With careful review of the book of Hebrews, there are distinctive theological themes that appear within the text of Scripture. There is a breadth and depth of subjects that together present a robust view of theological principles for further study and understanding. Covered within the text, “Letters to the Church” they are outlined as follows:
- Christology
- God the Father
- Holy Spirit
- New Covenant
- Reality of Heaven
- Dualism of Hebrews
- Definition and Practice of Faith
- Angelology
The dualism of Hebrews is the least familiar to me because it involves an ontological pairing that corresponds to the philosophy of Plato (i.e., Neoplatonism, or Platonic dualism). As such, the doctrine of God is inferred and distinct from the additional theologies touched upon within the Hebrews text. The author’s reference to a “copy and shadow” or “sketch and shadow” (Heb 8:5) appears to indicate a dualistic reality that sets up an interpretive physical existence as a representation or expression of “heavenly things.”1 As if there is an overlap or projection to space and time which serves as a separate yet extended or entangled reality. The realm or domain of God is independent of bound physical constraints upon humanity, but it somehow meaningfully overlaps or intersects to shape a type of concurrence.2
Some apparent conceptual examples are body and spirit, mind and matter, sacred spaces, abstract and concrete, natural and supernatural, holy and profane, principalities and human governance, determinism, and free will, and thought and language. It is not as if there is cause and effect as demonstrated in this world, but that there are theological primary and secondary causes of events in the world. To quote theologian John Frame,
“Creation is like a book written by a gifted novelist, who creates a story-world in which events have causes within the story, but in which every event is brought about by the volition of the author.”
The notion of “as above, so below” comes to mind when thinking about the principle of concurrence concerning the doctrine of God, but there is more to it than platitude or surface-level reason. The transcendence and immutability of God have a direct and continuous bearing on what happens in His realm as well as throughout physical creation as they are to Him coherent.
Jobes’ coverage of the “copy and shadow” perspective to mean “example and shadow,” wasn’t fully settled with me only because I’m unfamiliar with the presupposition of dualism from a Platonic perspective. I suspect Jobes’ concerns have to do with the risks or problems associated with conclusions around allegorical interpretation (i.e., Platonic thought). I do wonder if typology and “dualism” are not mutually exclusive. Here’s what comes to mind, as a matter of comparison. Others come to mind.
(a.) Heb 10:5-7 – This text is sacred ground. It is written, “but a body you have given to me;” My observation isn’t to focus on His purpose of doing God’s will, but where did He come from to occupy or inhabit the body given to Him? The typology is the sacrifice of one type of flesh for another, but where did Jesus come from to occupy His flesh within physical existence? Was his body a physical likeness or an imprint of God the Father? Reference Heb 8:5, 9:23.
Hebrews 1:1–9:16; 9:18–10:20
Hebrews 10:22–30; 10:32–13:25
(b.) Matt 17:2-3, – Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus at His transfiguration. The typologies are found in why they were there with Jesus after their bodies decayed centuries before (e.g., Moses, first exodus, Jesus, second exodus). However, where did they come from, why were they there, and why was it at that location? They were on of Zaphon (ba’al tsapanu) for a reason (physically and spiritually intersectional).
I checked the semantic range of the term “example” Jobes wrote about (hypodeigma, Heb 8:5). Her contextual view comports with Strongs and Louw Nida, but BDAG offers more granularity to provide the distinction or nuance between “example” and “copy” (sketch, symbol, indication).
Hypodeigma 3
p 1037 ὑπόδειγμα, ατος, τό (s. ὑποδείκνυμι; rejected by the Atticists in favor of παράδειγμα [Lob. on Phryn. p. 12]. It is found in X., Equ. 2, 2, b and Philo Mech. 69, 10, then fr. Polyb. on [exx. fr. lit. in FBleek, Hb II/1, 1836, 555]; Vett. Val.; IPriene 117, 57 [I B.C.]; OGI 383, 218; BGU 1141, 43 [I B.C.]; PFay 122, 16; LXX; EpArist 143; Philo, Joseph.)
① an example of behavior used for purposes of moral instruction, example, model, pattern (schol. on Nicander, Ther. 382=example; Polyb. 3, 17, 8; Sir 44:16) in a good sense as something that does or should spur one on to imitate it 1 Cl 5:1ab (τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα);
• 6:1 (ὑπόδειγμα κάλλιστον.—Jos., Bell. 6, 103 καλὸν ὑπόδειγμα; Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 256); 46:1; 55:1; 63:1.
• ὑπόδειγμα ἔδωκα ὑμῖν (cp. 2 Macc 6:28) J 13:15. W. gen. of thing (Sir 44:16; 2 Macc 6:31) Js 5:10.—In ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπειθείας Hb 4:11, ὑπόδειγμα refers not to an example of disobedience (as BGU 747 II, 13f [139 A.D.] ὑπόδιγμα τῆς ἀπειθίας), but to an example of falling into destruction as a result of disobedience.—A warning example (Cornutus 27 p. 51, 16; Vi. Aesopi W c. 95 πρὸς ὑπόδειγμα=as a warning example; Jos., Bell. 2, 397) Sodom and Gomorrah are ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν for the godless people of the future 2 Pt 2:6 (εἰς τὸ δεῖγμα P72). Of Judas μέγα … ἀσεβείας ὑπόδειγμα a striking example of impiety Papias (3:2).
② an indication of something that appears at a subsequent time, outline, sketch, symbol ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιά Hb 8:5; 9:23 (Ezk 42:15; s. ELee, NTS 8, ’61/62, 167–69: ‘suggestion’; LHurst, JTS 34, ’83, 156–68).
• —PKatz, Biblica 33, ’52, 525.
• —DELG s.v. δείκνυμι.
• M-M. TW. Spicq.
________________
1 Karen H. Jobes, Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 46.
2 John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 180-182.
3 William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1037.
