Topos for a True Deity - Heb 7.3

7/31/2019 Topos for a True Deity - Heb 7.3

1/18

"Without Beginning of Days

or End of Life" (Hebrews 7:3):Topos for a True Deity

JEROME H. NEYREY, S.J.

Weston School of Theology

Cambridge, MA 02138

I. Focus and Hypothesis

TtoE AUTHOR OF HEB 7:3 AFFIRMS of Melchizedek: "He is without father or

mother or genealogy; he has neither beginning of days nor end of life . . . he

continues a priest forever." Scholars argue that the author draws on Gen

14:17-20, which introduces Melchizedek without the customary identification

of his clan or lineage. Because Scripture is silent on these matters,1 we infer

that he is "without father or mother or genealogy." Melchizedek's eternal

priesthood is deduced from Ps 110:4, "You are a priest forever . . . , " a text

which is developed at great length in Hebrews. The discovery of HQMelch,

while it indicates that Melchizedek was called one ofthe Dlhm, adds noth

ing to the interpretation ofHeb 7:3.2 Investigations of the Jewish background

of Heb 7:3, however, entirely miss the sense of Hellenistic technical termi

nology used there.

1 See Str-B, 3. 694-95.2 In 1 lQMelch, Psalm 82 ("I said: 'You are gods"1) is cited apropos of Melchizedek; see

A. S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erlsergestalt in den neugefundenen escha-

tologischen Midraschim aus Qumran-Hhle XI,** OTS 14 (1965) 354-73 and J. A. Emerton,"Melchizedek and the Gods: Fresh Evidence for the Jewish Background of John X.34-35," JTS

17 (1966) 400 401 B h l i di h M l hi d k' h l d l h f


2/18

440 TH E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53 , 1991

This study focuses on the Graeco-Roman background to the language

and concepts in Heb 7:3. Paraphrased in terms of Greek philosophy, the

author states three things of Melchizedek: he is (1) ungenerated, (2) uncre

ated in the past and imperishable in the future, and (3) eternal or immortal.

According to my hypothesis, these three things are topoi from Hellenisticphilosophy on what constitutes a true god.3 In light of the topoi, the figure

in 7:3 should be acclaimed a true deity. That predication, however, is directed

not to Melchizedek, but to Jesus. The author of Hebrews inflated the char

acter of Melchizedek in 7:3 beyond anything found in Scripture or midrash,

so as to make comparable statements about Jesus, who is unquestionably

acclaimed a divine figure in Hebrews. Thus the author supplies specific con

tent to his acclamation of Jesus as a deity, for like true gods he is fully eternal.

Although commentators occasionally cite parallels to Heb 7:3 from Hellenistic literature,4 much more data can be brought to bear on the interpre

tation of that passage. And while suggestions have been made about the

hymnic shape of this passage,5 there has been no formal analysis of it in

terms of topoi or theological commonplaces. Hence abundant new data and

a formal analysis will contribute greatly to a fresh understanding of Heb 7:3.

II. The Shape of Hellenistic God-Talk

How are true gods described in Graeco-Roman literature? What specific

topoi are appropriate for understanding the background ofHeb 7:3? First we

note the form in which the remarks about Melchizedek are cast, namely,

"negative theology." He is apatr, amtr, agenealogtos. Although the alpha

privative is not used of the negation ofhis beginning and end, the logic is the

same: he does not have beginning or end. This type of predication is common

3By topos, we mean a rhetorical commonplace or sententialsee Henry Fischel, Rabbinic

Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy (SPB 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973); E. Mertner, "Topos

and Commonplace,'* Sirena Angelica (ed. G. Dietrich and F. W. Schultze; Halle: M. Niemeyer,

1956) 178-224; T. Y. Mullins, "Topos as a New Testament Form," JBL 99 (1980) 541-47; D. G.

