The Recipients of the Letter "To the Hebrews" Ethnic Background C I C Ir

INTRODUCTION

The Recipientsof the Letter "To the Hebrews" m ir EthnicBackground sc w One centralquestion concerning the addresseesis their ethnic composition.The th majority of extantmanuscripts bear the superscriptionIIPOI EBPAIOYL,5 and at ever sinceTertullian (De pudic.20) referredto the text by this title, the assump- vi tion of a JewishChristian audiencehas been predominant' With this assumption c( in place,numerous aspectsof the letter can then be usedto "prove" the conjec- sl ture.6Prominent among theseproofs is the suggestionthat the author's wide- ranging use of the OT, and the weight he placeson arguments from the OT' would ti have been meaningful chiefly to an audience of Jewishorigin. Moreover' the au- tL thor's use of exegeticalmethods, which came to characterizerabbinic Judaism, ni suggestsa Jewishenvironment for both author and recipients.The author'sinter- G est in the Jewishcult "would probably haveleft gentile readerscold."7 Proving the vi obsolescenceof the Old Covenantis thought to be a matter of importance for G Iewish,not Gentile,Christians.8 The resultof this assumptionis almostinevitably the suggestionthat the problem addressedby Hebrews is a potential reversion to (( fudaism on the part of JewishChristians who seekto avoid ongoingtension with c( their non-Christian fewish familiesand neighbors.e la There is, however,nothing compelling us to view the Christian addressees in origin. Unlike the author of the Pau- asexclusively, or predominantly,Iewish I. (as I Peterand Revelation),the author of Hebrews line letters well asbooks like tt "To the Hebrews"represents identifies neither himself nor his readers.The title IT an early conjecture concerning the addresseesbased on an estimation of the contents.l0This ascription could well be ideologicallymotivated. As the move- w

5. With varyingdegrees of elaboration,e.g., "To the Hebrewswritten from Rome"or tI ^l "ltaly;'"To the Hebrewswritten from Romeby Paulto thosein Jerusalem,"and the like. 5l 6. F.Delitzsch (comrnentary on theEpistle to theHebrews,2 vo1s. fEdinburgh: T. & T. tl Clark, 1871-721,l:4,20-21) assumeswithout discussionthat the audienceis composedof o ]ervishChristians, and, moreover,that they must be residentin Palestinewhere the distinction between"Hebrew" and "Hellenist"Jews had meaning.A locationnear the templeis also L inferred from the author's interest in the levitical cult (despitethe fact that the author speaks u'holly of the deserttabernacle and neverthe stonetemple). c 7. Paul Ellingworth, commentaryon Hebrews(NIGTC; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, o 1993).25. i 8. Thus Gleason,"Old TestamentBackground," 67. 9. David Peterson,Hebrews and Perfection: An Examinationof theConcept of Perfection n in the'Epktleto theHebrews'(SNTSMS 47; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1982), c 186;philip E.Hughes, A commentaryon the Epistleto theHebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, P 1977),i8-19; Ray C. Stedman,Hebrews (Dorvners Grove, IL: IntervarsityPress, 1992), 11-13; Ir Gleason,"Old TestamentBackground," 69. it 10.Ellingworth , Hebrews,2l;Thomas Long \ HebrewsIInterpretation; Louisville, KY: ti The Recipientsof the Letter ment developedand the gap between synagogueand church widened into an irreparable chasm, having a canonical "response"to the parent religion - a sort of indirect manifesto of supersessionism- would havebeen valuableas a witness to the legitimacy of the sect'sexistence and ideology.The literature of the early Church atteststo the importance of the sect'sself-definition over againstJudaism,il and this letter, with its prominent use of the rhetorical device of synkrisis(comparison, here between Jesus and the mediators of the "old covenant"), could reinforce that task admirably. Not much weight, therefore, should be placed on "external attestation"on this point. Arguments based on what would be appropriate or relevant to Chris- tians of one race over another are even more specious.The Gentile entering the Christian community became an "heir of the promise," a "child of Abra- ham," the "Israel of God," the "circumcision," and the "royal priesthood, God's holy nation."12That is to say,the Gentiie Christian was socialized to view himself or herself as the heir to the titles and promises that belonged to God's chosen people (historically, the Jewish people). The Gentile Christian was also enculturated to regard the Jewish Scriptures as the "oraclesof God" (cf. Heb. 5:12,where these serveas the primary textbook of the Christian converts), and was taught to read those oracles,moreover, as the divine revelation that legitimatedthe Christian hope and shapedthe Christian ethos.13

]ohn Knox, 19971,\) boidly but correctlysuggests that the person"who attacheda title to this document . . rvasprobably just speculatingabout its original recipientsand was as much in the dark as we are." 1I . Compare the Epistleof Barnabas;Epistle to Diognetus3-4; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. 12.Gal.3:291'6:6;Phil.3:3; 1 Pet.2:9.This is not to suggestthat everyChristian u'as rn- troducedto ali theseepithets as the common propertyof the Christianculture, but merelytcr showthe wide-rangingtendency to createthe sect'sidentity out of the termsand conceptsof the parent religion. 13.This point waswell madeby JamesMoffatt, A Criticaland ExegeticalCommentary on theEPistle to theHebrews (ICC; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1924),xvi-xvii: "how much the LXX meant to GentileChristians may be seenin the caseof a man like Thtian,for example, who explicitiy declaresthat he owed to reading the OT his conversion to Christianity (Ad Graecos,2g)."Justin (Dial.8) hasa similar testimony.Wiliiam Robinson("The Eschatology of the Epistleto the Hebrews:A Study in the Christian Doctrine of Hope," Encotufter22 il96l): 37-51,40) posits a mixed congregation,arguing that "the title is certainlymisleading. Most probablyit arosebecause of the interestin the Old Testamentsacrificial system; but this neednot necessitatea iewish-Christiangroup of readers,as the PaulineEpistles show that Gentileconverts to Christianitywere assumedto be familiar with the JewishBackground." P. M. Eisenbaum (The JewishHeroes of Christian History: Hebrews I1 in Literary Conte.xt ISBLDSI 56;Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997],9) also contends that the volumeof useof the OT in Hebrewsdoes not speakto the ethnicidentity ofthe addressees:"That the pastfor Chris- tians amountsto the biblical history of Israelis indicativeof two things not necessarilyre- INTRODUCTION

Christian worship and proclamation involved the reading of these oracles and their exposition in the distinctive Christian manner. The canonical texts provide only a few windows into the lives of the early Christian communities' What happened in Christian communities in the "everyday" rhythm of as- sembling for worship and teaching was likely to be oriented toward instruc- 'l tion from the OT as well as from the teachings of fesus (which were, them- I selves,largely concerned with deriving an ethic from the iewish Scriptures). We must not allow the plight of so many modern Gentile Christians, with : their relative lack of knowledge of the OT, to color our understanding of the first-century convert, for whom the OT was the revelation of God's will, the source (together with the experienceof the Spirit) for the legitimation of the sect and the hope to which those converts clung. Both Galatiansand I Peteraddress audiences that are in some major part Gentile.The argument of Galatians(the exhortation againstreceiving circumcision,which would be a moot issuefor thoseborn Jews)is particularly pointed toward Gentile convertsto Christianity.laThat text employsan extendedexpo- sition from the story of Abraham in Genesis,as well as texts from Deuteron- omy, Habakkuk, Leviticus, and Isaiah, and expounds thesetexts according to rules familiar from rabbinic exegesis.I Peter,addressing those who "no longer join" in with their Gentile neighbors,is even richer in oral-scribal intertexture with the OT' aswell as allusionsand referencesto OT figuresand stories.I Co- rinthians 10:1-13derives moral instruction from a string of eventsconnected with the exodusgeneration but does so in an allusivemanner that presumesa high degreeof familiarity with these storieson the part of the largely Gentile Christian audience. The use of the OT in Hebrews,then, doesnot necessitateor evensuggest an audiencemade up primarily of JewishChristians. Gentile Christians - especially those who have been attached to the Christian community for some time, as it seemslikely that thesehave - would alsobe familiar with thosetexts and keenlyinterested in their interpretation. Sincethey were instructed to read

lated to the make-up of the community: the burgeoningreligion's Jewish origins and the needof the first missionariesfor jewish scripturein their apoiogetics."She also concludes t lewishHeroes,S) that a mixed audienceof Iewishand GentileChristians is the bestconclu- sion to be drawn. 14.Ellingworth (Hebrews,23)claims that "the argumentthat Galatiansproclaims to gentileChristians freedom from the law of Moses,and that Hebrewscould thereforesimi- lar11.use OT evidencein writing to gentiles,rests on the questionablepresupposition that the GalatianChristians were all of gentileorigin." This is a falseanalysis of the argument,however.The argumentpresumes that the GentileChristians, who weremost directlyaffected by the outcomeof the Galatiandebate, would havebeen adequately instructed in the OT to foi- 1owand acceptPaul's argument. The presenceof ]ervishChristians in the audienceis not rel- evantto this point. The Recipientsof the Letter 5

