|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hebrews
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Hi folks
I'm attending a lecture series on Hebrews. I've been finding it a bit hard going, and unlike regular bible study where I'd feel fine about saying 'I didn't read it like that at all - do you think it's OK to suggest that ...' I'm left a bit high and dry. I wondered if I might see if I was way off beam, here?
Last session was Hebrews 4 - which spends quite a bit of time talking about 'Sabbath Rest', and ends up talking about Jesus as High Priest.
So I picked up from the lectures that the book was written to a bunch of Jewish converts who are kind of edging back towards Judaism, and the aim of the book is to encourage them to persist in their new faith. So it struck me that it is perhaps not surprising that the author might use Jewish constructs (in this chapter Sabbath, and the high priest) - which the author can be confident have great authority in the original readers' culture, because they're edging back that way - as metaphors for Christian ideas, which they seem to be struggling with and at risk of abandoning.
If this is OK to say, then perhaps Sabbath and 'entering God's rest' is a metaphor for grace and release from the minutiae of the Law (food laws, purity laws etc), and the High Priest appears as a metaphor for the atonement which these ex-Jews will be able to embrace.
I know that sounds a bit obvious - but all this bothers me because I don't think like someone thinking of reverting to Judaism, and neither does anyone I can imagine attempting to share my faith with. So the message of the chapter might be less 'isn't it great that Jesus is like the Sabbath / our High Priest' - which is the message I came away with and one I can't think how to hold on to, let alone share - and more 'isn't it great that Jesus is like ***' - where *** is the thing the person I'm talking to knows well and loves, and feels True, and is close enough to the Truth that one can use it as a way of trying to make a connection between that person (or, indeed, me when I try this out on myself) - and Jesus.
As you can perhaps tell, I'm a bit too old to be asking questions like this and should have moved on to solid food some time ago - another lesson from the book which hits home with fewer problems of interpretation ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
None of us are first century converts of any kind. We all get whatever we get from the Bible in our own context. So although Hebrews might have been written for the specific purpose of encouraging Jewish converts, IMO we should be free to receive whatever meaning for us is on offer from the Holy Spirit and consider the original purpose another interesting layer that might not have personal application.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
John Chrysostom gave many sermons on Hebrews, of which we have the text of 34, written up after his death from notes made at the sermons by a priest in Antioch called Constantine.
This was a time when everyone assumed that Paul was the author of Hebrews, so you'll have to take that into account as you read the sermons, but they might be useful nevertheless.
Chrysostom's Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The writer mixes metaphors aplenty in that chapter.
The sabbath rest is compared to the people entering the promised land, and the failure to enter is bound up with failing to hear God's voice.
The way I approach that passage is to say that the "rest" is the inheritance the believer receives (cf Ps 16) through God's grace, which is available to us through the high priestly work of Christ, and that inheriting it is a question of seeking to obey the promptings of the Spirit.
I would tie it in with what Jesus says in Mt 11:29-30 about his yoke being easy and his burden light; the Message translation has that bit as "learning the unforced rhythms of grace".
Viewed thus, "rest" is not the opposite of "work", but of drudgery!
So if you want to fill in your blanks above, I'd say Jesus is the door through which we can enter God's purposes for us.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The rest is Christianity.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hebrews always strikes me as very intricate embroidery--beautiful close up, especially when you can follow what the maker is doing, but not the kind of thing you hang on the wall and use as a billboard for the world at large. IMO the author was very interested in drawing out all the forshadowings of Christ in the ancient temple/priestly system, and it makes great sense if you're well acquainted with that system--but there's the rub. For the rest of us, we take what we find "on offer" from the Holy Spirit, as Lyda*Rose says. And that's fine.
There are some chapters that are a lot easier to access, like Hebrews 13. But IMHO nobody needs to feel upset with themselves for not understanding them all. A lot of it's pretty arcane. Though it makes a fantastic follow-up for a group that's just slogged through the whole Mosaic law!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
I had a few minutes and thought I'd return to this as it's an interesting topic.
quote:
If this is OK to say, then perhaps Sabbath and 'entering God's rest' is a metaphor for grace and release from the minutiae of the Law (food laws, purity laws etc), and the High Priest appears as a metaphor for the atonement which these ex-Jews will be able to embrace.
In his commentary on Hebrews in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, Sydney Charles Gayford, who was very interested in the Jewish ideas of sacrifice and priesthood, explicitly links the sabbath rest and God's rest in vv9 and 10 with the Spirit's response in Revelation 14 v13:
"And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them.’"
