Journeying into the Unknown (A Sermon on the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Kim Thoday)

The identity of the writer to the Epistle to the Hebrews is as frustrating a quest as it is captivating for the imagination. Its authorship was much discussed in the early ages of the Church and Origen, one of the most learned of the early Christian teachers, concluded his examination of the issue with the words: ” … who wrote the Epistle, God only knows?” Such a conclusion is likely a surprise for those who are used to reading the Authorised and Revised versions of the Bible, where Hebrews is ascribed to the Apostle Paul.

Eusebius, the early Christian historian, writing in about 325AD, tells us that even in his day “some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews on the ground that it was controverted by the Roman Church as not being Paul’s.” However, gradually the Epistle came to be accepted and Paul’s name was added to it in order to increase its canonicity. Many recent translators have entirely abandoned the use of Paul’s name even in the title of the letter. There is no substantial evidence as to the author’s identity, but there have been many interesting conjectures.

Martin Luther made the suggestion that Apollos could have written the Epistle. Well, it is an interesting proposition. After all, Apollos is remembered as a gifted orator and the style of the letter is suggestive of this. Also, Apollos, like the Jewish philosopher Philo, had an Alexandrian education (Acts 18:24) which fits the tenure of Hebrews. Several scholars have championed the idea that the author was a woman, perhaps Priscilla, who is thought to have been a woman of some social status with possible royal connections to the Emperor’s household. Certainly, the Epistle was finally composed by an educated person using a sophisticated Greek style and with a keen sense of, and familiarity with, allegorical form, Greek ideas as well as Jewish tradition. Indeed, the quotations and citations from the Jewish writings appear to be from the Greek version: the Septuagint. So, this combined with the use of Platonic philosophical pre-suppositions in the Epistle would tend to indicate that the author was a Hellenistic Jew, i.e. a more liberal school of Jewish thinker.

Some scholars have also suggested that the fact that the authorship is unknown is indicative of the Epistle being written by a woman. For, it is a well-known anthropological tenet in historical investigation of the tradition of Western texts, that women’s names tended to be forgotten or in some cases, deliberately suppressed. Similar theories have been offered up for the authorship of the Gospel of Mark and the identities of both the second disciple on the road to Emmaus in the Gospel of Luke and the beloved disciple in the Gospel of John. However, one needs to be careful I think, about building too large an edifice upon this because indeed all the canonical Gospels were originally anonymous writings. The earliest manuscripts we have do not include authors, titles and authorial blurbs, just as they do not include chapters and verses, captions and study notes (not even a supplementary video) – all this has been added over the centuries. One problem with von Harnack’s theory of Priscilla, or indeed any other woman, is the masculine form of the personal pronoun in 11:32, (unless that be considered a later edit). Personally, I tend to be more interested in the widely accepted theory that the Gospels and many other productions of the earliest Christian communities are precisely that – communal productions with a long and inter-woven oral and written history; so that children, women and men were all involved in the process. Nevertheless, this still leaves the question of the final redactor or composer of the Gospels or Epistle, in the case of Hebrews, unsolved. I cannot but help be sympathetic to the notion of female authorship for writings like the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Just imagine if that was the case. They would certainly stand as literary resistors to an overwhelmingly patriarchal Western textual history.

