use of ra ith language a nd how it info rms the theology o f faith in t he e pistle. Lindsay obse-rves the Stri kin~ absent·e of the ' by fait h· refrain at the beginning: o r c hap ter 12 where pistis is explicitly linked to Christ. He also notes tha t the Hebrew Bible largely lacks the te.r mino logy or ra ith when it rec:ounts t he Jives of the person~llil ies mentioned in <.~hapter II. Stimulated. by these observations Lindsay explores the use of pislis in the Septuagint. Philo. and Fla vius Josephus as potential sources fo r He brews· use. He gives special attention to the a l1inity to the use o r fa ith terminology elsewhere in t he New Testament. as well ~iS to the related c.oncept or ·emunah io the He brew Scriptures.
·n,e
H ebrell's and the Roman Empirf!
Steven l\·tuir's essa y reminds us tha t the dominant politic:il context fo r all o r the New Testament writings W~lS the Roman Empire. A ttention to the inlluence or Hellenism and Juda ism should not cause us to neglect a ny pa rallels from the imperial experience. Muir o ilers a n examination o f the word xapaKTilp (image. impression) in Heb. 1.3 ~lnd tlnds there a window into a n overlooked element of Hebrews• complex rhetoric. Ostensibly. Hebrews portrays Christ as great High Priest to a Oinn the supremacy o f C hrist a nd to critique the Jewish sacrHk iaJ system. Hebrews ~lS.Serls tha t C hrist is the ultimate mediator bet a use he is the very image of God . Drawing upon the theories or James Scott relating to the rheto rical strategies of oppressed gro ups. Muir argues lhat Hebrews a ppropriates
8
A Cloud of Witnesses
elements rro m the Roman imperial cult in order to offer a s ubdued but subversive resistance to that cult. The- emperor claimed to be Puntffex A1aximus, t he uhimate religious mediator between the people and the gods. Rulers were t hought to personiry the will o r the sods on earth (through a process a nalogous to presenting an image). To legitimate a nd secure imperial rule. AuQ_ustus a nd la ter e mperors deliberately published and promoted images of themselves as pious rulerS offering sacrilke. Addressing an a udience that had faced persecution in the past a nd was preparing for new persecution, Hebrews· portra it of Christ as image offers a veiled critique of the Roman imperial system. Hrbrf!ws in Ear~)' Christitmity
Two flnal essays explore the tho ught or Hebrews within the context o r the theology of the developing Christian communities. Cla ire Clivaz pro\rides a detailed examination of the link between He b. 5. 7 a nd Gethsemane. After a d iscussion of current research. she describes a less known interpretation of t his prayer as an interte.ssion for the people o f Israel. which is found in the (iospel ofrlu! Sm·ior. as well as in Origen. Epiphanius and Jerome. According to Clivat, Heb. 5.7 refers to the Jewish topic of a prayer that intercedes by means of tears and supplications. If Cli vaz is co rrect. Heb. 5.7 represents an important step in the direction of the ret-eption o r Gethsemane·s pr.tyer as an inte.rcession lOr the Jewish people. llaria Ramelli demonstr.Hes how Origen rruitfully employs the core notion of Jesus Chris t's high priesthood in Hebrews in order to a rgue fo r the universal a nd eternal validity of his sacrifice, performed by om~ring himself as a victim. The universali ty of the effectiveness o r this sacrifice is pointed out by Origen on the basis of Heb. 2.9 in both its variant readings: its ete rnity is demonstrated by him on the basis o r the assertion, repeated in Hebrews with reference to Ps. 110.4. th'H Jesus hig.h priesthood is,;, T0v alC>va. as opposed to the Jewish annual high priesthood. Precisely because Chlist•s priesthood is eterna l. he d id not need to perform many sacrifices: the unicity of his sacrifice is stressed by Ori~e-n agains t the multiplicity of lhe aiC>v;:5. Its power is s uch thal it is able to bring. a bout sah•ation both for all aic:)vEs and for a ll ra tional creatures. T his confirms the Christologjcal nature of Origen·s conception of the apokatasta!;is. Universal imlvation is made possible not by a melaphysic:al or <.Xlsmologicalnecessity, but by Jesus Christ•s incarnation a nd high-priestly sacrifice. as Origen·s e:<eg.esis of Hebrews shows.
Chapter I HmOEN STORIES IN H EBREWS: COSMOLOGY A.'ID THEOLOGY
Joo Laansma
I. lmroduc1 ion Cosmology is a question or moment for humanity. it is not irr~levant to the re-.ading of Hebrews. and Hebrews· contribution to humanity"s renections on cosmology is vital. Paying ~-tttention to the way in which Hebrews' argument a nd structure sheds li~t on ils theological (vs. scientific) cosmology provides o nly a limited persrc.ti ve o n this larger topic, but it is a necessary p:trl of these rellections.
2. Thi! S 1rm:ture of Hebrews and the Cosmos The structure of Hebrews has been convintingJ}r analyzed by Guthrie.2 h is evident that there are two main parts to the expositional side of the homily. consistinQ. of 1.5-4. I 3 and 4. 14- 10.25. The former of these I take as ' largely tr.tditiona l and familiar lo the readers. even if the wriler is g.l ving il a fresh expression·.3 It is with 4. 14- 10.25 th:ll the exposition advances into new territory. firs t establishin~ that Christ is the great High Priest (5.1 - 7.28). and then explaining his ministry in the heavenly tabernacle (8.1- 10.25). Up until 10.25 the homily alternates exposition
I I haw pursued the quC$tion or Hebrews· cosmology in two sc:p:u';:IIC: essays: ' Hebrews•. in J. l,t:nnjngton and S. McDonough (c:ds). Co.wuology nnd N~r Te.ttumt•nt Tht•ology (tondon: T&T Clark. 2008)~ 'The Cosnm\ogy or Hebrew·s ' (unpublished paper. Wheaton Collcge. May. 2007). These ha\-c more to say than the present essay about the importance of this h)pi<:. its c<Jnh.,ur!>. and the problems it pos~-s . 2 G . H. Guthrie. Th~ StntOtrll! tJ/ Jh>lwews: A Te.\·t·Lillguistir AJtn!yJis (NoYTSup. B: Lcidcn: E. J. 13rill. 1994): J. C. Laansma. ' Hcbn.'WS". in K. J. Vanhooll.'r C'/ of. (<:ds). Dictirma,.yjtJr 17•erJ/ttgirolluMpretmion of 1he Bible (Grand Rapids: B:1ker. 1005). pp. 27481.
3 L:umsma. ·H~'brtws'.
10
A Cloud of Witnesses
and exho rtation;' but 10.25 completes the exposition and rrom that point the homily turns to an exte nded run o f exhortations.~ Within these exhortations~· last important break c.an be noted fOllowing the tlimactk a ppe-•1 of 12.25-29. While c hapter 13 remai"' integral to the book as a whole. it has a looser fonnal atta<.~hment than t he preceding sections do. T he dominant Christological category of 1.5-4.13 is Sonship, while that of 4.14- 10.25 is High Priest. With t his shill conesponds another: cosmos dominates 1.1-4.13 (note especia lly 1.2-3. I0-13: 2.5-9: 3.4; 4.3-4; note also Ps. 95.1 -7) while the eart hly and hea venly tabernacles dominate 4.1410.25. Neither o f these s hirts is exclusive. as both Sonship and cosmology continue into 4.1 4-10.25, but the stra tesy appears to be to build the new leaching through the old. As to the two shilt'i j ust noted , the (.'Orrelation or priesthood and tabernacle is obvious. ·n1e ;-tssocia tion of Sonship a nd oosmos would derive in part from Christianit y•s wisdom Chris tology(, as well tts from texts s uch as Psalm 2 (v. 8: ' I will make the nations your inherit;.m<:e. the ends of the earth your possession") and Ps.alm 8. As to the thematic carryover from 1.5-4.13 into 4.14-10.25. it can be observed that Sonship and Cosmos both corre.late strongly wit h temple.7 \Ve may note, then, tha t very promising things are ~-tid with respec t to the cosmos in the chapters where it is thematicized (chs 1-4). The Son. t..hr~u~h wh~n~ il. ca~1e about a nd who s ust:lins i.t' has ~ro.vided cleansing lo r 11 and JS ns9 he1r. Psalm 2.8, t hough not c1ted. remlorces the Iauer idea (;;,,. a bove). Psalm I02 (I 0 iJ s peaks not only of c reation's e nd but of its dwugiug (.AaYJioovn:" : cf. I Cor. 15. 51-52). Some modern interpreters associate the new creation idea of lsa . 65.17 and 66.22
.: Cf. 1he following e xhortations: 2.1-4: 3.1-4.13: 5.11 -6.20. Alo;o. 4.H· l6 nnd 10.19.\1 .\fn1j[i11 the• Nr-•r Testwm•m witiJ Special Ri'ftr(lllt·~ 1t1 Mt II ((~~t/ lleb J4 (\VUNT . 1i9S: T iibingcn: Mohr SidxX"k. 1997). p. 363. The rc:lntionship bctwce:n the cosmos and the temple will be touched on below. 8 Fmmcd as it is. Ko:eapt~0\1 TC:w 0:1JapTtWv not'1001JUIO:> in 1.3 suggests the cosmic scope of thn1 ck·ansing._ 9 Rightly P. Elling:worth, Tire Epislle f{} the 1/ebri'lfJ: A Comlll(lllfliJ)' (JJt t!tt' Gree~· Texl (NIGTC: G rnnd R<1pids: Ecrdmans. 1993}. p. 95. commenting on 1.2: in nO:vt(..)\l 'thc ;1uthor is thinking of the uni\·ersc rather thtm of the human r~•cc:'.
Hidden Stories in Hehrctrs
II
(cf. 51.6, 16) with Ps. 102.26-2710 a nd there is no reason to consider this impossible fo r the writer of Hebrews, unless we a re to exclude it deductively based on a genera l hypotheses. Psalm 8 speaks the destiny o f humanity and creation. and t he wriler of Hebrews develops this in 2.5-9 in such a way that t he creative pur~oses o f Genesis 1-2 are be-i n~ brought to fultltlment precisely in the Son. 1 In 2.10 it is said that 'all things· a re •for Ood' (Cit . Ov TCx ml vTa Kal Ot' oV TO n0:vTa). 12 underscoring again tha t creation h~1s a point. a goal. 'The divine intention to lead human beings lO the goal for which they were created appeared to be mocked by huma n experience . . . God who creates a nd preserves a1llhings is precisely the one who is able to :let in s uch a way that his desi(!,n lOr huma nkind will be-ac.:hieved'. 13 Or belle r. God will act.in such a that his desig_n lOr all Jhiugs thllf he created will be achieved. I am inclined lO see this point s ustained in 3.4. rather than to oonsider that line a mere 11ourish o r aside; indeed that line's very presence in 3.1-6 forces us to keep the theme or cosmos in mind . II' we ha ve noticed t he pla('e of t"'smo logy in all o f 1.1 3.6 then we a re not s urprised when it is fused (4.3-4) to the Ka n XrrauolS theme of Ps. 95 in 3.7-4.1 1. /u short. in Jhese rlwpters where !he cos/IUJS is
or
waY
direct~r
thenwth-ized llll emire~r posiJiw.• rieu: is wken of the t•osnws ami of thC!'OSIIWS' destiny . T he entire opening movement of 1.1--4. 13 is tapped with a n extended exhortation to listen in 3. 7-4.1 3. This la tter section provo<:atively unites creation. exodus. a nd temple with the eSt'ha tological phtt"e of salvation, the KaTCi na uols. T he KaTclrrauots theme itself is one tha t I have 10 E.g.. M. Dahood. SJ. Psalms Ill: Wf- fj() lAB. 17A: New York: Doubleday. 1970). p. 12.
II Hebn:ws' omission of the line from LXX Ps. 8.7 (t:oi KO:TiOTflOO:S' aUn:w Errl TO: ipyo Tc;,v xnpClv oou) is best ~-xpbincd ;ts serving the purpo.scs of. on the: one: hand. highlighting the .scqocnlial nnd christological understanding that Hc:brews will g;i\•e to the psnlm (expli{'itly in vv. 8~9). and. on the other h:md. rcsc:r\·ing the b ngulj Hebrews is already undcrsumding and employing the words of the ps;:1lm (Heb. 2.6-&1) in the JI'/I.~P of w . 8b-9. This seems to me more likdy than thnlthe LXX line: was omitted specifically to avoid associalion with Ps. IOl (LXX 101] in Hc:,b. 1.10: or that it stood in tension with 1.10 b)· making crc.otion God·s wMk rather th~1n the Son's (againsl this. SC"e Ellingworlh. He•hro•rJ. p. 149)~ or that ahc: uulhor i.o; not ronoerncd with e.r..~lli on as n whole (so Ellingworth. J/rlm•"·s. p. 149). For diS\:.u.ssion of the:-te:xl c:tilica1 qm:slion b~·hind this. sc:e Ellingworth. 1/ebre\r.~. pp. 148-49: C. R. Koc:stc:r. Nebrtrn:f: A J"lelr Trum'iatitJtllfith lmmJtu·rimJ a11d C'ommMtu•·.r (AB. 36: Nc:w York: Ooubk·day. 2001). p. 21-t 12 Cf. 1.2 (e.f. Rom. 11.36: I Cor. 8.6: Col. 1.16· 17: I Cor. 1.9~ Gnl. 1.1: Rev. 4.11)<:);1XP-I that here in 2.10 it is God to whom this is ll!'.Cribcd with the result that the second 61ci. dcnolcs uhim:•tc: ngcncy (BDAG. s.v. 4.b.j3) wther thnn a n intermediate role:. flO:; htL1> ht~ d n cosmological refercn1 in 1.2. 3. II: 1.8. and continues to do so he.rc. 13 W. L Lane. 1/ebrews 1-8 {WHC. 47A: Dalhs: Word Books. 1991). p. 55: e.f. Ellingworth. Hebrmrs. p. 159.
A Cloud of Witnesses
12
~eve loped at length elsewhere, tJ a nd w~rk b~ o thers h:ls brou~ht ft!rt her light o n the relevant background matermls. 1 Among other tlu ngs 11 can be demons tr:ued that within bot h the wider ANE a nd the Old Testament in pa rticular the sanctuary is insepara ble from the cosmos. a nd that this union belongs to the t heme of the Ka:Tcirra:uots in Ps:llm 95. For the moment it is s ullk ient lO notice this fac t a nd to no tice as well that the writer Hebrews chooses precisely this symbol - itself s uspended
or
bet ween cosmos a nd temple I (I - to serve a s the bridge from the ope-ning theme cosmos in 1.5-4.13 to the subsequent theme of tabernacle in 4.14- 10.25. Cosmology is not a bsent from 4. 14- 10.25 bu t it is certainly backg.rounded as the wriler concentrates on the high priestly ministry of the Son in the heave-nly tabernacle. In llict, in an earlier survey of Hebrews' oosmology Elling.wort h isola ted eight problematic passages involving. a /tttent cosmology a nd patent soteriology (2.9: 4.14; 6.19-20: 7.26; 8. 1-2: 9.1-1 4: 9.24: 10.19-20), and it is worth no ting tha t all but o ne of them fall within 4. 14-10.25. 17 G iven the ]~Heney or cosmology and the fOc us o n the ta bernacJe motif we will pass over this section until late r and j ump ahead to the point a t which cosmology most directly and significantly resurf~•ces. namely the climactic exho rta tion Of 12.25-29. 1K fn my o pinion> La ne has understood 12.25-29 belle r than most others. Space limits require t hat I merely summa rize his overall view. rderring those interested to his comme-n ta ry for t he argumenta tion. 19 The hermeneutical upshot of La ne's reading is the standa rd o ne. na mely, tha t context needs to be heeded - specil\cally, the context o f the Haggai tita tion. the context of the probable echo of Psalm % ILXX 951, and the context of Hebrews 12 itself. T he result is that where most inte rpreters
or
14 Ulansma. ReJI. esp. pp. 67- 75: idem. ' Hcbr~·ws·. in Co:llntJ!ogy. IS A oon\'t•nienl synthesis is provided by J. H. W~lton . Am'inll Near EaJtem Tfumglll tJ/1(1 tile Old Jt·.rtU.IIk:t/1: lntnKiuring lht• Ctmaptuaf WtJrM tif tht> llebrt>w Rihli' (Grand Rapids: B.'lker. 1006). pp. 11 3- 34. Cf. G . K. Beale. Tilt· Tnnple ami tlte Cflurch".f Mi.uian: A Biblical Tl:t t~( God ( N~·w Studies in Biblical Theolo,:y. 17: Downers Gro\'C: lnterVarsity Pres:i. 2004). pp. 29- 167. 16 Jn my earlier writing 1 em1>htLsized the comxction of the t::o:nino:uot5 tham: to the h':mp1c but I stopped short of following Hofius in his nrgument that in Hebrews 3-4 the KOTcinauol:> is none o ther th.on the Mosl Holy Place of the hetm:nly temple: <:f. 0 . Hofius. Ku.UfJitTUsi.f: Dii• Yt>J'Jiellw1g •·qm ~ud:dtlic-hcn R11ltnJt1 int llebdierbn"t>f (\VUNT. II : Tubinb"<'n: JCB Mohr. 1970). pp. 53-54 and pas.n·m: Ltutnsma. Rest. pp. 314- 16. I still hcsiwtc owr some of Holius' argumentation and Jam nol sure I wis.h to make the referent as pnxisc: as he seems lo do. but I am more indined than J was then to ,·iew the heavenly temple and its Most Holy Placc as iocluded in the rcfe.x:nt of the t:o:T
Hidden Stories in Hehrc1rs
13
have been im:lined to see here the annihilation or the visible universe notwithstanding the tension this creates \\~th other e lements o f the homily"s thou~ht 20 - Lane perreives that t he warning is precisely t hat theNc:w Coreua~ll i'Oimlmllil)' will be included in the fina l jud~e,ment, the resull of wh1ch does not contern the rernoval of the cosmos- 1 but the removal 22 of all that opposes God. The phrase Ws rrmo1~~EIIWV ('as having been made.) ret-ails the idea or 4.13 - that is the universal jurisdiction of God's judgement - n1ther than making. ~~ metaphy~ical statement a bout the. cosmos. 23 Thus that which is not shake n (Tci IJ~ oa"ru0p£va) includes 't he righteous o.1s those who share in t he unsha kable character o f God . They enjoy the confidence that they will nilt be ··shaken ...nee more, especially those. who enjoy the blessings o f the new covenant . __s As for Haggai, it is to be noted tha t the t.'Ontext concerns precisely the rebuilding or the temple ~-md its future glory. which will issue rrom God·s judgement o r t he nations: il is a word of encouragement to discouraged Israeli tes returned from exile. ·n l:ttthe writer or Hebrews would have been unaware or o r uninterested in the 1ww wmple mot if in l-lag~ai is very unlikely. ·n1e transposition that occurs in Hebrews - a nd I beg;in to go beyond Lane in some ways here - is t hat the result of the .sha king is no t the glory o f a na tional. localized temple.16 but a situat ion in which the 20 Espcci"lly bodily fi:$Urroction. !he fact !hat bdie,-ers.. as humans. are nlso m noulliliOI (which supposedly constitutes that which is ·rrolO\'cd' in 11.27: c:f. Ellingwor1h. Hi>bri' ll'J. p. 689). and the \'cry positive oosmolog;ia •l oUIIook of chs l-1 (above). 21 CL e.g .. Hag. : .21·22. where 1his ide-~• is rqx:atc:d: Jsa. 13.13; Joel : .tO. 12 Mn0.6toss . here for ·rcmO\'al' (c..f. 12.27b) rnlher than 'chan.gc·. cr. 9 .26. ustng
U8£-rrt01:;. 23 As parcn<:sis the whole of 12.27 is ·suggl:$t:ive and pr<woc~•ti ve ruther tbnn cxcgeticnl and cxhnustive': the wotding is for this reason 'terse. condensed. even c.l)'ptic' VML p. 481). Lnne exphins the phrase in question this wny: •As created re:1lity . .. wh"l is shnkable is subject to 1he scrutiny of the Creator and is incapable of e.sc~ pin~ the divine $haking. However. 1hc esstfttial difference: b<.· lwc:cn I h.: shaknbk mul the unshnkable lies nol in their m1tumJ stnh1s t~s "cn.-..1tcd.. t~s opi>Or.cd to ··uncrcat'--d.. but in 1h~ir relationship to God' (ibid.• p. 482}. Lane docs not mnkc the conncc-1ion with -tiJ. but on this m~ding i1 elcarly ~umc:s the thrus1 of that passn~ . 24 Ibid.•p. -lSI. notes the shift from od (..) in 1he-LXX of Hnggni ( Hcb.. J2.26b) to ooAni(,) in Hcb. 12.2&• and 27 (cf. also O:ociA!u~. v. 28} and expb ins: 'The 1ransla1ors of the: LXX used lhc vcrb ooMUE,v metaphoric.:tlly as an e xpression flll 1he effect of divine judgme.nt. .. The 1ronslntors used ooAui€tV with the negn1ive. especially in the Psalms. ll.S a fixed idiom for unsh~• kablcnc:ss. · 15 Ibid.. p. 483. 26 ll can lx argued thtll Haggai·s ~'>mphec:y itself goe.s beyond thl>se limits.: cf.. e.g .. Beale. Trmpl~. pp. lt5- t6. 305-JOb.
14
A Cloud of Witnesses
·unshakable kingdom· - which re<.~alls the same re.alily o ther wise going under the name o f KaTci rrauo15. or c.ity of the living G od, the hea\'enly Jerusalem - is a ll !hal is left. To pul il bluntly: Creation has no l been removed bul rather dem!Sed(J.J) and reconsliluled as God's temple. city. fa therla nd , world, and kingdom.27 T he temple connections o f this image are reinfo rced by t he likelihood tha t the introduction of the k ingdom motif in 12.28 was no t occasioned (at least nol llrstly) by Dan. 7.1 4. 18. as is usually thought. bul - as Lane a rg,ues. following a lead from Ya nhoye - by Psalm 96[95]. which read s in the LXX, ' Wo rship l he Lord in his holy court. let all !he earth (q yij) be shaken (oaAru6~Tw) befo re him. Say a mong the nations. the Lo rd reigns (1[3aoi>.o.emenl. o r cleansing (1.3), or removal of that which opposes God. ;md then o r entrance into the place of salvation which ~oes under the name of the hea venly ta berna d e, city, KaTcXrravots. !7 Jf the !ll.'W t()vc:nnnt community and the cosmos itself arc <~ l n:.:.dy included in the write-r's conception of the ·un.s.hnkable kingdom' th<:n 1he interpretation of 9.23 defended by Hrucc. Mon1dion:. a nd others - that the-'hc:-;n't'nlics' nrc 1hc people Clf God - i." strengthened: c.f. F. F. Bruce. The l:...pisllt> to- Jhe l!f!brrW$ (N ICNT~ Gr:md Rapids: Ecrdm:uts. rev. cdn. 1990). pp. 228- 29: H. W.. Montcfiorc, The Epistle tu tht• 1/ebrt•ws 1()1\'l'f"C: London: A & C Hlac.k. 1964). p. 160. 28 ltmc:. //i•b•·f'lf.f 9-13. p. 485. tmnslates the: aorist :Ls future rdcrring here, 'he will complete'. 29 l :mc. 1/eb•·ew.,· 1-8. pp. 45-46: cf. also Ps. 93192).1: further. lan-e:. 1/ebJ·ews !1-l.J. pp. .185-86. 30 Cmura. e-.g.. M . lsaa~'$... Sar•·ed SpruY!: An Apprr}(trh Jo tilt' 71wology of Jht' EpiJtle fq tile 1/ebrr-wsUSr-..T Sup. 13: ShcOidd: JSOT Press.. t992). p·p. 65. 67. 8.2. 86: H. W. Auridge. The Epi.~lfp to tiU! ll.·bri'lr:t: A CommNIUtf)' 011 Jhe £pi.~lfr1 tu the Nrhrell'.s (Hcrmcncia: Phjludd phia: Fortn:ss. 1989). p. J81.
Hidden Stories in Hehrc1rs
15
and so fOrth. The fact that it exists a lready in heaven would presumably cause no more tro uble to this Christian thinke r than it did to the writer o r the a poc•ilypse (Rev. 21. 1-2). who could speak o f a passinS away and new creation and. in t he same bre-a th. of the (pre-existent) new Jerusalem coming down o ut o r heaven from God.31 T hat he thinks this way is <.~onllnned by the stra tegic choice o f Psa lm 95 and the KaTcirrauo15 idea wilh its rootedness in OT a nd other t raditions tha t had ;ilways \'iewed the o riginal creation ;ts a temple a nd the Jer-usalem temple as a microcosm of t he universe (a bove). Pladng just this symbo l a t just this juncture (3. 7-4.1 3) reveals his awoueness of t he.se associa tions.32 Our understanding is a lso confirmed by the larger thesis regarding the ta bernacle and temple that has rece ntly been developed by lleale. Wh~He\'er disagreeme nt there may be ove.r particula r texts. Bea le has demonstra ted convincingly the pervasiveness - both in the OT and in the NT writinf!.S - or the idea that ' the Old Testament ta bernacle and temples were symbolica lly designed to point to the c.osmic es<.~hatological reality tha t God's tabcmwding pn:senre,formt:r~r limi!e.d w tht• holy of holies, was to be (~xumdt•d throughout the whole earth'.3 ·' In other words, all hough Hebrews is remarkably unique in its development of Ps. 110.4 a nd C hrist"s high p riestly ministry. it does so wit hin a Lradition that \VaS a lready heavily invested in the escha tologkal temple idea. But if this is t he writer·s construct why is it nol expressed direct J}If Doubtless because this is not a Lheolog.ica l trea tise but rather a n urgent word of exho rtation. His focus is therefore not on the cosmos but o n the New Covenant community a nd on t he judgement it will undergo, in the light of which it must, o n the one hand. watch t hat it does not 'refuse theo ne who is s peaking' ( 12.25), a nd. on the ot her hand. worship the Lord in his holy court (Ps. 96195].9). or more s pecilically. 'give t hanks. by which we offer to God an ae<-eptable worship with revere nce and awe' (12.28). Neverthele-SS. the writer's ultimate vision o r salvation, if c ultkally construed, is <'OSmically comprehensive. and this cont ributes signilkantly 31 For l hi~. sec 8ct~le . Templr. pp. 365- 73. 32 Moroover. lhough 12.25·29 recalls ! . 1-4 (Guthrie. Smu·wre. p. 144). il also recalls 3.7- U I (lane. Nrbmrs 9- JJ. pp. 476--71). The two p:.ssagcs (3.7-4.11 tllld 12.25·29) arc dri,•ing at 1he s:1m<: thing nnd talking nbou1 1he same reality. 33 !kale. Templt>. p. 25 (it:llics udded). 8calc·s tn-:.lmcnt of 1-kbr<:ws (pp. 19.1-311) is limi1ed nod one docs not need to ngrce with nil of the d-etails of his ex-ege.sis. Bul his b'nsistoot with ·new cn-allon· ideas. is not UO \ 'CL though it sc:ems mosl oflcn to be asserted - perhaps b:Lsc:d on gencml parullcls betw-een Hebrews nnd other apoc:3lyptic writing.>; - rnthcr lhnn nrgued. The c:.on1ribu1ion of t11is studr consists in cmph:•sizlng when: nnd how the cosmos fentun:s within the overall structure and !hoologjca1 argum<:nl of Hebrews.
A Cloud of Witnesses
16
to the fon.ce o f the entire a ppeal, fo unded on the summary of the opening lines ( I. J-4): KArtpovOIJOV rrO:vTwv.. . Erroino'v ToU5 aiWvas.. . ~pColv n '
.
T a TTaVTCX ...
Furthermore. we t·annot simply ignore 4.1 4-10.25 as we seem to have done lO t his point Certainly caution is needed in dr~nving: inferences from this unil about the write r's c:osmology. Just as in 1.5-4.13 t he write r is developing fa miliar tntditions befo re launching into the fresh exposition of 4.1 4-10.25. so a lso in 10.26 through the end the write r is returning lo more fa miliar themes. a lbeit now leavened wilh the new te;i<.'hing. \Vhat HebreW> ha> done. especially in t he centml unit or 4.1 4- 10.25. has been lo develop for pastoral reasons t he present a pplication of this ttlready jtunilior hope. and to do so through the exposition of Ps. II 0.4. 1' he s tro ng il' imperfec t"' duality that results in 4.1 4- 10.25 is in pa n a fu nction o f his creative use o f the tabemacle imagery as the writer o rients f~lith on hope.J:'i ·n 1e attempt above all else is pastorally to unpack their confession o f God's promise and the-i r hope in s uch a W:l}' as to bring into foc us the needs as well as the provision for the present day. Thus the question becomes, ·How can our everyday lh•es o f faith be imagilwd and pit·flm:d in tenns of the realities for which we hope a nd t hat we believe we already participate in (6.4-5), ahhoug.h for 1101r in hidden and unseen fo rm'!' The po.1renetic de\•elopment o f chapters 5- 10 depends o n the prior t o nressional (.Xutception t hat is behind c hapters 12 and 3-4: the write r is presumably self-"l·o nscious in the adaptation of t hese symbols to suit his pastoral ends. It is accordingly unwise to a ttempt to grasp the writer ·s cosmology lirstly from things he says in 4.1 4- 10.25. A t the s.ame time. if(h is is a self-consistent thinker then the larger vision of cosmic reclamation t lwt we have brought into t he open s ho uld run through this central unit of t he arsument. In briefest fashion here is how it does so. First. while in 4.14- 10.25 the writer speaks of the earthly tabernacle and Jaw as a t-<)p )\ shadow. or antitype. he does not speak of the cosmos as a whole in this way. The relationship or that language to the cosmos is indirect:3(1 lhe heavenly world ~~s a whole was a pattern lOr the earthly J4 As noted below. the writer's dua}it)· is a seriously qu:.Jifiod one: 1he line: hctwce.n the t.'3rthly und hrovcnly lnb~·nutdes docs no! upply to 1he earthly cnlss and hea\'cnly ministry. Thi.-: is no1.:. writer oonoc:rned with an immatc-riul (•spiriu.u•l') sacrifice but "ilh a very bodily and bloody one - indocd. an offering w-ry much i:n. rfls . in spite of 8.4 - and lhoug)l h<: cmphnsittS thc CXtllt:llion of Jesus much more than the bodily n::surree1ion he leaves lhe- lall~"f fimlly in t>lacc. 35 Righlly. G. W. MacRae. 'Heavenly Temple and ES<:hnh>logy in the lc.Jicr to th<: Hc-brc\o,.-s·. Stmeiu 12 (1978). pp. Ii9--99. 36 J deve-lop Ihis l)~,i n l in more detail dscwhc-:rc: sec Laa!Um:t, 'He-brews·. in C(JSitltJiogy. On Ihe ge.rn:rnl question of wh
Hidden Stories in Hehrc1rs
17
tabernacle/ law in pa rlicular. which was itself then a shadow or the sta te o r the world to come as a whole (10. 1), a world identified with the preexisting pa ltern shown to Moses o n t he mountain. In dispensing with a shadow or copy lhe writer is not dispensing wit h the world but with a feature or it lhal had provisional typologk-al import. Second ly, even in 4.14- 10.25 the claim of Chrisl"s s.:.-tcrilic.;e precisely on the c-asmos breaks through the attempt to mark out rat her sharply the contrast between the earthly tabernade ~m d t he heavenly one pit<.~hed by God. This bears o n the problem of how to relate the earthly cross to the idea of the heavenly ofl'
3. Conclusion In brief, though this writer"s interests do not cente r on <.~osmolo~y he has woven the cosmos into his argumenl to a noteworthy degree and not merely incidentally; though I am reluc.:lant to impose t he me~aphor o r rdevanl to our prescnl argumenl but which n.oquires scparnlc aHcntton - sec ~•l so laansmn. ReJt. pp. 317- 57 (gtonald: Gr.tnd Rapids: Ec:rdnums. forthcoming). Adams concludes thul the 'vic.·w 1ht11 Hebrew's displays t l rndical 1Malonic) dualism whil' h negates m:alion
A Cloud of Witnesses
18
'cosmic renewar on his argumenl39 he would. I think. fina lly agree with Paul that 'the creation itself will be set free from its bonda!!.e to decay a nd will obta in the freedom of the g,lory of the children o f God' ( Rom. 8.2 1 .NRsv):J0 and he is of a piece with a larger vision that saw the future the cosmos. not merely humanity. in the pallern shown to Moses on the mountain.
or
39
For this point. sec Laansm:1. ·Hebrews: in Co.\YJtology. 1n bric.f: the
res.UITC'C'I io n
modd of tmnsform:ation involves both mdicnl oontinuity and radic;:JI dis,ontinuity in mysterious interplay fl CorimhiMs 15: John 21- 22: Luke: 24): ef. N. T. Wright. Thr Re.mrredicm of tilt' Son
Chapter 2 TH E ST RUCTU R" 0~ HEIIREWS: A WORD OF EXHORTATIOI' IN LIGHT oF THE DAY o~ ATON EM ioNT
Paul David Landgraf
or
Recent extensive studies on the s tructure the so-called ' Epistle lO the Hebrews· have certa inly s hown the m ulliface ted c.:hamcter of t he work. The work Gelardini emphasized the ~.:entntl section of exposition. T he discourse analysis o f Westfall emphasized the ending exhortation. The slightly adapted discourse ana lysis Guthrie, which appe.; ued much earlier. emphasized the working tog_ether both exposilion and exhorta tion. 1 Obviously o ne does not need to go to any other pklce than the text to see the epistle's m uhi-face ted structure. The epistle (or sennon) may be
or
or
or
viewed a<..-cording. to its form (or content). but when determining thework's most sig.niticant structure, it is be-st to rely on a self-designation within the text l n Heb. 13.22 the work is called a 'word of exhorta tion·. The question is: wha t does this mean'?:! Certainly wit hin the work both aspects o r a 'word' and a n ·exhorlation' a re obvious. --n le visual arlistry and complexity seem to be indicating something more. Numerous a nd extensive Old Testament quota tions and 1 G. Gdardini. l'erhiirld t'Uff' Jler:en Nidu: Der Jlelmi'er. t'ine Synagogen/:()milie :u Ti.w:ha & -An· IHIS. 83: lc-idcn: BrilL l/ltt>,r:o: Tile Rda1imuhip beJIW!t>tl Form ami Mruning (LNTS. 297: London: T&T Cbrk. 1006): G. Guthrie. T!Fe Slnrctllrc of Hebr-t'ws: A Trxt-Unguislic Aflu~l'.fis (K'ovTSup. 73: Lc:iden: E.J. Brill. 1994). Guduic diagmms this interconn..x-lion on p. 144. Gclart"lini has the most recent and C:\tcnsive summary of the \'~rious views on the structure of Hebrews. 2 Tmnsbtions are };RS\' unless otherwise indicatod. For more de1ail on u •word of exhol1tllit, n', see Acts 13.15-47: H. Thren. fkr S1il drr il'klisrhe-llelli'lfisti.f.CI/('IJ l.fomilie (FRLANT. -II: GOuingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprecht. 1955): L Wills. 'The Form of the Sermon in Hcllenistie Juduism nnd Earlr Christianity'. 1/TR 11 (1984). Pt>. 177- W (278-8.3). On fom1 and control. sec P. Ellingworth. EpUIIe ltJ tlk' Nt>bu,r.r: A Ctmmwntw·y 011 tltr G1·t•t>k Tttxt (1'\IGTC: Carlisle: P~llernoster Press. 1993). pp. 50- 61: J. Swclnum. 'fonn and Content in Hebrews 1-6', Bib 53 t 1972). pp. 368-85 (369): S. Stanley. 'Th<: Structure of HebreW'S from Three Pcrspcaivl.'S'. TJnBuf.J5 (199-4). pp. 245-71. The rhetorical chnmctcristK:s of this te,xl arc ce.r1ninly signifi.eant
20
A Cloud of Witnesses
a llusions pe rvade the text. and there are no less than Jive clea r exhorta tions (2.1-4: 3. 7~.13; 5.11- 6.12; 10.19-39: 12.1 4-29)-' A n o bvious re-ason for such complexity is the a uthor·s preference. but the exact progression the ep istle seems too varied a nd detailed to be simply preferentia l. Why does the work be~n with relating Jesus as superior to the angels (ch. 1). !hen proca>d to his a basement (ch. 2). !hen on to a lengthy exhortation which s peaks of the Christian·s rest (chs 3-4). then on to a n exte nded d iscussion o f Jesus as the grea test High Priest (ths 4-5). but yet be inte rrupted by another exhortation. this time concluding with the issue of certa inty because o f Gotrs oath (chs ~6)'? Certainly this pro~ression shows !he s uperiority of the ro le of HiSh Priest to that o f messenger (or prophet). but something more should be said regarding, s uch detail. This paper proposes tha t the progression the epistle follows the signilka nt a rchitect ural elements of the Day o r Atonement. While many aspects o r tha t da y a re clearly dest~ribed within the epistle. especially the centra l role of t he High Priest and his o m:e-a-year entr. ( into the so-called ' Most Holy Place·. some aspects a re clearly lacking. This paper auempts to make a stronger connection betwee-n Hebrews and the Day o f Atone ment. ;-tsserting, th:ll the basic actions on the day no t only appear within the content of the epistle. but a re followed by the progression or its various topics as welL The signilka nt 'geogr.tphica r points of transition on the Day or Atonement will be pointed out in the sections or exhorta tion within the epistle. \ Vith this sligh tly dillCrent perspective of the text, the reason l(>r t he various to pics within the epistle c·•n be expla ined. especially those within the fi rst cha pters a nd the sig_ni6cant centra l section o r the text.-5 T he o utline of the. rest o f this paper will be a s fo llows: the connection be.tween the layout of a complex speech and t he layout of a bu ilding. will be brielly d iscussed. with the suggestion that Leviticus is laid o ut aoco rding. to t he la yout of the ta bernad e. Then a n ove-r view of the Day o r
or
or
3 'fflhc: author opcrnlc:s more on the hd of symbolic and \'erba1ns:•oci:ation !han on chnl offo~ic: H. Attrid!.-e. ' Hebrew·s. Epistle to Ihe:. ABD 3. pp. 97- t OS (99). Sec C. Koester. 1/r,hreW.\' (:\8: london: Doubleday. 2001). p. 92: D. t\unc. The .fllew Tt•.sltmh'IJ.' in ils LiM·my £minNWJi'l l l IC'3m brid!,,'~: James Clark & Co, 1988). pp. 213--1-1. Sometimes the cxempla of C'll. I I arc \'icwcd tLS nn c:thorlation. Guthrie. SJmrlun•. pp. 39-40. 4 S'-"C F. Cortc::r.. ' From the Holy to the to.tost Holy Plnce: The Period uf HcbrC'ws9.6- JO and Ihe- Day of Atonement us a Metaphor ofTrtlnsition·. JBL 1~5. J (2006). pp. 527-47 (52719). 5 As the epistle nears the end. the contents pertain more to the lctter·s fi rst recipients.
Within the c:xhontations the gcogmph i~~~J references progn.-s.'> in a ' 'cry intercsting manner. The fi rst ,·crse-of the fi rst c::xhoruation hns maritime refcrc.m:es (2.1). but rcf~·rcnc:cs to land fn:quently foll~lW (6.7-8 nnd 12.15-28). S'-'C S. Kiwoong. ZieHl Symboli.\YI! ill Jlf!brrws: lh,brews 1! .13-15 asct JIP.J•mt'lleutic
The Strucsure of Nebre~rs
21
Atonement will be g:iven, especially in tem1s of its geogra phic:Ll ramifications, or more s pecifically its a rchitectural ramifications in view of the tabernacle or temple. T he similarities to Hebrews will be the main item discussed. Support for the connections between the Day o r Atonement and the epistle will be g_:l lhered from the pla<.-.ement and content of the first three exho rtations within the work. At the conclusion of this paper. a few of the benefits of seeing the epistle wilh this fo rm will be g:iven, as well as a few brief thoughts on avenues fo r further exploration. T he connection between a complex s peech and the layout a building, even that of the tabernacle or temple, is known to go back to t he times o r the Middle Ages. but the idea is much older. In his Dl' Ortilon•. Cicero wrote that memory consists of establishing a 'backgr<>Und· and employing imag.es which a ppe-a r within that backg.round . Having a visual b~ltk gro und and making a visual point l·an :1s.sist the memory of the one who gives or receives the message.6 A much older text. that of the book of Leviticus. may be laid out ac{'ord ing. to a building.·s Structure. T he dit1'erence between the Start o r leviticus and that or Numbers. from 'The lord summoned Moses and spoke to him f)·om the tent of meeti ng' ( 1. 1) to 'The Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in Lhe tent of meeting' (I. I). may point to this special construction. ·n uoushout Le\titicus there is the phr.tse, 'The Lord spoke to ~·l oses' . but only a t the end of the book is a lot:ation given in c-onnection wit h this phrase. 'on Mount Sinai· (25.1). The ' te nt of meeting· o r tabernacle funct ioned as a Mount Sin:Li-presence for the children Israel atler they had left .\ •fount Sinai. and the reader o r listener to the book or Leviticus is given the Opport unity to benelh from this uniquepe-rspective. T he majority of the. book of Leviticus is a lengthy discourse regarding oiTerings and priestly responsibilities. ·n 1ere a re- two negative narra tives which may serve as points where a solemn warning is given to those who would go o n within the text and mo\'e closer to the Most-Holy-PI:Lceportion of the book . t he linal cha pters of Leviticus. The death of Aaron's sons in cha pter 10 may be seen as the point in the book which would ta ke the reader or listener from the tabernacle courtyard into lhe Ho ly Plate. h is only after this point of the book that the text indicates lh
or
4
or
6 Cicero. De Oratow ! .351- 360: M. Currolhc:rs. The 0tJtJk of Mt'IIK1JJ• (Ounbridgc: Ca mbridge University Prtss. 1990). pp. 43-44: Aunc. The Nc'lr Tesurmenl. pp. 197-98. 7 In 10.8. ·The Lord spoke to Aaron·. und in II. I. IJ.J. 14.33. and I S.l. ·The lord spoke to Moses and Aumn·.
22
A Cloud of Witnesses
Sin~ti·.
With Lhis s tructure the reader or listene.r is gjven a visua l reference to a ssist in his o r her unders ta nd ing of the entire book.g H owever Levitkus is to be s tructured, chapter 16 is a t ritic.al c hapter in dealing. wilh the Day or Ato nement. It remains to be seen whether or no t this da y contains geog.ra phic;.d or a rchitectural elements within it that may be mirrored in Hebrews. Jus t a brier overview o f the Day on Atonement will be gh•en. especially in its a rchitectural or s eog:ra phical term s. To ca ll the Day o f Atonement simply ' signil1cant" bo rders on unders ta tement. Many things ha ppened o n tha t day t hat happened on no other day. Be<:a use or this. man y e lements o r the day are. well knovm, particularly that of the Hi~.h Priest into the Mos t Holy Place. and Lhe d riving away o f the so-called 'scapegoat" into the wilderness.~ T hese two elemenLS are noleworlhy because Lhey exte nd Lhe nOmlil l g.eographica llirnils o f lhe typk al olle ring ins tructions given by the Lord. 10 T he two ~.eographical extremes o n Lhe Day of Ato nement could ha rdly g.o a ny farlher. These geogra phica l exlremes poinl to the-foundaLion~tl nature of the Day o r Atonement lOr ls raer s understanding o r I heir world and. m ore importantly, their God . T hey a lso point to the importance of c-leansing Goc.rs sanc.:.tuary and therefo re his people. 11 Altho ug.h the diOe rence from the Ho ly Place to the Most Holy Place was not tl large dini!rente ~.eographit".:.-tlly. o nly a few yards. it \\'as t e rta inly the more significant d istanC'e. ''l11e l o rd said to ~loses: "Te11 your bro ther Aaron not to come j usl a t ~my time into the sanctua ry inside- I he c urtain before the mercy seat t hat is up<m the a rk, or he will d ie· · (u v. 16.2a). Some o r the preparatory events leading up to Lhis significa nt entra nce may no t be so well known. At the beginning o f the day the High Priest must wash his enlire body. He is to put on s pecial linen clothes. The Hebrew word here is the S<-tme wo rd used to describe God's s pa:ial servants o r messenge rs.':! T hese d othes are twice described as ' ho ly' . The determina tion is made of which goat to go '"''here. With that last action the prepara to ry events we-re concluded and the 'entranto.e section· for the day oould llnally begin. 8 M. Douglus. L(!~'itinu a.~ Lilemwre (Oxford: Oxford Unjwrsity Press. 1999). pp. 195251.
9 For much more de-ta il on the D:•y of Atonement sec- J. ~·c1 i lgrom. LPrilit'IIS 1- 16 (AB: London: Doubleday, 1991}. pp. 1009-5~. 10 The--!\in oiTcring is lhc b..1sic. offering on the- Day of Atoru:mcnt (lev. 16.3J. !llld the limits of this offering arc ·in front of the curtnin of the s.1nc1uary' a nd 'a dc:an place outside the c-tunp· ( l c\·. 4.6. 12: sec Heb. IJ.tl). II J. Willi-Plein. ' Hebrews :and the Day of Atonement' 1/r>hrei\'J: ContnnrQrmy Mttlhods, Ne\r /n.~ig_hl.\" (c
The Strucsure of Nebre~rs
23
If t he oflfrings and actions (involving incense) made fo r the sinful High Priest 'and his house· a re not ttL ken into account> the next action is the sacrifice o f the g.oat a nd t he placement of the blood>first within the-Most Ho ly Place." Arter that has lx.'
13 The author of HcbrC\vs makes the point that Jesus. unlike the High l~c:st. did no1 ht1vc to m~ kc n sncrifil!e for his own sins (Hcb. 5.1·3). 14 For more d clail see D. StOkl Ekn Ezra. Tlrl' Impac-t <>f Yom Kipp11r en £urly C/1ri.Jtkmity: Thl' Dt(r of Atcnemml Fom St•rolltl Tempfr Jmlal$J1t ltJ 1/re Fifth Centm·y (WUNT. 163: TUbingc:n: Mohr Sidx:ck. 1003). p p. 28- .B. 15 Ymuu 1.5. Soc J. Lauterbach. ' A Signi!Kant Difft.'ft.'llC~~ be:tween the Sad ducc~"S and Ihe Plmrisces·. 1/UCA 4 (1927). pp. 173-205 ;and Milgrom. Li!llitkii.S 1- 16. pp. 1018-31. 16 Gd:.ndini. V('r/liinet. pp. 120- 11: Guthrie. Smrct11r~·. pp. 116-27. We:slfall dC~cs not drnw any <1ttention lo this movement wi1hin h¢r brgcr outline.
24
A Cloud of Witnesses
entr.tnce of the High Priest into t he Most Holy Place is the obvious second raising. 17 It is interesting t ha t both the placement and the content of each of the first three exhortations match the appropriate geogra phical change on the Day o f Atonement. or more. specifically the architecture the tabernacle or temple. Unfortunately only the briefest c:omments can be made regarding this point T he fi rst exhortation is 2.1-4. Before the exhortation is the superiority of Jesus (ch. 1). The key content of exhortation itself is to pay o.1ttention to what is declared. After the exhortation is t he lowering of Jesus (2.9)." On the Day o r Atonement) the c hange in geography would be rrom the point where the High Priest is in his sped a l linen clothes to the point where the sacrific-e is made. at the altar of sacrifke. T his section would be d irected at the preparatory riles. before blood was s hed. Before the High Priest would make the sacrifice. the determina tion would be made of which goat would go where. T his would fit with an exhortation to pay a llention to what is declared. T he second exhortation is 3.7- 4.1 3. Before the exhortation> references a re made to Moses and the builderS o f ho uses (3.4). T he keyconlent of the exhorta tion itself is rest. but reference is made to an unbelieving. heart (3.1 2). After the exhortation is t he start of the discussion of Jesus as the g:reat High Priest (4.14- 5.10). On the Day of Atonement. the geographical change ~tt this point would be fro m t he. altar of sacrifice to within the tabernacJe. more specillcally. t he Holy Place. ·n 1e refCre.n<.".f to builde-rs or houses in Hebrews is appropriate a t t his lime since t he High Priest is now soing inlo the sanctu:try building. This is now the 'entr:tn~ section'. The co ntent of the exhortation itself. t hat or rest. is also a ppropria te because the High Priest is now the focus. walking s tra ight into the s.ancluary. The person who brought the-sacrilke. for exa mple. has llnished his respo nsibility a nd c-tm now rest. A reference within the exhortation to a ' heart' is a lso a ppropriate sacrifice languase.t9 Before the third exhortation in 5.1 1- 6.1 2. the theme is the same as the one which came. after t he second exhorlation, tha t or Jesus as the areal High Priest. The third exhortation comes soon after the second. and this would be appropriate because the point mirrored o n lhe Day of
or
17 Stt Milgrom. L.•n)klf.{ 1-16. p. 1016. 18 Jesus is idcntifiOO with his brothc.rs in this section (2. 11·1-8). This is an appmpri:llt-
topK bee.:. usc one of the p<~rt.s of n sin offering Wt lS the identilil'tllion with the pc:,rson of the: animal through the:.laying on of hands. Sec G. Andc:--Tson, ·sacrific:c nnd Snerilicjal Offerings·. A R/) 5. t>l'· 870-l!O iSSO). 19 At the very end of the c:xhott;J!ion is n brief rt.'!ercncc to the Word of God being ns a sharp. two-edged sword (4.1 2-13). This is npproprintc: imug-c~· sine<: the sacrifice point has p.1Sscd.
The Strucsure of Nebre~rs Atonement is lhe short period o f time where the High Priest goes from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place. The content of the exhortation is a serious warning no t to ·fo-tll away'. Arte r the exhortation is t he discussion o f God's certainty, particula rly emphasizing the use o f oaths. Aller that topic comes again lhe topic of Jesus as great High Priest. like Melchizedek. a hhough t his was also mentioned earlier in the text (5.10). Although lhis progre~ion is unusual, it a lso follows similar actions on the Day o f Atonement. ll should be noted tha t t he third exhortation is sometimes viewed as a digression.:ro But if it mirrors the point where the High Priest goes rrom the Holy Plat-e to the l\.·tost Holy Pla<:e, an extremely serious exho rtation would be appropriate here. lhe idea of ll-tlling away is also appropriate sim:e the focus is a person wa1king. 21 ·n1e d iscussion of Jesus as High Priest befOre and after the entrance is also appropriate. Even the mention o f oaths ;1fter the exhortation is ~1ppropriate here because of the r::unitka tion of the oath he took earlier wo uld be importa nt at this time. The High Priest promised he wo uld not do anythin~ d iOerent sim:e he was the only person in the world ~1dmi 1tt-d into this special place. Instead of a digression . this serious exho rta tion is a progression that leads the reader o r listener into t he texfs ·Most Holy Pla<·e·. In much thesame way that lhe negative na rra tive sections in l eviticus were suggested as ma rkers to the next mo re specktl section or the boo k, the exho rtations of Hebrews can be seen lo mark t he next more-special section fOr the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Some of the rema in ing parts of the epistle support this same view. After mirroring this significa nt geographical event on t he Day o f Atonement o r the entrance into the. !\.•lost Holy Plate, there is a summarizing point within t he text o f 'Hebrews whit-h fo llov.•s lhis compa rison to Jesus· work (8.1 ): 'The point of what we have been sa yin£ is this: We d o have such a High Priest. who sal down at t he right ha nd of the throne of the Majesty in he-ave-n, and who serves in the sanctuary. the true tabeTm1tle set up by 20 Guthrie wriles thi.s.eon~-erning 1he epi.s.1k 's progres:;ion here:: ' For the riest (5.1 -10) and ~hen suddenly to break ofT and confront the. hearers directly with their immedi:11e problem {S.II-6.3) mny do du mtJ ~,'~ to our oullines. but it would have mode a rhetoric-til imp:1ef. Gu1hrie. Smu•Jflte. p. 146. s~-c Ko~ter. Jlebl\~n-s. p. 8-4: D. deSilv;L Per.W!lWU.nCt' ill Grulilude: A Socio-Rhetoriml Commc>mar.r tUJ tltt 1:/liJtlt It> ;he JJP.brei\'J (Gr,lnd R
26
A Cloud of Witnesses
the Lord. not by man'. This overarching cont rast is further deta iled in cha pte rs 9- 10. Befo re the details of this belle r c.o venant a re given, some o f the details of the contents of the Most Holy Place :lre described (9.4)n The contents o f the ark may be seen as reminders of sinl'olness a nd rebellion.!J T he si~Jtilicante of the sanctua ry a nd its contents now fttlls into the background. The fo('us is more t he Lonfs graciousness. The picture des<.~ribing this graciousness is a much more spacious one. tha t of a city or country (1 1.10, 16; 12.22). The vast majority of the heroes of l~tith mentioned in c h:l£ter I I a re those who did not have a ta bernacle o r a rk to encourage them .24 The focus is therefo re aga in the Lord's g.raciousness. ·n u oughout this epistle t he significant actions or Jes us a re related in significant Old 1'estament ways. 1-.·to re suppo rting evidence could be given a bo ut t his progression within Hebre\','S. but as the author o r the epistle oonlesses, 'time would la ir ( 11.32). What are the benellts o r this proposa l? The lirst benelit is that it supports the epistle·s obviously si~_nificant connection to the Old Testamenl. and more s pecifico.dly. the Day or Atonement. ·nmt day was a large part of lsntel's c ulture. a lt hough essentially o nly one cha pte r is dedicated to it. As a festival it would us ually be repeated a nd firmly etc hed onto the minds of ma ny people. 25 A second benetlt is t hat this proposal closely fOllows a verifiable. first-century method of laying o ut a compli("'3 ted s peed1. In modern limes the outlines of biblical books are often given on a separa1e page. but the ancie-n t aut hor d id no t have that luxury.Yi Whether the-picture of the D~ty of Atonement was in the mind o r the author. reader. or listener. that perspective functioned as a useful ' background· for the text ::ts il progressed t hrough a larh~ number o f issues. T he t hird and fln~tl beneth is that this ' Day of Atonement outline' a lso provides a concrete, physica l progression to many seemingly disjoiuted paris within Hebrews. Wit h lhis propo;;;tl bo th exposition a nd exhortation work together well. 1' he-expositions point to Christ a nd the exhortations remind Christians of the significant rarnillcations of Christ's work. Fina lly. what a re some a venues fOr run her exploration'? Obviously we !! It mny be signift<:ant I hal th~· altar of incense is descrilx-d ns being within th<: Most Holy Pbcc l>;:lther than the Holy Place (9.4). Sec E:tod. 30.1 -5 and H. Au rid~. Tlw Epi.rlfp M tiro! Jlehrews (Henncnia: l,hiladdpbia: Forlr<:!:S l~~.·ss. 1989). pp. 23-lf. Is 1his an oblique rcfcrcnoc to d1c ocnscr broughl in to 1hc ).·los.! Holy Plnce by the High Prics1 on th<: Day of Alo nt.' nlt n r! See S10 kl. YfJnt KipJ"ltr. PJ). 30f. 23 Sec E);odus 16. 32: Numbtrs 16- 17. 2~ The lust two <:);amplcs !riven in ,.,.. 1- J I are the dcslrtMion of Jericho and the sa\·ing of Rnhab - at which time it docs not s.1y the ark was prescn1(Joshua 6). 111<: biblical ncoounts of those listed nl the beginning of v. 32 ha \'t' no or lillie mt.>nlion of the lakrnnde or nrk. !5 Sec D. Wright, 'Day of Atont.>.m<:nf. ADD ~. pp. 71- 76 (75). 26 See Ellin,!,•worth. J/t'hn••f.s. p. 53.
The S trucsure of Nebre~rs
27
llr:a go b~•ck to a study o f the text The.re was not the time within t his short presentation to look at the conte nt o f Hebrews in almost any det:lil. but tha t sho uld. of course. be the prima ry sta rting point. The next best placewould be to study the previous struct ural a nalyses o r the text, and not o nly the most recent o nes. Hopefully !his study only builds o r impro\1es on wha t has been previously wrille n.2' T he topic of literary structure is inherently multi-n-t('eted . a nd mtmy structural factors ran be true about a singlt• text. Severa l biblical texts could be recommended as 'next o n the list". but the word of exhortation which a ppears in Acts 13.16-41 should be mentioned lirst or all. rr it is possible fo r a word of exhorta tion to have within it a progression from some o ther source. perha ps t here a re o ther undiscovered struc tural aspects within this sermon - and others within Acts. And ma ny o ther biblica l (both Old Testa ment and New Testa ment) a nd extra -biblical texts (especially the Mishnah) could be mentioned. In a n article o n the lite rary structure of Hebrews. Black ma kes the point tha t ' by definition. a litera ry masterpiece would require an identillable an~.ument or a clear tra in of th o u ~ht - it sho uld be relatively cohesive a nd coherent". 211 Prom its beginning Hebrews has been seen to pOint cohesively and coherent ly to C hrist. T hat the work re.Oects the progression from the significa nt actions o n the Day of A to nement does no t detract rro m tha t cohesion or coherence. but shows t he epistle to be e.ven more the litera ry maste rpiece that it is.
27 The prog~on proposed is 1hcreforc hctll linear (with the High Priest walking toward lhc Most Holy Piac:.:J :tnd concentric (with the High Pricsl going into and coming out from lhe Most Holy Plncc). Koester. J/t>br.'7!rs. pp. SJ-86: A. Vanhoyc. U1 Stntrurn• Liuem irt> deL 'Epilrt> tmx llt!bn•!IX (StudNcot. I; Ptuis: Desclec de Brouwer. 2nd edn. 1976). pp. 33- 63. 28 D. Blnd:. 'The. Problem of the Literar)' Structure of Hebrews'. GTJ 7 ( 1986). p~l. 16377 (175).
Chapter 3 TH E EscHATOLOGICAL WORLD ALREAL>Y S u sJECTEL> To TH E Son: TH E
OiKOUIJEUIJ o~ H e BREws 1.6 A ND THE SoN's E NTHRONEMEt--T
Ardel B. Caneday
I, Introduction Among the many contrasts lhat Hebrews develops lhrougho ut its argument. how Chrisfs superiority over the angels. the-first counterpoint. integrates with the pre..;u;her's domina nt contrast between the old ~md new covenants continues to elude-scholars. 1 Regularly Hebrews 1.5- 14 is left rather isolated from the preacher's argument 1 Various well-worn theories that have been o ne red 10 explain the cate na's existence tend to reinforce the assump tion tha t the catena concerning Christ's superio r ex<.~ llence over the angels is only loosely connected to the epistle's argument. Det;.1<:.hment tends to be confirmed by viewing the (.".atena as a testimonium of Jewish Scriptures that the author 'expects his readers to know and readily ~tccepl• simply ~~s summary support fOr ' the assertions of 1.2-4".3 Reading the catena :ts a polemic against wrongful elevation of angels also ful.lills_the tendenc~· to expect t hat it is relatively disconnected fro m the ep1stle s argument. Also contributing to this tendency to view Hebrews 1.5-14 as rather I On Hc:bl\"ws as :t sem10n r.tthc:r than nl<:uc:r or epistle. s..-c William L L..nnc:-. 'Hebrews: A Scm10n in Search of n Setting'. SJT 28 ( 19&5). pp. 13- 18. See nlso idmr. 1/ebn•ws 1-8 (\VBC. 47A: D;•llas: Word. 1991). pp. b:ix- lx.xv. ! Cf. David M. Hoy. G/Qry 111 tlltt Right H11ml: P.WIIm !J(J.I iu f i11·£v CltriJtiallily (SUlMS. 18: Nash\illc:: Abingdon. !973). pp. 38- J9: Ernst K:lscmunn. Tlu• Wamft·,·ing Peoplt' of GtJtl: All fm't'JiigaJiiHl oftJ,,.. U:Uer to tilt' 1/ehrt'\fS (Minnc:3po1is: Aug;;burg. 1984}. pp. 170-71: ;1nd Lor~n Stockenbruck. Ang-t>f Vnwratim1mul ChrisUJ!tJgy: A St11dy i11 &1·£v Jmlai.wtl ami it1 tlw CflriJtology fJ/ tile Apo<'o.lypse of Jolt11 (WUNT. 2.70~ Tobingen: Mohr" Sicbcck. 1995). pp. 127- 28. 3 Hay. GJtJrJ. 3S. Hnr st:llcs.. •Jf the: author was using_ n traditional c:ollc~tion of quotntions. the length and partial irrde,•ance of the:. passage would be more compKhensiblc' (p. 39). 4 Hay stt)'S. •Jf there is uny real argumcn!. it is u mild polemic overestimating an!,>cls ~ cf. Heb. 2.5.. 16): bu tlh~" questions about an~h· sound more rhc1 worship. sec. inter ulia. F. F.
The £sc/wwlogica/ World
29
detached from the rest of the epistle is the pen::ei\'ed temporal sequence tha t seems out of S)tnc. with t he preacher's contrast between t he old a nd new (-ovenants. The preacher"s temporal a rgument is tha t the fo rmer covenant is rendered old by the change of the priesthood (Heb. 7.1 2) through the power o f Christ's indestructible li fe. having offered himself as the so.lc.-ritice t hat ends all sacrilkes and havtng, e ntered the greater a nd more perfect sanctuary once for all time (O secure eternal redemption (Heb. 9.11 fl). Against this temporal sequence, many suppose that Hebrews 1.5-14 adds to its c.:ontrast between Christ and the angels a dominating counterpoint wilh Christ's pre-existence (1.2. 10) in contrast to his humiliation ( 1.3. 6) providing the referent" point (Or Chrisrs s uperiority over the angels. To read Hebrews 1.5-1 4 as ~uguing tha t C hrist's superiority over the angels is due strictly lO •the di~nily of his person' as the pre-existe nt o ne reinlOn.~?.s a sense of distance between chapter I and t he remainder of the preacher's a rgument. 5 Despite its brevity. Hebrews 1.6 disproportionately tontributes much tha t tanta lizes exe~etes cont:erning how 1.5-14 integrates wit h the preacher" s argument Complexities are manifold. First is the p1acement or nOAw. whether it modifies t he verb EioO:yc.> ('he brings ag.ain') or is simply a connective ('and again'). Next is the meaning and s-ignificance o f the title trp(.)T0ToK05.6 T hird is the impo rt of l he aorist subjunctive EioayO:yfl. whether the \'e rb refers to a past or l'uture event, a question tha t depends upon the referent of oiKOu~iv~ ('habitable world). the fou rth disputable issue. Finally. the sourt'.f of the citation is a lso debated , whether from Ps. 97.7; Deut. 32.43: o r Deut. 32.43 by way of Odes 2.43. Of these five e-lements the referent and signifitance of oiKOUIJEV'l is key. thefocus or this paper. I will a rgue that the re-lt~renl of oiKO\JJJEV'l in Heb. 1.6 is best understood as 'the habitable rea lm yet to come. spoken of in 2.5. into which God has a lready led the Son. T hus. t he verse depicts the Royal Son's e nthronement, especially exaltation over the angels but also requisite exultation in worship by the angels when God led the Son into the heavenly realm o r eschatological salvation which the Son acc~mplished by virt ue of his priestly role throu£h humiliation. This oiKOUIJ~Vfl is t he same world yet to
llrucc. The £pi.flle ltJ thr Hebrrws lNICNT: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1964). p. 9. For thetheory that Hcb. I.S-14 uddressc-s an angd Christology. see. inter ulia. Hugh W. ~c1ontcllorc. A CtJmme111ary 011 tlti" £pi.\ IIi! 10 tlw Jlehrews I.London: Hnrper & !Jlae:k. 1964). pp. 35. 40-4 7. 5 cr. John Owen. An Expo.JilitHI of tiN' l:.jliJtlt' liJ the f/ehrl'lf'S (ed. w. H. Goold: GrMd
Rnpids.: Baker. 1980). HI. p. 156. 6 Cf. larry R. Hdycr. 'The J»roMtokar T ide in Hebrews·. StudBibT/r 6 ( 1976). pp. 3-18 and 'The npc.>rOTOt(os- Title in Hcbn...,vs 1.6', a paper rc~• d at the St Andr<:\VS conference on the. Epistle lo th<: Hebrews and Christian Thoology.
30
A Cloud of Witnesses
oome that God does not subject to angels but will put in subjection to humans. pa rticularly Abraham·s seed.7
2. Plausiblr Rejrmus for OiKOUIJEVfl Significan t if not cruciaL to understanding. why the preacher begins by t"'ntrasting Christ to the angels are these words: ·and ;-tg:lin when he brings the Firstbo rn into the habitable world, he says. "And let all God 's angels worship him··· (Heb. 1.6). Whatever o ne understa nds the referent of oiKou~ivq to be .slants o ne's view of the Christ- angels contrast in the preacher's a rgument.
Though exegetes ha \'C a rgued fo r several d if ferent referents ror oiKoviJiVrJ. recent discussion focuses upon three that are most plausible: ( I) the pre"!'xi~tent Son's .i ncarnatio n: (2) the l'arousia: ?r (3) !he resurrected Son s ascenswn.11 Assessment o l the relerent of otKOVIJWfl1S essential to understand ing the meaning and imporl of npc.:nOToKos. whet her the Son•s title o r di~_nily and exaltation . Firstborn. derives from his pre-exis te nce or from his resurrection.9 Many exegetes sim:e the andent c hurch have regula rly understood the menLion the So n as Firstbom being led inlo the habitable world. !he oiKouiJEVrJ. as referring to his incarnation. 10 Conlluenl e lements o f the lext render this conclusion dillkult w resist. 'n 1at God commanded the a ngels to worship the Firstbom Son recalls lOr many the birth narrative with echoes of angelic voices as rehea.rsed in Lk. 2.13-14. 11 Others argue that bec.a use apart from its only o ther use, n::unely in Hebrevt'S 2.5 to refer to the realm where God's reign is rea.lized. oit::ouJJEV'l re~ularly rere rs to 'the
or
i The: dua1 statements of Heb. 15 nod 2.16 arc signific-ant in that they sustain the: i.:ounterpoinl !l l>proa~'h of 1.5-14 but shift the eontrast to those for whom the Son has eomc to nicl: ( I) · For it is not to angels that he: has subjocted the world to come· (oli ybp O:yyiA.o1S' UniTo~rY n1v oit::ou!Ji vnv n1v IJ[).Aoooo:v. 2.5-): (1) 'For or course it is nol ungcls he helps but Abraham ·s des.."~Cndants· (00 yO:p 6~ noo ciyyt.\wv i m).o:iJ~O:vno:t OA.\0: orripuo:To; 'A~o:O:IJ EmMJJ~'UHOI: 1.16).
8 54-'C. ~·.g.. a lis• by Owen. 1/ehn:ws. pp. I51- 5!. He: identifies si:o: views (Urrent in his day for Christ's npc.lt0TC«os- title: ( J) incarnation:{!) resurrection: (3} dToctunl preaching of the: gospel: (.J) reign on cnrth for a thousand ye.us: (5) second advent and final judg-ement: and (6) triumphant ascension. Owen's view entuils ~· composi te of all (p. 156j. 9 cr. Hdycr. •PmiiJiokos·. p. 7. 10 cr. Chrysostom. Th<:odorct. and Ambrose. Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa. hoWC\\':1'. rcg.a rd the rdcrcnllo be Christ's .sceond :tdwnl. II Though Attridge takes Heb. 1.6 as :1 rcfcrcntt to the iocarnalion. he sees ·no need to posit any ullusion to luke ! . IJ. whcrc. in any <::.\SC~ !he ungds do nol worship the Son' (Hnrold W. Attri dg~·. Thi' Epi.\'1/e /(J 1he flehret•·.o: (Hcrmc:ncin: Philnddphiu: Fortress. 1989). n. 67. p. 56.
The £sc/wwlogica/ World
31
inha bited human wo rld . a nd thus is best t~-1ke n in 1.6 ·as a reference to the inca rna tion·.!:! Long ago. at Lhe dose of his essay on oiKouiJEVfl. Albe.n Vanhoyecautioned. It is th us ncccssury 10 1a kc c
h umiliution below the a ngels (2.7. 9): the. second is cxahution above them ( 1.4-6). This cxahation docs not occur at the time of the return of Christ, but ac.x~ordi n g to the context of the epistle and the una nimo us teachings of the NT. it took p ku:e a lr<.·-ady. in his triumphant sm:rilicc.'.J
Thus, il is surprising that, despite Ca ird's interpre1a tion-allering proposa l tha t t he pre.acher" s a rgume-nt in 1.5-14 is governed by his use o f Psalm 8 in 2.6-8, he still regarded God's leading the Firstborn into t he world as refe rring to the inca rnation and not exahation. Caird claims t his on the Strenglh o r Heb. 10.5, 'when he came into the world ' ('ioEpXOIJEVO) EIS' 14 T0v K0o~ov). ·nuee observations caution us against ta king 1.6 a.s re-ferring. to Christ's inca rna lion. F'irsl. when the preacher spe;ikS o f the Son's incarna tion. he presenlS him as being. made lmn!r lhan the angels, not exalted over t hem as one worshiped by t hem (2.9) 1 5 R ather. 1.6 portrays the Son as exahed over lhe a ngels who receive God's command to worship the So n. Second. it is curious that Caird steps over t he only o ther use of oiKou)JiVfl in Hebrews> namely the fu11er expression in 2.5 'the habitable world to come - as defining ig use in 1.6. Instead. Caird defmes lhe Son's being ' led into the olt:::ou!J[vqv· wilh a phrase that employs an altogether different word - 'when he tame inlo the K0o)Jov' ( 10.5)1 6 purposeful use of oiKou~ivq a nd not Koo~os in both 1.6 a nd 2.5 points away from the in(·arnation as its referent a nd to 'the habitable world to come'. 11 Third. the c:ontext, ton ectly identified by Cairc.l. fea tures ex:illa tion over the angels as the destiny 'achieved by Christ, both individually a nd representa lively. as t he pioneer o f man·s salvmion who tame to lead ma n}' sons into t heir deslined glory'Y~ Thus. for Caird to re-.ad oiKou~'VrJ as referring to Christ's inca rna tion seems to counter his
·n,e
cr. ibkl.. p. 56. 13 Vanhoy<:. ·L ·oiKovl.liVfl dans l'epitrc uox Hebn::ox·. Bib 45 ( 196-1). p. 253. I ~ G. B. Cnird. ·son by Appoi ntm~"lll'. in Tht' Ne ~r Tt>.fUIIIU'III Age (cd. Willinm C. W~-inrit: h: Mncon. GA: Mcr~cr University l'res.'i. 1984). I. pp. 75- 76. 15 Cf. Kcnnc.th l. Schenck. ·A Cclcbmtion of the En!hroncd Son: The Catcnn Clf HcbrL'WS r. JBL 110 t1001}. p. 478. Sc-hc:nd pro1x·rly pCiints l\Utthat Lk. 2.13·14 docs not depict the nngds worshiping Christ bu! giYing glorr to God for the birth of Jcsu.s.. 16 Cf. George JCI!mston. ·Oit:oo!JiY'l and Kciouo-; in the New Tcsuuncnt'. /liTS 10 (1964). pp. JS.J- 54. It is noteworthy t hat the preache-r uses Eioipx~o:L not tioOy(,). nnd K0oiJ05. not oi.::ou1.1ivrt. in his introductory fom1ub in 10.5. tio~p~\105 ois T(w l(cioiJOY. 17 Cf. Allx-n Vanhoy<:. · L·o·lKOviJi-vn duns l·Cpitrc nux HCbn:ux·. pp. 24S-S3. IS G. B. Caird. ·Tbc Exegetical .Method of Hebrews'. CJT 5 (1959). p. 49. 11
32
A Cloud of Witnesses
otherwise good instincts that the preacher's quotation of Psalm 8 in Heb. 2.6-8 'cont rols the a rgument of the preceding cha pter'. 19 O thers, such as Kiisemann a nd Hering. contend that the oiKouJ,Ji VJl o f 1.6 does ~ot. refer to t~e incounation but to ~hrist's p,:u:ousia.20 Jerome rellects thts mterp retallon as does G regory o l Nyssa .- 1 Referenc.e to the second advent seems c redible. given the preacher's later mention that Chris! 'will appear a second lime (Heb. 9.28). If, as Weslcoll conlends. miAtv mod ifies the verb £loay0:Yf1. wilh the sense 'when he leads again the f irstbo rn into the world', the referent of oiKOUIJiVIl seems certain to be Christ's parousia.22 Yet. whet her rrOAtv intimate-S a second bringing of the Son into the habilable world inste;.td of introd udng auol/u:r testimony from Scripture. the t hin t. <.~oncerning the So n's superiority over the angels. is d ubious despite \Vestc.ott's preference. 13 In Hebrews nOAtv does function :1s an :1dverb oCC;Jsionally (cf. 4.7: 5.1 2: 6.1. 6). Yel, Helyer riS(llly obsef\•es !hal lhe preacher s slyle is lo use rrO.Atv as a c.onnective in his various q uotation strings (1.5. 6: 2.1 3: 10.30)."' Because ml AIVin 1.6 occurs in a calena . il is doublfullha l illinks with f ioaybyTJ ('when he again leads") but with AiyH ('ag:1in. . .he says").H 19 Jbid. 20 K:iscmann ootucnds. 'The nW.tv tioo:yO:Yfl in 1.6 refers to a lirsl .. bringing in·· which did nol occur with the inl~t mation - an event nol at :all accented in dmpter one - bu! rnthl"f with nn entry to heaven· (Wmukring People. p. 100). YeL bter he sp.."llks of 1.6. saying.· AI 1/!e J.ldTlJWia. tlw StJtl :\· l"~·"'"llllllianlx1i~re tlw tmg~·ls tJr :lie rNkemed crmmi/Jrtily m11.~1 atKI ,~·ill hf'fi~llmrt-d by IIi:; pn·s~mlftidlt ht')lJN' tlte ~mirt- ctJJJnos' (p. II2J. Cf. J. HCring. lh;hrl'Jt.\·. p. 2S. 21 Vulgate: · Et c·wu itrmm imrmhu:it primogrniurm in orhem um1C'. dicil .. : For Gregory of Nyssa·s inte.rprelatjon of Heb. 1.6. s~'C Colllrtt fwwmium ii.8 :and iv.J.
11 B. F. Westcott. 711e E.j,i.JI!f' 1tJ 1he Nehri•trs (Grand Rt1pids: Ecrdman.s.. 1974). pp. 2223. !3 We11tc-.ot1 lmgd y bases his understanding of oiKou).liv'l as ttferring to t he parousia upon t:aking nO/~.~v advcrbinlly modifying!·uJO.y0:yl'). E\'Cn if nitAIV is :td\'erbi:tl. this docs not rcsuiet I he n:forent of o·ur:owi-v'l to a future and second ttd\'ent. Brucx contends that 'the words would refer to God's bringing His firstborn b..1..::k from death into the inhabited rt.-alm again' iiML p. 17). Likewise, concerning Westcon's i n~stcntt that Otav.. .tioa y.Xy'l hns to point to a flllurc event. two qtwlificrs nttd to be ncknowledged: •(i) that this is nol the i.nvari.l•blc force of Ota v with the !aorist subjuncti\'C (cf. I Cor. 15.27. Ola v & tin~}. and (ii) that even if this is its force here. the futurit)· may be with respect to the time when IXul. 32.43 was uttered' (p. 17). 2-1 Hdya. ·PrctlJWkos'. pp. 7-8. Cf. Kenneth Schenck. U~tdeuumding lire B-l·f . Bib 66 ( 1985). p. 509. Meier contends. •Pufi11 simply follows nlong after tie. which must stand within the. hown clause .. . The consuuction is not totally without parniJd~ a somcwhal similar msc occurs in Wis. 14.1. The author of Wisdom ht1s bc~-n dis..:ussing idolatry nnd the scnsck:s~ne:ss of m:1king a nd worshiping an idol ( 13. 10-19). As he begins a new example of idol:ttr)'. h4: !'.1)"S in 1-1.1. plmm tis pali11 .slel/omt'mu . The sense is not: ··One pn:paring again to sail. . :· bul r~11hcr "Ag.:1in Jto usc anothl\r cx~• mpk). one preparing to sail. .. ·· Although pt11i11 oocurs within the sx•n icipi:•l clause:. it rcnlly fu nctions .. in front or ·
The £sc/wwlogica/ World
33
Consequently. almost surely the preacher uses miA1v in 1.6 as a conne<·tive with the whole introductory fOrmula: ·and again, when he leads the F irstborn into the habitable world , he says'. 26
T hat oiKouiJiVfl refers to the heavenly world inhabited by angels where the Son is now enthroned is embraced by sever.tl scho lars wilh v~uyi ng degrees of exegetical consideration and orcontldenc.:e. 27 Sever~! I elements within the text are contlrming. that we are o n the righ t track lo understand oit
lf Caird·s suggestion iscorrt'Ct that the argument in 1. 5-1 4 is governed by the use of Psalm 8 in Heb. 2.6-8. 1he wo rd selection in 1.6 seems the dau.sc. acting as a e-onnl"Ctivc which enumcmtes. The same is true of the puli11 in He-b. 1.6a· (pp. SOCJ- 10). Soe<•lso F. F. Brucc:'s interaction with B. F. Wcstootl on Wis. 14.1. n)..oVv Tl$ ncl).w OTE).).~\.*05 (l/ehn!I1'S. p. 15, ll. 71). 26 Usc of npc..:~tOToKo:; recalls Ps.. 89.27(88.18), 3 psalm the- prc.achcr d o~-s. not cite-: ' I nlso will make him the firstborn. the highest of the kings of the earth' (K0.yC:, npc•.nO'!c..:ov et)o®o:• aVTOO, Uo.JrnkOv nOflci Tol:; ~oo.>.Mnv Ti)s 'f1k;). 17 Rcpn:r.enlt•tive of this view indudc Schenck. 'A Cdcbmtion of the Enthroned Son·. pp. 478-19: George: H. Gmhric:. 1/ehnMs (NIVAC: Grand Rnpids: Zondcrvan. 1998). p. 69: F. F. Bruce:. 1/ehn••rs. p. 58. 28 For a c.:.roful study of the OT citation in Heb. 1.6. sec Gcrt Jacobus Stcyn. ' A Qul'St for the Vorlnb><: of the ..Song of M~)S('s'· (lkut 31) Quotations in Hebn:.ws·. Nrm .l.J (1000) pp. 163-68. Steyn argues mther convincing!)' that the citution likely deri,•c.s from the \~rsi on of Moses' Song in Ode 1 found in the: :.ppcndi.x to the Psalms in the LXX. 19 Cf. Kenneth Schl·nd:. 'Keeping His Appoi ntm~·nt: Cn:ation and Enthronaucnt in Hebn:ws·. JSNT ('I;) H997}. p~l. 91- 1 17.
A Cloud of Witnesses
34
designed to anticipate elements \\~thin the latte.r portion of the continued oontrast between t he Son a nd t he ang.els. 30 Thus. when the preacher says. 'Not to angels. has he subjected the world w conw. about whi<:h we are speaking' (2.5). a t Jlrst blush one may wonder where a nything, has tx..~n said concerning ' the world to come', other than t his mention in 2.5. Yet. by reverse reading through t he previous pas..s.age, it seems evident th~ll the 'the world to come', albeit with a variety of text s peaks frequent ly descriptions. T he passage speaks of (I) salvation o.1s an inheritance yet to be obta ined (1.14- 2.4): (2) the consummation o f the So n·s reign when his enemies will be su!<jected to him ( 1.13): (3) the Son·s e ternalness in contrast to creation whith he brings to its climax (1.10-1 2); (4) the Son·s enduring. dominion ( 1.8-9): and (5) the Son·s being, led into the habitable world whe.re God commands the angels to wors hip the Royal Son (1.5-6). T herefOre. it seems likely that t he statement ·for not to angels has he subjected the world to tome (2.5) underscores t he s ignill'"\nce of the s1atement oi 1.6. 'n te Son is exalted; an~_els worship t he So n. Likewise, the statement in 2.5 prepare.s fo r the- cit~ttion from PsalmS. ·rhus, the world to come that concerns salvation will not be subject to angels. h will be subject to humans but o nly because the So n will resto re its dominion to humans. Concerning 2.5. it is doubtful that the femin ine relative pronoun in the phrase mpl ft5 AaAoii~Ev refers merely to nlv oiKou~ivrJV -nlv J.LiAAouoav. 31 Though one may expect that the relative prono un would be neuter if its antecedent were a larg.e unit of thought, including the ca tena of 1.5-1 4. it seems unreasonably rest rictive to limit the pronoun's antecedent to nlv oiKou!JEvrw TAv !JiAAouoo:v. That the relative pro no un is feminine r.tther than neuter may be due to ;.1ttraction to the gender of the noun ~ oiKou~iv'l which occ urs in 2.5. This second mention or q oiKouiJEVfl. with its modifier (_Tftv iJ'AAouoav). surely suggests that the antecedent o r the phrase 't~onceming which we are speaking' re..;:l(;hes ix:tc:k
or
30 Caird's proposal thttt 1.5--14 should be read in view of 2.6-.8 implicitly views these two p.1Ssages as a unit. Similar to Caird. Albert Vanhoyc regards Heb. 1.5- 2.18 us a unit ('A Name- So Different from the Name of the Angels·. from A Structured Tmn.fltllifm iJf thr Epi.\lh' Itt 1ile 1/ebrc>lr.\· (trans. J. Swetnam: RonlC:: Ponlilll-a1 Biblical Institute. 19641. p. S). Swetnttm dis;lgtl'tS with Vanhoye. s..1ying. ·vunhoyc·s "announa:mcnt of the: theme.. in l A is wdl takcn: the verse dcnrly refers to what follows. But it can hardly be applied to the entire sec-lion 15- ! .IS. for the nnnounoement states that Christ is :>TJJ'i!riilt (t:pEITtwv) lo the angels and onlf 1.5- 23 speak of 1his superiority: the l't'maindcr of ch. 2 speaks of his inferiority to the: angds by dwelling on his suffering und death (cf. 2.9.10.1 4) and his brotherhood with men (d. 2.11- 16) in 1he context of Ps & with its. catch phrase: on the inferiority of men to angels (2.6-9).' Soc Jttmcs Swetnam. •form and Contcm in Hebrews 1- 6·. Bib 53 (1972). p. 373.
31 Blomberg argues in this \•o lume. •If the rd11tive pronoun were referring back to a Luger unit of thoug)llthan just a single word ttn tecodl~nt. we would haw cxpe.:tt:d the neuter gcn
The £sc/wwlogica/ World
35
through the context IO lhe previous mention of~ oh::OUIJ~Vfl in 1.6 to the Son's present exaltation. ~n1us. it is re~1sonable to regard ' the habitable world to come· in 2.5 as clarifyi ng 'the habitable world' mentioned in 1.6 into which God led the Son. As Schenck: o bserves, it is t-on<.-eivable that the prea<.~her uses oiKOUIJ~VI'J in 1.6 'prt~dsely bemuse of the irony it creates·:l2 The true habita ble world is not the world as it is presently. Rather, the t rue abode of God's people is ' the ha bitable world tha t is to come·. God's people are 'strangers a nd exiles on the earth· i 11.13) who seek 'the l1eavenly homeland' ( 11. 14. 16). ' Here we have no enduring d ty, but we a re seeking after the d ty that is to come (T~V ~iMovoav b!l~ijTOU~'v: 13.14.) Because God has already led the Firstborn into the habitable world that is to come. all whom God leads lo glory now have a forelaste of t he powers of the :1ge to come (6.5), fo r a lready we have come to ' Mount Zion. even the city o f the li ving God , lhe heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels in festal congregation. and to the assembly of t he firstborn ones whose names a re enrolled in heaven and to God. the judge of all, a nd to the spirits or righ teous ones made perfect, and to the mediator of the new covenant. Jesus. and to t he sprinkled blood that speak> a beller word than the blood of Abel' (13.22-24). ·n t is eschatologic::a l habitation o r kingdom that cannot be sh:1ken {12.28), Lhoug.h not presently pa lpable. is real a nd is !\rring. of death is now <.~rowned wilh glory and honor (2.8-9). T his <:ontrast o f lWo antithetical realities seems to underscore despair and hope: (I) the c urse persists as creation continues to elude subjection to humanity; but (2) we see Jesus. who was for a time mude lower lhan the angels to subje(~t himself to the curse of dea th and thus be 32 Schenck. 1/t'hrews. p. 49.
36
A Cloud of Witnesses
exalled over the angels. Though il is likely that Jesus is the din...·<·t relerent of neither 'man' nor ' the son of man· mentioned in Psalm 8 as dted in Heb. 2.6-8. by virtue of his becoming human he will restore glory. honor. and dominion to his siblings (He b. 2. 7-8: Ps. 8.5-6). These expressions g,lory. honor~ and dominion - depict the restor.uion of exaltation over creation that Jesus has won for his siblings and will at last endow upon them, for God is 'leading many sons to glory· (2. 10- 11), that is, into 'the ha bitable world to come' (2.5), '"he has already led t he Firstborn ( 1.6). ·n1us. there is an implied continuity between the present world ;md the '"'orld to tome. The present world, in which not all things have been put into subjection to humans, will yet be brought into subjection to them but not through their own h• bor.s but through Jesus· triumph over death, but not yet. By vin ue of his inherited title, the f irstborn, a designation greater than that of any of the :mgl!.IS, Jesus bequeaths his title to his siblings who :1re called 't he first born ones· (12.23) who, as stra~_;;ers and aliens. by lliith seek for a homeland, a heavenly one (I 1.13-16).' · If oit::oupivi"J in 1.6 anticipates its use in 2.5. the same seems true of Christ's exaltation when God 'leads the Firstborn into the habitable world. (E\ociyc.> . . .EtS TilV oiKO<J~iv~v; 1.6) \Vhith seems purposefully anticipatory of God's 'letulin,({ many sons into glory' (Ei5 OO~av ciyoyOvTa~ 2.10). on \Vhose behalf the champion of their salvation was made pedect thro ugh suO'ering. The Son ·s present glorification secures the future glorifk"-v iK VEKpi)v) - it is evident that Jesus· exaltation over the angels is linked to his resurrection. fOr he is e.xalted above the an~els because his suJTering of death on behalf of everyo ne is t riumphant (2.9-10)."
3. Implications Concerning 11Jr T!wology of Hrbren'S The <'ent ral feat ure of the preacher·s 'word of exhortation' (Heb. 13.22) is the supremacy and finali ty of Christ's high priesthood :ts expressed in 8. 12: 'N
or
.U On Hcb. 12.!3. cf. Hdycr. ·fmUJt&!ws·. P1>. 12- 16. 34 Cf. Lunc-. Hi>hMI'J. 1.55.
35 Compare lhc c.xpressions in the !hn:c p:L\'Stlgcs in He-brews.: 1.6 0TOOI riocry6yq rou npr..nOrc«ov tis -n\v oi~~:oojJ[VI)v: 2.10 rro).:\oUs oioU) n·)- ~o:v cryo}'rillm TOO clpxrwCw T~) crc-.nnp'to$ roiTc:lv: 13.20 b dvayaycJv(K ll':eKpc:lYT(w ITOIUivo l'~V npcf30;T(.)y ,.(w !Jiyo:v iv a·t~o:-rt o,o.erjl
The £sc/wwlogica/ World
37
Covenants finds initial expression in the lirsl warning which juxtaposes the Son's superior revel~Hory word \\~th that or the angels through t he law (2.1-4). l 'his Lies the catena and conlr:tst of 1.5-1 4 inle~rally to the overall a rgument or the epistle.36 last-days-revelation by the Son supersedes angelic mediation oithe Law and renders the angelic message passe, :ls the pre-existe nt o ne. who was made lower than the ~mgels for a little while but has been exalted over them. is now enthro ned a t God"s right hand and exalted over the angels who are t<)mmanded to worship him. T he angels spoke on the earth (brl yRsl- but the Son speaks from heaven (cirr' • )J2') oupav(.o)v: _. ) .
The eschatology of the epistle seems i..'Omplex.n ll e ntails two ems o r salva tion history: former days and these last da_rs. It also entails two covenants: the forst and the New Covenants (8.71l). The Jlrsl covenant entails the world of earthly sluulmrs or copies. The New Covenant entails the world of Jwarculy Jhiugs o r true filings, that is, original things. things unshakeable (cl'. 8.5; 10.1: 12.27-28). Implicit within the temporal axis, then, is another aspect of the epistle's eschato logy which entails two · realnu: {!arthIy and IIeawmlr. For the true tabernacle (q. OKflVfl· fJ··o:A11aWfl; 8.2) is in heaven: the eart hly tabernacle is but a copy (u rroony~a) and a s/uu/01r (oKia) of the heavenly o ne (8.5). Because Christ has ente red the tr ue. sanctuary. the heavenly one. ha ving offered tl be-tter S..'I.CrHk".C than the Leviles om~red. he put an end to shadow s.a('rifices o n earth. lOr he offered the definitive sacrifice that satisfies the demands. of the true sanct uary. the heavenly o ne (9.2311). A ll this. is anticipated in the exordium·s contr.tsts between God•s past and present revelation.
