| In considering
how any particular writer in the New Testament uses the Old Testament,
it is important first to have a clear notion of the hermeneutic
principles we will use, and indeed the way that the New Testament
writers view both texts and history. In short, their hermeneutic
is based in their philosophy of history, and their philosophy of
history is teleological: history has a beginning, and it is moving
in a particular direction, toward a culmination. What things prior
to the time of Christ are primarily pointing toward, for NT authors,
is Jesus Christ himself. This can be seen in Christ’s words
in Luke 24:44: "Now He said to them, "These are My words
which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things
which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets
and the Psalms must be fulfilled." In other words, all portions
of the OT looked forward to Jesus. (That is, parts of each section;
Christ’s statement need not lead us to allegorize every event
in the OT into messianic prophecy.) History is "filled up"
in the person and ministry of Christ.[1]
Certain principles can thus be observed.
First, the future is rooted in the past, but it is greater, more
expansive; the end of history is like the beginning of history,
but greater. In other words, history is a unified whole, a story
with a unified plot, and subsequent events are carrying forward
the same narrative. Furthermore, the same theology is operative,
and the same language describes it. In addition, the unity of
history is often demonstrated in both OT and NT texts by typological
correlations of different events. This enables us to say that
there is a canonical hermeneutic, and that it is exegetically
demonstrable. Prototypical events carry the theology forward into
God’s larger plan/program; without the earlier prototype,
the later events could not be understood. An important point,
then, for the NT writer and his view of "fulfillment"
is that the past is incomplete, and thus can be "filled"
by new revelation.
What such a view of history requires
is that we take a "big picture" view of the Bible and
its interpretation of itself. As Douglas Moo has pointed out,
we need to understand that the canon is "the ultimate context
of meaning" (p. 211). He says, "The meaning intended
by the human author of a particular text can take on ‘fuller’
meaning, legitimately developed from his meaning, in the light
of the text’s ultimate canonical context" (p. 210,
emphasis mine). What Moo calls a "canonical approach"
is to "focus on the ultimate canonical context of any single
scriptural text as the basis on which to find a ‘fuller’
sense in that text than its human author may have been cognizant
of" (p. 204). What this approach suggests is that "any
specific biblical text can legitimately be interpreted in light
of its ultimate literary context—the whole canon, which receives
its unity from the single divine author of the whole" (p.
205). Moo asserts that "the use of the Old Testament in the
New cannot be understood without setting it in the framework of
the canon as witness to salvation history" (p. 209). Furthermore,
in order properly to apply Moo’s insight, it is necessary
for us to realize that often the NT writer will quote a few verses
of a passage, intending that we make the connections with the
broader theological truths contained in the surrounding context.
As Richard Hays points out, "Allusive echo functions to suggest
to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad
interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those
explicitly echoed." Thus, we he calls "metalepsis…
places the reader within a field of whispered or unstated correspondences"
(Hays, p. 20). Further, Scriptural quotations and allusions "usually
must be understood as allusive recollections of the wider narrative
setting from which they are taken" (Hays, p. 157-58).
Thus, the most important point to
glean about analyzing NT writers use of the OT is that each OT
reference must be seen in its broader theological and historical
context, which is all of history and the whole of the OT, and
that even when only a phrase or a verse is referred to, it often
resonates with much deeper and broader meaning that can be discerned
only by understanding the broader historical, literary, and theological
context.
Another important point to realize,
and one which is especially pertinent for our study of the early
chapters of Hebrews, is that NT writers use OT texts in a wide
variety of ways. As we discussed above, these men were steeped
in the OT, and therefore it makes sense that they would have OT
quotes and allusions at their fingertips almost constantly. As
the thrust of Douglas Moo’s excellent essay makes clear,
different NT writers use the OT in a variety of ways, and even
individual writers will use the OT in different ways within the
same book. Thus, we make a grave mistake if we assume, for example,
that the writer of Hebrews is attempting the same thing with his
use of the OT that Matthew is doing when he speaks of Christ’s
actions or words "fulfilling" the OT. I think my analysis
will explain what I mean by this distinction.
I want to focus primarily on the
use of the Old Testament in the first two chapters of the book
of Hebrews. But in order to do an adequate job on that, we really
need to understand what the author of Hebrews is doing in especially
the first seven chapters of the book. Thus I will look at the
first seven chapters, but I will not be able to adequately analyze
chapters 3-7; I will merely consider their overall argument as
it is relevant for our understanding of the use of the OT in chapters
1-2.
