Hebrews Use of OT

The absence of NT damnation terminology in Hebrews calls into question the widely held assumption that the author's purpose was to warn his readers of eternal judgement. Furthermore, to limit the warnings to a distant future judgement overlooks its nearness and diminishes its relevance to the first-century audience facing the dangers arising from the first Jewish revolt. There are many clues throughout the epistle that point to the physical threat posed by the coming Roman invasion to those Christians who lapsed back into Judaism. These clues point immediately to the destruction of Palestine, the city of Jerusalem and the Temple. These conclusions are confirmed by a close examination of the OT texts cited or alluded to in Hebrews 10:26-31. Rather than eternal destruction, the OT examples warn of physical judgement coming upon Israel because of covenant unfaithfulness. If they sought refuge in Judaism, the readers could suffer the same fate of the Jewish rebels by the Romans. However, the readers could avoid God's wrath coming upon the Jewish nation by holding firm to their confession, bearing the reproach of Christ outside the camp (13:13), and looking to the heavenly city instead of Jerusalem now under the sentence of destruction (13:14).

The unknown author of Hebrews uses the hapax legomenon θεράπων in his reference to Moses as a "servant" when he contrasts Moses with Jesus in Heb 3:1-6. He states that Moses was faithful as a servant (θεράπων) in God's house, whereas Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. Why did the author of Hebrews choose this particular term? Through a study of the use of θεράπων in the literature from antiquity specifically the cultic and prophetic elements associated with the termit might be concluded that the author of Hebrews deliberately employs this term for Moses in order to depict him as a religious or temple servant, as a priest in the service of Christ, the "Son".

Atonement (kpr) as it is defined within the Levitical system is often conceived of in a manner which is roughly correct in terms of its gist, but quite mistaken in terms of its specifics.  It can more accurately, I believe, be summarised as follows.  (1)  The purpose of the sacrificial system is not, for the most part, to deal with ‘moral transgressions’, but to purify the Tabernacle (and those associated with it) when a very specific type of transgression occurs, namely an unintentional transgression or a transgression of a ceremonial nature.  (2)  The blood of OT sacrifices is not normally applied to ‘sinners’;  rather, it is applied to those who serve in the Tabernacle, or to the vessels or altar of the Tabernacle, or to the Tabernacle itself.  As mentioned above, its primary concern is the purification of God’s sacred space.  (3)  The sins of believers are completely forgiven in the OT;  hence, David can confidently proclaim, “As far as the east is from the west, so far does [the LORD] remove our transgressions from us”, and Paul can ground the doctrine of justification in David’s statements of his forgiveness (Rom. 4.7-8 cf. Psa. 32.1-2).  The OT believer does not obtain forgiveness through sacrifices (or even through ‘sacrifices infused with Christ’s power’).  He obtains forgiveness in exactly the same way as the NT believer, namely through faith in God insofar as God has revealed himself.  (4)  The sense in which the OT sacrificial system foreshadows the sacrifice of Christ is, therefore, as follows:  just as specific animal sacrifices put right specific ‘ceremonial issues’ in OT times, so now Christ’s sacrifices deal with all sin, be it ceremonial or moral, intentional or unintentional.  As such, Christ’s is a better sacrifice than the OT’s in every conceivable way.

A cursory glance at Hebrews' critique of Israel's fear at Sinai in Heb 12: [18][19][20][21][24][25][26][27][28][29] suggests that the author has misunderstood or manipulated his sources. In the Pentateuch, the appointment of Moses as Israel's mediator following their unwillingness to stand too close to YHWH receives explicit approval (Deut 5:28), while Heb 12:25 labels that request for mediation a "refusal" to heed the word of God spoken to them from the mountain. In this dissertation I argue that Hebrews' use of the Sinai narratives resides on a complex trajectory established by four points: (1) the Sinai covenant according to Exodus, (2) the reenactment of that covenant according to Deuteronomy, (3) the call for a new covenant according to Jeremiah, and (4) the present reality of that new covenant established by God and mediated by Jesus Christ.

