Post 16 of Study: Hebrews 2

 I feel as if I am only skimming the surface. If you come here for quick tips on Hebrews or something immediately inspirational, something predigested, I apologize--that's not what we're doing. It's a looping back on itself study. 

It occurred to me this morning that if we want to know something about angels, which perhaps you do not, Hebrews is a good place to start. At least to say, our 2020 view of angels is definitely not the first century or previous view. In the Hebrew, sometimes angels are referred to as "gods" with the word Elohim. (Adonai and the "I am that I am" name reserved for God Himself.)  We don't want to think of angels as some sort of Mt. Olympus crowd, which of course they aren't, so we stick with the "messenger" view, (the Greek translation) although that is a bit limited. They do not just bring telegrams from God. 

The writer says in 2:2: "If the word spoken through angels proved steadfast..." My Bible version's notes point out that "Both Stephen and Paul (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19) indicate the Law was given by angels" or at least angels (holy ones) were present when Moses received the Law. Elohim was used in the Old Testament and by Jesus also to refer to mankind. Which, admittedly, is all a bit confusing.

I admit I'm not really that concerned about angels, probably because my tradition casts them as beings whom people are tempted to worship in place of God. Just like some churches pray to or through saints, they seem to portrayed by some groups as a hierarchy leading to God when God has told us "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 2:5). So I tend to think of angels as a distraction, but that is clearly wrong. They have a purpose in God's kingdom. The book of Hebrews mentions them twelve times. 

Also note how much scripture the writer uses, sometimes in unexpected ways. For us only, perhaps. How this might have been understood by his immediate readers is something we can only understand with deeper study. After reading N.T. Wright's work, I conclude that we don't know much about the mindset of Jews in the first century. 

We think we do because we can read books that outline certain propositions about them. No, no, no.  Knowing propositions about different people doesn't mean you are in their skin. I have lived in the Deep(er) South for 40 years and I still don't understand it because I didn't grow up here. I don't understand the good and the bad of Southern attitudes about a variety of things. I don't understand the pride of place or the defensiveness about losing a war over slavery. It's not in my bones, although I do have some empathy for them. 

I had a recent experience where people from fundamentalist backgrounds made assertions about Jews to a Jewish woman. I cringed, knowing how much we had been taught this things from pulpits about Jews so that it would fit with our worldview. All I'm saying is be careful. Listen to people. Let them speak for themselves.