The author to the Hebrews lists as foundational the following (Heb 6:1f):
- repentance from dead works
- faith toward God
- instruction about washings [or baptisms]
- the laying on of hands
- the resurrection of the dead
- and eternal judgment
When I read this I wondered to myself how many of us 21st century Christians would list the same things as foundational to our faith. Having said that, I think a fair number of Catholics and Charismatics might (with different understandings of what the words mean of course). Sadly you would not hear anything like that coming out of my mouth (reformation needed).
It is interesting though that understood in context the author's list is really an expression of faith in the story of a Christian's life, when we are so often told today that redemptive-historical is the New Testament way of describing faith. An interesting comparison is Tertullian (AD 155-220) who wrote the following summary of the teaching of Christ, or rule of faith:
Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. (source)
Again, sadly, not like something you would come out of my mouth (except thanks to CofE liturgy when reading the creed). Like the earlier list of the author of Hebrews it is a story. However it is a different story. Nevertheless it is in perfect harmony with the biblical letter's whole argument, and a few verses later the link between the two stories is made (v.6).
The gospel is a many faceted jewel which can be described in a multitude of different ways. We should not try and make other Christian's sound the same but listen to all the different stories in wonderful harmony. But this embrace of diversity within the church does not remove all boundaries, or embrace 'multiple' gospels. As Tertullian saw his summary could raise 'no other questions than those which heresies introduce', and in extension we should reject all discordant notes in the different 'core stories' Christians tell, and recognise their danger.
Just wandering in thought...
I wonder if this "elementary doctrine of christ" is actually all old covenant stuff, the foundation that does not need to be laid again, because the fullness has come, rendering the old obselete...making this a similar comment to 9:5b, or other vagaries ("somewhere...", etc)
ReplyDeleteIn fact I think there's a pretty good case for it, not least in avoiding an awful lot of confusion.
As always Chris you make me think. There is some support for what you say in 5:12 where "basic principles of the oracles of God" are surely meant to be the same as the "elementary doctrine of Christ". Basic principles sounds a bit like the Pauline language of elementary principles/spirits (Gal 4, Col 2), which is closely tied with the OT. I’ve checked a couple of commentaries and the Greek word for principles is the same in Galatians as here (stoicheia), but I haven’t seen the connection actually made. Also in Romans/Acts "oracles of God" refers to the OT. Considering the obvious Pauline influences on the author of the Hebrews this should carry some weight.
ReplyDeleteIndeed DeSilva says:
The specific elements [the list of points I made] are rich with Jewish and Christian cultural references. It has been suggested that there is nothing specifically Christian about these six elements which would also be appropriate as “a catalogue of Jewish catechesis” [quote from Attridge]. The specific content of each element could certainly be filled out in a Christocentric manner, however, and need not refer to any pre-Christian experience of being socialized into Jewish culture. Gentiles coming into the church would be unfamiliar with many of these elements, but even Jews converted to belief in Jesus would need a basic reorientation to these tenets in terms of Jesus’ role in, for example, the “resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.”
You can see how he doesn’t want to admit Hebrews were the recipients of the letter.
However, on consideration I do think the list more naturally reads as new covenant basics, rather than old covenant ones. Of the list ‘washings’ brings to mind Jewish more than Christian practices, but the opposite is true of ‘laying on of hands’. Also the list doesn’t seem like the summary of old covenant faith that the author would give in the light of the letter as a whole.
But, I suppose you could distinguish “the elementary doctrine of Christ” and the foundational elements. The former being old covenant, the latter new covenant.
In conclusion, I think you’ve hit upon something. I think you are right that “the elementary doctrine of Christ” is referring to OT teaching about him which we can move on from despite both Guthrie and DeSilva disagreeing (DeSilva actually gives little discussion to either “the elementary doctrine of Christ” or "basic principles of the oracles of God"). However I still think the foundation is a new covenant one.
PS Sorry I’ve put a response to your recent email on hold. I haven’t forgotten though.
"not the laying on of hands"???
ReplyDeletein a discusion of priesthood?
biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=lay+hands
aside from that, thanks - I'd never have made the connection with Paul's "elementary principles", or the greek connections... and yea, the oracles of god/teachings/the word of righteousness are blatantly the OT. All lends weight - I'm more satisfied with this thought. I still think it avoids tons of confusion.
I'll have to go back and look, but I dont yet see much indication in the text that the concern there is putting old things in some elaborate typological perspective. That's not to say that this cant be done, but that the author doesnt draw attention to it - indeed, his "Ive not got time, you've got to see christ!" rings much more of the interesting but obsolete tone.
thanks dave and please dont worry about the email - one of several rumbling questions I'm in no huge hurry to find out.
"not the laying on of hands"???
ReplyDeletein a discussion of priesthood?
In defence, I agree it could be made to refer to the old testament sacrifices BUT the author of the Hebrews never uses it in this sense that I can think of and neither do any other NT authors. On balance I do think that to the recipients of the letter, well acquainted as they were with NT laying of hands and far removed from the temple cult (presuming they did not live in Jerusalem which I believe unlikely), would have read it as referring it to the priesthood in the first instance. And I stick to my point in the previous paragraph that "the list doesn’t seem like the summary of old covenant faith that the author would give in the light of the letter as a whole".
Secondly Chris, I'm confused about a whole load of your second comment! Maybe I'm simple but what is the 'tons of confusion' that could come from the usual reading? Also I admit that I do tend to see 'elaborate typological perspective' in all the NT and esp in Hebrews, but I think that you have to, primarily to have the first clue what is going on when NT writers read and interpret the OT. Or am I misunderstanding you here too?
PS to give you a sneak preview of my response to your email it basically will say that the key NPP proponents are historians first and foremost and that is key to understanding it at all. Therefore their arguments come from historical sources of all kinds. I don't think this is a problem for understanding Paul although as an evangelical I would argue for more weight to be given to Scripture as a whole, not just the weight you would give it as a historical source for Paul the man. Anyway, you'll have to wait for the rest. I might post thoughts as I go, but then again I may not.
1) good point
ReplyDelete2) I dont take the list itself as a summary but like 9v4-5...his big point was about 2 sections & moves to Jesus - all the rest, well it's all good but it pales in comparison to Jesus so we really must move on;
in context of 5v11 and 6v1, this section seems to be applying the 1st 5 chapters of typology (Moses, sabbath, high priest) while he puts on hold his discussion of Mel. He's not said a word about any of the stuff in 6v1,2 - I take it his point is very generally "LEAVE THE OLD BEHIND YOU"
I'll try to paraphrase how I read this tone "not laying again the foundation (old covenant) - the way your meetings are, it sounds like this is all some people want to talk about - all the time, we're rehearsing stuff like instructions about washings, priests, the way people looked forward with God's promises,... oh, lots else - - dont get me wrong, i love your attention to the old testament but I gotta say, you're not paying enough attention together to jesus himself...you dont need to keep going through that as if that's all you've got, as if you were just like any other jews"
3) I mean: if we take this not as uniquely NC stuff, but various examples of the sort of stuff old covenant meetings might focus on, then confusion about a 2-tier christianity disappears ("you need to move on from doctrine to maturity (in the spirit)".