RS them by Iewish christians like Paul and his team,we should considerthe likeli- ti hood that Gentile christians would have been exposed,at leastinductively, to 5. rules of interpretation such as gezerashawa (which becomesa cardinal rule of 5- Christian interpretation of scripture as well, as "concordant scriptures" in Au- gustine's De Doctrina christiana) or qal wahomer (also part and parcel of l- Greco-Roman argumentation) in the course of this instruction.ls Moreover, the interest in the levitical cultus in Hebrews would probably not, contrary to h Paul Ellingworth's suggestion,leave Gentile christians cold. Both Jewishand le Gentile Christians were socializedinto a sectthat required both an acceptance 1a of the or as a record of divine revelation and a rejectionof the contemporary 1e validity of the covenant and priesthood therein described (or, better, com- manded).16Hebrews strongly reinforces this dual orientation to the Jervish n Scriptures.Gentile believerscould "warm up" to the central exposition of He- t- brews(7:1-10:18), as well as its other comparisonsof the advantagesof those d belonging to the new covenantover those who labored under the old, as rele- )- vant for severalpurposes. First, the author gives them a salvation-historical t- perspectiveon their situation.As thosewho draw near to God through the new io covenant, they are more privileged, more secure in their hope, and further ?r along to the goal of God's deliveranceand kingdom than the "people of God" re had ever been.This enhancesthe significanceof belonging to, and importance )- of remaining with, the christian community, as well as stimulates gratitude d and loyalty at being favoredbeyond their inherited predecessors. ,] Second,it servesthe well-known need of sectsto legitimate their exis- le tenceby proposing the failings of the parent body (here,Judaism) and the ways in which the sectmembers have been given the advantageof "true" knowledge 5i about how to approachto divine, what the divine plan entails,and the like. He- t- brews supports group definition and identity through developing a contrast le with an alternativegroup's ideology,stressing the superiority of christian ide- ls ology as a means of sustaining commitment. As the christian community d

15. How the scripturesare handled,however, says more about the author'sback- L ground and training than the recipients'ethnicorigin. l\ l6.F F.Bruce(TheEpistletotheHebrews INICNT;GrandRapids: Eerdmans, i990],6) T- believesthat the author'suse of the oT to sustaincommitment to the group provesthat Gen- tile christians are not in view, for if these were tempted to defect from the church, they !a would alsobe preparedto throw awaythe OT aswell, whereas lewish Christians would not. If their temptationto defect,however, is primarily social(yielding to society'sshaming tech- !< niquesat last) rather than ideological(rejecting the messageabout Christ and the texts ln t- which it wasgrounded), then the or would remain a valid body of textsfrom which to ele- n vateideological considerations over considerationsof social {- well-being.I do not, therefore, find Bruce'sargument necessary, or evenlikelS on this point. t- The addresseesneed reminding that ideologicalintegrity (commitment to the worldviervand vision of the srouD) is ulti- matelymore advantageousthan socialreintegration. INTRODUCTION

grows,it continuesto engagein this sort of ideologicalwarfare against both Ju- daism and paganismas part of the ongoing processof justi!'ing why "we" are not "them" and why "they" are the worse for it. Much of the literature of the first three centuriestreats the topic of u.hy Christianity is superior to the Mo- saiccovenant and the teachingsof Plato,to Jewishsacrifices and paganworship. Hebrewsresponds very well to this need,mainly with regard to non-Christian There is no need to assumethat, if Gentile Christians are in fact t Iudaism.lT among the intended readersof Hebrews,they would necessarilybe subject to ., the temptation to convert to Judaismin order for the author's messageto have relevance.l8All membersof sectsneed to be assuredthat their approachto God is the more effective,the more valid, the more secure,and it is preciselythis pnint that Hebrews reinforces. I find, therefore,no reasonto limit our readingof Hebrewsas a sermonad- dressingJewish Christians or even prominently interestedin the JewishChris- tians in the audience.leNeither would I push this in the oppositedirection and suggestthat Gentile Christiansare either prominent or especiallytargeted. The letter, unfortunately named, would be equally meaningful to Christians of any ethnic origin, sinceboth Jewishand Gentile convertsare socializedinto the same Christocentricreading of the sameScriptures. Just as Gentile readers have continued to find in Hebrewsjustification for their claim on God'spromises and access to God's favor even while they worship apart from the synagogueand God's his- toric people,so the Gentile Christiansin the first audiencewould not havebeen

17.We will explorebelow the purposeof comparisonwith the leviticalcultus, if not to forestall"reversion" to ]udaism,as u'eil as the author'schoice of facetsof Jewishtradition, ratherthan Greco-Romanreligion, for his demonstrationof the unique efficacyof the Son's mediationof accessto God. 18.Bruce (Hebrews,6 n. 13) and Gleason("old TestamentBackground," 67) readtoo much into the nonmentionof circumcision.The latter claimsthat "the lack of any reference to circuincisionrules out the possibilitythat he wasaddressing Gentile Christians attracted ro Juclaism."Aside from the problematicassumption that ail forms of Judaizinginvolved cir- cumcisionof Gentiles(that is to say,were as extreme as those of the JudaizingParty encoun- teredin Galatia),there is the more problematiccommitment to the view that Hebrewsis only meaningfulas an attempt to forestallconversion/reversion to non-ChristianJudaism. This commitmenthas long preventedreaders of Hebrewsfrom consideringthat the comparisons in Hebrewsserve primarily to shapea communal ideologythat would make any defection from the sect(wfiether to Iudaismor traditionalGreco-Roman religion) seem unprofitable. 19.A nun-rberof contemporaryscholars have also expressed strong skepticismcon- cerningthe validity of hypothesizinga iewish-Christianaudience. See Harold W. Attfidge, Hebrews(Hermeneia; Phiiadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 10-13 for a thorough reviewofthe dis- cussionas well asa balancedassessment ofthe evidence;Andrew H. Trotter,Jr., Interpreting theEpistle to the Hebrews(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1997),28-31. Some scholars, while opting for a mixed congregation,still put the emphasison a Iewish-Christianmajority. SeeV. C. Pfitzner,Hebrews (ACNT; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997),25; Eliingworth, Hebrews,2T ' iir The Recipientsof the Letter 7

- l:-r more prone to doze off during the readingof chapters7 through l0 than their t.c |ewish Christian sistersand brothers.Too much stock in the "lewish Christian" i. ..c audience hypothesis prevents us from seeing that the sustained synkrisis (com- t. parison) with the levitical cult servesideological needs of Gentile Christiansas il. well and unduly limits our appreciation for the contribution of this letter to the ;n world construction and group maintenanceof the early church.2oIn this com- r.-l mentary, therefore, we will be looking at how the sermon would be meaningful It) for DiasporaJewish christians and Gentile christians, how the argumentwould l\e impact and shapeboth elementsof a typical Christian assembly. ,. 1

]:S History of the Community

Although we are without certain knowledge of the city within which the ad- dresseesresided, the author of Hebrewsreveals several important aspectsof the community's history, from which we may gather a solid picture of the forma- tive influenceson their identity and their situation. The author speaksof their conversion,the elementsof their socializationinto the new group, and a particular period of heightened tension between the converts and their neighbors. l.i The rhetorical effects of reminding the hearers of these past events will be treatedin the commentary below.For now, thesepassages will provide us with a cn window into the life and history of the addressees. Hebrews 2:l-4 speaksof the conversion of the audience,or at least the core of that congregation,in responseto the proclamation of the gospelby the witnessesof ]esus.2lThe author recallsthat "God added his testimony by signs

