Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Hebrews

  • Hebrews: Going On Toward Perfection

    The first time I taught a class on Hebrews following publication of my study guide, we were studying lesson #7, Falling Away. The primary reading for the lesson is Hebrews 5:11-6:12, and thus includes the passage, “going on toward perfection” which is very famous in Methodist and Wesleyan circles. In discussing the passage we noted that some translations used the word “maturity” while others used “perfection.” I explained why one might use either term properly as a translation of the Greek “teleiotes” but added that I felt that “maturity” was a little bit weak for the message.

    On my way home after the class I got this nagging feeling, and so I went to the translation I had written for the study guide and checked my own translation. There large as life and twice as annoying was the word “maturity.” I had managed to contradict myself within days of publication. The next week I pointed it out to the class, which resulted in another discussion. Of course, the inevitable question was, “What do you really think?”

    That’s a fair one, and I’d like to answer it in an overview fashion here. I do feel that “maturity” is a little bit weak of a translation on this occasion, but “perfection” goes a bit astray of the author’s intent. Either English word overlaps the Greek word in the source. Which is best must be determined from the immediate context. To get a broad view of how I understand the structure of Hebrews, check my outline and translation. (I do not recommend my own translation as a clear, accurate, and natural one. Use a good modern version for reading. The reason I created a translation was so that I could have one in modern language without copyright restrictions to use to hang my notes on. All modern versions with copyrights do restrict one from including the entire text of a Biblical book in a published work.)

    So what is the broad view here? First, in the text leading up to Hebrews 5:11, our author has brought us to the brink of discussing the priesthood of Jesus. He has hinted at the topic and started to lay out the requirements for that role and the importance of it. He has established the importance of Jesus as one who reveals God to us.

    Now he pauses for a moment, in what I believe is the key to his central point. The readers are not mature enough to really get into the meat. They want milk. So first he talks about their immaturity. But then in a turn that has been noted by many commentators, he says he is going on anyhow. He presents the grave dangers of not going on (Hebrews 6:4-8). Why does he say they are not ready and then go on anyhow?

    I believe our author sees the addressees standing at precisely this point of danger. They are ready to be weaned and start on the meat of the word, but they are looking back and asking if this is worth it. Is it worth all the trouble? Is there really something to look forward to? Can we do it? So having told them where they are, he suits actions and words and charges forward with them. As I have noted previously, I believe that all Christians are in danger of the situation depicted in Hebrews 6:4-6. While it describes the extreme case, falling away under extreme hardship, it also points us to the danger that we are in every time we say no to something God has called us to do.

    So in 5:11-14, maturity is the thing that the addressees have failed to obtain. In 6:1-3 it is that which the author is calling them toward. In 6:4-8, he warns them against its opposite, and in 6:9ff he expresses his certainty that despite the dangers they will not fail. They will attain “it.” So what is “it”?

    I would suggest that it is that final, unshakable kingdom (Hebrews 12:26) in which everything that can be shaken has been and is gone. In the meantime, the call is always to move in that direction, and not to fall back or change course, no matter what comes up. We have Jesus, the high priest, who has gone this way before and proven that it can be done.

    In the Wesleyan tradition we use Hebrews 6:1 in connection with the doctrine of Christian perfection. In context, I don’t see that it has that exact intent. The perfection to which we are called is a maturity, or “rightness” at each point in our journey with the final, true perfection coming on that day when everything shakable has been shaken out.

    Note: I say some more about this “going on” in my podcast presentation on Seven Kingdom Principles of Choice (also part 2), which is based on the pamphlet by the same name.

  • Praying, Being Heard, and Not Getting It

    7Who, in the days of his flesh, offered entreaties and petitions to the one who was able to save him from death with loud cries and tears, and he was heard because of his piety. 8Even though he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered, 9and being made whole he became a means of eternal salvation to all those who obey him, 10since he was designated by God as a priest according to the priestly order of Melchizedek. — Hebrews 5:7-10

    I’m writing this on the national day of prayer. A “national” day of prayer makes me wonder just what we’re praying for and how. But it reminded me of a question I hear frequently: “Why should anyone pray if they’re not going to get what they pray for?” That question starts with a false premise. It assumes that you won’t. But since I believe that quite often you will not get what you pray for, I should give it consideration.

    In Hebrews 5:7-10, we have the statement that Jesus prayed. He prayed to “the one who was able to save him from death.” I presume such a prayer might have, and did, occur many times during his ministry, but likely this reference is primarily to his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” He also placed that prayer under subjection to God’s will. Now if the text stopped in the middle of verse seven, we might imagine that the prayer of Jesus was not heard because he didn’t get what he was asking for.