Bradley, "The Topos as a Form in Pauline Paraenesis,M

JBL 72 (1953) 238-46; John Dillon, The

Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources (Center for Hermeneutical Studies,

Protocol 16; Berkeley: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Cul

ture, 1975) 171-78.4

See C. Spicq, L'Eptre aux Hbreux (2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1952-53) 2. 183-84;

H. Windisch, Der Hebrerbrief(HNT 14; Tbingen: Mohr, 1931) 58; and H. W. Attridge, TheEpistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 189-91.5

For example, Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrer (MeyerK 13; Gttingen: Vanden-


3/18

HEBREWS 7:3 441

in the theology of both the Greek philosophers and later Christian writers.6

The material which follows basically describes a deity by negative descrip

tions: god is uncreated (agentos), ungenerated (agenntos), immortal (atha-

natos), imperishable (aphthartos), without beginning (anarchos) and

without end (ateleuttos).1

A. Eternal in the Past/Imperishable in the Future

When Hebrews describes Melchizedek as having "neither beginning of

days nor end of life," it speaks a language in which true deities were com

monly described, namely, full eternity both in the past and imperishability in

the future. True deities are defined in contrast with mortals; they are uncre

ated and eternal, whereas mortals come into being and pass out of existence.8

Hence, gods must be truly eternal, eternal in the past and imperishable in thefuture. This concept, while clear and consistent, is expressed in the literature

in many different linguistic configurations. Let us briefly survey these various

forms of "eternal in the past/ imperishable in the future" with a view toward

comparing them with what is said in Heb 7:3.

7. Aidios/aphthartos. Philosophers commonly express God's past and

future eternity in the terms aidios... aphthartos. For example, Diodorus of

Sicily compares and contrasts true gods with mortals made gods after death.

His distinguishing characteristic of a true god is eternity of existence, bothin the past and in the future: "As regards the gods, men of ancient times have

handed down to later generations two different conceptions: Certain of the

gods, they say, are eternal and imperishable (aidions kai aphthartous)... for

each of these genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting"

(6.1.2).9 Frequently the term aidios is neutrally translated as "everlasting" or

"eternal"; and often it looks to the future eternity.10 But here it clearly means

6 See H. A. Wolfson, "Albums and Plotinus on Divine Attributes,** HTR 45 (1952)115-30; idem, "Negative Attributes in the Church Fathers and the Gnostic Basilides,** HTR 50

(1957) 145-56; John Whittaker, wNeopythagoreanism and Negative Theology," Symbolae Oslo-

enses 44 (1969) 109-25; Frances M. Young, "The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious

Language,** Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition (R. M. Grant

Festschrift; Thologie historique 53; ed. W. R. Schoedel and R. L. Wilken; Paris: Beauchesne,

1979) 53-54.7 For example, Theophilus writes of God: "The form of God is ineffable . . . in glory

uncontainable, in well-doing indescribable... He is without beginning because He is uncreated,

and He is unchangeable because He is immortal** (ad Autol. 1.3).8

G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1964) 80.9 All translations of classical citations are from the Loeb Classical Library, unless other

wise stated


4/18


5/18

HEBREWS 7:3 443

ated, but unbegotten, as well as imperishable. Plutarch, for example, spokeof Isis and Osiris as true gods because of their eternity: "In regard not onlyto these gods (Isis and Osiris), but in regard to the other gods, save only thosewhose existence had no beginning (agenntoi) and shall have no end (aph-

thartoi), the priests say..." (de Iside 20 359C). Likewise, Christian theologiansproclaim of God: "God alone is unbegotten (agennton) and incorruptible(aphtharton)" (Justin, Dial. 5).

4. Agentos or agenntos I aidios. The pagan writer Plutarch sings thepraises of Apollos Tegyraeus by contrasting him with heroic mortals whowere subsequently divinized. The essential difference is that true gods areeternal in the past as well as eternal in the future: "My native traditionremoves this god from among those deities who were changed from mortals

into immortals, like Heracles and Dionysus, whose virtues enabled them tocast off" mortality and suffering; but he is one of those deities who are unbegotten (agennton) and eternal (aidion), ifwe may judge by what the mostancient and wisest men have said on such matters" (Pelopidas 16).16 Similarly, the Christian apologist Athenagoras distinguishes god from matterbecause "the deity is unbegotten (agennton) and imperishable (aidion),"whereas matter is created and perishes (Leg. 4; see chaps. 6.2; 10.1; 19.1;22.2,3; 30.3).

Philo commonly speaks of God as "uncreated and eternal" (agentos haiaidios).

11 Jewish worshipers of the true God corrected the error commonamong others by "passing over all created objects because they were createdand naturally liable to destruction and chose the service only of the Uncreated (agentou) and Eternal (aidiou)" (Spec. Leg. 2.166). Defending Moses,who gave the Jews the truest conception of God, Josephus tells how Mosesdescribed God as "One, uncreated (agentori) and immutable to all eternity(pros ton aidion)" (Ag. Ap. 2.167).