20.It is frequentlyassumed that the author comparesJesus with respectedfigures cele- bratedin the JewishScriptures (angels, Moses, the leviticalhigh priests)out of a polernical agenda.Stedman (Hebrews,l 1), for example,misunderstands the function of thesecompari- sons,leading him to Posita ]ewish-Christianaudience contemplating a return to Jeivishtra- ditions.As this commentarywill demonstrate,these comparisons are not argumenlsagarnst returningto Jewishpractices (which, indeed, Jewish Christians need never have left behind). but rather serveto set up the exhortations,which are usuallywarnings based on a lesserto greaterargument (common to both )ewishand Greekrhetoric). Christ is shownto be greater than the angelsand Mosesin order to setup the proof that undergirdsthe author'swarnings againstbreaking faith with God:if the messagespoken through the angels(2:l-4) and Moses (10:26-31)was valid and transgressorswere duly punished,transgressions of the word that camethrough Jesusmust carry a proportionatelystiffer penalty since Christ is more honor- ablethan both angelsand Moses.Carefui attention to the author'sdevelopment of his arguments is requiredbefore too much can be read into a comparison. 21. The author'sinclusion of himself among thosewho came to faith through the preachingofthe witnessesargues strongiy against the attribution of this text to Pau1,who vo- ciferouslystresses his conversionthrough a direct revelationand not through human agency (Gal.1:11-17;1 Cor. l5:3-10). 8 INTRODUCTION

gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed and wonders and various miracles,and by is strikingly similar to to his will" ig"U' z'')' This brief account "..oraing in Galatiaand corinth paul,sreminiscences uuorrf tn. founding of the churches or miraculousphenomena are (Gal. 3:2-5; I Cor. 2:r-5), where againecstatic validity of the message.These times emphasizedas God,s confirmatioriof the with awarenessof divine pres- oi io__orrity formation were highly charged enceandpower'anawarenessth-atreinforcedcommitmenttotheChristian a Son" (Heb. 1:i). The congrega- messageas..divine word," God speaking.,in this time of firsthand experienceof tion should still have u J.r'ory, at least]of .,truth of the initiatory experiences the of the gospel."The author's reminders maythemselvesprovidethestrongestlegitimationforhischallenge,asitdidfor Paul in Galatians(3:i-5)' that the old, dictum that Hebrews provides further evidenceto suggest c1ass"22and that Christianity' in sects,in general,"are connectedwith the lower and burdened' the members p"rri."fJr, recruited "-ui"fy from the labouring consiste

the Chrktian Churches(2 vols.;London: 22. Ernst Troeltsch,The SocialTeaching of GeorgeAllen, 1931), 1:331' 23.Kar|MarxandF.Engels,onReligion,ed.ReinholdNiebuhr(Atlanta:Scholars Press,1964),334,3|6.!,xtensivecritiquestothisearlierview,aswellascarefulreconstruc- tionsofthesociallevelofChristiansintheCorinthianchurches,canbefoundinWayneA. World of the Apostle Yale Meeks, Ihe First IJrban Chri'stion'' The Social faul !flw.Haven: UniversityPress,lgS3),andGerdTheissen'ThesocialsettingofPaulineChristianity:Essaysin stateof the questionis helpfuily.reviewed on Corinth(Philadelphia:Fortress, 1982). The Testame.nt:An Appraisal(Minneapolis: Fortress, Bengt Holmbe rg, Sociotosland the New 1990).Meeks(Firstllrban'christians,S3-72)andTheissen(Socialsetting'70-96)developcri- teriafortheevaluationofsocialstatusandappl,vthesecriteriatotheCorinthianconglega- the lettercome most probablyfrom a higher tion, showingthat half of the persons,rurn.dl., social level. The Recipientsof the Letter 9 t:red to need warnings againstoverambition, with regard to both possessions(r3:5) t: to and status(13:la). The possibility of recoveringwealth and prestigein the non- ':1th christian society,which appearsto be the principal morivation to niae or sever r Jre one'sattachment to the christian group, tells us that at leastsome of the recipi- ,,la- !:]tes ents come from the "propertied" classes;not all cameto christianity asthe bouring and burdened." In all probability, the community was composed of !: iJn people from a wide range of social strata,as in the congregationsabout which more is known (e.g.,Rome, Corinth, or Thessalonica).2a ..1of The author refers also to the processby which the convertswere social- i:tces ized into the new group, or forged into a new community, the basicelements of c tirr the curriculum being given in 5:l l-6:3. They were taught "the basic elements ,.the of the oraclesof God" (5:12), namely, the JewishScriptures,2s and basic teaching about christ" (6:l), which would naturally involve an exposition of the scriptures (particularly based on LXX versions) through the jens of the work of christ. The author refersto a "foundation" of "repentancefrom dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms,laying on of hands, resurrectionofthe dead,and eternaljudgment"(6:1b-2). The convertsthus ap- pear to havebeen exposedto a rather comprehensiveprocess of socialization. They were inculcated thoroughly into the christian movement'sconstruction of reality,as seenespecially in the temporal dimension of apocalypticeschatol- (resurrection ogy of the dead, eternal judgment, the age to come). while he usesPlatonic vocabulary,the author mainly relieson the temporal dualism of apocalypticism(the distinction between the presentage and ih. ug. to come) in shaping the responsehe calls for from the addressees,counting heavily on their acceptanceof this worldview. The converts also participated in a number of ritual acts that marked their entry into the new community, the value of which for their serf- understanding should not be overlooked.The author refers to "baptisms,,in .,ablu- the plural. It remains possible that "baptisms" here includes forms of tions," purificatory rituals that persistedin the early church from its ]ewish heritage (but that are not elsewhereattested in the NT). It remains probable, ):don: however,that the hearerswould recall their own baptism, which was the initiatory rite into the :::,.1lafS christian movement.26what did that rite mean for the initi_ ates? l.: rLlc- John'sbaptism as well as baptism in Acts (cf. Acts 2:3g) is related to the r.:tc A. 24. pljny r: \hle Holmberg, Sociology,T5; cf. (Ep. 10.96),who atteststhat the Christians came :,i,.4Jr's from "every social order." r' ed in 25. compare Rom. 3:2,which also speaksof the Scripturesas "the oraclesof God" ):iress, with which the Jewishpeople were entrusted. 26.The F :r cri- author of Hebrewsspeaks of partakingof the Holy Spirit in closeproximity to the mention of baptisms tirega- and layingon of hands,which raisesthe fossibility thai the double baptisms featured prominently eisewherein the epistresand in Ac1s,,ru-.iy, water baptism and the baptismof the Holy spirit, werepart of the community'sinitiatory experrences. 10 INTRODUCTION forgivenessof sins;so also in Hebrewsit is at leasta sign of the washing awayof past sins (10:22). The rite of baptism was calculated to have an even more profound impact on the consciousnessof thoseentering the waters.Paul's interpretation of the sig- nificance of baptism demonstrates that the ritual can effect a powerful change particularly in self-perception.Paul developsthe significanceof baptism through the languageof dying and rising with christ (Rom. 6:3-12),and it is probably with referenceto this identification with the crucified Christ in baptism that he says"It is no longer I who live,but it is Christ who livesin me" (Gal.2:20, NRSV)' As Mary Douglas explains, the ritual provides a way for the initiates to "die to their old life" and be "reborn to the ne'wi'27Mircea Eliade expressesthis in rather 'dissolved,'every'form' poetic phrases:"In water,everlthing is is broken up' everlthing that has happened ceasesto exist; nothing that was before remains after immersion in water. . . . Breaking up all forms, doing away with the past, water possessesthis power of purif ing, of regenerating,of giving new birth"'28 Victor Turner's analysisof the "ritual process"provides a helpful cross- cultural perspective.2eIn his model of how rituals work (particularly status- transformation, status-reversal,or status-elevationrituals), the statusand identity that a person had before the ritual beganis broken down and abolished.He or sheis now "marginal" or "liminal" with regardto society,not fitting into any of that society'slines of classification.During the ritual, a new statusand identity is formed (sometimesin the context of a strong, common bond with other initiates), and the person is reintegratedinto society at the completion of the ritual with this new statusor identity (aswell as the senseof camaraderiewith the fellow initiates). Rites of passagefrom childhood to adulthood, or from common statusto chieftain, fit this model very neatly. Baptism also functions as a rite ofpassageseparating initiates from their past life and associations- symbolically enactingtheir death and rebirth to a