The intent of the author of Hebrews
in his use of the OT in chapters 1-2 is seen in the very beginning
verses of this book, in 1:1-4:
1 God, after He spoke long ago
to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many
ways,
2 in these last days has spoken
to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through
whom also He made the world.
3 And He is the radiance of His
glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds
all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification
of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become as much better
than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than
they.
In effect, in its most boiled down
form, what the author of Hebrews is saying here is, "Jesus
is God’s Son, and he has made purification for sins."
Most of the rest of the book of Hebrews is a further explanation
of this point and its theological and practical implications.
That is, the book of Hebrews is a homily with this point as its
topic. The writer will explain this point, flesh it out, explain
theological implications, and urge his readers to live their lives
in certain ways in response to it. This fact is important for
us in our understanding of the use of the OT in Hebrews for a
particular reason: it is a homily and NOT an apologetic. It is
readily noticed that the uses of the OT in Hebrews are not typically
introduced with a formula such as "This was done to fulfill
the Scripture which said…" I don’t think this is
a simple oversight on the part of the author; rather, I think
it fits quite logically with his purpose. Matthew appears to have
an apologetic purpose, and puts himself in a position of reasoning
from (OT) Scripture to the conclusion that Jesus
is God’s Messiah. He is offering proof from the Scriptures
that Jesus "fulfills" what the OT predicted about the
Messiah. By (important) contrast, fulfillment language is not
used in the book of Hebrews because "fulfillment" is
not what is being talked about. The writer of Hebrews is making
no claims about Jesus as fulfillment of OT Scripture. Rather,
he is starting from (rather than reasoning to) the notion
that Jesus is God’s Messiah. From there, he examines Scripture
which, as he sees it, makes important claims that can be applied
to God’s Messiah, and he then proceeds to expound upon the
implications of those claims. Indeed, it could almost be argued
that the most important verse for understanding the first seven
chapters of Hebrews is chapter 5, verse 12: "For though by
this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone
to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God,
and you have come to need milk and not solid food." That
is, the writer is presenting an explanation of the elementary
points of Christian theology, and the implications of those points.
I believe that this tactic of the
author is by no means suspect, but is in fact quite logical. That
is why it is so important for us to realize what his goals are.
He is not using these passages to "prove" his theological
points, but rather to explain them, to make them more clear.
In short, he is adding theological depth without adding detailed
theological explanation. What I am referring to in the technique
of the writer of Hebrews is similar to what Richard Hays finds
in the writings of Paul. Hays points out that in Paul’s use
of the OT, "In some cases the logic of the quotation depends
on a preexisting conceptual/theological structure, presupposed
both by Paul and by his intended readers but not explained in
the text" (Hays, p. 87). Hays notes that these references
thus carry much more weight for Paul and his readers than they
might to a casual reader not familiar with OT literature and history:
"Israel’s story, as told in Scripture, so comprehensively
constitutes the symbolic universe of Paul’s discourse that
he can recall the elements of that story for himself and his readers
with the sorts of subtle gestures that pass between members of
an interpretive family" (Hays, p. 92). The writer of Hebrews
uses a similar technique, employing a neat shorthand way of explaining
the theological fullness of his claims by referring to OT passages
and applying their theological meaning to Christ. He does not
have to spend paragraphs and paragraphs stating "Jesus is
like this and like this…"; rather, in a few words he
is able to make statements which carry hundreds of years and hundreds
of pages worth of meaning. His readers can thus use what they
know of the Scriptures—and it seems that we can assume that
they know the Scriptures fairly well—as a means of coming
to an understanding of the theological nature of Christ.
The fact that the author of Hebrews
has "started from" rather than "reasoned to"
the notion of Jesus as Messiah is, I suppose, the main reason
that many commentators refer to this writer’s "christocentric
hermeneutic." While I suppose that technically it could be
said, in light of my brief analysis, that such a label is correct,
I think that it is unfortunately misleading. Whether one means
it sympathetically (as I believe Longenecker does) or pejoratively
(as Hays seems to), I don’t think it does justice to what
the author is doing in Hebrews. For of course a strong implication
of such a term is to suggest that its practitioner is guilty of
allowing his presuppositions to have full sway over his hermeneutic
conclusions. But again, just as the writer is not performing an
exercise in apologetics in the book of Hebrews, I would also argue
that in chapters 1 and 2 he is not performing an exercise in hermeneutics.