Excerpt from Caleb T. Friedeman, ed. Listen, Understand, Obey: Essays on Hebrews in Honor of Gareth Lee Cockerill (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017). Used with permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers (http://wipfandstock.com/listen-understand-obey.html).

El concepto del “reposo  de  Dios”  en Hebreos 4  es  uno de  los temas controversiales de  dicha  epístola, muchos cristianos no cuentan  con un estudio profundo de  este pasaje. Aunque  se  ha  escrito sobre  este punto, en  el mundo teológico  aún no se  presenta un consenso  general sobre  el significado de  este pasaje a  la luz  del sábado semanal del Antiguo  Testamento. Generalmente se  interpreta  el “reposo de  Dios”  en  Hebreos 4  desde una  perspectiva  espiritual  o escatológica, negando  la validez  del sábado en  el  Nuevo Testamento. En esta investigación  se  analizó  el significado del reposo de  Dios en  Hebreos 4 desde  la perspectiva  de  la  epístola  y  las  alusiones al  sábado semanal  en  el  Antiguo Testamento,  determinando su consecuente  aplicación, de  manera  que  se  pueda  presentar la definición que el autor de  Hebreos le  otorga  al “reposo de  Dios”  y  cómo debe  influir en la vida del creyente.

Hebrews has more to say about Melchizedek than what is said about him in LXX Ps 109,4 (perhaps also MT Ps 110,4) and Genesis 14. Heb 7,3 says that Melchizedek is ““without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life”” and that ““he remains a priest forever””. I discuss where the author gets this information from. Methodologically, priority should be given to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author uses elsewhere. I argue that the surplus information found in Heb 7,3.8 stems from arguments made from silence. The author explicitly makes arguments from silence in Heb 7,14.20.

In Michael Phua’s Chinese article entitled “Interpretation of Psalm 40 in Hebrews 10: A Case Study on the NT Use of the OT,” he proposes that “the incarnation of Jesus enriched the meaning of Ps 40:7” and concludes that “the method by which the author of Hebrews interprets the Old Testament differs from modern academic conventions. Not only is the author’s interpretation of Ps 40 unlike modern historical-grammatical exegesis, he also does not interpret it in accord with its original meaning.” While it is true that the interpretation of Ps 40 by the author of Hebrews cannot be derived solely by modern historical-grammatical method, there is a need to clarify further the underlying interpretive presuppositions of the author of Hebrews as well as the relationship between his interpretation and the original meaning of Ps 40, and to explore further how we could read the Old Testament today. Therefore, this article responds to Phua in two ways. First, a further examination of the interpretive method and presupposition of the author of Hebrews: (1) how the determination of the Vorlage used by the author of Hebrews will affect the conclusions drawn regarding his interpretive method; (2) why the author of Hebrews puts the words of David into the mouth of Jesus; and (3) what is the relationship between his interpretation of Ps 40 and its original meaning. Second, how should the contemporary Christian be reading the Old Testament. This article proposes that there is a more closely-knitted relationship between the interpretation of Ps 40 by the author of Hebrews and its original meaning than supposed. Although the interpretation has gone beyond the original meaning of Ps 40, it is still consistent with the original sense but has taken on another referent in a new context of salvation history. From the author’s interpretation of Ps 95 in Heb 3–4, we also observe that the author developed his reading based on the original meaning of Ps 95 and teased out its significance for his readers. Contemporary Christians, on the one hand, should read the Old Testament using the historical-grammatical method; but, on the other hand, can also read the Old Testament through the lense of salvation history from a theological-canonical or progressive revelatory perspective, in order to see how the redemptive work of Christ gives a fuller meaning to certain Old Testament texts. Nonetheless, in doing so, the contemporary interpreter needs to take care to avoid allegorizing.

