Talk:Heb 5:1-10

Also, assuming that "boldly" is a decent translation, I wonder if the seeming conflict between Heb 4:16 and Heb 5:4-5 is due to the fact that the first is a personal act and the second is a community act. Each person should boldly seek their own salvation, but God will choose those who play a role in the salvation of the community.

Or, another way I think of making the same point is that the difference about whether we should be passive or assertive has to do with how we approach receiving a calling (we should be passive) versus how we approach fulfilling a calling (we should be assertive). We are all called by God to come unto him. We should boldly fulfill this calling. High Priests are called to [insert what you like here]. They should boldly do that. But before being called as a High Priest no one should boldly seek that calling.

Thoughts?

Thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 05:56, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

PS I still haven't gotten to anything else you posted on Hebrews. There's a lot for me to think through just with these five verse. Great commentary. thanks.

Interesting, sounds like a reasonable reading to me. Not related to the context here, but D&C 4:3 comes to mind: "if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work", which doesn't sound very passive to me. I think the Brother of Jared's experience, where God asked him what should be done rather than commanding him what to do (Ether 2:23), is also one that stands in contrast to more common passivity-themed passages. I think this issue of passivity vs. assertiveness (is there a better term than assertiveness? non-passivity? I don't like "proactivity"...) would be a very interesting topic to explore in different scriptural contexts. --RobertC 07:27, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this would be interesting to explore in relation to other scriptures. I think I will write something up on D&C 4:3. --Matthew Faulconer 16:53, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, in answer to your question, my -- highly speculative -- reading of the tension is that the ancient temple service was associated with passivity and horror. The presence of god was so awe inspiring and terrible, that only a single priest could ritually enter into it once each year. The new temple service of the endowment includes all believers ritually entering into God's presence, with the old ideas of pure awe and terror requiring courage on the part of believers. We don't get a good sense of the importance of courage for the author of Hebrews because we don't have a very good sense of the fear that surrounded the temple and the presence of God. I added some more material to the exegesis section, which hopefully fleshes these ideas out a bit more. -- --Nathan Oman 17:38, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, I liked the comments you added. Thanks for the interesting thoughts.

I must admit I am still confused how this is a possible resolution to the tension between 4:16 and these verses. Maybe you don't intend it to be? Or, maybe there is something obvious I am missing? In my mind by identifying the exhortation in 4:16 with high priest's ritual, you seem to further emphasize the contrast between the exhortation to individuals to boldly approach the throne of God and the emphasis verses 4 and 5 make here on the importance of passivity as it relates to the calling of a high priest.

--Matthew Faulconer 01:58, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Is v. 4 just an emphasis that being able to enter God's prescence would in no way be possible except through Melchezideck priesthood ordinances? That is, we can enter the temple and approach God without fear only through the temple endowment establishd by the priesthood which God has provided.

I think this reading goes along well with the later verses of chapter 5 and beginning of chapter 6 where the theme is about what we need to in order to approach God, and how it is possible.

--RobertC 03:19, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Verses 5:6-10: Chiasmus?[edit]

The question about v. 6 and v. 10 references to Melchesdeck suggests a chiasmus to me. Here's my version:

high priest after the order of Melchisedec (v. 6)

prayer of salvation (v. 7)

learned obedience (v. 8)

author of salvation (v. 9)

high priest after the order of Melchisedec (v. 10)

I see this chiastic structure underscoring the passivity theme Nathan has been writing about through the obedient suffering of v. 8. It also implicitly links the prayer in v. 7 with salvation in v. 9 (this seems natural and obvious from an LDS perspective; do other faiths recognize Gethsemane as part of the atonement? an interesting implicit argument here...). Thoughts?

--RobertC 06:24, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

A chiastic arrangement, especially when spanning several verses, is generally used to provide structure, boundary and focus to a text as a distinct unit. If the theme of passivity is to be marked by a chiasm, the repeated elements should begin with verse 4, where the concept of passivity is introduced. If we mark verses 6 through 10 as a separate unit of thought, by virtue of the chiasm that you propose, we interrupt the logical argument being established beginning with verse 1 that Christ is a legitimate high priest. You have built your chiasm primarily upon the phrase "high priest after the order of Melchisedec." But you could have just as easily focused on being "called of God," which is a repeat from verse 4. Or for that matter, the "high priest" phrase takes us back to verse 1: "For every high priest taken from among men." In my opinion, we should consider verse 10 more as having an inclusionary function, wrapping up the entire section, where the author wishes to establish Christ as a high priest. If we view verses 1-10 as a unit, the presentation of the two authoritative Old Testament quotations (vs 5 "Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee," from Ps 2:7, and vs 6 "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," from Ps 110:4) have a stronger impact when inumerated together as part of the whole.