(Let me note that I do think to a large degree what he is doing
in chapter 7 is precisely an exercise in hermeneutics: an exposition
of Psalm 110. But that does not mean he is doing the same thing
in chapters 1 and 2.) By way of clarification, let me say that
of course any time we work with texts, we are engaging in a hermeneutic
exercise. But I fear that when we refer to the writer’s "christocentric
hermeneutic," it is easy to assume that the writer imposes
his christocentric presuppositions upon a text to reason from
that text that Jesus is Messiah. Of course as evangelical Christians,
we believe that we have a perspective on the OT that is able to
take in the "big picture," in short, that Jesus Christ
provides the culmination of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.
And our understanding of OT texts is unavoidably—and rightly—colored
by that perspective. However, there is a danger in willy nilly
applying a "christocentric hermeneutic" to OT passages.
Besides the problem mentioned above of allowing our presuppositions
to determine our interpretation, more fundamentally we are susceptible
to not doing justice to the OT text. Just as good interpretation
of the NT seeks understanding of the original historical, cultural,
and literary context and meaning, good interpretation of the OT
must do the same. We very well may come to a christologic conclusion
about a passage, but that conclusion needs to be reached inductively
with each text, rather than imposed upon all texts. But too often
a "christocentric hermeneutic" means imposing a grid
on passages in the OT without first doing justice to their original
meaning. For example, while I believe I accept and agree with
his intent, I believe that Raymond Brown overstates his case when
he says that the writer of Hebrews maintains "the profound
conviction that the Old Testament is a Christ-centred book"
(p. 36). Thus he asserts, "It is not that he superimposes
on the text a meaning it was not intended to convey; he brings
out a truth already there. He believes that Christ is everywhere
present in the Old Testament, though that might not necessarily
have been discerned by the original writers and readers"
(p. 37). I think that Brown is simply painting with too wide of
a brush here. He is making claims that are beyond the scope of
the book of Hebrews, and particularly are not necessarily evident
in the first two chapters. I would suggest, again, that is not
what the writer of Hebrews is doing in chapters 1 and 2. Rather,
what he is doing is taking certain texts from the OT, interpreting
those, and then applying that meaning to Christ in order to make
a statement about his nature. The claims he makes about Jesus
in doing so then become the foundation for the points he makes
in chapters 3-7 (which in turn becomes the foundation for the
theological points in the chapters which follow).
Thus, I have to disagree with the
conclusion Longenecker draws regarding what the author of Hebrews
is doing in the first two chapters. He asserts that "one
thing in the exegetical procedure seems certain: that from a christocentric
perspective, the author of Hebrews was asking concerning what
the Scriptures mean when they speak of God’s son (Ps 2:7;
2 Sam 7:14), of one whom all the angels of God are to worship
(Deut 32:43, LXX), and of one who is addressed as God by God,
yet distinguished from God (Pss 45:6-7; 102:25-27; 110:1)"
(p. 161). I do not believe that the author of Hebrews is venturing
into such textual minutiae, and he is not claiming that what the
original texts "mean" is christocentric. As I believe
I can demonstrate, he rather interprets the OT passages in a very
straightforward way, and is in fact referring to them to make
a claim about the nature of Jesus.
As we look at the flow of thought
in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, I think that the author is making
three points as explication of his initial statement that Jesus
is God’s Son, and he has made purification for sins: Jesus
is King, Jesus is God, Jesus is man. We see his first quotes from
the OT in verse 5: "For to which of the angels did He ever
say, ‘YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU’?"
The first reference is to verse 7
of Psalm 2. But we need to understand the whole of Psalm 2 to
understand how the writer of Hebrews is using this verse:
1 Why are the nations in an uproar
and the peoples devising a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth take their
stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD
and against His Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us tear their fetters
apart and cast away their cords from us!"
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs,
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then He will speak to them in
His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying,
6 "But as for me, I have installed
My King upon Zion, My holy mountain."
7 "I will surely tell of the
decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are My Son,
today I have begotten you.
8 "Ask of me, and I will surely
give the nations as your inheritance, and the {very} ends of
the earth as your possession.