    But the text explicitly says that Jesus was heard. And there is what’s hard for us to get hold of. Praying is not about getting stuff. Praying is about our communion with God. That’s why all these scientific tests about prayer and healing largely miss the mark. They’re interesting, but the can’t test prayer because prayer is not a means of getting things.

    What if the prayer of Jesus was counted in a scientific test? It would certainly go into the “failed” column. He didn’t get what he asked for. And yet he was heard, and what actually happened was better–in the end–than what he had requested. It happens that way because there’s a lot more knowledge on God’s end of the prayer than on mine.

    So a national day of prayer invites me to commune with God, and that is the only purpose I have to have. If I have communed with God, my prayer worked. The amazing thing is that I often would rather have God do it my way. I’m in touch with infinite power and infinite knowledge, but what I ask is that God use his infinite power to make things work the way I–oh so incredibly finite–want them to.

    One of the most blessed characteristics of this universe is that God doesn’t always answer our prayers in the way that we would prefer.

    Jesus was the great example of this. One thing was refused him–escape from the cross. Through that one refusal, a refusal he invited by saying “not my will but yours,” our salvation was secured.

    Aren’t you thankful that God doesn’t do things your way?

  • Look at New Perspectives on Paul

    This will be a slightly different post than my usual for this blog. Normally I grab a Bible passage or a principle of interpretation and comment on it. In this post, I want to tie together several threads of my blogging and teaching and point the direction toward some new questions that I’d like to examine as I continue some of my current study.

    I was launched in this particular direction by a post at Adrian Warnock’s blog, The PCA Considering Excluding the Followers of N. T. Wright. Now I’ve been watching Adrian’s blog lately because of the various atonement wars (as I call them), and things about N. T. Wright are bound to catch my attention. I have truly appreciated reading Wright’s material on the historical Jesus. His thorough scholarship and remarkably courteous form of dialog are quite refreshing. It’s not my plan to criticize anyone’s readings of the Westminster Confessions. I am, after all, not Calvinist. But the broader issues involve are very important to me.

    In addition, I just started podcasting a series on Mark that came from the older Bible Pacesetter Radio Program. This series was started 11/24/2003, and continued into 2004 until we canceled that program. Now I’m using the old programs, and then planning to continue through Mark. In listening to my teaching, I couldn’t help but notice some dependence on N. T. Wright for things that I said about Mark’s view of the proclamation.

    Further, I just completed a read through Galatians alongside J. Louis Martyn’s commentary, and I have saved more than 20 note items intended for future blogging out of Galatians. I’m not going to call that a series, because I have no idea when I’ll get to them. I already have numerous items for my series on Hebrews that I simply haven’t had time to post.

    I would note here that my primary training was in the ancient near east and in Old Testament, rather than New Testament. Yes, my concentration was Biblical languages, but at the graduate level that involved a very small amount of Greek, and a very large amount of Hebrew, but since I now spend my time teaching lay audiences, the New Testament is more in demand. This whole issue has become somewhat more important to me.

    So I followed this all up by starting to read from The Paul Page which is dedicated to the new perspective on Paul. One key item immediately caught my attention. As argued by Martyn, the new perspective relates the controversy over circumcision more to the identification with God’s people than to a faith-works issue. In a related point, Martyn argues that the “Jerusalem” of Galatians was not Judaism, but the circumcision oriented mission to Judaism which was based in, if not supported by, the Jerusalem church.

    A second key item is the view of Judaism, and particular the view of the law in the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures. It has always seemed to me that New Testament scholars do not characterize this view accurately. It seems more like a caricature, but I haven’t taken the time to work on that in detail.

    This leads to the following comment, also from The Paul Page (Summary):

    Translating the doctrine of justification into contemporary terms, Wright notes with irony that this doctrine, which was principally concerned with unity and acceptance in the body of Christ regardless of social barriers, has been one of the most divisive doctrines in the history of Christianity, particularly between Catholics and Protestants who have traditionally interpreted it as a question of precisely how salvation is to be attained.

    I think this is a point of critical importance. How is something that is supposed to bring joy, freedom, and unity so often construed as a way to divide the body of Christ?

    In discussing this and other issues related to the atonement, I’m going to be working through these materials and becoming better informed on this new perspective.

    Update: Since I’m not Calvinist, I won’t be interacting with this that much, but I think it is only fair to present a link to the PCA preliminary report.