It is also worth noting that, beginning with verse 11, the author makes a diversion of thought into a section of exhortation that runs through the end of chapter 6, at which point we find inserted the same phrase "made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," as if to bring us back on track with the discussion of Christ as the perfect priest, which is developed in chapter 7. --Steven Barton 08:01, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Steven, I have very little confidence in my ability to analyze over-arching structures and the use of literary/poetic devices, I haven't done it very much, so I really appreciate the feedback on my attempt here. I tried working on this some more, but I think it's ultimately a failed attempt. But in case someone else can salvage something from it, here's how I was trying to write it:

There are two pairs of verses that jump out to me, 4:15 and 5:3 about the high priest feeling our infirmities, and 5:6 and 5:10 about the high priests being after the order of Melchezideck. The first chiasmus gives us the initial comparison of Christ as the ultimate high priest to mortal high priests. The second chiasmus goes into more detail about how Christ acts as our high priest, with the distinguishing characteristic that he himself suffers (mortal high priests do not do this). The second chiasmus also serves to set up the next section by drawing a parallel between Christ's being called of God and our own calling from God to follow Christ—a subject that is continued in chapter 6:

(A) the ultimate high priest (Christ) offers himself for us (4:14)

(B) the ultimate high priest (Christ) feels our infirmities (4:15)

(C) we can come to the ultimate high priest (Christ) for absolution from sin (4:16)

(C') we come to the mortal high priest for absolution from sin (5:1)

(B') the mortal high priest feels our infirmities (5:2)

(A') the mortal high priest offers sacrifice for himself and for us (5:3)

(a) Christ, as our high priest, is called of God (5:4-5)

(b) Christ is called to be a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (5:6)

(c) Christ prays for our salvation (5:7)

(d) Christ learned obedience through suffering (5:8)

(c') perfected, Christ now authors our salvation (5:9)

(b') Christ is now referrred to as a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (5:10)

(a') Like Christ, ye are called of God, but do not hear (5:11)

The problem is the verses don't correspond that well to the ideas I try to assign to them....

--RobertC 03:01, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I don't think this is a failed attempt at all. In fact, the first section quite properly brings the Christ-as-priest material from the end of chapter 4 and unites it with chapter 5. If we view it as a chiasm, we then have to examine how the first 'half' relates to the latter portion. In this case, combining the two segments strengthens and sharpens the comparison between the ultimate priest and the human priest. This connection is critical to the author's position that Christ is a legitimate high priest.

It is significant to note also, that when using chiastic structure to make a contrast, the pivot point will typically fall in the center of the chiasm, as it does here. In this case, however, the contrast is used to unite, rather than divide. As noted in the main commentary, the author is "setting up" a contrast, and this contrast will be developed in chapter 7. Here, I believe, the author needs to first establish Christ as a legitimate high priest.

Your second section, 5:4-11, is also worth considering. I am less inclined to consider it an intentional chiasm, simply because the passage appears to me to be primarily a list of proof texts, which tends to diffuse the structure you propose. But I base my conclusion partly upon the suggestion by Brandenburger and Buchanan (AB 36, p99) that 5:7 and 5:8-10 are two early Christian confessions that are being quoted along with the Old Testament texts. My analysis, of course, may be completely wrong, and what you have outlined certainly has a great deal of merit. --Steven Barton 08:33, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The first section I could believe is an intended chiasmus, it's vv. 4-11 that felt forced. I couldn't find the Brandenburger & Buchanan book you referenced with a quick Google search. Can you give any details or comments about the book? --RobertC 14:18, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Robert, I over-abbreviated the reference. George Wesley Buchanan cites and agrees with Brandenburger in To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible, volume 36, page 99. --Steven Barton 16:31, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'm trying to build a library and like to learn about different commentataries, sources, etc. --RobertC 13:18, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I too would guess that 5:4-11 is not an intentional chiasmus and your reasons seem appealing to me. Still in thinking them through it raises a couple of questions. These questionas are both off-topic. Still I am asking because I would be interested in hearing your thoughts since I know you have a lot of background in studying this stuff. I'm really looking to understand how to think about this stuff in other examples. These are both off topic because I don't think that the way you answer them really has a bearing on the question of whether this particular chiasmus is intentional.