9 "You shall break them with
a rod of iron, you shall shatter them like earthenware."'
10 Now therefore, O kings, show
discernment; take warning, O judges of the earth.
11 Worship the LORD with reverence
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Do homage to the Son, that He
not become angry, and you perish {in} the way, for His wrath
may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in
Him!
This is a royal psalm, a psalm about
God’s king. It can be argued that it is actually about the
king reigning in Israel at the time of its writing…and I
would suggest that this is exactly correct. There is no reason
to make a claim that Psalm 2 is a "messianic psalm",[2]
or to suggest that the psalmist actually saw himself writing about
the messiah. This is a psalm about God’s king, and that is
precisely why our author uses it here. For as a psalm about God’s
king, it is a psalm about the davidic king. In case his readers
don’t quite grasp that, the author in the second half of
verse 5 says: "And again, ‘I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME’?" This of course is a reference
to the davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7:
8 "Now therefore, thus you
shall say to My servant David, "Thus says the LORD of hosts,
"I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep,
to be ruler over My people Israel.
9 "I have been with you wherever
you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before
you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the
great men who are on the earth.
10 "I will also appoint a
place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may
live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will
the wicked afflict them any more as formerly,
11 even from the day that I commanded
judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest
from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the
LORD will make a house for you.
12 "When your days are complete
and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant
after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish
his kingdom.
13 "He shall build a house
for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom
forever.
14 "I will be a father
to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity,
I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the
sons of men,
15 but My lovingkindness shall
not depart from him, as I took {it} away from Saul, whom I removed
from before you.
16 "Your house and your kingdom
shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established
forever.""'
Much can be said about this covenant
with David, but let’s understand the most important part
for our purposes: in verse 16, God tells David, "Your house
and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall
be established forever." David of course immediately recognized
the import of the promises God was making to him: "You have
spoken also of the house of Your servant concerning the distant
future" (v. 19). Clearly these two passages together point
to the fact that there will be a davidic king ruling in the distant
future. And just as clearly, the writer of Hebrews is making the
claim that Jesus is the King. Or, to put it another way, the point
of the writer is not necessarily to say that "the OT author
was referring to Christ", but rather that "Christ is
also a davidic king." He is making a retrojective (rather
than suggesting the existence of a projective) claim about the
nature of Jesus.[3]
So, the author of Hebrews first makes
the claim about Jesus: He is king. Next, he claims that Jesus
is God. The next quote in Hebrews 1 reads as follows: "And
when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND
LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM" (v. 6). This passage
is a reference to the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43. About
this passage from Deuteronomy William Lane says: "This well-known
passage was subsequently removed from its context in Deuteronomy
and adopted for liturgical use in the Temple, synagogue, and Church"
(p. 28). But more importantly for our purposes, Lane also points
out that "in its original context the summons has reference
to the worship or homage due to God" (p. 28). Here is a good
example of how it is misleading to claim that the writer uses
a "christocentric hermeneutic." The writer’s hermeneutic
is quite straightforward here: this is a statement about God.
The writer realizes it is about God. Furthermore, I would assert
that our author is by no means claiming that the original writer—inspired
by God—is writing about Jesus Christ…or about any other
messianic figure for that matter. No, he knows it is about God,
and that is as far as his hermeneutic goes. At that point, he
ceases interpreting and begins theologizing: he is making the
claim that Jesus Christ is God. He is not offering the text as
"proof" of this bold assertion; he is not reasoning
from the OT text to this conclusion. At this point he is
merely asserting it as a theological fact; if one begins with
the idea that Christ is God, then this passage applies to him.
The next passage of course quotes
Psalm 104 merely for the purpose of contrasting angels to God;
its immediate use is not at all confusing, but it is another good
example of the fact that the writer selects his passages primarily
for the purpose of asserting his theological point, rather than
as "proof" for his assertions. More interestingly, the
next passage, from Psalm 45, again combines the notion of being
king and being God:
8 But of the Son {He says} "YOUR
THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER
IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS
AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED
YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."
These verses are pulled from Psalm
45, and here it is important for us to examine the entire psalm
as a whole:
1 My heart overflows with a good
theme; I address my verses to the King; My tongue is the pen
of a ready writer.
2 You are fairer than the sons
of men; Grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed
you forever.
