Читать книгу The Letter to the Hebrews - Jon C. Laansma - Страница 14

“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge.”

Context

The first in a series of exhortations, 2:1–4 does several things. It allows the audience to settle back into their seats after that remarkable beginning to the sermon while at the same time it bracingly summons them to greater attentiveness. It begins to make explicit what this teaching must mean for life even as it adds to the teaching. Again, if we take 1:5—2:18 as a single thread of thought, then 2:1–4 does much the same thing that 5:11—6:20 is going to do: The sermon will begin a topic (in the later passage it will be an exposition of Ps 110:4), pause for a warning, and then continue with the same theme but on a different plane. In both cases what is said before the warning lays a foundation for what is to be said after.

It is well that the student of this letter glance ahead to the coming warnings (5:11—6:12 and those within 10:19—12:29) to gauge the seriousness of the situation of the readers and the urgency of the preacher’s concerns. In that light the relative gentleness of this first warning can be appreciated while its restrained power is also heard. It is evident that this is a pastor. He is not out to make a point. He is out to win the lives of people he loves, and he wishes not to lose their attention but rather to gain it.

The internal argument of 2:1–4 is made up of two Greek sentences: Firstly, we have the exhortation proper (v. 1), which is not a command but an assertion of what is necessary. Secondly, this is given support (vv. 2–4) by another artfully rounded sentence such as was used in 1:1–4 (called a period). This simple structure involves, however, a number of rationales for the exhortation: It begins with therefore, alluding back to all that precedes. It gives a result to be avoided (so that we do not drift) as well as a basis (for since the message . . . ). Finally, vv. 5–18 supplies a further basis when it begins with for (= ESV’s Now).

Therefore we must pay attention

so that we do not drift

For (if the message spoken was firm) how will we escape

neglecting such a great salvation

which (having been first spoken through the Lord) was confirmed by those who heard

God himself testifying

Background

Firstly, beginning here we notice that the writer’s strategy is less one of translating the gospel into the story of their Italian lives than of translating their lives into the story of the Abrahamic promise. This strategy—so effective rhetorically and theologically—is in part why it is difficult for us to reconstruct their situation. For our reconstruction see the introduction to the commentary.

Secondly, most twenty-first-century readers of this commentary will not doubt that God spoke and founded the new covenant in Jesus, but evidence for that historical event will have been lacking for the original readers who are coping with the costs of faith. As if anticipating the new covenant text itself (8:7–13) the writer uses the language of legal confirmation and witnesses at this point, establishing the reliability of the word proclaimed to them. God has spoken and the new covenant has been confirmed. The need for the writer to do this is a matter of this church’s history. The institution of the new covenant itself is an historical event of the first magnitude.

Thirdly, it is evident that this church has heard at least some of the story of Jesus’ life such as we have it in the Gospels (e.g., 2:3, 8–9, 14–18; 5:7–8; 6:1, 6; 7:13–14; 12:1–3; 13:12). He wishes for them to hold this history before their eyes along with the Scriptural witnesses.

Fourthly, we must speculate to some extent on the origin of the tradition that the law was mediated through angels (2:2). The original accounts of the Pentateuch made no mention of angelic mediation though Ps 68:17 hints at angels attending God as he ascends from Sinai to the temple mount in Jerusalem. Reference can also be made to Deut 33:2; the Hebrew is ambiguous but the LXX’s rendering made the presence of angels explicit. Jewish traditions, however, took angelic involvement in the giving of the law for granted (e.g., Jub. 1:27; 2:1, 26; 5:1–2; Josephus, A.J. 15.5.3 [possibly]; CD 5:18), as did Paul (Gal 3:19)50 and Stephen (Acts 7:38, 53; cf. Herm. Sim. 8.3.3). It is possible that allusions such as that to the angel of the Lord at the burning bush (Exod 3:2) and the angel God sent before the people (Exod 14:19; 23:20–33; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16) were partially in mind, insofar as they make explicit the presence of angels in the history of the exodus within which the law was given. It might be that the cosmic phenomena surrounding the giving of the law on Mount Sinai were later associated with the “angels of the elements.”51

Comments on Wording

2:1 pay much closer attention to what we have heard. “Attentiveness” involves both growing understanding (cognitive aspects) and embodied, social involvement (behavioral aspects), just as “faith” will be interchangeable with obedience (e.g., 3:16–19); see 5:11–14. What the preacher will be teaching is latent in what they have already heard and confessed so that they are to be faulted for not having discovered these things. There is no benign inattentiveness.

drift away. The nautical image can have the sense of drifting away from a mooring or by one’s intended anchorage. Even passive neglect in the face of clear warnings amounts to positive rejection; later passages will mention more active rebellion (3:7–11; 6:6; 10:26–31), either as a general possibility or as realized by at least some. Here and elsewhere the writer envisages just two possibilities: a process of growth or one of apostasy.