• • • •
Pas! Rel'efatiou recurrent in ways :llld io times · long ago God spoke by the prophets
Pr(~senl
• • • •
Rt!wdation
linal (implietl by all said the Son) in thes.e last days God has spoken by his Son
or
These cont rasts along the temporal axis span the epistle as the preacher shows. how fOrmer things a re jOreshadows o r all that is fOund in Christ and how he fulHIIs them (cr. I0.1 11). Yet. the exordium includes a spa tial d imension and cont rast, too. fOr the earthly r~-tlm is a sluulow or the he-avenly (cf. 8.1-5}. which an~ounts for the Son"s presence in and pas~-tge between both. T he Son who passed from the heave-nly to the earthly realm 36 Sec: Schc:nd:. ' En!hroncd Son·. pp. 469- 85. 37 For 11 helpful summury presentation of 1he spatial and ccmporul dimensions of !he c:schlltoll"lgy of Hcbrews. S« Schcnd:. Hebrtows. pp. 8-12.
38
A Cloud of Witnesses
offered himself as a sacrilke on eart h and satisfied not only the earthly oovenant, pulling sacrHk".e to a n e nd. but also ~a.tislled the heavenly demands once. a nd for all. T he pre-existent Son, t hrough whom God cre-.Hed the worlds and who is the reflection of God's g.lory and the exact imprint o f God's beinj\ a nd whose powerfu l word upho lds all things ( 1.2b-3a). made pu rill"llion lo r sins and has re-entered the hea ve-nly realm to be seated a t the righ t ha nd of the Majesty on high ( 1.3b). Christ's appear.Jnce 'once a t the end of the ages' (9.26) marks the end of t he o ld era. His entra nce into the habita ble '"'oriel. the world to tome, <:onllrms the end or the old but also conll rms the inauguration o f t he new, both in heaven and o n earth. His e ntrance into t he habitable world to come and his exalta tion over the angels tn the heavenly realm derives from his priestly role in the earthly realm when he made purificat ion lOr sins. The So1~'s present exaltation over t he a ngels and his enthro nement in the oiKOUI-"V'l bring near the habita ble world to t'Ome for God's people. In his wake the Son has swept God·s people into ' these last days•. Alre.;.1dy we have a taste of the powers o f the age to tome (6.5). Already ' the good things promised of old have come with Christ (9.11 ). With his exaltation the Son has glven us immed iate acr.-ess to Ood ·s presenc-e in the heavenly sa nctuary as the final Day approaches (I 0. I 9.25). ·n 1e man Christ Jesus has made us 'e-scha to logical crealures·.JK
4. Colll·lusions ·n 1e Son's being led into t he oiKouJJEVfl where a nge ls worship him is not a relerence to his incarnation, tho ugh what is said o r him in Hebrews 1.6 does not occur without his becoming llesh and blood (2.1 4). The Son s being made lower tha n the a ngels for a lillie. while. during the days o r his flesh (5. 7). was nec-ess.:.u y so th~11 by his death he might sanr.·tify his siblings (2. I I) and Jlnally subject the oiKou~iv~ to tome to us fo r whom he tasted death. T he Son's exaltation in lhe oit::ou)J[Vfl is a lso not his parousia. What is said o r the Firs tbo rn in 1.6 does no t occur disconnected from his second advent. His being. led into lhe oiKOUIJ.iVfl is ll/r(~ady ~u:complishetl in the f irstbo rn's aSl·ension into the hea venly realm t hat angels inhabit. The man Christ Jesus, led into the oiKou~iv~ by God (1.6). is now enthro ned 'al lhe right hand or God · as he waits ' until his enemies s ho uld be m~1de a Jootstool fo r his teet' ( 10.12; 1.2. 13: 2.8-9). He will appear a second time to consummate the inheritance of :til whom he came to help (9.28; 1.1 4). not angels but Abraham's seed ( 2.16). to who m he will subject the 38 For 1h~ term. soe Gcc.rhardus Vos. 171t' Tearhing 11/Jlle £pisllr UJ tile 1/(!/wws (Grand Ra pids: Eerdmnn11. 1956). p. SO.
The £sc/wwlogica/ World
39
oi
Chapter 4 CH/1/SiOS AS PtStOS: TH E FAITH(FU LNESS) OF JESUS IN THE EPISTLE TO TH E H EB~EWS
Todd 0 . Still
No small number of conlemporary PauJine interpreters are now inclined to render rrions XptoToii (and similar expressions in Paurs tellers) as the ·failh(ihlness) o f Christ' (the s<>-<:alled ·subjective g.enilive reading).' Although such a construal of rrloTtS XptOToV is not a new development in Pauline studies. it continues to inc:ite learned and animated responses from scholars who remain co tw inced that the phrase is best understood as ·raith in Christ· (k nown tts the 'objecth e genitive' re.ading.).2 l ndeed. those who are engaged in this tX>mple.x> lively debate have expended a tremendous amount of energ.y and have g.enerated a stagg_e ring number of publications. For those who might wonder why t he tr.lnslation o f rrions XptotoG has led to a hullabaloo a mong Paulinisls. David G. Horrell oilers this explimation. ' h may be going. too far to see this [i.e., an incre-ased tendency among Pauline interpreters to read n!OTt5 XptOToU subjectively as opposed to objeetivelyl as a major <:ha nge in our whole understanding of Paul's gospel. but it certainly shifts the fOcus (as well as how o ne reads certain verses in Pa ur s lettersJ. . . now the stress is not on the belie.ver's response but on the ~lclion of Christ. o r, more precisely. o n what God has done in Christ ·J 1
I Seven such phrases appc.•ar in llaul: sec Gnt :!:. 16 (twice). 20: 3.ll: Rom. 322. 26: Phil. 3.9. For a study of Jesus' faith(fulness} both wit11in und bq ·ond the New Tesl~mten t. soc: Jan G. Wnllis.. Tltt> Faith 1JfJe.fll.\' Chri.rt in l:."urly Cllristkm Tuulitiwu (S:,.lTSMS. 84: C.:.mbridgc: Cambridge University Press. 1995). 2 For t• relatively recent upd:llt on l h~· stntt-nnd the stakes of this dcb:1tt-. soc: Richard U. Hays. Tlw Faith of Jt!.,·us CllriJt: Tht' NarrolilY! SubJII' II((/Iff' t~(Ga!Uiimu J:l--4:1! (Grand Ra pids: Ecrdm:ms. 2nd edn, 2002). pp. 272- 97. Cf. R. Barry Mnlloc-k . ... Even the: Demons lklicve" : P..wl and nion :; Xp1o1"01i'. CBQ 64 (2002). pp. J00-18. Sec- now t~ l so Oougi!Ls A.
Campbc:ll. 7llt' Q11eJt for Pu11f's Gt}.f(~:/: A S11gg~·.ued Strult!gy (London,/Nc:w York: T&T Clnrk. 2005). pp. 90-93. and D.:.vid G. Horrell, An lnt•·(}(/uc'liouto tlw Suul.r IJ/ Paul ( London/ Nc.w York: T&T Clark. :!:'nd c:dn. 2006). pp. 18--80. 3 Ho1Tdl. Paul. p. 79.
Christos as Pistos
41
Given the ongoing. d iscussion and imporlant repercussions of this scholarly sea change. not to mention the demonstrable lite ran•. theologic.:.-tl, and historkal conne<.·tions between Paul and Hebrews.a o ne is s urprised by the paucity of academic work devoted to the subject o r Jesus· fa it h(rulness} within a letter t hat for many centuries was commonly tho ught to have been written by Paul. 5 My purpose in this essay is to exam ine the recurring comments re~.arding Jesus' ndelity in Hebrews in o rder to discover both the substance and s ignilicance or this Christological belief for the author and auditors of this first <>!nlury ;l.oyos Tiis rra pa
I. Jesus ' Faith(jidness) as High Priest and Son Alth.ough w<~rds with the root n1e {meaning 'to bind') recur in He~rews. partiCularly m chapter II where lTIOT15 o<.."Curs no less than 24 tunes/) terms buill upon this root first fea ture in chapter 2 of the letter. Having pictured and portrayed Je-Sus as the origim1tor or pioneer (ci:p)(T}ybs) o r salvation who suffe rs. sanctilies. a nd stands with believers (2.10- 11). in 2.1 2-Bihe author places Scripture on the lips of the cipx~yO;. Stringing toget her three biblical citations. wherein Jesus is now s peaking.. Hebrews has the lowered Lord declare thai he will proclaim and pra ise God's name among the congregation. the children whom God has given him (2.12, 13b; d . Ps. 21.23: lsa. 8.1 8 [LXX].) Additionally. in 2.13a the writer, seemingly d rawing upon lsa. 8.17 (cf. 2 Sam. 22.3; Ps. 17.3). has Jesus confess, ' I will trust in him (Ey~ ~oo~at rrHTOI~S Err' aUT~)'. Here it a ppears that Jesus is ad nowledging his belief and declaring his conlidence in God.' This confession serves at le.tst two funct ions: in its immedi~ite 4 On the \'llrious links bctw..'C'n Pt1ul and Hcbn:ws.. in addition to n. 24 bdow. sec. e.g.. Rurmond E. Brown. At1 lmriXIuoicn ltJ the Nrlf T l'.slmtwllt (New York: Doublcduy. 1997). pp. 093- 9.J. 5 Regarding ruith in Hebrews in gt:ncral. St.'C Eri,.h Grasser. D.,,. Gla11ht' im Jll'hrtil'rhri~( (M:uburg: Elw...,t. t965}. und Victor (Sung·Yul) Rhce. Fuitll in l/ebr-f'\fS: Anttly.fi5 h"illu'tllhe Comat tJfCJwiMclqg_r. Erclullology. all(/ Etllks (Studil.'$ in l!ibli~ll lil(rnlurc. 19: New York: Pe1cr lang. 1001). Wi1h respccl to Jesus· r:~ith(rul ness) in p.uticu1ar. sec o~·tm is Hmnm. 'Fnith in the Epistle to the Hebmvs.: The Jesus Fnctor'. CBQ 52 (1990). pp. 270- 91. nnd Wallis. Faith. pp. 145-61 . 6 Sp..X'illcally. in 11.1. 3.4. 5, 6. 1 (twice). S. 9. I I. IJ. 17. !0. 21. 11.23. 24.11. 28. 19. 30. 31. 33. 39. Additionally. iftoTOs nppc:ars in 11.11. and illonVt.:~ ocxun;: in 11.6. 7 So also Craig R. Ko~-slcr. Jh-hren·s(AB. 36; r-..'ew York: Doub1cdny. 2001). p. 237. who sug,gests. ·The: trust tht•t Christ exhibits is rda!ed lo the faith 1 h~11 is fi tting ror evc:ty child or God H·lcb. I 1)'. Sec: ulso l'aul Ellingworth. Tile Epi.\-lh' liJ thi' N~·brP~rs (NtGTC: Gr.1nd
42
A Cloud of Witnesses
litera ry conlexl. it underscores the shared n-tilh orJesus with his brothers and sisters in God~ in a broader episto lary frame. it introduces the importa nt leitmotif o f l~tith o r fidelity.g In communicating the toncept o f (Jesus') f~lit h(rolness) to the teller's add ressees. the author or Hebrews does not feel constrained to employ only those words with the root me. This is illustra ted by 5.7- 10. Beginning in 5.7, the letter writer conveys the idea or Jesus· fidelity by referring to the 'pr.tyers a nd s upplictllions' tha t Jesus offered up to God with loud cries and tears. ~·(oreover. the author maintains in ve.rse 7 that Jesus was heard by God tx..~ause of his ' reverent s ubmission or piety' (rUA0:(3,•a ) to God. Furthermore-. verse 8 contends. 'allhough he was :l Son. he lea rned obedience Ito GodJthrough what he suffered· (cf. Phil. 2.8). The Son's obedient suffering. verse 9 holds. was integra l to his being perfected and enabled him to become the ·source or e terna l salvation (a'ITt05 OQTflp'ta5 aic..:>vlou) to all those who obey him'. It is also worth noting. in passing that Heb. 10.5- 10. d rawing upon Ps. 39.7-9 (LXX). has Christ assert tha t he has come to do God"s will (cf. He b. 10.9a wit h Ps. 39.9 (LXXJ) 9 Returning to terms in He brews with the root n1e, o ne Hrst e nco unters the adjective rrtoTO, near t he end of c hapter 2. In 2.14-1 7 the a uthor ma intains t hat it was Jesus• concern lOr t he sinful. enslaved seed of Abra ha m. under the powe r and Je~, r of death. which caused him to become 'blood and Oesh' and to ' be made like the brothers in a ll things·. Moreover. Jesus' incarmttion. which was ma rked by suffering and temptation, enabled him to be<:o me ~~ ·merciful ~md f~tithrul High Priest in the servic-e o f God' a nd to ma ke expiation lOr the sins o r the people·. ·n 1e term rendered 'High Priest· (cipxtEp~Us) a ppears 17 times in Hebrews. frequen tly \\1th special reference to Jesus (e.g .• 3.1: 4.1 4, 15: 6.20) 10 It is only in 2.1 7. however. that Jesus is depkted ~ts a rrtOT~ dpx~tpEUs. 'This title resembles I Kgdms 2.35. where the Lord declares that he will r.tise up fo r himselr a la ithful priest (iEpia moT0v). Like n!OTt5, moTOs is a polyvalent word. which C'.tn carry bo th a passive {'Lrus tworthy, lirm') and a<.~tive ('trus ting. fait hful') me~-min~. 11 In 2.17. il appears that rnoTOs is lbpids: Ecrdmans. 1993). p. 169. J tun not persuaded by David A. dcSilva's suggc.stion that Jesus is placing his trust in individual believers (Pt'r.f.tl'eJ'allrt' ill Gmtillldt>: A Suci(I-RI/etorica/ Conmu•ntur.r tm the Epi.wle 'to the llcbrews'[Gmnd Rapids: Emimans. 2000). pp. 116- 17). S S'-"'C H:•rold W. Anridgc. TIIP l.firtlr Jo tile Hrbre•rs (Hcnn~nct:. : Philaddphi..'l: Fortrc.ss. 1989). p. 9 1. 9 Hamm (•f:.it h', pp. 283- 86) ttlso notes t he tcXLs referred to in this paragrnph and daborutcs upon them more full)'. tO On (Jesus") pries1hood in this epi sd~·. stt. e.g.. John tvl. Scholer. fwleplit' Prit·sts: Pri.-.whood ill til~ Epistle to 1ile 1/ehrews (JSNTSup. -19: S h~Oidd : Sheffield Arndcmic Press. t 99t). II See H:.mm. 'Faith'. p. 181.
Christos as Pistos
43
utilized to describe Christ as both 'a trustworthy or reliable High Priest' and o.1s 'one who is fai thrul to God'. even if in this instance the latler \'a la n(-e is strong_ e r than the former. 12 At t he outset of chapter 3. our autho r compares Jesus to Moses. 13 In the course of this comparison. JTioTOs appe;.1rS twice more (3.2. 5). Having depicted Jesus as ' the apostle and High Priest of ftheirj confession· in 3.1 , the write.r proceeds to state in 3.2 that Jesus was faithrul (moT05} to the o ne who ;.1ppointed him (i.e. God) even as Moses was 13 ithful in God's house. Then in ve.rse 5. d rawing upon Num. 12.7. lhe biblical author de.S(.~ribes Moses as a servant (6~pCmwv) who was ' faithful (moT05} in (fv) all of fO od's] house. In 3.6. however. Hebrews holds that Christ was a son ·o,•e r (i rrl) [God's] ho use (cf. 10.21). Although ITIOT05 does not actually appear in verse 6 in the Greek text (cf. 3.2). the idea is implied by the coordina ting (contrastive} t:o njunction OE and is rightly supplied by most modern translations (e.g. [N]osv, [TfNIV, NASI!. Nell). Following Albert Vanhoye, Dennis Hamm maint;.lins that in 3.2 (cf. 3.6) rnoTOs- denote.s Jesus· trustworthiness as God's High Priest. not his fidelity toward God. 14 It seems to me. however. in light or the lexica] elasticity or ITIOT05 as we.JI aS the multi-face ted nature and characte r o r Jesus' high priesthood set i(>rth in t he lines of the lette r (see esp. 7.26-28), tha t such a monodimensional understandine.of t he te rm in 3.2 (and 3.6) is overly precise a nd unnecessarily restrictive. 11 Even if 3.2 empha$izes Je-s-us· Jldelity lo God as a son in his divinely orda ined role as a postle and High Priest (3.1)) this in no way predudes rnoTbs from connoting that he exercised :md exhibited faith in fulfi ll ing his appointed functions as the incarnate, anointed Son or God (cr. 1.9; 2.14; 5.7-1 0). This suggestion becomes all the- more probable given t he author·s co njoining. of mOT05 with cipxtrp~Us- in 2.17, not to mention the. contention fOund in 2.13 that Jesus trusted in God (in the throes orsu!Tering a nd temptation f2.12. 18: cf. 4.1 5: 5.7-8!). 1• T he author o r Hebrews reasons. then, that although God's fa ithful 12 So W~llis.. f(tilh. p. 148: cf. Hamm. ·faith·. p. 28 I. nnd F. F. Bruce. Thr EpiJIIf' ltJ 1/w Jlt-'bre~t·s ( N I CNT~ Grnnd Rnpids.: E<:rdmnns. 196-IJ. p. 5'2.
13 Sec further. Mary Rose o ·Angdo. Mrues ill tlw Leiter Jo lbe 1/ebrt'lrs (SBLDS. 41: MT: Sd1olan: Press. 19i9). 14 Sec: Alben Vanhoye. •Jesus' " fiddis c:i qui fecit c:um... Hc:br. 3.1·. VD 45 ( 1967). pp. 291- 305. nnd Hamm. 'Faith·. pp. 281- 82. 15 Hamm ('Faith·, p. 282) rcnson..c; simib rly with rcspocl 10 2.1 7. t'\'ote :tlso Bruce. 1/t'bl·t•ws. p. 51. 16 ..-\urKig~ (Jh,hrt'n·.\-. 1>. 95}. Kocstn (Hf'hrMrJ, p. 250). ~and William L. l.anc (//ebtelrs 1-8 (WBC. 47A: Dallas: Word. 1991J. p. 76) rightly link 2.1 7 and 3.2 with rc:spcctto Jl-sus· role- ns a f<•jlhful (i.e.. trusting and truslwonhy) High t'riest (conlmst Hamm. ' Fni!h'. pp. 181- 81). Ellingwonh (Nebrcw.r. p. Ull) nlso condales these vcrsc:s. but along with Vanhorc ('Jesus') undl·rst:mds ntoTO:; to refer cxdusi\·dy lo J~us· f:tilhful disd1arboc of his High Pries1ly offi,e. ~1is.sou la.
44
A Cloud of Witnesses
servant ~·loses was great. God"s faithful Son Jesus is worthy of much more glory (3.3). Hebrews grounds this belief in Cluist·s lldelity a nd authority as God·s Son (cf. 2.5-9). In facl. it is in light of Jesus" merciful dependability before his Father as well as his steadfast trust in his Father that the leller"s author and recipients can pic.lure themselves as the house of God over which Jesus serves as High Priest (3.6b). Additionally. because Jesus is a tested, yet trustworthy. High Priest, not only can they boldly approach the Son~s heavenly throne of g.ro.1ce expecting mercy. but they can also approach God through him anticipating ae.ceptance (see 4.14-16: 7.1 9.25: 10.19-22). Hebrews presents Jesus as more akin to Melchizedek than to his Aaronic priestly preda,.ssors (5.6: 6.20; 7. I I) and praises him '"a High Priest who is 'holy. blameless. undefiled. separated from sinners, and exahed alxwe the heavens (7.26). Correlatively. the autho r understands Christ to be t he mediato r o f a New and beller Covenant (8.6: 9.15: 12.24) and the source of salvation lo r t hose who obey him (5.9). fn Hebrews. Jesus is no ne o ther tha n the pioneer and perfecter of the faith (12.2). fo r. like God , his char
2. Jrsus, tile Sine Qua Non of Faitil(fulness) Hebrews regards f~tith as foundational; it belongs to believers" theological A BCs, if you will (6. 1). Faith. which is described in I 1.1 as a hopeful. (.Xnmnitted mindset regarding the reality of those things not yet seen. is said to enable people to apprehend God·s generative-. creative power ( I 1.3) and to please God ( I 1.6a). Furthermore, Hebrews maintains that trusting in God's existent·e and his divine benevolence- are essential l"or drawin~ near to God (I 1.6b). fn the midst of a paSS:.ige that speaks (.~Oncretely 01' the addressees'
45
Christos as Pistos
or
fo rmer struggles, including public a buse. affliction. and the plundering personal property, the author of Hebrews iterates their need for C-onfide-nce and assuranre in doing the will of God with a view to receiving that which is pro mised by God ( I0.32-36). Earlier in chapter I 0, the recipients, who have. confidence before and at.x·ess to God through "the blood of Jesus'. are admonished to d raw ne-a r to t his 13it hful God 'With a true heart in full assurance of faith. a nd ' to hold fas t the writer conlession o r !their] hope wit hout waverin~: ( 10.19-23). toocludes chapter 10 by l".lliing the auditors to l'aithrul e ndurance: ·But my righte-ous o ne will live by fa ith, and if he shrinks back. my soul takes no pleasure in him· ( 10.38: cr. 13.4. 7). 17 ·n , is truncated citation or Hab. 2.4 (cl'. Rom. 1. 17) leads to an afllrmation of the steadl
nle
17 Sec now Radu Ghcorghlta. Tht> Role tJjlire Septuugint it1 Nrhrews: An llll'l'Siig(tfkm of ll.f ltiflumce •~·itll Spcrutionto till· Use (!{ Jlab 1:3-4 ill 1/t>b W:JJ.JS (WUl'\rr. 2/ 1 60~ TUbingcn: Mohr Sidxck. 1003). IS Ruth Hoppin (Pri.rcil/u :1 LeJt(!r: Fimlin~ tilt· AuthtJr of the £pi.wle w tltt> Jlehre•rs )San Fronc.isco: Christian Univcr:sities. Press. 1997]) revives and C:\pands upon Adolf von Hatntlck·s thc..-.is thul I'Ti..-.:iUa (Prisca) uuthon:d Hcbn~w:s. Ahhough the-~1 uthor of Hebrews defies identification. n masculine p:trticip1c is employed in 11.31.
46
A Cloud of Witnesses
a lludes to a slew of other fa it hful people in Jewish histor,l; ( I 1.32-JH) peo ple of whom. I I .38 asserts. t he world w~1s nol worlhy. \t Faithful thoug:h they were and helpful though they are, for the write r o f these people serve as penultima te examples in the Hebrews a ll unfold ing plan o f God. \~t'hich had at last reached its climax a nd co ns umma tion in Jesus. the pioneer and perfecter o f the fa ith (T0v T~S rriOTHil) cip)(llyQv Ka't T~AE I(.o)T~V, 12.2). and by way o r extenSion. in the body of believers as they embrac-e. exalt. and exhibit him as l o rd ( 1.2: 9.26: 13.3). Although fa ithful witne"es in the past and in the present are valuable, net es;;;try. and worthy of imitation (see 6. 12; 13.7), all human ma nifestations oi fidelity pale in comparison to the ma rtyr and mediator par excellence (see 8.6: 9. 15: I 2.1. 24). Jesus ' provides the perfect example of 11lith-in-pntt·tice'; he 'has not only completed t he worldly nt<.·e. but also inherited the eternal pri:te·.:!U fu rthermore. 'Jesus is the c limax of the examples of fa ith, because it is he who alone ina ugurated the fu lfillment of God's eschatological plan of salva tion and a lso carried it lhrou~Jt in his own person•. 21
or
3. Tllr Necess;ty of Ongoing Fidelity to God Because Jesus sull'ered fully •no fa ithfully. was ra ised a nd exalted to the ' right hand of the Majesty on high', a nd has given believers hope 'by the new and living way' (see 1.3: 2.1 8: 5.8: 10.20; 13.12, 20), the author admonishes t he addressees to 1\delity, maturity, and purity (e.g .. 3.1: 5.1 4: 6.1: 12.2) and calls them lo consider how ' to stir up one a nother to love and good deed s. not neglecting to meet together, as (was] lhe habit of some. but encouraging o ne a nother. a nd a ll the. more as [they saw! the Day dr~nving near· ( 10.23-25). Similarly~ the pastor enjoins them to 'encourage one a nother every day. while it is still called " today'". that none of (them] may be ha rdened by the deceitfulnes.< of sin - for (the writer re>ISons they] are pa rtakers o f Christ if [they] hold to (their] fi rst t'Onl1dence Jlit. " fr,une of mind'T (3.13- 14). To lhcilita te a nd motivate a 19 Roccnt lreatments of He-b. II indude Michad R. Cosby. 1l1t! Rlu> /orit'al ('Qmpruili()ll und F1111r1ion tJ/ 1/ebn•lr.\' 11 (to.tnoon. GA: Mercer University Press. 1988), and Pamela ~...tichdlc Eiscnbaum. Tlu· Je1ri.dJ Jll'nx-s tJf Christilm NiJtory: N~·brews I I in u Lilerm) ' Comext (SBLDS. 156: Atlanta: Scholars !'Tess. 1997). 20 Wnllis. Faith. p. 159. On Jesusns paradigm. sec further N. C layton Croy. £ndumna•ill SIJjli·ring: lleb•·t>lf.f 11:1·13 ill iu Rbnorical. Rl'ligirms. und P!lilCJJophit'al Cmrte.,·l (SNTSMS. 98: Ctunbridge: Cnmbridgc Uni\-crsity Press. 1998}, c:.sp. pp. 74--76. Contmst Ernst K:isem:mn. Je.ms Mratu J.i·i'(J(/cm (trons. Frank Clorkc: Philadelphia: Fortress. 1969). p. lOS: ' The New Testament in general docs not go to Jes.us for the esscnl-e of faith. He is not
a modd for faith. but the lord of the: bdic:u:rs: 11 So Burnab:1s Lindars. ne Ther1IPgy of lhr Letlirr ro Jl:t• 1/eb•·ews (NIT: 0 1mbridgc: Cambridge Uni\·cnity Press. 1991). p. 112. Sec similarly. Au ridboc. 1/ehre~rs. pp. 356- 57.
Christos as Pistos
47
faithful. as opposed to a 11tteful, end for the leller·s auditors. the writer both dangles an eschatologkal carrot and brandishes a pastoral stick. The audient'e is warned no t to drift aw:ly from the received messa~.e (2.1), not to tum away from the living God (3.1 2). no t to fall by means o f d isobedience (4.1 1), no r fall away from what they had perceived and tasted spiritually (6.4-6). Furthermore. they are reminded or divine judgement of sin (10.26-31) and of the spiri tua l perils of p ulling up short o r the 11nish line (1 2. 1. 15). Hebrews does not regard persever.Jnce in the 'good news' as optional for the people of God (4.2; 6.11 -12; I0.36; 12.1). Even as t he author or Hebrews employs positive models and enjoins believers to be 'imitato rs o r those who through fai th and pa tience a re inheriting the promises· (6.12). the writer also places before the 'brothers and sisters' (3.1 , 12; !0.19; 13.22) examples that they should not emulate lest they fall prey to spiritual apat hy, if not outright apostasy. Cain (11.4; 12.24). the Egyptians who drowned in the Red Sea (11.29). and those Canaanites who failed to welcome lsraelite spies serve as antitypes in Hebrews. as does the 'short-sigh ted glutton· Esau, whom the epistle depicts as an ' immoral' and ' totally worldly' individual (12. 16). ft is the Israelite people led by Moses o ut of Egyptian ca ptivity, however. whom our autho r c haracterizes as a faithless foil (tf. I Cor. 10.113; Jude 5). Dr.t\Ving: upon texts from lhe Pentateuch (save l eviticus) a.s well as Ps. 95.7- 11. t his ancient reader Scripture underscores the wilderness ge.neration•s infidelity lO God. Although t he ·good ne\~t'S· of rest had come to them (4.2. 6). the Hebrew people did not ente r t he pastures o r promise because of their hardened. wayward. e\tiJ, unbelieving he-a rts (3.8, I0, 12. 15; 4. 7). Their recalcitrance and disobed ience precluded them from entering God·s sabbath rest (4.6). God's promise of rest became vacuous because 'it w~iS not mel with (~iit h by those who heard· (4.2). T he biblit,\1. theological logic in and t he pastor• !. rhetorical purpose behind 3.7- 4.11 are clear." Although Moses was fait hful as a servant. the Israeli te people whom he led were l'a ithless. Analogously. the recipients o f the epistle. who view Jesus as a 13ithfu1 son as well as their 'apostle and High Priest· (3.1 ). must continue to hold fast to their conlidence and hope Jest they a lso stop sh011 and fall away (3.6; cf. 6.1 1, 18; 10.23). The pastor's su<..'C inc t sermo n o n fidelity begun in 3.7 cond udes with this exhorlation: ·Let us slrive, therefore. to enter that rest, tha t no o ne fall by the same sort or disobedience' (4.1 1). Although the author is contident
cr.
or
21 On this passn~><:. S« fu n he-r Erns1 Kiiscmann. Tlw IYamkd11g People qf God: An Jmvstigatitm illt(} the Uurr /Ci the IIPhreh·s Hrnns. Roy A. Hurris,·illc.nnd Jrving L Sandberg: Philadelphia: Fortress. 1984). See <~ l so Jon laansmn. '/ Wi/1 Gi1w You Re.u': Tlu· Re.fl Molf{ in thr New T~$lnmrnt with Speciul RcJem1cr ttJ .\It I 1and Heb 3-4 (WUI\'T. 1.'98: Tl1bing.c.n: Mohr Siebo:k. 1997). ttnd Judith Hoch Wr,1y. Re.~l as 11 ThctJit1gi((ll Mt•laphor ill iht' EpiJrlt•to the 1/ehrt'I\"J mul the GrJJ]Ji'l rif Tmth: &trtl' Christian llomiletirs of Ri!.\'1 (SBLDS, 166: Allttnln. GA: Scholars Pr<:ss. 1998).
48
A Cloud of Witnesses
that the addresst.-es will receive salvilk rest when Christ appears a second lime (6.9; 9.28; c f. 1.14). an intimate knowledg.e of the biblit-al plot precludes t he letter writer from "C-ounting chkkens before they hatch·. Beli~vers cannot rest on their s pirit ual laurels: they. like their Lo rd . mus t remain Ja it hful until the end (3.6. 14: 6.11).
4. Conclusion In conclusion I would like to direct our ~mention to the Christo logical co ntribution that Hebrews make.s to the New Testament <:a non by virtue of its presentation of Christ"s fa ith(fulness). Although moTOs appears with some regularity in the Greek Ne.w Testa ment (67 times. to be
precise). it is seldom ust~ with reference to Christ. In addition
lO
Heb.
2.17 and 3.2 (cf. 3.6}. the only other New Testament texts where the term occurs in conjunction with Jesus a re 2 Tim. 2.13; Rev. 1.5: 19.11 : a nd perha ps 2 ·nu~ss. 3.3. Lexicographic~il similarities notwit hstanding_. the autho r of Hebrews is t he o nly New Teswmenl wriler who <~xplil'it~r explores and expounds upon the la il h(fu lness) of Christ in a ny degree of detail (cf. also I Pe l. 2.1 8-25)-" ·rhis sta tement ho lds true. I think. even if the oblique Pauline phr.tse rrloTl5 XptoToU is best construed as Chrisfs lbith(fulness) and even \~t'hen similar concepts in Paurs lelle rs. such as Chrisrs olx.'
23 If a sc1101ttr were to idcnlify a ·narrative sut:6troe1un:' in P.:ml and wis.h to St.'C sud1 as more than less t.-xplicit. th11'.1.' A Guidt> (l ondon•'Ncw York: T&T dark. 2006).
Christos as Pistos
49
New Testame nt canon.25 ln t his a nonymous 'word of exhortation'. Christ is lauded as o ne who trusts in God and is t rustworthy befOre God. What is more> Christ is set fort h in the letter as the-example of one who lived a fait hful life a nd d ied a faithful death 2 • More than simply a model for believers, however, Jesus is presented in Hebrews as the. mediator between God and humanity and is viewed as the pure High Priest who makes expiation for people·s sins a nd who has comJXiS.Sion upon their earthly plight (2. I8: 4.15: I 2.2)-" Additiona lly, the a uthor a nd a udience of the Epistle to the Hebrews regard Jesus as the Lord who not only enables people to come to G od bul who aJso s.anctifies them. intercedes for them. and leads t hem as ' the s reat shepherd of the sheep' (2.1 I; 7.25; 13.12,
20)." Getting t he sheep to follow the fait hful shepherd faithfully. however. is no small matter. h is to this end that our le:trned pastor-theologian is devoted in this leller. 29 which in the. eslitnk of faith to our nuthor'. See similarly Grnham Hughes. Hrhr.,•rs twtl Hrnm•l/(_·utks: 1i'lr £pisllt> to/Itt· Jlt•brews as a .~·ew Trstu.mcl/1 E.wmtple IJj Biblirol lntrrprnaticm (SNTSMS. 36~ Cnmbridgc: Cambridge Univ·ersity Pres:•. 1979). pp. 7S-S6. and David Peterson. JliWr.~ws ami Pt>Jjl·t•tioll: At1 Examiuutirm t~( Jlle Crmrt'pt of Prrfoctitm itt Jhr 'Epi.wle 10 tltv 1/rhfi'h·s· (SNTSMS. 47: C:.mbridgc: Cumbridgc Univer!ci!y Press. 1982). p. 172. 28 Mureus Dods ('The EpiSIIe to the Hebrews·. in ne £ xpt}sitor's Greek TeslumNII [c:d.. W. Roben son Nicoll: 5 vols: Grand Rupids: Ecrdmans. 1988). IV. p. 366) n:.nwrks: 'In Him alone do \\'t: see absolute- depcndL·.nce on God. implicit trust. what it is. what it oosts. ~nd whut it res.uhs in. On Him then·!ore must the g;1ze be fixed if 1hc runner is to endure. for in Him 1he reasonabkness, t~. beauty. and 1he n-ward of :1 life of faith t ll't' see-n.' 19 Willi:un L L..nnc !'Hebrews·. in Diaitmury ;if tlti' Latn NMr Teslmmmt mul Its D~·rdopmenl.t led. Ralph P. Martin nnd Peter H. Davids~ Downl.'r.; Grove. IL: lnlerVarsit>·· 1997). pp. -14J- 5S HS3j) rcmtlrks. 'Hebrews was c-ompC~scd to arouse. urge. cncouruge and exhol1 the tiUdicncc to main1nin the-ir Christian confession and to dissunde them from n l'OUNC of ac.tion the writer regnrdcd as entumophic: 30 So Pamckt M. Eiscnb:.um. ' locating H~'brews within the Litcrary L.:•ndscnpc llf Christian Origins'. in /leb,·t·lrs tL-d. Gdardini). pp. 213- 37 (113). 31 James Mon·au. £pirtle w tlte 1/ehn!lfS (ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 19!4). f). x.
50
A Cloud of Witnesses
and compell ingly portrays Jesus as linn and (~-tithl'ul. trusting and trustworthy. Indeed. it is he whom the original and subsequent redpients of the leu er t1re-c:tlled to consider tts they travel outside the camp in se-a rch of the city that is to come ( 13.13-14).32
32 In addition to 1hosc who raised q!Xstions and olrcrod sugb~stions when I pn:scntcd an c-nrlicr form of chis e.<~say at the Hebrews and Theology Confcrcnoc in St Andn: ws. Scodand. I would like to thank Craig Koeste-r. Christopher Ric.hardson. and Jason \Vhi!lark.
This essay was first publi1>hcd in CBQ 69 (20t17). pp. 746-SS and appears here by the kind permis:;ion of the Catholic Hiblical Associ ~11i on.
Chapter 5 THE PASSION: RECONSIDERI NG H EBREWS
5.7-8
Christopher Richardson
I. lmroduc1 ion Hebrews 5.7-8 often has been the topic of exegetical theo logy (and theological exegesis). Part of the interest stems from the evocative k-mguage that is used with respect to Jesus' suneri ng. and how the text functions in the immediate discourse. Despite the consta nt a ppeal, however. o pinions vary o n every detail of this passage. Situated within 4. 14-5. 10, the graphic verses speak of Jesus,
Os iv ro:ls ~~pats Tiis oo:{>Kbs- a\lroU Onlan~ TE Kal iKHflpiaS'
n~
T0\.1 6uv0:~HIOV oc.l.;,t:IV oohov h:: 6av0tou ~[TO: KpaUyij) ioxuf>&s KO:l •
..
•
•
•
•
•
"'
t
'
•
&opu(..)V rrpoor~yxos xcu uoaxooo6us a no TllS' ru;\.a~nas, Katn~p
&!v uiQs, ~~a&v il<J!' Z:.v 5na6rv T~v Vrro:Ko~v. .. '
In contrast to the exalted Son of 5.5-6 (Ps. 2. 7 and Ps. I I0.4). 5.7-8 returns to Jesus' position on earth, raisin~ se\'e-ral questions. First. when were the prayers and supplications o l1ered> 'That the author of Hebrews intended a hislo rical reference is d ear already from '"' Ta'is r'wipat5 nl5 oapKOs aUToU .. .bul it is uncertain exactly what the. reJ'erence is".2 Second. what
I The use of ICaimp in Heb. 5.8 relates to ~ov66.V(.) nnd the follow ing for two n:asons. First. t:oitrtp does not alwoys introduce dauscs that concern a preceding \'C'rb. ns estnbtished in the LXX (e.g.• Prov. 6.8: Wis. 11.9: 2 Moce. 4.34: 4 Muec .UO. ·U J). Second. the-Son's obedience bcoomes the p.uadigm for Goct"s sons.. who must nlso learn to obey during trials (cf. 11.3·14). See discussions by J. Jc:n·mias. 'Hebr:kr 5. 7- 10'. in Ablut. Studien :ur tll'llti'J iat1Willlidum Tltro!tJgit' wul bitgest·hkhte (GOningen: Vnndenhoo.:k & Ruprecht. 1966). pp. 319- 1l (319--20): and E. Bmndcnburgcr. 'Te:xt (i'\ IGTC: Grand Rapids: Eer.:lmans. 1993), p. 286.
52
A Cloud of Witnesses
do verses 7- 8 contribute lo the over.trching, themes or high priesthood a nd sacrifk;e (5. 1-10)? --n lird, is the autho r using Janguag.e from a particular source (or sources) a nd does it maHer? Fourth. what did Jesus pray l
~
2. From Grthsemane to Golg01/w In terms or establishin~ the histo ric:il relf!re nte. scholars have predominantly unders tood verses 7- 8 as reminiscent of Gethsemane.3
3 Sec. imer ulia. T. Les.."'w. •Jesus in Gcth9Cmanc bci l.ukas und im Hcbriicrbric:f. ZN'JV 58 ( 1967). pp. 215-39 (236--39): A. Strobe-l. Dt'J' Brit:{ an die Jlrbni'er (NTO. 9/2: GOuingoc:n: Vand~·-nhoeck & Rupm:ht. 1991). pp. S7- 59: R. P. Gordon. J./t>br-t>ll'.f tShcffidd: Sheflidd Academic l,n:s..;. 1000). p. 69.
Tlu! Passion Mt. 26.37-39 ...
~p~CXTO
Aumlo6at
Kal
Lk. 22.4 1-42, 45 Heb. 5.7-8
Mk 14.33-36 .. .
Os ,, Tals
~p~CXTO '
iidlap!lilo6o.r
yovaTa. ' rrpoaryuxtro AEywv· nO:np,
OOrwo~rclv. TOn KCXI'
O:Orn.tovtlvKal AiyE1 aUTols· \ I ,( j3001\n rrtp!AvrrOs EoTtv AEYEI O:UTOIS.. ' ~ ljlum p oo '"" mpiAurrOs [OTtv rro:pwtyKE . 6av 0:TOV . •• ,j \jNX~ pou 'ic.>s TOUTO TO . . , .. ' rroTI"jptov a.n ETTEOEV n il 6av0:Tov .. . , rrpoow nov ' niTTTEv Errl Tiis ipoo· rrl\,ju p~ , O:UTOV Toeil\~pO: pou Yr'IS' KO:I' ' ' " rrpoawxoptvo;; rrpooryuxETo rva aua TO oOv ti Ovvo:TOv EOTtV yrvioac.>. Ko(i Aiywv· , nanp IJOV, ' 1 rrapiAen an' , ' OuvcnOv EOTtV, O:VTOU... rJ' w pa , KO:t' O:VO:OTO:S ' TI"JS' n aptAeO:TQ d n' Kal EAEyEv· O:lTO • , ' EjJOV TO aj3j3a 0 ITCXT~p, rrpooeuxry> ' rroTr)ptov rrO:vTa OuvaTcX iAewv npos ' T 00To· nAtlv oUx 0~1. 1TO:f>EV£YKE Tolls IJ0:6l)T(x5 TO JTOTr]pi OlJ tVpw ' ' ' al\1\' ,;, eil\"' ou. TO\JTO O:JT EjJOU' KOIIJ.W).ItlJOVS ' ' f:{}\A' oU Tl [yW O:UTOUS ' TI"JS' 6il\c.> aMa Tt O:lTO ou. 1\urr~s .. .
. .
l
..
,..
-
.
-
.
..
-
-
"'' 'r"'
.. .
53
qpEpCXIS Tfis ' O:VTO\J oapKOS Oufatl) TE Ka't '~ ' rrpos ' T0v OuvcXIJEVOV o~~uv cnhOv ~K 6avcXTou ).lnO: <pauyqs
- .
to:xupa s Ka t
'
OaKpU(Ilv ' rrpoaeveyKo) Kai tioat::ouo&ts
-
a' no' TI"J5
~
-
The prime corresponden(·e. belween the Gethsernane narratives and Hebrews is prayer, specifico.dly those prayers associated wilh Jes-us· anguish and death. All illustrate l he emotive t.h;-mu:ter of Jesus· submission lO God. but when conside-r ing lhe details of each passage. as well as the context of Hebrews, ' It is by no means obvious . . .that this verse [v. 7] in Hebrews allud-. to the Gethsemane sto ry.'' First. there is a conspicuous lack o r .similarities. including Hebrews· intense description o r loud cries and tears {Kpauy~5 ioxupOs Ka't OaKpUwv). \Vhith is entirely
absent from the synoptic accounts. Set·ond. while prayers are made in all four texts. M~ttthew, Mark, and Luke consist~ntly employ npooEUXoiJO:t and npoowxfl, where~1s Hebre""'S unites rrpoocf>Epw with the nouns Ou101S (prayer) and 'r «Tqpla (supplication). 4 H. A . Attridge. · "Heard Hocause of His Revcrcnoc'' t Heb. 5.7)'. JBL 98 ( 1979). pp. 9093 (91). Soepticism is also e.xprc~d by D. A. deSiiViL Persewra11ce ill Gmtilude: A S()(·ioRirellJti((l) Coltm'N.·mary on Ilk> l:i.li.st/1• "to lhe lltthmrs" (Grand R.1pids: Ec.tdmans. 2000). pp. 189- 91: nnd ~·1. E. lsaacos. Rnuling J./ebr(ltrJ & Jame.~: A Lirerury u11d Thenlogk(tl Cammemar.••(M:.con. GA: Smy1h & Hdwrs . 2002). p. 76.
A Cloud of Witnesses
54
For these and other reasons, some have proposed tha t Hebrews is oombining Jesus' sulierings from Oet hsemane to Golgotha to fom1ulate a distinctive and comprehensive passion evenl.5 Again. a ppeals are onen made to the gospel na rra ti ves where Jesus' <:ries rrom the cross a re heard . Mt. 27.46. 50
M k 15.34. 37
Lk. 23.46
. . . avtfloryaev 0
'a ' . . . • EJJOJ10EV 0
Ko:t
¢GJvii peya).n 'Jryooiis <1mv· IT<;!'O:,P, El5
' l~ooiis ¢GJvij
' J~ooiis
,ueya.\n Aiywv·
peya).n·
~AI ~AI AE~a
EAWi AE~O:
¢GJvii
,,.c.;;
oa~axeo:v' ;
oo:~ax6o:v' ;
ToiJT' 'OTI\r 6££
EOTIV
~OU 6E[ ~OlJ, 'IVQT I' jJ£
~E6Ep~~VEUO
EyKtniA1ms:
o
¢GJvriaa)
Heb. 5.7
o
-
0 6E0-; To\ho OE tl rrWv IJOU 0 6£05 IJOU, f~£rrvwotv. ' Tl' EIS'
q~op0:15 TiiS
-
' QUTOU ' oapKO) Onlo"5
TE
Kal
'IKH"'lPI0:5 ' ' rrpo5 J<'IP0:5 ooo rro:paTllkpat TO T0v OtwO~.u:110v ' IJOU. TTV£Uj.JQ
IJHIOII"
-
.
' OS' U1 Tal5
oc.;,~n v a1iTOv iK 6av0:Tov IJHO: ' <pauyl)) -·
.,..
'
IO)(UPCI5' KO:I
oli<·1 ~oovs
Eyt::aT£A,rrfs
.
oO< 'l~oous
OoxpUwv ' rrpooEv&yKas .:al Ei oaKouotkls. a rro Tll5
peya).ryv
'"""~'ias ...
rrOAtv KprX$as¢GJvfj peya).a
.
-
a<J>rJI!:I:V TO ~
llVWIJO.
IJE;
cxq,.ls ¢Qvl)v E~iJTV~UOEV.
.-
T he resemblan<'l? between Kpa~w (Mt. 27.50) and Kpo:uy~ (Heb. 5.7) is d ear. while the other terminology of ixvo:~ociw. j300:w, ¢wviw, a nd ¢wv~ ~'yaA~ provides supplementary evidence that the words of Heb. 5.7-8 exlend beyond the struggles of Gethsemane. T hereiOre-, verses. 7-8 may oomprise a 'mo re g.e-neral refe ren(.' e to the whole course of our Lord 's humilia tion and passion',6 which begins in the garden and ends at the cross. Peterson has Mgued tt similar position: The lo ud nics o f Jesus on l h~ c ross... mtty a lso be: in view.. . Jf the--cross is the focus of our w ritc r"s t hinking wit h re-s pect to the self-offering, o f Christ. it would seem from 5. 7f (ha t expcril·nccs prior to t he. cross 5 Soc. illfeJ· alia. F. Ddill.sc-h . C(1mmn1lary tJfl lilt> Epi.~tle liJ 1lu• Nt>brr,r.r (trans. T . L Kingsbury: 1 \'Ols: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 18-68--70). 1. pp. 242-52~ D. G. Pc1crson. 1/ehn•wJ a11d Perfor1im1: Afl fxtlm inatitm ofJ!Ie Cmlc't'J!I 4 Pf't:li•ttitJII i11tlle '1:./~illtt to Jilt> llebl·t•ws· (St\TSMS. 47~ Cambridge: Cumbridgc University l>tcss. 1982). pp. 86-94: C. Z. Estrad". 1/ehnms j )--8: Emufio !Ji.\'/Oric
Tlu! Passion
55
(notably Gdhsemane) were dcsign.:d to elicit nnd tc-s l the reality or that t'bcdi(.~ltce which found ils uhimutc cxpn:ssion nl Calvary.''
Is it true. however. t hat verses 7-..~ a recom:erned with 'experiences prior to the cross (notably Gethsemtme)" when the lette r"s fows is the cross? Even here, the inclusion of Jesus· death (6av<>T05, v. 7) and sullering. (mloxc..>, v. 8) moves the orientation of t he verses to GoiQotha because Hebrews everywhere equates Jesus· dea th wit h his suflering.'ri Beg:inning a t 2.9. we r~ad that Jesus wo.ts c rowned with ~Jot"), and honor because of the suffering of death (TO rra6~~" TOO 6avc1Tou). which then prepares for rele rences to Jesus death (v. 9b) and sufferings (v. 10). The llrst combines rr0:6rwa (singular ) with the epexeg.etital genitive. 6avCnou, and thus describes what kind of suflering is in view. Aller mentionin~ his ~eath again (v. 9b). verse 10 Spea ks of his perll-ction thro ugh na6rJI..IaT{.)\J (plura l), but the omission of death and plura l fOrm a re inconsequential; verse 9 governs verse 10, so that death _is implied - an implisation t hat is endorsed by the pamllel of on~avow (v. 9) and T (v. 10) 9 Similarly. the use of rraox"' (2.1 8: 9.26; 13.12) alwap refers to Jesus cross-sufferings ra ther than life-sufferings in gener:tl. 10 \Vhen 2.1 8 slates lhal Jesus ·has suffered when he was tested•, this presupposes the explicit (w. 9, 14) and implicit (vv. 10, I I, 17) references to death, and indica tes P.:terson. PeifrS. but r<~ther wants to present the passion of Christ as u uniquely eomprehensi\'C' l"\'<:111 (pp. ) 4 . 318). Ellingworth (1/t>hrF~rs. pp. 155. 191) and L:ul<." ( 1/,~hrc-ws / ~'. pp. 120-21) arc equally incon!>istcnt. 9 ~~1. Ri.s:si. DiP Tlwologit' des Jfrbr(lr'fhriPfos (\VUNT. ·U: T(lbingl!n: Mohr·Siebcck. 1987}. p. 79: J. K utian:al. Jestu (Itt,. 1/ig il Prir•st: Ps 110.4 as the Suhstnrti/Jft' of 1/eh 5.1-7.28 (Europeun Uni\-crsity Studies: ~'ew York: P.:t~·r Lang. 2000). pp. 228- 29. Then :tg..'lin. Peterson (Perjt•l'lioll. p. 68) argues th!ll ·510: na!h-pQ;wv suggests th:11 su01:-ring, wtLs ptm of tht> pr<><~.u by trllirlllw 1ro.r f't'rfi·detl. not merely a preliminary to it or the: ground of it'. lkeause OuX TO nO.~a (\'. 9. ucc. sing.) chanb><:S to OtO no:lh}lJ(i;wy (\'. 10. !,><:n. pl.). 'the plurul na{lnJJO:twv se.:ms lo n:fkct a broader pcrspccti\'.:· lP· 69J. Aocording to l,cterson. th.: ' perfection· of Christ (cf. 5. 9: 7.28) is a process of \·o~~lli omtl tlU!Liifkttlion. thnt is. 3 period or equip1>ing for his oOioc.: as High Pri<:st. whieh includes his •whole incarnate expcrit noc.· (p. 67) and 'the whole cxpc:rienee of suffering a!\.<>ociated with and kading up to the death of Jesus· (p. 69). In response. the: shift from the ;ttx:us.Mi\'C singulur (\'. 9) to the gcniti\'e plurul (v. 10) docs not spc:e.iry II chnngc in emphasis (d. 010: Toii eovfhOU. V. 14) or !I ' process' of perfection. Verses 9- 10 arc indications of literary style nnd nothing more (.:f. Phil. 3.10). Sec also Ellingworth. Ne•hro~r.s. 1>p. IS..S. 16 1; nod dcSilvn. Pm;e·••·mmw. pp. 197-99. 10 Sec-ttlso Mt. 16.11: 17.12: Mk 8.31:9.12: Lk. 9.22: 17.25: 22.15: 14.26: 46: Ac'ls 1.3: 3.18: 17.J: nnd esp. I Pcccr (nO:&quo;. 1.11 : nO:oxw. 1.21: 23: 3.18; ·U). which resemble.<> H.:bn:ws by intcgr;tting Jesus· sufrcring.s for 3 parac:nelic purpose (e.g.• :.23: 4.19). M. Hcngd. 77re Att111t>t1lNII: Th~ Origius afJhe Dm•trill(! ill tlti' Nt'lr Te.~wment (lruns. J. Btlwdc:n: Philadelphia: Fortress.. 1981). p. 90 n. 6. 7 8
56
A Cloud of Witnesses
that his su(fering of death was the test (cr. 11.17). 11 Hebrews 9.26 a nd 13.1 2 coincide with the above 12 and leave no doubt with respect to the focus o f the autho r's overall presenta tion. A furt her reason lOr promotins Golgoth~l as t he background of verses 7-S comes fro m the initial dause in verse 7. Ellingworth observes, 'Cla uses introduced by Os. though g.r~unm~llically subordinate, a re a lways in Hebrews major statements about t he passion and exaltation of Christ. . . especially as high priest. . .' 13 His insigJH is corrobo rated by the use of Osin 7.27: 9.14 and 12.2 that refe r to Jesus· sacrifice on earth. as well as 1.2: 7.16 and 8.1 that referto Jesus· session in hea ven. Hebrews· consistency in this reg.ard complements the me.anin~ o f ncX6fJI.Ia and mloxw lhroughout the epistle and assists in identify ing the historical setting and purpose o r verses 7- 8 within verses 1- 10. In the past. emphasis has been placed on the words 'in the days o f his llesh' (v. 7) to maintain that t he perspective o f verses 7- 8 centers on Jesus· who le life of suffering and obedience: 14 however, t his method remains questiona ble. Because the a rgument underlined Christ"s exaltt\lio n (\'V. 5-6). the phrase serves w contrast the prece d ing statements. ~md brings t he orientation back to Jesus· humiliation on earlh. By using the expression and term obp~ (fJesh). re<...;_-tfling 2. 14. Hebrews doe-s not assume Jesus• entire life into his
II K. Nissila. Das Nokprir·.~wrmolir im Ni'brii('rhrWf: fine e.wtgelisrlu• Unti'r.qu·lumg (Schrifu:n dcr Finnischcn Exe~?Ctischcn GcsdlschafL 33: Heh inki: Oy Liiton Kirjap:aino. 1979). p. 113. Co11tm P~o'-lcrson . Pe,fet•tkm. p. 69. Hebrews 4.1 5 ( nupc)(w) also rocnlls l . IS and rdntc:s to lhe suffering or 5.7-8: thus. ·an implicit allusion to thc:--lina1 tes.t of the cross is possible. as p1.'1h:aps in 12A (d . 11.1)'. N~':Vcrthdess. M . B:.chnumn appc:::tls to 4.1 Sand 10.32 to argue tht1l 5.8 (it¢' Zlv t Jra6¢v) ·auf vcr.;chicdc:-ne l <:ickn. auf cine leidcnsg<$1Chichlc wcisl· (i.e .. lifc-suiTcring_s: Cl~hoing Peterson. P~·r:ferli(m. 1>. 99). Sec Bachmann. ·Hoh<:plies.terlichL'S Lcidcm. Boobachtung.cn zu Hebr 5.1 ·10·. ZNW IS (1987). pp. 244-66 (255). B:•chmMn. howcvc.r. disian<:l':S 4. 15 from 1.9. 10. IS: 9.26nnd IJ.l1lo n.x-onfij,'Ur<: lhe point ofvic:.w, but this is too convc:nicnt. The latter \'crse.s. tml 4. 15. show that the u.sc of n66ru.1a nnd n.Xo,xw convcrw..-s on Jesus· cross-sufferings rnlhcr lhnn his lire-suffering:s.. Why would this pcrspc:C'Li\'c: change in 5.7-8. esp..x:i:•lly when the not sustuin his the.c;;is thM 5. 7-S indudes ksus· cnlirc: life. The cpistll: is .:ardul to diffc:rcntiatc Jesus· sulrcring,-. from those of th<: chun:-h •cf. 12.3--1). I! N. H. Young. ·"Beating His RC'prooch" (Hcb 13.9·14)'. NTS 4S i2001). pp. 143- 61 (244--45): N. Walter. 'Christologjc und irdisdt<:r Jesus im Hcbriierbrief. in H. Seidl and K. 13ic:-ritz (eds). Dfls lfht>mlige Jran: lkilriigi' :ttr kiultlkhell Verkwtcl(~llllg ( Berlin: Evangdis..:hc. 1982). pp. 6-1--81 (70). 13 Ellingworth. 1/ebrews. p. 286. 14 E.g.. J. ThurCn. •Gebel und Gd torsam des Ernjcdri,gten (Hebr. V.7- 10 noch c:--inmnl)'. N~w T 13 (1971). pp. 136-46 (145): J. M. S1.'hokr. Pwlept!C' PrirJIJ': Prie.{thOOtl in tile fpiJiieltJ l11e flebren·.f (JSNTSup. 49: Sheffield: Shdlidd Al-ad<:mic Pn.-ss.. 1991). pp. 86---87.
Tlu! Passion
57
subsequent <:omments, bul shins the SJXHial foc us again in o rder to depkl o ne e pisode of sulierin~ (cf. Lk. 1.39; 2.1 ; 5.17; 6.1 2; 20.1 )-" What is more, the Golgotha thesis is conlirmed by the fatt tha t 5.7-8 is an integral pa n of a la rg_ e r discussion o n the high prieslhood commencing a l 4.1 4- 16. Slructurally, S.J . IO fo rms a d istinct chiasmus. with verses 1- 3 and verses 7- 8 cenlered on lhe theme o r 'offering·. and ve-rses 4- 6 a nd verses 9- 10 o n '<.:alling'. 16 'n1e author says tha t ·eve.r y High Priest received from men is a ppoinled on beha lf of men \\~th respect to the lhings of God , so that he might orter Jrrpoo<j>ipnJ girts a nd S'VW, v. 10) 17 such upon his exaltation. Similar to Aaron. Christ was not fOrmally m:dairned as ' priest' until the divine calling (cf. 7.15-28). Even t hen, the consumma tion (cf. TEA£ lOw, "· 9) o r his priesthood followed no t after the order of Aaron (on earth}. but of [1.1elchizedek (in heaven). To suppo rt the ar~umenl, Hebrews q uotes from Ps. 2.7 (v. 5) and Ps. 11 0.4 (LXX Ps. 109.4; v. 6). Both psalms were q uo ted in the opening c hapter, Ps. 2.7 a t Heb. 1.5 a nd 15 In his lectures. Luther snys. ·why the upostk says ··in the days: · in the plural. can seem stran~. t••·cr1 Jlwugh lw s~wnr ttl ht- .\]JMk;,~g aOOut llwt mw day. mmr.•b-. Jhc tlay on wltid1 Christ qffered 1/im.relfqn Jhe m>Jl·. fqr 1/ewru o.ffned ot1ly mu·c ami tm (Jilt' day... For this is a ' 'e'"l)' common way of speaking in the Scriptures. 115 is dcnr in the Hook of Kings ( 2 Kings 24.1): .. Jn his ~-t:.ys the Kjng of Syria came up:· :tnd the like .. . In fan. it is our custum to sny: ''This thing took place in myd:tys. thal is. during !he time in which l liYed. but not during_ thewhole lime or on nil the dnys"' · ( luther. l.t·cturc.r (Jtl Nebrrw.r. in J. Pelikan nnd \V. A . Hansen (eds). L11tlm-'.~ IVtJrks {St Louis: Coocordi:t, 1968). XXIX. p. 174~ my italics (cf. p p. 168- 69. 175). 16 Soc nlso F. Laub. Bekt'l/1/ltli.r urJd A1ulegrmg: Di(' p(lrlisrltt' F1111ktitm tier CllfisttJ/ogie im Jh•hriierbrit'f (Biblischc Untersuchungen. 15: Reb"Cnsburg; Pustd . 1980). pp. 11 3-16: W. R. G. loader. Solu1 uml 1/olwrprieJit'l·: Ei11e tradiliomg~rltic'lulirlu! UnU'J'.~lJdmng :ur Cltriswlogie ties J/ebnTt•rbriej;•s (WMANT. 53: Neukirohcn-VIuyn: Ncukirchene-r. 198 1). pp. 97- 98. Ea-ch presents a diffcn:nt structure of 5.1· 10. but there is s~-,mc overlap. Where-.as Luub combinc:s verses 7- 10 under the headins of ·calling' (Ben!limg).
Loader e.r~•t cs :tn upproprinle distinction: 'Ocr l'-tSte Punk! ist VSf und cntspricht \'4 in dc.r ahen Ordnung dcr Hohenpricsterschnft Der 7.Wtitc Punkt. genaucr V7 und 8. entspricht thiaslisch den Vcrsen 1- 3. . . 5. 1- 3 enlspricht nur 5. 7f. nicht 5. 9-10'. 17 Forthe linking of Ka Ai(t) (v. 4) nnd npooa yop;:Vc.> (v. 10: cf. I Mac.::. 1-1.40: 2 Mace. .J. 7: 14.37). see Laub. Brk~·mmti:r. p. 114: nnd Koester. 1/ehrews. p. 291. Chris.t is C'UIIcd ' High Priest' (\·. 10). whic.b refers bac.k to the quotation of l's. I lOA(\·. 6). The parallel bcl\voco O~O:~c.> (v. 5) and n:Al1c)c.) (v. 9) also n:p~~• ts the thCiught of 1.9 (~o) and ! .10 (nAttcic.l).
58
A Cloud of Witnesses
Ps. 110.1 at Heb. 1. 13. to att'[pc.:>) prayers a nd requests as he was olle ring_himselr. 10 G iven t he to pics under discussion (4.1 4-5.6) a nd Hebrews earlier mentioo o f Jesus· high priesthood (e.g.. I .3. 2.17). two essential poinlS are made. First, ana logous to Aaron. Jesus WH...
18 0 . R. Anderson. Tht' KJ.,eg-Prk.rl of P.((tfm 110 iu fft,brews (Studies in Hlblirnl Literature. 21: New York: Pe-ter Lang. 2001). pp. 137- 47. 19 0. M. H:.y. Glm·y m llu! Rjglu 1/am/: P.mlm ))()in &JJ·£'~' CltriMiallily (SUU..·JS, 1&: Nashvillc-: Abingdon. 1973). p. 144. 10 ML 27.46. 50~ Mk 15.34. 37: U:. 13.34. 46: Jn 19.28. 30. Compare with I Ptt. 2.23 (ncioi(Colv. . • no.pr615ov). lsuacs (Jielm"h'S. p. 77) agn:es that ·his pray~'f :1ocompanies th<: oO·l·ring of the s:u:rific:e on the peopl-e's behalf. Gi\·c.n that in this epistle Jesus is. both High Prie~t and \·ictim. it is the prnyer that ac:companic:-; his own death. ••offen-d'. to God forth<: forgiwness of sin'. Also. Scholer (Pwlcplk. pp. 21. 25) discusses how pricst5 rcgukuly oO'crcd prayers while. offt·ring sacrifices. and the offering of prayers nnd blc:-;sing;; Wits a s..x-ond:.ry function of pri~-sts (e. g .. Ezm 95- 1 0. 1~ 2 Maoc. 1 . 23-~): Jdt. 4. 13 15). The san-.e point is made by Sanders. whoemphasi?J.'S tht1t priests recited p r.ty~·rs during daily m:ri.fiecs and the Day of A ton~·men t (e.g.• m. }'amu 3.8: 4.2: 6.2; 7.1). (E. P. Sanders.. JudaL\Tn: Pmakt· & /Mit{ 6JBC'E-66('£(London: SCM. 1992f. pp. 80. 117. 142-13). The joining of pmycr and sacrifice is furthcr supported in various Old T~-st:.mcn t contexts (e.g.. Job 42.8: I Sam. 7.9: I Chron. 21.26: 2 Chron. 19.26-30: ls.1. 56.7). 21 Rissi. 11wologie. pp. 61- 78. 4
Tlu! Passion
59
honor. a nd priestly add ress were rece-ived only s ubsequent to his loud c ries a nd tears.
3. lntertextua/ Links If Go lgotha is the setting fOr verSes 7- 8, then the language used ( O depict isaltog.et he.r unique. Since t he fhurfo ld gospel t radition does not rep roduce e.verything tha t is contained in these ''¢-rses. v~uious proposals have been made regarding the litera ry sources that may ha ve innuem:etJ the autho r. But there is a widespread consensus tha t 'Hebrews incorp<)ra ted terms t hat a re commonly round in t he LXX. especially those psalms dealing with sulfering. 22 Forexamfle. Psalms 22. 3 1. 39, 42, 69, and 116 have been seen '" likely '"'ndidates,2· wit h Psalms 116 (LXX 114-15) a nd 22 ( LXX 2 1) receiving the most a tte ntion." ·n ,e appeal of Psalm 116 results from the lexical data shared wit h 5.7,=5 a nd as 'one. or t he psalms tha t ' "''as s ung a t the celebration or the Passover. it would ha \•e tx..Aen familiar both to the writer a nd to his hearers'-'6 Psalm 22. however. is (unlike Psalm 116) q uoted earlier in He b. 2.12 and a lso has a number or mat<:hes wilh 5. 7.2 For theauthor to evoke Psalm 22 {tgain is reasonable~ even more when ('onsiderin~ its prominen<.".f throug,hoHt the New Testamenl to expound o n Jesus· suiTe ring. a nd death on the c ros.s.28 Hebrews w~-ts certa inly I his scene
3 Maa. 1. 16 (~~::pou'fli'> tt ~nO 6..23: 2 Mac~~. 11.6). This muy sl1ow that 'the author of Hebrews is dn1wing on l'uhurnl rcsonanocs with othcr- depictions of the fcn-cnt und cmoti\'C pr~1 yc:rs of the piou.c; ruther than moking a specific rcfcrcnoc to the Gclhsemanc tr.tdition· (deSih·a. Persevcranct". pp. 190-91}. For the dcbnte on wh.S Gi"sd1t>hn1 und !Xutung im Ne1m1 Tt•.fWmt~llt (TUbingcn: MohrSieb«k. 1912). pp. 275- 84 (183); G . \\'. Buch{man. To- ;lit'! J/ehre•rs(AR. 36: Qarden City. N. Y.: Doubleday. 19n). pp. 97- 98. Bul mnn)' hm'C dctccted n:.sonaoc~'S with ~1Im 22. e.g .. P. A ndric~n . ·Angoissc de lo mort dnns I'Cpitrc nux Hebn·u:t". NRT 96 (19N}. pp. 2:82-92 (291-92): J. Swetnnm. ·The Crw: at Hebrews 5. 7- s·. Bib S l (2000). pp. 347- 61 (355). 15 LXX Psnlm 114: !v Tais- f)~po;l ) (v. 1). biqot) (v. I). o~~(o) (\', 6). i:K 6o:v6:tov I\'. 8). 22 The Macculx<m tmdilions arc- also signilicanl (e. g..
Oa~Cp'~ic.lvj .
00:~rp~JCV I\'. 8). f,IOO:IC00c..>(\', lj .
16 L:ane. 1/t'brelfs 1-8. p. II J. Psalms 113- 118 constituted the Hollcl - ps:1lms of pmise and th:mksgi\'ing for ddi\'Ctanoc that were sung at PasSO\'Cr k f. ~'h . 26.30). Snnders. Jmlui.vm. pp. 135- 36. 27 LXX Psalm 11: Of11o•s (v. 25). o«<.> (\'\'. 6. 9. 22). e6voTO) (v. t6). Kpe):~(o;l (vv. 3. 6.
15). tioo:~Co.lc..> (\'\'. 3. 25).
28 Swetnam. ·crux·. p. 355. Whik agreeing with Swe1nam he-re. the further su ggl~ti on that Jesus is pruring for dcoth (pJ>. 356. 360) is uncon vin~ing since 1hc psalm t~"aChl'$ the opposite: (sec: LXX l's. 11 .10-12).
60
A Cloud of Witnesses
a(:.quainted wilh Psalm 22. along with its opening cry (Kpix~w. LXX 21J; cr. verses 6, 25) and christolog.kal imporl. but presumably surmised that Jesus· cry or desolation was both loud and a<..'Co mpanied with te-.ars. At the s.ame time. o ne must concede lhat Hebrews· reluctance lO rurnish a clear quotation ma kes any precise theo ry uncertain. R~llher tha n being dependent o n ~-t single source, the autho r seems immersed among multiple sources tha t are cente red on the themes suflf ring and pious devotion to G od. ll is true tha t '{ijr the question is fra med in terms of demonstrable familiarity or likely influence. the st·ales tip towards Ps 22•,2',) but the langmtge is perhaps best \'iewed as '' creath'e integration ol words (e.~.. OErJ015 , 'n:::nT);pia, Kpavy~. OCo:puov) deriving, from several psalms,~• as well as other lite rature and resoUfl"eS (cf. 2.3} coinciding with the author's parad igm . In the final analysis, regardless of li ten,ry dependency or autho rial freedom (or bot h), the scene depicted concerns Jesus who. in co ntinuity with other righteous sufferers. t~ries out to God while sull'ering the pains of death on the cross. The distinct ma nipula tion of the s to ry does not change t he historical referent. yet discloses the autho r's willingness 10 deviate from o ther. seemingly normative versions of the crucifixion event
or
4. Efficacious Prayer Now that t he historical background and possible sources of the text have been identilled, the question can be asked: what did Jesus pray for> No direct answer is itiVen and the entk~emen' to be overly creative in reconstructing, t hes'e prayers IUUSt be resisted . But. .seeing as' Jesus o ne red up prayers a nd supplications ' to the o ne a ble to save him from death'. n;.1mely God. the s tro ng intimation is that 'Chris t p rayed ro r personal deliverance in some sense•.3 1 And, sim:e the context is Golgo tha, no t Gethsemane. it is extremely unlikely th~H the phmse. o~EIV o:UrOv EK 6o:vCnou, cont·erns Jes us· preserva tion fro m impending de-a th, but rather his res-urrection o ut ol' t he realm of death . Even though this langua~,e (i.e.. 19 P. Gray.
God(~·
fear: The £pislle ttJ ll•e Jlfhfl'lf.\' uml Grrco-Rmtwn Critique.s of
SupeNiililm (SUL Academia Bibliea. 16: Atlonta. GA: SBL. 2003). p. 198. 30 Ddil;();c-h (1/ebrn rs. I. p. 243}. however. ~•ssc-rts. 'Thc:.conjoclUre. .. that the- Ps.1Jmsof
the: passion wcn· llcxlling in the author's mind at the time . .. is un neces~• '1' · . . he h"d doubtless here ehi~·Ry in "iew 1hc scene in Gethr.cmane.' Ddin:.~h's exclusion of these psnlms. whik surprising. dai\"<:S from his firm eommitme:nt to Gcthscmane nnd his m mment is strained by the author-'s quowtions of the ps:tlms. which make their influence here protx•ble. 3t Attridge. 1/eb•·e,rs. p. 150. This is tml to argue:. though. thnt Jesus' prn)•ers consisted o11ly of11is request for pcrsonnl dclivetanoc: (seen. 20 above). Tl)C inference is drnwn from the p.1mlkl betwee-n 5.1 nnd 5.7 as priests' offering.~ (i.e•. OWp6 -n: .:o·, &.!alas-) wer<: made fot themseh•e;-> and th~· pco~lle. thc:rcfon: implying thai Jesus· offerings (i.e.. 6n)ons- n .:o:i iK£rnpios-) were m"de for himself nnd God's p..'X:lplc-. Koester. lll>hrews. p. 2:88.
Tlu! Passion
61
EK 6avCnou more one n expresses t he former in lhe LXX.32 S ir. 4&.5 upholds the latter with regard to the prophet Elijah: ' He who raised the dead from death [o iy
The 'posith•e results' of Jesus· s unering and de.a th, hO\\o'ever. a re o nly o ne facet: the epistle repeatedly advan<-es his purposeful msohe (2.13: 9.26; 10.7. 9) to suffe r a nd die lo r humanity. T hus, Jesus in no wa y prayed to a \'Oid his fulure deal h.34 Instead. while embracin~ a cruel dealh on a cross. he implored lhe Father to deliver his life from the grave - w vindica te him in the presen<.;e of his enemies. \Vhen lhe author says that Jesus was heard (£iocn::ouo6Eis). he a ffinns I ha l Jesus· prayer was granted in t he s pecial d ivine action of raising him from the dead (cf. 13.20). While t he 'resurrection' of Jesus is not proJllinenl . in Hebrews. especi~H): through the words OvO:oTaOIS a nd (cl . 6.2: 11.19, 35). It " s ubsumed under the conoepts o r enthro nement and exa lta tion (cr. Acts 2.32-36; Eph. 1.20)." Such is the tase in these verses via the aorisl passive parliciple.s T£A£tw&ls (v. 9) a nd npooayopw6;:(s (v. JO). which are nol synonymous with respecl lo lexical sem antics, but they are co.referential. In other words. lhe domain in which Jesus has been ' perrected· and 'called· by God is t he heavenly sanctuary. a nd bo th presuppose the resurrection of Jesus (cr. 2.9-1 0: 7.16). The term s ;:ioo:Kouo~is , nAuwlkis . a nd rrpooayopEu6£15 a re cle-a rly inte rre1ated.36 and one may conclude lhat the prayer o f Jesus was
'Y''P"'
32 E.g.. Josh. 2.13: Est. 4.8: Ps. 55.1-i: Pro\'. !3.14: Job 5.!0: Ezd:. 12.16. 33 EBingworth. Nt>br~.r:;. p. 288. 34 Ctmtra. inter ufitr. E. Ri._!!genbadl. Der Brief UJ1 die J/fhriier (leipzig: Deichert. 19 13). pp. 130- 33: and l'cl<:rson. Pe1j~·lirm. pp. 81-88. 35 Hengel, Slmli('.~ ill Ecrr~r ChriJfr1logy (Edinburgh: T &T Cbrk. 1995). pp. 152- 53: W. L Lune. 'l.iving a Life. Clf Fuith in the Face of tkath: The Wit ness of Hebrews·. in R. N. Longcnel'kn (ed.). Lifo in the Fat·~ of fkath: Th~> R esw·rt•ffioll ,\ft>.uagt• t.!f1ft<' N~~r Tt>$lllltWIII (Gmnd Rapids: Ec-t dmnns. 1998). pp. 247--69 (256--57. !6-J-68). Further. Gordon (f/rhrtrtrJ. p. 173) notes thnt O.vOyc.l (Heb. 13.10) is •su.g,gt.-sti ~-c of t he exnluuion motif that predominates in the letter' tcf. Rom. 10.6-7). 36 Kuriannl. Je:m.~·. 1>9· !J0- 34. In the snme W"Y· Zimmcmmnn says. 'D:~s tioo:KOV06tls stcigcrt sic-h zu dcm n:Attc..Xhl.,; und crn:ieht scin<:n HOhcpunkt in dcm npooo:yoptv!Ms . Wus in dcm Hymnus de-s Philippc-rbric-fcs in dem Ump#wotv scincn Au.
62
A Cloud of Witnesses
answered when God raised him to the state of consummation (i.e., TO rrpc)o(l)nov Toti ~oU. 9.24) and solemnly addre$sed him as an eternal priest ~1fter the o rder of Melchizedek.37
5. Fear versus Faith Why Jesus was heard is explained in a condse way: OnO Tiis EVAaf)tias. ·n uoughom the LXX and NT. the preposition O:rro + genitive often ~ldicatescausality, and this is most li~eiY.t.he inte1~t of 5.7 and 5.8 (a<j>· n1a6wk'" Yet what ts the meanmg o l wAa~rta ? 1 he noun oocurs only m
wv
Hebrews and has genera ted two main interpretations. First~ a<.'Cording to some. ~:UAO()uo: connotes ·rear" or 'terror' (of death):·w Setond. as with
most, ;:UAO:r3r ta has the sense-of 'reverence· or ' piety" (to God) ..t0 Previous
or
research has given enou~.h auention to the use ,uAa"~ta and cognates (e.g.. 'vl\aj3~5 , .aj3io~al) in classical and biblical literature, including. the adjective rul.a~!\s in the New Testament (Lk . 2.25: A<•t> 2.5. 8.2. 22.1 2). whit;h consistenlly means ·reverent • o r "devout" .'11 While outside examples a nd d iachronic analyses of the relevant terms are benellc.~ial, the deciding Cac.wr fOr ~UA0:~~1a in5.7 is H ebrews itself. In fal~l. there is ample e\'~dence ~Or why GUAO~ta o nly s~~tks .or revere-nce or pi:t~.
r0 begm, the author later uses iUACX!lio~at (I I.7) and iUACX" "" ( 12.28) to convey ste::u..llliSl f;-tith. \Vhen praisin~ 13 mous men. Noah was 8.5) by God remembered ro r being informed (XP~~CXTI~c.>, 11.7: ooncernlng. l hings to come-~ mm1ely the flood. the building of an ark, and God's eternal covenant (cr. Gen. 6. 13.21 ). Because or his faith (TTlOTEI). Noah was reverent (rul\a~~6
cr.
Aside from being an explicit admission of Noah's fa ith, Genesis describes
Noah as a man who pleased God (. 6.9) and did everything that durch di<.' bei.a~r.i:l)).
Tlu! Passion
63
the Lord commanded him to do (6.22; 7.5). T hese contexts of faith (Hebrews) a nd obedience (Genesis) enable one to u nderstand lhe meaning o f £1JAaj3io~al (Heb. 11.7) as Noah's unwavering devotion to God - a deVolion based on (~iilh and expressed in obed ience.42 Hebrews 12.28 brings a similar conclusion: 'let us offe r pleo.1Sin$ [" lapEoTw; J worship to God , with reverence and fea r [•vl.af3•la s Kal Oious]'.43 T he rationale is simply. "lOr our God is a consuming lire· (1 2.29). In one respe<·t, it is templin~ to see niAclf'na as communicating somelhing o lher lhan reverence o r piely, especially g.ive.n the inlensifler Oios 44 a nd imagery of pole ntial judgement. Howeve-r. lhe j uxta position is a ppropriate because of the mixed nature of t he audien<.".f. Fo r those whose commitmenl is lacking or waning. t he exhorlation to reverence mulfemASis needed since the more a nxious Oios is ·a tilting response lo lhe lire tha l threatens t he sinful"" (cf. 4.1 : 10.26-31). But fo r the faithful. the use o f rUAO:~Eia is bound up with the preceding remark concerning worship. T hro ugJ10ut Hebrews. lhere is a d ear link bet ween worshipping God a nd dr<~wing near lo him ( 10.1-2). T ha l is, lo worship God in a p leasing ma nner is to draw near to him in conlident-e ( nappi)Oia , 4. 16; cf. I0.1 9) a nd wilh a t rue hearl in ruu assurance of faith { rrioTIS, 10.22). And , 'without faith [nlon w; [ it is impossible to please [•uap•OT~oal [ (God]; fo r the o ne who d n1ws near to God must believe lha l he exisls and rewards those who seek him' (11.6). T herefore. worshippiogGod with •vl.a~"a ( 12.28) is closely integra ted 47 with drawing: near lo God in rrappr}Oia (contldence), and bolh a re 42 D. H:m11n. ' Faitlt in th<:. Epistle to !he Hebrews: The Jesus Factor'. C BQ 51 (1990). pp. 170- 91 (183-84). 43 The tex1Ua1 his1ory of 12.18 docs ind ude ni~a!Xia:; Ko:l oibo\r:> (te 0 1 P 014J. 614. 945. 1739. ISS I pcd). but the '-'Vidence f~1r ni~o:I)EiaS' .::ai Sioo'i is \'Cry strong {~ ~ · A C o• 048. 33. Sl. 1175. 1241 .. pc s.-<J•• ho). The h:trd~'f reading of Oios (NT Jmpa.\') is preferred given that il was a1so accepted by Origcn. Chrysostom, and syP. H. Umun. All &v. Re1·. Div. flu. 14). Th.tll is., nopp11oia may 1-esult in cryingoUito God. but a p..•rson docs lhis from a disposition of true fni1h t~nd genuine passion ( Rr-r. Dil' . 1/e,·. 19}. Funher. confidence (6tlpoo:;) is joined wilh r.."\ecrenoc: (fUAOrlna ) bcrnum: the Lord is sovereign ovcr all thing.s.. powerful. and able 10 c.nuse Oios a nd ¢C(lo-; in othcrs 1Rer. Dil' .
64
A Cloud of Witnesses
deemed as pleasing to him. T he author furt her unites t he ide.as of oonlldence a nd endura nt'< (cf. 10.35-36). as well as i<1ith a nd o bedient'< (cf. 3.18-1 9: I 1.8)." so that when seeking. to ascerta in the p roper meaninS of
EVA0:13E ta. the broader landscape of devotion to God must be included (cf. 10.37-39: 13.1 5-16). Hebrews 12.28 is consistent with I 1.7 a nd when read as parl o f the entire d iscourse. the concept of 'fear" q uickly dissipa te-S and a more cumulative notion of ' piety' emerges.J9 These texts promote a n understanding of 1;UAcXJ3.tta (5.7) in terms o f revering God, not fearing death. Had the author intended to communica te Jesus· fe-a r. then la ng.uage such as 4>0!los (2.15), .pof>io~al (4. I: I 1.23. 27; 13.6). 4>ofl,p0, ( I 0.27. 3I : 12.21). a nd <•o> \I 2.2I) would be expected since they are consta ntly used to imparl this e motion . For example, aocording_to 2. 14- 15. Jesus assumed blood a nd llesh in o rder to free those who are enslaved to the lellr ofdcatlt (.p0j3c.:> 6avclTou), which no t o nly diiTerentiates Jesus from those emancipated.' 0 but a lso the na. So the deli ber:lle a nd notke-able exclusion of 4>0i3os and its rela tives s ho uld no t be overlooked, and g.re-.ttly assists tn understanding t he sema ntic <.~ontent of ,,;;-.ix(3na (5.7)." A virtuous meaning fo r rUA0:(3E ta also s tems from the collective testimo nies lO Jesus· steadfast faithfulness. For the aut hor to declare this trut h (2.13. 17; 3.1 -6: 4.1 5; 10.5-7: 12.2) a nd say t hat Jesus was fearful Jacks <.:oherence. Jesus is repeatedly :lt.'t·laimed a s fa ithful, and resolved to trust and obey God in iKx.·ordance with the divine will. Hebrews is unam biguous on this point and the mention of Jesus' prayers (5. 7) a nd
lll'r. 11- 18). For this reason, Philo (Re•·. Dir. J/er. 19) c.'Ondudcs thai he is neither to be w ntid(:nt \\ilhout n:vc:r<:occ. nor to be reverent without <:onfidc-.ncc:. (~ ~n Ovt-u rO).o:j);:ios noppf1o•O:i;.fo6o:t ~iru O:no:ppqotO:oT(o)S" €U),o~t'ioEio:t). .J8 &c.hm!tnn. · Hohcpricstcrliches U idc:.n·. p. 262 n. 58: P<:(erson. /'erfi•rlitHI, p. 96. 49 Whl'n all of the dat.:1is oonsidcrcd. tVAO:~to: app~'tlrs to be vinually synonymous with rOOijXux (cf. Acls 3.1 2.: I Tim. 3.16: 6.6. II: 1 1,ct. 1.6). This muy fi nd c:onlinnation in the: book of Acts by the int<:Kh:mgc: ofniAo:Pit:; (2.5: 8.1~ 12.1 2) and €Uot~~i ~1 0.1. 7). The: extant manuscripts for Lk. 1.25 also suppon noadings of both €U>.o:~~5 and tUo.:~~5. demonstrating the: dose: assoc:ia1ion of these words in the: early church. Mon"()Wf. the adjoctjw Octo:; (Hcb. 7.26). which is often trunslntcd as 'holy'. undoubtl-dly ttd\'anoc:s t1~<: Jlimu dmr:•cter of Jesus (cf. 1 Mac:c. 11.45: Ps.1. Sol. 2.36: 3.8). 50 T. Aquin:lS. Cmnmenlary ()II t/.ot> Epi.\llr•lo the J/rhn'I~"J (trans. and <:d. C. Baer: South Bend: Sl. Augustinc·s Press. 2006). pp. 70- 71. §}144--46. 51 Wisdom 17.8 <:om-eys the emotion of fcur using 6ri1Ja and oVAti£_Eto; nftc:r these:. fe.ar is c:xpr<:s~d with $c:CfO!JOI (v. 9}. EVTpoiJOS (v. 9). S!t>.Os (v. 10). nnd $6j3o:; (vv. II. 14). llut a combination of these: tcmls tsf. MI. 14.26: lk. 21.26} is a bsent from Hcb. 5.7·8 nnd the: curli« remarks of Hcb. 1.14-15 indic:ll<: th:ll the author is distinguishing Jesus from the r<:st of humanity. nnd thus the: chtuact~'1 of tUAO~ua (5.7) from the: concept of fcnr.
Tlu! Passion
65
obedience (5.8) furt her supporls this conclusion.52 ·n 1ere is not only a n inseparable relation between pr.tyer, o bedience, a nd ,uA&~,ta, but the sense o f t he latter is signilit'.tntly d ;uified by Jesus· ma nifes ta tion o r thefo rmer.j.3 T he images of pr.tyer a nd o bediente show Jesus to be in a post ure of humble submission and piety.54 a nd the merger of f~tilh a nd obedienc·e (3.18- 19; 11.8) implies that trust is the drivin£ f(m '<' behind his prayers a nd obedience. Both a re the na tura l result o f his faith." Olio Michel agrees: tn Hcbr 5. 7 ist a n 'Gottcsfurch t". nidll an ·Angst' zu de n ke n. Jesus wurdc <.·rho rl. wcil cr sich in Goltcsfurd!t dcm Wilkn Gollcs u ntcrordnct. niAO.pua bcsd m:ibt fcrncr das Vcrtra uc n. da.s zum Gcho rsmn lx:rcit ist. niAO.pua ke nnzeichnct vid lcidH mchr die innc.re. Scitc. VrraKO~ die nuch nuOcn gcw:mdtc Scite des Glaubc:-ns:~<>
T hese remarks tonfirm that , UAO:i3, ta implies Jesus· trust in God. which is signified by dr.twing near to God in prayer a nd learning o bedience rrom wha t he suffe red. Based o n the whole epistle. one could say that he learned to trust as he- learned to obey. and bo th came to perfi.oct fruition as he endured the cross ( 12.2).57 T he fina l reason for ascribing a positive connotation lo EUAix~na derives rro m the clear intern-t('e between the preceding exhortation (4.1 6) a nd Jesus' example. l f there is a ny do ubt lhat (~tithfconfidem:e/trust is the mecha nism behind Jesus· prayers and obedience. then Heb. 4.16 quickly removes it . Verse 16 comma nds. 'Therefore. let us draw near to the thro ne o f gra<."e trith tonjidenee !1-1 n Cx rrappflolas- 1. so tha t we may receive. mert·y 51 Andri('S$(1\ (·Angoissc·. p. 286) suys. ·t'idcc de Ia faibl<:ssc: de:-J¢sus dominc lc: chnpiuc 5 dcpuis lc: & but jusqu'au vcrsc:t 8. U. mention soudnine de~~ pii'ti: (c:t eommc mi:.ritoire!) aurnit Cti: \·rtaimcnt inexplicable. . : : however. his pi>sition is untcnuble when a/I the m:11c:-rinl in Hebrews is cxamin<:cL 53 ThurCn ('Gcbt."i und Gchorsum·. p. 144) ndmils thnt obt:dicnce nnd prnycr arc inscparnbk ·der Gchorsum ist nbcr ohne Gebel nicht mOglich'. Though obedien-ce is not possible without prayer. Hebn·ws would add that prayer is not possible without fnith. Thuri:n neglec.ts this point. thereby undermining his definition of rO),Q~u o: ns ·fc.m' mther than ·piety·. 54 Ellingworth. Nebrt>.rs. p. 290. 55 T. SOding. ·z uvcrsidu und Gcdul·d im SchJucn auf Jesus: Zum Gluubcnsbc:griff ties H~brac:.rbriefes· . ZNW 8'2 f l991}. pp. 214-41 (1~30). 56 Michel. Nt·bnifr. p. 122. 57 Learning obcdicnoc docs not imply prc,·ious d isobcdi cn~-c: (d. 4.1 5: 7.26: 9.14): instead. as A m idge (Hrbmr.r. p. 153) says. 'he-c:m learn obedience only in the sense thtJt he comes to uppn.">:intc fully whal oonfotmity to God's will means'. Also. learning hl trust in God docs not communicate u uansition from unbelief to belief. or fcnr to faith. but Jesus· ~·x pc:ricnlin l a nd complete understanding of what trusting in God entaik-d. Riggenbach (Nebui·!'r. pp. 388- 89} ngr«s that Jesus ·nuch den Glaube.n krncn mOsscn. insofetn n:imli.:h sein l.cidcn im Widcrspruch mit dcr Liebe: und Anerkcnnung 7.U stchc:n schien. dcrc:n er sich std s ,·on sc.itcn seines Vaters erfreutc'.
66
A Cloud of Witnesses
and lind grace in time o r nee
from his disposition of EUAO:l3, 1a . He re. the autho r has clearly joined his exhorlation to conlldem:.e with Je;us· example o f conlldence. If Jesus confidently approached God durin~ his most excruciating test (2.18; 4.15) and time of need (i.e .. the cross). how much more should they, who have not suffered bloodshed ( 12.4). do likewise'! Jesus" confidence. and obedience. therefore. were d isplayed a nd learned at Golgotha. which is why 5.7 can say that he was hea rd because of his EVAO:~E ia . Hebrews· c.-.;ueful use of EUAO:~Ha is part of the same over.tll conception of fa it h that is developed throughout. and to propose a meaning. other t han ·reverence• or "piety" falls short of the mark.
