BIBLICA 99.3 (2018) 431-446 doi 10.2143/BIB.99.3.3285370 THE PARADOX OF HIGH CHRISTOLOGY IN HEBREWS 1 The presence of paradox as a literary device and rhetorical feature in the Letter to the Hebrews gets sporadic mention by commentators 1 . Refer- ences to paradox in Hebrews tend to focus on a single example rather than a comprehensive pattern 2 . The treatment of this topic is irregular, and paradox remains on the periphery of contemporary scholarship. The term “paradox” may be broadly defined as the investigation of a topic in dif- ferent voices, styles, and terms. True paradoxes consist of contradictions, while false paradoxes (antinomies) consist of apparent contradictions 3 . Paradox is often a helpful term to describe the tensions found in the wis- dom literature, narrative worlds, and prophetic writings of the Hebrew Bible 4 . The category of “paradox” has become important for explanations of Paul’s theology (e.g. the righteous God who paradoxically justifies the ungodly in Rom 4,5) 5 . Paradox is also an important feature in the Gospel of Mark, and it is widely used throughout the parables and the depiction of the Passion 6 . Yet paradox remains a neglected topic in the study of Hebrews as an integral element of its rhetorical and pastoral strategy. Con- temporary studies of Hebrews do engage with the concept of paradox, but only in limited ways. The central thesis of this study is that paradox or apparent contradiction in Heb 1,1-14 is an important rhetorical feature that seeks to elicit an intellectual act of faith on the part of the reader. The neglect of paradox as a feature in Hebrews may be due to the fact that it is not always considered a formal category for Greco-Roman 1 For the purposes of this study, I assume that Hebrews is a letter, with some affinities to a sermon. Genre is not a matter of importance to my argument. 2 O.J. FILTVEDT (The Identity of God’s People and the Paradox of Hebrews [WUNT 2/400; Tübingen 2015] 1) argues there is a single paradox that characterizes all of Hebrews: the identity of God’s people as it relates to “newness and continuity”. 3 C.J. SWEARINGEN, “The Tongues of Men: Understanding Greek Rhetorical Sources for Paul’s Letters to the Romans and 1 Corinthians”, Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts. Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference (eds. A. ERIKSSON et al.) (Harrisburg, PA 2002) 232- 242, here 241. 4 J. MARAIS, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts (BIS 36; Leiden 1998) 172. 5 L.J. WATERS, “Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles”, BibSac 167 (2010) 423-441; D.A. CARSON – P.T. O’BRIEN – M.A. SEIFRID (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume II, The Paradoxes of Paul (WUNT 181; Tübingen 2004). 6 L.C. SWEAT, The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark (LNTS 492; London 2013); N.F. SANTOS, The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 237; Sheffield 2003).