Wednesday, January 17, 2024

James W. Thompson on the use of Psalm 102:26-28 on Hebrews 1:10-12

  

In this text, the son is set over against the created order with the implication that this creation is the dwelling place of angels. Γη and ουρανος both belong to the created order. It is likely that εργα των χειρων σου is to be equated with χειροποιητος at 9;11, 24 and signifies the earthly κτισις (9:11) in contrast with the heavenly world of the exaltation. The terms in which this relationship of the exalted Christ to the creation is spelled out (cf. 1:2) are well known in the Hellenistic Age, where the problem of defining God’s relationship to the world had occasioned the increasing interest in a hypostasis who creates and sustains the world. Jewish wisdom speculations, which play an important role in the development of NT christology, speak of Wisdom’s relation to the world (Prov 8:22; cf. John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 1:24; Col 1:15-20). Similarly, the Hermetica hypostasizes the Platonic category of αιων and affirms that αιων (11. 2) made the world. Such speculations are undoubtedly a presupposition of the author of Hebrews when he affirms that the creation is the work of Christ.

 

Hebrews 1:11 shows the reason behind the utilization of Psalm 102 to introduce the category of transitoriness-eternity into the argument, as the author cites the words αυτοι απολουνται, συ δε διαμενεις. Because of the importance of this category elsewhere in Hebrews, it is probable that the author has selected this particular text because he found there what he wanted to accent: the contrast between the changeable creation and the immutable creator. The transitoriness of the creation is indicated by the subsequent phrases which reinforce 1:11a. The text cited uses the image of clothes to convey the transitoriness of the cosmos. Thus the author quotes, ως ιματιον παλαιωθησονται. Παλαιοω, which means “to grow old” or “become obsolete,” is theologically significant for the author. At 8:13 he uses the term in his critique of the cultus in order to show that the transitory cult lacks ultimate validity. The change from αλλασσω to ελισσω suggests the image of rolling up of a cloak, this providing another image of changeableness. Αλλασσω meaning “change,” is to be understood, in view of the added ως ιματιον, as a change of clothes. Thus the characteristic of the created order (and implicitly of angels) is made on the basis of its mutability. The author has no intent, as A. Vögtle rightly argues, to develop a throughgoing thesis concerning the world conflagration; his purpose is to provide the contrast to the one who is exalted above the created order and thus remains. That the author is bringing to his text his specific assumptions about the world is indicated by comparison with 12:25-28, where the transitory nature of the world is contrasted to the eternity of the stable possession. It is not necessary to see in 1:10-11 the announcement of an eschatological catastrophe, as O. Michel understands the text (cf. p. 58). The author’s interest is to distinguish radically between the changeable creation and the immutable Christ. The argument is parallel to 1:7-8, where the mutability of angels is contrasted to the eternity of Christ.

 

The distinction between the change which is inherent in the cosmos and the abiding of the deity was already present in the author’s text Ps 102:26-28. But for the psalmist there is no essential metaphysical intent; the psalmist indicates only that God outlasts the creation. By using this psalm as an exaltation text, the author has introduced the spatial framework into the argument. His argument is reminiscent of the Platonic view in which the “becoming” (γενεσις) in this creation is distinguished from the eternal world of forms. One may compare Philo’s argument that this world is subject to dissolution (Leg. All. 3.101, αι γαρ εν γενεητοις εμφασεις διαλυονται) in contrast to those things above the creation which are μονιμοι και βεβαιοι και αιδιοι. Whereas such representatives of Platonism as the Hermetic, Hebrews speaks of the change inherent in angels (1:7) and in the creation. It is probable, therefore, that the author has read Ps 102:26-28 with Platonic assumptions in order to interpret the exaltation and to demonstrate the precise way in which Christ is “better” than angels.