1) You say that you are influenced by the fact that Brandenburger & Buchanan say that what is going on here is quoting from other texts. I think what you are saying is that if someone is quoting someone else you are less inclined to see this as an intentional chiasmus. Even if you aren't saying that I'm wondering if this is something that we should think. I wonder why quoting a particular text makes the text that does the quoting less likely to fit into a literary structure (not sure if that is the right word for the general thing of which chiasmus is an example)? --especially since at the time I don't think people felt a strong academic responsibility to quote word for word in a way that allows giving credit (and I'm guessing we don't have the original text to know how close the borrowed work is to the original text)? My point is that first the author has a lot of flexibility about what text to quote and second the author has a lot of flexibility in terms of how to quote. This amount of flexibility I would have thought would allow the author to fit borrowed texts/ideas into a larger literary structure should they desire.

2) You say you wouldn't think this is an intentional chiasmus because [...]. I wonder what the relationship is between intentionality of literary structure and strictness of fit? I wouldn't have assumed that the more strictly a text fits a particular literary structure the more likely it is to be intentional. Again, you may not be saying exactly this so I'm not interested so much as to whether I'm accurately describing what you are saying as I am in thinking through how the relationship should play out between intentionality and stritness of fit. (Some don't think intentionality matters at all. Maybe it doesn't, and I'm just curious.) Anyway, I tend to think (maybe naively?) that great writers who are in cultures with traditions of relying heavily on literary structures may compose works that use very specific literary structure (e.g. chiasmus) with very good fit without intentionally thinking "ok I said A, B, C, D, C, B ... I better an add an A here." It depends on the literary structure I suppose. It is hard to imagine someone composing sonnets without being aware that this is what they are doing.

--Matthew Faulconer 16:37, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, I see the series of quotations as a literary form in itself, much as a list of food and household sundries or a list of names with phone numbers would be easily recognized as a grocery list and telephone book, respectively. To weave the grocery list into the structure of, say, a sonnet would shift the focus and emphasis away from the list, and diffuse the clarity of the message. Now, that is not to say that a work with an overarching structure cannot employ a variety of smaller literary and poetic devices. Psalm 111, for example, is a perfect alphabetic acrostic, with a confining structure, yet still yeilds examples of parallelism:

The works of his hands are faithful and just;

all his precepts are trustworthy. (vs 7, NIV)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;

all who follow his precepts have good understanding. (vs 10, NIV)

And yes, quotations can and do fit within larger literary structures (I can't think of a good example right now). But in the case of Robert's chiastic structure, I just saw two overarching structures conflicting with each other. And, again, I might be wrong viewing the passage as a "list" of proof texts.

Regarding your second question, I have much to say, but I need to come back in a day or two, when I have more time. --Steven Barton 08:37, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

That helps. Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading more in a few days. --Matthew Faulconer 09:18, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, in response to your second question, please bear with me if I ramble a bit. When it comes to the use of literary forms and devices, there is not a strict distinction between poetry and prose in the Bible. In fact, there is no word for "poetry" as a genre in biblical Hebrew. Instead, what we observe is a broad continuum of formality, structure, terseness, and elevated style, spanning a wide variety of texts. And we find still many passages with little or no formality or noticeable structure, sometimes within the same "genre." Take the 23rd Psalm, for example. It is considered one of the greatest examples of biblical "poetry," yet it contains nary a parallelism or other defining structure that we often associate with biblical poetry.

So, what we can say is that the biblical writers had a sense of style, and they would employ various literary devices at greater or lessor degrees as they saw fit, to heighten a text or to make it more or less formal or terse. The biblical texts do not demonstrate strict or consistent adherence to literary forms or patterns. It was really more about style than about following a template. (There are exceptions, of course, as with acrostics, which tend to require strictness. Yet even here, few of the biblical acrostics are perfectly constructed.)

Just as biblical writers developed their own sense of style, we modern writers of English prose exhibit very real stylistic patterns--avoiding repetition, piling up the "right" number of adjectives, connecting clauses and choosing strong verbs, all with an eye to balance and variety.

Quintessential to the biblical style of heightened language was the use of short parallel couplets that frequently exhibited a "seconding" or "parallel" aspect. These parallel couplets are ubiquitous in the Bible appearing in legal texts, in narratives as well as in sublime "poetry." This rhetoric device was so central to the biblical style, that the writer (or speaker) scarcely had to think about it.