6. Israel's
Pri~stly
Ideal
Jesus· ac.tions reve~LI him to be the ideal priest in terms of piety a nd performing <:ullic duties. 59 To d isphty his superior runction and status ~IS High Priest (cf. 1.3: 2.17). the a uthor has drawn upon the major ligures Aaron and Me lchizedek. ~n1e analogies o r typologies are presented. so that 'Christ fullills the type of Aaron·s high-priesthood liS priest ujler tire order of ltfelchi:i•dek".6i• However. if Jesus fulfills Aaron ·s vocation as one resemblinS Melc hizedek (cf. 7.3. 15), then it is natura l to conclude that Je;us fullills ~·(elchizedek's priesthood as well. Later arguments substantiate t hat. in Christ. t he anticipa tory features of Aaron and Melchizedek are brought to completion. From a posture of
or
58 H cbr~ws 4.16 says to appro:1ch God in a tinlC." of nt:ed (~Of\fluo:). and this fin ds nn intriguing, pamllcl wi1h Psalm 22 (211 whcr~ lhe righteous sufferer .:om~s to God in confident prnyer. The psalmist implor~s God not to descrl him btcausc trouble is near nnd there is no one to hd1>l~lleic.l.. 11. 12): howc\•cr. he also prays that the lord would not be: far from him since God is his hdp (~~6tto. 2 1.20: cf. ~Os. LXX Ps. 39.18). Ps:1lm 22. thw.ofore. cont11ins a drnnwtic illustration of what Hcb. 4.16 oomnmnds and He.b. 5.7-8 repeats. 59 See also Isaacs (1/ehnm·s. p. 74). whose comments resuhcd in dti:s. scx:lion"s title. 60 Peterson. Perjt>dion. p. 193. Ht: adds. •Jt is unwnrrnntcd liternlism to restrict the: exercise of Christ's pric.~thood •·..n~·r the order of Mckhia-dck ·· to his heavcnlr session and intcr.:essilln - "Christ is always. ftom the momc.nt he wss priest :ll all. t1 pries! after the ord~·r of Mekbizedck··: (quoting, A. It Oa\·idson). RC"garding the figures of Aaron and ~kkhizedck. the author compares Jesus and Aaron in Ihe matters of calling and s.1cri!Ke. wher~as Jesus and Mekhizodck arc likened conce-rning lheir c.ontinuml-i:c in office (i.e.• :i:; -rOvoiWvo:). Neithe-r Qc.noesis nor Hebrew'S speak of Mdchi.z«kk making sacrifices. but this is a common and expected action of any priest. To say. lhen. thut Jesus fulfilled the typict~l m:rillces of Aaron ami Mclchizcdek is apprtlprialc~ but. instead of advnncing, Mckhizcdck ·s sacrillcial actions. the author prob:tb1y assumes th<:m.
Tlu! Passion
67
,.;;~.,;~, '"· which lacked the weakness o r sin (4. 15), Jesus acted as a High
Priest and received glory and honor: but a l the same time, he offered himselr once lo r all (7.27) and became a High Priest forever. Moreover, !he obedience and fai th shown at Oolgoth<.1 far surpass anything exemplill ed by Aaron o r Melchizedek .since Jesus" piety has not o nly resulted in eschatologjcal perrection and priestly address (5.9-10). but a lso in becoming the .source of eternal salvation to all who o bey (and lrust in) him. Thus. the Son models the worship t hat is required or all and is the means by which sa}v~itio n has been secured .
7. Conclusion In summary, He b. 5. 7.8 reflects Jesus· sullering.s at Golgotha. t he place o f Jlnal testing (2.18: 4.1 5), and his high priestly supplications lOr himselr and God's people. While d iscussing the topics or high priesthood and sacrilke (5.1- 10), Hebrews has integrated language rrom the psalms and elsewhere to reconstrucllhe crucifixion event. Je-sus· prayer.> and requests. especially fo r vindication (i.e .. resurrectio n), were granted because of his reverence to God. His example fo llows the command that is given lO the readers (4.1 6), na mely to a pproach God (in prayer) with confidence , which soliditles Jesus' confident d isposition as High Priest whe-n offering prayers with loud cries and tears. Through his functiona l and rormal capadties as High Priest. Jesus parallels Aaron and Melchizedek, but in ways that complete ly overshadow them. From the whole epistle, it is exceedingly d ear !hal Jesus. by his resolute trust and active obedience, has rullllled the pious attitudes a nd actions of the past by offering himse lf upon lhe cross.
Chapter 6 ' I I' A NOTHER PR1£SJ' ARISEs': JESUS' RESURRECT ION At-.DTHE H IGH PRIESTLY CHRISTOLOGY OF H EIIR EWS'
David M. Moflh t
I. Introduction A near universa l consens us in Hebrews· schola rship mainta ins that the letter says lillie about the resurn.l(.:tion of Jesus as a distinct moment or ca tegory ami even Jess abo ut the theologica l implica tions of t his aspect or the early Christian confession.2 The tendency is to assume that this autho r. if he reflects on the re-s urrection a t all, does not tlisting.u ish between that event and Jesus' exaltation.1 Aga inst this assessment, l will argue tha t the t'ategOr)' o f Jesus· resurra:tion - as the moment when he took possession o f an enduring. indestructible (i.e.. perlected) life - is both present in t he text and plays a n importa nt role in the theological a rgumentalion. Indeed , the most distinctive Christologka l contribution of the epistle - the conclusion lhal Jesus is t he greal High Pries! in the order of Melchizedek - depends upon lhe a ffinnat ion t hai God r•ised Jesus from the dead. For !his author. Jesus· possession or perl'et·ted o r resurrected li fe stands logically a nd temporally prior to his elevatio n to the heavenly priesthood and his exaltation to the throne as the royal Son. I Jam cspe~:ially gnucful to Richard B. Hays. David A. dcSilv:.. Gabridla Gdmxlini and lkrnd Janowski for their critical comme-nts on this proje-ct. Jn addition to the Et>istl<: to the He-brews a nd Christian Theology confer<noc:. a \"Crsion of this css.ly was n:ad at the Gc-mmn· English New Testament Colloquium. Ebc-rhard-K:.rls Uniwrsitat. Tobingcn. 1 would also like to dmnk the. G~·ml:m-Amc rican Fulbright Commission und the Jnstitulc of l nt~·rn:ati om1l Edu..:ation for funding me to pursue r~ose:m:h related to this topic. :ts '\-ell as Hermann Lichtcnbcrgc.r and the- lnstitut fiir Antikcs Judentum und Hdknistisdt<: Rdig;ionsg~-sehichtc for hosting me in Tabingcn. 2 For a few CL"'fflll-1es SOC'. Httrold w. Attridge. nle £pi.\'tle /Q Jilt' Nebmrs (Hcrmcni:.: Philudclphia: Fortre§:§.. 1989). p. 406: F. F. Bruce. Tilt! £pi.\·tle to Jhe Hi'br.t1rs (NJCl'\T: Gr:tnd Rnpids.: Eetdmnns. rev. ~-dn . 1990). pp. 31- 33. 3 Cf. Bruce. 1/ehn!ll'.\', pp. 32- 33. 86- 87. 388: Paul Ellingworth. The £pi.~tle M thr lh,hrew.f (NIGTC: Grnnd R:1pids: Ecrdmons. 1993). p. 603.
69
'If Anolher Pries/ Arises'
2. Jesus' Resurrection tiS a
Ct1u~gory
in Hebrews
The only relatively d ear reference to Jesus" resurrection in Hebrews occurs in 13.20 where God is identilled as having 'bro ught out or the dead ones (iK ~~
Jesus as the Paradigmmi<· Example of Faith in Te:;riug, Part I Already in 4.15 the. writer has presented Jesus as an example of someone who, although tested (rrr mlpaoJJEvov) in every respect. was without sin. \Vhile the no tion ol' 'sin' in t his letter e ntails a great deal more t han a mere Jack of ll-tith in the ll-tce of testing, such faithlessness is closely assochlled with sin in the near context or 4.15 (see 3.12. 19 a nd 4.2 where OmOTia in the midst of testing. is correlated with the sin that prevents o ne rrom obt:lining God's promises).6 ·n1e comment that Jesus was without sin when tested therefOre implies that his own behavior during his time o r testing was c ha racterized by faith. In contr.tst to Israel's faithless respo nse in the wilderness (cf. Heb. 3.7-4.2), Jesus acted in faith during his time o f testing.7 Hebrews 5.7 clarille.s at le~1st one of the ways in which Jesus· fai th expressed itsetr. In the midst of his ordeal, he c ried out to the o ne. \Vho was a ble to s.ave him out or the-realm o r death. By highlighting the. fact that Jesus cried o ut to God, the autho r implicitly prese-nlS Jesus as a n ~
All u ans.1:ttions are nt)' own. Notably not 1!\'Cryonc soc:s this as n rcfcrcn-c:.: to Jesus· in 13.1'0. Au ridge. for c::xample. nrgue-s th:•t by using the verb civ&y(,) the writer h{tS ddibcnttdy avoided the stan
J/t'bl't'll'.\', p. 406). 5 The usc of £" 9C'ems not to imply sulvntion •from· death. but rather salvation •oul or
death s.inoc. :.s 13.10 shows. the author dcurly know:s. thul k su.s di4--d ttnd WtiS brought out of that slntc by God. Cf. Auridgc. J/t>bn"'rs. p. 150: Ellingworth. J/i'brMrJ. pp. 18.8-91. 6 Ac:cordin.g to LXX Ps. 9-l.S (Heb. 3.8). lsr:u:l's fnilure in the wildcrness occurred in 'the dny of testing' (Thv ~;.~lpov ToU rrupao!Jo\i). 7 cr. EUingworth. Jh4Wl'I\'S, p. 292.
70
A Cloud of Witnesses
illustration of lhe very kind of bold reJiant·e upo n God in times of need that he has just urged upon his audience in their own times o f testing (cf. 4.14-16)' Add itionally, the identifica tion God a s having the ' power to sa ve out of t he realm of dea th' suggests that a key element o f Jesus· faith was the be.lief tha t God was able to resurrect him o ut or t he realm of death. T wo (~-tc:tors further substantiate this interpretation. First. such an understanding of l~tith coheres remarkably well with some of the most rudime-n tary Chris tian teathings the writer g.oes on to o utline. In 6.1-2, falth in God along: with belief in t he resurrectio n belong to t he most e lementary principles o f ' the initial te~u:hing• (see also 11.6 a nd 11.35 where t hese s.ame elements are a lso presented as cons tit utive o r flti th). Sec:ond . as will be a rgued in mo re deta il below. in the o nly other passage in the letter where God is described as having the 'power' to save "out of death, the reference is explicitly collocated wit h belief in resurrection (cf. 11.17-19). All of this suggests the conclusion that the portrayal of Jesus· own respo nse in the midst of testing in 5.7 illustrates the kind or failh that the author impresses upon his readers.9 Of pa rticular note. however. is t he comment that as a result of Jesus· reveren<.;e. 10 he was heard. H ebrews' reference to Jesus' ' prayers' (&1\o" S) and ·cry' (
or
8 Soc O,wid A. dc:Sih'3. PtrJ.eiW(IJtre ill Gmlitmle: A S(}t·io-Ritnariral Commrmary 011 thr 'fpistle Jo 1fle 1/ehrew.\·' (Gmnd Rapids: Ecrdmans. 2000). p. 19 1. 9 Jesus· ro1c as the paradigm of f:. i1h is spelled out more d~1 rly in 12.1·4 (for n more detailed discus:~ion of t his point SI.'IC: bdow). Cf. ibid.• p. 191. 10 Given that Jesus· crying out to God is portrared as an net of faithfu l obedience. it foii\1\\'S that Jc:su.c;· faithful enduro nee even unto death nppenrs Ol\1:St nnlurally to be at the heart of what the writc:.r has in \';~....\·when he spc~•ks in v. 7 of Jesus· fli)..Q~uo:. II For n few cxampb St'C' Exod. 1.23
'If Anolher Pries/ Arises'
71
occ urred after death - that is, sal\'ation out of the rea lm of death (not salvation from ha,·ing to endure the s uiTering dea th). 13 Jesus· own fa ith when tested was therefore rewarded in that God he.a rd him a nd. by implication, saved him o ut of the realm o f de-.uh. If this is basically correct. then the mention in 5.7 of Jesus· ('rying out and being heard is consistent wi(h t he author"s emphasis throughout the leller on faithful endurance and the reception of God's promises (see. for exam ple, 6.1 2-15 which anticipates 11. 1- 12.2). That Jesus salvation out or de-•th is a referen<:e to his resurrection become-S d e:lrer when o ne considers other passa~es in the letter where this pattern of faith and reward is explic:itly linked wilh resurrection. 14
or
Abrt1ham's Faith in Testing and Resurrection One of the few passages in Hebrews lhat unequi vo(·ally refers lO resurrection is 11.17-19. Here Abra ham stands as a shining example o r fait h ret"".Civing. its promised reward from God . In lhese verses the author depicts Abra ha m acting fili thl'ully in the midst of bein£ tested ( rrrlpa~o~
o
or
13 Cf. espeo.:i.ally !he dise-ussion in Willlt1m R. G. Loader. StJIIIIUIItl HohNprie·ster: fitw n·adilimug.-scbirlltlirlw Untersudumg :ur (hl'i.wologit• tkJ Nrbriiuhrit:fos (\VMAr--rr. 53: Ncukirchc:n-Vluyn: Ncukirchncr Verlag~ 1991.), pp. 99- 10-J. ll should be pointed out that thi.s. l'.Ondusion shows signifi-cant de.vclopmcnt rdativc to the mnjority of the psalm tc:-:ts in which the: righteous arc 11card and s.wcd ht!forr they die. Th~·re arc. howeve-r. dues that this tradition is de\'doping toward the notion of resul"ttttion (cf.. for instance. Be.md Janowski. KmifliktgeJpriir!le mit Gou: £iur Anth•·o('<~lqgk dt>•· P.m/mc>tl iNcukirche.n· V}uyn: Ncukirdmcr Verlag. 2003). pp. 336-38). 14 Cf. Elling.worth. Nrhrt!lrs. p. 288. who also think..<> J~-sus' n.-surrection is implicit here (in spite-of his ngr<:l'1llCill with the consensus that ·c-ISl'\Vhetc- in Hebrews the resurrection Clf Jesus is not pwmincnt'). Various other interpretations h..1\'e been offered. but a solid oons.:nsus understands Jesus· being •henrd' as implying_ his exaltation (e.g.. Auridge. 1/ebrt•lr.f. p. 150). 15 Soc cspeci~•lly the discus:;ton in
Bruce~ llebr-i',rs. pp. 303- 304. 16 The people of God in the past (3.8) and. implicitlr. in the prc:scnt (4.15· 16) arc snid to e-xpc:ric:n<:C' testing. but apart from the mention of God's being tested (3.9}. Jesus and Abrahnm arc the only inl1ividual:s in !he k·ttcr owrtly identified as ha\'ing been tested.
72
A Cloud of Witnesses
' powe.r' (cf. the parliciple OuvOIJ~vov in 5.7 and the adjective OuvaTOs in 11. 19) to deliver SOmeone 'out or (iK) death. ·n lird. this particular belief a bo ut God (i.e .. t hat God is able to save people out of death) appears to be lhe prima ry element or faith being emphasized in both passages. That is, faith in Goers power lO save someone out of deo.1th motivated the exemplary behavior t hese. individuals demonslr.tted when tested. Fourth . in both cases the l~1ithful endurdnce is rewarded. Jesus was heard. Abraham received Isaac back again. Thus in both passages f"aith rul perseverance leads to salvation in relation to death. In the case of Abraham and fsaac the resun ection out of the dead is iv rrapa~o}.~ (v. 19) - only a hint or type o t' the good things to <.X>me. 17 In the case of Jesus. the situation is obviously diiTerent because. unlike Isaac., he did d ie. Nevertheless. the same basic pa llern underlies these texts: ( I) !:lith in God '" the one who can raise the dead is an essential component o r endur.tnce in times of testing. and (2) God rew~1rds such fait h with salvation. In I 1. J7. J9 one sees. even ir only in a parable. that this reward or salvation is ultim~• tely resurrection. The linguistic and conceptual para llels between 5.7 and 11.1 7- 19 provide good grounds fo r concluding that when the author sta tes in 5.7 that Jesus· pn1yer to one who could s:a ve out of death W<-ts he.ard, he is :Illuding to Jesus' resurrection. In the midst of Je-Sus· faithful suffering. God heard his cry and d id exactly what 13.20 claims - brought him out of the dead. 1s There is, however. yet another important piece of evidence lOr the presence of Jesus' resurrection in Hebrews. In keeping with the-pattern of faith receiving. God's commendation. Jesus stands in 12.2 a t the very climax of the list of those whose lives exemplify this p~•ttern.
Jesus as tilt! Pamdigmllfic Example of Faith in Testing, Parr 2 Hebrews I I consists of a list or individuals who, because of their faith, are presented by the autho r as examples or those who will ultimately inherit God 's promises. While the list provides instances of promises fullllled (i.e.. faith a lready rewarded). there a re a few key eschato logk-al promises still unfullllled and toward which those. on the list still look in f::tith. T hese promises are a c ity built by God(''· 10). a heavenly homeland (vv. 14- 16). and a 'beuer resurrection· (v. 35). Before proceeding. a brief word a bout this 'beuer resurrectio n' (Kp~iTTOV05 avaoTCiOHilS) is appropri<~te. Three factors sugg_est t hat the ' betterne.ss· o f this resurrectio n has to do wit h its eschatologica1jend uring quality. 17
E.g.. Anridgc. 1/ebn;w.r. p. 335: Bru<:e.
N~·brews.
p. 30·l.
18 So also James Kurianal. Jt•.n u IJUr Jlig/r Pn·e.\'t: Ps }1(),4 (l.f the Sub.\'fruCIIm! of J/rb 5.J- 7.1S (Frankfurl am Main: Peter Umg.2000). p. 70.
'If Anolher Pries/ Arises'
73
First, given the d ire<:l <.~ontrast between the resurn."t·tion mentioned in I USa and the Kp,iTTovo; avo.oTa orws in I 1.35c. it follows that the fo rmer resurre<.·tion is only a return to morta l life (resuscitation). while the-
latter. better res-urrection brings a superior kind of life. 1Y Seco nd . this 'better resurrec.lio n· is one of sever:il esch~•tologi(·.:.:tl promises listed in this chapter (cr. vv. 9- 10 and I 3-16). Because these eschatological possessions a re heavenly, they are unshakeable and enduring (cf. 12.25-I<J). ·n t is sug~ests that the better resurrection, like the enduring eschato logical city and homehmd. must be a resurrection to •• life that endures. 1'hird , when the ••uthor uses a form of KpE iTTCo.)V/Kpfloowv, it ofte n carries the
('onnota tion of being heavenly and enduring.21• T he ' better resurrection~ is therefore the promise of a life no longer s ubject to mortality. This resurrection ushe-rs in the kind of unshtLkeable life tha t can inherit the rullne--Ss of the other esc::hatological promise-s - the enduring city and home-l and. As was noted a bove. Jesus s tands at the pinnacle o r the list of 11tithful o nes in cha pter II. He is. t he chief ex~m1ple o f someone who faithfully s uffered in order to obtain the greate r joy promised to him. By pladng Jesus at th~ lisfs apex. t.he aut~or holds. him up as. the '"!a.i n exampl~ to be emulated . Jesus, as the apmyos- and nl-uc.>llf> of the laJth (1 2.2), JS thus presented as the first o ne to have obt:tined the eschatological promises noted in cha pter II (see also 2. 10). The joy that Jesus a nticipated t'frtainly cannot be reduc-ed to t he promises referred win c ha pter I 1.21 Yet. given his place in this list and the lengt hs to which the author has gone to identiry him with those who have placed their hope in him. it would be exceedingly strange if he thought tha t Je-sus himself did not obta in thecity, homeland and resurrection promised to those be-i ng sanctified (cf.
2.11 ). T he foregoing discussion su~~sts tha t t he aut hor of Hebrews has no t ignored Jesus' resurrection. But is this category d istinct rrom his exa ltation to the royal thro ne in heaven fOr t his author'? Additionally, does the re-surrection play a significa nt role in the Chris.tological rellection of this text'? For the balance of this essay I will argue that Je-sus· resurrection is not o nly a moment d istinct fro m his exaltation, but one fu nda mental fo r the letter"s Christological c.laim thal Je.sus serves as the heave.nly High Priest. 19 This is widely recognized. E.g.. Anridgc:. Nebrr~rs. p. 350: Cr~1 ig R. KC1C$IC:r. J/ebrcw:>: A Nl!w Tnm.slaticm wilil lntuJlluciWn a11d Comml'tlltrrJ·(AB. 36: Nl'W York: Doubleday. 1001). p. 51-I. 10 This is c:spe<:ially dear in 9.~ 3: 10.34 and 11. 16. but seems implicit in 7. 19. 11: 8.6 tmd 11.1-l where the hrnvcnly nature of JouJ;:· ministry is cc:ntr.tllo the bc:ucr hope~ <:o\'cnant tmd
promtsc:s. ll For example-. the c.xnhation to 1hc m~-s.-.ia n ic throne at God·s right h.ttnd and the redemption or his broth~rs and sisters must ulso be In ke-n into account.
74
A Cloud of Witnesses
3. Perfl•ction aud Jesus ' Priestly Prerequisites Hebrews 5.1- 10 is gene-rally taken lobe the writer"s attempt to lay o ut Jesus· prerequisites for priestly office. T he two key qualifications oCten
recognized are: (I) his abilily to .sVmJXHhize with those fOr whom he m inisters. and (2) his call by God.lt'
Yet Hebrewf use. of 'perfection· languag_ e- within the argument fOr Jesus" p riestly status (i.e., 4.1 4-8.2) em phasizes another qualilkalion especially per\inent lo t he particular Hi~h Priesthood Jesus holds - a life
that endures.:!J In 5.S-I O the author claims that Jesus had to undergo suffering as a prerequisite for auaining perfection. Perli...>ction. in turn, is a
or
necessary qualification fo r him to become the source everlasting 14 salvation (i.e., to become the e ,•e rlasting HigJt Priest). Thus the writer lays out a lo~cal and tempora l sequence of events that c ulminates in the elevation o f Jesus to the ol1k e o f High Priest in the o rder o r Melchizedek. Jesus· possession o r perfected life is one of the distinguishing features that qualifies him for tha t priestly oflke. Perfection, the-n , is not something inc.~lusive of Jesus· priestly ministry a nd heavenly exaltatio n to the throne a t God·s right hand . ll is something he lirst had to possess in order to t hen become the heavenly High Priest who. a fter making a d eansing fo r sin. was exalted to the thro ne a t God's righ t hand (cf. Heb. 1.3). T wo main observations suppo rt these claims. First. there is an obvious log.ka l relationship between the process or le-a rning obedience t hrough sull't>ring (5.8) a nd the s tate-o r perfection Jesus is said lo have altai ned (5.9) - Jesus' perlection follows his sutlering. He was made per(Cct o nly after his s ullering had ceased. Jesus vt'aS, there.fOre. not perlect until after his dea th. Second. the two a orist passive participles in 5.9-10. both o f which function adverbia lly in rela tion to Ey[v-n o. imply a tempora l. sequential !2 Stt. for instance. Bruoc. Jlehrews. PI>. 122- 26: Erich Griisscr. All die Jlelmkr ( N.-hr 16) (EKKI\'T. XVII.'I: t'\euk ir'-~hcn ·VIuyn: Nc-ukirehcner Verlag. 1993). p. 26S.
23 Then:. is link consensus on the me to thl' /h,hn!lrs' ISNTSMS. ~7: Cambridge: Cttmbridge Uni ~~t'Sity Pre~. 198:!). pp. 66- 73: so also Attridg.e--. Jli!hren·s. PI>· 86-87). Peterson is right that pcrfoction is related to Jesus· priestly vocation. but WTong in when lind where he locates it. Jesus· perfect ion docs not include his exaltation. m!her it is a prerequisite for his entry into hl'i>· !30- JJ). !4 The author clarifies this in 1.14-!5 whc:re he states that the cvcrltL'iling S<•lvation obtained by Jesus depends UI)On his having bocome an e\'crlasting High l,ric:st.
'If Anolher Pries/ Arises'
75
development from s uffering, to perfection, to being appointed High Priest. h was ajicr Jesus w~1s periCcted that he betame the source o f everlasli n~ salvation fOr all those who obey him. being a1 thai lime a ppointed by G od High Priest according to the o rder o r Melchizedek. The
broader argument of Hebrews supplies significant support for this inte rpretation. In Heb. 7.23.25 the writer co ntras ts those who serve as priests afte.r the
o rder of Aaron wilh Jesus' priestly servic-e. ·n1e primary p<>inl of C.Onlr.lSl
concerns the respective relationships or Jesus and t he Levitical priests to the power of dea th. Both Jesus a nd the Levitical priests experienced death. The <.~rux of the d istinction is that death prevents the Aaronic priests from ·rema ining· (rrapaj.Ji~1v). Jesus. however, ' remains forever' (pivnv a\hOv EiS' T0v aiWva) and, because of this fact (01G TO 1-1Evu v aliTOv). possesses an everlasti ng priesthood . T hat is. as 7.25 d ea rly s tates, Jesus 'always lives· ( mi vTon ~C,v) lo intercede for his people. T he contrast between t hese two priestly orders reaches its c limax in 7.28. On the o ne hand, the priests in Aaron's order are sa id to be weak (as has j us t been shown in vv. 23- 25. t hey die and cannot overcome death's power). The High Priest appointed by G od to Me lchizedek' s order, on the other hand, is the So n who is in the s ta te o r 'perf~:tion• fOrever. In keeping with this context, the term ' perfection· encaps ulates the attribute o f enduring lile that Jesus has. T his is what distinguis hes him from !he o ther. weak Hi,gh Priests. All priests. at tording to the a uthor, are called by God and t a n sympa thize with those for whom they minister. What ma kes Jesus <.linerent and lit for a d iffe rent priesthood is t he f;.1ct that unlike the other prie-sts. he is not subject to mortality: rather. likeMe lchizedek. he 'remains and 'lives (c f. 7.3, 8). Jf this is ri~ht. t hen lhe logic o f the argument indicates tha t Jesus' perfection is t he prerequisite that qualilles him to serve as the everlasting High Priest. 25 Precisely because Jesus· perfection ensures t hat he will never fo rfeit his ministry lo death, he l'a n be a ppointed by God 10 serve in Me lchizedek·s eternal priestly o rder. 26 Yet. since Jesus did in facl d ie, everyt hing the writer has just predil'a ted abo ut Jesus· perfection a nd ministry t a n only a pply to him after his dea th. Before he d ied. Jesus was liable to lhe power of death. He was made like his brothers a nd sisters in every re
25 Sec too the discus.'Sion of Kuriana1. Our 1/igh Prie.,·t. pp. 230- .U. who nlso i den1ifi~s Jesus· pcrf<.-ction .,~ th the resurrection. 16 Kurianal rightly comments 1h:11 Jesus' e-ternal life •is !he mos.t relevant t1spcc1 of 1he idenl slate ncx:cssaty ftlr being d~.·darcd High Priest according to the order of Mdchi7.cdd:.. This perfection makes it pos.~ible for him to be a 1>ric:st forever" (ibid.. p. lJ2).
76
A Cloud of Witnesses
to t he power of dea th) and o nly then could he bec::ome the soun.-.e of everlasting salvation.
The logi<.".;cd and temporal relationships noted ~· bove in the discussion o f 5.8-10 therefo re lind additiona l s upport in the a rgumenta tio n of 7.23-28_ As t he writer works out the particulars of the argument he presented in nun: in 5.8-10, he emphasizes the importa nce of Jesus· perfec ted state. ·n lis perlec.tion - which indudes Jesus· ever endurin,g/remaining lil'e qualifies him IO be a be Her High Priest o r Melchizedek. s order. But c.an a moment be identified when Jesus ca me into possession of this
enduring life and thus became qualified lO be the he-avenly High Priest'! Severa l commentato rs ar~ue that such an identilk -a tion is not possible.17 There a re. clues in the text. however, that s uggest otherwise. T he writer comments in 8.4 that if Jesus were on earth he would no t even (oUO" O:v) be a priest bet'ause there exist those who olier gifts in accordance with the Law. 2g fn keeping \Vith the discussion a bove a bo ut the relationship between Jesus· perfection and priestly status, 8.4 s tates that Jesus was not a priest on earth. Tn fact. 8.4 d early locates Jesus· priestly ministry in heaven a fter his me a nd death o n eart h. The writer"s logi<: is d ear. The authority or the Law remains valid on earth. and on earth t here a lready exists a lawfully appointed order of priests. Therefore_ Jesus. being from the tribe of J udah (7.1 4). canno t serve in that priesthood . Wha t then quali lies Jesus to serve as a priest? As was shown ~tbove. Jesus can be a priest because he has the necessary q ualification lo r another order of priesthood - tha t or Mekhizedek, a priesthood which one has not by genealo£_y but by enduring life. There was a time, then, before which Jesus could not even be a priest. let a lone t he great Hi!;h Priest. Before his life and death o n earth he was not perfect and. because of his lineage. could not serve in the lawful priesthood . Now. however, Jesus is the High Priest who passed thro ugh the heavens (4.1 4) and. after making a tonement, s.at down a t God's right hand ( 1.3: 8.1 ). Perfection. as the requisite qualification lo r him to become the- hea venly High Priest. therefOre stands between Jesus· death a nd elevatio n to the heavenly priesthood. l n light or the discussion above a bo ut Jesus' fa ith when tested receiving: the reward o r the better resurra:tion . the most likely candidate for t his moment is tha t of the resurrection. After his death. God bro ught Jesus out of the realm o r death and into a life that will endure forever. Only after this point was Jesus qualified to be the heavenly High Priest. this is <'Orrecl. then Jesus resurrt'Ction IOrms a rentral plank in the priestly ChristoloQ,y of the lette r.
tr
'!7 E.g... Anridg.c. NthrMr.s. 1>. 147: Ellingworth. lh,hre••s. p. 194: und especially Peterson. Perfe~·tirm.
p. 97. 18 See e;spc.:cially Ellingwonh. 1/t>brt'lr.J. p. 405.
'If Anolher Pries/ Arises'
77
4. The Son Became Nigh Priest: Psalm //0.4 and Resurrection Lift>
or
or
Careful auention to the writer's use Ps. 110.4 and the argumentation chapter 7 substa ntiates t he condusion stated above. Specitlcally. the writer's comment that Jesus ·arose• in the likeness or ~·l elchizedek serves as the middle term he relies on to justify his unparalleled Chris tological claim that just as God called Jesus to be So n (Ps. 2.7; He b. 5.5), God a lso "'lied him to be priest ·forever· (Ps. 110.4: Heb. 5.6). The rela ted questions of how the writer came to a pply Ps. 110.4 to Jesus and how he came to link f's. 2.7 and Ps. 110.4 ha,•e long drawn scholarly auention. Some have speculated about a possible lit urgical background fo r these links-'• Others have a rg.ued that the a uthor understood Jesus priestly ministry as an aspect of his status as Son.~0 \Ve will probably never know exactly what led the aulhor lo make t hese links. Nevertheless, his argument fo r the Son's priestly status allows some sound deductions regarding how he set a bo ut trying to convim.;e othe-rs to anlrm this conclusion - na mely. he relies upon the confession of Jesus' everlasti ng life as a middle tem1 to ma ke the t·ase that Je.sus is both So n and priest. Impo rtantly. lhe extent to which his ;ugument exhibits tension regarding the combination or the o 11'ices of reigning So n and High Priest in the pe.rso n o r Jesus further indicates that he has no t connated Jesus' coming. into possession o r e nduring lire with his exalta tion.
A Higlr Prii!.ff ji'om I he Tribe of Judah The a uthor's argmnent~Hh•e stra tegy for Je-sus· elevation to the priesthood strongly suggests t hat he docs not conceive of Jesus· priestly ministry as something implicit lO his sta tus as reigning Son. As was no ted a bove., his a rgument highlights a real problem lOr Jesus· priestly status - his ~.enealogy. \Vhile Jesus· t riba l lineage is a rguably impo rtant fo r his sta tus :1s royal Son. the a uthor retognizes t hat it should prevent him from holding priestly ol1ke (cf. 7. 13-14). The fact o r Jesus· descent from Judah pushes the. writer to demo nstrate how Jesus <.~an be a priest in spite of his genealogy. Ye t if Hebrews understands Jesus" priestly ministry as a n extension of his stalus as re-igning Son. this is a very strange way of explicating such a position . Tha t is, if the prieslhood is founded upon o r a n extension of sonship, then ~9 For only~ fC'I\ extunpl~ s« Attridge. llt>bretrs, pp. 99- 103. who argues for ~ notion of angels as priests pos:~ibly influencing liturgiro1 or excgt.'licnl tr:1ditions known to the author: and. Ernst Kiiscmann. Da.~ wamlt>mdt> Gollt•JwJ!k: Fine Ume•·.urchuHg :um llt'buit>J·hrii!/(GOuingen: Vundcnhoock & Ruprcdu. 4t1t edn. 1963). pp. 124-25. 30 For only a few c.xumplcs see. Goorb~ Wesley Buch~man . To Jltt> Jfebrr11--s: Tnwsltllitm. Commt•t/1 aJu! C
A Cloud of Witnesses
78
Jesus· t ribal lineaQ_e ought to be a factor working in the writer's fa vor. Instead , the a uthor seeks to demonstrate t he very possibili ty that the royal Son c:tn be a priest in 5J1ite ofhis genealogy. Jesus" role as priest here seems therefore to be d istinct from - that is. not predicated upon - his sta tus as Son. In keeping with this a ssessmenl. the a rgument 7.1 - 8.2 appears designed to show tha L irrespec:: tive or the Law·s prescriptions. someone o utside of the tribe Levi t'a n in fa('l serve as a priest bet:ause another priesthood exists. The mention of Me lchizedek a nd his priestly o rder in the oracle o f Ps. 110.4 provide the a uthor wit h a n exa mple of another priesthood that depends not upon tribal descent. but on the quality o r life one possesses. l\'1 ekhizedek - being. without fa ther. without mo ther a nd without beginning or end of days - is a priest beca.use he ·rema ins· (IJ~VEI. 7.3) or 'lives (~!j. 7.8). n ,e author finds in Ps. I !0.4 a pro mise tha t there will be a nother priest like Melchizedek. Such a priest. he reasons, will have the right to serve in this order not bet:a use of tribal genealo~y, but because he will arise (civloT~~·) in the likeness<Titvo~ou5T11Ta) o fM elchizedek (cf.
or
or
7.15).
Arising to the Eternal. Hetmmlr Priesthood The te rm ·arising· '~~m simply refer to a state of affairs coming into being or to a n individual taking, an oflk e.3 1 T his Jaile r sense is almost certainly the meaning in 7. 11. ·n mt the write r uses this language in 7.15 to indicate something more is s uggested by his explication of wh~H it means that 'another priest' (tha t is. a different priest - one o utside of the tribe o f l evi)n will a rise in the 'likeness' o r Melchizedek. He argues in 7.1 6 that. like r-..·telchizedek. this o ther priest belongs to this priesthood by virtue of the fact that he possesses the power o r an indestruttible life (K
her~.
E.g.. Ellingworth.
p. 373.
J! Jn this c.ontcxt the classieal sense of £npos ~s ·diffcr<:nl' is c.widcnl. So. e.g.. Atnidge. 1/ehnMs. p. 200: Bruce. l/ehJ't'\1'.\'. p. 165.
.U Cf.. David ~·1. Hay. Gldry ar tht> Right l/a11d: Psalm I /0 in E(lt£~· Cllril·tianily (SBLMS. 18: N:•shvillc: Abingdon. t973). PI>. 146-47. Hoy suggests it is a ·resurrection· exaltation· convidion thnt lics bdtind this nrgumcnl. Yet I he tension bctw«n Jesus' priestly status a nd the link be-twee-n exaltation and royal sonship in Hebrews SUI:lb'<:Sts thnl this asscJ>mtent too quickly con Rates rcsum:ction and cJwlt:•tion. 3-1 This is widdy n:cognizcd. So. for example. Attridge. 1/ebrews. p. 199.
'If Anolher Pries/ Arises'
79
fo llows that the aflirmation or his resunec tion must underlie the logi<: or the author·s a rgument here. The language of a nother priest 'arising> in 7.1 5 is thus a reference to Jesus' resurrection ? 5 The autho r has created a brilliant d ouble entendre.36 Another priest has arisen - namely Jesus. who, in spite of the Law•s prescriptions with respect to tribal lineage. is q uali lled lO be a priest because God heard his c ry a nd rewarded his faithful sullt-ring. \Vith the pro mise or the beuer resurrection li fe. In sum, the writer's argument suggests that the link between the Ps. 2.7 and Ps. I 10.4 does not lie in an intrinsic connection between ·Son· a nd ' priesf. but rather depends upo n the perception ort he coherem:e between the or~1de of God in Sc ripture about a n everlasting priest and the alllnnation that God ra ised Jesus fro m the dead. Since Jesus has that perfected resurn...·-ction lil'e. he is qualil1ed to be the everlasting: priest. T he o ne God called as So n is therefore also the one called by God to be priest fo rever in the o rder of ~·lelchizedek.
5. Conclusion T he comment that 'Christ's resurrec.:.tion per se does not Jlgure-so centra lly in (this] writer's thinking,]' nicely captures the consensus position regarding Jesus· resurrection in Hl!brews. The ar.gument o f this essay, howe,•e r. calls this conclusion into question. I have sought to show no t only that the autho r allirms Jesus' resurrection, but also that this ca tegory o r moment ma kes a distinctive oontribution to his argument lOr the High Priestly Christology of the text. ·n1e assumption o f this event underlies thewriter's argument for how it is possible that Jesus. the reigning Son rrom the t ribe of Judah. can nevertheless be the ,great High Priest.
35 In lhe nl!lin. scholars undcrs!:llld d~<: ;1uthM's '-'<>mmcn! about Jcsus' lifc ns :t n:-fcn:-occto his ascension and/or exaltation (e.g.. Attridge. 1/ehn.m·.\', p. 203). A few rommc-nwtors. though. rightly d<."loct a n:suri'C'Ction logic in play h«e (e.g,.. Bru,c. 1/ehrew.\, p. 169). Notably Koester consider$ 1hc: possibility thnt O:vionw• might refer to Jes.u$' r<:SUtTl"Ction. but oondudes that the tcnn probably points primarily to his being d evutcd to lhc offire or pric:st (Ko~-s.tcr. Jlchre•,-:s. p. 355: c:-r. Kurianal. 011r 1/igh Pl'it>st. p. II I). 36 For nn am•logous in slt~nc:.: ofthi.s. same word play sec Act.s. 3.11 nnd 26. I nm grateful to D11vid A. dc:Silva for drawing my attention to this text. 37 Pc:1crson. PeJfcrfion. p. iO.
C h apter
7
PIONEER ANI) PER~ECTEIC JOSHUA TR.~IJITIONS Ar< DTHE
CH tUSTOLOUY OF HEHtl EWS
Brvan J. Whitfield In the 1920s and 1930s. both Ha rris and Kiisemann independently r.tised the q uestion or the plate of c hapters 3 a nd 4 in the larg.er argument or Hebrews. Harris's contribution. a two-page article. was largely ignored or
forgotten, while K~semann's d iscussion. 1lre Wamlt~rin.rt People of God, was to Shape interpretation or Hebrews for three generations. I Kasernann ar~ued that t he place of Hebrews 3 and 4 and the connection between the people or God and the great HigJt Priest are best understood by positing a Gnostic background fo r Hebrews. Subse<.~1e1~t schola rship has s hown that Hebrews is not a Gnostic do<:umenl. Hut many researchers have t"'ntinued to search fo r the connectio n between t he ·people of God and the great High Priest in a particular conceptual backgro und: middle Plato nism. Qumran. Merkabah mysticism. or the S::unaritans. 3 Althou~h they ha ve nol fo llowed K3semann's s pecific proposal. lhey have preserved his method. No background has proven salisfactory~ however. and il may be that both Kasemann's specific answer and his melhod a re b1ind alleys. In his review of the question. Hurst has concluded that interprete rs would be bette r to seek an ansv..·er not in a specific l·onceptual background but rather in Hebrews· use or Scri pture.~ Altho ugh Hurst himself did not return to t he puzzle of t he logic behind Hebrews 3 and 4, his proposal suggests that a re-e.xamination of Harris's approach may provide a w:ty forward. I Ernst Knscmann. The Wamlerit(.t: Prople of G(J(/: An lnrt'Jtigatiml of tlte Letm· lfJ thr 1/ehrelr.\'(lruns. Roy A. Harrisvilknnd ln ing L. Sandbctg: Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1984): J. Rcndd liorri.s. 'Th~ Sinle.c;s High Pricsf. £rJ•Tim JJ (1921- 1911). pp. 217- IS. 1 For no owrvic:w and bibliography. soc l incoln Douglas Hurst. n1e Epistle to t!tr 1/(!hre~u: h s Btu·kg•·c wul iJfThought (SNTSMS. 65: New York: Cambridge. University Press. 1990). p p. 70- 74.
3 For additional discussion and bibliogmph)· regarding the.~ options. r.cc ibid.. pp. 7-8.5. 4 Ibid.. p. 131.
Piom'er am/ Perfecter
81
Ra ther t han a ppealing { O the s tudy o r the history o f re-ligions fOr an a ppropriate background, H~1 rris a rgued that the name the LXX renders as 'lrJooVs is the key lo understand ing the relationship between the peopleo r God and the great High Priest. He contended that understanding the connections between 'lflOOU) son Nun (especially Numbers 13- 14) and 'hwoUs son o r Jehosedek (Ze<.~hariah 3) made sense of the argumentative tlow of Hebrews a nd the relationship of priest and people. But while Ha nis t hought Zechariah and Numbers were significant, the great majority of modern commentators have not found his arguments convindng.s A ttridge, for exam ple. finds parallels between Hebrews and Zechariah 'fortuito us·}' Such objections notwithstand ing. three developments SU£-b>'eSt it may prove frui t ful to return to Harris' proposa l. First, despite their value fo r illuminating, o ther parts of Hebrews, none o r the studies o r <.~onceptual lx-Kkgrounds has provided an adequate answer to the problem that K5semann posed. Second. in the SO years since Harris· a rticle. discovery of the texts in the Judean desert and continued sludy o r o ther writings have l'lari fied the ro le o f scriptural interpretation in Second Temple Judaism a nd. in pa rticular. its lively inte rest in priestly texts. T hird, it is possible to make a s tron£er <.·.a se tOr connec tions between Hebrews a nd these precursor texts th:m before-. Careful study o r thehistory of interpretation of Number.; 13- 14 and of Zechariah 3 sheds new light on their significa nce for understa nding Hebrews.7
or
Numbers 's
)(~sus
After his initial pro logue a nd t reatment of the Son's superiority to a ngels, the a uthor of Hebrews introd uces his subsequent theme: a demonstration tha t 'J~oous is ·a merciful and faithful High Priest' (Heb. 2.1 7). In his cus tomary 11tshion, he ta kes up the two points in reverse o rder, firs t d iscussing t he l~iithfulness of 'lfJooUs . His fi rst step develops a ('o mpa rison o f Moses and 'l~ooGs. bo th of whom proved fa ithful to God (Heb. 3.1-6). The writer then begjn.S an exhortation agains t unfaithfulness that on the surface appears unrelated to his stated goa l or demonslra ting the fait hfulness of 'lflOOUS. As readers move from 3.6 to 3. 7. therefore, they reat-h the problem with which K5sema nn and Harris struggled . With the writer's quotation of Ps. 95.7- J I a nd its subsequent exposition. the text shills from an emphasis on 5 One nolabl<.' exc.:plion. •hough he docs no1 ex1>lieitly refer to Hanis. is F. C. Synge. 1/ebmr:umd tiJl! Srript11rr.s (london: Sl'CK. 1959). pp. 19- 11. 6 Harold \V. Attridge. Tltr EpiJt!P U> tltr J/ehre•rs (He.rm<.'ncia: Philadelphia: Forlr<:ss. 1989). p. 97. 7 For u more dcwilt:d treatment. s.x 8t)'an J. Whitfidd. •JoshlUI Tradi1ions and the
Argument of Hcbr<.'ws' (unpublished doctor~• I diss.:rlation. Emory Uni\'Crsity. 2007).
82
A Cloud of Witnesses
the great High Priest to a radically ditlfrent focus on the people of God. specitkally on the inl1deli ty of the wilderness ~ener~1tion. The writer c-learly utilizes the wilderness ge-neration as a neg~1t ive e.xample a nd urges his hearers and readers not to fOllow in their steps. In contrast to l\·1oses and 'l~oou;;. they a re unfaithful. Allhough the writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95. a close textual analysis reveals. as Vanhoye-argues, that both the events and the lan~uage of Numbers 13 ~md 14 are clearly in view as t he argument devel<>ps.s In the MT . Ps. 95.8 fea tures the place na mes of Me ribah and ~·lassah. re<"lling the events of Exod . 17.1-7. l'he LXX replaces these names with 'rebellio n' (o napamKpao~O;;) and 'the day or testing: (q ,j~ipa Tou m lpao~-toU) and so does not connect the warnin~ o f t he psalmist to the entire scope the Is raelites' journey. It na rrows the range to a single event: the disobedience a t Kadesh (Numbers 14). Sint·e the writer o f Hebrews cites t he Psalm in Greek> he does no t refer, as Kasernann suggested. to the entire wilderness wandering. but only to t he fa ilure to enter t he land of prom ise ( Heb. 4.1- 11 ). Numbers 14 a lso provides the author of Hebrews with severa l elements that Psa lm 95 lacks. The theme of unbelief'(Heb. 3.12-19) finds no parallel in the psalm or in the events a t Meribah a nd .M assah . but only in the rebellion at Kadesh (Num. 14.11). Hebrews'sexortation no t to turn away from the living. God echoes t he words of Caleb and ·l~oou;; in N om. 14.9. and t he language of ' the deceitfulness o f sin· (Heb. 3.13) linds its parallel in Num. 14. 19. 34. T he ' word of hearing· of Heb. 4.2 ra:alls the word that 'l~ooGs and Caleb a nnounce to the assembly of Is rael in Num. 14.7-8. Finally, the ·promise· or He b. 4.1. 6 linds only implicit evocation in the psalm. but it is explicit in Num. 14.2 1-23, 29-3 1. Thus. throughout the development of He b. 3.7-4.13, the writer remains constantly altat;hed to Numbers 14 9 Examples of rebellion in the wilderness a re plentiful: re,•e lry around the golden c.all: the complaints ~· bout bland ma nna or bitter water, Ko rah's rebellion. and t he incident at Ekml-Poor. This particular choice of' the rebellion a t Kadesh, therefore. is one amo ng many options the writer could have. selected to demonstrate the infidelity of the wilderness generation. Bu1 this episode fea tures o ne elementlhese o the.r na rra ti ves do not. It is no t simply a story about unfait hfulness. but a s tory a bo ut the oontrast between a n unfaithful majority and a fa ithful minority. Amo ng the.exempla rs of loyalty Sland Caleb and 'IJlooUs- . In ll-tct. readers may well
or
8 Alben V
Piom'er am/ Perfecter
83
conclude lhat N umbers·s accounl o r the rebe.tlion stresses lheir lldelity and cour.tge over againsl Moses· lack of leadership in the c risis. T hat the account of t he rebellion at Kadesh (10uld be read as a n illustra tion of the fait hfulness of 'IT}OoGs becomes d ear in a survey o r Second Temple texts tha t retell the episode. Pseudo-Philo, Josephus. and Philo a ll reshape the narr.uive to provide ~-t more positive view or l\.~1oses a t the expense of"lqooGs. Pseudo-Philo (LAB 15.1-7) omits ~·loses· unseemly prostration before the people. the people's allempt to stone 'Jqoous a nd Caleb, and the exemption of these two scouts from punishment. Josephus (Ani. 3.300-16) minimizes direct speech from 'J~ooGs and Caleb while expanding that or ·Moses. He has lhe people thre-.uen to stone Moses and Aaron ra ther than ·111ooUs and C~tleb, and he interprets .:\•loses· prostra tion as a posture o r prayer for the people ra ther than one of fear. Philo (Vii. M(Js. 1.220-36) stresses Moses' skill as a speaker who encourages J; tit h in God and does not even mention ' JqooUs- ;md Ctleb by name. Though they use different mechanisms to recast the narrative. these inte rpreters all reveal their awareness that this narra tive stresses the fait hfulness. not of Moses, but of 'J~ooGs. T hus the rebellion at Kadesh illustrates not o nly the inlldelity of the people, but a lso t he fidelity o f '!riOOU5. The author of Hebrews does stress the people's inlldelity. But not all characters in the story are faithless. ln particular,'IJ)OoGs proves his fidelity. so lhis narrative supports the stated ~oal or the writer of Hebrews. showing thal ' lflooUs is failhful. At Kadesh. however. 'lflooUs is understood as a leader, an cip)(flyOs (Num. 13.2. 3). a title Hebrews also employs (Heb. 2.10; I 2.2). What is less clear is why the writer uses this story to demonstra te the faithfulness of i-t priest. or why heJlrst asserts faithfulness by comparing 'J~ooGs and Moses (Heb. 3.1-6). Understanding those issues requires attention to t he second text that Ha rris considered important - ZE.l(.:ha riah 3.
Zrdwriah 's Jesus In Zech. 3.1-10, the Lord revea ls a scene from lhe d ivine council to the prophet in which ·lflooUs stands before the d ivine council d ressed in tllthy clothes. Second Temple interprete rs frequently use t his texl and ela borate several of its exegetical motifs. 10 fou r prove sig.nitlcant l'or a discussion o f Hebrews. First. some interpreters stress the presence of a priest in the divine coundl. Or a ll the texts or Hebrew Scripture tha t reflect a divine ('ouncil setting, only Zecha riah 3 reflects the presence of a human priest in the midst or heavenly beings. Zechariah 3 is thus a significant precursor lt
10 On c:xe£~tictl1 mo1ifs. sec: Jumcs Kugd. Traditimu of thr Diblc-: A Guidi' 10 tl:e Bible .11.\· Wn.~ attlw Start tJftiU! Cmnmrm Era (Cambridb'<: Horr.ml Univcrsi1y Press. 1998). pp. 24-
30.
84
A Cloud of Witnesses
text for the tntdition reg.arding priestly ascent to t he heavens in Second Temple Judaism." Aramaic Le••i 1- 7, Jub. 30. 18. 31.14; T. Lc••i 2.1 - 5.7.
8.1-19: and Jos. A sen. 22. 13 all draw fro m Zechariah 3 in presenting Levi·s a ppe-.trance before the d ivine council.
o ther writings develop the rebuke of the o ne who a<..'Cuses the High Priest: Ar. Le••i supp 10: I I Q Ps• 15. 16: IQH 4 6: IQ H 45 3: and Apoc. Abr. 13.1-1 312 In particular. Apoc. Abr. 13.7 connects the rebuke to Se<.~ond ly.
Azazel, t he demon associated with the ritua l of Yom Kippur (Lev. 16. 7-9). Developing a third motif. other a ncient inte rpreters foc us o n pUiification a nd seek to explain why the High Priest's garments are flhhy. Although Ts. Zech. 3.3, 4 relates the clothing to the sin o r exogamy. writings in the Levi-priestly t radition tie the priest·s soiled clothing to ritual delllernent resulting from holy war (Ar. Lel'l· supp 1- 2; Jub. 31.1: and T. Lc•i 8.1- 19). Apocalrpse ~( Abmilam 13.14 refers to c lothing soiled in the att of sacrifice that will be exchanged for the heavenly gam1ent of Azazel. That expla na tion evokes the ritual of Yom Kippur: the priest transfers sins to AzazeJ•s scapegoat a nd subsequently changes dothi n~ (Lev. 16.2 1-23). 13 Thus t he history of inte rpreta tion demonstra tes that the priest's tllthy clothing is no t ne<·essarily a mark of personal sin. A fourth group or texts elabor:u es t he promise of {'OOtinuing ~tccess to the divine co until. an access gra nted either to the High Prie-st himself o r to others under his charge. In Ar. Levi supp 19, Le-vi prays for penn~-ment access to God's present-e before his ascent to heaven. IQSb IV 25- 27 also presents a priest's prayer for etern:ll a<..'<:ess lO the d ivine coundl. and 4QM" II 13-2 1 recounts a human priest's claim to dwell among the holy ones. Given this sketch of the motifs. we now examine their possible function in Heb. 2.1 0- 3.6. ·n1e most obvious connection is to the fi rs t molif, lhat of the priest in the divine t:ouncil. This location for t he. High Priest a nd. in particular. the language of ' on the rig.ht hand' are recurrent lhemes in Hebrews. which repeatedly draws upon Psalm I I0 (Heb. 1.3. 13; 8.1; II Sec Kathryn Muller Lopez. lhc Divine Council S.:ene in Scoond Temple liter~•ture· (unpublished doctor~• I dissertation. Emory Uni\'Crsity. 2002). pp. 118--10. lop.."Z n:fu tcs the as!Crtion of Jnme.s Ku£d that t-.·fala<:hi 1 is the source. for that tradition. Sec James Kugel. 'levi's Elc.vation to 1he l:tricsthood in S«ond Temple Writings·. NTR $6 (1993). pp. J- 64 (30-33).
11 -I-Q213 1 1 and the G n.•d:: manuscript from Mt Athos aucst the text of Aramaic- Uri rcfercnoed here-. For the h.'\:cmstru~·ti on . see Robc:n A Kugler. From Pstly Trutlition from Aramaic- Leri tQ Tt•srumelll qf Ll!vi IEttrly Judaism and its Litcrnturo, 9: Atlanta. GA: Scholars Pte:s..-.. 1996). pp. 6$-69. 13 Daniel StOkt. 'Yom Kippur in the Apocn!yptic Jmaginaire and the Roots of Jesus· High Priesthood: Yom Kippur in Zc.:haritth 3. I Eno.:h 10. II QMdkir.cd«t. Hebrews nnd the Apocalypse of Abraham I3'. in TrawfiJmwlirms of thr Iliner Selfit1 Ande111 Ri'ligimu (eds Jnn As.mumn and G uy G. Stroumsa: Studies in the History of Religions. 83: U:id~~n : Brill. 1999). pp. 3-19-66 (358-6 I_).
Piom'er am/ Perfecter
85
I0.1 2-13; 12.2). The initialtreatment of the Messiah ·;superiority to angels reltects the divine council setting: the various scriptura l citations evoke a heavenly enthronement ceremony (Heb. 1.6; 2.9). References to ·God's house· (Heb. 3.1-6). the promise of entering God's rest (Heb. 4. 1-11), and 'the throne o f grace' (Heb. 4. 16) continue the emphasis. Finally. the exposition o f He b. 8.1-10.18 makes cle may remain. Al t he conclusion of He b. 3. 74.1 3. the writer returns to desrribe the High Priest again. He notes that a lthough he 'in every respect h~1S been tested' . he is 'yet without sin' ( Heb. 4.1 7). Harris suggests tho.1t the author of Hebrews here guards readers who grasp lhe connection to Zechariah J a~ai nst reaching the wrong C-Onclusion. l f that is the e-ase, then this anirmation of sinlessness does
o
14 Hcbn:ws uses tiM: standard Hellenistic term Opx•rpni:; ( Heb. 2.17). 1he s.t.:1nd:1rd LXX translation ofhpfo: JJ!ycnr (Hcb. 10.21). and vnrious combinations 1>f t hese tc:mu. 15 In Zec:h. J . l. us often in t h~ Hebmv Bible:. the de,·il (MT. lh¢ sattln) is undc:.rstood ns the :tdw-r.;ary. For the: dC\-clopment of !he: eonttpl. sec Peggy Lynn<: D:•y. All Ailrem1ry in 1/emwr Sllli1n in the 1/eb•·t>w Rihlt> (HSM. 53: Adamu. GA: Scho lars Press. 1988) ;md T. J. Wruy and Gregory Mo bky. TJ:e Birth r?f· Sfllun: True-ing Jl:r DPril's Biblkul Roms ti'\'L'W York: P~t!gravc:- M(ICmillan. 2005). 16 Frederick Fyvie Brutt. Tlw £pf.\·t/t' t(l tlw 1/ebrcws (NICNT: Grund Rllpids: Eerdm.•ms. rev. cdn. 1990). pp. 116. 1 2 1~ the possibility also troubled a number of p:~ tris tic interpreters. including Justin Martyr. Tcrtullian. Oidymus the Blind. Cyprinn. nnd Lucumtius. See Harris. 1"h~· Sinl~ High l)riest: pp. 2 17- 18 . 11s well as his Tl'sllimmies (2 \·ols: Cambridge:-: C3mbridgc: Univc:-.rsily Pres..;. 1916}. II. p p. 51- 57.
86 not demonstr.tte
A Cloud of Witnesses th~-H
Zechariah 3 is not in view. but instead indi<:ates hmr
the writer of Hebrews is reading Zechariah 3. In contrast to Hebrews· silenre ab
or
and 'lrJooUs have similar claims to unique ~-t<:cess to t he d ivine. further. the l o rd declares of ~·loses that ' in all my house he is lltithfur (Num. 12.7 LXX), while the angel promises'l~ooiJ5 that he will judge the house o r the lord if he walks in the Lord's ways. thal is. ir he is litithful (Zech 3.7). ·n ,erefore Nom. 12.7 and Zech. 3. 7, when read to~et her. pose an exegetical d ilemma: who is faithful over a ll the house of I he Lord - ~·loses. or 'l~ooils'? ll is precisely t his question t hat Heb. 3. 1-6 seeks to answer. The inlluence of Nurn. 12.7 is dear~ Heb . .3.5 quotes it directly. What has proven less certain. however. has been the backgro und for an understanding o f 'l~ooG5 being sel 'over God's ho use' (Heb. 3.6j. While the
wrlter uses both terminology fro m enthronement psalms ami Nathan·s promise to David ( I Chron. 17.14) to identify 'l~ooiJ5 as Son. he d raws upon Zech. 3.7 for lhe tOIK't!plS or fait hfulness. placement over God 's house. a nd continuing ac<.;ess to the divine council. Hebrews 3.1-6 thus reads as an exegetica l argument constructed to answer the question that the j uxtaposition of Num. 12.6-8 and Zech. 3.7 poses" Such a reading. o r He b. J.l-6 in light or Zechariah 3 proves s uggestive. but a t least one serious question remains. The writer o f Hebrews argues for the superiority of Christ to Moses: the son who is orer the ho use is consequently over the servant who is inl he ho use. Bul t he t".arefu l reader of Zet,hari:th 3 a nd Numbers 12 may object that the promise that the priesl 'htooGs will be sel over Goer s house is t"o nd itionaJ. while the state-ment of Num. 12.7 is indicative: ~·loses is f~iithful. What remains to be demo nst ra ted, then, is that ' trwoU5 is indeed ·fa ithful to the one who appointed him' (Heb. 3.2). As have suggested . lhe wriler of Hebrews turns from Zechariah to Numbers for his proor. He demonstrates the
'"'e
17 For prc-\•ious work on the sourocs behind Hcb. 3.1"6.. see csp..-cially .Mary Rose D'AnQCio ...Uo.w.r in Jilt> Li'lter to tltr Nrbu'lrs (SBLDS. 42~ Missoula. MT: Scholilrs Press. 1979j: Albert Vanhoyc. ' L"orildc- de Nutnn duns l'~pilrc: aux HCbrcu:t'. in Ge.ui aJW.flolo,. .ummw ,\'lftwdme: Suuli bihlin' ill memoriu di P. TemloriM Ballurini (Rome: Maricui 1984). pp. 146-52: On\·id Flusser, 't..kssinnology and C'hristology in lhc Epistle to the Hebrews·. Judaism imd the Origins q/' Chl'iJtianiiJ' (Jerusa1cm: M agn~. 1988). pp. 246--79 (247): and Scott C. l~1)1on. 'Chri.~t O\'<:t His House {Hebrews 3.6) and Hc.b rcw il':li'T_.,_., it~ ·. NTS 31 (1991 ). pp. 473- 77. None: of these :1uthors. howc\'ct. explore the rdationshjp to Zcchuriah J.
Piom'er am/ Perfecter
87
faithfulness of 'Jf)ooVs. not in Jerusalem's temple. but in the wilderness o r Kadesh. h is t his tum t hat elucidates the ra tionale fo r the discussion o f Heb. 3.7-4.1 3. That Sel'lion is not a stray exho rtation d isconnected rrom ils larger context, but ra ther t:.ompletes the compa.rison of Heb. 3.1 ·6 by providing the crucial evidence o r the faithfulness of 'i~ooiis that the a rgument o therwise lacks. ~tore work rem~lins to be done; the above arguments a re suggestive rathe-r than proba tive. At the least. they su~~st that it is time to ra~onsider Harris~s proposal. If he is right. the connection between the. people of God and the great H igh Priest develops not in the context o r some conceptua l background. but as ~· result o f the writer's interpretation or texts that (foature the na me of ·1r)ooU5. The write r of Hebrews thus constructs his portra it of 'lqooUS' and his Christology o n t he basis o r scripture and in d ialogue with the tr.tdition or interpret~ttion. Examining those texts and t raditions suggests. finally, a more nuanced reading of the dramatic conclusion of Heb. 12.2. The God who spoke o r old by the prophets has now s poken by •1r)ooU5. the pioneer who scouts out the land a nd I he priestly perfecter set over God's house. The combin~llion of these two roles in o ne person joins the exho rtation and the exposition o r Hebrews together, ~is bolh components point readers to look to him.
Chapter 8 · s u1 W E SEE JEsus·: THE R ELAlm.'<SHIP BETWEEN TH E SoN OF MAN IN H EBREWS
2.6 ANU 2.9 ANU THE I MI'LICATIONS FOR
E NGLISH
TRANSLATIONS
Craig L Blomberg In a recent review a rticle. Poythress continues his campaign against Today's New lillemational Version ('1Ntv) because of its gender-incJusive language tOr humanily. Hebrews 2.6 forms his climactic exa mple of what disturbs him, with its reading, 'are mere morta ls l hat you are mindful of them, human beings that you l".tre fOr them'?' Poythress highlights two reasons why he ca nnot ::u.x:ept 'mere morlals' and 'human beings· as translations, respectively, for Ov6pc..mos: and u'u)s ToU O.v6pc..lrrou here. One is that it masks the Christological meanings of 'Man~ and ' So n o r man' in this ~.:ontexc the other is tha t it unwittingly denies Chrisl'S deity by makinu. him a 'mere· human. 1 l ess exlreme bul still crilital of the . purely anthropologica l interpretation of Hebrews· use of Psalm 8 here are Guthrie and Quinn. Ciling my brief discussion or lhe maue r in The Bibh! Trtmslaun} lhey allege tha t I failed to no te that t he 'world ' in verse 5 was ' the coming world•, which virtually requires t he Chrislological interpreta tion, and lhereiOre 'it is simply false· fo r ~ne to suggest that only with verse 9 does Jesus enter into the a rgument.--' ln lhe fi rst half of lhe lwentieth century. the anthropological \~ew seemed to rellect the txmsensus of scholars but today the Christologital a pproach a ppears to ha ve captured the majority vote.4 It is ertsy to
-
I
Vc:m S. Po)1hrc:ss. ·sm~ll Changes in Meaning Can .Mauer: The Um•c,cpu.bility of the
TNIV". JBMW 10 (2005). pp. 28-34 (30- 32). 2: Craig L. IJiombcrg. 'lkttcr Thin£.$ in This Cas~~: The Supcriorily of Todoy"s New l n lernali~')nal Version in 1-k hrcws'. BT 55 (1004). pp. 310- 18 (.112).
3 Gc:orgc H. Guthrie nnd Russell D. Quinn. ' A Discourse Analysis of the Use of Psalm 8.4-6 in Hebrews 2.5·9'. JETS 49 (1006), pp. 2.35-46 (239). 4 1n the early church. t he Christological approoch likewise: held swny. Sec: Fd ix Ascnsio. ·E) protagonismo del ··Hombre - Hijo del Hombre·· dd Snlmo 8'. £s1Bif> 41 ( 1983). pp. 1751. For 1he debate nt lhe lime of Erasmus, sec Helmut Fekl. · o~~r Humanistcn.Stn:il um Hebrnc:r 2.7 (Psalm 8.6}'. Archi•· /fir RefiJmut/iQn~eschidJt~ 6 1 t 1970), p~l. 5- 35.
'But We See Jesus'
89
understand its appea l. Spicq outl ines it in perh;-tps its purest f'orm.s Hebrews 1. 1-4 offers some o f the loftiest Christo logy in t he New Testament. Cha pter 1.5-14 employs a ca tena of Old Testament q uota tions to demonst ra te Christ's superiority to the a ngels in his sovereignly. The last of these cites Ps. I I0.1 , interpreted to mean that God will place all the Messiah's enemies under his feet (1.13). Hebrews 1.14 speaks of angels as ministering to those a bo ut (llEAAovns ) lo inheril salva lion, using lhe s.ame mod ifying pa rticiple a s in 2.5. in whkh the world to come (Tftv !JiAAouoav) is no t subject lo angels, thus sugg.esting lha l lhe S.ame conlr.tsl bel ween angels a nd Christ lhat unifies 1.5- 14 i.s resumed in 2.1-5. The subjection de;;(•ribed in 2.5 a lso recalls the conquest of Ps. 110.1 in Heb. 1. 13. making ' the <.·oming world' mo.st nat urally refer to the eschato n, when Christ (no t huma nity) will rule over a ll lhings.c, Proponents of the Christological view a lmost always acknowledge that Ps. 8.4-6 (LXX 8.5-7) originally referred solely to the amazing thoug.h t tha l G od lavished such concern on puny hum;.m beings. But the a uthor Hebrews 1ypologica lly a pplies eno ugh other Old Testament texts to Jesus tha t d id not refer to t he Messiah in their original <.·o n texts that we sho uld be sca rcely surprised to find him doing so here too. T he 'ma n· o f whom G od is mindful in Heb. 2.6 wuld be 't he Ma n· - Christ as e ither rhe representative hum;m o r the exalted human {KIT i!xtellencr.1 By t he mid first century. the 'son of ma n' for whom God cared would surely have called to mind Jesus· frequent use o f the exalted Son o f man of Da niel 7' Being made a little lower (or fo r awhile lower9 ) than the a ngels (v. 7) then refe rs to the incarnation, while the resurrection. ascension and exa ltation amply explain being crowned with glory and honor. Ve rse 8a completes
or
5 c. Spicq. L·£pitre istlr 1q J!;t• Htbrt>ws (Philadelphia: Fortress. 1989). pp. 69- 75: Paul Ellingwonh. The EpiJJ!e 111 Jht• NehrMrs (Carlisle: P~11cmostcr: Grund Rapids: Eetdnums. 1993). p p. 150- 52. 6 Sidney Sowers. Tlu• JlemJNWUtics of Philo ami iiPhrews(Richmond: John Knox. 196S). p. 118.
7 Claus.·Pde.r Miirt.. f.h·brae,·bdif(W(Inburg: Echler. 1990). p. 2S:Gcoffrey W. Grogan. ·christ and His Pc'ople: An Exegc:tK:a1 and Theological Study of He-brews 2.5- 18'. ll£ 6 ( 1969). pp. 54--71. Cf. rc:-. 1: ·wh~ll is Mnn 1ha1 thou shouJdst reme-mber him?' S R. T. Frnocc. ·The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblic:1l Expositor'. TJII Bul ~7 ( 1996). p p. N S- 76 (262. n. 29). Barnabas lindars (17tl' nl'<~logr t~( lht· lLIIeJ· w the llcbmrs ICambridboe: Cumbtidge University Press. 1991]. p~l. 39-40) builds on 1tis studie.s of the teml in the Gospels. (S« c.sp. Jtt,\'tu· Smt of Mnr1 (london: SPCK. 198J: Grand Rap·ids: Ecrdnwns. 198-J]. in whio:h he takes ·son ofmnn' to meun ·u twJn like me·. 'someone in my position'. or •rcpn.~n tulivc human'. to urgue likewise lh:ll Jesus is in vil'W nlrendy here but nol in an ex:1hcd Ch ristologic~1l stnse). 9 Blllh lr,mslntions in fttcl could work with eilher approach to Hebrews· usc of the Ps.1lm quote. Cf. Rny C. Stcdmun. 1/t•bl·t-ws iLeices.lcr and DllWlt<:fS Grove: lnlcrVarsily Press. 1992). pp. 3S-39.
90
A Cloud of Witnesses
the exce rpt from the Psalm, which may have s uggested its use in the fi rs t place. via the catchword 'feet'. Having put all t hings in s ubjection under Christ's feet neatlv links Psalm 8 with Psalm I 10. which Hebrews has already unequivOCally taken to refer to Christ. 'The aorist pa rticiple urrinx~a; [·having subjected·! m ust then rele r either to Christ's ina ugur. :lled reign a t the time o r his heavenly session o r be taken proleptically to refer to his coming complete rei~n 0\1Cr the cosmos in the eschato n.10 T he Christologjcal i nterprel~ttion p roceeds to understa nd the seeming redundancy of verse 8b as t he device t he author of Hebrews uses to underline the total s ubjection of a ll people and powers (apa rt fro m God the Father himsell) to Christ. akin to Paur s ttpproat h in I Cor. 15.27. 11 Indeed. all the other q uotations or allusions to Psa lm 8 in t he New Testament a ppear to be s tntightiOrwardly Christolog:ical - not j ust here in I Corinthia ns 15, but also Eph. 1.22. Phil. 3.21 a nd I Pet. 3.22 (tho ug.h none of those references incorpo rates Ps. 8.4 o n ·man· and 'son of man'}. Verse 8c then refers to the fact that we do not presently see a ll things in subjection to C hrist in the way tha t we will. following his return . The strong contrast with wh;Jt we do see in verse 9 therefore distinguishes the 'already• from the ' no t yet' in this inaugurated escha to logy. Although Christ s<.·.a rcely a ppears sovereign over the cosmos now. we do see tha t his sufferings started the proc-ess t hat will culmina te in his complete reign. 12 For this view it is significant tha t verse 9 introduces for the llrst lime in this epistle the n::~me ·Jesus' - his earthly name. appro priate to a context tha t turns rrom focusing o n his exa lted mllure. as throughout a ll of the epistle thus l~u. to his humbling. himself in human f1esh and physical suflering. 13 By dying. an a to ning death and being vindicated by his resurrection a nd exaltation. he m ~t d e possible others· salvation from spiritual death. Verses 10-18 go on to unpack in wonderfu l detail numero us face ts a nd implkations of tha t atonement lOr humanity. A purely Chris tological interpretation of Heb. 2.5-9 thus does not see the blessings for the human race depicted until the very end o f verse 9. which sets up the re-St of the chapter. Some scholars. fee-ling the weight of the purely anthropological approach to verses 5- 8, serve up various
or
tO Russell C. Gleason. ·Angds und 1hc- Esdtntology of Hc-bre·w:s. 1- 2·. NTS 49 (2003). pp. 90- 107 (92- 93). II Cf. Wi:Uium.c;' tnmsbtion nnd capiwli1a1ion: 'Now whe-n he g:n't". Him authority over C\'erything". (Charles 8 . Willi"ms. Ntm· Trsltll11i'lll Trmulatkm i11 Jlttt Umguttgtt {}f th•• PeoJ•IP (Chirngo: Moody. 1937}). I! On ei th~·r \ie-w. the sequence of thought in,.,.. Sb, c. and 9 may be: best nna1p.cd as 'inference'. ·rcjcc.tion· and 'responsc"tCraig R. Koester. 1/('hre•rs 1~-c.w York: Doubk dt1y. 2001J. pp, 211- 22). 13 Simon J. Kistcmak<:r. 1:.".\'f'O.W'Iion Qj tiJP Epislle Jo tl:t• Jl(I/Jri!lf.S (Grand Rapids: Buker. 1984). p. 67 (though he got.'$ on cautiow;ly to uffinn the tlnthmpologkal \'icw anyway. whik: leaving lht door open for the Christological \'icw socondarily).
'But We See Jesus'
91
combination plates or interpretation. Peterson allows tb r the ~mthropo logical a pproach to represent a secondary o r derivative meaning even 14 tho ugh he linds the Christological interpretation primary. DeSilva thinks both are intended and that t here is deliberate ambi~uity which should d iscourage us from elevating either to a position that subordinates the other. 1s Gordon curiousJy argues that the dilli?rence between the two views proves ultimately 'insubsta ntia l', 16 while Gntsser defends an ·ecc.:lesiolo~kar perspective that draws on the strengths of both positions but Stresses the corporate solidarity of Christ and the church. 11 On many exegetical and t heological conundra. f am by nature inclined to 'both-and· rather t han "either-or' positions. but not here. let me turn, therefore, to the case lOr a purely a nthropologkal appro~Kh to verses 5- S. 1s: With Guthrie and Quinn, it is important to an al}~le t he Structure o r Hebrews' d iscourse. But let us never jettison immediate contexts for more remote one-s. 19 h is true that 1. 1-13 htts stressed Christ's superiority in sovereignty. But verse 14 anticipates the author's turn to the implications of Christ ·s ministry fo r humanity by focusing on t he a n,gels· role in serving human beings. as those. 'a bout to inherit salvation'. Chapter 2.1-4. it is a lmost universally agreed. forms the tlrst or a series of llve main warning passag.es in Hebrews, eac..~h coming on the heels o f the a uthor's aOirm<~tion o f Christ·s supremacy over some individual or individrmJs, rit ual or instit ution central to the <:ore or Juda ism. Here it is Chrisl's superiority over the angels. But these warnings t hus focus in each c..~tse on the implications of the preceding t heological material tOr human 11tith and 14 D>l\'id Peterson. J/Plm>lfJ (IJU/ Ptn tJjll1e CmJJJI of Peife(·ticm inliu· •JZJ•iJtle to :he 1/ehrt:lfs'(Cumbridgc: Cambridge University Press. 1981). pp. 51- SS. 15 D:wid A. dcSih·a. Perselwm•w in Gwtilml,.,: A S(x:itri· Rhetoric!ll C'onmwnwry en tiU! £pi.w/e .M lilt! 1/ebrt:ws' (Grand Rapids: Ecrdm"ns. 2000). pp. 109--10. Cf. Cluus· l,etcr M11n:. Stuclif'n :um 1/ehri&trhrii~{(Stuttgan: KBW. 1005). pp. 81- 96.
16 Robert Gordon. 1/t:bmrs (She.flidd: Shef!idd Ac:udemic Press-. 2000). p. SO. His wndusion is b;Lscd on the f;1ct thai by \'t'rsc 9. Hebrews is applying the Psalm to Christ on either intcrpre1:11ion. But for ChrisLiun nn!hropology. it mnkc::s oonsidcrab1e diffen-ncc: whether or not n-. 6-8 refer first of nlllo humtmity's divindy given mandt1lc and failure. 17 Erich Gr:issc:r. At1 die 1/ehnt...r(Neukirchen·VIuyn: Neukirchtncr. 1990). pp. H i- 18. IS Cf. csp. l.inooln D. Hurst 'The Christology of Hcbn:ws I and 2'. in ·nre Glory 11[ Christ ill 1he New Tntumrm: St11die.J it1 Cltri.wolog_r (cd. Lincoln D. Hurst and N. T. Wright: O:tford: Clarendon. 1987). pp. 151-64. Cf. Thomas G. Smothers. ' A Supcrior Modd: Hebrc:-\vs 1. 1-4.13' . Re•·£xp 82 ( 1985). pp. 333- B (339): Frod 8. Cmddod:. 'The:: Lcuer to the Hebrews'. Tht: NP•r lmerpn>lf'r's Bible ~ed. leander E. Keck: 12 \•o ls: Nashville: Abingdon. 1998). XII. pp. 3- 173 (.H)~ Gmnt R. Osborne. 'The Christ of Hebtc:-\\'S and Other Religions'. JETS ~6 (20()3). pp. 249- 67 (159)~ Norman H. Young. 'Sufferi ng: A Key to the Epistle to the Hebrews·. Att.~BR 51 (2003}. pp. 47- 59 1.54): Stephen Motycr. ·The Psalm Quot!llions of Hcbn."'vs I: A Hermcnc:-utic· Frcc Zoncr TjmBill 50 ( 1999). pp. J- 22 121). 19 As. e.g.. with Robert L Brawley. •Disooursive Structure und th<: Unseen in Hebrews 2.8 and II. I. A Negloct~.-d Aspc\7! of the: Contexf. CBQ 55 ( 199J). pp. 81- 98 (8-4). Brawley jumps over 2.1·4 to highlight parnllds bc:-1\\-et:n 2.5·8 and 1.5·13.
92
A Cloud of Witnesses
action. Hebrews 2.1 -4 dearly llt this pa lle rn. T hose who have hea rd the good news of the New Covenant preached to them must pay even more l"".treful attention to it than was necessary a mong the audience of the establishment or the Sinaitit covenanL which according to Jewish tradilion was mediated bv :m2;els. Disobedience to thm covenant often produt~d God's swift or si1arp ~·ebuke; how much greater punishment will neglect of the word of this new age engender'? Thus the foc us throughout is on humanity's proper response to t he gospel. Indeed. verse 4 doses this pouagraph ;md prep~ues the way for the next one by stressing the authentication of the gospel through girts of the Holy Spirit d istributed according, to his will - distributed. of course. primarily to human beings.:'-0 T he yelp of 2.5 ties in this next unit of thought directly with the preceding one. The signs and wonders and other gifls of the Spirit represent God•s fOretaste of huma nity"s (.~oming. inheritance. Angels have not been given these tokens of spiritual redemption and victo ry. but people. Thus there is no necessary reason why the o riginal audience of Hebrews. hearing. 2.5 read a loud. would auto matico.llly have skipped back over 2.1-4 and tho ught that the author was resuming the contrast bet ween Christ and the a ngels.21 they d id, they would have encountered a tension in their interpretation, bec~-tuse I. 13. the last text tha t spoke o f the subjection o r all things to Christ, indicated that this promise remained unfulll lled . Ch1ist ha d returned to the Father and had lx.>en seated a t the ri~ht ha nd or God. but this was to last for a period or time umil God placed all his enemies under his feet. At the time Hebrews was written. this process had only j ust begun to unfold. But verse 5 uses a simple aorist fo r what is most naturally interpreted as a simple past event. 1 :! ·n 1at God did not subject the coming world to angels implies t hat he did s ubject it. in the past, in its entirety. to someone e lse. The obvious stew~uds or that subjection were Adam a nd Eve. as per Gen. 1.26-30.:'.l Does it make sense to refer to ' the coming world" in this context. without seeing a refe-rence to Christ's return and beyond? or course it does. Within the Gene-sis na rra ti ve, Adam a nd Eve are being, cre-a ted to have dominion o r exercise stewardship over a comin~ world. the world of a ll of God"s creatures and created things th:ll is only just beginning to open up before them. Had they not chosen to sin. a world alon~ the lines of what we o nly look forward to would have come into being. T he end of \'erse 5 clinches this concJusion. T he 'coming world " which was no t
tr
!0 Philip E. Hughes. A CommNIIllry tm 1/le [Jiislft> 10 t/.ot' 1/ehrews (Grand Rapids: Ecrdm"ns. 1977). p. 81. 21 As argued by Guthrie and Quinn. 'Discourse Analysis·. p. 6. 11 Cf. Koester. Hrbre.r.f. 1>. 116. 23 Bernard C. Ltuc-gnn. ·some Implications of Hebrews 2.5·18 for n Contcxll.t.11 Anthropology", in Texl ami Logo.r: The Jlunumistk fmerJiteWIWn fl/ 1he New Tnttl11ti'llf (c-d. Thoodorc W. Jennings. Jr~ Allnnta. GA: Scholttt'S Press. 1990). pp. l-'9-63 ti58J.
'But We See Jesus'
93
subjected to the a ngels is precisely that 'concerning \Vhich we speak' . If the relative pronoun were referring back to a Jar~er unit of t hought t han just a sinu.Je word a ntecedent. we wo·u Jd have expected the neuter u.ender. But the.. feminine fOrm. ~5 ("concerning which') points back 1~ a specillc feminine ante<·e-dent. namely, nlv oiKou)Jivrw nlv 1-1~Uouoav. 'The comin~ wo rld' is what Hebrews is spea king a bout in this very unit o f thought that is about to q uote Psalm 8 to describe it. ll is o ne and the same wo rld as tha t which the Psalmist was in when he looked to the hea vens a nd admired God's handiwork in the a/rellf~r existing c.osmos.1-l T his understanding allows us to ta ke the excerpts oi Psalm 8 cited in Heb. 2.6-8 precisely according to their meaning in their Old Testa ment context. h is not th~• t we Jm tsl lind a way to do this; He brews I has a lready demonstrated creative typology (esp. with the two quo ta tions in vv. 8- 12). But it has also o ne.red us texts from the Hebrew Scriptures taken in a more stra ight fo rward ll-ts hion (esp. wit h the two q uo ta tions in v. 5). With Lesd tert, 'if we can view the entire quotations in vv 6-8a as refe rring to man and restrict a ny reference- to Jesus unlil the interpretation beginning in v Sb. or possibly even unlil v 9) we ca n avoid t he danger o r the text becoming hopelessly intertwined wit h its interpretation·.~ T he latk of a ny demonstr.tble pre-Christian Jewish exegesis that takes th is Ps:alm in a Messianic sense and t he persistent·e of lhe lite ral interpreta tion into the rabbinic era (when '' rew hints or a Messianic interpreta tion do begin to appe-a r) likewise fa vor the a nthropologka l interpretation.26 T he fi rst line o f' I he quotation is t he hardest of all to tit into ~~ C hristo logical view: it would be odd if Hebrews chose to begin there if the a uthor's intended focus fro m lhe outset was the exalted nat ure of Christ. T here is no o the-r o bvious place in lhis e pistle where. O:v6pwrros- means ' the Single representa tive man· or ' the ~.
24 Cf. Brooke F. Wcsloott 7Jw fJJisllt> ltJ lilt! 1/(•brcll'S (l ondon: Mncmillan. rc\'. cdn. 18?2}. p. 45. 25 Oak F. Ll'.i('hc-ri. J/{!rlliNU!Itlicol FtJLUulmion.~ tJ[ J/ehr{!h'J: A Stu(~l' iiilht· Vt.r!idity q( 11:1! fpltlft> :, lmerprttlulit»1 of Scme Core Citaticm'fmm lht• P.wJ/111.\' (le-wiston: Mellen. 19?4). p. 106. 26 Fot n d-tlt•j\cd st udy of later k wish and Chris1inn uses of l'salm 8. see Wmc~au.~ M. Urnssn. P.wtlm 8 u.tJd ils Christologicol Re·fll lt'rpJ·l'lalitJIJ ill th•• Nen' T~JiamPIII CtJme.\·t (Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 19?8). Of panicub r intcrcsl is the leaching of R. Joshun b. Levi in b. Slrub. SSb. When Moses came to ro.."<:ivc the Law. 1hc angels objcc.t cd. · "Thm secret t~1surc." they sajd, "which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and SC\'tnty· fou r gc.nmuioos before the world was ere;•ted. Thou dc:sircst 10 gi\'c lo lksh nnd blood·! Whnt i.s man. lhat thou an mindful of himT · Cf. also Pe.n'q R. 34a and 1 Eu. S. IO. 27 lndcod. lhe roo1 WCird nppears i n Hcbn:w.s. ap:u·t from 2.6. only in 5.1 t2xJ: 6. 16: 7.8. 28: S.!: 9.27: and 13.6 a nd. in the singulnr. only in 8.2 and 13.6.
94
A Cloud of Witnesses
parallelism with the next line supports seeing 'son orman• in its fa r more oommon Old Testament usage or a mere, puny mortal.:!!( Particularly if we date Hebrews to t he early 60s, as seems most probable. t he w1i lle-n Gospels would not yet h;we been circulating. \Ve have no knowledge of what po rtions of the Jesus-tradition would have
bee-n well-known among the Jewish-Christian house churches in Rorne. 19 and Hebrews elsewhere bet rays little o r no dependence (unlike several of the general epistles a nd most of f)aul) on the o ra l traditions of Jesus'
sayings. Neither does 'Son of man· appear elsewhere in Hebrews ~-ts a title: in n1ct, il appears nowhere else in Hebrews at all. Indeed. it is so distinctive to the s peech or Jesus as portrayed in lhe Gospels t hat it scan:-ely appear.> lmprhere else in the New "festamenl. It considerably outruns the evident\!, therefore, to assume that Jesus· exalted use of the tille must have immediately come to H ebrews~ audient-e's minds when lhey a lready had a long-established meaning fo r this pso.llm close at hand. ~n1e a na rthro us use of ·son o f man· here. as opposed to its consiste nt a rticular. titular fo rm in the Gospels furt her s upports this tonclusion.30 Verses 7- Sa fo llow na turally on the Psalm~s o riginal ~mthropologic.:al reading. even for the write r or Hebrews. Although the power o r human beings pk-t<:ed them lower in a hierarchy of sovereignty than a ngelk beings) huma nkind w~-ts given the glorious and honorable c harge of t·.a ring fo r all the rest of c reation as God's unique image-bearers. As a1ready noted. this interpretation makes bette r sense o f the simple pust tense of the verb lo r ' having subjected·. Before the fa ll. Adam and Eve d id have all things in subjection to themselves. whereas this language is never used in S<:lipture. fo r Christ's role during. this period of histo ry. only fOr his fut ure role, not yet realized even as we speak today. Hebrews 10.13 explicitly ma kes it dear lhat o ur autho r believes the subjection of creation to Christ remains wholly future: 'SitK'e thm time (Christ's heavenly session afl.er his sacrilk-.e for sin], he waits for his enemies to be made his footstoor. lhis verse a lludes to t he precise language IOund in Pss. 110.1 and 8.6 in question in Hebrews 2. So only humanity can be spoken of as already having had lhe earth in s ubjection to itself. howe,'e r brietly. 31 18 Cf. R. MeL. Wilson. Nebr.f'w.v (London: Marshall. Morgan & Scott. 1987). p. 49. ihc tries lo lean: the door op.:n f~"'r both approaches and still uses nt le.t~sl some inclusi\'c: bngungc br lmnslaling. ·what is n hum:•n being th:al you arc mindful of him. Ihe scm of m:an that you care fM him1· !9 For the setting of Hebrews assumed lll:re. soc: c::sp. Willi(lm l. Lane. 1/ehrt'.-·s 1-8 (D<•IhLs: Word. 1991). PJ>.li- lxvi. 30 JhM.. 47. Furthermore. ·son of man· dsc:whcrc is nlwti)"S distinct from ·son of God· ot just ·son'. so the frequent usc of the: lnH« two terms in Hebrews htLs little:. bearing on the: m~'tllting. of the former here. 31 Cf. ~o-sp. Hugh Montc:fion::. A CommP.IJUIIJ' 011 thf' £piJtle llJ Jl:e 1/;,hn.m·.~· (l.ondon: Black. 1964). p. 56. Nl"'
'But We See Jesus'
95
-
On the Christolo~ical \~ew. moreover, one must d rive a wed!!e-between ~ the o rigina lly p;-tr~lllel parts of the co uplet tha t fo rms verse 7 a nd take theJirst line as describing the im:a rna tion: and the sec-ond. the exaltation .3:! On the a nthropologica l view. b-oth rern~lin parallel as. referring to the creation o f huma nity to exercise dominio n over the rest of t he. earth. The omission of P.s. 8.6a ('you made him ruler over the works o f your ha nds') is often said to support a move away from an a nthro pologi("a l to a C hristologica l underst;-mding. of Hebrews· use o f the psalm. beca use the omitted line. fonns the clearest a llusion in t he origina l psalm to humanity"s role in exercising God's vice-regenc.y as his unique image-be-.tre rs.3·l But Hebrews is not concemed with hum~-mit }"s stewa rdship over t he a nimal kingdom pt•r Sf!. whit.h is wha t this line refers to in the context o l' the psalm (see 8. 7-8). just to our overa ll manda te, which we hotched and which is 34 adequately summa rized by the lines from the psalm that do remaln. Verses Sb-c may well begin to set the stag_e fo r Jesus' a ppearance in verse 9 with its somewhat belabo red emphasis on aH things. being in subjection to the ' him' or t he psalm, but it ma kes perfec tly ~ood sense even o n the purely a nthropologica l a pproach. \Veymo ut h. fo r example, begins his rendering of our write-r"s comment o n psalm 8 with ' For this subjecting of the universe to man'. Or, later in the verse. with Mo m-ttt, · But, ~1s it is. we do no t yet see a ll things controlled by ma n·.Jj Once huma ns were given dominion over every inch or this planet (v. 8b). but due to the fall we no longe-r can o bserve tha t harmonious a rrangement for cre~llion (v. &). As Victo r Pfitzner e labor.ttes, T ha t t he psalm quotation must be n:ad as first referr ing to humanity bc<:o me.s dear in t he initinl co mment o n t he text in \'Crsc ~b. God ma de no exceptions in giving huma ns uniV(:.rsal dominion. Yet h uma n experience of linit<.'ltt."Ss. o f subjec tion to dcal h und the fe~tr o f dcal h (1. 14·15). belies its divi ne ma ndale to rule. T hat we d o not yet s.t."