This article analyzes Heb 13, particularly vv. 7–19, applying the methods of spatial analysis. Of specific interest is the space described as “outside the camp” in Heb 13:11–13. As the term seems to allude to three different spaces in time, namely, the spaces outside the desert camp, outside Jerusalem, and outside Rome (the addressees’ location as generally assumed), a practice of overlapping maps can be observed, in which the first shapes all subsequent maps. This first map points to Sinai, where the ritual related to Yom Kippur was introduced. As Sinai is also the location where Israel’s leader Moses, to whom Jesus in Hebrews is compared, left the camp due to its defilement, the primary intertext underlying Heb 13 is identified in Exod 33, particularly in vv. 7–11. A detailed spatial analysis of the Sinai narrative adopting Edward W. Soja’s trialectic of Firstspace, Secondspace, and Thirdspace, together with additional readings from various Targumim as well as Philo of Alexandria, results in a useful model that seems to have served the author of Hebrews to interpret the spaces, bodies, and actions in ch. 13. This analysis not only sheds new interpretative light on a chapter widely considered to be a crux interpretum but also strengthens the position that this chapter is an integral part of the preceding text in Hebrews.

Many scholars hold that the Letter to the Hebrews portrays heaven as God's true tabernacle, the original from which the Mosaic tabernacle was derived. Recently Philip Church, building on work by Lincoln Hurst, has argued that the heavenly tabernacle instead represents God's eschatological dwelling with his people, and that the Mosaic tabernacle (and the temple that followed it) was a prior sketch and foreshadowing of this yet-future reality. They advance a number of important arguments which have not been systematically addressed by those who read the true tabernacle as primarily heavenly in a spatial and 'vertical' sense. This article examines and rebuts the arguments of Hurst and Church. First, the case for the 'eschatological dwelling' position is outlined; then I make two wider points regarding the cosmological presuppositions that underlie this view; next, the meaning of the key terminology in Hebrews 8-9, especially ὑπόδειγμα, is examined; finally, Hebrews' perspective on the heavenly tabernacle is articulated with an eye to both cosmology and eschatology. Only by integrating spatial and temporal categories can a satisfactory account of God's heavenly dwelling be offered.

In his book entitled Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, general editor Herbert W. Bateman IV moderates a written debate between four well-known Bible scholars concerning the warning passages that play a significant role in the interpretation of the book of Hebrews. Although the debate has many facets, the identity and spiritual condition of the authors audience is a major factor. The debate is fairly balanced as two of the scholars represent the Arminian view (Grant Osborn / Classical Arminian and Gareth Lee Cockerill / Wesleyan Arminian) and two scholars the Reformed view (Buist M. Fanning / Classical Reformed and Randall C. Gleason / Moderate Reformed). In each chapter, an author makes his case and the other three provide a response.
Bateman sets the stage for the debate by providing a “contextual orientation” through his introduction. Perhaps more than any other New Testament Epistle, the Book of Hebrews has served as fertile soil for strong opinions and deep disagreements concerning its key interpretational points. Questions of authorship, intended audience, purpose, and primary message have challenged scholars since the second century. Bateman quotes Hughes who describes the introductory issues in Hebrews as “the battleground of discordant opinion and conjecture.”  Equally problematic are the questions around the meaning of the warning passages, which force readers to deal with important theological concepts like “the issue of assurance and the doctrine of eternal security.”  Is the audience made up of genuine believers who are in danger of losing their salvation if they do not persevere to the end? Is his main emphasis the dangers of apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV), or the sufficiency of the salvation that Jesus Christ provides as the “Perfect High Priest” (Hebrews 7:28, ESV) . The four scholars wrestle with these difficult issues and provide important insights on how to navigate this powerful text. Bateman summarizes the book’s purpose when he writes, “Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews seeks to expose existing tensions and provide various ways in which four scholars with differing theological grids interpret them in the literary and historical context of Hebrews.”

