Author, Purpose, Date Hebrews and High Christology Warning! Holding Fast
Confession in Hebrews Atonement for Sin So who's Melchizedek, anyway?
The Heavenly Sacrifice Hebrews and Faith Divine Discipline
Melchizedek (not actual size)
Other than Revelation, Hebrews is probably the most difficult document in the NT. Harold Attridge calls Hebrews “the most elegant and sophisticated, and perhaps the most enigmatic, text of first-century Christianity” (1). It contains one of the most subtle arguments of any NT writing, and its author had a masterful command of Greek. It also has one of the highest Christologies of the NT. Hebrews gives us a unique perspective into a kind of Christianity that we don’t see in the Gospels or in the letters of Paul.
· Hebrews has been attributed to Paul in the past. From about the fifth century (with Augustine and Jerome) to the time of the Reformation, Hebrews was generally thought to have been written by Paul.
· It is very unlikely that Paul wrote it. The style is different than Paul’s style. Paul’s writing doesn’t match the elegant rhetoric of Hebrews.
· Furthermore, in 2.3 we read that the author learned about Christ from those who heard him (Christ). Paul, on the other hand, claims to have seen Jesus as an eyewitness, and he insistently claims apostolic status.
· The theology does not sound Pauline. For example, the author of talks about Jesus as "high priest according to the order of Melchizedek." We don’t see this anywhere else in the NT. Major Pauline themes are also missing.
· Some scholars have suggested Barnabas or Apollos, but neither of these suggestions is convincing. There is simply not enough evidence to indicate who the author might have been. Hebrews is best thought of as an anonymous document.
· The author was obviously well-educated and trained in Greek rhetoric. He appears to have at least some knowledge of Greek philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. When he refers to the OT he uses the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures.
· He was probably a Diaspora Jewish Christian who, during his life, had accepted Jesus as the Messiah (as opposed to having been born a Christian).
· The problem is not with a whole congregation of believers, but with “a dissident group" (7). A loved and respected member of the church (who is, for reasons not available to us, absent from the congregation) has been asked by other church leaders to write this letter.
· The crisis which he is addressing has occurred because some of the church members feel the need to “resort to Jewish customs in order to come to terms with their sense of sin against God and need for atonement" (10). These members may be participating in synagogue meals, and thus maintaining and even strengthening their connection with the Temple in Jerusalem.
· By maintaining this connection with the Temple, they remained tied to the sacrificial system of atonement. “The readers then should not be frequenting synagogue worship in order to feel the benefit of the sacrificial system … but should gladly participate in the Christian worship in which the sacrifice of Christ is celebrated. (11).
· The Christological reflections in Hebrews are well-developed (e.g., 1.1-4). They don’t reflect the witness of the first Christians. More likely is that the conception of Christ offered in this letter is the product of at least a few decades’ theological reflection. Furthermore, the letter has to be written late enough for congregations to have been established, confessions of faith to have developed, and problems to have arisen in the Christian communities.
· Thus, a date of much earlier than 60 CE is unlikely.
· At the latest, Hebrews must have been written before 96 CE, because the writer of 1 Clement makes use of it, and 1 Clement is thought to have been written ca. 96 CE.
· However, Hebrews doesn’t mention the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, even though doing so would be highly advantageous with regard to the author’s argument. Therefore, it may have been written between 60 and 70 CE.
Hebrews 1.1-4 offers an elaborate description of the significance of Christ. He is described as:
· The Son of God (1.2).
· Heir to all things (1.2).
· The one through whom God created the worlds (1.2). (See also Jn. 1.3; 1 Cor. 8.6; Col. 1.16.) This indicates a notion of Christ’s pre-existence, similar to that which we see in the prologue of John. Christ existed with God before all creation. (Remember, Hebrews was written before the development of Trinitarian doctrine).
· The reflection of God’s glory (1.3).
· The exact imprint of God’s very being (1.3) The word for that we translate as imprint is charaktēr, which can also mean impression, reproduction, representation (as in the impression on coins, but it is also used in other places to indicate the reproduction of God’s form [e.g., 1 Clement 33.4]).
· The one who sustains all things through his powerful word (1.4).
We then move into a description of Jesus' function:
· He has made purification for sins (through his death) (1.3). This becomes very important later in the argument.
· He has sat down at the right hand of God (1.3).
Finally, there is a link to the catena (connected series) of OT scripture passages that will follow:
· Christ is superior to angels (this will be developed in the following verses), just as to be called God’s Son is superior to any other name (1.4).