  • Galatians 3:15-18 – Preliminary Thoughts on Seed and Seeds

    I want to make a few quick notes on this passage right after studying through Martyn’s Galatians commentary notes on it. This is a passage that has troubled many because in verse 16 Paul makes a major issue of the singular “seed,” thus pointing the passage directly at Christ. Now if one reads the passage in its original context, “seed” is a collective, referring to all of Abraham’s descendants, and thus the meaning is precisely the opposite of what Paul claims.

    I didn’t use this passage in my essay Was Paul an Exegete? but I certainly could have. In that essay I concluded that in the modern sense of searching out the original historical meaning, Paul was not, and didn’t try to be an exegete. I would add here that Paul is quite open about how he sees Jesus as the Messiah breathing new life into texts.

    There are several key points from this passage that I want to tentatively connect. Paul claims that:

    • God established the promises
    • The promises were for the seed, singular, Christ
    • Nobody other than the one who makes a will/covenant can modify it
    • The law could not modify or set aside the promise that preceded it. This involves the argument that the law was given by angels, but that goes beyond what I’m discussing right now.
    • Eventually the promise meets its fulfillment in Christ

    Now Martyn, commenting on these verses indicates that the law is not, according to this passage, another step in salvation history, but rather that the giving of the promise, and finally the act of God in bringing reconciliation through Jesus are both punctiliar events. He does not see the law as another step or another way of implementing the promise (pp. 337-352).

    The Jewish view, which in part would have been incorporated by the teachers who opposed Paul in Galatia, makes the Torah a single whole. There are not separate entities in it of “promise” and “law” and there certainly would not be a covenant without there also being a law. Sirach 44:19-21 represents Abraham as law observant, and presents God’s promise as depending on Abraham’s faithfulness in fulfilling the requirements. So Paul is hear creating a substantial difference in view between these historical events. The giving of the promise occurs before the giving of the law, and even though it comes from that same portion of scripture, the Pentateuch or Torah, it is not part of the same law. The law, given at Sinai, is something separate and different, and cannot in Paul’s view alter the original promise, nor is it an organic part of that promise.

    Gentiles are not being brought into Israel through the covenant at Sinai. Rather, they are being brought into God’s promise, incidentally given to Abraham, a promise that is superior to and unalterable by that law.

    My preliminary suggestion here is that this relates closely to what I have pointed out in my article Structural Typology and the Tabernacle, where I suggest that God’s original intent was to dwell with his people (Exodus 19:6), but that because of fear they required a separation (Exodus 20:19). The Tabernacle, far from representing God’s presence, in many ways represents God’s absence. Peter sees the fulfillment of this goal and promise of God in Jesus and the church (1 Peter 2:9).

    Where I would differ from Martyn, I think, on salvation history is that the law is indeed a step in salvation history. There may be two punctiliar acts, between which the law is a parenthesis (Martyn), but that parenthesis is an essential one, tuned to human needs. There is still salvation history, but that history is not a continuous march of progress, but rather it takes detours as God deals with people as he finds them and leads them in the direction he wants them to go.

    In this sense one can also see “seed” as an inspired “breathing-in” by Paul, through the Holy Spirit, of new meaning into the word and form, because in Jesus all the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled in one man (singular) for everyone (very plural). The spiritual application trumps the historical exegesis.

  • Review: Priscilla’s Letter

    Hoppin, Ruth. Priscilla’s Letter. Fort Bragg, CA: Lost Coast Press, 1999. ISBN: 1-882897-50-1

    In general when I write something I call a “review” I might better call it a set of notes. I don’t think my opinion about a book, positive or negative, is of much value in and of itself. But if I can give you some direction in terms of what is valuable, and what is not so valuable–that seems worthwhile to me.

    I had my attention called to this little book when the author, Ruth Hoppin, was an author of the month for the Compuserve Religion Forum. Unfortunately, I hadn’t read the book at that point, and thus was unable to engage the author seriously on her major arguments. Such arguments as she did give left me wondering if she was not continuing well past the limits of her evidence.

    Nonehteless, I think I’m biased slightly in favor of her conclusion. I would like to see some substantial solution to the authorship of Hebrews, one that could command a substantial consensus of Biblical scholars. I’d also be quite pleased to see the authorship of a book of the New Testament by a woman, because I believe it is important that we include more women in ministry. I do not believe it is essential to have such a letter. It’s merely useful to help shake some people loose who are too much bound by tradition.

    Unfortunately I ended this book in the same position in which I started it. I’m of the opinion that there is no solution to the authorship of Hebrews. All possible hypotheses have some problems, and none is likely to command the respect of a consensus of Biblical scholars, nor does any deserve to.

