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

God's final revelation in Christ demands greater obedience (chapters 1-4) than previous revelation (namely Moses) and displaces (chapters 5-12) previous revelation (namely Moses) . In order to develop and support this thesis, the book has been divided into three major subsections which will also form the outline for this chapter: the introduction, (1: 1-4); the preliminary argument on obedience (1:5-4: 16); and the essential argument of replacement (chapters 5: 1-12:29). 3 Introduction to and Basis for the Argument 1: 1-4 God Has Spoken His Greater Revelation in Son 8 Some understand the first four verses of the book as simply the first in a long list of favorable comparisons of Jesus to various Old Testament figures beginning with a short reference to the prophets (1:1). 4 Hebrews 1:1-4 however is a tightly knit literary unit which 3 This outline has been determined after careful consideration of (1) the relationship between theology and exhortation, (2) the more objective identifications of structure including announcement of subject, inclusions, and repetitions and (3) the more subjective conceptual development of the epistle. Important sources for this discussion have been: J. Swetnam, 'On the Literary Genre of the 'Epistle' to the Hebrews," Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 261-68 ; George E. Rice, "Apostasy as a Motif and its Effect on the Structure of Hebrew , " Andrews University Seminary Studies 23 (1985): 29-35; Albert Vanhoye, "Discussions ur la tructure de l'Epitre aux Hebreux." Biblica 55 (1974): 349-80; P. Auffret, "E ai ur la tructure litteraire et l'interpretation d'Hebreux 3, 1-6," New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 380-96. J . Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews ," Heythorp Journal 5 (1964): 170-77 ; and D . A . Bla k , "The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews : An Evaluation and a Prop al," Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986) : 163-77. Finally, Black summarize well the pitfall and th proper philo ophy of the analy i of Hebrew , "Some writer would lik to think (or gi th impre ion) that the outlining of Hebrew i a rapid , imple pro e . Th real pr bl m i , f cour e, far more complex, bewildering, and time-con urning . ch lar hip tand till in n field , lea t of all in biblical tudie , and a facile approach t th tru tur l mpl iti f docum nt like Hebrew can ea ily lead to a ituati n in whi h n n am zin numb r f tr or ven tiny plant , but fail t the t re t at all . l tt r h uld b i d in th r at cti n th t on titut it h I nd n t imp! in d ta h p rti n , " Bl k, 'Th Pr bl m fth Lit r ry tru ture fH br w ," 176 . 4 f H m r nt , 'h ,pi tie to th Hebrew : omm nta ( r nd R p1d . B k r , 1 7 ), 1