27. Mary Douglas,Purity and Danger:An Analysisof conceptsof Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledgeand KeganPaul, 1966),96. The author of Hebrewsdoes not himself bring out this aspectof the significanceof baptism,and thereis somedanger in introducing Paulineconcepts at this point. We are not, however,here investigatingthe significanceof baptism for the author, but rather for those convertedby the witnesses(2:3) and subse- quently.It appearslikely from a number of datathat the congregationwas founded as part of the paulinemission (the similarityof the descriptionof its foundingwith the descriptionof the founding of the Galatianand Corinthian churchesand the indicationsthat the author bglongsto a Paulinecircle together with Timothy,a closeassociate of Paul),and thus the addressees'understanding of the significanceof their baptismneed not be limited to what the author of Hebrewsspecifically includes. 28. Cited in Douglas,Purity, 16l. 29.Victor Turner,The Ritual Process(lthaca, \Y: cornell UniversityPress, 1969), 94- 165.

i.i'' The Recipientsof the Letter I I

new life and set of associations.It possessesa qualitv of mortification, as the a'. of baptized are purified of that part of their past that they no longer wish to own. It enactssymbolically the renunciation of former allegiances,affiliations, and llJct '.io- relations.3OWhatever statusor identity initiates had before the rite, the waters (cf. from the waters, .rnge of baptism washedit away 1 Cor. 6:1I ). As they emerged they were joined to a new community, the "sanctified,"who are "washedwith -'.,roh ":" l.rLrlv pure water" (Heb. l0:22). The main differencefrom Turner'smodel, however,is liminal with regardto the larger .]t he that this reintegrationleaves them marginal or \s\-). society.Their new identity and statusis statuswithin the sect,not a new status movement compelsthe converts l:.' to recognizedby the society.The early Christian to keep e:her "to inhabit the fringes and intersticesof the social structure . . . and them in a permanent liminal state,where . . . the optimal conditions inhere for ; sner the realization of communitas."3lThis is especiallysignificant for the book of Hebrews,which developsat great length the theme of a pilgrimage faith and ri'.ltef emphasizesthe "passagequality of religious life,":z und so revealsas a major

'_,ri<- concernacceptance of the tensionssurrounding and resisting"liminality" with regard larger socialbody as a "permanent condition." tJius- to the "ground condition to be rJen- Not only were the converts down to a uniform were also "endowedwith t. He fashionedanew" in water baptism, however,but they powers to cope with their new station in life,":: hl ,rny additional to enable them (2:4; power of :.]en- namely,baptism in the Holy Spirit 6:4). This new accessto the "gifts (2:4) ,'lher God and experienceof the of the Spirit" servedas a reminder that This immediate pres- o: the something significant had changedin the converts'lives. of the world as far as the c rr'ith enceof the divine provided for a different experience as objec- ' :rom convertswere concerned,such that the world could no longer be seen tively identical to what it was for the convertsbefore initiation.3a had undergonea rigorous processofsocializa- t :heir The addressees,therefore, had experiencedritual and ecstatic li-. to a tion into the worldview of the sect and markers of transition from their old identity and statusto their new identity as the sanctified"people of God." Their rejection of their former valuesand asso- t,-.ilroo ciations, however, provoked significant counterreactions from their non- L::r self Christian neighbors.The community's confessionbrought them into a time of N-:ialng conflict with the larger society.While this did not lead to the deathsof the be- e:;e of lievers (12:4), they still "endured a severecontest of sufferings" (10:32).Some l:i0se- I ::,rt of

30.R. M. Kanter,Commitment and Community:Communes and Utopiasin Sociological f::thor (Cambridge: Press,1972), 7 3. t::t ad- Perspective Harvard University r:-:l the 31.Turner, Ritual Process,145. 32.Ibid., 107. JJ. ID1d.. v5. (New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionBooks, >- . 94- 34.M. J. Neitz, Charismaand Communl4, 1987).153. 12 INTRODUCTION

were made a pub- of the congregationwere subjectto reproach,and their trials who were so treated lic spectacie.bthe., demonstrated solidarity with those seizureof (to::a), evenwith those in prison (10:3a).Some also sufferedthe looting and pillaging their property, as a result either of an official decreeor of (10:3a)' while the owners were in prison, exiled, or otherwise occupied waysto the What would motivaie neighborsto respond in such negative who committed christians' newfound religious .o**it-e.tts? Those Gentiles on participation in themselvesto christianity inherited fudaism'srestrictions to the one the Greco-Roman world. on u..orrnt of their exclusivedevotion Godandtheaccompanyingrefusaltoacknowledgeanyotherdeity,mostChris- to idolatrous ceremo- tians avoidedany seiting in which they would be exposed cor.6:14-7:l; nies (seethe stresslaid on this abstinencein I cor. 10:i4-22;2 a part of almost I Thess.1:9). Since some form of religiousworship comprised world'3s every political, business,and social lnterprise in the Greco-Roman neighbors'would Christians adopted a lifestylethat, in the eyesof their pagan to the gods, ex- have been consideredantisocial and even subversive.Loyalty pressedinpiousattendanceatsacrificesandthelike'wasviewedasasymbol of the deities ?or loyalty io the state,authorities, friends, and family. worship that kept was something of a symbol for one's dedication to the relationships christians (like society stableand prosperous.By abstaining from the former, violators of the laws and the Jews)were regardedwith suspicion as potential acknowledgethe subversiveelements within the empire' Those who did not claimofthegodsontheirlivesandservicecouldnotbecountedontohonor the society.chris- the claims ofstate, law, family, and the traditional valuesof and were even tians were subjectedto prejudice, rumor, insult, and slander thus both dishonor- made the targeisof pogroms and local legalactions. It was "christian." ing and dangerousto Le associatedwith the name of Greco- Gentile Christians would be subject to the "discipline" of their valuesof piety' Roman neighbors on account of their flagrant violation of the pressurefrom gratitude, *d .i ri. unity; Iewish Christians would come under of all non-Christians iheir non-Christian Jewishfamily and associates.The goal of their former col- was the same- to correct the dangerousand vicious errors commitment of leaguesby any meansnecessary.36 I.rdeed, it wasessential to the