    This is not because Biblical scholars are too lazy, or too divisive to come to a conclusion. There simply is insufficient evidence to put a name to the author of Hebrews. The blurb on the back cover notes: “Recognition of Priscilla’s claim will advance the social and religious status of all women.” That is a goal devoutly to be desired, and yet I have to ask why such advancement should depend on whether or not a woman wrote one of the books of the Bible. It is plainly clear, as one can see from Ms. Hoppin’s little book, along with a substantial percentage of the books in my library, that women can write well. Church leaders who will reject the obvious gifts of the women who are present in their congregations are unlikely to be convinced against their will be easily deniable evidence.

    And that’s really the problem with this book. It is not that it is a bad book. It’s actually rather good. It’s not that it displays sloppy scholarship. In general, it is well-researched and painstakingly footnoted. The problem is that the author claims: “The scale tells us that the Epistle to the Hebrews should be ascribed to Priscilla.” After reading the same evidence as presented in this book, I would say that what has been demonstrated is simply that Priscilla should not be excluded as a possible author of Hebrews.

    There is an interesting rhetorical approach in this book which I find fairly common in books of critical Biblical scholarship. After some substantial speculation, the author will make a very positive statement about what has gone before. Her “charge to the jury” approach provides an interesting framework for this rhetorical certainty, as we are repeatedly reminded of the accumulating evidence in favor of Priscilla. But if we look more carefully, each element of this case is very speculative.

    For example, one of the reasons for rejection of Paul as the author is the style of the epistle, which does not seem to match that of Paul’s authentic letters. This is a fairly good argument against Paul, and one that I personally find convincing. But the reason it is a convincing argument is that I have authenticated letters of Paul, and I have the book of Hebrews, and I can compare the styles. While Hebrews itself is not a large literary work to give me comparative material, it is sufficient to show that, at a minimum, this letter is unlike the epistles Paul is known to have written. Since I have several of Paul’s letters, and they all show common features of form and style, the probability increases that Paul used a single style for epistles, and didn’t change that a great deal due to subject matter or audience. This is not conclusive, but it is highly persuasive.

    But in the case of Priscilla, I have absolutely nothing to go on. I have nothing that she wrote. I have no information on her theology, except that she associated with Paul, and we know of people who associated with Paul (Apollos, for example) whose theology was apparently not identical. So in this case Priscilla’s claim is not derailed simply because we have no evidence in that category. This argument applies equally to stylistic and theological criteria.

    The one issue of style that can potentially be tested is whether the author is most likely a man or a woman. Ms. Hoppin dedicates two chapters to that topic, chapter 3, “Is the Author Feminine?” and chapter 4, “Does the Author Identify with Women?” But here again we do not have large volumes of theological texts in Greek from the 1st century that were written by women to compare to the one letter we have before us. It’s quite possible that differences in approach between the 1st century and the present outweigh any differences between a man and a woman writing then.

    The author of Hebrews does, indeed, give us a substantial list of women in Hebrews 11, but remember that every one of those stories came from somewhere in Hebrew scriptures and or tradition, largely written and transmitted by men. Thus they were women already acknowledged by the faith tradition to be important women of faith. I think it is quite possible for a woman to have written Hebrews 11, but unfortunately I also consider it quite possible for a man to have done so.

    All of the evidence with regard to Priscilla’s education, her skill with the Greek language, her theological and Biblical knowledge is largely speculative. I’m quite certain, based on the scriptural evidence presented that Priscilla was a teacher in the church, and I can’t help but point out to my complementarian brethren that it is quite clear that she taught men. If you get nothing else from this book, get that one point. Priscilla and Junia (Romans 16:7) are both good examples of women of influence in the church. Speaking of which, what is there to prevent Junia from being the author of Hebrews? We don’t know that she was, but we also don’t know that she wasn’t.

    Must the author of Hebrews come from those people known to be in Paul’s circle? I think this is one of the weakest elements of the argument. I would suggest that yes, indeed, there are enough Pauline related themes in Hebrews to suggest that the author was somehow touched by Paul’s teaching. But the tenuous connection of the author of Hebrews to the Pauline circle (knowing Timothy, Hebrews 13:23, hardly guarantees that the author will also be directly “tight” with Paul. The relationship with Paul’s theology could easily be mediated by Timothy himself, for example. And if the author is Priscilla, why does she not mention coming with Aquila, rather than with Timothy, or perhaps mention both? I don’t think this is truly a barrier to Priscilla’s authorship, but that idea is no more speculative than most of the evidence in favor of Priscilla.