This article proposes a better source for the Son’s cry in Hebrews 5:7. It begins by surveying sources previous scholars have identified, including Jesus’ cry in Gethsemane and Golgotha, several Psalms, and the Maccabean martyr literature. It is then argued that these background sources for the language are insufficient. Instead the author of Hebrews has an entire motif from the Psalter as his informing source: the Davidic figure that cries out in trust to be delivered from a death-like experience. Firstly, the motif of the Davidic righteous suffering in the LXX Psalms is demonstrated. Secondly, Hebrews’ use of the Messianic royal figure is demonstrated and thirdly, Hebrews 5:7 as a portrait of the Christ who cries out for deliverance is demonstrated. Thus, Hebrews 5:7 sees the Son as the Davidic king who is the true representative human exercising trust in YHWH, bringing to fulfilment the theme from various Psalms.

The authors of the Book of Jeremiah know the Torah’s establishment structures of diaspora and nation. They know the respective theologies associated with each of those establishment structures and in the face of the nation’s destruction by the Babylonians they envision a future in which the entire dispersed population will assume the roles of both the conquered warrior class and the disappointed priestly class by returning to the pastoral theology of Genesis and “writing the Law on their hearts.”
The author(s) of Jeremiah have the Lord promise the beleaguered population that the days are coming when they will embody their oral traditions in the absence of their national institutions: the temple, the priesthood, and the written law.
The author(s) consideration of the circumstances is entirely within the framework of the Torah loop foreshadowing the theology and ministry of Jesus Christ in the Gospels as argued by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews who replicates Jeremiah's "Gospel before the Gospels" in his letter.

Note: Since the theological argument of the Letter to the Hebrews is the same theological argument of the Book of Jeremiah, and also the pastoral theology of Genesis, the Letter to the Hebrews cannot be anti-Semitic. It is an internal argument within Judaism over the abandonment of the Torah loop which prescribes "writing the Law on your heart" when the nation's institutions are destroyed and its people forced into diaspora...

A growing number of scholars have argued that Christ's offering in Hebrews is not limited to the cross but extends into heaven; in recent work David Moffitt contends that Christ's heavenly, atoning offering is perpetual and coextensive with his intercession. This article calls this further step into question, by examining the function of Christ's heavenly session in Hebrews' construal of sacrificial process, and by exploring the nature of his heavenly intercession and its relation to his offering and enthronement. It argues that Christ's session is a hinge, marking an emphatic close to his sacrificial work for the forgiveness of sins, and inaugurating his royal reign and priestly prayer.

This article examines the ways Old Testament promise passages have been interpreted incorrectly.  Using Joshua 1, it explores the approaches the New Testament writers used in quoting from Old Testament promise passages in the hopes of gaining some strategies for preachers and teachers when approaching Old Testament promise passages.

ZNW 2 015; ‫وﻫﻮ‬ -‫ﻫﺺ(ﺀةس‬ Filtvedt ‫ﻇﻪ‬ > ‫ا^اﺟﺎه‬ in Hebrews ‫ﻫﺄاه^اﻫة‬ Creation and Ansicht infrage zu stellen, dass der Hebräer -' ‫إﺀ‬ ‫ا؛‬ Aufsatz sucht ‫ا‬ ‫ار‬ ‫آ'‬ : Abstract licht auf die Schöpfung habe. Zunächst wird das Verhältnis‫؛‬ brief eine negative als Mitschöpfer aller Hinge u n d seiner Stellung als escha -‫ن،[[<ﺀﺑﻤﺎ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫الﺑﻢ.،‬ zwischen tologlscher Erbe aller Hinge untersucht. Sodann wird die Tatsache in den Blick genom m en, dass sich der H ebräerbrief au f die Schöpfung«.'rziihiung der Genesis bezieht, um eines seiner eschatologischen H auptthem en zu entwickeln, näm lich

