Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews : a resource for students (original) (raw)
Related papers
Somov A. B. The Image of Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the Jewish Texts of the Second Temple Period // The Quarterly Journal of St. Philaret’s Institute. 2020. Is. 36. P. 230–248, 2020
Jesus’ high priesthood and its superiority over the Levite priesthood is a unique and important theme of Hebrews. The central argument in the discussion about the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood is the Melchizedekian argument of chapter 7. In this chapter the author uses Gen 14:18–20, Ps 110, and some Jewish traditions about Melchizedek. Some of these texts portray him as a historical figure, while others depict him as an eschatological image. This article investigates the Jewish traditions about Melchizedek from the Second Temple period and explores how they are used in Hebrews. Then, the article shows how Melchizedek’s figure works in the author’s argument about the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood. It demonstrates that the author of Hebrews is interested in Melchizedek’s figure not only as a real person of the past or the future, but rather more as the likeness of Christ and the unique biblical image of a person who is simultaneously both a king and a high priest. Such a typology plays an important role in the author’s theological chain, which also includes other Old Testament images and characters, working metaphorically and shaping a multifaceted image of Christ as both God and human, priest and sacrifice, messianic king and perfect high priest. Further study of these metaphors in the context of modern metaphor theories can be a productive continuation of this research and can help us better understand the interpretive method of the author of Hebrews.
Melchizedek in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2018
The study of especially apocalyptic traditions from the Second Temple period that are concerned with the figure of Melchizedek throws light on a vitality of interest that presupposes but is no longer simply dependent on the pre-texts of Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 in the Hebrew Bible. Although the epistle to the Hebrews is clearly influenced by these pre-texts, the latitude its author takes in focusing on Jesus as both priest ‘after the order of Melchizedek’ and as Son may be said to have been shaped by the kind of creative and imaginative engagement with tradition reflected in other Second Temple texts.
2014
Scripture assigns to Melchizedek the distinguished title of royal priest (Gen. 14:18). Apart from this ascription and a few details related to his encounter with Abraham, the only two references to Melchizedek included in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110) eventually furnished the source for a wide range of speculation about the mysterious priest-king. From the Dead Sea Scrolls through the development of rabbinic midrashim, the relative silence of the Hebrew Bible about Melchizedek gave rise to an array of Melchizedekian roles and images ranging from that of a celestial-eschatological liberator-judge to a would-be priest whose failure to properly honor the most high God resulted in his dismissal from his unique post. The literary depiction of Melchizedek is unequivocally held in high regard prior to the rabbinic period. The combined king-priest office as witnessed during the Hasmonean period may account for the decline in respect shown toward Melchizedek. Further, the endorsement of Christ within the Epistle to the Hebrews as a priest after the pre-Aaronic order of Melchizedek conceivably introduced a challenge to rabbinic religious hegemony. This thesis provides a concise review of all extant Jewish works of the Second Temple period (e.g. Genesis Apocryphon; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; 11Q13 [11QMelch]; Philo; Josephus; 2 Enoch; also the Pentateuchal Targums [recorded later]), early Christian writings (e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Origen, Commentary to the Gospel of John), and rabbinic sources (b. Ned. 32b; Gen. Rab. 43.6; Lev. Rab. 25.6; Num. Rab. 4.8). The notion that Melchizedek lost his priestly role is first witnessed among rabbinic works. The decline in respect for Melchizedek’s priesthood appears to exhibit a response to the measure of dignity attributed to the priest-king in the Epistle to the Hebrews as well as the works of later Patristic writers (e.g. Justin; Origen). According to Hebrews, Melchizedek’s seniority as a priest sustains preeminence over Levitical obligations which were crucial to the maintenance of halakhic obligations. The universality of an uncircumcised Canaanite priest most likely presented further challenges to rabbinic interests. An additional point of contention between the two communities may be attested in the embrace of distinct scriptural renderings of Ps. 110:3. The vocalization of the Masoretic Text suggests a different reading of the verse than construals recorded in the earlier versions of both the Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta. Additional rabbinic works (e.g. y. Berakhot 5; Gen. Rab. 59.9) and an excerpt from Justin’s Dialogue are considered in support of the theory. Thus, the marginalizing of Melchizedek appears to comprise a rabbinic response, perhaps initiated by R. Ishmael, to claims of a Christological priesthood linked to the Melchizedekian order (Ps. 110:4).
The Superiority of Christ : the Identity of Melchizedek in Hebrews
2013
oundational to Baptist Christology is the superiority of Christ over all created beings, and foundational to Baptist ecclesiology is the headship of Christ over the church. Among the strongest biblical passages arguing for the superiority of Christ over all created beings and particularly the Levitical priesthood is Hebrews 1-10. In Hebrews 7, Jesus is described as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and thus prior and superior to the Aaronic priesthood. Who was this Melchizedek referenced in Hebrews 7?
The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Roman Canon Missae: Melchizedek and Other Features, part 2
Ecclesia Orans, 2023
This article is a demonstration of Jean Daniélou’s claim that liturgical texts are themselves an expression of scriptural interpretation and exegesis by considering one euchology’s use of a single biblical book. The argument proceeds in four sections, each a thorough consideration of four ways in which the Roman Canon Missae uniquely appropriates the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first is incorporation of the phrase “eternal covenant” from Heb. 13:20-21 into the Supplices te, a singular feature in institution narratives but found in the Codex Veronensis. The second is the introduction of the figure of Melchizedek into preexisting Greek source material, which forms a triumvirate of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek. The third is the use of the substantive adjective maetestatis to refer to God, also located in the Supplices te. The term is taken from Heb. 1:3 and echoed in 1 Clement and Testament of Levi. The final appropriation is the phrase sacrificium laudis, drawn from Heb. 13:15. While the figure of Melchizedek and the phrase sacrificium laudis are also found in the Old Testament but are unique to Hebrews in the New Testament, the fact that they are textually related to the other two features of the Roman Canon that are found nowhere else in the Bible except Hebrews (maiestatis and “eternal covenant” as applied to Jesus) means that there is a preponderance of evidential weight that Hebrews exercised a decisive and singular influence on much of what distinguishes the Roman Canon from other early anaphoras.