31 Attridge. !lt'IWt''f.'i. p. i 2 (who bdic\'CS 1his is prceisd y how Hebrews t/Ot's reinterpret the psalm). 33 Thus He:-brews muin1ains 1hc 'threefold division of pGSt. prcsrnt. and future which I the au1hor} develops with regard to Jt.-:sus. basing each division on a stich of the ps.1lnf (James Swetnam. Jesu.f Olltl l.wwc: A Stllf~r tJ/ tlw £piJtle UJ tlur Ht>bu'lr.s in tile Liglll of J!:r Aqeda!J fRom~: RIP. 1981). p. 162). Or. with K l~nneth J. Thomas ('The Old Testament Ciuuions in Ht:-btt.-ws'. NTS II [196-l- 1965). pp. 303- 15- (306)). 'Since (the author of Heb~ws) had already said that the '"Son,. had participated in the act of ctctllion (i. IOJ he.could not include a linc which would ignore his JXlrt in the creation: 34 Koester (J./t>bre~r.s. p. 214) thus s ugg-ests that the omission could be due to
·compression'.
35 Cf. nlso his c:.:ph nation in James Moffutt. A Crilictrland Ext·g~liml C'(mmwlllm)· ~m tlte £piJtle Itt the 1/ebr~'lr$ (Edinburg)!: T&T Clark. 192.;). p. !3.
96
A Cloud of Witnesses a ppurcnt. Mortnls will reign with the SQn in glory ( 2. 10: cf. I Cor. 4.8~ 2 Tim. 2. 12: Rc.\'. 5. 10; 22.5): 1c.
Verse 9. however) indicates what (or, betler. whom) we am see. The word order sets up Lhe introduction of Jesus by n;ime in a hiS)lly climactic position, literally, 'but the one who was made a little lower (or, who was fo r a little w hile made lowe-r ) than t he angels we s.ee - Jesus - who on a<.'Count of the sufferings of death was crowned with glory a nd honor. so tha t by the ~race of God o n behalf of all he might taste dea th"" At this juncture, both main approo.1thes agree the writer of Hebrews is appl}'in~ the psalm to Jesus. But the question is whether Jesus has been in \~"iew all a long, so that the only transition here is to the explicit mention or Jesus· a toning death. after his pre-existence-~ inc-arna tion o.md exa lta tion have all been rehearsed. or whether the c-ontr.t.St is far more drama tic: God gave humanity a commission which it failed to exercise. T hus we do not see all creation in s ubje<:tion to humankind. Bw. miracle of miracles. we see Jesus. who remained sinless where we sinned and thus. as a fully human representative of humanity. at complished wha t we were intended to have done, and more - making possible our redemption despite our sinful failures. 3g The emphasis the syntax places o n t he shift fro m what Civepwnos a nd u'1~ ToV civ8pc.lnou were and did to what Jesus was and d id m:tkes it difficult to see the same person in view in both instant".fs. The NAsu understands this. translating. a nd t~api t alizingas fOllows: 'we do not yet see a ll t hin~ s ubjected to him. But we do see Him who'. Even Poythress's beloved. though somewha t retrograde t.:.SV. seems to ackno\VIedge this distinction. t hough without the t~api t a l izati on that would make it unambiguous: 'At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who fo r a li ttle while was made lower than the an~els. namely Jesus~. Since the ' him' in verse 9. ·who for a little while was n~ade lower than the angels· (and is the person 'we see') is also t he same person of t he Godhead ;-ts he who pre-existed befo re his incarnation a nd he who will o ne day have a ll his e nemies placed under his footstool, one must assume that the 'him' in verse !:ib whom we do no t see is someone ot her 36 Victor C. Pfil-z.ncr. Jkbren·.~ (Nash\·iiJc:: Abingdon. 1997). p. 61. 37 ·The c:mphnti.: ··we do not see .. .bUI we see·· is notewonhy bcC3usc it brings selfevident identification and immediacy to the author's audicnce·s natural response to broken expectations" tLnnier Burns. 'Hc:mlenc-utiC31Issuc:s mld Principle'S in Hebrews ns Exemplifie-d in 1hc Second Chttptc-r". JFTS 39) 1996). pp. 587- 607 [605)). 38 Cf. Kc,•in MtCrudl·n. "Chrisfs Perfection in Hebrew,s: Di,·inc: Bcndlecntc- tLS ttn Exegc:ti~<1 1 Key to Hebrews 2.t0'. RibRes 47 (2001). pp. 40-62 (43) -'This discrcp:mcy bctw.."tn Gods' J.tit'l inte.ntion for hunmnity :md its fulfillment through the person of Jesus is underscored by 1hc deliberate rhc-torica1 strategy of deferring the name of Jc:su.s to the conclusion of 1hc clause in n:rsc 9." Cf. Edg:tr Mc.Knight and Christopher Church. l!f!brrwsJ utJk'S (Maoon. GA: Smyth & Hclwys. 2004). pp. 65- 68.
'But We See Jesus'
97
tha n Jesus a hogether - that is. humanity. unde.r stood as a colle<·tive singular. And. as for those who think that ·Jesus· here me.ans Christ mrly in his human <.~ondescension. other uses of the name in the epistle show no consiste nt p~ltlern that would supporl such a limitation in meaning (cf. Heb. 3.1 ; 4.1 4: 6.20: 7.22; 10.10. I 9: 12.2. 24; 13.8. I2. 20. 21).39 Hebrews 2.10-18 continues unpacking the numerous benefits of the a tonement for humanity. keeping, the lOcus, as it has been since 1.14, on the implications for humanity or Christ's (.TOSS-Work ra ther than on Christ's exaltation and d ivine nature, ~1s in 1. 1-13. His s ufferings enable many sons and daug.h ters to be led to "glory" (v. 10). which h:trks back to the glory mentioned in verse 7 and reinforces o ur inte rpretation that Hebrews was there s peaking of humanity's initial glory a t (~re;.1 tion.<~<1 The a tonement makes possible believers' renewed glory because they are o r o ne stock with Jesus and he is unashamed to t ;-tll them brothers a nd sisters (v. II). Three scriptura l quotes reinforce these trut hs (w. 12- 13). after which our writer adds the complementary teaching tha t Jesus' death likewise destroyed the power of the devil over death and thus broke the grip of lear that death had held over humans. Verse 16 crea tes an inclusio with verse 5 by repeating ' lOr it is not (to) angels that'. while darHYing tha t t he contrast has been with humanity. not Christ. f'rom the o utset: 'for il is not angels that he helps but Abraham's seed' ..t1 ·n1e ' he' here must be Jesus, ruling OUl all thought ol' laking 'Abraha m's seed' as a lso referrin~ to Christ. Ra ther. the seed are all of God"s people - Israel under the Old Covenant and the followers o r Jesus under the New. Ve-rses 17-1 8 reinforce and elabomte the themes, already enunciated. o f Jesus be<.~oming. fu lly huma n lObe an adequate representative and substitute fo r huma nity, and o r the help he therefore oilers his people not o nly in providing their salvation but in aiding them to resist temptation. A cohere.n t d iscourse analysis thus emerges lh ~il is mo re consisumt with the synonymous parallelisms and narrative contrasts within 2.5-9 than is its rival hypo thesis. It also makes better sense o f the overa ll llow o f tho ug.ht from the passage immed iately preceding to 2.5-9 and o f the narrative !low fro m 2.5-9 to the passage immediately following. When Ood c reated the heavens and the earth, he d id not s ubject the comin~ period of' c reation's existence to a n,gels but to huma nHy. The juxtaposition o f human beings· fra il morta lity wit h their d istinctive role in all creation as God's uniq ue image-bearers understandably led the Psalmist to marvel in Likc.w;sc: Ellingwonh. lh•hreh·s. p. ISJ . .J(I Lincoln D. Hurst. Tlti' Episllt> to lite> Hc>hMrs: Its &1fkgrmmd q{Tlwug/:1 (Cumbrid,gc: Cambridge Uni\'crsily P t~-ss. 1990). p. Ill . .JI Walter G . 0bc."11udcr. J>e,· Jll'hriierbrirf((/... APJ.It!ll (Stockholm: Almq\isl & \Vikscll. 19S9J. pp. 164 -M: Kc-.nnelh Sl· hcnd:. 'Keeping His Appointmc."nt: Cn.-..11ion nnd Enlhronancnl in Hebrews'. JSNT 66 ( 1997). pp. 9 1- 11 7 (10!). 39
98
A Cloud of Witnesses
wonder at God•s ways. At least as s triking was the fact t hat humans. through s in, had fa iled to carry out their C-Ommission as they had been cha rged . \Ve d o not see the whole ettrth subject to humanity's godly oversight. llut t he solution to the pro blem has already started to unfold . We see Jesus. who rema ined fai thful to his mission in every way that humans had ra iled in theirs. T hus salvation fro m spiritual de-.uh and every spiritual blessing tha t !lows from s uch a salvation is already available to every huma n who will embrace it. And o ne day we will see Jesus rully G od 's reigning over the e ntire cosmos. as he thorougJ1Iy defeats ~til 2 enemies. a nd we will reign with him!J It wo uld be presumptuous to e<:ho G uthrie and Quinn·s language by reto rting that it is the view that sees Christ as the explicit. primary s ubject throughout Heb. 2.5-8 whi<·h is 'simply fa lse. The Christological interpretatjon o r these verses remains coherent. even if less persuasive than the a nlhropologi<:a l a pproach. \Vhat is needed in modem language translations is some kind of rendering that does not inmu:diau:ly or llllirtflllly s uggest a Messianic interprettltion in verses 6-8 and tha t is g.ender-indusive to e nsure that readers recognize that men a nd women a like were treated in God·s imag_e and g,iven the charge to exercise respons ible stewardship over the earth. but which then can also be tlpplied to Jesus when the reader <:omes to verse 9 and grasps the dynamic of our autho r's flow of thought: Naw we see Jesus doing right what humanity did wrong. Ye t the Lr.tns lation should leave the door open for the Christologkal interpretation j ust in case that a pproach should prove righ t. ·Son of ma n· will not a<..'<:omplish all t his in verse 6~ because whatever mid-first-century readers might have tho ught. there is no question t hat today Je~'\us' usage o f this expression as a title is much more like ly to come to Bible readers· minds than t he far more common Old Testament me-a ning. or 'frail. puny hUJmm being•. or the like. T he 'I :-:1v. o n the o ther ha nd. accomplishes a lithe necessary tasks. The reading of the text naturally s uggests the a nthropologk a l inte rpreta tion; thus. rourra Poythress, there is no attack, willingly or unwittingly. on Chrisfs de-i ty with the rendering_ ·mere mortals' in Hebrews 2.6. because Christ is not yet in view in that verse. ~·toreover. Poythress fails to note that the ·rNIV's marginal re-ading. allows explicitly for the Christologit.al interpreta tion: '\Vhat is a huma n being that you are mindful o r him , the son of man that you care for him"?' And the translation <.~ommittees o r the .NIV have 111ade dear from their Jlrst edition o nwards that m::trg;inal readings a re always to be considered pa rt of the text. t hat is. as ~.enuine translations t hat the \1arious t":ommittees reco~nized as legitima te
or
·H C(. F. C. Synge. l/t'bre1rs uml1he Script/Ire.\ (london: SllCK. 1959). 1). 16.
99
'But We See Jesus'
altern:uives.43 If o ne wants a version that supports the anthropologkal inte rpretation but leaves the door open lOr the Christologk.al one in the text itself, without resorting to marginal alternatives, then the NRSV Ills !he bill admirably: 'Wh,ll are human beings 1h:11 you a re mindful of !hem, o r mortals that you tare for t hem'?· Here there is no ·mere' in t he text to tro uble t hose who want to see Christ immedia tely in view from the outset. The genera lizing plurals still seem ne('-eSs.ary unless o ne. is willing to resort to a 'him or her' style - 'What is a human being that you a re mlndfuJ o f him or her, or a mortal that you care for him o r her?' But because even the ChristoJogical approach acknowledges that Christ is functioning as a representative o r humanity more generally, or men and women a like. the NRsv can stand as it is. Ironically. those who insist on ' man· and 'Son of man·, and a Christological interpreta tion thro ughout Heb. 2.5-9. risk missing the d istinctive doctrinal emphasis of t hese verses - the lofty nature with which humans were o riginally crea ted as God's unique vke-re~,ents over his creations. Donald ~~tiller waxes almost poetic in his exposition of this 'glory and lmgedy of man': No hunnmist ewr dreamed of a more. cxahed vic.· w o f m:m tha n is hint<.-d here. There are cosmic dimensions o f d ivine intention fo r man tilttl defy u ndcrst~111 ding. Man was destined in the purpose of God to transcend even heavenly bc.ing.s. As we. look a t him. both in his achie~-cmcnts a nd in his potcnial (sk]. \VC. muy sec i ntimations of this eminence: littleflus hes o f a n eternal brilliance ot:casiona lly break llmH1gh the cloud of h uma n nature sufficient to make us d ream of w hat ma n might have been . .:md o ught to be. But .:llns. these b rillia nt A:1shcs serve only to deepen the darknc:ss in human nature . ·As it is.. we do not yet S(.'C everything in subjection to him .. ~
If an extra referen<.-.e to Christ's deity and exalhtlion is intended here t hat a ~jven
translation misses. re~tders ha ve numerous additional chances to pid: ·u p t he theme fro m Hebrews elsewhere. I r anything along t he lines Miller's insights a bout humanity are implied here but are. blurred by a translation, readers have no o ther comparable passage in the letter from which to g.lean Lhem.
4J:
or
Button L Goddard. •The Footnoting System'. in Thi! N/V: The
.~ftlking
tJf n
Cdllfc>mporory Trarulnti(NI (cd. Kenneth L Barker: Grnnd Rapids: Zondcn·an. 1986}. pp. 34--
-1<. 44 Donald G. Miller. ·why God Bcx:ame Man: Fnm1 Tc:
Chapter 9 H EII REWS 7- 10 AND THE TRANSFORMATION 0~ THE LAW1
Barry C. Joslin
I. Thesis ~n1is essay seeks
to answer the q uestion: ' What is the writer's theology of the Mosaic law in Hebrews 7.1- 10.1 8'?. T he writer of Hebrews understands the Jaw in both nega th·e and posith•e tcnns. ln ~-t neg.a ti ve sense. it is a weak and insuflkient means lOr pulling away sin, yet in a positive sense
Christ has transfOrmed and fuJ(illed the law, and as such it is wliuen on lhe minds and hearts of the New Covenant (hereane r NC) people. Sin<"' Hebrews scholarship is in general agreement that 7.1 - IO.Il> functions as the doctrinal t.·enter, and given t hat 13 of the 14 occurrences of vOpo-; are found in these verses2 (though the id(!ll of the law can be fou nd elsewhere). then this section o f Hebrews is the logical choice for answering such a question. My t hesis is as follows: tht• work of Christ lw.-. tran.~{ormed the Jaw, and
this transformation involw:s both its illlemali:ariou am/ jltlfillmeut in the NC: I he law has forerer bei!ll afferiM Chriswlogira!ly. I aver tha t the writer of Hebrews e nvisions a 'change in the law· in the sense of ' tmnsiOrma tion· in Hebrews 7: that in chapter S the writer or Hebrews avers that the vOIJOVS interna lized in the minds and hean s of NC believers is the law that has been t ransformed in the NC. Further. I suggest t hat in 9.1- 10. 18 the writer o f Hebrews focuses on the maue r of Christ's fulfi llment of the c ultus, which fOreshadowed the good things to come. ·nuts. whe.n taken as a whole. what the writer or Hebrews e.n visions for the Jaw in the NC is its trtm:J'ormlllion. and not merely its complete a brogation as many in sd 10larship ;-tssert. I The: impetu.s for this essay is the lad of schobrship on Hebrew'S nnd the law. While Ota&.it:l'l has nwivcd attention. vCuo-; has not For a full treatment soc Barry C. Joslin. 1/(!hrews, CllriJI. ami ihe low: tlw TllerJ!og.r of ihe Mo:u tk law in Jlr4m!l\".( 1.1- IO.J,'f (l':!lcrn~-,stcr Biblical Monograph Series: Carlisle. Engbnd: P~llc:rnostcr. 2008}. 2 NOIJO$ is found at 7.5. 12. 16. 19. 28 (lx): 8.4. 10: 9.1?. 22: 10. 1. S. to. The othc.r occurrcnl-e is 10.28. whc:rc it refers to the: Mosaic c-Ommandments..
7i·ansformalion of the Law
10 1
T he writer of Hebrews does not s uggest tha t the law. the Old Covenant (OC) regulations, has been a brogated in 1010; sud1 a view is too simplistic. The law is the revelation from God who does not <'han~e a nd cannot bebrushed aside.3 Rat her, the Mos.aic law has been 'transtx'ised into a higher key' in light o r Christ"s work in the present age. As s uch. it is inte rnalized in every member of the NC' people. ·n 1e law is now viewed through the lens or Christ. and there a re continuous and d iscontinuo us aspects of the law t ha i tum o n !he hinge of Chris!. In chapter 7, verse 12 is key to the d iscussion and st;.1tes that a tr~msformation in the law (v~ov ~.tn06£ots) has OL'Curred. Chapter S introduces Je remiah 31 in which 8.1 0 gains a ttention since it asserts that God·s laws (vOIJous) a re written on the minds and hearts o r the NC people. Hebrews 9.1- 10.18 declares !he fullilhnenl of !he tabernacle, priesthood. a nd S:.i<:rifk;es, and info rms that these fOreshadowed the coming. good things ( I0.1 ). As s uch. these passages receive focused a ltention below. My thesis is an advance beyond most of He brews scholarship which te.n ds to f;lll into one o r two ca tegories: no o ngoing validity con<:erning the law and the NC, o r ongoing valid ity. yet without explana tion as to the nature of this valid itv. ·n 1is essay . ar~ues lOr clarification a nd advancement within the Iaue r category.
.
-
2. Hebrews 7 If the audience was largely Jewish Christian, as mut·h of Hebrews scho larship maint~tins. then one must consider their situa tion . Wha t they have known abo-ut their religio n and its prac.tices has all changed in light o f Christ. T hus Hebrews must make a {()rceful and persuasive argument built upo n the Old T esta ment fo r the leg.itimacy of this. new priest and his ministry. ~n1e readers· relaLionship to t he Jaw has changed, and they must trust that the work of the new Hi!!.h Priest is sunicient. This m;.1tler o f the'change in the law· (vOJJov IJH~6Eots in 7.1 2) is therefo re :1 primar y q uestion. Verses 1- 10 argue !hal !here is a nother priesthood. and in 7.1 1-19 !he author a rticulates the implications of such a daim .4 IVle lchizedek has faded from the d ist'ussion a nd there is a nother priesthood that is superior lo !he fo rmer. ·n ,is is !he ma in point for all of 7.1 - 10. 18.' 3 See GrahtLm Hugbcs. J./i'brr-.r.f amlll~·•·nreJtMtlic.l': Tlw £piJt!tl trJ tile 1/ebt't•\r.f a.f a .l'~i1!11· Testam('/11 f.\·ump/e flj Bihliml fmerprera1ion (SNTSMS. 36: Cnmbridgc: Cnmbridgc Uni,'Crsily Press. 1979) pp. 318- 19. 4 Erich Gr.llkr. All die 1/elmi·er(EKK NT: J vo)s: ZUrich: Ncukirchc:n. 1993}. II. 35. 5 Sec Eri~:h GrUBer. /)(',· Altt> Btmd im ."i~'IM.'Il lTUbingt:n: Mohr. J9S5). J>. 99: It F. Wcstcon. The Epi.(t/e liJ till! Nebre1rs (Grand R:tpids.: Ecrdm:tns. 2nd cdn. 1950). p. 111:
102
A Cloud of Witnesses
Verse 11 introduc.:es the new point concerning the Levitical priesthood:6 its tempor.tlity and inability to bring a bout perfection. This <.~hange was forecast in Ps. 110.4 and has been effected by Christ - priesthood has been transformed from Levitkal to .:\'lelchizedekian. This trans(Onnation involves elements o f fulfillment cancellation. and Christo logi<.·.a l escahltion. There must be a change in the law (7.12) ir the author"s argument is to resonate with his readers. lf the Jaw prescribed a certa in regulation for the priesthood , and yet there is a new priesthood that does not conrorm to that regulation, then that regulation must no longer be in force. T his point is reinforced by verses 13-1 4: Jesus is fro m Judah. which is not the priestly tribe. He is not a priest on the basis o f a specific. earthly requirement of a certain lineage. but rather is declared '' priest on the basis of an indestructible life (7.1 6). This change did not a brog.ate priesthood: there is still priesthood. Likewise, vc)pou 1Jnci6EOIS does not abrogate. the law. fOr there is still law (8.10; I 0.16-17). What is in view is the Christolo£ical transformation of both. Thererore it is Jioulty to ascribe a6iT~OIS (7.18) to l he law'" " whole. and would be more helpful to explore t he idea of transformation and what tha t 111eans for the priesthood and the law; they both point to Christ and :1re transformed by Christ. h is unnecessa.ry to read 7.12 as being t'
Harold AHridgc. The Epi.fJ!e to the llcbrews (H ermen~·ia: J>hilnddphin: Fortrc:ss. 19S9). A lb~"lt \'nnhoyc. Old Tcs1amu11 Prints «llcl lhe Ntw Prit'.\'i A«(IJ'ding to IIIP Ne•,· Testamnu itrnns. J. Bernard On:hard: Petersham. MA: S1 Bcde's Publil-al:ions. 1986). p. 173. 0 The: unusual term vt\IO~o&iTI'JTctl in the parcnthctic:al note of 7.11 b should be tmnslatcd •for lhc pcopl~ I\.".:l-ived n:-gulu1ions eonl-crning it (lhc Levitical prieslhoodf. \Villl:un L Lune. 1/(!hrews (WBC: 2 vols: N:•s1u·illc: Thomas Nelson. 1991). I. pp. 173- N; Craig Koester. 1/ebrew.dAB. 36n: New York: Doubkdny.!OOI). p. 353: Hnns-Fricdrieh w~-16. Dn Brkfall die J/dmit'r (KEK. 15~ GOuingcn: Vnndcnhocc:.k & Ruprecht. 15lh cdn. 1991). p. 392: cf. I!ADG. s.v. ·vouoEII;Ti(.)'. p. 217:
7i·ansformalion of the Law
103
citing Jude 4 as well as Heb. I I.5 and the 'altera tion· of the law in 7.127 Note th'H even when the verb has the sense of ·remove· (Heb. 11.5). the ide-a or ' nullilk·. uion· is not presenL Rather, the ide~t is removal in thesense of transferente. such as Enoch who was tra nsferred to a nother place. Further, the meanings 'alteration· or ' tmnsiOnnation' are found in the secondary lite rature. Philog writes o r Enoch's being_' transferred' using bot h the noun and verb fonns,9 :1s well as of t he 'alte ration' o f Abraham's name in which I. II:TcX6Eots is li nked by Ka't to UrraAAo:y~ 10 (v...hich conno tes the idea of 'change· as a noun ;.md 'tha nge gradually, change :l little. excha nge, alte r' in its verb fonn ). 11 In De G(~mllibus Philo writes of a 'change and alte ration o r purpose" (iJETO:~oAt\ Ka:i j.lncl6EOlS). Thu<:ydides, too, uses JJHci~ots in the sense of ' tran siOrmatio n' (6iKa:tov yelp E1va:t rra:ot TOtS ~u~~axo•s y•ypa.peat niv ~na6•otv). In Historil•s. Polybius repeatedly refers to 'cha nging sides' in t he sense of 'g.oing over to the Romans'.' 2 Finally, in Leifer ofAriswas 160 one reads of t he 'change· or ' lran.sfOmlation· of men lhal <·omes from medilating on the works o r God. 13 In sho rt. the lexical evidem:e supports the definition of ~ncl6EOIS as meaning 'tr.tnsforma lion. a lte.ralio n·. Concerning Hebrews. we t herefore conclude that priesthood has been transformed (7.1 l -12a) from Levitical to Melchizedekian . ·n~ere is still priesthood. tho ugh what is known of it has been escalated C hristo log,ic:a llv. In like m;mner. t he law has tx.--en chanu.ed . and o ne . vital aspect of this change fo r the writer of Hebrews is t he ca ncellation o r the lineage requirement (tho ugh furt her aspects are revealed in chapters 810). As no ted above. one imporlant aspect o f the law~s transformation is the c-ancellation (cl6£Tf}OtS) of the EvToA~ 1 4 <~oncerning genealogical require-
-
-
7 Soc ·~nO.frto-1 ~ · . ·~no:;i6ru.u· in TDNT. Vlll. p. 16 1. See also G. Hugh-es. 1/e/we•rs((ll
Philo. Abr. 17- 19. esp. 18. Soc <~ l so Josephus. Am. 18.57. Cf. Josephus. Apirm 2.26 . 10 Philo. Ahr. 81.. It LSJ. S..\'. ·\nto:>.>.oyi)'. Sec nlso Josephus. Apirm 1.18S-286: Philo. De Gigm11ib1t.r 8 9
2A78-4i9. 12 Polybius. 1/i.rlfJrics 18.6. 7: c-L 5.86.8; 29.1 1.3. 13 R. J. H. Shuu. ' l<:Her of Aristcas·. in hmes Clmrksworth (cd.). 1i~r Old T•'.JitutK'IJI Pst'urleJtt'grupha (2 vols: New York: Doubleday. 1983). II. p. 23. 14 Lnnc- lll~·bri',rs. I. p. 168). Sc.hrenk ( TDN T. ll. p. 546}. and C~X'kcrill ('The ~1c-khi zedd:
Christology in Hc-b 7.1·18'. {unpublished doctoral disse-rtation; Union Theological Scmint~ry. 1976). pp. 105- 106) conte-nd that the- writer of Hebrews maintains n distinction betw-een E v;oA~ and \lOt»; .. in which E\IT~rl d~.notes a spc:cifirc comnmndrnc:.nt t•nd v¢1-lo; refers to thc: colk-ction of oom mandmcn ~S. in kccpin.g with the LXX (sec 7.5). Schrenk states. 'The Eno."~ is th~· individual ordinanC<.' and th-e Y6!JOi is the sum of the Evr-oAaL· Cf. Gcrd Schunnck. D.~,. Hebrtkrbritf (Zorich: Thc-o1ogisch<:r Verlag. 2002}. p. 95.
104
A Cloud of Witnesses
ment. Christ's priest hood is based upo n the oath of G od (Ps. 110.4) a nd ' not on the b::~sis of it law of physkal requirement" (7.16). The stipulation that priests descend fro m Aaron was a command only con<.'-erned with linc:agc. T he te rm here is ocipKwos a nd does no t have the P~mline sense of 'sinrul llesh· in Hebrews. 1 ~ Hebrews d oes not ascribe a ny kind or 'sinrulness· to t he requirement. It is ' ileshy" in that it de..;_ds wilh physical matters of genealogy. What is narrowly in view in verses 16 and JS is the 'le~al requirement' given in t he Mosaic law that a ll priests be of Levite lineage. Jesus met no such legal requirement. T he requirement <'vToA~) \\'as externa l, a nd thus wha t is ·v..·eak and no longer useful' is t he specifir commandment reg-.trd ing physical lineage. T his is pa rticularly true gjven tha t it stands as a counterparl to Ps. 11 0.4. 16 Such ~tbrogation of the linea~ requirement helps to explain what is meant by vOJJoo JJH06~ots in 7.12,l' a nd is in keeping with the lexical evidence presented a bove. Contextu~tlly this conc:urs as well. Since there is a new High Prie-st \Vho is d early from a different order, the requirement governing g_ e nealogical destent has ceased its valid ily. T hus. wha t is set aside in 7.18 is not the law as a whole. 1" The p lacement o r 0.6hfJOt5 in verse IS is empha tic:. and helps to explain in pa rt the meaning of vOIJOV IJ; n l6EOt5 rather tha n de-fining it in full. T hus. one aspect of t he law•s transrormation is the nullification o f the lineage re-quirement which of course has sig_ni6cant implit'.Hions fo r the whole Levitical system ( Hebrews 9- 10). Stating it this way places 7.16. 18 alongJ;ide 7. 12 a nd serves to clarify one aspect o r wha t v01-1ou IJ;Tix6Eots means. Re-.tding Hebrews in this 15 See Hugh Montdiorc. A CommNlltiJJ' on thr £pisllt' 10 J!u• Nrbmr:r (New York: Harper and Row. 1964). p. 115: Michel. /kr Brii'.(. p. 27'2: F. F. Bruce. Tire /:"pistil! to tltr 1/r,hrews ( NICNT: Grand Rapids: Ecrd m~a ns. rt.'V. edn. 1990). p. 169: l.aoc. 1-ft·b•·t-ws. pp. JS3-S4. C'rmtm Aurid!,,'~. Nt>brnr:r. 201: d . George \Veoolcy Huehaman. TtJ th(! 1/ehr~lfs (AI!. 36: Garde-n City. NY: Doubleday. 1972). p. 125: J. W. Thompson. Tht• Be-gi11nings of CllriJiiall Pbilosop/1)'.' Tlu· Epistle 10 tiJ~! NrbuT~rs (CBQMS, 13: W:Lshington: Catholic Hlblirnl Association. 1981). p. 123: Gr36cr. An tliP J/rhrikr. II. p. 45. 16 lmtc writes. ·The "former eommundmcnt" h:ts primary reference to the partintlar ordinance regulating the priesthood in v. t6 . . . this previous. lronsitory ordinanoc: txascd on physicnl descent has been nbroglated· (Lane. l/ebn•1rs. f. p. ISS: emphasis addl-d). Sec also Paul Ellinj,•worth. 77w Ep1$lle W ll1e llr!hre•rs (NIGTC: Gmnd Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1993}. p. 381. Comm Hans Windi;s(h. /Je•· ll~btti~rbn'tf( H NT. 14: Tiibin,gen: J. C. B. Mohr. 1931). p. 66. 17 See :also Joma!han Bayes. 1hr
Weress. 1000). pp. 177- 78. ISS. 18 This is w}~erc fresh thou£hl and discus:>ion is needed. Many h..1\'C W1ant..-d 10 sec the annulment of the law in its entirely in these verses. Such an e.xtmp~l]ation goes OCyond the writer's in1entions. It is too simplistic to argu~· that the law in uno hilS been nullified and dodurcd useless (sec Moffnt. l/rbre1r.r. p. 96). nmtw D~• vid Peterson. Nt·bu,rs ami Pt·rfeelirm: AtJ EsumiJJatiml t~( 1/u· Comvpt of Pnfi'c'tion ill lire ·~:.j,isrlt• lrJ tlw l/eb•·t-w3· (SNTS~'1 S. 47~ Cambridge: Cambridge University P t'\:SS. 1981). p. Ill: Su.r..1nne Lc:hm~. Thr Nt>1r C'tJ•-emmt ill 1/ebrt>II'S (JSNTSup 44: Sheffield: Shcflicld Acndemic Press. 1990). 26.
7i·ansformalion of the Law
105
manner allows the write r's kmguag.e of 7.1 2 to have its fuJI for<:e, a nd does not necessita te usurping. the usual meaning or ~nitfu:o1s-. 19 T his a lso avoids dillkulties when explaining Heb. 8. 10 and 10.16 (where vo~O<J5 is wriue n o n lhe minds and hearts). since if vOJ.105 has tx.'-"en annulled. then v011os in He brews S would therefore be required to mean something, quitedillere.n t t han v011os in Hebrews 7 where it refe rs to the commandments (cf. 7.5).20 Reta ining the idea of ' tran.siOnmttion· o r 'change' in a more neutral sense allows t he possibility of vOIJous- in t he Jeremiah text to have some corre1ondence to v0$J05 in the old,:? 1 thoug)t dearly no t without IJ~T.s ( Biblischc Un tcrsuchung~'n. 4: Rc,gcnsburg: F. Pustet. 1968}. p. 193. Contm Willinm R. G. loade-r. Sohu und 1/tJ!wrpri.~.\'lt'J' (W~•c1:-\NT. 53: Ncukin:hcn: Ncukirdt<:n<:r Verlag. 1981}. pp. 58- 59. 20 Scholnrs such tas. Attridge und 11ticlman maintnin oomplcu: discontinuity in 7.18·19 (Auridb"'· 1/ebrew.\·, pp. 202- 205: Fmnk Thidman. Thf' lmr aJJd the Nett' TP.~II/J1lellt: Tlw Quwirm q{Comitmily (NI!w York: Crossroad. 1999~ pp. 121. IJ 1). whic.h in turn forces them to conclude that vOuo:; ins..:ribed on the hearts and minds in 8.10 nnd 10.16 mc:.ms in n gc.ncric se.nsc th:at •instruction· or 'God's will" is written internally with no cxplunation us to whut this might mean (Attridge-. !leb1·e,rs. p. 127). This is distinct from how Hebrews typically uses vciiJOS. Sec lane. llebrews. I. p. 168: Schunad. Dt·r llt>lmfnbriif. p. 95. Suc.h a oondusion c-mptic:s 1!01.105 or its usuul meaning. cr. JtJslin. H~·hn>ws. Cilri.rt mul1lte U1w. ch. 1. 21 Lundbom. 'i'\cw CO\-cnant'. in ABD. IV. p. 1089: lane. 1/ebn!._·.~. I. p. 209. Lunc argues thttt in the r-.:c. the content of the b w has not chnngcd. but mthc.r only the n~·w manner or presenting the lnw. i.e.. on hearts und minds. Sec also Christoph Levin. DiP Verhd.\'Stmg til•s Jtnum lltmdes in iilrem tlt('O/tJgi¥gesdu.dlflidu• ZIIUIJ11111Pililallg mugr!t•gt (FRLANT. 137: GOttingcn: \'undcnhooc:k & Ru1)rcclu. 19S5}. p. 264. l evin tasscns thot for Jcr. 31.3 1·34. there is no new lnw in the promi~d NC. but mther the change is in the manner or Torah-revelation - on dte hearts und minds of m~·n. 22 Further. this thesis is latent in SC\'Ctal works. 5« John Ounnill. Crmmmll a11d Stm·ifice iitlile Lt' tiPI'Ic> tl!t> 1/ehn·ws (SNTSMS. 75: Cambridb'<: Uniw;TSity Press. 1992). pp. 256-57: Lehne. Ne._· Cormam tmd 1/ebrews. p. 26: Murie tsnncs. Sucre the Tltt>tJiflgy of tht> Epislfp U> I he Hrbr-rw:r (JSNTSup. 73: Shcflidd: Slteffidd Academic Press. 1992). pp. I 15-119: Vern S. Poythress. Tfl,, Shutlmr tJ/ Clu·i.fl iu 1/;e /(Ill' of Moses (Phillipsburg. NJ: I, & R. 199 1}. p. 116. 23 Ellingworth. Hebr.-••rs. p. 379. Sec also Moises Silva. ·Perftttion and Esc:hatolog_y in Hcbn." vs'. H7J 39 (1976). p. 68. The law \'InS i n.suff~<:icn t and cxterm•l un its own and thus lucked the power to pc.rfcct the people. yet it wus from God for the gtlOd of his covcm101 pcopk. Sec also Gerhard von Rad. Old Testament TlleoltJg_l' hrans. D. M.G. Stalker: 2 \·ok New York: Hnrpc.rCollins.. 1965). I. pp. 190--203.
106
A Cloud of Witnesses
pejorative. though its weakness and ineffectiveness were divinely planned. The problem \Vas not o.1s much with the commandments as with the people's ina bility to obey them. a problem that the NC solves. Disparagin~ the priesthood a nd law does not seem to be t he writer's foc.us and would certainly not win any friends in his arguably Jewish audience. Rather. his disposition toward the Jaw and the priesthood seems to be more pointed - tha t they were insuflicientiincomplete (7.11, 19) a nd thus a t~hange must occur (7.1 2) if T£A, iwoto; is to be allained by the covenant people. ·n h! parenthetical comment or verse 19a explains pred sely )~·hy there is a nnulment of the commandment ~overning line.age. ·n1e law could not perfect because it was always extemu/. and was not in the hearts of the people. It was 'over" the people. and not 'in the people which Jlnds its remedy in &.I 0 (I 0.16). Further. if the Levitical p riesthood has been fulfilled ~md tr.tnsformed in the person and work orChrist, t hen it logically follows tha t the ministry perfo rmed by this priesthood h;iS been fulfilled and transfo rmed in t he person and work of Christ as well. ·n1is is the burden o f Heb. 9. 1- 10.18. There is still priesthood (Melchizedekian). a nd there a re still sacrillces to be o llered ( 13.1 0-16), 24 yet all ha ve been transformed via the Christ event Therefore. in t he argument of 7.11-19 the writer does not say tha t the law is fully annu lled in a n absolute sense (i.e., ('Omplete dist~on t i nui t y). 'n 1e main point is that a superior p riest has arisen rrom a dill'i!rent order. a nd thus the old priestly order ha.s been replaced. \ Vei6 is correct in his assertion that the introduction of t he new priest e.f{i!€·ts the annulment or the ivTOA~ or 7.16. IS." Thus. 'chan~e in the law' at this point of the write-r 's argument involves ;-tt least the ressation of the priestly lineage requirements. and by implication there can no longer be a Levitical o rder since the superior prie-Sthood has arrived . A fur ther implication is that the cull us o r the old order can no longer be carried out. though the writer of Hebrews saves this point lo r 9.1 - 10.18. If the above argumentation is correct, and the Jaw has been t ransformed a nd not nullified in full . then il opens the door to the possibility o f it playing a role in t he NC believer. such ~1s its being internalized in the minds and hearts of each NC member, guaranteein~ a covena nt people marked by obedience a nd knowledge of God (8.10-12: 10.16- 17) in contrast to the d isobedient and unbelieving Old Covenant pe.o ple described in Hebrews 3-4. This internalization of the (transformed) law l"".tn be seen in Hebrews 8. to which t he d iscussion will now turn .
2~ Sec Pe-ter Lci1han. From Sifl'llc·e u, StJ11g (Moscow. 10 : Cuno n I'Tcss. 2003). pp. IOS109. 25 WciH. Drr Brief. p. 401.
7i·ansformalion of the Law
107
3. H rbrcws 8 The task here is to join together the concepts or v01JOU Jl&T0:6tOI5 in He b. 7.1 2 with the NC promise of Jer. 31.3 1-34 , o..Sous vOJlOU) JlOU . .. Emypci\.jl<.> aitToUs. namely, t he inward writing o r vO~ous- upo n the hea rls and minds of the NC people. Indeed. t here is a connection betwt.>en the transformed law ol'7.12 and t he NC blessing of 8.10 (cf. 10. 16.) Assuch . a correct understanding of 8.1 0 (cf. 10.16) is paramo unt. Specilkally. the law is tra nsformed (Hebrews 7) and inte rnalized (Hebrews 8) in the NC people by God. the covenant-maker. In c hapter 7 the author can spe~ik of the law·s ina bilities to bring about perfection and the limits or its cultic requiremenls. and at the same time ~-tflirm in clmpter 8 that in the NC there is tl positive value ascribed to the law, that is. its inte rnalization. T he negative statements occur when the law is compared a nd conlr3Sted to Christ: the positive statements ot·cur when it is seen in relation lO Christ. Christ is the interpretive and henneneutica l key.:u, Since there is forgiveness. renewed hearts and obedience in the NC people it can be said. ' I will be their God and they "~II be my people' (8.10). Further. if there is ..O~os in the NC, and this vo~os correspo nds to the OC vo~os in some fas hio n, t hen it will not do to a rgue tha t v0JJOS" simply has been cancelled in full.27 Some other explanation muS1 be given. T he promise of Jeremiah 31is the c ure fo r the disobedience and unbelier described in Heb. 3.7- 4.1 3. All NC members know God. a claim that could not be asserted by the OC people as a whole given their unbelief (3.1 9; 4.2). Via Jeremiah 31, God has pro mised that the tomtmondments that had been repeatedly broken would be inwa rdly written such t hat all will know him and all will be marked by obedience and forgiveness. Hebrews 8.6-13 reite-rates the point that the covenant people were not true to the ll rst covenant (Hebrews 3-4), therefore God announced a second as a unilateral act of mercy. Verses 10-12 denote the specilk blessings ('better promises·. 8.6) that accomp:my this new arran~_ement. First, no te that in the OC there was divinely-purposed insuflkiency (8.7-S). 1'he criticism comes from God. t he speaker. This is significant g.iven thm he was responsible fo r making the first covenant: God , the covenant-maker. established a covenant whi<:h he knew to be anticipatory 26 Otfricd Hofius. 'Biblische Theolog;ie-im Lichlc des Hebrikrbriefes'. in Nmr Dinx liom in Ribliml TIIrology led. Sigfrcd Pederson: No\'TSup. 76: Lcidcn: E. J. Hrill. 199-J). pp. 11 213: 124. 27 .Mnny Heb~ws schol.:irs a rgue thnt vO~os in Heb. 8.10 (and 10.16) means something quile. di iTt.~n·nt lh:m vOuos- in H eb~ws 7. soe:h as tt gen¢ril~ ide-:. of 'God"s wilt" with no link to the oommandmtniS of the law. Others ha\'C suggested that \14sO:> -= S•o.lhY
lOS
A Cloud of Witnesses
and limited in its abilities. ·n1us 8.7 reinfo rces the point that the first oovenant itself was not a fail ure. but was. insuflkient d ue to its built-in bJS!ffliciendes that ;mticipated a new arrangeme-nt Hence, it fulfilled its divinely-ordained anticipato ry purpose. 2g ·n1e new arrangement is unveiled in verses 8-1 2. Second is the questio n or the meaning or v01JOV5 in 8.10. On a most basic level. one must agree that whatever it means, it is seen as a blessing of the NC and bo und together with the ro rgjveness or sins (8. 12). Yet the very fact that v~o5 is present in t he NC p~tssage has caused d is~tgreement as to its meanin.g. if it means anyt hing at all. 29 Furt her, note that v01-1os is one part o f ota6~K~ in this context (also note the summary in I0. I 6- I 7). Confusion is the result when vOIJos and 01a61}Kll ~1re seen simply as synonyms.30 While il is not possible to speak of o ne and not t hink of the other, it is possible to speak of one and not mean the other. \Vhatever vOJJos- means, it cannot mean 'covenant' here. One is in the c.ovenant. and olx~ys commandrnents.3 1 It is imprecise to say lhat God will internalize-the coven;mt; what is internalized is t he v01-1ous of God so t hat o bedien(·e to the t~ovena nt God is the result. In the LXX. n"'!:;) is <:o nsistently translated by 01a6~KrJ, and ii1ir.t is translated by v01-1os the vast majoritY of times (between 250-300 limes out o f roughly 320 uses o f ;Ji11'1). The burden of proof. t herefore. is o n those. that wo-uld maintain that these 28 Stt G. It C:1itd. 'The E:t<:geti.:al ~klhod of the Epistle lo lhc: Hcb~ws'. CJT S (1959}. ~5 1: Roy A . Harrisville. Tlte CoJk'f'J.II of Nt•lfllt'J.t ill Jilt' New TesWmc•m ( M in ne~polis: Augsburg. 1960). pp. -18- 50. 29 This tension is due lo the fact th:1t ...000,. is described by both Jeremiah and Hcbrcw·s as a NC blessing. Schum1d: illumatcs this whw.r. I. p. 209: Malhios Rissi. Die Tfleq/ogk des Nrll((AI'rhrit:fi'.\· (Tiibingen: J. C. 8. Mohr. 1987). p. 122: Vanhoyc. Old T-r.\IOIIIf'l/1 f rk$IS um/ thr ..ve1r Prie.rt. p. 165: E.. A. C. Prclorius. 'Diulbt>kt• in th._.. Epistle to the Hebrews·. Nt'ol 5 (1971). pp. 37- 50 (39): and Brc\·nrd S. Childs. Bihlirul ThetJitJgy of thr Old und New TrJilJIIWIII.\': ThrtJiflgi<·al Rejler-limJ tm tlw Christian Bible ~M i nnc.1pol is: For1ress.. 1992). pp. 133- 34. The issue- is th.1t there is no substantive dialo~ue on such ma ilers. 31 Though. to be sure. allimes the idea of ' koc:ping the CO\·.,..nant' is ulso 1msent in the Old Testamenl. Yel ewn in such cases. whn1 ij; meant $jJ('t'ifira/ly is one's obedience loth<: bws of the covcnanl. pp.
7i·ansformalion of the Law
109
terms a re synonymous. LXX usage. which arguably informs the writer o r Hebrews. does not point to this condusion. These NC promises point to a new relationship wilh God. one that is marked by forgive ness and dea nsing (8.12). which is tethered to obedie-nce due to the g.ift o f the .,O~ous in the heart a nd mind (8.10). which results in knowing God (8. 11). So what does v01Jous mean . or to what d oes it refer?
"'II
Jeremillli J 1.33 ( L XX 38.33)
The prophet·s was for the people to return to the Lord God. which is defined in Jer. 7.23 as obedience 10 what God had commanded (cf. 9.12). Oisotx.o.dience to the commands of the l~1w w~1s lhe prophet"s most basic problem concerning t he people.32 and Jer. 7.24 is typical of the response. Such disobedience a rose from the people's evil hea.rts.33 Whereas sin had been written on their hearts with a diamo nd point ( 17.1 ). God had promised to make a new a rr.tngement that would involve an inward Writing of his laWS that \VOufd lead to the Obedience Of the COVenant people (3 1.3 1-34). ·n ,e people would be changed. yet such a change was impossible on their own (13.23). Fo r the Old Testament author. the Lord God must ac:.~complish this new work.34 ~n1us Yahweh a nno unces that he will unilaterally m~tke this new covenantal arrangement. Now we return to lhe question at hand: What is the co ntent of'my law· tha l is promiS<...o.d to be inwardly wriuen'! Jeremiah 31.33 spedfkally refers to the commandments given at Sinai and that these will be inscribed into the 'innermost parts• o r the NC people. This explanation is a common o ne in Old Testament sc:.~hol~1 rship in whkh ·God's law' and ' my law' in Jeremiah a re consistent refere nt·es to the specific comm;mdments o r God ~jven to t he people via Moses. against which the people rebelled . McComiskey rig.htly a vers. 'Although it is possible t hat the prophet used the word torah in the more. genera l .sense of lhe \\~II o r God , without refe rence to the Mosaic law) it is highly unlikely.":\~ T hus it may be c.oncluded that for the pro phet Jeremiah t here is no indica tion 'that the. toote nt o r the law . . .will be altered in the newcovenanf .36 But can this be 32 J. Gordon McCon\'illc. ·Jeremiah: Prophet t1nd Book·. Tyn 8ul 41 (1991). p. 93. 33 Sec texis sud ns Jc.rcmiuh J. IO. 17: 4.4. 14. IS: 5.23·24: 1.24: 9. 14. 26: 11.8: 12.11 : 16.12: 17.1. 5. 9: IS.I2: 22.17: lJ.I7.26- 27. ;\4 J. Coppens. 'La nouvelle alliaocccn JCremic 31. 31- 34'. C'BQ 15 t 1963). pp. 16-20. Sec Paul R. House. Old TC'.fiWIIt't/1 Tht~ology (Downc-.rs G rO\'C·. ll: lntcrvnrsity. 1998). p. 319. · ~t.w on the henri' was~· common concept in the Old Testnmcnt (c:t: OcuL 6.6: 10.16: 11 .18: 30.5. 6. 11- 14: 32.4546: Josh. 2!.5: Pss. 1.2; 37.31: 40.8: and lsn. 51.7). Note. W. D. Da\'ies. Tt,mh ill tht' M(t.Ui(mic Ag~ a11d/or tht• Age t;, ('()fill' (S BLMS. 7: Philaddphia: Society of Biblicnl l.itcrtuurc:. 1952). p. 22. 35 T. E. McComi.s.kcy. 71tc! Camum/.5 (!.{ PmmiJ.(I; A Tht•o/(lgy tJ/ llw Old Tt:JtlfiJWIIf Cort·llwlls (Grund Rt1pids: B.:•kc-r. 1985). p. 84. 36 K~-own. Sc:•li.o;c. and Smolhcr:s.. JeremiaiJ 26-51. p. 133.
110
A Cloud of Witnesses
so in the NC era for the write r of Hebrews? Are the NC people to keep a ll of t he vo~ous" (which would logically include the cullic) with no a lteration? This appea rs to be Jeremiah ·s meaning. but C"dn Hebrews mean this? Does t he writer o f Hebrews read the NC prophecy with'' Oat, static hermeneutic o r some other way?
Hebrews and Jert:miall 31.31-34 ·n 10ugh not C hristological in its original selling_. Je.r. 31.3 1-34 is treated so in Hebrews. 3:S Reading and applying t he text via Christ's work is an escalatio n or Jeremiah 3 1, a nd s hould be understood this way given the ' latter-day· speaking and ministry of the So n (1.1 -2). But. is there a usurpin2. of the Old Testament prophet's original intent here as Lehne alleges'?~ While there are discontinuities,4<1 the accent falls on the co ntinuity between the two biblical writers.41 Ma n ers of discontinuity should be understood as 'Christologkal expansion' a nd ;1 tilling o ut or the Jeremiah text~ a nd not an a buse. T herefOre. if Jer. 31.33 meant that the Mosaic commandments would be internali:ted . a nd Hebrews Christolog.ically expands the Jeremiah text. what then does Hebrews me.an by 'Jaws on t he hea n ·':t It is usua lly interpreted ln o ne of three w;tys. a ll of which a re unsatisfying. A fourt h view is needed. 37 Scholars rare-ly me.ntion the- LXX rendering of the singular ;-nli'l with the plum! in Jer. 31.33. Hcbre\VS s..:holt.rs rt1rely m~-ntion it: this is a lacuna in H~·brew scholarship. Of the few that do. fewer offer suggestions tiS tO the. purpose b~·hind this U UUSI.UII ah~'1'.ttion or nny explanation at alL Blunk is helpful (S. H. Blank. 'LXX Renckrin,gs of Old Tcstaml.'.nt Tcm1s for law'. IIUCA 7 11930). pp. 159-&3). Blank concludes that there was no underlying reading that could <~coount for the change from singular ;'1 !"Flto plural vOIJOUS in th< LXX of Jer. 31.33.nnd that such a change ise:ttmndy mre in the I.XX. The plural h<:rc: sc:rws to specify thnt actual laws are in view and not •low· in a v<~goc sense. Sec- Joslin. 1/d>r;-w.~. CltriJt, (IJU/Illi! lm\·. c-haptC;T 5. 38 For exnmpk. see Marie D' Angelo• .th.ues ill lite l.t'ttcr lo 1/le 1/ehrcw:; I.SBLDS. 41: Mis:;ou1u. MT: Scholnrs Press. 1919). p. 260. Similarly Hofius. •ulblische Theologie·. pp. 11213: Hughes. 1/;,hrews ami HrrmenMtlics. p. 118: George H. Guthrie. 'Hc.brcws' in Commtmtary ell lire N('W Tt'slunlt't/1 Ust' of thr Old Tt'.rlumnll (c-ds G. K. Beale n nd D. A. Carson: Grand Rnpids: llnker. 2007). pp. 9 19-95. 39 Lehne:. Nr1r Cm·emml ill 1/t'brt>tr.r. p. 31. 40 Such as (I) an expnnsion of the promise to apply to Jew tmd Gc.ntik nlike. and l2) the point that Jeremia h 31 is not Christological in its originnl setting. For its nppiK::uion to bo1h J~·w and Gentile lllld the. questions this pos~-s.. sec Ware. 'i'\ew CO\'<."nanr. pp. 84-97. 41 t'\ott tht' following parnllds: {I) both Old Testament nnd New Testament writers aflinn the NC to be ~"'ernak (2) both aflirm the result oft he: t'\C is obedience and forgi\'tnes..; of sins: (J) both affirm the ccntmlity of the heart Md inner m:m; (4) both anlrm that God initiates the covenant: (5) both nnlrm that it is unilatemlly nccomplishcd by God (though in Hcbrc\•,:s cxac.tly l10w this is done-is utwcikd): (6) all NC nu·mbcrs will be marked by the promi!'.Cs: (7) bo1h understund the bud:ground to the NC is the Sinni covenant (8) both affirm the id~ that ·laws on the henrt' is a bles..;ing; (9) both sec the NC b.:ing innugurntcd in the ·luucr days·: (10) both nffim1 tbnt the KC brings about a c.hange of heart. ....01JOU)
7i·ansformalion of the Law
I ll
Nwo;- iu Hcbrelfs 8.10 ( 10.16) The prevailing three views of vo~os in He b. 8. I 0/10.1 6 can be classified in the following ma nner: ( I) The Non-View, (2) T he No-Correspondence View. and (3) The Direct-Correspondenc:e View. The Jlrst ca tegory ('onsists of those scholars who say nothine tlel1nitive as to the meanim~ o f vo~os in 8. I 0/ 10.16. The second sees ·v6~os o n the heart' as a way of simply saying 'inward renewar o r ' the \Viii o r God· in a manner that is d iscontinuous with the OC comma ndments. ·n1is group seems content to read 010oUs v61JOU5 IJOU in a manner t hat has little or no contact with v01-1os in t he rest of Hebrews. o r in the original Old Tes1ament context o r Jeremia h. The third view understands v01J05 as the OC comm~mdments fOrmerly writte n on stone table ts or scrolls (eit her simply tim Decalogue or the whole law) now written on the heart and mind of the NC believer without <:hange. Those who maintain this view assert that for both Jeremiah a nd Hebrews what is promised in the. NC is a n intema lization o r the l'vfosaic commands with no a ltera tio n. In sum, the fundamenta l q uestion a t lhis point is whether o r no t v01J05 in 8.1 Ofl 0.16 has any correspondent~ to the covenant comma ndments or Moses (hen<.'.C the 42 nomencla ture). T ha t said. the range of meaning lOr v6J.Jos ~.:ould ha rdly be broader: from a generic o r spiritualized idea of 'God·s will' without correspo ndence to the ?\·1osaic laws. o r to the whole of the written Jaws without alteration. None o r these explanations is \\~thout l::tuh . First. the NoCorrespondence view must lmtintain lhat Hebrews is insensith1e to the o riginal meaning of t he Jeremiah text. Second, the view is inconsisten t a nd ambi~uous regarding the term vOIJOS in H ebrews. Further. a lmost never is any explana tion given to lhe stmnge alteration to t he plura l fom1 vO~-tous in these verses. Conce-r ning the Direcl Correspondenc-e view. there is the matter o f Lhe cultic Jaws. which. in this view. would also be inscribed on the hea rts for all to keep since what w;.•s written o n scrolls is now written on the he.arls. Yet keeping the cultic laws as they sta nd writte n is antit hetical to the theology o f Hebrews. Further, bo th of t hese views are hermeneutically inconsistent when it comes to Jeremia h 3 1. pa rticularly verse 33b. While aflinning. the a uthors meaning in Je r. 31.31-32. a nd 3 1.33a, 33c-34. the No-Correspondence view denies Jeremiah ·s meaning of the single phr.tse concerning the inte rnali7.a tion of the laws in 3 1.33b. On the other ha nd. the D irectCorrespondenre view acknowledges Hebrews· Christologjcal reading o r Jeremiah 31. but le~wes the matter of 'laws o n the heart • unaliet.ted, without Christolo~ic:il expansion (and thus lhe o ne-to-one correspond-
42 Bound up in aU or 1his are those scholars who hold to a suong dtwlism (either Jewish apocnlyptic or Plutonic). Philonic idenlism. or n gnostic view or Hcbn:ws..
112
A Cloud of Witnesses
ence). In s ho rt. there is no t a consistent hermeneutic rlpplied to the whole of the Jeremiah text fo r eit her group.
'the 'TrtmsjOnm:d View What is needed is a fourth '~ew. \Vhat is proposed here is essentially a modili(.·.ation a nd advancement of the Direct-Correspondence view. S ta ted sucdnctly, the Transform ed View mainta ins the tie to Jeremiah·s meaning of the actual writlen laws (like view three), b ut adv;mces this a pproach by viewin~ the promise or law o n t he heart t hrough the lens ol the Christ event. This (Ourth view expands the meaning of Jeremiah in ~l consistently Christologkal dire{~tion in keeping. with Hebrews· use of lhe Old Testament, and suggests t ha t there is transfonna tion that involves bo th the Jit{fil/nl(mt and imenwli:ation of the Jaw> and srx-~ifically how the NC people relate to it. Fo r Hebrews. Jeremiah Jl is a nticipatory and only reaches it rulleSl me.anin~ when interpreted Christologkally. Viewed this way. the v6~o• have been fulf illed through Christ"s life a nd death. and it is in Christ's rultillment that they are interna lized in lhe sense promised in Jeremiah 31 . ·n lis 'Christologjzed law' is internalized in the NC ~Jiever. which produces a people who a re renewed> cleansed. and obedient to the commands or God. In this se-nse. what is put fo rward here is a 'NC law•. and o ne with an o rganic connection to the old. Further. in this view all aspecls o r the Je remiah's NC promise have ' intersected· the Christ event such that: (I) thl!sl! are the latter days (l-leb. I. I -2) of which Jeremiah s po ke (3 1.3 1). (2) the readers of Hebrews are ·God·s people· thro ugh Chrisl's work a nd are part of 'God·s house· (31.33c), (3) Christ has inaug.ura ted the promised NC (31.33a), (4) the universal knowledge or the Lord has b..>en obtained through Christ (31.34a). and (5) througJt the work of Christ forgiveness has been procured (31.34b). Most would lind little to disag.ree with here. Yel one must be consistent by way of Christologk a l expansion of Je r. 31.33b as well. Thus. (6) fo r the pro mised blessing of v6~ous on the heart in 3 1.33b. what is in view for Hebrews is the Christologjcally tr~msformed Jaw: the l\•1osaic law as vie-wed/inte rpreted through the lens of Chris t. His person and work a llecl how the NC people relate lo the Jaw. As sut.h there will be command ments lhat <.~arry over rrom OCto NC a nd those that do not - with Christ being the inte rpretive ' lenses·. For example. t he NC people still revere ·You shall no t murder'. while at the same-time no longer bringing a nimal sacrifices for lheir sins. As such they walk in obedient·e to God's commands as his covenant people. This aspect of interna lization is another pa n of what is me:lnl by the transformation of the law in 7.1 2. As I have soug_ht to demonstr.tte, when Hebrews views the law through t he lens of Christ. t he wrile r o f Hebrews is able to make negative statements regarding. t he law's inability lO perfect
7i·ansformalion of the Law
113
(IO.I b), as we-l ias make positive statements ~.:oncerning its internalization (10.16). Ye t t his positive role tan only come via the fulfillment of the law in the ministry o r Christ.
4. Hrbrew.< 9. 1- W . /8 Hebrews 8.8-13 sets the stage for 9.1- 10.1843 by announcing. the new covena nta l arrangement, and such a n announcement is run of ttuestion.s tha t 9.1- 10.1 8 a nswers. Questions such as. ' How has t his new arrangement been inuug.urate
43 Soc Joslin. 'Christ Bore the Sins of Many: Substitution nnd the Atonc:mcn! in Ht:-btL'WS". StJilll!em BapJi.fl Jounwl of 71r~lJiogy 11.1 (2007). csp. pp. 83-88.
44 Gr:i8n. An die lleb•·iit!r. 11. pp. 99- 101 . Further. the: repetition of Jeremiah 31 in He-b. 10. 16-17 demonstrates the faulty conclusions of GriHkr PIal. The repetition of Jeremiah 31 hns botII stroc:1Ural and cxcgctic!LI taswell as theo1ogi~ll) importanoc. h dosc.s out !he-prese-nt section. und also reinfor.."Cs the importanc-e: of Jc"'"-mi11h 31 f~-,r the author's e:tcgcsis and tht:ology. Also. if the intctm1lization of th<: law is indl'Cd irrdcvant. why is it r~o-pcated in 10.16-17. and in nn nhcrcd form thnt re-vcnl.s summary and emphasis·.)
114
A Cloud of Witnesses
which scliplure bears witness".45 Though there is a heightened emphasis on t he Ia uer promise to fo rgive sins (8.1 2; 10.1 7) in chapter 9. it cannot be isolated from t he work on hum;m hearts t hat is promised in 8. 10- 11 (10.16), and both aspects underlie the subsequent exposition."' In short. 9.1- 10. 18 explains ilmr the NC promised by Jeremiah is inaugurated. Forgiveness or sins ~md inward renewal/cle..;:msed consciences a re the blessings brought about by the ' how· or Heb. 9.1- 10.1 8.
Forgiveness. promised in 8.12 tan only be-had via sacrifk.e, thus the NC satri6ce is described in detail. NC blessings (8.10-12) a re essential a nd
·n,e
integral one to the other. Knowledge of t he Lord via his writing his vOpous· on the 'inwa rd pa rts· is not separ.ued from forgiveness of sins.
Rat her, IOrgivenes.."i
or sins and the engraving of vOJ,Jous- on the 'inward
parts' are parl of the :;ingle acl of entering into the NC. Forg.h•eness is based on t he work of the new High Priest. and is tethered to the reality of a perfect and cleansed tonstien<-e (9.10. 14). the ·~ood t hings to tome' (9.1 1; 10.1 ). a nd a sin(·ere and cleansed hea rt (10.22)" 1 in t he present 'time of reformation· (9.10). As such, one blessing cannot be emanci pated from the other. Forgiveness and v01JOU5 on the heart 1og.e1her is what makes the NC people unlike the rebellious wilderness generation described in 3.7-
4.13. ThereiOre> the argument of 9.J- IO.IS is that as the new High Priest, Christ has inaugur.lted the NC and fullllled the sacrificial system. In Jllling out Lhe shadow of the c..~ultus he h~1S satisfied the law·s requirements fO r worship and its divinely-given demands fo r purity.4~ In the NC. fo rgiveness a nd the inward renewal for obedience are the two t:hief subjective benefits for the people'9 Thus, the NC blessings of the laws on the hea rt and forgi,•eness or sins (8.10-1 2: 10.16-17) a re inte rtwined a nd have now become reality ' in these laller days· ( 1.2). In 10.1 the writer of Hebrews st~t tes that the law possesses a shadow of the good things to t'ome.50 It should be noted that Hebrews does not say that the Jaw is the shadow. but ra ther that the law has;'po.s.ses..<\es (fxwv) a 45 See Ellingwor1h. 1/ehrevos. pp. 417- JS: R. T. Frnnoc. ·The Writer of Hcbn.•ws ns. a Bihlienl Expositor·. T.mBu/ 47 (1996). pp. 259. 26-4- 65. In contrast. WciB (Di!l" Brief. p. 446) and Gr51k-r (All die 1/dmier. II. p. 101) mnintain the view thllt 8.8· 11 has no mc~ming for the wrih:-r of Hebrews. nnd is irrdcwmt to the discussion. 46 See also Jorg Frey ('Die ahe und die nc.uc Oto6rlk'fl nnch dan Hcbrnerbricr. in Buml tmd Tom (ed. Friedrich Avcmnrie and Hermann Lichlenbcr~,'<:r: TUbinboen: J. C. It Mohr. t996J. p. 278). 47 Sec Pctc.rson. Perfoclion. pp. 132- 40. This is in oontrll.St to the ·evil and unbdit\'ing hearts· of J.IO. 12. 48 See Roger T. Bl"Chith. ·chrisl as Sac-rifioc in Paul nn~i Hebrews·. in Sa(•Jijicl' itJ tltr Ribli! (cd. Roger T. B<x:kwith :and ~·11lrti n J. Sdmnn: Grand Rnpids.: Baker. 1995). p. IJS. 49 W. G. J~.,hns..;on. •Dcfllc:mcnt and l'urgt~li on in the: Book of Hebrews' (unpublished dol"'lor:d disscrlation: Vanderbilt Univcrsily. 1973). p. 338: Peterson. Pn:li-rti
7i·ansformalion of the Law
115
shadow. T hus. it is no t the point to suggest that the whole Mosaic law was 51 :l shadow. Rather. he more specifit.ally envisions the c ultus to be a shadow that outlines a nd prefig ures t he priestly ministry or Christ. Given 9.1-28, the particular content of the 'shadow' in 10.1 (01l p. 331. 57 Vanhoy<:. Old 7f.swmnlt frie.st.... p. 181. Sec also Steve- Stunky. 'Hebrews 9.6-10: !he ··p;,rnble" of lhe Tabc-rnacJc·. .fll<wT 37 (1995). pp. 389. 391. 5S Sec David Pclerson. ·The Pmphecy or the Ne-w Cov
116
A Cloud of Witnesses
its inefficacy. the at't".t!nt concerning the law is largely negative in 9.1-28. like Hebrews 7. t he complaint is that before Christ the law was insufficient to perfect. Yet all is not negative. and in 10.1 and 10.!6 positive elements are ro und (specifically its pedagogjc.:al function and fullillmenl. and the reiteration of its inte rnalization). ·nl(! cull us prepared the people lOr a n understanding of t he covenant blessings to come. now present in Christ (9.1 I -1 4: I0. 10. 14, 15- 18). As such. the cull us was never designed by God to de~il ellfcth•ely with sin a nd was t hus a lways anticipatory and ped::tg,ogical. It was designed to stir the people to anticipa te the actual fom1 that would come in time. a nd to establish a framework fo r understanding the l\•1essiah's WOrk. n 1us, the s::tcrifkial system fores hadowed the cross of Christ, and was fulfi lled in Christ.
5. Conclusion ·n 1e t hesis argued here is that t he work of Christ has transfonn ed the law. a nd that this transformation involves both its internali:t.ation and fulfi llment in the NC. This <'>ln be seen in the doctrinal heart or Hebrews. 7.1- 10.1 8. When this sa:tion is taken as a whole. what the writer of Hebrews etw isions for the law in t he NC is its t ransfonnatioo. It is now vie\~t'ed thro ugh the lens of Christ, and as s uch there is transformation that involves full illment and interna lization. ~nll'!re are continuous and discontinuous aspects of the law. and this continuity and discontinuity turns on the hinge of C1trist. Such ii reading contends for t he a pplk.ation of the fulfilled a nd transformed law to the heart. and thus rem~tins sensitive to Je remia h. yet expands his meaning in light or Christ~s work. Since it has been ruUIIIed . the NC people no longer keep. fo r instance. the cultic laws. as so de-a rly a rgued in Hebrews 9- 10. ·n 1is leads to the conclusion that all matters regarding sin a nd purity ha\'e been resolved in Chris t for the write r of Hebrews. As s uch. there is harmony between OC and NC people such that both can declare. ·t Jove your Jaw!· (Psalm I 19). Christ becomes the lens by which the law is to be viewed in the. o utworking of this NC promise in the lh•es of his people. Therefore, the writer of Hebrews <:an argue tha t the transformed law is internalized. and t hus many Jaws (such as the sa<.~ritkial system and those maintaining the Le\titica1 priesthood) are no longer to be practi<:ed due to t heir completion in Christ. Finally> if such a view ;-ts the transformation of t he law was adopted, then d iscussions concerning the a rtificial categorie-s of 'civiL ceremonia l. and mora l laws> (while a t times pedagogi(·ally helpful) might be curta iled. To be sure, there is continuity a nd d iscontinuity regardin~ sperijir laws. and this accounts for the balance of Hebrews' statements re~arding the law. ·n 1is is the write r's Christological principle at work. Yet precisely how
7i·ansformalion of the Law
117
this t1eshes out in every maue r of life is not explicitly stated in Hebrews. The m~uter o f the law is not the chief concern fOr the write r of Hebrews. It is en o u~h that the general principle is elucidated; he is clearly not cont'!erned wit h working o ut all orthe spec.itk s since his main concern is to demon.str.ue that Jesus Christ is the new and eternal High Priest or the anticipated NC."" To go back to the OC way o f life is to reg-.rd Christ and his work as inelevant. To t·o nvince his readers or this. while exho rting them to endure. is his foremost pastora l OOn(-ern.
59 Vel one scc:.s l1ints in the: pru.:tical cJCholi:ations in Hebrews 13. Sc:c & yes.
Wet~knt>.u.
p. 205: Arthur W. Pink. An ExprA~ifitmof IJ.-4Jrew.~ (Gmnd Rapids: B
C hapter 10 TH£
N£w
Cov£NANT At-- D CHRISTIA.'I IDENTITY IN H EBREWS
Pete r G riibe
I. Introduction
A T(!nsion ·nle-covenant concept belongs) in its. origin, to the Je1rish tr.ldition. ll is. therefore. underst~mdable t hat the process t hrough whi<:.h the New Covenant coJKept became part of a specifically Chrisriau identity was marked by cerlain tensions. 1 Within the New Testament itself. tension
or
exists between the importa nce the New Covenant (lOr example, in the Eucharist t radition} and t he l(icl that. a part from the epistle to the Hebrews. the ('ontept occurs. infrequently.l The concept of a New Covenant has, however. had a n important rVirkwrgsgeschJ~·hte in early Christian litera ture. Hebrews. the e-p istle Ba rnabas. and t he writings of Justin point lo a hi!;h tide or early Christian covenant theology (cf. Backhaus:jhihkin-hlirhe Sciurellen:eit). The t'ovena nt concept also played an important role in the writings of lrenaeus and Clement of Alexandria . as well as in the theology of the early-third-<:e-n tury Syrian church father. Aphrahat.
or
2. The Nt''" Co1·enant Concept iu the Second Ternple Prriod ·n ,e Old Testament message o r a New Co,•e nant (see, e.£ .. Jer. 31.3 1-34) was: developed in two (X>ntr:lsting directio ns: ( I) within the context of early Christian theology a nd (2) in early Judaism. Susanne Lehne points
I Knut IJackh:aus. ·oas Bundcsmotiv in dcr frlihdrisdi.:hcn S.:hw'C'IIcnn:il: Hc;.briicrbricf. B.'lmab..'lsbricf. Dialogus cum Tryphonc' in Hubert FhnkcmOile (cd.). De1· Uligt·kttmligte
Rmuf.' An11rortn1 ties .flle11t>t1 T(•sutJIU!IIIS tQD. I 71: Frc-iburg/Bascl,tWicn: Herder. 1998). pp. 211- 31 (212). ! C(. tv13rl.. ' Hund IlL lm Ncucn Tcslnmc.nt' in LTK. p. 786: ' .. .statistical findings ar<' r<'mar\:nbl<: and s.xm to indirntc. at kas.t for somC" parts of thC" New Testament. n certain hcsiwoce toward a formul recC"ption of covenant theology'.
The New C01reuant am/ Christian Identity
119
to the absence or the New Covenant idea in the Sec.ond Temple Pe riod . 'The fa te or the New Covenant in Early Ra bbinic Litera ture is similar .. . we find no tmce of a New Covenant ~otion. ' 3
Tlw 'l\'ew Col'emmt in rlu: Land of Damast'u.{ The o nly exception occurs in the Essene community. where the surprisin!!. and somewhat mysterious tenn ' new4 covenant in the land of D;mtascu/5 a ppears in t he Damascus scroll (VI, 19; VIII. 21 = XIX. 33/34 and XX, 12). The context reveals that the Essene author looks to the past a nd describes the progenito rs or the Essene rellowship. From that perspective, the ' new covena nt in the land of Damascus' is seen as older than their current ·covena nt o r God'. Correct Torah observation is the main obligation lOr this early group. and this ;Ktivity is perha ps the mison d \~tre (Or the creation of t he 'new covenant in the land of Damascus·. The Qumran writings never contrast the ·New· a nd the 'Old' Covenant, as d id t he New Testament writers. 'New· in the phrase ' new <.~ovemmt in the land of Da mas('us· does not mean that it was understood as oppositiona l to the Sinai covena nt. but ra ther that the Qumran community understands ils specillt interpretation of the Jaw as the genuim! reillsta/mellt of the Mosai<· Torah , pwlil'ted by the prophets (cr. the 'fallen Sukka t of David ', CD VII. 16-17). Hence, o ne ca n speak of Qumran as a community of the 'renewed to,•e nant..6 T he concept of the 'New Covenant' was. therefore. not understood by the Qumran community. as it would be for the Christians. in te rms o r the all important fo undationa l text o f Jer. 31.31-34.7 Qumran's 'New Covenant' stood: (I) not lo r all of Israel. but fo r the fa it hful remna nt who separated from t he lsr.tel that has bro ke n t he <.'Ovemmt; (2) no t for a Torah written uponlhe heart. but fo r a Tonth knowledge gained by eag.e r study; and (3) not for d irect intimate knowledge o f Yahweh, which is
J Susanne. Lehne-. Thr Nt-'1' Con!lr(fllf in Nrbnrtrs (JSNTSup. 44: Sheffield: Sheffidd Academic Press. 1990). p. 56. 4 Or 'renewed'. cf. Shemary<1hu T:•lmon, ' Eschtllologie und Gcschichtc im biblir.ehcn Judc:ntum· in R. Schnadcnburg (cd.). Zukunfr: Zur £srhat~.>logir hc>i Judfn tmd C/wiJten (SKAB. 98: DU!t~ldorf: Putmos. 1980). pp. 13- 50 (34-.35). 5 ' L:md of D:•mar.eus· is a ctyptic name for the. location of their cxik in the desert of Qumran (cf. Lundbom. ' New Covcnnnf in ARD 4. p. 1090). 6 Hcm1.:um Liducnbcrb-cr and Armin lan!,"C. 'Qumran' in TR£ 28. p. 71. 7 Cf. Jerome. Murphy·O'Connor. 'The:. New Co\'cn:.nt in the Lcucrs of Pt•ul and the E.~nc Documents'. in Mauryn P. Horgan nnd Paul J. Kobclski (eds). To Toud1 Iize T('XI: Rihliral uml Rdawd Studies ill 11~.>1101' of Joseph A. Fit:n1ye•·. S.J. iN•:w York: Crossroad. 1989). pp. 194-204 (200); d. also Collins.. 'The- lkrith-Notion of lhe Cairo Damascus Doc:urocnt and its Com p:•riso n with the: Nc:w Tl~Wmc:nl'. ETL 39 (1963). pp. 555- 94 (55665).
120
A Cloud of Witnesses
mediah..'
interpreta tion of the Tora h (especially perta ining to the cultic calenda r).
3. Jemniah J /.3/-34 ·n 1e only way in w hich Jer. 31.3 1-34 func tions in early Judaism seem s to be in the r.tbbinic. s peculation on what will happen to the T orah in the future. T he r.lbbis seem to agree 1hat t he To rah is not expected lO cha nge
in the Age to Come, a pa rt from negligible chan~es in details and a beuer understanding on the human s ide because o f d ivine instruction .g How can it be explained that e-.trly Juda ism seems to have ignored a passage that found such :1 rich history of impact in ea rly C hristianity? Lehne points o ut that the disturbing imflic:llion of a New Covenant alle cted the dil•ine side o f the relationship. Old Testament histo ry is well acqua inted with human failure and breakin~ o r the covenanl. A New Covenant initiated by God - in contr~tst to the periodic renew:tls of the Old Covena nt - may have profound implkations. implic.a tions with which the theologians of Second Temple Judaism a nd the early Ra bbinic period did no t feel obligated to deal.
4. The Neu· Cowmtmt Conccp1 iu Hebrell's ·n1e New Covena nt conc:ept ot-curs more in Hebrews than in any other New Testament boo k. In this paper I attempt to cast more light o n the \Vay the New Covena nt concept runctions to strengthen Christian identity and to serve the ma in t hrust of t his epistle. It seems that the majority o r those to whom He brews was addressed had come to faith in Christ from Judaism (the impo rtant role tha t Jewish c.u hic traditions play in the text d oes not. however, necessarily point to Jewish Christians as add ressees). 10 ~n1ey may have lived in cities such as Rome where Judaism (but not Christianity) enjoyed official recog,nition . In such circumstances there was a tendency to play down. o r e ven betmy. the different a nd specilic:ally Christia n dimension or their faith. Against this background, the author or Hebre-ws places his ma in emphasis on
8
Lehne. Nl'w Col'eJUml. p. 57.
9 Lehne. N e\r ('t)rmrml. p. 58. 10 Cf. Harold W. Attridge. Till! Epi.\·tle 1tJ the Hl'hrews ( Philadelphia: Fonrcss Press. 1989). p. 12. Michael Thootx•ld. ·zwc-i Biindc und cin Gottc-svolk: Die Bundes1hoologic des Hebrikrbrilfs im Hori1.on1 des christlich-jUtlischen Gespriichs'. TQ 176 (1996). pp• .309- 25 (31 1- I 3). also believes th.11 it is no! )'CI satisf:1ctorily prO \'l.' n thn1 1hc addn:ssc:cs of the CJlistlc wert primarlly Jt•lrisll C'llfislitm.r. One c.annol read Hebrews as a Trut'UIItu cvmtra Juditt'tJJ.
The New C01reuant am/ Christian Identity
12 1
'Christ as the essentia l and insepmable-culmina tion of God ·s purposes for his own people'. 11 T he nature of the addressees (who Lhey were a nd where t he}f lived) is unknown. The text makes it d ear. however. that the autho r viewed the thre-.u to the community in h \o'O broad t·.a tegories. namely 'external p ressure or "perse('ution•· ( 10.36-12.1 3) a nd a waning commitment to the community•s confessed faith .. 12 The autho r. therefore. responds wilh s tern w~trnings and emphasizes the importa nce of a renewed and deepened understanding of the Christian <.~onfession. In s triving to persuade his re~I(Jers. the author of the epistle to the Hebrews often uses the rheto rical device. a minare ad maius - ·from the lesser to the ~reater• - or~ in its Jewish fo rm, qalwe clwmer - 't he light a nd the heavy'. 3 The <.~omparative adje<:tives Kptloowv,IKp~iTTWV a nd the compara tive adverb KptiTTov, meaning 'of higher quality• or "better'. appear 12 times in the epistle and are o f decisive signilkance fo r its argumentation. This inten.sitkation is observed primarily in relation to t he New Covena nt (8.6-13). the new priesthood (7.1 ). a nd the new sacrilit e (I 0.5-1 0). 1"
A Beucr Comumt i Hebre~rs 7.20-22)
T he te rm 'covenant' (ota6~K~) a ppears in the epistle lo the Hebrews for the Hrst time in 7.20-22 - quite a bruptly wit hout a ny preparation or fu rther explanation. It is a cha racteris tic of the composition o f" Hebrews tha t importa nt t hemes a re mentio ned fi rst ~-md are then only late r in ensuing passages systematka lly developed .15 The m~1in focus o f He b. 7.2022 is no t t he covena nt a s such. but a covenant that is 'belle r" by virtue o f its dmSwlogiral s(r:uifiranre. Jesus is the ~uar.tntor o f this better covena nl. 16 He is juxtaposed with the Levitical priests by way of a n a ntit hetica l parallelism. The old salvation order they represent is no t discarded or condemned. but considered tempora ry o r provision;ll. 17 The point o f reference o f this compa rison. a t llrst slruct urally oriented. fi nally becomes the person t?f Jr:sus as the new High Priest."s T he p rope r nameII
Paul Ellingworth. Tilt•
fpi.~tlr ltJ
tilt'
llehl'ell'.\':
A Commi'tllttr)' tm tlw Gn't!k Te.\'1
(Grund Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1993). p. 80.
11 Auridgc. J./ebmrs. ~l. 13. 13 Luke Timothy Johnson. Tki' Wn'ti11gs of tlw Ni'w TeJWIIWIII: At1 / nlerprPtatiQI1 (Mimll'apolis: Fortress Press. re\·. cdn. 1999). p. ~63. 14 Willi:un L. Lane. 1/ebrt'II'S 1-8 (WBC. 47A; Dnllas: \Vord Books. 1991). pp. c:uixCXXX\'.
15 Soc Knut Backhnus. Dn llt'llf' Bmulwul das IJ'erdm tier Kirrbe: Dit' Diutlu'kt·-Deutung des l/ebdie1·bdt~/S im Rulmw11 (/('"( friihrllri.,llicht'll TI!eoltJgiege.wllirhle (NT Abh: M iinstcr: AschcndorlT. 191)6). p. 74. 16 Ibid.. pp. 75. S0--82. 17 Ibid.. p. 9J. IS Ibid.. p. 99.
122
A Cloud of Witnesses
'Jesus' is further highlighted by its plat-.menl a l the e nd of the sentence. From ilS firs t appearance, \'O\'enanf (O!a6~Kll) presents itselr as the fum: tion of the cultic and priesthood theology of He brews. 19 ¢n 1e ' better (.XWemm t' is the covenant or the forgirtmt•ss of sins bec~_luse God's salvation has 11nall\1 been realized . T herefore. the Jlrst covenant is 'old' because it failed in 'exactly this decisive point (8. 13)."' The q ua lilkation of t his covenant (otaflri<~) as 'beller (
. . . Based on Betu:~· Promises: Hebnnrs 8.6 ·n1e contrast in 8.1-6 bel ween the hea venl~r a nd the earthly c ullic o rder parallels the c:ontr.tSl in chapter 7 between the eternal validity or the one
or
cull order and the transitory validity the other a nd between the one ete rnal priest and the ma ny mon al priests (7. 12, 16. 23-25). On the basis of these compa risons. 8.6 concludes that the ministry Christ has received is o nlo logi"tlly superior (oia.popwT,pov) 10 thai o l'lesser priests. and thai
the <.'O\'enant (Ow6riKq) of which he. is medio.1to r is founded o n better promises (£ nayy£Aiaef:! than the-old one - and is thus superior to it. _T~e three t·ompar.t.tive expressi01~s in 8.6 a~e worlh noting.: s uperior
mmtstry (01a$Qpwnpo: Autoupy1a ). supenor covenant
(KpE~TTc.:>v
otcxen•TJ). and beuer promises (Kp,lnov'; l ncxyy,},lcxt). · Belle r promises
The New C01reuant am/ Christian Identity
123
from the sote.riological effectiveness of Christ·s ato ning. death (cf. 9.15).1A Jesus is thus t he mediator of the New Covenant This characterization o f 'covenant mediator' (0ta6~Kfl5 J.noiTrJ')) is o r great signitlcan~ for covena nt Christology (cf. 8.6: 9.15: 12.24). Jesus establishes a new re.httionship between God a nd his people in that his a toning death makes possible new soteriologica l pro\•isions from God. In this. Christ pa rallels Moses as the 'mediato r o f the Hrst <:ovenant'.~s
Jeremi({h 31 {38 }.31- 34.
11u~
Nell' Covenalll ami tim FOrgh•em!Ss of Sins
( H"bmrs 8. 1-7 t111d /0./5-18) T he first o rder heuristic value of the Je remiah pas~-tge is no t the author's conc-ern.26 His focus is not the promise of the New Covenant, but to critique t he Old Covenant. In verses 7-1 3 !he author underscores !he reasons for the need fora cha nge from the first to the ·second' and from the old to the ·new· salvation provisions. ·n1e framin£ verses 8.7 and IJ primarily conta in statements a bo ut the New Covenant. Forgiveness of sins, the subject upon which the aut hor wishes to fOcus. a ppears in 10.1 6- 17. 1'he ce ntral pa rt of the Jeremiah q uote re<:eives no emphasis o r attention. The author does not touch o n the Torah being written in the he.arl. knowledge o f God . or the covena nt formula. In contrast to the epistle.of Barnabas. themotif of the brealcin~ of the covenant does not take centre st~1g.e.27 T he fOc us of the author of "Hebrews is the 'new· that characterizes the New Covenant. a nd llwt m:u:1u::;s i.~ the rca/it)' (~f tlrr! forgir<~IWS.'i of sin.'i. The promise 'fOr I will l'org.l ve their wickedness and. will remember their sins no more·1S comprises the final lines o f the q uote in Heb. 8.12 and is re-emphasized in 10.1 6-17. 29 h is remarko.tble to no te the modilka tions or the Jeremiah quote in I0.1 5- 18, as compared to 8.8-1 2. In 8.8-12 !he quote is int roduced as a direct ~iddres.s of God ~md is understood as a verdict against the 'Old' Covenant. In I ~. 15-18 it appean; as a c~rrenl lestT'~"Y ,<:>f ll~e Ho ly Spirit spoken to the Chns!Jan church (cr. v. I). ~"P"'P" & n~IV). ·ho use o r Israel' and !he ' house of Juda h' (8.10) ;Jre substituted in 10.16 with the
n,.
24 Sec fte)'. •6taaitt:r}. p. 271. 25 Sec Backhaus. De,·neth' lkmd. p. 156. Cf. nlso Au ridge. Ht•brt>ws. p. 211. 'In Judaism ''arious mcdinhus were cmisioncd including intcrccswr anbocls and rhc spiril. The primnry mcd~ator was. of course. Moses in his role tlS :.gccu of lhe Sinai OO\-ennnl: 16 cr. Backhnus. Dt_,,· m •U(' Ruml. p. 180. 27 This mo1if is linked in lhc lc.xtual tmdition of LXX (in contrasl 1o 1hc MT) with an c-xplicil stntcmcnl of rejection: ·They did not remnin fnithful to my c~'lvenanl l.Sta8rlt:Q}. and I turned away from them (J::ai iyW ~1-1EA110a aVrWv). Hebrews 8.9 cites this ' 'ct'Sion. ( Frey. ·.Saa&n"l·· 178- 79). 28 OTI 'i>.tw) (Q®at TOi) a&l
A Cloud of Witnesses
124
more general rrpOs a\tToUs. The promise about the To rah is. as in 8.10. included without any special emphasis: the covenant form ula a nd the promise o f the knowledge o~ God are left out completely. T he expression ·and their lawless a('ts· (Ka t Tc:lv civo)Jt~v cxUn~v) in verse 17, which expands beyond Jeremiah 31(38).34 a nd Hebrews 8.1 2b, points to the sig:nificanc:e of the promise of the (Orgivenes.s o f sins. which then is also co nllrmed by the conclusion in verse IS. In shorl. a new provision for forgiveness of sins came into being when Christ entered the hea venly s.anctua ry as the High Priest and once and lOr a ll offered his own blood as a n a toning sacrifice (cf. He b. 1.3; 2.17; 9.1112: I 0.1 2-1 4). ' In the rea lity of the forgil•e''"·" ofsins and in free access w God himself (7.1 9) lies the ' better (KpEITTov). the s uperiority o f the New Covenant in com pa rison wilh lhe Levitical cult, sta ted as thesis in 7.22
and 8.6.>0
The Sou:riologi£'(1/ Foundtilian uf tlu: New Cureuanl ( Hebrews 9.I j-12) As Backha us explains. 11w pussagt· 9./1 -12 repre:umls a :roteriologic(l{.. .explic11tiou (J/ tlte OtatJ,f~:q fco1·emmt f m(1fi/ which e/ahom1es the basic tftg~fs of Q. /5a from u legal metaphorical 11s 1re// ns w/1 t)'})(J!t>gical perspecti~·e: Gmt nm.difutes i11 (1u·i.~(s a/mung tleath 1/w 'fpg(l/ sltltru·· qf !lti! Nt•w Cow'/lout liS aJl rmli· f.l'JW to the Sinai cttw!mml .. . While furthe r COV<.'Illml stalcmcnts simply vary the thesis o f 9. 15 (cf. 10. 15-1 8. 29; 12.22-24: 13.20). this l'l'rse {0.15/ rt>pre.wmls 1101 only the dimax. hut ul.w' the sum
qf' fht> wholt> cm·enrml !heolr'J:T of flehreu·s:''
T he covenants ca n be compared in ta bular ro rm:
Tlw First Curenan!J~
The New Coremml
·n1e earthly. ·man made· 'imita lion'
The true. origina l, hea \'enly sanctuary (9.24)
sa nctuary (9.24) T he ' tabernacle· of' t he wilderness period with its furn iture (9.1-5: cr.
85)
The 'grea te-r and mo re perfect ta bernacle (9.1 1). tha t is not made with hands a nd does not belong. to this c reation (9.1 1)
30 Cf. Frey. •Oro:&ilIiJg,r /~Jr C11m'l!l Umkrslmrtling
1:006), p. 132.
tCarlislc: Paternoster Publishing.
