Hebrews and Divine Speech 9780567659354

Citation preview

Unless otherwise indicated, the English Scripture quotations (excluding those from the LXX) contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, English LXX quotations are taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, © 2007 by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

vi

For Gemma, with love

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is a revised version of a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Cambridge in 2010. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Peter Head, for many enjoyable hours spent discussing Hebrews and for his patient and wise counsel throughout the course of this project. I have also been greatly helped by the comments of my two examiners, Professor Loveday Alexander and Dr Andrew Chester, and of the anonymous reader appointed by the publisher. I am also grateful to Dr Peter O’Brien, Dr Tim Ward, and my sister, Dr Fiona Grif¿ths, for their kindness in reading sections of the manuscript and for their helpful feedback. Special thanks are also due to the editorial team at Bloomsbury T&T Clark for their patient assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication. It has been a privilege to carry out this research alongside service in teaching and Christian ministry, ¿rst at St. Paul’s School, then at Christ Church, Westbourne, and ¿nally, at the Proclamation Trust. It would not have been possible without the kind forbearance of my colleagues in each place, nor without the particular kindness of my former St. Paul’s colleague Peter Maudsley, who bravely undertook to teach me German. The challenge of working at a distance from Cambridge was made considerably easier by the regular welcome and ¿ne resources made available to me at Tyndale House. Generous ¿nancial support received at various stages from the following friends and organisations made this project possible: Thomas and Dorothy Caldwell, the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, the Almond Trust, St. Paul’s School, and the Mercers’ Company. It is a pleasure to record once again my sincere thanks to each one. My parents have been a source of constant encouragement, and their great generosity in substantially funding my B.A. and M.Phil. established the foundation for this project. I am also very grateful to my parents-inlaw for their kind support and to my grandparents for their unfailing help in so many ways. It seems certain that this research would neither have

xiv

Acknowledgments

begun nor seen the light of day without the particular encouragement and tireless proofreading of my grandfather, Dr Gerald Grif¿ths, and I am especially thankful to him. Most of all, thanks are due to my wife, Gemma, who has helped me in every way and has borne the sometimes heavy burden of my distraction during the years that this project has been with us. Thanks to Gemma and our children, Edward, Arabella and Hugo (who arrived during the ¿nal stages of editing), the busy days of this project have been very happy days as well. Gemma has waited patiently and with characteristic grace for the completion of this work, and it is dedicated to her as a small token of my love and gratitude.

1

ABBREVIATIONS Series and journal titles are recorded in abbreviated form in the footnotes. The full titles can be found in the Bibliography. BDAG

BHS LXX

LS MT

NA27 NETS NRSV

NT OT OTP TDNT

Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Septuagint Liddell, H.G. and R. Scott. A Greek–English Lexicon. 8th ed. Oxford, 1897 Masoretic text Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th ed. New English Translation of the Septuagint New Revised Standard Version New Testament Old Testament Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London, 1983–85 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964– 76

xvi

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. General Introduction The writer of Hebrews is concerned that his addressees are in danger of losing con¿dence in the message they received, and his1 strategy for buttressing their faith is to effect a renewed encounter with God’s word.2 He focuses attention on the theme of God’s speech in his ¿rst sentence, indicating to his readers the centrality of the divine word to his purpose: ‘Long ago’, he writes, ‘God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son’ (Heb. 1.1-2a).3 H. W. Attridge notes the ‘conceit’ of the writer ‘that readers and hearers of Scripture can listen to God speaking’, and goes on 1. The ‘author’s masculine singular self-reference at 11.32 seems to preclude’ female authorship (H. W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989], p.4; so too, K. Schenck, ‘God Has Spoken: Hebrews’ Theology of the Scriptures’, in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology [ed. Richard Bauckham et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], p.322 n.3). 2. This study will refer to God’s ‘speech’ as the activity of God speaking, and to his ‘word’ as the substance of that speech. The choice of the term ‘speech’ in the title rather than ‘word’ is largely motivated by the desire to avoid the suggestion of an assumed direct relationship between the Greek terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ (whose normal English translation is ‘word’) and the writer’s theology of God’s word. 3. This study is based on the following critical editions: BHS for the MT, Rahlfs for the LXX, and NA27 for the NT. The term ‘Septuagint’ and its abbreviation, LXX, will be used with primary reference to critical compilations of the Greek Old Testament and Apocrypha. The collection of documents found in Rahlfs’ edition shall be regarded as the documents comprising the LXX. For convenience, NETS (A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007]) is used as a standard translation for the LXX and the NRSV is used for the MT and NT. Changes to these are always noted for substantial portions of translation (but generally not when offering English renderings of individual Greek words and phrases in the course of exegesis of those words and phrases). References to the OT will follow the MT chapter divisions. Because Hebrews appears to rely on a form of the LXX, quotations of the OT and Apocrypha will follow the LXX unless otherwise noted. When the LXX is quoted or particular attention is drawn to the LXX text form, the MT reference is given ¿rst for convenience, followed by the LXX in parentheses where it differs.

2

Hebrews and Divine Speech

to claim, ‘In the development of this conceit resides the most creative theological work of this complex text’.4 This present study will examine this central theme of God’s speech in Hebrews through an exegetical analysis of eight passages (1.1-4; 2.1-4; 4.2-16; 5.11–6.12; 6.13–7.28; 11.3; 12.18-29; and 13.1-25), with a particular concern to discern whether the terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ play signi¿cant roles in the writer’s presentation of his theology of divine speech.5 It will outline the writer’s conception of God’s speech and his own strategy for effecting an encounter between his addressees and God’s word. This exegetical analysis will show that the writer presents God’s word, which ¿nds full expression in the incarnate Christ, as the central means by which salvation is made available and the place of divine rest is accessed. It will ¿nd that the writer uses the terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ with a high degree of consistency to signify words that originate with God. It will lead to the ultimate conclusion that the writer believes that through his discourse (a sermon comprised of a series of scriptural expositions), he himself communicates that divine word and effects an encounter between his hearers and the God who speaks. 1.1.1. History of Investigation Given its prominence in Hebrews, the theme of divine speech has received relatively little scholarly attention. Recent studies have begun to redress this inattention, but crucial questions remain unanswered.6 The theme is addressed in two published monographs and one unpublished dissertation.7 The ¿rst monograph is the Bern dissertation of David 4. Attridge, ‘God’, pp.203–4. 5. Throughout this study Greek words will generally be presented in Greek text. In the case of logos and sophia, an English transliteration will be used when discussing the personalised (or semi-personalised) concepts that these two words have come to signify in various contexts, and the Greek text will be used when the analysis is focused on the Greek words themselves. 6. In addition to the works mentioned below, a brief summary of some of the ¿ndings of this present study was published in 2012 (J. Grif¿ths, ‘The Word of God: Perfectly Spoken in the Son’, in The Perfect Saviour: Key themes in Hebrews [ed. J. Grif¿ths; Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2012], pp.35–48). 7. Gene Smillie’s dissertation (‘Living and Active: The Word of God in the Book of Hebrews’ [Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000], available through the library of Trinity International University) offers an overview with comment of 14 passages where the theme of the word of God appears (identifying key vocabulary in Hebrews that is central to the development of the theme). Smillie gives more detailed exegetical attention to three key passages (1.1-2; 4.12-13; and 12.25) in four articles published subsequently (see bibliography), and the ¿ndings of these are addressed in detail at relevant points in this study. 1

1. Introduction

3

Wider (published 2007). Wider ¿nds that the theology of the word provides the hermeneutical key to Hebrews, through which other themes (including soteriology, Christology and the writer’s view of creation and the cosmos) and the connections between them are better understood. The theology of the word also sheds light on the relationship between the didactic and paraenetic sections of Hebrews. The writer frames his appeal by confronting his hearers with the power of God’s word that challenges them to confession.8 The second monograph is Tomasz Lewicki’s Paderborn dissertation (published 2004). Lewicki considers the ‘Frage nach der Funktion und Bedeutung der Wort-Gottes-Theologie im gesamttheologischen Konzept des Hebräerbriefs’, focusing (in light of 1.2-4) on texts that relate to the ‘Motiv des Sprechens Gottes im Sohn’. The writer of Hebrews develops and presents his theology of God as the speaking God in order to address the faith crisis of the addressees and to elicit from them a response. God speaks through citations of Scripture; the main theme of his speaking is the salvi¿c high-priestly work of Christ, who is himself the ultimate expression of God’s word.9 In a brief article Eve-Marie Becker argues that Hebrews develops a discernible ‘Logos-theology’.10 Under her analysis, the writer uses ÂĠºÇË (and its cognate ÂĠºÀÇÅ, at 5.12) to signify both God’s speech ‘to us’ (at 2.2; 4.12; 5.12, 13; 7.28; 12.19; and 13.7) and our speech to him or to others within the community (4.2, 13; 5.11; 6.1; 13.17, 22). Hebrews 4.12 and 4.13 are central to this ÂĠºÇË theology, together expressing the divine and the human side of the verbal exchange.11 Other works that address the theme of divine speech do so as a secondary concern.12 Most 8. D. Wider, Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 87; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), pp.205–10 and passim; H. W. Attridge, Review of David Wider, Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersunchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief, CBQ 67.1 (2000), p.379. 9. T. Lewicki, ‘Weist Nicht ab den Sprechenden!’: Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief (Paderborner Theologische Studien 41; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004), pp.11, 141–4. 10. E.-M. Becker, ‘ “Gottes Wort” und “Unser Wort”. Bemerkungen zu Hebr 4,12-13’, BZ 44 (2000), pp.254–62. 11. Becker, ‘Gottes’, p.260. 12. It has been considered under the banner of OT hermeneutics (G. Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics [SNTSMS 36; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], pp.6–9, 47–53; Schenck, ‘God’, passim; D. J. Treier, ‘Speech Acts, Hearing Hearts, and Other Senses: The Doctrine of Scripture Practiced in Hebrews’, in Bauckham et al., eds., The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, pp.337– 50; K. Backhaus, Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief 1

4

Hebrews and Divine Speech

major English commentaries give detailed attention to the writer’s use of the OT, but less to the theological concerns that may inform and shape that use.13 These studies suggest several important lines of inquiry tied to the theme of God’s speech in Hebrews that require further exploration. The ¿rst concerns the relationship between Christology, soteriology and the theology of God’s speech. There is an ongoing debate concerning the presence of a logos Christology in Hebrews; some see a clear and explicit logos Christology in Hebrews,14 others an ‘implicit’ Christology of that kind,15 while others ¿nd little evidence of it at all.16 The person of Christ and God’s speech often appear in Hebrews to function as a unity [WUNT I/240; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], pp.101–29, 302–3), and as part of a study of the doctrine of God in Hebrews (Attridge, ‘God’, pp.203–8), and in connection with Hebrews’ Christology (Backhaus, Sprechende, pp.49–75, 301–2). 13. For example, see P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993), pp.37–42; Attridge, Hebrews, pp.23–5; C. R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; London: Doubleday, 2001), pp.115–18; W. L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Dallas: Word, 1991), pp.cxii–cxxv; O. Michel, Der Brief an Die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), pp.75–7. Johnson’s more recent commentary pays particular attention to the theme of God’s speech and offers a helpful, but limited, introduction to it (L. T. Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary [NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006]; cf. J. Grif¿ths, Review of Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, Churchman 122 [2008], pp.276–9). But note the fact that a number of major German commentaries (such as those of Grässer, Braun and Weiss) do not devote space in their introductions to the question of the writer’s use of the OT. 14. R. Williamson, ‘The Incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews’, ExpTim 95 (1983–4), pp.4–8; J. Swetnam, ‘Jesus as ĠºÇË in Hebrews 4,12-13’, Bib 62 (1981), pp.214, 218–24, and ‘Another Note on  as Christ in Hebrews 4,12-13’, Filologia Neotestamentaria XVIII (2005), pp.131–5; H. Clavier, ‘    dans l’Épître aux Hébreux’, in New Testament Essays (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), p.86; M. S. Enslin, The Literature of the Christian Movement (Christian Beginnings III; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938), pp.311. 15. Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.142; see also Treier, ‘Speech’, p.346 n. 25; Koester would probably fall within this category too, noting that the Son ‘not only uttered God’s word but…was God’s word, since he communicated God’s will through his life, death, and exaltation’ (Koester, Hebrews, pp.104–5). Grässer appears to adopt such a position, concluding of 1.1-4 that, for the writer, ‘Der Sohn ist das Wort Gottes in Person’ (E. Grässer, ‘Das Heil als Wort: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Hebr 2,1-4’, in Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung in Neuen Testament [ed. Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972], p.266). 16. Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.261. 1

1. Introduction

5

in making available salvation (along with access to the heavenly location which is its goal).17 Is it possible to detect a meaningful and sustained relationship between the theology of divine speech, Christology and soteriology throughout Hebrews? If so, what is the nature of that relationship? The second line of inquiry concerns the relationship between the author’s own discourse and his theology of divine speech: Does the author view his discourse as an extension or form of God’s own speech? At various points he appears to assume for himself the voice and authority of God.18 To what extent is this rhetorical tool rooted in his theology of God’s speech? Third, the writer’s use of ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ often feature in discussions of divine speech in Hebrews. The terms recur: ÂĠºÇË appears at 2.2; 4.2, 12, 13; 5.11, 13; 6.1; 7.28; 12.19; 13.7, 17, 22, and ģýĸ at 1.3; 6.5; 11.3; and 12.19. While there has been no systematic study of the use of these words in Hebrews,19 there is a widespread assumption that they function as signi¿cant terms in Hebrews’ presentation of God’s word.20 For some scholars the terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ function as close equivalents,21 but most exegetes propose some more or less consistent distinction between the two terms in the writer’s use.22 Questions surrounding the use of 17. As Michel notes, ‘Sein Kommen auf die Erde und seine Erhöhung, sein Wort und sein Weg sind Gottes Sprechen zu uns’ (Michel, Hebräer, p.95). Grässer explores the relationship between God’s word, the person of Christ, and the reality of salvation in his study of Heb. 2.1-4. Noting that the writer identi¿es God’s word with the person of Christ, he goes on to say that the ÂĠºÇË of 6.1 ‘ist nicht Information über das Heil, er ist selber das eschatologische Heilsgeschehen’. Grässer, ‘Das Heil’, p.266. 18. See, for example, Johnson, Hebrews, pp.46–7; G. R. Smillie, ‘ “The One Who is Speaking” in Hebrews 12:25’, TynBul 55.2 (2004), pp.292–4; Koester, Hebrews, p.552; Schenck, ‘God’, passim. 19. However, Becker provides the outline for such an investigation, noting the consistency in the writer’s use of the term to signify communication from or to God. Becker, ‘Gottes’, passim. 20. O’Brien, for example, notes the use of ÂĠºÇË at 2.2; 4.2, 12; 5.13; 6.1; 7.28; 12.19; and 13.7, and af¿rms that in ‘each instance, logos refers to a speech or a reality that takes its origin in God’. P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), p.175; cf. Johnson, Hebrews, p.132; Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.49–52, 104–5; S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (JSNTSup 44; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1990), p.12; Smillie, ‘Living’, p.iii; Schenck, ‘God’, pp.321–3. 21. Ellingworth af¿rms that ‘Hebrews uses ģýĸ exclusively…and ÂĠºÇË mainly, of God speaking…’ Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.101. 22. Rissi maintains that the writer ‘unterscheidet zwei Weisen des göttlichen Redens, die angezeigt werden durch den Gebrauch von zwei verschiedenen 1

6

Hebrews and Divine Speech

these terms in Hebrews have not been settled conclusively. Does the writer employ ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ as key terms in his theology of divine speech? Are they used consistently? Are they distinguished from each other or treated as synonyms? The presence in Hebrews of a de¿ned logos concept (or range of concepts) has been addressed in the debate concerning Philo’s inÀuence on the writer.23 Spicq ¿nds in Hebrews a Christology that reÀects Philo’s conception of the logos,24 but he gives little attention to the use of the term ÂĠºÇË in Hebrews,25 leaving unanswered the question whether Hebrews uses the term ÂĠºÇË to express the logos concept Spicq identi¿es. A similar ambiguity emerges in the conclusion of Lewicki’s monograph, where (having previously identi¿ed no use of the term ÂĠºÇË in Hebrews where it applies personally to Jesus) he af¿rms that for the writer ‘Die gesamte Existenz Jesu ist der ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı’.26 Lewicki seems to indicate that ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı communicates a ¿xed concept, and presumably one that the writer links implicitly to the person of Jesus without associating the phrase with him directly. Nomina’: ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ. In Rissi’s interpretation, ÂĠºÇË signi¿es God’s ‘message’, and ģýĸ the action of his address (M. Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser [WUNT I/41; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987], p.29). Grässer follows Rissi’s view closely, insisting that for the writer ‘der ÂĠºÇË meint die von Gott ausgehende Botschaft, das ģýĸ aber…ist Nomen actionis…gibt alle Weltentstehungsmythen radikaler Entmythologisierung anheim, wahrt also die Reinheit des Schöpfungsgedankens wie 1,2b…’ (E. Grässer, An die Hebräer [Hebr 10,19–13,25] [EKKNT XVII/3; Zurich: Benziger, 1997], p.107). Under Spicq’s analysis, in Hebrews ģýĸ refers to God’s word of creation and ÂĠºÇË refers to his word of revelation (C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux [2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1952], II, p.10). Michel, while noting the close equivalence of the two terms in Hebrews, suggests that ‘ÂĠºÇË mehr die unmittelbare Beziehung zu Gott, ģýĸ dagegen das Mittel seines Wirkens zum Ausdruck bringt’ (Michel, Hebräer, p.199). Williamson, Swetnam and Clavier argue that the term ÂĠºÇË is used (at least at 4.12-13) to refer personally to Christ in his intermediary role (Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, passim; Swetnam, ‘Jesus’, pp.214, 218–24; Clavier, ‘’, p.86). Hughes simply takes it as a given that ÂĠºÇË in Hebrews is the ‘Word of God’ in Christ made present in the Christian community (Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.49–52, 104–5). 23. R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (ALGHJ 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970), pp.409–34; see also S. N. Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews (WUNT II/269; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp.86, 120–1. 24. Spicq, L’Épître, I, pp.49–51, 70. 25. See, for instance, Spicq, L’Épître, II, pp.86–91. 26. Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.142. 1

1. Introduction

7

Thus three lines of inquiry will form the basis of this investigation. First, what is the nature of the relationship between the theology of divine speech, Christology and soteriology in Hebrews? Second, to what extent does the author view his own discourse as a form of God’s speech? Third, is there a de¿ned logos concept in Hebrews (or a range of logos concepts), and, if so, does the writer use the Greek term ÂĠºÇË (and/or the term ģýĸ) to express that concept? 1.1.2. Method and Scope The present study is a thematic and exegetical analysis limited to the three lines of inquiry outlined above. The third line of inquiry usefully serves to restrict the textual scope of the investigation to sections of Hebrews where the two noted terms occur. Exegesis of words and phrases within an ancient document naturally requires consideration of the context in which those words and phrases appear within the document. Therefore, having identi¿ed a number of key texts within Hebrews as central to the investigation, it will be convenient to address them in detail once within their context, with the three lines of inquiry concurrently in view, rather than revisit them three times for each of the three lines of inquiry. So the investigation will be structured around the exegesis of key passages, rather than around the thematic lines of inquiry. In each case, the aim is to consider a large enough section to provide suf¿cient context for interpreting the meaning of the key term. A particular concern of the investigation is to consider whether the terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ function as key words in the writer’s theology of divine speech. As Barr cautions, word studies are potentially dangerous because of the category confusions and erroneous exegetical assumptions they often invite.27 Noting his caution, this investigation will consider the writer’s use of the terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ with a primary concern to discover how he uses these words and what he intends to signify by them, and without assuming that they are identi¿ed with ¿xed theological concepts. It will consider various ¿xed concepts that ÂĠºÇË in 27. Barr points to the ordering and procedure of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and its unreÀective identi¿cation of concepts with individual words that sometimes signify those concepts. Though organised according to words, the Dictionary suggests that it is designed for the study of ‘concept history’. Barr rightly maintains that this lack of clarity diminishes its usefulness and authority (J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961], p.207). However, for a critique of Barr and a defence of the exegetical integrity and theological value of careful word studies, see F. Watson, Text and Truth: Rede¿ning Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), pp.19–23. 1

8

Hebrews and Divine Speech

particular has signi¿ed in other contexts and seek to discover whether or not, in his use of the term, the author of Hebrews intended any of those signi¿cations.28 This investigation recognises as well the importance of a cultural history for the vocabulary of Hebrews and will seek to elucidate that context.29 In exploring the broader cultural history of words used in Hebrews, it will seek to avoid the danger of ‘parallelomania’ identi¿ed by Sandmel; that is, it will not assume that use of the same word in a seemingly similar context in two separate documents means one use derives from the other.30 Similarly, it will not assume that two writers who use a given word in seemingly similar contexts actually mean the same thing by it. So, for example, it will not assume that Hebrews and Philo necessarily mean the same thing by ÂĠºÇË simply because they use it in some apparently similar contexts.31 1.1.3. Contexts of Hebrews This study is concerned to discover the meaning (particularly the author’s meaning) of Hebrews as it relates to the theme of God’s speech. The importance of context for determining meaning has already been noted.32 In the case of Hebrews, three contexts must be considered in 28. Barr insists that it ‘is the sentence (and of course the still larger literary complex such as the complete speech or proem) which is the linguistic bearer of the usual theological statement, and not the word (the lexical unit) or the morphological and syntactical connection’ (Barr, Semantics, p.263; cf. P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation [London: SPCK, 1989], pp.180–1; J. T. Reed, ‘Discourse Analysis’, in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament [ed. Stanley E. Porter; New Testament Tools and Studies XXV; Leiden: Brill, 1997], p.191; K. L. Pike, ‘Beyond the Sentence’, College Composition and Communication 15 [1964], p.129). While this present investigation assumes that words do themselves bear meaning, Barr’s cautious position is its starting point and informs its method of investigation. That is, it will consider larger units of text and set words in their context in the discourse. On the validity (and necessity) of studying of individual words within a discourse, see Reed, ‘Discourse’, pp.191–2. The treatment of Heb. 11.3 and of material in Heb. 13 later in this investigation are the exceptions to the pattern of studying lager units. In both cases, though, the individual verses considered are selfcontained units within a longer series of similar units (exemplars of faith in Heb. 11 and instructions/exhortations in Heb. 13). The material treated is nonetheless set in its context within the discourse before exegesis is undertaken. 29. See the discussion of Hebrews’ contexts below. 30. S. Sandmel, ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81 (1962), p.1. 31. Similarly, it will not assume that one author always means the same thing by a given word throughout his or her writings. 32. Cf. Reed, ‘Discourse’, pp.194–212. 1

1. Introduction

9

order to discover the author’s meaning: the historical context, the intellectual context, and the discourse context (which will be considered in a new section on its own). Little is known about some parts of the historical context of Hebrews. As suggested above, two historical ‘narratives’ underlie Hebrews: the narrative of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the narrative of the life of the Christian community to which Hebrews was addressed. The ¿rst of these narratives is, in broad terms, the common stock of early Christianity and the New Testament literature.33 While the history of Jesus is assumed and acknowledged in Hebrews, it is clear that the writer’s purpose is not to narrate or defend that history, but to explore its theological signi¿cance34 (often viewing it from a broader cosmological perspective). The second narrative is lost to the modern reader except for information that can be gleaned from Hebrews itself. That the writer can assume an outline of the life and ministry of Jesus and move almost directly to the salvi¿c implications of that history suggests that the community was familiar with stories of Jesus’ life and work; it also suggests that the outline of the history of Jesus is not a particular point of contention in the community addressed (at least in the writer’s assessment). His reliance upon the OT in framing his appeal to the addressees implies that he believes that such an appeal will be comprehensible and convincing to them. This, matched with the writer’s detailed treatment of the rites of Jewish sacri¿ce (cf. especially Hebrews 9–10), suggests that the addressees were Jewish converts. The writer intimates that the addressees were facing opposition that could lead to their martyrdom (12.4-7)35 and he is concerned that they could ‘fall away’ (cf. 2.1; 6.4-12; 10.26-39). His emphasis on the superiority of Christ over the leaders, institutions and rituals of Judaism (see 2.2; 3.3; 8.2, 6, 13; 9.15, 23, 24) supports the view that he aims to 33. ‘So faßt er die Person…des irdischen Jesus von Nazareth ins Auge, nicht in expliziter Darlegung ihrer ganzen geschichtlichen Bewegtheit, aber auch nicht in volliger Abstraktion davon: Herkunft aus Juda, Gebetskampf und Kreuzigung vor dem Tor…’ (E. Grässer, ‘Der Historische Jesus im Hebräerbrief’, ZNW 56 [1965], p.90). Cf. Heb. 7.14 and Mt. 1.3; Lk. 3.29; Heb. 5.7 and Mt. 26.36-46; Mk 14.32-42; Lk. 22.39-44; Heb. 13.12 and Jn 19.17-20, and the discussion in B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), pp.574–5. 34. So, Grässer: ‘Welches Interesse nimmt der Hebr am historischen Jesus?… Als Chronist und Biograph keines; als Apologet ein gelegentliches; als Theologe ein außerordentlich leidenschaftliches!’ (Grässer, ‘Historische’, p.90 and passim) 35. The struggle against ‘sin’ (12.4) probably refers to a struggle against opposition from ‘sinners’, paralleling the opposition Jesus faced (12.3). 1

10

Hebrews and Divine Speech

emphasise the superiority of the addressees’ Christian confession over Judaism.36 The impulse to revert to Judaism may have been accentuated by the passage of time since the founding of the community.37 However, the writer’s insistence on the inadequacy of the sacri¿cial system to deal with sin suggests that the temple still presented a physical draw (or at least acted as a focal point for Jews outside Palestine), and therefore points to a date before AD 70 for Hebrews’ composition.38 The location of the community addressed is the subject of much debate but little certainty.39 ‘Intellectual context’ refers here to the inÀuences, philosophical, theological, and cultural that shaped the author’s outlook and discourse. Hebrews’ authorship has been a beleaguered question since the Patristic era. In the East, Pauline authorship was widely accepted by the third century, and in the West by the ¿fth century. This consensus survived until the Renaissance and Reformation, when it began a steady decline.40 36. For a recent discussion of the substance and character of the Christian ‘confession’ in Hebrews, see S. D. Mackie, ‘Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews’, NTS 53 (2007), pp.125–8. A major alternative to the view that the crisis is due to the draw of the Jewish religious system is the view that the addressees have been inÀuenced by a Middle Platonic understanding of the divine as being far off, and therefore need to be reminded of the fact that God makes himself immediately available through his word (so, Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.14–15). Lewicki’s view cannot account adequately for Hebrews’ focus on the Jewish religious institutions and their inadequacy. 37. On the passing of time since the community’s founding, see 5.12; 6.10; 10.32 and J. W. Thompson, Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), p.50. 38. See Heb. 9–10. As has been frequently noted, if indeed the temple had been destroyed by the time of Hebrews’ composition, it is almost inconceivable that the writer would not have mentioned the fact (rather than simply insisting that the old covenant ‘will soon disappear’, 8.13). However, ascertaining Hebrews’ date of composition has proved extremely dif¿cult. For an overview of the discussion, see Attridge, Hebrews, pp.6–9. For a recent defence of a pre-70 AD date of composition, see R. C. Gleason, ‘Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2’, NTS 49 (2003), pp.94–5. 39. Rome (W. Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconstruction [The Baird Lecture, 1949; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951], pp.159–83) and Corinth (F. Lo Bue, ‘The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JBL 75.1 [1956], pp.52–7) have both been proposed. Jerusalem is another possibility; it would make the draw of temple worship more immediate, and thus the writer’s insistence on the adequacy of Christ’s work in the ‘true tent’ (9.11-28) all the more relevant. 40. Attridge, Hebrews, p.2. Some commentators since the Patristic era have continued to maintain Pauline authorship for Hebrews (e.g. J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, IV [7th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877], p.333; W. Leonard, 1

1. Introduction

11

With Attridge, it seems right to acknowledge that ‘[t]he beginning of sober exegesis is a recognition of the limits of historical knowledge and those limits preclude positive identi¿cation of the author’.41 Although identi¿cation of the author is elusive, clues from the letter and observations from outside sources reveal a certain amount about his background and intellectual milieu. First, the author was schooled in the OT Scriptures. He makes almost constant use of a version (or versions) of the Greek OT throughout the letter.42 Bengel noted in the eighteenth century that the writer often used OT texts as his starting point for the argument that followed, and so made OT texts pivotal to the development of his argument.43 Longenecker reads Hebrews as a series of OT expositions,44 a view further developed by France.45 The writer viewed the OT as a living text. His explicit quotations from the LXX are not introduced as writings (ºñºÉ¸È̸À), the formula typical to The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1939], p.387 and passim). In recent times, Pauline authorship for the letter has been excluded as untenable due to differences between it and Paul’s epistles in structure and rhetorical style, in the author’s relationship to his tradition (cf. 2.3), in themes, in imagery, and, some argue, in theological perspective (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.cvii; Attridge, Hebrews, p.2). Apollos has been a favourite alternative author (T. W. Manson, ‘The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, BJRL 32.1 [1949], pp.13–17; Lo Bue, ‘Historical’, pp.52–7). 41. Attridge, Hebrews, p.5. 42. Following Thomas, the working assumption of this study is that the writer did not have multiple ¿xed witnesses of the LXX which he chose between. Thomas has noted that in places where Hebrews appears to prefer LXXA over LXXB or vice versa there is no discernible motive for doing so. ‘Thus, there is no evidence that the author knew of two different readings in these instances and chose between them. We conclude that the particular LXXA/B readings in Hebrews represent the text of the LXX used by the author of Hebrews in these instances’ (K. J. Thomas, ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, NTS 11 [1964–5], pp.320–1). On the uneven character of LXXA and LXXB, see P. Katz, ‘The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews’, ZNW 49 (1958), pp.221–3. For the suggestion that at various points in Hebrews there is witness to a Greek OT text more primitive than LXXA or LXXB, see M. Barth, ‘The Old Testament in Hebrews’, in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper (ed. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder; London: SCM Press, 1962), p.55; Thomas, ‘Citations’, pp.321–4. 43. Bengel, Gnomon, IV, pp.333–502; see the comments in Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.cxiii. 44. R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp.158–85. 45. R. T. France, ‘The Writer to the Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor’, TynBul 47.2 (1996), e.g., pp.272–3; so also Thompson, Hebrews, p.45. 1

12

Hebrews and Divine Speech

the NT.46 They are consistently introduced with verbs of speaking (usually using a form of the verb ÂñºÑ,47 generally in the present tense) with God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus as the speakers. The introduction formulae in Hebrews reÀect the author’s conviction that OT Scripture continues to be a means through which God speaks, and therefore continues to present a relevant message to his hearers.48 Most of the OT material in Hebrews is drawn from the Pentateuch and Psalms. Analysts vary in their identi¿cation of OT quotations in Hebrews: Longenecker ¿nds 38 quotations of the OT;49 Lane ¿nds 31 explicit quotations and four more implicit quotations;50 Caird51 and Thomas52 ¿nd only 29 explicit quotations; Kistemaker suggests 3253 and Guthrie 35.54 To these should be added the less de¿ned use of OT material; Longenecker suggests (modifying Westcott’s earlier list) that there are 55 or more OT ‘allusions’ in Hebrews.55 The writer’s exegetical method has received a great deal of scholarly interest, and there is no need to re-trace the discussion here.56 In brief 46. Cf. Mt. 2.5; Mk 1.2; Lk. 2.23; Acts 1.20; Rom. 3.4; Gal. 3.10; 1 Pet. 1.16; the one occasion in Hebrews where such a formula appears is at 10.7 (cf. the comments of Barth, ‘Old Testament’, p.58), which is a quotation of Ps. 40.7-9 and is presented as spoken by Jesus. However, the words ‘it is written of me’ are taken directly from the Psalm. 47. Cf. 1.5, 6; 2.12; 8.8; 10.5, 15, etc. 48. Cf. R. V. G. Tasker, The Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), pp.104–5. 49. Longenecker, Exegesis, pp.164–6. 50. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.cxvi. 51. G. B. Caird, ‘The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, CJT 5.1 (1959), p.47. 52. Thomas, ‘Citations’, p.303. 53. S. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Soest, 1961), p.16. 54. G. H. Guthrie, ‘Hebrews in Its First-Century Contexts’, in The Face of New Testament Studies (ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne; Leicester: Apollos, 2004), p.274. On the dif¿culty involved in identifying quotations of OT material in Hebrews at some points, see, for example, D. M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews (WUNT II/238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp.44–109. 55. Longenecker, Exegesis, p.167. Guthrie offers a useful set of guidelines for identifying and naming different ways in which the writer makes use of OT material, and this present study generally follows his pattern (Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’ Use’, p.273). 56. See Caird, ‘Exegetical’; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations; Barth, ‘Old Testament’; H. J. B. Combrink, ‘Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, Neot 5 (1971), pp.22–36; France, ‘Expositor’; G. H. Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research’, CurBR 1.2 1

1. Introduction

13

summary, the writer employed exegetical methods with close af¿nities to those used by later rabbis at various points (such as qal wahomer, i.e. comparative or a fortiori arguments),57 and techniques similar to those used at Qumran (such as pesher exegesis).58 The writer’s over-riding concern in using the OT was to demonstrate how it pointed to Christ and was ful¿lled in him.59 Contrary to the conclusions of some scholars,60 (2003), pp.271–94; D. F. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms (NABPR Dissertation Series 10; Lewiston: Mellen, 1994), et al. For a recent survey of studies in this ¿eld, see S. E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (WUNT II/260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp.63–82. 57. Instances include Heb. 1.4; 2.2-3; 7.22; 8.6; 9.14, and 12.9-11 (so Attridge, Hebrews, p.25) and Heb. 9.13-14 and 10.28-29 (so Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, p.73). While qal wahomer is included as a tool of exegesis here, it is formally simply a method of argument. Usually, this argument centres on the signi¿cance of an OT text, and for that reason, qal wahomer is often classed as an exegetical tool. On rabbinical exegesis and its relationship to the exegetical methods of Hebrews, see Docherty, Old Testament, passim. 58. So Combrink, ‘Thoughts’, pp.26, 32; Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, p.11. Kistemaker highlights three features of Midrash pesher that he ¿nds present in Hebrews: the substitution of words in a scriptural passage quoted, either due to textual variants or in favour of a synonym (1.6; 7.2; 10.37-38), lengthy OT passages quoted and followed immediately by an interpretation (2.6-8; 3.7-11; 10.5-10; 12.58), and ‘the repetition of words, phrases, and sentences of the quotation, provided with an applicable interpretation in the ensuing commentary’ (Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, pp.74–5). Combrink notes, however, that Hebrews is distinct from Qumran in its greater interest in the original historical context of the OT citations. (Combrink, ‘Thoughts’, p.32) 59. The author appears to assume that the OT as a body recognised its own incompleteness and contained within itself the expectation of later ful¿lment (cf. 1.14; 11.39-40); for the writer ‘the Old Testament is not only an incomplete book but an avowedly incomplete book’ (Caird, ‘Exegetical’, p.49). 60. S. G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Zurich: Evz-Verlag, 1965), pp.84–8; G. H. Gilbert, ‘The Greek Element in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, AJT 14.4 (1910), pp.528–32; E. Käsemann, The Wandering People of God (trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving Sandberg; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), pp.191–4; and the other scholars noted in L. D. Hurst, ‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’, in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology (ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp.154–5 n. 13. Synge insists that the writer has no knowledge of the context of the passages he quotes from the Old Testament and is simply relying on a pre-selected catena of verses. While he does not explore the textual relationship between the LXX and the proposed testimony book, he simply states that ‘Hebrews expounds them [the Old Testament passages] as they stand in the Testimony Book, not as they stand in the Bible’ 1

14

Hebrews and Divine Speech

Hebrews repeatedly demonstrates an awareness of the broader original context of an OT text beyond the portion cited.61 The author was indebted speci¿cally to Hellenistic Jewish thought. He was an educated Hellenist, trained in the Greek language, practised in the art of rhetoric, and possibly schooled in formal rhetorical conventions.62 He consistently follows a Greek version (or versions) when quoting the OT and evidently was inÀuenced by Hellenistic Jewish literature at various points (cf. Heb. 1.3 and Wis. 7.25-26; Heb. 11.25 and 2 Macc. 6–7).63 While many scholars have argued for a signi¿cant Philonic inÀuence on Hebrews, Spicq has made the most sustained defence of the view that the author ‘est un philonien converti au christianisme’.64 Spicq’s case was over-stated,65 and he was strongly refuted in the careful study of Williamson.66 The similarities that do exist between Hebrews and Philo (F. C. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures [London: SPCK, 1959], pp.53–4; so too R. Harris, Testimonies, Part II [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920], p.43; H. W. Monte¿ore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [London: A. & C. Black, 1964], p.43). 61. So, Allen, Deuteronomy, pp.108–9, 224–5; Docherty, Old Testament, pp.143–200; Caird, ‘Exegetical’, passim; Hurst, ‘Christology’, passim; R. Rendall, ‘The Method of the Writer to the Hebrews in Using Old Testament Quotations’, EvQ 27 (1955), pp. 214–20; G. H. Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), pp.919–23. This study will refer to speci¿c examples as they become relevant. For responses to the testimony-book hypothesis, see Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, p.92; C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London: Nisbett, 1952), p.26. 62. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.l; Spicq, L’Épître, I, p.358; see also M. R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), p.8. Aune praises the writer’s ‘excellent’ Greek and insists that he ‘obviously enjoyed the bene¿ts of a Hellenistic rhetorical education through the tertiary level’ (D. E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1988], p.212). For an overview of Hebrews’ use of rhetorical tools and a summary of recent research, see Guthrie, ‘Contexts’, pp.419–22; see also H.-J. Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), pp.334–7; D. A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp.35–9. 63. B. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp.21–2. 64. Spicq, L’Épître, I, p. 91; cf. 39–91. 65. L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p.8. 66. Williamson, Philo, passim (see also Hurst, Background, pp.8–9). Hebrews does not use the same elaborate allegorical exegesis as Philo, it does not interpret 1

1. Introduction

15

likely point, not to literary dependence, but to a common indebtedness to traditions of Hellenistic Judaism.67 Third, the author had contact with Pauline Christianity and fell broadly within that same stream of Christian thought. Hebrews is rightly located ‘in the centre of the mainstream of primitive Christian theology, not as somehow off-centre, deÀected from the central stream of Early Christian thinking by extraneous philosophical doctrines’.68 However, to say that Hebrews stands ¿rmly within the developing traditions of the early Church still leaves scope for divergent understandings of its backgrounds within early Christianity.69 The intellectual context of Hebrews almost certainly reÀects a lively mixture of a number of different inÀuences, not all of which will be identi¿ed with certainty.70 In light of this, Schenck argues convincingly that ‘[a]n approach to the thought of Hebrews should move more intentionally than ever from text to backgrounds, constructing a world of thought on the basis of Hebrews itself vis-à-vis background traditions’.71 This present study adopts such an approach, taking as its starting point the text itself and allowing the text to shape any conclusions concerning its relationship to its intellectual ancestry. The next section of this introduction is devoted to consideration of the discourse context of Hebrews (in particular, its genre and structure). Jewish tradition philosophically as Philo does, and Hebrews has a more consistent and sustained eschatological expectation than Philo (Attridge, Hebrews, p.29). Michel probably paints too stark a contrast when he remarks: ‘Im Unterschied von Philo denkt Hebr geschichtlich, messianisch und eschatologisch’ (Michel, Hebräer, p.92; see also Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.15–16). Indeed, Schenck draws attention to Philo’s increasing interest in eschatology in his later writings (K. Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005], pp.38–41; cf. J. Grif¿ths, ‘Philo Made Easy’ (review of Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo), ExpTim 119 [2008], pp.460–1). 67. Attridge, Hebrews, p.29; R. H. Nash, ‘The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, WTJ 40 (1977–8), pp.90–2. 68. Williamson, Philo, pp.579–80; so also Lindars, Theology, p.25. Guthrie discerns a renewed appreciation for Hebrews’ ‘more systematic connection’ with other NT literature and emergent Christianity in general in recent scholarship. Guthrie, ‘Contexts’, p.414; see also, Hurst, Background, p.124 and passim. 69. Manson traces the root of Hebrews’ theological outlook to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, noting parallels between Stephen’s eschatology and his view of the word of God as ‘living’ (cf. Acts 7.38 and Heb. 4.12). Manson, Historical, pp.36, 44–6, 192–7; see also Hurst, Background, p.124. 70. Cf. Guthrie, ‘Contexts’, pp.415ff. 71. K. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p.3. 1

16

Hebrews and Divine Speech

1.2. The Genre and Structure of Hebrews 1.2.1. Genre of Hebrews In 13.22 the writer appeals to his addressees to bear with his ‘word of exhortation’ (ÌÇı ÂĠºÇÍ ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË). It is widely agreed that in this phrase the writer reveals his understanding of the character of the communication he is bringing to conclusion.72 The meaning of this phrase in its context in 13.22 is not only of general interest as background to this investigation, but of particular interest because it contains an instance of the term ÂĠºÇË. In the discussion of the genre and structure of Hebrews here it will therefore be helpful to pre-empt some of the consideration that would otherwise have been given to this key phrase later in the exegesis of ch. 13. In light of the use of the term ‘word of exhortation’ in the early Church and contemporary Judaism, it appears that the author’s use of the term to characterise his discourse is intended to identify Hebrews as a homiletic address. To identify Hebrews as a homily makes sense of its lack of an epistolary opening. However, while much of the document appears to be sermonic,73 13.22-25 appears to be epistolary in character.74 In light of this, it could be argued that an original epistolary prescript to Hebrews was lost, but such a proposal is unlikely because of the rhetorical force of the opening as it stands.75 Despite its lack of an epistolary opening, Hebrews has been traditionally associated with the Pauline corpus (P46 places it between Romans and 1 Corinthians) and for much of Christian history it has been commonly called the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’.76 It 72. This is the assumption underlying the majority of analysis of this phrase, as in: Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ‘The Concept of Paraenesis’, in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (ed. James Starr and Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), p.71; W. L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas: Word, 1991), pp.567–9; Attridge, Hebrews, p.408; Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.3, 49; DeSilva, Perseverance, p.514; F. V. Filson, ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (SBT, 2d Series 4; London: SCM Press, 1967), p.27. 73. So, for instance, Thyen, who insists that the writer’s frequent alternation from ‘we’ to ‘you’ to ‘I’ ‘ist nicht nur eine rhetorische Manier des Verfassers, sondern ein wirklich echt rhetorisches Moment: hier redet ein Prediger zu seiner Gemeinde’ (H. Thyen, Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955], p.17). Thyen seeks to establish the thesis that Hebrews, along with a number of contemporary Hellenistic texts, are characteristic of HellenisticJewish synagogue homilies (Der Stil, passim). See further the discussion below. 74. Klauck, Letters, pp.335–7. 75. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.lxx. 76. Although, of the ancient manuscripts cited by NA27, only uncial 0285 attests the designation ¼ÈÀÊÌǾ in the subscriptio. 1

1. Introduction

17

has been suggested that ch. 13 (or, at least 13.22-25) was a secondary addition to Hebrews;77 however, the authenticity and integrity of ch. 13 has been convincingly established.78 The conclusion that Hebrews is essentially a homily79 with an epistolary postscript (probably by the hand of the same author) has become commonplace,80 and is accepted here. Hebrews was written to be read aloud to a group of listeners,81 but was sent from a distance;82 hence the blending of forms. Such a combination 77. See a summary of these arguments in Filson, Yesterday, pp.15–16. 78. Thematically, ch. 13 resonates with the rest of the epistle at various points, particularly in its concern with God’s coming judgment (13.4; cf. 4.13; 9.27; 12.2529), the transmission of the word of God (13.7; cf. 1.1-2; 2.1-4; 4.2, etc.), sacri¿ce (13.10-12; cf. 9.6-24), a heavenly city (13.14; cf. 12.22), and appropriate worship (13.15-16; cf. 12.28). It frequently articulates the moral implications of the doctrinal material presented earlier (C. Spicq, ‘L’Authenticité du chapitre XIII de l’Épître aux Hébreux’, Coniectanea Neotestamentica XI [1947], pp.226–36). Tasker notes that there is no textual evidence to suggest that ch. 13 is secondary, nor any compelling linguistic evidence (R. V. G. Tasker, ‘The Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ExpTim 47 [1935–6], pp.136–8). 79. ‘ “The Letter” to the Hebrews is simply not a letter. From the beginning (1,1) to the end (13,20-21) it belongs to the genre of preaching. In fact, it is the only example we have in the New Testament of the text of a sermon which has been preserved in its entirety.’ A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (trans. J. Swetnam; SubBib 12; Rome: Ponti¿cio Istituto Biblico, 1989), p.3; see also, Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Letter to the Hebrews (trans. Leo Arnold; Series Rhetorica Semitica; Miami: Convivium, 2011), p.439. 80. So, Vanhoye, Structure and Message, pp.2–3 (although he does allow for the possibility that Paul or someone else could have written the epistolary postscript); France, ‘Expositor’, pp.246–7; Johnson, Hebrews, p.11; S. Stanley, ‘The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives’, TynBul 45 (1994), p.247; D. L. Allen, Hebrews (NAC 35; Nashville: B&H, 2010), p.25; G. L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), pp.11–16. Cockerill’s commentary is noteworthy for being consciously shaped by this insight throughout, referring regularly to ‘the pastor’, his ‘sermon’ and his ‘hearers’ (Cockerill, Hebrews, passim). 81. Johnson highlights four features that point to Hebrews’ oral character: the use of the ¿rst person plural, frequent references to speaking and hearing, the ongoing alternation between exposition and exhortation, and the pattern of introducing themes that are later more fully developed (Johnson, Hebrews, p.10). Aune suggests that Hebrews’ exhortation ‘takes place within the setting of congregational worship (10:25), con¿rming the homiletic character of Hebrews’. He further notes that a number of ‘features point toward the rhetorical rather than the literary origin of Hebrews: the use of rhetorical questions (1:5, 13; 3:16-18; 9:14; 10:29; 11:32), the recipients addressed as “brothers” (3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22), the presence of rhetorical expressions like “And what more shall I say?” and “Time will fail me if I tell…” (11:32)’ (Aune, New Testament, p.213). 82. Filson, Yesterday, p.21. 1

18

Hebrews and Divine Speech

of forms was not unknown to the ancient world or to the early Church.83 Indeed, Deissmann insists that ‘epistles’ (as opposed to more private and informal ‘letters’) were artistic literary works designed for public consumption and whose letter-like features were mere ‘ornament’. For him, Hebrews represents the clearest example of epistolary literature in the New Testament.84 The term ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË (and close variants of it) came to be used in Hellenistic Judaism and the early Church to identify a sermonic address (an exhortative religious discourse grounded in biblical texts).85 The term was applied to exhortative addresses by the early part of the ¿rst century BC86 in 1 and 2 Maccabees. In a non-religious (and therefore non-sermonic) context in 1 Macc. 10.24, the Seleucid king Demetrius sends Jonathan the Maccabee a letter to secure his help: ‘I also will write them words of encouragement (ÂĠºÇÍË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË) and promise them honour and gifts, so that I may have their help’. Demetrius’ letter 83. James, for instance, has a traditional epistolary prescript and has generally been identi¿ed as an epistle. Recently, however, it has been suggested that its form is sermonic. Instone-Brewer contends that James ‘is structured as a sermon based on the trials of Abraham. This theme and structure would have been easily identi¿ed by a ¿rst-century Jewish audience without any special skills or knowledge, except that which would have been picked up at Sabbath school and regular listening to sermons’ (Instone-Brewer, ‘James as a Sermon on the Trials of Abraham’, in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting [ed. P. J. Williams et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], p.251). 84. G. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient Near East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (2d ed.; trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), pp.220–1, 236–7. 85. So, Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.lxx, and Hebrews 9–13, p.568; H. W. Attridge, ‘Paraenesis in a Homily (ÂĠºÇË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the “Epistle to the Hebrews” ’, Semeia 50 (1990), p.217; L. Wills, ‘The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity’, HTR 77 (1984), p.280. On the term ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË on its own (and especially its distinction from ȸɸĕżÊÀË), see Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Concept’, p.51; on Hebrews’ character as distinct from early Christian paraenesis, see W. Übelacker, ‘Paraenesis or Paraclesis – Hebrews as a Test Case’, in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, eds., Early Christian Paraenesis, pp.319–52. 86. Goldstein dates 1 Maccabees between 104 BC and 90 BC (J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 41; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976], pp.62–4), and Bartlett similarly af¿rms that it was likely written between 110 BC and 90 BC (J. R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees [Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 1998], p.34). For 2 Maccabees, Goldstein places the completion of the entire work at or before 63 BC (J. A. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 41A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983], p.83). 1

1. Introduction

19

provides an interesting parallel for consideration alongside Hebrews because it is clearly sent with the intention of being read out publicly: ‘When Jonathan and the people heard these words, they did not believe or accept them…’ (1 Macc. 10.46).87 In a context closer to that of a sermon, Judas Maccabeus delivers to his men an exhortation, this time grounded in Scripture and the memory of divine intervention, to prepare them for battle: He exhorted (ȸɼÁÚ¼À) those with him not to fear the approach of the nations but to keep in mind the former times when help had come to them from heaven. Encouraging them from the law and the prophets and reminding them also of the struggles they had accomplished, he made them the more eager… He armed each of them…with the encouragement of good words (ÌüÅ ëÅ ÌÇėË Òº¸¿ÇėË ÂĠºÇÀË È¸ÉÚÁ¾ÊÀÅ)… (2 Macc. 15.8-11)

Here the phrase ‘encouragement of good words’ applies not simply to a generic and secular exhortative address, but to an address designed to encourage the audience from Scripture and from previous experience of God’s intervention, and corresponding more closely to a sermon. In Acts 13.15 the term ÂĠºÇË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË designates Paul’s sermon in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia.88 1 Timothy 4.13 gives evidence of an early Christian adaptation of this basic pattern of Scripture reading and exposition/exhortation from the synagogue, giving the name paraklesis to the exposition/exhortation: ‘give attention to the public reading of scripture,89 to exhorting (ÌýЗ È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÀ), to teaching’.90 The fact that the term is pre¿xed by the de¿nite article would seem to indicate that it was a recognised term in the community,91 and it seems likely that it designates the sermon.92 Similarly, Paul’s inclusion of ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË in a list of spiritual gifts in Rom. 12.8 may point to a ¿xed understanding

87. Demetrius’ letter, unlike Hebrews, contained a clear epistolary prescript: ‘King Demetrius, to the nation of the Jews, greetings’ (1 Macc. 10.25b). 88. C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), p.629. 89. ÌýЗ ÒŸºÅļʼÀ. NRSV supplies ‘of Scripture’. 90. ‘The use of the article with each of the three following nouns indicates that these are familiar, recognized activities in the congregational meeting…’ I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), p.562. So too J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1963), p.105. 91. Kelly, Pastoral, p.105. 92. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.568. So too, Marshall, Pastoral, p.563; Kelly, Pastoral, p.105. 1

20

Hebrews and Divine Speech

of the term’s meaning in Christian communities. The designation of the bishop’s homily as ÂĠºÇÍË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË in a fourth-century description of the liturgy for a bishop’s consecration (Const. ap. 8.5) con¿rms that by this period the term signi¿ed a sermonic address.93 It is reasonable to af¿rm, then, that ‘word of exhortation’ (ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË) was a recognised term for a sermon. Is it possible to go further and suggest features that characterise a ‘word of exhortation’ genre? Attridge suggests that the term ÂĠºÇË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË identi¿es a genre of address that follows a ‘pattern of formal introduction, scriptural citation, exposition or thematic elaboration, and application’.94 Wills argues that ‘word of exhortation’ identi¿es a genre conforming to the threefold pattern of exempla ‘in the form of scriptural quotations, authoritative examples from past or present, or reasoned exposition of theological points’, a conclusion that draws out the signi¿cance of the exempla for the addressees, ‘often expressed with a participle and ÇħÅ, »ÀĠ, »ÀÛ ÌÇıÌÇ, or some such particle or conjunction’, and exhortation ‘usually expressed with an imperative or hortatory subjunctive, often accompanied by ÇħÅ’.95 He contends that a relatively wide variety of documents fall within this genre.96 Because Hebrews and the sermon in Acts 13.15-41 follow the pattern he has outlined, Wills has ‘tentatively’ applied the term ‘word of exhortation’ to this form of sermon.97 He then goes on to apply the term to 1 Clement and various other fragments of early Christian writings.98 Wills’s analysis is valuable in that it identi¿es a common pattern of argument, based on authoritative exempla, likely used in sermons. However, he probably exceeds his evidence in asserting 93. Although its occurrence here in the plural may suggest a certain Àexibility of use. 94. Attridge, ‘Paraenesis’, pp.216–17. 95. Wills, ‘Form’, p.279. For the use of the particle ÇħÅ to mark a transition from ‘theological’ material to its ‘ethical’ implications (the ‘ÇħÅ paraeneticum’) in other NT documents, cf. 1 Thess. 4.1; Phil. 2.1; Rom. 12.1, and Gal. 5.1; and see discussions in W. Nauck, ‘Das ħÅ Paräneticum’, ZNW 49 (1958), pp.134–5, and Engberg-Pedersen, ‘Concept’, pp.62–72. 96. He identi¿es the genre in a number of texts, most of which do not designate themselves using the term ‘word of exhortation’: Acts 2.14-20; 13.14-41; 17.24-27; 20.17-35; 19.35-40; 21.20-25; Hebrews; 1 Clement; 1 Cor. 10.1-14; 2 Cor. 6.14–7.1; 1 and 2 Peter; various letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians, Letter to the Magnesians, Letter to the Trallians, Letter to the Philadelphians); Epistle of Barnabas; LXX Susanna; Epistle of Jeremiah; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; Testament of Naphtali; portions of the writings of Aristobulus; Josephus’ The Jewish War. Wills, ‘Form’, pp.278–96. 97. Wills, ‘Form’, p.280 n.11. 98. Wills, ‘Form’, pp.283–92. 1

1. Introduction

21

that all the documents analysed are sermonic in form, and in attaching the title ‘word of exhortation’ to this basic pattern of argument wherever it appears.99 Based on the foregoing survey of the use of the term ‘word of exhortation’ (ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË) and its variants, it is possible to conclude with Wills that the term signi¿es a sermonic address. Wills’s identi¿cation of a threefold pattern of argument in a range of texts is suggestive, but there is insuf¿cient evidence to tie the term ‘word of exhortation’ to this pattern. This analysis will therefore speak of the ‘threefold word of exhortation’ pattern when referring to the particular pattern of argument that Wills has outlined, without presuming that the term ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË necessarily identi¿es a homily conforming to the threefold pattern. Black seeks to demonstrate the coherence of features of the threefold pattern with classical Greek rhetoric.100 That there are similarities is not surprising, given the evident inÀuence of Greek culture and learning on many of the documents in question and on Hebrews in particular. However, parallels between Hebrews and speci¿c forms of classical Greek rhetoric are general and uneven, rather than formal and consistent. Indeed, it seems likely that the threefold word of exhortation represented a new form of address, developed in the synagogue to communicate biblical teaching in a Hellenistic setting in the diaspora.101 According to Attridge, this homiletic pattern ‘certainly has af¿nities with the classical forms of oratory, and those who regularly practised it probably had some training in rhetorical art, but paraclesis is in fact a mutant on the evolutionary trail of ancient rhetoric’.102

99. Of the documents Wills analyses, few explicitly identify themselves as sermons. Wills anticipates this objection, but dismisses it on the grounds that the ‘core’ group of texts he analyses quite clearly appropriate ‘an oral sermon form’ (LXX Susanna, Epistle of Jeremiah, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 Clement, and others). Wills, ‘Form’, p.299. 100. C. C. Black II, ‘The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills’, HTR 81 (1988), pp.1–18. The feasibility of identifying Hebrews with one particular form of classical rhetoric has been debated. Aristotle’s division of classical rhetoric is still taken to be authoritative: ‘The kinds of rhetoric are three in number, corresponding to the three kinds of hearers… Therefore there are necessarily three kinds of rhetorical speeches, deliberative, forensic, and epideictic’ (Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3.1, 33). 101. Attridge, ‘Paraenesis’, p.217. 102. Attridge, ‘Paraenesis’, p.217. 1

22

Hebrews and Divine Speech

Thyen argues that Hebrews has features in common with other contemporary Hellenistic texts that are in the style of Jewish-Hellenistic synagogue homilies.103 Although other documents that Thyen considers are only fragments of sermons, he insists that Hebrews constitutes the only complete extant synagogue homily from the ¿rst century.104 In the same vein, Gelardini maintains that Hebrews was itself a homily delivered in the synagogue at the Sabbath gathering, following the reading of Exod. 31.18–32.35 and Jer. 31.31-34 and based on those texts.105 While a degree of caution is needed because of the paucity of information available concerning Jewish homiletic practice in the ¿rst century, Gelardini’s study demonstrates the plausibility of imagining Hebrews within the context of the synagogue.106 In general, the proposition that Hebrews is the kind of address that would have been delivered in a synagogue following the reading of Scripture makes a great deal of sense. However, in view of the instruction in 1 Timothy 4, which applied to a Christian gathering but not necessarily located in a synagogue, it seems unnecessary to insist that Hebrews was designed to be delivered in a synagogue rather than in a speci¿cally Christian gathering.