It is very unlikely that the Apostle Paul was responsible for the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews at any time in the history of its composure. Certainly, the style, syntax and vocabulary are far removed from the earthy, robust, and immediate style of Paul’s genuine letters and indeed major theological themes of Paul are absent in Hebrews; just as there are concepts in Hebrews that are foreign to the remainder of the Pauline canon. For instance, the Apostle Paul was a man on fire with the idea that human beings are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. That is, for Paul, we are only acceptable before God because of our faith in Jesus Christ. We are primarily justified because of divine initiative, but with this also comes the important secondary feature of that justification, namely, the faith of the person in that divine initiative or providence. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, dwells upon the concept that the Old Law, the Law of Moses (the Torah), has been fulfilled in a new Law – embodied in Jesus Christ. The Old Law, for Paul, is the disciplinarian (like the old idea of a school-master) that sets down the important foundation of a righteous life and to that extent points us toward the horizon of the Christ event. But, ultimately for Paul, it is Christ who justifies and sets us free to be as God intended us to be. Paul’s arguments are often strongly connected to the Torah. After all, this is Paul’s heritage and expertise. Prior to his encounter with God on the road to Damascus, it was the Law that had defined him and his purpose. So, often Paul’s writings are coloured by one who is still reflecting and theologising upon how the Old is connected to the New, and vice versa, particularly in relation to justification. This is not an emphasis of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Furthermore, Paul’s ideas are profoundly influenced by his Pharisaic education, although as an Apostle of Christ, they are reanimated by a new view of God in Jesus (as Paul says) “who loved me and gave himself for me.” So, although Paul readily identified with the sacrifice of Jesus, for otherwise there would be no Resurrection glory, he does not seem at all concerned to relate the Christ-event to the Jewish cultus; that is, the Jewish sacrificial system, as does the writer of Hebrews.

It is rather more likely in fact that the final production of the Epistle, as we now have it, did not occur until late in the first century. If that is the case then this disqualifies Paul, Apollos and Priscilla. It would seem that 2:3 assumes at least a second or third generation of Christians and 13:7 draws attention to the likelihood that some of the important preachers are remembered from an earlier period. So the final composition of the Epistle has the feel of being part of an evolving tradition with two or three generations of heritage. It has the feel of a number of different sermons and liturgical pieces having been woven together. And it is a writing that is tinged with Greek philosophical ideas, even more so than the Gospel of John. For instance, although Plato’s “Doctine of Ideas” was already 500 years old, one can see how profoundly Hebrews is coloured by that understanding of the cosmos.

Plato maintained that everything on earth has a heavenly counterpart – its true or essential idea. He developed a view of the cosmos that this world of tangible things is really only a shadow or imperfect copy of the true realm of originary things and ideas in the heavenly sphere. It appears that the writer/s of Hebrews shares this cosmological and epistemological worldview. And the author applies it to the very Jewish understanding of Jesus as the great high priest. So the earthly tabernacle as we see it in the Jewish Scriptures is a shadow or a copy of the heavenly tabernacle which is revealed in Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ becomes the ideal high priest who offers the ideal sacrifice in the ideal sanctuary. In other words, the heavenly realities have been brought down to earth in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who, as the Son of God, has made the perfect revelation of the divine will and purpose, and by his sacrifice has wrought out the perfect redemption for humankind. This is one of the major themes of the Epistle and we are blessed to have within our canon one of the great missiological and evangelistic treatises preserved by providence and the inspiration of this unknown author/s.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, is remarkable in many ways. As we have noted, its very inclusion in our canon of sacred Scripture was fraught with difficulty, rather like the women seeking admission for ordination candidature within the Church in modern times. It is remarkable too, in that it is a testimony to those unsung, unknown followers of Jesus, who, like Paul, pioneered strategies of mission and evangelism largely without precedent. These pioneers launched into the unknown. They continued the mission of Jesus, with the belief that Jesus was still with them because of the reality of the Resurrection and the pentecostal experience of his Spirit – the Holy Spirit. The Epistle of the Hebrews demonstrates how these “hebrews” defined their missionary and evangelistic task. It seems as Hellenistic Jews, they were inspired to articulate the Gospel of Jesus Christ in meaningful ways to a highly Hellenised environment. It maybe that the Epistle was finally composed in the vicinity of Rome, for in Rome at this time there existed a large Jewish community. Here then we have the Gospel being reanimated both in terms of Jewish cultic thought and practise and Platonic ideas. The Epistle deserves its canonical place because it achieves an important pre-requisite of canonicity: namely, the passing on of an authentic memory of Jesus of Nazareth in his essential person and work and the re-articulation (read: proclamation) of this memory in language that is meaningful for new and changing cultural settings. A pivotal question for us in our era and in our particular cultural settings: is our articulation and demonstration of Christianity canonical? That is, is our proclamation through mission and evangelism, at once anchored to the foundation of Jesus of Nazareth and open to the great unknown sea of the cultural and social productions of human identity. The tension between port and open sea has characterised the history of Christianity. In our postmodern era, there is another great swell of changing tides. Will we stay hidden in forgotten ports, or will we, as the pioneers of the faith, take up the anchor and set sail on journey into the unknown.

