According to an Angel
According to the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews, the law (the Levitical code) which was imparted to Moses on the mountain was given to Moses not by God, but through the mediation of angels (Hebrews 2:2). This might be something of a revelation for readers of the New Testament or of the Bible in general.
Hebrews is not the first New Testament book to make such a claim. Acts has Stephen make such a declaration: "...you who received the law as delivered by angels..." And the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians, "[the law] was ordained by angels."
Some commentators argue that this is an acceptable Jewish idea. But is it? Is what Hebrews claims a legitimate Jewish idea?
There is the idea in the Old Testament as well as in a variety of Ancient Near Eastern cultures of what could be termed "divine agency" which is the idea that angels speak as proxy for God (see Judges 2:1 for example). This idea is spelled out perhaps most clearly in the movie Dogma where Alan Rickman, the angel Metatron, says, "Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me."
But is that the belief we find in the book of Exodus? No. There the conversation is between God and Moses directly. So is Hebrews wrong?
Well, it seems that somewhere along the line in the 2nd century BC, someone re-wrote the Genesis-Exodus narrative in a book called "Jubilees," a book not in the Bible or Apocrypha. In it we do read the idea that God spoke to Moses through an angel. It is argued that this is the first instance of this idea - or at least the first recorded instance of this idea.
What the book of Jubilees may represent is a shift in Jewish thinking about God and God's interaction with humanity. Jubilees is certainly a re-casting of the Genesis-Exodus narrative. Angels and demons abound and seem to point largely to the idea that evil did not come from God but from poor decision on the part of a particular class of angels. By envisioning a heavenly hierarchy, the author does seem to remove God from humanity by a level or two which does seem to be something of a New Testament subtext - it is Jesus vs. Satan in the divine match up, not God vs. Satan until the very end as set forth in Revelation. So it would appear that by the time of Jesus and Paul, the idea of angels speaking on behalf of God was established, though not necessarily well established.
For Protestant Christians the problem lies in the fact that the author of Hebrews makes this claim but the book of Exodus does not bear it out. Biblical literalists have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to make the two accounts square - especially since for literalists and fundamentalists Jubilees would be out of bounds.
More to the point, if the argument that Hebrews tries to make is not found in the accepted Biblical witness, it is still a valid argument?
First we do need to acknowledge that the author doesn't actually say "law." He says "message." This could be to juxtapose the message given by Moses with the message of Christ (the author doesn't say "gospel" either).
Second, we have to recognize that the author says that "it" (the message) was declared first by the Lord. This could be a reference to the life and teachings of Jesus, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Christ declared the law. However if it is the latter, the statement about angels would be out of place. It would either be one or the other.
Third, we may be dealing with a New Testament book that isn't even utilizing Exodus but is basing the argument specifically from Jubilees. It isn't the only example of a New Testament book utilizing outside sources - Jude is perhaps the best example.
It would appear that the authors use of the idea of angels giving the "message" to Moses is a major foundation for the argument that the law ultimately was inferior to the Gospel of Christ. I am not sure if the argument holds given that it is based on an interpretation of the story of Moses that the book of Exodus does not contain. Should we really want to consider the argument Hebrews is utilizing, we would need to in some fashion acknowledge the tradition of the book of Jubilees if not that book outright.
The argument of the superiority of Christ's message is something I imagine Christians would believe anyway. The problem rests in the fact that the particular argument here does not supply adequate points through which the case can be made as the argument is based on something that is not found in the Biblical canon.
What we are seeing in Hebrews is an argument that is designed to demonstrate, ultimately, the inferiority of the Levitical law and the sacrificial system of Judaism to the superiority of what was becoming the Christian faith that was separating from Judaism. The book of Hebrews reflects a time of transition and as one group breaks off from the old, then a rationale needs to be provided to explain why the splinter group is better or more accurate than the original group.
To say the message of the Old Testament tradition is inferior because the messenger (angel vs. God or Jesus) is perhaps picking up on a cultural idea as expressed in Jubilees but what Hebrews does is to take that argument in a direction that Judaism would not have gone. Angels speaking for God was a development in later Jewish thought, but to claim that the angelic voice was inferior and therefore the message was somehow less would hardly be the logic behind such a claim for Judaism. It was more likely an idea developed to demonstrate the wholly and holy otherness of God.
What Hebrews does is to take a later understanding of Exodus (perhaps via Jubilees) and utilize it against its own tradition. The strength of the argument of Hebrews rests on an interpretation of the story of Moses that no Jew would have held.
Does the argument of Hebrews hold up? Tricky question, tricky answer. It doesn't hold up when compared to the Exodus account. For many Christians it does hold up, though not because of Exodus but because they already think it does. The interesting answer is that the argument Hebrews makes might hold up if on accepts the account of the book of Jubilees.
In its own way, the argument becomes so metaphysical in Hebrews that only belief and/or faith in its claims matter with regard to its validity. This is not to throw out Hebrews. Not at all. Instead it is to argue that a piece of the book is faulty. There are other arguments in Hebrews that are stronger and there are some great Christological and theological reflections to be found within. Critically, though, one needs to be careful in simply accepting the claims of the arguments of the book.