The New C01reuant am/ Christian Identity The worship of l evite priests and the yearly sacrilke of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (9.6-7)
The 'beller' (9.23) sacrifice or the High Priest Christ made once and lOr all in the heavenly sanctuary (9. 11-1 2. 24-25)
Sacrifices made with the 'IOre.ig.n· blood or :mimals that, according to the author of Hebrews. can never really take away sin (9.25; 10.2)
Christ e nters lhe heavenly sanctuary by virtue of his own blood ~md is sacrificed. effecting: eternal salvation (9. 12; cf. 9. 15). forgiveness (9.22; 10.18) and true separation from sin (9.26)
Earthly external regulations or the ·nesh · (9.1 0). such as food regulations and ceremonial washings. ca using only external purity of !he nesh (9.13)
Purity of conscience (9.1 4) and fOrgiveness of sins; lhe perfec tion (nll•iwo15; cf. 9.9: 10.1 4) wrought by !he blood of Christ, which provides access to the heavenly sanctuary and the presence of God
In 9.11-20, as in 7.22 and 8.6. the autho r of Hebrews links High Priest Christology with ("ovenant termino logy. Frey points out that the two soteriological statements found in 9.11 -12 and 15 summarize lhe theology o r the whole epist le: ( I) Christ, as High Priest has once fo r all e ntered the heavenly sanct uary by virtue of his b!ood and. through his sacrifice, achieved an everlasting salvation (aiCo:1v1a AVTpColots): (2) as a result. he has become the ' mediator (cf. 7.22) of the New Covenant so that through the a bsolution (a rroAvTpc.>ols) o r sins achieved by his death. the e lect (t::n:Aru.J~vot) can n.."l:ei\'e the promised e ternal inheritance:33 It is notewort hy that these key statements appea r a t the compositional centre o r Hebrews (8.1 - 10.18). T he New Coven;.mt was established by t he same atl thro ugh which eternal redemption was achieved . Christ's sm:rificial death is :m atonin~ o flertng a nd a covenant-inaugurating event. The author of Hebrews begins with the presupposition tha t a cove nant c.an only be established thro ugh a s.arrific.e of purifir:a tion. T his argument (v. 15) is developed in verses 16-20 in two stag.es. Vers.es 16-17 ~ue mo re a nalytical a nd verses 18- 20 more exe~ticai.Jl In tJ.I6- 17 th; author advances his argument rhetoric-all/s by arguin~ tha t any 01a6~1
126
A Cloud of Witnesses
dealh, be<:ause no Ota6~t
5. Conclusion ·n 1e historian Eusebius mentions that lrenaeus (c. 140--200 <.:E) w:ts praised in a letle-r to the Bishop in Rome. as ·a zealot o r t he C()l'emml of Christ' (~~AC.YrftV o\11·a TR5 Ola6qK~S Xp10TOv)'6 lreneaeus' Christian identity and commitment was commended in te rms of the 'covenant of Christ'. The author of Hebrews has chosen the tenn 'New Covenant' in o rder to oonlirm t he self-understandin~ o r t he- churt~h he addresses. This identity ho.1S roots in the cuhic heritage of lsntel. Hebrews, however. gives primacy to the fact that the c hurch participates in a new. qualitatively superior. worship and identity rooted in a heavenly reality. The New Covenant concept builds the tont·eptual bridge \\~th the tXmtinuity and discontinuity of the readers ol Hebrews· Jewish origins in two wa ys: (1) through a creath'e re-interpreta tion of t he covenant term from a rultii· perspective the autho r sun-.eeds in describing_the i'Oillinuity of the Christ event with t he cultk backgro und o r Israel. The Christ event is Ihe final fulfillment of the cultic heritage o r Israel; (2) the discontinuil,i' or the- ne~rness oj'Jhe row•1utllf lies in the final, lasti ng. a nd superio r status of the salvation established by Christ as the summation of the soteriolo,gical heritage o r lsrael.37 The author or Hebrews attributes spedal significance to Scripture vers.,; suth as Jer. 31(38).31- 34 a nd Exod. 24.8. The history of the e lTecl of the Lord's Supper tradition seems a lso visible in Hebrews. ·n1e author of Hebrews develops this tradition in a unique way. The reality of the for,gh'e ness or sins is gntnted to those who participate in the New Covenant. l'hey a re assured oi eschatological salvation, entr~mce to
36 Jliswria Ercle.~iuslira V.iv.l (Lake. fu.whilu. Tlw Ec-desitulirol Jlistm·y [LCL: London: William Heinemann: Cambridge. MA: H:m·urd U ni\~rsi ty Press. 196SJ, p. m ). 37 See Lehne. ,\'ew C'onmmrt. p. 119.
The New C01reuant am/ Christian Identity
127
the heavenly city and heave.nly sanctuary a nd participa tion m the
everlastin~ Shabbat celebration of the people of God." As Hebrews has il,
But you have come to Mount Zion. to the hcu,·cnly Jerusalem. the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of ~mgt·.l s in joyrul assembly. to the ch urd1 of thc firstborn, whose names ure written in hean:n. You hnvc come to God. the judge of ull men. to the spiri1s of righteous mt·n made pcrf<.-ct. to Jesus the mediator of a New Covcnanl. and to the sprinkled blood thai sp<.·aks a better word dmn the blood of Abel (12.22-24).
Thro ugh the covenant concept the author or Hebrews adds weig,ht to his admonishment in 10.29 and embellishes his \•.:ord or em:ouragemenl in
13.20. How muc.h more seve.rdy do you think a mnn deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot. who has treated as a n unholy thing the hlorxl ~~~ tht! ('on•Jutlll tlml .srmcti/ietf him. and who has insult<.-d the Spirit or g.racc'! ( 10.29).
And: Mny the God of peace. who through the b!txul (?f tlw i'lcmal ammam b rought back from the
.38 Frey. 'S!o:&!iKfl.. p. 196. I am mainly rollowing
Fr~y.
pp. 297- 305 in this oontc:u.
C hapter I I MELCHI:lELlEK WITHOUT S I'ECUL,\ T IOI\: H EBREWS
GEN ESIS
7. 1-25 At-.D
14. 17-24
I, Introduction Spi(;q once wrote: ' the theology of Hebrews is nothing. but :1 theology and a Chrislology of lhe Old Testament elabo rated in light of the new faith' (autho r"s translation).' Can we. in a<..'Cord with Spkq 's st:u emenl. explain Heb. 7.1-25 as co nsistent Christologital exegesis of the Old Testament'!2 Or must we-assume that the autho r is dealing with speculation a bo ut a heavenly Melchizedek'? For instance, Richard Longenecker argues that Hebrews was confronted with 'the need to set o ut the superio rity of Jesus
the high prie-stly Messi~-th over the Archangel Warrior- Redeemer ligure of Qumnm rnessianology"? Rece ntly Ja mes R . Davila has restated this position in a more restrained way: Hebrews ·seems to be arguing irnplicilly against the view that Melchizedek is the ete rnal relestial High Priest by advancing t he view that Jesus ful fills this ro le'.4 We propose the fOllowing thosis: given the premise that Ps. I 10.4 is God 's address to the Son, the I Cdsius Spicq. L 'l.j!ilrr mL"': JNbfi'UX (ElUdes biblique.c;,: Pnris: Gnbalda. 2nd cdn. 1953). 11. p..BI. 1 For Hebrews 1 us Old Testament txcg<sis s~o'C D. W. Rooke. 'Jesus as Royal Pries!: Rcfloctions on the Jntcrpn:.lntion of the Mckhizcdek Tr.1dition in Hcb T. Bih 81 (2000). pp. 81- 9-J (84): Fred L Horton. Jr. Melrhi:t!(kk 7i·mlilitm: A Critical Exuminatimt of thr Sm1rrr.s tolht· Fifth Cnttwy A.D. u,d i, 1/:e Epi.,·tle to tiiP N~cbrPtrs (SNTSMS. 30: Cambridge: Cambridge Uni'l<'rsity Press. 1976). pp. 152- 104. 170- 71 : l. D. Hu~t . Tile fj1i.Hit! U> thr lh,brew.~: Its Barkground of Tlumg/11 (SNTS. 65: Cambridb"<:: Om1bridgc Uni\•crsity. 1990}. p. 55: and Joscph A. Fitnnycr. ·"Now This Mc.lchi7..cdd .•." •• CBQ 25 (July 1963). pp. 305-
nw
21 (JOS-J<X>).
J Richard N. Lonb"<:neckcr. ' "The Mclchi7.c:dck Argurnc.nt of Hebrews: A Study in the Dt\'t'lopmcnt nod Cin:·umstsntiol E:tprcssion of New Testnmt-nl Though!'. in Unity mrcl Dirrr.tity ill Ntlr Testumrl/l TlwtJ!ogy: Ef.mys in No110r tJf GrtJrge £. Ludd (cd. Robert A. Gudich: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1978). pp. 16 1-85 (176). 4 James R. Davila. 'Mdchill.'d<:k. the " Youth." ttnd Jesus·. Tht> Dead Sru Scr·ol/.s trs IJa<'kgmwulto Pwtbih/irt~l Juclaism uJU! Early CIJri.\'tilmily (cd. Jumcs R. Daviln: Studies in the Texis of the Desert of Judah: Lcidcn: Brill. 1003). pp. 2-JS- 74 (253)
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
129
author of Hebrews' argument is logk·ally consistent. does not require refe rem.-e to a Melchizedek speculation. and builds on legitim:ne e lements in Genesis 14. \Ve will begin by summarizing t he argument o f Heb. 7. 1-25. Then we will e.xa mine the evidence for the existence of ~4elchizedek speculation contempo rary \\~th Hebrews. Finally. we will evalua te the inferenc~ Heb. 7.1-25 makes from l he leXI of Gen. 14. 17-24.
2. The A rgumellt of Hebrews 7.1-25 Hebrews linds the ne<.;essary scriptural warnmt for the priesthood of the Son o f God in Ps. I lOA.' According lo lhis verse. lir.a quo1ed in Heb. 5.6 (cf. 6.20). God declares lhal lhe one who is his exalled elernal Son (Ps. 2.7 in Heb. 1.5. 5.5: Ps. I 10.1 in Heb. 1.13) is also a ' pries! forever' 6 ·n , is declanHion led naturally lo Gen. I 4.17-24, lhe only other Old Testa ment refe re nce to Melchizedek. and to compa rison with the Aaronic priesthood. Hebrews· choice of the Genesis text is neithe r ~1rbitrary nor motivated by the fac t tha t it is the llrst mention of' priesthoOd in st ripture. 7 The author turns to Gen. 14. 17-24 because it demonst rates thes uperiority of -M ekhizedek to Levi and thus helps explain the superiority o f the Son lo lhe Levitical priesthood."
Hebn'"·x 7.1-3 Hebrews 7.1 -2a cites pertinent infOrma tion from the Gene-sis passage - I hename a nd lWO lilies o r ~·lelchizedek ('King of Sa lem' and ' Pries! o r God 5 In support of Ps. 110.4 ns the pri mt~ry tc:u of Hcb. 7.1· 25 see Dt~ le F. leschert. 1/eJ·menr·lllirtrf Fmmrlation'i tJf f.lt·br~·•rs: A St11d,r in tht> VaiMily ofthr EpiJJ!i' 's luterpr.!latimr
IJj'Stmw CoJ'e CiurtiolfJfi'cm fit(' Psalms 1NAI3PR. 10: Lewiston. NY: Mellen. 1994). pp. 21215: and Spil"Q. Nibrt>ux. p. 205. The way in which Hebrews argues for the signifrcancc of Ps. 110.4 shows that the widcsprc:nd u..-.c of Ps.. 110.1 is no C\'idcncc: of a Mdchi1.cdc.k 1mdition (pac't' D.wila. 'The " ) 'outh" '. p. 267). 6 P(lce Rooke. 'Rd lcctions·. pp. 81- 9-'. nnd othro. Hdm!ws uses Ps.s. 2.7. 110. 1 ~llld I lOA to identify the one addressed as e:tnltcd Son nnd priest not as king a nd priest. Nor docs Hcbn:ws identify Christ as priest of an an<:ienl El E1yon:'Zcdek cuh ul Jeru...:•lem. as Philip J. Nd. 'l'salm 110 and the Mdchizedek T mdition'. JNSL !! (1996). pp. 1- t_. ( II ). ron!ends.
On p. 6 Nd l'Oncedcs the lack of hisloricalrvidcnoc. for such u cult. 7 While the r.tbbis may h~wc artificially joined two puss:1ges t.'Ontuining the same tcnn. 'Genesis 14 is the true historical b..1ckground of Ps. 110.4' (lcschcrt. J/muNU!Utiml FtJfmdmimu. pp. 118-19). For criliques of Holton. MFld:i:etlek. p. 170. who suggeslS that Hebrews is conocrnlxi with the first scriptur.:.l mention of priesthood. sec Gareth Lee Cod:c1ill. ·Tflt• Mekhi:cdrk TmditicJIJ. :• Rc\'icw'. /m 31 ( 1977). pp. 328-29 and Joseph ..-\. Fil7.myer. •Tht• Meklu':cdek Tratlition. u Rc \-ic:w'. CBQ J9 (1977). pp. 436-38 8 Mlh ·al C. Parsons.. 'Son and High l'ricst: A Study in the Christohlgy ofHt!'brcws'. f o.;Q 60 ( 1988). pp. 195- 216 (214. n. 1'04): Lcschcrt. l/enmmt•Jtlirul FmmdmitJJu. p. lO·t
130
A Cloud of Witnesses
Most High' p .l a}): and two impon anl events that occurred when Mekhizedek mel Abraha m: Melchizedek 'blessed' Abraham (7.1b). a nd Abraham 'g;\\'e Mekhizedek a ' tenth of everything' (7.2a). Hebrews 7.2b interprets the name Melchizedek ('king righteousness•) and the title King of Sa.lem ('king. of pe~!Ce") ln accord with <.~on temporary sources. but this name and title lind neither mentio n no r use in subsequent a rgument.9 The lour rhythmic lines o f Heb. 7.3 appear to be an expansion of Mekhizedek's o ther title. 'priest of !he most high God':
or
Without father. without mothc:r. without gc n ~a logy. having neither beginning o f duys nor end of Ii f~-. m~1d e likc/ n:semblin£ lhc Son of God. he remains a priest fo rever.
·n1e way in which these four lines are integral to Heb. 7.1-25 makes it very unlikely that t he author is borrowing a hymn attesting Melchi:tedek speculation. 10 Verse 3d. 'he remains a priest fo re\•er". connects 'priest of !he most hig.h God· (Gen. 17. 18) wit h ·you are a priest forever (Ps. I !0.4}. Verse 3c. ' made like/ resembling the Son of God•. situates Melchizedek in relation to Christ the Son. Verses 3a, 'without llilher, without mother. witho ut genealogy·, and 3b. ' having neither be~_i nning of days nor end or life·, are the two poles or the writer's argument. first in verses 4-10: then in verses 11-19. In verses 4-10 the writer explains the significance of Mekhizedek 's meeting Abraham (Gen. 14.17-24); in ver.;e-1 I I. J9. the significance of the fullllhnen t of Ps. I !0.4 in light of that important meeting. Hebrl!ws 4.7-10 ' Without f3ther, wit hout mother, without genealogy· is the dominant pole in verses 4- 10. T he ~trgument or these verses depends o n Melthizedek's lack of Abrahamic. and therefore Aaronic/levitical. ~enealogy (v. 6). In light of this lack Abraham's rendering Melchizedek a tithe and a<X·eptin~ his priestly blessing show Mekhizedek"s superiority to t he Levitical priesthood . Only verse 8 referen<.-es the second pole: in contrast to the ·morta r Le\titkal priests ' it is testilled' of the one who has ' neit her beginning. o f days nor e nd of life'( ''· 3) thai 'he lives·. 9 f
approp1iatcncss of Hcb. 7.3cd to the argument of Hebrews s~"'C llnul J. Kobdsl..;, Mi'lcM:e(kk u.nd Mdd•irr-.slw' (CBQMS. 10: W:Lshington. DC: The C 11holic- Biblical Association of Ameri-ca. 1981). pp. 120-21: Fitzmycr. · ..Now This Mdchi7J:dc:-J:.. :· '. p. 316. n. 48: Hnrold W. Altridgc. Th(' £jli:rtle lcJ th(' llt•hre,r:r (Hcnncnci:.: l'hiladdphia: Fortress Pre.~. 19S9). pp. 189--90: and Lcschert. Jll!rmentllticul FmmJmimu. pp. 1 10-11.
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
131
Hebrell's 7.11-19 The superiority o f Melchi:tedek over the Levitical priests (verses 4- 10) antic.:ipates Lhe superio rity of the priest according to Melchizedek 's order (Ps. 110.4) over those of the Aaronic order (w. 11 - 19). T he fi rst pole o f the author's a rgument. 'without ftllher, \VilhoHt mother, without genealogy'. is fOunda tiona l fo r verses 11-14; the second, ' having neither beginning. of days nor end of life', for verses 15-19. In verses I 1-14 this priest 'according to the order of Melchizedek' is, like Melchizedek. ·without genealogy~_ He is ' not at(.~Ord i ng to the order o r Aa ron' (v. 12). The very fact that Ps. 110.4 prophesied s uch a no n-Aa ronic priest showed tha t t he Old Testament priesthood :md the law associated with it we.re inadeqmtte (verses 11 -1 3). ·n 1is ino.1dequacy became more evident when the one who fulfilled Ps. I 10.4 t"'me from the non-priestly tribe of Judah (v. 14). Be-in£ 'act~ording to t he order of Melchizedek' mea ns no t being 'at·cording to the order o f Aaron·. However, it also means being 'according to t he likeness of .\-lelchizedek' (vv. 15-19). Like the one described as ' without be~.inni ng o f days o r end of life' (v. 3b). this priest is a priest ' by the power of an indestructible life' (v. 16). ·n ,e eternal quality o f t he person who bears this priesthood ma kes it eliective in enabling believers to approach God (v. 19). Aflirmations o f the Son's ete rnity in 1. 1-3, 10-1 2 a nd t he descriptions o f Melchizedek in 7.3ab. 8 prevent reduction o r t his 'indestructible life' to something the Son entered at his resurrectio n. 11 Hebrews s.ays notoriously lillie about resurrectio n. and nothing about the Son's rece.iving 'life' a t the exaltation. The author or Hebrews atrirms the Son·, divine eternity ( 1. 10-1 2) as context and necessary backdrop for his becoming human (2.5-18). 12 This ' indestructible life' could not be destroyed by his death. Hi!brell's 7.20-15 Verses 20-25 de-scribe rurther benefi ts of the Son>s priesthood. Verses 2325 conclude this interpret ation of Ps I I 0.4 by showing the relevance of the Son's eternity to the needs of' God's people: because he ·r~mains rorever· he h~1s a n 'ilwio la le· priesthood unbroken by death (in <·ontrast w the ' mortal' Aaro nic priesthood) and thus is a ble Lo save not only ' fo rever· II
P(l~
Crnig R. KOC'sler. Nebr-e•rs: .4 New Tnmslatiml ll'ilil /nlr(J(/ur/il)fl ((11<1
Commc>lllary (A It 36: New York: Doubleday. 2001). p. 353: D.wid dcSilvn. Persert'tilJire
in Gmtitud.•: A S(}(·io-Rl:C'Ioriral Cunmwnt!IJ)' 0 11 J/w £pi.ttlt• '/(J thr 1/ehrelt's' (Grnnd Rapids: Eerdm..1ns. 2000). p. !71. But sec- B. F. \V(st..:oll. 1'111! £pi.riiPI Otile !lt•br~,,·s: Tlw Grwk Tl!.\'1 with NtJit>.f ami E\·.mys ~ rcpr.• 1892: Grund Rapids: Ecrdma ns. 1951). p. 185. and Hugh Montdiorc. A Commr'lffaJ)' tJII tht· EJ'i sllt> w Jht• 1/ebrl'h'S (HNTC: S..-.n Frmt<:iS<:o: Harper & Row. 1964}. pp. 125-26. 11 Parsons. 'Son and High Pries1'. p. 203.
132
A Cloud of Witnesses
but ·completely'. 13 ·n 1e absolute na ture and unbroken continuity of his
present and fut ure ministry sustain the hearers: lOr presenl. ruture~ and Jinal perseverance.
Hc•breii'S 7.1-25 and Mldl'hi:(~dek .Spetulmion Two aspects of the wliter's d is<:ussion o f ·M elthizedek fit very poorly with the assumption that Hebrews is inllue-nced by specuklljons about an angelic or hea venly Melchizedek. First . 'without beginning of days or eml of life is not t he description of a heavenly o r angelic being (cf. Heb. 1.7. 14). but of God himself. used here for o ne who prefigures the eterna l So n to whom Ps. 102.25-27 has a lready been a pplied." Even 'Witho ut ra ther. without mother. without genealo2,y' is more tha n a simple denial of Me.lt.hizedek's Le\·itical descent. 1) It is incont·ei\'3ble that the author would insist on the Son's eternity in contrast to the angels' tempo rality in Heb. 1.5-14 a nd t hen use a n ang.el to a ffinn the Son's eternity. Mason·s assertion lhat the Mekhizedek of Hebrews was an angel is inconsistent with his referent~ to fo.•1 elthizedek's 'eternal nature'. 16 Stx:o nd. the writer puts ~·telchizedek o n a par with t he Son by using him to anticipate the ete rnal nature of the Son as priest. 11 \Vhile 'resembling/made like the So n of God ' assumes t he primacy of t he So n, it is no a nti-Melchizedek a po log.etic. 1g Hebrews does nothing to diminish Melchizedek's st~Hus and shows no concern thdek might rival the Son as mediator of salvation. 19 It would seem that a heavenly Melchizedek g.re~1t enough to 13 The <:lerna] qunlity of this pm-sthood demands this 1ast translation ('completely') which includes the former f• fort'\"Cf). S« Kot.-sler. f/ehri'-.-s. p. 365. 14 The character of Heb. 7.3ab as a description of unoriginaled and unending etcmnl deity httS been suhs.!:mtiatcd by th<: many examples of such !tlng,un,ge from the Grnet.-o· Roman world oollo.:ced in J. H . Ncyrcy. "'Without lkginning of Dtlys or End of Life" (Hebrews 7.3): Topos for" True Otity'. CBQ 53 fl 991). pp. 439- 55. See also Gan.~t h lex: Cockerill. 'The Mdchi7.ed<'k Chrislology in Heb. 7.1-28' {PhD dis..;el1oillion. Union Tht.-ological Seminary in Virginia. Richmond. 1976). pJ>. 41- 56. 15 Both the followi ng line nnd contem porary usage make it denr !hat ·without father. without molhc.r. withoul gc.ncaology· is also a des.:ription of deity (<:f. Nt.-yrey. ' True Deity'. pp. 439- 55). here :.ppropria1dy applied not directly to lhe SC~n (who as inc;•rnate had a genealogy) but to 1\·tekhil.o;kk in his capacity :.s ·one (made) like th~· Son' (7.3c). 16 E. F. ,\·l ason. • Hcbr~·ws 7.3 nnd the Relationship between Mdchizcdek and Jesus· Priesthood'. paper prescn!ed in St Andrews. Scotbnd. July IS- 22. 2006. pp. 1- 28 (26-27). 17 Thus Herbert 13rnun. An die llebraer (H NT. 4: Tobigcn: Mohr. 1984). p. 137. calls ~·1ek11i:.-:cd<"k 1hc 'Ooppclg;ingcr ksu·. 18 Ho11on. Ml'll'!li:edrk. p. 156: P. Pilhofer. ' K REITTONOS DIATHEKES EGGYOS. Die lkdcu!Ung dcr Pr51.'xistcn:.-:.::hristologic fiir die Theologie Des Hebr.lerbricfs·. TLZ Ill (1996). p. 315. 19 Why demonstrute Mclchi7.edek's supe.riorily to Abmham if the recipients of Hebrews thought of Mdchizcdck ns 11 heaw.nly bcing? Sec Rooke. 'Rclloclions'. p. 84. n. 10. and especially l.eschcrt. 1/cmtNI(' Utic'ul Fouu
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
133
t}'pify the Son's deity would a lso be t he Son•s riv;.d.10 Thus Ho rton is conect when he says that 'Any thought of Mekhizedek as a divine, angelic:. ~r he-a venly be-in~ would have complete-ly destroyed the author's scheme.·-l There-is no surprise in the author's description of the. Son as the eternal priest according to :\1elchizedel(s o rder. After a ll. Hebrews began by declaring the Son heir of all and agent of creation ( 1.2a). by add ressing him as ·God· (1.8-9). and by describin~ him as the eternal Lo rd sovereign over all t hing)' tempora l (1.7-12). T he d ifllcult question is. ' How does this "eternity'' a pply to Melchizedek'?' his no acddentlhat this second po le, 'witho ut beginning o r days or end or life'. plays only a minor role in the dis<:ussion or the historical Melchiiedek and his meeting with Abraham (vv. 6-10). It comes to prominence at t he conclusion of the argument lOr the superior quality o r the new priest like Melchizedek in verses 15-19. T he phrase ·resembling/ made like t he Son of God' (Heb. 1.3) indicates that what the author says a bout Melchizedek is a reflection of what he knows ;-tbout the Son. 22 It is o nly the Son who is eterna l and who thus 'remains a priest forever·. By definition the.re could be o nly one s uch being. T hus Heb. 7.1 -25 is based on a coherent Christologjcal interpretation o r Ps. 110.4 supplemented by Gen. 14.17-24 that leaves no room for speculation about a heavenly or angelic Melchizedek. ·n 1e best assumption is th;-tt t he writer sees iu the mysteriousappearanc:e and disappearance or this g.e nealogy-less priest a picture. of the eternal Son or God who is the priest forever ol' Ps. I I0.4. Mekhizedek has only propheli(·, but not soteriological signil1cance.23
20 Paul Elling\\'Cirth. · " l ike the Son of God": Form a nd Content in H"brc'vs 7. 1·10'. Rib M ( 1983). pp. 238-61 (259. 261 ). gives one of 1h" dean:s.l un iculations of 1he way in which the argwnent of H"br~.-·w·s puts Mckhizcdc:k on a p.•u with the Son. Thus it is surprising wht.~n he suggests 1ha1 l·kbrcw·s may ha\'e re~-ci\'cd tr.!dilions ubout an 30!,>clic Mdchi7.cdek •in a more restrained form·. Such allcnuatc:d spec-ubtions would still be incompatible with ~·l ekhizt.-dd: 's role in Hebrews. 21 Horton. M.elrlli:nk·k. p. 164. 22 '11l<:.diroction of thought is impol1"nt: the Son of God is no1 like: Mekhi:n:d c-k: ruther. Mekhizcdd: is like: the Son flf God. who is the principal n:~1l ity (Be-ngel)' (Koeste-r. H i>bri!li'J. p. 343). See: a lso William L Lane. J/f'lm >•rs l -8 tWJlC. 47a: Dallas: Word. 1991). p. 171: F. F. Bruce:. Tit~· £pi.\lii' l!l ll!e l·h•brr-.r.v (NJCNT: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmtml'. rev. c:dn. 1990). p. 138: and Lc:sdw:rt. J/mJWIIl!Utkol Fcwulatian.~. pp. 232- 3.1: and rcfc:rcnccs in n. 18 :1bovc. 2.\ Koester. !lt•brt"!rs. p. 346.
134
A Cloud of Witnesses
3. Speculations abow .H elchi:edek as a
H etH'euly Being
·n1e lack of clear evidence lOr .Mekhizedek speculalions contempo rary
or
Heb. 7.1with Hebrews confirms the conclus ions reached in o ur study 25. Ma instream Jewish interpretation, represented by the T arg.ums, the rabbinic writings. a nd Josephus, understood the Melchizcdek of Gen. 14.1 4-24 and Ps. II 0.4 as a human being. o rte n identifying him with Shem 24 and his cily Salem with JentS.::tlem. However. many have suggested that Philo a nd I IQ i\
Melcl!i:edek in Philo All the evidence indkates t hat Philo is. not using a Melchizedek speculation-" He discusses Melchizedek in t hree places - Lt:,~· All. 3.7982. Congr. 99. and Abr. 235. His lite ral treatment of Melchizcdek in Abr.
235 shows that he believed l\,1ekhiz...""
by his allego rical interpreta tions in many o ther places. Philo's treatment of Melchizedek in Leg. All. 3.79-82 is based on Genesis" use of the na me ' Me!chizedek· (M.I\x'o'oi<}, which Philo underStands as ' righteous ~ing~ ("aotAn is OiKatos). a nd its designation of Melchizcdek as 'priest' ("P'U5} and as king of 'Salem· (Ia/\~~4" which Philo understands as 'kin~ of peat'e· (~aoiAoa T' Tils ,ip~vi)S}. Let us 2.J Stt Man in ,\1cNamorn. · Mdchin:dd:: Gen 14.17- !0 in the Targums. in Rabbinic and Emiy Christian Literature·. Bib 81 (2000). pp. 1- 3 1 (II) ;1nd Joseph A. Fil1.myer. ·r-.tdchizedck in the .\H. LXX. and the NT'. Bib 81 (2000). pp. 63-69 (66). This unanimity of mainstr"~' m Jewish {and nlso Christian) intc.rpr<'tation makes it \'C1Y unlike-ly t hat ~'l e!chizcdck was nl rc.t~dy a heavenly b.:ing in Gen. 14.14-22 and Ps. I lOA. tl S M. Bodingcr. •t'Enigmc de Mdki.r.Cdcq'. RJ/R 21 1 (1994). pp. 297- 333 (309. JIJ). has suggested. See the lVitiqtK" of Bodinger in Anders Ascl1im. 'Mckhi1.cdek the Libcrntor: An Early fntt.•rprct:ltion or Gcnl'Sis 14'!' SBL /996 Srmint~r Pt~pe-rs (At kinta. GA: Scholars Press. 1996). pp. 243- 58 (254. n. 53). 15 Supplemented by 4Q40l HQShirShabb"): 4Q'Amram~> (4Q544): a nd .JQTohD (4Q280). 16 Hurst. Ba(kgrmmd. pp. 7-66. Da\·ila ·The " Youth.... 153-54. n. 10 a nd 26 1. n. 20. daims that Mckhit.odck spocuk11ions were more widespread, but the-only other source he enn cite. Slavonic Enoch. is or doubtrut antiquity. '!7 Mul' h or this mtuerial on Philo is an ada pw tion und updoting of Cockerill. ' Mdchi1.cdck Christo1ogy'. pp. 400- 1'!. 18 See Horton. M~·lrlli:e
Philo .'llso ttlle,gorizcs 'Jerusalem'. .'IS 'city or peace (Io).~IJ}' in Somt~. 1250-54.
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
135
summarize Philo's des.;ription or Melchizedek in 3. 79-&2: as a ' priest' Me lchi<edek is ' the true logos ireasonr (o (,peO; ;\oyos) in human beings and thus is a ' righteous king' (~ao1A'US' 0\Ka tos) who gives direction for I he proper conduct o r life and is therefore a ppropriately called the ' prince o r peace (~y,~O:.v os/o>K<XIoouv~). 'peace' (ao >A adds nothing. to 30 ?.'lnny other fcalurcs of l.Rg. All. 3.79·8 1 arc also typicnl. Note the phmse ·when Ihey c~Lmc oul from the (Xlssions of Eb'YPf (i:~;oUoc\1 iK Tc:.l\1 noflc:.l\1 Al'(Um<:u) in 3.8 1. Philo
interprets 'Egypt' as rcprcsc.ntative of the pasl'ions 25 times. of the body 20 {irncs. of both 17 times. See Gcrd Theissen. Uuu•rsm•llwlgm :um 1/ebdierbriif (SNT. 2: Giitcrsloh: Gcrd ~1 o1m . 19M}. pp. 144--45. Compare Philo's intcrpretation of the Ammonilcs nnd theM ~Ibitcs :.s those who h:m: 's.:nse· (oio6110t5) for t h~ir nhilher and ·mind· lvoU:;) for their fother (Leg. All. 3.8 1) with PoJtcr. C. 177. d . Spf!<'. Leg. I ..333-45~ Di't. P(}.-. I11J. 52 and Fug. 108- 109. 31 Ehr. 13. 12+-29: Li•g. All. 3.202: Po.wt'f. C. 181- 84: Mw ..flicm . 15. 2.66-68: Gig. 61: Spn·. Leg. 2 .1 6 3-M~ und Smnn. 2.234-36.
108~
Vit. Mru.
32 Els....whcrc in Philo •rightcousncs.'>' (iSuta!ooUU'f)) is I he SOUI\."C of ' pe::toc· (tipitvfl). Sec Rer. Dir-. Ut·t·. 16 1-62: Mut. Nom. .240: cf. Op. Mull(/. 81. 33 Philo's unde rstanding of 'Mclchi:rodck· as •king of righlcousncss'. h:ts facilil:ucd the l'Ontr.:.st between Mdchin-dd: as I he logos and I he 'lyrnnf mind. The king/I}TIIIll contrasl was stock in uade for Philo. Aristotle. and the Stoics (see n:fcrcnrcs in TheisSt-n. Un!i!J'.\1U'hwrgen. p. 144. nn. 69- 70}. 34 Poro D::tv11n. Philo's tcfere:n<:e to 'the ruler of wnr' is lypicnl Phihmic nlkgori7..1tion and no 'ocho of 1hc- tmdition about Mdd1izedd: in IIQI3' (Oa,·ila. ·The " Youth .... p. 253). For rdatcd ~•llcgori1.:!1 1 ions of 'tyrant' see Abr. J:.l2: Cm!(. 197: Agr. 46: Det. Pm. l11s. 94: U·g. All. 1.91·91. For ·peace· (ripfwtu ns the: opposite of 'war' ( rrci.Muo:;) engt.-nd~red by the ·passions' S« Somt1. 2.147: Mut. Nom. 148-50: hu . 56-67: Op. Mum/. 81.
136
A Cloud of Witnesses
what we have already said.35 Co nsideration o f .-lbr. 235-44 contlnns our oonclusio ns in re~;ard to Leg. All. 3.79-82. In Abr. 23 5 Philo gives a literal interpretation of Melchizedek. In paragraph 236 he begins wha t he aflirms to be an allegoric~_d interpretation of Abrah:m1's conquest of the fou r king;> (Gen. 14. 13-16) who had defeate a nd taken Lo t ca ptive (Gen. 14.8-12). Abraham is allegorized as the ' logos' (lloyos ). the fo ur kings as the four passio ns, and the five kings as t he five senses. Philo is no more dependent o n a Melchize
than he is o n an 'Abraham• speculation in the present passage. T hus fo r Philo Melchizedek was not 'mainly the manifestation of the ete rnallogos' .3t'> Nor did he know 'the t radilion ~.
or
all human beings. However. when allegorizing. Philo re-gularly pictured these figures as t he 'logos' o r proper ·reason·, whom he could t hen describe in s uch terms as lhe leg)timale ' king• whose rule over the ' passions· bro ught 'peace·.
Mdchi:edek iu 1/QMelrh ·n 1ere has been broad scholarly consensus tha t I IQ~·lelch identilles Mekhize
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
137
g.l ving greater weight to the meaning of the name Mekhizedek. 'King o r Righteousnes..~·. which is also fundame-ntal to the argument presented below. ~·Ianzi 's is t he stro ng_ e r of these two challeng,es; nevertheless. the q nality or Rainbow's t~tse reminds us how liu le '"'e actuallv know about I IQMelch and how much is dependent on reconstructio~n. His position depends on the w~-ty he has construed the interpretation of Isa. 52.7 in II. 18- 23. Isaiah 52.7 reads. 'How beautiful on the mountains, are the teet o f the messenger (i~Q!J) announcing pe-a re, of the messenger (_1t:;'JtJ) o r good news. who proclaims salvation and says to Zion, "Your God is king!'' · (NJB). Rainbow contends t hat I. 18 understands the first occurrence of ' messenger' (1~J!J) as both the one ·anointed of the Spirit' in lsa. 61. 1 a nd the royal messiah of Dan. 9.25." Furthennore, lsa. 61. 1 describes this person o.1s proclaiming ' liberty to the t·aptives·, a function attributed to Mekhizedek in I IQMelch II. 4, 6. Thus if Melchizedek is the 'anointed of the Spirit' who proclaims ' liberty' in lsa. 61. 1 he must also be the firs t ' messenger· of lsa. 52.7 and thus the royal messiah of Dan. 9.25.4 ! In my j udgement Rainbow's reconstrut·tion of I. 9 as a pamphrase o f lsa. 61.2 in whi<'.h 'Melchizedek' repl.aces ·Yahweh ;-md ' holy o nes of God· replaces ·God lS {()() tonvement.J) n l lS line strongly suggests that Melchizedek is the t:hief angel arcompanied by the o ther angels known as God's 'holy ones'.44 Furthermo re, if we take Rainbow's understandings of II. 9 and IS together they have the odd e flect or making_ Melchi:t.edek proclaim the ye.;_ir of his own favor. T he value o f I I QMelth as witness to speculation about Melchizedek as an angelic o r heavenly being would be significantly diminished if either o r these positions were correct. Neve.r lheless. in my judgement. t he apparent function o f Melchizedek as the protector and eschatological deliverer o r God's people. the one who brings God's j udgement (1. 13) assisted by the angelic hosts (1. 14). fits most naturally \\~th whal is said about the archangel Michael in o ther Qumran writi ngs. Consistent contrast with Belial. Michael's antithesis. suggests that Mekhizedek is neit her a name-
53(2000). pp. 11- 31 )29)). cr. J. T. MiJik, · Milki-:;edt•q c:t Milki-re.ia' dans lc:s :anciens Ccrits juifs c:l chri:.tiens'. JJS 23 (1971). pp. 95- 1-44 ( 125): Emile Puel'h. 'Notes sur 1-c m:musc1it de: X tQMelkis~-dc:q·. RnQ 12 (1987). pp. -183- 513 (512): und the: soun:cs Pucch cites in n. -18. .JI Rainbow. 'Messiah·. pp. 190-92. 42 Rainbow. 'Messi:~h·. p. 192. .JJ · . • .for this is the appointed time for the yc:ar or favor ror Mdchiztc:dck. and thr du,r of l't'ngearJrel or lh~· holy ones of God .. : (where I I n:pn:scnt the: hleUntlS: ttnd ito lies. the: rc:oonmuct ion peculiar lo Rainbow: Rainbow. 'Messiah·. pp. ISS- 89). Co-mp:.r<: Jsa. 6Uab: 'to proclaim the: year of the lord's fa\'or. and the duy of vengeance of our God' (a~!< V). 44 For ·holy ones' as angc~ sex Dan. 4.13. 17. 23 (Arnmaic 4.10. 14. 20) nod IQApGeo 2.1 (cited in Kobd ski . .\felchi:-f't H am/ Me/(hirrJ!Ia'. 1). 28).
138
A Cloud of Witnesses
fo r God himself no r a human messianic Jlgure. 4 s line 13, according to which ~.
,-
45 Florentino Gardn Mat1lnez.. ' Las l r~• dieiones s..;bn: Md qui.sodoc en los manuscritos de Qumran·. /Jib 81 (2000). pp. 70-80 (7JJ. Se.: Puech. •Notes·. p. 512. 46 Mnr1inc1.. 'Trndi.:iones·. p. 73: Anders Aschim. ·Mekhi7.cdek .lvilu. 'Th<: ··Youth.. '. p. 251. SO For parullds bclw~-cn the Mekhizt..-dd: of IIQMdch and Michael or the ·Prin<:e of Light(sf see Martinez. 'Trndiciones-". pp. 73- 74 51 Paa A~h im. 'MdchiT.edck and Jesus·. pp. 136-37: Kobclski. Mdchi:eclt>.k ami Mdc/liredw'. pp. 5-1- 55: and Maltlnez. 'Tr<~dicioocs·. p. 74. 52 his possible thnt 4Q401 fmgmcnt II (4QShirShahbb) ide.ntifics ~kkhi1.cd ck nssuch a priest. Newsom restores the text as follows: ·Mdchi) Zedd: priest in the tL.-.scmbly lof God. ~ n) JZ~ j:l'= li$1 · ~?o. (Cnrol Newsom. Sm1g.~ qf tl:e Sahbatll Sucrific~: A Cn.tka/ l:i:liti<m {1-ISS. 27: Atlantn. GA: Scholars Pres!'. 1985).. pp. IJJ- 34.)
139
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
dependence of I I Q~·Ielch on Gen. 14.1 4-22/ Ps. 110.4 are highly specul~ttive.53
\Ve must pursue~~ d ifferent course
if we-would grasp t he s-ignificance o f
Melchizedek. As noted above. both Ma112i and Ra inbow correctly c-all the-meaning o f his name, 'king of righteousness· or 'righteous O~~naJ first person singular pronom~naJ suffix 'my" on the word ' kmg' ( 1 A"~) a ppears to have been no hmdram.:e to th1s unde.r standing o r the term. Not only Philo (c. 20 Llt'I0- 50 c"). but a lso Josephus (c. 37- JOO c~. who knew Hebrew, attest this interpretation ·~lelchizedek'. s contmsting 'Melchi resha" (lli:.T1 'J';:o)_ 'King o r Wickedness'. in4Q'Amram• (4Q544) a nd 4QToh D (4Q280) conlinns this understanding. The admiuedly late.r evidenc.e I he Targums provides fu rther subst:tntiation.s.~ Genesis exploits the theological significance many personal (Abram. Abraham. Sarai. Sara h. Isaac. Jacob, Israel) a nd place names (Bethel. Beersheba. etc.). Thus it is quite possible that lhe Jln~d <.~Omposer of Genesis and its first readers were aware that 'Yiekhizedek' <.~ould mean 'kin~ of righteousness·.si I know of no evidence that the name was understood in any other way d uring the Second Temple period '" \Ve have been preconditioned to t ranslite rate p"1!i ~J ~t.J as • ~·lelchizedek • by t he assumption that II QMelch is writing about Ihe person \Vho met Abra ham. However. in contr.tst to the G(!uesis Apocryplum. where Melchizedek is the human ally of Abr.tham. l lQMe lch consistently writes ~·lelchi ('J ';tJ) Zedek (!?1l>) as two words.~ Thus .\•lelchi ('J'io) Zedek (j)1l>) parallels other names ~mention to king'. 54 !Jte
r)
or
·n,e
or
or
53 A..
tJ/ P.mlm.i in Mcl\'amam. 'Mdchizcdek'.
pp. 3, 21. Sec also Fitzmycr. "'Now This Mdchizedd: .. .'" . pp. 309- 13. 57 Broce- K. \V;,hkc:. Gelll!.fiJ: A Ccmmi!llfary (Gmnd Rapids: Zondc:rvan. 1001 ). 1>. !l-1. argue$ that 'King of Righteousness' Wtls the originnl meaning of'Mdchizrdck'. 58 Sec Fitzmycr. 'MT. LXX'. p. 65. No oontempor.uy of IIQMdch unde-rstood the nnmc ns •My King is Zedck' (tl Canaanite god). 59 Kobel ski. Me/chi:edt>k (lfld Mi!lcilireslw ·. p. SS. dnims thai there is a ' \'Ct)' slight space· between ·:~ ';o and p,~ in IQApGcn. 22 .1 ~. The Gnlf!.\'is AprHT)'JIImn confi mlS ~kkhi :r.edd: as a hislorica11lllmt~n person by identifying Salem with krusa1cm. The .:xtanl witnesses to the book of Jubilee.\· omit mention of Me.khizlxkk due to a lextual1acuna. Howc\'CI, !he-oonle.xl would indicate thnt Juhili'e:r considcn:d Mekhized~·k 3 human bc.ing ().1. AndrCCaquot. 'Lc
140
A Cloud of Witnesses
oommonly a llributed to the a rchangel ~·lichael - ' Print'e o f Light(s)' (CD 5.18, IQS 3.20) a nd 'An~el o f Truth. ( IQS 3.24)"' and contmsts with the title ' King o f Wickedness used (or Belial. the opponent of Michael in 4Q'Amram• (4Q544) fragment 2 a nd 4QTohD (4Q280). Wo uld it not be more accurate simply to translate 'Melchi Zec.Jek' ~?1~ ~J~O) as ' King Righteousness thro ughout I IQMe lch?"1 Furt hermore, t he people o r Qumran designated themselves by lhe same terms used lOr their delivering angel: j ust as they were 'children o f light' ( IQS 1.9: 2. 16; 3.13. 24. 25; I QM 1.1. 3. 9. I I. 13. <1'. 4QMid rEschat" 8- 962) and 'child ren o f truth' ( IQS 4.45. 6: cf. I I. I0-11). so they were 'children of righteousness· ( I QS 3.20, 22: 9.14). Re ferences to a n eschatological ' teacher o r righteousness (CD 6. 11: cr. 7. 18-19) and ' messiah o r righteousnesf reinfOrce rather than <·ontradict this interpreta tion.63 What is appropriate a bout c:tllin~ Michael t he ' King of Righteousness' in I IQ'M'elch'! ' King' is 11tting because this scroll is about establishing the eschatolog.ical rule of God (1. 23 citing. !sa . 52.7). Furthermore, the esta blis hment of tha t rule t hrough j udgement of the wicked and deliverance of the righteous is described in the Old Testament, especia lly it~ Isaiah an~ i~ the .esalm~. and in other Qumran _scrolls. as the ' nghteo usness o t God. Whole II QMelch ma kes no relerence to Gen. 14.1 7-24 or Ps. 110.4, seveml Old Testament passages nucial to its ar~ument are associated with ' righteousness· in the way described above.M ·nuts il makes sense for the ' King or Righteousness' to establis h the ' righteousness· of God by bringing a bout the divine rule. We would oontend that I IQMe kh does not identify the Archangel Michael with the Mekhizedek of Geu. 14.1 7-24 and Ps. II 0.4 but r:other t'alls him 'King o f Righteousness· because this. title is appropriate for his runction as
or
li\'lC des Jubili:s. Mdkisl-dt.'Q ct b dimes·. JJS 3311982). pp. 25 7- 6-f 1:!6l )i. The popularity of
these b~1o0ks til Qummn sugge-sts that the Qu.mmnite.s did not ind ulge in spcc.ubtion about the ~kldti:t.edek of Gl'n<:sis as a heavenly figure. 60 Ac.7ording to Laubscher"s roconstruction of IIQMckh 13 Mdehi7.Cdck performs the same func:tion as the ·An~o><:l of T ruth• in 4QMidrE.schatl> (whid Laubscher idC"ntifits as 4QCntcn:r•) fragment I! who ' helps the sons of light from th<: h"nd of BdiaJ· ( F du Toil L:1Ubschcr. 'God·s Anb><:l of Truth and Mckhizcdek: A Note on llQMekh ub·. JSJ 3 Jl9721. pp. <6- SI JSIII. 61 C(. Manzi. .Helchi.\Wit'k. p. 51. n. 98. 6! -I-Q174 ~ l so kno\vn as 4QFior (4QFlorill-gjum). 63 Cf. Rainbow. '?•c1cssiah •. p. 187. R~inbow cites 4QJ>Bics.-. J as a rcferenoc to a •messiah of righteousoc.s s: I have not been ~ ble to \•crify 1his n:fen.'t>C..-. 64 For •righteousness' as cst.'hllh')logicnl salvntion,'j ud!,><:mcnt in IQS 3. 13-4.26. IQH 17.10..21. IQH l4. 15b-16. IQM 18.8. -1-QTan (4Qii6). and CD ·10.20-21. soc G;u-cth l ee Cod:etill. 'Mekhi1.cdck or .. King of Rightt.-ousn<:~.,·· ·. EvQ 63 tOi:-tobcr 1991). pp. 305- 1:! (310-11).
65 J>s. 7.8·9 (llQMckh 11. 10-11 ): lsa. 6 1. 1-1 (11. 4. 19-20): Ps. 82.1·2 (II. 10-11): and Dan. 9.24 (I. 18). sec Cockerill. "'King of Righteousness···. pp. 309- 10.
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
141
described in l i QMe lch a nd natura l in the Qumntn environmenl.6€1 ·n t is a rgument W~-ts developed independently or Ma nzi but is concurrent with much of the evidence he d tes. Once, however, the name ' King of R ighteousness' w·.ts given to Michael. association with t he Melchizedek of Gen. 14.1 7-24 and f's. 110.4 would be natura 1. 67 T his association. a long wilh the way Melchiz.edek rlppears and disappears in Genesis and the way he is presented in Hebrews. may have led to the later descriptions of the biblica l Melchi:£edek as a priest i1wolved in heavenly <.~onflicl. The. fi rst hints of this development come from the fourth century (Melc!r. N HC lX. 1: Pislis
Sophia)." T hus neithe-r Philo nor J I Q~·tekh give eviden<.-.e of a specula tion about the biblica l Mekhizedek as a heavenly be-i ng. Philo allegorizes the biblk~al Me lchi:£edek p~1ss.ages in the same way that he a llegorizes simila r words and phrases in other parts of Scripture. I I Q~·Iekh calls Michael ' King o f Righteous ness· by analogy with the way other Qumran documents refer to him as 'A ngel of Truth' or ' Prince of Light(s)'.
4. Hebreo.-s 7. 1-25 mul Genesis /4. 17-24 We conclude with a brief look a t Gen. 14.1 7-24 in orde r to demonstratetha t Hebrews develops: legitimate concerns of this text without recourse w a ~·telchizedek s pec::u1ation.69 Wenha m has shown that t he Melchizedek event is integra l to a nd s hould be interpreted as a part o f the A brah~1m/ Lot narrative.'0 "fhus we turn fi rst to an overview o f lhis larger whole. 66 NcL 'Tmdition·. ~l. 8. n. 3 admits that I dispute 'the id~n li!N:ation of p1::: ·:~ 'x: (Mckhi Zcdd.:) with tiM: 8ibli.:al uadition of this figure·. bul makes no commcnt about the arguments presented in my pi'C\'ious :utide-(Cockerill. ··· King of Righteousness.. ·• pp. JOS-12} and rcitcralcd nncw in this present study. 67 Cf. Aschim. ' l iberator". p. ! 47: · . ..oou!d any Jew aoquainh:d with tho..<.e Scripturnl p;1ssagcs (Gen. 14.18-20: Psalm 110) fnil to think of them when mentioning MckhittdckT 68 Cf. Asdtim. 'libcrnlor'. p. 250. 69 Thus we would di~'lgroc with Waller Bru~.-gcmnn n. Gent•si.,· (IBC: Atlanta. GA: John Knox l"rcss. t982J. p. 139. who says. that Gen. 14. 17-10 •cont•ihutes nothing .subsutnti\•c to Hcbn:ws'. 70 Gordon J. \Vcnhnm. Gene.ti.~ 1- Jj (WBC. I; Dallas: Word. 1991). pp. 304- .307. Sec alc;o T. E. Frctheim. 'The Book of Genesis: lntroduc.tion. Commcnwry. and Rdloctions·. Tile Nrw llllrrprrM·s Bibli> (1.-d. tc.., ndcr E. Keck. eta/.: Nnsh\'iUc: Abingdon. I99-fj. pp. 31?--674 (438). a nd N. t\t. &lmtt. Grru•.\'i.J (JPS Torah Commcnlt•ry: Philadelphia: Jewish Publ ic~• lion Soc.iet}'. 1989). pp. 10•). Sinoc: Gen. 14.21 might sc..-m to Aow nnhlmlly from 14.13 and s:inc:..thc I>C·rsons and events of 14.14-10 appear lo be unu.s.ual. mnny h.:m: argued thnt this Mckhizt:dd: incident was a foreign body later i n~rtod to show the rdution-ship of Jsmd in the person of Abruham to the Dtwidic dynasty. in the person of Mdchi:redek. For proposals oonoc:.m ing the tmdilion hislor)· of Genesis 14 s..-c: John..-\. Emenon. ' Riddle of Genesis J.f . VT 2t (t97t). pp. 403- 39.
142
A Cloud of Witnesses
Abraham am/ Lot ·n 1ere are two complementary parts to the arcount o f Abr.tham and Lot: Gen. 13.1 - 14.24 and Gen. 18.1 - 19.38. ·rhe first is preceded by God 's promise of blessing to Abraham (12.1-9) and t he threat to Sarah from Phamoh ( 12.1 0-20); t he seco nd is fo llowed by t he complementary threat from Abimelech (20.1- IS)and the birth of the promised Son (21. 1-7). The cha pte rs between these two parts ( 15.1- 17.27) foc us o n this promise of a son ~md thus prep~1 re for God's vis it to Abraham in cha pte r IS. T he entire Abraham/ Lo t narrative revolves a ro und the city o f Sodorn.11 Each ha lf of the Abra ha m/ Lo t narr.uive coitcentrates on two closely related incidents. The ll rst ha lf begins and ends wit h the wealth of Abr.lham (13.2. 14.23). In chapter 13 l o t chooses to e njoy t he benefit> of Sodom. ln chapter 14 Abraham. after delivering l o t from his folly. rel'uses the wealth of Sodom. In between these two incidents God reassures Abraham by renewing his promise of blessin~ ( 13.1 4-18). T hus l o t. who tums to Sodom fo r wealt h. betomes the tOil of Abraham, who trusts Go<:rs promise.12 T his underst;mding of the text is confirmed by the way Genesis 18 a nd 19 contrast the results of these two choices. Note the many parallels between God·s visil lo Abraham in 18.1-33 a nd the a ngels· visit to Lo t in 19.1 -22. God's meal wit h Abraham (18.1 -8) is fo llowed by t he promise of po>terity ( 18.9-15) a nd Abraham·> intercession (or Sodom ( 18.1 6-33). The meal with Lot ( 19.1 -3) is fo llowed by a t hreat to posterity ( 19.4-1 1) a nd the angel;' entreaties for l o t to leave doomed Sodom ( 19.12-22). The llrst vis it is in broad daylight. joyful, leisurely, with a sumptuo us meal and the promise o f a sott. The second is a l night. fe;uful. with quickly available unleavened bread and a prom ise o f destruction.73 This narrative re-a ches a tXmdusion with Abraham's coming to see the destruction of Sodom in 19.23-29 a nd the statement. 'God remembered Abraho.1m and sent Lot o ut of the m id;t o f the overthrow' ( 19.29). The incest of Lot's daughter:; in 19.30-38 depicts t he bitter en d of his d10ic~ and prepares. by contmst. l<>r the birth of l;;;mc in 21.1 -7.
71
n
Gen. 13.10.13: 14.2. S. 10-12. 11. 21·12: 18.20: 19. 1. ·t !4. 28.
Contrast "Lot ..pitdn.'C.I hi.<> tcms oc:-~1r Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against •he Lord· ( IJ. l2b·l3) :md ·so Abr~1m moved his lents nnd \Wnt to livt' ncar the gre~11 tnxs of M:mu~ at Hebron. when: he buih an al1ar to the Lord· (LU8). Cf. George W. Coats. ' Lot A Foil in the ..\bmham ≶•'. (;'11(/nsttmding 11le Wonl (cd. Jomcs T. Butler. E. W. Conrad. .:.nd B. C. Olknburg,cr: JSOTSup. 37: Shcffidd: JSOT Press. 1985). pp. IB--.l ! ( 11 7). 73 The same root is used when saying thal S.1rnh •laughed' ( 18.1 2. pn::;m) and lhal l ol app~-ared to his sons·in·L1w ·tikc om· who was j~-stin{ (19. 14. N,.s,~. pn~ :J). Cf. Co.'lts. ·Foil'. p. 123.
!t1elrhizedek n'ilholll Spel·ulmimr
143
Me/chi:edck and the King of Sodom The a ppearance or Mekhizedek plays an important ro le in this contr.lst between Abraham, who depends on lhe promise of God's blessing. and lot, who looks to Sodom. The text establishes a clear pa ra llel between Me lchizedek and the King o r Sodom. They are both ' kings·. 'ylekhizedek. . . brought out (l':'li101)' in verse 18 l<>rms a chiasm with 'came o ut (;'i!r ) . . .lhe King ofSodom· in ve.rse 17. ·n 1e term 'Ood Most High Ma ker of heaven and earth' is unique to Mekhizedek's blessing (v. 18) and Abmham's refusal (v. 22) of Sodom·s o ne r. And yet these 1\\'0 kings a re in o pposition.14 The a brupt way in which Melchizedek bre-aks into the leXl between lhe King o r Sodom~s entra nce (14.17) a nd speech ( 14.21) anticipa tes this antipa thy. Abraha m's contrasting responses show that the two represent opposite alternalives.7:S Abraham acknowledges God 's blessing. mediated through Mekhizedek by ~ving ~·(elchizedek t he tithe but refuses to at~ccpt wealth from t he King Sod om (Gen. 14.23). 76 Thus Abraham reallirms his trust in God's promise and refuses any appearance or imitating. Lot-like dependence on Sodom.
or
Mef<-hi:edek in Gen. 14.17-14 We are now in a position lO observe the unique role assig,ned to Melchizedek in Genesis. No other figure functions in this way as the special emissary o r Gmfs blessing on A braham and <:o nllrmation o r God's work in Abraham's life.17 Although as ' King of Salem' he. like the King of Sodom. is presumably a human being. the way in which he a ppears, d ispenses blessing, o.md d isappears is reminiscent of t he Angel o f
74 Currid. Gtm'Ji.s fltJI. I. 285. suggests !hat 'Mc-khiZl.-dck'.
tLS
' My king is righteous
(pi::ir or •king of righteousness• oontr!LSts with the King of Sodom whose people were
wicked ( 13.13). 75 Wenham. GNwJis 1- 15. p. 311. Howcycr. his interpretation of Mckhizcdek nnd the King, of Sodom as cx.amp1es of tbC~sc who bk:ss and curse Abmham does not do justioc h> what the tcJCt !"-.1)"S about the King of Sodom. nor doc-S it adequately intcgt>;:IICthis even! into the stC~ry of lot and Abr;:1ham. 76 The first part of Mekhizcdck's blc:s,o;ing rcnflirms God's blessing on Abrnham (ef. 12.1·3): •Blessed be Abram by God Mos.t High Mnkcr ofhcn\'Cn and cnrth' (Gen. 14.19). The second pare reminds Abrahnm that his recent victory '"'"s the rcs.ult of this divine blessing_: ·And blessed be God Most High who hns given your en-emies into your hnnd' (Gen. 14.20:•). 77 According to John G. Gammic, 'loci of the ).1dehizedck Trudition of Genesis 14. 18· 20'. JRL 90 {1971). pp. 385-96 (38.5). the Mckhizcdck incident sl!OW'S thnt Yahwd1 is ' the ullim:1tc source of Abruham's accompli~h mcn !s' :md llrm1)' tiC's Abrnham's viclory to ' the promise of blc.ssing (cf. C'~tn. 1!.1 ·3)'. God reiterated his 1>romise of blessing afle1 lot's choice of Sodom (Gen. 13.1 4---18). Mdchizedck m-ediates this bkssing before Abrnbnm's rejection of Sodom.
144
A Cloud of Witnesses
the Lo rd .7" He stands o n the side o f the Dispenser of the promise, no t the recipient .19 The-appe-.trance of such a divine emis~uy when Abraham had the o pportunity to claim t he weallh of Sodom was a lo rceful a nd a ppropria te reminder of the sourte o f Abraham's blessing..110 His s udden a ppearance without antecedent a nd subsequent d isappe;ua nce, so o flen used as evidem.:e that he was an intrusion into the texl.~ 1 underscore t he other-worldliness of his funct io n as G od's representative oonferring God's blessing. His o rigin o utside the promised lineage a nd receiving o f Abra ham's homage reinforce this same tra nsce ndent role. 'n u1s when the author o r Hebrews draws o n these features o f the text he is not using an arbit ra ry argument from silence. Instead he is employin~ aspects of the Genesis text tha t highlight l\~1 elthizedek's unique role as divine emissa ry in order to s how how the Genesis Melchizedek Jl""ure . 0 :un icipa les Ihe Son of God.
5. Condusiou We conclude, t hen. tha t the ~trg.ument o f Heb. 7. 1-25 excludes rel¢rence to a Melchizedek .speculation . In any case, there is no cle-ar evidence s uch speculation tootem po rary with Hebrews. ·n1is passage's interpretation o f Gen. 14.17-24 is Chrislologica l in service of f's. I 10.4 bul based Oil elements o r imp<> ria nee to the Genesis text. Hebrews 7 is no t merely an argument from the silen(·es. of Sclipture but an argument based on the uniq ue role tha t Mekhizedek plays in Ihe Genesis narrative.
or
78 Thus il is no s.urpri-se lhnt some ha\'c: thought him a thc:ophany or C1wistophany. Sec Bruce- Ocman:s.l. 'Hebrews 7.3. a Cnu lnterprctum H i):lori~• lly Considered'. fl'Q 49 0977) pp. 141- 62 ( 1 4S~9. 156--57. 16 1). C(. Erik M. Hc:cn nnd Philip D. W. Krey. '--ds. llehr~ll's (gen. ed. Thomas C. aden: ACCSNT. 10: Downer): Gnwc: lntcrVnrs.ity. 2005). pp. 98- 100 and Bruce G. McN:nir. ' Luthcr. C':!h·in tlnd th<: E);tgC-lical Trndition of }•cldchizedd:'. Rt'r£\1~ 101 (Fall :!004). pp. i 4i-61 (748). 79 ' As prics1-king. Mekl1izedck rncdiates God's potency. pow~.,-. and pro1ec1ion by plac.ing God's name on Ahrabnm (sec U 2: Num. 6.22-!7: I Chron. 16.1). One mny infe-r from this thtll Mckhit.cdck is g:n:ater thnn Abmham (He-b. 7.7)' (Wahkc. Gmt>sis. p. ! 3-4). Soc also John H. Sailhnmer. Tht' Pentt1MKII as l•ict~·rulil'l': A Biblictrl-Tllcologiml Commr11tary (Gmnd Rapids: Zondcr\'un. 1992). pp. 147- 48. 80 Currid, G(!Jtf"Jis Vul. /. p. 285. sce-nts to think Mdchia.-dd (s. nbrupt appearance a timely inletvention to forest::dl Abmh.1m's ~e
Chapter 12 ' THE TRu£ T ENT WH ICH T HE LoRn H As P tTCH Et>': BALAAtvt's
ORACLES I N SECOND TEMI'LE JUDAISM AND IN H EBREWS
Philip A. F. Church
I. lmroduc1 ion
or
The second ha lf of Hebrews 7 describes the emergent'e a priest Me lchizedek replacing the Aaronic prie-sthood . a nd the opening verses o f Hebrews S describe this priest as a minister of the heavenly sanctuary, the 27 true te nt which the Lord has pitched . A marginal no te in NA associates the words ·~v [n~~'v KVPIOS' in Heb. 8.2 with Num. 24.6 (LXX). but while most cornment;Jto rs note this association. rew disc::uss its implications. Indeed Robert P. Gordon savs more than most when he calls it a ' purely verbal para llel'.' On the o ther ha nd. G. K. Beale has su&>ested tha t Bala~-tm"s third orad e in Num. 24.5-9, po rtrays what he calls ·an expandin~ end-time garden or tempte>.1 antid pating the fulllllrnenl o f the ma ndate o f Gen. 1.28 that humanity fill the earth. Beale considers that the inte rpreta tion o f Numbers 24 in the LXX and in the. Targums rellects this understanding, and. d iscerning a n awareness o f these traditio ns in Hebrews. he pro poses tha t the a llusion to Num. 24.6 in Heb. 8.2 implies the fulfillment of that mandate:' This essa y will add ress the question whether these fo ur \'lOrds t·an be~ar the weight phtt·ed on t hem by Beale, or whether they are indeed a 'purely verb;il panaJiel'. an unconscious echo o f Balaam's words that ended up in the text o f Hebrews. Richard B. Hays has demonstrated t he value of reading OT inte rtextual 4 reft!rena!s in the NT in the-light of their wider OT context. Craig A. Evans a rgues further tha t it is not o nly the OT context tha t needs to be
o
1 Robert P. Gordon. N i>btl'll'.'> (Shcffid d: S11<:ffidd Academic Pr~~s. 1000). p. 90. 2 G. K. Beak Tlze Temple and Jhe Clwrc!l S .~fi.'<Skm (~cw Studies in Biblieal 'rheology. 17: Downers Grove: lntcl"\'-arsity l~ts.o;, 2004}. p. 1!3. 3 Ibid.. pp. 298- 99. 4 Richard B. Hays. £du>t.v of Srripllltt' in tire LetM·s tJj J>utJI (New Hu\·en. CT: YnlcUniversily 1~. 1989). and RiC'hard B. Hays. The Conr«.sion of lht• lmugifwlitm: J>aul U.\· lmerpreter af lmtel's Sa•i'Jm·e (Gmnd Rapids: Ecrdman.s... 1005).
146
A Cloud of Witnesses
considered. but a lso the OT text as interpreted ' in late antiquily·.:s Stephen W. Pauemore ~trg.ues that since a prior text quoted in a later text is part o f the-·mutua l cognitive-etw ironment' of the a uthor and readers of that later text. ·sens itivity to the \\~d e r context t he origi n~! I setting a quotation is . ..a necessary hermeneutical Stra tegy' .6 Patricia Tull \\Iiiiey. rurthennore. shows wilh the expression 'no text is an island" tha t a text ne\'er s ta nds a lone. but is always part of an on~oing conversation.7 Several examples can be adduced to demonstr.ue that there was a n ongoing conversation a bo ut Balaam 's oracles in the Second Temple period, and tha t they were very much part of the discursive s pace of J udaism and Jewish Christianity a t that time, with numero us a llusions lO them in the. litera ture.8 T his essay will consider Balaam·s o racles in their o rigina l setting and in the lite rature or Second Temple Judaism before returning to Hebrews to assess its contribution to the conversation about Balaam.9
or
2. Balaam's Ot'cu·les in
or
11Je Pentateuch
Numlx.•rs 24.2. 5·6 rend as fo llows (NR.SV): 2 llaku\m looked up a nd snw lsr.:u:'l camping trib..: by tribe. Then l11c spirit of God came: upon him. a nd he uuercd lhis oradc. SH)'lllg
5 Crnig A. Evmls. •Looking for Echoes of l ntc:rpn:l~-d Scriplure". in Pmtl u11d tltr St'ripttm•s . 47- 51 (50). 6 Stephen W. Ptlltcmoro. Thr PrtJplt> tJf Goff in the A{'O(fl(l'p.w!: Disccurstt. StmmJrf' ami Ewgt·.vi.f (SNTSMS. 118: Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsily Press. 200·1). p. 3S. 7 Pntricia Tull \Villey. Reme·mlx•J· tile Fcrmrr T!Jin~J: Tlti' Rc•t•o/lt>cticm cf Preriml.f Tt!.\'IS in Sc(·oud ls.ttiab ISBLOS. 161 : Allanta. GA: Schobrs Press. 1997). pp. 58- M. Wilky borrowal this example from l,ctcr 0 . Miscall. "ls:•iah: New Heavens. New Enrth. New Book'. in RMllitl,~ bf'll\'t!f'" Tttxts (cd. Danna Nolnn Fewell: Louisville: Wcstminslc:riJohn Knox l'n:s.-.. 1991). pp. 41- 56 (45}. and Timothy Beal, 'Gioss..'lry·. in Reodit~'( Mtwt>i'Jt Ttt.\'IS (od. Danna Nolan Fcwdl: touisvillc: Wcstminstc:rlJohn Knox Press. 1992). pp. 1t- 1.f (23). 8 Culkr refers Ill intettc:uuality as ·n dc:.signntion of (a work's) participation in the disl'IU'Sive space of :l culture· (Jonathnn Culler. The Pw·SJtif of Sign,·: Semiotics, Litnamre. Dt•t'tJII.~tnu:ticm: With a ,Ven- l'ri>farc hy th(! AullltJr [London: Routledge. !OCll ~ p. 114). 9 h i..ly arise from ideas •in the air' the source: of which may be unknown to the alllhor. Eco refers to intcrlc-xtual ochocs in Fleming's Jnmcs Bond novds tiS inAucnccs which ·may h.<1W worh-d in the mind of the nuthor without emerging into consciousm-ss . . .devices that he hnd smelled in the air' {Umbc-rto Eco. 111e Role q/'1/le Retflf<'•·: £rplouuion.r intlw St'mictirs iif Texts !Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1979~ pp. 169- 70). The nunwrous ~"Chocs of B.:•lllanl"s omdcs in Hebrews which arc identified below suggest th.11 the nllusion in Hcb. 8 .2 is more thnn this.
'The Tru<• 1'cnl orhich 1/w Lord Has Pilchcd'
147
5 how fair an: your te nts. 0 Jucoh. your encampments. 0 lsntd! 6 Like: p::llm groves that stretch rar away. like gardens beside a river. like nlocs thnt the LORO has planted. like cedar tn.-es lx::sidc the waters.
It seems clear that Balaam was describing the wilderness camp when he spoke of the tents or Jaco b and the en<·ampments of Israel. However, Bea le considers the te nts and encampments o f verse 5 to refer not to the tents or the Israelites. but {O t he sanctuary in the midst of those tents. 10 He notes that the words ?i1~ and j Jt'V': appear together in the Pentate-uch 24 times referrin~ to the tabernacle, 11 and only o nce referring to human dwellings. l hoS<.> of Korah and his associates (Num. 16.27). As Beale also notes the 24 references lO the tabernacle are all in the sin~_u lar. However, as in Num. 16.27. the same two words appear together here in the plural and seem also lo refer to human dwellings - the Israelite encampment. The numerous singular occun ences o r these words are quite d ifferent. and il is clear in every case that the referent is the wilderness sanctuary. 11 Nevertheless. the-re exists a long_ trad ition of reading Num. 24.5-6 with reference to that sanctuary. Several re-asons tan be adduced for this. In the first place the Garden of Eden has often been understood as an archei ypal sanctuary. 13 and the-re are a number of verbal and thematic correspondences between Balaam·s third oracle and the Eden story, some o r which suggest that sanctuary connotations may be inferred from Balaam·s 10 lkak. Temp/(!. pp. 114- 15. T. Stordalcn. £rlwt!.t 4 Eclm: Gellt'Si.~ 1-3 a11d Symbolism Jfehrew Liurulure (l cuvcn: Pcct~·rs. 2000). p. ~3. 1cfcrs to both •the habitat of lsr;Jd'. and to 'the tabemad e nnd its surrounding camp·. 11 Exod. 26.7. 12. 13: 36. 14: 39.J.l. 40: 40.6. 19. 12. 14. 19: l ev. 17.4-5: Num. 3. 7. 8. 15. 38: ~A. 15. 15. 31: 9.1 5: 24.5. 11 In Pss. -i3.3: 46.4: 84J-4: 131.5-7 p'.:b appears in the plum) with refc:Jl'ne.: to thetemple. See also kr. 30.18. Wultke and O'Connor note that while ',-7:\ a nd i=?O.': ean be used in the plural with the sense of 'dwelling· or 'encnmt>mcnf. the singulars of both words aregc:-n~·rnlly rese-rvod for the tent of meeting and the tabernacle (Bruce K. Wahkc a nd M. o ·connor. A11 lmnxludkm to Biblicol J.lt>bmr Sy111ax {\Vinon.1 l ake: Eisenbrnuns. 1990).
{JJ the Edt'll Garclm ill Bibfic(t/
p. I :!0).
13 Gordon J. \Venham. ·s.,m:tuar)· Sym bol i~m in the G<~rden of Eden Story·. in PrMr-wh"11gs of tltt> Nimh World Cmt.t;rl?.\',\. afJl'wi.dJ Suulif's (World Union of Jewi~h Studies: Jerusalem. 19&5). pp. 19- 25. Margaret Bnrke.r. Tbt> Gate of J.leure11: 711e llislor.r ami Syrnboli!>m of Jhe Temple i11 Jmuulem (London: SPCK. 1991). pp. 68- 10 3. D. \V. Parry. 'Ganlcn of Eden: Prototype Sanctu~u-y·. in Temples of the Ancit'lll Wm·M: Rima! ami Symhilli.wtt (ed. 0 . W Pany~ Utnh: Dcscret Hook Co. 1994). pp. 126-51. Stordalen. Ed1~.f of Edr11. pp. 307- 12. 457- 59. Beak. Templt!. pp. 66- 80. Jon D. l e\'Cnson. Si11ai (IJU! Zion (M inncapoli~: Wins.ton. 1985). pp. 1:!8--31. 142-45. Eden appears to be dcso ibed us. u sanetu:~ry in Ezck. 18.11-19. with th<: pcr:s.onngc nddrc.o;scd in that chapt« ·adorned with the stones of the brcaslplatc of the high priest' (J. L McKenzie. · ~'l ytholog}cal Allusions in Ezd: 28.12-18'. JBL 75(1956). pp. 321-27 j3231J.
148
A Cloud of Witnesses
words. 1'* In partic ular. God plants trees in Gen. 2.8 and Num. 24.6. a nd there a re rivers in both stories as well as the only talking a nimals in the the rivers. trees and Bible. Brown refers to t he mythical cha racter gardens in Bo.llaam's oracle. He no te.s that a loes are not indigenous to lsrael. suggesting that the '"'ord is a deli bera te pun on the word for tents in
or
the previous verse. He also notes that cedars do not grow near rivers. 15 and indeed the sight o r a ri\'er in the desert is in<.~ongruous. That the Jerusalem temple was constructed of cedar wood is ,,,.ell-known. and the spring Gihon in Jerus.a.lem has the same name. as the fou rlh river !lowing from £den•• T he s.:mctuary connotations Ba laam·s or~1de a re dea rer in the LXX . which contains more explicit references lO Eden and to t he tabernacle. The LXX renders t he second line o f verse 6 (like gardens beside a river) with ' . . ,. . ' (.)OU n apaOEtool Em rro TOIJWV u.smg two s ubstantwes that ~1ppear tog.ether in t he Eden story (Gen. 2.8- 16).11 ·n ,e LXX also uses t he word oK~vai to render a loes. a possible a llusion to t he tabernacle. W hile the ~'IT has cr 'J;;;~ (aloes) in Num. 24.6 the LXX tra nslation presupposes c· ?,~·~ (tents). homographs in unvoca lized Hebrew; and in "ersc 5 tr ?t~~ a ppe-.us alongside and parallel to niJ~~~- two words translated in the LXX with oiKOl and OI<JtVai. Beale suggests that the rendering orcr ?,~~ with OKTtVa l in Num. 24.6 reflects the inOuence '?t";;~ in the previous verse. He (.Xnn ments. •'n 1e Greek translation appears interpretatively to identi fy 'the t rees tha t stretc:h out like gardens' (v. 6a) to form a veritable tabernaclelsJ' (Si<-)." These co nno tations a re even more e.x plicit in the Targums. Tttrgum PsJ. Num. 24.5 reads. •. . .how beautiful is the tent or meeting. which is situated among you, and your te nts which are round about it, 0 house of lsraeL 19 Targum Ne(~t Num. 24.6 goes further. interpreting the s..1nct uary in eschatolo~cal terms, 'like the heavens "which God has spread out" as the ho use o f his Shekinah . . .so shall Israel live a nd endure for ever
or
(
'
orcr
14 Stordt~k·n. fch~.f of Etlen. p. 442. J. Milgrom. N11mhers (JPS Torah Commcn1ury: Philndclphia: Jewish Public;.ttion Society. 1990). p. 204. George \V. S;tvrnn. ' Ek;.\sdy Sp~"tth : ln!ertc.xtualit}'. Balnum's Ass and the Garden of Eden·. JSOT 64 ( 1994). pp. 33- 55 (42- ·B ). 15 William P. 13rown. nr Etlws <>/ tiJe Co.mws: The Gt>neJis of M(lm/ /mttgiMtim' iu rhr Bib/e{Grund R:tpids.: Eerdmtms. 1999). p. lt4. 16 Stt Lcv~-nson. Sinui mul Zion. pp. 130-31. Barker. G(l/(' of J/rore11. pp. 86-89. Ed Noorl. 'Gan-Eden in the Context of the .Mythology of the Hebrew Bible!". in P(trtrdise lmeJprrtt•d (ed. Gerard P. luttikhui?Xn: Lcidcn: IJrill. 1999). pp. 1t- 36 (27- 32). 17 For rrop0:5t~oOS' tls n rcfei"C'noc: to the Gnrden of Ede-n in 1hc litc:r.:tturc. of S~"Cond Temple Judaism sec BAGD. p. 614. s.v. no:p6&1oo-;. 1. 18 Dente. T('lup!r. p. 115. Some MSS of !he Sam. Pentateuch ~nd the- Yg. prescm: readings .suggc:s.!ing tbttt ~ "7z:I~ was undcrs1ood :ts c:.· ~-:-~ in those te:tts. 19 ~h rti n McN::.mnnt. ~nd Ernest G. Ci.1rkc. Tm·gum Ne(!{ili /: NwniX!I"J; u11d P.rt•lldtJ· Jotuttlunt: NumbtrJ (The Arnmaic Bible. .J: Edinburgh: T&T Cbrk. 1995). p. 259.
'The Tru<• 1'cnl orhich 1/w Lord Has Pilchcd'
149
beautifur .20 Beale implies that the Targums ha\•e influent·ed the author o r Hebrews and tha i his thinking about the esch:uological 'l~tbernade in the heavens' comes partly from here.~ 1 Ano ther issue which h;is long Ot'Cupied schol;•rs is the u!)e of the word iiv6pc.mos in the LXX Num. 24.7 and 17 with no easily identifiable correspo nding word in the Hebrew Vorfage.2'! 1l1e LXX of Num. 24.7 1 renders Y ?1/.:, D"IY'?l" (water sha ll flow from his buckets) with E~£AnioiTO I O:vepc..l rros EK ToG orrip1JaT05 aUnii, (a man Shall emerge from his seed). In Num. 24.17 ~~1\ii/.) ::.:o 1:p1 : p;;·o ::!::<1::. (a s tar shall come out Jaco b a nd a st·eptre a rise out o f lsr;-tel) is rendered avaHA'I aoTpov i~ 'laKwf> Kat ava onjoam &v6pc.mos E~ 'lopa~A (a s ta r s haH arise out of Jaco b a nd a man rise up out of Israel).
or
or
T•1
Horbury has long argued fOr a Messianic understanding or Num. 24.7 and 17. something he considers the LXX lo have enhanced with lhe use o f O:v6pwrros lO refer lO a coming ruler. 23 He a1so demonslr.Hes that Num.
10 Ibid.. p. I.H. 21 The Targums in their prcscn! form a rc 1atcr than the New Testament howe\~r. cvidcnoc of wriucn Tnrgums at Qumrnn demonstrates that they repre!ienl traditions current in the lirs.t century c.,. Soc Jos.cp RibcrtL 'The Tnrgum: From Trans.1ation to l ntc rp•~tat ion·. in Tht> Aramak Biblt>: Targums inllwir JliJim'icu/ Ctmll!.\'1 (ed. D. R. G. Denuic and t-.L J. }.·h: N:• m:u·~• : JSOTSup. 166: Shdlldd: JSOT Press. 1994). pp. 118-15 (225}. ~·1. McNnmaru. Thr Ne1r T('.\'fament aml1hr Pat.~stilliUII Targum to tlw Prmcltruch (AnBib. 27..-\; Rome: Biblical lnstiiUte Press. s«>ond printing. with Suppkmcnl containing Additions nnd Corroctions. 1978). p. 160. s uggests that the Turgums · . . . may be wh·n h l represent substanti:llly the liturgicalp::uuphrase of t he New T~tarocnt period. This rendering was at t he \"Cry centre of New Testament Judaism. It \vtiS 1hc manru:r in which the Old Testament c was medi.:11cd to the mass of the kwish people. They hea rd it e\-cry S."lbb:1th and it mes:sag_ would have bocomc part and pared of their mental frame: 11 The Vorlage of 1hc LXX in Num. 24.7. 11 may have differed from the: Hc-br<:w text n'Prcsc:nt~-d in JlHS. Hilwe\·cr. the- use of civ6pcunos in 24.7 docs nppcar to have resulted from the translator making explicit a subjet:tthnl was impli<:it in his Vor!ug-t'. r.ce-Jean lust. ' Septuagint and ,\ ·h'ssi.1nism. with n Special Emphasis on the l,cnwtcuch". in ·n,eologisdw P1·oh/eme dn St•pltJUgintu uml der lu4frtlislisclum Ut•rmenrlllik (ed. H. G. Revc-ndow: GUters1obe: GUtcrslohcr. 1997). pp. 27- 45 (43). In Num. 14.17 Civep6)n05 sttms to be an interpretation of the Hebrew word ~:l~ (sec Lust. 'Septuagint and Messianism'. p. .g mld Geza Vermes. Srript11re liJUI Tradition ill Jutkti.';m: Hugg(l(/f<' Studies (SPB. 4: l cide.n: Brill. 1961]. pp. 59. 159). 2.' Willi:Lm Horbury. 111<: Mcssi:mic Associ:1tions of ··11lc Son of M~m· ' ·. JTS NS 36 (1985). pp. 34---55 (49-50). William Horbury. / elfish Mes:;iani.mttwtiJI:r Cull q{ Cbl'iSI (London: SCM Press. 1998}. fVl.f.,·im. Willi:mt Horbury. Mes.\'iuuism l11t1QIIg Je1n and CbriJtiam· (Edinburgh: T&T Clurk . .2003). pp. 144-51. Sc:c- also Vc.rmes. 1/uggudk Studies. pp. 59-60. 159- 66. For nn opposing vi1.·ws.."C' Lust. 'Septuagint and Messinnism·. p(>. 42-45. and Jean Lust. 'The Grttl: Version of Balanm's Third and Fourth Oracks. The Ov6pwn0:) i n Num 24.7 :.nd 17. Messianism and Lexicography'. in VIII Ctmgrrss oflhr lntrmulifmlll Org((ni:atkmj(IJ' &pwagim uml Cognatt> Stmlh•.s (c:d. L J. Gm:ns poon and Ohic-r "hmnic.h: SBLSCS. 41: Atlanta. GA: Scholars Pn.-ss.. 1995-). pp. 233- S-7. G . W. Buchanan. To the 1/ebl't'll'.\' (AB: New York: DouhiC'dny. 1912). pp. 135-36. makes an unlikely connection
150
A Cloud of Witnesses
24.7 and 17 a re rrequently combined with such texts as Gen. 49.8- 12, Pss. 2. 45 and 110. Zoch. 6.12 and lsa. 11. 1-10 in the lite rature of Second 24 Temple Judaism.
3. Balawn•s Grades in the Lilel'ature of Second Temple Judttism Zechariah 6.12 refers to a man whose name is Sprout (nO::>) who wo nld "sprout" (nl~!!') and build the Temple o f Ya hweh." ·n ,e LXX renders m~!; wilh avaToA~ a nd no~~ with aVanA~l. the same G reek verb that a ppears in Num. 24.17 fo r the star which would a rise o ut of Jacob. Indeed. in t he Jewish G reek scripwres livctTiAAw is o nly used of a n individual in Num. 24.17 and Zech. 6. 12.26 ·n1is is not to s ugge-st that the same translato r is at work in these two texts, but rather that :ln intertextual echo can be heard in the LXX that may not be heard in Hebrew. Moreover. t hese- h\o'O \'erses were :1ssociated together with reference to the Messiah in the early church ? 7 Another etho of Num. 24.1 7 in the LXX is in Pss. Sol. 17.21. 24 where the lord is asked to raise up (avloT~~·) the son of David as their king. ·n 1e Psalm a lso asks the Lord to s trengthen this king so as to shatter unjust rulers in a similar way I hat Ba laa m·s O:v6pwrros would s ha lte r the leader o f Moab. Further evidence of the inl1uence of Ba la:un•s orad es in the literature of Second Temple Judaism is provided by I Eu. 1.2-3, which Nickelsburg demonstra tes is rnodelled upon Num. 24.15-1 7.Ui He comme-n ts that ·even belween Ovepwr.o:; in Num. 2.f..6-7 and Heb. 8.1. The Tnrgums usc a vn ri~·ty of words with connotations in ~·u m . 24.7. 17. including words for king. nxkc:mer and Messiah. Sec: McNamara. Numbt>rs. pp. 137- 3.&. 140. 260-6 1. and Bernard Grossfcld. 1l1e Targum Onqdos 10 Lrn'lirus und tiJP Targum 011qt>los lcJ N'umbn·s t l'h<: .·\ r.un:•ic Bible. 8: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 19SSJ. pp. I36--38 . .H Horbury. Me.uicmi.w1 um(lng ii'II'.T wtd Christimu·. pp. 147- 50. 25 For the: tmnsl.:11ion 'Sprout' sec NALOT. 111. pp. 1033- 34 s.\', iTIJ-:; nnd no::;. 16 Jn Ps.'i. 92.7 (LXX 91.8). Prov. I U S: Isa. 4-1.4 and Ezck. 16.7 Ovcnt~' is used g.~·-ncrically to refer to humans. 27 Lust ref~·rs to Justin. Diol. 106.4 (lust. ·oalaam·s Third ~·nd Fourth Omdcs'. pp. 24142). To this Hcinric.b Schlier. ·Ovcno>.i')'. TDNT. pp. 352- SJ. adds Diu!. IOOA: 111.2: 125.1. Justin uses i}yo.iuet~o-; ratha than Ovepc.•.mos- although l.ust considers the su~gc:stion that this reading originated in the LXX to be simplistic See Lust. 'Bakmm's Third ~ nd Fourth Omdes'. pp. 243-44. 28 George W. E Nickc-lsburg. J ftJtJdl 1: A Comllll.'llfary 011 Jl:r Book tJj J Emx:h. Clwjlll'r., ·l-36: 81- 108 (Hermeneia: .Minneapolis: Fortress. 2001). pp. 131- 39. E. Js:LUe. ' I (Ethiopic Apocalypse. ol) Enoch: A New Trnnslation nnd Introduction·. in OTf. p. 13. considers that d1e allusions arc to Num. 24.3-4. howc\'Cr. given the context of eschatologi('{l! judgement in Ba)anm's fou rth orade and in I fn. 1- 5. it is more 1ikdy lh.'lt the verses arc mode.lkd upon Num. 14.1 5-17. Jnmcs C. VanderK{Inl. f t1tJrl1ami rhr Gmll'tll q{ tiJt' Biblkal TmtlilitJtJ (CBQJ•c1S. 16: Washinglon. DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of Amcrictl. m~'SI>inn i~:
'The Tru<• 1'cnl orhich 1/w Lord Has Pilchcd'
151
if no association with Salaam is intended, the form a nd conte nt o f his o r;.1tles provide ~~ model. . .which this a uthor rnodilles for his purpose'.29 T he LXX tradition of Balaam·s o racles was a pparently known and used by whoever made the Greek transla tion of the introduction to I £noch.JC) Numbers 24.1 7 a ppears in three of the Qumra n Scrolls. In 4Q1 75. Num. 24.1 5- 17 is cited in lines 9- 13. The text is close to the MT. a part from the word C:1P' 1 wrillen a bove ~::lV in line 12.31 ·rhe War Scroll ( IQM) quotes Num. 24.17 in line 11.6 in t he context of a discussion of a n escha tological baule, a nd the Damrw·us Dowment q uotes Num . 24.17 in 7.18-21. Here the text corresponds to the MT, a nd is accompanied by :l pcsher inte rpretation: the sta r is the Interprete r o f the L~1 w who will co me to Da mascus. 32 and the sceptre is the Print'e o f the whole congregation. There appear to be two distinct figures here, the Interprete r o r •he Law, perha ps a priestly ligure. and the Prine" o f the Congregation. with a milil::lry role:33 ·n1e a ppearance of Balaam ·s oracles in t he Qumran sr rolls is evidence that they were a lso the s ubjects of conversation in this branch o f Judaism. T he most t·omprehensive trea tment of Balaam in t he lite rature o r Second Temple Judaism is in Philo. who relates the Ba laam story in his
198-*). pp. 114-18. gi\'c:s more ntensi\-e pnmllds lx:twocn Numbe-rs 14 and I £11. 1.1· 3. See also Ma tth~·w Bktck. and Jomcs C. Vandc.rK~1m . Tlw BtMk of Hr()(/1. or I En()(:h ll'ith Cmtmtt·lltarJ und T(lxltrol NtJtt•s: With (Ill ApJielldix en the A.rtrmwmictrl Clw.pters (71--82 J hy Ouo Nt'llg,•butwr (SVTP. 7~ Lcidcn: Brill. 1985). pp. 103- 105. 29 Niddsburg. I E11tJd1 I. p. 137. 30 VandcrK.t~m muh -s the link with Balaam via the Ammuic fmg,mcnts from Qummn rather than with the Greek text (V;mderKam. Emu-lr. p. 115. n. 25). The Ar~nmic tc:tt of I Enoch is fragmentary at this point ttnd. ap:1rt from the single word .,._.,0, has been reconstructed by ~·c1ilik (J. T. Milik. "ith 1he colbbomtion of Matthew 81ad. nre B11tJks cJ.( £norlr: Aranwic Fmgm(-'llts ofQumni11 Cart• 4JO:tford: Clarendon Prc:ss. 1976). p. 142). ';r-c wrresponds to~ in the MT of Num. 24.15. 7n:: also app.~I'S in Tg. Onq. Num. 14.1 5 and Tg. P.\·.Jo. Num. 14.15. 31 The MT has r:p1. For the tcxl of the scroll and n photograph see J. M. Allegro. 'Funher Me.~an ic References in Qumran Litemture·. JBL 75 ( 1956). pp. 17'*-87 (184). Milgrom lmnsbtts the verbs in Numbers with a present time rcfcrcntt. describing what Bal:wm s~'C~. but also suggcsls that the opening words of Num. 24.17 t1rc •a prophecy for !he distant fu!Ure' (Milgrom. .'~lumbers. 1>9· 206-209). The Heobrew \'erbs in qo~l ion arc dcscrilx-d by Wahke and O'Connor as '(lcrfd('Jiful {'t!r/e Seep/((! am/tile Star: Till! M('.fSi!lh.J(if thr D;,at/ Si>a S(rc/J.s and 01l!er Am'ienl l.•itt'UIIIlre(Kew York: Doubleday. 1995-). pp. Ill- IS nrgue-S for t\\O figures. and Philip R . Davies. Behind tile f.uene.1: J/iswry (md Jd.-'tJiog,r itJ tht' Dead Sm Scwl/.f(IUS. 94: Alkmta. G A: Schobrs Press. 1987). pp. .37- 39 for u single figurt".