5. Ainios Iaphthartos. Describing the nature oftrue gods, Diodorus ofSicily states: "With regard to the gods . . . some of them . . . have a naturewhich is eternal (ainion) and imperishable (aphtharton)" (3.9.1; see Philo,Immut. 142).

6. Agenntos or agentosanlethros. At the head of a small treatise"On How Many Heads Ought We to Praise God," Alexander Rhetor said:"God is unbegotten (agennton) and indestructible (anlethron)."11 Clement

16

Plutarch noted that Herodotus said of Heracles and Dionysus that they belonged to thesecond and third class of gods because "they had a beginning to their existence and had not

existed eternally (aidious)" (Malice of Herodotus 857D).


6/18


7/18

HEBREWS 7:3 445

imperishability in the future. They testify to popular, widespread topoi onthe deity's full eternity. Hence, when Heb 7:3 speaks of a figure as having "nobeginning and no end," this formula immediately and necessarily suggeststhat such a figure must be divine, a true god.

B. Remains Forever

Not only is Melchizedek "without beginning ofdays and end oflife," he"remains forever" (menei eis to dinekes, 7:3). This is the second of threenotices in Hebrews that someone "remains." Earlier in Heb 1:11-12, the author quoted Ps 102:25-27 apropos ofJesus; it makes a sharp contrast betweenthings perishable/imperishable and changeable/ unchanging: "They will perish, but thou remainest... they will be changed, but thou art the same andthy years will never end" (RSV). In this context "remaining" must refer to

future immortality, imperishability, and eternity inasmuch as it is contrastedwith what "perishes," "changes," and "ends."

The same meaning should be understood in 7:24 when the author statesthat Jesus "remains forever." This statement about Jesus' "permanent priesthood" functions precisely in terms of the contrast with the priesthood of thelevitical priests who are "prevented by death from remaining in office" (7:23;see 7:15-16). Again, Jesus' "remaining forever" must be understood as theopposite of perishing and dying.

And so, when the author describes Melchizedek as "remaining forever"

(7:3), this too must be understood in terms of some sort of deathlessness,imperishability, unchangeableness, and eternity, all characteristics of a truegod. This becomes clearer when we examine further the ways in which theancients described deities.

In one sense, by surveying above the Graeco-Roman formulae for adeity's past and future eternity, we have already surfaced four of the keypredicates which explain "remain forever." A true god must be aidios, aphthartos, anlethros, and ainios. A true god, moreover, must be athanatos(deathless), and so gods are regularly called "the immortals." In the Apos

tolic Constitutions, moreover, God is often described as ateleuttos (8.37.1,38.5, 41.4). AU of these predications compare and contrast a true god withhuman beings, who are called "mortals" and "perishables." Or when the truegod is contrasted with idols, the latter perish, but god remains.23 Occasionally we read that true gods aei on, they continually or eternally exist.24

23 See Cicero, DND 1.11.27; Philo, Cher. 51; Mos. 2.171; Ep. Diog. 2.4-5. On the contrast

between created and eternal figures, see James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian

Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQMS 13; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1982) 119, 125.

24 Proclus 52 (E R Dodds [ed ] Proclus: The Elements of Theology [Oxford: Clarendon


8/18


9/18

HEBREWS 7:3 447

Mercury, that thrice greatest... not only speaks of God as "without a mother,"

as Apollo does, but also as "without a father," because He has no origin from

any other source but Himself (Div. Inst. 1.7.1).30

We find evidence from ancient Greek sources, then, that it belongs to a truedeity to be both "without father" and "without mother."

A comparable passage occurs in the Apocalypse of Abraham, in which

we find the following acclamation of God:

Eternal One, Mighty One, Holy El, God autocratself-originate, incorruptible, immaculate,unbegotten, spotless, immortal,self-perfected, self-devised,

without mother, without father, ungenerated (17:8-11).