3 Gird your sword on {your} thigh,
O Mighty One, {in} your splendor and your majesty!
4 And in your majesty ride on victoriously,
for the cause of truth and meekness {and} righteousness; let
your right hand teach you awesome things.
5 Your arrows are sharp; the peoples
fall under you; {your arrows are} in the heart of the king's
enemies.
6 Your throne, O God, is forever
and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed
you with the oil of joy above your fellows.
8 All your garments are {fragrant
with} myrrh and aloes {and} cassia; out of ivory palaces stringed
instruments have made you glad.
9 Kings' daughters are among your
noble ladies; at your right hand stands the queen in gold from
Ophir.
10 Listen, O daughter, give attention
and incline your ear: forget your people and your father's house;
11 Then the King will desire your
beauty. Because He is your Lord, bow down to Him.
12 The daughter of Tyre {will come}
with a gift; the rich among the people will seek your favor.
13 The king's daughter is all glorious
within; her clothing is interwoven with gold.
14 She will be led to the King
in embroidered work; the virgins, her companions who follow
her, will be brought to you.
15 They will be led forth with
gladness and rejoicing; they will enter into the king's palace.
16 In place of your fathers will
be your sons; you shall make them princes in all the earth.
17 I will cause your name to be
remembered in all generations; therefore the peoples will give
you thanks forever and ever.
The use of this passage is particularly
interesting in that portions of the beginning of the psalm clearly
are speaking of (and to) an historical, human king. Yet at a certain
point in the psalm—in fact, right here in verse 6, where
our author begins quoting—it clearly shifts to referring
to (and addressing) God. But then we realize that for much of
the psalm, God and the king are conflated; it is not clear when/if
the psalmist refers to a human king and when/if he refers to God.
As Bruce notes, "to Hebrew poets and prophets a prince of
the house of David was the viceregent of Israel’s God; he
belonged to a dynasty to which God had made special promises bound
up with the accomplishment of His purpose in the world" (p.
19-20). This poem has thus thrust the reader into the position
of conflating the role and rule of God with the role and rule
of the king. Thus, this is a brilliant choice on the part of our
author; it enables him to reassert both of the claims he has made
so far about Jesus: he is both king and God. As Lane says, "The
writer’s primary interest in the quotation is not the predication
of deity but of the eternal nature of the dominion exercised by
the Son. The implication that the Son shares the quality of deity
only intensifies the reference to his eternal rule and sharpens
the contrast between the unchangeable Son and the mutable angels"
(p. 29). Thus once again, we need not view the author as claiming
that Psalm 45 is "messianic." In fact, he knows it is
about God, and quotes it in order to make a claim about Jesus.
In case we have not gotten the point
that Jesus is in fact God, the author of Hebrews makes it crystal
clear:
10 And, YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING
LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS
OF YOUR HANDS;
11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL
THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE
THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.
Jesus is not only "a king,"
or even a "messianic king," as it might be possible
(though, I think, incorrect) to deduce from the passages already
quoted. In case we are inclined to assume that the he uses references
to God only to make a point about kingship, the author now quotes
from Psalm 102, which clearly refers to the all-powerful God:
12 But you, O LORD, abide forever,
and your name to all generations….
18 This will be written for the
generation to come, that a people yet to be created may praise
the LORD.
19 For He looked down from His
holy height; from heaven the LORD gazed upon the earth…
24 I say, "O my God, do not
take me away in the midst of my days, your years are throughout
all generations.
25 "Of old you founded the
earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 "Even they will perish,
but you endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment;
like clothing you will change them and they will be changed.
27 "But you are the same,
and your years will not come to an end.
28 "The children of your servants
will continue, and their descendants will be established before
you."
Here, the claim is made not only
that Jesus in kingly, but that he is in fact one and the same
with the eternal creator God. It is he himself who "of old…founded
the earth," and, as can be said only of God, forever he is
"the same," and his years will not come to an end."
Jesus is God.
Chapter one then concludes with a
reference to Psalm 110: "But to which of the angels has He
ever said, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET"? (v. 13). I do not wish to say
much about this passage other than to note that it at once looks
backwards, especially to verses 8 and 9 and Psalm 45, and more
generally to the entire chapter, in making the claim that Jesus
is king and God; and at the same time looks forward to the detailed
explanation of this Psalm in chapter 7.
