Talk:Heb 5:6-10

Chiasmus?

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)

sic

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)