The Context of the Text: Reading Hebrews as a Eucharistic Homily Author: Stephen David Fahrig Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:107586 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2014 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College School of Theology and Ministry The Context of the Text: Reading Hebrews as a Eucharistic Homily A Dissertation by STEPHEN D. FAHRIG submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology © 2014 Stephen D. Fahrig The Context of the Text: Reading Hebrews as a Eucharistic Homily A Dissertation by Stephen D. Fahrig Director Rev. Thomas D. Stegman, S.J. Abstract The majority of exegetes agree that the so-called “Letter” to the Hebrews is actually a homily, meant to be read aloud to a Christian community gathered for worship. In The Context of the Text: Reading Hebrews as a Eucharistic Homily, I argue that the specific venue for the public reading of Hebrews was a celebration of the Eucharist. It is my contention that the author presumed and exploited this Eucharistic setting in order to bolster his claims about the superiority of Christ and his sacrifice to the sacrifices of the “first covenant”, as well as to entreat his readers to remain faithful to Christian Eucharistic worship. This dissertation begins in Chapter 1 by considering the “state of the question,” examining the positions of scholars who take – respectively – negative, agnostic and positive positions regarding Eucharistic references in Hebrews. Chapter 2 situates the question of Hebrews and the Eucharist within the broader milieu of the liturgical provenance of New Testament writings. Chapter 3 considers the issues of Hebrews’ authorship, date of composition, audience, rhetorical strategy, and literary structure as they pertain to my argument that the text was written for proclamation at the Eucharist. Chapter 4 offers an extensive study of several passages from Hebrews which appear to allude to the Eucharist without mentioning the sacrament explicitly (Hebrews 6:4; 9:20; 10:19-25; 12:22-24; 13:10; and 13:15), setting forth the claim that the allusive nature of these references is explained by the Eucharistic milieu for which the homily was written. In particular, I argue that a Eucharistic understanding of Hebrews 13:10 (“We have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat”) is the linchpin for understanding other Eucharistic references in Hebrews and that this verse serves as a major reinforcement of the author’s earlier claims regarding the supreme efficacy of Christ’s redemptive work. I hold that the author’s mention of an “altar” in 13:10 is meant to be understood as a reference to the Eucharistic table and that, taken as such, this statement parallels the claim in 8:1 (“We have such a high priest”) in order to demonstrate that Christians have both a superior priest (Christ) and a superior cultic act (the Eucharist). Finally, Chapter 5 considers interpretive traditions (particularly patristic and Eastern) which bolster the case for a Eucharistic interpretation of Hebrews. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER ONE: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION . 10 1. Introduction . 10 2. Hebrews and Eucharist: A Negative Assessment . 11 3. Hebrews and Eucharist: Agnostic Views . 21 4. Hebrews and Eucharist: Affirmative Stances . 27 a. James Swetnam . 27 b. Arthur A. Just . 35 c. Roch Kereszty . 40 d. John Paul Heil . 45 5. Summary and Prospect . 48 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITURGICAL PROVENANCE OF BIBLICAL WRITINGS . 52 1. Introduction . 52 2. Bible and Liturgy: Formal and Material Connections . 54 a. Liturgical Themes in the OT . 56 b. Liturgical Motifs in the Gospels and Acts . 60 c. The Pauline Correspondence . 65 d. 1 Peter . 73 e. The Johannine Letters . 75 f. Revelation . 76 3. Early Christian Meals: Were They Eucharistic? . 80 4. The Place of Hebrews within the Liturgical Paradigm of the NT . 89 CHAPTER THREE: CRITICAL ISSUES . 90 1. Introduction . 90 2. Authorship . 91 3. Date . 98 4. Audience and Destination . 108 5. Genre . 115 6. Purpose and Argument . 123 7. Structure . 131 8. Summary . 141 CHAPTER FOUR: EUCHARISTIC IMAGERY IN HEBREWS . 144 1. Introduction . 144 2. The Literary and Theological Structure of Hebrews Revisited . 151 3. Particular Eucharistic References and Images . 154 a. The Heavenly Gift (6:4) . 154 b. Flesh, Blood, Approach and Assembly (10:19-35) . 168 c. The New Covenant (8:7-13) . 188 d. The Blood of the Covenant (9:20) . 193 e. Call to Worship, Part 1: Heavenly Zion, Blood of Sprinkling (12:18-24) . 202 f. Call to Worship, Part 2: Altar and Sacrifice of Praise (13:7-17) . 212 Excursus: Hebrews, Sacrifice, and the Eucharist . 227 g. Closing Benediction: Blood of the Eternal Covenant (13:20) . 