103. Thyen’s Der Stil lacks indices and is most easily accessed when used in conjunction with Swetnam’s article, ‘On the Literary Genre of the “Epistle” to the Hebrews’ (J. Swetnam, ‘On the Literary Genre of the “Epistle” to the Hebrews’, NovT XI [1969], pp.261–9), which serves as a guide to it for students of Hebrews. 104. Thyen, Der Stil, p.106. 105. G. Gelardini, ‘Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation’, in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; BINS 755; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp.107–27. The identi¿cation of Exod. 31.18–32.35 and Jer. 31.31-34 as the two primary scriptural texts upon which Hebrews was based is open to question (for an alternative proposal, see Excursus 1). 106. Part of Gelardini’s basis for af¿rming that Hebrews was delivered in a synagogue is the presence of supposed ‘cultic’ references in the letter: ‘When they are invited to “approach the throne” in Heb 4:16 and informed that they “have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” in Heb 12:22, I believe reference is being made to places in an implicit sacred geography of the synagogue; “throne” and “heavenly Jerusalem” are highly cultic references, which only seem to make sense within a “cultic” building such as a Diaspora synagogue’ (Gelardini, ‘Ancient’, p.116). While such references are surely designed to resonate with the addressees’ experience of Judaism, the writer’s point is that the throne is ‘approached’ (see the discussion of this term below) through faith and by holding on to the confession of Christ (cf. 4.14). Moreover, the heavenly Jerusalem, far from being cultic in character, cannot be touched (cf. 12.18), and is accessible by responding to God’s word with faith and obedience (cf. 12.25). 1

1. Introduction

23

The earliest extant Jewish homiletic material is gathered in the relatively late anthologies of homiletic Midrashim, many of which are in the names of third- or fourth-century rabbis,107 but were often edited much later.108 The homilies in the Midrashim ‘must be taken as creations of the editors of the Midrashim who made use of a number of sections, especially proems, taken from different sermons, and combined them into a new form, the “literary homily”, which must not be confused with the actual live sermon as preached in the synagogue (in a variety of forms)’.109 For the ¿rst century, modern scholarship can do little more than assume that the information available from the third century and beyond shows the trajectory upon which synagogue preaching was set in its earlier years.110 The best extant evidence of synagogue preaching before AD 200 probably comes from the NT itself.111 Since Hebrews resonates on a number of levels with the available evidence of synagogue preaching as it was developing up to the fourth century,112 and since the 107. J. W. Bowker, ‘Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form’, NTS XIV (1967–68), p.97. Wills rightly notes that ‘it is generally unwise to extrapolate backward from these texts’. Wills, ‘Form’, p.277. 108. For instance, the Genesis Rabbah attributed to Rabbi Oshaya (third century) was edited in the sixth century. W. R. Stegner, ‘The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily’, in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (ed. David E. Aune; SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp.51–2. 109. J. Heinemann, ‘Preaching in the Talmudic Period’, in Encyclopaedia Judaica, XVI (ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik; 2d ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), p.469. 110. Jacob Mann’s study offers as much detail concerning synagogue preaching in the early centuries as can be reliably af¿rmed (J. Mann, The Hebrew Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, I [Cincinnati: Jacob Mann, 1940]; on the structure of synagogue sermons, see especially Mann, The Hebrew Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, II [Cincinnati: Mann-Sonne Publication Committee, 1966], pp.3–19), although his study has been subject to criticism (cf. Heinemann, ‘Preaching’, pp.469–70). See also Catto’s study of Scripture reading and teaching practices in the ¿rst-century synagogue. He notes evidence (from Qumran, Josephus, Philo and archaeological inscriptions) that indicates that the public reading and teaching of Scripture were regular features within the synagogue, but he limits speculation on the form of the sermon itself (S. Catto, Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research [LNTS 363; London: T&T Clark International, 2007], pp.116–25). 111. Stegner, ‘Ancient Jewish’, pp.51–2. 112. Note, for instance, the ‘tacit’ employment of a prophetic text throughout a synagogue sermon which may not be noticed initially but, when identi¿ed, enables the reader/hearer to identify the homilist’s point of departure and gives coherence to his discourse (Mann, Bible, II, p.12). Compare this to the ‘tacit’ use of Num. 12–16 in Heb. 3–5 (see further the discussion in Chapter 4). 1

24

Hebrews and Divine Speech

synagogue was the antecedent of the Christian assembly (especially for Jewish converts), it seems reasonable to propose that the development of the ‘word of exhortation’ genre was inÀuenced by the homiletical practice of the synagogue. 1.2.2. Structure of Hebrews Identifying the basic threefold word of exhortation pattern and recognising its presence in Hebrews brings fresh insight to the debate concerning the structure of Hebrews.113 Vanhoye proposes a ¿ve-part concentric structure to Hebrews, and under his scheme six indicators are used to discern the individual units of the work: the announcement of the subject to be discussed, inclusions surrounding each unit, variation between exposition and paraenesis, key thematic words, ‘hook words’ to mark transitions,114 and symmetric arrangements.115 The primary indicator of structure that Vanhoye employs is the announcement of subject, and he detects ¿ve of these. However, his treatment of the text is immediately open to question because he fails to provide detailed criteria by which these announcements are to be identi¿ed. He simply states where they are found, and then makes them the basis of the rest of his investigation.116 Although the concentric structural pattern that he identi¿es is attractive in its symmetry, it seems to offer the reader limited help in

113. For a comprehensive survey of attempts to outline the structure of Hebrews, see G. H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp.3–41, and D. J. MacLeod, ‘The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews’, Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989), pp.185–97. The earliest indication of structural divisions in Hebrews is the kephalaia, recorded in NA27, which ‘represent the chapter divisions most widely used in the manuscripts’ (NA27, pp.78–9): these mark divisions at: 1.5; 2.9; 3.1; 4.1, 11; 5.11; 6.13; 7.1, 11; 8.7; 9.11; 10.5, 24, 32; 11.1; 12.1, 12, 18; 13.1, 9, 20. ‘The rationale behind these divisions seems to be a turn in the author’s discussion most often marked by a conjunction. Seventeen times the beginning of a new section corresponds to a paragraph division in the NA27 text, and six correspond to the beginning of a new chapter as designated in the modern era’ (Guthrie, Structure, p.3). 114. For an earlier structural assessment based primarily on the identi¿cation of ‘hook-words’, see L. Vaganay, ‘Le Plan de l’Épître aux Hébreux’, in Mémorial Lagrange (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1940), passim. 115. Vanhoye’s seminal and full presentation of his proposal is found in his published doctoral thesis, A. Vanhoye, La Structure littéraire de l’Épitre aux Hébreux (Studia Neotestamentica 1; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963). This summary is drawn from Vanhoye, Structure and Message, p.20. 116. Vanhoye, Structure and Message, pp.20 and 23. 1

1. Introduction

25

gaining a better understanding of the text.117 It seems unnatural to separate (as Vanhoye does to a large extent) the content and message of the text from its form in the quest to discover its structure.118 Guthrie proposes a text-linguistic analysis of Hebrews, which seeks to understand the ‘interplay of units of text’ within the discourse of Hebrews, while attempting to take into account the ‘literary and oratorical conventions of the ¿rst century’.119 Guthrie’s account of Hebrews’ structure is comprehensive in terms of the indicators of structure he identi¿es (‘high level’ and ‘median level’ cohesion shifts, inclusio, lexical cohesion, hook words, and various transition techniques). He proposes that two structural patterns overlap and run together throughout the text, one formed of expositional units and one of hortatory. Both these separate patterns are chiastic, the hortatory material reaching its centre point at 6.4-8, and the expositional material reaching its centre point at 8.1-2.120 While Guthrie’s study is commendable for its commitment to accommodate all possible indicators of structure in Hebrews, its thoroughness is also a potential weakness. Guthrie himself describes his approach as ‘highly eclectic’ (an admission which, according to Vanhoye, ‘ne peut pas manquer de provoquer quelque inquiétude’ in the reader).121 His analysis appears to rest on the premise that the writer did not follow a de¿ned structural pattern, but used (consciously or unconsciously) a wide range of literary tools to highlight shifts in his focus and to draw the reader/hearer back to reaf¿rm a point made previously.122 The resultant structural analysis is so complex that it seems unlikely either to reÀect a conscious structural strategy on the part of the author, or to be 117. See his diagrammatic presentation of his ¿ndings; Vanhoye, Structure and Message, pp.40a–40b. For an example of a critical evaluation of Vanhoye’s structural outline, see MacLeod, ‘Literary Structure’, pp.191–3. 118. Childs’s appraisal is judicious: ‘It is not always easy to distinguish between structural elements which reÀect an author’s intentionality and a modern reader’s imaginative construal of the material. Although I do not disparage either of these two aspects of interpretation…the two aspects are not to be identi¿ed…I remain unconvinced of Vanhoye’s attempt to derive his detailed analysis of the epistle from the intention of the author.’ B. S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (London: SCM Press, 1984), p.416. 119. Guthrie, Structure, p.xvii. 120. Guthrie, Structure, p.146. 121. Guthrie, Structure, p.xviii; A. Vanhoye, Review of George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, Bib 76 (1996), p.588. 122. Vanhoye insists that a signi¿cant weakness of Guthrie’s study is his failure to take into account the explicit thematic markers that the writer gives through his subject announcements. Vanhoye, Review of Guthrie, p.590. 1

26

Hebrews and Divine Speech

able to help the interpreter make better sense of the text.123 Furthermore, it seems curious to suggest two structures running through Hebrews in parallel.124 If expositional and hortatory material develop separately but in parallel through the document, it would make more sense to posit a cyclical pattern, where exposition and exhortation are bound together in more cohesive units, following on one from the other.125 Identi¿ed closely with Guthrie’s textual-linguistic approach, discourse analysis (‘the linguistic analysis of texts above the sentence level’126) has also yielded fresh proposals concerning the structure of Hebrews. Most recently, Westfall has analysed the structure of Hebrews, observing ‘cohesion patterns and shifts, topic, prominence and relationship with the co-text’127 and has proposed a structure consisting of three main (partially overlapping) units: 1.1–4.16; 4.11–7.28; 8.1–10.25. Others have taken a thematic approach. Westcott and Moffatt see the theme of the ¿nality of Christ as central to Hebrews and propose content-based outlines that trace the development of the argument.128 In a similar vein, Bruce offers an outline based on a thematic, content-based set of divisions, yielding seven sections: 1.1–2.18; 3.1–4.14; 4.15–6.20; 7.1-28; 8.1–10.18; 10.19– 12.29; and 13.1-25.129 Others point to the interplay between didactic and paraenetic sections of the work as a key to its structure.130 123. For a summary of his ¿ndings, see Guthrie’s presentation of those ¿ndings in tabular form. Guthrie, Structure, p.144. 124. Westfall charges that the ‘proposal of two independent but interrelated backbones that run side by side but eventually converge is not a coherent mental representation of the discourse’. Moreover, she expresses concern over the fact that such a pattern cannot elsewhere be discerned ‘in the sociocultural milieu of Hellenistic literature’ (C. L. Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews [LNTS 297; London: T&T Clark International, 2005], p.20). 125. For a critical evaluation of Guthrie’s ¿ndings, see J. R. Walters, ‘The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews’, Asbury TJ 51.2 (1996), p.67. 126. Westfall, Discourse, p.23. 127. Westfall, Discourse, p.79. 128. B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1889), pp.xlviii–xlix; J. Moffatt, Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924), pp.xxiii–xxiv. 129. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp.xix–xxii. While Bruce primarily follows a thematic model for understanding the structure of the work, he does suggest that the ‘framework of much of our author’s argument is supplied by quotations from the Psalter’. Bruce, Hebrews, p.28. 130. Childs, New Testament, pp.416–17; A. Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915), p.301; T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, I–III (trans. John Moore Trout et al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909), III, p.314. For others who have taken a similar approach, see Guthrie’s summary and discussion (Guthrie, Structure, pp.9–10). 1

1. Introduction

27

Finally, a number of scholars, including Caird,131 Longenecker,132 Walters,133 France,134 and Wills135 argue that Hebrews is structured around a series of OT texts that the writer is concerned to expound.136 A slight modi¿cation of this basic thesis is the position that Psalm 110 in particular ‘stands at the core of his [the writer’s] message… Hebrews, as a homily, is most fundamentally an exposition of Psalm 110:1 and 4.’137 This basic position is taken by Buchanan,138 Stanley,139 Manson,140 and Jordaan and Nel.141 Guthrie shows that many of these analyses agree on major delineations or breaks between sections in Hebrews.142 However, these overviews differ substantially and they cannot all be correct in reÀecting the writer’s structural plan, if indeed he had one.143

131. Caird, ‘Exegetical’, passim. 132. Longenecker, Exegesis, pp.158–85. 133. Walters, ‘Rhetorical Arrangement’, pp.64–8. 134. France, ‘Expositor’, passim. 135. Wills, ‘Form’, passim. 136. Bengel earlier highlighted the central importance of OT texts as points of departure for the development of the writer’s argument. Bengel, Gnomon, IV, pp.333–502; see also Guthrie’s discussion of Bengel’s approach (Guthrie, Structure, p.7). Guthrie’s own appraisal is that the role of OT texts in demarcating the argument and structure of Hebrews ‘has failed to receive adequate consideration’ in modern scholarship (Guthrie, Structure, p.7). 137. Stanley, ‘Structure’, p.253. 138. G. W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), p.xix. 139. Stanley, ‘Structure’, pp.252–3. 140. Manson, Historical, p.117. 141. G. J. C. Jordaan and P. Nel, ‘From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews’, in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (ed. Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn; LHBOTS 527; London: T&T Clark International, 2010), pp.229–40. 142. See, in particular, the table in Guthrie, Structure, p.22. 143. For a structural analysis to help shed light on the author’s intention, it should both resonate with obvious thematic divisions in the work and it should take heed of rhetorical markers which point to divisions in the sermon. That is, form and content must be taken into account. Cf. Stanley, ‘Structure’, p.257. 1

Excursus 1

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STRUCTURE DEBATE

Set against the various structural models outlined above, the strength of Wills’s proposal, which sees Hebrews as a series of scriptural expositions following the threefold word of exhortation pattern, is that it takes into account thematic and rhetorical considerations and can deal adequately with the interplay between the expository and hortatory material in Hebrews. It seems unlikely that the writer of Hebrews consciously developed a tightly de¿ned structural plan for his sermon, but it does seem that particular OT texts provided the basis for his exposition at each stage of the discourse. Therefore, in order to understand the way in which Hebrews functions as a discourse, it is important to identify and take into account the repeated cycles of exposition of OT texts and exhortation. Wills proposed the following outline of cycles of the threefold word of exhortation pattern: 1.5–2.4; 2.5–3.6; 3.7–4.1; 4.2-11 (with a possible short cycle at 4.12-16); 8.1–10.25; 10.26-35; 11.1–12.3; 12.4-16.1 He views 5.1–7.28 as standing outside the word of exhortation pattern.2 One minor change made here in revising Wills’s proposal is the designation of the second section of the three as ‘conclusion’; in Wills’s outline the distinction between ‘exempla’ and ‘conclusion’ is not always clear. Here the designation ‘explanation and application’ replaces ‘conclusion’. In the present scheme, ‘exempla’ are clear quotations, allusions or echoes of OT texts which form the primary exegetical focus of a given cycle; ‘explanation and application’ refers to the writer’s comments on the relevant OT passage and application of that passage (in light of Christ) to the situation of the readers. On a number of occasions further OT texts are woven into the ‘explanation and application’ section; however, these texts are not the primary exegetical focus, but play a supporting role. 1. Wills suggests that further cycles ‘can perhaps be discerned’ at 12.18-25a, 12.25b-28b, and 13.10-13. Wills, ‘Form’, p.283. 2. Wills, ‘Form’, pp.280–2.

Excursus 1

29

‘Exhortation’ is cast either in the imperative or the (hortatory) subjunctive mood, and calls the readers to action based on the exposition just given. Sometimes the writer makes use of Scripture in these sections as well (but again, these play a supporting role; see comments below). Outlined below is a tentative proposal for the structure of Hebrews, based upon a substantial modi¿cation of Wills’s plan:3 PROLOGUE: 1.1-4 Cycle 1:

1.5–2.4 Exempla: 1.5-13 (catena of OT texts) Explanation and Application: 1.14; 2.2-4 Exhortation: 2.1

Cycle 2:

2.5–3.3 Exempla: 2.6b-8a (Ps. 8.4-6), 12-13 (Ps. 22.22; Isa. 8.17, 18) Explanation and Application: 2.8b-18 Exhortation: 3.1-3

Cycle 3:

Cycle 4:

Cycle 5:

Cycle 6:

Cycle 7:

Cycle 8:

3.4-13 Exemplum: 3.5 (Num. 12.7) Explanation and Application: 3.4, 6 Exhortation: 3.7-13 3.14–4.1 Exemplum: 3.15 (Ps. 95.7) Explanation and Application: 3.14, 16-19 Exhortation : 4.1 4.2-11 Exempla: 4.3b (Ps. 95.11), 7b (Ps. 95.7) Explanation and Application: 4.2-3a, 3c-7a, 8-10 Exhortation: 4.11 4.12-16 Exemplum: 4.12a (Judg. 3.16, 20) Explanation and Application: 4.12b-13 Exhortation: 4.14-16 5.1–10.25 Exempla: 5.1-4 (Num. 16.5-7), 5b (Ps. 2.7), 6b (Ps. 110.4) INTERRUPTION: 5.11–6.12 Explanation and Application: 5.5a, 7-10; 7.1–10.18 Exhortation: 10.19-25 10.26-35 Exempla: 10.28b (Deut. 17.6), 30 (Deut. 32.35-36) Explanation and Application: 10.26-28a, 29, 31-34 Exhortation: 10.35

3. This outline agrees with Wills on the delineation of the ¿rst cycle, but from there on this outline differs from his.

1

30

Hebrews and Divine Speech Cycle 9:

10.36–12.3 Exemplum: 10.37-38 (Hab. 2.3c-4) Explanation and Application: 11.1-40 Exhortation: 12.1-3 Cycle 10: 12.4-17 Exemplum: 12.5b-6 (Prov. 3.11-12) Explanation and Application: 12.7-11 Exhortation: 12.12-17 Cycle 11: 12.18–13.19 Exempla: 12.18-24 (various), 26 (Hag. 2.6) Explanation and Application: 12.18-24, 27 Exhortation: 12.25; 12.28–13.19 BENEDICTION AND FINAL GREETINGS: 13.20-25

Under this proposed structure, every new cycle (except Cycle 10) includes the conjunction ºÚÉ at its opening, although always in its characteristic postpositive position.4 The conclusion section generally begins with a conjunction as well, although the conjunction varies. The exhortation section of each cycle is marked by one of three conjunctions5 (»ÀÛ ÌÇıÌÇ, 2.1; ÇħÅ, 4.1, 11, 14; 10.19, 35; 12.1;6 or »ÀĠ, 3.1-2; 12.12, 28) which is then paired with a hortatory subjunctive (3.8; 4.1, 11, 14; 10.22; 12.1a, 28), an imperative (3.1; 10.35; 12.12), or »¼ė matched with an in¿nitive (2.1). Subsequent exhortations in the same cycle often omit the conjunction,7 but are constructed, again, by means of a hortatory subjunctive (4.16; 10.23, 24, 35; 12.1b, 28b; 13.2, 13, 15) or an imperative (3.12, 13; 12.3, 7, 13, 14; 13.1, 3, 7, 9, 16, 17a, 18). The omission 4. While NA27 does not include ºÚÉ in its text, the editors note that a number of witnesses include ºÚÉ in 12.4 as the second word in the sentence. With ºÚÉ included in this postpositive position, every cycle that this outline identi¿es in Hebrews would begin with ºÚÉ in that postpositive position. The textual evidence suggests that the ºÚÉ was not original (H. F. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I–IV [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911–13], and C. de. Tischendorf [Novum Testamentum Graece [Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1873]) record that D, L, 61, 63, 048, 440, 491, and various versional witnesses include the ºÚÉ in the postpositive position; however the major early manuscripts followed by NA27 omit the ºÚÉ), but it is still of interest that some ancient editors of the text thought that ºÚÉ belonged here. 5. The only exception is the ¿nal cycle of exhortation, beginning at 12.25, where the author uses an imperative and no conjunction. 6. Here it is the compound form ÌÇÀº¸ÉÇıÅ. 7. 4.16 is an exception. Here, rather unusually, a fresh conclusion is interjected after the ¿rst exhortation, and then the same cycle of exhortation is resumed, marked by ÇÍରࡿÅ. 1

Excursus 1

31

of ÇħÅ or equivalent is unsurprising because the transition from conclusion to exhortation, which ÇħÅ typically marks in Hebrews, has already taken place. Occasionally, in the ¿rst clause of his exhortation cycle, the author uses a present participle to sum up the present condition of the addressees (4.14; 10.19; 12.1), in light of what he has said in the conclusion, as a preface to making his direct exhortation. Some features of the proposed outline require further comment. The classi¿cation of 1.5–2.4 as an exposition has been contested, even by those who share the view that Hebrews consists essentially of a series of biblical expositions.8 There is a reasonably widespread view among commentators that here the writer was engaged primarily in proof-texting, rather than exposition.9 Breaking from this consensus, Motyer rightly argues that the writer links texts in ch. 1 that have common themes or terms, and then ‘looks for the tensions, even the contradictions, between texts, which allow him (a) to assert that Jesus is the ful¿llment, the answer to the puzzle, and (b), paradoxically, to reinstate the OT as “word of God” witnessing in its “partial and fragmentary” way (1:1) to the Son who is the ¿nal Word’.10 In his view, the writer has a coherent hermeneutic and exegetical method (with af¿nities to techniques attested in rabbinic literature) that guide his use of the OT in ch. 1.11 This present outline works on the understanding that the OT quotations in ch. 1 function as the bases for exposition (as ‘exempla’) within a recognisable cycle of the threefold word of exhortation pattern.

8. Cf. France, ‘Expositor’, pp.255–6. 9. With speci¿c reference to Hebrews 1, Motyer notes the generally low view that various commentators have taken of the exegetical technique of the writer (S. Motyer, ‘The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?’, TynBul 50.1 [1999], p.6; cf., for instance, Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, p.95; Attridge, Hebrews, pp.24, 57; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.33; Monte¿ore, Hebrews, pp.43–4). Perhaps an exception to this sentiment is DeSilva, who speaks of the ‘demonstration from Scripture’ that the writer has provided in 1.5-14: ‘The addressees would no doubt agree with him every step of the way, appreciating his exegetical ¿nesse in applying OT texts’ (DeSilva, Perseverance, p.103). 10. Motyer, ‘Psalm Quotations’, p.21. Motyer here draws on the work of Caird, who maintains that the writer of Hebrews treats the OT as a self-consciously unful¿lled book, and so employs an OT hermeneutic that presents Christ as the ful¿lment of the OT. Caird, ‘Exegetical’, pp.49, 51. 11. Motyer, ‘Psalm Quotations’, pp.13, 21–2. Similarly, Docherty af¿rms that although the ‘texts in this catena are not being exegeted as obviously as many of the other citations in Hebrews are…nevertheless exegeted they surely are to make them say what the author believes they really mean’ (Docherty, Old Testament, p.144; see further pp.144–81). 1

32

Hebrews and Divine Speech

The suggestion that 4.12a constitutes an exemplum would ¿nd little support in the secondary literature. No passage of the OT is quoted explicitly here, but there is a clear allusion to Judges 3 with two direct verbal parallels.12 In Judges 3 God raises up Ehud to deliver the people from the tyrannical rule of Eglon, the Moabite king. Ehud made ‘a double-bladed dagger’ (Judg. 3.16, ÄÚϸÀɸŠ»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ; cf. Heb. 4.12a, ÄÚϸÀɸŠ»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ) and went to King Eglon and said that he had a message from God for him (Judg. 3.20, ĠºÇË ¿¼Çı; cf. Heb. 4.12a, ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı), at which point he stabbed Eglon and killed him.13 This connection between a double-edged sword and the word of God is otherwise unparalleled in ancient literature. To see Judges 3 as standing behind Heb. 4.12 provides as powerful image of God’s word effecting judgment, clearly reinforcing the writer’s programme in these verses. The proposal that the writer intended Judges 3 to function as his exemplum here in Heb. 4.12 is reinforced by the various verbal echoes from that chapter that emerge in the following verses in Hebrews, suggesting that Judges 3 was fresh in the writer’s mind as he wrote this cycle of exposition.14 The unusual length of Cycle 7 is something of an anomaly in the series of cycles outlined above. However, there is a general consensus among structural theorists that the writer groups much of the material in chs. 5–10 together as part of a single major unit of his discourse. It is here that the writer outlines the basis for the confession that he urges his addressees to maintain: the high-priestly offering of Christ who provides access to the heavenly sanctuary. The urgency of the writer’s appeal is based on the unique nature of Christ’s sacri¿ce, the bene¿ts it offers, and the perils of rejecting it. In short, Cycle 7 outlines the gospel to which the writer urges his addressees to hold. In light of the importance of this section of the text, it is not surprising that it stands out as distinctive under the proposed structural analysis. Beyond the analysis of this section according to the threefold word of exhortation pattern, the most compelling evidence for a distinct and substantial division of Hebrews at this stage is the prominent inclusio (the most striking inclusio found

12. Cf. Williamson, Philo, p.394. For an alternative view of the OT background here, see Allen, Deuteronomy, p.94. 13. Rahlfs (followed by Pietersma and Wright, Septuagint) offers both an LXXA and LXXB text for Judges. For this passage, the two are substantially the same. However, for the sake of clarity it should be noted that LXXA is followed here. 14. These are outlined in Chapter 4; see further the discussion there.

1

Excursus 1

33

in the text), noted by Nauck, at 4.14-16 and 10.19-23.15 This corresponds closely to the exhortation sections of Cycles 6 and 7 in this outline. While the presence of inclusios should be not be taken as primary structural delineators wherever they occur in the text,16 the presence of a prominent inclusio here serves to support the identi¿cation of a de¿nite division of the text at this point. The threefold word of exhortation pattern outlined above, while fairly simple, is also Àexible. For example, the ¿rst cycle has a large number of separate exempla with a relatively short conclusion and a short exhortation; this is unlike most other cycles, which typically have one or two brief exempla.17 Cycles 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 have a series of exhortations, while Cycles 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 just have one. Cycle 7 contains a digression that forms a major interruption to the basic structural pattern (5.11– 6.12),18 bracketed off by a prominent inclusio using the term ‘Melchizedek’ at 5.10b and 6.20b. However, despite these variations, the basic features of the pattern are consistently present. While each cycle functions as a distinct unit of exposition, cycles are generally bound closely with one another (and sometimes Àow together quite seamlessly). OT texts and ideas sometimes ¿rst appear in the exhortation section of one cycle and then re-emerge as the primary exemplum text in the next cycle. This is the case at 3.2, where Num. 12.7 is woven into the exhortation of Cycle 2, but then functions as the exemplum text of Cycle 3 at Heb. 3.5. Similarly, Ps. 95.7-11 functions as the main exhortation in Cycle 3 at Heb. 3.7-11, but then Ps. 95.7 reemerges as the exemplum text in Cycle 4 at Heb. 3.15. The writer sometimes engages in sustained (but not necessarily explicit) reÀection on larger blocks of OT text. In particular, the narrative of Numbers 12–16 appears to underlie the whole of Hebrews 3–5. Although speci¿c quotations of the Numbers narrative rarely provide the turning points for the text, this narrative provides the theological backdrop to the writer’s reÀection on his hearers’ situation and to his

15. W. Nauck, ‘Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes’, in Judentum Urchristentum Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (ed. Walther Eltester; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), pp.203–4. 16. Guthrie, for instance, suggests that at least 18 inclusios can be identi¿ed in Hebrews and are structurally signi¿cant. Guthrie, Structure, pp.76–89. 17. This is a particular contrast to the seventh cycle, where there are two brief exempla, then a conclusion section that spans almost ¿ve chapters, and then a substantial exhortation section that consists of a number of individual exhortations. 18. Cf. Stanley, ‘Structure’, p.259; F. D. V. Narborough, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp.101–6.

1

34

Hebrews and Divine Speech

engagement with other OT texts, such as Psalm 95 (a text with which he engages more explicitly).19 So, the discussion of Moses’ faithfulness in Numbers 12 stands behind the treatment of Jesus’ faithfulness at the beginning of Hebrews 3; the report of the spies, the peoples’ faithless response, and God’s judgment in Numbers 13–14 stand behind the warnings to respond rightly to God’s word ‘today’ in the second half of Hebrews 3 and throughout Hebrews 4. The discussion of sacri¿ce, forgiveness and priesthood in Numbers 15–16 underlies the discussion of ‘approach’ and forgiveness at the end of Hebrews 4 and the discussion of the appointment of priests in Hebrews 5. The structure outlined above is signi¿cant for the interpretation of Hebrews throughout this study in a number of ways. First, it con¿rms the observations of Combrink,20 Caird,21 Kistemaker,22 Longenecker,23 and France,24 among others, who af¿rm the centrality of the OT and its exposition to the structure and programme of Hebrews. This outline develops and builds upon their observations by taking greater account of a number of rhetorical and lexical features of Hebrews that are signi¿cant for any account of its structure.25

19. The fact that the writer engages more explicitly with Ps. 95 than with the Numbers narrative does not undermine the suggestion that the Numbers narrative provides the major backdrop here, since Ps. 95 is itself a reÀection upon the events recounted in Numbers. 20. According to Combrink, ‘it is clear that OT quotations constitute the framework of this letter’. Combrink, ‘Thoughts’, p.31. 21. Caird, ‘Exegetical’. 22. For Kistemaker, four key Psalm quotations provide ‘the foundation for the construction of his Epistle’. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, p.130. 23. Longenecker, Exegesis, pp.174–85. 24. France has built upon the schemes of Caird and Longenecker to suggest seven key texts that give the impetus for the expositions that follow: Heb. 2.5-18 is an exposition of Ps. 8.4-6; Heb. 3.6–4.13 is an exposition of Ps. 95.7-11; Heb. 5.5– 7.28 is an exposition of Ps. 110.4; Heb. 8.1–10.18 is an exposition of Jer. 31.31-34; Heb. 10.32–12.3 is an exposition of Hab. 2.3c–4 (LXX); Heb. 12.4-13 is an exposition of Prov. 3.11-12; and Heb. 12.18-29 is an exposition of various OT themes and imagery relating to Mount Sinai. France, ‘Expositor’, p.259. 25. Westfall rightly notes that the ‘best methodology [for determining structure] will be able to give an account of the formal and semantic features that the other methodologies utilise. The weakest methodologies are based on the least amount of information and ignore or override other formal and semantic features’ (Westfall, Discourse, p.1). However, it is important to add that any approach that tries to build a structural analysis around every indicator in the text will surely get lost in its own complexity. 1

Excursus 1

35

Second, the structure outlined above allows for a fresh and, arguably, more accurate exegesis of key sections of Hebrews, notably 4.12-13 and 12.18–13.19. Proper understanding of the place of a given passage within its broader structural unit is essential for correct exegesis.26 In the case of 4.12-13, the confusion concerning the structural pattern into which these verses ¿t has left their interpretation uncertain.27 Third, the proposal offered here accounts for a number of features of the text that other structural theories acknowledge but do not account for. In particular, the proposed scheme provides a coherent framework for understanding the relationship between exposition and exhortation in Hebrews. The fact that the writer alternates between exposition and exhortation (and that this alternation is a central structural feature of the work) has been widely recognised, but not satisfactorily explained. The threefold word of exhortation pattern recognises the alternation between genres, but proposes that each alternation points to a key movement within a larger cycle (consisting of exemplum, explanation and application, and exhortation) and that these complete cycles constitute the basic structural units of the work. Finally, this outline highlights the way in which OT Scripture was, for the writer, a living text. The central role that Scripture plays in shaping the writer’s discourse by providing the exempla that act as the basis of each exposition has already been noted. It is also signi¿cant that the writer uses Scripture in each of the three major components of the threefold word of exhortation cycle (exemplum, explanation and application, and exhortation) with the evident expectation that Scripture could provide more than simply the basis for the exposition; it could also provide the necessary explanation and application for another passage of Scripture, and could itself exhort the addressees to action. In Cycle 9 (10.36–12.3), the entire explanation and application section (11.1-40) is simply a series of scriptural illustrations of the key concept of faith that was introduced in the exemplum (10.37-38, a citation of Hab. 2.3c-4). In Cycle 3, the exhortation is almost completely comprised of a quotation from Ps. 95.7b-11 (Heb. 3.7-11). 26. Guthrie, Structure, pp.xvii–xviii. 27. Guthrie notes that there is considerable confusion surrounding the structural divisions in this part of Hebrews: ‘Wolfgang Nauck, F.F. Bruce, and Franz Joseph Schierse understand the passage to form the introduction to the following section of Hebrews. Alexander Narine, Gyllenberg, and George Buchanan consider it the conclusion to the section which precedes it. Vaganay, Vanhoye, Spicq, and Attridge, rejecting 4:14-16 as a primary dividing point, all place it in the middle of the book’s second movement.’ Guthrie, Structure, p.23.

1

Chapter 2

HEBREWS 1.1-4: GOD’S SPEECH ‘IN’ HIS SON

The opening words of Hebrews (set in striking structural relief from the rest of the discourse1) establish the centrality of God’s speech within the writer’s purpose and provide a theological paradigm for what follows. The key term ģýĸ appears here and in itself necessitates consideration of these verses. That God has spoken, both in the prophets and the Son, ‘ist für den Verfasser nicht nur die tragende Basis seines Schreibens, sondern auch der ganzen christlichen Existenz seiner Adressaten’.2 Hebrews is addressed to people who are tempted to lose con¿dence in the message about Christ that they have previously heard and accepted. The writer’s strategy for restoring their con¿dence is to call them to hear afresh God’s word in Christ and to highlight Christ’s greatness and the ¿nality of his work. Hebrews 1 introduces Christ as the one through whom God has spoken his eschatological and personal word. As an agent of God’s speech, the Son is superior to the prophets (1.1-3) and the angels (1.4-14). These af¿rmations of the greatness of the Son and of the ¿nality of the word spoken in him reach their focal point in the exhortation of 2.1 to ‘pay greater attention to what we have heard’. As was common in ancient rhetoric, Hebrews opens with an exordium designed to capture the attention of the addressees and to introduce the central themes that will follow.3 Signi¿cant for this investigation, the exordium brings to the forefront the theme of God’s speech. 1. These verses do not begin with a scriptural exempla text, but stand apart from the repeated pattern that the writer adopts and provide a headpiece for the whole work. See Excursus 1 for further treatment of the place of 1.1-4 in the structure of Hebrews. 2. Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.14. 3. Alliteration using the letter È, as here in Heb. 1.1, was a common device for gaining the attention of those addressed (cf. Homer, Od. 1.1-4; Lk. 1.1; Thompson, Hebrews, p.32).

2. Hebrews 1.1-4

37

The exordium consists of one long periodic sentence (1.1-4). It begins with the central assertion (1.1-2a) that God, having spoken in the prophets, has now spoken in the Son; it then describes the Son and his exalted status in a series of three relative clauses (1.2b-c, 3a) that refer back to the ‘Son’ (ÍĎŊ) in 1.2a, and in three clauses (1.3b-c, 4) built around participles that relate to the statement in 1.3c that Christ ‘sat down (ëÁÚ¿ÀʼÅ) at the right hand of the majesty on high’. In 1.1-2a, the writer af¿rms that God’s speech in the Son stands in a relationship of both contrast and continuity with his speech in the prophets. In vv. 2b-4, he highlights two aspects of the Son’s superiority as the greater means of God’s speech, introducing a Christology that draws heavily on Hellenistic Jewish logos/sophia4 speculation for understanding the work of the Son and af¿rming that the Son is the personal representation of God. 2.1. Contrast and Continuity (1.1-2a) The nature of the relationship between God’s former speech in the prophets and his speech in the Son ‘in these last days’ confronts the reader immediately in 1.1-2a: ÇÂÍÄ¼ÉľË Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÍÌÉĠÈÑË ÈÚ¸À ĝ ¿¼ġË Â¸ÂûÊ¸Ë ÌÇėË È¸ÌÉÚÊÀÅ ëÅ ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÎû̸ÀË ëÈ’ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ ÌÇįÌÑÅ ëÂÚ¾ʼŠ÷ÄėÅ ëÅ ÍĎŊ. Readers of English translations may see a strong disjunction between the two forms of revelation; however, translations have emphasised the element of discontinuity by adding the conjunction ‘but’, as in the NRSV: ‘Long ago God spoke…by the prophets, but in these last days…’ (italics mine). There are certainly elements of contrast in the writer’s presentation here, but it is important ¿rst to note the line of continuity between the two forms of God’s speech established in these verses.5 The writer af¿rms that both forms of communication are the speech of God; both are presented using the aorist form of ¸ÂñÑ, and the preposition ëÅ is used in parallel to introduce speech both by the prophets and by the Son. Since the revelation through the prophets

4. On such speculation, see Excursus 2. 5. G. R. Smillie, ‘Contrast or Continuity in Hebrews 1.1-2?’, NTS 51 (2005), pp.543, 560; see also Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.2; R. Dormandy, ‘Hebrews 1:1-2 and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen’, ExpTim 100 (1989), pp.371–5. The writer’s belief in the fundamental continuity between God’s speech in the prophets and in the Son underlies his con¿dence that reference to the example of the OT community’s response to God’s word will provide a relevant parallel and example for the community he now addresses as they consider their response to God’s contemporary word. On the generation of the ‘fathers’ as an example to the addressees, see Wider, Theozentrik, pp.17–18. 1

38

Hebrews and Divine Speech

(broadly understood to include the whole OT6) will be the authoritative foundation on which he builds his theological treatise, it is unlikely that he would want to disparage strongly this form of revelation.7 The author later demonstrates that he has at his disposal numerous rhetorical tools to draw a more stark contrast between the two forms of revelation, were that his intention. He makes frequent use of numerous comparative terms (ÒÂÂÚ, »ñ, ÅıÅ, ×ȸÆ, ëÎÚȸÆ, ¼ĊË Ìġ »À¾Å¼ÁñË, ĸϗÂÂÇÅ, ÄñÅ) and is capable of drawing carefully nuanced comparisons.8 The absence of such language in 1.1-2 indicates that an absolute disjunction was not intended. Despite the contrasts that the writer will draw between the two,9 the speech of God through the prophets is as much the speech of God as is his speech through the Son. The writer does not elaborate on the revelation through the prophets; they receive no further comment beyond the writer’s statement that God’s speech through them was ÈÇÂÍÄ¼ÉľË Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÍÌÉĠÈÑË. God’s speech in the Son is contrasted with his speech in the prophets at least on a numerical level through use of these terms.10 However, other ancient use of these terms does not indicate any intrinsically negative connotation,11 6. Although the writer does not positively identify ‘the prophets’ (and only uses the expression elsewhere generically at 11.32), he probably intends to refer to all through whom God spoke in the OT: the patriarchs, Moses, David, the classical prophets, and others (Attridge, Hebrews, p.39; Johnson, Hebrews, p.65; Thompson, Hebrews, p.37). Caird (‘Exegetical’, pp.46–7) notes that the writer maintains that God speaks through all the OT texts he quotes, suggesting that all the OT is ‘prophetic’ in character. Moreover, the writer prefers to introduce texts from the OT by identifying a personal speaker, rather than a division of biblical literature from which they are derived. So, God can declare his message ‘through angels’ (2.2) and can speak ‘in David’ (4.7). This pattern suggests that the term ‘prophets’ here does not specify a particular division of the OT distinct from ‘Law’ or ‘Writings’, but functions as a broad category to designate inspired human speakers of the words of the OT. 7. Smillie, ‘Contrast’, pp.544–8. 8. ‘Hebrews exhibits four instances of the use of ļĕ½ÇÅ, eleven different uses of ÁɼėÌÌÇÅ (plus the single NT use of ÁÉĕÊÊÇŸ) and ¿fteen different uses of adjectives or substantives with the –Ġ̼ÉÇË –Å ending’. Smillie, ‘Contrast’, pp.550–1. 9. Not least the fact that the speech through the Son marks a new eschatological era (contra C. K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Signi¿cance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews [WUNT I/235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], pp.163–4 n.5; see further below). 10. These terms at least point to a ‘formal diversity’ that ‘contrasts with the singularity and ¿nality of God’s eschatological speech in the Son’. Attridge, Hebrews, p.37; see also Wider, Theozentrik, pp.19–20. 11. So, for instance, Diodorus Siculus speaks of veins of minerals in the ground winding ‘in many ways’ (ÈÇÂÍÄ¼ÉľË; Hist. 5.37.2) and Philo speaks of a robe ‘whose 1

2. Hebrews 1.1-4

39

and the writer’s own use of them here is unlikely to be thoroughly pejorative given that these adjectives qualify the very words of God.12 However, it is right, with Spicq, to add that the two adverbs imply a sense of incompleteness.13 Certainly, within a Platonic worldview, plurality denotes incompleteness (even inadequacy). The emphasis here in Hebrews on the plurality of the prophetic witness ‘in many and various ways’ in contrast to the uni¿ed witness of the one Son seems to point all the more to the exalted character of the speech in the Son.14 Such an emphasis on the superiority of the singular corresponds to the writer’s development of the theme ‘according to which the “many” (priests, 7.23; sacri¿ces, 9.25; 10.11-14) reÀect incompleteness in contrast to the ¿nality of the work of the Son and exalted high priest’.15 While God spoke ‘long ago’ (ÈÚ¸À) in the prophets, he has spoken in the Son ‘in these last days’ (ëÈφ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ). This second expression (ëÈφ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ) is used in the LXX to translate the temporal idiom -'/'! =':%.16 Scholars debate whether the Hebrew term -'/'! ='% itself bears an eschatological signi¿cation.17 Following manifold richness (ÈÇÂÍÌÉĠÈÇË) is a marvel to the eye’ (Ebr. 86, trans. Colson et al.). Perhaps less attractive (and no less positive in connotation) is Philo’s description of the ‘manifold’ (ÈÇÂÍÌÉĠÈÑË) exertions of snakes trying to free themselves when trodden upon by elephants (Aet. Mund. 129). 12. Smillie, ‘Contrast’, p.547. 13. ‘Les communications de Dieu aux hommes se sont multipliées par l’organe d’interprètes successifs; c’est dire leur richesse, mais aussi leur caractère incomplet’. Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.3; see also Williamson, Philo, p.71. 14. As noted in Johnson, Hebrews, pp.65–6 (so also, Attridge, Hebrews, pp.37– 8). A Platonist (or Middle Platonist) reading Hebrews would almost certainly have seen such an implication here. For a Platonist, the plural manifestations of a given ‘form’ in the physical world are only inadequate reÀections of the true reality (the ‘form’ itself) in the realm of the forms. The singular, true ‘form’ is superior to its plural manifestations in the physical world of sensory experience. 15. Thompson, Hebrews, p.37. So too, Attridge, Hebrews, pp.37–8. 16. Num. 24.14; Jer. 23.20; 25.19 [49.39]; Dan. 10.14. The plural ëÈφ ëÊÏÚÌÑÅ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ is used seven times: Gen. 49.1; Deut. 4.30; Jer. 37.24 [30.24]; Ezek. 38.16; Dan. 2.28; Hos. 3.5; and Mic. 4.1 (G. W. Buchanan, ‘Eschatology and the “End of Days”’, JNES XX [1961], p.190). 17. See discussions in Buchanan, ‘Eschatology’, p.188, and passim; F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and ” ’, ™ Commentary (AB 24E; London: Doubleday, 2000), pp.401–3; H. Seebass, ‘=':– % in TDOT, I, pp.207–12; B. D. Eerdmans, The Religion of Israel (Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1947), pp.322–3; Th. C. Vriezen, ‘Prophecy and Eschatology’, in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953 (ed. G. W. Anderson; VTSup 1; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1953), p.202 n.2; S. D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT II/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp.39–40. 1

40

Hebrews and Divine Speech

Eerdmans, Buchanan argues that in the Hebrew OT it makes sense generally to understand the phrase as a temporal idiom (meaning ‘in the future’, ‘in days to come’, ‘after this’, etc.) without a necessary eschatological overtone.18 Some OT contexts, however, point clearly to an eschatological nuance.19 Eventually, the Greek term ëÈφ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ came to have an eschatological meaning,20 as suggested by the regular use of the term in the NT in a clearly eschatological context.21 In light of the development of use of the term, and in light of the strong emphasis in Hebrews on the decisive change brought about through the work of the Son, it is evident that in designating the period of revelation by the Son as taking place ëÈφ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ, the writer intends the addressees to see these ¿nal days as the eschatological22 days of ful¿lment,23 and the time of ¿nal opportunity to respond to God’s salvation.24 The term ‘eschatological’ is used here to refer to decisive changes and developments in history that bring God’s plans to fruition, but not to refer exclusively to the end point of history. For fuller discussion of the term ‘eschatology’, see Vriezen, ‘Prophecy’, pp.200–202. 18. Buchanan, ‘Eschatology’, p.190; see also, J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p.116; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.10; Attridge, Hebrews, p.39. 19. See, for instance, Isa. 2.2; Mic. 4.1; Hos. 3.5; Ezek. 38.16; Dan. 2.28; 10.14 and discussions in H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1, Isaiah 1–5 (ICC; London: T&T Clark International, 2006), p.180; B. K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp.193, 208; R. L. Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word, 1984), pp.36–7; Andersen and Freedman, Micah, p.401; J. J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p.16; L. F. Hartmann and A. DiLella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden ” ’, ™ pp.211–12. City: Doubleday, 1978), p.265; and Seebass, ‘=':– % ” ’, ™ pp.211–12; P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the 20. So, Seebass, ‘=':– % Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p.37; Koester, Hebrews, p.177, Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.10–11; but contra Buchanan, ‘Eschatology’, passim, who maintains that the meaning of the term was never strictly eschatological and has to be determined always from context. While Buchanan’s case is plausible for the OT evidence he considers, his insistence (Buchanan, ‘Eschatology’, pp.191–2) that the texts he considers from the NT are not all strictly eschatological in character strains the evidence. 21. See Acts 2.17; 2 Tim. 3.1; Jas 5.3; 2 Pet. 3.3-4. 22. Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.21; C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2d ed.; Paris: Cerf, 1957), p.45; C. K. Barrett, ‘The Christology of Hebrews’, in Who Do You Say That I Am? (ed. Mark Allan Powell and David R. Bauer; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), p.114. 23. Bruce, Hebrews, p.46; Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.4. 24. E. Grässer, An die Hebräer (Hebr 1–6) (EKKNT XVII/1; Zurich: Benziger, 1990), p.55. 1

2. Hebrews 1.1-4

41

Unlike the limited mention of the prophets, the exalted status of the Son25 is laid out in detail in the following verses. The designation of Jesus as the ‘Son’ marks clearly the contrast between Jesus and the prophets, not least because the af¿rmation of divine sonship serves as a reminder that God is Jesus’ Father. This point is particularly signi¿cant in a Graeco-Roman society where ‘one’s honour or standing depended largely on one’s parentage’ (cf. Sir. 3.11).26 More than that, the identi¿cation of Jesus as God’s Son carries messianic overtones.27 In 2 Sam. 7.12-14 (v. 14a quoted in Heb. 1.5b),28 God promises David that he will raise up for him a great offspring who will be a Son to God (2 Sam. 7.13b-14a). Psalm 2 (also quoted in Heb. 1.5) speaks of God’s anointed king (2.2, 6) as his Son (2.7). These same texts (Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7) are combined and given a messianic interpretation in the Qumran text, 4Q174.29 4Q246 identi¿es a messianic ¿gure as ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’, and 4Q369 speaks of ‘a ¿rst-born son’ in similar terms.30 God has ‘appointed’ the Son ‘heir of all things’ (1.2).31 This echoes Ps. 2.8, where God promises a great inheritance to the anointed king,32 and Gen. 17.5-8, where Abraham is appointed the father of ‘many 25. Note that in 1.2 ÍĎľЗ is anarthrous, unlike ÌÇÀࡏË ÈÉÇÎû̸ÀË. The lack of the article may be intended to indicate contrast (Westcott, Epistle, p.7; see, too, Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.93). However, noting Smillie’s observation that ÍĎĠË is used with the article elsewhere in Hebrews (cf. 1.8; Smillie, ‘Contrast’, pp.552–3), it would seem unfounded to build a case for contrast in 1.1-2 on the anarthrous ÍĎľЗ. 26. DeSilva, Perseverance, p.85. 27. On the development of a ‘Son’ messianism within Judaism, see J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (London: Doubleday, 1995), pp.154–72. 28. Cf. Ellingworth, who suggests that that quotation is from 1 Chron. 17.13 (Hebrews, pp.114–16); see Docherty’s further discussion of this question (Old Testament, pp.152, 154–6). 29. Vermes dates 4Q174 to the ¿rst century BC (G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [4th ed.; London: Penguin, 1995], p.353). On the messianism of 4Q174, see Docherty, Old Testament, pp.153–4; A. Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT I/207; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), pp.336–9. 30. On the messianism of these texts, see full discussion in Chester, Messiah, pp.230–3, 237–8, 265. 31. In the OT tradition, the primary content of the promised inheritance was the land (Deut. 12.9 and 19.10); in the Hellenistic period, the promised inheritance was increasingly seen as a transcendent or heavenly reality; in the NT, it is frequently linked to Christ’s resurrection and exaltation. Attridge, Hebrews, 40. See 1 Cor. 15.50; 1 Pet. 1.4-5; Rev. 21.2-7. 32. Bruce, Hebrews, p.46. 1

42

Hebrews and Divine Speech

nations’ and told that ‘kings shall come from you’.33 Thus the writer ‘made use of the OT motif of the investiture of the heir in order to connect the beginning of redemptive history with its accomplishment in the Son’.34 Such echoes add to the exalted picture of the Son. 2.2. The Dignity of the Speech in the Son (1.2b-4) Although God’s communication in the Son stands in continuity with his speech in the prophets, the two forms of divine revelation are contrasted; the Son is the greater agent and the word spoken through him is the eschatological word. Verses 2b-4 further highlight the superiority of the Son over the other agents of God’s communication; in particular, these verses present the Son in terms used elsewhere to depict God’s personalised ‘wisdom’ and ‘word’. These motifs will provide the framework for af¿rming that God’s speech in the Son comprises the Son’s being and action, not simply his words. 2.2.1. Word/Wisdom Christology The writer does not outline here an explicit logos Christology (as is found in the prologue to John’s Gospel),35 but these verses suggest that Hellenistic Jewish conceptions of logos and sophia36 were familiar to the writer and inÀuenced him.37 Williamson, who initially recognised in Hebrews only a ‘rudimentary form of a Logos Christology’,38 later wrote: ‘My own earlier hesitations about the propriety of speaking of a Logosdoctrine in Hebrews have now been abandoned…to do justice to the Christology of Hebrews it is necessary to speak of it as a doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus of Nazareth’.39 Hellenistic Jewish 33. P. H. Langkammer, ‘ “Den er zum Erben von allem eingesetzt hat” (Hebr 1,2)’, BZ 10 (1966), pp.274–5. 34. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.12. 35. On the conceptual parallel here, cf. Grässer, Hebräer I, p.56. 36. On the development of such concepts in other ancient literature, see Excursus 2. 37. E. Grässer, ‘Hebräer 1,1-4. Ein exegetischer Versuch’, in Text und Situation (ed. Erich Grässer; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973), p.216; Sowers, Hermeneutics, p.69; Enslin, Literature, p.311. ‘The book of Hebrews does not apply [to Christ] the name “Logos”… But there can be no mistake about Hebrews containing an implicit Logos-Christology’ (Nash, ‘Mediator’, p.95). Dunn comments of these verses that ‘Christ alone so embodies God’s Wisdom…that what can be said of Wisdom can be said of Christ without remainder’ (Dunn, Christology, p.209). 38. Williamson, Philo, p.410. 39. Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, p.4.