As a natural means of adding variety, writers would often change the expected order of the clauses, which brings us to chiasmus, or inverted parallelism:

out of Zion

shall go forth Torah

and the Word of the LORD

from Jerusalem

Judging from the frequency that chiastically arranged couplets appear in the Bible, we are probably safe to conclude that, here too, the writer would whip these things out almost subconsciously, guided by an intuitive sense of style.

Now, considering how central parallelism was to the biblical style, it was natural for these repetitions to occasionally extend beyond the couplet, to three or four lines or more. It also followed that inverted parallelism was employed across a number of verses, often becoming an organizing element to a sequence of lines. The greater the boundary defined by the chiasm, the less subconscious and the more deliberate the construction would become. We would expect a larger chiasm to follow the form in a more strict manner because it is more intentional. But keep in mind that just as we are quite flexible in the composition of our modern, well written prose, the biblical writers likewise, demonstrate a very fluid sense of style. Many a translator has emended a text based on the preconceived notion that a passage must conform to a pattern. The texts themselves speak otherwise. --Steven Barton 09:34, 3 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steven, thanks for taking the time to respond. I found it interesting and it did answer my question. It is interesting to think of chiasmus as a reversal of an even more common style: parallelism. --Matthew Faulconer 05:31, 4 Mar 2006 (UTC)

sic[edit]

What does this mean:

The Lord [sic] is at your right hand;

Why the sic? just curious. --Matthew Faulconer 06:31, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was to emphasize that Lord is capitalized in the original text. --RobertC 06:57, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I think I get it. Is this because the idea is that Lord should have been written LORD? --Matthew Faulconer 16:34, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I was only thinking Lord and lord. Actually three variations are used in the RSV: LORD (vv. 1, 2, & 4), Lord (v. 5) and lord (v. 1). In the KJV only LORD (vv. 1, 2, & 4) and Lord (vv. 1 & 5) are used. I'd love to see some commentary on these usages, my off-the-cuff guess is simply that LORD is God and that Lord and lord may refer to the servant of God. --RobertC 18:11, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading something about this at one point. I'll look around for it. I think though that I will also remove the SIC. If we are afraid someone might edit it, I would prefer a note in the edit text that doesn't show on the front-end. --Matthew Faulconer 23:52, 26 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I put the SIC in because from the context it seems to be refering to the Lord as god rather than the lord as the king of Israel. Normally, LORD is used to denote the tetragramaton (YHWH), and I suspect that the capitalization for this verse may be an error, but I haven't had time to check it yet.

--Nathan Oman 17:10, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

If it turns out that the conventions used by the RSV suggest that this is supposed to be "LORD" but was written instead as "Lord" then I agree that sic is appropriate. --Matthew Faulconer 17:25, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I just checked on this one and I believe "Lord" is correct. "LORD" in verse 4 is a translation of Yahweh (Strong #03068). In verse 5 "Lord" is a translation of Adonay (Strong #0136). --Matthew Faulconer 05:01, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Verse 5:9: Being made perfect[edit]

I think it's significant that Christ's perfection is mentioned here, and that we're then advocated to be "go on unto perfection" in Heb 6:1. It seems this is an important theme being developed throughout Hebrews. But I don't understand the contrast between the "doctrine of Christ" and "go[ing] on unto perfection" in Heb 6:1 very well (presumably something related to the contrast between the Levitical and Melchezideck priesthoods, and possible the law of justice and works contrasted with the law of grace). I'd like to study this contrast and the development of this theme in Hebrews more. Here are the other references to perfection in Hebrews:

Heb 7:11 (perfection can't be obtained by the Levitical priesthood), Heb 7:19 ("the law made nothing perfect", Heb 9:9 (mortal high priest is not perfected through his annual offering[?]), Heb 9:11 (Christ brings a "more perfect tabernacle"), Heb 10:1 (law can never "make the comers thereunto perfect"), Heb 10:14 (Christ "hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified"), Heb 11:40 (ancients "without us should not be made perfect[?]), Heb 12:23 ("spirits of just men made perfect"), and Heb 13:21 ("make you perfect in every good work to do his will").

--RobertC 14:57, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Heb 5:1-10

Contents

Verses 5:4-5[edit]

Verses 5:6-10: Chiasmus?[edit]

sic[edit]

Verse 5:9: Being made perfect[edit]

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

Actions

Search

Navigation

scripture commentary

Other stuff

Tools