The writer then offers a catena of passages chosen to demonstrate that Christ is superior to angels. Consider the following:
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'?" (1.5). - This passage is a quotation from Ps. 2.7.
"And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him'" (1.6). - This passage is a quotation from Deut. 32.43.
"But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom'" (1.8). - This is a quotation from Ps. 45.6-7.
Warning: Do not neglect your salvation!
In 2.2 the author asks, “For if the message declared through angels was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” By “the message declared through angels,” the author is referring to a Jewish tradition that angels accompanied Yahweh when the Law was given to Moses at Sinai. In some post-biblical Jewish traditions the Torah was said to have been delivered by angelic intermediaries. The author understands the Law to dictate that “every transgression or disobedience receives a just penalty” (2.2). If, then, they neglect the salvation they have received in Christ, how can they escape? The implication is that, under the law, they're all guilty.
In 2.3-4 the author states that the salvation they received was declared first by Jesus, and then attested to by those who had heard Jesus. God “added his testimony” by “signs and wonders” and “miracles,” and by “gifts of the Holy Spirit.”
The author then goes on to portray Jesus as the “pioneer of their salvation” (2.10). The word that we translate as "pioneer" is archēgos. It can mean leader, ruler, prince, one who begins something, originator, or founder. Jesus is the one with whom the hearers' faith has begun. He is the leader and originator of the salvation that has been declared through testimony.
Important in this section is the idea that Jesus is perfected through suffering.
· In 2.9 we read that Jesus “was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”
· In 2.10 we read that the pioneer of salvation has been made perfect through suffering.
· In 2.14 ff. we read that Jesus shared flesh and blood so that he could destroy the devil and free those who were held in slavery by the fear of death.
· What does it mean to be made perfect? The word that we translate as "perfect" is teleioō. It means to make something complete, whole, or adequate (Attridge, 83). In the Hellenistic world, this word had a very wide range of implications. In Hebrews, it seems to mean that Christ is “made complete or fit for his office” (Attridge, 86). Through his suffering, Christ is made into the perfect model of obedience, and the perfect intercessor for human beings (Attridge, 87).
· By following Christ, human beings can also be made perfect. Perfection in Hebrews refers to the completion of God’s plan of salvation.
The point of this language about Jesus' perfection may have to do with the efficacy of the sacrifice that he offers in his death. Because Jesus has been perfected, his sacrifice is worthy to effect a once-and-for-all atonement.
In 3.1-6, Jesus is exalted over Moses. This continues the theme started in chs.1 and 2, that the message of Christ is superior to the Law.
In this section, the writer is exhorting the hearers to hold fast to what they believe. They are to “hold firm to the confidence and the pride that belong to hope.” This theme is continued in the next section, 3.7-19. In 3.14 the author states, “For we have become partners of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end” (italics mine). Those who let go of their Christian beliefs are likened to the Israelites who rebelled against God (see Num. 14.33). Just as the Israelites were relegated to the wilderness for forty years because of their rebelliousness, so the Christians to whom the author is writing will be not receive salvation if they abandon their Christian beliefs.
Rest and eternal reward
In 4.11 the writer further develops the consequences of neglecting one's confession of faith. What he has to do is convince the readers that, when God is talking about “rest,” he doesn’t mean to indicate that land of Canaan. Rather, he means to indicate heavenly rest – eternal salvation. If “rest” means Canaan, then Christians can’t enter it. In 4.3-5, the writer is showing the reader that the rest about which he was speaking already existed at the creation of the world. It doesn’t have to do with one single place, but with heavenly salvation. Remember, this letter may have been written to Christian Jews who were returning to Jewish practices of atonement. This writer is telling them that the Jews who reject Jesus’ message will not benefit from the salvation available in Christ. Therefore, they should be very careful not to understand salvation in the wrong way.
What is this confession that the writer is talking about? He doesn’t mean a confession of sins, but a confession of faith: certain faith claims that these early Christians made as a community, similar to the creeds that evolved later in the church. This creed probably encapsulated the core elements of their faith.
The word for “confession” is homologia, the noun form of the verb homologeō. Literally, it means something like, “to speak the same words.”
By far the most common usage of homologeō and its cognates in the NT has to do with the public acknowledgment of one’s Christian faith.
Examples:
· Mt. 10.32: “Everyone who acknowledges (homologēsei) me before others, I will also acknowledge before my father in heaven.”