1

2. Hebrews 1.1-4

43

thought frequently brought together speculation concerning logos and sophia, and this study will therefore consider evidence of christological reÀection on logos and sophia together.40 Of particular interest are the identi¿cation in 1.2c of the Son as the one ‘through whom he also created the worlds (ÌÇİË ¸ĊľÅ¸Ë)’ and the statement in 1.3 that the Son ‘sustains all things by his powerful word (ÌŊ ģûĸÌÀ ÌýË »ÍÅÚļÑË ¸ĤÌÇı)’. The ¿rst statement identi¿es the Son as the agent of creation,41 the second af¿rms that the Son sustains the creation through his word (ģýĸ).42 Hellenistic Jewish speculation associates both wisdom and the word with God’s work in creation and gives these ¿gures a special role in sustaining it. The writer of Hebrews explicitly identi¿es the ‘word’ as God’s agent in creation in 11.3: ‘By faith we understand that the worlds (ÌÇİË ¸ĊľÅ¸Ë) were prepared by the word of God (ģûĸÌÀ ¿¼Çı)’. In the wisdom tradition, Prov. 8.22-31 associates the ¿gure of wisdom closely with God’s work in creation, although Proverbs does not af¿rm any kind of agency (cf. Prov. 8.2930). Wisdom of Solomon speaks of ÊÇÎĕ¸ as the one who ‘pervades and penetrates all things’ (7.24) and ‘renews all things’ (7.27). Philo af¿rms the role of the word (here, ÂĠºÇË) both in creating the world and in guiding it.43 In v. 3 the writer uses the term Òȸįº¸Êĸ to describe how the Son communicates the glory of the Father. The term Òȸįº¸Êĸ occurs nowhere else in the NT, and only once in the LXX, in Wis. 7.26, where ÊÇÎĕ¸ is described as a ‘reÀection (Òȸįº¸Êĸ) of eternal light and a 40. Cf. Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 117–118 and Migr. Abr. 28; and cf. discussions in Nash, ‘Mediator’, pp.93–5; H. A. Wolfson, Philo, I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947), pp.253–61; T. H. Robinson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1948), p.3; Spicq, L’Épître, I, p.70, esp. n.2; Schenck, Philo, p.59. See discussion in Excursus 2. 41. It seems best to take ¸ĊľÅ¸Ë as a reference to the whole of the created order, encompassing both time and space (cf. 6.5 and 11.3 and comments ad loc.). The word is used with a temporal referent at 9.26 (so, Attridge, Hebrews, p.41 n.78), but can refer to the world and its constituent parts in other literature (cf. Wis. 13.9; 1 Cor. 1.20; 2.6; 3.19; 7.33, and see Sasse, ‘¸ĊļÅ’, pp.203–4). 42. Hebrews uses ģýĸ at 6.5, 11.3 and 12.19. At 11.3 the term signi¿es the means by which God created the world, placing it in a broad cosmological context, as here. In 6.5 the term appears to refer to heaven (see the discussion ad loc.), again setting the term in a broad cosmological context. 12.19 is perhaps an exception to this cosmologically orientated use (see the discussion ad loc.). Here in 1.3 it is ‘das Schöpfungswort, das von Gen 1,1ff.’ (Grässer, ‘Hebräer 1,1-4’, p.220). 43. Philo, Migr. Abr. 6; see also Philo, Cher. 36, and the discussion in Schenck, Philo, pp.58–60. 1

44

Hebrews and Divine Speech

spotless mirror of the activity of God’. While the evidence is insuf¿cient to con¿rm literary dependence on Wis. 7.26 here,44 other resonances with Wisdom 7 in Heb. 1.2-3 suggest, at least, that a common stock of concepts and imagery informed both passages.45 This supports the suggestion that the writer of Hebrews drew upon Hellenistic Jewish speculation concerning logos and sophia (although he uses neither ÂĠºÇË nor ÊÇÎĕ¸ in this passage) in formulating the Christology introduced in 1.1-4. The main function of the Christology that the writer develops using these motifs is to show the exalted status of Christ and the signi¿cance of the word spoken ‘in’ him. The statement in 1.2c that Christ is the one ‘through whom’ God ‘created the worlds’ is arguably one of the strongest af¿rmations of Christ’s pre-existence in the NT.46 2.2.2. The Personal Nature of God’s Speech in the Son The Christology introduced in 1.1-4 provides a conceptual framework for the writer to present God’s speech in the Son as personal speech, comprising all that the Son is and does.47 In v. 3 the writer describes the Son as ‘the reÀection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very 44. As has often been suggested; see Robinson, Epistle, p.3; Williamson, Philo, p.410; W. F. Howard, Christianity According to St. John (London: Duckworth, 1943), p.44. 45. Such resonances with Heb. 1.2-3 include the cosmological and creative role ascribed to sophia (Wis. 7.22), and the suggestion that sophia communicates God’s ‘glory’ (Wis. 7.25). 46. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.12; see, too, A. T. Hanson, The Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983), p.106. The quotation of Ps. 102.25-27 in Heb. 1.10-12 as it is addressed to the Son likewise points to Jesus’ pre-existence (R. Bauckham, ‘Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1’, in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism [ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North; Early Christianity in Context; JSNTSup 263; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], p.184). The fact that pre-existence appears to be assumed (rather than forming a central focus in the writer’s argument) suggests that the writer was con¿dent that ‘it was already part of the listeners’ tradition’ (Koester, Hebrews, p.104). Dunn admits a status here in the prologue for Jesus which is only ‘in some sense’ pre-existent, limiting that pre-existence to the ‘act and power of God’ rather than its ‘eschatological embodiment in Jesus’ (J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [2d ed; London: SCM Press, 1989], pp.208–9). Bauckham rightly dismisses Dunn’s reticence, noting the catena of OT quotations that follows: ‘The whole catena is designed to establish a difference in kind between, on the one hand, Jesus who participates in the unique divine sovereignty and unique divine eternity, and, on the other hand, the angels who are servants and creatures… It says that Jesus himself is intrinsic to the divine identity’ (Bauckham, ‘Monotheism’, pp.184–5). 47. Koester, Hebrews, p.185. 1

2. Hebrews 1.1-4

45

being’ (ĵÅ48 Òȸįº¸Êĸ ÌýË »ĠÆ¾Ë Á¸Ė ϸɸÁÌüÉ ÌýË ĨÈÇÊÌÚʼÑË ¸ĤÌÇı). These two af¿rmations are set in parallel and, if not virtually synonymous,49 they are certainly complementary50 and should be understood in light of each other. In the LXX, the ‘glory (»ĠƸ) of God’ was a familiar term describing God’s visible presence, often in a spectacular manifestation. Exodus 24.17 describes the manifestation of the divine presence on Mount Sinai: ‘Now the appearance of the Lord’s glory (LXX »ĠƸ) was like a Àaming ¿re on the top of the mountain before the sons of Israel’. In the vision of Ezekiel, as an act of judgement ‘the glory (LXX »ĠƸ) of the Lord went out from the house…’ (Ezek. 10.18). The expectation that the Lord’s glory would again be revealed was a great hope of the Exile (cf. Isa. 40.5).51 In Wis. 7.26, sophia is described as an ‘Òȸįº¸Êĸ of the glory of the Almighty’. The exact nuance of the term is ambiguous, capable of interpretation in an active (‘radiance’) or passive (‘reÀection’) sense.52 In Wisdom, the remark that sophia is an Òȸįº¸Êĸ follows other emanationist language (‘she is a breath of the power of God…’, 7.25a), but it comes immediately before the description of sophia as an ‘unblemished mirror’ and ‘image’.53 Philo uses Òȸįº¸Êĸ three times,54 but it is disputed whether these uses are passive or active, rendering the evidence from Philo of minimal value.55 Whether Òȸįº¸Êĸ is taken in an active or passive sense, the description in Hebrews serves ‘to af¿rm the intimate relationship between the Father and the pre-existent Son’56 and to insist that he manifests God’s glory. 48. Westcott relies heavily on the participle ĵÅ in establishing the permanence of Christ’s sonship: ‘The ĵÅ in particular guards against the idea of mere “adoption” in the Sonship, and af¿rms the permanence of the divine essence of the Son during His historic work’ (Westcott, Epistle, p.9; so too, Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.9). This point is probably hinted at by the participle, but is established by the force of the whole of v. 3, where the temporal focus shifts from the act of creation (v. 2c) to the timelessness of the Son’s relationship to God (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.98). 49. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.13. 50. Westcott, Epistle, p.10. 51. Cf. Wright’s proposal that many Second Temple Jews still looked for the ful¿lment of this expectation. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, II (London: SPCK, 1996), pp.xvii, 204–6, 615–24. 52. Westcott argues for the active sense (Epistle, p.11); NRSV, DeSilva (Perseverance, pp.88–9), and Spicq (L’Épître, II, p.7) prefer the passive. 53. Attridge, Hebrews, p.42. 54. Op. Mund. 146; Plant. 50; Spec. Leg. 4.123. 55. Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.98. 56. Attridge, Hebrews, p.43. 1

46

Hebrews and Divine Speech

A ϸɸÁÌüÉ is an ‘impress’, ‘stamp’ or ‘representation’.57 The term ĨÈÇÊÌÚÊÀË originated in science and medicine (‘sediment’, ‘deposit’) and entered philosophical use through Stoicism, coming to mean the ‘actuality’, ‘fundamental reality’, ‘essence’, or ‘actual being’ of something.58 The term ĨÈÇÊÌÚÊÀË speaks here of the ‘reality’ of God,59 and the writer used the term ϸɸÁÌüÉ to convey the sense that Jesus is the ‘fully adequate representation’ of that divine ‘reality’.60 The force of the expression ϸɸÁÌüÉ ÌýË ĨÈÇÊÌÚʼÑË is that Jesus perfectly communicates and makes present the very being of God himself. Signi¿cant for the consideration of the theology of divine speech is the fact that Jesus’ agency is not simply that of a messenger; it is personal, even ontological. Jesus himself communicates the being of God.61 This sets him apart fundamentally from all other prophetic messengers. In v. 3 the writer comes to what is surely at the core of the theology of Hebrews, the death of Christ and his work in providing puri¿cation for sins.62 The writer’s allusion to Christ’s death at 2.3 in a passage about 57. BDAG, LS. For a detailed overview of ancient use of the term, see Williamson, Philo, pp.74–80. Philo uses the term mainly to speak of ‘impressions’ made in the soul by God or virtue (Williamson, Philo, p.80). Ǿe also describes the logos as the stamp of God’s seal on the rational human soul: ‘…our great Moses likened the fashion of the reasonable soul to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that dread Spirit, the Divine and Invisible One, signed and impressed by the seal of God, the stamp (ϸɸÁÌûÉ) of which is the Eternal Word’ (Philo, Plant. 18). However, ‘there is little fundamental similarity between this and anything in the Epistle’ (Williamson, Philo, 80). 58. Plotinus, Enn. 3.6.7.13; Josephus, Apion 1.1 (on the meaning here, see comments in H. Köster, ‘ĨÈĠÊ̸ÊÀË’, TDNT, VIII, p.583); Philo, Somn. 1.188. So, Köster, ‘ĨÈĠÊ̸ÊÀË’, pp.573–5; Attridge, Hebrews, p.44; BDAG. See also, R. E. Witt, ‘Hypostasis’, in Amicitiae Corolla (ed. H. G. Wood; London: University of London Press, 1933), p.343. 59. See Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.98, and Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.9, who suggests that the term implies that Jesus shares with the Father ‘une resemblance formelle et l’égalité’. Cf. Heb. 3.14 and 11.1. 60. Attridge, Hebrews, pp.43–4; so too, Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.13; Williamson, Philo, p.78. 61. Westcott, Epistle, p.9; Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.9. 62. The theme of redemption through Christ’s self-sacri¿ce ‘sera le theme le plus important de l’épître’ (Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.1; cf. Moffatt, Epistle, p.8). Structurally, the subject of Christ’s priestly offering in the heavenly sanctuary will be the centrepiece of the outstandingly long cycle of exposition that comprises the central core of Hebrews (5.1–10.39). The sufferings of Christ ‘outside the city gate’ (13.12) provide the historical backdrop to the offering Christ gives as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, effecting puri¿cation for his people (9.11-14). The death of Jesus is ‘presupposed’ here at 1.3 (Koester, Hebrews, p.188; see his further comments). 1

2. Hebrews 1.1-4

47

God’s speech in the Son is signi¿cant. In this context, the Son’s accomplishment in providing puri¿cation for sins is presented as part of his revelatory work.63 Notable in this connection is the statement in 12.24 that the addressees have come ‘to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel’. Here the blood of Christ is said to ‘speak’ (¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ). In the prologue his death is similarly considered part of the way in which God spoke (¸ÂûʸË, 1.1) in him. Having introduced God’s ¿nal speech through the Son as of primary importance to his purpose at 1.1-2, the writer then never explicitly quotes any words from the teaching ministry of Jesus.64 The writer understands God’s speaking through Jesus not as an exclusively verbal event, but as a personal and historical one: ‘Dans le Christ, il ne parlera pas seulement en paroles, mais par toute la vie du Sauveur, notamment son incarnation et sa mort, humainement révélatrices de la charité divine’.65 Full consideration of this claim cannot be limited to the exegesis of these opening verses. However, the fact that the writer understands the blood of Jesus to speak (cf. 12.24) suggests the possibility that the event of his death is understood in a similar way in 1.3. And this, in turn, invites the reader to ask whether his exaltation to the ‘Majesty on high’ may be understood similarly, as a revelatory event. According to Koester, ‘Jesus’ death and resurrection are the fundamental moments of revelation for the author of Hebrews’.66 God does not speak through Jesus simply as his mouthpiece, but through all that he is and does. This observation makes greater sense of the writer’s insistence that Christ is ‘the reÀection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being’. God’s revelation through the Son does not simply consist of God making facts about himself known through his divine spokesman, but of God revealing himself through the person and redemptive work of his Son. The ‘many and various’ ways in which God spoke by the (many) prophets are not to be disparaged, but they can only be a shadow of God’s decisive and complete communication of himself through the person and work of his Son.67 63. Koester, Hebrews, p.188. 64. The writer does, however, quote the words of Scripture as Jesus’ own words. See Attridge, Hebrews, p.24. 65. Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.4. 66. Koester, Hebrews, p.188. 67. ‘From now on the word of God reaches us in its fullness, because it has found its perfect form thanks to the incarnation of the Son of God… It follows that for us the word of God and the action of God are inseparably linked to the mediation of Christ. It is in Christ that God speaks to us…’ Vanhoye, Structure and Message, p.46. 1

48

Hebrews and Divine Speech

In vv. 3 and 4, the writer emphasises the Son’s authority through recalling the event of his exaltation. The Son ‘sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high’ (1.3c). The phrase ‘the majesty’ (ÌýË Ä¼º¸ÂÑÊįžË) is a periphrasis for God, and this section recalls the invitation to the Davidic prince to sit at the Lord’s right hand in Psalm 110.68 Here sitting at God’s right hand indicates honour and the right to share in his power.69 The picture of the great authority of the Son is rounded off in these verses by the declaration in 1.4 that the Son has become ‘as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs’. These words constitute a bridge to the theme that will be the focus of the remainder of Hebrews 1. It was commonly understood that the Law was mediated to Moses through angels (cf. 2.2), and thus they were seen as agents of God’s revelation. Having demonstrated the superiority of the Son over the prophets as God’s agent of revelation, the writer will seek next to establish the Son’s superiority over the angels as agents of that same revelation.70 2.3. Conclusions Hebrew 1.1-4 highlights ¿rst of all the primary importance of God’s speech to the concern of the writer. While af¿rming the essential continuity between God’s revelation ‘in the prophets’ and ‘in the Son’, he emphasises the greatness of the eschatological word spoken through the Son. He con¿rms the superiority of the Son as God’s spokesman through the Christology that he develops in these verses. The writer’s Christology draws upon Jewish Hellenistic speculation concerning logos and sophia. This Christology provides the framework for presenting the Son as the one whose person and work constitute God’s revelation of himself.

68. Bruce, Hebrews, pp.49–50. 69. Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.103; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.16. Cf. 1 Kgs 2.19; Pss. 16.8; 110.4-5; Acts 2.25. 70. Fuller discussion of the question of angels is reserved for the treatment of 2.1-4 in Chapter 3. 1

Chapter 3

HEBREWS 2.1-4: GOD’S SPOKEN SALVATION

This section stands at the end of the ¿rst cycle of exposition (1.5–2.4), an extended comparison of the angels and the Son as agents of God’s speech. In this ¿rst cycle of exposition, the writer substantiates his claim for the Son’s superiority by quoting a series of OT texts (1.5-13) which he applies to Christ and which highlight his exalted status. This present section begins with an exhortation (2.1) which follows on from the exempla and exposition that have preceded: ‘Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it’.1 The writer then uses an a fortiori argument to insist that if the ‘message delivered through angels’ (2.2) was authoritative, how much more so the message that he and the addressees have received. These verses develop Hebrews’ theology of God’s speech within the framework set out in 1.1-4.2 They reaf¿rm that the word in the Son stands in a relationship of both contrast and continuity with the word delivered in the old covenant; and they show that God’s word in the Son, which is transmitted through credible agents, is binding and demands a response. The ¿rst task in analysing these verses is to address the question of the angels and their role in the delivery of God’s word. 3.1. Who Are the ‘Angels’ and Why Are They Here? Traditionally, Óºº¼ÂÇË3 has been taken here to refer to the heavenly non-human messengers known to traditional Judaism and Christianity 1. The suggestion God’s speech in the Son requires greater attention is arresting and could be construed as undermining old covenant revelation. This may explain why three manuscripts omit 2.1 (0243, 1739, 1881). 2. On the strong points of contact between 1.1-4 and 2.1-4, see Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.49, and Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.134. 3. NA27 has here the genitive plural, ÒººñÂÑÅ; the variant (L) genitive singular, ÒººñÂÇÍ, might represent an attempt to harmonise this verse with Acts 7.38 (ļÌÛ ÌÇı ÒººñÂÇÍ).

50

Hebrews and Divine Speech

as ‘angels’, although its semantic range includes human messengers.4 A range of evidence from the OT,5 NT6 and non-canonical Jewish 4. See the extended treatment in BDAG. Silberman sees little evidence for a widespread Jewish tradition of angelic mediation of the Law and argues (on the basis of W. D. Davies’s revised reading of Josephus and his own study of 11Q5 151) that Óºº¼ÂÇË can refer to a prophet rather than an angel. He maintains that Óºº¼ÂÇË in Heb. 2.2 plays the same role in the structure of the argument as ÈÉÇÎûÌ¾Ë in 1.1, and on that basis concludes that Óºº¼ÂÇË in Heb. 2.2 signi¿es ‘prophet’ (L. H. Silberman, ‘Prophets/Angels: LXX and Qumran Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Standing Before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays [ed. Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell; New York: KTAV, 1981], pp.91–9; cf. W. D. Davies, ‘A Note on Josephus, Antiquities 15.136’, HTR 47 [1954], pp.135–40). The text at the centre of this discussion is Josephus Ant. 15.136b, which links the reception of ‘the holiest of our laws’ to ÒººñÂÑÅ ‘sent by God’. Davies suggests that the reference here ‘may be to prophets’, not angels (‘Josephus’, pp.135–9; so too, Marcus’s note ad loc. in the Loeb edition of Josephus, Ant. 15.66-67). This position receives some support in that the fragment of Hecataeus of Abdera preserved in Diodorus Siculus (at Hist. 40.3.5) uses the term Óºº¼ÂÇË to refer to the high priest, in particular as he performs a prophetic function (as noted in F. R. Walton, ‘The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera’, HTR 48 [1955], p.255). For an opposing view to that of Davies, see A. J. Bandstra, ‘The Law and Angels: Antiquities 15.136 and Galatians 3:19’, CTJ 24.2 (1989), pp.223–40; see also the alternative reading in J. Jeremias, ‘ľÍÊýË’, in TDNT, IV, p.866. Ultimately, the evidence from Josephus is not clear, nor is it decisive for the interpretation of Heb. 2.2. As noted below, there is considerable evidence from other sources for a traditional association between angels and the giving of the Law. 5. While the accounts of the giving of the law in Exod. 19 and 20 do not mention angels, Deut. 33.2 LXX adds to its brief mention of the giving of the law that ‘angels were with him (Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ļÌφ ¸ĤÌÇı)’. Deut. 33.2 MT is dif¿cult to vocalise and decipher, and questions are raised about elements of its textual reliability (see discussions in B. Margulis, ‘Gen. XLIX 10/Deut. XXXIII 2-3: A New Look at Old Problems’, VT 19 [1969], pp.205–10; D. L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [WBC 6B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002], pp.832–3, 836; for a construal and pointing of the Hebrew that gives an equivalent reading to the LXX, see BHS on this verse, n.d-d). Most commentaries reject the LXX reading as not reÀecting an original, but where it is followed it is ‘admittedly conjectural’ (J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy [Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Leicester: Apollos, 2002], p.465). It seems likely, in any case, that the LXX rendering of this verse contributed to the belief that the angels were involved in the giving of the law (S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [3d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902], pp.392–3). 6. Cf. Gal. 3.19; Acts 7.38, 53. Fletcher-Louis has proposed that ¼ĊË »À¸Ì¸ºÛË ÒººñÂÑÅ in Acts 7.53 refers not to the law ‘as ordained by angels’, but to ‘an angelic constitution’ that was intended to be received by an angelomorphic righteous human community (C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke–Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology [WUNT II/94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997], pp.98–107). While this proposal is 1

3. Hebrews 2.1-4

51

literature7 clearly indicates the existence of a tradition associating angels with the giving of the Law. The designation of ÒººñÂÑÅ as ¼ÀÌÇÍɺÀÁÛ Èżįĸ̸ in Heb. 1.14 ‘could hardly be used of prophets’8 and makes most sense if referring to angels, as does the whole of 1.5-14. ‘The angels, in comparison with Jesus, thus stand representatively as the mediators of the Law and then for the covenant of which the Law forms such a central part.’9 Why, then, does the writer highlight angels and their role in the giving of the Law? It has been suggested that the writer intends to counteract a tendency amongst the readers to worship angels,10 or that he is speci¿cally opposing an angel Christology,11 but Hebrews gives no indication potentially convincing for Acts 7.53 in isolation, it is undermined by the fact that Acts 7.38 (a verse which is not examined in Fletcher-Louis’ monograph) speaks clearly of the presence and active mediation of an angel at the event of the giving of the law at Sinai. Acts 7.38 and 7.53 are generally held to af¿rm the active role of angels (or an angel) in the giving of the Torah (so, Barrett, Acts I, pp.366, 377; C. S. C. Williams, The Acts of the Apostles [London: A. & C. Black, 1964], pp.108–9) as is Gal. 3.19 (so J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993], p.191; T. Callan, ‘Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical Background of Gal 3:19b’, JBL 99.4 [1980], pp.549ff.; R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], pp.160–1). 7. Jub. 1.27, 29; 2.1; 6.22; 30.12, 21; 50.1-2, 6, 13; Josephus, Ant. 15.136 (but see earlier discussion). Rabbinic sources also show evidence of this tradition (these are adumbrated by Strack-Billerbeck). However, Silberman argues that, of the rabbinic sources cited by Strack-Billerbeck, most only point to the presence of angels at the giving of the law, and the one text that does seem to indicate angelic mediation of the law dates from the third century AD (Silberman, ‘Prophets/Angels’, pp.95–9). 8. Fletcher-Louis, Angels, p.104 n.357. 9. Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.8. 10. Manson, ‘Problem’, pp.11–13. Stuckenbruck’s study of the veneration of angelic beings in post-biblical Judaism surveys a number of key texts (including T. Levi 5.5-6; Tob. 11.14; 11Q14; 4Q400; 4Q403, and Ps.-Philo 15.6) and concludes that ‘[e]ven where the venerative language towards angelic beings is allowed, the authors ensure that it does not come at the price of reÀection and focus on God. The logical tension remains, but the uniqueness of God continues to be asserted against any other possibility’ (L. T. Stuckenbruck, ‘ “Angels” and “God”: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism’, in Stuckenbruck and North, eds., Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, p.69). Gleason offers a variation of Manson’s veneration theory and proposes (in light of the ‘denial of angelic rule in the world to come’ in 2.5) that the writer wishes to ‘caution the readers against a popular hope in angels for national deliverance and personal help’ (Gleason, ‘Angels’, p.91 and passim). 11. A. Bakker, ‘Christ an Angel?’, ZNW 32 (1933), pp.258–65; M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, ‘11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’, NTS 12 1

52

Hebrews and Divine Speech

that either of these was a concern.12 More plausibly, Bauckham suggests that the angels present a ¿xed point of recognisable authority and dignity from which the Son can be distinguished ontologically.13 The clearest indication from the context in Hebrews is that the writer wishes to distinguish the Son from the angels as a greater agent in delivering the divine message (the treatment of angels is framed by discussion of divine speech in 1.1-2 and 2.1-4).14 He assumes that his addressees will take for granted the authoritative character of the old covenant revelation, and he seeks to impress upon them the fact that the message spoken by the Son (‘through the Lord’, 2.3b15) is even more weighty. Since the authority of the Law rested, in part, on its delivery through authoritative agents, the writer seeks to demonstrate that the Son is more authoritative than the agents who delivered the Law. In 1.1 he began the discussion with the prophets; by 1.4 his focus has shifted to the angels.16 Although this involves a shift in subject, it implies no change of category within the purposes of the writer’s argument: ‘The angels in v 4 are the counterpart to the prophets in v 1’.17

(1965–66), pp.314–18; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp.244–5. 12. So Bauckham, ‘Monotheism’, p.171; Attridge, Hebrews, pp.51–2. Bauckham rightly notes, ‘The New Testament writers engage in explicit polemic frequently enough for the question to be appropriate: why should the allegedly implicit polemic not have been made explicit? Moreover, the alleged polemic in this case bears no relation to the concerns of the rest of Hebrews, and, in the case of angel Christology, there is very little evidence of its existence in the period…from which Hebrews must date’ (Bauckham, ‘Monotheism’, p.171). 13. Bauckham, ‘Monotheism’, pp.172–3; similarly, L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Eerdmans, 2003), p.499. 14. Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.7–8. 15. The constructions ëÂÚ¾ʼŠ÷ÄėÅ ëÅ ÍĎŊ (1.2a) and ¸¼ėÊ¿¸À »ÀÛ ÌÇı ÁÍÉĕÇÍ (2.3b) function as essential equivalents for expressing the agency of the Son in delivering God’s speech. The passive (¸¼ėÊ¿¸À) emphasises the action of God in speaking through Christ. So Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.141. 16. The decision to continue the development of the theme of Christ’s supremacy as an agent of revelation with reference to angels rather than to the prophets makes sense in light of the relevant material the Psalms provide for a general comparison between the status of the Son and the status of angels. Such compressed and readymade scriptural support for a comparison between the Son and the prophets would have been less readily available. 17. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.17. 1

3. Hebrews 2.1-4

53

3.2. Contrast and Continuity: The ‘Dialectic’ Reaf¿rmed The analysis now turns to consider the contribution of 2.1-4 to Hebrews’ broader theology of divine speech. These verses reaf¿rm the framework for the relationship between the two forms of God’s speech established in 1.1-4; the ‘dialectic’ of contrast and continuity is maintained and built upon through an a fortiori argument.18 The primary thread of continuity is that both forms of address are presented in the divine passive as God’s speech.19 The ‘message declared through angels’ (ĝ »Àφ ÒººñÂÑŠ¸¾¿¼ĖË ÂĠºÇË, 2.2a) and ‘so great a salvation’ (̾ÂÀÁ¸įÌ¾Ë ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Ë, 2.3a) are set in parallel. Given the traditional association between angels and the giving of the Law, the speci¿c referent of the ÂĠºÇË spoken through the angels appears to be the Torah and its delivery at Sinai.20 The ‘so great a salvation’ refers to the message spoken in the Son (cf. 1.2a), a message ‘declared at ¿rst through the Lord’, and then heard by others and passed on (2.3b). The message that the present addressees have received is set in parallel to that delivered through angels and is identi¿ed in two ways: as ÌÇėË ÒÁÇÍÊ¿¼ėÊÀÅ (2.1) and (more surprising for a verbal communication) as ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Ë (2.3b).21 While the context (especially the parallel between ÂĠºÇË in 2.2a and ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Ë in 2.2b) suggests that ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Ë is a message to be heard, the author’s decision to characterise that message as ‘salvation’ points beyond the message to its effect. The writer’s use of ‘salvation’ language (Êļ½Ñ and ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸) elsewhere in Hebrews implies a substantial and experiential (as opposed to a merely 18. Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.8. 19. Indeed, it is this primary thread of continuity that provides the basis for the a fortiori argument and exhortation of these verses: ‘Konstitutiv für die Paränese 2,1-4 sind nicht die Unterschiede zwischen Gottes Offenbarung “damals” und “heute”, sondern gerade die Gemeinsamkeiten: Es ist ein und derselbe Gott…gesprochen hat…’ (Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.50; see also O’Brien, Hebrews, p.88 n.40; Cockerill, Hebrews, pp.122–3) 20. As the analysis will show below, much of the language of v. 2 is legal in character. This feature of v. 2 serves to con¿rm ‘that “the message declared by the angels” signi¿es the law delivered at Sinai’ (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.37). Arguably, the writer prefers ÂĠºÇË here to ÅĠÄÇË (which he will use at 7.11-19 and 8.4-6) because ÅĠÄÇË would not readily recall mention of the prophets in 1.1, and he intends to continue ‘the motif of God’s speech begun in the exordium’ (Attridge, Hebrews, p.64). 21. ‘What was delivered by the Son is characterized not as “a word”, but as “such a great salvation”… But this salvation is “spoken”, suggesting that the new word of God has salvi¿c effect’ (Attridge, Hebrews, p.66). According to Ellingworth, ‘…the rest of the sentence suggests that ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸, like ÂĠºÇË, is something “spoken” ’ (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.139). 1

54

Hebrews and Divine Speech

conceptual) understanding of its implications (cf. 1.14; 2.10; 5.7, 9; 6.9; 7.25; 9.28; 11.7). This salvation is eschatological in its focus;22 the word in the Son is spoken in the eschatological age (ëÈφ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ ÌÇįÌÑÅ, 1.2a), and ‘salvation’ language often has a clearly eschatological signi¿cance in Hebrews (cf. 5.9; 6.9; 7.25; 9.28). The Lord’s message carries with it ‘salvation’,23 but those who ignore or reject this salvation will ¿nd it impossible to escape (ëÁμÍÆĠļ¿¸, 2.3a) God’s judgment.24 ‘Therefore’, the writer concludes, ‘we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it’ (2.1). The use of an a fortiori25 argument here (a type of argument commonplace for Greek writers26 and rabbinic exegetes27) reinforces the dynamic of both continuity and contrast between the two forms of address. The validity of the message declared by angels is assumed and forms the ¿rm starting point (2.2a). The writer’s aim is to convince the addressees that the new delivery of God’s word through the Son is even more authoritative, and therefore the threat of punishment is all the more serious: ‘…how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?’ (2.3a). However, he relies on two bodies of evidence to establish the greater degree of the authority 22. So Attridge, Hebrews, p.66; A. Vanhoye, Situation du Christ: épître aux hébreux 1 et 2 (LD 58; Paris: Cerf, 1969), pp.239–41; Grässer, ‘Das Heil’, pp.262–3. 23. ‘Für den Verfasser des Hebr hängen Gottes Sprechen bzw. Gottes Wort und das Heil aufs engste zusammen, sie sind jedoch nicht gleichzusetzen. Vielmehr gilt: Gottes Sprechen birgt die Heilsmöglichkeit in sich…’ Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.51; so too Grässer, Hebräer I, p.50, and ‘Das Heil’, pp.270–1. 24. Cf. the clearly eschatological use of this verb in 12.25. The implied meaning in 2.3a is ‘how shall we escape from God’s punishment?’ Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.139. 25. Attridge (Hebrews, p.47) identi¿es a fortiori arguments in Hebrews at 1.4; 2.2-3; 3.5-6; 7.20-23; 9.13-14, and 10.20-25. An a fortiori argument assumes an intrinsic parallel between two facts; while the veracity of one of these is assumed by all parties (or, the writer takes it to be assumed), the second needs to be established. The argument generally begins with the commonly assumed fact (usually the fact of lesser signi¿cance), and on the basis of this assumed fact, moves on to establish the second fact, which is in question (and usually of greater import). The logic of a fortiori arguments insists that if a lesser and commonly accepted fact is true, then its parallel and more signi¿cant fact must also be true, and the implications of the latter are taken to be all the more weighty. 26. Cf. Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 88; Sobr. 3; Cicero, De Or. 2.40.170; Aristotle, Rhet. 2.23 (1397b12). 27. On rabbinic exegetical techniques, see D. Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), pp.17–23, 226–31. See also the cautions concerning the uncritical acceptance of the middot as reliable summaries of rabbinic techniques in Docherty, Old Testament, pp.88–90 and passim. 1

3. Hebrews 2.1-4

55

of this message of salvation: the scriptural evidence demonstrating the greater dignity of the Son than that of the angels (1.5-13), and the evidence of the reliability of the transmission of the message (2.3b-4). This a fortiori argument rests upon both continuity and contrast between the angelic agency and that of the Son.28 The comparison assumes as its starting point the shared character of angels and Son as true agents of God’s speech. The difference of degree between them (the ultimate thrust of the argument) reaf¿rms contrast between the two. 3.3. The Binding Force of God’s Word The essential continuity in Hebrews between the word of God in the Torah and the word of God in the Son is demonstrated by the fact that the writer presents both forms of God’s address as making similar demands upon the recipients.29 This onus on the recipient to respond appears to be cast in a legal framework in the present passage; much of the language is legal in character, and there is a de¿nite sense that the delivery of God’s word is an event with legal implications. The lexical range of ‘binding’ (¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË, 2.2a) includes ‘reliable’, ‘abiding’ and ‘valid’.30 In both Greek and Jewish use, ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË could refer to a legal guarantee and con¿rmation (often in the context of a commercial sale).31 Greek evidence from Attica and Egypt point to a well-de¿ned legal meaning: the ‘guarantee’ or ‘safe-guarding of a bargain’.32 A related legal sense is found in the LXX at Lev. 25.2333 and in Wis. 6.18.34 ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË and its cognates35 appear a number of times in Hebrews: at 3.14 ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË 28. ‘The differences…are matters of dignity and degree, not in terms of essential quality… [I]t is in either case the same Word making the same kinds of demand upon those who are its recipients.’ Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.8. 29. Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.8, 11. 30. BDAG. It can be used with ÂĠºÇË to refer to a ¿rm and well-grounded ÂĠºÇË and, in particular, to a message con¿rmed by historical events (see 2 Pet. 1.19; H. Schlier, ‘¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË’, in TNDT, I, p 602; see also, p.600). 31. Schlier, ‘¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË’, p.602. 32. G. A. Deissmann, Bible Studies (trans. Alexander Grieve; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), p.104. 33. Here it is recorded that the Israelites could not sell any of their land ¼ĊË ¹¼¹ûÑÊÀÅ. ‘A sale ¼ĊË ¹¼¹ûÑÊÀÅ is a de¿nite, legally guaranteed sale: mere sojourners could not, of course, sell the land which they held only in tenure,—least of all ¼ĊË ¹¼¹ûÑÊÀÅ’. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p.106. 34. In this case, keeping the laws of wisdom is the ¹¼¹¸ĕÑÊÀË (‘legal guarantee’) of incorruption. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p.107. 35. ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË, ¹¼¹¸ĕÑÊÀË, and ¹¼¹¸ÀÇıÅ are all closely related in meaning. Schlier, ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË, p.601. 1

56

Hebrews and Divine Speech

refers to a ¿rm commitment to the Christian confession until the ‘end’; at 6.19 it refers to the ¿rm or steadfast anchor that the Christian hope is for the soul;36 at 9.17 it has a more clearly legal sense where it refers to a will or testament which becomes binding at the time of death; similarly, at 6.16 ¹¼¹¸ĕÑÊÀË refers to an oath given as a ‘guarantee’.37 In light of the writer’s use of other legal terms in the passage (ìÅ»ÀÁÇË, ë¹¼¹¸Àļ¿¾, ÊÍżÈÀĸÉÌÍÉÇıÅÌÇË),38 it seems right to conclude that ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË carries this legal connotation here in 2.2.39 The use of ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË and its cognates in 2.2-4 shows that ‘preaching the Gospel is a kind of legal act’.40 Those who disregarded the ‘binding’ angelic word, we are told, received a ‘just penalty’ (ìÅ»ÀÁÇÅ ÄÀÊ¿¸ÈÇ»ÇÊĕ¸Å, 2.2c).41 The term ìÅ»ÀÁÇÅ appears in a legal context in Plato with the sense ‘legally valid’.42 Only in one other place in the NT does the term refer to a ¿tting punishment,43 but the context in Heb. 2.2 suggests a legal understanding of the term so that it signi¿es a ‘¿tting’ or ‘just’ punishment. According to the logic of Hebrews, it is entirely ‘just’ (ìÅ»ÀÁÇË) to punish recipients for failing to heed a word that was ‘valid’ (¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË).44 Listening to the message obliges the hearer to respond. However, within the logic of these verses, God not only obliges his hearers to 36. Although the image of the anchor (to which ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË is tied in 6.19) is not legal in character, the discussion of God’s oath, of which the anchor image forms a part, is a discussion with strong legal overtones. See the discussion of that passage in Chapter 6. 37. Deissmann interprets the term here in light of its use in the Attic jurisprudence and understands it to mean a legal guarantee. He goes so far as to suggest that Hebrews as a whole is ‘permeated by juristic expressions’. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p.107. 38. Attridge, Hebrews, p.65. 39. So Spicq (L’Épître, II, p.26), but contra Schlier, who maintains that the meaning of ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË in Heb. 2.2 is equivalent to its meaning in 2 Pet. 1.19: ‘The ÂĠºÇË proves its “certainty” and “foundation” by its ef¿cacy. It is ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË, not as perspicacious, but as actual, effective and forceful’ (Schlier, ‘¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË’, p.602). 40. Schlier, ‘¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË’, p.603. 41. Presumably this refers to the refusal of entry into God’s promised rest, as outlined in the quotation from Ps. 95 in Heb. 3.7-10. 42. So, for instance, Plato (Leg. 11.915D) advises that, in the case of a property dispute, the current holder of the property should refer the matter to the individual who transferred or sold the property to him in some ‘valid’ (ìÅ»ÀÁÇÅ) way. 43. In Rom. 3.8 Paul says of those who misrepresent his presentation of the Gospel and Christian behaviour, ĻÅ Ìġ ÁÉĕĸ ìÅ»ÀÁĠÅ ëÊÌÀÅ (‘Their condemnation is deserved!’). 44. Thompson notes that the a fortiori arguments of 10.26-31 and 12.25-29 follow similar lines to this argument and highlight the consequences of failing to respond rightly to God’s word. Thompson, Hebrews, p.49. 1

3. Hebrews 2.1-4

57

respond to his ‘valid’ revelation, but he also binds himself to what he has said. That is, the transmission of a ‘binding’ word brings legal obligation both to God as speaker and to his human hearers. The substance of God’s commitment is summarised brieÀy here as making available ‘so great a salvation’; later it will be characterised as ‘promise’ and ‘oath’.45 The ‘salvation’ (ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Ë, 2.3a), which is the word spoken in the Son, has been ‘attested’ (ë¹¼¹¸Àļ¿¾, 2.3c) to the addressees (a delivery that carries legal force, as argued above), and it is further con¿rmed by God in a legal context: ‘God added his testimony’ (ÊÍżÈÀĸÉÌÍÉÇıÅÌÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı, 2.4a) by means of ‘signs and wonders and various miracles…’ (2.4).46 The verb ÊÍżÈÀĸÉÌÍÉñÑ can have a general sense of con¿rming the truth of something,47 but the context here in Hebrews indicates that the term should be taken in its ‘quasi-technical’ and legal sense as meaning to ‘attest’.48 The writer views the delivery of the divine word as an event with legal force and legal implications, binding God to ful¿l his spoken commitments and requiring an appropriate response from the hearers (as demonstrated by the warning of just punishment for failure to respond). The burden of responsibility of hearers of the word in the Son is all the greater due to the greater dignity of the Son. 3.4. The Credible Agents by Whom God’s Word is Delivered The writer buttresses his claim for the gravity of the ‘salvation’ message by laying out in detail the credible agency by which the divine message was ¿rst delivered and then transmitted to him and his addressees. There are three components to this process: (1) ‘it was declared at ¿rst through the Lord’ (2.3b), (2) ‘it was attested to us by those who heard him’ (2.3c), and (3) ‘God added his testimony’ (2.4a). The rather awkward ÒÉÏüŠ¸¹oıʸ ¸¼ėÊ¿¸À (2.3b) speaks of the original proclamation of 45. Cf. especially 6.13-20 and the discussion of those verses in Chapter 6. In this passage, nautical imagery (cf. 2.1b) will re-emerge, as will the term ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË, which will describe the certainty of the hope that arises from God’s oath (6.19). See Thompson (Hebrews, p.50) for further discussion of nautical language and the relationship between 2.1-4 and ch. 6. 46. Mk 16.20 appears to use ¹¼¹¸ÀĠÑ in a very similar way to the way in which the writer of Hebrews here uses ÊÍżÈÀĸÉÌÍÉñÑ: the disciples went out to proclaim the Gospel, and the Lord worked with them, and ‘con¿rmed the message by the signs that accompanied it’ (ÌġÅ ÂĠºÇÅ ¹¼¹¸ÀÇÍϗÅÌÇË »ÀÛ ÌÑϗÅ ëȸÁÇÂÇÍ¿ÇįÅÌÑŠʾļĕÑÅ). 47. As, for example, in Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.123. H. Strathmann, ‘ÄÚÉÌÍË’, in TDNT, IV, p.510. 48. Attridge, Hebrews, p.67 n.59. 1

58

Hebrews and Divine Speech

the salvation message. The designation of this message as having been spoken ‘by the Lord’ (»ÀÛ ÌÇı ÁÍÉĕÇÍ, 2.3b) indicates that Jesus is the agent of that speech,49 not least because the title ‘Lord’ has already been used to refer to Jesus in the Psalm citation in 1.10. It is dif¿cult to establish an exact point in the life of Jesus or a particular element of his teaching that is in view here as the initiation of the message. However, in light of the all-encompassing picture of God’s speech in the Son in 1.1-4, it seems that all that Jesus says and does is in view (rather than, for example, his teaching ministry exclusively).50 Moreover, since the writer speaks of the reception not simply of a message but of ‘salvation’, it makes sense to see here reference not simply to the words of Jesus but also to his actions, which the writer presents as the effective source of salvation (cf. especially 5.8-9). Having originated with Christ, this message ‘was attested to us (¼ĊË ÷ÄÜË ë¹¼¹¸Àļ¿¾) by those who heard him’ (2.3b).51 Apart from the basic observation that ‘those who heard him’ were reported to have had direct 49. So Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.27; Attridge, Hebrews, p.66; Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.52–6. The writer appears, on one level, to distinguish ‘the Lord’ (2.3b) who ¿rst delivered the ‘salvation’ message and ‘God’ who ‘added his testimony’ (2.4a). Nonetheless, given the exalted picture of the Son that the writer has painted in ch. 1 (applying to him the titles ‘God’, at 1.8b, and ‘Lord’, at 1.10a), the divine claim implied by the use of the name ‘Lord’ for the Son at 2.3b is surely not unintended. The argument of 2.1-4 stands in parallel with the similar comparative arguments of 1.1-4 and 3.1-6; in both those passages, Jesus is contrasted with another agent of revelation, so it makes sense that Jesus should be the one contrasted with the angels here (Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.55–6). As noted already, the passive in¿nitive ¸¼ėÊ¿¸À should be seen as a divine passive, indicating that God is the ultimate speaker of the salvation word spoken through the agency of ‘the Lord’ (Jesus). 50. ‘Basic to the designation of Jesus as Lord (ÁįÉÀÇË)…is the writer’s conception of the unity of word and deed in Jesus’ ministry… He embodied the word of God and accomplished it. The Son is the eschatological event of salvation (cf. 1:2)’ (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.39; cf. Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.27). On the historical and incarnational character of God’s speech in Christ according to Hebrews, see Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.58–61. 51. The writer makes it clear that both he and his addressees have received the message (2.1a), and both he and they are in danger of failing to continue to respond properly (2.1b). In terms of his contact with the Lord and his message, the writer places himself on the same level as the rest of the community he addresses (see also 1.2). His authority for exhorting himself and the addressees to respond rightly to the message at 2.1 appears to be based, not on a special apostolic authority, but on the authority of the message itself. This is unlike Paul, who typically grounds his authority in his apostolic status (cf. Rom. 1.1; 1 Cor. 1.1, 17; 2 Cor. 1.1; Gal. 1; Eph. 1.1; Phil. 1.1; etc.). Although note that the writer does later identify himself among the authoritative leaders of the community; see 13.17-18 and discussion in Chapter 9. 1

3. Hebrews 2.1-4

59

contact with the Lord, the writer says virtually nothing else about them.52 They may be the same ‘leaders’ mentioned in 13.7 (‘those who spoke the word of God to you’)53 and the original founders of the church to which Hebrews is addressed. Particularly striking (at least to the modern interpreter) is the absence of any discussion of whether these ¿gures were apostles. The question of apostolicity does not appear to be in the forefront of the writer’s mind; the designation ‘apostle’ is applied to Jesus alone (3.1).54 These messengers were authoritative because they had heard the message from the Lord, and thus the message was ‘attested’ (ë¹¼¹¸Àļ¿¾, 2.3) by them.55 The eyewitness ‘validity’ of the message means that there is a corresponding legal obligation to respond to it. But there is a sense, too, in which this authoritative communication of the message also enables the required response. Spicq rightly suggests that ¹¼¹¸ÀĠÑ in 2.3b imports not only its legal meaning of ‘attest’, but also the sense ‘accomplir, effectuer’.56 Such an understanding of ¹¼¹¸ÀĠÑ is found in the papyri and probably at Rom. 15.8 and 1 Cor. 1.6.57 In the opening verses of

52. The text does not specify absolutely the implied object of ÌÑࡏÅ ÒÁÇÍÊÚÅÌÑÅ; the author could mean ‘those who heard him’ (i.e. the Lord), or ‘those who heard it’ (i.e. the salvation message). Two considerations support the former suggestion. First, the direct proximity and lack of grammatical break between ‘the Lord’ and ‘those who heard him’: ‘…¸¼ėÊ¿¸À »ÀÛ ÌÇı ÁÍÉĕÇÍ ĨÈġ ÌľÅ ÒÁÇÍÊÚÅÌÑÅ ¼ĊË ÷ÄÜË ë¹¼¹¸Àļ¿¾…’ (2.3b). Second, the writer’s concern to establish the legal ‘validity’ of the message these ¿rst hearers pass on would suggest that his aim is to highlight the fact that they received the message directly from the source of ultimate reliability and authority, the Lord himself. 53. If it is correct to identify those in 2.3 who convey the message from the Lord with the leaders of 13.7, it is then interesting to note that these Christian leaders are described in 13.7 as bringing to the Hebrews the ÂĠºÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı (presumably the message of Christ), whereas in 2.2 ÂĠºÇË refers to the OT message delivered through angels. 54. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.39. 55. It has already been noted that this verb (along with the related adjective ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË) is often used in legal contexts. The writer wishes to establish that the testimony of these eyewitnesses was suf¿cient to give a quasi-legal con¿rmation of the validity of the message. 56. Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.27; Ellingworth similarly identi¿es the combined signi¿cation ‘valid’ and ‘effective’ here, suggesting that the emphasis is on ‘the author’s purpose of securing his readers’ faith’ (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.138). 57. P. Oxy. 1119.17; Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.27; cf. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930), p.108. 1

60

Hebrews and Divine Speech

1 Corinthians Paul writes that he gives thanks to God for the Corinthians because of the grace of God that has been manifest in them in various respects (1 Cor. 1.4-7) and notes that in this ‘the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you (ë¹¼¹¸Àļ¿¾ ëÅ ĨÄėÅ)’ (v. 6). Here, Paul’s focus is not merely on the transmission of the testimony, but on its effects in the lives of the Corinthians.58 An effective and not merely legal understanding of ¹¼¹¸ÀĠÑ in Heb. 2.3b corresponds with the writer’s broader presentation of the ‘salvation’ that was ‘received’. Reception of this ‘salvation’ goes far beyond intellectual assent; when received it effects change within its hearers and in their eschatological standing before God. If the testimony of eyewitnesses alone was not suf¿cient to impress upon the addressees the gravity of the message they received, then they should take note that God himself added his testimony to that of the eyewitnesses (ÊÍżÈÀĸÉÌÇÍÉÇıÅÌÇË59 ÌÇı ¿¼Çı, 2.4a) through various extraordinary means. The reference to ‘signs and wonders and various miracles’ (ʾļĊÇÀË Ì¼ Á¸Ė ÌñɸÊÀÅ Á¸Ė ÈÇÀÁĕ¸ÀË »ÍÅÚļÊÀÅ, 2.4) mirrors Peter’s message to the crowd about Jesus directly after Pentecost in Acts 2.22: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs (»ÍÅÚļÊÀ Á¸Ė ÌñɸÊÀ Á¸Ė ʾļĕÇÀË) that God did through him among you’. In light of this close parallel, and Peter’s evident reference to the miracles of Jesus’ ministry here,60 the immediate referent in Hebrews may be the same. The writer’s further mention of ‘gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to his will’ (2.4b) is unsurprisingly reminiscent of the events of Pentecost and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the assembled crowd in Acts 2.1-13. The distribution of the Spirit along with God’s works of power set God’s own seal on the message transmitted, demonstrating that the message was valid and must be heeded.

58. ‘[T]he truth of the preaching is thus con¿rmed by the faith which it evokes…’ C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2d ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1971), p.38; so too Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), p.132. 59. Hap. leg.; cf. Philo, Vit. Mos. 2.123. Note the variant in B that reads ÊÍÄĸÉÌÍÉÇıÅÌÇË, presumably due to the unfamiliarity of ÊÍżÈÀĸÉÌÇÍÉÇıÅÌÇË. 60. Barrett, Acts I, p.141; Williams, Acts, p.68; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburgh, A. Thomas Kraabel and Donald H. Juel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), p.20. 1

3. Hebrews 2.1-4

61

3.5. Conclusions These verses reinforce the dialectic of continuity and contrast that frames all treatment of the theme of God’s word in Hebrews. Within this framework, which was initially established in 1.1-4, the writer adds two signi¿cant emphases here in 2.1-4: he af¿rms that the delivery and reception of God’s word is effective and binding, putting the recipient in a situation of obligatory response; he then demonstrates that, because God’s salvation word is delivered through such credible agency, it is inexcusable that anyone (he or they) should fail to heed it.