    This is just a sample of the issues I found in this book. I would mention in passing that in determining that the destination letter must be Ephesus, some weight is placed on the community of Essenes there. Again, there is no necessity, in my view, to see that the book of Hebrews relates exclusively to Essene themes. It is a great temptation when dealing with ancient history to focus everything on the things for which you do have evidence. The Qumran community must be Essenes, because we know about them, and if they’re not Essenes, they’re just some new sect. But there are differences, and just how substantial a distinction is there between calling the Qumran Community “Essense with some distinctive doctrines” and “a community with the following doctrines”? In fact, the latter seems better, because then we will be less tempted to apply quotes from the Dead Sea Scrolls to every Essene community we come across.

    In determining the relationship between two sets of ideas it is equally important to check the things that are dissimilar as it is to check the things that are similar. I’m remind of the line in the movie Johnny Dangerously when Johnny’s mother is attempting to persuade a neighbor and rival to loan her some money. She says something like, “We have lot’s in common.” “No,” says the other, “we have nothing in common.” “Well,” says Johnny’s mother, “we both do laundry, we’re both swell lookers, and neither one of us is Chinese!” That’s from memory, but I think it is close enough. Similar techniques are often used in identifying sects and movements in history, because it is so unsatisfying not to have a solution to a problem. Thus we prefer any solution that is not excessively improbable over simply admitting we don’t know.

    In the case of the authorship of Hebrews, my conclusion is that we don’t really know. Having said that, I think anyone studying the book would do well to consider Ruth Hoppin’s contribution to the subject. Her proposal is certainly not less probable than all the rest. It is simply one effort to to work through the sparse evidence to a possible conclusion. The ride is fun, even if I don’t find the final stop all that convincing.

  • From Word to Study

    (Continuing my series on word studies.)

    From time to time in conversation with my wife I’ll jump topics. My brain does that to me, as one thing suggests another thing, often related only in the most distant way. Suddenly she’ll stop me and say, “I need a context for that.” I’ve said something that she can’t understand clearly because she doesn’t know what it relates to. It might be “What are we going to do about that meeting?” If she doesn’t know what meeting I’m talking about, when it is, or why we need to do something about it, she has no basis on which to react.

    Similarly in Bible study, we always have to have a context. I know that I hammer this point repeatedly, but I do so because it is so often neglected. Much too much use of Bible texts in Christian teaching, preaching, and conversation results from looking for a set of words that fits whatever the person wanted to say. There are a lot of phrases in the Bible, a lot of clauses, a lot of sentences. If you ignore context, you can find one that is useful for you.

    We’ve already discussed one of the primary dangers of word studies, that a person looks for a series of definitions, and then plugs in the one that suits his theology without regard for the immediate context. Now I’m going to talk about some practical ideas for studies you can do with words that can improve your understanding.

    All of these are based on a single principle: A word study should start from a usage in context, and end with a usage in context.

    If that is a bit unclear, think of it this way: The word study doesn’t provide you with a meaning that can be dropped into place like a puzzle piece. Rather, it provides you with options. In order to get at those options, you have to understand each usage of a word in its particular context, and then compare carefully. Differences in the context may imply differences in meaning. Someone who knows the source languages is protected to some extent by use of lexicons, knowledge of various forms of the word that provide natural categories of usage, and the fact that he has just the source language word’s semantic range to deal with. When working in English, or any other non-source language for the Bible, you need to be doubly careful to understand each particular context.

    I’m going to do a brief application of this idea using the word “propitiation” because it has become a key word in the ESV Bible debates. I’m going to use my Logos Bible Software solely to look up words in the ESV, and display ESV text, but I’m going to use Goodrick and Kohlenberger’s NIV concordance (hereafter GK), keyed to the Greek and Hebrew words to track ideas further. This means I’m working today with two English versions, the NIV and the ESV.

    Let’s say my study starts from Hebrews 2:17:

    17 Therefore he had nto be made like his brothers in every respect, oso that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest pin the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [1] — Hebrews 2:17 (ESV)

    What I want to discover in this study is what it might mean to “make propitiation.” One thing I’m not going to do here to save space, but that I would recommend doing normally, is to compare this text in many English translations. This will help give you a better idea of what the semantic range of the Greek word behind this is. Another critical step is to find out just what the book of Hebrews says Jesus did about the sins of the people. I’m going to leave that aside for the moment. Right now we want to get a better idea of this one word. But remember, if you are studying through Hebrews, that before you settle on a definition for “propitiation” in this verse, you need to understand how this verse relates to the rest of the book.