· Jn. 9.22: “[T]he Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed (homologēsēi) Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.”
· Romans 10.9-10: “[I]f you confess (homologhsēis) with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses (homologeitai) with the mouth and so is saved”.
· 2 Cor. 9.13: “Through the testing of this ministry you glorify God by your obedience to the confession (homologias)of the gospel of Christ and by the generosity of your sharing with them and with all others….”
· In the Johannine epistles, this confession begins to take on tones of very specific ideas regarding right and wrong doctrine, probably because of the anti-docetic polemic in these letters. For instance, in 1 Jn 4.2-3 we read, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses (homologei) that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess (homologei) Jesus is not from God.”
For other examples of the usage of homologeō and its cognates as indicating a confession of Christian faith, see Jn. 12.42; Acts 24.24; 1 Tim. 6.12; 1 Jn. 2.23; 1 Jn 4.15; 2 Jn 1.17.
The problem is, the writer of Hebrews doesn’t tell us what the content of this confession is. For the purposes of this letter, he doesn’t need to, because the intended audience would already have known the confession.
This confession, though, communicates the basic content of their belief. The scholar George Wesley Buchanan has argued that “[t]he ‘confession’ was the doctrinal beliefs or creed to which the members subscribed. The author of Hebrews was much concerned that the readers hold fast to an orthodox theology. This theology in involved a belief that Jesus was the Son, first-born, Son of man, Messiah, high priest, and apostle of God, but it did not claim that he was ‘very God of very God’” (56). The term "orthodox" is anachronistic this early in Christian history, but, on the whole, Buchanan's assessment seems reasonable.
A) 5.1: Jesus’ function as high priest is introduced (5.1).
B) 5.2-3: The author offers a description of Jesus’ gentle and sympathetic personal nature.
C) 5.4: Jesus’ affirmation of his divine authorization to fill the high priestly role is affirmed. (He is “called by God, just as Aaron was.”)
C) 5.5-6: Jesus’ divine appointment is described in terms different from those used in 5.4 (He refers to Psalm 110.4, bringing the priesthood of Melchizedek into the picture.)
B) 5.7-8: His suffering (“with loud cries and tears”) and submission is recounted.
A) 5.9-10: His priestly function is reiterated. He is describes as the one who is “the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him."
For a much fuller discussion of the chiastic structure of this passage, see Attridge, 138.
Let’s look at these main points.
A) 5.1: Jesus is the put in charge of things pertaining to God on behalf of the people, in order to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
B) 5.2-3 and 5.7-8: Jesus is gentle and sympathetic in nature, since he himself is subject to weakness. What does this refer to?
· The writer is talking about Jesus’ humanity. In 4.15 he states, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with out weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.”
· This is an important argument for the writer to make, because, for him, it is Jesus’ suffering that allowed Jesus to fulfill God’s plan. What is this plan? It's for Jesus to make the perfect sacrifice – himself – and to thus atone for the sins of humankind. In being human, then, and in suffering, Jesus can sympathize with human beings, and he regards them gently and with compassion.
C) Read 5.4-6 - Like Aaron, Jesus has been appointed by God to be the high priest. However, Jesus is not a priest according to Aaron’s line of priests. Jesus is from a different line of priests: he is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek, according to Gen. 14. 18, is a priest of the God Most High. See also Ps. 110.4.
Jesus as a high priest
In 3.1, Jesus is called the “apostle and high priest of our confession” (3.1).
· Apostle - This is the only time in the NT that Jesus is referred to as an apostle. By referring to Jesus in this way, the author seems to mean that Jesus was sent by God. We see this theme in John as well.
· High Priest – This takes us into one of the major themes of Hebrews: Jesus as a high priest. In Jewish temple ritual, the high priest made the atoning sacrifice on behalf of the people. For more information on the way in which atonement was made, see Lev. 16.15-24.
This theme of Jesus as a high priest is further developed in 4.14-5.10, a passage that is indicative not only of Hebrews’ high Christology, but of its specific conception of Christ’s atonement. The author again picks up the theme that Jesus was perfected through suffering; he then states, "and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (5.10).
Jesus, then, is a high priest, but he’s not a high priest like the priests in Jerusalem. Rather, he is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. He’s from a different line of priests, and the reason for this claim will become clearer as we get further into the argument.
(See Attridge, 192ff).
Apart from Gen. 14, Ps. 110, and Hebrews, Melchizedek is absent from the Bible. However, he does show up intermittently in Jewish and Christian literature. Interest in this figure began in Jewish apocalyptic literature and spread into Christian and Gnostic literature.