1

Excursus 2

THE TERM ÂĠºÇË AND ITS CONNECTION TO WORD PERSONALISATIONS IN OTHER ANCIENT LITERATURE

The examination of 1.1-4 in Chapter 2 found that the writer’s Christology was inÀuenced to some extent by Jewish word/wisdom personalisations. When considering 4.12-13 in Chapter 4 this study will evaluate the proposal that the term ÂĠºÇË identi¿es the person of Christ in 4.12. Because this investigation considers the possibility, ¿rst, that the writer of Hebrews presents Jesus as the personalised logos of God, and, second, that he uses the term ÂĠºÇË to refer to Christ in this connection, it will be useful to set the discussion in its broader context by elucidating brieÀy the backgrounds of such ‘word personalisations’, their development in other ancient literature, and their connection to the term ÂĠºÇË in that literature. In ancient literature ÂĠºÇË has a wide lexical range and does not regularly signify a personalised concept.1 However, versions of a logos concept were current in Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity in the writer’s time and were signi¿ed by the term ÂĠºÇË in a number of works.2 In the LXX, ÂĠºÇË often refers broadly to divine communication and regularly renders the Hebrew :.3 But the ÂĠºÇË is not simply a 1. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), p.265. 2. In his criticism of TDNT’s confusion of word and concept, Barr recognises that both word and concept can rightly be treated, but the problem of their relationship merits at least ‘some mention’. He chastises Kittel for his lack of clarity: ‘his preface is so vague about this sort of thing that one feels he never thought about linguistic problems with suf¿cient precision to formulate the problem’ (Barr, Semantics, p.207). 3. But note that the LXX translators used both ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ to render the Hebrew :. Although they are not synonymous (LS suggests the following distinction in the literature it treats: ÂĠºÇË can refer both to an inward thought and to its outward expression, but ģýĸ refers only to the outward expression, the spoken word), ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ were often employed as close equivalents. This is evident in examples of the ‘word’ as an effective cause and as a vivid personi¿cation in the

Excursus 2

63

communication; it is often an ‘effective cause’ (Pss. 32.6 [33.6]; 106.20 [107.20]).4 In some cases in the LXX the ‘word’ takes on at least a hint of personal identity (Wis. 18.15-16),5 but whether it is possible to detect in the LXX a personalisation or hypostatisation of the word of God is a matter of ongoing debate.6 In classical Greek (as in NT Greek), ÂĠºÇË was a common word with a wide range of meaning, from ‘anything said…or written’, to ‘general principle, rule’ to ‘the faculty of reason’.7 Alongside this general use was an increasing specialist use of ÂĠºÇË. At the end of the sixth century BC, Heraclitus wrote that ‘all things happen in accordance with this [the] ÂĠºÇÅ’, suggesting that there was at least the foundation in his thought for the development of a concept of the logos (expressed by the Greek term ÂĠºÇË) as the universal principle of order.8 Plato (429–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) used ÂĠºÇË with a range of meaning, including LXX:

while Wis. 18.15 and Ps. 106.20 [107.20] speak of ÂĠºÇË, Isa. 55.11 employs ģýĸ in a similar way. Philo barely distinguishes between the two terms (Philo, Fug. 137; Leg. All. 3.169, 174-75; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, p.315 n.117). In Koine Greek, ģýĸ is little used. It is sometimes suggested that it is only used in early Christian documents to echo the style and vocabulary of the LXX. For the view that it was still deliberately employed for its own sake (for both its meaning and the literary style it served to achieve) in the ¿rst century AD, see the discussion in C. Burchard, ‘A Note on ‘RHMA in Josas 17:1 F.; Luke 2:15, 17; Acts 10:37’, NT 27.4 (1985), pp.281–95. 4. W. Barclay, New Testament Words (London: SCM Press, 1964), p.185. 5. Interesting for its conceptual proximity to this is LXX Isa. 55.11, where God says that his ‘word’ (here, ģýĸ rather than ÂĠºÇË) ‘shall not return until whatever I have willed is ful¿lled’. š in 6. See, for example, Dunn, Christology, pp.217–20; W. H. Schmidt, ‘:™ G’, TDNT, IV, pp.102–25, Chester, Messiah, pp.45–52, 366–8; L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: SCM Press, 1988), pp.42–50. 7. W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), pp.420–3. In broad terms, that range encompasses both ‘the word or outward form by which the inward thought is expressed’ and ‘the inward thought itself’ (LS). 8. Heraclitus, Frag. 2.3-4. Scholars have downplayed any specialist understanding of ÂĠºÇË in Heraclitus (T. F. Glasson, ‘Heraclitus’ Alleged Logos Doctrine’, JTS NS 3 [1952], pp.231–8; however, cf. Ed. L. Miller, ‘The Logos of Heraclitus: Updating the Report’, HTR 74.2 [1981], pp.161–76), insisting that neither later Stoic (W. H. S. Jones, ‘Introduction’, in Heracleitus, On the Universe [LCL 150; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979], pp.457–8) nor Christian (J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy [4th ed.; London: A. & C. Black, 1930], p.133 n.1) understandings of the term should be read back into early Greek philosophy. Guthrie, however, argues that in Heraclitus’ works there ‘is evidence that the Logos is both human thought and the governing principle of the Universe’ (Guthrie, Greek Philosophy, I, p.428). 1

64

Hebrews and Divine Speech

rational speech and rationality in general.9 However, neither of these philosophers appears to have developed a concept of logos as the principle of order in the universe.10 In Stoic thought (ca. mid-fourth to late third century BC), the cosmological understanding of logos found in embryonic form in Heraclitus was developed and became central: ‘For the Stoics, logos, God, and nature were in reality one… Logos was the rational element that pervades and controls all of the universe.’11 In Middle Platonism (ca. 80 BC to ca. AD 220) logos concepts played less of a central role in cosmology, and Middle Platonists followed the Greek philosophical tradition in using the term ÂĠºÇË primarily in the sense of rational discourse and rational thought.12 However, Middle Platonists also occasionally used a logos concept in a further sense. In their system, the divinity was divided into the transcendent aspect and the active demiurgic force, the latter being responsible for the ordering of the universe. Conceptions of this latter force varied considerably and developed over time, but in general terms, ‘Later Platonists adopted the Stoic Logos into their system as the active force of God in the world’.13 While Philo (ca. 20–15 BC to ca. AD 50)14 did make use of logos as the principle of order in the universe, his conception of logos tended toward the Middle Platonic pattern of logos as mediator between God and the universe.15 The logos functioned in a variety of ways in Philo’s thought: as the image of God and the closest being to him (even referring to the ÂĠºÇË as God’s ‘son’ and ‘¿rstborn’),16 as the intermediary between God and the universe, as the paradigm according to which the human mind was patterned, and as the guide for the human soul to the realm of the divine.17 The main concern that gave impetus to Philo’s logos speculation 9. For both these philosophers, ‘reason’ was denoted by ÅÇıË rather than ÂĠºÇË. E. Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist (JSNTSup 107; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 1994), p.197. 10. T. H. Tobin, ‘Logos’, in ABD, IV, p.348; although, cf. F. Debrunner, ‘ÂñºÑ’, in TDOT, I, pp.83–4. 11. Tobin, ‘Logos’, p.349. In general, the Stoics saw the logos as immanent throughout the cosmos, in line with their pantheistic concept of the divine (Harris, Prologue, p.197). 12. Tobin, ‘Logos’, p.349. 13. J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (London: Duckworth, 1977), p.46. 14. P. Borgen, ‘Philo of Alexandria’, in ABD, V, pp.333–4. 15. On Philo’s concept(s) of the logos, see Schenck, Philo, pp.58–62. 16. See Conf. Ling. 146; Somn. 1.215 (where ‘High Priest’, ‘First-born’ and ‘divine Word’ are equated); and Agr. 51 (where ‘His true Word and Firstborn Son’ are equated). 17. Tobin, ‘Logos’, pp.350–1. 1

Excursus 2

65

was, it seems, his belief in the transcendence of God.18 For him the logos made it possible for humans to know God indirectly, and so the logos often performed a variety of mediatorial functions.19 Presumably reÀecting this mediatorial function of the logos in his thought, Philo referred to the high priest as ÂĠºÇË on a number of occasions.20 This understanding of logos is probably the most popularly recognised impression of Philo’s logos (especially in NT study), and here his logos concept corresponds most closely with the advanced Christology of John’s Gospel, to take one key NT example. However, it is important to guard against overemphasising passages in Philo that point to logos as mediator, and consider the breadth of references to ÂĠºÇË in their context.21 The sheer volume of references to ÂĠºÇË in Philo’s works (some 1400),22 evincing a wide range of use and meaning, cautions against sweeping generalisations about Philo’s use of the personalised concept. Arguably much of the personalised logos conception of early Christianity and contemporary Judaism derives its conceptual basis from earlier wisdom speculation, as Bultmann demonstrates in the case of the prologue of John.23 Alongside the development of the concept of a personalised logos in the writings of Philo and others, it is necessary therefore to consider the development of the personalised concept of sophia. Perhaps the earliest suggestion of a coherent and independent (but not yet personal)24 existence for sophia in Jewish literature occurs in Job 28.12-28, where Job enquires concerning sophia’s origin, location, and the way to her. In Prov. 1.20-30, sophia is personi¿ed, exhorting passers-by to take heed of her warnings. Proverbs 8.22-31 again presents sophia as a personal ¿gure. She was the ¿rst of God’s creation (8.22-26; cf. Job 28.25-27) and helped him in the creative process (8.27-30). Again, the writer issues a promise of blessing to those who listen to her and a warning of loss to those who refuse (8.32-36).25 18. Williamson, Philo, pp.413–15. 19. See, e.g., Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 205. 20. Philo, Fug. 108; Rer. Div. Her. 185; Migr. Abr. 102; Gig. 52. 21. Dunn, Christology, pp.220–7. While Dunn’s caution on this point is accepted, his reading of Philo’s logos seems unduly minimalist: ‘the Logos seems to be nothing more for Philo than God himself in his approach to man, God himself insofar as he may be known by man’. Dunn, Christology, p.228. 22. Dunn, Christology, p.220. 23. R. Bultmann, ‘The History of Religions Background’ (trans. John Ashton), in The Interpretation of John (ed. John Ashton; London: SPCK, 1986), pp.20–7. 24. So, M. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup 71; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 1992), p.50; Dunn, Christology, p.168. 25. ‘Already in Proverbs…the Wisdom of God has ceased to be merely the quality of being wise; Wisdom has an independent existence in the presence of 1

66

Hebrews and Divine Speech

To see a Greek inÀuence here would seem to be anachronistic,26 but the development of the sophia concept in ancient Israel may well have occurred consciously against the backdrop of wisdom speculation in other religions, particularly Egyptian religion.27 The relationship between this ‘background’ and the passages mentioned in Job and Proverbs is not straightforwardly that of one borrowing from the other; indeed, it would be dif¿cult to pinpoint one non-Yahwistic text that stands behind any individual biblical text. More likely, the biblical material evinces, at least in part, a self-consciously Yahwistic response to non-Jewish wisdom concepts.28 In later Jewish literature, the personalisation of sophia becomes more widespread. Wisdom of Solomon presents sophia as ‘the fashioner of all things’ (7.22a), emanating from God and bearing his image (7.25-26) and performing a mediatory role between God and humans (7.27). Sirach 24 again presents wisdom as an act of God’s creation ‘before the ages’ (24.9); again sophia issues an invitation for others to come to her to receive wisdom. Signi¿cantly, Sirach identi¿es sophia with the Torah (24.23; cf. Bar. 4.1), a tendency that Rabbinic Judaism will continue and increase. Now against a background of Hellenism, it seems that these writers (see also 1 En. 42.2; 2 En. 30.8; Bar. 3.9–4.4) used sophia ‘to commend Judaism to the intelligent Gentile, and to reconcile the two types of thought by bringing the transcendent God and his activity into an immanent relationship with the world and its life’.29 In the works of some Jewish writers logos and sophia concepts are closely linked, even virtually identi¿ed with each other.30 Perhaps the God.’ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2d ed.; London: SPCK, 1978), p.153. 26. This, of course, depends partly on the dating of Proverbs and of Job. But, even with a relatively late date for their composition, a Greek inÀuence here would be questionable: ‘…one should be very careful in supposing that these earliest instances of a Jewish “wisdom speculation” [in Prov. 1–9 or Job] display Greek “inÀuences”, since in the Greek sphere “Sophia” appears as a divine, personal entity only at a relatively late stage. This was presumably under oriental and Gnostic inÀuence, and comes out more strongly in the Hermetica, in Plutarch and among the Neo-Platonists’ (M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism [trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1974], I, p.154). 27. On possible points of contact, see Dunn, Christology, pp.168–76; Scott, Sophia, pp.37–48; Hengel, Judaism, I, p.154. 28. See Dunn, Christology, p.169; Scott, Sophia, pp.44–6, 74–5, 77–80. 29. Harris, Prologue, p.198. 30. See Hurtado, Lord, p.366, esp. n.31; Chester, Messiah, p.50. Dey argues that in the writings of Philo and in the citations of Aristobulus and Wisdom of Solomon to which he refers, ÊÇÎĕ¸ is identi¿ed with ÂĠºÇË in such a way that the two terms are 1

Excursus 2

67

¿rst OT exegete to make this link was Aristobulus (second century BC). Collins draws attention to fragment 5, where Aristobulus associates ÊÇÎĕ¸ with the seventh day of creation, which he then associates with the sevenfold principle (ÂĠºÇË).31 Wisdom of Solomon (perhaps ¿rst century BC) makes a similar connection where ÊÇÎĕ¸ and ÂĠºÇË appear in parallel: ‘[you] made all things by your word (ÂĠºÑЗ), and by your wisdom (ÊÇÎĕ¸З) formed human beings’ (Wis. 9.1b-2a). The two are closely linked in Philo, for instance where he writes of ‘the Divine Word (ÂĠºÇÅ), Who is the fountain of Wisdom (ÊÇÎĕ¸Ë)’.32 Philo’s logos performs many of the functions in his writings that sophia had played in earlier Hellenistic Jewish writings,33 and he used the two words ÊÇÎĕ¸ and ÂĠºÇË as virtual synonyms.34 Finally, ÂĠºÇË in the NT. The term has the following semantic range in the NT: ‘a communication whereby the mind ¿nds expression’, ‘computation, reckoning’, and ‘the independent personi¿ed expression of God’.35 The majority of the 331 uses of ÂĠºÇË in the NT correspond generally with the ¿rst two categories. The term can signify: a statement (Lk. 20.20), a report or story (Mt. 28.15), an oracle or prophecy (Jn 2.22), a speech (Mt. 15.12), and reason (Acts 18.14). More speci¿cally, ÂĠºÇË is used in the NT as a designation for the Christian message (e.g. Gal. 6.6), often in a genitive construction: ‘the word of God’ (Acts 13.15), ‘the word of Christ’ (Col. 3.16), and ‘the word of the cross’ (1 Cor. 1.18).36 However, the personalised and explicitly christological use of ÂĠºÇË in the Johannine literature is exceptional. John’s Gospel names Jesus as ÂĠºÇË, and the presentation of Jesus in the prologue resonates to some extent with logos and sophia speculation within Hellenistic Judaism37 virtually interchangeable (L. K. K. Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews [SBLDS 25; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975], pp.8–13; so too W. L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity [The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1942; London: British Academy (Humphrey Milford), 1944], p.52). Harris goes so far as to say that ‘in Philo the Logos has displaced Wisdom’ (Harris, Prologue, p.199). 31. A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Aristobulus’, in OTP, II, p.835. 32. Philo, Fug. 97. 33. Barrett, St John, p.154. 34. Wolfson insists that for Philo ‘Wisdom…is only another word for Logos, and it is used in all the senses of the term Logos’. Wolfson, Philo, I, p.258. See also discussion in Schenck, Philo, pp.59–60. 35. BDAG 36. Tobin, ‘Logos’, p.351; Dunn, Christology, pp.241–5. 37. So Tobin, ‘Logos’, pp.353–5. However, Miller argues that John’s prologue (in his view, written after the rest of John’s Gospel and the First Epistle) represents a development of the logos Christology that was taking shape in the earlier Johannine 1

68

Hebrews and Divine Speech

(rather than within Hellenism more generally):38 in John’s Gospel ‘there is no doubt that Jesus is presented as Wisdom incarnate’.39 Elsewhere in the NT Christ is presented using motifs and vocabulary which suggest that word/wisdom motifs may have been active in the minds of the writers (see Col. 1.15-20; 2.2b-3; 1 Cor. 1.30; and possibly Mt. 11.19b/ Lk. 7.35b), but nowhere else is Christ unambiguously identi¿ed using the term ÂĠºÇË.40

literature. Miller believes that this Christology owes its background not to diffuse external inÀuences, but to the Johannine literature itself, and he thus rejects the various mainstream theories for the background and origin of this Christology (E. L. Miller, ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’, JBL 112.3 [1993], pp.445– 57). Even if Miller’s suggestion concerning the sequence of the composition of the Johannine literature were correct (which is by no means taken for granted), it would be dif¿cult to imagine that such a concept of a personal logos could develop purely in isolation. The strikingly specialised use of the word ÂĠºÇË at the outset of John’s prologue would seem almost inexplicable if the writer did not understand himself to be drawing upon a commonly known conceptual background that his readers could appreciate; such an expectation would be unreasonable if the concept grew purely from the latter sections of the Johannine corpus. 38. The observations of Hurtado are important: ‘The narrative world and conceptual categories of GJohn are thoroughly dependent upon (albeit interpretations of) biblical traditions, and the whole aim and issue in GJohn is to assert Jesus’ signi¿cance for, and in the light of, these traditions. There is no evidence that the author of GJohn had direct acquaintance with Greek philosophy… For by the time GJohn was written, devout Jews…had interacted with, and for more than three hundred years had creatively appropriated, Greek terms and categories…’ Hurtado, Lord, p.367. 39. J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom or Wisdom Incarnate?’, in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? (ed. Stephen C. Barton; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), p.77. 40. On word/wisdom christologies in the NT, see Dunn’s detailed discussion in Christology, pp.163–250. A key question, and one that is still a matter of ongoing debate, is the extent to which Jewish texts in the Second Temple period depicted logos or sophia as independent entities alongside God, or whether they simply understood them as vivid personi¿cations of divine attributes. Chester suggests that evidence from a range of texts (not least the portrayal of sophia as sharing God’s throne in Wis. 9.4, 9-10) indicates that Second Temple Judaism was able to accommodate some level of ontological independence for these intermediary ¿gures (Chester, Messiah, pp.45–52, 363–82; for a view that similar developments took place in rabbinic portrayals of memra, see D. Boyarin, ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’, HTR 94.3 [2001], pp.243–84). Hurtado, on the other hand, insists that such ¿gures are only ‘divine attributes’ and ‘were not thought of as real entities alongside God’ (Hurtado, One God, pp.42–50; see also Dunn, Christology, pp.217–30). 1

Chapter 4

HEBREWS 4.2-16: GOD’S LIVING WORD

The key term ÂĠºÇË appears three times in this section (4.2, 12 and 13), and Becker suggests that Heb. 4.12-13 ‘konstituieren…die ÂĠºÇËTheologie des Hebr’.1 These verses contain two cycles of exposition and exhortation, 4.2-11 and 4.12-16. The previous two cycles (3.4-13 and 3.14–4.1) took their cue from the narrative of Numbers 12–14, where the sin of the Israelites’ wilderness generation prevented their entry to the promised land.2 The Lord’s solemn declaration of Num. 14.20-23 that none of the adults of the wilderness generation would enter the land forms the backdrop to Ps. 95.7-11 (especially v. 11),3 which Hebrews quotes in full at 3.7-11, and in part at 3.15, 4.3 and 4.7. Throughout this section of Hebrews the writer sets himself and his addressees in a position parallel to that of the wilderness generation, as recipients of God’s promise and as hearers of God’s word. Like the wilderness generation, they have the opportunity to respond appropriately to that word and so enter God’s promised ‘rest’; but, like them, they face the danger of exclusion if they refuse to respond appropriately. 4.1. The ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË and the Promised Rest (4.2-11) Hebrews concludes the expositional cycle at 4.1 with the exhortation, ‘Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it’. This ‘promise’ of entering God’s rest is almost certainly tantamount to the 1. Becker, ‘Gottes’, p.260. 2. The numerous marginal cross references in the NA27 text of Heb. 3–4 suggests the extent to which these chapters of Hebrews draw upon the Numbers narrative. 3. For a helpful summary of the links between Num. 14 and Ps. 95, and for the case that Hebrews interprets Num. 14 against the backdrop of Ps. 95, see R. Ounsworth, Joshua Typology in the New Testament (WUNT II/328; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp.56–9.

70

Hebrews and Divine Speech

promise of entering ‘the land I swore to their fathers’ (Num. 14.23a), a promise originating in Gen. 12.7. This Abrahamic promise (which returns to view in Heb. 6.13) lies at the thematic heart of the expositional cycle that begins at 4.2. Here the writer af¿rms that the promise of entering God’s rest still stands open, but the addressees must be careful not to repeat the mistake of the wilderness generation: ‘For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message (ÂĠºÇË) they heard did not bene¿t them, because they were not united in faith with those who listened’ (4.2).4 In Numbers 13 the spies returned after forty days and ‘brought back word (ģýĸ)5 to them and to all the congregation, and showed the fruit of the land’ (Num. 13.26b). The Israelites heard the positive report of the land (Num. 14.7) and Joshua and Caleb’s con¿dent proclamation that the Lord would give it to them (Num. 13.30; 14.7-9), but they responded with outcry, complaint, and a resolve to return to Egypt (Num. 14.1-4, 10). Joshua and Caleb’s announcement that the Lord would give them the good land that was before them was essentially a reaf¿rmation of the covenant promise of land given to Abraham (Gen. 12.6-7; 15.1821; 22.17).6 Because the writer assumes the continuing validity of that promise for himself and his addressees,7 he can af¿rm that there is a parallel between the announcement of ‘good news’ to the wilderness generation and the announcement of ‘good news’ to them (4.2). 4.1.1. ÒÁÇû as ‘Proclamation’ and its Comparable Use in Other Literature The writer of Hebrews describes the reception of this announcement using a passive form of the verb ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½Ñ and characterises the message as a ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË in 4.2. The verb ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½Ñ and the noun ÒÁÇû appear in the LXX of Isa. 52.7: …ĸË ÈĠ»¼Ë ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼ÂÀ½ÇÄñÅÇÍ ÒÁÇüÅ ¼ĊÉûžË, ĸË ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼ÂÀ½ĠļÅÇË Òº¸¿Ú, ĞÌÀ ÒÁÇÍÊÌüÅ ÈÇÀûÊÑ ÌüÅ ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Å ÊÇÍ ÂñºÑÅ

4. See the discussion of text and translation of this verse below. 5. It is this ‘word’ that the author of Hebrews has in view when he writes ‘the message they heard did not bene¿t them’. The LXX of Num. 13.26b [13.27b] has ģýĸ and Heb. 4.2 has ÂĠºÇË; however, as noted above, ģýĸ and ÂĠºÇË functioned as close equivalents. 6. That the covenant promise of the land is in view in Num. 13 and 14 is con¿rmed when Moses pleads with the Lord not to disinherit the people because of their unbelief (Num. 14.13-19). If God revokes the promise of the land, the surrounding nations will say that it was because ‘the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land, which he swore to them’ (Num. 14.16). 7. See Heb. 6.12–20 and the comments on those verses in Chapter 6. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

71

ÀÑÅ ¸ÊÀ¼įʼÀ ÊÇÍ ĝ ¿¼ĠË.8 Here in Isaiah, ÒÁÇû signi¿es an ‘announcement’ or ‘message’,9 and ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½Ñ means ‘to proclaim good news’. Paul quotes Isa. 52.7 at Rom. 10.1510 and indicates from the context of his citation that he understands ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½Ñ to mean (as it typically does in the NT)11 ‘announce good news’, or ‘proclaim the message of salvation’.12 In Isa. 53.1 ÒÁÇû bears the same meaning as it does at Isa. 52.7: ‘Lord, who has believed our report (ÌýЗ ÒÁÇýЗ ÷ÄľÅ)’? Isaiah 53.1 is quoted at Jn 12.38 and at Rom. 10.16. Immediately before quoting Isa. 53.1, John writes that the people ‘did not believe in him’ (Jn 12.37). The context shows that the theme of the rejection of the verbal message that Jesus brings is at the heart of this section of John 12 (cf. especially 12.48-49), and it seems right to conclude with Barrett that ‘the ÒÁÇû represents the discourses of Jesus’.13 In Rom. 10.14-21 Paul’s theme is the public proclamation of the Gospel.14 The quotations from Isaiah that he weaves into this section draw attention to the exalted character of the one who brings the public proclamation (ÒÁÇû, Rom. 10.15; Isa. 52.7) and to the mixed response that the message receives (Rom. 10.16; Isa. 53.1). In Rom. 10.16 the ÒÁÇû is the publicly proclaimed (or preached) message, ‘the message of the preaching’.15 8. ‘…like the feet of one bringing glad tidings of a report of peace, like one bringing glad tidings of good things, because I will make your salvation heard, saying to Sion, “Your God shall reign”…’ 9. As opposed to other lexically possible meanings such as ‘hearing’, ‘listening’, or ‘ear’ (BDAG); LS attests a similar range of meaning in classical sources. 10. Although here in Romans the quotation follows the MT more closely than the LXX (C. E. G. Cran¿eld, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975], II, p.535) and omits the term ÒÁÇû. 11. BDAG. 12. So E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; London: SCM Press, 1980), p.294. 13. Barrett, St. John, p.431. 14. Paul is highlighting the vital importance of communicating the gospel in order to enable people to respond, because ‘faith comes from what is heard’ (10.17a). Paul speaks of this activity using the verb Á¾ÉįÊÊÑ (10.14b, 15a), which means to ‘announce’, ‘make known’, or ‘proclaim aloud’ (BDAG). Käsemann insists that the verb here signi¿es the activity of ‘Christian preaching’ (Käsemann, Romans, p.295). 15. So Käsemann, Romans, p.295; Cran¿eld, Romans, II, p.536. However, Paul also uses ÒÁÇû at 10.17 and it is not immediately clear whether it signi¿es the message proclaimed (as in the Isa. 53.1 quotation), or the ‘hearing’ of the message. Cran¿eld argues that the focus on hearing in v. 18 indicates that ÒÁÇû in v. 17 means 1

72

Hebrews and Divine Speech

A similar meaning for ÒÁÇû is found in Gal. 3.2 and 3.5. In Gal. 3.1-5 Paul reminds the Galatains that their acceptance before God was founded, not upon ‘doing the works of the law’ (the meaning of which is disputed), but upon ‘believing what you heard (ëÆ ÒÁÇýË ÈĕÊ̼ÑË)’ (3.2b, 5b). The NRSV rightly construes ÒÁÇýË here as an objective genitive16 and understands it to signify ‘what you heard’. A summary of that message and a description of its delivery is given in 3.1b: ‘It was before your very eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited [or, “publicly proclaimed”, ÈÉǼºÉÚξ]17 as cruci¿ed!’ The ÒÁÇû here is the publicly proclaimed message of Christ’s cruci¿xion.18 The noun is used similarly at 1 Thess. 2.13, where Paul expresses gratitude for the Thessalonians’ positive response to his preaching and that of Silvanus and Timothy: ‘We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard (ÂĠºÇÅ ÒÁÇýË) from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word…’ Paul is here reÀecting on the time he and his missionary colleagues spent with the Thessalonian church, and in 2.9 he recalls their primary function there: ‘we proclaimed (ëÁ¾ÉįƸļÅ) to you the gospel of God’. Again, the focus here is on the public proclamation of a message, and at 2.13 that publicly proclaimed message is characterised as ÂĠºÇÅ ÒÁÇýË.19

‘hearing’ and not ‘message’ (Cran¿eld, Romans, II, p.537). It seems that it could be argued equally that the use of ÒÁÇû in v. 16 to mean ‘message’ would point to a parallel use as ‘message’ again in v. 17. 16. Here following Wallace’s de¿nition of the ‘objective genitive’. See D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp.116–19. 17. ÉǺÉÚÎÑ can mean either to ‘write before(hand) or to ‘show forth/portray publicly, proclaim’, and it is the latter sense it bears here (BDAG). 18. That the public preaching of the Gospel is signi¿ed in 3.1 and 3.2 is generally acknowledged. So Donald Guthrie, Galatians (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1973), pp.92–3. 19. Best af¿rms that in 1 Thess. 2.9-13 Paul describes his ministry of preaching (esp. v. 29) and more generally ‘his oral pastoral advice, encouragement and admonition’ (vv. 11–12) and that by ÒÁÇû he means ‘gospel’, ‘preaching’ (E. Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians [Black’s New Testament Commentary; London: A. & C. Black, 1972], pp.104–11). For the alternative view that ÒÁÇû here signi¿es pre-synoptic traditions of the teaching of Jesus, see R. Schippers, ‘The Pre-Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians II 13-16’, NT 8 (1966), pp.223–34. Schippers’s case fails to convince because Paul places so much emphasis on his own delivery of the ÒÁÇû and the Thessalonians’ response to his delivery of it (note, for instance, their insightful recognition of the word he delivered as being ‘God’s word’, 2.13). 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

73

It appears, then, that in a number of places in the NT (probably because of its use in the LXX of Isaiah), ÒÁÇû came to signify the public proclamation of the gospel, or ‘preaching’ of the gospel.20 Similarly, the verb ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½Ñ came to be used in some contexts as a close equivalent to Á¾ÉįÊÊÑ,21 meaning ‘to proclaim [or, “preach”] the gospel’.22 The combination of ÒÁÇû and ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½Ñ here in Hebrews suggests that ÒÁÇû means ‘message preached’ or ‘message proclaimed’ at 4.2b.23 Hebrews 4.2a-b (and the key term ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË) should be construed in this way: ‘For the gospel was preached to us just as to them, but the preached word did not bene¿t them…’ The preaching to the wilderness generation recalled here was Joshua and Caleb’s proclamation of the goodness of land and the possibility of possessing it (and, by implication, the continuing validity of the Abrahamic promise) in Numbers 13 and 14. For the writer of Hebrews and the community he addresses, their experience of the ‘preached word’ through which they were evangelised was presumably the process of transmission described in 2.1-4 and characterised as ‘what we have heard’ (ÌÇėË ÒÁÇÍÊ¿¼ėÊÀÅ, 2.1).24 4.1.2. ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË as the Bridge to God’s ‘Rest’ So, what is the signi¿cance and the effect of this ‘preached word’? For the wilderness generation, the preached word held out the possibility of entry to the land, but ultimately ‘did not bene¿t them’ (4.2b). However, the writer insists that the promise of entering God’s rest ‘is still open’ (4.1), and he expresses urgent concern that ‘none of you should seem (»ÇÁýЗ, better rendered, “be found” or “be judged”25) to have failed to 20. Best, Thessalonians, p.111. 21. ‘The verb “to preach” frequently has for its object “the Gospel.” Indeed, the connection of ideas is so close that keryssein by itself can be used as a virtual equivalent for evangelizesthai, “to evangelize,” or “to preach the Gospel.” It would not be too much to say that wherever “preaching” is spoken of, it always carries with it the implication of “good tidings” proclaimed’ (Dodd, Apostolic, p.5; similarly, Käsemann, Romans, p.295). 22. BDAG. 23. Contra Attridge, Hebrews, p.125, and Moffatt, Epistle, p.50, who take ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË as a descriptive genitive meaning ‘the word heard’. 24. The message is identi¿ed using the term ÂĠºÇË both at 2.2 and 4.2. 25. So Moffatt, Epistle, pp.49–50; Attridge, Hebrews, p.124; O’Brien, Hebrews, p.160; Cockerill, Hebrews, pp.201–2; Michel, Hebräer, p.191; Grässer, Hebräer, I, pp.201–2; H.-F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), p.275; but contra Koester, Hebrews, p.269; Monte¿ore, Hebrews, pp.81–2; Westcott, Epistle, p.93. While the lexical range of »ÇÁñÑ generally includes ‘to consider as probable’ in the active sense and ‘to appear to one’s understanding’ in the passive sense (BDAG, so too, LS), the speci¿c sense of ‘be judged’ in the 1

74

Hebrews and Divine Speech

reach it’ (4.1b). God judged the former generation to have failed to reach the promise; he swore that they would not enter his rest (3.11), he was angry with them for forty years (3.17a), and, ultimately, they ‘were unable to enter because of unbelief’ (3.19). The writer addresses the nature of the failure of the wilderness generation in 4.2b, but the statement that ‘they were not united by faith with those who listened’ (Äü ÊͺÁ¼Á¼É¸ÊÄñÅÇÍË Ìĉ ÈĕÊ̼À ÌÇėË ÒÁÇįʸÊÀÅ) is clouded in textual uncertainty.26 The reading adopted by NA27 is to be preferred as the harder reading, with the widest and best manuscript support.27 Accepting the text as it stands in NA27, it is best to render the phrase, ‘they were not united in faith with those who heard’, understanding ‘hearing’ here to signify a deeper hearing of faith.28 The implied subjects of ÒÁÇįʸÊÀÅ are found in the Numbers 13–14 narrative. Of the spies who went into the land, only Joshua and Caleb believed God’s promise; they were the people of faith, tearing their clothes at the faithless response of the Israelites (Num. 14.6), exhorting them not to rebel against the Lord (14.9), and reminding them that ‘the passive is attested (LS), and the context here of a signi¿cant precedent of God’s judgement (cf. especially 3.16-18) suggests that this forensic meaning is to be understood. A general and evaluative (but not necessarily forensic) sense of »ÇÁñÑ is attested at LXX Prov. 17.28; 27.14; Philo, Leg. All. 2.6; Plant. 176. A more clearly forensic sense of »ÇÁñÑ is found at Philo, Leg. All. 3.34; Plato, Phaed. 113D; and Josephus, Ant. 7.32. This mention in Heb. 4.1 of judgment with respect to the hearers’ response to the spoken promise anticipates judgment by the ‘word’ at 4.12 (Moffatt, Epistle, p.50), and, more generally, corresponds to the broader motif of God’s act of judgment in refusing entry to the land to the wilderness generation. 26. For an overview of the text-critical issues here, see Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.107–8; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (corrected ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), p.665; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.93. 27. Metzger, Textual, p.665. It is the harder reading because the plural masculine accusative of the perfect passive participle ÊͺÁ¼Á¼É¸ÊÄñÅÇÍË requires that the participle should have as its subject the hearers in the wilderness generation (ÁÒÁ¼ėÅÇÀ, 4.2a; the participle modifying ëÁ¼ĕÅÇÍË, 4.2b), as opposed to the more straightforward alternative, ÊͺÁ¼ÁɸÊļÅÇË (of Codex Sinaiticus et. al.), which would suggest ĝ ÂĠºÇË to be the subject of the participle. Bruce, recognising that this reading is both ‘the earliest attested reading’ and the reading ‘which best explains the manuscripts’, nonetheless conjectures that the variant ÊͺÁ¼Á¼É¸ÊÄñÅÇË attested in some manuscripts may well restore the original text ‘by accident’ (F. F. Bruce, ‘Textual Problems in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Scribes and Scripture: New Testament Essays in Honour of J. Harold Greenlee [ed. David Alan Black; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992], p.30). 28. So, for instance, Attridge, Hebrews, p.125. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

75

Lord is among us’ (14.9). The Lord singles out Caleb for special praise (14.20-25). None of the faithless generation will enter the land, ‘But as for my servant Chaleb, because there was another spirit in him and he followed me, I too will bring him into the land, there where he entered, and his offspring shall inherit it’ (14.24). Hebrews 4.2b should, then, be rendered, ‘but the message they heard did not bene¿t them, because they were not united in faith to those who heard’, understanding ‘those who heard’ to refer to Joshua and Caleb.29 A believing response leads to entry into the rest; indeed, the writer con¿dently af¿rms that ‘we who have believed enter that rest’ (4.3a). If the proclaimed word holds out the possibility of entry into the rest, and a response of faith or faithlessness is the basis of God’s verdict concerning the hearer’s entry, the question arises: what is God’s rest (Á¸ÌÚȸÍÊÀË)? On one level, the place of rest is the promised land, Canaan. This place of rest is the place to which the wilderness generation was denied entry (3.11, 18). Speci¿c references to the leadership of Moses and the forty years in the desert recall the Exodus narrative, but the writer insists that the promise of entering God’s rest ‘is still open’ (4.1a). Attempts have been made to locate the writer’s treatment of the theme of rest within a particular stream of thought, prominently Gnosticism30 or Jewish apocalypticism.31 Probably no single stream of inÀuence can be identi¿ed, not least because various suggested inÀuences, including Jewish apocalypticism, Middle Platonism, and, perhaps, forms of proto-Gnosticism (to name a few), were so closely interrelated within the ¿rst century.32 In large part, it appears that the writer is formulating his own construal of the concept of rest based on his direct engagement with the OT.33 29. Similarly, Ounsworth, Joshua, pp.62–6. As in Heb. 4.2-11, the necessity of a believing response is emphasised in Num. 14. Directly after Joshua and Caleb’s public plea, the Lord asks Moses concerning the congregation, ‘How long is this people going to provoke me, and how long are they not going to believe me amidst all the signs that I have performed among them?’ (Num. 14.11b) 30. Käsemann, Wandering, pp.67–96, 195–217 and passim; G. Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), pp.124–9; H. Braun, An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1984), pp.90–3. 31. O. Ho¿us, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT I/11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1970), pp.91– 101; K. Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), p.137; Michel, Hebräer, p.175. 32. Thompson, Hebrews, pp.85–6. 33. H. W. Attridge, ‘ “Let Us Strive to Enter that Rest”: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1-11’, HTR 73 (1980), p.283. 1

76

Hebrews and Divine Speech

The writer draws the notion of ‘rest’ from the quotation of Ps. 95.11 at 3.11 and, by means of a gezera shawa argument comparing Ps. 95.11 and Gen. 2.2 (based on the common presence of the key root Á¸ÌÚȸÍÊ-), he insists that God’s rest is still available for the community he addresses.34 According to the logic of this argument, the ‘rest’ in the land of Canaan that God denied to the wilderness generation (Ps. 95.11) points ultimately and typologically to the ‘rest’ into which God himself entered on the seventh day of creation.35 Through this association with the rest of Gen. 2.2, the writer shows that the reality he has in view is not simply geopolitical, but comprises a state of being that includes a cessation of labour: ‘for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his’ (4.10).36 However, a local understanding of rest is still implied, not least because it stands in parallel with (and, further, in a typological relationship with) the land of Canaan in the logic of the passage. Entering God’s rest involves not simply ‘being as God is’ (i.e. at rest), but being where he is as well. As elsewhere in Hebrews,37 the reality of the new situation established by Christ (the new covenant) brings access to a reality in God’s presence 34. For a fuller treatment of the logic of this gezera shawa, see the detailed discussion in Attridge, Hebrews, pp.128–32, and ‘Let Us Strive’. On rabbinic exegesis in general, see Instone-Brewer, Techniques, pp.17–23, 226–31, and the cautions in Docherty, Old Testament, pp.88–90 and passim. 35. Attridge, Hebrews, p.284; cf. P. E. Enns, ‘Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13’, WTJ 55 (1993), pp.278–80. 36. This state of being is, in some sense, ‘a feature of God’s own existence’ (Attridge, ‘Let us Strive’, p.282 n.8). Spicq insists that it entails participation in the enjoyment that God has in his accomplished plan of salvation: ‘Son repos est la joie de l’achèvement de ce plan providentiel, dans la contemplation de sa réussite. Les hommes sauvés participent à ce repos…’ (Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.83). Ultimately, the promised rest ‘est une participation à la béatitude même de Dieu’ (Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.84). 37. In particular, as ‘the mediator of a new covenant’ (9.15a), ‘Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place…’ (9.11-12a). This ‘Holy Place’ was not the temple of Jerusalem: ‘Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself…’ (9.24). The motif of God’s presence ties together various images and metaphors that Hebrews uses to describe the goal of Christian pilgrimage and the object of hope. Thus, while the author does not develop explicitly the ‘rest’ motif throughout Hebrews (as J. H. Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest [SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], pp.90–4, rightly notes), the broader motif of entering God’s presence is sustained and developed throughout the 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

77

that stands beyond the created and visible world and that constitutes the goal of salvation-historical expectation.38 In Hebrews the language of motion towards or entry into almost invariably refers to entry into this goal and situation,39 and such language abounds in the present passage.40 The ‘rest’ that is still open to the community addressed is ‘equivalent to his [the writer’s] numerous images for the heavenly world’; namely, the ‘city’ (11.10, 16; 13.14), the ‘heavenly Jerusalem’ (12.22)41 and the sanctuary (9.12, 24-25).42 These various non-earthly locations are uni¿ed in Hebrews43 as objects of the language of ‘entry’ and ‘approach’44 and as being where God is.45 The writer’s insistence that ‘we who have believed enter (¼ĊʼÉÏĠļ¿¸)46 that rest’ (4.3a) even now parallels his insistence that he and his addressees should ‘approach the throne of grace with boldness’ (4.16a; cf. 10.19-22) and his insistence that they ‘have come (ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼) to Mount Zion and the city of the living God’ (12.22). Such a blending of images for the end goal of salvation ¿nds a parallel in the apocalyptic tradition at 4 Ezra 8.52: ‘…it is for you that Paradise

discourse through the motifs of Christ’s priestly entry to the sanctuary and in the image of the heavenly Zion (contra Wray, Rest, pp.90–4, who insists that the motif of ‘rest’ is never integrated into the writer’s Christology and thus never fully developed). 38. See Attridge’s discussion in ‘Let us Strive’, pp.286–7. 39. Outside the immediate discussion in Heb. 3 and 4, the verb ¼ĊÊñÉÏÇĸÀ occurs at 6.19, 20; 9.12, 24, 25, and 10.5. In all these cases, except for the occurrence at 10.5, entry into the heavenly sanctuary is in view. On 6.19 and 20, see the comments on those verses in Chapter 6 of this study. On the cultic, salvi¿c, and cosmological implications of the language of ‘approach’ in Hebrews, see Lehne, New Covenant, pp.109–11. 40. The verb ¼ĊÊñÉÏÇĸÀ occurs nine times in Heb. 4.1-11. 41. Thompson, Hebrews, p.86; so too, Son, Zion, pp.128–40. 42. So N. A. Dahl, ‘A New and Living Way’, Int 5 (1951), p.402. See Son, Zion, pp.139–40, for an overview of precedents in apocalyptic literature for identifying ‘rest’ with heaven and the new creation. 43. So J. Laansma, ‘The Cosmology of Hebrews’, in Cosmology and New Testament Theology (ed. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough; LNTS 355; London: T&T Clark International, 2008), pp.137–8; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.466. 44. See 9.12, 24-25, and 10.22 for the sanctuary and 12.22 for the heavenly Zion. 45. The heavenly city is ‘the city of the living God’ (12.22) and when Christ enters the heavenly sanctuary, he does so ‘to appear in the presence of God on our behalf’ (9.24b). 46. The writer here ‘implies more than proleptic enjoyment of what God has promised. The present tense of the verb is to be regarded as a true present and not simply viewed as future in reference’. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.99. 1

78

Hebrews and Divine Speech

is opened, the tree of life is planted, the age to come is prepared, plenty is provided, a city is built, rest is appointed…’47 In Hebrews it is the work of Christ that makes entry into this salvation ‘rest’ possible; it is Christ who enters the divine presence as a forerunner to accomplish salvation. Thus the theme of ‘rest’ has signi¿cant soteriological and christological connections.48 In its most general sense, ‘the imagery of rest is best understood as a complex symbol for the whole soteriological process’.49 In Hebrews the continued opportunity to enter this rest is founded on two facts: ¿rst, the rest is permanent and not subject to change; second, the possibility of hearing God’s voice ‘today’ remains (Ps. 95.7; Heb. 3.7; 4.7). The hearing of God’s voice is tied to the proclamation of the ‘good news’ in the preached message (ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË) of 2.2. The extension of the promise of entry into God’s rest through the ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË provides the essential link between the community and the divine rest.50 A response of faith will be required. The location and state to which the language of approach points in Hebrews (through the use of various metaphors) all refer ultimately to God’s presence. A faithful response to the word, which acts as a bridge to God’s presence, is the means by which entry is secured.

47. Throughout this study, English quotations from the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are taken from Charlesworth’s OTP unless otherwise noted. 48. Contra Wray, who insists that ‘For Heb, REST remains theocentric and anticipatory and never quite becomes christocentric and celebrative’ (Wray, Rest, p.94; see also pp.90–4). 49. Attridge, Hebrews, p.128. 50. In 4.14-16 the writer will urge the addressees to draw near to God’s presence even now. Mackie argues that, ‘…rhetorically and theologically, the author’s entry exhortations must reÀect his expectation of an actual experience of unhindered, substantial, and life-changing access to God and his Son…’ For Mackie, the experience of immediate entry to the heavenly sanctuary is effected by the writer’s ‘word of exhortation’ (S. D. Mackie, ‘Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JTS NS 62 [2011], p.99 and passim). Mackie’s construal, if anything, attributes too much to the ‘word of exhortation’ in effecting entry and lays too little emphasis on the priestly work of Christ in making that entry possible. This is particularly evident in the suggestion that ‘the ¿nal communal vision’ of 12.2224 ‘signals the author’s con¿dence in the success of his exhortation’ (Mackie, ‘Heavenly, p.115). However, the overall shape of Mackie’s argument—that the writer’s discourse (particularly its entry exhortations) is intended to draw the hearers into a ‘mystical’ experience of the heavenly sanctuary—is suggestive and resonates to some degree with our ¿ndings here. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

79

4.2. The Living ÂĠºÇË (4.12-13) Following the exhortation in 4.11 to ‘make every effort to enter that rest’, in 4.12-13 the writer alerts his addressees to the searching judicial power of the ÂĠºÇË of God. Based on the examination of the early verses of ch. 4, it has been suggested that the divine message of salvation provides a bridge to God’s presence when met with a response of faith. But here the writer wishes to af¿rm that the divine word also performs a judicial function, evaluating the hearer’s attitude and response. The ÂĠºÇË of 4.12 is ‘living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (ÌÇÄļ̼ÉÇË51 ĨÈòÉ ÈÜʸŠÄÚϸÀɸŠ»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ)’ (4.12a). This sword penetrates to the division of both the immaterial (or spiritual) and material elements of human life,52 and it judges (ÁÉÀÌÀÁĠË)53 the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Verse 13 concentrates on this scene of judgment, speaking of the utter exposure of the creature to the one who judges; everything is ‘naked’ and ‘laid bare’ (̼ÌɸϾÂÀÊÄñŸ)54 before ‘him’ (although the identity of ‘him’ requires clari¿cation).55 The analysis will return later to the interpretation of the dif¿cult ¿nal clause (ÈÉġË ğÅ ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË). 4.2.1. The Context and Function of 4.12-13 Although the basic message of 4.12-13 (a warning of the judicial power of God’s word) is clear enough,56 its connection to the broader context 51. ÌÇÄļ̼ÉÇË is a hapax in the NT, but a close parallel occurs in Ps.-Phoc. 124: ĞÈÂÇÅ ÌÇÀ ÂĠºÇË ÒÅ»ÉĖ ÌÇÄļ̼ÉĠÅ ëÊÌÀ ÊÀ»ûÉÇÍ (‘Speech is to a man a weapon sharper than iron’). 52. Westcott, Epistle, p.104; Koester, Hebrews, p.274. 53. Another hapax in the NT. Aristotle can use the term ÁÉÀÌÀÁġË to denote the ‘judicial of¿ce’ (Pol. 1275b19) and individual ‘judgments’ (Eth. nic. 6.10). 54. The perfect participle derives from the verb ÌɸϾÂĕ½Ñ, which can mean ‘to grip in a neck-hold’ (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.94). In the context of wrestling, Philo speaks of reason as being ‘like an athlete Àung prostrate (ëÁÌɸϾÂÀ½ĠļÅÇË) by superior power’ (Philo, Praem. Poen. 2.29). Theophrastus can use the term to speak of preparing an animal for sacri¿ce: ‘you can be sure he will throw off his cloak and try to lift the bull to twist its neck (ÌɸϾÂĕʾЗ)’ (Theophrastus, Char. 27.5). 55. The genitive pronoun ¸ĤÌÇı could refer back to ĝ ÂĠºÇË or it could refer to ÌÇı ¿¼Çı in 4.12. If it refers back to ĝ ÂĠºÇË, the result is a potentially awkward literal reading of 4.13 with ‘the word’ being ‘to’ or ‘before’ (ÈÉĠË) ‘the word’. This is the reading favoured by Braun (Hebräer, p.121), who notes that Philo can describe the logos as having eyes. 56. Although note the alternative reading of Wider and Lewicki, who argue that 4.12-13 functions as an inclusio with 1.1-4. In Lewicki’s view, the ‘living word’ of 4.12 must then be understood in light of the ‘powerful word’ of 1.3b, whose primary 1

80

Hebrews and Divine Speech

of ch. 4 is less clear, and a number of exegetical questions remain to be addressed. The structural overview of Hebrews in Excursus 1 proposed that 4.12-16 constitutes a coherent and independent cycle of exposition (following the three-fold pattern of exemplum, explanation and application, and then exhortation). This construal of the structure of 4.12-16 and its place in the broader context of the discourse in Hebrews 4–5 is at odds with that of most interpreters, who generally identify a structural break at the beginning of 4.14.57 Brief comment is therefore required (see also the treatment of the structure of this section in Excursus 1). Under the three-fold word of exhortation pattern identi¿ed in Excursus 1, each cycle concludes with an exhortation (as is found in 4.11) and each new cycle normally begins with the conjunction ºÚÉ in the postpositive position (which is the case in 4.12). The presence of these features in 4.11 and 4.12 indicates a structural break and the start of a new cycle at 4.12, the new cycle concluding with a fresh series of exhortations at 4.14-16. This analysis suggests that one or more scriptural exempla should form the core of the cycle identi¿ed (4.12-16), as is the case in each cycle throughout Hebrews. Few commentators have been able to identify any OT text standing behind these verses. Allen suggests that Moses’ warning of Deut. 32.47 provides the background here,58 while Lane proposes that the mention of a ‘sword’ (ÄÚϸÀɸ, 4.12a) soon after a reminder of the folly of the Exodus generation may indicate that the writer is recalling the use of ÄÚϸÀɸ in Num. 14.4345.59

function is creative. Lewicki maintains that if 4.12-13 is viewed within its broader context, the emphasis is not particularly on a fearful judicial encounter, but one that is both arresting and creative (Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.94–9): ‘Die Krisis-Prädikate des ÂĠºÇË in 4,12f sollten dabei nicht (auschließlich) in einer engen und negative Gerichtsperspektive gesehen warden’ (Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.96; cf. Wider, Theozentrik, pp.72–88). 57. So, for example, Weiss, Der Brief, pp.291–2; Childs, New Testament, p.416; Grässer, Hebräer, II, pp.240–2; Ellingworth, Hebrews, pp.265–6 (although he describes 4.14-16 as a ‘gradual transition’, p.265); Koester, Hebrews, p.291 (he observes an ‘abrupt shift in tone and imagery’ in 4.14-16); Michel, Hebräer, p.204. 58. Allen, Deuteronomy, pp.94–7. The principal dif¿culty of this view is that whereas Deut. 32.47 presents the word of God as constituting ‘very life’ of the people (and so capable of enabling them to ‘live long in the land’), Heb. 4.12 presents the word itself as ‘living’ (and so capable of achieving a work of judgment). Although both passages link the categories of ‘word’ and ‘life’, there is some conceptual distance between them. 59. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.102. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

81

This study has already suggested that reÀection on the narrative of Numbers 12–16 underlies this whole section of Hebrews, and so it seems very plausible that mention of the sword in Num. 14.43-45 could have prompted the writer of Hebrews to make use of the imagery of a sword at this point in the discourse.60 However, closer analysis reveals that the writer engages primarily with Judges 3 at Heb. 4.12-13.61 In Judges 3 God sent Ehud to deliver his people from the Moabite king, Eglon. Taking with him a ‘double-bladed dagger’ (ÄÚϸÀɸŠ»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ, Judg. 3.16; cf. ÄÚϸÀɸŠ»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ, Heb. 4.12a),62 Ehud went to see Eglon, saying that he had a message from God for him (ĠºÇË ¿¼Çı, Judg. 3.20; cf. ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı, Heb. 4.12a). ‘Aod reached with his left hand and took the dagger from his right thigh and thrust it into Eglom’s belly, and indeed he even drove the hilt in after the Àame, and the fat closed over the Àame’ (Judg. 3.21-22). This vivid description of the penetration of the sword could well have inspired Hebrews’ description of the sword ‘piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow’ (4.12a). Various verbal parallels between Judges 3 and this section of Hebrews reinforce the suggestion that this passage inÀuenced the writer. A throne (¿ÉĠÅÇË) appears in Judg. 3.20; in Heb. 4.16 the throne of grace (¿ÉĠÅÇË ÌýË ÏÚÉÀÌÇË) plays a central role. The phrase ÈÉġË ĞÅ ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË in Heb. 4.13b bears some resemblance to Judg. 3.20b (Á¸Ė ¼čȼŠÑ» ĠºÇË ¿¼Çı ÄÇÀ ÈÉġË Êñ) in its combination of personal pronouns and the preposition ÈÉĠË in describing the delivery of a ÂĠºÇË. More broadly, Ehud was one of the judges (ÁÉÀÌûË, cf. Judg. 2.16-19) of Israel who brought ‘rest’ to Israel (Judg. 3.30). The previous cycle in Hebrews had closed with the

60. Both in Num. 14.43-45 and here in Heb. 4.12-13 the sword functions as an instrument of divine judgment. 61. It poses no dif¿culty to see the writer drawing two or more OT texts into relationship with each other as he constructs his discourse. In the earlier discussion of the concept of ‘rest’ it was noted that the writer often draws disparate passages of Scripture into relationship with each other on the basis of verbal and conceptual parallels (following the established practice of gezera shawa). Williamson is the only scholar encountered in this study who notes the signi¿cant connections between Judg. 3 and this passage, identifying it the ‘the most likely source’ for the treatment of the two-edged sword here (Williamson, Philo, p.394). However, he does not note that Judg. 3 uses the phrase ÄÚϸÀɸŠ»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ in connection with the ĠºÇË ¿¼Çı, an observation that would seem to strengthen the case that Hebrews relies on this passage. 62. As noted in the Introduction, Rahlfs (followed by Pietersma and Wright, Septuagint) offers both an LXXA and LXXB text for Judges. For this passage, the two are substantially the same, but the present analysis follows LXXA here. 1

82

Hebrews and Divine Speech

exhortation to ‘make every effort to enter that rest’ (Heb. 4.11a), and the ºÚÉ at the beginning of 4.12 indicates that a proper response to the word of God is integral to the realisation of that goal.63 Hebrews uses the vivid image of a double-edged sword from Judges 3 to demonstrate that God’s word, which has the power to bring God’s people to his promised rest (4.2-11), also has the power to execute divine judgment at the very depths of the human person. 4.2.2. The Meaning(s) of ÂĠºÇË in 4.12 and 4.13 In 4.12 the phrase ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı is generally taken to refer to the Gospel message, either spoken64 or written in the OT.65 The previous use of the term ÂĠºÇË was at 4.2, where it was argued that the phrase ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË referred speci¿cally to the proclaimed message of the goodness of the promised land (of Num. 13 and 14). This proclamation constituted a reaf¿rmation of God’s covenant promises. In 4.12 the writer may refer back speci¿cally to that ÂĠºÇË or, more generally, to the preached ÂĠºÇË in any context. Probably he refers to God’s word in general, without a de¿nite or restricted reference to a particular medium of its delivery. By this stage in Hebrews the writer has af¿rmed that God can speak through the prophets and the Son, through Scripture and through preaching, but there is no clear indication in the immediate context that any one of these forms is exclusively in view here. That having been said, the characteristics attributed to the ÂĠºÇË at 4.12 contain elements of personi¿cation; it ‘pierces’, ‘divides’, and ‘judges’. From 1.1-4 it is clear that the writer views God’s speech in the Son as personalised. The question then arises: Does 4.12 develop a logos Christology in which Christ is the word incarnate? Most commentators

63. Although under the structural scheme followed here, 4.12 stands at the beginning of a new cycle and therefore is set apart from 4.11, the postpositive ºÛÉ at the beginning of 4.12 not only functions to mark the beginning of the new cycle, but also points to a line of continuity between the new cycle and what has come before. This is consistent with the function of the postpositive ºÛÉ at the start of many structural units throughout the discourse. 64. Moffatt, Epistle, p.55. 65. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.102. Trompf accepts neither of these possibilities and adopts the unusual position that ‘Neither referring speci¿cally to the Logos, nor to the Scriptures (cf. 13.7), the ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı here is a general phrase embracing ‘God’s activity and will towards the world’. Trompf makes much of conceptual parallels between Hebrews and Philo, the Hellenistic wisdom literature, and Egyptian thought. Trompf, ‘The Conception of God in Hebrews 4:12-13’, ST 25 (1971), p.127 n.16. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

83

reject such an understanding,66 although some adopt a more nuanced position,67 and a few, in line with much Patristic interpretation,68 favour a christological understanding of ÂĠºÇË in 4.12.69 While there is insuf¿cient evidence to suggest that Hebrews anywhere articulates an explicit logos Christology like that of the Fourth Gospel,70 1.1-4 does develop an implicit logos/sophia Christology,71 and so the question of the presence of such a Christology here merits close attention. The language and imagery associated with the ÂĠºÇË in 4.12 suggest some level of personi¿cation. Swetnam points to the use of the participle ½ÑࡏÅ elsewhere in Hebrews: ‘this word is used of God himself (3,12; 9,14; 10,31; 12,22) or of Christ (7,25; 10,20) or of human life (2,15; 7,8; 9,17; 10,38; 12,9) but never of non-personal life’. The imagery of the ÂĠºÇË as ‘sharper than a two-edged sword’ in 4.12 evokes the personalised description in Wis. 18.15-16 of the all-powerful ÂĠºÇË leaping from heaven ‘bearing your irrevocable command as a sharp rapier’72 to execute judgment on the Egyptians. The writer of Hebrews and the writer of Wisdom associate the logos with a sword and with the work of judgment. Philo, whose concept of the personal logos is one of the most developed (and the most varied) of any Hellenistic Jewish writer, associates the logos with a sword. In his discussion of the ‘severing logos’ (ÂĠºÇË ÌÇļįË)73 he presents the logos as acting as God’s agent in severing pieces of the animal in the covenant ceremony of Gen. 15.10. He describes in

66. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.102–3; Koester, Hebrews, pp.273, 281; Hughes, Commentary, pp.163–4; Attridge, Hebrews, p.134; Ellingworth, Hebrews, pp.260–1; Dunn, Christology, p.233. 67. F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (2 vols.; trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872–4), I, pp.202–9; Robinson, Epistle, pp.45–6; Westcott, Epistle, p.101; Johnson, Hebrews, pp.130–7. 68. For example, Athanasius comments on Heb. 4.12: ‘the Son he [the writer] recognises as the Word of God’ (Against Arians 2.72 [Nicene]). So too, Ambrose, Spir. 2.11.128 (Nicene) and Fid. 4.7.73 (Nicene); Athanasius, C. Ar. 2.72 (Nicene). 69. Swetnam, ‘Jesus’, pp.214, 218–24; Clavier, ‘’, p.86; Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, passim. 70. Delitzsch, who will not accept a fully christological reading, nonetheless maintains that 4.12-13 prepares ‘for the thesis ¿rst distinctly enunciated by St. John, that Jesus Christ, in his own eternal pre-existence, is the Word of God’. Delitzsch, Hebrews, I, p.209. 71. See also Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, p.4. 72. It should be noted, however, that the ‘sharp sword’ in the Greek text of Wis. 18.16 is Æĕ»ÇË ĚÆİ as opposed to the ÄÚϸÀɸŠof Heb. 4.12. 73. Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 225. 1

