PDF Download a Different Priest: the Epistle to the Hebrews Pdf

A DIFFERENT PRIEST: THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

He must be intensively trained in all of the ceremonial practices of priesthood and elaborately initiated into the ranks of priests. Priests belong to an order of priesthood and are associated with a sanctuary. The author of this epistle appeals to the Aaronic priesthood as the very highest expression of professional priesthood that he knows. If any priesthood could have been expected to fulfil successfully the functions of priesthood, this priesthood should have been expected to do so in his judgment, for it was instituted by God himself. He uses this priesthood as a medium of comparison for the priesthood of Jesus, and because of the familiarity of his readers with it, as a means of explaining to them the nature of Jesus' priesthood. He is highly appreciative of the Aaronic priesthood and exalts it in order to exalt even more the priesthood of Jesus which he claims is better than it. Despite his high regard for the Aaronic priesthood, the author believes that it has failed to achieve the real purposes of priesthood and the true ends of religion. Its two chief failures are failure to remove the obstacles, hindrances, and hurdles which separate men from God, particularly men's sins, and failure to gain access for men to God. From the emphasis which the author lays on these two failures, it follows that he believes that true and successful priesthood must fulfil these two functions. Priesthood must deal adequately with sins and other barriers in the sinner's approach to God, and must bring men to God. The author is aware of the technical, professional and ceremonial requirements of priesthood. He recognizes, too, that Jesus could never be a priest according to any such professional priestly order. He admits frankly that Jesus is not a priest after the order of Aaron. Since he needs to belong to some order of priesthood, he makes him a priest after the order of Melchizedek on the strength of a quotation from Psalm which calls the Messiah such a priest. Since Christians hold Jesus to be the Messiah, he must therefore be a Melchizedek priest. The Melchizedek priesthood allows the author to say "by interpretation" that Jesus belongs to an order of priesthood, and that this order is superior to the order of Aaron because eternal, prior to that of Aaron, deferred to by it, and permanent. The author then presents Jesus as "better" than the angels who mediated the Aaronic covenant, because he was better equipped to do for men what a priesthood is supposed to do. He is "better" than Moses because he leads men into the "rest of God" whereas Moses failed to do this. He is "better" than the Aaronic priests because he successfully removes the barrier of men's sin from obstructing their progress to God, and brings men fully into the presence of God. The sanctuary in which Jesus ministers is the true, original and actual sanctuary of God in heaven of which the Aaronic sanctuary is but an earthly copy made with hands. In this heavenly sanctuary there is no separation between men and God for Jesus has removed the veil of separation that kept them apart. Into this sanctuary Jesus enters as the forerunner of men by virtue of his own blood offered in sacrifice. This sacrifice is adequate to cleanse men's consciences of "dead works" and to bring men to the mercy seat of the Eternal. Jesus fulfils the real purposes of priesthood and he achieves for men the true ends of religion. In him they gain complete salvation. The author does not start with Jesus as priest, he ends with him as such. Having noted the priestly services which Jesus successfully performs, he concludes from this fact that Jesus is a priest, a superior priest, and the supreme priest. This is the proof which the author presents for the priesthood of Jesus. When it is examined, it is found to consist of scriptural proof-texting, allegorical imagining and ingenious analogy making. It is all confessional claim, and not objective proof, judged by any standards of technical, logical argumentation. He has worked out the ministry of Jesus as a priest in terms of analogy and typology. These are literary rather than logical devices, however, His material is testimony, confession, witness and affirmation. Using this material the author has not proved and cannot prove his case that Jesus is a priest in any objective, logical sense. It is not material that can be so proved. The author's real case for the priesthood of Jesus rests upon his own Christian experience and that of his readers; it is proof or evidence of a religious character. This experience, though not subject to logical substantiation, cannot be refuted, and must be allowed to be a valid representation of truth. The author's justification for calling Jesus a priest is found in the fact that he accomplished for sinful men what priesthood should accomplish and failed. His proof does not stand up logically, but truth is truth whether it can be proved logically or not. Proof is intended only to help others to see the truth and to confirm it, never to create it. Formal proof is not the only kind of legitimate argumentation. Testimony, confession, witness of others and allegory are also legitimate methods of helping men to appropriate the truth. In order to utilize all of the features of this web site, JavaScript