Monday Thoughts: Hebrews, Me, and SBL

The yearly pilgrimage to the Society of Biblical Literature conference is this coming weekend. I'll be presenting a paper to the Jewish Christianity Group this Saturday morning during the 9am session (GH Betsy B). The title in the program is "Hebrews and the Parting of the Ways," but after too many pages I altered my topic and title somewhat. The title I am now using is "The Levitical Cultus and the Partitioning of the Ways in Hebrews."

I thought for today I would give you a few excerpts that capture the gist of the paper:

"The assumption Longenecker makes is that Hebrews’ rhetoric on the superiority of Christ’s atonement to that of the Levitical cultus is tantamount to a polemic against participation in the sacrificial system of the Jerusalem temple. He likely assumes that the audience’s interest and reliance on the Jerusalem cultus had at least significantly diminished, perhaps even disappeared, when they believed on Christ. Now, however, they were tempted to return to reliance on the atonement the Jerusalem temple offered.

"We can identify two significant problems with these assumptions. The first is the particular way in which the author formulates his argument vis-à-vis the Levitical cultus. Arguably, the author never makes the negative argument not to rely on the mainstream Levitical system. Rather, he consistently makes the positive argument to rely on the atonement provided through Christ, an exhortation that he then substantiates extensively by argument.

"Second, it is unlikely that the earliest Christians initially thought of Christ’s death as a complete replacement for the temple. It is more likely that they originally saw Christ’s death in relation to a particular point in Israel’s history rather than as a replacement of its fundamental institutions. In that sense, it remains to be seen to what extent they had ever “left” reliance on the temple in the first place, despite their affirmation of Jesus as Messiah. Both of these observations point to continuing, unexamined assumptions by scholars in relation to the distinctness of Christianity and Judaism in this period."

...

"We can thus identify several questionable assumptions that play into the “common sense” that Hebrews must surely pre-date the destruction of the temple. The most significant relates to the fact that Jews and Christians continued to think of the operation of the Levitical system in the present tense. It was not nearly as clear to them as to us either that the temple would lay in ruins for the next two thousand years or that Christ would not return within the near future.

"If, further, Hebrews were written, not to argue against participation in the cultus, but to bolster the audience’s confidence in Christ, the absence of specific mention of the temple’s destruction seems less puzzling. In the end, the author’s theoretical treatment of the wilderness tabernacle seems more explicable in reflection on the temple’s destruction than if the temple were still standing. If the temple were still standing at the time of Hebrews’ writing, it becomes an incredibly subversive and revolutionary piece that “parts” from Judaism in some of the strongest terms possible. The sermon does not, however, have this tone."

...

"When we search for conceptual models the earliest Christians are likely to have used to make sense of Jesus’ death, clearly that of sacrifice featured at an early point. Most, for example, believe that Paul was drawing on traditional material of some sort in Romans 3:25, which pictures God offering Christ as a sacrifice, a hilasterion by means of his blood. Yet we find no Jewish precedent for a sacrifice with universal, timeless significance. The scope of a sacrifice was always bound by a particular time and, indeed, by a particular sin or set of sins.

"No sacrifice ever implied an end to future need for sacrifice. The burden of proof is thus on anyone who would suggest that the first believers would initially have viewed Christ’s death as some sort of ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Our default expectation is rather that they would have thought that Christ’s death atoned for a particular set of sins at a particular point of history."

...

"It is not necessary for us to argue that all Christian Jews had a place for the temple in their theology for our understanding of Hebrews to stand, only that some did and that the audience of Hebrews is a likely candidate. Here we can easily suggest that those that disagreed with Paul on the scope of justification ek pisteos Iesou Christou would have disagreed with him as well on any suggestion that Christ’s death provided absolute atonement, if Paul ever made such an argument.

"The fact that Peter and James disagreed with Paul about whether works of law played any role in justification (cf. Gal. 2:11-21) suggests that they might also have disagreed with him on the scope of Christ’s atonement if Paul had made a universal argument. Indeed, Acts 13:38 perhaps gives us their position on justification on the lips of Paul: "Through this man is announced to you forgiveness from all the sins from which you were not able to be justified by the law of Moses." The implication seems to be that the law of Moses could justify you in relation to some sins, but through Christ it was now possible to find justification for sins not covered by the law and, presumably, by its cultic system."

...

"It is thus far more likely than not that the bulk of Christian Jews prior to the temple’s destruction saw a continuing role for it in the kingdom of God. If Hebrews addressed such an audience, its rhetoric cannot be about turning back toward Judaism or the temple, for the audience would have never left it on this subject. Further, it is hard to see how the Levitical system might be challenging the audience’s faith in such an environment, since faith in Christ would never have conflicted with reliance on the temple in the first place. On the other hand, we can easily see how the destruction of the temple might cause a faith crisis of some sort, as it apparently did for the author of 4 Ezra. In this regard, Hebrews’ rhetoric on the Levitical system is far from a parting of the ways. It is rather a testimony to how little Christian Judaism had parted at this point."

...

"Indeed, I believe the current English-speaking majority position that the audience is Jewish reflects equally myopic perspectives with regard to Jewish and Christian identity. Hebrews 6:1-2 implies that the “foundation” that the audience experienced as “the beginning word of the Christ” (5:12) was not specifically Christian, but in fact Jewish. Hebrews thus looks to a Gentile audience tempted to turn away from the living God of Judaism (cf. 3:12) rather than a Jewish audience tempted to turn back to Judaism! But, alas, that argument will have to wait for another time."