84

Hebrews and Divine Speech

detail the powerful and searching work of severing that the logos performs: it severs ‘the whole succession of things material and immaterial whose natures appear to us to be knitted together and united… For when it has dealt with all sensible objects down to the atoms and what we call “indivisibles,” it passes on from them to the realm of reason’s observation…’74 In Philo’s description here two features parallel Heb. 4.12. First, both emphasise a material and non-material quality to the cutting power of the logos (cf. Heb. 4.12 and ‘joints from marrow’, ‘soul from spirit’). Second, Philo’s description of the ÂĠºÇË as ÌÇļįË and Hebrews’ description of the ÂĠºÇË as sharper (ÌÇÄļ̼ÉÇË) than a two-edged (»ĕÊÌÇÄÇÅ) sword share a common lexical root.75 The writer of Hebrews was not ‘Philonic’ in his thinking, but these echoes of Philo’s description of the logos suggest that both came into contact with similar Hellenistic Jewish conceptions of the logos.76 It is not possible to detect in 4.12 evidence of a full hypostatisation of the logos as a personal and autonomous being distinct from God, nor is there a clear identi¿cation of this logos as Christ. However, the depiction of the logos and its searching and judging function is vivid and tends toward a personi¿cation. The analysis turns now to consider the writer’s use of the term ÂĠºÇË in 4.13 within the somewhat ambiguous phrase ÈÉġË ğÅ ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË. Contemporary scholarship offers four main interpretations of the term ĝ ÂĠºÇË in this verse. Most commonly, ĝ ÂĠºÇË is here taken to form part of a familiar idiom drawn from a commercial background meaning something like ‘an account to be rendered’.77 Second, Michel, Grotius, 74. Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 130–31. 75. This analysis is indebted to Attridge for his presentation of some of this evidence (Attridge, Hebrews, p.134). Use of this evidence from Philo should be tempered by the cautions of Williamson, who notes two major differences between Philo’s severing ÂĠºÇË and the ÂĠºÇË of Heb. 4.12: Philo describes the ÂĠºÇË as ÌÇļįË while Hebrews uses the comparative form of the adjective, ÌÇÄļ̼ÉÇË; moreover, ‘The cutting quality of Philo’s Logos is a cosmological function; what the Logos in Hebrews does is to cut through to the very heart of man’ (Williamson, Philo, p.393). It is interesting to note that Williamson nonetheless understands the use of ÂĠºÇË in both 4.12 and 4.13 christologically (Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, pp.4–8). 76. Whether or not the writer of Hebrews and Philo were indebted to common literary traditions (or indeed, whether Hebrews had read portions of Philo) cannot be proved ¿nally one way or the other. 77. For example, Koester, Hebrews, p.275; NRSV; Attridge, Hebrews, p.136; J. Héring, L’Épître aux Hébreux (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1954), p.47; Monte¿ore, Hebrews, p.89; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.93–4; Spicq, L’Épître (1957), p.57; Bruce, Hebrews, p.114; Trompf, ‘Conception’, p.125 n.9. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

85

Bleek, Barth and Windisch take ĝ ÂĠºÇË to signify the writer’s address.78 Third, Becker and Smillie argue that, while ÂĠºÇË in 4.12 signi¿es God’s speech to us, ÂĠºÇË in 4.13 signi¿es humanity’s responsive speech.79 Fourth, Williamson and Swetnam see in 4.12-13 a reference to Jesus as the personalised ÂĠºÇË.80 The ¿rst interpretation is widely held and forms the basis of most English translations of 4.13, and the second interpretation is attractive in its simplicity and warrants serious consideration. The analysis returns to these two possible interpretations below. The third interpretation is intriguing but does not provide a suf¿ciently natural reading of the Greek phrase in question.81 The fourth option is attractive because 4.12 does personify the ÂĠºÇË to some extent at least, and it might seem theologically tidy to equate the ÂĠºÇË with Christ. But the writer refrains from doing so in any explicit way, and there seems to be little exegetical ground for interpreters to take such a step. As noted above, many exegetes understand ÂĠºÇË here to function as part of a familiar idiom (‘account to be rendered’). The ¿nal phrase of 4.13, ÈÉġË ĞÅ ÷ÄÀϗÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË, is then translated, ‘to whom we must render an account’. The use of the term ÂĠºÇË in commercial contexts to mean various types of ¿nancial or trade ‘accounts’ is found in a number of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri,82 and those who translate ÂĠºÇË in Heb. 4.13 as ‘account’ generally rely on these occurrences as evidence in support of their rendering. The term is used in commercial contexts in the papyri to refer to a bill that is generated,83 to an account containing funds that 78. Michel, Hebräer, p.203; H. Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1913), pp.36–7; Barth, ‘Old Testament’, p.63. See also Attridge, Hebrews, p.136, and Johnson, Hebrews, pp.136–7. 79. Becker, ‘Gottes’, passim, but especially pp.259–61; G. R. Smillie, ‘ “The Other ȁȅīȅȈ” at the End of Heb. 4:13’, NT 47.1 (2005), pp.19–25; see also Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.11. 80. Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, passim; Swetnam, ‘Jesus’, pp.214, 218–24 and ‘Another Note’, passim; Clavier, ‘’, p.86. 81. Smillie proposes the following as an English rendering of the ¿nal phrase of 4.13: ‘toward whom the word is [now] up to us’. Smillie, ‘Other’, p.24. 82. As noted by Trompf, ‘Conception’, p.125 n.9. Beyond those listed below, Trompf also mentions P. Oxy. 1104.22. This may be another relevant example, but the text is suf¿ciently corrupted to make the rendering of the relevant phrase (ÈÉÍÌÚżÀ ¼ĊË ÂĠºÇ[Å…]) too uncertain to be useful here. 83. ĠºÇË Ä¼Ì¸ÎÇÉÜË ÏĠÉÌÇÍ Ä¼Ì¸Å¼Â¿ĠÅÌÇË (P. Oxy. 1049.1; late second century AD); Hunt translates as, ‘An account of expenses incurred in connexion with the transport of ÏĠÉÌÇË’ (A. S. Hunt, ed., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, VII [London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1910]). Similarly, ¸Ď Âļ»ÀÁ¼Ë ëƼ̸Äû¿¾Ê¸Å, ĝ »ò ÂĠºÇË ¸ĤÌľÅ, ĸË ºÉÚμÀË, ĨÈġ ÀǺÜÌÇË È¼Äοûʼ̸À ÀÁÚÅÇÉÀ (P. Oxy. 1153.20-21), which Hunt 1

86

Hebrews and Divine Speech

can be drawn upon,84 or to an account that is examined.85 Of particular interest is P. Oxy. 522.26 (second century AD), where the concept of ‘rendering an account’ appears: ÀÇÊÁÇÉÜÌÀ ĻÅ ÂĠºÇÅ »ļʼÀ Ě¹ÇÂÇĖ º, translated, ‘To Dioscoras 3 obols, for which he shall render an account’.86 These examples demonstrate that ÂĠºÇË was used within a century or so of the composition of Hebrews in business contexts to mean ¿nancial ‘account’, in the sense of a ‘bill’ or ‘invoice’ that will have to be settled. Most of these examples, however, are conceptually far removed from the searching and judicial imagery of Heb. 4.13. Only P. Oxy. 522.26, where a reckoning is in view, offers any kind of real parallel. More relevant are instances where ÂĠºÇË is used in NT texts to mean ‘render account’ in the context of a reckoning: Mt. 12.36; Lk. 16.2; Acts 19.40; Rom. 14.12; 1 Pet. 4.5; and Heb. 13.17.87 Each of these occurs in a judicial context and, except for Acts 19.40 and perhaps Lk. 16.2, each has the ¿nal divine judgment in view. Smillie notes three features that characterise these occurrences of the idiom in the NT: ÂĠºÇË is always used in conjunction with the verb ÒÈÇ»ĕ»ÑÄÀ or »ĕ»ÑÄÀ; ÂĠºÇË is anarthrous;88 and ÂĠºÇË is in the accusative.89 These characteristics are also present in the close parallel in P. Oxy. 522.26. The writer of Hebrews was evidently familiar with the idiom and capable of using it in its regular form, as he does at 13.17 (where all three characteristics are present).90 It would be surprising, therefore, for him to use ÂĠºÇË at 4.13 renders, ‘The blankets have been cut out; the account of them, as you write, shall be sent by Diogas’ (A. S. Hunt, ed., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, VIII [London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1911]). 84. In P. Oxy. 890.9-10 there is record of money which is to be taken ‘from the account of the city’ (ëÁ ÂĠºÇÍ ÌýË ÈĠ¼ÑË) (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, IV [London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908]). 85. In P. Oxy. 474.33-34 there is record of an of¿cial examining ‘the accounts of the money revenue’ (ÌÇėË ÒɺÍÉÀÁÇėË ÂĠºÇË) (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, III [London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903]). 86. P. Oxy. 522.26 (Grenfell and Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, III). 87. This list of relevant passages was compiled by Smillie (‘Other’, p.22). 88. Lk. 16.2 is an exception to this point, but this exception ‘is explained by the particularity of the articular ÌýË ÇĊÁÇÅÇÄĕ¸Ë ÊÇÍ with which it is joined grammatically…’ Smillie, ‘Other’, p.22 n.10. 89. Smillie, ‘Other’, p.22. 90. Commentators are in practically universal agreement that ÂĠºÇË 13.17 should be understood as ‘account’. So, for instance, Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.723; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.555; J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St. Peter (trans. William B. Johnston; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963), p.213; Attridge, Hebrews, p.402; DeSilva, Perseverance, p.509; etc. See the discussion of this verse in the treatment of Heb. 13, below. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

87

with none of these characteristic features if he had intended to invoke the idiom ‘render account’. Had the writer intended to invoke this familiar idiom here at 4.13, he could have done so more clearly and simply.91 Michel, Grotius, Bleek, Barth and Windisch follow the main alternative view: they take ĝ ÂĠºÇË to refer to the writer’s discourse, and they take the ¿nal phrase of 4.13 to mean that the writer’s discourse has God as its subject.92 This suggestion is more attractive in its simplicity and ultimately more convincing. A very similar construction occurs at 5.11 (ȼÉĖ Çī ÈÇÂİË ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË). In that context, ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË clearly identi¿es the writer’s address, while the relative particle (Çī) identi¿es the subject of his address.93 Such a rendering understands ÈÉĠË to mean ‘concerning’, a meaning which it commonly bears in Hebrews,94 and it treats ÷ÄėÅ as an authorial plural, which, again, is common in Hebrews.95 If it is accepted that the phrase ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË identi¿es the writer’s address in 4.13, it is then possible to render the phrase ÈÉġË ĞÅ ÷ÄÀϗÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË as ‘concerning whom is our word’, or, more naturally, ‘our word concerns him’. Of the two interpretative options outlined above, the latter is to be preferred. In support of this view, it may be helpful to lay out the relevant material from within Hebrews for the sake of comparison. Proponents of the ¿rst option suggest that the key phrase in 4.13 parallels the writer’s use of the term ÂĠºÇË at 13.17 (and its use of the idiom ‘render account’), while proponents of the second view suggest that the key phrase parallels the writer’s use of ÂĠºÇË in 5.11 (to identify his own ‘word’/address). The relevant data can be seen here: 4.13c: ÈÉġË ĞÅ ÷ÄÀϗÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË

4.13c: ÈÉġË ĞÅ ÷ÄÀϗÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË

5.11a: ȼÉĖ Çī…÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË

13.17b: ÂĠºÇÅ ÒÈÇ»ļÊÇÅ̼Ë

The relative strength of the parallel between 4.13 and 5.11 over against any parallel between 4.13 and 13.17 is quickly apparent. Added to that 91. Johnson, Hebrews, p.137; Smillie, ‘Other’, p.22. 92. Michel, Hebräer, p.203; Windisch, Hebräerbrief, pp.36–7; Barth, ‘Old Testament’, p.63. Attridge (Hebrews, p.136) and Johnson (Hebrews, pp.136–7) recognise the validity of this view, while maintaining that a double meaning is intended in 4.13, with the notion of ‘account to be rendered’ remaining operative. 93. The subject being Jesus or Melchizedek if the particle is taken to be masculine, or the general theme of Jesus’ high priesthood in the order of Melchizedek if the particle is construed as neuter. See further the discussion of 5.11 in Chapter 5. 94. See, e.g., 1.7; 2.17; 5.1. For a full survey of the use of ÈÉĠË in Hebrews, see Smillie, ‘Other’, p.21. 95. See 2.5; 5.11; 6.9, and possibly, 6.1, 3, and 13.18. The author’s choice of the dative case here (rather than the genitive) may reÀect a sense that the ‘word’ has its origin outside himself and is given to him.

1

88

Hebrews and Divine Speech

(as noted above), the construction in 4.13 lacks the key features of the idiom ‘render account’ as used in other literature. It seems right to conclude therefore that 4.13c means ‘our word concerns him’. It still remains to identify the referent of the relative particle ĞÅ. One option is to assume that the implied referent is ĝ ¿¼ĠË in 4.12, so that in 4.13 the author moves from describing the activity of God’s word in exposing the human heart to describing the all-seeing gaze of God himself who sees into the hearts his word has exposed.96 An alternative is to see ĝ ÂĠºÇË of 4.12 as the implied referent of the relative particle ĞÅ in 4.13. However, the resultant meaning is quite awkward (‘my word concerns the word’). On balance, it seems most likely the particle looks forward to the verses that follow and refers to Jesus the High Priest, whose of¿ce and work the writer identi¿es as the main subject of the discourse at 8.1 (cf. 5.11 and discussion below and in Chapter 5). 4.3. The Link between 4.12-13 and 4.14-16 Most commentators see a signi¿cant structural break between the end of 4.13 and the beginning of 4.14.97 This analysis has suggested that it is incorrect to see a disjunction here; 4.12-16 should be viewed as a single expositional cycle. Verse 14 carries on directly from v. 13, as its opening words suggest: =ÏÇÅÌ¼Ë ÇħÅ ÒÉÏÀ¼Éñ¸ Äñº¸Å… The particle ÇħÅ occurs fourteen times in Hebrews98 and, under the structural model followed here, never introduces a new expositional cycle; it always occurs within a cycle, typically introducing an application or exhortation based on a point explained immediately before. Following the proposed rendering for the ¿nal clause of 4.13 (‘our word concerns him’), there is a natural link with 4.14. Later the writer will af¿rm that he has ‘much to say’ (ȼÉĖ Çī ÈÇÂİË ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË, 5.11) about the subject of Jesus’ high priesthood in the order of Melchizedek, and will even assert that the subject of Jesus’ high priesthood is the ‘main point’ of his address (8.1). Given that the writer’s message is primarily concerned with the subject of Jesus’ high priesthood, there exists a very natural relationship between the statement ‘our word concerns him’ in 4.13 and the exhortation of 4.14: ‘Since, then, we have a great high priest…’ 96. Cf. Johnson, Hebrews, pp.135–6. 97. Schunack reÀects the majority view when he asserts, ‘Die sprachliche und thematische Zäsur zwischen 4,13 und 4,14 ist evident’. G. Schunack, Der Hebräerbrief (Zürcher Bibelkommentar; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002), p.60. 98. At 2.14; 4.1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 16; 7.11; 8.4; 9.1, 23; 10.19, 35, and 13.15. 1

4. Hebrews 4.2-16

89

The turn to an explicit focus on Jesus as High Priest in v. 14 resolves a rhetorical tension or suspense that has been building for a number of verses. The writer has been reminding the addressees of the failure of the wilderness generation to enter God’s rest. Joshua (`¾ÊÇıË) had been unable to give that generation rest (4.8), but the opportunity to enter God’s rest still remains (4.9), and so the present addressees are to ‘make every effort’ to enter it (4.11). The word of God exposes their hearts (4.12), and the God who wields his powerful word sees into the depths of their hearts (4.13). So the danger is that hardness of heart will again result in judgment and refused entry. But there is good news; the writer ‘today’ has a message of encouragement relating to this same speaking God whose judgment is to be feared. His ‘Son’ (4.14, who the writer earlier identi¿es as ‘God’ himself, cf. 1.8) is a High Priest who has ‘been tested’ and can sympathise with their weakness (4.15). Jesus (this `¾ÊÇıË) can actually bring the people to God’s rest, not least because he himself has ‘passed through the heavens’ (4.14). Jesus the Son of God was earlier ‘made lower than the angels’ (2.9), ‘sharing’ Àesh and blood (2.14), in order to make him a ¿tting High Priest (2.17). He has now ‘gone through the heavens’ and returned to God’s heavenly presence. Jesus the great High Priest personally bridges the gap between the community and God’s presence (which, in the framework established in 4.2-11, is his divine ‘rest’). As the writer delivers his ‘word’ about Jesus (4.13b), he extends to the community the opportunity to enter that rest. They, in turn, need to respond to the writer’s message about him through ‘holding fast to the confession’ (4.14) and through ‘approaching the throne of grace’ (4.16). 4.4. Conclusions The ¿rst two instances of ÂĠºÇË in this chapter clearly signify forms of divine speech. At 4.2 the ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË is the preached Gospel message and it functions as the crucial link between the hearers and God’s rest, the ultimate goal of salvation. At 4.12 the writer impresses upon the addressees the judicial function of the ÂĠºÇË. This divine ÂĠºÇË of 4.12 has strikingly personal characteristics and it seems to function, on some level, as an agent carrying out God’s judicial work. But the writer does not fully personalise ÂĠºÇË here, nor does he make a christological link.99

99. The progression of thought in 4.12-14 is, however, noteworthy: God’s living word exposes the heart (4.12); God himself sees the heart laid bare (4.13a-b); the writer’s message concerns ‘him’ (4.13c; it becomes clear that the theme of the 1

90

Hebrews and Divine Speech

In 4.13 the ÂĠºÇË reappears, but now it signi¿es the writer’s own discourse. Many commentators note that the writer intended to play upon the term ÂĠºÇË in 4.12-13,100 and it seems that the writer draws the two instances of ÂĠºÇË into conceptual proximity with each other. The writer’s broad aim in this section is to promote the kind of attention to God’s word (4.7-11) and ¿delity to the confession (4.14) that will secure entry to the promised rest. The writer wishes to remind the addressees that the ‘today’ of hearing God’s ‘voice’ (4.7) continues as the ‘word of God’ is delivered and made present through the sermonic ‘word’ that the writer himself communicates (4.13). His immediate aim is that they should listen to his urgent address and not to harden their hearts as they hear God’s voice through his sermon. He will soon chastise his addressees for their inadequate reception of his ‘word’ (5.11). Like the sermon of 4.2, the writer’s sermonic ‘word’ (4.13) functions as a bridge to God’s rest as it makes present and audible the divine voice and as it points the addressees to the ‘great high priest who has gone through the heavens’ (4.14). Particularly striking throughout this section is the subtlety with which the writer moves from one manifestation of God’s speech to another, playing on the term ÂĠºÇË as a ¿xed expression for that speech. In doing so he gives dignity to the preached word by identifying it as a ÂĠºÇË at 4.2 and 4.13, a term which he uses at 4.12 unambiguously to signify God’s word.

message is of Jesus’ high priesthood); Jesus the Son of God is the great High Priest (4.14). The writer moves almost seamlessly from the word of God, to God, to Jesus the Son of God. 100. ‘De toutes façons il y a un heureux jeu de mots…’ Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.91; so Johnson, Hebrews, p.137; Koester, Hebrews, p.275; Attridge, Hebrews, p.136; Robinson, Epistle, p.46; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.265. 1

Chapter 5

HEBREWS 5.11–6.12: GOD’S WORD, ITS FORMS AND EXPECTED EFFECT

This section falls within the largest cycle of exposition (5.1–10.25), but functions as an aside in the writer’s homily.1 In 5.1-10, the writer introduced the main theme of that cycle, the high priesthood of Christ in the order of Melchizedek, and he will pick up his exposition again at 6.13. In the present section the writer turns aside to consider the capacity of the addressees to receive God’s word. In reproving them for the limitations he anticipates in their reception of the word, he surveys their contact with the word of God (using ÂĠºÇË at 5.11, 13, and 6.1, and its cognate ÂĠºÀÇÅ at 5.12) and he outlines the implications of that word for them (again, with key vocabulary, ¼ĤÂǺĕ¸ at 6.7 and ģýĸ at 6.5). The analysis below will examine how the writer uses ÂĠºÇË (as well as its cognates ÂĠºÀÇÅ and ¼ĤÂǺĕ¸ and the term ģýĸ) in this passage to develop his presentation of divine speech, and what effect he expects God’s word to have on his hearers’ maturity and access to salvation.

1. 5.11–6.12 is not so much an abrupt disturbance of the thesis (cf. Buchanan, Hebrews, p.101) as ‘a preliminary exhortation, which provides an appropriate preamble to the central exposition that follows’ (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.133–4). This serves the rhetorical purpose of maintaining the attention of the hearers (DeSilva, Perseverance, pp.209–10), and expresses the writer’s concern that delving further into his subject matter without the proper readiness of his audience could lead to their harm, even apostasy (cf. 6.4-6; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.298). The proposal that these verses contain exegetical reÀection of the kind found in the other warning passages of Hebrews (so D. Mathewson, ‘Reading Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament’, WTJ 61 [1999], pp.209–25) cannot be sustained; the proposed points of contact with OT texts are too disparate and general to be convincing. This section functions as a hortatory aside and is structurally exceptional within Hebrews.

92

Hebrews and Divine Speech

5.1. The Referents of ÂĠºÇË and ÂĠºÀÇÅ in these Verses While the writer has much to say concerning the high priesthood of Christ in the order of Melchizedek,2 he charges his addressees with being unreceptive: ¼ÉĖ Çī ÈÇÂİË ÷ÄėÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË Á¸À »ÍʼÉÄûżÍÌÇË Âñº¼ÀÅ, ëȼĖ ÅÑ¿ÉÇĖ º¼ºĠŸ̼ ̸ėË ÒÁǸėË (5.11). The writer has a ‘message’ or ‘word’ (ĝ ÂĠºÇË) for his addressees ‘that is hard to explain’ (»ÍʼÉÄûżÍÌÇË),3 but he faces the problem that they have become ÅÑ¿ÉÇĖ…̸ėË ÒÁǸėË. To be ÅÑ¿ÉĠË is to be ‘lazy’, ‘sluggish’, ‘slothful’ or ‘torpid’.4 To call the addressees sluggish ̸ėË ÒÁǸėË may mean that they were lazy in making use of their ears,5 or, more generally, lazy in the act of hearing, which would include both their hearing and their perception of what is said. The ¿rst suggestion is awkward, but grammatically possible, ¿tting with the otherwise dif¿cult plural noun, ̸ėË ÒÁǸėË (as signifying two ears). The second possibility does not sit well with the plural dative. A third possibility is that Мˉˎ҅ here bears the meaning it has in 4.2 and signi¿es a preached message (‘sermon’), giving the sense, ‘you have become unresponsive to sermons’. Although contextual evidence is not decisive here, this ¿nal reading is probably to be preferred because it is the preacher’s message which is interrupted at 5.11 due to the sluggishness of the addressees.6 2. The referent of the relative pronoun Çī is ambiguous. Construed as masculine, the referent would be Christ or Melchizedek, who both feature in the immediately preceding verses; construed as neuter, the referent would be the general subject addressed in the previous verses, the high priesthood of Christ. Although the undertanding of these verses does not turn on this distinction, this analysis follows Grässer (Hebräer, I, pp.319–20), Attridge (Hebrews, p.156) and Braun (Hebräer, p.150) in taking the relative pronoun as neuter, referring generally to the subject of the high priesthood of Christ. This construal ¿ts best with a structural outline that views this section as an aside; 6.20 will later resume explicit discussion of the high priesthood referred to by the relative pronoun. 3. The term »ÍʼÉÄûżÍÌÇË occurs nowhere else in the NT or LXX. Writing of the appearance and colour of various species of birds, Diodorus Siculus says that they are »ÍʼÉľżįÌÇÍË ÒÈÇ̼¼ėÊ¿¸À (‘dif¿cult to describe’, Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 2.52.5 [Loeb]; see also Philo, Somn. 1.188). 4. BDAG, LS. 5. So BDAG. 6. Although it seems right to assume that the writer has written his sermon to be delivered by another, this interruption with its admonition may have been prompted by reports that he has heard about the unresponsiveness of the addressees to preachng, and in any case would be rhetorically useful for regaining lost attention at this stage in the sermon, before entering into the body of the most lengthy expositional cycle. 1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

93

In referring to his sermon as ĝ ÂĠºÇË in 5.11,7 the writer once again characterises his address using language that has been applied to God’s speech at 2.2; 4.2, 12, and, as argued above, at 4.13.8 Following 5.11, similar language will be used to describe God’s words: ÌľÅ ÂǺĕÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı (5.12), ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë (5.13) and ÌÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı ÂĠºÇÅ (6.1). Falling between the use of ÂĠºÇË at 4.12 to signify God’s speech and its use later in the present passage in a related sense, the writer’s use of ÂĠºÇË in 5.11 to characterise his own address suggests an elevated view of his own homily.9 It should be noted, however, that the (anarthrous) phrase ÈÇÂİË ÂĠºÇË and its close equivalents were common idioms in classical literature for ‘a great speech’ or ‘a long speech’.10 Support for the view that ÂĠºÇË in 5.11 signi¿es a form of God’s word comes from the other instances of ÂĠºÇË vocabulary in the immediate context.11 In 5.12 the writer says that, although the addressees ought to be teachers, they need someone to teach them ÌÛ ÊÌÇÀϼė¸ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌľÅ ÂǺĕÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı; they need ‘milk, not solid food’. He then writes in 5.13 7. It is generally agreed that ĝ ÂĠºÇË in 5.11 identi¿es the writer’s discourse. See, for instance, Attridge, Hebrews, p.156; Westcott, Epistle, p.132; Johnson, Hebrews, pp.152, 154; Cockerill, Hebrews, pp.254–5. The writer will refer to the whole of the sermon as a ‘word’ (ÂĠºÇË) in 13.22. 8. The plural ÷ÄėÅ is an authorial plural as at 4.13 (so, Attridge, Hebrews, p.157; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.299; cf. 2.5 and 6.3). Like at 4.13, the use of the dative ÷ÄėÅ at 5.11 may indicate a sense that the message ¿nds its origin outside the author. Westcott’s comments are instructive: ‘He speaks of the discourse…which (he implies) it is his duty and his purpose to deliver. There is no indication that the ful¿lment of his design is contingent on those whom he addresses. His part must be done, however hard it may be to do it. In this respect he identi¿es himself with the society which he represents (÷ÄėÅ).’ Westcott, Epistle, p.132. 9. Contra Grässer, who would restrict ÂĠºÇË to an idiomatic meaning here: ‘ĠºÇË hat dabei nicht den pointiert soteriologisch-kerygmatischen Sinn wei bei ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË (4,2), sondern das Wort hat hier mehr die neutral Bedeutung einer Darlegung…’ Grässer, Hebräer, I, p.320. 10. Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.299. Plato writes in Phaed. 115D: ĞÌÀ »ò ëºĽ ÈÚ¸À ÈÇÂİÅ ÂĠºÇŠȼÈÇĕ¾Ä¸À. This is translated variously as ‘All the long argument I have put forward…’ (Duncan), and ‘And although I have been saying at length…’ (Loeb). 11. Note also the writer’s use of the verb Âñº¼ÀÅ in 5.11. The verb occurs 40 times (including four occurrences of the aorist ¼čÈÇÅ) in Hebrews and usually introduces a quoted passage of Scripture. Of these occurrences, the named or implied speaker is God on 16 occasions (at 3.10 God is not named as speaker in the Psalm quotation, but the substance of the Psalm quotation makes it clear that he is the implied speaker), the Holy Spirit once, Jesus four times, and, less frequently, Moses or an unnamed speaker. Before 5.11 the verb is used ten times and each time introduces a passage of Scripture. Thus the writer’s appropriation of the verb to signify his speaking to the addressees further implies a claim to speak words of divine authority. 1

94

Hebrews and Divine Speech

that those who live on milk are ÓȼÀÉÇË ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįžË. It seems most natural to understand that ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë is the solid food for which the addressees are not ready, and in which they are unskilled (ÓȼÀÉÇË). In 6.1, the writer exhorts them to go on to perfection, leaving behind ÌġÅ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı ÂĠºÇÅ. The term ÂĠºÀÇÅ12 (5.12) occurs only four times in the NT, always in the plural form, and generally referring to the OT Scriptures. In Rom. 3.2 the phrase (ÌÛ ÂĠºÀ¸ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı) designates the OT Scriptures entrusted to the Jews.13 In Stephen’s speech in Acts 7.38 he refers to the Law received at Sinai as ‘living oracles’ (ÂĠºÀ¸ ½ľÅ̸). That the OT scriptures are in view here in Heb. 5.12 is generally recognised.14 The writer’s failure to specify the referent of ÌľÅ ÂǺĕÑÅ may well reÀect the fact that the ‘concept was so familiar both to writer and readers’.15 Although the writer has his ‘word’ to deliver to his addressees concerning the high priesthood of Christ in the order of Melchizedek, they need instruction in the basics of the ÂĠºÀ¸ of God. By this he indicates most likely that they have failed to grasp some of the basic principles of how the OT is to be understood in light of Christ.16 They cannot possibly follow the more complex teaching concerning Jesus’ high priesthood in the order of Melchizedek if they have failed to understand the basics of OT ful¿lment in Christ. In speaking of the ÂǺĕÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı, the writer refers to the revelation of God, God’s word; but he chooses this particular expression for the word of God to point to the OT Scriptures and the requirement that his addressees should understand them rightly in light of Christ if they are follow the rest of his exposition. In 5.13 ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë similarly refers to God’s revelation, his word. The logic of the passage requires that the meaning of this phrase be distinguished from that of ‘the basic elements of the oracles of God’ in 5.12.17 There the writer noted that the addressees ‘need someone to 12. A ÂĠºÀÇÅ is an ‘announcement’ or an ‘oracle’ in Classical Greek (LS). 13. J. W. Doeve, ‘Some Notes with Reference to      in Romans III 2’, in Studia Paulina (ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. Van Unnik; Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., 1953), p.121. 14. So Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.50; Westcott, Epistle, p.135. 15. Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.50. 16. ‘…here in Hebrews the expression probably means the Scriptures interpreted in the light of the death an exaltation of Jesus. This sense is consistent with the way our author has been interpreting the Old Testament in Hebrews itself’. O’Brien, Hebrews, p.107; similarly, Koester, Hebrews, p.309; Grässer, Hebräer, I, p.326. 17. Cf. Lehne’s insistence that ÂĠºÇË in Hebrews takes on the character of a new covenant marker (to distinguish a new covenant ‘word’ from the old covenant ‘Law’). Lehne, New Covenant, pp.22, 26–7, 78, 99–100. 1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

95

teach [them] again the basic elements of the oracles of God’ (5.12b) and he then insists that they ‘need milk not solid food’ (5.12c). The teachings they need, ‘the basic elements of the oracles of God’, are equated with milk. The writer goes on to say in 5.13 that ‘everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled (ÓȼÀÉÇË) in the word of righteousness’.18 Thus the writer clearly distinguishes between ÌÛ ÊÌÇÀϼė¸ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌľÅ ÂǺĕÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı (5.12) and ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë (5.13), the former being necessary at an earlier stage of Christian understanding, the latter pertaining to a more developed stage. The precise referent of the expression ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë is debated. Scholars propose a number of construals that are non-revelatory in character.19 However, any reading that does not view the ‘word of righteousness’ in 5.13, the ‘oracles of God’ in 5.12 and the ‘word of Christ’ in 6.1 as having the shared character of divine speech gives inadequate attention to the writer’s clear focus on the theme of God’s revelation in these verses. Interpretations that do read ‘word of righteousness’ as importing an aspect of God’s revelation still differ in their construal of its precise meaning. P. E. Hughes argues that the phrase refers to the doctrine of righteousness through faith in Christ as expounded particularly by Paul.20 Westcott maintains that it refers more generally to ‘teaching which at once deals with the one source of righteousness in Christ and the means by which man is enabled to be a partaker of it’.21 Peterson builds upon Westcott’s position and takes into account the ethical nature of the language (as emphasised by the non-revelatory positions mentioned noted) and proposes that the writer’s teaching ‘may be described as ‘teaching about righteousness’ insofar as it emphasises 18. To be ÓȼÀÉÇË of something is to be ‘without trial’ or ‘experience’ of it; ‘unacquainted’ with it (see LS). 19. See Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.137–8, for a summary of the various proposals. The non-revelatory proposals include ‘right speech’ as spoken by a mature adult as opposed to an infant (ÅûÈÀÇË) (Delitzsch, Hebrews, I, pp.264–6), moral philosophy (Attridge, Hebrews, p.160; this proposal stems from the analysis by H. P. Owen (‘The “Stages of Ascent”, in Hebrews V.11–VI.3’, NTS 3 [1956–57], pp.243–53), who reads this passage as outlining a classical paradigm for development in philosophical maturity), the moral strength attending martyrdom (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.138), and religious teaching in general (Héring, L’Épître, p.55, esp. n.3). 20. Hughes, Commentary, p.191. 21. Westcott, Epistle, p.136. Westcott refrains from equating the ‘word of righteousness’ with the Christian Gospel because the article is lacking: ‘The absence of the de¿nite articles…shews that the main conception of the phrase lies in the character and not in the concrete realization of the “word”. It is not “the word of righteousness”, the full exposition of the Christian faith (2 Cor. iii.9), but teaching such as belongs to it, “teaching of righteousness” ’ (Westcott, Epistle, p.136). 1

96

Hebrews and Divine Speech

the righteousness of Christ and the ¿nished nature of his redemptive work, thus encouraging the sort of faith which ‘works righteousness’ (11.33) and, by the appropriate response to the discipline of God, receives ‘the peaceful fruit of righteousness’ (12.11).22 Peterson’s identi¿cation of the ‘word of righteousness’ with the substance of Christian message makes best sense of the text and is followed here: the message is concerned with the righteousness of Christ, it is appropriated by faith, and it is worked out as righteous character in the life of the Christian.23 The writer chooses the phrase ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë here in 5.13, not simply to vary his expression, but to signify God’s full revelation of righteousness in the gospel of Christ. At 6.1 the writer exhorts the addressees to leave behind the ‘basic teachings about Christ’ (ÌġÅ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı ÂĠºÇÅ). The two genitives in this phrase are ambiguous. The phrase could be read as ‘the word of the beginning of Christ’ and taken to refer to Jesus’ earthly ministry, but the phrase should probably be read in light of the parallel construction in 5.12 so that ÒÉÏýË is taken as a descriptive genitive modifying ÂĠºÇÅ.24 The resultant meaning is ‘the basic word of Christ’. The genitive ÌÇÍ ÉÀÊÌÇı could be taken as either a subjective or an objective genitive. This allows for the phrase to be understood either as ‘the basic teaching of Christ’ or ‘the basic teaching about Christ’.25 22. Peterson, Perfection, p.182. 23. ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįž occurs in Hebrews with various meanings: something which the Son loves over against ‘wickedness’ (1.9), a quality pertaining to Melchizedek, the ‘king of righteousness’ (7.2), the inheritance of Moses which he received in accordance with his faith (11.7), something which the heroes of the faith administered (11.33), and a quality which is the fruit of discipline (12.11). It is not possible to pursue here a contextual exegesis of each of these references; however, two general observations can be made: (1) righteousness in Hebrews appears to be a characteristic that is both received (11.7) and developed (12.11), and (2) righteousness characterises those whom the writer cites as exemplary (Jesus, 1.9; Melchizedek, 7.2; heroes of the faith, 11.33). The ‘word of righteousness’ refers to a message about the way in which the addressees may themselves be characterised as righteous. Given the broader context of the discussion—an unfolding of the message and identity of Christ through an exposition of the OT—this message is undoubtedly about Christ. 24. Attridge, Hebrews, p.162. 25. Héring favours the second on the grounds that the content of Heb. 7 would be easily classi¿ed as ‘advanced teaching about Christ’, providing a logical contrast to the ‘basic teaching about Christ’ of this verse (Héring, L’Épître, p.57). Less plausibly (in light of 2.3; see discussion ad loc.), Adams favours a subjective genitive and proposes that the writer intended his addressees ‘to leave on one side Christ’s original teaching’ (J. C. Adams, ‘Exegesis of Hebrews VI. 1f.’, NTS 13 [1966–67], pp.381–5). 1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

97

Arguments in favour of one or the other are not decisive, and the distinction does not dramatically alter the understanding of the verse. Certainly the message concerns Christ, and, considering the dominical nature of the tradition that established the community (cf. 2.3), the writer presumably understands the message to have been preached by Christ. In light of the place of Christ within God’s schema of revelation as outlined in 1.14, this phrase is best understood to refer to the basic or initial word spoken through the Son, communicated both in the teaching of Jesus and in his person and work. The writer urges his addressees to leave behind this basic message and to go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation.26 In outlining the elements of this foundation, the writer gives the content of this basic message of Christ: ‘repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment’ (6.1b-2).27 If this ‘word of Christ’ is the initial teaching of the Christian faith, it presumably equates roughly to ‘the word of God’ (ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı) of 13.7, spoken previously to the Hebrews by their leaders, probably at the time of their conversion.28 The ‘word of Christ’ in 6.1 is part of the broader substance of the ‘word of God’, and refers speci¿cally to the initial proclamation of the Christian Gospel, the contents of which are articulated in 6.1b, 2. It seems right to conclude that all the uses of ÂĠºÇË (and its cognate ÂĠºÀÇÅ) in 5.11–6.2 come under the umbrella of the broader concept of the ‘word of God’. Although interpretation of the precise nuance of each of these terms varies, there is widespread agreement that they all refer generally to God’s revelation. As noted above, the language used in these 26. On ‘perfection’ here, see the comments below and Peterson’s detailed treatment of the theme (D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection [SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982], passim). 27. Delitzsch sees a distinction here between the ¿rst two items as ‘two features of Christian life’ and the following four items as ‘points of doctrine’ (Delitzsch, Hebrews, I, p.269). This distinction is probably too ¿ne, and this present analysis follows G. R. Beasley-Murray (Baptism in the New Testament [Exeter: Paternoster, 1962], p.242) in treating the list as a uni¿ed catechetical summary. The Jewish contours of this formula have been noted frequently (see, e.g., Adams, ‘Exegesis’, p.379; Attridge, Hebrews, p.163; Michel, Hebräer, pp.239–40). Whether this particular catechetical formulation is Jewish in origin is not of central importance here; the author’s identi¿cation of it as the ‘word of Christ’ af¿rms its Christian character, even if its roots are Jewish. 28. P. E. Hughes, for example, understands 13.7 to refer to the initial instruction in the Christian Gospel (Hughes, Commentary, pp.569–70). See the discussion of that verse below. 1

98

Hebrews and Divine Speech

verses relates to spiritual maturity; such maturity rests upon instruction in God’s revelation. The writer exhorts the readers to ‘go on to perfection’ (6.1), leaving behind the basics. The teaching the writer has for the addressees on the theme of Melchizedek and Christ (broken off at 5.10 and to be returned to shortly) is described as ĝ ÂĠºÇË in 5.11. Commentators agree almost unanimously that ÂĠºÇË here means ‘address’, a familiar idiom. While the term does convey that basic meaning here, it should also be read in light of other uses of ÂĠºÇË elsewhere in Hebrews and in the passage under consideration. The content of this ÂĠºÇË (‘address’) in 5.11 is an OT exposition, but its power is as a ÂĠºÇË of the kind found in the verses that follow, a divine word.29 The writer here places his address, his ‘word’, within the sphere of God’s speech.30 As he expounds the OT in light of the revelation in Christ and exhorts the Hebrews to respond, he believes that he is speaking the ‘word’, God’s word.31 To accept and understand the ÂĠºÇË that he has for the Hebrews requires more spiritual maturity than any other ‘word’ they have heard thus far, so he exhorts them to attain the required standard of maturity. 5.2. God’s Word and Maturity In his brief excursus on the ‘word’ and the hearers’ response to it, the writer outlines a number of his expectations regarding the anticipated effect of the word on those who hear it and he offers a stark warning to those who do not respond appropriately.32 His expectations for the effect 29. Cockerill’s comments here are judicious: ‘The term “word” is central and emphatic. This “word” is the “salvation” so much greater than “the word” God spoke through angels (2:1-4). Christ’s high priesthood is nothing less than the ultimate “word” or message from God addressed to his people and requiring their response. As the pastor will demonstrate, it is based on God’s word in Ps 110:4 and pre¿gured by the God-established priesthood described in the God-inspired OT. No expression could better emphasize the divine origin and consequent urgency of obedience than “the word”.’ Cockerill, Hebrews, p.255. 30. Cf. Koester’s position that the writer presents God as the ‘chief speaker’ of the address as a whole. Koester, Hebrews, p.176. 31. Cf. H. W. Attridge, ‘God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory’, in The Forgotten God (ed. A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), p.208. 32. See B. Nongbri, ‘A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4-12’, NT 45.3 (2003), pp.265–79, for a treatment of this passage against the background of Jewish Apocalyptic literature and arguing that the writer’s aim is to frighten his addressees with a stark and genuine warning. 1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

99

of the word on responsive hearers may be grouped under two headings: maturity (5.11–6.3) and salvation (6.4-12). First, maturity. The writer cannot speak his more dif¿cult word to his addressees because they have become unresponsive (5.11). He goes on to say in 5.12 that ‘though because of the time (»ÀÛ ÌġÅ ÏÉĠÅÇÅ) you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the words of God (ÌÛ ÊÌÇÀϼė¸ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌÑÅ ÂǺĕÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı)’. That the addressees should possess better understanding ‘because of the time’ could be interpreted as an eschatological statement referring to an advanced stage in salvation history,33 but the immediate context requires that ÏÉĠÅÇË in 5.12 be understood as referring to a stage of personal spiritual maturity. To highlight his concern for spiritual maturity among the addressees, the writer uses common metaphors and images for educational (particularly philosophical) development.34 His insistence that the addressees need to be taught ‘the basic elements of the oracles of God’ (5.12b) resonates with Seneca’s description of a primary course in grammar ‘which gave boys their elementary training’.35 The writer’s lament that the addressees ‘need milk, not solid food’ (5.12c) bears some resemblance to Epictetus’ exhortation to philosophical maturity: ‘Shall we not wean ourselves at last, and call to mind what we have heard from the philosophers?’36 33. In the prologue the writer states that God’s speech has taken on a new dimension and is delivered by different means ‘in these last days’ (1.2), and there is evidence of an eschatological outlook in the broader context of 5.12. In 6.5 the writer refers to ‘the powers of the age to come’; in 6.11 he speaks of the Hebrews maintaining hope and assurance ‘to the very end’. One of the other two occurrences of ÏÉĠÅÇË in Hebrews appears in 4.7, in the context of a discussion of the Sabbath rest. The words quoted from Ps. 95 in Heb. 4.7 are said to come ‘much later’ (ļÌÛ ÌÇÊÇıÌÇÅ ÏÉĠÅÇÅ) than the good news brought to the exodus generation and their disobedience in response. At 4.7 ÏÉĠÅÇË refers not to personal maturity but to the concept of salvation history. 34. DeSilva, Perseverance, pp.211–12. There is little basis, though, for imposing on these verses a rigid framework of personal development borrowed from classical thought as, for instance, in Owen’s analysis. He argues that the writer divides the Christian life into three clearly de¿ned stages based on analogies with Plato and the Stoics (Owen, ‘Stages’, pp.248ff.). The ¿rst is spiritual infancy; the ‘second stage is ethical and practical; the third is religious and theoretical’ (Owen, ‘Stages’, p.244). See, also, Attridge’s similar analysis (Attridge, Hebrews, pp.158–62). More convincing is Lane’s simpler analysis. He sees evidence for only two stages of development here: immaturity and full adult maturity (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.137). 35. ‘…per quam pueris elementa traduntur…’ Seneca, Ep. 88.20. 36. ĤÁ ÒÈǺ¸Â¸ÁÌĕÊÇļŠô»¾ ÈÇ¿’ î¸ÍÌÇİË Á¸Ė ļÄžÊĠļ¿¸ ĻÅ óÁÇįʸļŠȸÉÛ ÌÑࡏÅ ÎÀÂÇÊĠÎÑÅ (Epictetus, Diatr. 3.24.9). See also Epictetus, Diatr. 2.18.27, for the 1

100

Hebrews and Divine Speech

The writer identi¿es two marks of maturity (two evidences of a ‘useful crop’, 6.7) that he hopes to see in his addressees: the ability to teach others (5.12) and the ability to recognise good teaching (5.14). Once the addressees have been taught the word of God, they should be able to teach it to others. Communicating God’s word to each other is fundamental to the community’s existence. In 2.3 eyewitnesses of Christ ‘attested’ to the community the message of salvation. At 10.25 the writer exhorts the community to make sure that they are ‘encouraging (ȸɸÁ¸ÂÇıÅ̼Ë) one another’, an activity that is rooted in the word of God.37 Finally, at 13.7 (see the later discussion), the writer exhorts the addressees to ‘Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God (ÌġÅ ÂĠºÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı) to you…’ The writer would no doubt wish that at least some members of the congregation had reached suf¿cient maturity to become leaders who would speak the word of God to others. The writer also expects that the mature would be able ‘to distinguish good from evil’ (ÈÉġË »ÀÚÁÉÀÊÀÅ Á¸ÂÇı ̼ Á¸Ė Á¸ÁÇı, 5.14). The object of this distinguishing is not immediately clear, but the most likely proposal is that of Wider, who maintains that it ‘bezieht sich auf dieses ģýĸ ¿¼Çı’.38 While the act of distinguishing between good and evil may have ethical implications, ultimately it consists in recognising God’s good word (cf. 6.5) as being ‘heilssetzende’ and ‘Heil führende’.39 Had the writer been con¿dent of such maturity in his addressees, the warning of 13.9 not to be ‘carried away by all kinds of strange teachings’ would have been redundant. The writer wishes to move his addressees on to ‘perfection’ (6.1). ‘Perfection’ is itself a substantial theological motif in Hebrews that has been treated in detail elsewhere.40 Mention of ‘perfection’ (̼¼ÀĠ̾Ë) here is bounded on both sides by discussion of the addressees’ spiritual maturity: ‘The ̼¼ÀĠÌ¾Ë of 6:1 does not simply refer to the moral maturity that the solid food will confer, but more generally to that spiritual maturity of which the context gives general indication’.41 This maturity is both the product of Christian teaching and the precondition for more advanced teaching. notion of ‘training’ (cf. Heb. 5.14, º¼ºÍÄŸÊÄñŸ) in connection with development in philosophical discipline. 37. The writer identi¿es OT Scripture as a ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË at 12.5 and describes his own sermon (which is built around scriptural expositions) as a ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË at 13.22. 38. Wider, Theozentrik, p.163. 39. Wider, Theozentrik, p.163. 40. For a thorough treatment of the theme, see Peterson, Perfection, passim. 41. Peterson, Perfection, p.185; contra Héring, who insists that ‘perfection’ here refers to the character of the teaching, not the addressees (Héring, L’Épître, pp.57–8). 1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

101

5.3. God’s Word and Salvation Verses 4-12 focus on the prospect of receiving God’s blessing and entering into his salvation, and on the warning that failure to respond rightly and ‘produce a crop’ (6.7) will result in exclusion. The writer addresses the possibility that those who have been ‘enlightened’ (ÎÑÌÀÊ¿ñÅ̸Ë, 6.4), presumably through hearing the teaching he has been discussing, should later ‘fall away’ (6.6). This would be disastrous because it would involve crucifying again the Son of God and treating him with contempt (6.6) and because it would result in judgment (being ‘burned over’, 6.8). However, the writer is con¿dent that his addressees, those who have been enlightened and have experienced the bene¿ts of that enlightenment (6.4-5), will share in ‘salvation’ (6.9). Two features of this discussion are relevant here: ‘the goodness of the word (ģýĸ) of God’ (6.5) and the nature of the ‘blessing (¼ĤÂǺĕ¸) from God’ (6.7). Hebrews 6.4-6 is a single sentence consisting of an in¿nitive (ÒŸÁ¸ÀÅĕ½¼ÀÅ, 6.6a; it lacks an explicit subject and is governed by the adjective Ò»įŸÌÇÅ, 6.4a), ¿ve aorist participles (ÎÑÌÀÊ¿ñÅ̸Ë, º¼ÍʸÄñÅÇÍË, º¼Å¾¿ñÅ̸Ë, º¼ÍʸÄñÅÇÍË, ȸɸȼÊĠÅ̸Ë, 6.4b-6a) outlining together the circumstances under which it would be ‘impossible to restore’ someone to repentance, and two present participles (ÒŸÊ̸ÍÉÇıÅ̸Ë, ȸɸ»¼ÀºÄ¸Ìĕ½ÇÅ̸Ë, 6.6b) outlining the hypothetical but ‘impossible’ scenario of restoration.42 To be ‘enlightened’ (ÎÑÌÀÊ¿ñÅ̸Ë43) ‘is a common image for the reception of a salvi¿c message’;44 there is evidence of its use to illustrate reception of divine teaching (often of a salvi¿c nature) in the LXX,45

42. Attridge prefers to view the four participles in 6.4-5 as a unit describing ‘the experience of entry into the Christian community’ and the three participles (one in the aorist, two in the present tense) in 6.6 as ‘referring to apostates and what characterises them’ (Attridge, Hebrews, p.167). Lane’s construal, which is followed here, groups participles of the same tense within the same logical unit (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.132). 43. As a transitive verb, ÎÑÌĕ½Ñ means ‘to cause to be illumined’ or ‘to make known in reference to the inner life or transcendent matters and thus enlighten’ (BDAG). Within its broader meaning, ‘to enlighten’, it can have the speci¿c meaning ‘to instruct, teach’ (LS). 44. Attridge, Hebrews, p.169. Occasionally, it points more directly to the experience of salvation itself, rather than the receipt of a message. So, Ps. 34.5 (33.6); Isa. 60.1; Mic. 7.8. 45. So, for instance, Ps. 119.130 (118.130): ‘The exposition of your words will enlighten (ÎÑÌÀ¼ė) and will impart understanding to infants’. See also Judg. 13.8 (LXXA only), 2 Kgs 12.2 (4 Kgdms 12.3). 1

102

Hebrews and Divine Speech

in the NT46 and in Philo.47 The term was later used to speak of baptism, but at this stage it ‘does not yet function as a technical term’ for that rite.48 Here the writer uses the term to refer to the acceptance of the ‘basic teaching about Christ’ (ÌġÅ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı ÂĠºÇÅ, 6.1), which he assumes the addressees have known and accepted. He wants to move beyond that foundational teaching, and he resolves, ‘we will do this, if God permits’ (6.3). Those who have been ‘enlightened’ by such foundational teaching and who subsequently ‘fall away’ cannot be restored (6.4-8). The reason for the impossibility of restoration lies in the nature of the ‘enlightenment’ that comes about through hearing and receiving the basic Christian teaching. The writer insists that enlightenment is a oneoff event (×ȸÆ) that cannot be repeated,49 just as Christ’s sacri¿ce was ‘once for all’,50 human beings are cleansed ‘once’,51 and the judgment event happens ‘once’.52 Turning away from this enlightenment is tantamount to ‘crucifying again the Son of God and holding him up to contempt’53 (6.6) and it will lead to judgment (6.8). This implies that 46. 2 Cor. 4.4-6 (and cf. comments in Grässer, Hebräer, I, pp.348–9); Eph. 1.18 and 3.9. 47. Philo, Fug. 139. 48. Attridge, Hebrews, p.169, so too E. Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1987), p.155; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.141; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SBT, 2d Series 15; London: SCM Press, 1970), pp.209– 10; Beasley-Murray, Baptism, pp.244–7. Contra Käsemann, Wandering, pp.187–8; Monte¿ore, Hebrews, p.108. The earliest evidence for the use of the verb to signify baptism is in the middle of the second century in Justin Martyr (cf. Riggenbach, Hebräer, p.155 n.9) but ‘prior to the middle of the second century there is no clear evidence that ÎÑÌĕ½¼ÀÅ means “to baptize” ’ (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.141). 49. In parallel with 2 Cor. 4.6, Grässer sees here in 6.4 reference to conversion as an act of divine creation: ‘Dem ersten Schöpfungswerk entsprechend – Á¸Ė ¼čȼŠĝ ¿¼ĠË ж ¼Å¾¿ûÌÑ ÎľË (Gen 1,3) – wird mit ÎÑÌĕ½¼ÀÅ der Beginn der christlichen Existenz als ein schöpferischer Akt Gottes interpretiert’ (Grässer, Hebräer, I, pp.348–9). However, given the absence of overt allusions to the Genesis narrative (as are found in 2 Cor. 4.6), such a suggestion must remain speculative. 50. 9.26, 27, 28; for the use of this term (and the related term, ëÎÚȸÆ) in a cultic/sacri¿cial context, see also 9.7, 12 (here ëÎÚȸÆ); 10.2. 51. 10.10 (ëÎÚȸÆ); for the idea but not the key vocabulary, see 10.14. 52. 12.26, 27. 53. Héring maintains that the sense here is not of repeating Christ’s cruci¿xion, but only of raising Christ up and subjecting him to humiliation (Héring, L’Épître, p.60, esp. n.5). He rests his view on the fact that no parallel can be found for ÒŸÊ̸ÍÉľÅʸÀ to mean ‘re-crucify’. The concept of re-cruci¿xion is, of course, a logical impossibility (and therefore the lack of parallel in other literature is unsurprising), but the writer of Hebrews is emphasising precisely that impossibility here. 1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

103

there is a parallel and a relationship on some level between the ‘once for all’ nature of enlightenment and ‘once for all’ nature of Christ’s sacri¿ce and the cleansing it brings.54 The sacri¿ce of Christ deals with sin once for all and pre-empts judgment for those who participate in it.55 That participation is understood to come through the ‘once’ for all event of ‘enlightenment’; there is an intrinsic ‘Korrespondenz zwischen dem ×È¸Æ ÎÑÌÀÊ¿ýŸÀ der Hörer und dem christologischen ëÎÚÈ¸Æ im Sinne eschatologischer Einmaligkeit und Endgultigkeit’.56 Rejecting this one-off participation in Christ’s sacri¿ce and one-off cleansing leaves no alternative but judgment itself. This logic implies that in the process of ‘enlightenment’ the person enlightened participates in a substantial way in the sacri¿ce of Christ and its bene¿ts.57 This is further implied by the fact that the writer equates ‘enlightenment’ with full participation in salvation in the string of participial phrases in 6.4-5. The picture is of participation (even if proleptically, as a ‘tasting’) in salvation (heaven, the Holy Spirit, and the age to come).58 Here in 6.5 the ‘good word of God’ (Á¸ÂġÅ…¿¼Çı ģýĸ) functions to signify God’s word as it creates and sustains the cosmos, as in Heb. 1.3 and 11.3. This is not so much God’s personal word as it brings a message 54. So Wider, Theozentrik, p.165. 55. The writer sees a close connection between the two one-off events of Christ’s sacri¿ce and the judgment: ‘he has appeared once for all (×ȸÆ) at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacri¿ce of himself. And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once (×ȸÆ), and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once (×ȸÆ) to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time…’ (9.26b-28a). As a result of Christ’s sacri¿ce, worshippers are ‘cleansed once for all’ (×ȸÆ, 10.2). 56. Wider, Theozentrik, p.165. Wider notes this correspondence, but differs from the analysis offered above in his construal of the nature of the relationship between Christ’s ‘once for all’ offering and the enlightenment of the individual believer, ¿nding the primary correspondence in the fact that both ‘enlightenment’ and the sacri¿ce of Christ are events in which God acts graciously in taking the initiative that his creatures would be powerless to take. He summarises his view rather enigmatically: ‘Das Ò»įŸÌÇÅ bezieht sich auf das christologische ëÎÚÈ¸Æ weniger im Sinne einer objective Korrespondenz als im Sinne einer auf die radikale geschöpfliche Unverfügbarkeit dringenden Intention’ (Wider, Theozentrik, p.166; italics his). 57. So Spicq, L’Épître (1957), p.61; Attridge, Hebrews, p.170. In this connection Spicq draws attention to Gal. 2.19, where Paul insists, ‘I have been cruci¿ed with Christ’, dramatically and personally associating himself with the event of the cruci¿xion (Spicq, L’Épître [1957], p.61). 58. For the view that the writer’s eschatology and (in particular) cosmology provide the basis for his insistence on the impossibility of repentance, see C. E. Carlston, ‘Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JBL 78.4 (1959), pp.296–302 (esp. 299–301). 1

104

Hebrews and Divine Speech

of salvation or takes personal form in Christ, but God’s cosmological and creative word which is experienced fully only in enjoying access to heaven, the pinnacle of the created cosmos. While the writer uses both ģýĸ and ÂĠºÇË as close equivalents59 to signify God’s speech, in this verse the writer again uses ģýĸ rather than ÂĠºÇË in a context where his outlook is explicitly cosmological. Access to all this is available ‘once’ through enlightenment given by the teaching of the Christian message; if experienced and subsequently rejected, the bene¿ts of Christ’s sacri¿ce and access to heaven would no longer be available. In vv. 8-9 the writer outlines two possible outcomes for his addressees, elucidated using an agricultural image: ground that has had the bene¿t of repeated rainfall and that produces a useful crop receives a ‘blessing (¼ĤÂǺĕ¸) from God’, while that which does not is ‘burned over’. The thought is evidently of judgment; ¿re imagery is used elsewhere (cf. 12.29) to describe God’s judgment. The term ¼ĤÂǺĕ¸ and its cognate verb ¼ĤÂǺñÑ appear a number of times in Hebrews. The verb always signi¿es a word of divine commendation or promise of goodwill, spoken usually by a named human agent (even if an agent of special status, such as Melchizedek; 7.1, 6, 7; 11.20, 21) and once by God himself (6.14). The noun appears only here and at 12.17, where the writer af¿rms that Esau wished to inherit the ‘blessing’ he had lost, but was refused. His plight there is pictured as a model for the judgment the addressees will face if they follow in Esau’s faithless disobedience (12.25-28).60 Thus the noun is used in both contexts to signify a word of divine acceptance at judgment; Esau was refused such a blessing at 12.17; the addressees have the prospect of receiving a blessing if their lives produce fruit (6.7). Within the context of the present passage, replete as it is with terms of the ÂĠºÇË family, ¼ĤÂǺĕ¸ signi¿es an aspect of God’s speech: the addressees have heard the presentation of the message (ÂĠºÇË) of Christ in its various forms; their response will determine whether they receive a ¿nal word of blessing (¼ĤÂǺĕ¸) from God at judgment. 5.4. Conclusions The analysis of this section has indicated that in each case where the writer uses ÂĠºÇË or a related term in this passage, he uses it to denote a form or aspect of divine speech. At 5.11, he uses the term in an idiomatic way to refer to his ‘address’ (see also his similar use of the term at 4.13 59. So Attridge, Hebrews, p.170. Cf. Philo, Fug. 137; Leg. All. 3.169, 174-75. See the discussion of the two terms in Excursus 2. 60. See the discussion of 12.18-29 in Chapter 8.