must be enabled in your browser. Albert Vanhoye, who has worked for many years studying the Epistle to the Hebrews, now brings one of the most authoritative contemporary commentaries to a wider audience, articulating the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ for the first Christian communities. In A Different Priest , a detailed analysis of the text of Hebrews enables us to conclude that this is the full text of a splendid Christian preaching text. The first part of this work, which examines the name of Christ, offers a general and contemporary Christology. The next two parts offer a priestly Christology, first more general and then more specific. Finally, the last two parts show the result of this for the Christian life. In the Logos edition of A Different Priest , you get easy access to Scripture texts and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. Albert Vanhoye entered the Society of Jesus in He obtained his Licence en Lettres from the Sorbonne and his doctorate in biblical studies from the Biblical Institute in Rome. One of the most recognized scholars on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he taught exegesis at Chantilly before being appointed as a professor at the Biblical Institute, where he taught exegesis and New Testament biblical theology from until and served as the rector. Vanhoye was a member of the Biblical Commission from until , and its secretary from until He has published many works on exegesis, biblical theology, and spirituality. A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews | Logos Bible Software

Date Issued Author s Hydon, Paul Vernon. Export Citation Download to BibTex. Metadata Show full item record. Abstract The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews claims that Jesus is a priest. This is a unique and original claim, since no other New Testament document calls him a priest, and none of Jesus' contemporaries apparently thought of him in this manner. The question naturally arises whether the author's claim that Jesus is a priest is a legitimate one or not. What does he mean by calling Jesus a priest? How does he justify the use of the term in connection with Jesus? Does he sufficiently support his case with the material which he advances for evidence? Is it possible to establish his claim with this evidence and this line of argument? Are his claims and procedure valid? Other interpreters of the priesthood of Jesus as presented by this epistle have said that the author starts with Jesus as priest and concludes from this assumption that Jesus fulfils priestly functions. They have said, too, that the proof which the author presents to establish Jesus as a priest is adequate for this purpose and valid. They hold that he proves his case by the methods he uses. But their treatments are dominated by theological and speculative considerations which raise no question in criticism of the author's presenting Jesus as a priest or of the validity of such a claim. An examination of the nature of priesthood in general and of the Aaronic priesthood of the Old Testament in particular indicates that priesthood is concerned with the relations between human beings and the superhuman beings whom they know as a god, gods, or God, for the benefit of both. In a word, a priest is the mediator between men and God, offering men's sacrifices and revealing God's judgments and will. Priests strive to gain forgiveness for men's sins and to establish communion between men and God. To become a priest a candidate must meet very rigorous requirements of a technical and professional nature. He must be intensively trained in all of the ceremonial practices of priesthood and elaborately initiated into the ranks of priests. Priests belong to an order of priesthood and are associated with a sanctuary. The author of this epistle appeals to the Aaronic priesthood as the very highest expression of professional priesthood that he knows. If any priesthood could have been expected to fulfil successfully the functions of priesthood, this priesthood should have been expected to do so in his judgment, for it was instituted by God himself. He uses this priesthood as a medium of comparison for the priesthood of Jesus, and because of the familiarity of his readers with it, as a means of explaining to them the nature of Jesus' priesthood. He is highly appreciative of the Aaronic priesthood and exalts it in order to exalt even more the priesthood of Jesus which he claims is better than it. Despite his high regard for the Aaronic priesthood, the author believes that it has failed to achieve the real purposes of priesthood and the true ends of religion. Its two chief failures are failure to remove the obstacles, hindrances, and hurdles which separate men from God, particularly men's sins, and failure to gain access for men to God. From the emphasis which the author lays on these two failures, it follows that he believes that true and successful priesthood must fulfil these two functions. Priesthood must deal adequately with sins and other barriers in the sinner's approach to God, and must bring men to God. The author is aware of the technical, professional and ceremonial requirements of priesthood. He recognizes, too, that Jesus could never be a priest according to any such professional priestly order. He admits frankly that Jesus is not a priest after the order of Aaron. Since he needs