life in Greco-Roman 35.The pervaslvenessof cultic activitythroughout all aspectsof Paganismin theRoman societyhas been d.-o.rrtrut.d in suchworks asRamsay MacMullen, Empire(New Haven:Yale University Press, i98l)' 38-39'47' enduredby jewish 36. I Thess.2:73-l6provides an interestingcorrelation ofpressures and the |ewish resi- and Gentilechristians from both the Roman citizensof Thessalonica stigmaattached to the label dentsof Judea.For more detailedanalysis of the dishonorable DespisingShame: "Christian" in the first-centuryGreco-Roman rvorld, seeD' A' deSilva' Hebrews(SBLDS 152; At- Honor Discourseand community Mointrnonrein the Epistleto the lanta:Scholars Press, 1995), 146-54' The Recipients of the Letter 13 r tub- the non-christians to their own ideorogies to undermine the critique of their Ieated worldview implicit in the conve.sio.r if their neighbors and .rpii.it i' th. u:c of proclamation of the gospel.Their ,,right,,with own senseof being God or the Eiging gods was at stakein the.defection of their peersto this neiv sect.The recrpients of Hebrewscertainry felt the full force or trrr, discipiine. In the one experience :,r the of the community most fully described bv the author, we find that thesechris_ n:ltcd j.ianshale- suffered significant loss of statusand dignity as a result of their con_ t{ln ln fession'This passageis all the more significant given the author,s reticence . [)ne providing in details about the community's hisrory: (.::ris- rcnto- But rememberthe former daysin which, having beenenlightened, you en- .t--.1 . dured a hard conrestwith sufferings, in part being publiciy e"pos"d to ..- rinost proachesand afflictions,in part hauingbecome partners of thosebeing thus o:,d,r5 treated'For you both showedsympathy to the imprisonedand acceptedthe seizureof your propertywith joy, I. brruld ktlo*ing that you possessedbetter and ing last- l:. ex- possessions. (10:323q37 li.,', r::rbol we cannot know how iong ago the Ceities eventsof the "former days"transpired. A' that we can sayis that this p.irod n kept of pubric rejection,humiliation, and dispos- sessionbelongs to the community's past, r like and that the author p...;i;;, that the community must recover n rnd the same dedication and endurance that played they dis_ then but lack now This description, moreover, 3r rhe shows that r,vhatrvas chiefly at stake was the honor of h0tlor those who identified themserveswith the christian community in the eyesof }ris- their neighbors.These believers became the target of society'sdevian-cy-control i 3\'en techniqJes,most notably shaming, which alned at coercingthe believersto onor- return to a lifestyretrrut a.rrrorrrtrlr.a rr,.i. allegianceto the society'svalues and commitments. The experienceis described lreco- in terms of a public show: some portion the christian of community was subjectedto open reviling, t^..,') being herd up to ridi- cule and shame'3sThe term usedto describe irom ihe experience.rrok., the image of the theater (arena),where games, t: ians contests,and public punishments occurred.3e r col- 37'All translationsof passagesfrom crt of Hebrewsare my own, unlessotherwise indicated. 38' commentatorshave consistently recognizedthis aspectof the addressees,erperi_ Hebrews,299; ceslausspicq, IEpitre aux Hibreuxfparis: t :ran ;ffi\t'Attridge, Gabalda, 19521, -t,ttt t . 39' compare G' Kitter,"0edoprar," TDNT 3:43:"The Odarpovis by notaproud[spectacrel,bura.sorryandcontemptible[one]."lhirohuman standards, recounts rehrr.zs-ii,s4-s5,95) |rlish a vivid exampleof the public nature oi punishmentin his narration of the brutal h :esi- actronstaken against the Iewishinhabitants of Alexandria.Frogging and c..rbel formed crucifixionof Jer,r,s a spectacleand show(rl 06a,rd npc,:rarcrv oe0prarr,:v).simirarly, the recordof Nero,s i)'..irrte: executionof christians in Thcitus's Annars 15.44shows that derisionwas il: .{t- ment as crucial an ere_ aspain in dealingwith that marginalgroup. The recipientsof Hebrervs,of course,had not yet experiencedsuch excesses (12:4). I4 INTRODUCTION

control by The public imposition of disgrace constituted a device of social in, and oth- which the sociely sought to dissuadethe afflicted frorn continuing were subjected ers from joining, the Christian counterculture.The Christians ,,reproach" The first to uid "uffli.tion" (ro0ro trriv6ver6ropoiq re rci 6trirpeorv). sharedby ,.r- ,rrgg"r,sverbal assaultson honor and character,an experience society'sway *uny .urty christian communities.a0Shaming and reviling were and con- of ,reutralizingthe threat Christians posedto their view cf the world humiliation and stellationof ,ralresand allegiances.The burning experienceof to their for- rejection was gearedtowarJ "shaming" the deviantsinto returning mer convictions and obligations as members of the dominant culture'4l not The societyreinforced verbal "correction" with physicalabuse, which the degrada- only involved the inflicting of physicalpain but also underscored have noted the tion of the victim. Cultural anthropologistsand their students that person's closeconnection between a person'shonor and the treatment of world is body.a2That such was the case in the first-century Mediterranean of the physi- demonstrated,for example,in the way Philo of Alexandria speaks "insult." fiBptq,usu- cal punishment sufferedthereby the fewsas a "disgrace"or "assaultand battery." allytranslated "outrage" or "insult," is usedalso to refer to of He- Exposed to verbal and physical attacks on their honor, the recipients "status-degradationrit- brews had been subjectedto what has been called a to the abso- ual,,'a3by which a societyneutralizes the threat posedby deviants lute and ultimate characterof that society'svaiues and social arrangements' Anoteworthyaspectofthisexperiencewasthesolidarityshownbythose those who who had escapedbein! singledout for this public punishment with "partners with were subject.i to prrbii. humiliation. They voiuntarily became itself in thosethus treated,"that is, partnersr,vith the disgraced.This manifested imprisoned. the care shown by the community to those members who were prisonersin the Greco-Romanworld relied on family and friends from the out- Lucian sideto provide eventhe most basicof needs(food, clothing, medicine). a moving of Samosata,a second-century-A.D.writer of satiricalprose, provides would (if somewhat mocking) description of the resourcesa Christian group mobilize for one of its own (on the Death of Peregrinus12-13). The community

40.Compare 1 Pet.4:14-16and lvlatt'5:11' 4l'JohnChrysostom,commentingonl0:32,notestheporverofsuchdisapprovaland to pervert grantsof dishonor to affectjudgment: "ileproach is a greatthing' and calculated exceedingvainglorious' ih. ,o..1,and to darkenthe judgement.. . . Sincethe human raceis l thereforeit is easilyovercome by this" (NPNFl l'1:461;PG 63:149)' Honotrrand shame:The values of 42.Julian Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and SocialStatus," in 1965),25' Mediterraneansociety, ed. J. G. Peristiany(London: \\'eidenfeld and Nicolson, Deviance 43.Bruce Malina ancllerome Neyrer,, "Conflict in Luke-Acts:I-abelling and MA: Hendrickson' Theory,,,in The SocialWorld of Ltlke.-[6|'s,ed' J. I{. Nevrev tPeabodv, 1991).107. The Recipientsof the Letter 15

brought food and changesof clothing for their imprisoned brother, bribed the officersfor specialtreatment, and kept the prisoner company,cheering him day

,-l ,c!t and night. What Lucian describesin fiction can be seenin truth from Ignatius of Antioch's journey to execution at Rome. The apostie Paul, who was frequently in prison, similarly receivedgifts and encouragementfrom his commu-

IjV nities.aaRather than be concernedfor what the unbelieving societywould think

):l - of those who identified with such criminal deviants,the believersconsistently rird supported and maintained their bonds with their sistersand brotherswho rvere [)r- in prison or who were suffering society'sother "correctional" procedures.as A final component of the addressees'experiencealluded to by our author n.rI is the confiscationof the believers'property. The Greek term refersmost often ,:, to plundering, the looting to which abandoned properties often fell victim.a6 !te Even an officially sanctionedact, however,could be regardedas "plundering" )is by those suffering the loss.aTIt is also difficult to assessfrom this passingrefer- I ;.- encewhat sort of property was taken. A court or local officiai might have or- !..r- dered the seizureof land and house,or simply the imposition of a fine; unoffi- \rl- cial plundering (while the believerswere involved in trials or imprisonments) 'r\'." would involve the loss of movable property, but might neverthelessrepresent a He- substantialloss of wealth. "Plundering" could alsoindicate driving peoplefrom their homes in the context of a riot or pogrom.a8 t)()- Whether the loss of property was occasionedby officiai or unofficial sei-