1

5. Hebrews 5.1–6.12

105

and 13.22); but the context suggests a further theological sense: it identi¿es his address as a form of God’s speech. The term was used in this sense as recently as 4.12-13, and it continues to be used similarly in the following verses here. At 5.12, the cognate ÂĠºÀÇÅ signi¿es the OT Scriptures (particularly as interpreted in light of Christ). At 5.13 ÂĠºÇË »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë signi¿es the Christian gospel. The term ÂĠºÇË recurs at 6.1; here ÌġÅ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı ÂĠºÇÅ refers again to the Christian gospel, and speci¿cally to its basic and initial elements. The ģýĸ of 6.5 is God’s word in its cosmological context, as it creates and sustains. At 6.7 ¼ĤÂǺĕ¸ signi¿es God’s word of acceptance at judgment. The writer expects that God’s word should produce in his hearers the fruit of maturity and, ultimately, salvation. The ‘enlightenment’ (6.4) that is contextually and conceptually linked to the teaching of the divine word is tantamount to participation in salvation and the bene¿ts of Christ’s sacri¿ce, with the full eschatological and cosmological implications of that sacri¿ce and the access to heaven it offers. The warning of 6.4-8 is particularly striking as it appears to suggest the possibility that participation in that salvation could be undone or lost. However, the writer concludes the section with the af¿rmation that, ultimately, he is con¿dent concerning the future for his addressees; he takes the view that their ‘work’ and ‘love’ (6.10) ‘belong to salvation’ (ëÏĠļŸ ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Ë, 6.9).

1

Chapter 6

HEBREWS 6.13–7.28: THE SPOKEN AND EFFECTIVE OATH

In Heb. 7.28 the writer contrasts two forms of divine speech that serve to establish a priesthood, ‘the law’ (ĝ ÅĠÄÇË) and ‘the word of the oath’ (ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸Ë). The former appoints priests who are ‘subject to weakness’, the latter ‘appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever’. This section falls in Cycle 7 of Hebrews’ pattern of expositional cycles, following the interruption to that cycle in the pastoral aside of 5.11–6.12. The primary interest of the present study here is to examine the writer’s presentation of the oath as a form of God’s speech and his use of the term ÂĠºÇË in the phrase ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸Ë at 7.28. In 6.13-20 the writer introduces the concept of oath and highlights the signi¿cance of oaths to his addressees; in 7.1-14 (a section that this study will not treat in detail) he moves away from explicit treatment of oaths; in 7.15-28 he returns to the theme of oaths.1 At 6.13 (after the pastoral aside of 5.11–6.12) the writer returns to the theme of Jesus’ high priesthood in the order of Melchizedek; here the key exemplum text of Cycle 7 (Ps. 110.4; cf. Heb. 5.6b; 6.20) continues to be of central importance. Having rebuked the addressees at 5.11–6.8, the writer comforts them in 6.9-12. He wants the addressees to be those who ‘through faith and patience inherit the promises’ (6.12). In 6.13-20 he reminds them of the certainty of God’s promise and he takes God’s dealings with Abraham (particularly his emphatic speech to Abraham) as a model to encourage his addressees to trust in God’s word as Abraham did. The characteristic ºÚÉ at 6.13 marks a transition in the discourse, 1. Scholars note strong verbal parallels between 6.13-20 and 7.15-28 and recognise the close thematic unity between these two sections (see Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.21–2; Lewicki, Weist Nicht, pp.35–6; H. Köster, ‘Die Auslegung der AbrahamVerheissung in Hebräer 6’, in Studien zur Theologie der Alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen [ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Klaus Koch; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehung, 1961], p.107).

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

107

this time away from the pastoral aside of 5.11–6.12 and back to the theme introduced earlier in ch. 5. The word ‘promise’ acts as a hookword between the pastoral aside and the return to the main theme of Cycle 7 (ëȸºº¼Âĕ¸Ë, 6.12 and ëȸºº¼ÀÂÚļÅÇË, 6.13).2 Part of the writer’s strategy in reassuring his addressees is to demonstrate from the OT that when God wants to make his intentions especially clear to his people, he uses emphatic forms of speech (promises and oaths); hence the prominence of the concept of promise here in 6.13-20. God’s speech to Abraham in Gen. 22.16-17 provides fertile ground for this reÀection because here God swears an oath ‘by himself’. As the analysis turns to consider the writer’s theology of divine speech in this section, a number of interrelated questions must be addressed: (1) At what point does the writer move from considering God’s speech to Abraham (in view at 6.13) to a consideration of his speech to the present community (clearly in view by 6.18b)? (2) How should the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ in 6.17b be understood? (3) What are the ‘two unchangeable things’ of 6.18? (4) What is the implied relationship between ‘promise’, ‘oath’ and ‘hope’? (5) And how should the phrase ‘the word of the oath’ in 7.28 be understood? 6.1. God’s Speech to Abraham and to the New Covenant Community At 6.13 God’s speech to Abraham is in view, but by 6.18b the new covenant community are those who are ‘encouraged’ by God’s speech. How are God’s speech to Abraham and his speech to the new covenant community related, and where does the writer shift his focus from one to the next? The writer af¿rms at 6.13, ‘When God [had] made a promise to Abraham,3 because he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “I will surely bless you and multiply you” ’. The use of the aorist tense for the participle ëȸºº¼ÀÂÚļÅÇË is intentional.4 It 2. Vanhoye, La Structure, p.121; Braun, Hebräer, p183; Grässer, Hebräer, I, p.374 n.9. Other key terms from vv. 11 and 12 are picked up in the following paragraph: ‘hope’ (ëÂÈĕ»ÇË, 6.11b, 18b), ‘patience’ (ĸÁÉÇ¿ÍÄĕ¸Ë, 6.12b, ĸÁÉÇ¿ÍÄûʸË, 6.15), and ‘inherit’ (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄÇįÅÌÑÅ, 6.12b; Á¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇÀË, 6.17). For a helpful overview of the writer’s use of ‘promise’ language, see Lehne, New Covenant, pp.19–20. 3. Or ‘God having made a promise to Abraham…’ 4. The extent to which tense in Greek verb forms signi¿es time and/or aspect is, of course, a matter of ongoing debate (see, for instance, S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1992], pp.20–49; K. L. McKay, ‘Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek’, NT 34.3 [1992], pp.209–28; Wallace, Greek, pp.504–12, 613–16; C. R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek 1

108

Hebrews and Divine Speech

highlights the fact that God had previously made the promise of numerous offspring (in Gen. 12.2 and 15.5),5 but at the time of the Genesis 22 narrative (which is directly in view here in Heb. 6.13-15) Abraham had occasion to doubt the veracity of the promise because of God’s request that he sacri¿ce his sole heir, Isaac (implied in the statement that he ‘patiently endured’, Heb. 6.15b). So, in Gen. 22.17, God adds his oath to the promise, and that oath is quoted in Heb. 6.14.6 The writer connects the story of Abraham to the situation of his addressees by identifying them as potential (if not presumptive) heirs of God’s covenant promise to Abraham.7 This is hinted at in 6.12, where the writer expresses his hope that his addressees will become ‘imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises’ (…ÄÀľ̸Ė »ò ÌľÅ »ÀÛ ÈĕÊ̼ÑË Á¸Ė ĸÁÉÇ¿ÍÄĕ¸Ë Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄÇįÅÌÑÅ ÌÛË ëȸºº¼Âĕ¸Ë).8 In the writer’s mind, Abraham is the paradigmatic heir of God’s promises; the promised land was his ‘inheritance’ (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸, 11.8). It is possible to fail to receive one’s inheritance through unbelief, as Esau discovered: [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008], passim; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek [trans. from 4th Latin ed. by Joseph Smith; Rome: Ponti¿cio Istituto Biblico, 2001], pp.77–8; on the meaning of the aorist more generally, see F. Stagg, ‘The Abused Aorist’, JBL 91.2 [1972], pp.222–31). This appears to be a case where both time (relative to the main verb) and aspect are signi¿ed by the tense of the participle. Contextual factors would support this understanding. Not only is the action of the promise-making being viewed as a completed whole (aspect), but the writer also wishes to stress that God had previously (antecedent time) made a promise before swearing the oath. Johnson, who writes after the publication of McKay’s and Porter’s work on tense and aspect, similarly notes the intentionality of the aorist here to denote antecedent time (Johnson, Hebrews, pp.168–9). 5. The logic of Gen. 22 in its own context presupposes the previous promissory activity of God in earlier chapters. T. D. Alexander, ‘Abraham re-Assessed Theologically’, in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50’ (ed. Richard S. Hess; 2d ed.; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994), pp.9–22. 6. As normal in Hebrews, the writer’s quoted text mirrors closely the LXX. 7. So Koester, Hebrews, p.334. See also Heb. 2.16, where the writer insists that Jesus came to help ‘the descendants of Abraham’, presumably referring there to the Christian community. Calvin asserts that ‘heirs’ here ‘seems to designate the Jews in particular’ (Calvin, Hebrews, p.84); however, he provides little evidence from Hebrews to support this position. 8. The model is not of gaining promises on the basis of faith and perseverance, but in the context of faith and perseverance: ‘The use of the genitive with »ÀÛ implies that the faith and patience were the circumstances for the reception of the promises, not the cause (which would have been expressed by the use of »ÀÛ with the accusative)’. J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), p.185; cf. Zerwick, Biblical, pp.37–8. 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

109

‘You know that later, when he wanted to inherit (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄýʸÀ) the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent…’ (12.17). However, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant so ‘that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸)’ (9.15). The writer holds out before his addressees the hope of inheritance of the divine promise of salvation, but he admonishes them to strive to take hold of it. So, he identi¿es the angels as those who are ‘sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation (»ÀÛ ÌÇİË ÄñÂÂÇÅÌ¸Ë Á¾ÉÇÅÇļėÅ ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸Å)’ in 1.14. He then admonishes the addressees to ‘pay greater attention’ in 2.1, implying that they need to con¿rm their membership in the group that will inherit salvation. In the present passage, when the writer speaks of God’s desire ‘to show even more clearly to the heirs (Á¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇÀË) of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose’ (6.17), it seems that the members of the new covenant community are in view in 6.17-20, and, among them, the addressees.9 This is con¿rmed when the writer goes on in 6.18 to speak of the intended result of God’s guarantee of his promise with speci¿c reference to himself and his addressees: ‘…so that…we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us’ (italics mine). The comparative ȼÉÀÊÊĠ̼ÉÇÅ at 6.17a gives further con¿rmation that in 6.17-20 the writer has moved on from Abraham to consider the new covenant community. He uses comparatives frequently as a rhetorical device to characterise new covenant realities and to insist upon their superiority,10 and so the presence of a comparative here may be taken as an indicator that the new covenant situation is in view.

9. So Bruce, Hebrews, p.154. For the addressees’ presumptive membership in the new covenant community, cf., for instance, 6.9. 10. With respect to the comparatives found at 1.4; 3.3; 7.6-7, 19, 22; 8.6; 9.11, 23; 11.16, 39-40; and 12.24, Dey suggests that the writer uses these to highlight the perfection which Christ achieves and makes available. However, this perfection is presented as something which only Christ (and no ¿gure or institution belonging exclusively the old covenant) could achieve (Dey, Intermediary, pp.121–6). Therefore, Lehne is correct to note that the writer makes use of comparatives to characterise the superior nature of the new order over against the old. As markers of the new order, she draws particular attention to the use of the comparative adjectives ÁɼĕÌÌÑÅ (6.9; 7.7, 19, 22; 8.6; 9.23; 10.34; 11.16, 35, 40; 12.24), »À¸ÎÇÉļ̼ÉÇË (1.4; 8.6), ȼĕÑÅ (3.3), ļĕ½ÑÅ/̼¼ÀÇÌñÉÇË (9.11), and ȼÉÀÊÊĠ̼ÉÇË (6.17; 7.15) (Lehne, New Covenant, pp.102, 154 n.79). For an overview of the use of comparatives in Hebrews, see W. C. Linss, ‘Logical Terminology in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, CTM 37.6 (1966), pp.368–9. 1

110

Hebrews and Divine Speech

The writer notes that human beings occasionally use an oath (ĝ ĞÉÁÇË) to clear up a dispute (6.16). Similarly, God guaranteed (ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼÅ)11 his purposes to ‘the heirs of the promise’ ‘by an oath’ (ĞÉÁÑЗ, 6.17). In Hebrews the term ‘oath’ (either ĞÉÁÇË or ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸) appears only in chs. 6 and 7 and refers to a formal and binding guarantee of a promise.12 Without specifying whether the oath in question in 6.17 is the oath to Abraham of Gen. 22.17 or the oath of Christ’s appointment as High Priest of Ps. 110.4 (which will come into focus in Hebrews 7), the writer af¿rms that God’s oath is to act as an encouragement to the addressees (6.18). He then describes the ‘hope’, which appears to be integrally related to the promise and the oath, as a ‘sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered’. Evidently, the hope that arises from God’s emphatic speech provides the community with a link to the ‘inner shrine’ which Jesus has entered (6.19-20). The oath of Ps. 110.4 comes directly into view in Heb. 7.15-28. Here the oath establishes Jesus’ high priesthood,13 introducing ‘a better hope, through which we approach God’ (7.19b). As at 6.13-20, the writer’s aim is pastoral;14 the oath is mentioned to reassure the addressees of the ongoing ef¿cacy of Christ’s sacri¿ce and the permanence of the access he gives to the heavenly sanctuary. In this section the oath as a form of speech (and as a means of establishing a priesthood) is set in direct contrast to the Law, and it is in the context of this contrast that the writer closes his treatment of the oath and designates it ‘the word of the oath’ (ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸Ë, 7.28). Within the logic of 6.13-20, God’s promise and oath to Abraham are directly in view up until the end of 6.16; at 6.17a his attention turns to God’s speech to the new covenant community 11. For simplicity, the NRSV rendering of ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠas ‘guaranteed’ is followed here. The accuracy of that rendering will be considered below. 12. ĞÉÁÇË is found at 6.16, 17, and ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸ is found at 7.20, 21, 28. ĞÉÁÇË is employed in a way equivalent to the English term ‘oath’; ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸ can mean ‘oath’, or it can imply more actively ‘the process of taking an oath’ (BDAG). 13. The question of when (and where) Christ becomes High Priest is not answered fully by the text. The writer understands the words of Ps. 110.4 as spoken by God to Jesus, but does not indicate when they are spoken. His pattern of contemporising OT texts and viewing them as spoken by God into his present context suggests that there is no need to understand the writer to imply that the inauguration event of Ps. 110.4 (with reference to Jesus) took place when Ps. 110.4 was originally written. For a fuller discussion of the timing of the establishment of Christ’s high priesthood (and for the view that it takes place at the point of his heavenly exaltation), see Peterson, Perfection, pp.110–12. 14. Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.35.

1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

111

(this speech will include the oath of Ps. 110.4). The extent to which God’s speech to Abraham remains relevant for the new covenant community will be addressed below. 6.2. The Use of ļÊÀ̼įÑ in 6.17 Central to the interpretation of these verses is the rendering of the phrase ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠĞÉÁÑЗ in 6.17b. The verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ,15 which appears nowhere in the LXX and only at Heb. 6.17 in the NT, can be used transitively to mean ‘mediate between’16 and intransitively to mean ‘act as mediator, peacemaker’.17 Oepke maintains that here in Heb. 6.17 the meaning cannot be ‘to mediate’, since there is no object and because ‘there is no higher court which God might represent in relation to men’. In light of that he suggests, rather speculatively, that the ‘only possible translation is “to guarantee,” “to vouch for.”18 This conclusion is shared by most commentators.19 However, adopting an otherwise unattested rendering of the verb is exegetically tenuous. Worley insists that ļÊÀ̼įÑ should be understood here to mean ‘act as witness’ (a slight nuancing of Oepke’s translation), and that ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠĞÉÁÑЗ should be taken to mean that God called upon himself to act as witness to his own oath.20 He ¿nds support in Philo’s use of the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ in connection with a deposit given in a business transaction in Spec. Leg. 4.31. Here God acts as witness to a transaction where a deposit is given on trust: ÒÇÉÚÌÑЗ »ò ÈÉںĸÌÀ ÈÚÅÌÑË ÒĠɸÌÇË Ä¼ÊÀ̼į¼À ¿¼ĠËж ĜÅ ¼ĊÁġË ĨÈ’ ÒÄÎÇėÅ ÄÚÉÌÍɸ Á¸Â¼ėÊ¿¸À.21 While this passage does 15. For a lexical and theological overview, see Oepke, ‘ļÊĕ̾˒; for an overview of its use in ancient literature as both transitive and intransitive, see also F. Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebräer Erläutert durch Einleitung, Übersetzung und Fortlaufenden Kommentar (3 vols.; Berlin: Dümmler, 1828–40), II, pp.261–3. 16. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 9.59.5; Philo, Plant. 10; BDAG. 17. Josephus, Ant. 7.193; 16.118; BDAG. 18. A. Oepke, ‘ļÊĕ̾˒, in TDNT, IV, p.620. Monte¿ore echoes this position, rejecting the understanding of ļÊÀ̼įÑ as meaning ‘to act as mediator’ on the grounds that ‘God cannot act as his own mediator’, and preferring to take the verb to mean ‘to guarantee’ (Monte¿ore, Hebrews, p.115). 19. See, for example, Héring, L’Épître, p.63; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, p.149; Attridge, Hebrews, p.181 (somewhat nuanced; see the discussion below); Monte¿ore, Hebrews, p.115; Koester, Hebrews, pp.327–8. 20. W. R. Worley, ‘Fleeing to Two Immutable Things, God’s Oath-taking and Oath-witnessing: The Use of Litigant Oath in Hebrews 6:12-20’, ResQ 36.4 (1994), p. 227. 21. ‘And this unseen transaction has assuredly the unseen God as its intermediary, to whom both naturally appeal as their witness…’ 1

112

Hebrews and Divine Speech

not explicitly relate to oath-taking (although Worley suggests that this transaction may be understood as a kind of oath),22 it could suggest an alternative understanding of ļÊÀ̼įÑ.23 Worley cites Josephus Ant. 4.133 in support of his position. Here, two young men seeking to secure the acceptance of their marriage proposals to two reticent women reinforce their statements of affection with oaths and call upon God as their ‘witness’: ̸ı̸ »ò ĚÄÅįÅÌ¼Ë ì¼ºÇÅ Á¸Ė ¿¼ġŠļÊĕ̾ŠĻÅ ĨÈÀÊÏÅÇıÅÌÇ ÈÇÀÇįļÅÇÀ.24 It is not clear here whether the oath-takers call upon God (as ļÊĕ̾Ë) to function as a witness of their oath-taking (so that it cannot later be denied that the oath was taken), or to function as the higher authority who con¿rms the veracity of the substance of their oaths and whose censure they invite if they speak falsely. Moreover, the fact that neither the noun ĞÉÁÇË nor the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ is used in this passage from Josephus limits its usefulness in helping the interpreter to understand Heb. 6.17.25 There are three primary weaknesses in Worley’s position, two of which are shared by the positions cited earlier. First, and applicable only to Worley’s position, the concept of acting as witness is not necessarily expressed by ļÊÀ̼įÑ. Acting as witness is normally expressed by ĸÉÌÍÉñÑ and its cognate noun ÄÚÉÌÍË. This is the case in the passage Worley cites from Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.31, where God is the intermediary (ļÊÀ̼į¼À) of an unseen transaction in which both parties appeal to him to act as witness (ÄÚÉÌÍɸ). The specialised term ÄÚÉÌÍË is used to identify the role of witness. The passage does not imply that God’s role as intermediary necessarily involves his acting as witness; the appeal to him as witness seems to be a specialisation of his role as intermediary. Similarly, in the Pauline Epistles there are frequent calls to God to act as witness in oaths that Paul takes. In Rom. 1.9, 2 Cor. 1.23, and Phil. 1.8, Paul calls upon God as his ÄÚÉÌÍË concerning his devotion to the Gospel and to his addressees. The next dif¿culty is that the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ can be used intransitively with a meaning that is essentially indistinguishable from its normal transitive sense. BDAG de¿nes its intransitive meaning as to ‘act as mediator, peacemaker’.26 In Ant. 7.193 Josephus recounts the intercession of Joab for Absalom before David in the following way: ëļÊĕ̼Íʼ ÈÉġË 22. Worley, ‘Fleeing’, pp.226–7. 23. Philo’s two other uses of the verb (Migr. Abr. 158; Plant. 10) both have the sense ‘to mediate’. 24. ‘This they af¿rmed with oaths, invoking God as arbiter of their promises…’ 25. Cf. also Josephus, Ant. 16.24. 26. BDAG; so too Bleek, who renders its transitive meaning, ‘als Mittelsperson handeln, ļÊĕ̾Š¼čŸÀ’ (Bleek, Brief, II, p.262).

1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

113

ÌĠÅ ¹¸ÊÀÂñ¸. In Ant. 16.118, Caesar is said to act as a mediator in a dispute between Herod and his sons: ‘Therefore in the presence of Caesar, the lord of all men and our mediator at the present moment (ļÊÀ̼įÇÅÌÀ ÌġŠȸÉĠÅ̸ Á¸ÀÉĠÅ), we propose this agreement…’ Caesar’s role as ‘mediator’ here is not simply as a witness or intermediary, but also as a judge of sorts, and he goes on to pronounce a verdict in 16.124-25. Third, Hebrews presents the action of Christ as an extension of God’s own action, as an act of his word (cf. 1.1-4, where Christ’s work as a whole is the ¿nal form of God’s speech). Christ represents his people before God in a juristic context (cf. 4.16; 9.24, 27-28), and, in particular, as mediator. The noun ļÊĕÌ¾Ë is used three times in Hebrews (at 8.6; 9.15; and 12.24), all with direct reference to Christ. This feature of the writer’s Christology makes conceivable a situation in which God (through Christ) acts as mediator between himself and his people; indeed, such an understanding is required by the writer’s high-priestly Christology. Even without such a Christology, the use of ļÊÀ̼įÑ in Ant. 16.118 would, as noted above, suggest the possibility that the subject of the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ (construed in its normal way to mean ‘to mediate’) could also be the ¿nal judge in the dispute. Worley’s understanding of ļÊÀ̼įÑ is unusual when set against evidence from other sources, and it seems to make little sense in the context of Heb. 6.17. Here it is simpler and contextually more coherent to understand ļÊÀ̼įÑ in its regular sense, ‘to mediate’. Verse 17 could, then, be rendered: ‘In the same way,27 when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he mediated it by means of an oath’. This understanding of ļÊÀ̼įÑ has only cautious support among some modern commentators,28 27. It is possible that the phrase ëÅ ĸЗ is being used (as in 2.18) as a causal clause, meaning ‘because’ (so Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.147–8). This is certainly possible grammatically, but since 6.16 provides such a clear logical backdrop to 6.17, the context here suggests that the phrase should be taken as a relative clause with the whole of 6.16 as its antecedent, and rendered ‘in the same way’ (as in the NRSV) or ‘accordingly’ (so Attridge, Hebrews, pp.178, 180). 28. Grässer notes the plausibility of the reading proposed here, but remains noncommittal and summarises the phrase as meaning ‘hat Gott mittels eines Eides Bürgschaft geleistet’ (Grässer, Hebräer, I, p.379, esp. n.52); Weiss similarly notes evidence in favour of this reading, but without substantial argument takes the verb to mean ‘sich verbürgen, garantieren’ (Weiss, Der Brief, p.362). Braun interprets the key phrase to mean that ‘Gott verbürgt das Verheißene’, but goes on to note, ‘Jesus verbürgt und realisiert zugleich die göttliche Setzung 8,6’ (Braun, Hebräer, p.188). While Attridge seems to prefer to understand ¼Ä¼ÊĊ̼ÍʼŠto mean that ‘he guaranteed’, he does not fully commit himself to that position; he concedes that the verb ‘hints at the situation described later, where Christ is portrayed as the mediator of the 1

114

Hebrews and Divine Speech

but it is the reading preferred by Oecumenius,29 Bengel,30 and Bleek,31 and it appears to be supported by the Vulgate rendering of ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠĞÉÁÑЗ as interposuit iusiurandum.32 More signi¿cantly, it gives a natural and well-attested rendering of the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ and avoids invoking a strained and virtually unattested meaning for that verb. 6.3. The ‘Two Unchangeable Things’ of 6.18 God did this work of mediation by his oath, the writer insists, in order that contemporary believers might receive encouragement through ‘two unchangeable things’. But what are the ‘two unchangeable things’ (»įÇ ÈɸºÄÚÌÑÅ Òļ̸¿ñÌÑÅ) of 6.18? The word ÈÉܺĸ is a general term33 and offers little help in identifying the ‘things’ in view. Most commentators maintain that the reference is to God’s promise (presumably the promise to Abraham of Genesis 22) and the oath that con¿rms the promise.34 A possible alternative is the view that the ‘two unchangeable things’ are two separate oaths, perhaps the oath of Ps. 110.4 and either new covenant’ (Attridge, Hebrews, p.181). Bruce renders the verb ‘interposed’ and notes that the literal meaning is ‘mediated’, but does not follow through to consider the implications of his rendering in his discussion (Bruce, Hebrews, pp.127, 130). 29. Oecumenius ties the mediation of God’s oath to the work of Christ and suggests that Christ becomes ļÊĕÌ¾Ë in the incarnation. Oecumenius, ‘       ’, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Posterior, CXIX (ed. J. P. Migne; Paris: Migne, 1864), pp.341–4. 30. ‘The utmost benignity is here expressed.-ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼÅ) He came down into the midst of us: God…drawing nearer to us with wonderful condescension by an oath, although He is the greatest, as it were acts as a Mediator, and comes in between Himself and us…’ Bengel, Gnomon, IV, p.401. 31. Bleek, Brief, II, p.263. 32. The Vulgate of Heb. 6.17 reads as follows: ‘in quo abundantius volens Deus ostendere pollicitationis heredibus inmobilitatem consilii sui interposuit iusiurandum’. The lexical range of interponere is such that a form of divine mediation cannot be excluded by the Vulgate’s rendering of 6.17 (cf. ‘interpono’, in Oxford Latin Dictionary, I). 33. Among possible translations are ‘deed’, ‘thing’, ‘event’, ‘undertaking’, ‘matter’, ‘dispute’ (BDAG). 34. Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.162; Weiss, Der Brief, p.364; Attridge, Hebrews, p.182; Héring, L’Épître, p.63; Calvin, Hebrews, p.85; Bruce, Hebrews, p.154; Williamson, Philo, p.208; Grässer, Hebräer, I, p.381. Cf. the slight variation of Braun, who identi¿es the two ‘Geschehnisse’ as ‘die Christus-Verheißung…und der Eid der Gottheit’ (Braun, Hebräer, p.189). Worley suggests that the ‘two unchangeable things’ point to ‘God’s double role as oath-taker and oath-witness’ (Worley, ‘Fleeing’, p.223; cf. 227). This proposal should be rejected for the reasons cited above. 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

115

the oath to Abraham in Gen. 22.16 or the oath of sonship in Ps. 2.7.35 Two considerations weigh against this proposal. First, in the case of Abraham (the model upon which the writer builds his case for his addressees in 6.17-18), the writer indicates that God made both a promise and an oath to him: ľЗ ºÛÉ ¹É¸ÛÄ ëȸºº¼ÀÂÚļÅÇË ĝ ¿¼ÇË, ëȼĖ Á¸Ìφ ÇĤ»¼ÅġË ¼čϼŠļĕ½ÇÅÇË ĚÄĠʸÀ, ĵÄÇʼŠÁ¸¿φ î¸ÍÌÇÍϗ (6.13). The choice of the aorist tense for the participle ëȸºº¼ÀÂÚļÅÇË is deliberate; God had promised blessing and many offspring to Abraham twice before Genesis 22, at Gen. 12.2-3 and at 15.5.36 So, the writer reminds the addressees that God had made a promise to Abraham, and now, in Gen. 22.16 (which the writer quotes in Heb. 6.14), God makes an oath to the same effect. Not only does the paradigmatic model of God’s dealings with Abraham present the addressees with a promise and an oath as two separate things to consider, but in 6.17 itself the writer refers to both promise and oath as two distinct concepts: ‘when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath’. The ‘heirs of the promise’, like Abraham, receive their own con¿rmation by an oath. The oath in view here is the oath that becomes de¿nitive of the new covenant order in Hebrews, the oath of Ps. 110.4, quoted in part in Heb. 5.6b, and quoted (explicitly as an oath) in 7.21b. If, as has been suggested above, the writer moves away from a speci¿c focus on Abraham in 6.17 to consider the new covenant (and the implications of God’s promise-making and oath-taking for the new covenant community), then it should be unsurprising to ¿nd in 6.17 a reference to the oath that establishes Jesus as the ‘guarantee of a better covenant’ (7.22), the oath of Ps. 110.4. Furthermore, in the structural outline of Hebrews proposed in this study, this section is part of a larger expositional cycle based on two OT exempla, quoted at 5.5b (Ps. 2.7) and 5.6b (Ps. 110.4), the latter, of course, being an oath. If this outline of the structural pattern of Hebrews reÀects something of the intent of the author, and if Ps. 110.4 is one of the exempla around which the writer built the present section, it would be reasonable to suppose that he could incorporate this key scriptural oath into his argument at 6.17 without necessarily quoting it again.37 In summary, the ‘two unchangeable 35. Cf. the discussion in Worley, ‘Fleeing’, p.223 n.2. 36. Johnson, Hebrews, p.169; see Alexander for a demonstration of the integral relationship between the oath of Gen. 22 and the articulation of God’s promise to Abraham in earlier chapters of Genesis (Alexander, ‘Abraham’, pp.18–22). 37. The fact remains, however, that the writer does not identify explicitly the oath in view in 6.17, and the reader is prompted to ask why. It may be that the rationale is rhetorical and the writer’s aim is to maintain suspense. The warnings of

1

116

Hebrews and Divine Speech

things’ of 6.17 are God’s promise to Abraham (no new promise is introduced) of which the new covenant community are heirs, and the oath of Ps. 110.4. 6.3.1. The Distinction between ‘Promise’ and ‘Oath’ Why does the author distinguish between promise and oath, and what does it mean for God to ‘mediate’ by means of an oath? It seems likely that in the writer’s presentation the difference between promise and oath is that an oath involves a tangible element of surety or con¿rmation, while a promise is simply a verbal af¿rmation of intention. Such a model of ‘oath’ is found in Philo’s treatment of Gen. 22.16-18: ‘the very words of God are oaths and laws of God and most sacred ordinances; and a proof of His sure strength is that whatever He saith cometh to pass, and this is specially characteristic of an oath. It would seem to be a corollary from this that all God’s words are oaths receiving accomplishment38 in act.’39 This same pairing of oath and deed is evident again later in Philo’s discussion: ‘God alone therefore is the strongest security ¿rst for Himself, and in the next place for his deeds also, so that he naturally swore by Himself when giving assurance as to Himself, a thing impossible for another than He’.40 Philo assumes that all God’s words are essentially oaths with corresponding action that con¿rms the oath.41 The writer of Hebrews appears to share this same understanding when he speaks of the ‘two unchangeable things’. For him, God’s oath given as con¿rmation (¼ĊË ¹¼¹¸ĕÑÊÀÅ)42 guarantees a promise and puts an end to dispute (6.16). Williamson insists that the writer of Hebrews was not inÀuenced at this point by Philo’s treatment of oaths.43 His survey of Philo’s treatment of divine and human oaths ¿nds that Philo’s treatment of the subject is not entirely consistent, but he suggests that, at least with respect to divine oaths, Philo’s ‘real’ view can be discerned from the conÀicting evidence 6.1-12 would have built suspense already and the writer may be concerned to hold on to that suspense until full resolution is brought through the eventual identi¿cation of Jesus as the object of hope in 6.20a. 38. Or ‘con¿rmation’ (¹¼¹¸ÀÇįļÅÇÀ), which is Williamson’s proposed rendering. Williamson, Philo, p.207. 39. Philo, Leg. All. 3.204. 40. Philo, Leg. All. 3.207. 41. For his understanding of human oaths as implying ful¿lment in action, see Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.9 (and the brief discussion, above). 42. The nuance is of legal con¿rmation (Braun, Hebräer, p.186; cf. Heb. 2.2 and comments on that verse in Chapter 3). 43. Williamson, Philo, p.212. 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

117

of his writings: ‘Here, I think, we reach the real truth about Philo’s position with regard to the oath passages of the O.T.: they were devices employed by Moses for the bene¿t of his readers. For Philo, at heart, did not believe that God swore any oaths at all.’44 He goes on to argue that Hebrews does not share Philo’s ‘real attitude’ on the subject of divine oaths, and that therefore, ‘It looks as if the writer of Hebrews was completely unaware of the teaching of Philo on the subject’.45 While Philo was not totally consistent in his treatment of divine oaths in his writings, it seems unwise to try and identify his ‘real view’ from among the uneven treatments of the subject he offers. It is possible to speculate that he remained undecided on the issue, that his view developed over the course of his writing, or that his settled view was what Williamson proposes, but it is impossible to be certain. So the suggestion should be rejected that there was no contact between Hebrews’ treatment of oaths and that of Philo because Hebrews does not conform to Philo’s ‘real view’ as Williamson articulates it. The following evidence supports the position that Hebrews and Philo at least shared traditions in common that inÀuenced their treatment of oaths.46 First, they share the concept that a divine oath should con¿rm and strengthen faith.47 Hebrews insists that God made the oath to the ‘heirs of the promise’ because ‘he desired to show even more clearly… the unchangeable character of his purpose’ (6.17). Philo simply takes it for granted that ‘an oath is added to assist faith’.48 Second, Philo and Hebrews give as the reason for God’s swearing by himself at Gen. 22.16 the fact that he had no one greater by whom to swear.49 Third, Philo in 44. Williamson, Philo, p.206; cf. p.208. 45. Williamson, Philo, p.209. 46. For an exhaustive presentation of the parallels between Philo’s treatment of oaths in the Abraham tradition and Hebrews’ treatment of the material, see Köster, ‘Auslegung’, pp.98–103. 47. Sowers, Hermeneutics, p.71. Williamson seeks to dismiss this convergence through suggesting that in Heb. 6.17-18 the reason given for the oath is not to encourage faith: ‘He sees the fact that God’s promise has been reinforced by an oath as a “powerful encouragement” to his readers to remain faithful, but he does not suggest or imply that it was for this reason that God swore the oath in the ¿rst place’ (Williamson, Philo, p.206). However, the purpose clause introducing 6.18 implies that God gave the oath in order to strengthen faith: ďŸ »ÀÛ »įÇ ÈɸºÄÚÌÑÅ Òļ̸¿ñÌÑÅ…ĊÊÏÍÉÛŠȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀÅ ìÏÑļÅ. 48. Philo, Leg. All. 3.204. 49. Sowers, Hermeneutics, p.71; Williamson dismisses the signi¿cance of this convergence by saying that the conclusion reached by both Hebrews and Philo was ‘logical and inevitable’ (Williamson, Philo, p.205). It is nonetheless signi¿cant that both writers make this same statement concerning the same passage of Scripture. 1

118

Hebrews and Divine Speech

Abr. 273 treats ‘promise’ and ‘oath’ as related but distinct concepts, the nature of the relationship being that the oath con¿rms the promise.50 Fourth, Philo51 and Hebrews52 share the notion that divine oaths are promises that necessarily lead to con¿rmation in action. This concept of the divine oath arises naturally from Genesis 22, the passage Hebrews relies upon at 6.14: ‘ “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Inasmuch as you have carried out this matter and for my sake have not spared your beloved son, I will indeed bless you with blessings, and I will make your offspring as numerously numerous as the stars of heaven…” ’ (Gen. 22.16b-17a). The expression of this oath was immediately preceded by God’s action of sparing Isaac from sacri¿ce. Abraham was about to offer his son, but ‘the Lord’s angel called him from heaven…’ (Gen. 22.11), telling him to spare the boy, and just then Abraham saw a ram caught by its horns and offered that instead (Gen. 22.13). Understanding that God had intervened to provide the alternative sacri¿ce, ‘Abraham called that place “The LORD will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mountain of the LORD it shall be provided” ’ (Gen. 22.14).53 The writer of Hebrews has the return of Isaac in view when he says that ‘Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise’ (Heb. 6.15).54 It seems reasonable to suppose that ‘the promise’ in view in 6.15 is the promise of numerous offspring of Gen. 22.17. The fundamental element of that promise, in the context of Gen. 22.17, had already been ful¿lled through the return of Isaac from the altar, and this is the thrust of the statement that Abraham had ‘patiently endured’ (ĸÁÉÇ¿ÍÄûʸË).55 50. Williamson suggests that, in the case of this passage, Philo interprets God’s oath to Abraham as an act of condescension (Williamson, Philo, p.207). However, from Philo’s discussion of the oath in this passage, it seems that God gave it to him, not as a concession, but because he admired Abraham’s faith: ‘That God marveling at Abraham’s faith in Him repaid him with faithfulness by con¿rming with an oath the gifts which He had promised, and here he no longer talked with him as God with man but as friend with a familiar’. Philo, Abr. 273. 51. See especially Philo, Leg. All. 3.204 and the discussion above. 52. See the discussion below. 53. NRSV. Here the sense of the MT and LXX correspond closely, but the rendering of NETS seems unnatural. The NRSV is therefore adopted here. 54. So Bruce, Hebrews, p.153; Attridge, Hebrews, p.180. 55. Aorist participle of ĸÏÉÇ¿ÍÄñÑ, ‘to remain tranquil while waiting’, ‘to bear up under provocation without complaint’ (BDAG). In line with the discussion of patience and the promises in 6.12 (see the comments above), the participle here should be read as circumstantial and not causative (Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, p.185; Grässer, Hebräer, I, p.376). 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

119

That the return of Isaac is in view here in 6.15 is suggested by the fact that the writer speaks in similar terms in 11.17-19 of Abraham’s ordeal in the near sacri¿ce of Isaac: ‘By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son… He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead—and ¿guratively speaking, he did receive him back.’ With respect to other promises, such as the promise for a ‘city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God’ (11.10), the writer can equally say that Abraham was among those who ‘died in faith without having received the promises’ (11.13).56 6.3.2. Jesus as 캺ÍÇË in 7.22 ǿn the case of Isaac and the discussion in 6.15, the action accompanying God’s oath was the tangible realisation of the earlier promise, both in Genesis 22 itself and in Hebrews’ treatment of the tradition. In his continuation of the discussion of God’s oath in ch. 7 the writer of Hebrews makes it quite clear that for him God’s oath involves not simply verbal af¿rmation but active ful¿lment of the intention af¿rmed.57 The writer explains in 7.15-22 that the ‘better hope, through which we approach God’ (7.19b) is ‘con¿rmed with an oath’ (7.20), the oath being that of Ps. 110.4, which establishes Christ’s priesthood in the order of Melchizedek. When established as priest by the oath of Ps. 110.4, Christ ‘has become the guarantee (캺ÍÇË) of a better covenant’ (7.22). An 캺ÍÇË is a ‘guarantor’, the ‘one who accepts legal obligation (for payment etc.) in a bond’.58 The use of the term in Sir. 29.15 shows that ‘the 캺ÍÇË may have to guarantee the other with his life’.59 In his priesthood, which is established by an oath, Jesus has become the 캺ÍÇË of the covenant. That is, he has become the tangible guarantee of God’s covenantal intentions toward his people: ‘With His life, death and ascension Jesus has given us the assurance…that the beginning of the saving work of God will necessarily be followed by its completion’.60 He carries out his function as 캺ÍÇË by continuing in his priestly of¿ce 56. See Bruce, Hebrews, p.153. 57. Thompson, ‘Hebrews VII’, p.220. As noted above, the time and location of this ful¿llment is not fully elucidated in Hebrews, but the link between Christ’s mediatorial work and his death (see the comments below) indicates that the cruci¿xion is central to this notion of ful¿llment. 58. H. Preisker, ‘캺ÍÇË’, in TDNT, II, p.329. 59. Preisker, ‘캺ÍÇË’, p.329. In Sir. 29.15 the reader is admonished, ‘A guarantor’s kindness do not forget, for he has given his soul on your behalf’. 60. Preisker, ‘캺ÍÇË’, p.329. 1

120

Hebrews and Divine Speech

permanently (7.24), by saving those who approach God through him (7.25), and by making intercession for them (7.26).61 All this parallels closely what the writer says of Christ’s work as mediator (ļÊĕ̾Ë).62 Christ’s ‘more excellent ministry’ of 8.6 is as priestly mediator of the new covenant. As mediator in 9.15, Christ dies to enable ‘those who are called’ to receive their ‘promised eternal inheritance’ and to redeem them ‘from transgressions committed under the ¿rst covenant’. In 12.24, the sprinkled blood of Jesus the mediator speaks on behalf of his people before God the judge.63 So Hebrews can speak of Christ in his priestly of¿ce both as 캺ÍÇË and as ļÊĕ̾Ë. This is not surprising since the two terms are closely related in use. Spicq notes that in secular ancient sources ļÊĕÌ¾Ë and 캺ÍÇË function essentially as synonyms.64 However, it is possible to discern a slight difference of nuance: ‘Der ļÊĕÌ¾Ë tritt in den Riß zwischen Gott und Mensch…der Bürge [캺ÍÇË] setzt sich dagegen mit seiner Person und seinem Leben für sein Wort ein’.65 All this adds further weight to the suggestion that the phrase ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠĞÉÁÑЗ in 6.17 should be understood to mean that God acted as mediator between himself and his people through the person of Christ by establishing Christ as priest.66 Under this interpretation, the statement that God ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠĞÉÁÑЗ takes on clear christological signi¿cance. 61. Koester creates a false antithesis here between the view that, as 캺ÍÇË, Jesus ‘guarantees that humanity’s obligations toward God will be ful¿lled’ and the view that, from God’s side, ‘he assures people that God will not default on his promises’ (Koester, Hebrews, pp.370–1). Koester is right to see priority in the latter (Jesus is ‘guarantor’ of God’s oath, not humanity’s); but the way in which Christ as guarantor ful¿ls God’s promises is by acting as High Priest, enabling worshippers to meet God’s requirements and thus approach him (7.25). 62. On the mediatorial function of Christ in facilitating the establishment of the covenant here in 7.22, see Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.196; Héring, L’Épître, p.72. 63. See further the discussion in Chapter 8. 64. ‘…le mésitès est un garant et devient synonyme d’캺ÍÇË. Il est le gardien des serments…des dépôts et des contrats…’ (Spicq, Notes, II, pp.550–1); Oepke similarly concludes that the two terms are essentially equivalents, although he suggests that the term 캺ÍÇË ‘simply stresses the guaranteeing of salvation’, while ļÊĕÌ¾Ë stresses ‘its accomplishment’ (Oepke, ‘ļÊĕ̾˒, p.620). 65. Michel, Hebräer, p.275; so too Peterson, Perfection, p.113. Similarly, Bruce insists that the ‘캺ÍÇË takes on a weightier responsibility than the ļÊĕ̾˅ [H]e is answerable for the ful¿lment of the obligation which he guarantees’ (Bruce, Hebrews, p.171 n.70). 66. Johnson renders ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠĞÉÁÑЗ simply as ‘he secured it with an oath’ (Johnson, Hebrews, p.168), but he nonetheless notes that the verb is ‘of particular interest because of the way Hebrews will speak later of Christ as the mesitƝs of a new and better covenant’ (Johnson, Hebrews, p.171). 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

121

The writer has already associated Christ’s ontology very closely with God’s word, even from the opening verses. As Hughes argues, ‘the action of Jesus has in some way become a Word of God, and transcends or replaces earlier forms of that Word… Jesus’ de¿nitive act of Priesthood is the de¿nitive form of God’s word.’67 God’s oath is none other than his word spoken to Christ in establishing him a priest and spoken in Christ as he achieves his priestly and mediatorial work through his life, death, and exaltation. It is this oath in Christ that brings ful¿lment to God’s earlier covenant promise.68 6.4. The Relationship between ‘Promise’, ‘Oath’ and ‘Hope’ The word ‘promise’ (ëȸºº¼Âĕ¸) occurs frequently in Hebrews69 and is used to refer to God’s spoken message guaranteeing future blessing to Abraham and his descendants (including those in the new covenant). It has been shown already that Hebrews understands God’s oath in Christ as con¿rming through tangible action the substance of his covenant promise. The writer af¿rms in 6.18 that these two ‘unchangeable things’ are designed to cause him and the other new covenant recipients of the promise to ‘be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us’. This hope is then described as an ‘anchor of the soul’, and is said to enter ‘the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus, a forerunner on our behalf, has entered, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’ (6.19-20). The verb ¼ĊÊñÉÏÇĸÀ,70 which occurs twice in 6.19-20, binds together ‘hope’/‘anchor’ in 6.18-19 and ‘Jesus’ in 6.20,71 67. Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.22. 68. A similar understanding of Christ’s work operates in the writer’s treatment of his death in 9.15-17. Here Christ as ļÊĕÌ¾Ë dies in order that ‘those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance’ (cf. ‘the heirs of the promise’, 6.17). The writer explains that Christ’s death was necessary because ‘where a will [or “covenant”; »À¸¿ûÁ¾] is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established’ (9.16). It was noted above that the idea of an oath, at least in the OT, is closely aligned to the concept of covenant (Grässer rightly identi¿es a conceptual overlap of ‘oath’ and ‘covenant’ here; Hebräer, I, p.410). God’s covenant is rati¿ed through the death of the mediator. 69. It is found at 4.1; 6.12, 15, 17; 7.6; 8.6; 9.15; 10.36; 11.9, 13, 17, 33, 39. 70. As noted already in the treatment of Heb. 4, the language of ‘approach’ acts as a shorthand for the salvi¿c effects (cultic, judicial, and cosmological) of Christ’s mediatorial work, particularly his self-sacri¿ce. For a helpful discussion of ‘approach’ language in Hebrews, see Lehne, New Covenant, pp.109–11. See also further treatment of ‘approach’ language in the exegesis of Heb. 12 in Chapter 8 of this study. 71. Johnson, Hebrews, p.172. 1

122

Hebrews and Divine Speech

and the aural resonance between the description of the hope as ÈÉÇÁ¼ÀÄñÅ¾Ë (‘set before us’, 6.18), and Christ as ÈÉĠ»ÉÇÄÇË (‘forerunner’, 6.20), strengthens the link between the two.72 According to Attridge, the ‘ “anchor” of hope is seen functioning as does Christ, providing a means of access by its entry into God’s presence…. [T]he analogy established between Christ and the anchor of hope is certainly intentional and signi¿cant.’73 Spicq follows a similar line, maintaining that ‘l’ancre est le Christ lui-même’.74 Though the writer refrains from af¿rming outright that Christ himself is to be identi¿ed as the anchor or the hope, the effect of the blending of these images and metaphors is to suggest that the ‘hope’ of 6.18, which God’s oath encourages the new covenant community to take hold of, is Christ himself. God’s promise is con¿rmed by his oath mediated in Christ, and the effect is to provide strong encouragement to take hold of Christ himself, the means by which the new covenant community can gain access into the inner sanctuary. A similar logic controls 7.18-25. The Levitical priesthood set up through the Law is abrogated (7.18) and in its place is introduced ‘a better hope, through which we approach God’ (7.19). This hope ‘was con¿rmed by an oath’ (7.20), the oath of Ps. 110.4, which according to Hebrews establishes Christ as High Priest. This study has found above that, as ‘guarantee’ (7.22) of that oath, Christ is its tangible realisation. Of interest here, though, is the interchangeability of the concept of ‘hope’ and the person of Christ. In 7.19 the hope is that ‘through which we approach God’ (»Àχ úË ëººĕ½ÇļŠÌÑЗϗ ¿¼ÑЗϗ).75 In 7.25 the writer af¿rms that Christ ‘is able for all time to save those who approach God through him’ (ÌÇİË ÈÉÇʼÉÏÇÄñÅÇÍË »À χ ¸ĤÌÇı ÌÑЗ ¿¼ÑЗϗ). As the tangible guarantee of God’s oath Jesus is himself the hope that enables his followers to enter into God’s very presence. 6.5. The ‘Word of the Oath’ (7.28) Finally, the investigation turns to consider the summary distinction that the writer draws at 7.28 between the Levitical priesthood, which is established through the ‘law’, and the priesthood of Christ in the order of Melchizedek, which is established through the ‘word of the oath’ 72. Less directly, but perhaps signi¿cantly, the anchor is described as being ¹ñ¹¸ÀÇË in 6.19, while God’s oath (in Christ) provides ¹¼¹¸ĕÑÊÀË (6.16-17). 73. Attridge, Hebrews, p.184; see also Weiss, Der Brief, pp.367–71. 74. C. Spicq, ‘ºÁÍɸ et ÉĠ»ÇÄÇË dans Hébr. VI. 19-20’, ST 3 (1949), p.186; similarly, Héring, L’Épître, p.64; contra Braun, Hebräer, p.191. 75. On the christological nature of ‘hope’ in this verse, see Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.194. 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

123

(ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸Ë). The Levitical priesthood comes through ‘physical descent’, the priesthood of Christ ‘through the power of an indestructible life’ (7.16); the former was ‘weak and ineffectual’, the latter is ‘better’ and enables others to ‘approach God’ (7.19); the former were many in number and regularly replaced, the latter holds the of¿ce permanently and remains effective in his salvi¿c capacity (7.23-25); the former were weak and sinful, the latter is ‘holy, blameless, unde¿led, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens…made perfect forever’76 (7.26-28). At the heart of the writer’s distinction between the Levitical priesthood and Christ’s priesthood is the fact that, whereas the Levitical priesthood was established ‘without an oath’ (7.20) and through ‘an earlier commandment’ (7.18) or ‘the law’ (7.28), Christ’s priesthood was established ‘with an oath’ (7.20), ‘the word of the oath, which came later than the law’ (7.28). By this stage in the treatment of oaths, the oath to Abraham has receded into the background, and now the discussion is focused explicitly on Christ and the oath of Psalm 110 that establishes his new covenant priesthood. The contrast between new covenant and old covenant is strongly in view by 7.28,77 and the nature of the contrast established here between ‘the word of the oath’ and ‘the law’ is particularly a contrast between the two as representative forms of speech of new and old covenants respectively. It might have been suf¿cient for the writer simply to contrast ‘law’ and ‘oath’, and avoid the construction ‘word of the oath’ at 7.28. But in his summary mention of the oath as a form of God’s speech (with reference to Ps. 110.4 in its application to Christ) in contrast to the Law, he chooses to refer to the oath as the ‘word of the oath’.78 Evidently he felt that the construction of ÂĠºÇË matched with a 76. See Peterson, Perfection, pp.104–25, for an exhaustive overview of ch. 7 with a view to understanding the concept of ‘perfection’ implied here. He concludes that the nature of perfection here, as elsewhere, is ‘vocational’. In summary, he concludes that ‘The Son’s eschatological inheritance could not be secured nor his Sonship decisively manifested for the salvation of his people until he had carried out the earthly ministry designed for him as Messiah’. The ‘sacerdotal’ nature of the Son’s work is here emphasised partly in order ‘to indicate the supersession of the priesthood and cult of the Old Testament’ (Peterson, Perfection, p.125). 77. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, pp.194–5; Ellingworth, Hebrews, pp.396–7. 78. The writer’s decision to tie ÂĠºÇË to a key new covenant term in a genitive construction is not completely without precedent; at 5.13 the genitive »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë modi¿es ÂĠºÇÍ (here also in the genitive because of its relationship to the preceding word in the sentence, ÓȼÀÉÇË). In the discussion of this verse, it was noted that the ÂĠºÇË »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë signi¿ed the gospel of Christ and was set in a degree of contrast to ÌÛ ÊÌÇÀϼė¸ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌľÅ ÂǺĕÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı (5.12), the ‘oracles of God’ referring in the ¿rst instance to the Old Testament Scriptures. 1

124

Hebrews and Divine Speech

genitive would give added weight to the contrast he wished to draw,79 emphasising the power and enduring relevance of the divine oath in Christ. 6.6. Conclusions Having chided his addressees in 6.4-8, the writer wishes to assure them of God’s good intentions toward them. He takes as paradigmatic God’s dealings with Abraham (6.13-16), and he moves in 6.17a to focus on God’s emphatic speech to the new covenant community. The ‘two unchangeable things’ of 6.18a offered to the new covenant ‘heirs of the promise’ are God’s promise and his oath. The distinction between ‘promise’ and ‘oath’ lies in the fact that whereas a promise is a purely verbal af¿rmation of intention, an oath is a verbal af¿rmation with an attendant tangible guarantee and ful¿lment. In the statement of 6.17b that God ‘mediated’ his promise by means of an oath, the verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ should be taken to have its normal meaning, ‘to mediate’.80 The nature of God’s ‘mediation’ by means of his oath is not made clear in 6.17. However, the image of Jesus (who is the object of the believer’s ‘hope’, 6.18) acting as High Priest and entering the inner shrine in 6.19-20 suggests immediately that he is integrally involved in this mediation. Con¿rmation is given at 7.22, where Christ is identi¿ed as the ‘guarantee’ (캺ÍÇË) of the covenant established by the oath of Ps. 110.4. Later in Hebrews (at 8.6; 9.15; and 12.24) Christ will be identi¿ed as God’s ļÊĕÌ¾Ë (a virtual synonym of the term 캺ÍÇË and one that strongly recalls the use of its cognate verb ļÊÀ̼įÑ in 6.17b). The oath, then, is a form of God’s speech that matches verbal promise with tangible action. In this case, the action integral to the oath is Christ’s sacri¿ce of himself once for all (7.27) and his eternal perfection 79. Similar constructions are found at 4.2 and 13.22. At 4.2, ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË refers immediately to the sermonic address of Joshua and Caleb concerning the goodness of the promised land, but is used in a context where the close parallel between the old covenant community’s exposure to the ‘good news’ and the new covenant community’s exposure is being emphasised. At 13.22, the writer refers to his own address as a ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË. It will be suggested below that he views his own address as itself a form of contemporary divine speech. For the writer’s identi¿cation of ‘law’ with the old covenant and ‘word’ with the new covenant, see Lehne, New Covenant, pp.22, 26–7, 78, 99–100. 80. That having been said, there is some value in continuing to follow the NRSV rendering of ëļÊĕ̼ÍʼŠin 6.17 as ‘he guaranteed’ because it suggests the conceptual link between 6.17 and the work of Jesus in 6.22, where he is ‘the guarantee of a better covenant’. 1

6. Hebrews 6.13–7.28

125

(7.28). So this is another instance where God’s speech is expressed ultimately in the person and work of the incarnate Christ. In distinguishing the new covenant oath from the old covenant Law, the writer chooses to identify the oath as ‘the word of the oath’ (ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸Ë), paralleling, for instance, the ÂĠºÇË »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë of 5.13, and, more broadly, drawing on the motif of the ongoing validity of the ‘living and active’ word of God (4.12). Again, the term ÂĠºÇË is used at 7.28 to identify a form of divine speech.

