LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

in the objectional manner just described, as was Philo. Yet a challenge to saying this consists in that the objectional reading strategy just described bears a resemblance to something different and necessary, not unlike the resemblance of Pharaoh’s magicians to Moses. In part, the difference goes to truth claims. Has God in fact spoken in the Son who is Jesus or not? Is Jesus properly addressed as God or not? Is this in fact the same God who spoke to Abraham and through Moses, and is he faithful and true? For the larger part, Hebrews takes such questions as answered, given its audience and the situation. But when such questions are answered they carry with them convictions—assumed more than expressed—of the nature of God’s speech through all history. Among other things, the gospel’s answers to such questions require us to take history and history’s narrative with full seriousness. This is not because there is a pre-conceived theory of history or of literature and such. No, the cause of this stems from the fact and nature of the incarnation, the fact and nature of the Son’s own history. In short, we learn from the incarnational form of his self-revelation how God has spoken and submit all our reading and interpretation to that knowledge, which is then necessarily mindful of literature (not merely words) and history in its seamless, organic whole from beginning to end. But for the very same reason it recognizes that the whole of that history and its literature depends on its being bound up with the Son, who is its origin, who bears it along and cleanses it, and who is heir of all things. These tendencies—respecting history, narrative, literature, on the one hand, and reading christocentrically (not merely christotelically), on the other—are not in competition but are mutually dependent. If history is not the history of Christ then it has lost its only possible center (because he is the actual center) and all flies apart. Only individual scholars with their personal theories can posit coherence, but their theories are merely opinion and are rightly received as such. But when the text of canonical speech is read “christocentrically” we are all the more committed to reading it in the light of history and literature and indeed all that properly belongs to the human experience.

      It is in this tension, rightly balanced and preserved, that Hebrews’ argument works from beginning to end, giving us a touchstone for all proper reading of the Scriptures. There are a variety of ways in which particulars of Hebrews’ exposition will come close to or even touch Philo (at least in externals), just as will be the case with other Jewish voices of antiquity that are equally absorbed with the Scriptures. But the differences are far more important and they are completely controlling.

In short, and with an eye on the wider range of first century parallels that have been proposed as the “key” for Hebrews’ thought, we affirm that Hebrews, as canonical, divine speech, is not a patchwork of ideas drawn from diverse sources and tossed out for consideration, as if in the hope that some useful insight can be salvaged for the larger human enterprise of understanding. Rather, as revelatory speech, it moves with total certainty from its beginning to end in infallible exposition of the truth. Our receptions of Hebrews’ vision will always be imperfect, but we may be confident that it not only gives us a reliable vision but illuminates the path to right understanding.13

      Meeting Jesus Again

      From that mode of thought we can turn our attention to that to which Hebrews’ witness chiefly points: the Son.

      The distinction between translating for someone and putting words in their mouth blurs, but we may hazard that world leaders who have personal translators working for them in a sensitive negotiation assume that there is a difference. With that rough comparison in mind we may say that our task as a commentator is to let the writer of Hebrews be the theologian in the room; our role is to translate. The teaching of the letter therefore follows in our commentary. It might nevertheless be of some use to the reader to get a broad view of this commentary’s conclusions on Hebrews’ vision of Christ. If at any point I misrepresent and steer the reader wrong, we live in hope that the Word will make himself heard in spite of and even against me.

      It must first be said: Hebrews is a sermon exhorting the members of a house church to persevere in a faith that corresponds to the word of forgiveness and cleansing that God has spoken in the Son. That salvation, as both God’s word and deed, is contained in Jesus Christ—all that is true of, in, and through him. Everything depends, then, on knowing him. At its broadest (not restricted to Hebrews), he is finally known by the things said about him, by the things done and given through him, by what he says and does, and by the names and titles he bears—all within the context of the history of God’s word and deed, and only when the Son himself shows us the Father and makes him known in the Spirit as the believing community proceeds in obedience. God reveals himself through himself.

      Accordingly, the knowledge of Christ—or christology—is inseparable from participation in his benefits. It cannot be pursued without loss if our interest is only in building a profile of his person. This applies to all aspects of the knowledge of him, including the study of the particular names and titles that are used of him.

      Thus, the particular names and titles given him are not things that can be understood in isolation from the rest of what must be the case if we are to know this one. But if this is understood and maintained, there is real gain in considering these names and titles (henceforth simplified to “names”).

The five routine names used in Hebrews are Son, Jesus, Christ, Lord, and priest. Mediator follows as a close sixth (8:6; 9:15; 12:24; cf. Guarantee in 7:22).14 Through Ps 45 he is addressed as God (1:8–9). Also mentioned are apostle, shepherd, and, by implication, king (e.g., 7:1–2; cf. 1:3, 8–9, 13; 12:27); by more remote implication, prophet (1:1–2; 2:3; but after 1:1–2 the prophetic identity is the water in which the argument swims). Note also “son of man” in 2:5–9, though whether the titular sense is intended is properly questioned. Perhaps one could include here also forerunner, pioneer, perfecter, minister, heir, though these are more like ad hoc ways of expressing what he does or is. He is of course not only priest but offering, but Hebrews nowhere designates him as the Lamb of God, let alone a bull, calf, or goat. Despite the fact that he is portrayed as the speech of God, not even in 4:12–13 is he called the Word (Logos) as in John’s Gospel.

      Son: Being the assumed identity even where he is not named as such (e.g., 2:5–18), this name seems to capture the identity and drama at their farthest reaches: vertically (the descent, ascent, heavenly-earthly), horizontally (eternity past to future as well as the narrower drama of the descent and ascent; typologically it aligns with patterns and expectations of Israel), theologically (indicating relation to God, identity in distinction; his sharing in divine authority and power), and anthropologically (sharing in blood and flesh with his siblings, the seed of Abraham; the Davidic king; being tempted; representing, etc.). It is aligned both in antecedent expectations and in Hebrews with both royal and priestly identities and roles. As a way of knowing Jesus, “Son” is not reducible to particular Jewish or Greco-Roman notions but has been filled out by Jesus’ presence in history and in Scripture as the church has come to grips with and developed its confession prior to the composing of the sermon that is Hebrews.

      Jesus: Being the name by which he was known in “the days of his flesh,” it seems to refer particularly to him as the concrete figure of his past history who is now raised and crowned with glory and honor. He is the man who lived, did God’s will, suffered, tasted death for all, and was raised and exalted.

      Christ: This seems to connote the one anticipated by Israel (messiah), witnessed to in her prophets (esp. Moses), who would achieve her hopes and, as such, serve as God’s appointed priest-king. It is not clear that these connotations have so eroded that the term is merely a personal designation, though it is equally unclear whether those connotations are fully activated in every use of the word. There might be echoes of this title’s embeddedness in the gospel narratives (5:5; 6:1; cf. 11:26).

      Lord: Admittedly this is not used frequently but it seems to connote the one confessed with the church, the pre-resurrection Jesus from the viewpoint of his resurrection (2:3; 7:14; 13:20); though see 12:14 and possibly some of the other uses of the word where it could be taken as referring to God as such or to the Lord Jesus. The tradition has already identified this title with the Lord (YHWH) of the OT Scriptures

Скачать книгу