Gayford notes that with humans as with God, the sabbath rest is earned by previous labour, where the rest is not idleness but no further need for labour, with all the toil of their work now gone.
Commenting on verses 14 to 16, Gayford compares Jesus directly with the High Priest making his yearly visit to the Holy of Holies:
"As the Aaronic High Priest on the Day of Atonement passed through the Holy Place into the Holy of Holies, so Jesus at his Ascension passed through the heavenly Holy Place into the very Presence of God, there to 'sit on the right hand of the Majesty on high', 'to appear before the face of God', and to 'offer himself for us'."
The commentary on Revelation in this volume is provided by TW Crafer, who, talking about the quotation above, notes that the deeds which follow the dead are not works in the Jewish legal sense, but rather they are the fruits of Christian character.
So, yes, I think all that supports your thinking. The writer of Hebrews is, of course, talking to his converts in the language they understand, using familiar metaphors and ideas, but with a new interpretation, often, as Crafer notes here about the deeds, turning the old ideas on their heads by being completely opposite to what the converts had previously understood.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
The fundamental trajectory of this part of the argument is the new covenant of which Jesus is the new Moses, and that the new covenant is a greater and better one than the old. In this context, 'rest' is entry into the promised land which then segues into entering into God's post-creation Sabbath rest in his presence.
The focus of chapters 3 and 4 is on the fact that not all who were delivered from Egypt entered into the Promised Land, and that continued faithfulness to the new covenant is necessary to enter into the rest that it promises. In the last 3 verses of chapter 4 the argument moves on to the idea of Jesus as a new high priest which becomes a predominant theme of the next few chapters into the first half of chapter 10.
Actually the nature and style of the argument make the chapter divisions a really unhelpful way of dividing up the text.
I agree with you BTW that the language and imagery of Hebrews is unlikely to impress on a contemporary non-Jewish audience without a prior exploration of the contemporary resonances of the Old Testament themes of Exodus, and Sabbath rest, and of sacrifice and atonement. Then there needs to be some kind of 'this is that' exercise in order to 'plug in' to what is going on in the letter to the Hebrews.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hebrews is much misused - I heard an evangelical use it to condemn daily mass 'Every high priest...standeth daily...which can never take away sin'
I resemble that remark ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
All shadows and types if you ask me... what do you think the point of the epistle is? Or is it just an "epistle of straw"? How would you approach preaching on a passage such as the one you cite?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It probably depends how daily mass is viewed.
Article 31 of the 39 Articles is rather hostile to the idea of the eucharist as a sacrifice, and Hebrews 9 and 10 is quite strong on the idea of "once for all" (Heb 9.12), not being offered "again and again", but "once to bear the sins of many (Hebrews 9.25-28); "for all time a single sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10.12); "by a single offering [perfecting] for all time those who are sanctified" (Hebrews 10.14).
Then there is the Prayer Book's "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world" (polemical, incidentally, in more than one direction).
The evangelical you refer to may or may not have been right in their exegesis, but certainly had good Anglican grounds for the argument if the Mass is viewed as sacrifice for sin.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I picked up from the lectures that the book was written to a bunch of Jewish converts who are kind of edging back towards Judaism, and the aim of the book is to encourage them to persist in their new faith. So it struck me that it is perhaps not surprising that the author might use Jewish constructs (in this chapter Sabbath, and the high priest) - which the author can be confident have great authority in the original readers' culture, because they're edging back that way - as metaphors for Christian ideas, which they seem to be struggling with and at risk of abandoning.
If this is OK to say, then perhaps Sabbath and 'entering God's rest' is a metaphor for grace and release from the minutiae of the Law (food laws, purity laws etc), and the High Priest appears as a metaphor for the atonement which these ex-Jews will be able to embrace.
I know that sounds a bit obvious - but all this bothers me because I don't think like someone thinking of reverting to Judaism
I'm not sure that this doesn't push interpretation a few bridges too far. I think the author is grumpy about growing lackadaisical attitudes, but not any lapse towards Judaism. I think it's about losing (eschatological) coordinates of faith and morality rather than changing horses ... sheltering pedophiles or accumulating massive wealth or failing to maintain a prophetic voice when "faith and decay in all around I see" ... above all losing the moral imperative of keeping an eye on a God who exercises post-palliative judgement. I can shag/exploit/ignore this person because no-one will ever know ... skipping fellowship, too, makes this author shitty ... I think I'll mow the lawns instead ...
these make the author of Hebrews very shitty indeed ...