152
A Cloud of Witnesses
Li{i! Millnmium (Ess.1ys in Honour of Anthony Gdston: ed. P. J. Horland and C. T. R. Hnrward: VTSup. 77: Lcidcn: Brill. 1999). pp. 19- 36 (32). 37 Borgen. •T HERE SHAll. COME FORTH A MAN'. p. 346. Lus1 atgues that &v&pc.,nos has no messianic connotations in l,.hilo's 1rt:•tmcnt of Babam·s orncks (Lust. '8a1aam's Third and Fourth Omdcs·. pp. :!4~47). 38 Hayward. "O..'llaanf s l'roph~Xics·. p. 32. 39 See M. de Jongc. 'The Tcstam~n ts of the Twdvc Pt111ian:.hs: Chrisli"n and Jewish. A Hundred Years after Friedrich Schnnpp·. in Jnri.\'11 £sdwltJ!tJg_r. Ear~r Clwistian Cllri.\·tul~.~gy und fl/(1 Tesumwtll.f of tkt> Twt-lrt Pturic~rdu: Collc<'letl &:«tys of Marimts de }()nge ((d. H. J. Dc.Jonge: NtwTSup. 63: Lciden: Brill. 1<.191). pp. 233--43 (2·11). where he claims that. 'il is
'The Tru<• 1'cnl orhich 1/w Lord Has Pilchcd'
153
have been made to distinguish between ·sour<.·es. contributions by the
author and later interpolations and additions·.4<• yielding widely dillt!ring resuhs - so much so that Ho llander a nd de Jonge argue that the only viable option is to interpret the Testamt>uts in the fo rm in which they have been preserved. \Vhether the Tesumumls are of Jewish or Christian provenance is not c ritkal for our purposes. T hat they a re Jewish/Christian documents roo ted in the Second Temple period, ~.:ontaining a llusions to and echoes o f the Salaam o racles. is further evidence tha t Num. 24.7. 17 were the subject of speculation by both Christians a nd Jews a t the-time. 'testamtmf ofJudah 24 be~ns with a paraphrase combining the LXX o f Num. 24.7 and 17. using the two \1e rbs CxvarfAAw :md civioTflJ.Jt. as well as the substantives CioTpov and O:v6pwrros. 1' he star is from Jacob as in Num. 24.1 7 and t he man is ~K roV onEp~-taTos athoV as in Num. 24.7. Only here in the Ttsfamelllsis there a reference to the 'man· oCBalaam·s o rades. but the verbs O:vaTE-AAc..> and civiolTJjJI a re widespread. Testament ofSinwon 7.1-3 claims that the salvation of God would a rise (clvar,A.Aw) from Levi and Judah. a nd tha t the Lo rd would arise (civiaTflJ.Jt) out of l evi as a high priest. ~md o ut or Judah as a king: 7'. Let1i 18.3 claims that after the existing priesthood la pses, t he s ta r (aoTpov) or a new priest would arise (O:vaTEAAw) in heaven like a king: T. Dan 5.1 0 announ<.-es tha t the salva tion o f the Lo rd would a rise (ixvcn'iMc.>) out or Judah and Levi; and T. Naph. 8.2 announces that the salvation or Israel wo uld arise (O:vaT,Mw) out o r Juda h: " T he re pe.a ted use or these two verbs with messianic <.~onnotations is significant. as are the references to Levi a nd Judah. As is well known. the relationship of Levi to the hope of salvation is signific·.::mtl~r d ifferent in Hebrews. 42 c-xtrcmd)' difficuh lo find convincing proof for the C"".xistc-nc-c of su<:h a fprc-c.xisting Je-wish) doc.umc-m, nor >lte we in~~ position to de1cnnin~· i t~ contents.·. H. W. HoUander and M . DcJongt'. Thr Tt!.\'tuJ11t'IJU c.!f'll:e Twl'ln~ Patriard1.v: A CcJtlllllf'J11Uf,l' (SVTP. 8: tc-iden: E. J. Brill. 1985). p. 6 7. decline: to dcsc:ribc- the-m
p. 85).
Hollander. Te.slnments. p. 2. In this p:t.ssagc:: Judah nlonc is mentioned ·denrly ben•ur.<: the- passab>c announce-s thecoming of Jesus Christ' (Hollander. Tt>slnltlf!lll.\', p. 317). De Jongc considers that Lc\·i has bee-n removed by !he hand of a redactor (de Jon!,><:. 'Christian lnllucn<:c-'. p. 10CJ). Sec also T. Gall8.1 nnd T. Jo.s. 19.6 both of which menlion Judah and tni In T. Jo.s. 19.6 the subjo:l of the '-crb O:vcniJ..).w is 0 O.IJ\10.; -reV &00. 42 Whether He-brews had any infiuenoc: on the Christian editors of the Tt>Jiamelll.'i is diOicuh to tell. Holland~·r nod de- Jongc note thai T. Sim. 7.2 which 'docs conn«t Je-sus Christ "as u l1ighpric:st" with Le-vi. as it oonn~-cts him with Judnh "as u king" . .. is ~mother way of saying thlll Jesus is a priest. but of nn C'nlirdy diffcrcn! ru1h111.' thnn Ihe- lc\·iticul pries.! hood which will disapf~ r nt his coming· (Hollnndcr. Tt'sWmenl.s. p. 63). Hollander .:md de Jongc also refer to pri(:sthood like Mckhizedck in connection with T. l.i'l'i lU l·IS (Hollander. Te.~umumt:r. p. 154). Dt Jongc sees pos!'ibk in flucn~-e from H<"brcws in T. Re11b. 40 -II
154
A Cloud of Witnesses 4. lmerim Summal'y
·n tis eviden<."e indicates tha t Balaam ·s o racles were the subject o r a n ongoing. conve-rsation in Second Temple Juda ism. with messianic: overto nes. And while only 1-!eb. 8.2 a lludes to the tents of Num. 24.6, several 43 other texts allude to ~r quote Num. 24.7 andfor 17 T he litera ture o f the time usually interprets the 'man· of Numbers 24 messianically. as a king with universal dominion. In parts of the Tesumu:nts of tht! Tm•lw: Pmriarrlls. that may be the resull of Christian interpolation, Levi comes into the picture. a nd ~-t priestly and royal ligure emerges. When the LXX describes the emergent'!! of the ·ma n' of llillaam·s oracles it uses two verbs: civaTI:UCol and civionu.n. Only in Num. 24.1 7 and Zech. 6. 12 is civaTIAAW used of an ind ividual in t he Jewish Greek Sclipture.s. 'AvlOT'liJI is more common. appearing in lsa. 11.1 0 and Jer. 23.5 with reference to the Root (lsa. 11.10) or the Sprout (Jer. 23.5) o f Jesse who would a rise. ~md also in P.tL Sol. 17.21. ·n1ese same verbs are prominent in the t estametll.'i t?f tlu! Twelw! Pmriardts, also with messianic oonnot:llions.
5. Ba/aam 's Oradt•s in /1i!brcws Hays refers lo ' recurrem:e or cluste ring•. that is. repeated referent·es to a biblical passa~.e by a n author, a s o ne c riterio n for detecting the presence of an intertextual echo. Such ' multiple a uestation• as he also t'alls il. is evidence that an author has that passage on his mind.'" T here is eviden<.-e of such clustering in Hebrews with respect to Ba kla m and his o racles. fo r in addition to the allusion to N um. 24.6 in He b. 8.2. Hebrews contains several other et~hoes of this parl of Numbers. First. Hebrews 1.2 sets the eschatological tone o f the book by referring 6.8. and T. Leri 18.3 (de Junge. 'Christinn lnAucnce·. p. 21). Stt de Jonge's brief note on Hcbl'tws in de Jongc. 'l evi in Aramuic l evi nnd in the Testament of l evi'. in Psetukpigrn;~Mr Per.1{'t'('lire.r: The .4porrypho cmd Psrud('('igwplw i11 Lig!lt · 61- 89 (75). On the oth« h:tnd Huhg:ird considc:-rs th:•t the idea of Christ tts a Melchizcdckian priest. and his dcsce.n t from Judah. •does not ngrcc VCI)' W\'IJ with the idea of Levi and Judah from the T~-stnmenls' (And~'rS Huhg.~·mt I. 'p.n-fwtolo.gil! tk!.Y Te.wumeuiJ clrs Drm.:i• Pwriurdli'.~ (fnteprCtation des tex tes~ Acts Uni\'ctsitatis Upsalicnses Historia Rdigionum. 6: Upps..1la: Almq\·ist & Wiksd l. 1977j, I. p. 78. author's translation). 43 Kevin J. Cathcart. 'Numbers 14.17 in Ancient Translations nnd Inte-rpretations·. in Tl:r·lnlerpretuticm of ;Ill' Biblt•: 71w /nlemali011af Sympq:il'um ill Sltmmin (cd. Joi'.C Kmsovcc: Shcfllclcl: Shdlidd Ac~t dem i~~ l>t~'S.-.. 1998). pp. 511- 20 (516- 17) notes that Num. 14.17 is not litcd in the N~·w T~'$tnmcn L but does Mlc: the frequent dist:u!\.<>ion of the: verse in eonnoctjon with the Ma llhc~lll bi11h narmtives. 4-t Hays. C'rmrl'I'Jion tJ[ 11Je /magi1Utlirm. p. 37.
'The Tru<• 1'cnl orhich 1/w Lord Has Pilchcd'
155
to God's htwing. s poken in a Son Err' £-oxO:Tou TC:w hiJEpi)v ToUn:uv. The words , rr. EoxO:Tov Tc:>v n~~pWv appear in the introduction to Balaam"s fou rth oracle in Num. 24.1 4. Secondly. as Sabourin notes, the word rrapa&1y~aTt~c.> in He b. 6.6 (only here in the New l 'estament)" is an echo of N urn. 25.4, where the same word describes t he t reaunent of the leaders o f Is rael who voked themselves to the Baal of Peor'6 ·n , irdly. Salaam's
o wdes are c~nsistently referred to in the MT with the word ?t7~, translated in t he LXX with rrapaj)o>.~'' In the New Testament, a part from the Synoptic Gospels. rrapaj)o>.it only appears in Heb. 9.9 and 11.19. A fou rth t'Cho o f llalaam is found in Heb. 6. 13-20. These verses beg.in with a d iscussion o r God·s oath to Abr.tham after Abrah~1m returned from the Aqedah. Hebrews 6.1 8 refers to God who ca nnot lie> words 17 associated in t he margin NA with Num. 23. 19 where Balaam says ' God is not a human being tha t he s ho uld lie or chang!! his rnin(.r. T he language and vocabulary of f.!eb. 6. 18 is ~uite difTerent from Num. 23. 19 (LXX), but it is not a lways necessary to have pre('ise verbal correspondence to identify an intertextual echo. particularly for a text which is pa rt o r a n ongoing conversation. T he Targums give evidence of such a conversation, IOr when interpreting Balaam·s statement about God·s inability to lie. Tg. P.,.Jo. Num. 23.19 echoes God's promise on oath to Abraham when it says, 'the ~·l aster o r the entire world, the Lord , who says to increase this people as much as the stars o f t he heavens and to let them take posse.ssion of the_land o r the Canaanites. is it possible that he s peaks and does no t do (il)'. 4~ Mo reover. Num. R 20.20 records also in connection with Numbers 23.19, 'f-Ie (God] c'umot turn back o n the oath of the llrs t patriarchs'. ·n 1ese references indkate that o thers in addition to the author of Hebrews made co nnect ions between God"s promise to Abraham a nd Balaam's statement recorded in Num. 23. 19. In Heb. 7.14- 15 the verbs avanMc.> and OVtOT~~I a ppear with refe rence to Jesus. Hebrews 7.14 claims tho.ll Jesus emerged (O:va:"Ti.\.A(;)) from the tribe-of Judah. and 7.15 uses CxvloTrJJll to describe the arrival of a
or
45 no:po&tYJJOTi~(t) also appears in !'\ (lhe original hand and the second n.,'Yis~·r) ~llld sewn. I other wilncs!ieS at MI. 1. 19 (the first reviser of ~ amended d1e texl to bnyuo:Ti<(t), the r~-ading also witnessed in V:uic;1nus.. a nd udopted in NA:'). Jn the LXX no:pa&:1ytJaTi{w nlso appears in Jer. I 3.2.2: Ettk. 28.17: Dan. ·2.5~ Add. Es.th. 14.17: P.\·.o;. StJ!. 2. 12. how<:\'er. only in Num. 25.4 nnd Hcb. 6.6 is the word connccled with the ick:t of a public c: Nttbrmr.s (NIGTC: Grand Rapid.c;: Eer.:lmans.. 1993). pp. 315. 402. 47 Num. 13.7. 18: 24.3. 15.10. l l. 13. 48 McN-onwm. Numhns. p. 157.
156
A Cloud of Witnesses
new priest like Mekhizedek. Lane calls OvaTEA),c..,) 'unusuai',J9 and indeed as a genealogjcal term il is so.so bul gi\'f.!ll the widespread use or these ve-r bs in the- liter~lure of t he Second Temple period a nd their messianic t•onnotations. this sho uld be classified as an intentional allusion to Balaam's orades. bringing with it those connotations.5 1 Something more than genealogy is a t work here. T hese words are a n a llusion to B;-tlaam ·s pred iction about the ·man' who will arise. a nd the interpretation that pred iction in the Second Temple peliod. However. elsewhere in the lite rature these verbs usually have a fut ure orientation. anticip:HinQ. the ad,'e nt of salvation. But in Hebrews 7 bva Ti AAw is in the perrect tense and ixvionu.Jt is in the present. The contribution o r Hebrews to the (.'Otwersation about Balaam 's ontcles is to announce that the 'man· Balaam anticipa ted has indeed arisen, that he is 52 10 be identified ~IS 'oUr Lord '. from the tribe o r Judah. and that he is a priestly 11!;ure like Melthizedek.
or
6. Btt!aam's Oracle in Hebl'ews 8.2 Hebrews 8. 1-2 describes how a High Priest has been ent hroned at the right hand or God, a minister of the s.a.nctuar}' a nd t he t rue tent pitc hed by the l o rd. not a huma n. These verses contain allusions to Ps. 110.1 a nd perha ps 110.4 as well as an echo of Zech. 6.1 3 (LXX)." Zecha riah 6.1 2 refers to the Sprout who would sprout (ixva TiiiJ.<.:>) and build the temple. 49 William lnne. !lt"brt>lf.\' 1-$ (WBC. 47A: D;•llas: Word. 1991). p. 182. NII.:Ov translation of 0:11'0:t'haN.:€v with ·was descended' is uns..-.tisfuctory. See ~1nrtin. C. Alb!. 'Ami Saipture Camwl Be Broli~tJ ·: Th-t> Farm u.tJd Fundion f!l Jlu· Em·/y CIJristiall Tt'stimtmiu Colleclimu (NovTSup. 46: Lcickn: Brill. 1999). pp. 111- 13. 51 H. W. Atuidg~~. Th.- Epi.~J!t> II> thl' J/ehre•f.f t.Hermenci:l: Minn<:apolis: Fortress Press. 1989), p. 201. oonm.-cts O:vo:oU.i.w wit11 Num. 2-*. 17. but downplays its significance. More recently he.s.tutc-s that 1\'um. 14.1 5·1 7 •is nowhere in evidence in Hebrews· tH. W. Attridge. 'How the Scrolls lmpnctcd Scholarship on Hebrews·. in Tile Biblt· u.ml Jht> Orad Sea Scrolls Voluml! J: The &rcllr u.11d C/wiJtiw1 Origitu [cd. J. H. Ch:.rlesworth: Waoo. TX: Baylor University Press. !006J. pp. 103-30 (117)). On the contrary. the numerous allusions. to and echoes of the Balnum story in Hebrews indicnte thnt these two ''erbs should be socn as an intcntiona1 allusion to that story. S« nlso Craig R. Koester. flehn!lf.~: A Nell' Tnmslatiml ' rith bt(l'fKhtflioll u.ml Crllary (AB: r-..'cw York: Doubleday. :OOI). pp. .354- 55. 3i6-7S. Ellingworth.lli!hre•,•.,.• pp. J73. 402. F. F. Bruoc. 771P /~jJb'tle lo tlw 1/t"br('lrs (Gnmd Rapids: Ecrdmnns. rc\'. edn. 1990). p. 165. lane. 1/eb•·t>••·s 1-8. p. 182. 51 The ref~'n'lll"C to tribe of Judah probably echoes Gen. 49.9·10. u tell associated with Numbers 14 in some litcmturc of the period. See Alb!. Ami Sniptur-t> C<11mor br Bwken. pp. 111- 13. 53 For the. allusion lo Ps.. 110.1 ~e aU the major conuncnturies: for Ps. 110.4 sec David A. deSilva. P~·r:u>l't>r
50 The
'The Tru<• 1'cnl orhich 1/w Lord Has Pilchcd'
157
and in verse 13 Yahweh explains to Zecha riah that th is Spro ut will take his seat and rule on the throne with a priest at his right hand. a sta tement tha t is echoed here in the reference to the High Priest at t he ri~ht hand o f the throne of the Majesty in t he heavens.s.t Ba laam·s 'man· who would a rise is still in the frame. mediated here through the words or Zechariah. The echo or Zecha riah suggests t hat the words fro m Num. 24.6 in Heb. 8.2 brought with them the eschalOlogkal (.~Onnotations or BaJa am "s o r;.1tles. and that the author viewed the heavenly tent ;ts t he escha tologica l counterpart of the archetypal Eden sanctua ry and of the wilderness sanctuary tha t Ba laam observed when he deli vered his o racle-. or course, an a rchetypal Eden sanctuary does n
7. Conclusion The cluster of echoes oi Balaarn·s o rades in Hebrews indicates that the author was fa miliar wit h t hese orades. lhe reference to a ministry of the new High Priest in the genuine s.a.ncluary ' pitched by the Lord' suggests tha l he \V~1S also aware o f how these oracles were interpreted in tennS o f an eschalo logi"ll sanctuary. in the LXX and the Targums. This. a nd the widespread allusions to Bala;im in the lite rature and lhe messianic ('onnota tions of these :illUsions, indic-ates tha t Beale is probably right to discern more than just a verba l echo in Heb. 8.2. While it is impossible w say whether the tlrst reade.rs of Hebrews would have made the connection. it does seem tha t l he author understood the lent pitched by the Lo rd to be the est·hatolog.ical dwelling plat~ or God with his people, foreshadowed in Eden, seen by Balaam in his visi<m, and now come into the present with the exaltatio n of Jesus t he High Priest to t he right hand o r God.
54 Jor.:e G. 0..-.ldwin. Haggai. Zt•rlwiuh, M(l/m·hi: An lmrotlut·tion a11d ('unmwntm)· (Le:icestcJ: J\'P. 1972}. p. 136. notes th.ot the: MT at z~-ch. 6.1.3 has the high p-riest enthroned (1:to:~-t,:.~). a comment ·so unusual ~•s to make !he 1LXX) translator hesitate". :and substitute "'"on his right h:•nd"' for ··on his throne· ... Da,•id L. l,c:tersc.n. Haggai a11d b clum"ab 1-8: A Commt•flurry !London: SCM Pre.ss. 1985). PI>. !76-78. n:ads this pcric.opc in L.."Chmiah in connection with the oonAic.t between secular and s<:~cred au thori ti~-s in post-exilic Judah.
C hapter I 3
PISTIS AND .EMUNAH: TH ~ NAT U RE 0~ FAITH I N T HE EPISTLE TO THE H EBREWS
Dennis R. lindsay
I, Introduction
or
T !te uniq ue way that the author Hebrews employs the s ubstantive lTIOTI) has :tllr.tCK->d a good deal of schol;u}y attention in re<.~e nt yettrs. especially in the wake of Erich Grasser's provocative monograph. Dl!r Gltmbe im Hi!briiubri~(, published in I965. 1 Griisser cle-• rly is not the llrst to Show interest in the cOnt'ept of f~lith in this epistle, 3S thiS is a topk regularly addressed in commenta ries on Hebrews. in New Testament theologies, and in ded icated \\'orks on the concept of fa it h in the New Testamenl.2 ·n1ere tends, however. to be a lack o rintense scholarly debate surro unding: fa ith in Hebrews prior to Or~isse r"s work. ·n1is is perhaps eviden<.-ed most dearly by R. Buhrnann·s neglett of any dedica ted treatment of fa it h terminology in Hebrews in his definitive a rlicle on monUCo:l in the. Tlu~ologi<·a/ Dictionar r uft!re New TesUmll!lll.3 Bulllnann·s primary references to nloTIS, mon~w in Hebrews appear in the context of ·Genera l Christian Usag.e'.4 T his latent assumption Lhat t he Hebrewf use of nloTI5 is by and large oonsistent with general Christian usage is the target of G rasser's t:hallenge and the foco.ll point of the ensuing debate. Reducing 11tith in Hebrews to a purely ethical t::ll~gory (i.e., 'steadf;tstness"). Gr~isser C-Oncludes tha t the author"s use o f mons is, in fact, not c haracteristic of gener.tl Christian the word group e lsewhere in lhe usage. It lat:ks :my anlnity to the use New Testament and it lacks anv Christolmdcal sic,niticance. T hat there ens ued a heallhy. sometimes he<~ted debate ..on this.. topic is no s urprise.5
or
I Eric:.h Gr:isscr. Dt•r G/uu~' im 1/C'b•·ffl>•·hriif(Marburg: N. G. Elwcrl Verlag. 1965). 1 E.g.. Adolf Schlallcr. De~r Glaubto im Nmum Tr..stanwm (Sluttgan: Oalwcr Verlag. 6th c:dn. 1927 =- 19S2J. 3 Rudolf Bultnwnn. ·mon:Ut.J KTA'. TDNT VI. pp. I H -118. 4 Ibid.• pp. 105-208. S Important conlributions to the de hale include: Ouo Bcu. •Fimmcss in Faith: Hebrc'vs 11.1 and l!-.1iah 28.16'. Je:m.~: Drr Nnr der KiuhdTobingc:n: J. C. B. tvlohr. 1990). pp. 425-
Pistis and 'Emunah
159
But even those who a rgue most strongly against G rtisser·s analysis a re compelled to con<.-ede tha t, a t least on the surface. the- use o r rrions in Hebrews is no t identica l with the use or the word elsewhe re in the New Testament.6 This distin<.~tion is punctuated even further by James Thompson who notes t hat 'the view of fai th in Hebrews cannot be equated wilh that of any source known to us·. 7 Thompson concludes fu rther: ' Hebrews obviously gi\'es nloTI5 a n important role unpantlleled in Greek philosophy. T hus it \Vould be. a mistake to equate Hebrews" view with that o r any extant literat ure:I!Still. t he language o f la it h and fai thrulness a ppears unmistakably to be a prominent t~omponent or the theological orientation of Hebrews. The theological a nd Christolog.kal signilic-nnce or this tenninolog.y presents ilselr especiaJiy in the adjective moTOs with reference-S to God as a ·f:,ithful' promise keeper (10.23: I I. I I} and with the designation of Christ as a fa ithful High Priest (2.1 7: cf. 3.2). But we a lso find Jesus portrayed as the piOneer and perfe<:te r o r ' lliith' in 12.2 Where t he substa ntive rrioTI5 appe-a rs - the only instance in the epistle where the s ubstantive is explicilly employed with reference to Jesus. Even more striking, o r <.'ourse, is lhe ' by faith ' refrain (dative, nlon:l) ol\:hapler I I that acromp;-mies the rehearsal of the fai thful feats o r pa tria rchs, matria rchs, heroes, :lnd ma rtyrs throughout the history of God's people. Rhetorically posing t he question whether the Hebrev.:s a uthor simpl)' tould have f"or~ollen (or ig.nored) the rich theological. Christologic-;d. soteriological implications ·of fa it h as o iTered by Jesus and proclaimed in the Gospel', Ono Betz quips: 1 ' hat would have been stran~e. indeed.'9 T his leads us to e nquire as to what precedent the a uthor of Hebrews fo llows when employing faith lang.uage. Further, how does lhis info rm a theology of faith in lhe epistle. a nd what a re t he Christological Gl·rhnrd Daulzc.nbc:rg. · o~r Glaubc im Hcbr~crbrier . IJZ 17 ( 1963). pp. 161- 77: Dennis Hamm. · F~ith in the Epistle h., the Hebrews: The ksus F:Ktor'. CBQ 52 ( 19'J0). pp. 170- 91: G~rd Schunnck. ' E:\:cgetische lkobachlUng~·n zum Vc-tstiindnis des Gbubc:ns im Hebr.ierbricf: c-ine kri1ischc Anfmgc·. Te.\·t und Gr.sd1id1tt': Focetli!ll lfwol<~gi.srllen 46~
ems dN11 f.i-t•tuulr.s- tmd Srlliilrrkn>i.s: Dieter Liihmuum :um 60. GeburJJiag N. G . Elwtrl Verlag. 1999). pp. 208-31~ James W. Thompson. Tile BegitmiJrgs tJf Christilm Pllilosophy: The l:jJistlt' ltJ 1/le H.·brt>lf:t (Washington. DC: The Catholic Biblicul Association of Amc:riea. 1982): Victor Rhtt. Failfl in Jleb•·ewJ: A11a~rJis ' filhilllhe C()t/lt'.\·t t1[ ChristtJfogy. E.w·hattJiogy uml Ethic• (New York: Pctc.r U•ng. 2001): Rom1ld Wil!iumson. PlliltJ ((lltl tlw £pi.sllt' m lf1e lfl>hreb·.~ ( leidcn: E. J. BrilL 1970). ArbeiJm.r
(M~uburg :
6 E.g .• Rh«. Fuitll. argues liS cm1y as his 1n!roduetlon (p. v) and lhroug.hout his book for a thoroughlr C hristian (nod Christologicul!) understanding of failh in Hebrews. in spite of t he fact thnt usage by the Hcbrcw·s author is unique from the usage t hat apJ>eats in P<•ul ~nd in other New Tcsltlm<:nt authors. 7 Thompson. lkginnings qf Christian Philo.raphy. p. 79. 8 Ibid.. p. 80. 9 lktz. ·Firmness of Faith., p. +W.
160
A Cloud of Witnesses
ramifications'? This essay explores potential sources for the way the
Hebrews au thor employs. fai th language. V!/e shall look in particular at the use of n ions as l~iith terminoloQv in Philo of Alexandria and in the writings or flwius Josephus. We Shall pay altention lO the affinity of the use of 1~-tith terminology elsewhe.re in the G reek scriptures (Septuagint and New Testament). as well as to the related concept of 'r:munah as il appears in the Hebrew Scriptures.
2. Pistis
in
lhP
Hebrews Epi:ule
A quick s urvey of the occurrences of rrloT15 and its cognate fonns in Hebrews yields the following o bservatio ns. T he substantive rrlons itself occurs 32 times in Hebrews. with precisely 75% or these occurrences falling in chapte r II. Within c hapte r I I. the rath~r unique 'by failh . . : formula. represented by the anart hrous dative mont. at'counts for 18 inst~tnces. precisely 75% of the 0<..-currences in chapter 11 itself. 'This particular use of the dative rriont, which I consider svnonymous with the oonstruttion Oui Tils- rrloTEL:>5 (11.33. 39: cf. 6.12).1(1' is relatively r~tre in 1he G reek canon oulside o f Hebrews (cf. Rom. 3.28; AciS 26.18), which makes t he 18 occurrences here are ~til t he more striking. Clearly, the autho r"s underst~mdi ng of rrloTI5 as used elsewhere-in lhe epistle tlnds lts fu ll expre-ssion in this cha pter and in this rel:llively unique and s pecific use of the word. The verb moT,uc.:> occurs only 1wice in lhe Hebrews epislle (4.3; 11.6). Both o r these instant·e.s show juxtaposition of the verb with the substantive rriOTtS' so that terms must likely be viewed as mutua lly defining. fn the first instance. t he aorist participle oi mOT,Uoavns fwe who have believed') is presented in tontr.t.st to t he failure to bring 11tith into the mix wit h lhe things that are heard. In 11.6 rnoTEUnv has almost a creeda l sense where x(..)pis rriOTE(..)5 is counte red by mOTrUoat OEI. A pout from the use of the subst~lntive in Heb. 12.2. which explicitly links rrtOTtS lo the person of Jesus. lhe adjective moT05 <x.·curs Jive times in the epistle with more overt theologic;.d and/o r ChristologicaJ implica tions. In 2. 17 Jesus is the fai thful High Priest with reg.trd to the things or God - a likely reference lo I Sam. 2.35. In Heb. 3.2, 5 Jesus. like Moses. is faithful in 1he whole house orGod . God lhe promise,giver is also referred lo as moTO; in 10.23 and I I. I I. T hese two referen"'s display clearly thai rriOTt) o n the-part of men and women is rooted in t he faithful mtture of God . The only other t~ognate form o r rrlons in Hebrews is the s ubstantive 10 Note also that the expression xeupi:; . .. ffiOTt(.)S in 11.6 c.xpn:s.o;cs the direct opposite or whtH is ml'tlllt by the dntive niom.
Pistis and ' Emunah
161
cimOTia in 3.1 2. 19. In the fi rs t ins tance the genitive
or
towards a postasy. In the se<:o nd insta nce the Hebrews autho r charges that il is 'On account or unfa ithfulness· (0t. cimOTiav) that the apoStatelsraelites were una ble to e nter into God 's rest.
3. Pistis in Philo and Hebrews Because t he He brews a utho r a ppe'.lrS - especia lly in Heb. 11.1-3 - w present a defin itio n of fa ith mo re in Greek philosophical la nguage, some scho larS have attempted to loca te in Philo of Alexa ndria the antecedent understanding of fa ith. On the su rfa<.~. this seems logica l. lb r Philo is fond of s peaking o r rrloTtS in lofty, pra iseworthy terms. For example: Faith in God. then is the one sun: und infallible. good. co nsolation of tire. fulli llmc-nt of bri£hl hopes. dearth of ills. harvest of goods. inacquaintancc- with misery. acq uaintance with piely. he-ritage of happ iness. all round bc:Hc-rmcnt of the soul. . .11 4
11
Elsewhere Philo rders to rrloTtS' as the 'surest and most certa in q ua lity". ' the mos t perfect of the vin ues', u ' the q ueen of the virtues· _IJ Faith that is directed toward God (i) rrpOs 6£0v nlons) is a c.:o nc·ept t hat occ urs re-gula rly in Philo. a nd this contldetu:e o r trust in God is o ne n quaJitled by the adjective ~f~a to; ('finn, steadlllSl. s ure} 1 ~ Indeed . G riisser regards the adjectives f'it3a tos and mOTe); as virtually synonymous in Philo. 16 a s tep that a llows him to identify rrions - in Philo. a nd s ubsequently in Hebrews - as the mere ethk al q ua lity of ste-.tdfast ness. For Philo. as lb r the a utho r of Hebrews, Abraham is a prominent exemplar of fa ith in G od . Commenting on Gen. 12.1 and 15_6, Philo refers to the fa ith of A braham as a testimony to ' the trus t which the soul reposed in God. exhibiting its thankfulness not as called out by acc.omplished fac ts, but by expectation of what was to be·. In language very similar to Hebrews I I. Philo continues: For lhc so ul. c-linging in ullcr dc(X'ndtmcc o n a good hope. a nd d<.-em ing thal lhings not present arc beyond que-stion ulrcady prcscnl by reason of II Ahr. 268. Cf. lknnis R. l indsny. hJJeJt/ur.~ tmd Fm-,/1: nians & IT1(]Tflitr11 ru Failh Tt-rminoltJg_y i11tlw Writi11gs tif Havill.\' Jo.rt
A Cloud of Witnesses
162
the sure steadfastness of Him lim I promist:d them. has won ns its meed fai th. a perfect g.ood. ''
Phil~ als~ uses the a~e<·!ive .mOT05_with r~lerente lO. A?raha m i~ his relatwnsh1p to God 1 L1kew•se. Ph1lo applies the adJecllve ffiOT05 lo Moses, t he 'faithful witness' , 19 perhaps follow ing the same tradition of Num. 12.7 as does the author o r Hebrews (3.2. 5). H owever. fo r a ll the similarity o f verbia~e. it would be a mista ke to equate the concept ol la ith in ·Hebrews \lith Philo·s understanding of faith. In his examina tio n of the use of nloT1S' in Hebrews 10- 11. ·n 10mpson highlights the simila r features between Hebrews a nd Philo. particularly wilh their common emphases upon the conc:ept of ·sojourning· and the orien tation of faith toward a n invisible re-.tlily.20 T ho ugh he co ncludes that the Hebrews author 'shares with Philo the use o f the Plato nic epistemologka l ca tegories to describe fa ith·, he a lso notes that there are im po rtant d ifferences between Philo and Hebrews.21 One important illustr.ttion of these differences is Hebrews· undersHmding of faith as hope, in t he expectation of a lina l eschatological event. T hompson notes that, a lthough Philo a lso employs the ide-a o f hope (£Arri5) a longside faith terminology. 'EArrls in Hebrews presupposes a view o r t he fut ure which would have been unact-eptable to Philo'.2~ Indeed, as Willia mson notes: T here is virlually no eschatology in l,hilo and th t~refo rc no csd mto lu-gieal fai th. Faith for the Writer of Hebrews involves a re-s ponse to the 'last things· that have invaded the present: fo r llhilo there nrc no ·last things· and for him. therefore-. faith cannot consist in u response to t h em. ~"
T his escha to logical element flags up further d ifferences between rrions in Philo and Hebrews, as I have pointed o ut elsewhere.14 With the a bsent-.e of an y eschatological expectation, ll-tith fo r Philo must prove its worth in the present life. th:H is, in the 'consolation of life, full111ment of bright hopes. dearth of ills, harvest of goods. inacquainlance with misery. acquaintance with piety, herita,ge or happiness, all-round betterment of the sour. :!} T his ' utilita rian· 13it h - a fait h t ha t serves to e nsure t he good life - is precisely the opposite or t he fa ith described in Hebrews II . where 17 Migr. Ahr. 43- H.
18 19 20 11 11 23 24 25
Po.m·•·. C.IH. Sarr. 17. Thompson. Cllri.wim• P!Jilas<Jpil.v. pp. 61- 79. lbitl.• p. 79. /hill.• p. 73. Williamson. Phii<J. p. 312. See Lind~1 y. Jd.~i•plm.~·. PI>. 69- 71. Abr. 268.
Pistis and 'Emunah
163
fa ith is assoc.iated rather with sull't>ring. a nd ha rdship. 16 In the context o r Hebrews I I. fail h is t he starting point. the prerequisite fOr the proper rela tionship to God> not the goal, prize. or reward as in Philo. 27 As Betz o nce suggested to me. fa ith in Philo is 'ki!in GJaube, smu/em Aberglaubi!• a sort o f sophistk.ated. intellectual 'supcr:uitiou·. which bears liu le. i f any, resem blam.-.e to the concept of fa ith we find in Hebrews.2lS
4. Pistis in Josephus cmd Hebrrws Josephus· overa ll use of f'a ith tenninolog.y bears even less resembla nce w the concept of !1tith in the New Testament in genera l o r to the concept o r fa ith in Hebrews in particular, nor am I aware or a nyone who has ever advoca ted any simila rity between rrl0T15 in Josephus and Hebrews. Nonetheless. my earlier engagement with faith terminology in Josephus and the New Testament compels me to address this possible relationship a t least in passing. One interesting observation lies in Josephus· linking or rrioTtS wit h the person of Moses.29 In fact. Moses is really the o nly persona~.e rrom the Hebrew Bible who factors into Josephus· concept and use o f rrion5 . The fa ith or Abraham - explicit in the text of Genesis and prominent in Philo a nd in t he New Te.stament - plays virtually no role in Josephus· use of nioTlS o r TTIOT,U, tv.34• T his belies Josephus' (primarily non-reli~ous) use and understandin!; of the te rminology. On t he s urface we observe that both Josephus a nd the Hebrews author understands Moses as. in some way, exemplary of rrlons-. Though in very dillerent ways. both Joseph\1s and Hebrews connects rrlOTI5 wit h t he birth of Moses (Alii. 2.218: Heb. 11.23). For Josephus Moses' birth provided ·f~-tith' in t he thin~ that were foretold by God , t hat is, his birth was a sort of divine 'pledge·, 'deposit', o r ' proof - all common understandings or rrioTtS in Josephus. 'T his is not a t all the sense of fa ith in Hebrews I I. More significant is Josephus· understand ing of Moses as a source or provider of fa it h. Fait h in this context is not a relat ional term (ra ith or !rust in God). but refers s imply to the content oft he Mosaic fa it h system (belief abolll God). Within a limited t:ontext in Colllm Apionem the n eed a} fo rmul;-t ~ rr~p·t a,oU rrloTIS appears with reference to !\,loses· role as lawgiver. I 11 .-Jpion 2.1 63 Josephus rerers {O l\•1oses as the 'discove.rer of the
Lindsay. )osrJIIIIIs. pp. 60-61. 17 IbM.. p. 69. 28 Ibid.. p~l. 7G-71. Belz's assessment mtty be somcwhnt C-X.:tgj!cr,ltcd. bul it is nonethdcSi dcnr d~at nio-ns hns a mul~h dilfcrcnl application for Philo than it doc:s ror the nuthor of Hcbn:ws. 19 Ibid.. p. 90. 30 Ibid.. pp. 10 7- 108. 16
164
A Cloud of Witnesses
most correct fai th about God';3 1 later in 2.169 he identifies Moses furt her as the ' implante r of the fait h about God'. 32 ·n ,e c loser equivalent of Josephus· understanding of nlons in this contex:l wo·uJd be the Hebrews autho r's u~ of ~oAoyla in 3.1, where Jesus is assigned the dual distinction as 'apostle and High Priest of our ('onfession·. Within the structure of t he Hebrews. epistle. this dual distinction is d early pa.rallel to th.e dual d istinction o r Jesus in 12.2 as the ' pioneer and perfecter of TTIOTI) .
It would be tl stretch to sugg.e.st any son of co nnection between Moses as 'discoverer and implanter of
!~lith·
in Josephus and Jesus as ' pioneer and
perJOCter of f~-ti th' in Heb. 12.2. but the contrast between the two concepts of nlith represented here in Josephus and Hebrews is lnstrU<:tive. Indeed. if \\o'e le-.m t anything at a ll aboul nions in Hebrews by C-Omparison with niOTI5 in Josephus> it is Lhat fai th in the Hebrews epist le has very lillie in common with the thoroughly He llenized use of lTIOTI5 Lh3l we find in Josephus· writings - even in those rela tively few inslantes where Josephus employs t he le rrn in a religious (non-secular) sense. A further instructive o bservation tha l we may be a ble to !!.lean from a compa rison of rrloTI5 in Josephus and Hebre\\;S - and perh...a ps more so from the same compa rison in Philo and Hebrews - is that the- use of similar verbiage surro unding the use of nlons does not force the (.'X>nclusion that these aut hors share t he same understanding o f faith. Could nol lhe converse of lhis also be the co.1se'? l f it is true Lh:ll Hebrews employs nions in ways thal are d istinct from verbiage fo und elsewhere-in the New Testament, does t his fo r<.-e the conclusion that 'it would be a mist;-tke Lo equate Hebrews' view !of l~ii thJ with Lhal of any extant litera lure'?33 Or> more specifically. does the lack phrases such as '1~-tith in Jesus Christ" o r 'trusl in Jesus· in Hebrews dictate the conclusion tha t faith in Hebrews has no Chris LOiogical, Soleriologital o rientation ~md lhus no parallel in the Pauli ne concepl of faith'?3 .s On the o ther hand> if we wish to a r!;ue that the con('epl of failh in Hebrews is indeed consistent with that of Paul and the rest of the New Testament aut hors. how can this be demonstra ted. given the lack or parallel usage a nd explicit verbiag.e?
or
5. Pistis in tl Biblical Theological Perspective Rhee seeks to answer this question based on the inlerna l evidence from Hebrews itself. His '<:areful and extensh'e examination of t he major passages of Hebrews· and the a ltema ling structure of doctrine a nd 31 Ujs OtKcuoTciTrw m:pl Eh:oV rrionws £mtvxwv. 32 niv mpl £1£oii rrioTtv ivi~otv.. . 33 Thompson. Cllristian J'hiJ(J.'itJJtily. p. 80. J.l C(. Rhoc:'s argumcnl throughoul F"illr.
Pistis and ' Emunah
165
pareneses wilhin the epistle, he cond udes. sufficiently demo nst rates bo th the eschato logical nature and the ChrislOlogical mo tivation o f fai th in Hebrews. so t hat ' the ctmrept o f fa it h in Hebrews is not sig nillc~mtly dilfe rent from eit her t he unreflective Synoptic o r the reilective Pa uline usag.e' .35 Wha t Rhee has gone to great pains to prove with his internal a rgument. however. might be just as convincingly demonstrated via a no ther route. that is. in the light of a broader cano nical context. Betz signals t his d irection when he notes Hebrews· use of H ab. 2.4 (a passage. Bet:t. a rgues. tha t also is key to fa ith's Christologic:a l nature in Paul. the Synoptics, and even John) a nd asks rheto rically whether the Hebrews a uthor could have 'forgotten t he life-~jvine,. saving, power o f faith as offered by Jesus a nd proclaimed in the gospel'.·~ In other words. ir the New Testament authors in genera l. and t he Hebrews author in particula r, a ll d raw upon a common set o r l~iith texts in the Hebrew scriptures to support their use o r rrioTtS (and 1ltOT£UEtv). now in a decidedly Christian context . ('iln t he respective concepts of faith represented by these respective :tu thors be so rad ically dillerent fro m o ne a nother'} T his. of course. assumes the a uthor of Hebrews in 1~-tct does d ra w upon the concept of {~-tith in the Hebrew scriptures - rather, t he Septuagint - as he presents t he t·o ncept in this epistle. But is there a ny evidence for this :1ssumption'? Let me offer here a couple o r general considera tions before mO\'ing to a more detailed d iscussion. First, it is sufficientl}' clear tha t the Septuagint functio ns as the Bible for the aut hor o f Hebrews. All or the autho r's q uotations from the Jewish scriptures renect this texttr.tdition, as do most or the illleged Semitisms in the language of' the epistle:H Second, as I have argued elsewhere, the Septuagint tra nslation of the- Hebrew scriptures represents a major. signi11cunt step in the development o r the use a nd understanding o r the rrloT1S word group as 1~-tith tenni nolo~y by identirying. these G reek words with the Hebrew 'anum root T his i<-kntification o f TTI0 1'- with '(llm111 is a d c.\'d o pme nt t ha t is unpa rnllclcd i n t he st.-cui a r G rt.x~k (usag.el of this time: it is a d evelopment which a llows for fu rther development in (the stunc-1 di rection: and it is a dcvdopmcnt which stands as t he bnsis for t he- proper understanding_of the niOT· group ns faith tc-nninology in the New Tcslamc:nt:~~
35 Rhce, Puitl!. pp. 252- 53. 36 lko:. ' Finnncs..; of Faith'. p. -'44. 37 Soc:. e.g., Bnrnab.1s Lindars. Tire 7JwtJiogy tJf lht! LeiM M tile Jlelm.m'.\' (Cmnbridgl!': Cambridge Uni\'c.rsity Pn:ss. 1991]. pp. 21- 2:?. 38 Dl' nnis R. Lindsay. 'The Rools and J:k\'Ciopmenl of the- tHOT· Word Group ns Faith Terminology'. Ntw Te.\·tumml Tt•xt ({JUI Ltmguug~: A Slu1Jield Re((der (cds Stanley E. Parter and Craig A. Ewms: Shcffidd: Shcffl.dd Acad ~:mic Press. 1997). pp. 176- 1.>0(190). Cf. Dieter Lohrmnnn. · Pi.~ll'• im Judcntum'. ZNW 64 t 1973}. pp. 19- 38.
166
A Cloud of Witnesses
On the surf~lce it might lirst a ppear that Hebrews is an exception to the rule. Consider. fOr example. t he unique way th;H Hebrews employs the
noun niOTIS' in Hebrews 11, or the g.laring absence of faith terminology in
or
the Jewish scriptures with respect to t he majority the scriptural personalities mentioned in this cha pte r. A~ai nst this. however. I would a rgue that Hebrews' use of the moT- words as ll-tith terminology represents that further ·s.a.me direction· development lOr which the Septuagint ho.1d pa ved the way. a nd there is more here than what initially meets the eve.
The autl;or's use
or t he adjective rrtoTOs. as noted a bove. displays :l
d ear link with Septu;.tg.i nt usage. God's reliability as :l faithful pro mise keeper (Heb. 10.23: 11.11) is paralleL lor exam ple, lo God lhe fa ithful oovenanl keeper (Deul. 7.9) o r lo lhe Lord who is fa ithful in his words (LXX Ps. 144.13) 39 Numbers 12.7 appears as a d irect quota tio n in Heb. 3.5 v.·ilh re-ference lo Jesus. who. like ~·loses. was 'faithful in all God 's house (v. 2). Hebrews 2.17 also refers to Jesus as a 'faithful High Priest' (cC I Sa m . 2.35) who elli."Clively 'makes a sacrifice of a tonement fo r lhe sins of lhe people'. Surely these explicit references to Jesus as a fa ithful servant of God - and especially as fa ithful in his life-giving. s.ah1ifk role as High Priest - cannot be igno red when. in He b. 12.2, we e ncounter Jesus as the pioneer and perfecter of rr!OTI).J() Though t he verb rnonUw does not play a major role in Hebrews, the co ntrast between the participle oi rnoT£Voavns ('we who have believed') in 4.3 and the lack of rrloTIS toward the ·word of hearing· (i.e .. 'the message they heard'; 0 AOyoS' TR5 ciKoRs) in the ve-r se immediately preceding. may be signHk ant. The use of ciKo~ in this context is especia lly interesting. Elsewhere in the New Testament there appears lo be a lechni'"il use or l his no un lhal is shaped by the Septuagint o f Isaiah particularly lsa. 6.9 (cited in Yil. 13.14: Acts 28.1 6: cf. Mk 4. 12: Lk . 8.10: Rom. I 1.8). Hut Isaiah a lso employs t he lerrn two further times in the OOnlexl o r chapters 52- 53. In lsa. 52.7 lhe reference is lo ' the feel o f lhe 41 one who declares as gospel the message (~f peace'. T hus, cixo~ in the Sep tuagint has a direct connection wlth the lsaiank 'gospeL ·n tis is even more s ignificant for the use of ciKoij in 53. 1: KtiptE, Tls f rnoTU"oEv Tfi ciKo~ ~llc:)v. Both of t he.se passages a re <·enlral to Paurs argument and his use of fa ith terminology in Romans 10 (see especially vv. 15-16.) lsa. 53.1 is 39 The: ndjoctivc: faithful t i S nn l'J)ith~~~ for God nlso ttp-pc:ars in Pttu1 (e.g.. I Cor. 1.9: 10. 1J:! Cor. 1. 18: I Th~. 5-.24: 2 Thcss. 3.3) and elsewhere in the Nc:w Testament ft-.g.. I Jn 1.9: Rl-v. 1.5) .
.W The pammc:lc:rs of the present in"t:stigution do not allow me to c:tplore the rebtionship bctwttn Hebrl.'ws' undi.'I'Stunding of Jesus
Pistis and 'Emunah
167
fu rther quoted in Jn 12.38. vvhith interprets Isa. 53. 1 in light of the context o rlsa. 6.10 (cf. Jn 11.40). It seems very likely that the author of Hebrews a lso draws upon the langu:tg.e - and t he theology - of Isaiah 52- 53 when here in 4.2-3 he links 0 AOyos T~5 cixoRs- with both the noun rrloTI5 and the verb m ou-Uw. Given the- si~niHcance or Jsaiah·s understand ina o r ciKo~ as. in effect. the equivalent Of rUayyiAIOV, 42 the Christological rbcus of rrloTt5 in Hebrews should not be underestimated. \Vith regard to the more unusual language that the Hebrews author employs to de-scribe n!OTt5 a t the outset of chapter I I, Betzchallengesthe. view of G rasser and others who 'emphasize the Hellenistic character o r both the form and conte nt of Heb. I I. I':" He calls into question the traditional interp retations of UrrOcrraots and EAEYXOS in l his verse that lean toward the thought world or Hellenism and proposes instead that this verse is best understood in the light of lsa. 28.16 and the conc~pt o f '1\rmnes.s or fai th' that is represented in that passage and echoed throughout the New Test::tment. l do not wish to rehearse Betfs a rgument in detail> but the methodology he employs in comparing Heb. I I. I and ls.a. 28.16 is worth notlng here. 'A lthough it gtves the impression or a philosophi"tl definition belonging to the thoug.ht.world o f the G reeks. Betz contends. the t;tmous sentence or Heb. I I. I ' has the form o f a Hebrew para/Jl'lismus mrmbrorum. consisting o r two nominal clauses·..w Bet£ locates other examples in the Hebrew scriptures - primarily in the Wisdom litera ture - where such nominal sente nces of definition-like character a lso appear. But these a re not mere dellnitions. Rat her 'they must a lso be understood as utteran<.'.fs of confession. praise, a nd exaltation: they are intended to exlol their subject to make it attractivefo r others'.45 ln lsa. 28.1 6 and Hab. 2.4 ' ll-tith' (in contrast to 'wisdom· or 'piety" in the Wisdom literature) is praised in brief verbal clauses. Hebrews I I. I. according to Betz, represents. the same kind o r po.1ttern of confession and hymnk praise. While the txmnection with Hab. 2.4 is clear fro m the \'erses immediately pret'.fding He b. 11.1 , the verbal connection with Isa . 28. 16 is Jes.s readily apparent. lletz explains as follows: Pa ul in I Cor. 13.13 dearly alludes to Jsa. 7.9: ·Jf you d o not believe-. you will not abi-de'. bringing the ~· dmonil i on of lhc prophet to n mol"C' general .md ab..;tru<:t asscrlion o f p rnisc. So the :tu thor o r Hebrews has compresS<.xl the verbal statement in lsu. 18.16 into an :•dmiruble. brief ~2 lktz h.us noted that 1he Tnrgum of lsa. 53.1 literally re;1ds ·who h:1s hdil"\'Cd our goJpi't : 1hus he: nmintains that the first Christians found in this te:u both the nnmc ' Gospc1' and the rotl ft>tll of thjs g.o spcl. as wdl us their undc.rstnnding of •faith·. Sec my reference to lktz's comrncnts on this topic in Lindsay. JtJ.W'Jiillls. pp..33. 179- 80. 43 lktz. 'Finnncs..; in Faith'. p. 425. 44 Ibid.. p. 434. 45 Ibid.
168
A Cloud of Witnesses a nd definition-like nominal sentence. describing a nd extolling the nature of l~1 i th. That the author o f Hebrews ~-ould d raw a gcm: rnl. ddinition· likt: const:quencc from a saying in the O ld Testament is shown in I 0.3839 . .. From Htlb. 1.4:1 in the Septuagint. which d iscloses the na ture o f unbelief in tcm1s of 'shrinkin£ bad:· ([civ Urroonl"llTO:l 10.3H). he derived a kind of confession (10.39) in which he US(.'S the no un UrrootoA~ u.s lhe opposite o f UrrOoro:ots: he ulso showed the eschatological conseque nce of both fi rm fuit h a nd fa iling faith. Dy a similar prot.x-:dul\' He b. 11. 1 came into existence. T here the oracle Isa. 28. 16 was the basic tc.xt: even the nouns UrrOoraots a nd fA~yxos were suggested by it."""'
Betz continues then to provide ;,~ detailed ex~lana tion of how l he Isaiah p~1ss.age suggests the language o( Heb. 11. 1. 4 Re-gardless of whether o ne f1nds his explana tion ultimately satisfying. it must be conceded that Bet.z. offers a viable a lternative fo r interpreting the fo rm of Heb. I I. I. ~·loreover. he establishes d early the signiltGmce of the Hab. 2.4 passag_ e as a basis for whatever it is th;il Heb. l Ll wants to communicate about the nature of fait h.
6. Pistis tmd 'Emunah in H ebrea\'s But there is more to say a bo ut the significance of Hab. 2.4 and the concept of faith in Hebrews. As I have proposed else,~;·here-.4g the Septuagint reading or Hab. 2.4 explicitly understands rrioTtS' in terms o r the Hebrew ·(mWtwh - and it is one or the few. but key. Old Testament passages to do so. Ha bakkuk 2.4 is also integral to Paurs underst~mding of fa ith, as we see in Rom. 1.17 a nd Gal. 3.1 I. Betz suggests that the influence o f Hab. 2.4 extends even furt her to passages in John and to the synoptic sayings or Jesus: 'Your faith h;-ts saved you'.49 Together wit h the Christo logical antrma tio n of Heb. 12.2, with Jesus as the ' pioneer and perfecter o f rrians'. Ha b. 2.4 (quoted in Heb. 10.38) supplies the fra mework by which everything else tha t is said about rrlOTtS' from 10.39- 12.1 must be e.valuated . The. Hebrew concept of 'emw1ah as fai th lerminology lhus belongs in the interprelive mix. In summa ry, I h;we attempted to demonstra te that the concept of ntith in Hebrews is not completely foreign to the con<.-.ept o f l~tith elsewhere in the Bible. Indeed. a compa rison with the concept of Philo or the use. o f rriOTtS in Josephus· writings compels us to look elsewhere for simila rities to Hebrews· understanding or lh ilh, and. by virtue of ca nonical context. scripture itself is l he most logical place to look. In particular I have -16 /hill.• pp. -B4--35. 47 IbM. pp. 435-44. -18 Lindsay. 'Roots'. pp. 184-87. 49 lktz. ' Fimm css in Faith·. p. 444.
Pistis and 'Emunah
169
focused o n key passages from the Septuagint that serve as a backdrop for Hebrews' use of rrlOT15. In my estim;-ttion t here is sufficient eviden<.".f that Ihe t'Oill'epl failh in Ihis cpislle builds direclly upOn Ihe Concepl failh rep resented by the moT- word g.roup in the Septuagint.
or
or
C hapter 14 TH£ A NTI-IMI'£RIAL R HtTORIC OF H EBREWS
1.3:
xapaKn\p AS A
·oou utE-EDGEIJ SwoRo·
Steven 1\.f uir I. Introduction T he word xapaKniP in Heb. 1.3 is a window into an import~1nt element in the author"s multi-layered rhetorica l str.uegy. Ostensibly. Hebrews presents a po rtrait oi Chris t ~1s great High Priest tha t aflirms the supremacy oi Christ a nd critiques the Jewish sacrificial system. However. I estimate that this same portrait also a ppropriates elem ents from the Roman imperia l cult in o rder to offer tacil resistance to that cult. In particular. the emperor"s chlim to be Pontil¢x Maximus. t he pre-eminent religious mediator between the people and the gods. is denied in Hebrews· assertion that Christ is the mediator above a ll mediators. As Ponti rex Maximus, the emperor o llered sacrilk es lOr the good of all titizens. Aug.ustus and later e mperors deliberately published and promoted pious images or the ruler to legitimate and sec.ure their rule. Addressing an audience which had faced persecution in t he past a nd w:ts prep:tring for new persecution. t he author or Hebrews oilers a veiled critique o r the Ro man im perial system through his c rilic.ism of another (and in his opinion. equally inadequate) system. t he Jewis h cultus. The autho r of Hebrews m ines a rich netd of meaning from the rival relig.ious systems. The subtlety o r the author truly is a ' two-edged sword · (Heb. 4.12). T he above proposa l is a new way to look at Heb. 1.3 a nd t he overall intent or the text. It recognize.s the- high-t·o ntext nature of the Roman imperia l c ult in Greco-Roman society) a factor often overlooked by New Testament scholars. M y thesis is fed by and !lows into a strea m of scholarly investigation into anti-imperia l sentiment in t he New Te-stament. Severa l scholars have contributed to this line of thought. Over the course of 20 years, Ho rsley has written a nd edited many books on the politics of resista nce in the ear1y Jesus movement. In the next section. I review Ho rsley's work and that of a scholar who has inlluen<."-ed him. Scott. Other schoJars pursuing lhis angle. a re ~-ts follows. Collins d iscusses symboliZ~l-
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
171
tion in early Christian texts as it portrays Rome as an evil enti ty. In an address to the Society of Biblical Liter.lture. Helmut Koester calls for an awareness that early Christian proclamations contain political messa~.es which ('hallenged Roman as well as J e\\~sh political-religious .systems. Seeley analyses the hymn in Phil. 2.6-1 I and finds in it a refutation of G reco-Roman ruler cults. Carter examines how early Christians challenged the Roman Empire and finds evidence of such critique in the writings of Paul, in l\'1allhew and in Re\'elation. Bryan considers the auitude of Jesus and early Christians toward imperi~tl Rome. 1 With respect to Hebrews. three- ret·ent autho rs have fo und e\'idence o r appropri
Adela Yarbro Collins, ·oppression from Wi1hou1: The Srmbolisation of Rome as E\'il in Early Christianity". Crmcilium 200 ( 1988). pp. 66--74. Hclmu1 Koes-ter. •Jesus the Victim'. JRL Ill ( 1992). pp. 3- 15 (9. 14). David Seeley. "The Uackground of the-Philippians Hymn (2.6·11 )' J<~:rrnal q{ Higher Crilkism I ( 1994), pp. 49--12. Warren Cartcr. ' Vulnerable l'~lwcr: The Roman Empire Challenged by the F...ttrly Christians·. in Nmulbook cif Ear~r Clui.wiallily: Soda! Si. Jean Ouhnime a nd l'aui-AndrC Turwuc: Walnut Cn:d::. CA: Ahamim Press. 2002). Christopher 81)-un. Ri'lltler ttJ Caesar: Jesus. 1/w E11dy Chun·h. and ;be Roman .'IUf'<'l'fl()'\.t!J' (Oxford: Oxford Uniwrsity Press. 1005). S. R. F. Price. Rimais gm/l'owcr: ntP. Rom!ln Imperial C'IJ!t in A.1ia Minor (Cambridge: Cnmbridge University Press. 1984). suggests on pp. 196-98 thQt Re\•dation 13 may be. u c.r itiquc of ima~.cs in the imperial cult. soc: i n l:tarticubr 13.14 tii(Ovo:. 2 A few Sl~holars in the 1920s and 30:> thought that the recipients of Hebrews w~rc GenlilcChristians who wcre in d:mger of ka,·ing Christi unity und returning to paganism. e.g.. James MoO.att. A Criliml ami Exegelirol CommentliJ'Y IJ/l ll1e £pb tle ttJ llle Jfehrews (Edinburgh: T&T dark. 1924): Donald Riddle. ' Hebrews. Fir.s.t Clement. and t he 1\"rscx:ution of Domitian'. JBL 43 ( 1928). pp. J29-4S (331). See discussion in F. F. Bruce. 'To the Hebrews: A Documenl of Romnn Christianity!' Aufl·tieg uml Ninlergmtg tier rOmiJcltNI Wl'/1 11.4 ( 1987). pp. ).196- 52 1 (3505). Sc.holars who do not lit.'\" reference to the impcrinl cult inc.lude Donald Guthrie. ·The Epistle to the Hebrews'. in New TeJ((Inwnl lmnxfut'tion (Downers Gto\-c: lnler-\'tu'Sity Pre:;s. 1970). pp. 685-735 (708) :and William L Lane Nl'btt'lr.f /-8 (\VBC. 47~ Dalb s.: Word Books.. 1991]. p. I. 3 Cmig R. Ko~ter. llebre11'J: A Nrw Tumsltfli<'ll with lmrcJtlllt'tion und Comm(mfory (New York: Doubleday. 2001). p. 7&.
A Cloud of Witnesses
172
the th rone of gmoe through ChrisL .. Rulers curried o ut p ubli-= works-. such as opening new ro:tds or ways. but in Hebrews it is Christ who opens a new w.1y that k•ads into God's prcscm:c .. . G n:c.o-Roman rulers t~ommonl y SC-f \'Cd as High l' ricsts .. . Ht'bn:ws insists that Jesus possesses both kingly poY..-cr a nd priestly oflicc. 4
Ait ken demons tr.ttes tha t t he ima~_es in He brews conce rning Chrisfs
enthronement a nd sacrilke a re meant to C\'Oke and :ilso refute Flavia n claims of power. ·nu~se claims were associated with the triumph or Vespasian a nd T itus in the f'irsl Jewish War a nd a re dep icted on the A rc h of T itus. In a n a rticle tha t appea red in Semeia. Jones oompares the sermon of Hebrews with sermo ns preached by .t·\ rrican-Ame.r k·an s lave preachers. He finds commo na litv between the two sets o r d ist·ourse a nd ap·~ ues tha t ~ serm ons exhorting oppressed groups to stand fas t in the face o r persecution a re forms of resist~mce. 5
-
2. The W ork of Horst~)' and Sc011 ·n 1e Roman imperial system. even in the first t".fntury. used cultura l a nd religious programs to s uppo rt ~md legitim ize political acts of oppression and hegem ony. Such programs. a nd the rule they s upported , were sometimes challenged by those under imperial rule.1> Ho rsley has specialized in ra ising t he awareness o r New Testa ment sd 10lars of the ways in which Jesus and Pa ul o ne.red c ritiques or the-entrenched power structure.s of their time and o trered alternative visions of a new social order. Horsley draws extens ively on the work of two classicists. Za nker a nd Price> who convindn~Jy a rgue tha t the imperial cull was used in subtle a nd <.'X)mplex wa ys by t he Roman s ta te to consolida te- its rule. 7 I discuss Za nker and Price below. In 1994. Horsley edited a collection o f essays entitled Hidden 4 Ibid. pp. 78-79. Also see ibid.. p. IS7 on how Hebrews ·boldly' asscns the supremucy of Christ in the fucc of the ·compet ing d!Lims' of nuthority of Greco-Ruman rulers. S Elkn Urads haw Aitken. ' Port raying t he Temple in Stone illld Text: The Al'l:'h of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews·. in Hrbrews: Omlempomry MethtKis. New ltuight:r (<:d. Gabriella Gebrdini: Lcidc:n: Brill. 2005). pp. I.)I-4S. Darryl L Jones.. 'The Sermon :ts Art of Resistance: A Compar:•ti\•e Analysis of the: Rhetorics of the Afri~-an·Amc:.rican S1tm: Prcad>Ct and the l~cher to the Hcbf\.' \\'S'. Senwia 19 (1997). pp. 11- 26. I nlso wi.~h to ac:.knowlcdge a hd pful discussion J hnd with Jkn Witherington. w1to pn::scntod n paper at the 1006 conference on Hcbr~·ws nt St Andrews on nnti-impcriul rhetoric in Hcbr~·ws as a reaction ugninsl the <::tee~ of Nero. 6 S!ephe.n L Dyson. •Native- Rc\'olts in the Romnn Empire·. JliJtol'ia 10 (197 1). pp. 23974 hus un int«c:s.ling s urv~'Y of nnti\'C revolts in the Roman Empire. 7 54.'<: Richard A. Horsley (ed.). Paul aml1be Rcmall Imperial 01·der (Harrisburg. PA: Trinity Press ln t~'1n/i'gicm ami £mpir~: People, [tol!'er, ami
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
173
Transcripts and the AriJ t?f R(•Sistanee. In that collection. Ho rsley and other scholars applied the insights of Scott to New Te:;tament studies. James C. Scott is a professor a t Yale University. l-lis work combines political science with anthropo1ogy. He d id fie1dwork in Malaysia, and his 1985 work MlCtipons t?{llte ~Veak : Ew!ryda.t· fOrm.v of Peasalll Resisrmu·e is an analysis of how peasants resist authority. Scott's 1990 book Domination and rlu~ Arts of Resisram·e: Hidden Trausuipls oll'ers a framework lOr analyzing the complex ways in which subo rdinated people o ller resistanc.e lO oppression. T he fo llowing is a brief summary or aspects of Scoll's theory. Oppression involves two parties: the dominant class and subordinates. St-Oll classifies public d iscourse as interc hanges between t he two pa rties, and private d iscourse as inten.:hanges within each group. The public transcript of oppression involves superiors en~aging. in acts of oppression and makin~ cultural claims to support those ac.:t.s. and subord inate groups responding (often with seeming compliant'.e or acquiescence) to lhose claims. Ofl-stage. each group has more latitude to act in wo.1ys thal challenge or deconstruct the black-.:.md-white nature of the public transcript. In-group actions are what Scou calls hidden tnmscripts. Scott argues that the hidden transcripts of each g,roup a re derivative of thepublic transcripts: the}' are a re~tc tion o r respo nse to the open interchange which may conllrm, <.'O nt rad ict. or inflect the public tranS<:ript.11 A run and nu;.1nted understanding or power relations needs lO consider not o nly public but hidden t ransc ripts. I find t hree areas of Scott's theory particularly relevant to my resertrch o n Hebrews. First, the dominant class uses cultural items in the public transcript to support its agenda o r political and economic o ppression. Scott states. 'Claims to inherent superiority by ruling elites require lavish displays. regalia, and public acts of deference or tribule by subord inates.' 9 There is abundant evidence that the Roman imperial cult was used in this way. Se<:ond , Scoll ca lls for an awareness of the complexity o r C-Ommunication \\~thin groups and betwee-n groups. The fact that oppressed people do not engage in open revolt or voke explic::it challenges does not mean t hat they simply accepl t he .stat us quo. Resistance t·an take many forms. and actions whkh mitigme or deny t he claims of superiors, or which advanc-e claims by subo rdinates over and against those o f lh(' Life of tlw Spirit (Minneapolis: Fonress I'Tess.. !003). pp. 98-99: itlnn. (cd.). Puuf ami £mpir.•: Religion ~JI(/ Prmv>r in Rmmm }mpt'l'itrf SoA: Trinity J>re.c;.s lntcrnntionnl. 1997). pp. .1-4. 11- 19. 8 hmcs C. Scott. Domimtlifm and 1fle Arl.s tJj Rr.si.\'fmrri': fliddt•ll TrtmsatjliS (New Haven. CT: Y:ale Unh-crsity Press. 1990). pp. 4. 10. The hidden transcript is :a site of ·... nonh~·gmonic.
contmpunlul. sub\'Crsi\'c discourse· (p. 25). 9 /bid.. p. 11. :also sec his discussion on 1>aradcs and crowds ibid.. pp. 58- 66.
A Cloud of Witnesses
174
supe rio rs, tan be analyzed as acts of resistance. 10 Third, it is prudent fo r the oppressed to employ double meaning. s ubtlety. ~md misdirection in the e-s tablishment. T his is what Sco u calls 'disguising the critiques message· and it is a strategy by which oppressed groups <.:an safely smug~Je portions of the hidden transcript onto the-public s tage. 11
or
Like prudent nc:wspapcr editors unde r strict C(.'nsorship. subordinHlc g_roups must find ways of &'Ctting, their message a c ross. w hile- sta)•ing somd1ow within the law. T his requires an experimental spirit and a capacity to test n nd exploit a ti the loopholes. umbiguitics. silc:m:c-s . :md la pses nvailubfc lo them. It means someho w sctling a course at the very pcrimch:r o f whal the nuthorities are ob li£cd to perm it or unable to preve-nt. •: .. .c ultural c-xp r<.-ssion by virtuc: of iL<> polyvaknt S)'ntbolism and metaphor knds itself to disguise:. By the subtle usc of codes one ean insinua te into a ritual. pallcrn of dn."Ss. a song. u story. meanings that a rc accc:ssiblc- to o ne- intc-nd(.xl a udic:ncc- and o paque to another audience: the- tKiors wish to cxdudc:. A hcrna tivd y. the. excluded (and in this (."11SC:. powerful) audience muy grasp the seditious message in the- pcrfommn<:c but find it d ifficult to re--ac t bcc-tHISC: tha t seditio n is clothed in tc:rnt..<> tlmt t~ lso (.'a ll la y daim to a pcrf(.'!Clly innocent c onstrw:.tio n. Ill
·n 1e author of Hebrews explicitly criticizes one rival system (the Jewish cull), a nd by doing. so also implicitly rejects the c1aims of another rival system (the Roman imperial cull). lhere is no overt statement against the emperor~ and to Roman autho rities the Christological o.tssertions in Hebrews may simply h;.tve appeared to be· . . .a ma tter of questions a bout
words and names and (Jewish] law. . : (Acts 18.1 5). Yet below the surfa<'f lies an effective refutation of the. imperial system. Scott's theory alerts us to the possibility o f s uch subtle l(>rms re-sistance.
or
' xapaKTI)p ' ill Ht•brews >. In Heb. 1.3. the distinctive G reek word xapaKT~P occurs. 14 ~n1ere is a rich and tX>mplex Ouistology throughout t he entire text~ even in small elements such as Heb. 1.3. The usua l scholarly interpretation of how 10 James C. Scott. Wtutprms (If tlti' IVr-uk: ETi!tyday { (}mJs
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
175
xapai
176
A Cloud of Witnesses
\\o'ere able-to provide a \1isual likeness o f what they stand for. In our case they represent persons who cannot be seen because they a re absent (the emperor) or invisible (God):'"
4. The Word xapaKr r)p xapaKulp is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament, occurring in Heb. 1.3. It occurs only three times in the Septuagint. Only on<.-e is it a translation of a Hebrew term. Leviticus 13.38 is a metaphorical reference to a scar ~iS the 'impression" len by a skin disease (0 xapaKT~P TOG KaTaKaVIJcnOs). Here we see a somewhat free translation of the Hebrew Jsrblh. burning or inflammation. Othe-r times the term is in Greek original texts. ·n 1e first is in 2 Mace. 4.10 (where we see a conventional use of the word to refer to ~l distinguishing ch:tracteristic) in reference to the 'Greek way o l'lire iiAI.qv~
·me
child's chumet<.·r is thus br!,'Ciy a n:lll"<:tion or t il<.' pnrcnr s dmmetcr. which imp resses itself o n the fo rmer li ke a sc<•l in wurm wax. T his pan1llcl. while ine'xaet. is suggcst i~'e in the eontcxt of Hebrews 1.1-4. whe-re the like ness o f thc.So n to the l'arent is lx--1ng descrilxxt 111e notion of u p
·n1e Greek word xa.paKT~p comes rro m xo:pcioac.>, to mark, engra ve or stamp. Although slightly diiTe rent in meaning: from the Greek word EiKc.iv (ima!te). there seems to have been freedom amonil Greek writers so that the t;rms could be synonyms (see below).:!0 .. He brews I J states tha t Christ is the exact impress or im:l!;e of God. Although the wo rd xapat:::nlp occurs in the New Testament only here. we IS Hans lkhing. U~·cmr.s.s ami Pusrmcr: A 1/isltJry tJ/ lhl! Image fxft,·~ t/11! Em of Art (tmns. Edmund k phr:oll: ChiC'ttg,o: d tic;•go Uni\"Crsity Press. 199-1). p. 42. 19 Da\'id A. deSilva. P~rs~w·•·uuCi' in Grutilllfl,·•: ,1 Surio· Rbi!Wdatl CtJm1111!11lUJ·y rm the EpiJIII" 'to I he Nt•bl·t'lrs'. (Grond Rnpids: E<:rdm"ns. 2000). p. 89. Ftllher conC(pts played a b rg,c ro)e in impcri <~ l imagery. sec below. 10 Prioc. Ritlwl.t. pp. 176-SfJ reviews a variety of terms wh i~'h could be used r~'lr imperi"l and euh images: xOalK!v, (tya~o:, O:v&puls, ti~ewv. He 11nds thtttalthough each had u djstinct mt.~ming. in practice they were used interchangeably. often as synonyms. I cslim:llc: that \\'C may include XO:POKT~p in t his list.
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
177
do see a similar theologica l perspective using the word EiKWv (image, picture) in two places in lhe New Testa ment. 2 Corinthians 4.4 spe.a ks o f Ihe g.lory of Chrisl, who is the image of God (0, ioTIV ijs i~ij;) in a sta tue." An inscription fro m Ephesus records an imperial decision o r Ma rcus Aure.lius and Lucius Verus (mid Se<.~ond t".elltury) tha t Small statueS or preViOUS empe.r ors (EiKOVCX) T~V atiTo<paTopwv) should not be a hered inlo the 'likenesses !xapaKT~pas) o f lhe li,•ing rulers.'-' The Palristit writer John Malalas (sixt h century) speaks of a porlrait medallion wilh t he like ness ()(apo:KT~p) of lhe empero r Justin.14 Until re<:ently. schola rly explanations fo r Hebrew's use or lhe word xapo:KT~P looked 10 Philo of Alexandria. who onen uses lhe word. Philo asserts thal the human soul is shaped in the image of God, ~md that this s haping is done by the agency of the Divine Logos or active agency o f God. who Jirst was so shaped . ·n 1e Logos impresses divine qualities (wisdom, virt ue) o n the human soul. The clearesl example is Philo. Plmll. IS: 'Our great Moses likened Ihe liiShion of Ihe r"'lSOnable soul to no created t hing. b ut averred il to be a genuine toimtge (vOiltOjJa ) of that dread Spirit, lhe Divine and Invisible One, signed a nd impressed by the 21 Soc Harold W. Auridgc. Cmtmwmar.r 011 HO'bn11r.s (Philaddphin: Fortrcss Press. 1989}. p. 43. n. 105. F. F. Brubn•lrs(Gmnd Rapids: Ee tdmans. rcv. t.-dn. 1990). p. 48 estimates thnt xopo:r;n)p is a more t.•mphntie npre.<:;sion of what \\'tiS suggested by tir;(o)v in ! Corinthians and Colos.<>ians. 22 Wilhdmus Dittcnbergc:r led.). Orieuli.r Gnre
178
A Cloud of Witnesses
seal or God, the s ta mp of which is the eterna l word (0 xapaKrtip [oTIV 0
cilo•os- 1-oyosr-" For a while scholars ;-1s.serted t hat there was a strong Philonit: influence on Hebrews.~6 While it is undeniable that Phi1o uses xapcu:::n]p extensively in t he. a bove manner, scho lars now prefer to s peak of a pool of ideas a nd tem1s in an Alexandrian Hellenistic Wisdom school of writers. l n Wisdom of Solomon, commonly thouu.ht to be an Alexandrian-Jewish text, \Ve see
-
. :l discussion which is similar to Heb. 1.1 (thoug,h
\\~thout
the term xapaKuip). '!Wisdomf is an e lllugent-.: of everlasting. light. an unblemGod . and an image (£l1
or
several times.- 7 A 1978 study by Chestnut shows how the Alexandrian-logos theme intersects with the political wo rld of Rome. In the Hrst and second centuries <:E, the ruler was seen as the embodiment, agent o r representative on earth of the Law. Reason. or Lo~os o r God. This perspecth'e is seen in the writings of Plutarch. Seneca. and Philo: it was echoed by the lirstcentury ncf. writer Cicero. ~md it persists into the fo urth centur)' in the writings of Eusebius. 'I\•1onan::hy w·.ts above all the imitation of God: the sood ruler imitated God and thereby took o n a kind or powerful reflected dh 1inity himself: 2:$ T his is very dose to Heb. J.J.:!Y Alexandria was a very lar~.e city oi the Roman Empire. While it had many loc...'ll a nd d istinctive feat ures. like other cities in the Empire it had the high-co ntext aspects typica l to Roman imperial rule. Perhaps what is seen in Philo·s and Wisdom o f So lomon•s discussions of the Lo~os rellects in part a politkal reality llherebmr:r. p. 4·1. On Philo'!> concepl of 1hc logos. sc~~. H:.rry Wolfson. Philtl (01mbridge: Harv;m{ University Press. 1962). pp. 253-61. 26 Extensi,·e discussion by. imer alia. Ronald Willi<mtsOn. Philo oJI(/ tltt• £pi.~tle to the lh,hmrs (l.eidcn: Brill. 1970). pp. 74-80. Willitlmson. Philo. PI>- 78- 80 cstimalcs th:11 the author of Hebrews may have been familiar \\ith 1crms like xo:pcum)p und cino:Uyo:o!JO: due to an Alexandrian cduealion. bu1 thnt he distinctively adapls d1ese terms for ChtislologiC":JI statements. Philo's use of xopo:nT~ is \'Cry diO.erent from Hcbn:ws.. r.ce lane. Nt·bu-w.f J-8. p. 13. Kelber. ·xopo:l(njp·. p. 4!1 ns.,;crts thnt all throe te.xts belong to the same tmdition of Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom. !7 Clement of Akx:mdrit. probably is citing He b. I .J wh~n he ~ails Christ the imab'<." of the glory (00/;1)5 ;.,.-opo:nl~) of God (Sir. 7.837.45}. sec also Str. 7.866.1 in reference to Christ and rcfercnoc:s to the human soul being SI!Lmped with the ch:uacter of God. Str. 7.874.374.6 and 7.375.29. 28 Glenn F. Che.slnut 'The Rukr und the Logos in Ncopy1hagon.-.:10. Middle Platonic. and Lute Stoi.: Political Philosophy'. Atrf.\·tit•g ut1d Nit~di'rgatJg tier 1·6miJdum Wt'lt 1 1.1 6.~ ( 1978). p~l. 1310-32 (1311:). 29 On the concept of n mediating figure as prominent in Al<:xandrian theologia •l sp..x-ulation. sec r\ash. · ~·l edi 11 tor'. Aust~·n
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
179
administer his rule. These images of him reflected his a utho rity. In a hundred concrete w~•ys, where\'er the image o f the ruler was. t here was the ruler. We should also keep in mind tha t seals a nd coins - t he most ob\tious connota tion associa ted with t he word xo:po:KniP - were associated with the ruling class a nd in particular the emperor.
5. Ear(r C!Jri.'ilitms and tlw lmpr,.ia/ lnwge My assertion. sta ted in the brtrodm·tion, is tha t the autho r of Hebrews uses the imperia l system and its imah~s in a two -edged way: on the o ne hand there is an appropriation o f elements in o rder to express Chri.stolog:icaJ statements in co ntrast to Jewish cultic ideasJ<• a nd a t t he same time there is a lso a subt le critique of the G reco-Roman system . Certainly there was antipathy toward the use or the ruler's images in both Jewish and eurly Christian circle.s. The fo llowing examples illustrate such antipa thy. T he book of Daniel is a Jewish text probably of the Hellenistic era . We see in Da n. 3.18 the descriptio n o f t he e nfo n:ed worship or images and a n a<..'l'ount o r three fa it hfuJ young men who resist this order. While the text is ambi~uous in the Hebrew as to whether the image commissioned by King Nebuchadner.zar is of a god or of himself. the LXX makes it explicit that it is of Nebuchadnezzar. Regardless of the narr.Hive setting. the context o r the text's likely ;.tudiem.;e is at time o r the Hellenistic ruler Antiochus Ephiphanes IV who was notorious lOr aggressively pro mo ting the Greek ruler cult. The motif o r t he t hree- young. men bec;-trne popular in e~•rly Christian art where the men a re understood as being proto-martyrs. 31 Josephus provides us with aL'Counts of two incidents in which the Jewish people vigorously resisted the imposition of imperial images. Jr:srish War 2.1 69-74 relates how Pilate introd uced into Jerusalem the emgies ('iKovas) of Caesar. a lso known as standards (o~~alcu). T he protests o f the Jews> a<..x:ordin~ to Josephus. forced Pilate to withdraw the irnages. 3~ And ./t!lrish JVar 2.192fr relates that Calig.ula intended lO sel up statues ('iKovas) of himself in Jerusalem. As belo re. t he Jewish populace declared tha t they were. willing to d ie rather than so submit. The malle r d id not
30 Recent s.:hobrs.:bip h11s round eviden~~ that the imperial cult influenced Chris.tianity. Alle,n IJ·ren!. Th1' lm}lerial Cult tmd th•• Dn·dopmn1t of ('ltlll'dl Onler (lc,iden: Brill. 1999} argues that the concepts. structurcs and terms of the imperial cull inllutnttd how the early chu~h developed ecd esiastil-a1 oOlccs. Philip A. liorland, ·christ ·bc~•rers and FellowInitiates: Lo~1l Cultural lift and Christian Identity in Jgm11ius· Ltllcrs·. JECS II (2003). pp. 481- 99 argues that fcaturc.s of imperial procl":S.-.ion significnntly shnp..-d 1hc disooursc of Ignatius. 31 Price. Rimal.s. p. 199. 32 Sec discussion in Horsley. lr.{u.:utgt>. pp. 100-tOS.
180
A Cloud of Witnesses
need to be brought to a head, as Caligula died before further action could be l~tken. 33 In the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 12.13- 17; Mt. 22.15-22; Lk. 20.20-26} we have the well-known account of the story of t he- coin wilh the ima~e {EiKcla is a rrested and co nvicted of sacrilege:'0 A<..'Cordin~ lO the Acts of Pewr, a demon damaged a sta tue o r the empero r as the spirit was being exordzed by Pe ter. A Christian observer worried a bout possible repercussions to t he Christian t"'mmuni~·· so Pe ter obligingly worked a mirade and the statue w:ls resto red. 3
.U Philo. £mha:i.\) ' ltJ Gaius. pp. 188-tr ~~l ~o sp~1ks of lhis event. Sec discussion in Horsley. Mr.J.UJg(". pp. 110- 16. 34 Sec discussions in Horsley. J/iddcn. pp. 17- JS. Mt>J.wrge. pp. 82- 85. J1'.SIU and th(" Spiral af Vie,fl'nci': Popular h·• ~-i.~h Re.\i.ftmwe in Roman Pof,~Jiitu• (San Fr;1nc-isco: Harper & Row. 1987). pp. 77-89. 306--17. Ethdbcn Stauffer. Chris/ (tnd rhr Cut'surs: Hi.\'ltiJ'iatl Sketdtes (tmns. K. nnd R. Gregor Smith: Philaddphi.<J: Westminster Press. 1955) hns an extensive discus:>ion of Roman tribute at ks.us· time. Stauffer assumes thal there is tt ckar distinction to be made lx:twcl~n p~-,lities nnd religion. and th:ll the- primary intent of the empe-ror l~h Wii.S straightforward worship of the e-mperor. O n the basis of thc.sc- deb..1tnbk assumplions. he condudcs that Jesus endorsed the c.laim of the empcror".s polilieal ~• uthority yet rejected his claim to be wonhy of worship. 35 Stt Daniel N. Schowuhcr. Th(" Empemr amltlw G(}(/s: Images from lhe Time q/Trojall (Minneapolis: Forlre:ss.. 1993). pp. 4-5. J6 Price. Rittwls . p. 170. 37 At·cs of Peter II.
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
181
Hrbrell's' Lotmion and A udience Most modern scholars estima te a Ro man destination for the text, in the years 60- 100 c E. La ne. who argues t his position most exte nsively a nd persuasively. estima tes a da te around the last years of Nero·s reign.3 g Often the current persecutions alluded to in Hebrews a re thought to be Neronian , altho ugh some find Oomitian action to be a possibilily.39 T he use or Hebrews b,fu the la ter Clement of Ro me is an arg.ument in {~wor of a Roman location. I favo r a Ro man context but it is not essential to my thesis. Imperia] imag.ery was preV~ilent throughout the empire. h was concentrdted in Rome. but pa rtkularly in eastern cities it also was widespread. While theusual scholarly assessment is th;il the e mperor cult was more exuberantly ce lebrated outside Rome a nd was focused o n la te r empero rs. we should not underestimate wha t was happening in Rome sta rling with Augustus. Zanke r convincinu.lv demonstra tes that Au~ustus made extensive use. o r imag.ery to assert hi~ imperia l claims.'" Paul~s letter to the Roma n church :u.htises obedience to civil authorities (Romans l3). Caragounis offers a credible Specula tion tha t the Rom;m Christians may ha ve h;id tendencies o r resist~tnl·e to imperial a uthority. to whkh Pa ul responded in his letter.'n
6. The fmtU'I'ial Image You kno w that in a ll t he banks. booths. sho ps a nd taverns. gables. por<'hes a nd wind o \o,.'s , a nywhcr<.' a nd everywhere. t he re arc port mits of you exposed to publi<: vi <.~w. badly puinh:d fo r the most purl or CIU·\•cd in a p lain. not to say wort hk•ss. a rt istic s tyle. Stil l. all t.hc smn e. your likeness. ho wever unlike you. ncw-r mt."t'IS my eyes whe-n I a m o ut
38 Alsosoe Do n.dd Riddle. · Hcbrcw·s.. First Clement. and t he Pcm-cutio n of Do miti1m·.
JOU3 (1928). pp. ll9-4S. J9 E.g.. Attridge. Nrbnrws. pp. 6-9. I J. 197- 300: Koe.ster. 1/rhreW$, pp. 49-51. 40 E.g.. Gareth lee Cockerill, ·Hebrews 1.1 ·14. I dement 36. 1-6 and the High Priest Title·, JRL 91 ( 1978). pp. 437-40: Donald A. Hagner. The U.wuljOid tmd Nen· Teslwm!tll.fin Clelfwllt (If Rome (Lcidcn: Brill. 1973). fnten:stingly. I Clem. 36.2 substitutes JJrya).(..)OOVfl> (gn:.u tne~>S. m:1jcst)') for OOi;f)S (_glory) and omits xapoxn}p. -II Paul Zankcr. Tilt· Po•rl'r / Augtu lll.f ( lrt~ns. Alan Shopiro: Ann Arbo r: University of Michigan Press. 1988) . .f2 Clu-ys C . Camg.ounis. 'From Oh.c;curity to Prominence-: Th~: IX,·dopmcnt of the Ronmn Church lxtwc.:.n Romans and I Clemc:nl'. in Judai.~m ami Chdstiw1iry iii First· Cen111ry Romf'icd. Karl P. Don fried und l't:tcr Richardson: Grand Rapids: E.:.rdmans. 1998). pp. 2<5- 79 (261).
182
A Cloud of Witnesses without making me pnrt my lips in
tl
smile tUld dream of you
(~a rcus
Cornelius F ronlo writing to ?\•In reus Aurelius. <:. 148 CE) ..._.
A third-tentury writer also speaks of the ubiquity o f the imperia l image: 'Full of his (the Emperor's! images (•iv) a re the cities, some o f painted tablets. some maybe or more precious mate riar.4 '* Rome·s imperial period was filled with images or t he emperor. Such images were a common fe~Hu re in the Greco-Roman \Vorld. New Te-Stament scholars. and even some dassitists. sometimes underestima te the extent of these images a nd their efiectiveness as :1 too l of the state to enrort-e compliance to imperial rule. Scott no tes that oppre-ssed people often produce coded c ritiques or their oppressive system. Add in the tendency of high-tonte:.\].lt'ls {Minnenpolis: Fortress l,rcs...;. 1003). p. II. 46 On usc: of images. in Roman life and their centrality in public ceremony nnd ritual. sec: Elsner. RlJmt'. On an nnd impc1ial powtT. s.x ibid.. pp. 53-63. 47 Prioc. Riluals. p. 171. Sec also Zankcr. f mrer.. l:knis Fc:cny, Literaturt' ami Religioll (II RfJm<': Culwres. Collfcxt:r. (flld IMief.s (Cambridge: Cambrid!,,'C Unh-crsily t,n:ss. t99S}. p. 109. 48 Ztmkcr. f oll'c>r.
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
183
respect to my thesis. Favro speaks of the ·pa te rnal stamp' and the 'd}'nastit imprinting' itSpects of the prog,ra ms of Augustus ..t'<> In the 11rst and second centuries, imperial involvement in promoting theimperial cult w:ls downplayed. even CO\'e rL The o llicia l line was tha t the establishment and venera tion o f imperi:ll ima~es was at t he g,rassroots level, " response or gratitude by the local popula tion lo r •li the things the empero r had done for t hem. In reality. a t this st~-tge- it probab ly was a mixture of centralized a nd local :lctivity. Jn the third t ent ury, emperors took a more explicit ro le in the d issemina tion of their images.S<• T he fo llowing is a survey o f how Augustus us-ed images in selfpromotion. First, we may consider the revival a nd expansion of the-civic wards o f Rome. Augustus reintroduced the cult o r the Compita1ia in Rome.5 1 Be tween 12- 2 neE he c reated o r refurbished sanctua ries at the crossroads of every d istrict of Ro me. These conta ined statues of the two local spirits, now renamed La res Augusti lo honor Augustus. A t times there a lso was a n image o f the genius o r Augustus in this shrine. 'n tis ada ptation of a domestic or neig.hborhood cult in a systema tic network throughout Rome established Augustus's present"'t! a t every street corner. lou no tes how these images con\'eyed the presence o f the empero r: 'AuQustus visited each neiu,hborhood only once: the statues continued to serv~ as reminders of his p;esence and to i~spire loyally to the resident.s.·SJ Set·om.J, Augustus established what we might ca11 a fa mily portrait gallery in the Ro man Forum. Augustus set u p statues of his ance-stors in a n exedra a nd colonnade- near the Temple or "-'1ars. This w~ts a public \'C:rsion o r a typica l fea ture in upper-class homes. na mely lhe display o f images or busts o f ancesto rs. Again we see adaptation of a domestic.