to belong to some order of priesthood, he makes him a priest after the order of Melchizedek on the strength of a quotation from Psalm which calls the Messiah such a priest. Since Christians hold Jesus to be the Messiah, he must therefore be a Melchizedek priest. The Melchizedek priesthood allows the author to say "by interpretation" that Jesus belongs to an order of priesthood, and that this order is superior to the order of Aaron because eternal, prior to that of Aaron, deferred to by it, and permanent. The author then presents Jesus as "better" than the angels who mediated the Aaronic covenant, because he was better equipped to do for men what a priesthood is supposed to do. He is "better" than Moses because he leads men into the "rest of God" whereas Moses failed to do this. He is "better" than the Aaronic priests because he successfully removes the barrier of men's sin from obstructing their progress to God, and brings men fully into the presence of God. The sanctuary in which Jesus ministers is the true, original and actual sanctuary of God in heaven of which the Aaronic sanctuary is but an earthly copy made with hands. In this heavenly sanctuary there is no separation between men and God for Jesus has removed the veil of separation that kept them apart. Attridge, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 91 Leiden, , —, at — He also expresses this attitude openly at points, as for example in his SNTS presidential address where he muses that the society must, in appointing him president, have desired to honour the Letter to the Hebrews. It is rather to note that structure has a role to play in interpretation, and it plays this role at every level. That is, it sets the scene for the two contrasting possibilities producing useful or useless vegetation , rather than forming part of the comment on the good response only — and by inference compounding the critique of the bad response. Thus the fruitful and unfruitful terrains have undergone the same experience and it is their response to this that is highlighted; there is a balance to the agricultural illustration which, instead of simply underlining the threat of 6. This is an example, then, of how Vanhoye explores structure at the level of individual words and phrases as an essential part of his interpretation of two verses, which in turn fosters a more nuanced understanding of the structure of the wider context. Here his prior work on structure is adduced briefly to highlight the significance of the phrase within the sentence through discussion of a carefully diagrammed chiasm. Then he locates this verse in relation to the wider context of 9. These verses are in turn connected with the discussion of tent and sanctuary in 8. Here he addresses structural work he had not previously undertaken in depth, rather than building on his earlier research, yet we observe the same attention to structure at several levels. He begins by examining the substructure of the short injunctions in He considers the integration of Hebrews 13 with the letter as a whole, arguing for identity of authorship and situating He also discusses the nature of the transition at His failure to take into account the structural significance of the parallel exhortations in 4. The more explicitly method-driven approaches of Graham Guthrie and Cynthia Long Westfall, in particular, have seemed more persuasive to many. It is instructive therefore to begin by exploring how Vanhoye understands the term. Page references included in the text in what follows are to this interview. A couple of further quotations fill out this depiction: If one does not explain the religious meaning of a biblical writing, one has not explained the text adequately […] the religious meaning of the Bible is always present, and it is the indispensable task of exegesis to discover and communicate it. Exegesis emphasizes the content of faith, divine revelation, and the invitation to a renewed existence that is at the heart of the biblical text. Conversely and correspondingly, every part of the life of the church should be influenced by exegesis. Thus understood, exegesis is an historically- informed and rigorous engagement with the full meaning of the text, which is distinct from but conducive to subsequent theological and ecclesial reflection and application. He engages the immediate and wider context of Hebrews to relate this to the combustion of the sacrificial victim in the fire of the altar of burnt offering. In support of this he explores the Old Testament depiction of the various offerings that were burned, in part or whole, and the account in 2 Maccabees of the miraculous preservation of the altar fire as naphtha. All of this is straightforward historical exegetical procedure. Yet the article is framed by a wide-reaching dialogue with a tradition of interpretation stretching from the early church through the Reformation to modern commentators. At the same time, and in line with his understanding of the nature and role of exegesis, this interpretation is explicitly undertaken with a view to the subsequent meaning of the text for the church. Similarly we might note his various popular writing and speaking for Roman Catholic laity and clergy. Indeed, one of the great contributions of the Second Vatican Council was to set ministerial priesthood firmly back in the context of the high priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all