.>. zure, the loss of material wealth translatesinto a loss of honor and status.In- I.'ie habitants of the ancient world did not accumulatewealth and possessionsfor rhO the sakeof ownership or pleasure,but barteredmaterial wealth for prestigeand r:th honor either through display at private banquets or through benefaction. l;;- When one lost material goods,one alsolost the raw materialsfor building pres- ncd. 44. This wasthe mission,for example,of Epaphroditus(Phil. 2:25). 45. The imprisonedwere aware of the sacrificemade on their behalf,as both "Paul" ciJn (2 Tim. 1:16)and Ignatius(Smyrn. 10) are awarethat their visitorshad to setaside the dis- r:ng graceattached to the prisoners'bondsand riskedfurther injuring their own reputationby as- ) rld sociatingwith prisoners.Such association could evenlead to the sympathizersfalling prey to nit\' the sametreatment, as it did for many |ews in the Alexandrianriots recountedby Philo tfLacc. /t). 46. CompareLtcian Peregr.l4; JosephusJ.W. 4.168; Philo Flacc.5.53-57. I :nd 47. Melito of Sardis,in his "Petition to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius" (cited in ?-.art Eusebius,Hist. eccl.4.26.5), bears witness to a sort of open policy for the pillagingof those : us, denouncedas Christians:"Religious people as a body are being harried and persecutedby new edicts all over Asia. Shamelessinformers out to fil1 their own pocketsare taking advan- t ii ()l tage of the decreesto pillage openly, plundering inoffensive citizens night and day'' 48-Compare 2Esdr. 16:70-73,which includessuch dispossession as part ofthe perse- ,-,,,aa cution ofthe righteous:"There shalibe a greatinsurrection against those who fearthe Lord L.,)n, . . . plunderingand destroyingthose who continueto fearthe Lord. For they shalldestroy and plunder their goods,and drive them out of their houses." 16 INTRODUCTION to the such considerationsapplied not only tige. Neyrey has arguedthat |erome Such loss would fur- but tt'ltt to the peasant in a village'ae wealthy landowner on him- the victim had brought the loss ther provoke contempt iro- otttt"'if selforherself.sOThiswouldhavebeenthecasefortheChristiansinHeb.l0:32. to society'state' and gods' tt eir o*" 'iegfttt their obligations 34: through "1 misfortune' they had lustly earned their put the believersin an uncomfort- This loss of property could also have (Philo Flacc' 57) lost their position' The Alexandrian Iews able economic the re- of the pogroms againstthem, with housesand workshops in the course sultthattheywereuto,,..i*poverishedu.'t"ut'oremovedfromaccesstothe could regain economic trade and their shopsby which they very tools of their they rnay have sufferedsimilar losses'and stability.The recipien" of f"U"*s havefoundthemselvesinalowereconomicstatuswithnomeansofrecoveryas group' As part of a disgraced remained associatedwith a suspect long as they of wealth expect to ttguitt the "subversive"culture, they could not -security partners or benefactors' through partnershipswiih non-Christian tf tht to**unity to which the au- In summary, tht ;;;;J txperience thorcallsattentionwasoneofhumiliation'rejection'andmarginalization'The in the society'stripped of their reputa- Christians lost their pf"t" *a standing commitment to an alternate reliabl.^.i,i^", on accoirnt of their tion for being society *d.'ocial relationships'While the systemof values,*ligi;;;;ttitt'' intendedthisexperiencetodrawthedeviantsbackintolinewiththedominant culture,thebelieversremainedsteadfastintheirloyaltytowardGodandthe group,notallowing'ot-l'tty'-*tunsofsocialcontroltodeflectthemfromtheir and caring ("love ont u"otht' through mutual assistance faith. They sustained them in gtg-iOi soclety'sattempts to discourage and good works," tttitting their new hoPe.

The Occasionof Hebrews

IfthecommunitywasabletomeetSogreatachallengeasdescribedin|0..32-34,"To the the comptsition of the letter what could t uu. U.futt.rrit.* to o..uiio' Hebrews"?,ttthetimeofwriting'thecharacterofthecommunityhaschanged'message of "drifting away" (2:1) from the Some of them, at ftu'i, *t in da"nger ;"tglttti"g"-the attestedby of messagt i-poken that they received, -bl.l:t"t-und unbelief promisedtltt i+'t;' of fulling through God (2:3),of "ruilng to uiiui"';ittt

PovertYas Cul- "Povertyand Lossof Honor in Nlatthew'sBeatitudes: 49. |. Neyrey, CBA (an unpublishedpaperdelivered at the tural, Not Mereiy L'conomic,Phenomenon" Seminarin October 1992),4' s0. Ibid., 7. The Recipientsof the Letter 17 o ihe in the sameway asthe wildernessgeneration (4:12), of gron'ingweary and losing I lur- heart ( 12:3).Even more stronglSthey are in dangerof falling into worsepunish- him- ment than the transgressorsof the MosaicLaw through "trampling underfoot the Son of God, regardingas profanethe blood by which you are sanctified,and af- - - t^ 5"u5' frorrting the Spirit of grace"(10.29). Some have apparentlybegun to withdraw from the congregation(10:25), many have not lived up to what was expected from mature believers(5:12), and there appearsto be a generalfaltering in com- :reir mitment (see,e.g., 10:35-36,"Do not cast away your confidence]' and L2:12, "Strengthenthe weak kneesand lift up the drooping hands"). r' rhe What brought about this change?The letter is not explicit about this lmic point, and scholarshave engagedin varying degreesof mirror reading of the :hev evidencein the letter to produce scenariosof varying degreesof plausibility. T\-as Some readersargue that the referencein l2:4, "you havenot yet resistedto the ';;ed point of blood," contains a shadowy implication of growing hostility against erlth the believersand a coming persecutionthat the believerswish to avoid.sl Oth- ers hold that the author's reliance on argumentation from the Hebrew Scrip- r Ju- tures and his comparison of Jesusand the angels (who, in |ewish tradition, . i-he servedas God's intermediarieswhen the Law was given to Israel), Moses,and )Jta- the Jewishpriesthood indicate that a strategicconversion or reversionto Juda- r:tate ism (which enjoyeda measureof toleration within the empire that Christianity I tetr. did not) was a lively possibility.s2Both of thesetheories, however, are equally tnJnt intelligible as rhetorical strategiesof the author rather than as indications of the i the nature of the occasionof Hebrews.Other scholarspresent a lessdramatic tieir picture, arguing that "moral lethargy" is the - dominant problem that lies behind . t)\'€ the epistle.53Some scholarsprefer to allow a number of factorsto stand sideby nr ln side,understanding the author to respondhere to one concernand there to another: "from the responsethat he givesto the problem, it would appearthat the author conceivesof the threat to the community in two broad but interrelated

51.Graham Hu ghes,Hebrews and Hermeneutics:The Epistle to theHebrews as a New Tes- tamentExample of BiblicalInterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge Universit.v Press, 1979), 28. 52. William L. Lane,Hebrews: A Call to Commitment(Peabody, o the MA: Hendrickson, 1985),22-25; Gleason,"Old TestamentBackground," 68-69. Ernst Kzisemann(The Wan- 1ied. dering Peopleof God: An Investigationof the Letter to the HebrewsfMinneapolis: Augsburg, t)Jge 19841,24-25)strongly argued against perpetuating the old assumptionthat someJudaizing ri bi' tendencyor temptationto revertto Judaismwas the presentingproblem of Hebrews. xlief 53.T. Schmidt,"Moral Lethargyand the Epistleto the Hebrews,"WTJ 54 (1992):t67. A similar emphasisappears in W. G. McCown, O 'lofot THt IIAPAK,,IHIEA\: The Nature and Functionof theHortatory Sections in theEpistle to theHebrews (Ph.D. dissertation, Union i.ul- TheologicalSeminary, 1970),261. Alternative scenarios abound. Iewetr(Letter to Pilgrims, \ l1-^t 10- 13 ) favorsthe situationof dangerfrom hereticalteachings. Buchanan (Hebrews, 256) cre- ativelysuggests an audienceof pilgrims who arrivedtoo latein Jerusalemto witnessthe min- istry ofJesusbut rvho are neverthelessurged to hold onto their Zionist hopes. 18 INTRODUCTION

'persecution' a waning commitment to categories,external pressure or ' ' ' and the community's confessedfaith."5a to be closestto Of all these suggestions,that of Harold Attridge apPears thetarget.Viewingrt.b,.*,againsttheculturalbackgroundofasocietythat new insight into both the tuk., ul it, pivotal valueshonoi and shameleads to a "waning commitment" to nature of tlie "externalpressure" and the causeof the leads beyond the ste- christian confession urrd i.r,roLr.-ent. Such an approach executionin the.arena'or reotyped picture of Christiansbeing rounded up for to savetheir lives' to a denying ihrist before the emperor;stribunal in order Christians in main- moie hlghly nuanced senseof the pressuresfaced by early and of the ways in taining ih.i. .onf.rrion and commitments to one another' which they might have succumbedto those pressures' Theauthordescribestheaddresseesasifsomeareindangerof..failingto birthright for a single enter,,therest setbefore them (4:1-2), or of "selling their shapedby the author meal" as did Esau (12:16-17).The exampleschosen and of the promise are particularly telling. The audiencestands on the threshold ..unshakable asdid the wil- (ro* u, tingdom' rather than the land of Canaan) (particularly in the i.rn.r, generation,but their lack of trust and obedience rob them as well of their face of tle hostility of human beings) threatensto marginaliza- prize.Abraham, Moses,and )esus(Ll:8-22,24-26; 1'2:2)embraced for the sakeof the prize iio' urrdloss with regardto statusand wealth in society offaith.Afterlivingaliminalexistencefordecades'Abrahamneverwentback tothecitywhereheoncehadstatusbutkepthiseyesontheheavenlycitythat Godhadprepared(t1:13-16).Mosesthoughtthelossofathroneandtheen- to the reward of duranceoi reproachand maltreatment insignificant compared to earlier attempts God (11:26).linally, the community's successfulresistance presentsituation' It at social control becomestheir own best examplefor their them to endure loss of is this earlier "assurance"or "boldness,"which enabled and must be recovered. statusand honor in society,seyes, that is now at stake impending per- The situation thus presentedappears to be a crisis not of occasionedas secution,nor of hereticai subversion,but rather of commitment in the world' The a result of the difficulties of remaining long without honor of the believers'loss of danger of falling away stemsfrom thelingering effects to regaina placein statJsand esteemin tireir neighbors'eyes, and their inability means that would allow society,or approval from the outside world' by any The believershave ex- them io ..Inuln rigidly faithful to Jesusand the one God. periencedtheloss-ofpropertyandstatus'inthehostsocietywithoutyetreceiv- disillusionedwith the irrg tt . promised ,.*urd, of ih. ,..t, and so are growing they begin to sect,spromise to provide. As time passeswithout improvement, feeltheinwardpressurefortheir,o.i.ty,'affirmationandapproval.Thefervor

