Polemic in the Book of Hebrews. Lloyd Kim

Ibid., 356.

31 Ibid., 357.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 365.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., 367.

36 Walter Übelacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell (Stockhom: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989) 224.

37 Ibid., 17.

38 Ibid., 32.

39 Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSS 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 375.

40 Ibid., 378.

41 Ibid. Olbricht notes the use of amplification in comparing Christ to a whole series of heroes. This practice, which typically occurred at the end of an exhortation, was found in both classical Greek eulogies and the eulogies of the early church fathers. Olbricht argues that the comparison in Hebrews 11 was not so much to show the superiority of Christ over these men, but rather the superior position of the contemporary believers over the heroes of the past. Because the contemporary believers were able to focus on Jesus, they were superior to those in the past who did not receive the promises but looked only to shadows and types. See ibid., 386–87.

42 Ibid., 382.

43 Ibid., 383. Though Greek sermons did not use Scripture as evidence, the eulogies of the early church fathers often did. See for example, Gregory Nazianzen’s Panegyric on S. Basil (NPNF2 7:395–422).

44 Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” 384.

45 Ibid., 385.

46 Steve Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives,” TynBul 45 (1994) 245–71.

47 Ibid., 248. See Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77 (1984) 277–99.

48 Ibid., 279.

49 Wills examines Hebrews, 1 Clement, Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Portico (Acts 3:12-26), Peter’s Pentecost sermon (2:14-40), Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (17:24-27), Paul’s speech at Miletus to the elders of the church at Ephesus (20:17-35), 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 10:1-14, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and others. He also looks at Jewish sources and finds this pattern in Jeremiah 7:1-8:3, Ezekiel 20, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jewish War, and others (ibid., 278–96).

50 Ibid., 296–97. C. Clifton Black II responds to Wills’ work by arguing that the word of exhortation form does indeed follow the classical conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. He argues that Wills’ understanding of classical forms and structures is overly restrictive; Black, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills,” HTR 81 (1988) 1–17, esp. 4–11.

51 Stanley understands this particular homily to be an exposition of Psalm 110, which he finds in all the major sections of the book. This clue also aids him in his structural analysis (Stanley “The Structure of Hebrews,” 253–54).

52 Ibid., 256. See also James Swetnam, “Form and Content of Hebrew 1–6,” Bib 53 (1972) 268–85.

53 Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews,” 262–63.

54 Ibid., 263.

55 For the actual structure, see ibid., 270–71.

56 C. F. Evans, The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Dr. Williams Trust, 1988) 3.

57 Ibid., 5–6.

58 Ibid., 17.

59 Ibid., 18.

60 Alan C. Mitchell, “The Use of pre/pein and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” CBQ 54 (1992) 681–701.

61 Ibid., 682–83.

62 Craig Koester also analyzes Hebrews’ rhetorical effectiveness using these categories. He examines the logic of the argument, the emotional appeal to persuade, and the character of God as the author. See Craig R. Koester, The Epistle to the Hebrews, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 87–92.

63 Mitchell, “The Use of pre/pein,” 688.

64 Ibid., 694.

65 Ibid., 701.

66 David R. Worley, “Fleeing to Two Immutable Things: God’s Oath Taking and Oath Witnessing,” ResQ 36 (1994) 223.

67 Ibid., 224.

68 Ibid., 224–5.

69 Ibid., 225.

70 Ibid., 226.