Philo of Alexandria – 10 BC - 45 AD – Philo was Jewish theologian and philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, and was roughly a contemporary of Jesus. He was extremely well educated and intelligent, and he produced a very complex and nuanced blend of Judaism with Platonic and Stoic philosophy. He understood Melchizedek as an allegorical symbol of the divine Logos (Word, Reason) that revealed God’s will to humankind. It’s not clear that he thought of Melchizedek as a heavenly figure, though.
The Dead Sea Scrolls – The people who produced the DSS lived by the Dead Sea at Qumran from approximately 150 BC - 68 AD. They were an apocalyptic, sectarian community with very strict lifestyle regulations imposed upon their members. They produced a specialized form of biblical interpretation called pesharim.
One of the works they produced is called the Pesher on Melchizedek. In this Pesher, Melchizedek is depicted as a king-priest who will “liberate ‘those of his inheritance’ and will effect expiation of their sin.” (Priestly function). He will also judge the Sons of Belial, effect vengeance on them, and he will help the Sons of Light. (See Dimant, 521.)
In this sense, Melchizedek is depicted as a priestly messiah. One belief that is expressed in some of the Qumran literature is that there will be two Messiahs – a priestly Messiah of Aaron and a kingly Messiah of David. Melchizedek is definitely a heavenly figure, and he is identical with the archangel Michael. He is the head of the “sons of heaven.” He will preside in the final eschatological judgment, and he will condemn Belial (or Satan) who is his demonic counterpart (see Vermes, 360).
2 Enoch – This is also an apocalyptic text, probably composed sometime in the first century CE. In this work, a legend is recounted in which the priest Nir, who is the great-grandson of Enoch and the brother of Noah, has a son who is “miraculously conceived and born from the corpse of his mother” (Attridge, 193). This child is Melchizedek, who is chosen by God to be saved from the great flood, so that he could continue the line of priests that began with Seth. However, this child is to be taken to paradise by the archangel Michael where he will remain forever, so it’s unclear how he is to continue the priestly line. Therefore, the Melchizedek whom Abraham meets is not this child, but another Melchizedek, who is a copy of the original Melchizedek, and possibly a reincarnation. From this Melchizedek whom meets Abraham, a line of priests will emerge, and the culmination of this priestly line will be an eschatological High Priest, who will also be Melchizedek. The functions of this High Priest are somewhat unclear, but he does perform miracles.
In 7.4-10, the writer discusses Melchizedek's superiority to Abraham. It is important for him that the priestly line of Melchizedek be understood as superior to the Aaronic line, because this exalts Jesus' priesthood over the Jewish priests who work in the temple.
In 8.1-7 we read of a heavenly tent with a heavenly sanctuary in which Jesus, a heavenly high priest, has made a heavenly sacrifice. The earthly sanctuary (in the Temple) is “a sketch and a shadow of the heavenly one” (8.5). 9.11-14 are crucial for the author’s argument. In fact, we might think these verses as a summary of the entire letter.
[W]hen Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will be blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!
Jesus offered sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary, not the earthly sanctuary. This sacrifice is not of the blood of animals, but of his own blood. This sacrifice, of course, is far superior to any other that could be offered.
In 9.15-22, we read that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. The basic force of this part of the argument is that, under the old covenant, we would still be guilty of our sins, but, according to Christ’s covenant, we are free from sin and may inherit eternal life. This continues a theme introduce in 8.13: the old covenant was not faultless; otherwise, there would be no need for a new covenant, which is offered and enacted through Jesus’ atoning death.
This is the heart of Hebrews supersessionist theology. The old covenant, which God made with the Israelites, is no longer valid. It has been entirely superseded by the new covenant enacted in Christ. "In speaking of a 'new covenant,' he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear" (8.13). This is one way in which the theology of Hebrews differs from the theology of Paul. While Paul hoped that all Jewish people would have faith in Christ, he did not believe that the promises of God could ever be invalidated.
For Plato, there is a basic contrast between the eternal/unchangeable and the changeable, or that which is and that which becomes. Being and becoming are the two contrasting states. Things in the realm of Forms are unchangeable for all eternity. Things in this world are merely copies of the things in the realm of forms, so, when we see a tree, it’s really only a copy of the perfect tree which exists in the realm of Forms in heaven.
