Polemic in the Book of Hebrews. Lloyd Kim

wrote briefly. Noting that the epistle itself is not brief, he imagines Paul writing a short addendum to a pre-existing anti-Judaic tract. He also points out that many of the anti-Judaic tracts of the time were entitled pro\j I)ouda/iouj. Thus the title, Pro\j (Ebrai/ouj was not “To the Hebrews,” but “Against the Hebrews.”23

      Positive Views of the Epistle

      Emphasis on Continuity

Other scholars do not find Hebrews to be hostile to Jewish people. These works can be divided into essentially three different types. The first is the approach that seeks to mitigate the discontinuity and polemical nature of the book. For example, William Lane first discusses the structure of Hebrews as oscillating between exposition and exhortation. He points out that the exhortation is really the focus of the book, and the exposition only serves to support the exhortation.24 This is important because Lane sees no discontinuity or pejorative terms against Judaism in the exhortation sections.25 He understands the radical statements in Hebrews 7-10, not as polemic, but as reflections on Old Testament prophecies. He argues that the author of Hebrews wants to emphasize the fulfillment of God’s promises, the very thing that is questioned by his readers (Klassen argues similarly).26 Lane concludes that the book of Hebrews is not trying to convince Christians who are tempted to abandon their Christian faith for Judaism, but those who are tempted to abandon their belief in God altogether.27 He writes, “The premise that Hebrews engages in any form of anti-Judaic polemic, however, is untenable.”28

In reference to the new covenant language found in Hebrews 8, Dieter Sänger states that the “new” covenant from a Jewish perspective never had in mind the “casting off” of the Jews, rather it was a renewal of the old covenant.29 He also argues that early Christians saw themselves as part of Judaism.30 Thus in a context where one’s view of Torah and halakah were often debated, Christians were just one voice among many. Sänger believes that Christians simply turned to Jesus in their critique of the cultural and legal aspects of the law.31

      Balance of Continuity and Discontinuity

Another approach seeks to balance both the continuity and discontinuity in the epistle. Yet the discontinuity is never identified as anti-Semitism, but rather anti-Judaism. Donald Hagner asserts that though there may be anti-Judaism—a theological disagreement with Judaism—in the epistle, there certainly is no warrant for anti-Semitism—hostility toward Jews. He also points out that the strong discontinuity within Hebrews is more of an intra-Jewish debate. Finally, Hagner mentions the sociological phenomenon that those who depart from one religious faith to another often become the harshest critics of the faith they left.32

      Donald Bloesch notes that Hebrews seems to promote supersessionism, but at the same time it venerates the Old Testament saints. There is both continuity and discontinuity in the epistle. He writes,

The Epistle to the Hebrews could possibly be designated as a supersessionist book, since the author insists that the Old Testament sacrificial system and priesthood have been superseded by the all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his efficacious intercession as our one High Priest. Yet even here Old Testament heroes and heroines are celebrated as models of true faith in God. One passage intimates that the faith of Israel finally apprehends its object through the sanctifying of the church (Heb 11:40).33

      Therefore Bloesch seems to qualify the term “supersession” to speak of the replacement of Jewish institutions and not necessarily the replacement of the Jewish people.

      Rhetorical Approach

The third approach to the question of anti-Semitism in Hebrews has been the use of rhetorical analysis. Luke Timothy Johnson deals with the question of anti-Jewish language in the New Testament by placing it in its cultural context. His main point is that slander among competing religious and philosophical schools was actually quite common. Johnson argues that early Christianity was likely thought of as a sect of Judaism, which had to survive in the midst of a majority of non-Messianic sects. Therefore, the language of slander should be expected because Christians were a marginalized group among a majority.34

Since Judaism was quite Hellenized at the time, one can see a parallel between the Jewish sects and the Greek philosophical schools.35 Johnson demonstrates how the philosophers through several various writings used very strong language in their attacks on other groups. He also examines some Jewish writings and finds similar polemic. “The main thing such slander signified, therefore, was that someone was an opponent. . . . The slander was not affected by facts. A particular Platonist may be a good person, but that does not affect the way Platonists as such are to be described.”36 Johnson concludes: 1) in the context, Christians (Messianists) had reason to be critical of other groups; 2) their slander was quite mild compared with others; 3) their use of rhetoric was more to conjure up certain feelings about a group than to scientifically describe exactly what they were; and 4) both Messianic and non-Messianic Jews used the rhetoric of Hellenistic Philosophical schools.37

David A. deSilva approaches the question of anti-Judaism in Hebrews by using socio-rhetorical analysis. He argues that the author of Hebrews was not arguing against the Levitical priesthood, but was simply using rhetoric to highlight the greatness of Jesus’ priesthood. He suggests that the author was using encomia, “speeches in praise of some person and his or her achievements.”38 Thus the author simply picked a type or pattern to which he could compare Jesus. It was not a poor reflection upon the Levitical priests per se, but they were chosen simply because they were a pattern that Jesus’ ministry followed. In this way, the author was better able to bring out the salvation historical element of Jesus’ priestly ministry. It follows that the author’s goal was to cause his audience to feel a sense of privilege and honor in experiencing something unavailable to previous generations. DeSilva does not see the rhetorical goal as simply a polemic against those who are tempted to fall back into Judaism.39

DeSilva’s insights are helpful in bringing out the rhetorical function of the author’s use of synkrisis within his examination of honor-shame language in the epistle. It seems reasonable that the author’s comparison of Jesus with Moses in 3:1-6 does not intend to denigrate Moses, but rather to praise Jesus. Yet it is more difficult to argue the same as we examine the author’s comparison between Christ’s priesthood, covenant, and sacrifice and that of the Levitical priesthood (and law), Mosaic covenant, and Levitical sacrifices. Can we reasonably believe that there was no sense of polemic in this language?40 Clearly the author did not want his readers to participate in the Levitical priesthood, the Mosaic covenant, and Levitical sacrifices. Therefore, it stands to reason that he did intend to paint these older institutions in a negative light, because of a real threat of reversion. Luke Timothy Johnson points out that strong polemical language signifies that someone was indeed an opponent.41

      In deSilva’s approach, many