31

The form is clearly "negative theology," even if some of the terms suggest a

certain transcendence, such as "self-originate," "self-perfected," and "self-

devised." We easily recognize phrases about the true eternity of this god: (a)

eternal in the past: "unbegotten," "self-originate"; (b) imperishable in the

future: "incorruptible" and "immortal." In addition, this god is "without

mother, without father, ungenerated," that is, sourceless. Both Lactantius'

citations from Greek theology and the Apocalypse of Abraham suggest that

when some figure is acclaimed "without father or mother or genealogy," such

a one is a true deity.32

The references, however, to "without father" and "without mother" do

not occur frequently. Yet in the literature surveyed above, ancient authors

regularly and more simply claimed that a true god was "unbegotten" (agen

ntos). They asserted this in combination with other terms, such as "eternal"

or "imperishable" or "unchanging."33 Although there is considerable con

fusion among the ancients over the terms agentos (uncreated) and agenntos

(unbegotten), the remarks about Melchizedek in Heb 7:3 unmistakably claim

that he is agenntos, unbegotten.

It is not uncommon to find the claim that a deity is "self-begotten"

(autogentos). For example, Justin cites an ancient Greek oracle, which he

30 In another passage, Lactantius repeats this: "For God the Father Himself, who is theorigin and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without parents, is most truly named byTrismegistus 'fatherless' (apatr) and 'motherless* (ametr), because He was born from no one"

(Div. Inst. 4.13.1).31 Apocalypse of Abraham 17:8-11, translated by R. Rubinkiewicz, OTT1. 697.32 See Schrenk "Apatr " 1020


10/18

448 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 53, 1991

claims is prophetic of the true God of the Christians: "Only the Chaldaeans

have obtained wisdom, and the Hebrews, who worship God Himself, the

self-begotten (autogenton) King" (Cohort. 11). This term occurs in the

Sibylline Oracles 3. 8; 8. 429; see also Cyril of Alexandria (Adv. Jul. S).34

In summary, a full and convincing appreciation of the background of

Heb 7:3 requires that we note both the diversity of expression yet the con

sistency of concept in regard to the eternity of a true deity. A true god must

be completely "eternal."

Hellenistic Terminology

1. ungenerated

2. eternal in past/imperishable

in future3. continuous existence

Hebrews 7:3

1. no father, mother, or genealogy

2. without beginning of days or

end of life3. remains forever

The terminology, moreover, is found regularly in the topoi of the Hellenistic

world which describe a true deity.

When the descriptions of Melchizedek in Heb 7:3 are understood

against this background, they immediately and cogently suggest that we are

hearing popular and common descriptions of a true god. In form, Heb 7:3

resembles the negative theology found in classical discussions of god, and incontent it corresponds point for point with what is said there about the

complete eternity of a true god.

Although the remarks in Heb 7:3 are predicated of Melchizedek, this is

not to say that the author is necessarily drawing on targumic or midrashic

traditions about this figure. Writing about the way Moses was exalted in

Hebrews beyond anything found in Jewish traditions, D'Angelo argued that

such an overdevelopment of Moses only serves to promote Jesus all the

more.35

So it is with Melchizedek. Ifhe is presented in terms used to describea deity, the point is not to exalt Melchizedek for his own sake, but to promote

Jesus: ". . . resembling the Son of God" (7:3). All of this discussion of eter

nity, then, should be seen in function of the author's clear and nuanced

acclamation of Jesus as a true deity.

34 See John Whittaker, "A Hellenistic Context for John 10,29," VC24 (1970) 246-49. Hehas researched this concept in greater detail in "The Historical Background of Proclus' Doctrine

ofauthupostata," De Jamblique Proclus (Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 21; Geneva: Vandoeu-vres, 1975) 193-210, and "Self-Generating Principles in Second-Century Gnostic Systems," TheR di f G ti i P di f th I t ti l C f G ti i t Y


11/18

HEBREWS 7:3 449

III. Jesus, True God or Heroized Mortal?

Alongside these topoi which describe the nature of a true deity, we find

other commonplaces which compare and contrast true gods with heroized

mortals, who were divinized after their deaths because of their benefactionsto humankind. This material has a bearing on how we understand the re

marks about Jesus. Did Hebrews acclaim Jesus a divine figure made god

because of his benefactions to humankind or did the author consider him a

true god, fully eternal in past and future?36

Two classical authors, who discussed the nature oftrue gods, contrasted

genuine gods who are eternal in the past and imperishable in the future with

heroes who were made immortal after death because of their benefactions.

Diodorus of Sicily wrote in the waning days of the first century B.C.E.;

Plutarch flourished in the late first century CE. Their writings, roughly

contemporary with Hebrews, offer a discussion of true deity which has a

bearing on the figure of Jesus in Hebrews.