The same thing is going on in these verses. The old order of the priests, as well as the law, are changeable, perishable, and corruptible. The priesthood of Melchizedek, however, exists eternally in heaven, and the sacrifice made by Jesus is an eternal, once and for all sacrifice. It is the perfect sacrifice, as opposed to the sacrifices of the levitical priests, who have to make their sacrifices again and again each year. Jesus’ sacrifice is the true sacrifice which atones for sins once and for all. Therefore, no other sacrifices need be made.
Plato recounts a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, in which Socrates makes use of an elaborate allegory. In this dialogue, Socrates discusses people living in a cavernous underground chamber. They are shackled in the chamber in such a way that they are forced to face the wall, and they can’t turn their heads at all; they must face directly forward. Above and behind the prisoners is a bright fire. Between the fire and the prisoners is an elevated roadway. Along this roadway are walking a number of people, and these people are carrying statues of people and animals, along with many other objects of all different kinds and materials. The prisoners in this cave, who are facing the wall, can only see the shadows of the objects. They can also only see the shadows of one another. Socrates (and thus Plato), says that these prisoners are like us. What we see are only shadows of copies of real entities which exist in the realm of forms. Through education, however, we can learn to see things as they are, and we can be lead to see that the only true reality is in the realm of Forms, and everything else is just a copy.
Therefore, when the author refers to the law as "only a shadow of good things to come and not the true form of these realities," we can see that he is drawing upon a particular philosophical heritage. Jesus has made a sacrifice in the true, heavenly sanctuary, not in the sanctuary that is "a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one" (8.5). We can see this kind of imagery throughout chs. 8, 9, and 10 of Hebrews. This author is not a philosopher, but he knows philosophy. He is making use of philosophical ideas, but if we try to find a perfect match between his claims and Platonic philosophy, we won’t find them.
In 11.1, the author defines faith for the readers in a specific way: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for (elpizomenōn), the conviction of things not seen.” This is very appropriate, if we’re correct in concluding that this letter was written to Jewish Christians who were returning to more concrete practices of atonement. Faith is not participation in these practices, but “assurance of things hoped for,” i.e. the coming “rest” that one receives through faith in Christ, and “the conviction of things not seen,” i.e. the once and for all atoning sacrifice of Christ, performed in the heavenly tabernacle.
The author offers examples of various heroes from Israel’s history - Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham - in order to demonstrate the importance and power of faith, and he also offers his own interpretations of the deeds of these figures in order to add credence to his specific construal of faith. These venerated figures serve as examples for the kind of trust and belief that the author wants to elicit in the readers.
Not surprisingly, he directs the faith of these venerated figures toward the very end which the he has in mind (realization of the promises of the confession by faith in Jesus). He states, “All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them” (11.13). The patriarchs of Israel’s antiquity, then, died anticipating the promises that were fulfilled through Jesus. The author is reinterpreting Israel’s entire salvation history in terms of Christian faith claims.
In 11.23-28, the author discusses the faith of Moses. He states that Moses “considered abuse suffered for the Christ to be greater wealth than the treasure of Egypt, for he was looking ahead to the reward” (11.26). In other words, when Moses chose to live with and lead the Israelites, he was doing so for Christ, whom he anticipated, and whose rewards he hoped to share. As we read in 11.29-40, the heroes of Israel’s history cannot be made perfect apart from faith in Christ, nor can they be made perfect apart from Christians. The author states that “God had provided something better” (11.40), i.e. better than what the Israelites had.
Much of the section extending from 12.1-13 deals with persecution, or at least hardships endured by the members of this community. The author interprets these hardships as divine discipline. The hardships that these Christians are having to endure are a part of God’s plan. They suffer now in order that they may receive glory later. This appears in other instances in Jewish and Christian literature, e.g. Prov. 6.23; 2 Macc 6.12-17; 2 Cor. 6.9; Eph. 6.4.
This is a prominent idea in the apocalyptic work 2 Baruch, which depicts a scene in which Israel has been conquered and destroyed by Babylon (a code name for Rome). God tells Baruch that this state of suffering is only temporary, and that Israel suffers now so that she might be chastened. When the day of judgment comes, Israel will be found blameless, but the other nations will be condemned because they have neither kept the commandments nor suffered the chastening which Israel has undergone.
Sources:
Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia, gen. ed. Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972.
Dimant, Devorah. "Qumran Sectarian Literature." In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, 483-550.
Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. New Testament Theology, gen. ed. J. D. G. Dunn. New York: Cambridge UP, 1991.
Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed. New York: Penguin, 1995.