So, up to this point the author has
made the claims that "Jesus is King" and "Jesus
is God," and he has used OT passages as the means to make
the claim and also to add theological depth to his brief assertions.
At this point he continues making theological claims about Jesus,
but he shifts focus. His first quotation to reflect this new focus
comes in verses 6-8:
6 But one has testified somewhere,
saying, "WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON
OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
7 "YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A
LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH
GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR
HANDS;
8 YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION
UNDER HIS FEET."
This is of course a reference to
Psalm 8, a glorious picture of the dignity that God has assigned
to man:
1 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic
is your name in all the earth, who have displayed your splendor
above the heavens!
2 From the mouth of infants and
nursing babes you have established strength because of your
adversaries, to make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you
have ordained;
4 What is man that you take thought
of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
5 Yet you have made him a little
lower than God, and you crown him with glory and majesty!
6 You make him to rule over the
works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen, and also
the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the heavens and
the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the
seas.
9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic
is your name in all the earth!
Here again is a passage which shows
the importance of knowing what the author is attempting, rather
than merely assuming that he is performing a "christocentric
interpretation" of Psalm 8. I assert that he is by no means
claiming that Psalm 8 is or ever was a "messianic psalm."
He is not claiming that what is being said could apply only
to Christ; the importance of this passage for his argument is
that this passage does in fact refer to Christ. This passage
in its original context clearly is talking about man; the author
of Hebrews does not wax christocentric in order to reinterpret
it. As Morris notes, "The passage [from Psalms] is describing
the place of mankind in God’s order, and we do not come to
Christ’s place until v. 9" (p. 24). The author in fact
uses the passage precisely because of its original (and current)
meaning: not only is Jesus king and God, but he was in fact also
human.
It is true that the phrase "son
of man," though used exclusively about human man in Psalm
8, resonates with the messianic turn of phrase from the book of
Daniel and picked up by Christ’s own references to himself.
And I think there is good reason to think that the author slyly
chose this passage in order to take advantage of the ringing in
Jewish ears of the messianic implications of that term.[4]
But the rest of the chapter makes clear that the primary reason
for his use of this passage is to make the claim that Jesus in
fact became a man. This can be seen in the very next OT quotation:
"I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF
THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE" (v. 12). The writer
tells us in verse 11 why he refers to this passage: "He is
not ashamed to call them brethren." From a study of the gospels
we can infer that Jesus and the Christian community had already
applied Psalm 22, the source of this quotation, to Jesus the Messiah.
But, I would assert that that is not its primary reason for being
used here; the primary reason here is simply to use language which
allows him to assert the way in which Jesus interacts with humanity—he
has become to us as brothers, he has become like us. The author
does something similar in his quotation of Isaiah 8:18: he uses
the passage to bring in the language of human relationship. Thus,
we can conclude that the thrust of this chapter, and its use of
the OT, is to make the claim that Jesus is human. As the writer
himself says in verse 17: "Therefore, He had to be made like
His brethren in all things, so that …" The important
theological and devotional points that follow the "so that"
do not concern us at this point; suffice to say that this foundation
that has been laid in chapters 1 and 2—that Jesus is king,
God, and at the same time human—provides the theological
basis of all that follows in the book.
A full analysis of how this theological
foundation is used in the rest of the book of Hebrews—particularly
in chapters 3-7—is beyond the scope of the paper. But a brief
discussion will at least demonstrate that it is a reasonable claim.
Let me first of all assert that I absolutely am not suggesting
that the methods of using the OT in chapters 1 and 2—in short,
beginning with theological conclusions and using the OT to elucidate
the points—are used in the rest of the book. The OT is used
in several complex ways in the remaining portions of Hebrews,
and a discussion of those ways are well beyond the scope of this
paper. But the claims that the writer has made in these chapters—that
Jesus is king, is God, and is man—do provide a foundation
which the author builds upon in chapters 5 and 7. For in fact
this discussion of Melchizedek (which is, of course, essentially
an explanation of the hermeneutic of the author of Psalm 110)
rests on this three-fold nature of Jesus. For Melchizedek is a
king, which is highlighted by the repetition of the word in the
beginning of chapter 7:
1 For this Melchizedek, king
of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he
was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
2 to whom also Abraham apportioned
a tenth part of all {the spoils} was first of all, by the translation
{of his name} king of righteousness, and then also king
of Salem, which is king of peace.