The present volume contains a collection of fourteen essays applying the latest and neglected methods and offering new and innovative insights into the interpretation of the New Testament book To the Hebrews.
The excitingly diverse contributions, which stem from an intriguing international group of senior and younger Hebrews, New Testament, and Old Testament scholars, are presented in three parts: Part One focuses on cultic language, concepts, and practice in Hebrews; Part Two on sociology, ethics, and rhetoric in Hebrews; and Part Three on textual-historical, comparative, and intertextual approaches to Hebrews.
As the first ever compilation of essays on Hebrews by a range of authors, this volume presents an important contribution to the field of New Testament studies. It will particularly appeal to students, teachers, and scholars interested in a variety of critical perspectives on Hebrews and on the New Testament’s third great theologian next to Paul and John. Moreover, the treatment of hermeneutical, cultic, sociological, and comparative matters in the context of biblical, Greco-Roman, and rabbinic literature will make this collection valuable to an even broader readership.

This study recovers the voice of Johannes Oecolampadius (1482-1531) as a major contributor in the history of biblical interpretation.  Jeff Fisher focuses on Oecolampadius’s Hebrews commentary (1534) derived from his theology lectures at the University of Basel in 1529–1530, and compares it with the exegesis of more than twenty-five of the most relevant interpreters from the early church to the Reformation.  He labels Oecolampadius’s reading of Scripture as Christoscopic, demonstrating how it adapted the Alexandrian interpretive notion of Christ as the goal (scopus) of all Scripture.  Fisher shows that when describing the shifts in biblical interpretation at the time of the Reformation, it can no longer be overlooked that Oecolampadius’s approach served as an essential step in the development of the interpretative approaches used by John Calvin and others, and that Oecolampadius remains influential to the way the Bible is interpreted today.

What is the discipline of the Lord? What do you normally think of when you hear that phrase, and how does “the discipline of the Lord” relate to suffering? Relating suffering to the concept of discipline might at first seem foolish or absurd. But, could this understanding of the discipline of the Lord be based on the wisdom of the Word?

In Heb 12:1-13, the writer grapples with just this issue.  Carefully reflecting on this passage can help us answer the questions, What exactly is the discipline of the Lord, and do faithful believers experience it?

In Heb 9:28, the author of Hebrews expects Christ to “appear a second time,” and in Heb 10:37, the author quotes Hab 2:3: “the coming one will come and will not delay” (10:37). There is little doubt that "the coming one" in 10:37 is a reference to the Messiah. The coming one’s coming without delay is taken by most interpreters as a reference to the Parousia. For example, Craig Koester writes, “The author does not cite Hab 2:3 to prove that Christ will return, but to articulate a belief in the second coming that his listeners already consider to be true on the basis of common Christian teaching.” This essay challenges a Parousia understanding of 9:28 and 10:37. Rather than a second coming to earth, I propose that the Messiah’s coming is a visitation to deceased faithful ones awaiting resurrection. This reading is substantiated by an intertextual reading with Isa 26, a text to which the author alludes at the beginning of Heb 10:37: “in yet a very little while” (Isa 26:20). In Isa 26, Israel is depicted as sufferers awaiting divine rescue out of death. Along similar lines, Jesus’ coming “a second time … to save those eagerly awaiting him” (Heb 9:28) and his coming in Heb 10:37 involves delivering deceased faithful ones out of death. The author is not clear as to the timing of this deliverance, but encourages his hearers in the interim to take heart by looking to Jesus, who despite dying lives and sits at the right hand of God (12:2-3).

The author utilises Abraham and his family in a sophisticated  paedagogical way. He or she initially opens the entrance into the family of Abraham to all; afterwards the author narrows the membership over the course of the letter in order to urge the addressees to remain steadfast on their way to the heavenly city. Only thus they can continue to belong to Abraham's family.