1

Chapter 7

HEBREWS 11.3: GOD’S WORD OF CREATION

This verse requires attention because of the appearance in it of the key term ģýĸ. It falls within the ninth expositional cycle (10.36–12.3), which takes as its starting point the mention of the ‘faith’ by which a righteous person lives at Heb. 10.37-38 (a citation of Hab. 2.3c-4). The writer points to the need for ‘endurance’ so that the addressees ‘may receive what was promised’ (10.36). He de¿nes faith in 11.1 (‘the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’) and notes in 11.2 that it was ‘by faith’ that ‘our ancestors received approval’. The rest of ch. 11 gives a catalogue of examples of ‘ancestors’ who acted on the basis of faith. The place of 11.3 within this catalogue of faith is remarkable because here the faith taken as exemplary belongs, not to a biblical ¿gure, but to the contemporary community of faith: ‘By faith we understand…’ (11.3a). This peculiarity has prompted some commentators to propose other construals of the verse that move the focus away from the faithfulness of the community, highlighting the faith of God in creating the universe1 or the faith of the universe in responding to God.2 Neither approach is syntactically plausible,3 or consistent with the broader context of ch. 11, or with Hebrews as a whole.4 The construal noted above that understands ÈĕÊ̼À to modify ÅÇÇıļŠis to be preferred as the most natural reading.5 1. Widdess suggests that ÈĕÊ̼À modi¿es Á¸Ì¾ÉÌĕÊ¿¸À rather than, as generally accepted, ÅÇÇıļÅ. ‘The nature of pistis would then be illustrated ¿rst and foremost by the action of God in creation: “It was through faith we understand that the worlds were fashioned by the word of God” ’ (A. G. Widdess, ‘A Note on Hebrews XI. 3’, JTS NS 10.2 [1959], p.327) 2. K. Haacker, ‘Creatio ex auditu. Zum Verständnis von Hbr 11 3’, ZNW 60 (1969), pp.279–81. 3. ‘The passive in¿nitive “has been created” (Á¸Ì¾ÉÌĕÊ¿¸À) precludes a reference to the universe’s faithful response. It would also seem to preclude the possibility that God is described as acting “in faith,” a construal that would also be awkward given the following instrumental dative (ģûĸÌÀ ¿¼Çı).’ Attridge, Hebrews, pp.314–15. 4. ‘The fact that ÈĕÊÌÀË elsewhere is posited only of individuals or of Jesus in his humanity calls into question this radical proposal.’ Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.326. 5. So Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.325–6; Attridge, Hebrews, pp.314–15.

7. Hebrews 11.3

127

The second half of 11.3 presents syntactical dif¿culties of its own. The construction ¼ĊË Ìġ could be taken in the ¿nal sense6 or in the consecutive sense.7 Though the immediate context may be ambiguous, the other seven uses of the construction in Hebrews express intended result (the ¿nal sense),8 and it is most natural to take it in that sense here,9 as expressing the intended result of God’s creative act by his word. The use and position of the negative particle Äû is another problem: Should the particle be taken to modify θÀÅÇÄñÅÑÅ10 (with the resultant af¿rmation that the visible world has an invisible source) or to modify º¼ºÇÅñŸÀ11 and with it the entire clause (with the resultant af¿rmation that the visible world was not made from visible elements)? Both renderings are grammatically possible; however, the former is marginally preferable because of the proximity of the negative particle to θÀÅÇÄñÅÑÅ and the somewhat unnatural rendering that results from the latter construal.12 So, there is here an af¿rmation, probably directed against contrasting philosophical traditions within Hellenistic thought,13 that the visible world does not have a phenomenal source.14 Such an af¿rmation 6. So Westcott, Epistle, p.353. 7. So Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.341. ‘The distinction between consecutive and ¿nal clauses lies in the fact that a consecutive clause declares the end which in the nature of things is reached by something, whereas a ¿nal clause declares the end which something intends to reach.’ Zerwick, Biblical, p.122. 8. 2.17; 7.25; 8.3; 9.14, 28; 12.10; 13.21. That result is expressed in each of these instances, Michel, Hebräer, p.382; Attridge, Hebrews, p.315; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.326; Westcott, Epistle, p.353. 9. So Widdess, ‘Note’, p.328; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.326; Westcott, Epistle, p.353; contra Wider, Theozentrik, p.188; Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.341; and Moffatt, Epistle, pp.158, 162, who prefer to read the construction as consecutive. 10. So Attridge, Hebrews, p.315; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.569; Koester, Hebrews, p.474. 11. So Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.326–7; Haacker, ‘Creatio’, p.280 n.7; Williamson, Philo, pp.377–9; A. Ehrhardt, The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1964), p.217. 12. So too Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.569. 13. In the thought of ‘both Plato and Philo the “material” out of which the Creator fashioned the universe was a “visible” mass, existing at ¿rst in a state of chaotic disorder, reduced to order by the Creator using the Ideas or Forms as His patterns’ (Williamson, Philo, p.378). For a detailed discussion of Greek concepts of creation and their relationship to Heb. 11.3, see Williamson, Philo, pp.377–85. 14. Contra Adams, who suggests that the writer ‘appears to interpret Gen. 1:2a LXX as implying that the ordered world was created out of pre-existent, invisible matter’. E. Adams, ‘The Cosmology of Hebrews’, in Bauckham et al., eds., The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, p.129. 1

128

Hebrews and Divine Speech

is consistent with a doctrine of creatio ex nihilio and seems to imply (if not explicitly af¿rm) such a belief.15 The writer ‘was almost certainly doing no more…than denying that God made the world out of something’.16 As at 1.2c, ÌÇİË ¸ĊľÅ¸Ë is taken to imply the whole of the created order, including time and space.17 The plural form may indicate that the heavenly realm is in view as well as the earthly realm. In this case, the distinction between the plural ÌÇİË ¸ĊľÅ¸Ë and the singular Ìġ ¹Â¼ÈĠļÅÇÅ18 would be quite intentional; the visible realm is a subsection of the broader created order, which includes the heavenly realm. The writer insists that the created order was ‘prepared (Á¸Ì¾ÉÌĕÊ¿¸À) by the word of God (ģûĸÌÀ ¿¼Çı)’. This af¿rmation of God’s creation19 of the world by his word recalls Gen. 1.1-31, and the mention of faith in this af¿rmation probably suggests a faith in that biblical account of creation, where the role of God’s word is emphasised through repeated mention.20 Belief in God’s creation by means of his word was af¿rmed elsewhere in the

15. Bruce maintains that creatio ex nihilio is ‘practically…implied in his [the writer’s] denial that the universe was created out of things phenomenal’ (Bruce, Hebrews, p.280 n.24). More cautiously, Ehrhardt does not ¿nd here ‘an unambiguous statement of an absolute creation out of nothing’ (Ehrhardt, Framework, p.217), but admits that 11.3 allows ‘a somewhat ambiguous wording, which made it possible to understand this verse in favour of a “creatio ex nihilio” ’ (Ehrhardt, Framework, p.223). Williamson perhaps goes beyond the evidence when he insists that the writer’s ‘perfectly clear’ meaning is to af¿rm creatio ex nihilio (Williamson, Philo, p.379). Creatio ex nihilio is more explicitly af¿rmed in 2 Macc. 7.28a (‘a verse much more likely to lie behind 11.3 than anything in Philo’; Williamson, Philo, p.381): ‘I implore you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them and recognise that God did not make them out of things that existed (ÇĤÁ ëÆ ěÅÌÑÅ ëÈÇĕ¾Ê¼Å ¸ĤÌÛ ĝ ¿¼ĠË)’. 16. Williamson, Philo, p.381. 17. So Johnson, Hebrews, p.279. See the comments on 1.2 ad loc. Interpretations that place exclusive emphasis on either the spatial (Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.340) or temporal (Westcott, Epistle, p.353) ¿nd little contextual support for such exclusivity. 18. The less strongly attested variant, ̸ ¹Â¼ÈÇļŸ, should be rejected as a scribal attempt to reconcile the two terms. 19. The verb Á¸Ì¾ÉÌĕÊ¿¸À (cf. Heb. 10.5 and 13.21) has a lexical range that includes ‘put in order’, ‘restore’, ‘prepare’, ‘make’, ‘create’ (BDAG). That the sense here is ‘create’ (so Michel, Hebräer, p.381) is suggested by the recollection of the biblical account of creation through God’s word in the statement here that this act was ‘by the word of God’. A rendering such as ‘put in order’ would be too weak given that God’s making of the world is ‘from things not visible’. 20. So Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.331; Johnson, Hebrews, p.280; Adams, ‘Cosmology’, p.127. 1

7. Hebrews 11.3

129

OT21 and was a fundamental belief in Jewish theology22 and early Christianity.23 Whereas John’s Gospel takes the striking christological step of identifying Jesus as the Word through whom all things came into being (Jn 1.1-2), Hebrews does not mention the Son in this immediate context. However, Hebrews sets Jesus in an important (and ‘word-related’) cosmological role in 1.2-3, where the Son is the one ‘through whom he [God] also created the worlds (ÌÇİË ¸ĊľÅ¸Ë)’ (1.2c) and the one who ‘sustains all things by his powerful word (ÌľЗ ģûĸÌÀ ÌýË »ÍÅÚļÑË ¸ĤÌÇı)’ (1.3b). The parallels with the present passage are striking:24 the created order is mentioned and called ÇĎ ¸ĊľÅ¼Ë; and ģýĸ plays a cosmological role, ¿rst as the means by which the created order is sustained at 1.3b, and then as the means by which it is created at 11.3a. Viewed together, 1.1-4 and 11.3 might suggest an understanding of Christ’s role in creation that parallels the understanding of John’s prologue. In 1.1-4 Jesus (who is himself the de¿nitive form of God’s speech) is the one by whom God created the world (1.2c). In 11.3 the word is the means by which God created the world. Taken together, these two passages could lead to the logical conclusion that Jesus is himself the ‘word’ by which God created the world.25 However, whereas John’s Gospel explicitly af¿rms such a belief, Hebrews does not. In this connection, it is worthy of note that in ch. 11 the writer refrains from mentioning Jesus26 in the catalogue of faith.27 He appears to choose 21. Gen. 1.3, 6, 9 (etc.); Ps. 33.6, 9. 22. Cf. Wis. 9.1; Jub. 12.4; Philo, Deus Imm. 57; Sir. 42.15. 23. 2 Pet. 3.5; 1 Clem. 27; Odes 16.19. 24. The basic parallel is also noted in Williamson, ‘Incarnation’, p.6. 25. So Stewart: ‘There seems little reasonable doubt that the ģýĸ of Heb. i.3 and xi. 3 refers to the role of the Second Person of the Trinity in the creative act, that this is parallel to John i. 1-14 and other passages, and that this is the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Logos-creation doctrine in its sundry forms’ (R. A. Stewart, ‘Creation and Matter in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, NTS 12 [1966], p.290). Richardson similarly af¿rms the implied agency of the Son here: ‘That an explicit reference to the Son’s agency in creation is withheld in 11.3 does not mean that an implied reference is absent. It is more likely the author expected his audience to recall what he said about God’s Son: through him the universe was created, and by his powerful word it is sustained’ (C. A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews [WUNT II/338; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], pp.184–5). 26. The name ‘Jesus’ does not appear in the catalogue and the term ‘Christ’ appears only once (at 11.26), and here there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the referent is Jesus or Moses (see the discussion in Attridge, Hebrews, pp.341–2). 27. As noted by Michel, Hebräer, pp.381–2.

1

130

Hebrews and Divine Speech

material for his catalogue from the religious traditions of Israel that would be familiar to, and accepted by, those members of his community who were tempted to revert to Judaism. He shows that the religion of Israel has always held beliefs that were dif¿cult to maintain (either because of their seeming implausibility or because of their attendant suffering), and so to hold on to faith in Christ in dif¿cult circumstances is fundamentally congruous with the religion of Israel. But here at 11.3, at the outset of his captatio benevolentiae, the writer starts with faith presuppositions that none of the potential apostates would question. To make a christological claim at this stage may not have been rhetorically advantageous. Such a suggestion does not mean that the writer necessarily saw Christ as the incarnate word of creation, but it may offer a partial account of why, in light of 1.1-4, a seemingly logical connection is not made. The writer’s choice of the term ģýĸ here, as opposed to the close equivalent ÂĠºÇË, should be noted. In light of the fact that in the passages treated so far ģýĸ has appeared in contexts where person-to-person verbal communication (such as the spoken message of salvation) is not purely in view (cf. 1.3 and 6.5 and comments ad loc.), it is perhaps not surprising that the writer chose to use ģýĸ here where the creative, cosmological word is in view. Whether it is possible to identify in Hebrews a sustained and de¿nite distinction between the two terms such as that proposed by Grässer (‘der ÂĠºÇË meint die von Gott ausgehende Botschaft, das ģýĸ aber…ist Nomen actionis’)28 is not clear at this stage. However, here in 11.3 is another use of the term ģýĸ in a context that may be described as cosmological and creative, as opposed to personal and informative. 7.1. Conclusions The writer here presents as basic a belief in God’s creation of the cosmos from non-phenomenal elements by his word (ģýĸ). When viewed in conjunction with the related passage 1.1-4, it would be possible to conjecture that the writer viewed Christ as the personal form of the word of creation. However, the writer does not make such a connection here, and any such suggestion remains somewhat speculative based on the evidence of this passage. It may be that the writer wished to avoid explicit discussion of Christ in a passage that was calculated, as a captatio benevolentiae, to demonstrate from the religion of Israel the appropriateness of maintaining faith in Christ, even when it could seem dif¿cult to do so. 1

28. Grässer, Hebräer, III, p.106.

Chapter 8

HEBREWS 12.18-29: THE SAVING AND JUDGING WORD FROM ZION

In ch. 12 the author exhorts the addressees to maintain their confession of Christ, looking to Jesus and enduring trials as God’s discipline (12.112). He urges them to pursue peace, holiness, and the grace of God (12.14-15), and to heed the warning of the godless example of Esau. This section is linked both to the warning from Esau’s example and to the broader exhortation to faithful endurance throughout 12.1-17, as indicated by the ºÚÉ of 12.18.1 In 12.18-29 (part of Cycle 11) the author contrasts two encounters with God, Israel’s at Sinai and the Christian assembly’s at Zion. These two encounters relate to the theology of divine speech: the writer presents them as encounters with God speaking, and he uses the key terms ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ at 12.19.2 8.1. Structure and Context The passage is generally divided into two paragraphs (vv. 18-24 and 2529),3 bound together thematically by a ‘hook word’,4 the present active 1. Wider, Theozentrik, p.91; J. W. Thompson, ‘ “That Which Cannot Be Shaken”: Some Metaphysical Assumptions in Heb 12:27’, JBL 94 (1975), p.580; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.440; Moffatt, Epistle, p.214. 2. There is a general prominence of ‘speaking’ vocabulary throughout the passage: ÎÑÅĉ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ (v. 19), ÂĠºÇÅ (v. 19), ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ (v. 24), ¸ÂÇıÅ̸ (v. 25), ÏɾĸÌĕ½ÇÅ̸ (v. 25) ÎÑÅü (v. 26) ÂñºÑÅ (v. 26). At various points in this section, the theme of the word of God becomes the central theological motif; so Grässer, Hebräer, III, p.327; see also Michel, Hebräer, p.470; Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.111. 3. The common modern division of this section into two paragraphs, as in NA27, is not reÀected in the ancient manuscripts. Typical for P46, it shows no break at all here. Similarly, NA27 notes that the kephalaia treat 12.18-29 as a single unit. 4. So Grässer, Hebräer, III, pp.324, 327. Tying two sections together by means of such a ‘hook word’ was common practice in Greek rhetoric and was referred to as ĩÊ̼ÉÇÅ ÈÉĠ̼ÉÇÅ (Guthrie, Structure, p.12 n.29). Vanhoye suggests that ‘hook words’ delineate structural boundaries in Hebrews, a suggestion that would support NA27’s division here (Vanhoye, Structure and Message, p.24).

132

Hebrews and Divine Speech

participles of the verb ¸¼ėÅ (¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ, ¸ÂÇıÅ̸) in vv. 24 and 25.5 The ¿rst paragraph consists of two sentences, where the main verbs are set in the indicative mood and describe two ‘approaches’ to God, one negatively (Ĥ ºÛÉ ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼, v. 18) and one positively (ÒÂÂÛ ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼, v. 22). The second paragraph shifts immediately into the imperative mood (Âñȼ̼), providing something of a disjunction between the two paragraphs (although, as already noted, the two participles of ¸¼ėÅ also bind the two paragraphs together). This second paragraph comprises three sentences with two injunctions (Âñȼ̼, v. 25a, ìÏÑļÅ, v. 28b), each matched with a substantive justi¿cation. Verse 25a issues the injunction, ‘see to it that you do not refuse the one who is speaking’. Verse 25b establishes the basis for that injunction in an a fortiori argument (ÈÇÂİ ÄÜÂÂÇÅ),6 drawing a contrast between the Israelites (ëÁ¼ėÅÇÀ) as warned by one on earth (ëÈĖ ºýË…ÌġÅ ÏɾĸÌĕ½ÇÅ̸) and the present generation (÷ļėË) as warned by one in heaven (ÌġÅ ÒÈφ ÇĤÉ¸ÅľÅ). Here the writer issues a warning, expressed through this comparison and a fortiori argument: the Israelites were not able to escape; how much less the present generation. Verses 26 continues that warning, recalling an earlier event where the voice of the speaker shook the earth (v. 26a), and promising a future event (quoting with modi¿cation the LXX of Hag. 2.6 in v. 26b) when earth and heaven will be shaken. Verse 27 interprets this future event. Verse 28 adds an exhortation built around a hortatory subjunctive (ìÏÑļÅ), followed by a substantial incentive or justi¿cation for the exhortation in v. 29, which recalls the material in vv. 18-28. 8.1.1. The Example of Esau The writer links 12.18-24 to 12.14-17 through the conjunction ºÚÉ. The designation of Esau as one who exchanged his birthright as ¿rstborn son (ÌÛ ÈÉÑÌÇÌĠÁÀ¸ î¸ÍÌÇı, 12.16) for a single meal acts as a negative example to those who confess allegiance to Christ the ¿rstborn (ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇÅ, 1.6) and count themselves as part of the assembly of the ¿rstborn (ëÁÁ¾Êĕ¸З ÈÉÑÌÇÌĠÁÑÅ, 12.23).7 The precise nature of this negative example is a matter of debate. The writer describes Esau as ÈĠÉÅÇË (‘immoral’) and ¹ñ¹¾ÂÇË (‘godless, secular’). Thompson argues that Esau’s godlessness 5. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.445–6. Wider also notes that 12.18-29 is bound together as a unit through the ‘Inklusion’ created by ÈıÉ at 12.18 and 12.29 (Wider, Theozentrik, p.89). 6. Cf. Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.114. 7. ‘The expression ÌÛ ÈÉÑÌÇÌĠÁÀ¸ serves to situate the action of Esau in a redemptive-historical perspective. Esau’s willingness to give up all that was his as the ¿rstborn son reÀected a contempt for the covenant by which his rights were warranted.’ Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.455; see also Koester, Hebrews, p.542. 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

133

consisted of his focus on earthly rather than heavenly realities, suggesting that the writer imports categories from Platonic dualism via Philo.8 In Philo, Esau frequently represents wickedness,9 and this wickedness consists partly of preferring earthly things to divine or heavenly things.10 Other Jewish tradition also depicts Esau as a general representative of wickedness.11 Narrowly de¿ning Hebrews’ depiction of his evil as dualistic earthliness is probably arbitrary; Hebrews depicts Esau as unconcerned with future blessing and wanting what was immediately available. In that sense his downfall was his de¿cient attitude to the future.12 He 8. Thompson, ‘Metaphysical’, passim. 9. Esau is the representative of folly or vice (Philo, Ebr. 9–10), a man ‘crafty in wickedness’ (Philo, Leg. All. 3.2). 10. Philo contrasts Esau, the man who pursues evil, to Jacob, the man who strives after good and who eventually obtains the birthright. Philo then makes a parallel contrast between Reuben, the man of ‘natural gifts’, and Levi, who leads a life of ‘perfect virtue’. Levi’s perfect virtue ‘is shown most clearly in that he makes God his refuge and forsakes all dealing with the world of created things’ (Philo, Sacr. 120). The de¿ciencies of Esau and Reuben, and the strengths of Jacob and Levi, are not the same, but the two stories are treated together, and to some extent, in parallel. It is therefore likely that Esau’s ‘evil’ is seen to mirror the failing of Reuben, the ‘man of natural gifts’ who does not measure up to his virtuous brother Levi, who takes refuge in God and forsakes the ‘world of created things’. Elsewhere, Philo speaks of Esau as exerting his evil inÀuence through enticing others to participate in earthly pleasures: he ‘nurses a grudge, and offering the baits of this mortal life to destroy thee, money, fame, pleasures, and the like, is bent on killing thee’ (Philo, Fug. 39). Elsewhere again, Esau ‘was disobedient, indulging without restraint in the pleasures of the belly and the lower lying parts. InÀuenced by these he surrendered his birth-right…’ (Philo, Virt. 208). 11. The Midrash Genesis Rabbah describes him variously as ‘that wicked man’ (65.10), ‘demonic’ (65.15), and ‘wicked’ (65.15). The prophetic literature identi¿es Esau with Israel’s enemy Edom and promises catastrophic judgment for ‘Esau’ (Jer. 49.7-16; Obad. 1–9; Mal. 1.2-3; see the discussion in J. Stiebert, ‘The Maligned Patriarch: Prophetic Ideology and the “Bad Press” of Esau’, in Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll [ed. Alastair G. Hunter and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup 348; London: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 2002], pp.38–41). 12. The full implications of his actions only concerned Esau ‘later’ when he wanted to inherit (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄýʸÀ) the blessing and repent. ‘The language of the paraphrase is typical of Hebrews’ soteriology…(Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄýʸÀ) does not appear in the biblical account, but is used for what Christians can expect’ (Attridge, Hebrews, p.370; cf. Heb. 1.14; 6.17). At that stage he was ‘rejected’ (Òȼ»ÇÁÀÄÚÊ¿¾). The passive Òȼ»ÇÁÀÄÚÊ¿¾ is a theological or divine passive, indicating that Esau’s rejection comes ultimately from God, not Isaac (so Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.440). The writer places Esau’s sin and rejection in the context of his larger discussion of apostasy and ¿nal judgment. 1

134

Hebrews and Divine Speech

also despised the covenant to which he was heir; thus his failing could be viewed as covenantal failure and rejection,13 as ‘a form of apostasy’.14 Esau was heir to the covenantal promises given to Abraham, but he was willing to set aside his birthright for something immediately gratifying but of inestimably less value. For that, he was ultimately rejected. The writer seems to view Esau’s sin speci¿cally as idolatry.15 The description of Esau as ‘immoral’ (ÈĠÉÅÇË) at 12.16 is curious; the term relates to sexual misconduct, but the biblical account does not speak of Esau as sexually immoral.16 Nor does Philo speak explicitly of Esau in those terms, although his indictment of Esau as ‘indulging without restraint in the pleasures of the belly and the lower-lying parts’ might suggest sexual misconduct.17 Hebrews’ use of ÈĠÉÅÇË here probably reÀects a link between sexual misconduct and idolatry in various strands of biblical material and Jewish interpretation.18 Immediately before introducing the example of Esau, the writer of Hebrews urges his addressees to ensure ‘that no root of bitterness springs up and causes trouble, and through it many become de¿led’ (12.15). This is an allusion to Deut. 29.18 (29.17),19 part of a passage that warns against the danger 13. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.454, 488; Johnson, Hebrews, p.324. 14. Johnson, Hebrews, p.326. 15. So Allen, Deuteronomy, pp.135–9; Attridge, Hebrews, p.369; Johnson, Hebrews, pp.324–5; Tasker, Old Testament, p.116. Moffatt, on the other hand, insists that ÈĠÉÅÇË here should be read as referring literally to sexual immorality (especially in light of 13.4, where sexual matters come clearly into focus; Moffatt, Epistle, p.211). 16. Although his marriage to Hittite wives (Gen. 26.34-35) could be construed as a form of sexual immorality (cf. Johnson, Hebrews, p.325; Attridge, Hebrews, p.369, esp. n.48). Esau’s identi¿cation with Edom (cf. Gen. 25.30) could colour his reputation as well: Edom ‘in later Jewish lore becomes the code word for the Roman Empire, and therefore the chief example of an idolatrous, sexually promiscuous people’ (Johnson, Hebrews, p.325). The Midrash Genesis Rabbah depicts Esau as sexually immoral: ‘So for forty years Esau used to ensnare married women and violate them’ (Gen. Rab. 65.2 [Freedman]). Jubilees links Esau’s wives (although not Esau) to sexual sin: ‘all of their deeds (are) fornication and lust. And there is not any righteousness with them because (their deeds are) evil’ (Jub. 25.1). 17. Philo, Virt. 208. Cf. Phil. 3.19 and Jub. 25.1. 18. A rabbinic tradition links Esau explicitly to the sin of idolatry, although this is only one of a wide-ranging catalogue of sins with which it associates him (Gen. Rab. 65.15). Idolatry is linked to sexual misconduct in the OT (cf. Deut. 31.16; Judg. 2.17; Jer. 2.20; 3.6-9; Ezek. 16.15-17), most strikingly in Hosea. 19. The Hebrews allusion (Äû ÌÀË ģĕ½¸ ÈÀÁÉĕ¸Ë ÓÅÑ ÎįÇÍʸ ëÅÇÏÂĉ) modi¿es the text of Deuteronomy, but Hebrews’ version is nonetheless clearly recognisable as an allusion to Deut. 29.18b (29.17b) (Äû ÌĕË ëÊÌÀÅ ëÅ ĨÄėÅ ģĕ½¸ ÓÅÑ ÎįÇÍʸ ëÅ ÏÇÂýЗ Á¸Ė ÈÀÁÉĕ¸З). So Allen, Deuteronomy, pp.102–4, 138–9. 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

135

of idolatry and af¿rms the certain condemnation of those individuals (bitter roots)20 whose hearts are inclined toward idolatry. The writer’s dependence on Deut. 29.18 (29.17) at Heb. 12.15 is con¿rmed by further structural and thematic parallels.21 For the writer, Esau is an archetypal apostate and idolater, ÈĠÉÅÇË and ¹ñ¹¾ÂÇË.22 8.2. The Two Encounters 8.2.1. The Danger of Idolatry The theme of idolatry continues in 12.18-20. The description of Sinai (Heb. 12.18-21) appears to rely particularly on Deut. 4.10-1423 (after which Moses warned the Israelites not to fall into idolatry).24 Idolatry reemerges at the end of this section at Heb. 12.29, itself an adaptation of Deut. 4.24 (part of a warning to turn from idolatry and to remember the covenant).25 Like Esau, the Israelites at Sinai were recipients of covenant

20. A term referring to ‘dangerous or disruptive elements’, as for instance in 1 Macc. 1.10, where it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. Attridge, Hebrews, p.368. 21. Note the conceptual parallel between failing ‘to obtain the grace of God’ in Heb. 12.15 and having one’s heart ‘turning away from the Lord’ in Deut. 29.18 (29.17) (highlighted by I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God [London: Epworth, 1969], p.143). Katz further notes that the Äû ÌÀË clause of Heb. 12.15a is derived from Deut. 29.18a (29.17a) (Katz, ‘Quotations’, p.21). The reliance of Hebrews on Deut. 29.18 (29.17) at this point is generally accepted (so Allen, Deuteronomy, pp.83–8; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.452–3; Attridge, Hebrews, p.368). 22. ‘In the LXX ¹ñ¹¾ÂÇË functions as the antonym of ׺ÀÇË… It describes the persons who are prepared to turn their backs on that which is holy in order to focus their attention on that which is immediately present’. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.455; see Lev. 10.10; Ezek. 22.26; 44.23 LXX. 23. Beyond the general overlap in subject matter and description, two particular verbal parallels between Deut. 4.10-14 and Heb. 12.18-21 suggest the importance of this passage to the writer of Hebrews in the framing of his account: ÈÉÇÊû¿¼Ì¼ (Deut. 4.11) and ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼ (Heb. 12.18); ÎÑÅûÅ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ (Deut. 4.12) and ÎÑÅýЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ (Heb. 12.19). See also Allen, Deuteronomy, pp.88–91. 24. ‘And guard your souls closely, because you did not notice a likeness on the day the Lord spoke to you at Choreb in the mountain from the midst of the ¿re. Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves an engraved likeness, any kind of icon…’ (Deut. 4.15-16). 25. ‘As for you, take care, lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make for yourselves an engraved likeness of all the things that the Lord your God has instructed you. For the Lord your God is a devouring ¿re, a jealous God’ (Deut. 4.23-24). 1

136

Hebrews and Divine Speech

promises, but, like him, they spurned those promises to indulge in something tangible and immediately available in their idolatrous worship of the golden calf.26 Having sinned in this way there was no chance for Esau to repent (v. 16). The risk of apostasy and the temptation of relapsing into the familiar forms of Judaism are again recalled (cf. esp. Hebrews 6). 8.2.2. The Community’s ‘Approach’ Heb. 12.18-24 centres on the concept of ‘approach’: ‘You have not come (ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼)27 to something that can be touched….But you have come (ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼) to Mount Zion’ (12.18, 22).28 ÉÇÊñÉÏÇĸÀ generally imports movement towards something, but it can carry the nuance of ‘approach or entry into a deity’s presence’.29 It is characteristically used in Hebrews for approaching God,30 initially in the context of 26. Cf. 11.1, where faith is de¿ned as ‘the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’. 27. The use of the verb ÈÉÇÊñÉÏÇĸÀ here may have been inÀuenced by its use in the description to the Sinai encounter in Deut. 4.11, but it corresponds to the patterns of Hebrews’ use of the verb as indicating approach to God in relationship. Attridge, Hebrews, p.372. 28. The perfect is used relatively infrequently in the NT, generally representing a ‘deliberate choice on the part of the writer’ (Wallace, Greek, p.573) and carrying ‘semantic signi¿cance’ (cf. Porter, Idioms, p.22). While grammarians debate the extent to which the perfect tense signi¿es time and/or aspect (and whether the aspect signi¿ed is perfective or imperfective in nature; see Campbell, Aspect, pp.103–17, for the minority view that the aspect signi¿ed by the perfect tense is imperfective), Wallace notes the ‘basic agreement’ that the force of the perfect involves two elements: ‘completed action and resultant state’ (Wallace, Greek, p.573; so also Zerwick, Biblical, p.96). Here, the perfect tense of ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼ in both cases indicates the ongoing consequences of the de¿nitive approach that has been made at conversion (so Peterson, Perfection, p.160; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.459). Ellingworth suggests that the verb may import negative nuance, implying ‘approach, but not meet/join/enter’, pointing to an unrealised eschatology operating here (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.671). This conclusion seems unlikely given the substantially realised eschatology of this passage (see the discussion below). Koester’s assertion that the use of the perfect tense is merely rhetorical and creates vividness (Koester, Hebrews, p.550) fails to do justice to the reality of access to Zion that the addressees have through Christ as mediator. Similarly unsatisfactory is Johnson’s claim that the addressees have come ‘in principle and in their imagination’ (Johnson, Hebrews, p.328). 29. BDAG. 30. While acknowledging that the term is frequently used for approach to a deity in the LXX (he cites Exod. 16.9; 22.7; Lev. 9.5; Deut. 5.27, etc.) and in other classical sources (citing Dio Cassius, Porphyry and Philo), Head insists that ‘the 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

137

entering into a relationship with him (cf. Heb. 7.25 and 11.6), and then of renewing and con¿rming that relationship (cf. 4.16 and 10.22).31 The exact understanding of this approach in Hebrews is debated.32 Forensic33 and cultic34 nuances are attested in ancient sources that use ÈÉÇÊñÉÏÇĸÀ to describe a formal approach to a deity (or to an individual of special authority). However, in the biblical tradition, and especially in Hebrews, the reader should not assume a sharp disjunction between the forensic and cultic nuances of the verb.35 For the writer, to encounter God, especially to encounter his word (12.18-29 depicts encounters with God word is far from being a technical term and has numerous other common meanings’, and therefore ‘the appeal to a technical cultic usage must be approached with caution’ (P. Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem [SNTSMS 94; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], p.127). In Hebrews, however, the seven occurrences of the verb all appear in contexts which support the theological nuance described (4.16; 7.25; 10.1, 22; 11.6; 12.18, 22; see Attridge, Hebrews, pp.141, 271– 2, 372; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.460). 31. Lehne ¿nds that the language of ‘approach’ in Hebrews becomes a shorthand for the whole soteriological process, ‘grounded in’ and deriving ‘its objective meaning from the Christ event’. Lehne, New Covenant, p.110; see also pp.109–11. 32. J. Schneider (‘ìÉÏÇĸÀ’, in TDNT, II, p.684), Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.269) and Attridge (Hebrews, p.141) favour a cultic interpretation; Moffatt, however, assumes a forensic interpretation at 4.16 (Moffatt, Epistle, p.60). 33. The forensic concept of appearance in court is attested in Deut. 25.1; in P. Oxy. 40.4 (late second or early third century AD), where a doctor comes before the praefect seeking immunity from some form of public service; and in P. Oxy. 2783.25 (third century AD), where a man writes to his acquaintance that the care of this acquaintance’s bulls have caused the writer to ‘appear in court’ (ÈÉÇý¿¸; the editors note, however, that the verb could mean ‘I have got years older’, but prefer the former reading as more consistent with the papyri, p. 81; R. A. Coles et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, XXXVI [London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1970]). 34. So Michel, Hebräer, p.461; Käsemann, Wandering, pp.30–1. See Num. 18.4 (of approach to the Levites); Jer. 7.16 (of approach to God in intercession); Sir. 1.28 (of approach to God with the correct attitude of mind); 1 Pet. 2.4 (of coming to Christ). Those who emphasise a cultic understanding of the verb tend to assume a liturgical setting for its application in Hebrews. However, given that Hebrews sets aside cultic patterns of religion tied to the old covenant and emphasises the spiritual realities of approach through Christ in the true heavenly sanctuary, it seems right to conclude that a ‘faith-approach’ is in view here (W. J. Dumbrell, ‘The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect’, EvQ 48 [1976], p.155). 35. In some biblical use of ÈÉÇÊñÉÏÇĸÀ, it is impossible to distinguish clearly between an approach to God and an appearance before the judge; biblical tradition views God as the judge (see Judg. 11.27; Ps. 7.11; Isa. 33.22; see also comments in Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.470), and Hebrews evinces this understanding (cf. Heb. 10.30; 12.23; 13.4). 1

138

Hebrews and Divine Speech

as speaker),36 involves judgment and, for the members of God’s covenant community, provides an opportunity to receive grace.37 This passage is set in a context where the theme of judgment is in view.38 At Zion, the people of God have approached ‘God the judge of all’ (12.23) in the context of a covenant in which the blood of Jesus provides the opportunity for the worshippers to receive grace (cf. 12.24 and discussion below). Before considering what the addressees have come to, the writer begins by describing what they have not come to: ‘something that can be touched (о¸ÎÑÄñÅÑЗ), a blazing ¿re, and darkness and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that not another word be spoken to them’ (12.18-19). This is clearly a description of Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai,39 which the writer contrasts with the Church’s encounter with God through Christ at Zion (12.22-24).40

36. ReÀecting on the two encounters depicted, in 12.25 the writer exhorts the addressees not to refuse ‘the one who is speaking’. These are encounters with the God who speaks, and in particular, who warns: ‘for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven’ (12.25). 37. The implications of encountering God in 12.22-24 parallel the implications of encountering God and his word in 4.13-16: God’s word brings immediate judgment (4.12-13), but those who are judged by God’s word are to approach (ÈÉÇʼÉÏļļ¿¸) the ‘throne of grace with boldness’ because of the mediatorial work of Christ (4.16). 38. Judgment is a key theme in 12.14-17, where Esau pleads for an opportunity to repent, but is given none. 39. The description here evokes various OT accounts of Sinai and of the plague of darkness at the Exodus and shares striking verbal parallels with these accounts in the LXX: Deut. 4.11 (ÈÉÇÊû¿¼Ì¼…ëÁ¸ĕ¼ÌÇ ÈÍÉĖ…ÊÁĠÌÇË, ºÅĠÎÇË, ¿į¼Â¸, ÎÇÅü ļºÚ¾); Deut. 5.22 (ģûĸ̸…ëÂÚ¾ʼŅÈÍÉĠË ÊÁĠÌÇË ºÅĠÎÇË ¿į¼Â¸ ÎÑÅü ļºÚ¾); Exod. 10.21-22 (о¸ξÌġÅ ÊÁĠÌÇË…ºÅĠÎÇË, ¿į¼Â¸); Exod. 19.12-13 (¼ĊË Ìġ ěÉÇË Á¸À ¿Àº¼ėÅ ÌÀ ¸ĤÌÇÍ…ÂÀ¿Ç¹Ç¾¿û̸À); Exod. 19.16, 19 (ÊÚÂÈÀººÇË). 40. A number of manuscripts have attempted to make explicit what is implicit here by supplying ěɼÀ directly after о¸ÎÑÄñÅÑЗ in 12.18, but major manuscripts including Codex Sinaiticus and P46 support Nǹ27’s harder (and therefore, preferable) reading. The fact that the manuscripts that do include ěɼÀ supply it in different locations in the text further suggests that it is a gloss (Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.441). Attridge proposes the attractive theory that the writer omitted an explicit reference to Sinai to focus the reader’s attention on the positive side of the antithesis, Zion (Attridge, Hebrews, p.372). 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

139

8.2.3. Sinai as ‘Touchable’ The description of Sinai as о¸ÎÑÄñÅÑЗ is curious in that one feature of the Sinai encounter as recorded in Exodus is that the people were forbidden to touch the mountain, facing a penalty if they did so (Exod. 19.12-13). The writer of Hebrews evidently knows this because he quotes the prohibition of Exod. 19.12-13 in condensed form in Heb. 12.20. So, the writer is not trying to make the point that Sinai was something that the Israelites were permitted to touch.41 For this writer, Sinai was tangible42 and earthly like Esau’s meal, whereas Zion is the presently intangible ‘heavenly city’ and the ultimate goal of Christ’s people.43 Implicit, then, is the warning from Esau’s example not to forsake the

41. The term о¸ÎÑÄñÅÑЗ does not appear in OT accounts of Sinai, but it occurs in the account of the plague of darkness at the Exodus (‘a darkness that can be felt’, о¸ξÌġÅ ÊÁĠÌÇË, Exod. 10.21). The author may have drawn the motif of intangibility from the Exodus account of the plague (the broader verbal parallels, noted above, between Exod. 10 LXX and the Hebrews passage suggest the author’s acquaintance with this passage); in any case, he has in view a larger picture of God’s dealings with Israel which Sinai typi¿es. 42. ‘The mountain could not be touched indeed (v. 20), but it was a tangible object which appealed to the senses. This is the point of contrast between it and the ÀĽÅ ěÉÇË…’ (Moffatt, Epistle, p.215). In fact, nothing the writer describes at Sinai was really capable of being touched (¿re, tempest, sound, voice, etc.), but each element makes a strong sensory impression. 43. So Thompson, who proposes that the writer uses the term о¸ÎÑÄñÅÑЗ ‘as a code-word for “earthly” in a metaphysical sense’ (12.22), and by it he means to indicate that Sinai was tangible and earthly, like Esau’s fateful meal, and unlike Mount Zion, ‘the heavenly [ëÈÇÍɸÅĕÑЗ] Jerusalem’ (Thompson, ‘Metaphysical’, pp.580–3; similarly, Johnson, Hebrews, p.329). The basic outline of Thompson’s case is convincing, but in importing a fully Àedged Platonic dualism from Philo it limits the discussion unduly. The contrast between Sinai and Zion is not narrowly ‘dualistic’; it is also covenantal (Lehne, New Covenant, pp.97, 119) and eschatological (C. K. Barrett, ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology [ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956], pp.363–93; so also, Peterson, Perfection, pp.144–5; Manson, Historical, p.184; Caird, ‘Exegetical’, p.45; Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.45, 63–5). Laansma’s framework for reading Hebrews at this point could also be described as eschatological; he sees the temple/tabernacle imagery of Hebrews as providing the dominant motif for understanding the future of the cosmos. When history reaches its telos, all other things will be removed and the sanctuary will ¿ll the cosmos (J. Laansma, ‘Hidden Stories in Hebrews: Cosmology and Theology’ [paper presented at ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology’ conference. St. Andrews, Scotland. July 2006], esp. pp.12–15; see also Laansma, ‘Cosmology’). 1

140

Hebrews and Divine Speech

heavenly for the earthly, the intangible for the tangible, future blessings for lesser immediate ful¿lment. Such folly leads to ultimate rejection by God. 8.2.4. God’s Remoteness at Sinai and the Use of ģýĸ and ÂĠºÇË at 12.19 The writer shows that the tangible and earthly nature of the Sinai encounter does not make it more attractive than the Zion encounter. On a sensory level, while Sinai is overwhelming, even frightening, Zion is thoroughly inviting.44 The tangible Sinai experience, with its ‘blazing ¿re, and darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and the sound of a trumpet’, and the ‘voice of words’ (ÎÑžϗЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ), was more than the people could take (12.18-19). The hearers begged ‘that not another word (ÂĠºÇÅ) be spoken to them’ (12.19), and Moses trembled with fear (12.21). In developing the contrast between the two encounters, the writer seems to imply that, in comparison with Zion, Sinai was hardly a personal encounter with God at all. The ‘voice of words’ (ÎÑÅýЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ), God’s voice, which the people heard at Sinai, served the vital function of delivering the covenant. However, Moses reports that the people did not see God: ‘You heard the sound of words (ÎÑÅýЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ) but did not notice a likeness, only a voice’ (Deut. 4.12 LXX). It is an overstatement to claim that for Hebrews ‘God was not unambiguously present at Sinai’,45 but the physical manifestations of his presence certainly reinforced a sense of distance between him and the assembled people. Hebrews draws particular attention to these features of the Sinai (or Horeb) encounter as recounted in Deut. 4.1–5.33 and Exod. 19.16–20.26. Here the physical manifestations of the divine presence (which did not include the actual ‘likeness’ of God, Deut. 4.12) generated fear among the people, so that they ‘stood at a distance’ (Exod. 20.18b) and asked not to have God speak to them directly, ‘lest we die’ (Exod. 20.19; Deut. 5.25-26). The phrase ‘voice of words’ (ÎÑžϗЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ) at Heb. 12.19 is drawn directly from Moses’ report of the encounter at Deut. 4.12. In Hebrews the phrase occurs at the end of a list of physical (‘touchable’, cf. 12.18a) manifestations of the divine presence at Sinai. The list includes the full range of the senses, and the two ¿nal elements (‘the sound of trumpets and the voice of words’) focus upon hearing. The voice was undoubtedly the voice of God, and while the content of what he said was presumably the Law, the focus appears to be on the sound of his voice and its impact

1

44. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.461. 45. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.489. See also Koester, Hebrews, p.549.