Diann G. Favro. Tht• Urhuu !mug~ of A11gw1a11 Romt• (Cambrid!,'<:·: Cnmbridge UniYcrsily Press. 1996). p. 128. 50 Soc Prioc. Power. pp. 171ff: C. E. V. Nixon and B..'ltbam Saylor Rodg«s. ill PmiJP of L(I/Pr RmnutJ Emp.w m: Tit£> Pant·gyrk Latini llkrkclcy. CA: University of Culifornia Press. .J9
1994). PJ>. 51- 52. 51 An exodlcnl discussion is in J. Ben Lott. Tlltt Nt-igltbodwo&; tif Augu.\·ttm Rome (Cnmbridgc: 0 1mbridge Uni\'c:.rsity Press. 100.J). pp. J!.l - 120. Sec: " lso John Scheid. An
lmr(J(/tu·tim• Jo Roman Rt'ligitm (lrnn.s. Jane-t Lloyd: Bloomington. IN: Indiana University Pn-ss. 1003). p. 163: Mary Beard. John North and Simon Prioc:. Religirm.r of Rome: Ft1ltmw I, A J/i.fwry (C.:.mbridge: Cambridge Uni\-crsity Press. 1998), pp. 184- 86. 107. A similar cuh was established in th< colonies nnd cities of th< Empire. Zankct. Pt11rrr. pp. 119--35. 235. Sec: also John R. Cbrkc:. Art ill tlw Lires lJj Onli11ur.r Rommu: Vi.mal Rrjlrr.wwWtion a11d Noll· elilt! VW••w.Y in/utly. 100 BC- AD 315 (Bl."rkdcy. CA: University of C:•lifornia Press. 2003). pp. 75- 78 on lluari:.. SI-RS "ic.onmgistri. " nd 251- S.J anocstor portruiLs displayed in home:. 52 Lou. ."leighbor!loods. p. 106.
184
A Cloud of Witnesses
practke to c reate the connotation that A ugustus was father of the
"
. · emptre.· Third, the fune ral of Augustus consisted of a procession with a wax image (ElKc.lv) Of him. followed by images (probably individuals C.'arryi n~ a ppropriate. porlr.tit masks} of his ancestors, deceased relative-s. a nd
pr
Now we can t~onsider in a more general way the display of imperial images. Fo llowing the precedent of Augustus, subsequent emperors inc.~reased the use of images of themselves in ~~ variety of contexts. In public a reas, images of t he emperor were ubiq uitous. Since :m <."mpcror •.:annot be present to ull persons. il is nt."t"t-ssnry to set up the stutuc t'f the cmp<:mr in law courts. ma rk<:t places. p ublic assemblies. and theatres. In ~:ve ry plnce, in fact. in which un official ucts. the imperial e ffi gy must be pn:-s cnl. so lha t the e mperor may thus c.onlirm wha t takes place. For the empero r is o nly u humun being, tmd cannot be- present cwrywherc ..)$
Beyond literary p ropaganda. which co uld only re:tch n fraction of the popula tio n. other media and ritua ls promoted lltC$C theological claims. crea ted <md sustained the n:lmionship of ruler " nd r uled. l'lnd solicited the submission of the em pirc."s subjects to suc-h an exalted and di,,ind)' lc-gjtimatc.-d emperor. Decorated gales, arches. columns. sttHucs. tmd buildinw;. bc."camc bully pulpits for the imperia l system. Temples and a ltars. various liturgical practic.'CS such as prayers. vows. and sacrifices. a mi fest i\•als such as the emperor's birthday und accession date. were cclcbnttcd with different intensity a nd levels of signillcancc in diOCnmt par ts of the empire-. !-I>
Next we <.-.:.m consider the use of images on coins. We c:umot underestimate how elll..octive coins. were in promoting_ imperial propaganda. In the Greco- Roman world. coins were the firs t fOrm o f mass media.n They were used by rulers to promote themselves as authority
53 Zlmker. J>tJ~rrr, pp. 210--1-4 ~t nd J. Rufu s Fc:nrs. 'The: Cult of Jupiter and Roman ltnpcria11dc:ology'. A:~f.\·tieg uml Niedrrgung der rOmisdtnJ Well IJ. I 7.I (1981 ). pp. 3- 14. 6062.
>1- Ztmker. ffJirrr, p. 112. The episode is described in Oio Cassius 56.34. 55 Severino of Gaba)a. (e.arly fourth
tJnli-imperial Rhewric
185
llg,ures: ad~ertise imperial ac.hievemen~s. and su~port st~te .ideolosfY· Portnuts o l rulers were a common and tmpo rta nt fealure ol comag.e. \Ve even have evident""e o r a conflation of elements from mystery religions wilh the imperial c ulL Evidence for lhis aspecl is sparse bul suggestive. as is lrue generally for Greco-Roman mystery religions. Pleket eslimates lhal a l times images o f the empero r or loca l ruler were suddenly revealed lo initiates in t he manner l)'pi<:a l of the myste ries.:s9
7. A•f ed iating and ,1\1edi(IJor in Jrnages Images mediate the presence a nd powe r o r the person depicted. So Wis. 14. 16- 17 oilers a theory on the o rigin of idolatry: At the wmnumd o r rulers. g,ra ...~-n imugcs (y~unr0:) <:umc to be wo rshipped. When men were unable to do honor to t hese princes in thei r p rcsc:-.ncx because of lhc remoteness of their dwdling. they formc:d a likcnt'S-" (
The medialing l'unclion o r images is demonst rated in ;t number or ways. Statues or the empe.r or served ::ts places of refuge, asylum, and sanctuary, both in Rome and in the provinces. Slaves 11eein~ rro m masters would seek lhe help of the emperor by grasping the feet o r ::tn imperial sta tue. Price finds lhis practice lo have ~~ clea.r religious background, drawing upon ancient pr:t<.~lice or temple asylum. T his may be the case, bul I estimale what we see here is a lso an evocation of the clemency of the empero r·s person, embodied in lhe stalue.60 Fines and petitions could be deposited a t the leet of imperial statues. a nd these would later be collectetl and delivered 61 lhe imperial statue could be the f<><:al point fo r imperial power: healings. o mens and porte nts were-sometimes assochlled wit h the statues.62 Pa ngyri<..-s praised t he positive effects or the statues, claiming tha l t heir presen{·e in a city created calm a nd peace the.re.6 J The med iating. runction o f the image. could be combined Wilh a very 58 Zunker. Pmi'I!J'. pp. 299-300: Schowahe-r. £mperol'. pp. 90- 91. 9?- 105: C:uter ·Vulncrnblc'. pp. ~~. 478. Here we nre reminded of J ~o-sus' saying a bout p:1ying tribute to Cacsur. 5? H. W. Pkkel. ' An Aspect of the lmf)(ria1 Cult: hnf)(ria1 Mysteries·. JJTR 58 ( 1965). pp. JJI---47 (337-44). 60 Soc: Price. Rit11uls. p. 191: Elsner . .41't. p. 57. 61 Price. Rimal.s. p. 193. 62 Ibid.• p. 194. For exumple. sec ](u_·i/tu tJ:u:wi. In describing various sorts of prodigies. he notes !hat n stutue of the: dcifi.cd Julius on the isbnd of t he Tiber h:1d turned fmm west to c.n51 on ~ bright ealm dny. 63 Priec. /Uiuttl.s. p. 196.
186
A Cloud of Witnesses
pre\'alenl wHy o f po rt raying the empe ror, as mediator or Pontifex Maximus.64 Until overt claims of divinity emerged in the second and third t enturies, e-mpero rs ~enerally preferred to present themselves as agents o f the gods, personifica.tions o r public virtue. piety and so forth.6S T hus we see that a standard im perial image on friezes and coins was that of the veiled Pontifex Maximus, offering sacrifice on behalf o r the people. 66 ·n 1ere is even a case whkh bears a s triking resemblan('e to the bread of Christian Eucharist. Images of the emperor offe ring sacrifice were stamped on round flat cakes which were then distributed to the people on fes tival days. . These cake molds have bee-n found in Roman Britain and
.,
Hungary.
8. Conclusion ·n 1ere was an incred ible a mount of imperia l ima.gery in the Roman Empire. It was a common fe-.u ure in lhe high-conlext Greco-Roman world . Only recentlv have we in the modem world become aware of' how the firs t em.peror. A~gustus. skillfull)r used images and the imperial cult to promole imperial claims. Scholarship on early Chrislianity, unaware o f the extent or depth of this co ntext. has focused on extreme examples of socalled later 'bad· emperors who made aggrandized claims of d ivinity a nd who fanm.->d the flames of persecution. However. even fro m modera te or d ement emperors the use or imperia l images likely posed a challenge f'o r e-.trly C hristians. Christianity has ~11ways had to define itself ' "''ith respe<.·t to the larger culture. At times it has been a prophetic voice against that culture . at times it creatively borrows ideas from th~1 t c ulture, a nd at other times it ho.1S assimilated into tha t culture. I s uggest t hat in Heb. 1.3 we see evidence of a n early Christian write r importing into his sermo n portions o f a hidden transcript of disoontent wit h. and resistance to. Ro man imperial rule. The writer o f Hebrews skillfully and subtly refers to imperia l imagery to assert t he supremacy of Christ as the religious mediator above all other mediato rs. M E.g.. S<noca.lk Clemc>llliu 1.1, Nero has been •chosen to SCI\'t- on eurth as vicar of the gods'. (doorum fungc:rer). 65 Sec Price. Ritual.~. p. 134: lk:trd. North and J>rice. &figimu. I. pp. 252. JSO: Schowaht:.f. Empt!ror. pp. 55- 61. 67- 78. 66 Beurd. North nnd Pritt, Religions. I. pp. IS6. 350~ Richard Gordon. 'The Veil of Power: Em1>erors. s~~c.rifie<:.fs and iknl!fuctors·. in P<~g(IJt Pn'e.\'ls: Rdigi(m and Power it1 tl:r At~cirnt WmM (cd. M:1ry Bc--.ud nnd John Norlh: Ithaca: Com<: II Uni\'<.'tsity Press. 1990). pp. 199-231. 67 A. Lcng)'<.'l and G. T. I!. Radlln. Til~· An·huro/ogy of Romu11 Pmmonia ( Bud{! peS!: ..-\kadC:miui KiadO. 1980). p. .168 (and Plntc CXXII}; Ikard. North und l:triec:. Rdigioll.(. I. p. 350.
C hapter 15 H ~BR~ws 5.7,
JEsus· PRAY ERoN THE MouNTO~ Ou vEsAND JEwtsH
CHRISTIANITY: H EARING E,\ RLY CHRIS'riA" Vo1c~s 11-. CANONICAL AI-. 0 APOCRYPHAL T EXTS
Claire Clivaz Sometimes you g.e t interested in a text by t:hance. Trying to unders tand the Luka n ang.el and sweat ' like drops of blood' (Lk. 22.43-44). I had a close look at the \•arious traditions that a re linked with Jesus· prayer on the Mount of Olives, and conseq uently, to the 'prayers and s upplications, with loud cries and tears" 1 in Heb. 5.7. Ob,1iously, we ha ,•e not finished understanding a ll the possible meanings of Jesus· prayer at Gethsemane. F'or this reason. the link beh\o'een Heb. 5.7 and Gethsemane still rem:lins obscure.1 After a discussion of present research. l will describe a les.."i known interpretation of the prayer a t Gethsemane as an inter<:ession Cor I he people of Israel. which is round in the Gospe/l)f rhe Sll1•ior.' and in Orig_en, Epipha nius and Jerome. l will t hen a rgue lhat the ' prayers a nd I
Biblim l quouations ar<: from :-l ltW. I c:tp-ress my grntitudc to Claire Martinet Chcwllcy
Kocnitur. who proofread the English of 1 hi~ anide. for example. P. Gray. Gad~r Ft•a,-: Tile Epislfp to thr J/rlm!ll.'J ami Gruo-Roman Criliqur.s of S11pnstitkm (Acndl'mia Biblica . 16: Atlanta. GA: SRL Press. 2003). p. 196: and 2
K<~ thy Sec~
'There is litde way of knowing with adequate pn:cision what it might hnvc looked like C\'en wh<:n one grants his fnmilinrity with some version of lhc: story: Sec also H. W. Auridgc. Tile Epi.wle ld tlw J/ebreh·s (Phibdc-lphia: Fortress l'n:ss. 1989}. p. lotS: R. E. Brown. Thi' Death of the Me.uiall: Fmm Gi'thremtme ltJ 1he Gruw. A Cammt•lllof)' tm Ill{! Passion Nurmlim.f intlte Fm1r Gospell· (New York: Doubleday. 199-t). I. p. !3J. 3 C. W. Hedrick und I, , A. Mim ki (t.-ds). Go.\1~1 of tl1e Sarior: A /•lt>11' A11dem Grupd (01Iifornia dassical Li br;~ry: Santu Rosa: Polebridge Ptt.'l>S. 1999_). In 1002. Emmel proposed a different order in th~ folitt of the Coplie text: sec S. Emmet 'The Rec.:nt1y Published Grupe/ IJj !!II! Sun·or ("Un b~~knn ntcs Berliner Evtmgdium"): Rig.bting the Ord~r of P:tge.s nod E\-cnts'. NTR 95 (2002). pp. 45- 7!: itlem. ' Preliminary Rcodition and Trnnsb tion of t h~ GO.\]JC4 tJfthe &trior. New Light on the Smubourg Coptk Gtupel nnd the Stuum.r-Text from Nubia·. A('(X'•·.rplut 14 (1003). pp. 9- 53. Jn 1998. Sc,henke published ulso:. tr~msla tion of the text: H.·M. Schenk.:. ·o;,s so~cn nnnte " Unbckunntcs Evangdium.. lUBEJ . ZAC 1 ( 1998). pp. 199- lB (\\ith slight chnngcs in U.·K . l,li.sch. DW Bibt-1. Verborgt'tlt' War/e h•.m Venro~(ene frangelim. Apokrypltf' Sc-1/rifttm des friih<-11 Clu·istemum.~ (Stullgnrt: Deutsche Bibdgcscllscht1ft. 2000]. pp. 27- 34).
188
A Cloud of Witnesses
supplications. wit h loud cries and tears·, linked to a presentation of Christ as H igh Priest, refers to the Jewish to pic of a pr~1yer tha t intercedes by using te-a rs and supplications. T his topic is evoked by Jus tin ;md Origen as a Hebnaic motif: l sugge.st reading its d ran by Phi lo (the Levitic suppli'"ilion) •nd its development in Heb. 5.7 a nd 12.17. in the figure of Ja mes by Hegesippus. and ln the Gospel of llw St111ior; it could have t hen been codilled la ter in t he ra bbinic Jal wmm prayer. If this interpretation is correct, Heb. 5.7 represents a n important step in the direction of the
reception orGethsemane·sprayer a.s an inter<-ession fOr the Jewish people.
Stll'h a n interpretation of Gethsemane helps us to understa nd the Greek ApO{'(I/ypst• of E:ra. the Apomlyp.,e ofSetlrttl'h. a nd the Vision of' E:ra. for ex~-tmple. This e ntire essay tries to deal wilh t he fa mous 'Jewish Christian· b~~ekground of early Christia nily. ror which prudence is required ..s
I. A Prayer ttbout Resurrl.'ction or Demb: Gray and Swelnam According to Gray. Heb. 5.7 raises the fo llowing q uestion: ' What does Jesus pray ror a nd how is he heanl?"s Numero us S<.~holars h~-tve presented several dilrerent solutions:() amo ng these explanations. I consider two points ~~• l?resent. First, Ha rnack's solution of adding an oVt: : before is ma inly understood as 'because of his re\'e renl submission· (NRsv). or ·godly fea r' as G ray proposed afler a t-<)mplete study. where "jAa~ta a ppe-.ars as a ' key-atlit ude· in the Hebrew text.~ Gray a rgues tonvindngly by readin~ Plutarch who describes EUAaj3Ei a as ·an appropria te a uit ude in a pprehending t he divine·,Y and by underscorin£ that O:rrO
.J A. Gr<:£01)'. ' Hindrance or Help: Docs the Modem 0 1tegory of "Jewish-Christian Gospd " Dishm our Underst;u1ding of the: Te:tt:' to which it Refers'.''. JSNT 28 (::006}. pp. 387-413 HI I): 'Th~ ct~ tegory of Jewish-Chri-stino gt' spds has bocom-c: an established bmnd that enjoys a secure mark.:t. though i!S pl-digrec: is not in fact \'Cry old. But. as I hope that ! have dc.nwnstmtc:d. the term ..Jewish·Christi.:.n gospd'' is positi\•d y mis.kading if tnk~n to refer to a caMn of writings which shnrc p.;1rticulur fom1nl ~haroic1eri.stics. t1 partic-ulur tmns:mission history or en:n particular nnd distincti\'C' thcologiro1tcndenc:K:s !hat might set them ~·part from ~· II other gospels.' 5 Gruy. G()(/}y J".rcrr. p. 189. 6 Sl"<, for e:tumplc. J. Swetnam . 'Th~ Cru:t at Hebrews 5.7-S'. Bihlil'a 81 (1000), p p. 34761 (347- 50): Auridgc:. 1/ebrt·ws. pp. 150-52; Gray. God~r Fe((r. pp. 188- 98. 7 Stt Gray. GOtf~r Feor. p. 190: Swclnam. 'Crux·. p. J~S: Attridge. Hrbrews. p. 152. 8 Gruy. Gf~lly }-(!(ft, p. 224. 9 /hid.• p. 107. A similtlr definition is gi\·cn by llscudo-Andronicus (about first century c£): A. Glibcrt· Thjrry (cd.). /J_$fmlo-.4mh·ollicu.f de Rhodes. TIE:PI OA€10N' {Corpus l.atinum Commcntariorum in Ari.stotckm Greaconun Suppl. 1: Lcidcn: Brill. 1977). pp. 235--37.
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !H mml of Olires
189
t a nnol mean 'out o r or 'away from•, witho ut ·some verb expressing the idea of sepa ra tion·. 10 I wo uld add in fa vour of t his inte rpretation that ;:UAo:(3£1a , in the New Testament, has always been li nked with Jewish people or Jewish fa ith (Lk. 2.25: Acts 2.5: 8.2: 22.1 2: He b. 5. 7: 11.7: 12.28) and o iTers the sense o f 'godly fe..;_u' . 11 The semantic field of £Uo~j3£1a i.s very close. but Luke-A<:t.s keeps it for describing the Gentile world (see Ac ts 3. 12: 10.2; 17.23). Ho wever. the o riginal lesson of Sinailkus uses ,uo,~T)s about Symeon in Lk. 2.25 instead of EUAai3~5 . and 2 Pe ter a nd the Pastoml letlers employ the semantic field o r ;:Uoi~£10: to Speak about the-Christian faith . as 2 Pet. 2.9:12 ' the Lord knows how to rescue the 2.0d ly from trial' (nio£~{ls ' K m •paoj.loG pU,o6a• ). In the deutero-cano ni'CaJ \Visdom of Solomon> the same idea is a lready associated wit h t he 11g.ure or Jacob in an ·arduous contest' (Oyc:lva ioxupOv), '"''here Wisdom helps him: 'in his a rduous tootest s he gave. him the victo ry. so that he might learn t hat godliness is more p<>werful tha n a nything else (Wis. 10.12b). Wisdom 10.1 -2 1 presents seven righteous heroes as the evidence of wisdom's providential o rdering or the lsr.telite history. A comparable listing o f biblic~d figures is used in Sir. 44.1 - 50.2 1 a nd Heb. 11.4-38. but Hebrews list compares the biblical ligures ~•tcordi ng to their fa ith. All these remarks underline that Hebrews a nd Luke-A<:.ts use £Vi,af3.£la in the precise. sense of 'godly fea r', a concept tha t conl~lins two ideas. that of ' godliness· as in Wisdom. 2 Pe ter a nd the Pastorals (;:Uo,~E:Ia). and that of ' fear>. 'l11ese two qua lilka.tions allow ;:UAaj3;: ia: to o llf:r a n image o r a reverent prayer with loud emotion a nd fear. as Gray indk a tes. 13 If one admits the rejection o f Harnack's conjecture- and the sense o f 'godly re.a r' lOr EUAo:i3;:ia . o ne still h;-ts to examine t he tWO main recent propositions o rinterpretation fo r the crux o f Heb. 5. 7, those of Gr.ty and Swetnam. Gray, in the same way as Attridge a nd Joa(:him Jeremias befo re him, understa nds that Jesus was asking to be delivered ·from the power o r death' (~K eavCn ou) and was ' heard' (rioa.Kouo6£ls_) at his resurrection: 14 this interpretation is based on the understa nding o f 'the one who was ableto save him from death' as the content o f the pra~·er, tha t remains nevertheless uns pecified. as Attridge himself recognizes. 5 T o s upporl this inte rpreta tion, Allridge and Gwy invoke the fe rvenl prayer o r men like 10 Gmy. God~r Frar. p. 191. &:~·si milar conslruclions in Exodus 6.9 LXX and Job 35.1 2 LXX. II Sec Tlf.'/•/T II. p. 7-19: in lhc LXX 'bczcichnc:l vor t•lkm tU>.a~ilo6o:• (ofl mil tiJm) die. Golte.c;.ful'('.hf . 12 Sec TWNTVJI. p. 180. 13 Gray. God~r Fmr. p. 101. I-I Sec AHridgc:~ Nrbuw:r. pp. 150- 51 : Gray. G<XI~r Ftt(IJ', pp. 192 and 199: J. Jcr<:m ias. ·Heh r. 5.7- 10'. ZNW 44 ( 1952/ 1953). p p. 107- 11 (107). 15 Sec Auridb"<:. 1/eb•·ews. p. ISO.
A Cloud of Witnesses
190
Abr.tham and Moses, suc.:.h as presented by Philo. 16 Gray concludes that ' Philo's usag.e s hows tha t the " loud c ries and tears" <.~~m actually be a fum:tion of the petitioner's pietv expressh·e o f boldness r
particul~uly
1
neglected.'1 despite being unusuaL Jn all the rest of the New Testament. Jesus is s.aid to cry only ln front of Lazarus> grave (Jn 11.35) and in fro nt of Jerusalem (Lk. 19.41 ). This frame of a reverent prayer in Judaism has Lo be specified, b<,. .>(·a use Hebrews itself refers in 12.1 7 to another intense petition with tears, that o f Esau: ' he was rejected. for he fOund no cha nce to repent, e'•e n though he sought t he blessing with te-.u~·. This will be developed below. If I agree about t he pertinence of the relerence to Philo lor the interpreta tion of Heb. 5.7-8. I oppose t he idea thal 'lhe one who was a ble to save him from death' would designate the content or the prayer. When G ray finally concludes that Jesus, in Heb. 5.7, ' looks fo rward to a "better'· resurrection' 19 - wit hout spedrying what this ' beuer resurrection· would mean - one h~iS to ask oneself if this interpretation is really suppo rted by the- context of Hebrews. As Ell ingworth underlines, 'in Hebrews the resurrection of Jesus is not prominent. The aut hor of Hebrews insists so strongly on the positive results of Christ"s su(l'ering and death (Heb. 2.9: 2.14; 9.1 5) that it is antecedently im~robable that he wo uld speak here o f Christ's attempting to ~woid them.'.d Rissi alre-ddy asse-r ted in 1955 that the 'the one who was able to save him from death· co uld be an a nlm1;-ttion of the author.2 1 Hebrews I 1.19 helps to confirm this opinio n: Abraham agrees to sacritk e his son because he believes in Lhe resurrection. In the race o f s uch a n a ffinnation. it would seem very stra nge if. fo r t he author o f Hebrews. Jesus himself d id not have the s.ame <.~on viet ion as Abra ha m. a nd would have had to 'pmy' abo ut the assurance of the resurrection. Mo reover. Ps. 2.7 - q uoted in He b. 1.5 and 5.5 - was no t o bligatorily linked for the early Christians to Jesus· resurrection (see below). So. il' it does not appea r toherent \\~th the rest o f Hebrews t hat Jesus prays a bo ut 16 See l'hi!o. Ru. Dir. Hn. ~1 -29. tlUOted by Attridge. 1/ehtews. p. !51. n. 153. 17 Grny. Gmlly J~·ar. p. 20 1.
IS
P~'l l m
116. often mentioned as proh:ablc baol:ground for 1-kh. 5. 7 from Strobel (1954). about te:ars. but precisely in the ~1pposite woy: •for r ou hrwe ddi\•cred my soul from death. my eyes from tct~ rs' (Ps. 116.8). As Gray rightly tts:scrts: ·nothing from either psalm )Ps.1lms 22 and 1161 appears in direct. unmistakllbk quotation in Hcbn.·ws' (Gray. G()(l/)" Fear. p. 198). 19 lhitl.• p. 199. 20 P. Ellingworlh. Tilt' l:..'pistle to tit<> 1/ebnm-s: A C'onmmlfll(l' 011 the Gr~ek Texl (NIGTC: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans.. 1993). p. 288. 11 M. Rissi. 'Die Mcnschlichkcit Jesu nnch Hebr. 5.7·8·. TIIZ II (1955). p~l. 2845 (39}. spc~aks
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
191
his future resurrection. we have still to dete rmine what the topk o r his prayer is, and in which sense he has to 'learn· (£~a6'v 5.8} and to become ' accomplished' (nA
·n,e
22 Soc Swetnam. 'Cru:f. pp. 350. 352 and 356. 23 J. Swetnam. Jesu.~ aml l.wuu·: .4 Study rif Jl!e fpktlr Itt the Jlr4nYit'S iir tltr Ug/11 of lite Aqt!tla!t (Anakcw Biblica. 94: Rome: Biblical fnSlilutc: Press. 198 1): idem. 'Cru:t': idMn. ·The Contc:tt of the Crux al Hebrews 5.7·8·. FiliJiogia Neoti'Jidlllf'llfariu. 14 (2001). p. 101- 10. 24 Swc:tnnm. ·cru:t' . p. 356: idem. ·conlcxf. p. 114. 25 Swetn:un. ·contcxf. p. 113. 16 Ibid.. p. 112. 27 The antiquily of the-:.s.-.ocintion between Ps. 2.7 nnd Jesus· baplism is in nddition auestcd by Justin M:.l1yr according 10 the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' (s1.-e DiurTryp 103.6) and the GtJJJWI q{ the f hirmircs (see. Epiph:.nius. P<mun'OI! 30. 13.7). as well as by the eodcx Lalin a in Mt. 3.15. According to lhcsc:dt.'tllt nts. J agrte with Gregor)' thatlhc Gospel riftlie Ebionil~s could testify to a very old trndilion on lhis point: see A. Gregory. 'Prior or Posterior? The Gr~.,prl (if 1/re fhi011iles nnd the Gospel of l uke". NTS 51 (2005), pp. 344-flO (358).
192
A Cloud of Witnesses
texts in Hebrews bolsters Swetnam·s case·.:!K. Swetnam insists panicularly abo ut the link between Heb. 2.18 and the A<1edah 29 because o r the term m tpaoa,ls. which reminds him of 11.1 7 ( m tpo:~O~nvos ). But it is very d ear that Hebre\VS does not limitthe use of this verb to the Aqeda h. o r to Sacrifice. Of even to death: Tmp0:~c.:> deSCribes the tria ls o f t he fathers in the desert (3.15), as well as all Jesus eart hly experiences. who 'in every respect has been tested, as we a re· (4.15). Thirdly, the ' pamdoxical interpreta tion• of Swetnam does not a llow him to maintain Ps. 22.25 as a backgro und fo r Heb. 5.7: Gray underlines ri~July that 'the psalm ~jves little or no ind ication tha t the speaker wants to d ie".3 Finally. I consider the theological motivations of Swetnam·s hypothesis are lOo int rusive in his ~1rgumentation: for example, the aocent on Melchizedek witho ut g.enealogy illustra tes lOr him tha t 'Eucharist generates God's People·.JI In addition to aU these arguments. I do not agree with the link dr~lwn bet ween the (X>Operative Isaac o r the late Jewish tradition and He b. 11.1719: indeed these verses adopt I he point or view ~{'Abraham and not tha t uf /.mac. The argumentation of Swetnam fails to notk~ it. and to consider that Hebrews focuses on the failh of Abraham. who obeys because he believes in a God who '"'" resurrect the dead (Heb. 11. 19). I r Jesus does not pray in Heb. 5.7 for his resurrection (Gray, Allridge, Jeremias) o r fo r being allowed to d ie (Swetnam). is it possible to propose another co ntent, even if the text does not give it explicitly? In o rder to go a step furt her in this study. it is time to t:ome back to Gethsemane.
°
2. The Pra.~1er ou Moun! o.f Olives and !he Gospel of the Savior: a Prtt)'l'r for Others
Tearfi m Gnhsenume and in !he Gospel of t he Savior 43 and 55 A ·pa radoxical interpretation· emerges when some elements of l he text are particularly in oppOSition with the inte-rpretative t~ommunity of the readers. Origen ofiCrs t:learly a similar e.xa mple of a 'pamdoxical interpretation' about Jesus· word o n the cup. In his £.,·/wrlatio ad 18 Harrington continues by saying: •Hebrews 6. 13· 15 insists that Abruhanfs faith and cndur:ml'C at the ~•crificc were not the cause of God's promises but rath•rs. p. IS! and Ellingworth. /leb•·e 1rs. p. 288). Jl Sw·ctnnm. 'Conlcxf. p. 118.
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
193
Marryrium, whose title indica tes 3 precise context Origen insists on the qualilkation 'this' cup, and argues that the Savior ';-tsked to be excused from martyrdom wit h this particular issue: asked in secret fo r a JOrm o f martyrdom much severer. so t hat through this other chalice might be wro~~~~t. a ~enelit .more uni~ersal, one reaching to a g;re.at~1: number or men :- fh1s readmg underlines that even the more exphclt prayer a t Oethsemane has been subject to various - and cont rary - interpretations. T he ligure of Jesus praying for a 'martyrdom much severer' represents evidently an extreme on the scale of meanings, but this story offers the particularity of having a lready been pen:-eived in dilferent ways inside the c-anon: John prefers not to spe-.tk a bo ut it, but seems to .allude critically to the St-ene (Jn 12.27; 18.11): Luke offers a quite d ilierent version rrom Mark and Matthew (see Lk. 22.39-46)-" '" Heb. 5. 7 does. ir it rel'ers to Geths.emane. When we stud}' Gethsemane. it is pa rticularly impo rtant to keep in mind this early diversity of receptions or re-readings of 3 common tradition. T he link between t he prayer o f He b. 5.7 and the-context Gethsemane remains a d isputed q uestion: l he majority of s<:holars agree th~n a n eventual link i::an be neit her demonstrated, nor denied.34 l'he link with Gethsemane remains problema tic. principally txx:a use no granting a ppears in this srene:'~ and because Jesus does not weep on the Mount or Olives. "t-cording to the Synoptic Gospels. Dibelius already postul"ted the presen<.-.e of another o ra l or written source behind Heb. 5.7. as d id Brown.36 It seems more useful and clearer fo r me to spe~1 k about a possible a lterna tive iuu:rprellllitm o r reception of the prayer a t Gethsemane in line with Heb. 5.7. T his chang_ e of language means a change in point of view: we a re not trying to grasp the original story of the prayer on the Mount of Olives. but to understand as Hebrews' author a nd addressee could have understood the pr.tyer of Jesus. Moreover. we have no re-•son to exclude the possibility that the Ma rkan version (Mk 14.3242) is a lready a reception or an appropriation of ;t well-known story.
or
32 Origcn. Murt. 29.3!-37 (lruns. J ohn J. o ·Mc.:.ra: Ancient C}u·istjan Writers. 19: Weslminslcr: Newman l,n:ss. 195-J). Quoted in C. CliWJz. 'A Sw·cut "like Drops of Blood'' (luke !!.44): nt the Crossing of lntcrtcx:lutll R~-adi ng and Textual Ctiticism'. SBL SnttinttJ· P tlfWX
2Q(J4.
Sut1
Amo-lliiJ.
http:Nwww.sbl -s.ite.or~tt'rongrc::s..;'--s-/Congresscs_Ann unl
}.·Jecting_ScmimuPapcrs.ttspx. 33 Sot about the e:ttcrnal e\·idl~ncc of Lk. !1.4344. C. d ivnz. 'The An,gd and the Sweat Like " Drops of Blood'' tLk. 22..43-44): P'~ and/..,'. JJTR 98 (2005). pp. 419-40. 34 Sot Antidge. Jlehren·s. p. 151: Grny. Gmi~r Fem·. p. 196: E. H. Aitkcn.Jt·.ws· Dl'(llll ill &trly Chriiliall Mt'mory: Tire PlJt'lia of tftl' Pt1J.(it1J1 (NTOA. 53: Fribourg: Academic Press. 2004}. p. 144. 35 Soc: Allridb'<=· 1/ebt·Eit·s. p. 151. 36 Sec M. Dibdius. Dk Furmge.wllidiiP ties Ertfllgelium.,· (Tiibingcn: J. C. ll. Mohr. 1933). p. 113: Brown. Dmtlt. I. pp. 232- 33.
194
A Cloud of Witnesses
A new testimony a bo ut Gethsema ne·s re<:eption a ppeared in 1999:37 the
ooptic Gospd of !he Savior. Emmel is preparing a new edition of the text and has demonstra ted tha t the Coptit Papyrus ofStr{lsburg belongs to this gospel, ~.tnd that t he Nubian Stauros-t ext - and its unpublis hed Coptic \'ersion3 g - offers some. important clues to understanding the text. 39 As Ehrmann asserts. t his g.ospel recounts 'Jesus· last hours. including his prayer before his a rres t and a final address to the cross (late second century)" .4<1 It narrates a s~x..>(·ial experiment of heavenly ast'ent while Jesus is pr.tying. a t Gethsema ne: t he Book o.f !he Resurret tion of Our Lord Je:ws Christ IS. I a lso narr.ues a similar scene o f tra nsfOrma tion on the Mo unt of Olives before the arrest..t 1 ·n 1is as<:ent experiment leads ' the Savior to the d ivine throne room in the seventh hea"en (vv. 37-44). ·n 1ere the Son prostr.ues himself befOre his Father, to whom he pntys three times (vv. 46-49, 5 1- 55. 58- 59). each time including the refrain. " 0 my fa ther, if it be possible. let this c.:.up pass from me!.. ."42 Two deta ils in t his 'prayerascent' scene ;u e pa rticularly s triking in t he frame or t his a rticle: Jesus weeps a nd explains that his sadness is due to his concern for the people o f 43 lsr.te1. The text is very damaged. but Emmel proposes reading lines 4 555 this way:44 45 (.. .4 +/- lines mHrtmsluwble ( 1he J.''ather qut's/i(Jiu the S(m) ·why] arc you w<.-cping a nd (d isln:SS(.xlj. such lhm (the( c nlirc. angelic host (is a hmncdTf 46 (And ( he (lht' Son ) rc.pli<.xl (in this) mttnn<.·r. '( . •• 5 lines tmfr(msllltahle .• .(47 I nm [l;n:ally d istressed ... ( kill (•• . j at the hnnds o f 37 I .,.,.jJI f~11low Emmd 's numbering of the linc.s ( Emmd. 'Preliminary Rc~-di tion'. pp. 38H ),
38 S. Emmel. 'Ein ultc.s Evangdium dcr Apostd 1aud1t in Frtlgmenten !IUS A.gyptcn und Nubien aur . ZAC 9 (1005). pp. SS- 99 (87): ' In den Anmerkun~,'<:n :zu seiner 1983 publiTjcncn Ausgabe dcr nltnubischcn Hnndr.:hrift hal Gerald M . Brown< \Vorte und Smu nus dem koptischcn P.:.r:•ltdtcxt. den cr a us Folos bnntc. angcfUhr1. Obwohl det koptischl."n Text :als sokher noch nil."hl publi:rien worden is I. findet man in der Sd:und:irliterntur Abbildungen \'On ingc:s..1mt sicbcn Scitcn dcr HandschrifL r.um Teil farbig.' 39 / bid.. p. 89: 'Obwohl dcr kopt.isch~·n Stauros-Tc:u kcine \'ollst3ndigc Abschrift unscrcs ncul."n E\'angdium ist. lOs! er cine Reihe ,·on R3tsdn in dcr tkrlincr H:.ndschrift. die ohnc lhn un!,>clOsl b1ciben·. 40 B. Ehrmann. Lml Cllristiallilif's: Till! B1111ks for Scrir111re u.r~d tlw Fuillu Wt• l•le rr!r Knew (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003). p. xi. 41 Emmek 'I'Tdiminary·. p. J3. Sec :1lso P. N:1gd. • "Gespr:lche Jesu mi1 scincn Jungem ''or det Auferstehung" - 1.ur Herkunft und Oat-ierung ties " Unbckannten Berliner Evnngc.liums' ... ZNW9-i (100.1). pp. 115-i5. .Jl Enut1CL 'Recently·. p. 50. 43 See J. Frey. · teidenskampf und Himmel Reise: D:ls Berliner E\·ungdic.nfmgml· nt (Papyrus lkrolincnsis 11120) und die Gc:thsc:mane-Trndition·. BZ 46 (1002). pp. 71- 96 (84J: 'Jcsu.c; T rauer isl in diescm Text oOCnbar dudurch bcdingt. dass cr dul'(h dus Volk Js.rad :t.u Tode kommcn soli. und er biuct wohl dm-um, dass er um dcr En:\·iitcr wilkn Iieber \'On einem anderen Volk gctOtct wUrdc'. 44 Emmel. 'Prdiminmy'. p. 40.
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
195
the !peo p le o fl ls rad. 48 0 my jfathcr l. if it be [poss.iblcj. let this (cup) pass from me! 49 Let (me: I be (• . . ] at Lhc hands o r some ot ht·r J... ( people. who l... t if f... jlsrud 1... 3 + i - lim·.~ 1mtrrmsl"ruhle .• . 50 (1 1te Fa1hcr replietl. . . 3 + i - li11es UJJinuulatable. . . ·so th at] sa).,·at.io n (might co me.) to the t•m irc world' . 5 1 (T hc nj aguin the. Son t hrew himself d own at his Father's feet. 4 .i t~t)•ing). 52 '(0 my fn t hc.r.. . 5 lines JmlruusJt,tahle.. .J to d ie wit h joy ~md pour out m y blood for the human race. 53 But I wt•cp great ly o n mx:.ount o f my belo ved o nes. !Abra ham( und Isa ac (and ! .hlc.ob. [because on the ( d ay o f judgme nt (l hey will) s tand. jwhercas] I will sit upon jm yJ th rone a nd pass !jud gme nt( o n t he wo rld. 54 {while they! suy to me. ·t ... S' Jiue1>· Ulllm uslawblt!.. . j the glory t hat was given to me (onJ eart h. 55 0 m y (father. if it be possible. let th is eupj puss from mc!'..o
r.
As fa r as I know. no body has compa red the te"rs of Jesus in GosSa•• 45.53 with He b. 5.7. not e\'e n Frey. who nevertheless quotes the passage o r Hebrews in his study o f the Gospel of 1he Sm•ior:" if Frey does not c.ompo.-tre both mentions of ' tea rs', it is pro bably because he opposes thecontents o f the prayer in Heb. 5.7-8 (esca ping from the power of death bv the resurrection)..s and in the (iospel of rlu! Savior (protecting lsrae1).49 The first point of this a rLic.:le has a lready underlined tha t we do not have an explicit ~.:ontent fo r the prayers in Heb. 5.7-8, and tha t the 'resurrection· cannot be a n appropriate-C-<)ntent. As the co nte-nt o r Jesus· prayer in Heb. 5.7 G.mnot just be de-mo nstrated on a textual basis, I propose that we consider G'o!iSm' 45- 55 as a reception no t o nly of Synoptic. a<·count.s about Oethsemane, but also o f two elements in He b. 5.7: Jes·us weeping a nd praying for others. My hypothesis is that Heb. 5. 7 represents an impo rtant step to understandin~ the reception o f the pra yer at Gethsernane. such as we have it in the Gospd of the Savi(n-. I will now develop this proposition in four steps: first, by exploring the reception or the pra yer a t Gethsemane as a n 'inten.'lfssion fo r Israel'. a nd then coming back to He b. 5.7-8 wit h the inte rpreta tion o f the prayer as intercession ' fo r others). Thirdly (§3). I will 45 Hedrick and Mired:i translnte here: 'he bo\\'Cd his kntts' (Hedrick nnd Mirccki. GaJ]!I!I. p. 47): Schenke translated in Geml ~lll: ' (0 :•1 W;Jrf dcr Sobn \\i l-der auf die Knie vor dcm Vater· (Schenke. '"Unbcbnntcs Evangd ium' ' ·, p. 211). C herix notia:d that the samee-xpression stands in the BtJtJk tJ/i!ll! Resurre
196
A Cloud of Witnesses
sketch a possible Jewish b~~ekground for an intense and eO'e<.~live prayer with tears. in o rder to give :L plausible badg,round for Heb. 5.7 in c'Onnection L<> Heb. 12. 17 (Es;m's tean;). 1'he conclusion will consider the evaluation of the link between Heb. 5.7 and Gethsemane. Finally, I will defend t he idea that the concept of ,,;;>.aj3
A PraJ-cr for Israel 011 the Mou111 ~r OliFt:s: An Opm Quest In CosSm· 47 and 53. the Savior explains his sadness because of his t'Oncern for the people of Israel. As Frey cleverly no ticed, Origen alludes twk"e to this interpretation, :l common point with the Gosptd of the Sarior.YJ and s uggests that Origen may have known this text.5 1 Following this proposition in a n enthusiastic manner. Emmel makes the conjecture that Origen would have read this inte rpretation in the Gospel of the Tw(dW! Apostles, which could be for him linked with the Gospel of' the Sm·ior, or even this gospel itself. s:z But I would like w specify Jlrst all that Origen co nsiders this interpretation as ·another· interpretation and prefers to it the 'paradoxi<:al in terpreta ti on~ quoted a bove. s uch as presented in the ExhorUifio ad JHarJyrium.~1 Secondly. if we come to the Commelllary ou A1lauflew by Orige n. we can get a nother clue about what is in llKt an open quest, the inte rpretation t he pro.1yer a t Gethsemane as an inte-rcession for Israel. Indeed Origen sig.nals lhal lhis inlerpretalion is linked with the expression 'son of his love·.l> t hat could evoke Col. 1.13 (Tou uioii Tijs
or
or
50 See Ori,gen. Cuulro Celnrm 2.15 and C(}mm. in JltJt. Su. 92 (referenced by Frey. 'lcidc:ns.ktunpr . p. 93). 51 Fn.-y. · t cidc:nsknmpr. p. 94. 52 Enund. 'E\·angdium·. p. 95. 53 See Origcn. CoJ11ru Cdsum 2.24: · But th<sc: muucrs. whit:h afford great room for c:xpbnation from the: wisdom of God. t•nd which may reasonably be pondered over by those: whom Paul c<•lls "perfect'' whc:n he- :s<1id. ··we spc.•.ak wir.dom ;1mong them who arc: perfoct''. we pass by for the prc:scn1. and shall speak for a liulc- of those mnuc:rs whieh arc USiCful for our presc:nt purpose· (trans. H. Chadwick: C~mbrid£c:-: Cnmbridgc University I'Ycss. 3rd cdn. c:n gi\·c:s lhis inlerprc:ltation for ·pcrfct.'t people· in Mur1. 29.32·37. 1980). Orig_ S.J Origcn. C'ommMall Mm. 91 (lc:ip;:ig: J. C. Hinriehs'sche Buc:-h handlung. 1933). p. !09: ·Alter~• autcm interprctalio l o~-i huius est tnlis. quoniam quasi ·liliu." earitatis· dei. se<:undum prnescicntiam quidem diligc:bnt cos. qui ex gc:ntibus fuc:.rant credituri • . . Dili_gcn.s nutc:m {Judaoos] vidcbat. quulia ernnl passuri pc:tcntc:s <:um ad mortem c:t Bar.tbbam d igentc:s nd \'itam: id~-o dioc:b:1t do1c-ns de c:ls: p(ller. si possibile r.vr . lflfii.Wal rali.\' islt! 11 mi':
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
197
O.yO:nrJs a 1hoU) according to the ed itor. 55 but could also recall the d ivine voice at the baptism (Lk. 3.22) or the s pecific G reek version of lsa . 42.1 in Mt. 12.18. If tha t llts, this due would indit·ate a Jewish Christian background (or a milieu first d ose to the Jewish people) as t he origin o r this type o fGethsema ne reading. Consequently. it is wise to keep in mind tha t t he 'Jewish Christian· background is a plura l and complex landscape, and not to reduce too q uickly the interpretation of Gethsemane as a n inte rt·es.sion for Israe-l to a specitic text or communily. ll is all t he more t rue tha t this interpretation was known by o ther writers, JeromeS6 and Epiphanius. 57 Epiph~mius does not give any pa rticula r indication about this interpreta tion. tha t he q uo tes just in passing~ arguing against Arianus. Nevertheless. o ne t~~m notice l hat this inte rpreta tion seems to be well known by Epiphanius ami by his advers.a.ries. On the other hand , Jerome gi\•es suc h precise detail within this interpreta tion t hat he st.>ems to have a written text - or a very wenknown tradition - in rro nt or him. We have to attribute a t least some common referenres to him and to his readers when. fo r ex~tmple. Jerome quotes other developmenL"i of the pr.tyer of the So n to his Father: 'Ithis people! could not have the excuse of ig:no wnce if they kill me. because they have Lhe Law a nd t he prophets who prophesize me every day' (Camm. i\tl.a u. 26.39); ·ane r he prayed to get~eveT?' word contin~ed by t\\10 o r t hree Wit nesses . . .' (Comm. Mall. 26.45): ' It IS a t least poSSible to sa y tha t the interpreta tion o f the cup ;.t s ;.t pwyer fo r lsr.te1 is acc.ompanied here by many details that a re. not known from the t~a nonical acoounts. Je rome's commentary o n Matthew should t·ertainly be. ta ken into ~KcOun t in the o pen ~uest a bo ut this p;uticula r interpreta tion of the prayer a t Gethse mane. ~ T he ma in question is to explain how a n ~~ppmently 'Je.wish friendly' opinion60 could have bee.n linked with such a nti-Jewish sta teme.n ts in the 55 Ibid.. p. 2®. n. 2. 56 Jerome. Cumm. Mllll. Ud9. 57 Epiphanius.. P(Wtffirm. Collfra Arituws 60.5: ' But of his kindn.."S$. and to spare t\brahum's seed.IJcsus) was putting in t• word for the people. bcc..'JUSC he would be b..-truycd by lsrad· (trans.. F. Willi:•ms: Nag Hamnwdi Studies and M:.ni~hean Studies. 35: Lj,':idcn: Hrill. l nd edn. 1997). fl. p. 379. 58 ·s..-d {'ali.\· isle. hos csl populi Judueorum. qu.i exusutioncm ignorantiae habere non potest. si me oe..-iderct. lmbcns lcgen1 et prophett1squi me ootidie untici.nantur' (C'omm . Matt. 26.39): 'Postquum tcrtio omvcrut. ul in ore duonun et u ium testium star~"'!. omne verbum' (Comm Malt 16 A5). Quoted from E. Bonnard (cd.). Saini JerrNne. Crmm~<wlllin• su•· Mllllhieu (SC. 259~ Paris.: Ccrf. 1979). II. pp. 155 and 259. M y own translation. 59 Emmel. following Ka~<:S d i. already indicntcs a possible link betwc.:n Jerome nnd the Roflk q/'liut Ri'.rtrrruticm. s.x Emmel. ' l,rdiminary'. p. 30. n. 29. 60 Sec K. Berger and C . Nord. Dus New Tt<slu.memwulfriihrbristlidlt> Sd11i[tm (leip7jg: lnscL 191>9). p. 927: 'lkmerh'tlswcrc ist. du.s.s wir kcin anderes En10gclium kC'no~·n. du.s so judcnfre.undlich ist wic: d icscs Jdus UHE)'. Quoted by Emmel. ·Reocntly'. p. 56. n. 49.
198
A Cloud of Witnesses
Swuros-Text. This text, closely associa ted by Emmel to the Gospel o( tire Sm•ior, says fo r example: "[The Sa,•ior] sa id. " 0 my chosen one. Peter, a nd you, my bro thers, you know all the things l hat the unjust Jews did to Indeed, Emmel considers the Stauros-Text as me.. .'6 1 ' Rezeptionsgeschichte'.62 bul a t the same time. he uses il to reconstruct some lines or the Gospel of tire Stll'ior (no ta bly 106-1 07). This apparent tens ion should keep us rrom the desire to diminish the multiplicity of points of view in the e-.trly Christian pericxl. We can already notic·e a distance between the report o f Origen that links the interpretation of the cup/ prayer for Is rael with the exegesis oi the 'son of love·. and Jerome who underlines the non-ignorance o f the Jews. In the Go:;plnli-Jewish character. but Re>•dHeimerdinger underlined very cleverly ils pro fo und Jewish roots.63 In order to understand mo re and more ' the ways that never parted'.6.t we have a lso to look fo r such moments where nevertheless these ways pa rted. ·n 1e interpretative struggle o r the cup ~ls ~i petition lOr the salvation o f lsr.tel is a very good test case in this sense. be<.~au se it seems to have d rculated in din'erent pla("eS rrom its emerging milieu. T hat ma kes the enquiry ha rder. b ut also more fascinating. The quest is opened , a nd I hope to have brought some dues in this a rticle.65 Part t hree will t ry to estima te the role o r Heb. 5.7-8 in lhis reception or Gethsemane by exploring the Jewish background of a partkularly intense prayer with tears. But I wo uld like to ('onclude this second section by setting forth an interpretation fo r Heb. 5.7-8 which I have not yet discussed: the pntyer ror the o thers. 61 11 is an c:mact from 1he first p:~n of 1he Sttm•·os-Text. quoted by Emmd in ' Prdiminmy', p. 45. But it h:1s 10 be signaled th:•t Emmd works here from two translations of the Coptic text. that he was not yet ~1 bl e 10 rrod entin:ly (soc ibid.. p. 45. nn. 89. 90). 61 Ibid.• p. 28. 63 Sec: E. J. F.pp. 'IT1e fl1eologkal Tcmklf(l' of Cmli'x Be:uP Canwhrigem·is in Ar1s (SNTSMS. J: Cambridge: Cambridge Uni\·c~ity Press. 1966). p. 165: J. Rt."3d·Heimerdinger.
The Bi!:(IJr Tt>xt ofAt'Js: A Comributicm of Di.srour.sr Ana(o;!>i.r lei Textual Critid:om (JSNTSup. 136: Sheflidd: Sheffield Academic Pn:ss. 1002). pp. 352- 53. 64 See A. H. Bl'Ck~~r nnd Y. Reed (t.-ds}. Tile Ways thai l•lewr f'tffU!d (TSAJ. 95: Ti.ibinb'<:n: Mohr Siebock. '2003). 65 See my PhD for further dcvdopme.n ts: L'a11ge N Ia :meur tk sa11g ( Lr 11.43-41). Ou £'()1tUIWnl on ruurrait him l'llt'ore &:rirt'l'llistuin! (BiTS: l euvcn: Pceters.ftJrtht'omiiJ.~).
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
199
John Chrysosto m mentions this interpretation (PG 63.69). which has been defended by Rissi, supported by Ellingworth. and recently a lso by Gelan.Jini. Gelardini sugnested read in•);:. Hebrews as a S\'nagooal homih• for 0 , o the Tisha-Be-Av. and underst~mds Jesus' prayer as the atoning intercession o f .:\•loses. that is 'during his second ascension. so to speak. the first Yom Kippur, the prot<>-Day of Atonement before liturgy existed'; this background would allow an understanding of the presence of Jesus as ' High Priest' in Hebrews.66 1t is a lso the ' High Priest' topic which led Rissi and Ellingworth to the proposition or a ' prayer for Others' in 5.7-8. Rissi anchors this interpretation in t he large context or 4.5- 5.1067 and in the voca bulary of 5.7- 10. selling out three participles that describe the a<.x:omplishme.nt of Jesus' sacerdotal service {tioaKouo6tls. T£Auw6&i5, rrpooayoptu6tls).6.11 fo r him, this perspective is broader than Geths.emane·s frame. Ellingworth is particularly attentive to the immedia te context or 5.7-8: 'l here is no suggestion in the present verse o r inter<:e.s.sion Cor o thers, but there may be an implied comparison with what was said in v. 3 oi the activity of High Priests ge.nen-tlly'.69 He adds that the ' urgency" implied by the term i.:ETllpias is what makes I he d ifference between Jesus' pntyer in 5.7 and his he;wenly intercession (7.25).10 As we see. the inte rpretation o r 5.7-8 as a pr.tyer for o thers, regarding the ' High Priest' background , finds an impo rtant textual support, but remains implied. as all the other interpretations. because the content of the prayer is not explicit. This contenl was obviously clear for the author. and probably shared by the addressee. since it is implied. Scholars a re continually looking lOr explanations about £loaKoucr6rls-. but the author did not need to expla in it because it would have been understandable to his addressee. The next task is consequently to look o utside the text Cor tra<.-.es of similar prayers. then to come back to Hebrews: the 'implied effect' or a non-explicit content lOr the prayer in 5. 7-8 has to be considered in ;1 proposition of inte rpretation. ~
66 G. Gdordini. 'Hebrews. an Aocicnt Synagogue Homily for Ti.Tfut &-All: Its Funclion. its Basis.. its Theologic.:•l fntcrprctalion·. in G. Gclardini (cd.), l·!t·br~'tl',f, Crmtempomry Ml'J/IC(l\·- Ne·w bts(t:!IJs (BIS. 75: lcidc.n: Brill. 2005). PP·· 107- 27 (122). She aOirms that 5.1 signifies 'die Abwendung dcr Flikhe aufgrund von Sli1mt'leimmg durcb Fiirbitle' (G. Gdardini. ' flt•J·MrM euri• Nu :en t1irbt. D« Nt>brikr ei11e SpaugognJ!umtili~· :u Tis.:ha bc-Aw llcidc:n: BrilL 20071. p. 190). 67 Ris:>i. ·Mcnsc:Michl:cit'. p. .JO. 68 Ibid.. p. 41. 69 EIJingwortb. N~·hmrs. p. 287- SS. 70 Ibid.. p. 187.
200
A Cloud of Witnesses
3. Thr Background of au Intense Prayer wirh Trtu·s Accord ing to Eusebius, Hegesippus gives this well-known description the usual prayer or Ja mes. the brother of the l o rd:
or
p am c:.s ] used to e-nter the Sanc tuary a lo ne. and was oflcn fou nd upon his knees lx:S<.'C(:hing fo rgiveness fo r t he people. so t ha t his knt."('-S gn:w hurd Iii.:.: a eamcl's from his eontinually ixmd ing them in his worship of God. a nd beseeching forgivc n<.-ss for the. pt·.oplc. lkcausc o f his unsurpussablc rightcousn<:ss he was called Lhc Just a nd Ob/i(IS - in Greek. · o ulwark o f the people' and ' Rightoousnc.ss·. fu lfilling the dt:d urations of the prophets regarding him (ElL-:cbius. Hisl . £cd. 1.23.6-7).'11
As John Pa inter comments, this descrip tion o f J{tmes· piety is c urious: 'the origjn of the practice of kneeling in prayer~ to which Hegesippus bears witness. is unclear' .72 I can pro pose some d ues for beller undersl;mding of wha t is at s take here . Firsl, we get cle-..tr indicalions a bo ut the importa nce of this topic of Ja mes· pr.tyer fro m its reception, in t he lst a nd 2nd Apoca(rpst•s of James (as found in Nag. Hammadi). 13 Both texts refe.r s to a n ·usual p rayer' of James (lstApocJo 30.30- 3 1.1 ; l ndApocJa 62. I 5). a nd to his profound sadness (1st Apoda 3 1.7: 32.13-14. I 9-20. 25- 26). Jesus invites him to leave his concern about Jerusalem (I sEApocJa 25.1S-17). a nd a bout the Jewish pe.o ple. bul withoul a sign of anti-Juda ism in the. lext (lst A!"lcJa 31.16-25). T he challeng.e seems for Ja mes to s top his usual prayer (lst!l pocJa 3 1.3; 32.5; lntiApocJac 62.1 3- 15) and his d istress (lst ApocJa 29.7- 1 1). a nd to pass to the Gnosis level, symbolized by a kiss given by Jesus (lstApocJa 3 1.4-5; 32.8; lndApocJt1 57. 11). lames fina lly dies pr:t}'ing, but not in his usual w~ly: 'And he Slretched out his hands a nd said this prayer - not tha t (one) which il is his cl.JSlom lo say' (lndApocJa 4 62.1 3-15).7 Both Coptic Apomln>ses demons trate a 'passage to the G nosis' of Jewish Christian elements gathere-d around lhe figure o r James the-Just. 75 Both texts lransro rm t he t rad ilional motif of Ja mes' intercession fo r Jerusalem and his people. accompanied with loud emolion.
71 T rnns.lalion J. llainteJ. JuJ/ James: 111e R•·orlwr of Jesu.r ill 1/islor._r ({JU/ Tmdili<m (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997). p. 12!. n IbM.. p. 126. 73 A version of Ihe lsiApoatlyp.s.r (IfJames is also present in the Codex Tc.haco..<: in n very wmplcte w.t~y. 74 J. M. Robinslln (ed.). The l•lug Nammadi Vbrury in English. The lh1i11ilirr Tumslatiun t~( lilt' Gnoslir Scriplrltf'S Complt'IP ill Ont• VtJiume (trans.. W. R. Schaedel: S..ec-: k .s l'res>c:s de r uni,'C'rsitC de l~wal. 1986). p. 155. 54-.'C a1so the tcslimony of Ckmcns of Akxandri:•. .s.och as transmincd by Euschius in Nist. f ed. 2.1A.
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
20 1
Consequently, on the ret~ption side. we can feel the im po rtance oi'Ja mes· prayer for c:ertain groups - this ' usual' prayer evoked by Hegesippus. Secondly. the idea that a ·weeping prayer' could be ellecti ve a lso stands in t he Arts of Paul. When Paul is in Rome. he invites his brethren to pray a fter the dangerous Call or Pa trodus. S:l}~ng: 'Now. brethren. let your fai th be manifest. Corne. all or you. let us mourn to our Lord Jesus Christ. tha t this youth may live and we remain unmolested' .U, Another passage o r the Acts of Pmt/9.1 471 a lso refers to a 'weeping prayer· while bending one's knees. This kind of prayer has to be s to pped, when it is t he <:elebr.Hion o r Pe ntecost: 'Nevertheless. sint~e it was Pentecost, t he brethr~n d id not c ry. nor bent their knees; on the t:ont rary, they were full or joy and prayed ··standing. up".~78 T hirdly, I want to a rgue that James· prayer, as well as the prayer in the Acrs uf Paul 9.14 and Jesus· prayer in Heb. 5.7-8. all have the same background. If we look upstream for some clues, l suggest d iscerning a Jewish lOpk: t he e llective prayer or supplication wit h tears and/or bended knees o r prostration. Justin Ma rtyr gives a precise delinition of this topic: ·For who of you knows not tha t the prayer of one who accompanies it with lamenta tion a nd tears. with t he body prostr.ue. o r with bended knees, propitia tes God most of all?' (Dial. 90.5).19 Justin comments in Dial. 90 on t he pr.tyer of Moses during the Amalekite ballle and wants to associate it wit h the sig.n of the c ross, considering it at t he same time as a particular case of the 'well-known' topic of the prayer 'with lamentation and te-.trs·. Bobichon rerognizes the same motif in Dial. 14 1.3 (the repentance prayer o f David with tears) a nd indi(.'.ates t hat Justin Mart)'r alludes proba bly to a haggadic tradition•• linking 2 Sam. 12.1 3. T he C hristian Apomlypse of Sedrach alludes a lso to this prayer of David: 'iSedmch and Michael) said: .. '-<>rd. teach us in what way and through wha t repe-n tance man mtly be saved, o r by wh;-tt la bor". God said: " By repentances. supplications. a nd liturgies. thro ugh draining tears a nd 76 A<·rs of Puul 11.1. such as translated by W. Sclmecmdcher (ed.}..flil!lt· Tr.slam<'IJI Apot·rypha (tr~ms. R. MeL Wilson: Louisville: Westminster John Kno:t Pn.':%.. 2nd cdn. 2003). II. p. 161. 77 Papyrus Bodmc:or 41: publ~shcd by R.IU1s:;crund P. Lui.sicr. ' Lc: P:tpyrus Bodmer XLI en Cdition princ-eps. l '<:pisodc d'EphCsc des At'ta Puuli en Cllpt~· t.'1 en traduction·. 1-K Mu.w!cn 111 i:!O<»). pp. 18t- 384. 78 My own English tmnslation from the French tmm:btion of R. Kasscr: ·Toutefois. wmme c'Ctait lu PcntecOte. lcs frCrcs nc pkurCrent pas. ni oe ployC:•rcnt lcs b~nou.x: au wntn•in:-. lls c-.t.:.ient remplis. d'nlltigrc:sse ct priaicnl ..,en sc lcnant de bout"' tF. Bovon and P. Geoltmin fcds). fcriiJ tlf'tX'•·.rphes dlfhims I (La PIC:-iade: Puris: Galllmord. 1997). p. 11 56). 79 S1 Justin Munyr. DialoguP with T1·ypho tlrans. T. It Falls: \V~1shi ngton: Cmholic Uni,'Crsily of America l>rc:.ss. 1003J. p. 140. SO P. Uob-ic::hon (cd.). Jtutin .\Jart.n·. Dialogru• tm·c T•·.rphun. £(/itkm {Titique, tmdu<·liim. CQ11Jntt>llUiirl' tllamdosis. 47: Fribourg: At•;•d~·mic Pre-ss. 2003). II. p. 8 14. n. 19. and p. 913. n. II.
202
A Cloud of Witnesses
!??you not know that m~1pr~phet D~wid (wa~ sa\•e~)
fervent g,ro~nings .. because of tears?
(Apoc. Sed. 14.2-4).
1 he attJtude of Dav1d
supplic~ning God wilh tears re<:alls also 2 Sam. 15.30. when he goe-s up
the tl.•1ount of Olives. and repents with tears: Raymond E. Brown brings up precisely this reference as one
or the plausible
back.grounds for the
prayer at Gethsemane.~1 T he e.xistenlce of a Jewish 'pr.tyer wilh te-.us· topic- is C-Onfirmed by a
testimony o f Orig,e n. who asks three ' Hebrew people' fo r the meaning o f the las t teller in t he Hebrew alpha bet. T~1v. Origen specifies tha t t he last Hebrew is a Christian and links the 'Tav· \Vith the sign of the c ross.KJ The others are not C hristian. and t he fi rst explains tha t ''fav· was chosen ' to signify the virtue o f those who c ry a nd a mict themselves about the faults of t he people, a nd sympa thize with the sinners·.~ Such a lOpic is eminently illustra ted in 4 E:ra, where the prophet weeps8~ and la ments on the destiny o f Israel. Just before the famous ·confe-ssion o f Ezra>. in the third vision. lhe prophet says: A bout mankind you know bes1: b ut I will spe-a k aboUl your pt•ople . for whom I am grie-ved. a nd ~•bout your inheril:tnce. fo r whom I la mc nl. a nd ~·bout Is rael. for whom I am sad, and ubout the sc."C
·n lis Old Testament pseudepigraphic text seems to ha \'e bee-n a SOllrt" e or inspira tion for t he Greek Apoca(rpse of Ezra. of Scdmcil and the Vision of E:ra.81 I pro pose to understand this Jewish prayer of supplication a nd repent;mt·e, such as described by Justin ;md Origen a nd 4 Ezra. has been later developed in rabbinic Judaism with the irayer that is t•alled ialwmm. ·n 1e talttmw1 prayer is derived from Dan. 9.3s and has I he signitk~Hion of 81 Sec nlso Apof. Sed. 10.6- 11.1: 1. H. Chnrle:sworth (<:d.). The Old Tt·statllt'lll Pst'IUkJ'igraplra (london: Darh>n. l ongm:m & T"'dd, 1983). f. p. 613. This Apoc.1lypsc is
dated betwcc:n the se.."'nd and 1hc: fi fth c:cn!Urics C l:. (idt>m. p. 605). 8! Brown, Dmlll. I. p. 1!5. 83 J wondc.r why Mimouni offers e:positc opinjon. r<:fcrring yet to the stunc p.usagc by Origcn: 'En c:ondusion. force c:sl de constatcr que dt<:1. lcs judi-o-ch..Ctic:ns. k ..T :-\ V" a sans doutc CtC con.c;:id<:rc! eommc un<: sphragis rcprCscntanl le Nom de Oicu. nuflc1ncnt comme le signc du gibct de Ia crucili:tion' (S. Mimouni. Le judhH!Irislillnisme tmcirll. £'1Sais ili.JitJrique$ (Putrimoinc.c;:: Ptuis: Ccrf. 1998). p. 332). 84 Orig~"ll. St'!l'dll in E:e
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
203
a supplication in o rder to g.et the tOrg,ive.ne.ss of God :g9 'So I lurned my a ltention to the Lo rd God to impl<)re him by prayer a nd requests, with fas ti ng. S::t{'kcloth. and a shes·. T be wlwmm is _also as."od a ted with Solomon in I Kgs 8.54. who bends his knees:91• ' Sint:e these biblica l \'erses seem to indit ate that prayer was a lways IOIJowed by supplication, the Talmudic sages de-•eloped the habit o r adding a personal a ppeal to God after saying, the oblig.a tory prayers (Bemklw t 16b-17a )9 1 T hey pleaded with God tha t He show ext ra mercy a nd kindness in matters a bo ut which they were especially sensiti\'e o r tha l exceedingly tro ubled them: 92 Theodo tion o ilers ToU i-Ki;flT~oa1 rrpoowxftv fo r ' to implo re him by prayer in Dan. \U: we lind the same verb in He b. 12.17 a bout the prayer or Esau . Kai m p !.lETa OaKplrwv EK~flT~oas ('although he imp lored with tears'). I suggest tha t lhe whamm could represent a later cod ification o r the tra dition alluded to in Heb. 12.17. Justin. Origen. 4 £: ra, Acts of' Paul and in James· figure. As Oonin specifies. 'it g_radtmlly beca me customa ry for most worshippers to add their own words of persona l supplit a tion after the prayer services ended ( Beraklwl 3 1a)' 9 ' As usual in the study of Judaism, the date orLhe real emergence o f this topic is not easy to fix. An early ro rm o f Lhe talwmm prayer is sometimes seen fo r example in a fragm ent from the Cairo Genizah.9 .t Flus.ser even considers tha t the main mo tifs of this pn~·er a re already present in Nel>. 9.6. Da n. 9.13- 19. 3 Mace·. 6.1-1 5: 9. 120: s the supplication, the repentance and the reminder o r Lhe past. Do nin thinks tha t at the Temple period . 'the people knelt and fell prostmte until the-i r f:tces touches the ground - a gesture o f humble submission to God . [Tod;·1yj the o riginal poslure assumed for th is ~rayer. Tahanun. is still known as IU1illll aparim ("falling on the race'').' () However, the lit urgicaJ existence of wluuum is not :lllested before the fo urleenth century, where ·a standardized text for tahtmwt began to crystallize a nd beca me pa rt of the structured congregational service' .97 Today. the talwmm consists or the recitation of Psa.lm 6. with a brief introduction ~md a conclusion: th is short psalm insists on weeping. and tears (6.7-9). 'r his p rayer is not recited 89 F. Manns. La Prii!1·e lfl.srai-'1 ti 1'/wure de Ji\·us tStudium Biblicum Fransiscanum ..-\nalt'Cta. 11: Jerusalem: Fmnciscan Prinling Press.. 19S6). p. 156. 90 Donin. Pmy. p. 202: Manns. Prii!rt'. p. 158. 91 Soc I. Epstein. Thtt Bahj-lrmitm Talmud: Serkr z~wJ'im 1London: The Socino Pre.ss. 1978). pp. 96-103. 91 Oonin. Pmy. pp. 10!- 103. 93 IbM.. p. 203. 94 S. Schechter. •Gcnizah Spt:cimcns·. JQR 10 ( 18.98). pp. 6~-6 1 (657- 58). 95 D. J-1usscr. 'Psalms. Hymns and Pr~• rc•-s.·. in M. E. Ston<: (cd.). JttlriJb IVritillg.\' rif the Sl!cuml Templr Prriod (ASS(n: Van Gorcum. 198-4). II. pp. 551- 17 (570). 96 Oonin. Pmy. ~l. 104. 97 Ibid.. p. 203.
204
A Cloud of Witnesses
on Tisha-be-Av: "the explanation is based o n m id rashic sourc.es which llx T is ha -be-Av as the day '"'hen the Messiah was born. T hey did not mean this in a litera l histo ric sense. but meant to s.::'ly tha t o n the very day o f the Temple's destruction, there wen~ also sown the seeds for Jewish redemption ( £ti;ah Rabbah 1.57).'"" If we look ~it a possible common background to these dillCrent trad itions, I propose dist::erning, a first draft of ' the supplia nt prayer' in Philo: Auridge a nd Gmy underli ned the paragraph; 1- 29 o f Quis rerum dil•iuarum heres Jil ~in order to give a background fo r ~:UAa~tla in Hebrews (see pa rt 1). T he;e paragraphs invite the wi;e man to
99 Supplic.:.tion and thanksgi\'ing arc' both forms of prayer for Phjlo (soc M. Har1Jcd.J. Phi/(JII ci"Ait'.Wllltlrit·. Qui:; Remm Dirill«rtrm H..res Sit. lntr<Xhrt:tiiNr, Tmduc/i(JI1 el Ntlfes IP~rris: Cc.rf. 1966(. p. 173. n. 3). 100 Sec Hur1. Phi/on d'A le.wmdr~· - p. 130. 101 Soc V. N i k i prow~tzky. ' Lc:s Suppliants ch~'7. Philon d.Akxandric·. £t1Jdes Philoniemw.s (fatrimoirws. Judai.Yirl!: Paris.: Ccrf. 2nd c:dn. 1996). pp. 11 -43. 102 This concept ooming from the:.Grcco-Romnn culture wus fi rst cnounttd by J. Gould. 'Hike~cia·• 711<' Jounw! of 1/e/l;lliJiir S111t1ir.s 93 ( 1973). pp. 74-103: for a rcocnt nppro.:t:11ion. see S. GOOde. Dtu Drama cli'r Nike-si~·: Rituul rmd Rltnarik i11 Ai.wll_rlo.f •flikclkkn (Orbis Amiquus.. 35: MUnster: AschendortT.2000). 10.; Notably by Josephus. Ben Sira.:h. ! nnd 3 M tKctrb~o'C"s: sec Clivll1.. · Evungilc·. Apon}J'ila 18 (1007). pp. 128- 31.
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
-?0-)
rra ppfJoola , IJETO: Kpauyfls, it::ETTtS and even the priestly reference. Adding Philo's information to the definit ion of Justin, to Heb. 12.17. lo 4 £:ra 8, to the testimony o f Orib~n, to the de.\'elopments o f James prayer. to the(iospel of ! It(! Sm,ior and to the rabbinic. wlwmm. J suggest reading also in Heb. 5.7 an illustration of this suppliant prayer with tears. First, Hebrews attests to ~-m echo of the hik(~lei(l. as il mentions the supplication (Heb. 5.7 is the only New Testament verse using the vo<.~abulary of the hikereia) and the topic o f the refuge in God (6.1 8). Second ly. il we consider thai the Quis n•rum t:ulminates in the suppliant prayer o f the Levites, even if each individual can also become ;-t suppliant, it is possible to understand mo re precisely the insistence o n Christ as Hig,h Priest. il S ' the o ne· (Os; 5. 7) who o ll'ered up supplkations in the days of his flesh: there is no more need o r ano ther Levitic p riest, from the tribe ol Aa ro n (7.1 1-12). lo be a ·suppliant'. Chlist o lrered the required supplications with tears. and the example of E~au illustrates in 12.17 !hal this kind ol prayer is not automatic.aJiy effective lOr the author. Hebrews limils also the possibility o f repentance: it is 'impossible to restore again w repentam:e. those who have once been e nlightened, .. . and then have fallen away· (6.4-6). The possibility of an e.ffec.tive intercession is limited to Christ by the author (5.7: 6.4-6; 7.25: 12. 17). If we come back to the ·suppliant' prayer ol Ja mes. bro ther o f the Lo rd , we understand also from Philo's info rmation the priestly description o r Ja mes. such as gi \'e-n by Hcgesippus. James ~issumes he.re also the to pic o f the suppliant Levitic praye-r. As Varon Eliav states. ' the author modeled James· llg.ure on the prototype- of the High Priest enterin~ the holy o f holies o n the Day of A to nement'. 1(t.t Eli:l\ considers also that thepresentation or James as a substitute fOr the priesthood is still plausible at the second century. 10~ Hebrews attests indeed that priestly and messianic: expectations continued in certain early Christian communities. Ano ther trace of this expectation emerges from a stranU;e detail in a recent published l atin manuscript or the Vision of £ :ra. 1"66 a text that presents the same pallern as the .-1pot'alypsrs of Sr:dra£'11 and E:ra. Ezra is ple-ading fo r the sinners in the fare of God, and suddenly there seems to be a problem with the identity of the one who is quali lied lor pleading: 1
104 Y. Z. Elia''. 'The Tomb of J:m1es. Hrothcr of Jesus. as Lc
206
A Cloud of Witnesses JEz.raJ · aut I praise you. sovereign Lord. g~:t up from your scat. and let's plc:ad Lhc case·. A nd the Lt,rd said : ' Who will plead our case'!' And Ezra Stlid: 'Yo ur son will plc~-1 d our c.asc·. And the Lord said: ·My son. who was born from my voice, how c.ould he p lead our cause'!' And E7J't1 said: ' Your priest will plc.ad o ur-case·. And the Lord said: 'Go g.ct our pricsl. he is qualific.xl. to ple-ad a case with nlt'· i VisE: 8 1-86}. 111 '
Nuovolone thinks that this stran~.e passa~e was transfonued in Aporr. E:ek. 2.6 a nd Apoc. Sed. 3.1 -2; it is probably a trace o r an archa ic Christology. and the sta tement ' my son. who was born from my \•oice· relers loPs. 2.7. 10s h is indeed striking to discover in this apocrypha l te-xt a d issociation between the ·son· and the 'priest", and we ca n ask ourselves ir the addressees of Hebrews may have shared such an o pinion. Aller all. ZE.l(.:h. 6.12- 13 presents side by side a man 'whose name is Branch· and a priest \Ve know that Qumran attests to the expectation o r tWo messiahs. b~tsed on the readin~ of Zechariah, 109 as Fitzmyer asserts: ... ~n1e priest" ( = the Messiah or Aaron) and "the Messiah or Israel .. in two passages of I QSa ... undoubtedly represent an explicit messianic.development or "the two sons or oil.. or Zech. 4. 14.'110 Lines 81- 86 o r the ma nuscript quoted a bove of the Vision of E: ra have c:.ertainly to be linked with this topic. to the Jewish Christian raception side. 111 Sutch interpreta tions a bout the expectation of a messiah and a priest can be found later in the ra bbinic tradition. s uch as Ar(JI-tfe Rabbi Naum A 34: '11wse are the (WtJ mwinled ones tlral slam/ b)' rlw Lord of r/w u·lwle earth (Zcch. 4.1 4). 'r1lis n:fcrs to Aaron and the Messiah, but I do not know which of them is more bclowd. But since it !>ays. The Lorrl/uu sworn mul wil/ nol relrut . 'you ttre priest fort'\'er. ({{In thf' "WIIIIt'J' of Meldti:wdek ' (Ps. I I0.4). one c.an tell that the King ~(."Ssiuh is more-beloved than the l' ricst of Right(.'OUsncs;.<;. u :
107 o~·ni s.. Coltt'Urdtlll('(', p. 6 19. My trnnslation. 108 Dovon and Geohmin (cds), &rit:r uporrJplu'st·h,·elit~Js 1. pp. 616-17. nn. 83-84. L09 So: IQ&1 2.14-15 and IQ&l1.20·11: sec: also IQS 9:.11 as a probabk i.!1t~"1 nddition. J. A. Fitzmyer. 'Qumran Messianism·. in idi'ltl. Tilt> Det1d St•u Scroll\· ami Chri.\'liatJ Origins (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans. 2000). pp. U- 110 (81- 85). 110 Ibid.. p. 86. The :IUthor adds thtu we hu\'e probably to pllStulate d iw.rse steps in the Qummnic expcc.ttttion of th<: mcs~i ~h (sec idi'm, p p. 83 and 90). Ill lUcy could even help us unde-rstnnd 1he particular p3SS!Ib'< m~·ntimtcd abow of Jerome in Comm. Matt. 26.45: ';1ftcr he prayed to ~t every word confim1ed by two or throe: witnesses.. : (seen. 58 above). Jerome gi~"S u.s here a 1rooc of an interpretation of the 1>raycr at Gt-thse-nwne as an intcrCC'ssion for others. which has to be confim1ed by other t'-"Stimonies. maybe by 't1 pri~-st', if we join the testimony of the Vi.titJil of E:.m. 111 Quoted and trnnsbtcd by R. S. Boustan. J.j·om Mcmyr ltJ Mystic. Rtthhinic MtlrlynJog_r am/tile Muki11g of Mnkura!t My.,·tit' (TSAJ. 11 2: Tiibingen: Mohr Siebe-ek. 1005). p. I38..
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
207
T he concurrence betwee.n Jesus as High Priesl and ot her llgure$ seems even to have continued inside r.tbbinit Judaism and post-rabbinic Judaism. Boust:ln supposed links between Hebrews and the figure of R. Ishmael ben Elisha. He state.s: The Story of 1he Tell Mnrt)'rs betrays d~'ICp affinities with Christia n salvation history a t the v<.·.ry same. time that it cngag_cs in both overt a nd vc.~il cd censure of the re-ligiou.s a nd politi<:a l fra mework of Christia n SO<:-icty . .. As the high-pricsd y n:pn::scntutivc of the people o r lsrm:l. who sncrilices h is life to e nsure their redemption. R . lshmad has profound aflinitics with the figure of Christ in such NT works as Hebrew-s.' 0
It would be tempting lo draw bst conclusions abo ut lhe expectalion o r anolher priest. fo r example fro m Lhe elements gat hered around the fi~ure o r James :lnd lhe to pic o r lhe 'repenta nt p rayer with te:trs' - a topic which Hebrews lirnilS Christologic~llly. But as long a.s the chronologit"dl fra me o r Hebrews remains unllxed, t JJ it is di(ficult to get tertainly about this potentia l other priest; moreove-r . the figure of James cannot really help est;-tblish the date sim:e the testimony of Hegesippus shows thal James remained impo rtant a long time afler his death (See Eusebius, Hil'f. Ecd. 2.23). What is clear is that Hebrews has a concrete and specilk con('ern in mind abo ut 'another prie-s t', who could compete wit h Jesus. One notices this point still more prt-cisely by comparing Hebrews with Clement o r Rome's JJ' Epistle 10 the Corinthians. Resear<.~h suy~ests that Clement quotes Hebrews. or thal bolh use a common source. 5 It is a ll lhe more striking to note that he does not speak a t all about Melchizedek. and roots Jesus in the ~ raditi on of a double :ln<.-estry, from Levi ;-md from Judah. on the tootr.lry to Heb. 7.11 -1 2. 116 Bolh texts d is~tgree also about the repentance of those who ' have lallen away' (compa re Heb. 6.4-6 a nd I Clem 8.1-5). Obviously. both authors do not have lhe same preo<.x:upation in mind> even if lhey share a few verses: Hebrews only insists on the uniqueness o l" Jes us· prieslhood. At the end or this enquiry, I a m convinced that the topic. of the s uppliant prayer - linked with the priestly background attested by Philo a nd Hegesippus - '"'" help us to understa nd 113
Bou.stun, From Mill'lyr. p. 147. R. Jshmad is also told in Tilt· Story of tht• Ten
Murtyr.s to have been contcivcd in miraculous ci rcumstant:~'S. ~ nd lu hllVC' been ~·blc to
ascend to hea\-cn (ihkl.. p. 147). IH For n prc-70 opinion. sc:c recently R. C. G l~•son . •Angels and the Eschatology of Hebrews 1-~· . NTS 49 (2003). pp. 90--107 (94); for post-70 opinions: G . Gdardin.i, ' Hebrews'. p. 123: 1'. M. Eisenbaum. ' Locnting Hcbn.•ws within the Litcr~l l)' Landscape of Christian Origins', in Gdardini (ed.). 1/t·b,-r,•:v. C'olltrmpomry Mt>liiiXIs. pp. 11 3-37 (231). 115 5«. for example. Aitken. ' Jesus· Death•. p. 130: Eiscnb:IUm, ' Locating·. p. !!5. 116 Soc C lement of Rome. /" Coriuthktm· 31.2. and A. Jaubcn (cd.). CJemt'lll de Remit>. £pr'trt• aux CtJrimllit'tu (SC. 167: Paris: Ccrf. 1971). p. 4S.
208
A Cloud of Witnesses
the gener.tl problematic of Hebrews. T his interpretation coheres with the oonstruction of Heb. 5.5-1 0. which so closely li nks Jesus prayer with tear:;
and his unique priesthood, and which allows us to integrate the ' te~Lrf in the results.
4. Conclusion Starting from the accepted sense o f 'godly fea r for
noti<."ed that the content of this prayer remains ullu.sive in the texl. I proposed then readin~ Gethsemane in the CMpel of the Sm•i
ation of Chrysostomus. Rissi. Ellingworth and Gelardini, ;-tlways linked with the prie-sthood of Jesus. Consequently. Heb. 5. 7 presents an important step to understanding the reception o f the prayer a t Gethsemane. such as we have il in the Gospt!l (?f till! Sm1i.or. ''fhis a pocrypha l text represents of course ~-t further step. because it does no t imply lhe same delinilion o f ·an who obey him~ lhan Heb. 5.9. and was a lready written in a context where the-idea of the Jewish responsibility ror Chrisfs death \1.:as generally admilled . In the third part of this paper. l discerned a Judaeo-Hellenis tic topic: the enective pr;.lyer of supplication with tears, and/ or bended knees or prostr.uio n. enrooted up stream in the G reek hik f!teia. S uch a topic. is notably present in Philo. Heb. 12.7, Justin Martyr, the .-/('{.< oj' Pmd, Origen. Hegesippus, the Apomlyp.<•s of .lames. This topic or a suppliant prayer - with its links to a priestly backgro und by Philo and Hegesippus can help us to understand the general problematic of Hebrews, regardi n~ the construction of Heb. 5.5-10. But if such a prayer is really t he frame of Heb. 5.7. do we have to limit it to Gethsemane's rererence·? From a textual p<>inl of view, nothing leads us lo such a 1imitation. 117 A prayer of supplk a tion is intended lO be repea ted, and the reception of Heb. 5.7 shows no link with the Mount or Olives before the fou rth century CE. 118 Yet luke marks Jesus· ha bit of prayer o n the Mo unt of Olives. i;t Lk. 22.39, with "as usual': the pmyer on the :Mount or Olives could be a n extreme example of a usual pro.1yer of Jesus. So Gethsernane need not be supposed in understanding_ Heb. 5.7, allhough 5.7 - a reminder by an early Chris tian community of a usual 'Jesus' prayer for o thers· - needs to be taken into account in o rder to understand the emergence of a text s uch as the Gosrwl ofthe Stll'ior. l ndeed. we possess texts a nd te-Stimonies tha t a ttest to the reading of the prayer at Get hsemane as a 'pr~tye.r fo r others·. 117 Exocpl 1!\'Cnlually the mention uf lnTl}plas (see Ellingwonh. Tlt•brt·lr.f. p. 287). 118 Sec. for <:~ample. T<:rtullinn. Adrns.u.1· Murf'irmrm 5.9.9: lr<:nueus. Ar/1'1/twr 3.22.4. Chrysoslom cwn opposes sU
Je.m.( Prayer on tlw !Hmml of Olires
209
either for lsmel (Go.ssible to pray for others. to be heard. to fear death. and to d ie. 121 Hebrews 5. 7. by associa ting Jesus· prayer with the topic of lhe 'ell'ettive prayer wilh tears·, but witho ut spedfying explicitly its (~ontent, represents a way of keeping this prayer a t the c.rossing of individual and colle<.·tive pre.o<.x:upations: ·we have been saved by Jesus· prayer and death: he has been heard'. T he extra-canonical soun.::es help us to see the poutiality o r o ur occidenlal readin~ of Gethsemane, as :l c risis or t he human being in fro nt or dealh. Keeping in mind the idea o r Jesus' prayer for others. we s hould not d issociate Jesus· te-.trs in l'r ont of Jerusalem (Lk . 19.41) l'r om his tears in prayer (Heb. 5. 7). These diverse tears are t \VO sides of the. s.ame c.oin. as is the sadness of the woman who mourns her son and represents Jerus.alem. in the founh vision o r 4 Ezra.
119 Soc. for example. l~ ~rc:u bul unllat'-·m1philo..c;ophic essay of E. Falque~ Le ptiJ.\'t'll!' de Gnll.~·emfmi. Angci.u e, srmffram:t' d man . l..rt·turt' exi.\'lt'midfe N rl:€rmmh mlcgique ( b nuil survcilll"C": Paris: Cc:rf. 19'19). 120 Acc:ording lo Me.nn. 1his crossing is :. l t~-ady prc~nl in Psalm 12: sec E. M. Mcnn. ' No Ordina ry lament Rckcture a nd tl1e Identity of the Distn:s.-;ed in Psalm 11'. J/TR 93 (1000). pp. .lOt -41 (309). 111 OTP. I. pp. 578-79.
C hapter 16 THE U N I VERSAL AND ETERNAL VALIDITY o~ J Esu s · PRI ESTLY SACRI FICE: TH E E PISTLE TO THE HEBR EWS IN S UPPORT 0~ O tU GEN"S TH EORY OF APOKATASTASIS
lla ria L. E. Ramelli It is very interesting: to study how Orig,en uses the Epistle to the Hebrews in o rder to support his theory of the a poka tastasis. This theory, which is central to his tho ught. was elabora ted in polemic with Gnostic detenninism as pa rt of a deft.mc:e of hum~m rreewill and o f theod icy, I and is cJ<)SeJy linked to his theology. Christology.2 anthropology. protolog.y. ~ch~lto logy. a nd is constantly based on his exegesis. Indeed , all o f Origen·s doctrines a re ~rounded both in philosophical argument a nd in biblical interpreta tion.') These two pilla rs of his tho ught are re..;:tlly never separ.tted from o ne another. As a foundation for his thought, Orig_ en makes extensive use of both the Old and the New Testament, which - in his view. held. aga in, in opposition to Gnostics and J\'tUrc.ionites - consti tute one a nd the same body. na mely the body of Christ.4 Now, the Epistle to the Hebrews. which looks back to t he Old Testament a nd Temple priesthood, is proba bly t he best suite-d of a ll the biblical books to represent the unity of Old and New Testa ments and to provide-a basis lOr what can easily be deemed t he most impo rtant and characte ristic of Ori~en ·s doctrines, s I As has been t~rgued by E. PrinTi\'alli. II CommmltJ a Giorarmi tli OrigenF: i/ tF.~Io F i .mc>i ('OilfeJii (Villa Yerruo:hio: Plt7.zini. 1005-) a nd I. Ramelli. ·ta coercnza dd la sotc-riologia origc:ninna: dnll;1 polcmica contro il dctenninismo gnostioo alrunivcrs;•le rc:si~IUrazionc t."SCtlto1ogirn'. in Pagani e rristitmi tlfl(l tken·a ddla .U/lrc::(l (Ro-cru1: Augustinianum. 2006}. pp. 661- &&. 2: Cf. I. Rumdli. A/'(X'tlltulasi (Milnn: Vitae P~~nsicro. fon hcoming). J St."C my 'Christian Sotc:riology and Christian Platonism: Origcn. Gregory of Nyssa. and
the Biblical and l'hilosophical BtLsis of the Doctrine of ApohttLstasis'. VC 61 (::007). pp. lt:l- 56.