The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Roman Canon Missae: Melchizedek and Other Features, part 1
Ecclesia orans
This article is a demonstration of Jean Daniélou’s claim that liturgical texts are themselves an expression of scriptural interpretation and exegesis by considering one euchology’s use of a single biblical book. The argument proceeds in four sections, each a thorough consideration of four ways in which the Roman Canon Missae uniquely appropriates the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first is incorporation of the phrase “eternal covenant” from Heb. 13:20-21 into the Supplices te, a singular feature in institution narratives but found in the Codex Veronensis. The second is the introduction of the figure of Melchizedek into preexisting Greek source material, which forms a triumvirate of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek. The third is the use of the substantive adjective maetestatis to refer to God, also located in the Supplices te. The term is taken from Heb. 1:3 and echoed in 1 Clement and Testament of Levi. The final appropriation is the phrase sacrificium laudis, drawn from Heb. 13:15. While the figure of Melchizedek and the phrase sacrificium laudis are also found in the Old Testament but are unique to Hebrews in the New Testament, the fact that they are textually related to the other two features of the Roman Canon that are found nowhere else in the Bible except Hebrews (maiestatis and “eternal covenant” as applied to Jesus) means that there is a preponderance of evidential weight that Hebrews exercised a decisive and singular influence on much of what distinguishes the Roman Canon from other early anaphoras.
Ecclesia orans, 2022
This article, which is divided into two parts (the second of which will appear in the next issue) attempts to demonstrate within a specific euchology the claim that Jean Daniélou made in his seminal study, The Bible and the Liturgy, namely, that liturgical texts are themselves an expression of scriptural interpretation or exegesis. This claim is explored in four key ways where the author suggests that the Epistle to the Hebrews is appropriated in the Roman Canon Missae. The first is incorporation of the phrase «eternal covenant» from Heb 13:20-21 into the Supplices te, an unusual feature that is always witnessed in the Codex Veronensis. The second is the introduction of the figure of Melchizedek into the preexisting Greek source material shared with the Alexandrian tradition, forming a triumvirate of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedek—all of whom figure in important ways in the argument of Hebrews. The third is the use of the substantive adjective maiestatis, also in the Supplices te, taken from the unique use of the term Heb 1:3 and possibly 8:1, and echoed in 1 Clem. 36:2 and T. Levi 3:9. Finally, the use of the phrase sacrificium laudis from Heb 13:15, which draws on Ps 50[49]:14 and Ps 116[115]:14-18. While the figure of Melchizedek and the phrase sacrificium laudis are found in the Old Testament but are unique to Hebrews in the New Testament, the fact that they are textually related to the other two features of the Roman Canon that are completely unique to the in the Scriptures (maiestatis and «eternal covenant» in connection with Jesus) means that there is a preponderance of evidential weight that Hebrews exercised a decisive and singular influence on much of what distinguishes the Roman Canon from other early anaphoras.
This paper outlines the biblical physiognomy of theophoric Melchizedek as king of the ancient city of Salem and priest of the Most-High God. In fact, a vivid reference to the “king of righteousness” (מלכיצדק) is made in Gen 14: 18-24, where it is underlined the profound theological significance of Melchizedek’s encounter with patriarch Abraham. However, the enigmatic personality of Melchizedek - depicting the high Priest, J. Christ - refers to both the messianic prophetic saying of royal Psalm 109 and the apostle Paul (Heb 5: 5-6; Heb 7: 3). Also, and other references from the non-biblical realm about the mysterious Melchizedek are examined and more specifically from the book of Jubilees and the book of 2 Enoch (Jub 13: 22-28, 2 Enoch chs. 69-73). In addition, Melchizedek refers to the apocryphon work Pseudo- Eupolemus, in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers but in the Qumran texts, too, 11Q Melch and in Apocryphon of Genesis (1Q apGen). Yet, the name of Melchizedek is restored as the most probable reading in two other fragmentary works of the Essene-Qumran community: in the Amram Covenant (4Q’ Am- rambar), as well as in the Hymns for the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q ShirShabb). Even more, Philo interprets the name Melchizedek as “king of peace”, “righteous king” (Leg. 3, 79-82; Congr. 99, 4; Abr. 235, 4-5), while referring to Melchizedek is also done by Josephus (JW 6, 438; Ant. 1, 179-181). Then, the priesthood in the culture and religion of the Sumerians and Babylonians is carefully studied, but also in the culture of the Hittites as well as in ancient Egypt. In addition, extensive reference is made to the issue of the divine kingship in the aforementioned peoples of the ancient Near east. In fact, in ancient Egypt majestic kings (the pharaohs) had a divine origin; something similar is observed in Babylon where the king was described as a victorious warrior who defeated his enemies. Nevertheless, in the civilization of the Hittites as well as in that of ancient Ugarit the king was described as the son of God. Ultimately, Melchizedek’s priesthood is undoubtedly associated with the divine kingship of the ancient Near east. In other words, a genetic connection is observed between the name Melchizedek and the priesthood, the kingship and the righteousness in the realm of the ancient Near eastern societies.