the faithful, points on which there is significant ecumenical consensus. An openness or even explicit attention to application is evident in many of the pieces in this volume. Two pieces are worth highlighting in that they set out from a contemporary issue and interrogate biblical texts from that perspective. Chapter 11 examines the question of human rights in dialogue with the papal encyclical Redemptor Hominis. Here Vanhoye recognizes the gulf of language and conceptuality that divides the ancient from the modern world, but identifies two rights, that of rule over creation, and of access to God, which Hebrews ascribes to the people of God. Both of these rights are restored by Christ. We note a concern for contemporary application, although it is perhaps here not entirely successful: the language of rights as Vanhoye applies it to Hebrews may offer a new perspective on the text, but he does not bring the rights he identifies into conversation with the specific modern understanding of human rights as applying to freedoms or entitlements of the person with respect to other individuals, society, and property. Instead, the closing note is that 16 Picquart, Entretiens, This is important so far as it goes, but hardly commensurate with the cosmic scope of the biblical picture he has just traced. A more successful example might be cited in the previous piece. Chapter 10 forefronts a phrase of Pope John Paul II, who had stated that God had never revoked the old covenant, and explores whether this perspective finds support in the New Testament. Vanhoye is aware of the sensitivities in Jewish-Christian relations that bear on the question, and makes a distinction between the prophetic and institutional life of the old covenant. The former persists in the words of the Old Testament, but the latter has come to an end — indeed, the Old Testament scriptures foretell the demise of their own institutions. A text such as Hebrews goes further than the Pauline corpus but is in line with their overall thrust and direction. Vanhoye is open to the possibilities of a text such as Hebrews 11 for Jewish-Christian relations, but ultimately in Hebrews and throughout the New Testament relationship with God is reframed christologically: Christ cannot be excised from the picture, and this will always be a point of difference between Christian and Jewish understandings of covenant. Thus actualization, for Vanhoye, speaks to the contemporary setting and yet at the same time is bound by the frame of responsible biblical exegesis. Rationale and Contents of This Volume It has been the expectation within Anglophone biblical studies that, in addition to the ancient languages, scholars should read at least German and French; but the reality is that many scholars do not today achieve this. Long gone are the days when university entrants had already had exposure to Latin, Greek, French, and German in the course of their time at in the British context grammar school or public school. Moreover, given the continued strength of Germanic biblical studies, it is natural that the first language to go, as it were, should be French. The priesthood of Jesus as presented by the Epistle to the Hebrews

Finally, the last two parts show the result of this for the Christian life, lived out in faith, hope and charity. The author of this work, has worked for many years on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, notably, has taught it at the Biblical Institute and published a great number of specialist articles and Books on it, and now brings one of the most contemporary authoritative commentaries to a wider audience, contributing with the understanding of the unique Priesthood of Jesus Christ for the first Christian communities. In this work, a detailed analysis of the text known as the Epistle to the Hebrews enables us to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that this is the full text of a splendid Christian preaching, which constantly conforms to the rules of Semitic rhetoric, including various genres of parallelism, synonymis, antithesis and complementarity, and obeying a concentrically symmetrical schema. He is one of the most recognized scholars on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Download Free PDF. Moore and Richard J. Nicholas Moore. Richard Ounsworth. It seeks primarily to make available to a wider audience a number of important pieces of work by a prominent scholar on a particular field. Within this overarching aim there nestles a secondary yet inseparable intent to pay homage to that scholar and his scholarship. This particular volume had its genesis in the doctoral work of the editor-translators, who both undertook research on the Letter to the Hebrews at Oxford just a few years apart. In the course of our studies we found ourselves indebted at numerous points to the work of the French Roman Catholic scholar, Albert Vanhoye. He spent brief spells in the chantier de jeunesse the replacement for military service in Vichy France and in the French Army following the Allied landings. At the completion of his training he was ordained priest, on 25 July He taught New Testament for a short period in Chantilly, at the Jesuit scholasticate recently relocated from Enghien. He completed a doctorate in sacred scripture at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in , on the structure of the Letter to the Hebrews, which was to form