 

What the exaltation means to the author can be ascertained from two of the phrases of Psalm 102 which are of special christological significant for him. Συ δε διαμενεις  to contrast the abiding of the exalted son with the transitory nature of the creation. That Christ is the one who “remains” is of central importance to Hebrews (7:3, 24; cf. 13:8). Furthermore, the author regularly uses μενειν in theologically significant text for a Christian possession which “abides.” In each instance, forms of διαμενεις are used exclusively for a heavenly reality. The use of μενειν regularly in Hebrews indicates that the author has chosen this text precisely because of the presence of διαμενεις in it. The author has altered the future διαμενεις of his LXX text to the present διαμενεσις  in order to emphasize the timeless and eternal nature of the exalted Christ.

 

The use of διαμενεις in a text were Christ is contrasted with the created order indicates that διαμενεις here betrays the author’s metaphysical understanding. One may compare the use of μενειν in Plato (Tim. 37D), Plotinus (3. 7), Philo (de Som. 2.221) and the Hermetica, where (δια)μενει is regularly used in a spatial framework to contrast the immutability of the intelligible world with the change which exists in the sphere of γενεσις. This metaphysical understanding had come to play an important role in the piety of the Hellenistic Age. Of special important as a parallel to Hebrews is Philo’s view that the σοφος who leaves τα εν γενεσει (Leg. All. 2.54) is able to share in the μονη of God (de Som. 2.237). Similarly, in the Hermetic literature αιων is a hypostasis in the intelligible world to διαμενει (11:4). Thus just as the Hermetica attributes διαμονη to the αιων of the intelligible world. Hebrews says that the exalted Christ διαμενει.

 

As a parallel to διαμενεις the author cites further from his text the words συ δε ο αυτος. That “sameness” is an important christological category for the author is evident at 13:8. The term reflects also a dependence on Greek metaphysics. Philo says that God is ο αυτος (de Post. Cain. 19). Similarly, the Hermetica speaks of αιων as that which is διαμενουσα τη ταυτοτητι (11.4). In the tractate Asclepius, αιων is identified with God and declared immutable (semperque similiter), in contrast to the world of sense perception. For the author of Hebrews, the fact that Jesus is εν υψηλοις means that he is now immutable. This understanding of the exaltation shows a definite point of contact with the literature influenced by Plato. Just as the Hermetica attributes “sameness” to the αιων of the intelligible world. Hebrews attributes the same quality to the exalted Christ who is εν υψηλοις.

 

Having demonstrated through the careful selection of texts that Christ, as the abiding son (1:7-12), is “better than angels,” the author returns in 1:12 to Ps 110:1, the text which provided the starting point for the reflections contained the catena. The δε of 1:13 correlates this verse to the preceding argument and to the reflections concerning Christ and the angels. The messianic understanding of this psalm is well known in the NT and of great importance to Hebrews. The setting of this citation at 1:13 indicates that the author uses it to recapitulate all that has been argued in 1:3-12: the angels do not share in the exaltation, and thus they are inferior. Because they are cosmologically subordinate (υποποδιον των ποδων σου, 1:13), they have an inferior status (1:14).

 

The δε of 1:13 reinforce the argument which is made in 1:7: that because angels do not share in the exaltation to the heavenly world, they do not abide. Δε serves in this context to distinguish between the abiding of the son and the changeableness of the angels. This usage indicates further the assumptions with which the author approaches his text, Ps 110:1. Such a reading of Psalm 110 is quote different from both the rabbinic and early Christian use of this text and can only be explained by supposing that the author’s metaphysical assumptions influenced his reading of the text. The significance of the exaltation is that Christ “initiert . . . die Ewigkeitsbejahung [initiated. . . the affirmation of eternity].” A dualistic reading of the OT is the basis of the author’s argumentation.

 

The close connection between the argument from the superiority of Christ over the angels and the parenesis in 2:1-4 indicates that the argument in 1;5-13 serves as the basis for the parenesis. Δια τουτο in 2:1 connects the warning in 2:1-4 with the theological statement in chap. 1. The author has shown on metaphysical grounds that Christ is greater than the angels. This fact means for the community that the word of Christ is to be taken seriously. The author’s metaphysical argument thus serves the need of paranesis. (James W. Thompson, “The Structure and Purpose of the Catena in Hebrews 1:5-13,” in The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews [The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1982], 135-39)