For Diodorus of Sicily the difference between true deities and divinized

heroes lies exclusively in the fact that true gods are fully eternal, that is,

uncreated in the past and imperishable in the future, while divinized heroes

were born as mere mortals, but attained to "immortality" because of their

benefactions to humankind:

As regards the gods, men of ancient times have handed down to later generations two different conceptions: Certain of the gods, they say, are eternal andimperishable (aidious kai aphthartous)... for each of these genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting. But the other gods, we are told, wereterrestrial beings who attained to immortal honors and fame because of theirbenefactions to mankind, such as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the otherswho were like them (6.1.2).37

Plutarch echoes just this sort of stereotyped description of the gods when he

acclaims the excellence of Apollos Tegyraeus:

My native tradition removes this god from among those deities who werechanged from mortals into immortals, like Heracles and Dionysus, whosevirtues enabled them to cast of mortality and suffering; but he is one of those

36 See Charles H. Talhert, What Is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).37 See also Diodorus: "With regard to the gods, the Ethiopians entertain two opinions:

i f i i i i


12/18


13/18

HEBREWS 7:3 451

A. Opening: Past and Future Eternity

In chap. 1 the author states the most honorable and exalted things that

he can about Jesus. Readers or hearers are thus conditioned how to label

Jesus. In the traditional culture of the author, appeal is regularly made to

authority, in this case the most solemn of authorities, the Scriptures. In a

chain of quotations from the Psalms and other biblical writings, the author

unmistakably calls Jesus "god" (1:8//Ps 45:6) and predicates of him divine

eternity, both eternity in the past and imperishability in the future.

Citing Ps 102:25-27, the author first acclaims Jesus' eternity in the past.

We have already been told that it is Jesus "through whom God made the

world" (1:2b). Of him the psalm says: "Thou, Lord didst found the earth in

the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (1:10). Since the

argument here rests on the radical contrast of earthly vs. heavenly and created vs. eternal, I suggest that both Psalm 2 in 1:5 and Psalm 102 in 1:10

speak to Jesus' past, namely, to his eternity before creation.39

The author balances this with further remarks from Psalm 102 about his

eternity in the future:

They will perish, but thou remainest,they will grow old like a garment(like a mantle) thou will roll them up.

And they will be changed.But thou art the sameand thy years are without end (l:ll-12//Ps 102:26-27 [RSV]).

Unlike the perishable world which is subject to change, Jesus is imperishable,

and will not change. He "remains" and his "years are without end."40

Eternity in past and future would seem to be the plain meaning of Psalm

102. If so, it speaks unmistakably of Jesus as a true god according to Hel

lenistic topoi about god. This may be confirmed by noting another topos

about a true deity which is predicated of Jesus here: he is said to have the twobasic powers of God, creative and executive power.41 As we have seen in 1:2

and 10, he has "creative power," whereby he caused the world to be. Likewise

1:8 tells us that Jesus enjoys "executive power": "Thy throne, O God, is for

ever and ever; the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom." The

author expresses this sense of Jesus' complete sovereignty in other terms,

39 Rare is the commentator who comments on Jesus' past eternity in 1:10-12; see Spicq,

LEptre aux Hbreux, 2.20; F. E Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1964) 21.


14/18


calling him "the heir of all things" (1:2) who is "seated at the right hand of

the Majesty on high" (1:3).

Finally, when the author says of Jesus that he "reflects the glory of God

and bears the stamp of his nature" (1:3), this may be interpreted as sharing

in God's incorruptible nature (see Philo, Migr. 132; Opif. 134; also 4 Mace18:3 and Wis 2:23).

Yet it must be quickly noted that the author of Hebrews seems consid

erably more interested in Jesus' imperishability and eternity in the future

than he is in his eternity in the past. Using Ps 110:4 as another indisputable

authority, Jesus' future existence is proclaimed: "You are a priest forever (eis

ton aina) . .." (5:6; 7:3,17,21). God's oath establishes Jesus' future eternity

in the precise role of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Yet as

this study has shown, Melchizedek is described in the terms used of a truegod, uncreated/ungenerated in the past and imperishable in the future (7:3).

