Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice

by Kenneth L. Schenck

Scholars argue over where Hebrews fit in the first century world. Kenneth L. Schenck works towards resolving this question by approaching Hebrews' cosmology and eschatology from a text-orientated perspective. After observing that the key passages in the background debate mostly relate to the 'settings' of the story of salvation history evoked by Hebrews, Schenck attempts to delineate those settings by asking how the 'rhetorical world' of Hebrews engages that underlying narrative. Hebrews largely argue from an eschatology of two ages, which correspond to two covenants. The fresh age has come despite the continuance of some old age elements. The most characteristic elements of Hebrews' settings, however, are its spatial settings, where we find an underlying metaphysical dualism between the highest heaven, which is the domain of spirit, and the created realm, including the created heavens. This creation will be removed at the eschaton, leaving only the unshakeable heaven.

236 pages, Paperback

First published December 20, 2007

Reviews

[Judson Greene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Schenck's book is great in that it covers the cosmology and eschatology of Hebrews from a text-centered methodology (that doesn't presume a specific background before coming to the text). His is the best current defense of the position that Hebrews envisions the annihilation of the created realm with no new heavens or new earth. Many of Schenck's conclusions (including the aforementioned) are not ones I share, and I am ambivalent toward his historical reconstruction. That being said, I really enjoyed this book and it helped to clarify many points within Hebrews for me. I think his work on Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 is the highlight of the work (though I think Hebrews envisions more of a Fall narrative than Schenck allows).

[Robert Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent scholarship. I can't help but feel like he puts pack with his left hand, what he takes away with his right. Yes, Hebrews is not Platonic, but the dualism of an unexamined ontology is just as bad