    In order to work with GK I need to find the text in the NIV. There I find that my key phrase is “make atonement for.” Now depending on my theological background, I may already be more comfortable than I am with propitiation, but if I look in an English dictionary I will generally find that “propitiation” is a narrower and more precise word than “atonement.” (Your results may differ, depending on your dictionary. For example Merriam-Webster says “reconciliation” is obsolete, but that meaning is still used in theological writing, I believe.) Another approach in GK is to simply look up “propitiation” and find the reference at that point to “atonement.”

    Again in order to keep this study limited, I’m going to stick with the New Testament. First, that keeps all my source words in one language. There is value in comparing words as used in the Old Testament with those in the New Testament, especially when studying a book that quotes the OT as much as Hebrews does, but it is more complicated. I find that “atonement” is listed in GK only 3 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, and Hebrews 9:5. Add to this 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 which use “atoning.” So we have a rather manageable list there.

    The source language words are numbers 2661, 2662, and 2663. Now here’s where you can get into serious trouble, and if you don’t know Greek well, you should be very tentative with your conclusions and spend even more time on context. (Did I say that before?) In this case, however, the proximity of the three words indicates that they are cognates in Greek, etymologically related. Words that are etymologically related generally developed from similar roots. It’s easy, however, to make what’s called the “etymological fallacy” here, and assume that their meanings must be either the same or very similar. Words can be closely related etymologically, but very differet semantically.

    Nonetheless, since the NIV translators have provided us with similar English translations, let’s hope we can find at least some relationship. Word 2661 is hilaskomai, and occurs twice (all according to GK) translated once as “make atonement for” and once as “mercy on.” Word 2662, hilasmos (see the similarity?) occurs twice and is translated as “atoning sacrifice” both times. Word 2663 is hilasterion and occurs twice translated once as “atonement cover” and once as “sacrifice of atonement.”

    Where are these? Well, you can find them in GK because the lexicon doesn’t provide definitions, but rather lists of how each word is translated in the NIV. Thus you can look up the words in translation in turn, and find out where and how they are used. Of course, all those definitions using “atonement” or “atoning” should already be on our list. Using this method, let me list the uses of these words:

    • 2661
      Hebrews 2:17 (our primary text) and Luke 18:13 (Aha! Fresh meat!). Note that I located the second verse by looking up the word “mercy” and scanning for the number 2661.
    • 2662
      1 John 2:2 and 4:10. We know these are all the cases, because it lists two occurences, both with the same translation.
    • 2663
      Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5, which we already had located.

    Now let’s go back and use our ESV for a moment. Since I’ve already looked at Hebrews 2:17 (that’s my starting point), let’s look at the only use of precisely the same word in the New Testament. Luke 18:13 reads:

    But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” [1] (ESV)

    Knowing Greek, I can say that there is a difference of form, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. We have here two possible meanings: “make an atoning sacrifice for” and “have mercy on.” Use of an English dictionary will expand the list, but I’ll leave that to you, especially as you consider what “atoning” means in connection with “sacrifice. You can try dropping these two defnitions into Hebrews 2:17 and see what the results are in context. When you do that, however, I suggest you look very clearly at what the author of Hebrews believes is involved in atonement. Does he believe God simply “has mercy on” or does he believe there must be a sacrifice?

    Similarly try dropping these definitions into 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. Consider both verses before you make your selection, and realize that this is a different Greek word, even though it is related to the word used in Hebrews 2:17.

    Finally, word 2663, hilasterion also occurs twice. In Romans 3:25 the ESV uses “propitiation” saying that God put Jesus forward as a “propitiation” (atoning sacrifice?) for our sins. The NIV goes right to my parenthetical suggestion and uses “sacrifice of atonement.” But Hebrews 9:5 is a bit different. Here we read “mercy seat” in the ESV and “atonement cover” in the NIV. The covering of the ark, which is the item in consideration, is often called the mercy seat, and was the place where God manifested his presence in the tabernacle. Interesting that Merriam-Webster (Tenth Edition) suggests that “reconciliation” is an obsolete meaning of “atonement” because it appears that Bible translators may still be using that meaning partially.

    Given these various options, it would now be time to go back and study your text in context, and keep your mind open to the possibilities. Is it possible that when the author of Hebrews uses related words in 2:17 and 9:5 he may intend to connect the sacrifice of atonement and the place of atonement and God’s presence? Those are possibilities for further study.