B. Document Ending: Past and Future Eternity

At the end of the document, the author makes one final predication of

Jesus: "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever" (13:8). This

remark seems to be repeating what was said about Jesus in the first chapter:

"Thou art the same (autos) and thy years will never end" (1:12); "Jesus Christ

the same (autos) yesterday, today and forever" (13:8). The author cited Ps

102:28 in Heb 1:12, a psalm which in the early church was used primarily toaffirm the unchangeableness and imperishability of the true god against

pagan and gnostic gods.42 Hebrews likewise understands the psalm in the

same way, but applies it to Jesus, implying that he too is a true deity because

eternal and imperishable.

Commentators have noted the parallels to "yesterday, today and for

ever" in Greek and Christian literature.43 But they neither sorted them out

in a form-critical analysis, nor suggested how they might constitute a topos

on a true deity, both of which must be done. As we saw in regard to Heb 7:3,so the remarks in 13:8 should be understood as a topos about the eternity of

a true god.

Ancient philosophers and theologians describe a deity as a unique being

who was, is, and will be. Plato stated that it is improper to speak in terms

of god's past, present,and future. Properly, the deity simply "is" (Tim. 37e-

38a). Philo reflects this same thought when he says that God's life is not a

time, but an eternity: " . . . in eternity there is no past nor future, but only

present existence" (Immut. 32).

42


15/18

HEBREWS 7:3 453

Philo, moreover, frequently names the true God as the Existent Onewhose existence is "now." Sometimes he expresses this in Platonic terms (God= to ) and in terms drawn from Exod 3:14 (God = ho n).u Nevertheless,it was part of the popular and common description of god to speak of the

deity in terms of continuous existence. As in the case of the topoi about a truedeity in Heb 7:3, this continuous existence was expressed in many ways.

/. First andLast. Eusebius cites in his Praeparatio Evangelica an ancient hymn to Zeus in which this supreme god was acclaimed: "Zeus first,Zeus last" (3.9). It goes without saying that if god was "first" and will be"last," then god "is." This, of course, makes a striking parallel with theremarks about the deity as "first and last" in Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. A variationof this appears in the Book of Revelation, where we find a progressive for

mula used to describe the heavenly being: first, "I am the Alpha and theOmega" (1:8), then "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and theend" (21:6), andfinally"I am the Alpha and the Omega, thefirstand the last,the beginning and the end" (22:13).

2. Beginning, Middle, End. We occasionally find statements aboutdivine activity which parallel the remarks about god's past, present, andfuture. For example, an inscription on the statue of Aion at Eleusis reads:". . . who has no beginning, middle, end."

45Likewise Plato remarked:

"God, as the old tradition declares, holds in his hands the beginning, the

middle, and the end ofall that is" (Laws 715e; see Tim. 37b). But Josephuscontains the clearest example of this formula. Discussing the first commandment in the Decalogue, he speaks of God's perfection: "God is thebeginning, the middle, and the end of all things" (Ag. Ap. 2.190). Whoholds the beginning, middle, and end of all things must himselfbe eternalin past, present, and future.

3. Is, Was, andWill Be. Although the data are not numerous, over theyears scholars have pointed out a number of statements about god which

explicitly describe the divine eternity in terms of past, present, and future.For example, Pausanias records a fragment ofa hymn which acclaims Zeus'eternity: "Zeus was, Zeus is, and Zeus will be" (Desc. Graec. 10.12.10). In theHermetic corpus there is a very fulsome description of god's eternity: "Godis everlasting, god is eternal. That he should come into being or should everhave come into being is impossible. He is, he was, he will be forever" (As-

clepius 2.14b).46 At the beginning ofthe third book of the Sibylline Oracles asummary statement about god is made, in which wefindthe phrase: "... as

44See Dillon, The Transcendenceof God in Philo, 5.

45Wilhelm Dillenberger Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (Hildesheim: Georg Olms


16/18


existing now, and formerly, and again in the future" (3.16).47 This type of

remark resembles God's own confession in the Book of Revelation: "I am the

Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is to come" (1:8; see 1:4;

4:8; 11:17).48

And so, just as the author acclaimed Jesus' eternity in the past and

imperishability in 1:10-12, so he repeats it in 13:8. The repetition seems

consciously intended, with Ps 102:28 ("thou art the same") being the com

mon link. Yet beyond the citation of a Jewish psalm, the predication contains

the same material found in Hellenistic topoi on true gods in terms of their

timeless existence. These materials, moreover, confirm the hypothesis of this

study that the predications in Heb 7:3 of eternity in the past and imperish

ability in the future were truly acclamations about Jesus' status as a divine

figure. For 1:10-12 and 13:8 confess the same thing of Jesus, although indifferent terms. Yet the author seems to use popular topoi on the nature of

a true deity, giving further salience to these predications.