54.Attridge, Hebrews' 13 The ReciPientsof the Letter 19

ec- nl to and certainty of their earlier life as a community (the effervescenceof the static and charismatic experiencesdescribed in 2:3-4 and 6:4-5) have cooled st to with their prolonged exposureto their neighbors,the witnessesof their degra- :hat dation, who 1-rodoubt continued to disparagethe believersand to regardthem ir the as subversiveand shameful.ssThey havebegun to be concernedagain for their li to reputationbefore society. Though they were ableto resistit at the outset,the 3 ite- machinery of socialcontrol is in the long run wearing down the deviants'resis- 13.or tance.While they could accepttheir lossin the fervor of religioussolidarity, liv- ,toa ing with their loss has proven difficult. "How nJln- The author writes asif apostasyis a lively option for the addressees: "Take r;s in can we escapeif we neglect so great a salvation?"(2:3, NRSV); care' brothers and sisters,that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that rnJ to turns away(crnoorfrvar) from the living God!" (3:12,NRSV); "For it is impossi- ringle ble to restorethose who . . . havefallen away" (6:4-6,NRSV); "How much worse who havetrampled upon the Son of urhor ^God,Dunishment . . . will be deservedby those D:'ntse regardedas profane the blood of the covenant,. . . and outragedthe Spirit e rvii- of grace?"(10:29). Neither the threat ofviolent persecutionnor a new attrac- pedestrianinabil- in the tion to Judaismmotivates this apostasy,but rather the more 'their ity to live within the lower statusthat Christian associationshad forced upon uliza- them, the less-than-dramatic(yet potent) desireonce more to enjoy the goods and esteemof their society.The price was now more on their minds than the 'back increasinglyin the eyesof somebeliev- r ^.rr,prize. In the eyesof society,and perhaps F.that ,..rorrrr.ing the "confession"that had first alienatedthem from the domi- he en- nant culture might be a step toward "recovery." ard of The author encountershis audienceat this point of wavering and chal- Fmpts lengesthem with the claim that the real lossis not the deprivation of their place Ir,rn.It in s*ocietybut the forfeiture of their inheritancefrom God. They risk losing the Itrssof lasting honor that God grants them if they "shrink back" under pressurefrom rld. society: rg per- your which hasa greatreward. For you have rnedas Do not throw away confidence, in order that, having done the will of God, you may re- li. The needof endurance the promise.For yet "but a little while" and "the onewho is comingwill It'rssof ceive comeand not delay;and my righteousone will live by faith, and if he or she llacein shrinksback, my soul hasno pleasurein that one."But we arenot character- I allow izedby shrinkingback unto destructionbut by faith unto the attainmentof Ele ex- life.(10:35-39) receiv- rirh the 55.Aristotle (Rh. 2.6.27)indicates that people"are more likely to be ashamedwher.t tsqrnto That theyhave to be seenand to associateopenly with thosewho areaware of their disgrace'" e lervor inhabitantsof the Mediterraneanworld (as any society)were not above taunting their "l to undesirablesis shownfrom suchcomplaints as LXX Ps.108:25: am an objectof scorn my accusers;when they seeme, they wag their heads'" ffi #i

il 20 INTRODUCTION

The endurance of disgracein the eyesof society has earned for the believers honor before God. Their commitment to christ, their benefactor,through under- times of heary socialpressure will not go unrewarded.He urgesthem to They stand their experienceof marginalization astheir obedienceto God's will' "greater must continue in their "confidence"if they are to claim the promised trans- and lastingpossessions" (10:3a) and "glory" (2:10).llapprloicr, usually lated as ".otrfidan."," carriesmore the senseof boldness,candor' and openness' A re- In this period, it often appearsas the antonym for crioltivq, or shame.56 of God's fusal to-feel "shame"befoie society,and a firm grasp oll the certainty en- promises,will lead the believersto attain greaterhonor than they could ever joy at societY'shands.

Dqte and Location

of author The discussionof the date of the writing of Hebrervsand the location evidence and addresseesmust remain inconclusivedue to the lack of internal possi- from the text. The use of Hebrewsby Clement of Rome placesthe latest rvho favor ble date of composition before 96 e.o.s7I concur with those scholars with the a date before 70 e.p. Even though the author is primarily concerned asksthe archaic cult of the tabernaclerather than the temple in Jerusalem,he not rhetorical question, "Would they fthe sacrificesprescribed by Leviticus] al- har,. ceusedto be offered?" (10:2). After 70' they did ceaseto be offered, favor though for a different reasonthan the decisiveremoval of sins!Scholars in there is no mention of the destruc- of a f,re-7Odate also point to the fact that hands.58 tion of the temple,*hi.h *ight haveplayed very well into the author's I \Ahileargum.nts f.o* silence(what the textdoes not saylare alwals tenttous, the rvould disagreewith those who claim that the author would not allude to temple'sdestruction out of sensitivityfor his (lewish) hearers.He is so unsPar- ing in his critique of the inefficacyof the levitical cultus and in his affirmation

56.InbothlJohn2:28and1Enoch97:1,6;98:l0,thesewordsareplacedwithinthe last dar The reward of context of standing before the divine Judge at the parousia or the in the Law) is "confi- those who have remained in Christ (or lr,ho have continued steadfast to the shame of the dence" or "open freedom" before God or Christ, $'hich is contrasted their disgrace before rvicked, who are unable to exercise anv boldness or oPenness due to God. Tradi- 57. P. Ellingworth, "Hebrews and I clement: Literary Dependence or common Testamentsin Clem- tionl' BZ23 l97g\t 262-69; Donald Hagner, The Lie o.[the Otd and New zum ent of Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1973), I79-95; against G. Theissen, untersuchungen Hebriierbrief(SNT 2; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1969)' -3-1-11' "The of Galatianson 5g. Ellingworth, Hebrews,32; Ben \\'itherington lil, Influence Hebrews,"NIS 37 (1991): 151. The Recipientsof tlrc Letter 2L

of the obsolescenceof Torah that it is hard to seehorv he could have made his c 1 r'l'S "copy" ' -igh sermon any more offensive by adding the destruction of the and "shador'v"to his generallyunappreciative assessment of the OT cultl W-hilenei- . rcr. ther the casefor nor the objectionsto a pre-70 date are decisive,Hebrews reads '..ltCf more naturally in a pre-70 setting.se We havealready noted that locating the author and audiencegeographi- :.iil5- cally is even more problematic. The only internal evidence comes from the l::L'5S, greetingsent by "those from Italy" (13:24),taken by some scholarsto be an in- .'- i c- '. rtl's dication that the author is sendinggreetings back to Rome from thosenow sep- aratedfrom their sistersand brothers.60It is equally possiblethat the author is sending greetingsfrom his Italian compatriots rvhile writing to a church lo- catedoutside of Italy.orSome connection with Rome is favoredby the early use of the letter there by Clement,but the correlationsbetween Hebrews and 1 Pe- ter (written from Rome to churchesthroughout Asia Minor) do not advance,as Harold Attridge suggests,the case that Hebrews was written to Rome.62 Strangely,none of the added subscriptionsclaims that the letter was written to Christiansat Rome,but they frequently claim that it was sent from Rome or It- aly to some other destination.63A destination in Palestineis often advancedon the assumptionsthat the addresseesmust be a housechurch exclusivelyof fewish Christians,which would tend to be found mainly in Palestine,and that the author writes asif the audiencehas firsthand knowledgeof (and attachmentto) the temple cult. The author's purely textual interaction with the cult (i.e., his relianceentirely on LXX descriptionsofthe tabernacleand its rites) rendersthe