2:2 the message declared by angels proved to be reliable. See above for the tradition, and see on 1:5–14 for what this signals about the relationship of the covenants that were both spoken by God.52

every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution (cf. 10:28). These punishments themselves belonged to the shadows and patterns of the drama of the Son’s salvation (8:5), indicating the ultimate consequences of the speech of God in the Son (see on 12:25–29).

2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? The greatness of it, that it is salvation, and its inescapability are all indicated in 1:1–14, but it is the exposition to come that will fill all of these out. After that is completed another version of this warning is given in 12:25–29, which see. The term for ignore, neglect could be a softened characterization of what was in fact their more open affront but it is more likely a rhetorically understated way of getting at the immense danger of even neglect. It might be objected that the idea of just recompense, which was just invoked in v. 2, would require a penalty no greater than divine “neglect.” This would misunderstand both the seriousness of despising the blood of the covenant (10:29) and the seriousness of divine neglect.

was attested to us by those who heard. The term for attested is a cognate of the term used for binding in v. 2; they both have legal connotations. The gospel of the new covenant—effected by Christ’s offering (9:1–28)—was duly confirmed by the apostolic witness (cf. 1 Cor 1:6; 11:23; 15:3; Phil 1:7), with God himself bearing witness (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 1:4–7; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 3:1–2; cf. Acts 3:1–10; 14:3–11).

2:4 by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. Some of this may have been reported to the church via the tradition but some will have been their first hand experience (6:4–5). The writer does not encourage confidence in miracles but in the divine word attested by them with its command to approach the divine throne in the boldness of faith, which is faith in the divine pronouncement of forgiveness. For the Holy Spirit, see 3:7; 6:4–5; 9:8, 14; 10:15, 29.

Comments on Theological Themes

The coming argument will clarify the preacher’s assumptions, so that without glancing ahead we can run the risk of imposing alien categories on what he expresses somewhat generally at this point. We will need to unfold this with Hebrews itself, but a sketch is necessary here. One of the cords that runs through Hebrews and holds it together is the promise of (covenant with) God to Abraham, which finally is that he would inherit the world (Rom 4:13) and that all nations would be blessed through him. Over the subsequent history of that promise it was clarified that this covenant concerned God purposes for creation from its foundation (e.g., Ps 8:4–6; Heb 2:5–9; 4:3–4); it was for the purpose expressed in this promise that God had created the world, so that the promise is in reality the inner secret of the very cosmos. One must say that the covenant is the internal basis of creation, and creation the external basis of the covenant. The full vision of what was promised was indicated in Moses and the prophets (particularly Jeremiah 31) but finally revealed in the Son, namely, entrance into God’s resting place, the holy city of God, the sacred presence of God himself (Heb 3:7—4:11; 11:8–16; 12:22–24; 13:14). From this vantage point Hebrews clarifies how the OT indicated precisely this. The tabernacle of Moses (and the entire covenant that revolved on it) was a provisional stage in the journey of the promise. As a copy and shadow constructed after the heavenly original shown him (8:5) it symbolized 1) what was in store, namely, entrance of the people and all creation with them into God’s holy presence, and, 2) how it would be achieved, namely, priestly mediation and cleansing, sanctifying sacrifice. Within its system its sacrifices accomplished nothing and everything. Nothing in themselves, not even partial forgiveness, in that the blood of animals cannot take away sins (10:4, 11). Everything, and thus full forgiveness, as a shadow of Christ enacted in faith. The very structure of its system attested that it did not “bring perfection” and that “the way into the holy places is not yet opened” (7:11–18; 9:8–10). Yet it remains that it was God’s own chosen way of disclosing how the promise must be understood.