Rather than analyzing by what means
the author presumes to stretch the meaning of words in order to
assert various types of kingship, I would assert that this repetition
rather is designed to emphasize the fact of his kingship.
Thus, based on the theological foundation established in chapter
1, we have a clear and immediate connection between him and Jesus;
Jesus is a presented as a king in chapters 1 and 2, which makes
him like Melchizedek the king. By association, then, Jesus is
also like Melchizedek in being a priest, as the author proceeds
to explain in chapter 7. This allows the author to make another
step: in order to be a true priest, Jesus had to be human. This
connection is made in verses 6-7:
6 just as He says also in another
{passage} "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER
OF MELCHIZEDEK."
7 In the days of His flesh, He
offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and
tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard
because of His piety.
This of course hearkens back to the
beautiful and well-known passage from chapter 4, which really
is the beginning of this current section, and which shows how
significant it is that Christ is a human high priest:
14 Therefore, since we have a great
high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son
of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest
who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been
tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with
confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy
and find grace to help in time of need.
But of course, his priestly actions
would not have placed him above the current system had he not
been in the nature of the eternal God and thus provided an eternal
sacrifice. And this point is indeed the ultimate point of this
section of the book, as is seen in this passage from 5:9-10:
9 And having been made perfect,
He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
10 being designated by God as a
high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
The conclusion that the writer of
Hebrews draws from this, and expands upon in chapter 8 and following,
is that "so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee
of a better covenant" (v. 22). But the theological basis
for the claim is that which was established in chapters 1-2, that
Jesus is God and therefore eternal; as the author asserts in 7:23-25:
23 The {former} priests, on the
one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented
by death from continuing,
24 but Jesus, on the other hand,
because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
25 Therefore He is able also to
save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He
always lives to make intercession for them.
Of course the next several chapters
of Hebrews contain the author’s argument that Jesus has superseded
the OT sacrificial system, that Jesus is the only sacrifice for
sin. The comparison with Melchizedek has enabled the author to
establish the nature of Christ's "priesthood" and the
nature of the covenant that he has now established with us; this
leads to a discussion of the "new covenant" from Jeremiah
and the implications for our current approach to God based upon
the blood of Jesus Christ alone. And of course from there the
author proceeds to encourage his readers to maintain their faith
and live their lives as they should. But the basis, the foundation,
for all of these points, must begin with the nature of Jesus Christ
himself. If Jesus is not the king, he is not like Melchizedek;
if he is not human, he cannot be a high priest for us; and if
he is not God, his sacrifice is no better than that of animals
and more importantly has no effect on our ultimate relationship
with God. Therefore the author begins this book by asserting and
explaining the nature of Jesus Christ, the basis for all of the
theological and practical implications which follow.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Raymond. The Message of
Hebrews: Christ Above All. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity,
1982.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the
Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
---. New Testament Development
of Old Testament Themes. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1968.
Evans, Craig A. "The Function
of the Old Testament in the New." Introducing New Testament
Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture
in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale UP, 1989.
Lane, William L. Word Biblical
Commentary: Hebrews 1-8. Dallas: Word, 1991.
Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical
Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1975, 1999.
Moo, Douglas. "The Problem of
Sensus Plenior."
Morris, Leon. "Hebrews."
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Newell, William R. Hebrews Verse-By-Verse.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995. Originally pub. Chicago: Moody, 1947.
NOTES
[1]
It should be understood that NT writers use the OT in a variety
of ways as I will discuss later, and not every use will fit directly
into this scheme. But I do believe that that this is the general
hermeneutical context for the use of the OT in the NT. Return
to Text
[2]
Or to imply it by capitalizing the first letter of "son,"
"king," "anointed," etc., as many modern versions
do. Return to Text
[3]
Thus I have to disagree slightly with Newell, who sees in verse
5 an emphasis on the humanity of Jesus. While that might be implied,
I believe that the notion of kingship is more important, for it
provides a foundation for later points in the book. Return
to Text
[4]
I am thinking here of what Hays refers to as "resonant significations"
(p. 90) that are contained in the text being quoted. That is,
there are theological meanings resounding in the original text
which, though they are not expounded on in the NT quotation, nonetheless
reverberate for the knowledgeable reader of the text. Return
to Text
Copyright © 2000
Tim Clark
|
