Reconsidering ‘law’ in Hebrews

Philip La.G Du Toit

doi:10.4102/ve.v42i1.2146

Abstract

In this contribution, the notion that the concept of ‘law’ in the Letter to the Hebrews only pertains to the cultic domain is challenged against the discourse on law in the whole letter. Apart from instances in which the law includes moral aspects of the law, the broader theological context in which the concept of ‘law’ is set in Hebrews suggests that the whole Mosaic system is in view throughout the letter. Such a conclusion is drawn on the basis of pertinent contrasts in the letter between the old and new covenants, between the different sources of revelation, between Moses and Jesus, between the ways in which priesthood and sacrifices function in relation to sin, between the outward or physical and the inward or spiritual, and between die earthly and heavenly domains of the respective covenantal systems. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article primarily makes a contribution in respect of biblical exegesis and New Testament theology. In addition, the article reconsiders the discourse on law in the Letter to the Hebrews, which impacts the way in which Christians understand their relationship to the Mosaic Law. It thus impacts the field of systematic theology. The relationship of the believer with the Mosaic Law in Hebrews also impacts church history: It provides us with information on the position of the early church towards the Mosaic Law, as well as how we understand the so-called ‘parting of the ways’ between Christianity and Judaism.

Highlights

The majority of interpreters understand νόμος (‘law’) in the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 7:5, 12, 16, 19, 28; 8:4, 10; 9:19, 22; 10:1, 8, 16, 28) as referring to the whole Mosaic Law (e.g. Bruce 1990; Hughes 1977; Lane 1991a; O’Brien 2010; Ribbens 2016:146; cf. Gordon 2008; Haber 2005; Thompson 2008, 2011; Tönges 2005)
4.Haber argued that according to Hebrews there is no new law and that the law belongs to the old order
There are pertinent contrasts in the letter that pertain to a fundamental contrast between two covenantal systems from two salvationhistorical eras: the old covenant under the Mosaic system and the new covenant under Jesus’ high priesthood

Summary

Introduction

The majority of interpreters understand νόμος (‘law’) in the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 7:5, 12, 16, 19, 28; 8:4, 10; 9:19, 22; 10:1, 8, 16, 28) as referring to the whole Mosaic Law (e.g. Bruce 1990; Hughes 1977; Lane 1991a; O’Brien 2010; Ribbens 2016:146; cf. Gordon 2008; Haber 2005; Thompson 2008, 2011; Tönges 2005). One could say that the author’s statement that God himself makes believers ‘complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working amongst us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ’ (13:21, NRSV), stands in implicit contrast with the idea to adhere to the precepts of the Mosaic Law. Under the old covenant, the high priest ‘can never take away sins’ (οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, 10:11), which in itself establishes the close relationship between the cultic and the moral law. When reassessing Hebrews 7 in light of the way in which law and covenant are pictured in the whole letter, one is, hard pressed to confine the author’s discourse on law to the specific law(s) about priesthood, as some argue (Regev 2017; Schmitt 2009; Thiessen 2019) It is, that the author’s references to νόμος focus on the Mosaic regulations about priesthood and sacrifices in certain instances The question asked in 10:29 means that if people underwent such severe punishment in the old covenant, apostasy in the new covenant would be much more serious (Guthrie 1983:221–222, 1998:356–357; Lane 1991b:293–294; O’Brien 2010:376–377; cf. Bruce 1990: 261–2635; Ellingworth 1993:536–537; Hughes 1977:4 21–423; Kistemaker 1984:294–295)

Conclusion

Data availability statement