We must let Hebrews tell the rest of this story, but this is enough to say this: It is into the history of this promise that Jesus stepped—he took on the blood and flesh of the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:10–16) who had broken his covenant (Deut 11 and 27–28) and shown the impossibility of its realization. He did this so as to bring this promise to its goal and unlock its blessings for all nations and the world as such. This is the great salvation (2:3), since he died as a ransom to set those who are called free from the sins committed under the first covenant so that they may receive the promised inheritance (9:15). It is of course an entailment that this great salvation has to do with deserved punishment (recompense) and ultimately with a deserved punishment of death, which is met in the Son’s death (2:1–16; 9:15; 9:12—10:10, 26–31).

Teaching Hebrews 2:1–4

1. Some parts of Hebrews virtually preach themselves. The role of the commentator is limited to nudging things down the text’s own channels. What was said under Context and Comments on Theological Themes is key for this purpose. Lest in our own preaching, however, we think that application should be “left to the Spirit” we note that our preacher does both teaching and application. His doctrine and application are really the two legs of a single stride forward, just as cognitive understanding and obedience of life are the two legs of faithful reception that are necessary for progress of any sort. By this same token we note that Hebrews’ exhortations are merely different versions of its expositions, and vice versa. This means that its story of priesthood and sacrifice is not merely a convenient way to communicate the gospel to ancient Jews, but a necessary way for it to be received by all. What Hebrews makes clearer than perhaps any NT writing is that the gospel is Christ in the OT and the OT in Christ. It will only occasion the “drift” against which he warns if this is not embraced as fully as this sermon requires of all believers no matter what their ethnic and religious background.

2. Christology. The Lord is mentioned only once here, but as the opening therefore tells us, not to mention the logic of the entire sermon, it is a matter of paying the most careful attention to him, for he is Lord.

3. Salvation. The great salvation is the greatest of goods: Life from death! The joy-filled celebration of arrival at the city of God, delighting in the knowledge that God’s face is—finally, fully—shining on us (Num 6:24–26; Heb 12:22–24). Life as it was meant to be, and will be forever. It can, however, be refused and because all good, and truth, and beauty are concentrated there, there is none of this life outside of it. To refuse it is death in the darkest, most hopeless reaches of abandonment.53 Creation’s hour has struck, the way of life or death is before us (Deut 30:11–20), and there is no escape. From Moses we learn that and how this is so (2:2). From the way in which God has spoken we must admit that it has been indubitably confirmed (2:3–4).

4. Perseverance. A key element of salvation for Hebrews is introduced in 2:1, the need for perseverance. Like some other NT writers, Hebrews portrays salvation as primarily a future destination for the people of God who are on pilgrimage toward it. Faith, in this perspective, is a matter of a life of faith, and faith is a matter of obedience to the divine command that is involved in the promise. Faith is therefore not a past, one-off decision, but a mode of living on the way, and if one abandons the path, one does not arrive at the goal. To be sure, God’s act is prior, it is sufficient, it is irreversible, and it is grace. Faith is not the achievement of salvation but the response to it. But. Without faith it is impossible to please God (11:6). There is much to learn about this, but for the moment it is enough to hear the exhortation lest we drift away.

5. The Holy Spirit. Though Hebrews does not feature the Spirit on the scale of Acts and 1 Corinthians the Spirit’s presence in the community and role in the history of salvation is vital. At this point the gifts of the Spirit are mentioned in language that relates to the distributions of Israel’s inheritance (Josh 11:23); we are recipients of the true inheritance. One could also say that in 2:1–4 we find not so much Trinitarian theology as its assumption in the salvific co-acting of God (Father), Lord (Son), and Holy Spirit.

50. Bruce, Galatians, 176–78, doubts that any of the proposed parallels prior to Galatians amount to Paul’s claim that the angels administered the law.

51. Betz, Galatians, 169, citing LXX Pss 102:20; 103:4; Jub. 2:2; 1 En. 60:1–2. Within Ps 68 note vv. 7–9, 32–35.

52. Given the angels’ witness to the old covenant as heaven’s speech we might hazard that their presence at the birth of Jesus was in its own way the law’s worship and service of the Son. In Heb 1:14 their continuing service of the heirs is for the advance of this same story. For us to fail to do the same—work for that advance—would be to fall out of step with their witness and that of Moses.

53. By way of partial analogy, see the drama of Gen 27:37 (cf. Heb 12:14–17). The exclusivity and finality of the situation are absolute in the word now spoken in the Son.