V. Summary and Conclusions

By examining in great detail the Hellenistic parallels to the state

ments made in Heb 7:3, this study has shown that the language originates

in and reflects the mode of thought found in Greek and Hellenistic philo

sophical speculation about a true deity. Unmistakably, the author of Hebrews intends his readers to understand the figure described in 7:3 as a

true deity, completely in accord with the topoi which describe true gods

as fully eternal, uncreated or ungenerated in the past, and imperishable

in the future.

Hebrews 7:3 Greek Philosophy

1. "without father or mother 1. ungenerated (aggentos)or genealogy"

2. "without beginning . . . 2. eternal in the past:or ending" imperishable in the future

3. "remains forever" 3. eternal (aidios);always existing (aei )

Some commentators gloss over the substance of what is predicated in

7:3 with the generic label that this figure is "eternal," but without specifying

4 7

See Plutarch: "I am all that has been, and is, and shall be" {de Iside 9 354C); Acts of

John 88 speaks of the gloryaround Christ: "it was and is and will be unto forever."48

Were we pursuing Jewish expressions of this, the targums on Exod 3:14 provide con


17/18

HEBREWS 7:3 455

what that means.49 This study would nuance such remarks by explaining

quite clearly that full eternity is understood in 7:3uncreated and ungener

ated eternity in the past and imperishability in the future. The figure so

described is a true deity.

Whatever the author says of Melchizedek must be understood as statedin service of Jesus. The assertions about complete eternity in Heb 7:3 are

made apropos ofJesus in the rhetorically significant places of the document,

its beginning and end.

In recent years some commentators have argued for a hymnic structure

for Heb 7:3, even a non-Christian Vorlage.50 By virtue of the parallels to

Hellenistic philosophy, this investigation in part confirms that line of think

ing. The language, which derives from the "negative theology" of Greek

philosophy, is definitely nonbiblical, neither Jewish or Christian. The rhetorical cadence of the terms and the structure of the verses resemble many

of the snatches of Greek philosophical poetry which describe the true god.

Among the poetic verses cited in this study are: Plutarch, E Delphi 388F;

Orphic Hymns 10.10 and 15.7; Pausanius, Desc. Graec. 10.12.10; Eusebius,

P.E. 3.9; Sib.Or. 3.16; and Clement, Strom. 5.14.

Finally, when the author acclaimed Jesus as "god" in Heb 1:8, he in

tended that title to have specific content. Jesus may properly be called a

divine figure because he enjoys God's two basic powers, ruling power (1:8)

and creative power (1:11). Similarly, Jesus is a true divine figure because hefulfills the category of a genuine deity by his full eternity, a point made

explicit both in the first and last chapters, as well as in the typology of

Melchizedek in 7:3. In this the christology of Hebrews makes significant

strides toward formally acclaiming Jesus as "true God from true God." In

this he begins to make ontological and not just functional statements about

Jesus.

49 While many commentators cite parallels to Heb 7:3 from Greek philosophy, they say

nothing about the divinity of the figure so described. For example, Spicq (L'Eptre aux Hbreux,

2.184) was content to argue of such a person, "c'est un tre supraterrestre qui transcende

l'histoire." L. Kalyan . Dey (The Intermediary Worldand Patternsof Perfection in Philo and

Hebrews [SBLDS 25; Missoula: Scholars, 1975] 187-92) argued that this figure belongs to a

"middle taxis," in between God and humankind. Thompson (The Beginnings of Christian

Philosophy, 119-20, 135-38) describes Jesus as an eternal, heavenly figure contrasted with

earthly, transitorycreatures; but he falls short of clarifying Jesus' heavenlycharacter or status.

However, Bruce (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 138) more accuratelyobserved: "It is the eternal

being of the Son of God that is here in view." The current hypothesis is dramaticallystronger

than these, for it asserts that Jesus is acclaimed as a true deity in virtue of his full eternity.50

See n. 6 above.


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Topos for a True Deity - Heb 7.3

Documents

Transcript of Topos for a True Deity - Heb 7.3