240 4. Summary . 241 CHAPTER FIVE: HEBREWS AND THE EUCHARIST: PATRISTIC, LITURGICAL, AND EASTERN PERSPECTIVES . 246 1. Introduction . 246 2. Hebrews and the Eucharist in the Writings of the Church Fathers . 249 3. Hebrews and the Eucharist: The Liturgy of St. James . 257 4. Hebrews and the Eucharist in Contemporary Eastern Christian Interpretation . 264 5. Summary . 268 CONCLUSION . 271 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 274 INTRODUCTION Among the twenty-seven writings that constitute the New Testament (hereafter NT), Hebrews is something of an anomaly. To be sure, it lacks the cryptic, lurid imagery that has gained the Book of Revelation an often unhealthy notoriety, or the obscurity of, say, the letter of Jude. Like these other “maverick” NT documents, however, Hebrews has a unique character which rewards patient study of its contents but which also tends to frighten away less adventuresome Bible readers. In part, the enigmatic nature of Hebrews (especially for modern readers) is attributable to its deep roots in the thought world of first-century Hellenistic Judaism. For instance, its author draws on the Platonic theory of forms and the nature of Jewish cultic worship in order to make the case for the superiority of Christ, his priesthood, and his covenant. Moreover, the document is concerned with a host of matters that are often marginal to contemporary Christian theological interests, as N.T. Wright drily observes: [I]t seems to ramble about and discuss a lot of themes which have never made it into the ‘top ten’ of Christian discussion topics. It begins with a complex discussion of angels; continues with a treatment of what Psalm 95 really meant in talking about ‘entering God’s rest’; moves on to Melchizedek; lists the furniture in the Tabernacle; and ends with an exhortation to ‘go outside the camp.’ Well, you see what I mean; were I a betting man, I would lay good odds that none of my readers have found themselves discussing these things over the breakfast table within the last month or so. Small wonder that most people don’t get very far with Hebrews, or let it get very far with them.1 If the rather esoteric subject matter of Hebrews can be off-putting for the average Christian reader, a host of complicated critical issues regarding such matters as authorship, dating and provenance have made it equally difficult for exegetes to confidently pronounce on the document’s origin and purpose. In bygone days, pericopae from Hebrews in the Roman Catholic Lectionary were introduced as “A reading from the Letter of St. Paul to the Hebrews,” 1 N.T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 3-4. 1 prompting countless biblical scholars to respond that, whatever Hebrews might be, it is not a letter, it was not addressed to the “Hebrews”, and it was almost certainly not written by St. Paul.2 While exegetes are in general agreement on these three points, little consensus exists as to who wrote Hebrews, to whom it was addressed, and when it was written – all of which serves to muddy the hermeneutical waters surrounding this text. More than one prominent scholar has observed that the description given to Melchizedek in Heb 7:3 might be equally applied to Hebrews itself: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy.”3 Despite its complexities, however, Hebrews is widely regarded as being among the most theologically profound writings in the NT canon. Just as ordinary Christians have much to gain by according a more prominent place to Hebrews in their own devotional lives, so biblical scholars and theologians have much to gain both for the church and the academy by continuing to tackle the thornier issues of interpretation in order to more fully exploit the riches of this valuable text. Among the many disputed points in the interpretation of Hebrews is whether the document contains references to the Eucharist. While this particular question has probably never (to borrow N.T. Wright’s terminology) made it into the “top ten” list of critical issues facing interpreters of the text, it has certainly made for a long-running minor skirmish within the broader realm of scholarly disputation over Hebrews’ overall meaning and purpose. A majority of scholars today deny the presence of Eucharistic references in Hebrews. Many contend that the document is silent on the matter of Eucharistic worship, while a few (e.g., Ronald Williamson) go so far as to suggest that the author of Hebrews was opposed to all forms of cultic worship, 2 The attribution of authorship to St. Paul has since disappeared from Catholic lectionary headings. 3 See Raymond E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 695; and Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 457. All translations of Scripture are mine unless otherwise noted.