This study represents, with minor revisions, Son’s PhD thesis completed in 2004 at the London School of Theology. As the title indicates, Son argues that the interpretive key for Hebrews can be found in the contrasting symbols of Sinai and Zion, a construct found most prominently in 12:18–24. In chapter 1, Son reviews three issues typically posited by scholars in order to interpret the argument of Hebrews: the use of Old Testament quotations and theological themes; the conceptual background; and structural or rhetorical proposals. He concludes that none offers a sufficient solution to the quest for an integrative interpretive perspective from which to understand the letter. After a presentation of his thesis, an outline of his method in the rest of the chapter, he turns in chapter two to review Sinai and Zion symbolism in the Old Testament and second temple Judaism.

Chapter three, though a bit jumbled organizationally, serves as the centerpiece of Son’s argument. He begins by rightly noting that numerous scholars recognize the depiction of Sinai/Zion in 12:18–24 as the rhetorical climax of the letter, a fact that indicates its close relationship to the letter itself. Yet the significance of this contrast for interpreting the epistle remains largely unexplored. He then examines how Sinai/Zion symbolism illuminates each of the three issues reviewed in chapter one. For example, Sinai/Zion opposition in 12:18–24 replicates the contrasting means of revelation introduced in 1:1–4, a passage that lays the foundation for the contrasts found throughout the letter. The Sinai/Zion contrast, therefore, draws together and reveals the basis of the author’s rhetorical strategy.

Chapter four examines the significance of Sinai and Zion for understanding Hebrews’ portrayal of Jesus as superior to the angels in Hebrews 1:1–14. For example, Son highlights the fact that the five Old Testament quotations showing Jesus’ superiority all come from Old Testament Zion texts while the two Old Testament texts applied to angels stem from contexts dealing with Sinai. Chapter five explores Sinai/Zion imagery in Hebrews 3:1–4:11. Chapter six looks at the same phenomenon in the depiction of Jesus’ priesthood in contrast to that of the Levites in Hebrews 4:14–7:28, noting that both Psalm 110:4 and Genesis 14:18–20 associate Melchizedek with Zion. Chapter seven then argues that Sinai/Zion symbolism serves as the intellectual background for temple imagery of Hebrews 8. The book concludes with a brief presentation of general conclusions.

In contrast to most recent literature on Hebrews, this is an explicitly theological rather than socio-cultural or rhetorical reading of the letter. According to Son, ‘Hebrews is a single theological treatise with a single task to achieve’, namely, establishing ‘the theological significance of the person and ministry of Jesus’ (13). In other words, no attempt is made to place Hebrews within any life setting. Hebrews remains theological argumentation, plain and simple.

Son is prone to sweeping conclusions. One often finds claims that his argument has ‘proved’ or ‘clearly shown’ the significance of Sinai/Zion symbolism for understanding a particular point in Hebrews when ‘suggests’ may be a more apt conclusion. But I find the cumulative force of his overall analysis persuasive. He successfully identifies a previously unexamined, yet fundamental conceptual and rhetorical undercurrent shaping the argument in Hebrews Additional work will need to be done in order to further flesh out the influence of Sinai/Zion symbolism in Hebrews. But, in light of Son’s monograph, future work on Hebrews will have to reconsider the role of 12:18–24 and Sinai/Zion imagery in the letter’s argumentative logic.

---