The Relationship of Jewish and Gentile Believers to the Law Between A.D. 30 and 70 in the Scripture

polemic against an aberrant view of Moses. Hughes, who sees the first two chapters as a polemic against angels is consistent here. 20 The content of chapters 3 and 4 in particular make it plain that they were being tempted to assign to Moses a prominence that was scripturally unwarranted and damaging to the gospel. Here , too, the influence of the type of mentality that prevailed among the Essenes of qumran may reasonably be suggested, since the community they had formed in the desert was designed to conform faithfully to the standards laid down under the leadership of Moses in the wilderness. 29 But one must question whether the situation of the readers actually entailed their worship or at least exaltation of angels and Moses. 30 Is it likely that Jewish believers (or at least Jewish adherents who were contemplating Christianity) could not discern who was greater, Messiah or Moses? If the author's point is to simply discuss the superiority of the person of the Son, Christians, they had already trusted Christ as the Son of God, one who was obviously higher than ordinary men. Therefore, they may not have been particularly troubled by comparisons between Jesus and the prophets . Such suggestions would probably have been rejected immediately. But lifting Christ above the realm of ordinary mortals did not necessarily prove that He was God. Angels too were above mortals, and were highly respected in the Old Testament and by Jews generally. Thus the point needed to be clearly established that Chri t as the Son of God was superior to every angel, because He existed on an even higher plane ," Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews , 46-47. 29 Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics , 22. Lane seems to allow the possibility , though he does not attempt to answer how this logic could be followed in the remainder of the book. "In some strands of the Jewish tradition the testimony to Moses in Num 12:7 wa u ed to prove that Moses had been granted a higher rank and privilege than the mini tering angel . . . If this interpretation may be presupposed among Jewish communities of the Dia pora a well, it clarifies the structure of Hebrews, where the son i compared fir t to the angel (1: 1- 2 :16) and then to Mo es, their superior (3: 1-6) . It would indicate that it wa b no means superfluous when Je us had been proven uperior to the angel to continue ith a demonstration of his superiority to Mose , " Lane , Hebrew , 73 . 30 ome who po it that the reader had fallen prey to angel or hip ar : Man on, "The Problem of the pi tle to the Hebrew , " tudie in the Go pel and Epi tle , ed. Matthew Black (Philad lphia : We tmin ter Pre , 196 ) , 24 . . D lling , Taaaw , " in 'heological Di tionary of the New Te tament (TDNT), ed . . Kitt 1 ( r nd R pid : e dman , 1 72) 8:42 . Philip . Hugh , 'The hri t 1 g f H br outhwe tern Journal of 'heology 8 (1 5) : 1. K nt , Hebrew , 40 . pi tle to the H br m nt rnati n I mm ntar nth t m nt , d. . B u ( r n R 1d . rdm n , 1 ), ; Bru e, 'he pi tie to the Hebre