Thursday, 10 May 2007

Hebrews!!!

Ahhhhh I have done it... I have given in to myself and have entered the blogging world finally. Somehow its so much easier to comment on other peoples thoughts than to write down my own. Its not that I have no thoughts to write down its simply now I have to try and be organised and process rather than read and respond.

Currently I am processing through Hebrews, specifically the Christology of the author and the audience and how Christ is revealed both in person and in purpose. It is fascinating reading the various perspectives on this topic. Commentaries tend to focus on the High Priesthood of Christ and the meaning of this both at the time of sacrifice and subsequently since. I can't say that I have ever really thought about this aspect of Christ before in any depth so much of what I have read has gone over my head. Some commentaries consider this teaching to be 'new' to the audience of the time. They see it as the same message of the gospel reillustrated to emphasise new points. This perspective however is revealed as extremely limited in light of other commentaries whose writers have taken the time to consider the probable audience of the epistle/homily. The audience seems to be, most likely, converts from Judaism (possibly even the priests under the old covenant). They would have been extremely comfortable with the concepts of sacrifice and atonement for sin but would likely have struggled with the idea of one sacrifice atoning for all sin past present and future. In this light the emphasis on the sovereignty of Christ, his complete humanity and divinity, his role as high priest, and his current role as intercessor at the right hand of the father, makes sense in a whole new way.

I think both types of commentary provide insights but attempting to understand context and intent allows a much deeper insight to be attained. I can only imagine how the early Christian converts from Judaism must have felt. Initially expecting to be reunited with Christ anyday and living in that hope only to fall into sin and feel dirty with no clear way to attone for that sin. Knowing that the old ways were no longer appropriate and yet not understanding that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient both for the sins of their past and for the ones since his death and resurrection. No wonder it seems as though they were tending to be heading back to the old ritualistic patterns of Judaism!

The temptation to return to the old tried and true methods is often so strong in our lives. Kindof like the quantity maths problems where you have to measure certain quantities with a limited array of measuring cup sizes. Sometimes its possible to work out the quantity one way but it takes twice as long as another new way that would not have worked with previous puzzles - trouble is we see that the old way still works and forget to consider other alternative patterns. Its only when we come up against a puzzle that doesn't work with the old strategy that we consider trying new methods. I wonder if thats why we get so comfortable with the status quo. We know it works, we have no reason to question it or try something new so we don't move out of it until we hit a problem. Trying new methods for the sake of trying new methods isn't habitual so our ability to deal with changes is not increased and thats why we then struggle so much with problems that land in our path... leading us to avoid changing even more and settling with the status quo as the cycle repeats itself!

I do believe I'm rambling =)

I am curious to know what happened to the first audience of Hebrews though. Did they return to Judaism? Did they understand what the author was trying to share and begin to grasp the enormity of Jesus' sacrifice and intercession on their behalf? Were they divided or united? I also wonder about Christians today. How many fail to grasp this concept of complete and utter freedom from sin in Christ? How many still feel unable to attone for their sins not realising they don't have to - its been done for them? Or is it better to ask how many truly understand this truth - that we are completely and utterly redeemed! I have always loved Hebrews 11 and 12 but now as I study the book as a whole I am beginning to grasp just how important it is and how much there is yet to learn. Now if only I could write my essay as if it were in blog form!!!

4 comments:

James said...

Somehow its so much easier to comment on other peoples thoughts than to write down my own.
So, so true. I've been loving hearing what people from my church have to say over this last little while. I've also loved having the opportunity to hear and have input into their thoughts. Fantastic.

But I must start writing some stuff myself...

I've been doing a hermeneutics night course run by Wendy Baker the last couple of weeks. Last night we talked about 'types' (for those who don't know what a type is, it is sort of a foreshadowing or foretelling of New Testament truth.) In case you are wondering about the word 'type' its self (Yes, I'm a word geek too) apparently it is the same root word we get 'prototype' from, basically it means 'model'.

One such type is Aaron and Jesus both as high priests. There are a number of points of similarity They both offered sacrifices (Jesus sacrifice was his own life!), they also mediate on our behalf before God, offering prayer. etc.

It seems to me that the writer to the Hebrews was really trying to connect his reader's understanding of what it means to be a high priest with what it mean to have JESUS as a high priest.

It surpasses my understand as to why God would use 1000's years of real history to illustrate a point about a spiritual reality realized in Christs Sacrifice but it seems to be that is exactly what he has done.

- James

Cat said...

Hey James,

Haven't heard about 'types' before, or at least referred to in this way, so thanks for the info. I think Melchizedek the High Priest would have been a better example as 'type' for Jesus in Hebrews due to the way he too was not descendent from Levi and yet was accorded all the honours other priests received. That aside I can empathise with the incredulity you express at God's use of generations of experience to explain a concept to the early Christians in a way that they would both be able to understand and accept. God is nothing but patient and comprehensive!

Cat

Clive Smit said...

I think we need to admit something here...

Isn't it fun being a geek... getting into types and context!

Keep up the good work!

James said...

I think Melchizedek the High Priest would have been a better example as 'type' for Jesus in Hebrews due to the way he too was not descendent from Levi and yet was accorded all the honours other priests received.
- Totally! From memory I'm sure that Hebrews actually explicitly makes this connection.
Still without the priesthood of Aaron we wouldn't know half of what it means to be a priest. No type of Christ is perfect they all have flaws and huge gaping holes, but they can teach us something more about Jesus.

It is important not to stretch it too far of course :)

- James