|
Post by Josh on Mar 16, 2009 19:23:44 GMT -8
Post your comments, questions, and discussion starters on Hebrews 9 and 10 as replies to this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 18:04:17 GMT -8
I realize this question might not be significant to many of you, but if it is, I'm curious your thoughts on this:
Do you think passages like these which discuss the Tabernacle and not specifically the Temple* imply that Hebrews was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70?
*The Tabernacle was the early, traveling version of the later Temple which was in a fixed location. The Tabernacle was set up by Moses and Aaron, the Temple later was set up by King David and King Solomon.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 18:34:13 GMT -8
A nice view of the operations of the triune God.
There's a lot here in this verse. First off, what is this "promised eternal inheritance". I'd argue that the author is referring specifically to the promises of the Old Testament prophets. I see this as a hint that we should read the prophet's predictions about the future of Israel in light of the church.
Secondly, "ransom" is an interesting term for one aspect of Jesus' death. Who do you think the ransom is being paid to in this illustration? Satan? The Law? God?
This idea of "copies" could be traced to two divergent sources: first, in Jewish tradition, the plans that God gave Moses for the construction of the Tabernacle were thought to be plans that imitated a heavenly reality.
This ideal tabernacle in heaven/ localized tabernacle on earth connection is also reminiscent of Plato's "forms and particulars"- the idea that things in the physical world are copies or shadows* that reflect things in the more real world, the world of spirit or ideas.
*The author of Hebrews even uses the terms shadow to refer to the earthly copies, much like in Plato's allegory of the cave:
Hebrews 10: 1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 18:36:14 GMT -8
How can the author say that the time he was living in was the "end of the ages"? A verse, by the way, in direct contradiction to the concept of reincarnation.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 18:42:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2009 19:25:20 GMT -8
Why? Do you know of a tabernacle that was used post AD 70? I'm not aware of one, but I'd be interested to know if the Jews did such a thing in an attempt to restore the sacrifices.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2009 19:29:45 GMT -8
Personally, I don't see the ransom paid to a "who" at all. I believe the author is metaphorically speaking of being ransomed from death (the wages of sin). It's just one of many ways the atonement is characterized, which is why there are so many different views on it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 19:32:57 GMT -8
No, I haven't heard anything like that, but some commentators point out that if this was written pre-AD 70 why not refer to the Temple and the rituals currently going on there instead of referring to Moses' tabernacle.
My thought on this is simply that though we might think of the Temple as greater than the Tabernacle, the Temple was, of itself, a copy of the Tabernacle, and so, since in the Law it is the Tabernacle that is specifically discussed, that's what's the author of Hebrews is focusing on being that his topic is, after all, the Mosaic law.
Still, it is a bit curious that the current temple isn't mentioned.
What if Hebrews was written after AD 70 partly in response to Jewish Christians being unsettled by the destruction of the Temple*. In other words, could the author be assuring them ONCE AND FOR ALL that the physical Temple was no longer needed anyway?
* It does, after all, appear in Acts that the early Jewish Christians still utilized the Temple for some aspects of Jewish ritual
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2009 19:38:08 GMT -8
This is a very important point. I find it very interesting the author compares Christ entering heaven to the priest entering the holiest place of the tabernacle.
People often see heaven as the destination/final resting place for believers.
But, like you said, the tabernacle was a temporary place of worship, the temple was supposed to be the permanent place.
Likewise, heaven is a temporary place for the departed, and the temple (the chuch) is characterized as God's house in the NT. What we truly look forward to is a resurrection and restoration of all creation, living in unity and love with one another and worshipping God for eternity in the eternal temple.
(This is a point NT Wright likes to belabor)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2009 20:47:06 GMT -8
So, a personification of sin?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 18, 2009 18:14:10 GMT -8
Well, I'm sure you know that the bible is no stranger to that concept (Gen 4:7, 2Pet2:19). But again, I would say that believers are ransomed from death. If you want to call that a personification, I don't have any problem with that. But I'm not sure the analogy is meant to be pressed that far. I believe when Christ "led captivity captive" (Eph 4:8), it simply means he conquered death and with it, the power death has over enslaving people to fear of it. That's why Paul can say: 1 Cor 15:55 55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" NKJV
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2009 20:59:29 GMT -8
I don't see "personification" as literally implying personality or conscious awareness. I mean "personification" in the literary sense.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 22, 2009 19:23:51 GMT -8
Great discussion today, guys.
Hey, I was just reading in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (from CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia) with Justus tonight and realized that the part of the story concerning the island of the voices/ dufflepuds totally mirrors much of the discussion we've had about Hebrews over the last two weeks.
It's chapters 9 and 10 (The Island of the Voices and the Magician's book).
If you read it as a metaphor with the Dufflepuds being the nation of Israel, the Magician as the Melchizidek*/ Jesus/ God. It's all about how the dufflepuds misunderstand how the Magician is treating them and how the Magician is doing anything he can to help them see the truth. Very much akin to the "law as schoolmaster" conversation we had today. And the final outcome is that the Magician is making them into something beauty through this long process even though they think they've been uglified.
The two chapters stand alone pretty well, especially if you're at all familiar with Narnia. I'd highly recommend reading those two as a supplement to our Hebrews discussion.
*The Magician is said to only eat bread and drink wine, a nice nod to Melchizidek.
|
|