    Let me make one more comment on the etymological fallacy. This is terribly pervasive. I even found just such a fallacy in my devotional reading as an author used the Greek “dunamis” to connect to cognate “dynamite” and from there to read “explosive” back into a text. At the same time, I think the quite proper emphasis on fighting that fallacy can result in a sort of “anti-etymological fallacy,” the notion that etymology doesn’t contribute to discovering meaning. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it’s all we have. With the three related Greek words involved in our study today, we have so few instances in the New Testament that we may be required to use etymology as seed for ideas. The key is to start from a word in context and end with a word in context.

    An excellent route for those who have access to the appropriate tools is to carry this study beyond the New Testament. How was the word used in the Septuagint, for example, and what Hebrew words/concepts did it translate. Again, particularly in Hebrews, we have an author who quotes extensively from the Old Testament, and many of his quotations are taken from the Septuagint. Thus that provides an interesting background. We can also look into the broader Greek world and literature to get additional ideas. But all of that is beyond the scope of this post.

    *****

    [1] The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

  • Structural Typology and the Tabernacle

    That’s a fairly pretentious title for this little essay, but in overview form, it fits. This post also represents a return, finally, to my series of posts on the book of Hebrews. I’m looking at the book topically, and using questions from my study guide to the book of Hebrews.

    On page 24, in the third lesson, I ask:

    What do each of the areas–courtyard, holy place, and holy of holies–mean (Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:1-10; Exodus 25-31; 36-40)? What is the meaning of the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat (Leviticus 16, especially verse 2)?

    impression of the tabernacle

    Now the long references from Exodus are part of the advanced reading. It can be helpful to read those passages quickly while trying to form an image in your mind of what the tabernacle would look like. Go ahead and use your imagination. One can debate minor details for many, many pages of discussion, but that is not my point in this question. I’m interested in the general structure of the tabernacle, and the lessons it has to teach.

    I have argued elsewhere (also here) that the sanctuary service was characterized by two goals that act in tension. First was the command to distinguish between the holy and the common, and the second was the command to “be holy as God is holy.” These two commands can bring on considerable tension depending on how one views them and attempts to practice them, but they have a very practical intent. There is a basic idea of teaching good basic discernment and decision making, and once those distinctions are properly drawn, bringing more and more into God’s sphere, the sphere of the holy.

    In a sense, the tabernacle itself can be used as a metaphor for building the kingdom of God. You can look at this building in a couple of different ways. First, you can look at your own life as you grow in holiness, or to phrase it better, as God takes over more and more of your life. Sanctification is a gift. You can also look at it as the growth of God’s kingdom like a mustard seed, as God’s glory and presence grows on and in his people. Make sure, however, that you don’t regard these metaphors as exclusive meanings. What I’m saying is that the tabernacle can serve as metaphors, and I believe these are valid meanings to draw from it.

    high priest

    Now if you didn’t read the two earlier posts I linked above, let me mention simply that I bracket this entire set of ideas with two scriptures: Exodus 19:6 and 2 Peter 2:9. God’s original goal for Israel was that they be a nation of priests. Now if you think about the idea of priesthood, you will probably recall that a priest acts as a intermediary between God or divine things and human beings. Thus if Israel was to be a nation of priests, for whom were they to act as intermediaries? Well, here we have that intention for Israel to be a light for the nations (see my devotional on this here) as is so eloquently and repeated expressed in Isaiah (chapters 40-66), and it’s expressed in doubtlessly very early literature. Israel as a witness to the nations and as a priesthood was not a late afterthought on God’s part.

    From a Christian perspective, there is a fulfillment of God’s desire from Exodus 19 in the priesthood of all believers, this fulfillment being expressed explicitly in 2 Peter 2:9. This bracketing makes the whole concept extremely important for Christian theology, I believe, and the view is expressed in some detail and with some force in Hebrews.

    If you read Hebrews carefully, and look at the structure of the tabernacle and its services equally carefully, I think you will come to the conclusion that much of the sanctuary service symbolizes the separation from God rather well. Starting in Exodus 19, immediately after we have the expression of God’s desire, we have the expression of fear. The people don’t want to be that close to God because they are afraid. They aren’t ready for that close of contact. In Hebrews, certainly, the tabernacle is seen as symbolizing separation, and entry into the inner veil as something that has been bought through the sacrifice of Jesus.