59.A more thoroughrevien' of this insolublequestion may be found in Spicq,L'Epitre attx Hdhreux,l:253-61; see also Attridge (Hebrews,6-9),who very judiciouslyrefuses to nar- (.Hebrews , ls,l rorvthe rangeof compositiondown from 60-100 e.n. Lane l-8, lxii-lxvi), building on the hypothesisof a Romandestination rather than Romanorigin for the sermon)narro\vs l,' the dorvnthe rangeto sometime betrveen49 a.n. (when the Edict of Claudiuswould haveled to t.:'Jr - the expulsionof |elvishChristians, as of a1lJews, with their consequentloss of property)and ti: iL)n 64 ,r..o.(rvhen Christians rvere certainly subject to "resistingto the point of blood," Heb. 12:4).Attractive as Lane's hypothesis is, the sheermultiplication ofprobabilitiesand possi- bilities makes lvhole - : :: tile the merelythat an attractivehypothesis. 60. Thus Lane,Hebrews '.:.i of l-8, lviiil Pfitzner,Hebrews,30. '-,;tll- 61.Attridge (.Hebrews,4l0n.79) providesan impressivelist of placeswhere the ex- pressionis usedidiomatically place (rather : the to indicate of origin than to indicateseparation ' from their home). -:,lfe 62.Attridge, Hebrews, 10. The situationaddressed by I Peteris not the situationof Ro- man :.rrii- Christianit).,but rather the situationof Christiansin severalprovinces in what is now Turkel'.If the situationaddressed Hebrervsis similar ..111- by to that addressedby I Peter,and I agreethat it is strikinglysimilar, it would be more likelv that a Christianteacher in Rome is | :ln1 writing to a churchsomewhere in a provincetbr which he feelsa specialpastoral responsibil- rty. ;:: . on b3.Thus manuscripts A, R 1739,1881,81 (but to Jerusaleml),104, and 0285. 22 INTRODUCTION

..indication" as- latter irrelevant,and we havealready explored how the former remains sumption is unwarranted. some connection with Roman christianity likely, but quite possibly on the part of the author rather than the recipients' Eventhe .u.ly,.tt" by Clement,however, is not conclusivefor sucha connection poignant giventhe mobility of early christians, who could copy and sharesuch Ind helpfut textsas Hebrews with sisterchurches around the Mediterranean.64 While it doesseem likely that the author addressesa particular Christian whom he community whosecircumstances are personally known to him,6sand plans to visit in person assoon ashe can,attempts to limit this audiencefurther are to a particulu, ho.rr. church among severalor to a small group of teachers "hard to be- unwarranted. Andrew Trotter, reading Hebrews 5:ll-14, finds it to lievethat the author would addressan entire community asthose who ought group be teachers;by definition the office of teachernecessitates a much larger recon- to be taught.';uoThis is a particularly insecurePassage from which to to struct the condition or situation of the hearerssince it constitutesan appeal an emotion (seecommentary). More troublesome,however, is the assumption teacher. by Trotter that the author refers to an "office" rather than the role of Hebrews calls the hearersto be mature in their commitment to the christian re- group - not acting as children who need to be led but as adults who take sponsibility for one another. The author seeksto nurture a community where eachmember reinforces grasp the commitment of the other members,"watching out" for those whose one'sfel- on the christian hope begins to slip (3:12-14; I2:I5), "encouraging" of low members to prepare for "the approaching Day" (10:24-25)' Members minority cultures need to offset the messagesreceived from outside the group au- with reminders that the sectknows the "true" way to pleaseGod. Thus' the of thor's addressbecomes less "hard to believe."It is necessaryfor all members and the sectto continue to "teach"one another through reminder,exhortation, censure, and thus to form a strong "plausibility structure"6T in a society the unsupportive of the Christian enterprise.Hebrews 5:11-14thus belongsto authoi's socio-religiousstrategy. It does not provide evidencethat the author

destina- 64. For more detaileddiscussion of the argumentsfor and againstvarious Brtce' He- tions, the interested reader may consult Sprcq,L'Epitre aux Htbreux, 7:261-65 wider con- brews,l0-14;Attridge, Hebrews,l 0- I 1 (his footnotesare a valuableguide to the versationabout this question). 65.Thus, rightly, Ellingworth (Hebretvs,26),rf by "part of a wider christian community" he meansthe Church as a whole. 66. Trotter, InterpretingHebrews, 37. 67.p.L.Berger(The Sicred Canopy: Elements of a SociologicalTheory of ReligionlGar' to de- den Citn NY Doubleday,1967),45-48) introduces the term "piausibilitystructure" of sig- scribethe relationshipbetween holding onto a setof beliefsoneself and havinga body nificant otherswho sharethose beliefs, the latter being a requirementfor the former' TheAuthor 23 tii-r aS- addressesa circle of "teachers"who are falling down on the job, exceptas this rE:'nalns appliesto the failure of the community as a whole to act as "teachers"for one f,:icnts. another,especially those who are losing sight of the group's vision.68 traitlon c:{nant kln.b+ L::stian The Author f.,.ni he ':irther Identity hr'rsar€ d :.. be- The author left his work completely anonymous,with only a passingreference rushtto to Timothy in the closinggreetings (13:23). Scholars from the first centurieson, r sroup however,have not been reticent in proposing his identity. Alexandrian Chris- ) :ccon- tianity attributed the work to Paul quite early (the 2nd-century manuscript P46 Pr!-alto includes it after Romans among the Pauline epistles).The style of Hebrews lr:rption standsso far apart from the Pauline letters,however, that the Alexandrian fa- tc.icher. thers Origen and Clement attributed the actual writing to an associateof Paul, l:istian whether asan original composition that includesthe thoughts of the apostleor teiiere- as a translation of a Hebrew letter of Paul into Greek.6e Pauline authorship was not the view of the Westernchurches. Tertullian r:forces named Barnabasas the author, and Irenaeus and Hippolytus regarded it as l€ grasp non-Pauline. Only after ]erome and Augustine championed the causeof Pau- r:c's fel- line authorship did that view take hold in the West. Even thesescholars, how- rrers of ever,voiced their reservationsabout authorship.]erome on one occasioncalls it E group irrelevant,given the prestigethe text enjoyedin many churches,and Augustine , :heau- likewiseis more sure of Hebrews'acceptance as a core text of Christianity than n'rersof of the identity of the author.70Advocacy of the book's connection with Paul i.tn, and was subservientto their "feeling" that Hebrewsdeserved to be recognizedas ca- :ociety nonical. fs to the Pauline authorship is probably the least likely solution to the question. Ex- I author ternal evidence actually favors non-Pauline authorship, and internal evidence t.:('stlna- 68. Other views,such as the notion that Hebrewsaddresses a Jewish-Christianhouse !-:;e, He- church in Rome,or a house church of "Hebrew Christians" in Palestine(P. Hughes, Hebrews, rJ.'f COn- l8-19), areinextricably bound up with the assumptionthat this letteris more meaningfulto Jewishthan GentileChristians (see discussion above). | :L\lTlIr]U- 69. The hypothesisthat this letter was originaily written in Hebrew fails to take into accountthe author'suse of the LXX (Greek)version of the OT, specificallygrounding essen- tial points ofhis argumenton preciseiythose words or phraseswhere the LXX departsfrom ;:-"r.Gar- the Hebrew text. As John Calvin rightly pointed out, moreover,the wordpiay on "testament/ to r< de- covenant"would not havebeen possible in the Hebrewlanguage (Commentaries on the Epis- ur of sig- tle of PauIto theHebrews lGrand Rapids:Eerdmans, 19a81, xxvii). 70. SeeBruce, Hebrews, 17.