4 Soc: my 'Origen nnd the Stoic Alle-goricnl T radition". /nrL•u- 2:& l2006). pp. 195- 226. 5 Thi.scm('rges not only from the consideration of Origen"s ll1oughtnnd the l>lace that this doc1rinc occupies in it. but nlso from the hi!itory of th~· Origenistic controversy: p.1rt iculnrl)' significant is Thoophilus llf Alc.x<mdria·s b.:ha\·iour around 400 l.""l· (on l1is
211 which he considered to be deeply rooted in the Old Testament as well as in
the New.& ll is noteworthy that Origen be-l ieved that the author of this letter was Paul himself.' and tha t he considered Paul to be endowed with the highest authority - not least prophetic authority with respect to the-eschatological scene - because of the revelation he had (see. e-.g., Prine. 2.6.7).s which was a lso s tressed by his fa ithful disciple Didymus the Blind (/11 Ps. 36). another well-known supporter of the doctrine of apokatastasis. And it is precisely in Paul that Origen found the most impo rtant support of o.lll fo r his doctrine of universal restoration, espet:ktlly in I Corinthians. 15.9 It is no accident that he associates a passa.ge from Hebrews in which Ps. 109. 1 is q uoted (Heb. 10.12- 13: "He ollered one single sacrifice for the sins once and tb r all, and sat m God·s right, j ust wailing tOr his enemies to be pul under his lt.-el as a s toor)m wilh o ne from I Corinthians 15 (I Cor. 15.25: ·For he. must reign until he htts put all his enemies under his feef) 11 in his exegesis in suppo rt o f the doctrine of apokalaSlasis. 12 Now. this quotalion from the psalm. as filtered lhrough Hebrews. and char~.s ag.:~inst
Origcn see E. A. Cl ~ rk . Tl!t> Orign1ist Ccntmwrsy (J"'rinccton: Princeton University Pr~ss. 1991). pp. 105- 20). He p.:rsonally was un opponent of the d ol";~rine of apob1astasis.. but he did not ruist! nny off11:-ial uc,usution con,crning it against Origc-n. And yel. he knew perfectly wdl that this is precisely the ·hurd core· of Ori~>cn's thought ~10d hcrit u~>c. as is shown by l h~· suategy that he chose in order to seck out lhc Origc.nisl monks in the. Egyptian desert. Whc.n they pnwed to be complc:tdy otthodox in Trinitariun mauers. in order to id.:ntjfy the Origcni~t monks. he told his agents to e_,wminc them by ill\~stigating thcir position conocrning the union of soul nnd body Md the lina1 restoration of the dc\·il nod human sinners. 6 The Psalms nnd Jeremiah arc the Old Testament books in which Ori~n finds the main 11upport to bu ttr~·ss hi~ theory (sec. e.g.. I. Rnmdli, 'Origen·s E);cgcsis of Jeremiah: ResuiTtt'tion Announced throughout the Bible and its Twofold Conception·. AuguJtinimwm 47(forthcoming 200SJ). though he st.-cs in all of the 01d Testament confirrruations and hints of this pc-rspwiv·c. 7 At !.:.1St in its con1cnt ( Eus. 1/i.~l. £cd . 6.25). C. P. Anderson. ·The: Epistk to the Hebrews nnd the:. Pnulinc kHct colle,tion·. JITR 59 ( 1966). pp. -129- 38. 8 Origcn mclllions his rise to the third hc:a\'Cil in several p.1ssagc:s nnd wi1h t1 JX'Ir1icular c:mphtL..-is. q~.. Comm. in Co11t. 1.5.6: Comm. ill Rem. 10.43: Ccmm. ill Tll(•.u. 3. During this exporicocc llaul hnd a special revcbtion: it is n kind of unwritten knowlcdgt! to which Scripture n:fcrs (e.g.. Cmnm. in /o. 13.30; 34: 5S; 316). Cf. R. Roukcmn. ·p~•ul's Raplutc-to Paradise in E.arly Christian litc:ruture'. in A. Hilhor:st nnd G. H. \'an Kooten (cds). 11J(! Wi.rdom t?f £gypt (Lc-iden: BriiJ. 2005). pp. 267- 83 (275-77). 9 Sec m)' 'In tllud: Tune et ipse Filius. .. ( I Cor. 15.17·28): Gregory of Nyssu·~ Exe-gesis. its Deri\'ations from Origen. and Early l'atristie Interpretations Rcl..1tl-d to Ori~>cn 's'. forthcoming in Studia PatriJtira. 10 Mio:v \nrtp OJ.ro:pnc;)\1 upoot'llf'yKa:> &!/olav, fi:; TO S•'lii€Ki:> EK.omOv ti(Or>.,-ciun~os [w:; -n6~ol\l o. £~po·1 o:'-rrOO UnonO&IO\I TWY no&:w oUToV. II ~EI ycip o\nOv !Xao·M-Unv Q:xp• ()~en n clYTQ) ToUs Exepo\1'$ VnO nX:; nOOO:s- aUTOO. 11 Sec my ·He-brews 10.13. the E\'(Uttltll Elimination 1>f E\·il and the Apokatnst.asis: Origen's Interpretation·. AuguJiilliU.fiWII ~1 (2001). pp. 85-93.
212
A Cloud of Witnesses
its association wit h 1 Corinthians 15~ is no t t he only way in which Origen deploys this epistle in o rder to bullress his theory. For he focuses not only on Je.sus· reign and defe.at of all enemies in the e.nd. but a lso o n his priesthood : it is highly sig.nilkant t hat in Heb. 10.1 2-13. which Origen quotes, Jesus (1uist~s sacrilice is mentioned immediately befo re his reign. so that these two aspects are closely connected bo th in Hebrews a nd in Origen·s exegesis. In p;-u ticular, Jesus' priestly role is emp hasized a nd stressed t hroughout this Jetter, and Origen points to this element in o rder to s how that Jesus' work as High Priest has a universal a nd eternal eliectiveness. which provides a powerful basis for the doctrine of a pokatastasis. a basis tha t is deeply and full y Chris tological. n
a!Xusations ngninst Origcn see. iHil'r t~lia. CL:.rk. Tlw Origenislic CtJ~tlrorer:r.r: E. Junod. 'Contro\'t'~-s au1our de 1·hCritugc ori~n ien·. in Orign;imw VII (Lcuvcn: Pc:ctcrs. 1999). pp. 215- 23: E. Prinzimlli. MagisJeua leJitlt' (Rom a: Augustininnum. 2002): W. Biencrt. ·zur Entstchung des Antiori!:,>brell's. pp. 13-23: C. Eberhart. 'Charucteristies of S..<Jcrilicinl ).kwphors in Hebrews'. in Gd.udini (ed.). 1/ehrews. pp. 37- 64: E. F. ).1ason. You Are lt Pfiesl Frm·rer (L<:idcn: Hrill. 100S). 15 For Origcn·s attention 10 philolog. which is not at all excluded by 1he prcfcK.ncc ltc ga\'C to the nllegoricnl in!erprc.tution O\'Cr the: literal. sec my 'Origcn und the Stoic A l kgorict~ l Tr:1dition · nnd A. Gn:afton und M. Williams. ChJ·iJJiu.llity mul Jl:e Trotu/fJrmarion tJ/lltl! 8tJtJk (Cambridge. MA and London: Belknap Pres!i. 2006). pp. 86- 132.
213 knows Lwo readings of Heb. 2.9:,J0pn t e~oV im[p navTQs [y,Uocno eavcnou. which isthe reading o f P (third century) and of the majority o f manuscripts. and xwpls E>wV UrrEp rro:vT05 iynjoaTo 6avO:rov. which is the readin£. oi mss. 1379. 424<:. Eusebius. Ambrose. Jerome. a nd
Oecumenius. 16 Now, both Lhese readings support the absolute univers:ility o r the intention and elllo.ctivenes.s or Jesus· sacritke. whether we read ' He tasted death lor a ll fo r God"s grace. o r "He tasted death fo r all except God·, since God obviously did not need to be saved . Thus. referring to the latter reading. Origen condudes: ' IT he experienced deuth fo r the sake o r all apart from God. t hen he died no t only for the human beinQs. but a lso
!Or ,the other, ration~~~ sreat~ref (E't n ,o'.; X~P~~ 8EoU ,V~p llf~T~S' 6avcnou, ou IJOVOV urrEp o:v6pwrrwv o:mao:~v. aAAo: t::cu ump Tc:lv Aot rrc:lv AoytK~V). ·n l is is famously o ne o r the tenets of Origen·s E~voo:To
est~hatological conception: salvation will evenlually extend not only lo the whole of humanity, but also to a ll rationa l <:re.atures. includ ing lhe fallen angels and the devil. a doctrine that was a lready criticized during Origen's life. 11 but W~-ts ta ken up in a ll its radical IOn.:-e no t o nly by IJidymus, but a lso by G regory of Nyssa. especially in his In 11/ud: Tunc e1 Ipse Filiu.-., where he proclaims tha t no being will finally remain outside the number o r the saved (JJf'IIOEv '~cu TWv owt;oiJiV(.)v). and in his De Anima el I .
Re.mrrertione.
Universal s~llvation is thus made possible. according to Orig.en. not by necessity. but by the power of Christ's c ross. as Orig.en even more clearly states in Comm. iu R(}m. 4.1 0: '\Ve affirm that the power ol'Christ·scros..<~ and his de.al h. which he undertook a t the end of the aeons, is so great as to be enoug.h for t he salvation a nd remedy not only o r t he present and thefu ture aeo n. but also o f the. past aeons. and not only fOr our human o rder, but also for the heavenly powers a nd o rders· ('tantam esse vim c rucis Christi et mo rtis huius. quam in sa.:.l(.:Hlorum tine s uS<:epit, asserimus. quae ad sanitatem et remed ium non solum praesentis et futuri, sed eliam pr;.1eleritorum saeculorum, el non solum humano huic nostro ordini. sed eliam caelestibus virtutibus ordinibusque suf(iciat'). What emerges from the last p~tssag.e is a lso t he eminent ly Christocenlric character of the a pokatastasis according. 10 Origen, 19 \~t'hich completely
16 Soc the critical app..1mtus of A. Mcrk and G. B:trbaglio. Numv Teslu.mcmo gr~ro e ilalitiiiP (Bologna: n~~honianc. J9S4}. tullcx·. 17 Soc his I..Rift'l' M tlw Frieml,· ;,, Alexa11driu: H. Crou1.el. ·A Lcllcr from Origen to Friends in Akxnndria'. in Tile 1/eritagt• qf' 1he £ar~r C'l•urch (Rome: Pontificak lnstitulum Studiorum Oricnta1ium. 197)). pp. 135- 50. IS Soc my Gregaritl Ji Nis.\'a: Sltll'al1ima e Ia rnun·t·:imw (Milan: Bompiani 1007). 19 This aspect hns been rightly stressed. to my mind. by \'3n Lank . .()0\l. mos1 r~'C'
214
A Cloud of Witnesses
depends on Christ's sacrifice. And in the same passage we (ind another
element that is crudal to the presentation o f Jesus" sacrifice in Hebrews and to Origen's inte rpretation of it in s upporl o f the ~1pokatastasis: the uniq ueness or this sacrilke. which took place only once. for all the aeons and for all rational creatures. h is unique. it oct:urred only once. but it is effective for a ll times a nd all c reatures. In fa<.~l. as Origen stresses. still relying o n Hebrews, not only is the salvation brought about by Jesus· sac.ritlce universal, but il is also etemal: lh is is why il can provide the a bsolute ele rnily (a'io1oT~5) o f !he
apokatastasis. beyond all aiWvEs. 20 when aJI muhiplicity will be bro ught
lo unity and God will be 'all in air ( I Cor. 15.28). Pre(,isely for ils elernily. Jesus· priesthood in Hebrews is repeatedly said to be ,j5 T0v a'1c:lva, that is, ·forever', ~-tt:cording to the biblical value of aiu)v as 'eternity' when referring lo God.21 In Heb. 5.6; 6.10; 7.3; 7.1& this assertion of Chris!'s ete rnal priesthood is based on another quotation of Psalm 109 (LXX): 'You a re priest forever. ac-cording, to !he order of'Melchizedek· (I u '"P'VS ,;, T<>v m wva KaTa T~V TcX~IV M'AXIO,OiK. Ps. 109.4). T hus, Psalm 109. lillered through Hebrews. is used not o nly fo r Jesus" es<:hatological reign . bul a lso for his priesthood according lo !he Ta~IS of Melchi;cedek. One of Origen·s severa l quota tions from Hebrews. in Fragment 10 on I Kings. presents Jesus as a priest of the n:i:~15 or ~·lelchizedek and, together with this. as a king. so that in him we lind both of the aspects that are emphasized in Psa lm 109 as quoted in Hebrews in refe rence t() Christ. Origen observes that among the Jews there was a regal tribe. that or Judah. and a prieslly tribe, tha i of Levi. and !hal these two joined a nd a U;-tined their perfection in Christ, who is both king and priest ~H.-cording to the order or Melchizedek.~2 Another passag.e in which Origen refers to Jesus as both king a nd priest, and as :1 great king and a great priest. is Std. iu Ps. 12.1440C. in which the reminiscem:e to Hebrews and to the title
c.tislol(>gioo de In bienavcnturanza fim.J: un llUC\'O ncc-rct~micn to ;, b cs~';llo1ogia de Origcn<:s·. in Origmimut VIII, pp. 641-48: Tzamalikos. Or(1ten: Pfli!tJJoplly of NiJtory. pp. 65- 115 and
pmsim. 20 For this structure of the scqucnoc: of oiWvt~ lx-fore 1he a bsolute ctcrnily of the Cu6t0TTJS ch:uactcrisin,g lhc apokntastasis in 0 1ig.en's lhought S« 1, . T1.amalikos.. OrigetJ: Cosmo/t.tg_r a11d Ontology of TimP (VCS. 77; Lc:idcn: Brill. 2006). pp. 21'2- 309. and my 'Ori~ocne cd il1c:ssico dcll'ctc-rniui·, Admmmti11s t4 (1008): his oonn'Plion ~md lc.xical usab"C will be taken up by Gregory of Nys:;a: sec my ' AiWwO) and A'1c.lv in Origen nnd in Gregory of Nyss:L·. forthcoming in Suulift Putti.\'lkJ.ns oOOqs .i)s , ToutioT• Ti}s 'loVOO:, rol Ci>.>.rt:> Tijs irponl(lis ¢tuA~s , ).iy(t) 5h Tits AtUITII(~i . i1JEA:\ov ouvO:tmo&cu ~~:ai tv Onon).tto6cu tO tt iEpani(Ov O~iwiJa l(ai TO f3ao1An:Ov tv T6 nopouoig ToG E~e l!.of3i0 ow'ri}pos- iu.:~\1 ilpi'ws tt ~00 ~~:ai t3oo•Aiws . roV Ko:tCl -ri)v Tet~w ME>.xt.n6lK.
2 15
JJiyas ifp~Us a pplied lo Christ is c1ear!3. Another reference to Jesus as ~iyas OPX"P'US wit h a nod to Hebrews is fo und in Origen·s De or. 28.9 (lfpEls Ovns KaTO T0v JJ'yav O.pxu:pEa). As Origen notices in Comm. in Jo. 1.2. 11. the Hebrews had priests of the o rder of Aaron. but not of the o rder or Melchizedek . which is taken by him as a sign of a higher rank, fu rther elevated by the greatness ascribed to Jesus as High Priest: Paul. om:e again, is the autho rity for Origen. but also Psalm 109, where the promise of eternal priesthood al'l'Orc.l ing to the o rder o f Me lchizedek is addressed to t he ~·lessiah.'4 Another quot~Hion from Ps. 109.4 in relerence to Jesus· eternal priesthood according to Hebre-ws is to be fOund in Origen's Dt• ar. 15.1 . Here he alllrms the much dis('ussed ~rinciple l hat prayers should be addressed only to the f'ather pro perly.' but not separated from his High Priest (P~ X"'P.' S ToG CxPX"Pic.»), constituted by the f'ather himself through the form uJa 'you are priest forever accord ing to the order or Melchizedek· (~Ef:f 0pKw~oolaS' KanoT0:6r'! UrrO ToV naTpO-; KaTO TO· c.lJ,tooE, Ka.1 oU ~.tHO.IJ'l\q6~oHa1 · oU 't~pElJS EiS T0v a tc:Jvo: KaTix T~V T<.l~tv MEAxtoEOiK). Once mo re. t hrough the rderen<.-.e to ~·tekhizedek> Origen tan link both the Old a nd t he New Testa ments: Melchizedek appears in the Old Testament. both in the book or Genesis and in Psalm 109. but in Hebrews he is seen as ajigura Christi. whkh is employed by Origen fOr his own argument in support of the doctrine of apokatastasis. Origen re-flects o n the Hebrew priests" s.acriflt-.es prescribed in t he book of Le,•iticus in a chrislOlogical perspecti ve (0 iEpEU5 0 xptoT05 undoubtedly is for him figura Christi) and the 1Aao]lc).; bro ught about by them as a purification fo r the sin (Cq.1apria) of the whole communily in Comm. iu Rom., fragments from the c.aten:le. 16. "fhe sacrifice of a c:alf performed _by the priesl will produce t he remission of sins for the people (0<J>£6flo'tal a-.ho'i'5). 26 Jesus' sacrifice. in which he ollered himself in immolmion. 23 KoTO: iOVTo OUvcna1 i-v Tc;, EUo:yytAi~ tipfto6cu, 'lepoob.A.vJ.lo. t1vco T5 .. . "nom:p & ~yo ~ itp£Ui Myna• npbs- CumOtaoTo).hv ToO Un" aVTOv ltpo:nWaTo;, oUT(,) t:a·! IJiyo.:; ~aotAni'$· ~aotAoU-:; yO:p £on ~oot >.ru01ft"wv. 2-1 'ApXltpt:is £oovTat Ko:TU Titv Tnttv "AopWv, .:at 00 KaoO Ti)v TO:tw M<)..x•mbeK. "E«v y6.p n; Oveuno¢ intOfliJiwo:ToAiyc.:~v T0v npo~~Tl}V tipnl(fva• ntpl Xp•oTOU· I U'•ep<Us ;i) ,o.,. aic:lva t:aTO •hv T6~1V Mo)..x•o:OiK, J(oi oU Ko:TU -rhv <«~•v 'Ao:pWv. 25 On the controve-rsy rai..scd by thi!> poin1. sec Prinzivalli. Magi.~,·er Ecdesiae. pp. 20 118.
16 riypa nTol Toiwv 1.1nO Tl}v TOO O:pxupiw) !ruoiov iv Tc;> Atuml(c;, iOv & n&oa ouvaywyh O:yvofton, ~a·, Amlo Moo t:; 0¢.6a~&lv Tits ovuoy(o)ri:;, .:ai notf,owo• ~io:v CmaoWv T~V f:v,.oAi)v .::uploo cU R01'16ilaeTOI, 1(0.1 nAfJ!JJJL\~e<.>ot, Kal yvwo6fl aUTdi-s it Q~o:pT(a i;v fiiJ«pTOV i-11 aiJTfi, Ko:l npooO:ttl fJ owo:ywyh u0oxov f:K j3oWy ntpl T?j) OJJo:p'ria-s· tha IJ£T OAiya .:at riooion 0 '!Ep<Us 0 XPtOTOs' CmO ToV oiuaTOS" -YOU ~XO\J £i>
n
216
A Cloud of Witnesses
produced the remission of sins for the whole o f humanity, as is contirmed by the immediate continua tion of this passa~e in the se<.ctions fro m Books 3- 5 o f Origen·s Commemarii in Romanos prese-r ved in P. C~lir. 88748 + t'Od. Vat. gr. 762. at 162.21T. Here Origen. restinQ. o n Heb. 9.11-12. explicitly :lpplies, in a typologk a l perspective, the pricsfs l},aoJJOs to Jesus· sacrilite as a High PriesL which has produt'ed the remission of sins for all. not through the blood of a vk,lim. but through his own.27 Origen. as we have seen. re(frs to Ps. 109.4, a s repeatedly quoted in Hebrews in reference to Chrisl. severa l times in different works. a nd stresses tha t his priesthood is eterna l a nd his sacrifice is fo rever. The refe-r ent·e to Hebrews a nd. thro ugh it, to the psalm provides him with a furthe r link to the perspective o r the a poka tastasis: Christ·s priesthood manifests itself in his atoning: sacrifice and its validity is universal a nd ete rnal. Origen relies precisely on Ps. 109.4 as interpreted in Hebrews in order to stress lhat the e ffects o f this sacrilke in which Christ is both priest and victim a l the same time a re eternal. l n t his priestly work of his. Jesus a<.~ls as an inten.-.essor. fo r Origen regarded Jesus as lhe firs t inter<.-essor: he interprets lhe term rrapciKAflT05 as ·comfo rte.r ' when it refers to the Holy Spirit. but as 'intercessor• when it refers lo Christ. Already Clement. in Quis dir . .w/r. 25, had a pplied to the Son the title or TTapaKA~T05. precisely with reference to Jesuf sa lvific work: he del(mds and s~wes our soul and o ur life (owTijpa . . . T0v -nls- ofis ouv~yopov Ka·l napciKAflTOV 1JiuX~5). Bo th Clement and Origen pro bably recalled Jn 14.1 5-16, in which Christ {'ails the Spirit s respectively. It is very likely that Eusebius depends on Origen's exegesis here. In Prine. 2.7.3, Orige.n, a f\e r o llCring an e tymologica l analysis of the title rrapciKAT)TQ5. whk'h is attributed to both the Spirit and Christ in I Jn 2.1, observes th:tt this tenn oug.ht to be underStood in two <.lin"erent senses. both included in the Greek rra pciKArJTos: : 'The term " Pamclete", in reference to the Saviour. sho uld ma inly be interpreted in the sense o r intercession: fo r it is S.:.-tid tha l he intercedes before the Father lOr our sins. Ins tead. we-consider the Holy Spirit to be Parad ete in the sense of "comforte r".· Chrisl is a n inlerces...:;or -ri)v m::flvi)v ToO IJOp-wpioo· J::ai nCV.tv IJtT. OAiya 1((11 no•ftou, 4l11oi, ;Ov IJ6oxov Ov Tp0nov i:noinotv T0v pc)axov TijS' 01Jo.p;io.-;· o0TC.)o) notflei}o:Tat aim;, Kal E~t~.O:otTOI tnpi oUTi'Jv 0 ·,Ep:~ ~eal 0:¢£"&i-,onat o.UToiS'. 1i Our; OOu a'IIJOTI r;.AO:ot TOI 0 'etpo ... tv oUTc;> l:onv J::ai TO 'tAo.ot¥•~ 0! «pxet pEU:; .:ai TO 8u01Jrvov Un~p TOii }.aoj . . . Ov npoi6ETO 0 GltCi tAaonlp•ov OuX niOT£(,)') iv T~ fo:uroV aiiJOTI, iAaonlp•ov Oi o.a ;Qu ncipEOIV tClll y;:you6tWV CliJOPTfliJCi:Tc.lV.
2 17 because thro ugh prayer he induces the Father to forgive o ur sins.:!IS
Christ"s intert'eding prayer has a universal eiTectiveness, as Origen ho lds in C. Ce!s. 3.49. where he presents Jesus as a propitiato ry offer. a 11\ao~O,, as he is in Hebrews, on behalf orall before the fa ther. for the remission o f the sins of t he entire world: ! wnlp ~OTIV m:itrrwv avepcirrc..>v 0 XptOTOs Kal llclA•oTa moTc:>v. rln ouvnWv ~hE CmAouoTEpwv, Kal 'tAaoiJOs ~OTlV rrpO, TCw naTipa mp't T~v OIJapTIWv iu.1&av, oU IJOvov 0~ rr,p{ TC>v h~uTipc..>v, clAAO: Kal mpi 0Aou Toi:i K0opou. Exactly the same thought, and in the same words, is repeated ~tt4.2S. 29 Orige n round the idea of the ete rnity of the ef1fct o f Jesus· sacrifice confirmed in Heb. 9.1 2. where we set! the connection between the uniqueness o f Christ"s sacrilke. which took place o nce and for all (i$cirra~
r't5 tO: O:yta, aic..wlav >..UTpColotv rUpcX~uvos. In
Hebrews 9- JO Origen found the uniquenes.s ofChrisfs sacrilice Slress.ed in opposition lo lhe ile ration of lhe Hig_h Priest's sacrilices. The key word , which a ppears many times. is E$
-
-
o
28 Soc: ulso ll<m1. in Lt'''· 7.2: C. Cek 7.13: Cmnm. ill lo. 1.2.2.138: J..U.140: De tJr. tfOTipo: napchcM}T¢s EoTI\1 0 uiOs TOV 8toV, tilx4tEVO) Vnip TWv
1~.15.~: npc)s
rov
EUX®t\ICa.W.
29 Ko 'i yap o:V;Os €iprrtal O(.)n\p n-civ;wv oV&pc..lnwv, tuX>.tOTo: ;no-tWv, rol 0 Xp1oob; almN ·1:\oOJJOs t1vo• mp'i ;C:w Opo:pnc;)v ii!JC:lv, oU rttpl tc3v ~~-ripwv 0£ ~Ovc.lv. W.t.a l(a·, mpl O>.ov Toj IC~OIJ.
A Cloud of Witnesses
218
Not only Jesus' death, in fact. but also his in<·arna tion ot.'t'urred only once in all alc3vES'. as Origen declares in a passage undoubted authenticity. Phillie. 18.13 (TOV arra~ ivav6p<.:>fi!oav Ta). C hrisrs incarnation. of course. is one of the constituents his s.alvific work. not only the necessary premise of his san ifice. but also the assumption of the whole of humanily on his part, a nd thus the p remise fo r the a po ka tastasis. 30 This aspect will tlnd a pa rticular development in Gregory of Nyssa. who. in his In /1/ud: Tunc ct fr«e Filins. will a mnn that C hrisrs body is the whole of humanity and il will be handed to the Father in the end according to I Cor. 15.27-28: the Son's eventua l submission to the Fa ther is interpreted by Gre~<>f\' as the s ubmission or the Son's body to the Father. t hat is. the sltbmis~ioO of all of huma nily. But this submission me-a ns salvalion . tt<."Cording. to the exegesis tha t G regory borrows directly from Origen . who in Pri11c. 1.6.1 a nd 3.5.6-7, and in Comm. i11 Matt. Ser. 8. repeatedly equates universal subiel·tio a nd universal sa/us in reference lo the very same Po.tuline pass.age-.3 t T hus. as a consequence, il is clear that the whole of humanity will be s;.~ved. 32 Therefore~ O rigen ins ists on the absolute ly universal a nd ete rnal v~tlidity of Jesus• priestly work . a nd for both aspe<.·ts he bases his a rgument on Hebrews. And there is mo re: O rigen round the eternity Of"l he e.lloctiveness of Jesus· sacrifice expressly Sl~t ted in Hebrews itself. In 5.9 Jesus is s:tid to lOr all t hose who obey him' have , , ' become cause or ete rnal salvation ,,.,,
or
or
~
.....
( EY' V£TO TIOOI\1 TOt5
.
.. .
UITa KOUOUOIV <XUT~ OITtO) OCo:ITtlpta S O tCo:IVIOU).
Sinc-e, as we have see.n, o bedien<.' e ~m d s ubmission mean salvation in O rigen's interpretation. and since t he eventua l s ubmission to Chris t be universal (according to I Cor. 15.25-28). it is evident t hat he underStood t his passage as a statemenl of the universalil y a nd eternity of the salvation provided by Jesus. T he uniqueness or Jesus' sacrifice is contrasled with lhe muhiplidly of a\C>vr5: O rigen was perfectly aware of this a nd fOund a basis (Or both these nolions in Hebrews and Ephesians respectively. In fact Heb. 9.26
'"'ill
30 Sce. e.g.. J. A. lyons. Tilt! Cosmic ChriJt in Orige11 und Teilburd dl! Clzurdin: A Comp(lratirr Study (0.\ford: Uniwrsi1y Press. 1982). 31 PritJc. 1.6.1: 'Quae ergo est ~ubil'C'lio. qut1 Christo omnia dcbent '-"S.~c subicc.tu1 Ego arbitror quia ha'-'\: ipsa qu.:1 nos quoque Olllnmus ci esse subiccli. qun subict'li ci sunl cl apostoli c-t onut<:s sancti qui sccuti sunt Christum. Subicctionis cnim nomen. qua Christo subi..:imur. salutcnl qu(le a Christo est indicat subicclorum. · In 3.7 Ori~n states that. as t1~<: Son's submission to the Fatht~ ns perfect rcintcgrntion Clf all creation. that is. univcrs..'ll apokntnstttsis. so docs the submission of hiscnem i~~ to the Son me.1n sal\'ation of hi.s subjocts and reintcgmtion of the lost In Cmnm. in Matt. Ser. 8 Origcn c.xpluins that the cnL':mics who will be ~ubj1.-clcd to Chri~t \\ill not be crushed and extcrminatL'
219 says that Christ d id not s uffer many times since the fo unda tion of the world, but 'instead. o nce a nd lOr all. at the end o f the aiWv;s , he has a ppeared to put away sin thro ugh his sacrifice· (wvl oE O: na~ £nl OUVTI),,(~ T~V o:iWvwv E'ts O:e[TT}OIV T~S a~apTias OtcX TRS' tluoias atiTOU n•<j>avipc.nat}. In De or. 27.15 Origen compares this passage with Eph. 2.7: 'That in the ~teons to come he might s how the exceeding riches o r his gnt<'e in his goodness towards us through Christ Jesus" (i'va fvOEI~flTO:t Ev Tols aiOOot To'i5 £mpxo1-1~vots TO Umpf3ciUov nAoihos T~5 x' ~~ci5 '"' XptoT4)' IT)OoV). Orig.en comments: • h has occun ed to me many times. and I wonder when I compa.re t hese two a postolic: expressions. how there is an end o f aeons in which once and for all, in o rder to put away sin. Jesus has a ppea red, if there are<.·oming aeons too:n Fo r this reason it will be necessary to suppose that there are series o f ai~vE5: 'It happens in the same way as t he e nd of the year is the last month. a fter which there comes the beginning of another month . Similarly, this present aeon is the end of many aeons which comprise a yea r. as it were. after which some. future aeons will c.ome. the aeon to come being their beginning, and it is in these aeons t hat God wiJI s how us the riches of his gr.tce in his goodness: The series of aic:l~s display God's sntt-.e bec.ause they point to o ne-a nd the. same end. the final restoratio n o r all. after which t here will be the iiiotoTT)5 of the a pokat
yOp xOp.rt £on OEOWO)JiVOI Oul rrionQS , Ko:l roUTe oUK E~ i.J)Ji>v· 9EoV
TO Oc:>pov). Origen quotes Eph. 2.7 joining it to another passage from
Paul. Ro m 6.23 (To or xapto~a TOU ewu ~"'~ a'twvtos-), also in his Comm. in Rom. Ca ten:ie 22.11. where he States: xaptO)la Toii ewU ~(o.)~ a·l c.lv1o5· oU yelp E~ h~&w· e,oU TO O.Wpov. What he is a ffi nn ing, IOIIowlng Paul a nd connectin~ the two above-mentioned q uotations from him (Eph . 2. 7 a nd Rom. 6.23). is that retribution :md commensura tion apply only to expiation o f sins. i.e . their purilkation, a nd to the duration of s ullering. which lasts atx:ording to the seriousness of earh o ne•s sins. but is limited in every case. a nd not inl1nite. whereas li fe a nd bliss after that is a rree gift .33 n~Oxt) « ~01 i~&v Cutopiiv, 0\f)'i(poVovn OVo ).i~Ui O:rroo;oAu:::cis , TJ~ ouvtiM:ta aiWvwv io;iv. E$' o Ono:~ Eis !reill}OtV TC:Iv O~p1't~v lrpoOs m¢o:tApwtat, tl IJiMO\JIOtV !ivo• o:iWvt"S IJETO TOU•ov i lifPx01J1\.'0t' ixouot OEo:i Ai~t•s aUroV oiitws , iv IJi-V Tfl npbs- 'Eflpo:iov-s· vvv'i 0£ O:na~ f ni awnki9- T~v oic.'J.t~c.:~v tis: O:&i-ri)Cit\1 Tilv 01JO:PT•Wv OtO 'f'1k 6voios o:\mii nt4>o:YipwTo:t, iv Of: ~ rrpb) 'E4
220
A Cloud of Witnesses
from God and has neit her me-asure nor end. This is a crucial idea that G regory of N\'ssa will take up and demonstr.ue ln his De Anima t:l
. ..13 RC!Sllff('('[IOIW
Around the notion
or Cina~ :lS Opposed to CmE!pciKtS' is also centered
Origen's polemic against the Stoic: cyclical conception of aic:lvES' that sucteed o ne lO a nother ~u:cording to a principle o f n~:essity. so tha t people alwHys do the same things nol o nly o nce (Orrcx~), but many times
(OmlpciKt5). each time in o ne of the innumerable aic:lvEs-. In C. Cels. 4.6768 Origen explicitly contests such vision of nTa:yJJi'vat cXvo:KvKA~ons occurring E:~ aVixyKfl5. in whkh Jesus himself would have to dwell on this earth f!lany tim~s and qo the same things asain and asain. oUx O: rra~ a~A' CmnpaKt5 , KaTo: mp160ou5 .36 Origen's aiWv~5 are very dillerent from the Stoi<:: here. ag_ a in. we ca nnot at~cuse him o r yielding to pagan conceptions. For his conception or ~-~s has rightly been pointetl out (most rece ntly by Tzamalikos). Origen. in fac t, sees their succession as regulated nol by ne<.-.essity. but by hUJmm freewill. Indeed. as I mentioned . the apoka tastasis w~-ts maintained by him precisely in polemk~ with the detenninism or the Gnostic theory of predestination by necessity. T bis o:i<.iv will pass ~1way> because in it there is much evil, which must be purified by the fi re or conflagralion, a nd t he t:onstitution and duration of the next. as of a ll aiWvEs. will depend o n the free moral action of the vOr5, who. a t the end of each o:ic.lv. survive in that they are no t mate rial but intelligible entities. and their co ndition in the subsequent a\i'>vE5 is dete rmined by their free choices in the present o ne. T hus. a huma n being can be-elevated to an angelic cond ition or degraded to a demonic o ne. but even a demon. who is not evil by nature but only because of a free choice. can emend itself and pass to a better state: the devil himself will be resto red. and not destroyed. in that he was created by God 37 and will cease to be Lhe devil. that is. 'enemy ~md death·. in that. purified from all eviL he will return to the Good . Origen's notion is origjnal in respect to the-Stoic theory. but a lso in respect to Platonism a nd. l')yth~1goreanism . which had conllagration and. periodic cataclysms. Not only is Origen·s conception of time moral instead of o nto-fcosrnologkal. but evil itself has no ontological substant:e in his view. o nly an ethical
a suocession of worlds is ethical, not cosmological.
35 See my conllm~ntary in Gn·gorio di Ni!.w: Sull'anima (' Ia n!.urrre:ione. 36 TO aUTO. Cui "a·, )"tyovivot "ai Elvat Kol toEo6o.1, 0:\.'0:ylcq Cui Ko:tO: <0;: ;na'(l.IEvos m:ptOOov:; ~io 1-1fv l.lrtO: TCii Aooil TClv 'loJOOic.Jv i~tMh:tv i-.e TiW AiyiJnToo, 'lqooiiv « nOAw im6rn.uioat T~ (3it.;~ TO: o:VtO: no•~o-oVTO, Ori'Ep oJx cino~ iJ.M' O:rrup6.c•s KaTO: m:ptOOou:; nmoil'jt«v· O:AAO Kol XptoTtavo'i oi aVToi fooVTot iv ntl5 tna y!Ji-II'Ot) Ctva.cv..-Ai)ototv, .cai nOAtv KtA.oos- ypO~ · TO i3t(3Alov ;o(ho, Onttp0Kt) aUTO npOnpov yp&4'o-;:. 37 H. Crouzd. ' Apocatastasc chc:1. Orib~ne·. in l. lies (cd.J. Origmimw/V (lnnsbruck: Tyrolia -Vcrktg. 1985). pp. 2:8'2-90: G . Bunge. 'Cri.i pour Ctrc'. BL£98 ti 997J. pp. 21- 29.
221 nature. h does not derive rrom matter. but only l'rom the free will of the vDts. And precisely this ontolo~jcal insubsta ntia lity is an importa nt basis fo r the doctrine o f t he apokatastasis.38 fo r all evil will disappear in theend. according to its lack of ontological reality, and the Good , that is, God . will be 'all in a ir. But this is only one o f the pilla rs of the a poka tastasis: a n importa nt premise or il. which renders the eviction or evil and thus t he apoka tastasis possible. is Jesus C hrist·s sacrifk·e, which is
much Stressed in Origen's exe,gesis or Hebrews.
T hus. il seems to me t hat Origen fruitfully employs the core notion o f Jesus Christ's high priesthood in He brews in order to demo nstrate- the universal a nd eternal validity of the sacrifice of Jesus. perfo rmed by him as eternal High Priest. who o lfered nol a n a nimal victim. but himself. The uni\•e rsality or t he e lle ctiveness of this sacrific-e is demonstrated by Origen thro ugh Heb. 2.9 in both ils variant readings; its e ternity is demo nstrated o n the basis of t he repea ted assertion o r Jesus" high priesthood being ,·15 Tov a ic:lva. as opposed to the Hebrew ye-•rly hig.h priesthood. Precisely because Jesus· priesthood is ete rna l. he did no t need to perfOrm mrmy sacrilk es. but ra ther the absolute uniqueness of Jesus· sacrifice is stressed by Origen aga inst the multiplicity of the ai~v£s . lls powe.r is .such that it is a ble to bring about salvation bo th fo r a ll al~V£S (chronological unh'e rsality) and for all rationa l c reatures (eXtension~tl universality). This fully conllrms. in my view. the fundamenta lly Christologica l nature of Origen·s conception o f t he a poka tastasis: fa r from being a pagan doctrine, a yield ing to Plato nism o r to a Stoic cydic.al conception, Ori~en~s doc trine of apokatastasis. which he mainta ined in o pposition to G nostic dete rminis-m and predestinationism - just as Gregory of Nvssa ma intained it ago.linst 'Ari~mism' in his In 11/u d: Tunc et lpS.l' 1-lliu.\'~ de.tlnilely is :1 Christian doctrine. Univers:.-tl salvation is made possible not by a metaphysica l or cosmologica l necessity. but primaril)f by Jesus C hrist's incarna tion and high-priestly sacritk e. and by God's g.race: for Ori~en. it really is xcXpto~a TOO e,oG· 8£oU TOOc:>pov.
38 Soc:. with extensive documentation. the. philosophical C'SS!IYJ provide in my Gn•gorio t# NiJ.wr. und my. 'Christian Sotcriology·. A synthesis is to be round in A. A. Mosshammer. ·r-.t:tl'. in I..·F. Matoo· Sl'OO nnd G. ~·hspC'ro (ed.<>). Dicdtmurio tit- JWI Gregorio de Ni.ra (Burgos: Monte Carmdo.2006}. pp. 583- 91. .W Sec my introductory essay to the /11 1/fud in my Gregario di Nis:u1: Sulfanima e Ia r.-mrrrl':iom!.
I NO~X 0~ AUTHORS Ada ms. E. 17 A itke n. E. U. I 72. J93, 207 A lb!. M . C. 156 A lkgro. J.D. 151 Anderson. C. P. 2 11 Anderson. D. R. 58 Anderson. G. 24 Andrics..<;en, J>. 59. 65 Aschim. A. 1.)4. 138- 9. 14 1 Ascnsio. F. 88 A u ridg_ c . H . w. 14. 20. 22. 26. 30. 42- 3. 46. 53.60.62- 3.65.68- 9. 71- 3. 76-9. 81 - l . 89. 95. 102. lOS. 115. 120- l. 113. 125. 130, 156. 177--8. 18 1. 1 87-~)(), 192- 3Aunc. 0.
20-J
Hn:nl. A . 179 Hrown, R. E. 4 1, 187. 193 Hrown. W. P. 148 Hrucc-. F. f·. 14. 2-8- 9. 33. 43. 49. 54.
68. 7 1. 74, 78- 9. ~5. 104. 133. 156, 17 1. 177 Brueggemann, W . 14 1 Hryun. C. 17 1 Huchamm, G. W. 59. 77. 104. 149. 175 Buhmunn. R. 158 Bunge. G. 220 Burns. L. 96
Caird. G. B. 31. 33- 4. I08 Campbell. 0. A . 40 Canquot. M . A.
Bachmumn. M. 56. 64 Backhaus. K. 118. 120. 122- 4 Baldwin. J . G. 157 Barbaglio. G. 213 13.u rkcr. M . l3-6. 147-8 Uaycs.J.
104.1 17 Bc:tl. T . 146 Beale, G. K. 12- 13. 15. 17. 145, 147- 8 B<.~trd . M. l83. 186 Becker. A. H. 198 lk<:kwith. R. T . l l4
Be-lting. H.
176
lk -rgcr. K . 197 Ektz. 0 . 15S- 9. 163. 165. 167- 8Bit·ncrt. W. 2 12 Ul:tck. L>. 27. 151 Blank. S. H . l i O Blomberg, C. L 34. 8~ Bobichon. 1:). 20 I Bodingcr. M. 134 Borgen. P. 152 Bouston. R. S. 206- 7 Bmndcnburg.:r. E. 5 1 Braun, H . 132 Brawley, R. L. 91
Curagounis. C. C.
139 lSI
Carruthers. r-.•1. 21 Curler. W. 171. 184- 5 Calhcart . K . J. 154 Charh."Sworlh. J. H . 202
C hestnut. G. F. 178 195 Childs. l:l. S . 108 C hurch. C . 96 Cla rk. E. A. 2 11- 2 Clarke . E. G. 148 Clarke. J. R. 183 Clivas. C. 193. 195. 204 Coals. G . W. 142 Cockerill. G. L 129,132. 134. 140- 1. 18 1 Cody. A. 115 Collins. A. Y. 17l Collins. J. J. I 19, 151 Coppens. J. 109 Cortez. f'. 20 Cosby. M. R. 46 Craddock. F. B. 91 Crou:tc:l. H. 213, 220 Croy. N . C. 46. 49
Chcrix. P.
ludrx
223
~{'Authors
C uller. J . 14 C urrid. J. D. 143--4
Dahood. M . II D"Angdo. M. R. 43. 86, 110 D.tutzenbcrg. G . 159 Davidst1n. A. 13. 66 Davi<.-s. P.R. 15 1 Davic.-s. W. D. I ~) Davila. J . R. 12:-i- 9. 134-6. 13 8-~) Day. P. L. 85 de Jonge-, f\·t. 152- 4 Dditzsch. F. 54. 60 Demarest. B. 144 dcSilva. D . A. 25. 42. 53. 59. 6H. 70. 79. 9 1. 131. 155. 176 Dilx·lius. M. 193 Dittenbcrgcr. W. 177 Dods. ~1. 49 Do nin. H . 101-4 Do uglas. M. 22 Dunn. J. 0 . G . 10. I S
Dunnill. J. lOS D yson. S. L. 172 Ebc.•rhart. C. 212 Ec-0. u. )46 Edwards. M . J. 1 12 Ehrmann. B.
194 Eiscnb;,um. P. f\,1. 46. 4 1). 207 E! li a:t~ Y. S . 105 Ellingworth. J>. 10-13. 19. 16. 4 1. 43. 5 1. 55- 6. 59. 6 1. 65. 68-9. 7 1. 76. 78. 89. 97. 104-5. 114. 121. 133, 155. 190. 192. 199. 208 Elsncr. J. 182. 184- 5 Emerton. J. A. 141 Emmel. S . 187. 194. 196- 7 Epp.E.J . 1'18 Epslcin. I. 203 Estrada . E. Z. 54-5. 59. 62 Evans. C . A . 146 Ey:.mg,uicrrc. F. S. 2 13
Falque . E. 209 Favro. D. G . 183 Fc.urs. J . R . 184 F<.-eny. D. 182 Fcld. H. 88 Filson. F. v. 117 F it:.-.myc-r. J . A. 128- 30. 134, 138- ? . 206 F lussc.r. D . 86. 203 F ra nt.-c. R . T. 89. l l 4 F n:lhcim. T . E. 14l
Frey. J. 114. 122- 5. 127, 194-6 Gmumic-. J. G . 143 Gclnrdini. G . 19. 2J, 68. 199. 207 G hcorg,hit::1. R. 45 Glcnson. R. C . 90. 207 Goddard. B. L. 99 Goddc-. s. 20-' Gordon. R. P. 52. 61. 9L 145. 186 Gould. J. 204 Griibc. V. J. 124 Gmnt. l\·1. 184 Grnsscr. E. 41. 77. 9 1. 10 1. 104. 1134. 122. 158, 161 Gmy. P. 60. 62. 187- 90. 192. 193 Gregory. A. 188. 1?1 Grossfdd. U. l5-0 G u thrie. G. H. 9- 10. 15. 19- 20. 23. 25. 33. 88. 92. 98. 110. 171 H ~1 g,n c r. D . A . lSI Hmum. D. 41- 3. 63. 159 H ~•rl. .\1. 204 Ha rland. J>. A. 179 Ha rrington. D. J. 48. 192 H::1r ris. J. R. 80- 1. S7 Ha rrisville. R . A . 108. liS. H::1y. D. M . 28. 58. 78 Hays. R. B. 40. 68. 145. 154 H
Isaac. E. 150 M. E. 14. 53. 58. 66. 105, 115 207 lsluuad. R.
lstUICS.
Janowski. 0.
68. 7 1
224
A Cloud of Witnesses
Jen:m ius. J. 5 1. 189 Johnson. L. T. 12 1 Johnsson. W. G. 114 Johnston. K. L. 3 1 Jones. D. L 172 Joslin. It C. 100. 108. 110. 113 Junod. E. 2 12 Kfiscmunn. E. 28. 32. 46- 7. 77. SO- l K:.sscr. R . 20 I Kelber. W. 175. 178 Kistcmnkcr. S. J. 90 K iwoong. S. 20 Kobd ski. 1' . J. 130. 138- 9 Koeste r. C. R. I I. 10. 15. 27. 41. 43. 50. 54. 57. 60. 63. 73. 7?. 90. 92. 102. 130--3. 156. 17 1- 2. 18 1 Koeste r. H . 17 1 K o nstun. D. 214 K rey. 1' . D . W. 144 K ugd, J. S.l~ Ku,~;lcr.
R. A . 84 55. 6 1. 72.74- 5.79
Kurian al. J.
L.a:msmu. J. C. 9- 10. 12. 16-18.47 Lane. W. L. 11- 15. 28. 36. 43. 49. 55. 59. 61. 9 4. 102-4. 105. 108. 121. 133. 155-<'l. 17 1. I 7:S L~m~>c-. A . I 19 Latcgan. B. C. 92 L~tub. F . 57
Laubscher. F. d . T. Lauterbach. J. 23
14
Layto n. S. C. 86 Le hne. S . 104-5. 110. 119- 20. 126 Leit h~• r L P. I 06 Lc-ngyd. A . 186 Lcsd !c.r1. D . F. 9.1. 129- 30. 132- 3 Lc.sc.ow, T . 52 Lc.n:nson, J . 0. 147- H L<.•vin. C. 105. 108 Lidllcnbc.r;;cr. H. 119 Linc.oln. A. T . 48 Linda rs. B. 46. 89. 115. 165 Lindsny. D. R. 161- 3. 165, 167- 8 Loadc.r. W. R. G. 57. 59. 71. 105 Longcm:dcr. 8. W. 48 Longenecke-r. R .N. 128. 136 Lopez. K . rvl. S4 Loll. J. B. l iB
Lohrma nn. D. 165 Lus1. J. 14 1) - 50. 152 Lyons. J. A . 1 1S McComiskcy. T. E. 109 (VIcConvillc. J. G . 109 McCrudcn. K. 96 McKe nzie. J . L 147 McKnigh1. E. 96 McNair. B. G. 144 McNa m a ra .~ . 134. 139. 148- 50, 155
f\,lucRac. G . W. 16 Malus. J. 177 Ma lina. B. J. I S1 Ma nns. F . 203 Ma nzi. F. 136. 139-40 M a rtinc7_ F . G . 13S f\·lason. E. F. 132. 212 Ma tlock. R. 8 . 40 M<1Lz, C.·P. 89. 9 1. l iS M a ure r. C. 59 Me ie r. J. P. 31 Mcnn. E. ~t. 109 f\·lcrk. A . 2 13 M ic hd, 0. 65. 104 M ilgrom. J. 22-4. 14S. 151 M ilik. J. T. 151 M ille r. D. G. 99 M iller. J. C. 48 M illig.:m. G . 177 Mircd:i. J>. A . 187. 195 Miscall. P. D . 146 M obley. G . 85 M offat. J. 49. •) 5, l04. 17 1 Montcfiorc. H . w. 14. 29. 94. 104. 13 1
M ossha mmcr. A. A. 21 1 M Olycr. S. 9 1 M oulton. J. H. 177 Murp hy-O'Connor. J. 119 Nagel. I'. 194 Nash. R. H. 175. 178 Nd. P. J. 14 1 Nt."\vsom. C. 138 Neyrcy. J. H. 132 N ickclsburg. G . W. E. I SO- l N ikiprowcLsk:v. V. 104 N i.ssilii. K . 56 N ixo n. C. E. V. 183 Noort. E. 148 Nord. C. 197 North. J. 183. 186
ludrx NoU\•o lonc. F. G.
~{'Authors
205
O ' Connor • •\1. 147. 15 1 Olive-r. J. 1-1 . 177. 184
Osborne. G. R. 91 Owen. J. 29- 30 Painter. J. 200 Pnrry, D . W. 147 Parsons. ~·1. C. 129. 13 1. 13~ Pnth:nnon:, S. W. 146 J>t:tc-rson. D . 49. 54-6. 61. 66. 74. 76. 79. 9 1. 104. 114- 5. 157 l' litzncr. V. C. 96 Pilhofcr. J>. 132 l' inl.:. A. W. 117 l,lcht. H . W. 185 J>olvthrc:>s. v. S. 88. 98. 105 J>reiorius. E. A . C. 10M J>ricc:. S . R. F. 176. 179-80. 182-6 t>rinzivaJii. E. 210. 2 12. 2 15 t>ucch. E. 137- S
Quinn. R . D .
8:8. 92. 98
Rad un. G . T. B. 186 Rainbow. P. A . 136-7, 139-40 Ra mdli. I. L E. 2 10-- 14.2 18- 19. 22 1 Ret.-d, Y. 198 Rc id-Hcimcrdingcr. J. 198 Rh ...~. V. 41. 159. 164--5 Ribera. J . 149 Richardson. C. 50 Riddlc.D. 171. 18 1 Riggcnbat:h. E. 61. 65. 105 Rissi. r"'l. 55. 58-9. 108. 190. 199
Robertson. A. T. 62 Robinson. J. M. 200 Rogc.rs. B.S. 183 Rohrbaugh. R. L. 181 Rooke. D. W. 12M- 30. 131 Roukcma. R. 2 1 I. 2 19
Snbourin. L. I 55 S:oilh:uucr. J. H. 144 Snndcrs. E. l' . 5M S:•ma. N. ~- 14 1 Snvamn. G . W. 148 Sch(:chter. S. 203 Schc.id. J. 18.3 Schenc.k. K. L. 3 1- 3. 35-6. '/7. 103 Schenkc . H .·M . 187 Schlutter. A. 158 Schli<.·r. H. ISO
-?2-)
Schnccmclchcr. W. 201 Scholer. J . M . 42. 56. 58 Schowalter. D. N . I ~(). 185- 6 SchrOgcr. F. 105 Schunad. G~ I 03. 105. 10M. 159 Sc:otl. J. C. 173- 4 Sccle)'. D. 171 Sh ulL R. J. H . 103 Silva. M . 105 Smo thers. T . G. 91 SOding. T. 65 S<.,wc:rs. S. 89 Spicq. C. 89. 105. 128-9 Stanley. S. 19. I JS StauiTer. E. ISO Sh."ttm:m , R. C. S9 Slcgcmann. E. 212 Sh:gcmunn. W . 211 Steyn. G . J. 33 StOkl Uen Ez ra. D. ~ 3. 26. 84 Stordalcn. T . 147- 8 Strickcrt. F. M. 15 1 Strobel A. 52 Sluckc:nh rud:. L. 28 Swetnam. J. 19. 34. 59. 95. ISIS. 191- 2 Synge. F. C. 8 1. 98 Talmon. S . 119 11l cisscn. G. US Theo ba ld. rvl. 120 111ielnmn. F. 105. 115 T h omas, K. J. 95 T h ompson. J . W. l04. 115. 159. 162. 164 11w rCn. J. 56. 65 Thycn. H . 19 Tz:unalikos. P. 1 12. 214 Obcrlac:kcr. W. G . 97 Urassa. W. ~~. 93 Va ndcrKam. J. C. 150- 1 van dcr Woudc. A. S . 136 Vanhoye. A . 14. 27, 3 1. 34 . 43. Sl. 86. 102. 108. 115 van Laak. \V. 2 13 Vermes. G . 149 von Harnack. A. 45 von Rad. G. 105 Vos. G . 38 Wa llis. I. G. 40-1. 43. 46. 49 Walter. N. 56 Wa h ke. B. K. 139. 144. 147. 151
226 Walto n, J. H.
A Cloud of Witnesses 12
Weiss.. HA•·. 102. 106. 114 Westcott. D. F. 32- 3. 93. 10 1. 131
Wcstrall. c. 19. ~3 Whcnham. G . J. 14 1, l43. 147 Whitfield. B. J. S I Wh itlark. J. 50 Willey. P. T. 146 Willi-Plein. I. 22. 212: Williams. C . 13. 90 Williamson. R. 134. 136. 15?. l62. 178 Wills. L. 19
Wilson. R. r-.kL. 94
Windisch. H.
104
Witheringto n Ill. 8. Wolfson. 1-1. A. 178 Wray. J. H. 47 Wray. T. J . 85 Wright. D . 26 Wright. N. T. 1 ~ Y o ung.. N .H.
56. 9 1
Zankcr. P. 18 1- 5 Zimmc.nmum. H. 61
48. l72
INOEX OF BII!LICAL CiTAT IONS Old Tesfamenl Gem!.~is
1- 1
11 1.22 144 1.26-30 92 1.28 145
2.8- 16 148 2.8 148 6.9 62 6. 13-21 62 6.22 63 7.5 63 12. 1-? 142 12. 1-3 143 12. 1 160 12. 10-10 142 13. 1-14 .24 142 13 [42 13.2 142 13.10 142 13.1 4- 18 142- 143 14 ll'J. 139. 141- 142 14.2 142 14.8- 12 136 14.8 142- 143 14.10-12 142 14.13-1 6 136 14. 13 ) 41 14.14-24 138 14. 14-22 138-139 14.1 4-20 141 14.1 7 24 128-130. 133-135. 140- 141. 143-1-44 14.1 7 142- 143 14.1 8 20 143 14.1 9 143 14.20a 143 14.2 1-22 142 14.2 1 14L 143 1-4.22 143 14.23 143 4
4
15. 1- 17.27 142 15.6 16 1 17. 18 130 18. 1- 19.38 142 I S 142 18. 1-33 142 18. 1-8 142 18.9--15 142 18. 12 l42 1 8. 1 ~33 142 18.20 142 19 142 19. 1 22 142 19. 1 142 19 .4- 11 142 19 .4 142 19. 12-22 142 19. 14 [42 19.23-29 142 19.24 [42 19.28 14:! 19.2? l42 19.30-38 142 20. 1-18 142 21. 1-7 142 48. 10 62 49.8- 12 ISO 49.9- 10 156 4
l::.widu.\· 1.23-24 70 3. 7-8 7() 3.7 62 6.4-S 70 6.9 LXX 189 16 26 17. 1-7 82 20.20 63 24 126 24.8 122. 116 26.7 14 7 26. 12 147
26. 13 147 27.21 122 30.1 5 26 3 1.7 122 32 26 36.14 147 39.32 147 39.4<) 147 40.6 14 7 40. 19 147 40.21 147 40.24 147 40.29 147 4
Le••itic11s 1. 1 2 1 4.6 22 4. 12 12 10 2 1 IO.H 2 1 IU 21 13.1 2 1 13.38 176 14.33 2 1 I S.l 2 1 16 22 16.2 22 16.3 20 16.1 7 23 16.2 1 23 84 17.4--5 147 14 2 1 25. 1 2 1 4
Numbers 1. 1 3.7 3.8 3.25 3.38 4.4 4.15
11 147 147 147 147 147 147
228
A Cloud of Witnesses
4.25 147 4.3 1 147 6.22-27 144 9. 15 147 12 86 12.6-8 86 12.7 43. 86. 162, 166 13- 14 8 13 S2 13.2 83 13.3 83 14 81 14.7-8 82 14.9 82 14. 11 82 14. 1? 82 14.21-23 82 14.2? -.H 82 14.34 82 16--17
26
16.27 146 23.7 ISS 23. 1l:' 155 23. 19 155 24 156 24 L XX 145 24.2 146 24.3 ISS 24.5-9 145 24.5--6 17. 145- 146 24.5 146- 148. 155 24.6-7 150 24.6 148. l52. 154 . 157 24.6 LXX 145. 148 24.6a 148 24.7 149-150. 152- 154 24.7 LXX 14? 24. 14 155 24. 15-1 7 150- 15 1. 156 24. 15 155 24. 17 149- 15 1,153- 154 24.20 155 24.21 l 55 24.23 155
32.43
2?. 32 I ~)
32.45--46
J
61 109
I Sumud 2.35 160. 166 7.9 58
1 Sumud 7. 13- 14 10 12.13 201 15.30 202 22.3 4 1
I Kings 8.54 203
1 Kings 24. 1
57
I Clmmides 16.2 144 17.1 4 86 22.9- 10 10
l Chronides 29.26-30 5~
E:m 9.5- lO. l
58
Ne!temi(llr 9.6 203 9 .7-15 70 Esther -4.8 61 14.1 7 Jab 5.20 35.12
-42.8
61 62. I H9 58
DruleroJwmy 6.6 I Oil
P.m hn$
7.9 166 10. 16 Ill? 11. 18 lll\l 26.5-9 70 30.5 109 30.6 109 30. 11-1 4 to?
1.2 109 2 150 2.7 51. 57- 58. 77. 79. 129, 190-19 1 2.8 10 70 4.2-4 6 203
6.7-9 203 6.8 62 6.9- 10 70 7.8-9 140 8 10. I I. 31. 31. 33. 34. 88.90.93 8 .-1 ?0 8.-1--6 35. 89 S.5-7 S9 8.5-6 36 8.5 ~8 8.6 94 S.6a 95 8.7-8 95 8.7-81:1 ? 4 8.7 11.?5 S.Sb-9 II 8.Sb-i: !)5 8.Sb 95- 6 8.8<:. ?0. 95 8.9 88. 90. 9 5-96 8. 10-1 8 90 18 70 18.3 4 1 22 5?-60. 66, 190. 2~) 22.6 60 22. 12 66 22.23-25 70 22.2.3 4 1. 60 22.20 66 22.15 60. 192 3 1 59 3 1.20-25 70 37.3 1 109 40.7-9 42 40.8 109 40. 18 66 4 2 59 43.3 147 4 5 150 46.4 147 55. 14 6 1 6? 59 82. 1-2 140 84. 1-4 14 7 89.27 33 91.14-16 70 92.7 150 95 II. 12. 15. 82 95. 1-7 J() 95.7-1 1 4 7. 8 1 95.8 69. 82 96 12. 14 96.9 15
Index of Bibliml Citlllious 97.7 21-J 102 IO. I J 102.25-27 132 102.26- 7 Jl 110 84. 90. 150. 2 142 15 110. 1 58. ~9. 94. 129. 156.21 1 110.4 15.16.5 1.57. 77- 79. 102. 104. 128131. 133-134. 138-140. {13- 118. 144. 156. 21 4-16 116 5?. 1?0 116.8 190 119 116 132.5-7 147 1-45.13 166
Pro,·erhs 3.7
63 51 11.28 150 23.14 61 28.14 62 30.5 62 6.~
l:wiah 6.9 l66 6.111 167 7.? 167 8.17 4 1 8. 18 4 1 I 1.1 - )() I 50 11.2-3 63 11. 10 154 13. 13 13 2~U 6 167- 168 42.1 1?7 44.4 150 51.6 I I 51.7 I ~) 51. 16 II 52- 53 166- 167 52.7 137. 140. 166 53.1 166--167 56.7 58 61. 1-2 140 61.1 137 61.2 137 65. 17 10 66.22 JO
Jt•J'l'IJiittl! 3. 10 109 3. 17 109 4.4 I OCJ 4. 14 109 4. 18 109 5.23-24 109 7.2.1 109 7.24 109 9. 12 109 9. 14 109 9.26 109 11.8 109 12. 1J 109 13.22 155 13.23 109 16. 12 109 17. 1 109 17.5 109 17.9 109 18. 12 l09 22. 17 l09 23.5 154 23. 17 109 23.26-27 to9 30. 18 147 31 101. 107. 110-112 31.31 -32 I l l 31.31 -34 107- 110. I I S120. 123. 1:!6 31.31 l l l 31.33c-34 I I I 31.33 l09- 110 31.33u 111- 112 31.33b 111 - 112 31.33c 112 31.33 l i O 31.~ 124 31.3-*:t 112 31.J4b 112 38.33 l09
229 7.7 89 7.8a S9 7. 14 14 7.1 8 14 9 .3 202- 103 •).13- 19 203 9.24 140 9 .25 137 10.5 22 10.6 22
; .,.{ 13
2. 10
Jotwlr 2..1-10
70
Mictth 7.2 62 7.7-8 70
Nalwm 1.7
62
Haht1kk11k 23-4 45 2.4 45. 165, 167- 168 2.4a 168
Hag.t!m· 2.21-22
13
Zei'hariah 3 8 1. 83-86 3.1 85 3.7 86 3.1-10 83 4.1 4 2()6 6. 12-13 206 6.1 2 150. 154. 156 6. 12 LXX 156 6.13 156-157
f.:ekiel 9.2-3 9. 11 10.2 12. 16 16.7 28. 17
22 12 22 61 ISO {55
M a!tu·/Ji 2
84
,.,
-·' -3.1 6 62
')-
Daniel 2.5 155 3. 18 179 7 89
Judith 4.13- 15
58
230
A Cloud of Witnesses Psalms
(~{ Si,f<mum
N('w T esl:unent
22.4 1-2 53 22.43-44 186, 193 22.45 53 13.43 58 23.46 54. 58 24 18 14.26 55 2:4.4 1 62 46 55
6. 11 62
Mouhe u·
John
11.6 59 12.22 63 12.45 64 13. 16 63 14.37 57 15.23 57
1. 1?
155
1.1 8
3. 15
191
8.28 175 I 1.35 190 12.27 193 12.38 167 12.4() 167 12.49 175 14.9 177 14. 10 17 14. 15- 16 216 18. 11 193 19.28 58 19.30 58 2 1- 2 18 2 1.6 62
1 Mm·cuhees 14.40 57
2 Mm·mbet•.o; 1.23-29 58 3. 17 63 3.30 63 4.7 57 4. 10 176 4.34 51
2. 12 155 2.36 64 3.8 64 17.2( 150. 154 17.24 150
12. 18
1?7
6. 1·1 5 203 6.23 59 9. 1-20 203
13.14 166 14.26 62. 64 16.21 55 17. 12 55 22.15-22 I SO 26.37-9 53 27.46 54. 58 27.50 54. 58 28.4 62
4 Mm·mbet•.o;
!1/ttrk
3. 10 51 4. 1.1 51 15.4 176
4.1 2 166 8.31 55 9. 12 55 12.13-13- 17 180 14.32-42 1?3 14.33-6 53 15.34 54. 58 15.37 54. 58
3 Macmhet•s 1. 16
59
Wisdom q{ Solommt 7.26 178 10. 1-2 1 189
10. 12b 189 11.9 51 13. 10.. 1? 32 14. 1 32 1 4. 1 ~ 1 7 185 17.8 64 17.9 64 17. 10 64 17. 1J 64 17. 14 64
l:.i·itLdicu.f ( ,\'imdt J 7.29 62 20.5 62 44. 1·50.2 1 I M9 48.5 61
Oi/e-s 2 33 2.43 29
Luke 1.29 57 2.1 57 2. 13 14 30. 3 1 2. 13 30 2.25 61. 64. 189 3.22 191 . 197 5. 17 57 6. 12 57 8. 10 166 9 .22 55 17.25 55 19.3 62 19.41 190. 209 10. 1 57 20.20-26 180 2 1.26 64 22.15 55 12.39-46 19) 22.39 208 4
177
At·ts 1.2 55 1.3 55 25 62. 64. 189 1.32-36 6 1 3. 12 64. 189 3. 18 55 3.22 79 3.16 79 8.2 62. 64. 189 10.2 64. 189 10.7 64 12. 14 62 13. 15-47 IS 13. 16-4 1 27 13.33 19 1 18-. 15 174 17.3 55 17.23 189 12. 11 62 22. 12 6::!. 64. 189 26. 18 160 28. 16 166 Rmmm.'f 1.1 7 45. 168
3.22
40
Index of Bibliml Citlllious 3.26 40 3.28 160 5. 19 48 6.23 219 8.2 1 IM 10 166 10.1 5- 16 166 11.8 166 11.36 II 13 181
l1Ju:swlo11imts 3.3
48. 166
1 TimotiJy 3. 16 64 6.6 6 -1 6. 11 64
1
Timothy
2. 12 96 2. 13 48
1 C(Jriut/Ji(ms 1.9 I I. 166 4.8 96 8.6 l l 10.1-13 47 10. 13 166 13. 13 167 15 18,90,2 11- 212 15.25-28 :I S 15.25 21 1 15.27-28 :II. 2 18 15.27 32. 90 15.28 214 15.5 1-2 10 32.2 207
1 CtJrinlllia11s 166
1.18
4.4
t 77
G(tf(l/i(IJIS
1.1
II
2. 16 2.20 3. 11 3.22
40 40 168 40
l:.flitesicm.\· 1.2() 61 1.22 90 2. 7 2 1? Philippi(IIIS 2.~ 1 1
3.21
171 90
Cofr1:rsirm.\· 1.13 1?6 1.15 177
1. 16-17
II
1 Tlre.ualtmiam· 5.24
166
l'hilimum 2.8 42. 48 3.9 40 3. 10 55 f.Jclwews
1.1 -4. 13 10. II 1-4 10. 14 1.1-3.6 I I I 20. 23. 24. 93 1.1-13 9 1. 97 1.1-4 16. 25. 88. I 76 1.1-3 13 1 1.1-2 110. 112 1.1 178 1.2-4 28 1.2-3 10. 38 1.2 10. II. 29. 38. 46. 56. 114. IS
231 1.8- 12 93 1.8-9 34. 133 1.8b 93 1.9 43. 93 1. 10-13 l() 1. 11}- 12 34. 131 1. 10 11.:9,?7 1. 11 I I. 97 1. 12- 13 97 1. 12 "4 1. 13 38. 58, ~4. 89. 92. 119 1. 1-4- 2.4 34 1. 14 38. 48, 1-'9. 9 1. 97. 132 1. 15- 19 133 1. 16 97 1.17- 18 97 2 20, 34. 4 1. 94 2.1 -5 89 2.1·4 10. 15. 20. 23. 24. 37. 91- 92 2.1 20. 47 1.3 60 2.5- 18 35. 13 1 1.5-9 10. I I. 44. 90. 97. 99 1.5-8 90. 9 1. 98 2.5 1-1. 2lt 29. 30. 31. 34. 35. 36. 38. 89. 92 2.6-9 34 2.6-8 I I. 3 1. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 91. 93. 98 1.6 I I. SS- 89. ?3. 98 2.7-8 36 1.7 31 2.8-9 35. 38 1.8 11 2.8b 90 1.9-3.2 57 2.9- 10 36. 61 1.9 12. 23. 24. 31. 34. 55- 58. 6 1. 70. 85. 90?1. 98. 190. 2 12- 213. 22 1 2.1 0-3.6 84 1. 10- IS 97 2. 11}- 11 36.4 1 1.1 0 I I, 34--36. 55-57. 73. 83. ?6. 19 1 1.1 1- 16 34 2. 11- IS 24 1. 11 38, 49. 55. 73 2. 12- 13 4 1
232 2. 12 41.43.59 2. 13 32. 4 L 43. 44. 61. 64 2. 14 -17 41 2. 14-15 64. 85. ?5 2. 14 34. 38. 43. 55. 56. 61. 190 2. 15 64 2. 16 28. 30. 35. 38 2. 17-18 75 2. 17 41. 43. 48. 55. 5759. 64. 66. 81. 85. 124. 159- 160. 166. 175. 19 1 2. 18 43. 46. -19. 51. 55. 56. 66-67. 71. 192 3. 1-4. 13 10 3-4 12. 16. 20. 106-107 3 43. ~() 3. 1-6 I I. 64. 8 1. 8.1. 8587 3. 1-2 .44 3. 1 42. 43. 46. 4 7. 97. 164. )75 3.1 43. 48. 86. 159-160. 162. 166 3.3 44 3.4 10. I I. 24 3.5 43. 44. 86. 160. 162. 166
3.6 43. 44. 4 7. 48. 81. S6 3.7-4.1 69 3.7-4. 13 I I. IS. 20. 24. 82. 85. 87. 107. 114 3.7-4. 11 11. 15. 47 3.7 4 7. 8 1 3.8 4 7. 69. 7 1 3.9 7 1 3. 10 47 3. 12- 19 82 3. 11 24.47.('/o). 160 J . l.l-14 46 3. 13 82 3. 14 48 3. 15 47, 192 3. 18- 19 64-65 3. 19
A Cloud of Witnesses 4.3-4 10. I I 4.5-5. 10 19') 4.6 47. 82. 130 4.7-10 130 ..J.7 32. 47 4.8 130 4. 11 47. 122 4. 12- 13 24 4. 12 170 4. 13 13 4. 14- 10.25 9. 10. 12. 16, 17 4. 14-8.2 74 -4. 14-5. 10 24. 51. 52 4. 1·5.6 5~ -4. 14- 16 10.-44, 57,69 4. 14- 15 175 -4. 14 12. 42. 76. 97,2 12 4. 15- 16 7 1 -4. 15 -42. "3. 49. 52. 5657.64-67. 69. 7 1. 19 1192 4. 16 52, 63, 65- 67. 85-4. 17 85 4.28 2 17 5- 10 16 5- 6 20 5. 1-7.28 9 5. 1-10 25. 52. 5-6- 58. 67. 74 5. 1-5 182 5. 1-3 23, 57 5. 1 11.60.93 5.2-3 57 5.3 19'1 5.4-6 57 5.4 57 5.5- 10 58. 104. 208 5.5-6 5 1. 56. 58 5.5 51. 71. 129. 175. 190 5.6 44. 5-7. 77. 129. 2 14 5.7- 10 42. 43. 199 5.7-S 43. 5 1- 59. 6~67. 190. 195. 198-199. 201 5.7 38. 42. 44. 53- 56. 59- 60. 62. 64-65. 6971. 186- 1?3. 195--196. 199. 205. 208- 1()1.) 5.8-10 74-75 5.8 42. 44. 46. 5l. 5556.62. 65. 74, 191- l91 5.9- 111 57- 58. 67. 74
5.9 42. 44. 57. 6l. 74. 191. 208. 2 18 5. 10 25-.57. 6 1. 175 5. 11-6.3 255. 11-6.20 10 5. 11-6. 12 10. 24 5. 12 32 5. 14 46 6. 1-2 70 6. 1 32. 44. 46 6.2 61 6.4-6 47. 205. 107 6.4-5 16 6.5 35. 38 6.6 25. 32. 155 6.7-8 2(1 6.9 48. 62 6. 10 2 14 6.11 - 12 4 7 6. 11 47.48 6.12- 15 7 1 6. 12 46. 4 7. 160 6.13-20 155 6. 16 93 6. 18 47. 155.205 6. 19 -20 12 6.20 42. 44. 97. 129. 175 7. 1-10. 18 100- 101. 116 7. 1-8.1 78 7. 1·25 128. 133. 14 1 7 77. 100- 1()1. 105. 107.1 16. 122.1 28. 144-145, 156 7. 1-25 129- 130. 132. 13-1. 144 7. 1- 10 10 1 7. 1-.l 129 7. 1-2a 129 7. 1 12 1 7. 1a 130 7. 1b 130 7.2u IJO 7.1b 130 7.3 66. 75. 78. 130. 132. 2 14 7.3ab 131- 132 7.3a 1.3-0 7.3b 1:\0- 131 7.3<: 130. 132 7..1<1 130 7.4- 10 130- 13 1 7.5 100. I 03. 105 7.7 144
Index of Bibliml Ciwtious 7.8 75, 78. 9 3. 131 7. 11 - 19 10 1. 106. 130-
IJL 7. 11 - 14 13 1 7. 11-13 13 1 7. 11 - 12 205. 207 7.1 1-J2a 103 7. 11 44. 7K 10 1. )()6 7.12 21). 100- 107. 112. 122. 13 1 7.13- 14 77. 102 7. 14-15 155 7. 14 76. 13 1. 155 7. 15-28 57 7. 15-19 13 1 7. 15 66. 7~. 79. 155 7. 16 56. 61. 78. 100. l02. 104. 106. 122. 131 7.18- 19 102. 105 7. 18 102. 104. 106. 214 7.19 44. 73. 100. 106. 124. 13 1 7.19<1 106 7.20-25 13 1 7.20-22 12 1 7.22 73. 97. 124--125 7.23-28 76 7.23-25 75. 122. 13 1 7.24-25 74 7.25 44. 4?. 75. 121. l75. 199. 205 7.26 64-5 7.26-l$ 43, 175 7.26 12. 44. 57- 58 7.27 56. 58. 67 7.28 I I. 58. 75. 93. 100 8-10 103 S. l - 10.25 9 8. 1-I O.I S 85. 125 8 100- 101. 105- 107. 113 S. l -7 123 S.l -6 122 8. 1-5 -~7 S.l -2 12.36. 156 8. 1 25. 56, 76. 84. 175 8.2 17. 37. 9 3, 145. 152. 154. 157 8. 3 I I. 175 8.4 16. 76. 85. 100 8. 5 37, 62. 85. l24 8.6- 13 107. 121 8.6 44. 46. 73. 107. 122- 125. 175
8.7- D 123 8. 7-8 107 8. 71f 37 8.7 108. 123 8.8-D 113 8.8-12 108. 123 8.9 -12 114 S. I0- 12 10 7. 114 8. 10- 11 109.1 14 S. IO 100- 102. 105-109. I l l. 123--124 8. 11 109 8. 12 108- 1()1). I I J-11 4. 123 8. 12b 124 8. 13 122- 123 8. 17 124. 20? tJ.-.10 26. (04. 116. 217 9. 1-10. 18 100- 10 1. 106. 113- 115 9 113-114 9. 1-28 11 5-1 16 9. 1-14 12 9. 1-5 124 9.4 26 9.6-7 125 9.8-10 11 5 9.9 125. 155. 191 9. 10 l l4-11 5. 125 9. 11-20 125 9. 11-14 16. 116 9. 11-12 124- 125.216 9. 11 38. I 14. 114. 175. 117 tJ. I IIT 29 9. 12 125. 2 17 9. 13 125 9. 14- 15 122 ? . 14 56. 65. 114. 125 9. 15-22 124 ? . 15 44. 46. 6l. 123125. 175. 1?0 9. 15a l24 9. 16-20 125 9. 16- 17 125 9. l8-2 1 126 9. 18-20 125 9. 18 126 9. 19 100 9.22 100. 125- 126. 192 9.23 14. 73. 125 9.230' 37 9.24-25 125
233 9 .24 12. 44.62.(24. 175 9 .25 125. 175 •) .26- 10.59 196 9 .26 38. 46, 55. 56. 6 1. 125. 2 18- 219 9 .27 93 9 .28 17. 32. 38. 48 10- 11 162 10 45 10. 1-1 63 IO.Iff 37 10.1 17. 37. 100-10 1. 114-116. 19 1. 2 17 HUb 112 10.2 125 10. 5-1 0 42. 121. 1?1 10.5-7 64 10.5 3 1 10.7 44. 6 1 10.8 100 10.9 44. 6 1 10.10 97. 116 10.11 2 17 10.12- 14 124 10. 12- 13 85. 211 10.12 JS 10. 13 94. 217 10.14 11 6. 125. 191. 21 7 10.15- 18 116.1 23--124 10. 15 113. 123 10.16- 17 102. 106. 108. 113--114. 123 10.16 100. 105-107. I l l. 113- 114. 116. 123 10. 17 11 4. 124 1().18 124-125 10. 19-39 20 10.19-25 10. JS 10. 19-23 45 10.19-22 44 10. 19-20 12 10.19 4 7. 63. 66. 97. 2t2 10.20 4 3. 46 1().2{ 85 10.12 63. 66. 114 10.23-5 46 10.23 44. 47. 158. 160. 166 10.25 9. )() 10.26- 13. 19 10 10.26-3l 47. 63
234
A Cloud of Witnesses
10.26 16 10.27 64 10.2H 100 10.29 25. 124. 127 10.30 32 10.31 64 10.32 56 10.32-6 45 10.34 7l 10.35-36 64 10.36-1 2.13 12 1 10.36 47 10.37-39 64 10.37- .Hi 45 10.3:)-39 168 10.38 45. 16M 10.39-1 2.1 168 10.39 45. 16M 11. 1- 12.2 7 1 I I 12. 14. 16. 20. 26. 41. 45. 72- 73. 160163. 166-167 1. 1-3 1 26 1. 1-3 161 1. 1 44. 167- 168 1.3 12. 44 1.4-38 189 1.4 45. 47 1.5 45. 103 l.6 44. 63. 70. 160 I. 7 45. 62- 64 . 189 I.S 64- 5 1.9-10 73 1.9 I 55 1. 10 26. 71 I. I I 159- 160. 166 1. 13-22 45 1. 13-1 6 36. 45. 73 1. 13 35 1. 14- 16 72 1. 14 35. l22 1. 16 26. 35. 73 1. 17-19 70- 72. 192 1. 17 56. 192 1. 19 6 1. 7 1- 72. 190. 192 11.23-8 45
11.23 64. 163 11.27 ~ 11.29 4 7 11.n-s 46 11. 31 26 11.33 16<) 11.35 61. 69. 72 11.3Sa n 11.3Sc 73 11.38 46 11.39 160 12 10 12.1-4 70 12. 1-3 44 12.1 46. 47 12.2 44. 46, 49. 56. 6465. 72- 7.1. 83. 85. 87. 97. 159- 16(). 164. 166. 168, 191 12.3- 14 5 1 12.3-4 56 12.4 66 12.7 208 12.14-29 20 12.15-28 20 12. 15 4 7 12.16 4 7 l2. 17 IM8. 190. 1':16. 203, 205 12. 18-2 1) 17 12.21 64 12.22-24 124. ) 27 12.22 26 12.23 36 12.24 44. 46. 4 7. 73. 97. 112- 123. 175 12.25-29 10. 12. 14. 15.
n
12.25 15. 37 12.26-7 l.l. 14 12.27-8 37 12.27 l OS 12.28 13. 14. 15. 35. 62- 64, IW.J 12.29 63 13.3 46 13.4 45
3.6 64. 93 3.7 45. 46 3.8 44. 97 3. 10- 16 106 3. 10· 13 17 3. 11 22 3. 12 46. 49. 55. 56. 97 3. 13-l4 50 3. 14 35. 111 3. 15- 16 64 3.20-2 1 11:7 3.10 36. 46. 49. 6 1. 69. 72. 97. 11:4. 127 13.2 1 ?7 13.22-4 35 13.12 1?. 36. 4 1. 47 13.33 19 I
I l'eu•r 1.11 55 2. 18-25 4S 2.21 55 2.21 55 2.23 58 3. 18 55 3.22 90 4. 1 55
2 Peu•r 1.6
64 18? I John 1.9 166 .1. 1 216
.1.?
Jude 4 103 s 47 Ret'elmion 1.5 48. 166 2.23 107 4. 11 I I 5. 10 96 19. 11 48 21.1 -2 IS 22.5 96
I NDEX o f OTHER CrrATIONS Clnssk
CICERO
1.1 3 11.6 18.8
140 15 1 140
De Omwrr 2.35 1 360 4
21
SENECA De C/i'mi!ntia 1.2 186 I:)OLYBI US f./iswries
5.M6.8 103 IM.6.7 103 29.11.3 103
Oc:ul Sea. &'foils
co 5.18 14<) 6. 11 I.W 6. 19 119 7 119 7.18- 19 14() 7. )8-2 1 15 1 8.2 1 119 19.33/34 119 20.1 2 ) 19 20.20-2 1 140
IQS 1.9 140 2. 16 140 3. 13-4.26 140 3. 13 14() 3.20 14() '>? 140 3.24 140 3.25 140 4.4-5 140 4.6 140 tJ. I I 206 9. 14 140 11.1 0- 11 140
.,,__
~Ql'Bfcss
3
(4Q252)
140
4QW (4Q491) ll.l3-2l 84
4Q544 2 140 IIQPs' (I IQS) 15 84 16 84
IQApGcn (IQlO) 2. 1 137 22. 14 l39
I IQMdch ( I IQ I3) 1.4 137 1.6 137 1.9 137 1.13 137- S 1. 14 137 1. 18 23 137 1. 18 137 1.23 140
IQS.o (IQ28a) 2. 14· 15 206
Early C.1uislian W ritings
4
1st Ap(K(t(l'fiSl' q{ Jumes
IQSb( IQlSb) 4.25-27 84
4Qrvlidr Esduat' (4QI74) 140
IQH 4.6 84 14.1 5b-16 140 17.20-2 J.J() 45.3 84
8-tJ
IQM 1. 1 14<) 1.3 140 I.!J 140 1.1 1 140
4Q213 1- 7 8-4 1- 2 8.4 10 84 19 84
4Q175 tJ-13 151 12 15l
25.15- 17 200 29.7- 11 200 30.30-31. 1 200 3 1.3 200 3 1.4--5 200 3 1.7 200 31.16-25 200 32.5 200 3V.i 200 32.13- 14 200 32. 19-20 200 32.25-26 200
lud Afmcalyp.w• af .lames 57.11
200
236
A Cloud of Witnesses
62. 13-1 5 200 62. 15 200
53 196 58- 59 194
Cummenwriorum iu '/.hi'.~.wtl(mictu
3 l :fl C/enuml
I R ENAEUS
2.4 63 8. 1-5 207
3.22.4
Acts of Paul
JEROME
tJ. I4
200
C H R Y SOSTOM
/.Jomilit'.\" tm J.ll'hre•r.s 8.2
208
C L EMENT OF A L EXANDR I A
Qujs din!s sahelur 25 2 16 DIDYMUSTH E ULIND Commeutarii ill Psalm<M 36.41 21 1
GREGORY O F NYSSA
('outra Ewwmium 2.S 4.3
32 32
EPIPHANIUS Pmwritm 30. 13. 7 I 9 I
Ad~'N:iiiS
1/tu:rest!.l
208
Cmumentoriorwu in E wmgelium Maulwi fibd tjUUitWr 26.39 197 26.45 197
211
Cummenwriorum Si' ries in ewmgi!lium J\llaulwei 8 218 92 196
De Oraliouc 10. 15.4 2 17 15. 1 1 15 27. 15 219 28}) 1 15
JUSTIN MA RTYR
Dktlogue wiiiJ 1J·yplw 90 20 1 90.5 201 103.6 191 14 1.3 201
De Principii.s 1.6. 1 2 18 2.6.7 2 11 2.7.3 2 16 3.5.6-7 218 3.7 218
Ma rtyrdom· of Polycar p 2.1
62
Exlwrtmit1 (l(/ M(lrry,·ium 29.32-37 193. 196
ORI GEN
Contra Ctdsum 2.24 196 1.25 196 3.49 2 17 4.67-68 220 7. 13 2 17
Contra Arimws 60.5 197
Cmnmenfflri(trum i11 C(mfiwm ( 'cmtinmuu 1.5.6 2 11
EUSEOIUS
Cmumeuwriormu il•
J.hmuliue in Job 387. 14 2 17
1/omilitJe in Le••ilimm 7.2 217-8 J./muiliae ht Ps(l/mos 36. 2. 1 218
fililmwlia 18. 13
De £a/esiastica Theolvgin 3.5.1 60.5 216
J./is/Qria F.cdt•.risatim 2.23.6-7 200 5.4.2 126 6.25 21 1
Gospel of the Saviour 45- 55 195 45-53 195 37-44 194 45- 55 194 46-49 194 47 196 51- 55 194
Jommi.l 1.2. 11 2 15 1.35.255 2 11 6.57 2 1M 13.30 211 13.34 21l 13.58 211 13.316 21 1
Cmumenlariorum in Rmnmws 1.9 217 3- 5 2 16 4. 10 213 10.43 211 22. 11 219
2 18
Seleda i11 Psafmos 12. 1440C 214 T ERT ULLIAN Arer.fu.~ M11rdmwm 5.9.9 20M
J ost•phus. J.>bilo and O ther ~arly .Jc wisb
Wrilings
Leucr o f A ristc:-as 160
IO:t
237
Index of OJ/wr Ciltllions De (iigunlibus
JOSEPH US Against Apimr
2.4 7::1-4 79
1.28.5-286
62
I 03
2.26 103 2. 163 163 Anliquirie:~ ~~{the Jt-w.~
1. 180 2.2 18
139 163
3.300- 16
18.57
War t?f the Jpu·s 2. 169· 74 J 79 6.438
De JtJ:u•plw 56- 67
135
179
139
162
Di> Muwrioue Nominum 25 135 108 135 116 135 148-50 135 240 135 f)e Op{{idtJ Mundt'
J>H I LO
l>i• Ahmlumm 17- 19 103 81 103 235-44 136 235 134. 136 236 136 242 135
81 135 139 135
Dr Plrmtalimut 18
177
De Po.\'lt-rium• Caini 173
162
261
135
177
135
268 27()
161- 2 16l
18 1-
Di• Agric:ullllra 46
95
135
Praemiis el l'm111is
f)t•
Cherubim 62
Dl.' Gm}iL\'i
Linguanuu 31 197
135
Caini 17 162 2. 147 135 1.:2l4-36 135
Gmgre.uu Erutliliolli.-.
l>i• EIJJ'il'tau• l35
124- 29
Qmx/ Deu·rius Poliod l11sidiuri Soleur 52 135 9 4 135 PSEUDO-PH I LO Liber A11tiquitmum Bihlkarum 15.1-7 S3
l'st'4Jdt•pigra pha Apomlyp.~(:_·
135
Gmlia 98- 99 135 99 134. 136
73
Quis Rerum Diniwrum Heres Sit 1- 29 190.204 3 63 5- 29 63 6- ? 63 7- 9 204 14 63. 204 19 63 22- 29 204 22- 28 64 29 64 9 1 16 1 124 204 161 - 62 l35 271- 74 204 273- 74 204
f)e Smuuii:s
f)e Di~
Quaeslimws t'l Solulimu:s i/1 Ge1w5im 11 48 62
152
135
Dt- Sat.T{/idis Abeli.l t•l 29
3.7? 135 3.81 135 3.202 135
De Aligmlimw Abmlumu
43-44
H3
103
2. J92ff.
I 03
135
De Puga t!l lunmtione 108-l09 135
Spedt~libus Legihu.~
1.333-45 1. {63-64
135 {40
Dr Vitn M(}Jis 1.220-36 83 1.264-300 152 1.288-91 152 2.66--68 139 iRJ:um Alleg(uiarum 2.9 1-92 135
3. 79-82 .1.79-8 1
134--6 135
(if Abrnlwm 84
13.1- 13 13.7 84 13.14 84
Apomlyp.fe of E:m
6.23-7. 1.14
209
Apomfn,:u! of Sedrad1 3. 1-2 206 14.2-4 202 Apochryplum (lj. E:ekM 2.6 106
238
A Cloud of Witnesses
Te,\·Umwnt ~~ /JaJJiel 5. 10
153
TesttiJJU!III u/ Nr1phtali 8.2 153
Rabbinif.' W ritings
h./Jeraklmt
1t-.\·tamnll (if Gad S. l
153
Te.\·tcmwm of Rt"uiH'n 6.8
3 J
b. Slmb.
TeJtmwllt (~f Joseph
Te!>'tameut of Simeon
88b
19.6
7.1 ·3 153 7.2 153 7.3 153
34
153
TesUmli'nl (lj' Judah 24
153
Visioll.\' of E:r-a
11-.\·UmU'nl (Jf Le•'i 18.3 153- 4 18. 11-1 5 153
203
153
S l-86
206
93
A v<Jt tie Uahbi Naum A 206
Elij::th Rnbb::1h 157
104
Numlx:rs Rabhall 20.20
155
l'esiqw Rab/x,fi 34a
93