Christ of Hebrews and other religions, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2003 by Osborne, Grant R

In a very real sense, the topic of other religions is the subject matter of the entire NT, since every book to one extent or another addresses the clash between Christianity and the religions that surround it. That is especially true of Hebrews, where the conflict of religions is especially pervasive. This study will attempt to probe this clash and contextualize it for the current situation. First, we will study the situation behind the book, then map the rhetorical strategy of the author in correcting it, especially in terms of the christological solution, and finally note implications for the witness of the church in the postmodern conflict of religions.

I. THE SOCIAL SITUATION BEHIND THE BOOK

Virtually every aspect of this subject is clouded by massive debate. The only general area of agreement is the danger addressed in the book, namely apostasy and the need for faithfulness on the part of the readers. But who were they? For much of the history of the church, it was assumed that they were Jewish, hence the title "To the Hebrews," which goes back at least as far as Tertullian. However, many see this as an early conjecture, perhaps in order to provide a canonical response to Judaism for the early church.1 In fact, the title has been challenged by some who argue that the contents of the book do not point to a Jewish audience. Several characteristics are taken as evidence of a more Gentile readership: (1) the strong Hellenistic style of the rhetoric, employing techniques of deliberative rhetoric like synkrisis (comparison), anaphora (repetition of key words), and both a grammatical style and 154 hapax legomena that betray rich acquaintance with Hellenistic thought; (2) the danger of "turning away from the living God" (3:12) and "carried away by all kinds of strange teachings"2 (13:9), pointing more to a Hellenistic than Jewish setting; (3) "repentance from acts that lead to death" in 6:1; 9:14 favors conversion from paganism; (4) the typology regarding the real and the shadow in 8:5; 9:23; 10:1; (5) the challenge to honor marriage vows would better fit a Gentile setting; (6) the OT quotations from the LXX, fitting the strong emphasis on the OT as divine scripture among Gentile Christians. The purpose of the epistle would then be to address Gentiles, probably later in the first century, who had tired of the societal pressures placed on them and were tempted to return to their pagan religions.3

While this is quite viable, it is doubtful that it is superior to the traditional Jewish interpretation. The LXX was acceptable even to the Jewish people in the homeland and was the primary Bible of diaspora Jews. Moreover, Paul at times turns the language used by Jews against Gentiles (e.g. "dogs" in Phil 3:2 and "their god is their stomach," etc. in Phil 3:18-19) against the judaizers. So the language of 3:12; 6:1; 9:14; 13:9 could fit a Jewish-centered epistle as well.4 For Jewish Christians to apostasize from Christ and return to judaism would constitute "turning away from the living God," and the idea of judaism as "dead works" is quite similar to the "works righteousness" that Paul speaks against in Galatians and Romans. Guthrie sums up5 the reasons for accepting a Jewish background: (1) The massive use of OT quotes, allusions, and background favors a Jewish provenance; (2) The theological concepts are similar to hellenistic Jewish synagogues, e.g. the veneration of Moses, angelic mediators, divine Wisdom; (3) the danger addressed seems to be a return to Judaism proper.

It is, of course, possible that the author is addressing a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile believers,6 and that both groups are tempted to return to their respective religions. This possibility would be strengthened if the epistle was indeed being sent to Christians in Italy, especially in Rome,7 given the Jewish-Gentile church situation in Romans. The reality is that many Gentiles had been converted as God-fearers who had been steeped in synagogue worship. Still, the fact that Hebrews discusses Jewish issues so exclusively makes it likely that the primary group addressed consists of Jewish believers. DeSilva8 makes a strong case that the argumentation could fit Gentiles as well (since Gentiles were inculcated into the OT Scriptures and also had a cultic background in sacrifices), but, on balance, the string of comparisons with OT revelation, angels, priesthood, covenant, sacrifices, and tabernacle is too Jewish to be ignored.

Let us trace the social situation behind the epistle. While there is no explicit mention in the text of the actual problems (unlike Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, for instance) there are implicit hints that yield a fairly good picture. Koester9 posits three phases (conversion, persecution, and malaise), but it is likely that the first two constitute one phase. The book talks of the past and the present, and that is probably the best way to go. The origin of the church there may be described in the proclamation of the gospel by "those who heard" Jesus in 2:3b-4. Those eyewitnesses (the use of the plural suggests a team similar to that in Paul's missionary journeys) may have come after Pentecost or perhaps after the dispersion caused by the persecution in Jerusalem following the death of Stephen (Acts 8:1). Their proclamation was accompanied by "signs, wonders, and various miracles," (2:4), a type of evangelistic ministry quite similar to that of Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:4-8) as well as of Paul. The "gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will" (2:4) most likely were charismatic gifts,10 perhaps the type expressed in the Pentecost repetitions in Acts.