It is critical for the Church of Jesus Christ in our postmodern era to be both bold and wise. Bold in recognising that we must take great risks in redefining and performing the Christian faith in culturally meaningful ways. Wise in recognising that if we continue to re-member, the stories of Jesus of Nazareth, his person and work, reflected in the New Testament writings, then we will be true to the great Christian heritage that began in Christ Jesus. Let us not be afraid to re-fashion our Christian communities that communicate to, and critique, the dominant cultures in meaningful ways according to the examples we have in the traditions of Jesus of Nazareth.

I want to continue to demonstrate in our era, the virtue and life changing power of the Gospel, as it was rearticulated for the time and cultural setting of the Hebrews. Some of the most provocative and challenging words for me are contained in 13:1-6. They are especially evocative because it is likely that this Epistle was written at a time of considerable persecution against the Christians by the Roman authorities. We too live with rapidly changing times and tides. Our era is beset by oppressive dark forces of depravity and delusion. In the face of an increasingly nihilistic, relativistic world, I still want to be part of that Church that carries out the anchor of Christ into the middle of the maelstrom. I still want to be part of that Church that is expressing a Gospel oriented life-style that is the only hope for this world. I want to be part of that Church that continues to recognise the reality of individual and systemic sin, and that while we remain ignorant of it or party to it, this world is destined for destruction. I want to be part of that Church that offers warning to those who do not live under the grace of God, through Jesus Christ. I want to be part of that Church that says there is not one of us immune from the cultural viruses of modernity and indeed, postmodernity. If the twentieth century has taught us anything, it has taught us that there is not one of us who, under certain circumstances, could not be conditioned to support the hero-leader who would “redeem” the world at the push of a glowing red button. I want to be part of that Church that insists that Jesus of Nazareth, the God of the margins, the God of the poor and powerless, is the only solution for the world. But as I listen to so many of the dominant voices of our era I tremble at how quickly the contagions of aggression and self-interest and unreason are spreading.

It want to be part of that Church that continues to warn our children about the corrupting nature of power, the dangers of wealth and the need to handle both with great care. I want to be part of that Church that recognises that the rich language and heritage of the West has been debased by misuse and maleficent manipulation. I want to be part of that Church that warns its children not to be swept up by all kinds of new teaching (13:9); that the sophists have even invaded the sanctuaries and God is invoked with equal shallowness by politician, patriot and prosperity preacher. I want to be part of that Church that responds to this world of aggression, deception and self-interest with forgiveness, truth and goodwill. I want to be part of that Church (unlike one of the most successful churches in Australia) that says that success is not distinctively Christian, but rather teaching our children to freely accept and give love. I want to be part of that Church that teaches its children to live at risk with mystery and to live with at peace with mortality. I want to be part of that Church that demonstrates hospitality to refugees, prisoners and the survivors of torture and which is physically in solidarity (13:2-3). I want to be part of that Church that loves the tradition of the anchor and nurtures it and carries it forward upon the breeze of the Holy Spirit. I want to be part of that Church that is moving out into the unknown of God’s future with confidence. And to shift from nautical to agricultural metaphor, I want to be part of that Church that is intentional in its sowing of the seed of the Gospel; but that resists the temptations to manipulate and coerce. In the words of the novelist, the late Morris West: “Where they (the seeds) fall, God [only] knows; but some take root and flowers bloom in strange places, a beauty in miniature, a tiny cosmos defying the lunatic chaos of our time.”

Blessings in Jesus’ name

KIM THODAY, HEWETT COMMUNITY CHURCH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

http://www.hewett.org.au