5:8 Jesus learned obedience through the things he suffered.
This I take to be an allusion to the audience's situation, an idea the author will develop more extensively in chapter 12 as he talks about the disciplining of the Lord. I will suggest in chapter 12 that events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem could be involved in such discipline.
5:10 priest after the order of Melchizedek
The mention of Jesus as such a priest sparks the central and most stinging exhortation of the sermon. In my view, the audience's failure to appreciate the full signifcance of Christ's atonement is the central rhetorical problem the author is addressing. As I'm arguing, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple might stand at the heart of their crisis.
6:18 those who flee to grasp the hope before us
The first thought I have here is of the city of refuge. Of course the audience has not killed someone, but the image of fleeing to a new city fits with the heavenly Jerusalem imagery of chapters 11 and 12.
7:24-25 because he always remains for ever he has an unchangeable priesthood
Again, whether or not comments like this have overtones of a priesthood removed in Jerusalem is not clear at all. Such decisions have to be made from other passages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It has always seemed that people have looked to the political realm to offer them hope, which, ideally it should. But, historically the "ideal" falls short. So, when the destruction comes in the real world, as in Jesus life, in the Jerusalem Temple, or when Rome was sacked, the people of God look for "hope". This has been the role of theology and philosophy in Church history.
Personally, I really don't see a problem for placing hope in the real, as we live in the real and can't be disconnected from the real. And certainly since we live in a society that allows freedom of religious conscience, we do have hope that some in the rest of the world don't have.
As for nowadays, the conservative does believe that hope resides for our country in maintaining the proper order "under God". But, the government's power to maintain consevative values is different from radical Islam (at least I hope that is the sentiment).
Christians believe that man is made in God's image. And that the physical body is the "temple". The Catholic and some Reformed believers believe that the Church is the Temple...replacement theology.
Wasn't Hebrews a later "apology" for Christian faith, if, indeed it were written after the Temple's destruction? But wasn't Hebrews a cultic understanding, not a Jewish ethic?
If one understands Hebrews to be an apology for Jews to not leave Christian faith under persecution, then,that fits, because Jesus is the head of the "new temple", as our representatives and as high priest.
But, what was it that Jews were looking for in the Temple, that obviously would bring discouragement in the Temple's demise? The Temple held the presence of God, the Ten Commandments, and the other symbols of worship...the Temple's destruction meant that all of these symbols, where they found hope were gone..
In our Representative Republic, we understand that the high priest who represent the tribes of Israel, enter behind the veil into the presence of God. As Congressman and Senators represent the American people before the President, who vows to uphold the Constitution, we have a similar form of government, as Israel's religious priesthood.
But, what is to happen, if like on 9/11, the symbols of freedom are destroyed and we stand naked before a religious enemy that will implement Shairia Law with no mercy or justice, for justice is only understood in their terms of Shairia and their view of God? That is my concern....
Ken - I was struck the other day when our Bible study read these chapters as to how the Hebrews homilist uses the Psalms. It reminds me of one of the four approaches to reading the psalms that Uriel Simon mentions in his book of that name: that the Psalter represents a subsequent revelation that trumps Torah since it is later. So Psalm 95 reframes God's rest and Psalm 110 reframes the priesthood. Specifically because they are later than the Torah. Historically, the Torah may have been redacted after the final editing of the Psalms - but the homilist takes it as earlier in time. This represents a transforming way of reading and interpreting the texts.
re city of refuge - the death of the High Priest (7:12) might support your allusion to the city of refuge - but how exactly? do you care to elaborate the analogy?
re the priesthood for ever - you do have a good point - this might well be post-destruction!
Just looking up swearing in the OT - one could make quite a bit of Psalm 95 recalling the oath in Numbers 32:10-11, and Genesis 22 which figures strongly in the Torah and Psalm 110 - all of which are central in Hebrews.
Bob,
It sounds like you are taking Scripture literally, as far as God's intention and understanding the New Testament's use of the Old Testament and Jewish writings to defend a "position" of theological understanding. Wouldn't it be in line of leadership's understanding of themselves as "God", as in the Cesaer cult?...if that is, there is a hiearchal view of authority in Church structureing...and there is an understanding of social construction in conditioning others "into God's image" (spitirual formation).
My question, if this is your view...by what means is a judgment made? Are you looking for a specific "Issac" to be sacrificed? Is there going to be any uniqueness in what the individual 'looks like" or "acts like" or is it conformity to a religious understanding of "god"...?
Angie
I am not sure what you think you mean or what you think I might mean by literally?
I dislike adjectives and adverbs. I am reading the Scripture for multiple purposes - re Hebrews, I have been reading it to see how the first century readers read their OT - particularly Psalms. For this reason I have translated the entire psalter in minute structural form and am now on my second pass. I have been in this process for over 2 years as a fundamental* learning experience. *(That does not make me a fundamentalist.)
I take these Scriptures by the hand and mouth of God. But literal? I hope I read them with a literate mind, with respect to the idiosyncrasies and creativity of language.
In my foolishness, I have felt communication with David, the children of Korah, unknown singers and dancers, Ethan the Ezrahite, and later readers like the writers of the NT, the medieval Jewish commentators like the Ibn Ezra's and translators from the 16th and 17th century like Mary Sydney, Countess of Pembroke.
I know they give me knowledge - but how do I judge it? I find myself judged, hounded, and loved through these poems. It is sufficient for me. I do not need to work myself into a lather over the words - though sometimes I do.
As to Isaac? I have hardly mentioned him. If you read L. A. Hoffman's Covenant of Blood, you will find partly where I am in tune with the ancient practices.
I also take "obedience through suffering" as relating to a first-century Abraham-paradigm: to endure when suffering is to be like Abraham in texts like 2 and especailly 4 Macc, etc. This, by the way, in no way contradicts your statement, but is meant to show that there are multiple echoes bouncing off of this one line.
Jared, learning obedience by the things one has suffered, being 'made into God's image of "faithfulness" like Jesus? But, Jesus knew what he had been called to, not others for him...and this is not the case with "social construction", where social structures "form" the individual.
Although there is some truth to education bringing a "formation", it is not the end all of an individual and their life purpose...unless, again the organizational structure, Church, feels it is their God-given purpose to do so... Abraham's sacrifice, was never meant to be taken as a literal way to understand another's heart, unless one thinks they can know what needs sacrificing...because it is an "idol" ..and this is a judgment call, which is dependent on another's values, which just may differ...
Bob, You take Scripture as "God's Word" in a literal sense, that in them, like Barth, God "speaks", and one is "transformed", as conservatism (neo-orthodox) believes.....yes, but it is only one's own consciousness, not God...God is formed in our minds according to cultural traditions.
I appreciate your taking the time to respond....
Post a Comment