Hebrews is not the first New Testament book to make such a claim. Acts has Stephen make such a declaration: "...you who received the law as delivered by angels..." And the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians, "[the law] was ordained by angels."
Some commentators argue that this is an acceptable Jewish idea. But is it? Is what Hebrews claims a legitimate Jewish idea?
There is the idea in the Old Testament as well as in a variety of Ancient Near Eastern cultures of what could be termed "divine agency" which is the idea that angels speak as proxy for God (see Judges 2:1 for example). This idea is spelled out perhaps most clearly in the movie Dogma where Alan Rickman, the angel Metatron, says, "Metatron acts as the voice of God. Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims God has spoken to them, they're speaking to me."
But is that the belief we find in the book of Exodus? No. There the conversation is between God and Moses directly. So is Hebrews wrong?
Well, it seems that somewhere along the line in the 2nd century BC, someone re-wrote the Genesis-Exodus narrative in a book called "Jubilees," a book not in the Bible or Apocrypha. In it we do read the idea that God spoke to Moses through an angel. It is argued that this is the first instance of this idea - or at least the first recorded instance of this idea.
What the book of Jubilees may represent is a shift in Jewish thinking about God and God's interaction with humanity. Jubilees is certainly a re-casting of the Genesis-Exodus narrative. Angels and demons abound and seem to point largely to the idea that evil did not come from God but from poor decision on the part of a particular class of angels. By envisioning a heavenly hierarchy, the author does seem to remove God from humanity by a level or two which does seem to be something of a New Testament subtext - it is Jesus vs. Satan in the divine match up, not God vs. Satan until the very end as set forth in Revelation. So it would appear that by the time of Jesus and Paul, the idea of angels speaking on behalf of God was established, though not necessarily well established.
For Protestant Christians the problem lies in the fact that the author of Hebrews makes this claim but the book of Exodus does not bear it out. Biblical literalists have to jump through a whole lot of hoops to make the two accounts square - especially since for literalists and fundamentalists Jubilees would be out of bounds.
More to the point, if the argument that Hebrews tries to make is not found in the accepted Biblical witness, it is still a valid argument?
First we do need to acknowledge that the author doesn't actually say "law." He says "message." This could be to juxtapose the message given by Moses with the message of Christ (the author doesn't say "gospel" either).
Second, we have to recognize that the author says that "it" (the message) was declared first by the Lord. This could be a reference to the life and teachings of Jesus, but it could also be interpreted to mean that Christ declared the law. However if it is the latter, the statement about angels would be out of place. It would either be one or the other.
Third, we may be dealing with a New Testament book that isn't even utilizing Exodus but is basing the argument specifically from Jubilees. It isn't the only example of a New Testament book utilizing outside sources - Jude is perhaps the best example.
It would appear that the authors use of the idea of angels giving the "message" to Moses is a major foundation for the argument that the law ultimately was inferior to the Gospel of Christ. I am not sure if the argument holds given that it is based on an interpretation of the story of Moses that the book of Exodus does not contain. Should we really want to consider the argument Hebrews is utilizing, we would need to in some fashion acknowledge the tradition of the book of Jubilees if not that book outright.
The argument of the superiority of Christ's message is something I imagine Christians would believe anyway. The problem rests in the fact that the particular argument here does not supply adequate points through which the case can be made as the argument is based on something that is not found in the Biblical canon.
What we are seeing in Hebrews is an argument that is designed to demonstrate, ultimately, the inferiority of the Levitical law and the sacrificial system of Judaism to the superiority of what was becoming the Christian faith that was separating from Judaism. The book of Hebrews reflects a time of transition and as one group breaks off from the old, then a rationale needs to be provided to explain why the splinter group is better or more accurate than the original group.
To say the message of the Old Testament tradition is inferior because the messenger (angel vs. God or Jesus) is perhaps picking up on a cultural idea as expressed in Jubilees but what Hebrews does is to take that argument in a direction that Judaism would not have gone. Angels speaking for God was a development in later Jewish thought, but to claim that the angelic voice was inferior and therefore the message was somehow less would hardly be the logic behind such a claim for Judaism. It was more likely an idea developed to demonstrate the wholly and holy otherness of God.
What Hebrews does is to take a later understanding of Exodus (perhaps via Jubilees) and utilize it against its own tradition. The strength of the argument of Hebrews rests on an interpretation of the story of Moses that no Jew would have held.
Does the argument of Hebrews hold up? Tricky question, tricky answer. It doesn't hold up when compared to the Exodus account. For many Christians it does hold up, though not because of Exodus but because they already think it does. The interesting answer is that the argument Hebrews makes might hold up if on accepts the account of the book of Jubilees.
In its own way, the argument becomes so metaphysical in Hebrews that only belief and/or faith in its claims matter with regard to its validity. This is not to throw out Hebrews. Not at all. Instead it is to argue that a piece of the book is faulty. There are other arguments in Hebrews that are stronger and there are some great Christological and theological reflections to be found within. Critically, though, one needs to be careful in simply accepting the claims of the arguments of the book.
Comments
Post a Comment