What Is It?
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, Hebrews 1:1-2a NASB
In – Be patient, this is a little technical, but it will be worth it.
Some time ago Bob Gorelik told me about a conversation he had with a rabbi in Israel. They were discussing some difficult passages in the letter to the Hebrews. The rabbi complained that the text did not clearly portray a Jewish view of the priesthood and the role of the Messiah. The rabbi was not a Messianic believer. Bob responded, “But don’t you understand? This is a midrash.”
“Oh, yes, I see,” came the reply.
But I’m afraid most of us don’t see. We try to interpret the text as if it were peshat, and as a result, we run into difficulties attempting to reconcile it with other peshat interpretations. But what if it isn’t peshat? What if it’s midrash?
Notice Michael Fox’s comment about midrash:
“We should distinguish between midrash (or darash) as a hermeneutic, or interpretive methodology, and midrash as the interpretation itself. In the latter sense, a ‘midrash’ can be a unit of interpretation—one interpretation of a verse—or one of the compilations of midrashic interpretations. These compilations were composed mainly from the third to the eleventh centuries C.E., but the material is older.
“As a hermeneutic, midrash focuses on each verse or its components, not on an entire book. It seeks, first, to harmonize the verse with the entirety of the Bible, in the belief that the Bible speaks with a single voice, which is ultimately God’s. As such, it must in all ways accord with the beliefs of the expositors, which is to say, the theology and law of rabbinic Judaism. Second, midrash seeks to draw out the fullness of meaning potential in the verse. It makes use of a variety of homiletical techniques, including historical comparisons, personal anecdotes, wordplays, different readings of Hebrew words, and, above all, reapplication of associated biblical verses. Midrashic compilations also incorporate interpretations that are fairly straightforward, usually without drawing a distinction among the different types.
“The midrashic hermeneutic attempts to bring forth the limitless range of meanings of the biblical text. It thus embraces a multiplicity of interpretations. (In contrast, a different approach to interpretation, peshat exegesis, arose and flourished in the Middle Ages. Commonly but mistakenly called ‘literalist,’ the peshat approach attends to the plain sense of the passage and tries to understand the verse within the rules of grammar and to locate its meaning in its literary and historical context. It aims at the author’s specific intention and will exclude other readings as inaccurate, even when these produce a reading in harmony with the assumptions of the faith. Modern critical exegesis follows the basic principles of peshat exegesis, while sometimes recognizing that biblical texts may be univocal.)”[1]
Doesn’t this offer a crucial distinction? Doesn’t it help with verses in the letter that speak about no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, or the possibility of losing salvation, or the order of Melchizedek? Midrash, the free-floating reconnection of ideas, “the fullness of meaning potential,” imaginative exegesis not forced into the straightjacket of orthodox literalism.
So then, what do you suppose the author meant when he wrote, “has spoken to us in His Son”? Didn’t we expect “through,” since that’s how what is spoken is communicated? So why did the author chose en rather than dia? Oh, yes, and by the way, “His” isn’t in the Greek text.
Topical Index: midrash, Hebrews 1:1
[1] Michael V. Fox, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ecclesiastes (Jewish Publication Society, 2004), p. xxiii.