You can find the full thesis here:
http://hdl.handle.net/2263/63345

This thesis makes a unique contribution in the field of New Testament studies with specific attention to New Testament theology and the Christology of Hebrews. It explores the relationship between Sonship and the ascension in the book of Hebrews. It argues that the ascension of Jesus reveals the nature of his Sonship.
First, chapters two and three of this study examine the Sonship of Jesus in Hebrews 1. It portrays Jesus as both the Messianic and the divine eternal Son. While recent scholarship has questioned whether the Son in Hebrews is a divine Sonship, this thesis demonstrates that Hebrews portrays Jesus as divine.
Second, this study argues that Heb. 2 contains a “Second Adam Christology.” The Son shares in true humanity and is appointed to fulfill the destiny of humanity. In this humanity, he is crowned with glory and honor in fulfillment of Ps. 8. The Son stands in solidaric representation of the people of God. This second Adam function is both kingly and priestly as representative who leads God’s people to this glory.
Third, as this eschatological man who is crowned as king and priest the Son ascends into heaven. This is set against the background of apocalyptic literature where heaven is a temple and the dwelling place of God. The Son is portrayed in Hebrews as ascending into a true tabernacle that is heaven itself. He enters heaven as both king and priest of the age to come because he himself has first come to participate in the age to come.
Finally, the study demonstrates that the obedience of the Son qualifies him for his ascension and eschatological ‘perfection.’ We argue that the theme of obedient trust and crying out to God is an Adamic-Davidic role with a Psalmic background. We conclude, in the book of Hebrews, Christ is the eternal Son who also functions in the Adam-David role of sonship. His actions as the true human exercising trust and obedience qualify him to ascend up into heaven crowned with humanity’s eschatological glory.

The Son's being led into the oiKouμEVTJ where angels worship him is not a
reference to his incarnation, though what is said of him in Hebrews 1.6
does not occur without his becoming flesh and blood (2.14). The Son's
being made lower than the angels for a little while, during the days of his
flesh (5.7), was necessary so that by his death he might sanctify his siblings
(2.11) and finally subject the οίκουμένη to come to us for whom he tasted
death.

The Son's exaltation in the oiKouμevri is also not his parousia. What is
said of the Firstborn in 1.6 does not occur disconnected from his second
advent. His being led into the otKouμevri is already accomplished in the
Firstborn's ascension into the heavenly realm that angels inhabit. The
man Christ Jesus, led into the oiKouμevri by God (1.6), is now enthroned
'at the right hand of God' as he waits 'until his enemies should be made a
footstool for his feet' (10.12; 1.2, 13; 2.8-9). He will appear a second time
to consummate the inheritance of all whom he came to help (9.28; 1.14),
not angels but Abraham's seed (2.16), to whom he will subject the
οίκουμένη to come (2.5). Thus, the Son has brought the old era of the first
covenant with its earthly shadows to a close and has inaugurated the new
aeon of the new covenant with its heavenly realities. Heaven has come to
the cosmos in order that the cosmos might finally come to its consummation
in the world that is to come, the habitable world that will be subject to humans, not to angels, thanks to the exalted Son who was once made lower than the angels for a little while.

This short note examines the three occurrences of παραιτέομαι in Heb 12,18-29 and suggests that the repeated use of the word demonstrates the author’s evaluation of Israel’s “request” for distance from God at Sinai as a rejection of his word to them. While some have distinguished the meaning (and referent) of παραιτέομαι in 12,19 from that in 12,25, this distinction is unsustainable in light of the use of παραιτέομαι outside of Hebrews and of the flow of thought in Heb 12,18-29.

This essay demonstrates that matters of social disparity, stemming from colonization, within a South African context can be addressed by a social-scientific reading of Hebrews 13:11-14. Social-scientific criticism is concerned with laying bare the cultural and social influences upon a text in the ancient world. It is a hermeneutical approach that brings the ancient and the contemporary into dialogue by providing a pool of shared presuppositions that enhance the apprehension of meaning, while safeguarding the modern reader from the merely subjective. This article's central thesis advances a tension in the understanding of the Christ who suffered "outside the camp" and the social reengineering that results in the communities born of his crucifixion. Like the movement from Leviticus 16 to Hebrews 13:11-14' a movement from Hebrews 13:11-14 to modern South African society is qualified, presenting redemptive parallels in a continuum that ultimately addresses South African social ills when "outside the camp" is read from a postcolonial vantage point.