the basis for his published work on this topic. In he began to teach at the Pontifical Institute, where he would spend the rest of his career. He was Dean of the Biblical Faculty there from —, and Rector of the Institute from — Vanhoye Card. Albert, S. He retired in at the age of Among his ecclesiastical appointments and responsibilities, Vanhoye was part of the commission which prepared the Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana , on ecclesiastical universities and faculties. In the scholarly community Vanhoye joined the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in , and served as its President in His presidential address was subsequently published in New Testament Studies and is included as the third essay in this volume. He served on the editorial board of the journal Biblica from , and was editor from until he stepped down from the board in This was in , when he was over 80 and therefore excluded from an elective conclave of the College of Cardinals, and thus the appointment is purely honorific, and Vanhoye was not consecrated bishop. This is reflected by his numerous publications in several European languages, across eight decades, and at both scholarly and more popular levels. His work on priesthood took place in the context of the Second Vatican Council — Innocentia Richards Rome, Bernard Orchard Petersham, MA, Attridge, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 91 Leiden, , —, at — He also expresses this attitude openly at points, as for example in his SNTS presidential address where he muses that the society must, in appointing him president, have desired to honour the Letter to the Hebrews. It is rather to note that structure has a role to play in interpretation, and it plays this role at every level. That is, it sets the scene for the two contrasting possibilities producing useful or useless vegetation , rather than forming part of the comment on the good response only — and by inference compounding the critique of the bad response. Overview Albert Vanhoye, who has worked for many years studying the Epistle to the Hebrews, now brings one of the most authoritative contemporary commentaries to a wider audience, articulating the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ for the first Christian communities. Key Features Analyzes the text of Hebrews Examines the structure of the homily Discusses the composition and biblical context. Praise for the Print Edition. This is a rich study that reflects a lifetime of careful scholarship and profound reflection on its subject. His book is a unique contribution to biblical rhetoric and Christian theology, and it will be a fascinating resource—rare and invaluable—for preachers and scholars of preaching. Eunjoo M. Hebrews offers its readers a high Christology and some memorable passages, and this book looks at all of that in great detail. About Albert Vanhoye.

In the course of our studies we found ourselves indebted at numerous points to the work of the French Roman Catholic scholar, Albert Vanhoye. He spent brief spells in the chantier de jeunesse the replacement for military service in Vichy France and in the French Army following the Allied landings. At the completion of his training he was ordained priest, on 25 July He taught New Testament for a short period in Chantilly, at the Jesuit scholasticate recently relocated from Enghien. He completed a doctorate in sacred scripture at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome in , on the structure of the Letter to the Hebrews, which was to form the basis for his published work on this topic. In he began to teach at the Pontifical Institute, where he would spend the rest of his career. He was Dean of the Biblical Faculty there from —, and Rector of the Institute from — Vanhoye Card. Albert, S. He retired in at the age of Among his ecclesiastical appointments and responsibilities, Vanhoye was part of the commission which prepared the Apostolic Constitution Sapientia Christiana , on ecclesiastical universities and faculties. In the scholarly community Vanhoye joined the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in , and served as its President in His presidential address was subsequently published in New Testament Studies and is included as the third essay in this volume. He served on the editorial board of the journal Biblica from , and was editor from until he stepped down from the board in This was in , when he was over 80 and therefore excluded from an elective conclave of the College of Cardinals, and thus the appointment is purely honorific, and Vanhoye was not consecrated bishop. This is reflected by his numerous publications in several European languages, across eight decades, and at both scholarly and more popular levels. His work on priesthood took place in the context of the Second Vatican Council — Innocentia Richards Rome, Bernard Orchard Petersham, MA, Attridge, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, 91 Leiden, , —, at — He also expresses this attitude openly at points, as for example in his SNTS presidential address where he muses that the society must, in appointing him president, have desired to honour the Letter to the Hebrews. It is rather to note that structure has a role to play in interpretation, and it plays this role at every level. That is, it sets the scene for the two contrasting possibilities producing useful or useless vegetation , rather than forming part of the comment on the good response only — and by inference compounding the critique of the bad response. Thus the fruitful and unfruitful terrains have undergone the same experience and it is their response to this that is highlighted; there is a balance to the agricultural illustration which, instead of simply underlining the threat of 6. This is an example, then, of how Vanhoye explores structure at the level of individual words and phrases as an essential part of his interpretation of two verses, which in turn fosters a more nuanced understanding of the structure of the wider context. Here his prior work on structure is adduced briefly to highlight the significance of the phrase within the sentence through discussion of a carefully diagrammed chiasm. Then he locates this verse in relation to the wider context of 9. These verses are in turn connected with the discussion of tent and sanctuary in 8. Here he addresses structural work he had not previously undertaken in depth, rather than building on his earlier research, yet we observe the same attention to structure at several levels. He begins by examining the substructure of the short injunctions in He considers the integration of Hebrews 13 with the letter as a whole, arguing for identity of authorship and situating He also discusses the nature of the transition at His failure to take into account the structural significance of the parallel exhortations in 4. The more explicitly method-driven approaches of Graham Guthrie and Cynthia Long Westfall, in particular, have seemed more persuasive to many. It is instructive therefore to begin by exploring how Vanhoye understands the term. Page references included in the text in what follows are to this interview. A couple of further quotations fill out this depiction: If one does not explain the religious meaning of a biblical writing, one has not explained the text adequately […] the religious meaning of the Bible is always present, and it is the indispensable task of exegesis to discover and communicate it. Exegesis emphasizes the content of faith, divine revelation, and the invitation to a renewed existence that is at the heart of the biblical text. Conversely and correspondingly, every part of the life of the church should be influenced by exegesis. Thus understood, exegesis is an historically- informed and rigorous engagement with the full meaning of the text, which is distinct from but conducive to subsequent theological and ecclesial reflection and application. He engages the immediate and wider context of Hebrews to relate this to the combustion of the sacrificial victim in the fire of the altar of burnt offering. In support of this he explores the Old Testament depiction of the various offerings that were burned, in part or whole, and the account in 2 Maccabees of the miraculous preservation of the altar fire as naphtha. All of this is straightforward historical exegetical procedure. Yet the article is framed by a wide-reaching dialogue with a tradition of interpretation stretching from the early church through the Reformation to modern commentators. At the same time, and in line with his understanding of the nature and role of exegesis, this interpretation is explicitly undertaken with a view to the subsequent meaning of the text for the church. Similarly we might note his various popular writing and speaking for Roman Catholic laity and clergy. He has taught it at the Ponti? Convert currency. Add to Basket. Book Description Convivium Press, More information about this seller Contact this seller. Condition: New. First edition. Language: English. Brand new Book. Seller Inventory UGH Seller Inventory BZV Seller Inventory M Dispatched, from the UK, within 48 hours of ordering. This book is in Brand New condition. Seller Inventory CHL Vanhoye, Albert. Publisher: Convivium Press , This specific ISBN edition is currently not available. View all copies of this ISBN edition:. Synopsis About this title The first part, which only examines one theme, the Name of Christ, offers a general and contemporary Christology. In this work, a detailed analysis of the text known as the Epistle to the Hebrews enables us to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that this is the full text of a splendid Christian preaching, which constantly conforms to the rules of Semitic rhetoric, including various genres of parallelism, synonymis, antithesis and complementarity, and obeying a concentrically symmetrical schema "synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title. From the Back Cover : "The author of this commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews is a venerable Jesuit biblical scholar who served as Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and whose service to the church as a scholar was rewarded by his being named a Cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI.

https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4644878/normal_6020bbcb131ba.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9587488/UploadedFiles/F86890C4-0CAA-4E77-681F-92F6EE9375DA.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9592230/UploadedFiles/AB789FFF-EFD0-0B5E-6B77-E4FF1D7CA436.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4637035/normal_601f97a184488.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9585887/UploadedFiles/DD028624-0A50-DB91-9082-36CB2193E233.pdf