    This is not, however, an exclusive theme of the book of Hebrews. Jesus expresses this in his final talk to his disciples (John 15:11-17 amongst others). He has come and brought us into much more direct contact with God. That is both a tremendous blessing and a tremendous responsibility, and again these are both themes of the book of Hebrews.

    before the veil

    Thus the progressive chambers of the tabernacle are progressively more restricted in access. The people can enter the courtyard in front of the altar to offer sacrifices, but beyond that, and into the Holy Place, only the priests can go. This is symbolized further by the Israelite camp, with the priests camping closest, then the levites according to their service, and outside of that the rest of the tribes of Israel. Then finally the High Priest enters the Most Holy Place once per year for the day of atonement. On this day of repentance atonement could be made even for intentional sins. The closer to God, both the greater the glory and the danger, but also the greater the grace.

    The “hilasterion” the place of God’s presence, often known as the mercy seat, then symbolized God’s presence. But at the same time it symbolized God’s presence in a limited way, separated from his people. It was placed behind a veil, with God’s presence repesented by human light and offerings of incense in front of the veil, but demonstrated through God’s light on the other side.

    Meditating on the symbolism of this service can be very constructive. I have used it before in preaching by simply forming the general shape of the tabernacle with chairs, or even people holding ropes. Then people can walk through and ask themselves just which chamber they were most comfortable in, and then thinking about how they could move forward in their experience.

    Note: I make use of the tabernacle as a metaphor in my sermon The Sin of Getting Stuck, available in MP4 video (from a standard VHS tape) or MP3 audio.

  • Hebrews Audio Series

    Those who are following my irregular series on Hebrews on this blog may be interetest in the audio series that just started on the Pacesetters Bible School News Blog. This follows completion of the series on 1 Corinthians. This series has 15 messages, each about 20-25 minutes. They will be posted Monday through Friday in the morning.

    The first in the series is God’s Concept of Communication and deals with Hebrews 1:1-4.

  • Was Priscilla the Author of Hebrews?

    Ruth Hoppin, author of Priscilla’s Letter, is the author of the month on the Religion Forum. There is a mildly interesting discussion going on there, though it could use some additional debate, so check it out.

  • Hebrews 7:1-3: Reuniting Priesthood and Kingship

    1Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, met Abraham when he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him. 2Abraham apportioned a tenth of everything to him. He is first “King of Righteousness” and then King of Salem which is “King of Peace.” 3He is without father, without mother, without genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but, in a way similar to the Son of God he remains forever. — Hebrews 7:1-3

    There is a critical element to the Melchizedek priesthood which is often neglected. It’s mentioned in the first verse of chapter 7: Melchizedek is both king and priest.

    In reading the Bible story we are accustomed to a substantial separation between royal authority and priestly activity. Though we have a brief hint at something different in the time of David (2 Samuel 8:18), there is a strong them of separation between the civil authority and the priesthood. This is emphasized by the experience of Uzziah, who tried to usurp priestly functions and became a leper for his efforts (2 Chronicles 26:16-21).

    But it’s easy to miss the significance of this element in the theology of the book of Hebrews. In Biblical history, this separation begins with Exodus 19 when the Isralites are afraid of hearing the voice of God from Mt. Sinai. They are invited to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests, but they prefer to have a safer distance. In the New Testament, this theme is picked up in 1 Peter 2:9 in which Christians are referenced in the same terms. To someone acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, this was a not so subtle way of suggesting that we have entered into the Messianic age.

    In Hebrews, the Melchizedek priesthood serves to make the same point. While civil power was separated from the priesthood from the time when the tabernacle was being built in the wilderness forward, the Melchizedek priesthood was also a royal priesthood. Thus besides being eternal, which is of great importance to our author, authority and priestly intercession are combined in one person, Jesus who is both king and priest.

    This connection is emphasized by the use of Psalm 110. In its original setting, Psalm 110 is an accession psalm, a poem or hymn celebrating the accession of the king to the throne, and thus YHWH says to “my lord” (the poet is speaking), sit at my right hand, vesting the king with divine authority and promising him victory.

    While by modern standards of exegesis, our author uses the wording of Psalm 110 in a substantially different way (I think he’s allowed that as an inspired writer), he still manages to pull in a great deal of meaning by using that precise reference.

    In the incarnation, God becomes human, experiences humanity, and at the same time royal authority (lawgiving, enforcement, sovereignty) with the priesthood (intercession, communication, connection) and God-become-man thus reaches us directly. As Jesus said, “On that day you will ask in my name. I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;  for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God” (John 16:26-27).

    Asking the Father himself, and knowing that the Father himself loves us, is one of the great gifts of the incarnation. Priestly and royal power have come together again.