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hebrews is much misused - I heard an evangelical use it to condemn daily mass 'Every high priest...standeth daily...which can never take away sin'
I resemble that remark
All shadows and types if you ask me... what do you think the point of the epistle is? Or is it just an "epistle of straw"? How would you approach preaching on a passage such as the one you cite?
I'd say that Hebrews is against PROPITIATORY sacrifice and thus against what many evangelicals believe in (PSA).
OT I'd show how very Jewish this epistle is - not anti-Jewish as many assume.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't subscribe to PSA, at least not in the way some evangelicals do.
I take your point about different sorts of sacrifice, but am still left perplexed at how Hebrews is explained, simply, in churches that, to this non-conformist at least, seem to present the Mass as a renewal of the sacrifice of Christ.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Actually you didn't "merely" say that it was thus used, you positively implied if not quite stated that it was a misuse of the text to read/use it that way.
[ 17. November 2016, 22:00: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I take your point about different sorts of sacrifice, but am still left perplexed at how Hebrews is explained, simply, in churches that, to this non-conformist at least, seem to present the Mass as a renewal of the sacrifice of Christ.
I am not a Catholic, nor do I play one on TV, so this is under correction, but it was my understanding that the RC understanding is not that the Mass is a renewal of Christ's sacrifice, but an eternal re-participation in it. The sacrament bridges time and connects the celebrant and any other participants directly to the sacrifice of Christ.
This metaphor is mine, and I hereby tread onto the thinnest of ice: saying the mass is a repetition of Christ's sacrifice is like saying that television causes a football game to be played in more than one place at the same time.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That sounds more plausible than anything I have ever heard from a Catholic, or from what the liturgy of the mass sounds like to me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
What I've seen, from what seem to be reliable sources, certainly seems a 'stronger' statement than that. I've not seen anything 'official' which seems to me to engage with the issue in the light of the letter to the Hebrews, although it's not something I've really given time to.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It is a commonplace observation of ecumenical discussions, that people are most frequently right about what they believe in, and wrong about what they understand others to believe in. Assuming there is some sort of misapprehension to start with of course.
So to be clear, why not ask the Catholic Church what the official line on this matter is?
And so, from the official catechism:-
Here it is.
It seems to me that mousethief's summary is exactly right. There is no new sacrifice. It is a participation in the original sacrifice which suffices for all time, past, present and future.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks, Honest Ron, most interesting.
Mousethief's way of putting it is certainly more palatable to me than an endless rerun of the sacrifice. On a quick reading of your link, the catechism supports that, but I think it leaves enough leeway for the "repeat sacrifice" understanding too.
Either way, without going back and reading Hebrews again right now, I'll have to admit that the emphasis I've always read in Hebrews is that all this high priestly stuff was once and for all. One High Priest, once, for all.
(Which opens up the whole issue of whether an intermediary priest is called for or not... ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) )
[ 18. November 2016, 10:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The other term I have heard used is "re-presenting" (as distinct from "representing") the original sacrifice.
I've heard a few unhelpful amateur explanations myself so hesitate to add to them (!), but I just mention it in case it is helpful. Not mine I hasten to add.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The other term I have heard used is "re-presenting" (as distinct from "representing") the original sacrifice.
Yes, I noticed that in your link, and marked it down as precisely the kind of calculated ambiguity I was talking about
[ 18. November 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This metaphor is mine, and I hereby tread onto the thinnest of ice: saying the mass is a repetition of Christ's sacrifice is like saying that television causes a football game to be played in more than one place at the same time.
You're in good company with your metaphor. I remember once reading a book by Bishop Fulton Sheen where he used the analogy of a radio signal that is picked up in more than place, and in more than one time, i.e., hearing a signal now that was originally sent in the past.
All of which, to bring this back around to Hebrews, is consistent with a Jewish understanding underlying sacrifices—particularly sacrifices like the First Fruits ("A wandering Aramean was my father . . .")—and of the Passover. Likewise, it is consistent with how the disciples would have understood Jesus's command to eat bread and drink wine as his memorial (anamnesis).
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Folks - having worried about this a bit more, I think at the bottom of it for me is the question (if I can be put it crudely) 'how much do I need to think like a Jew, to 'get' Jesus'?
