Hebrews 2-10
If there ever was a book in the Bible that was written/directed at a certain ethnic group, this book has to be it! Could a first century Gentile understand this? If not, what chance does a 21st Century American who has no concept of sacrifice-other than not buying a new car this year so we can go on vacation, or maybe save for our children's college--have of catching any idea of what is going on? I mean. seriously, when was the last time you gave serious thought to Melchizedek? And yet he appears continuously throughout this section. And if we are just looking at the book logically, it appears that prooftexting is in vogue. "Hey, here is a verse that seems to point towards Jesus. Let's just pull it out of context and say it does!"
It is easy to understand that this was one of the "controversial" books when the final choice was made of what got in and what got left out of the Bible. The book goes against the idea of "once saved always saved." After all, what do you do with those who claim the faith and later turn away? The writer of Hebrews seems to say that there is a special place in hell reserved for them. You can understand why. This was a time of extreme persecution. You need to know that you can trust those you are worshipping with, knowing that you will not be carted off to the dungeon, or worse!
What I do appreciate about this text is the willingness to translate the experience of Christ into a language that the readers could understand. They knew about sacrifices, about Melchizedek. So he used what they know. (And yes, I am making the assumption that the writer was a he--not being sexist, just playing the odds!)
So how willing are we to do the same? How would we relate our experience with Christ to a middle-class American community who voted in the last election and drive a car that is about to be recalledl who is anxious about their retirement, their parent's health and their children's education (and braces!) What story would we tell? Why are we so terrified about telling a different-but-same story?
I often joke that after preaching for 13 years to the same congregation, I need new material. Maybe Hebrews is a way of saying, "Then write it!"
What story would you tell?
2 comments:
I can't remember what I learned about Hebrews in seminary, other than that we don't know who wrote it. I wish I knew who did, and what was the occasion for his (you're right, odds are it was a man) writing it. Certainly it was written to a Jewish audience, but for what reasons I wonder?
This writer does some really interesting things with scripture. You're right, he uses proof texts like crazy, even more than Paul did. And he makes arguments from silence that seem to necessitate huge jumps in logic. There are only a few verses in the Old Testament that mention Melchizedek. This writer seems to say that because his parentage is not mentioned, the assumption is that he is "without father or mother or genealogy." Really? And because we aren't told when he was born or died, the writer assumes that he has "neither beginning nor end of days." I would've lost a lot of points on my seminary papers if I had used scripture like this! It's fascinating to me the liberties this writer felt free to take.
So maybe the lesson for us is that we don't need to feel so restricted in the ways we use the Bible, the ways we tell the story. The writers of the New Testament seem perfectly at ease reshaping it to fit their purposes and speak to their hearers. I need to put some thought into what it would look like for me to do the same.
I've always liked the book of Hebrews because it sounds like a "mini-seminary" - explaining how Christ's sacrifice worked and how the new covenant replaces an older, unsuccessful covenant with God. This is the explanation I remember hearing about mankind moving from an Old Testament relationship with God into a New Testament one. I learned this book was probably written by James - am I remembering that right?
When I listened to the book today, I was struck by the differences between this writer's style and Paul's - this writer is more instructional and less passionate. Yet there are passages which sound a lot like Paul (chapter 3:12-13 and chapter 13:20-25) I seem to remember a discussion somewhere along the way that perhaps there was more than one writer?
(Oops, that went into tomorrow's reading - I decided to finish the entire book today.)
I loved hearing chapter 11 today. I was familiar with 11:1 "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" but loved the examples which followed. Hearing it read make it sound very poetic.
Just a preview of the next section...
Post a Comment