So, this is my first blog post ... ummm ... ever? maybe not, but it's the first in a long time, anyway. I would like to add some content, so i'll try to paste in a short conversation from another forum.
My classmate wrote:
"In Hebrews 4:14-5:10, the author again picks up the theme, first introduced in2:17-18, that Jesus is like a high priest. In Chapter 2, it was just a passing observation. Now the author unfolds that theory in greater detail, spelling out for us just HOW Jesus is like a high priest. Later, in Chapter 7, we’ll begin to see how Jesus is different from the Levitical high priest, but for now, the author is building a case for similarities, not contrasts.
Long and Koester approach this section slightly differently, but both lay out a chiastic structure that shows how Jesus does all the things a high priest should do, and possesses the characteristics that a high priest should possess.
Chief among these characteristics is empathy for the weak. Nobody knows suffering better than Jesus. And through his suffering, he learned obedience. Koester points out that in the theology of Hebrews, sinlessness = obedience in suffering, a concept not found in prior Levitical literature.
Question: Jesus was obedient in suffering. Hmmmm. And Hebrews certainly seems to be preparing its audience to expect suffering in this life. Obedience is learned through suffering and obedience is expected of Christ’s followers. Does our faith really call for us to be as self-sacrificing as Christ? Is there really merit in suffering? Do we really want to preach this theology to, say, a woman being abused by her husband? How do we get out of the theological minefield being laid for us in this section of Hebrews?"
and I responded:
"Are we really called to follow Jesus?"
As I read it, Hebrews says that in his suffering of Jesus learned obedience, and now is the source of salvation for all who obey. I think this does two things for the audience. First, it calls them to obey Jesus. What that means is unclear, it could be to obey a collection of Jesus' teachings that the community knows, it could be to obey their leaders who speak with Jesus authority, or something else. Second, I think the author assumes that the community is suffering becuase of its Jesus-following identity. The suffering is taken for granted, and the author wants them to remain firm in their faith.
So how do we read this as secure, not suffering Christians? I think the first message is clear, obey Jesus. Second, when suffering arises from obeying Jesus, remain firm in faith. My hope is that this releases the abused woman, but I will leave it to her prayerful discernment in Christian community to understand what obediance to Jesus demands. While I don't beleive suffering is inherent meritourious, i do think that it sometimes comes with working for the reign of God.
Shane Claiborne writes "And that’s when things get messy. When people begin moving beyond charity and toward justice and solidarity with the poor and oppressed, as Jesus did, they get in trouble. Once we are actually friends with the folks in struggle, we start to ask why people are poor, which is never as popular as giving to charity. One of my friends has a shirt marked with the words of late Catholic bishop Dom Helder Camara: “When I fed the hungry, they called me a saint. When I asked why people are hungry, they called me a communist.” Charity wins awards and applause but joining the poor gets you killed. People do not get crucified for living out of love that disrupts the social order that calls forth a new world. People are not crucified for helping poor people. People are crucified for joining them."