Someone with a gift for this could take Hebrews up to a part of Salford where men with big furry hats and long sideburns still congregate on street corners, and engage them in debate. For the rest of us, what are the dangers of Marcionism - assuming for now that we can be confident that we are asking that question amongst friends who do not need their Saviour to originate within a certain ethnic group, in order to justify their refraining from that group's annihilation?
Paul's thrust seems to be in a different direction; his frustration with the Judaisers, his willingness to talk to Greeks on their own terms; but we (or bits of us, the church) take lumps of bible which appear written for one people, and present it as dogma for us all. What dangers lie in pushing against that?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
If I've understood your question correctly, I think the best way to read the OT today is to provide background to understanding who Jesus is, where he came from, and the context in which he operated. It combats not only Marcionism, but, I'd suggest, Docetism; it anchors Jesus firmly within a human context with all its history.
Indeed it's hard to understand Hebrews at all without a good knowledge of the OT!
The dangers of not reading the OT like that, in the circles I move in, are to bolt on bits of OT practice or theology, wrenched out of context, to contemporary New Covenant Christianity. Hence things like plans to "restore the tabernacle of David" (24-hour worship) so "the glory may descend", exalt individual ministries, particularly "prophet" over the priesthood of all believers, and add liturgical aspects to charismatic worship that are so esoteric as to only be understood by initiates - shofar-blowing being one of the simpler ones.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
shofar-blowing being one of the simpler ones.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Wow - and I'm struggling to read Hebrews!
I'm OK with the OT being what it is, and Jesus quoting from it, and His being the fulfilment of OT prophesy. It's the Jewishness of bits of the NT I'm struggling with.
My mentioning Marcion (who I know nothing much about, other than the bare bones of his heresy) was in a kind of self-accusation that I seem to want to, at the very least, demote those bits of the NT which seem to require a very Jewish way of thinking about what Jesus means.
I'd like to think this is in solidarity with those who don't yet believe; why should we present them with the double hurdle of needing to first swallow the idea (for example) that a sacrifice is needed for sin, before being able to point out that Jesus it It. By contrast, the idea that we have sinned only involves getting over a lump of pride - and that's doable for many if not most reflective (note - not necc. intelligent) people, in the end, I think.
Far from such noble motives, I probably deceive myself and really I'm just being prideful about not wanting to swallow chunks of dogma whole. Oh well.
I'm sorry in a way that PSA is the idea which springs first to mind as an example - I know other-theories-of-the-atonement-are-available and I don't want to move this thread in this direction. I'm more bothered about where such ideas come from - for instance Jesus as High Priest in Hebrews - preaching to Jews, quite sensibly in terms of Jewish thought. What dangers do I run in thinking 'this message was not meant for me'?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think you - generic you - are in danger of a two-dimensional understanding of Jesus that ignores the culture from which he sprang.
One might not go there first off with someone wholly unfamiliar with the story, but it makes for enriching background, and potentially new theological insights - good ones.
A bit like being introduced to The Hobbit at school, going on to read LOTR for oneself, and finally getting to grips with The Silmarillion - not that I've ever managed to do the latter.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
FWIW my take on it is that most of the NT was written to help Gentiles understand who Jesus was/is. Sure, in some cases 'god-fearers' who would have had an understanding of the background, but also many who would not.
A small part of it is addressed to specifically Jewish readers: Matthew (arguably), and Hebrews. For all of it, our understanding can be enhanced by knowing more about the context(s) from which and into which it was written. That is one of the things commentaries (and preachers) are for.
Hebrews, specifically is thoroughly tied in to first century Jewish thinking about exegesis, the Exodus, the giving of the law, and the whole sacrificial system. Learning more about those and about what they meant, enables us to understand better what the writer to the Hebrews is getting at. But even without that background, I would say that the main thrust of the epistle is clear*, and the details very much illustrate and elaborate the main points in a way designed to appeal to and resonate with first century Jewish listeners.
(*Roughly: God has spoken to us through his Son. We must pay attention. Jesus, the divine Son, was made human. Moses set God's people free: Jesus has done an even greater work. We are invited to enter into God's rest. This is made possible by Jesus' self-offering. Because this was achieved by the divine Son it is guaranteed and permanent. What was achieved in Jesus was a perfection of which the previous sacrificial system was only a foreshadowing. Therefore we must persevere. We must be faithful and follow the example of Christ.)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