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

141

on those present. A similar focus on the sensory (rather than informative) signi¿cance of the ‘voice of words’ appears in Deut. 4.12. While the substance of the words spoken was the covenant (Deut. 4.13), the immediate emphasis was on the sensory impact on the hearers: ‘And the Lord spoke to you from the midst of the ¿re. You heard the sound of words but you did not notice a likeness, only a voice’ (Deut. 4.12). In his account of the hearers’ response the writer uses the term ÂĠºÇË to refer to the divine message (rather than the sound of God’s voice): úË ÇĎ ÒÁÇįʸÅÌ¼Ë È¸É¾ЗÌûʸÅÌÇ Äü ÈÉÇÊ̼¿¾ϗŸÀ ¸ĤÌÇėË ÂĠºÇÅ (12.19b). The language here is not drawn from the Exodus or Deuteronomy account (although the outline of the request is found at Exod. 20.19 and Deut. 5.25).46 The writer’s decision to use ÂĠºÇË to frame the people’s request to hear nothing more could, perhaps, be a stylistic variation and therefore function as a synonym for ģýĸ. However, the context here suggests a distinction in intended meaning between the two terms. The people’s request not to hear another word is linked to the verse that follows: ‘For (ºÚÉ) they could not endure the order that was given, “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned to death” ’ (12.20). The term ÂĠºÇË evidently refers in particular to the instruction God gave to the people through Moses at Sinai. There is, then, a distinction here in the use of ģýĸ and ÂĠºÇË: ÎÑÅýЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ, drawn from Deuteronomy, refers to God’s voice as a sound and ‘stresses the sensory aspect of the voice’;47 ÂĠºÇË refers to the instruction conveyed by God’s voice. Perhaps the most striking feature of the presentation of God’s speech here at Sinai here in 12.19 is that it terri¿es its hearers. 8.2.5. Jesus’ Speaking Blood and His Mediatorial Role at Zion (12.24) In contrast to the Sinai encounter, the addressees ‘have come to Mount Zion, even48 to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem’ (v. 22a).49 This is an image of God’s dwelling, the true sanctuary which Christ entered to offer his great sacri¿ce (cf. 12.24). This mount or city is familiar to apocalyptic expectation, existing now, but to be fully revealed at the eschaton. At Zion are the true realities to which the 46. So, Attridge, Hebrews, p.373 nn.33 and 34. 47. Koester, Hebrews, p.543. 48. The Á¸Ė introducing ÈĠ¼À ¿¼Çı ½ľÅÌÇË is appositional, clarifying the concept of ÀĽÅ ěɼÀ. It is better translated (contra NRSV) ‘even’ rather than ‘and’ (Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.442, 465). Similarly, `¾ÉÇÍʸÂüÄ ëÈÇÍɸÅĕÑЗ stands in apposition to ÈĠ¼À (Moffatt, Epistle, p.216). 49. The three terms are synonymous (so Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.465), as is indicated by their construction essentially as an appositional chain of terms. 1

142

Hebrews and Divine Speech

earthly sanctuary50 and the encounter at Sinai51 point as shadows. At Mount Zion the addressees have come to a great community, ‘to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the ¿rstborn who are enrolled in heaven’ (12.22b-23a), later called ‘the spirits of the righteous made perfect’ (v. 23c). They have also come to ‘God the judge of all’ (v. 23b).52 The mention of God as judge is immediately followed by the comforting announcement of Jesus’ presence as ‘mediator of a new covenant’, an image recalling 4.14-16, where Jesus is the High Priest who invites his people to approach (ÈÉÇʼÉÏļļ¿¸, 4.16; cf. ÈÉÇʼ¾Âį¿¸Ì¼, 12.22) God’s throne to receive mercy. Implicit here may be a contrast between Moses as mediator of the Sinai covenant and Jesus as mediator of the new covenant;53 in the OT passages evoked in Hebrews’ description of Sinai, Moses plays the key role as the one who actually goes up the mountain and communicates with God face to face. Jesus’ role as mediator and the role of his ‘better’ (ÁɼėÌÌÑÅ)54 speaking blood are central to the more welcoming character of Zion, together functioning as a climax to the descriptors of Zion in 12.22-24. In general, a ļÊĕÌ¾Ë is ‘one who mediates betw[een] two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal’,55 ‘a “neutral” whom both sides can trust’, ‘an “intermediary” in the general spatial sense’, or

50. In 8.1-5 the writer explains that the sanctuary Moses built in the desert was a sketch or shadow of a heavenly reality. As mediator of the new covenant (cf. 12.24), Christ is ‘seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up’ (8.1-2). Given the emphasis on Christ’s role as mediator at Mount Zion, it seems reasonable to conclude that 12.22-24 and 8.1-5 describe the same heavenly location. 51. ‘The description in vv.22-24 is also modelled to some extent on the pattern of Sinai, with its picture of angels, assembled participants, a presiding Deity, a scrutiny and a mediator’ (Peterson, Perfection, p.160). Verses 22-24 provide the ‘covenant conclusion’ of the Sinai encounter, where this time the participants stand as those ‘perfected’ (Dumbrell, ‘Spirits’, p.159). 52. The theme of judgment has been introduced in 12.17, and is here brought back into focus. 53. Grässer, Hebräer, III, pp.324–5; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.472. 54. The superior nature of the speaking here is tied to the effect that Christ’s blood has in securing the new covenant (so Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.474). While the new covenant is symbolised by Zion and has both eschatological and cosmological implications, to see a Platonic/Philonic dualism here as the over-arching framework for understanding superiority (so Braun, Hebräer, p.440) is to miss the point. The comparative ÁɼėÌÌÑÅ ‘is used in Hebrews characteristically of the new order and of all that is entailed in the new covenant’ (Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.474). 55. BDAG. 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

143

‘the “mediator” or “negotiator” in the sense of one who establishes a relation which would not otherwise exist’.56 This ¿nal sense probably comes closest to the meaning of the term in Hebrews.57 For Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity, Moses was the archetypal mediator because of his role as mediator of the Sinai covenant.58 In Hebrews, ļÊĕÌ¾Ë is always connected to the new covenant,59 of which Jesus’ sacri¿cial death is the foundation.60 One of the fundamental concerns of the early chapters of Hebrews is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over former intermediary ¿gures: the prophets (1.1-2), angels (1.4– 2.18), Moses (3.1-6), and earlier priests (4.14–8.13). As mediator, Christ is contrasted primarily with Moses. In the three uses of ļÊĕÌ¾Ë in Hebrews (8.6; 9.15, and 12.24), the term always applies to Christ and, at least in the case of the ¿rst two, is set in the context of an implicit or explicit comparison with Moses and the covenant of which he is the mediator.61 The Christian community has come ‘…to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Á¸Ė ¸ďĸÌÀ ģ¸ÅÌÀÊÄÇı ÁɼėÌÌÇŠ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ ȸÉÛ ÌġÅ62 #¹¼Â)’. While the reference to Christ’s ‘sprinkled blood’ clearly points back to the event of the cruci¿xion, the author concentrates on the effects of that blood in cleansing the conscience of Christ’s followers, inaugurating the new covenant, facilitating worship in the heavenly sanctuary, and, supremely, bringing forgiveness of sins.63 In Gen. 4.10-11, Abel’s blood cries out to God from the ground, setting a curse on Cain, his

56. Oepke, ‘ļÊĕ̾˒, pp.599–601. 57. Oepke, ‘ļÊĕ̾˒, p.624. See the treatment of Jesus’ work as mediator of the new covenant in Chapter 6 of this study. 58. Cf. Gal. 3.9; Philo, Somn. 1.143; Vit. Mos. 2.166. 59. Heb. 8.6; 9.15; 12.24. See Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.472. 60. Heb. 9.14-15. The blood of Jesus, which in Hebrews can cleanse the conscience of the worshipper (6.15), provides a striking contrast to the blood of animals which enacted the old covenant. This blood was applied externally to the assembled Israelites (Exod. 24.8), only cleansing their Àesh (Heb. 6.13). 61. Cf. 8.5 for 8.6; 9.19 for 9.15. 62. A variant at 12.24b reads ȸÉÛ ÌÇ #¹¼Â in place of ȸÉÛ ÌġÅ #¹¼Â. The reading of NA27 is to be preferred as maintaining the natural parallelism of Christ’s and Abel’s blood speaking, as opposed to Christ’s blood speaking and Abel himself speaking. Further, the memorable reference in Gen. 4.10 to Abel’s blood crying out makes a parallel in terms of ‘speaking blood’ apt here. See further discussion below. 63. Cf. 9.14-22 where the function of the blood of Christ is discussed more fully, and set in parallel with Moses’ inauguration of the ¿rst covenant. 1

144

Hebrews and Divine Speech

brother and murderer.64 Hebrews compares the blood of Abel with the blood of Jesus, which ‘speaks better’ (ÁɼėÌÌÇŠ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ). But to whom does Jesus’ blood speak, what does it say, and how does the speaking of Abel’s blood act as a parallel? Some commentators interpret Hebrews’ reference to Abel at 12.24 in the light of 11.4, where the writer upholds Abel as a model of faith for offering God a more acceptable sacri¿ce than Cain:65 although Abel died, ‘through his faith he still speaks’ (11.4).66 In ch. 11, Abel is an example of one who pleased God by his faith, and by that witness Abel continues to speak.67 However, the ‘speaking blood’ of 12.24 naturally evokes the biblical account of Abel’s blood speaking68 and makes likely an intended allusion to his blood crying out in Gen. 4.10.69

64. ‘Listen: your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand’. 65. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.474; Braun, Hebräer, p.440; Attridge, Hebrews, p.377. 66. Note the interesting resonance here (so Sowers, Hermeneutics, p.134) with Philo’s insistence that Abel is both dead and alive because he continues to speak (Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 48, 70). 67. Son proposes that the writer views both Abel and Christ as prophets who were killed: Abel as the prophet of the old covenant and pre¿gurement of Jesus, and Jesus as the prophet of the new (Son, Zion, pp.101–2). While Hebrews presents Jesus as a new covenant corollary to the prophets (Heb. 1.1-2), it does not focus on the persecution he faced as a prophet (but cf. Dormandy, ‘Parable’, for the view that Hebrews presents Jesus as a persecuted prophet). The principal dif¿culty with Son’s position is that Abel is nowhere in Hebrews described as a prophet. 68. Smillie’s suggestion that Hebrews does not envision the blood of Christ as speaking and that the meaning of 12.24b is that ‘we have come to one who speaks better than Abel’ (Smillie, ‘The One’, p.279) should be rejected because it appears to take no account of the presence of the dative noun ¸ďĸÌÀ or its agreement with the participle ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ. It is true that Abel’s blood is not speci¿cally mentioned in 12.24b (Á¸Ė ¸ďĸÌÀ ģ¸ÅÌÀÊÄÇı ÁɼėÌÌÇŠ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ ȸÉÛ ÌġÅ #¹¼Â), as Smillie has noted (Smillie, ‘The One’, p.280). However, DeSilva rightly observes that the author here uses a ‘brachylogy’: ‘the hearers of the phrase “than Abel”…will be able to ¿ll this out as “than the blood of Abel” from the mention of “blood speaking”…in the preceding phrase’ (DeSilva, Perseverance, p.468). The view that Jesus’ blood is the speaker here has widespread support (Delitzsch, Hebrews, II, p.354; Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.409; Hughes, Commentary, pp.551–2; Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.112; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.474; Michel, Hebräer, p.468, et al.). 69. Since the writer’s thought was evidently saturated with the OT, it should not be surprising to ¿nd him using one biblical ¿gure to make two separate points at different places in his discourse. 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

145

The identi¿cation of Christ as ‘mediator’ at 12.24 naturally implies that his blood should speak to the two parties between whom he mediates (God and the community identi¿ed in 12.23). In Genesis 4 Abel’s blood cried out only to God, witnessing to the curse from the ground that was upon Cain (Gen. 4.11). The reference to Christ’s ‘sprinkled blood’ recalls the conceptual realm of the true sacri¿ce in the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews 9–10, where the earthly sanctuary acts as a shadow of heavenly realities. The sacri¿cial blood has a number of inter-related functions there that all serve to make worshippers acceptable to God: it is an offering (given to God) for sins (9.7), a means of obtaining ‘eternal redemption’ (9.12), of purifying consciences (9.14), of inaugurating a covenant, of cleansing instruments used in worship (9.19-21), and, ¿nally, of securing forgiveness of sins (9.22). The writer says in ch. 9 that Christ’s sacri¿cial work was ‘before God’ on behalf of his people.70 As symbolised typologically in the blood of Yom Kippur and of the covenant sacri¿ces, Christ’s blood brings cleansing from sin and seals relationship with God. Christ’s sprinkled blood has a message of assurance: ‘Therefore, my friends, since we have con¿dence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus…let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience’ (10.19, 22a). Although sacri¿ces under the old covenant could not bring about this change in the worshipper’s acceptability before God, Christ’s sacri¿ce could, making the worshipper ‘perfect’ (10.1).71 In 12.23b-24 the writer says that at Zion the addressees have come ‘to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood…’ The discussion in chs. 9–10 of blood and sacri¿ce presupposes that God is acting as judge evaluating the worshipper, and the term ‘perfection’ indicates a state of acceptability based upon an appropriate sacri¿ce. The case is the same here in 12.23-24. God is judge in Zion, Christ mediates between God and the worshippers as an acceptable sacri¿ce, and those who are present are described as the ‘righteous made perfect’. Christ’s blood speaks in 12.24; 70. ‘For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf… But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacri¿ce of himself’ (9.24, 26b). 71. In his exhaustive examination of ‘perfection’ in Hebrews, Peterson concludes that the writer adopted perfection language ‘as a means of expressing the absolute effectiveness of Christ to ful¿l the divine plan of bringing “many sons to glory” ’ (Perfection, p.187). 1

146

Hebrews and Divine Speech

it speaks, not as Abel’s blood from earth, but from the heavenly Zion itself.72 It speaks to God concerning the cleansing and acceptability of the worshipper based on Christ’s work, and it speaks to the worshipper, giving assurance of acceptance before the judge. As Bengel notes, Christ’s blood speaks ‘in heaven for us, and from heaven to us’.73 Throughout Hebrews, the death of Christ is presented as a revelatory event. The Son’s work in making puri¿cation for sins (1.3b) is part of the complex of God’s speech ‘in the Son’ (1.2a), as proposed in the exegesis of 1.1-4.74 In Heb. 9.26 the writer states that Christ ‘has appeared [or, “been made manifest”,75 ȼθÅñÉÑ̸À] once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacri¿ce of himself’. Swetnam suggests that this verse should be read in the light of Heb. 9.8, where the ‘¿rst tent’ obscures the way to the sanctuary, and in the light of Heb. 10.19-20, where Christ opens a ‘new and living way’ through his ‘Àesh’. He suggests that by his sacri¿ce Christ ‘has made himself manifest as the means of access to the holy of holies’.76 Although Swetnam’s suggestion that sacri¿ce is a formal revelatory category in the NT77 is probably as yet unproved, his general observation is sound: Hebrews views Christ’s sacri¿ce as revelatory, and it is not alone in the NT in doing so. 8.3. The Spoken Warning (12.25-29) 8.3.1. The Identity of the Speaker(s) of 12.25 Following the depiction of the two encounters with God (in vv. 18-24), the following verses (vv. 25-29) highlight the fact that these are encounters with God as speaker and require an appropriate response: 72. Grässer, Hebräer, III, p.324. 73. Bengel, Gnomon, IV, pp.488–9 (italics his); so too, Grässer, Hebräer, III, p.324. 74. For the view that 12.24 should be read in light of 1.2, see Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.112; Hughes, Commentary, p.555. 75. The passive form of the verb ȼθÅñÉÑ̸À is probably a divine passive, pointing to God as the one who makes Christ manifest. J. Swetnam, ‘Sacri¿ce and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observation and Surmises on Hebrews 9,26’, CBQ 30 (1968), p.228. 76. Swetnam, ‘Sacri¿ce and Revelation’, p.228; see also M. Barth, Was Christ’s Death a Sacri¿ce? (Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers 9; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961), p.31; H. W. Robinson, Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (London: Duckworth, 1956), p.148; J. Denney, The Death of Christ (London: Tyndale, 1951), p.119; Son, Zion, p.100. 77. Swetnam cites Rom. 3.25 and Rev. 4.1 as making a similar association between Christ’s sacri¿ce as a cultic act and the concept of revelation. 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

147

‘See that you do not refuse (ȸɸÀÌûʾʿ¼) the one who is speaking (ÌġŠ¸ÂÇıÅ̸); for if they did not escape when they refused (ȸɸÀ̾ÊÚļÅÇÀ)78 the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven!’ (12.25) Who is (or who are) the speaker(s) at 12.25? There are two participles and an implied participle whose subjects need to be identi¿ed: (1) ÌġŠ¸ÂÇıÅ̸, (2) ëÈĖ ºýË…ÌġÅ ÏɾĸÌĕ½ÇÅ̸, (3) ÌġÅ ÒÈφ ÇĤÉ¸ÅľÅ (ÏɾĸÌĕ½ÇÅ̸). In the case of (1), although the writer repeats the verb used in 12.24 (a ‘hook word’), the participle ¸ÂÇıÅ̸ is masculine accusative singular, while ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ of v. 24 was probably a neuter dative singular, agreeing with ¸ďĸÌÀ.79 This suggests that, while there is a thread of continuity between the speaking of 12.24 and the speaking of 12.25, the subject of the participle is not the same in 12.24 and 12.25. Since the masculine subject of the participle is unnamed in 12.25, the reader is left to supply the subject and so identify the speaker. ȉhis speaker is certainly presented as being authoritative; the addressees are instructed to ‘see that’ they do not ‘refuse’ the one who is speaking, and the clear implication is that judgment faces those who refuse the speaker who brings a warning (12.25b).80 Koester maintains that the ambiguity in the identity of the subject of this participle is intentional; the writer of Hebrews here acts as the rhetorical agent through whom the divine word is spoken.81 This seems probable. God must be the ultimate speaker here who cannot be ignored, but in Hebrews God regularly speaks through agents (the

78. This echo of the participle of v. 19 (‘a voice whose words made the hearers beg [ȸÉþÌûʸÅÌÇ] that not another word be spoken to them’) might suggest that the request of the Israelites for Moses to mediate between them and God (recorded in Deut. 5.25-27 and alluded to here in Heb. 12.19) amounted to rejection of the divine voice and was therefore culpable (so Michel, who sees both uses of the participle as developing ‘das Motiv des “Abweisens” ’; Michel, Hebräer, p.470). However, the Deuteronomy account records that God viewed this request as right and indicative of a proper attitude of godly fear (Deut. 5.28-29). Following Moffatt, the verbal echo of v. 19 should probably be taken as incidental. In 12.25 the writer ‘means any obstinate rejection’ of the message they received (Moffatt, Epistle, pp.219–20). 79. It seems syntactically unlikely that ¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ in 12.24 would agree with the earlier ļÊĕÌþ or `¾ÊÇı. 80. Cf. 12.26-27 and the promised ‘shaking’ of heaven and earth and the description of God as a ‘consuming ¿re’ in 12.29. 81. ‘In an ultimate sense, the one who is speaking is God, but those addressed by Hebrews do not hear God speaking in an unmediated way. Therefore, the appeal not to refuse the word of God calls for attention to the human speaker who delivers his word. Rhetorically, speakers sometimes appealed for attentiveness when their listeners became tired.’ Koester, Hebrews, p.552; so too Smillie, ‘The One’, pp.292–3. 1

148

Hebrews and Divine Speech

prophets and Jesus, 1.1-2; angels, 2.2; Moses, 3.5), and here the immediate speaker of the divine word to the addressees is the writer of the sermon. In the case of (2) and (3), identifying the subject of these participles is complex. Some contrast between the warning on earth and the warning from heaven is indicated by the comparison constructed with the use of ÈÇÂİ ÄÜÂÂÇÅ, a feature of this verse that could point to Moses as subject of (2) and Jesus as subject of (3).82 This is plausible in light of Heb. 1.1-2, where the writer af¿rms that God spoke in earlier times ëÅ ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÎû̸ÀË,83 and in light of the broader contrast in 12.18-24 between the new (heavenly) Zion covenant, where Jesus is mediator, and the (earthly) Sinai covenant, where Moses is mediator.84 However, these verses do not name Moses, and his role as mediator is not emphasised here. Verse 26 shows that God must be seen as the ultimate speaker in v. 25 at (2) and (3).85 The masculine genitive relative particle Çī (12.26a) refers back to ÌġÅ ÏɾĸÌĕ½ÇÅ̸ (12.25b) and, if it is correct to see a single subject here, it similarly refers back to ÌġŠ¸ÂÇıÅ̸ (12.25a). Surely it is God’s voice that shook the earth ‘at that time’ at Sinai (v. 26a) and that ‘now’ has promised, through the words of Hag. 2.6 (v. 26b), to shake the earth again.86 The chief dif¿culty here is the one raised by Moffatt: ‘It is repeatedly said (Ex 20.22, Dt 4.36) that God spoke to the people at Sinai ëÁ ÌÇı ÇĤɸÅÇı, so that to take ÌġÅ ÏɾĸÌĕ½ÇÅ̸ here as God, would be out of keeping with ëÈĖ ÌýË ºýË’.87 This is particularly important given the writer’s evident familiarity with the Exodus and Deuteronomy accounts of the Horeb/Sinai encounter. However, it is important to see that here in 12.25 the writer is offering a reappraisal of Sinai in light of Christ and in line with the reappraisal he 82. So Monte¿ore, Hebrews, p.234; Vanhoye, La Structure, pp.206–7; Sowers, Hermeneutics, p.129 n.7; Moffatt, Epistle, pp.219–20. Héring (L’Épître, p.119) and Buchanan (Hebrews, p.224) identify Moses as the subject of (2) and God as the subject of (3). 83. Moses, of course, is the archetypal great prophet. Cf. Deut. 18.15. 84. The nature of the distinction between the covenants is not, of course, exclusively (or even primarily) spatial. But the earthly/heavenly contrast is nonetheless an important part of the distinction that the writer makes between the two covenants in this passage. 85. So Grässer, Hebräer, III, p.328; Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.411; Bruce, Hebrews, p.363; Attridge, Hebrews, pp.379–80; Smillie, ‘The One’, pp.283–7; Braun, Hebräer, p.441; Ellingworth, Hebrews, pp.683–4. 86. Grässer draws particular attention to the parallelism between ÌĠ̼ and ÅıÅ in 12.26a as indicating that the same speaker must be in view on both occasions. 87. Moffatt, Epistle, p.220; so too Monte¿ore, Hebrews, p.234. 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

149

has been constructing since 12.18. Sinai, once de¿nitive for relating to God, is now outmoded. These verses convey both a temporal and spatial contrast between the two speaking events,88 and they imply that the new covenant speech requires special attention (ÈÇÂİ ÄÜÂÂÇÅ…). God did speak from a mountaintop at Sinai, but that was in reality an act of condescension; he now speaks from the true heaven, Zion above. Since his new covenant speech comes from heaven itself, the warning is all the more serious. God is ultimately the speaker throughout 12.25. However, the participle, ÌġŠ¸ÂÇıÅ̸ (1), is suggestive on two levels. On the discourse level, the hook with the participle at 12.24 suggests that this speech is tied to Christ’s speaking blood at Zion. A connection of that kind would be consistent with the framework established at 1.2, in which God is understood to speak ‘in the Son’. But the decision to provide no subject here is suggestive also at the rhetorical level. For the listeners of this sermon, the injunction not to ‘refuse the one who is speaking’ must have given the impression that the preacher before them demanded attention to his words. Such an impression was probably intentional: the preacher evidently saw himself standing before his addressees as God’s spokesman, delivering his words.89 8.3.2. The Content of the Warning (12.25-29) God’s voice at Sinai shook the earth, but the message delivered at Zion promises much more. The writer draws upon Hag. 2.6 for the content of that new covenant warning: ‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heaven’ (12.26b). In its original context, Hag. 2.6 is a message spoken by ‘the Lord of hosts’ through the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel, to Joshua the high priest, and to the remnant of the people. The Lord promises a day when he will bring the wealth of nations and the splendour of his own presence to ¿ll the temple (a temple which in Haggai’s day looked so unimpressive beside the temple it replaced). The writer of Hebrews interprets this ‘shaking’ event as an act of judgment that will destroy the created order.90 After this comes an encouragement: 88. Smillie, ‘The One’, pp.285–6; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.476; Michel, Hebräer, pp.471–2; Bruce, Hebrews, p.363. 89. Rothschild takes a similar view and maintains, in light of the fact that God’s exhortation is delivered here as a prescriptive oracle with the force of a divine speech-act, that the author presents himself as a prophet (Pseudepigraphon, pp.194– 5). 90. This interpretation was reasonable in light of the regular use of the verb ʸ¼į¼ÀÅ in the LXX to refer to the effects of divine judgment. See the discussion in Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.481. 1

150

Hebrews and Divine Speech

‘we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken’ (v. 28a). The writer’s point is that ‘there is an ÒÊÚ¼ÍÌÇË ¹¸ÊÀ¼ĕ¸ already present in the fellowship of the new »À¸¿ûÁ¾, and that the result of the cosmic catastrophe will simply be to leave this unimpaired, to let it stand out in its supreme reality and permanence’.91 This unshakeable kingdom is surely the heavenly city described in 12.22-24, where the assembled company is made up of those who are acceptable before God the judge, having been made perfect through the blood of Christ. God’s great act of judgment (the eschatological shaking) will not affect those in Zion because Christ’s sacri¿ce has been applied to them and they have arrived secure in the presence of God the judge. But for the assembled believers of Christ on earth, there is still a warning: ‘our God is a consuming ¿re’ (12.29).92 The writer is convinced that his addressees ultimately belong with the assembly in heaven (cf. 6.9), but the reality is that they are not yet there, and God’s judgment still lies substantially in the future for them. The addressees must therefore listen to God as he speaks his word from heaven—a word which is delivered to them in the writer’s address. As was evident from 4.12, God’s word judges the addressees. It emanates from God the judge in heaven, and the response of the addressees to the word determines how they will fare at the ¿nal judgment. A right response gives them access now to the eschatological age in heaven.93 The writer closes this section with an injunction that presupposes that the addressees will have made the correct response to the word he has delivered to them: ‘let us give thanks by which we offer to God an acceptable worship (¸ÌɼįÑļÅ) with reverence and awe’ (v. 28b). The writer encourages the addressees to take part in worship, the activity that characterises life in the heavenly tabernacle. The cohortative subjunctive 91. Moffatt, Epistle, p.222. 92. This phrase is drawn from Deut. 4.24, an injunction to shun idolatry. The force of this warning of a coming judgment and the attendant destructive ‘shaking’ of the creative realm is somewhat diminished in the analysis of Laansma (see brief comments in ‘Cosmology’, pp.128–9 [esp. 129 n.16] and in ‘Hidden’, passim). His view of the cosmos and its future in Hebrews is summarised as follows: ‘The writer does not assume that, with believers safely relocated in the eternal heavens, the created world will be summarily annihilated and negated but that the created world is being reclaimed as God’s temple’ (Laansma, ‘Hidden’, p.2). For a more satisfactory appraisal, see Adams, ‘Cosmology’, pp.136–8. However, in support of the view that the ‘shaking’ of Zion may give way to its ‘renewal’, cf. 2 Bar. 32.4-5. 93. The writer identi¿es the ‘goodness of the word of God’ with the ‘powers of the age to come’ in 6.5. Grasping hold of the word of God is the necessary ¿rst stage in approaching him (so Michel, Hebräer, p.460 n.2). 1

8. Hebrews 12.18-29

151

here is the characteristic verb for priestly service in the temple.94 The use of this verb reinforces the message that the Christian assembly is in a real sense already in the heavenly temple, enjoying direct access to God.95 God’s speech in Christ establishes the bridge between the would-be worshipper and God the judge through the speaking blood of the covenant. It beckons and warns the pilgrim distracted by tangible pleasures with a voice emanating from heaven itself. And it ushers those who respond rightly into the coming kingdom from which it is spoken, Zion above. 8.4. Conclusions These verses present two encounters with the speaking God, one at the ‘touchable’ (12.18) Mount Sinai, and one at the heavenly Zion. The preceding treatment of the Esau tradition demonstrates that the danger of idolatry is at the centre of the writer’s concern. Strikingly, in his branding of the Sinai encounter as ‘touchable’ he sees a return to the old covenant (which Sinai symbolises) as an act, not only of apostasy, but of idolatry. God’s speech permeates the discussion. At Sinai, God’s voice is heard amidst the terrifying physical phenomena surrounding his presence, and the assembled Israelites want to avoid hearing another word from him (12.19). Within that presentation ģýĸ is used to identify the sound of God’s voice, while ÂĠºÇË identi¿es the covenantal obligations communicated by his voice. By contrast, the divine voice as it is heard at Zion offers an inviting welcome: Christ’s blood speaks (¸ÂÇıÅÌÀ, 12.24) of pardon, cleansing and acceptance. God, who has spoken at Sinai, speaks now (¸ÂÇıÅ̸, 12.25) from Zion, presumably in his son (1.2; 12.24). He must be heeded because he will bring judgment on those who refuse to listen and respond to what he says (12.25b-29). The heavenly Zion is accessible now through God’s speech. The sprinkled blood of Jesus the mediator speaks from Zion and can indeed be heard. The question remains: How does this hearing occur for the 94. Cf. the prior use of ¸Ìɼį¼ÀÅ in Hebrews in relation to sacri¿ce under the old covenant: 8.5; 9.9; 10.2; 13.10. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.486. 95. Although Barnard is over-speci¿c in identifying Hebrews as an ‘apocalyptic word of exhortation’, her suggestion that Hebrews acts as ‘a kind of liturgical basis for inspiring and actualizing a…privileged access to the celestial sanctuary’ resonates with the ¿ndings of this present study (J. A. Barnard, The Mysticism of Hebrews [WUNT II/331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], pp.282–3; see also S. D. Mackie, ‘Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, JTS NS 62 [2011], pp.77–117). 1

152

Hebrews and Divine Speech

Christian community? The ambiguity surrounding the identity of the speaker in 12.25a provides a signi¿cant clue; while God is ultimately the speaker in the two participles of 12.25, the lack of explicit identi¿cation of ‘the one speaking’ suggests that the preacher views his own discourse as a means of delivering God’s word. As his addressees hear the voice of the preacher, they are concurrently hearing the voice of God, and so a believing, obedient response is incumbent upon them.

1

Chapter 9

HEBREWS 13: GOD’S WORD AND THE COMMUNITY’S LEADERS

The term ÂĠºÇË appears three times in this chapter, at 13.7, 17, and 22, and the investigation turns now to examine these instances of its use. Hebrews 13.1-19 consists of a series of exhortations (in Cycle 11 of the proposed structural outline) that are primarily ethical in nature, grounded in the writer’s presentation of the heavenly Zion in the previous verses and in the premise that ‘we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken…’ (the exemplum text Hag. 2.6, cited at 12.28a). These exhortations stand out structurally from the rest of Hebrews because of the length of the series. Hebrews 13.20-25 comprises a benediction and ¿nal greetings.1 9.1. Hebrews 13.7 Here the writer urges his addressees, ‘Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you (ëÂÚ¾ʸŠĨÄėÅ ÌġÅ ÂĠºÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı); consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith’. The phrase ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı has appeared at 4.12, where it functioned as a 1. The authenticity of Heb. 13 (vv. 20-25 in particular) is disputed due to the epistolary style of the closing verses, which seems to sit ill at ease with the homiletic form of the rest of Hebrews (see the discussion in Attridge, Hebrews, p.13, and in Chapter 1 of this present study). However, the logic of including an epistolary postscript in a sermon designed to be sent by a messenger to be read to a community at a distance does not seem to pose any dif¿culty, and there is no clear indication from the vocabulary (C. R. Williams, ‘A Word-Study of Hebrews 13’, JBL 30.2 [1911], pp.135–6) or theological position of ch.13 that it should be regarded as coming from a different hand than chs.1–12. For a defence of the authenticity of Heb. 13 as a whole, see Spicq, ‘L’Authenticité’, passim; for a contrasting view, see A. J. M. Wedderburn, ‘The “Letter” to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter’, NTS 50 (2004), pp.390–405.

154

Hebrews and Divine Speech

general term for God’s word, without speci¿c reference to any particular form of the word. Here at 13.7 the word of God is more directly associated with the person and message of Christ.2 After urging the addressees to remember their leaders who earlier spoke God’s word to them, the writer reminds them that ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever’ (13.8). The message of Jesus Christ, spoken by the former leaders (13.7-8), provides a contrast with the ‘strange teachings’ against which the writer warns in 13.9.3 Thus ‘the word of God’ in 13.7 may be taken to refer to the Christian gospel. The phrase ‘speak the word of God’ functions elsewhere ‘als fester Wendung der urchristlichen Missionsverkündigung’ and could be paraphrased, ‘preach the Christian Gospel’.4 The precise identity of the ‘leaders’ (÷ºÇÍÄñÅÑÅ)5 is left unspeci¿ed here. The injunction to ‘remember’ them and to ‘consider the outcome of their way of life’ indicates that these leaders are no longer part of the community, although the suggestion that they have died,6 perhaps through martyrdom (cf. 5.3; 10.32-34),7 is not proved conclusively here. They were almost certainly the same individuals mentioned in 2.3, who had themselves heard the Lord’s declaration of the message of salvation and passed it on to the community.8 They should not be identi¿ed with the individuals mentioned at 13.17, who are evidently the current leaders of the community. While the leaders mentioned at 13.7 may have been apostles, the writer gives no clear indication of this, and their role as speakers of God’s word is not explicitly tied to any formal of¿ce or commission. ‘Die Autorität dieser Vorsteher wird ihnen durch das Wort Gottes verliehen; nur das Gotteswort hat Autorität im eigentlichen und

2. So Smillie, Living, pp.325–31; Moffatt, Epistle, pp.230–2; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.502, 528. 3. Smillie, Living, pp.327–8. 4. Weiss, Der Brief, p.709 n.5. Cf. Acts 4.31, 39; 8.25; 13.46; Phil. 1.14; 1 Pet. 4.11. Michel similarly af¿rms that the phrase ‘ist ein feststehender Ausdruck für die Predigt des Evangeliums’ (Michel, Hebräer, p.489; so too Smillie, Living, pp.325– 31; Ellingworth, Hebrews, pp.260, 703). 5. Cf. 12.17, 24. The present participle of ÷ºñÇĸÀ is a general term and designates someone as being ‘in a supervisory capacity’ (BDAG), and it offers little help in identifying the leaders in question or of de¿ning their role with any precision. For the use of the term in the context of the early Church, see Lk. 22.26; Acts 14.12; 15.22; 1 Clem. 1.3. For further discussion, see Attridge, Hebrews, p.391. 6. Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.702; Koester, Hebrews, p.567. 7. Spicq, L’Épître, II, p.421. 8. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.527; Cockerill, Hebrews, p.690. 1

9. Hebrews 13

155

letzten Sinn, nicht der Mensch.’9 They were preachers of the gospel of Christ, and their identity and authority as leaders were derived from the word they preached.10 9.2. Hebrews 13.17 Here at 13.17a the writer urges the addressees, ‘Obey your leaders (÷ºÇÍÄñÅÇÀË) and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account (ĸË ÂĠºÇÅ ÒÈÇ»ļÊÇÅ̼Ë)’. The leaders mentioned here are the contemporary equivalents of the former leaders mentioned at 13.7; they are those who give oversight to the community and perform the particular function of preaching. Presumably the work of keeping watch over the souls of the congregation centres on the function of speaking God’s word to the congregation, as former leaders were characterised in 13.7 primarily as those who ‘spoke the word of God’. If the function of the leaders is to speak God’s word to the congregation, it is possible to see why these leaders must be ‘obeyed’.11 ‘In response to this exhortation the listeners will adhere to the word of God their leaders speak and follow their direction rather than revert to Jewish ways of thinking or be inÀuenced by other teachings (13:9).’12 In the treatment of 4.13 above it was noted that the term ÂĠºÇË appears in other literature in judicial and commercial contexts, with the meaning ‘account’ (in the sense ‘account to render’),13 and that the phrase ÂĠºÇË ÒÈÇ»ĕ»ÑÄÀ was a familiar idiom in other literature14 (particularly in the NT)15 meaning ‘render account’. Although exegesis of 4.13 led to the conclusion that the relevant phrase there (ÈÉġË ĞÅ ÷ÄÀÅ ĝ ÂĠºÇË) did not reÀect this idiom, here at 13.17 the writer does employ this familiar idiom

9. Michel, Hebräer, p.488. So too Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.526. 10. So Grässer, Hebräer, III, pp.368–9; Weiss, Der Brief, pp.710–12; Michel, Hebräer, p.488. 11. Lane’s comments are instructive: ‘The pastoral injunctions in v 7 and v 17 are complementary to one another. Although there is a clear interest in v 17 in strengthening a respect for the authority of the leaders, this is a consequence of the theology of the word that undergirds v 7. No other grounding and safeguarding of the position of the community leaders is provided than the authority that derives from the word of preaching…’ Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.553–4. 12. O’Brien, Hebrews, p.529. 13. See, for instance, P. Oxy. 474.33-34, 522.26, 1049.1, and 1153.20-21. 14. See P. Oxy. 522.26, although the verb here is »ĕ»ÑÄÀ, not ÒÈÇ»ĕ»ÑÄÀ. 15. Cf. Mt. 12.36; Lk. 16.2; Acts 19.40; Rom. 14.12; and 1 Pet. 4.5. See too Smillie, ‘Other’, p.22. 1

156

Hebrews and Divine Speech

to say that the leaders ‘will have to give account’.16 As noted above, Smillie has identi¿ed three features that characterise the use of this familiar idiom in the NT: ÂĠºÇË is always paired with the verb ÒÈÇ»ĕ»ÑÄÀ or »ĕ»ÑÄÀ, ÂĠºÇË is always anarthrous,17 and ÂĠºÇË always appears in the accusative case.18 Here ÂĠºÇË is anarthrous and in the accusative, and the key verb, ÒÈÇ»ĕ»ÑÄÀ, is present. The leaders will be called to account for their oversight of the community, presumably by God on judgment day.19 Because this familiar idiom explains fully the writer’s use of the term ÂĠºÇË here, there is no basis for seeing a further theological signi¿cance to the term ÂĠºÇË in this context. 9.3. Hebrews 13.22 In his ¿nal greetings, the writer appeals for his addressees’ patience at 13.22: ¸É¸Á¸Âľ »ò ĨÄÜË, Ò»¼ÂÎÇĕ, ÒÅñϼʿ¼ ÌÇı ÂĠºÇÍ ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË. The treatment of the phrase ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË in Chapter 1 of this study found that the expression functions as a marker of genre to identify Hebrews as a homiletic address. While the writer does use the phrase ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË in this way to identify his discourse as a particular type of address, his use of the term ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË in the context of 13.22 (and of the discourse as a whole) suggests that the term remains operative and signi¿cant in its own right, and not simply as part of a stock phrase.20 In a wordplay on the term ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË, the writer says to his addressees, ‘I exhort (ȸɸÁ¸Âľ) you to bear with my word of exhortation (ȸɸÁÂûʼÑË)’. ȉhis ‘playful’ use of two words from the same word-group here at 13.22 draws the reader’s attention to the term ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË and causes the term to stand out from the phrase in which it

16. That the phrase imports ‘give account’ is widely accepted. See, for instance, Weiss, Der Brief, p.744, esp. n.142 (he renders the phrase, ‘Rechenschaft ablegen’); Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.723; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.555; Calvin, Hebrews, p.213; Attridge, Hebrews, p.402; DeSilva, Perseverance, p.509; etc. 17. Except in the case of Lk. 16.2, but see Smillie, ‘Other’, p.22 n.10. 18. Smillie, ‘Other’, p.22. 19. Each of the other NT occurrences of the phrase appears in a judicial context and, except for Acts 19.40, each has the ¿nal judgment in view (Lk. 16.2 appears within a parable that makes no explicit reference to the ¿nal judgment, but which quite clearly points to it). 20. Both Grässer and Weiss observe that the phrase ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË cannot here be reduced simply to a marker of genre. Each term, ÂĠºÇË and ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË, is signi¿cant in its own right in the author’s purpose. Grässer, Hebräer, III, p.410; Weiss, Der Brief, pp.761–2. 1

9. Hebrews 13

157

is embedded.21 To elucidate its signi¿cance here, it will be helpful to examine brieÀy the writer’s use of terms from the ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË wordgroup elsewhere in Hebrews. The ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË word group (that is, the noun ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË and the cognate verb ȸɸÁ¸ÂñÑ)22 occur in Hebrews seven times.23 The verb is used of speaking words of mutual encouragement within the congregation (3.13; 10.25), presumably consisting of injunctions to hold ¿rm to the Christian confession of faith (cf. 3.14; 10.23), and of the writer’s own urging of the addressees (either to pray, 13.19, or to bear with him, 13.22). The noun ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË refers once to the intended result of God’s speech to the community through his oath (6.18), once to a passage of Scripture quoted (12.5), and once to the writer’s own address (13.22). A survey of the writer’s use of ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË language outside ch. 13 reveals two features. First, for the writer, the activity of encouragement/ exhortation (paraklesis) within the community appears to be rooted in divine speech. This is straightforwardly the case in 12.5, where the substance of the paraklesis in view is a quoted passage of Scripture (Prov. 3.11).24 Similarly at 6.18, God’s oath (6.17) is given that his people may be ‘strongly encouraged’. At 3.13 and 10.25, where the writer urges the addressees to encourage one another, the aim of the encouragement is that members of the community might hold to the confession of Christ (which itself originates as a message delivered as divine speech) and listen obediently to the divine voice. The addressees 21. On the wordplay here, see Attridge, Hebrews, p.408, and Cockerill, Hebrews, p.719. The writer engages in wordplay at other points in the discourse, notably at 4.12-13 (see the earlier discussion in Chapter 4), where the wordplay serves to draw attention to the important term ‘played upon’, i.e. ÂĠºÇË. On wordplay elsewhere in Hebrews (for instance at 3.13 and 11.11), see Attridge, Hebrews, p.117 n.57; Cosby, Rhetorical, pp.81–2; K. H. Jobes, ‘The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:57’, TrinJ 13.2 (1992), pp.181–91. 22. The noun ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË and the verb ȸɸÁ¸ÂñÑ have the ‘same broad range of meaning…and can convey the sense of encouragement and exhortation’ (Attridge, Hebrews, p.408; see also C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel’, JTS NS 1 [1950], p.12). In the lexical range of ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË, BDAG includes ‘encouragement’, ‘exhortation’, ‘appeal’, ‘request’, ‘comfort’ and ‘consolation’. For ȸɸÁ¸ÂñÑ, BDAG includes ‘call to one’s side’, ‘appeal to’, ‘exhort’, ‘encourage’, ‘request’, and ‘comfort’. Due especially to the use of the term in Isa. 40.1, the language of ‘comfort’ and ‘consolation’ came to be associated in some contexts with messianic salvation (O. Schmitz and G. Stählin, ‘ȸɸÁ¸ÂñÑ’, in TDNT, II, pp.793, 797–8; cf. Lk. 2.25; 2 Cor. 1.3 [and see the comments in P. W. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp.69–70]; 2 Bar. 44.7). 23. ȸɸÁ¸ÂñÑ at 3.13; 10.25; 13.19, 22; ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË at 6.18; 12.5; 13.22. 24. For Scripture as paraklesis, see Rom. 15.4 and 1 Macc. 12.9. 1

158

Hebrews and Divine Speech

are to encourage each other so long as the ‘today’ of God’s speaking continues (3.13). Presumably the substance of their encouragement of each other is to be shaped by injunction of Ps. 95.7b-8a, quoted twice in the close context (Heb. 3.7 and 3.15): ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion’. As long as ‘today’ continues, the addressees are to encourage each other to respond rightly to ‘his voice’. After the injunction to encourage each other at 10.25, the writer continues: ‘For if we wilfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacri¿ce for sin…’ Again, the encouragement that the addressees are to give each other is to listen and respond appropriately to God’s word to them (here described as ‘the knowledge of the truth’). The writer himself engages in paraklesis. He exhorts his addressees to pray (13.19) and he exhorts them to bear with his ‘word of exhortation’ (13.22). The phrase ‘word of exhortation’ identi¿es the address as a sermon of a known type, but, as suggested above, there appears to be more signi¿cance than simply a designation of genre in the writer’s use of the term ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË in 13.22. Elsewhere in Hebrews, ‘exhortation’ (ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË) is tied closely to God’s speech and grounded in it. Further, it is something which, at least in some contexts, members of the community share; according to Hughes, ‘the essentially congregational setting of the ÂĠºÇË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË is indicated at 3.13ff. and 10.19ff. … [I]n his letter the author sees himself not as performing any specialist role but simply that of any Christian about his business within the fellowship.’ 25 While Hughes’s af¿rmation that no ‘specialist role’ is indicated seems to over-state the point,26 there is a connection here between what the writer himself does and what he calls his addressees to do at 3.13 and 3.25. At the same time, there is also a connection between God’s encouragement of his people through his spoken oath (6.17-18) and through Scripture (12.5) and the writer’s encouragement of the addressees through his sermon.27 25. Hughes, Hermeneutics, pp.48–9 (italics his). 26. Both the skill involved in the task of preaching as the writer carries it out in this discourse, and the authority assumed in this kind of public proclamation, would seem to preclude a completely generalised invitation to participate in the activity of preaching. 27. As rightly suggested by Johnson: ‘…that “word of God” does speak powerfully through Scripture, through God’s Son, and now powerfully through the work of the Holy Spirit among them. Does it not make sense, then, to see the author’s designation of his composition as a logos parakleseos (13:22) to mean that his discourse stands in continuity with God’s constant speaking to the people?’ Johnson, Hebrews, pp.46–7; see also Hughes, Hermeneutics, p.49. 1

9. Hebrews 13

159

More immediately, there is a clear parallel between the work of former leaders of the community in speaking ‘the word of God’ to them (13.7) and the current activity of the author, as a leader of the community,28 in speaking ‘the word’ to them in his sermon (13.22). Former leaders spoke God’s word (13.7) to them faithfully. It is important that the congregation should not be ‘carried away by all kinds of strange teachings’ now (13.8). Current leaders have an implied mandate to continue to speak God’s true word and are to be obeyed as they do so (13.17).29 As a leader himself, the writer declares that he has ‘a clear conscience’ (13.18), at least in part because he has discharged his responsibility as a leader through speaking ‘the word’ faithfully in his ‘word of exhortation’ (13.22). 9.4. Conclusions At 13.7 the former leaders of the congregation are characterised as those who spoke the ‘word of God’ (ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı). As at 4.12, the phrase ‘word of God’ in 13.7 identi¿es the message as originating with God and so as a form of divine speech. Here the context suggests that the focus of the ‘word’ is more speci¿cally christocentric than at 4.12, and so the term ‘word of God’ should be taken to refer speci¿cally to the Christian gospel in this case. The activity of these former leaders in preaching the word of God was evidently instrumental in forming the believing community; 2.1-4 establishes a close connection between speaking the word and the reception of salvation.30 No named of¿ce (such as that of an apostle) is given to substantiate the authority of these former leaders, but it seems that the activity of preaching God’s word provided them with their mandate and authority to lead. Occupying a parallel position in the

28. A focus on the community’s attitude to their leaders provides the overarching framework for 13.7-18. The addressees are to ‘remember’ their former leaders (13.7), ‘obey’ (13.17) their current leaders, and ‘pray for us’ (13.18). ‘What is striking is the writer’s identi¿cation with the leaders through the use of the ¿rstperson plural forms in v 18, before speaking more directly in the ¿rst-person singular in v 19. He is to be included among the ÷ºÇįļÅÇÀ, “leaders,” to whom obedience and respect for authority are to be tendered…’ (Lane, Hebrews 9–13, p.556; see also Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.722; Attridge, Hebrews, p.402; O’Brien, Hebrews, p.515). The author’s close connection to the community addressed is also indicated by his stated desire ‘to be restored to you very soon’ (13.19). 29. See Lane, Hebrews 9–13, pp.553–54. 30. See the discussion of 2.1-4 above. This connection is developed in Grässer, ‘Das Heil’, passim; see too Grässer, Hebräer, III, pp.368–9. 1

160

Hebrews and Divine Speech

community, the present-day leaders mentioned in 13.17 are to be obeyed as contemporary speakers of God’s word. At 13.17 the term ÂĠºÇË itself has no direct connection to divine speech, but forms part of a familiar idiom meaning ‘to render account’. In the designation ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË (13.22) the writer not only identi¿es his address as a homily; he also highlights the fact that he as a preacher shares in the activity of speaking ‘the word’31 which is characteristic of leaders, and he shares in the activity of ‘encouragement’, which, elsewhere in Hebrews, Scripture performs in a more or less unmediated way, and which members of the community are invited to perform.32

31. The writer could presumably have omitted the term ÂĠºÇË and designated his sermon simply as a ȸÉÚÁ¾ÊÀË and still effectively identi¿ed his discourse as a sermon (cf. 1 Tim. 4.13). The discussion will return to the theological signi¿cance of his inclusion of the term ÂĠºÇË here in the general conclusion below. 32. ‘To call what he has written a “word” of exhortation is particularly appropriate in light of the oral style of his address and the way in which he presents the “word” of God as directly addressing his hearers. His exhortation joins with these OT quotations…as God’s own appeal to those who will hear.’ Cockerill, Hebrews, p.719.

1

Chapter 10

CONCLUSION

This study has pursued three lines of inquiry. First, what is the relationship between the writer’s theology of divine speech, Christology and soteriology? Second, how does the writer view his own discourse in relation to divine speech? Third, is there a de¿ned logos concept in Hebrews (or a range of logos concepts), and, does the writer use the Greek term ÂĠºÇË (and/or the term ģýĸ) to express that concept? The exegetical analysis of key passages has yielded a number of conclusions concerning these lines of inquiry, and these are outlined below (although, for convenience, they are treated in a different order). 10.1. Hebrews’ Logos Christology In Heb. 1.1-4 the writer presents Christ as the one in whom God speaks his de¿nitive word. In doing so the writer uses terms and motifs that recall the depiction of sophia in Wisdom 7, a text which portrays God’s ‘wisdom’ (a ¿gure closely linked in speculative Hellenistic Judaism with God’s ‘word’) in vividly personalised terms. The writer’s claim that Christ is the one ‘through whom’ God ‘created the worlds’ (1.2b) evokes further associations between Christ and word/wisdom personalisations known to Judaism and early Christianity (cf. Wis. 7.32; Prov. 8.22-31; Jn 1.1-4). Hebrews 1.1-4 presents God’s speech in the Son as more than inspiring words; God communicates through the being and action of the Son. All this constitutes an implicit logos Christology, but Christ is not referred to as ÂĠºÇË in these verses. Hebrews 4.12-13 presents a tantalising puzzle, and numerous commentators have suggested that the writer presents Christ as the personalised ÂĠºÇË in these verses. In 4.14 the writer moves directly into a discussion of Christ the High Priest and intermediary. This Àows naturally from 4.13 (‘Since, then, we have a great high priest…’, 4.14), leading the

162

Hebrews and Divine Speech

exegete to ask how Christ’s priestly activity is introduced in 4.12-13. Suggestions that the term ÂĠºÇË in 4.12 refers to Jesus the personalised word are intriguing, but lack conclusive evidence from the text, and should therefore be set aside. Examination of the writer’s treatment of divine oaths in 6.13–7.28 reveals a sustained presentation of Jesus as the tangible realisation and ful¿lment of the spoken word. The writer here distinguishes oath as a form of divine speech from promise and indicates that the oath carries within itself this tangible element of guarantee (cf. 7.22); Jesus ful¿ls this function, and as such is a personalised expression of God’s spoken word. He is the means by which God ‘mediates’ his purpose through the oath (6.17b). Read in light of the prologue, 11.3 appears to imply that Jesus is the personal manifestation of the creative word of God, but the writer stops short of making an explicit af¿rmation of that kind. In Heb. 1.2, Jesus is the one ‘through whom he [God] created the worlds’; at 11.4 it is an article of faith that ‘we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God’. Taken together, Heb. 1.2 and 11.3 logically imply, but do not explicitly af¿rm, that Jesus is the word by whom God created the world. The brief mention at 12.24 of Jesus’ blood as ‘speaking’ reinforces the framework for God’s speech ‘in’ the Son introduced at 1.1-4, where the Son’s person and work are presented as the means by which God has spoken his eschatological word. Hebrews does not import a Philonic logos concept and apply it to Christ.1 However, the writer does present Christ using motifs and vocabulary that recall Philo’s discussion of the logos at various points. This does not demonstrate literary dependence on Philo, but it suggests access to a common stock of concepts, vocabulary, and images. Hebrews never takes the step that the Gospel of John takes in making an explicit identi¿cation of Jesus as God’s logos, but analysis of the relevant passages reveals a discernible and sustained ‘word’ Christology in Hebrews. 10.2. The Term ÂĠºÇË in Hebrews The lexeme ÂĠºÇË does not identify Jesus as the divine word in Hebrews, but the writer does use it with almost complete consistency to identify forms of divine speech. The foregoing investigation has identi¿ed three 1. On the differences between Philo’s varied logos concepts and Hebrews presentation of Christ, see the detailed discussion in Williamson, Philo, pp.409–34.

1

10. Conclusion

163

broad categories of the use of the term ÂĠºÇË within Hebrews: (1) at 2.2; 4.2, 12; 5.13; 6.1; 7.28, and 13.7 the lexeme is used more or less unambiguously to identify a word or message from God; (2) at 4.13; 5.11, and 13.22 the term is used to identify the writer’s message; and (3) at 13.17 the term is used idiomatically to refer to human response to God within a judicial context. It is generally agreed that the writer’s uses of ÂĠºÇË in category (1) refer to forms of divine speech. In a number of these instances the term ÂĠºÇË is appended to another term in a genitive construction (ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ÒÁÇýË, 4.2; ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı, 4.12; ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįžË, 5.13; ÌġÅ ÌýË ÒÉÏýË ÌÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı ÂĠºÇÅ, 6.1; ĝ ÂĠºÇË ÌýË ĝÉÁÑÄÇÊĕ¸Ë, 7.28). At 4.2 and 7.28 the lexeme ÂĠºÇË could have been omitted while still retaining the basic meaning; that is, in these instances ÂĠºÇË could be seen to be redundant (if no special meaning is attributed to ÂĠºÇË).2 However, its inclusion here in two super¿cially redundant genitive constructions suggests that for the writer ÂĠºÇË adds meaning; in these cases, it serves to identify the speech form that it modi¿es as divine speech and to draw attention to its character as such. The writer employs the lexeme in all the instances cited as category (1) to identify those forms of speech as being divine speech. In light of these uses of ÂĠºÇË, its use to identify the writer’s address (category [2]; at 4.13; 5.11, and 13.22) raises the possibility that the writer wishes to signal that his own discourse forms part of the complex of divine speech presented in Hebrews. Further consideration will be given to that possibility below, but it should be noted at this stage that the lexical overlap between category (1) and (2) of ÂĠºÇË use is suggestive. With respect to category (3), the expression ÂĠºÇÅ ÒÈÇ»ļÊÇÅÌ¼Ë at 13.17 imports a familiar idiom which controls the use of the term ÂĠºÇË there, indicating that in this verse ÂĠºÇË does not bear special theological signi¿cance. 10.3. The Term ģýĸ in Hebrews The lexeme ģýĸ occurs four times in Hebrews, at 1.3; 6.5; 11.3 and 12.19. Each time the source of the ģýĸ is divine. At 6.5 and 11.3 the term occurs with the genitive ¿¼Çı (these are best understood as subjective genitives), making its divine origin explicit. Similarly, at 1.3 the genitive pronoun ¸ĤÌÇı refers to Jesus, so this too is a case where the

1

2. As noted in the previous chapter, this is possibly also the case at 13.22.

164

Hebrews and Divine Speech

origin of the ģýĸ is divine. At 12.19 the context makes it clear that the ÎÑÅýЗ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ has its source in the divine voice. Thus the term ģýĸ forms part of the writer’s presentation of divine speech. To what extent is it possible to discern a distinction between the writer’s use of ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ? At 1.3 and 11.3 the divine ģýĸ upholds and creates the cosmos. At 6.5 the tasting of the Á¸ÂġÅ...¿¼Çı ģýĸ involves the experience of the reality of salvation, including some level of experience of the heavenly Zion. This is the place to which believers ‘have come’ (12.22) and which is to be identi¿ed with the ‘rest’ (4.1) that is the goal of faith. That is, the experience of the goodness of the divine ģýĸ involves here an experience of a place and state which are the goal of faith, not simply an intellectual internalisation of the Christian message. At 12.19 the divine ģýĸ is enshrouded in various physical phenomena associated with the divine presence at Sinai, and the writer’s focus is less on the substance of what is said and more on the terror that those physical phenomena engendered in the hearers. Analysis of the passages noted above leads to the conclusion that ÂĠºÇË and ģýĸ each bear a distinctive signi¿cance within the writer’s presentation of divine speech: while ÂĠºÇË typically imports the communication of information (particularly the Gospel message), ģýĸ occurs in contexts where a physical manifestation of God’s speech is in view, particularly as it is expressed in the created order. 10.4. God’s Speech, Christology and Soteriology This study has identi¿ed a line of continuity between the activity of God’s speaking, the person of Christ, and the realisation of salvation. In 1.1-4 God’s speech ‘in the Son’ is expressed in the person and work of the Son, not least in his making puri¿cation for sins and in his exaltation to the right hand of God. Christ’s work of puri¿cation and his exaltation to the divine presence stand at the heart of Hebrews’ soteriology as the discourse continues. The new covenant form of the divine ÂĠºÇË (cf. 2.2) is identi¿ed simply as ‘salvation’ (2.3). This salvation was ‘declared’ by the Lord and was passed on and ‘attested’ to the community addressed in Hebrews. The implication here is that salvation can, in a true and substantial way, be made available through transmission of the divine word and can be appropriated through a right response to that word. The proclamation of this salvation by the early leaders of the community is in view at 13.7, where the writer exhorts the addressees to remember the leaders who ‘spoke the word of God’ (ëÂÚ¾ʸŅÌġÅ ÂĠºÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı) to them. 1

10. Conclusion

165

While an encounter with the divine word entails an encounter with Christ and access to the reality of salvation, an encounter with the divine word is also an occasion for judgment. Those who reject the divine word of ‘salvation’ should not expect to ‘escape’ (2.3; cf. 12.25). In the ‘today’ of hearing the divine voice, the possibility exists of entering into God’s rest or meeting with divine rejection as a response to faithless hearing (4.1-3). 10.5. God’s Speech and the Writer’s Sermon At 3.7-11 the writer quotes Ps. 95.7b-11, which exhorts its hearers not to harden their hearts to the voice of God when they hear it ‘today’. The writer then adds his admonition at 3.12: ‘Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God’. He thus implies that the ‘today’ of hearing God’s voice continues for the community he addresses. But how is God’s voice heard? Presumably it continues through the reading of Ps. 95 and other OT Scriptures, and perhaps it continues also as members of the community ‘exhort one another…as long as it is called “today” ’ (3.13). But in the moment of the delivery of the Hebrews sermon, the writer is himself the exhorter, and it is to him that they are listening ‘today’. At 12.25, the writer indicates that he expects his sermon to function with the power and authority of God’s own word: ‘See to it that you do not refuse the one who is speaking; for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven!’ The identity of the ‘one who is speaking’ is somewhat ambiguous and is disputed. Exegesis of this verse in its immediate context shows that God must be the ultimate speaker here. However, it seems that the ambiguity is intentional; the writer wishes to imply that as the addressees hear his sermon, they are hearing God’s voice. In an immediate sense, in the moment of the delivery of the sermon, the writer is ‘the one speaking’; but he speaks God’s words with God’s authority, necessitating an urgent and appropriate response from the hearers. As noted above, this investigation has found that the term ÂĠºÇË usually signi¿es a divine word, and that the writer identi¿es his own sermon using the term ÂĠºÇË at 4.13, 5.11 and 13.22 (as he identi¿es the preaching and teaching of others using the same term at 4.2 and 13.7). In each of these cases, the writer identi¿es his own sermon as a ÂĠºÇË at points in his discourse where the term has been used in the near context unambiguously to signify a divine word (for 4.13, at 4.2 and 4.12; for 5.11, at 5.13 and 6.1; for 13.22, at 13.7). Given the high degree of 1

166

Hebrews and Divine Speech

consistency with which the writer uses the term ÂĠºÇË to identify forms of divine speech, and given the picture that has emerged of the writer’s view of the divine power and authority of his discourse, it is necessary to conclude that in identifying his sermon using the term ÂĠºÇË at 4.13, 5.11 and 13.22 he intends to identify his sermon as a form of divine speech.3 For the writer, human agents can be speakers of God’s word, and it is particularly characteristic of church leaders to be speakers of God’s word. He has af¿rmed that of others (cf. 4.2; 13.7), and he assumes that role for himself as a preacher and leader of the congregation.4 The writer nowhere ties the activity of speaking God’s word exclusively to a formal of¿ce, but his presentation of the gravity of the task—it forms Christian community and is the central function of leaders (13.7), it communicates ‘salvation’ (2.3), it exposes negligent and unbelieving hearers to judgment (2.3; 12.25), and leaders who speak it are to be obeyed (13.17)— suggests that it is not so generalised that members of the community speak God’s word by default or without intention. With nothing explicit said about the form of a sermon that constitutes a communication of the divine ÂĠºÇË, the reader is left to observe the only model the writer gives of such a sermon, that is, his own. The structural analysis conducted at the outset of this study found that the Hebrews sermon is composed of a series of expositional cycles based around scriptural texts. Each one has a scriptural exemplum, a section of teaching and application of that exemplum in light of Christ, and then an exhortation based on that material. The writer takes it for granted that Scripture is itself God’s word: the words of Scripture are given as the substance of conversation between Father and the Son (cf. 1.8-12; 2.1213; 10.5-7); they are given as God’s word to the community (3.7-11; 10.15-17); God (1.5), Jesus (2.11-12) and the Holy Spirit (3.7) are named as the contemporary speakers of words of Scripture. The writer appropriates the divine voice in his sermon as he expounds Scripture in light of 3. While the writer does identify his sermon as a form of divine speech, it is important to note that his speaking of God’s word always rests upon and refers back to God’s personal word in the Son and his scriptural word. As this investigation has found, the writer’s sermon is fundamentally an exposition of God’s scriptural word in light of his personal word in Christ. There is a sense, then, in which the scriptural word and the personal Word in Christ are primary forms of divine speech, and the preached word is a secondary or derived form that has its authoritative basis in those primary forms of God’s word. 4. Cf. Lewicki’s intriguing suggestion that the author remains anonymous in order to maintain the focus throughout on God as speaker (particularly of the scriptural citations). Lewicki, Weist Nicht, p.142. 1

10. Conclusion

167

Christ and applies it to his community. He clearly holds high expectations for the effectiveness of preaching the divine word; preaching is, after all, his strategy for redressing the urgent faith-crisis of his addressees. 10.6. Prospects This investigation has led to a number of conclusions that should provide stimulus for further study. For Hebrews research within the context of NT studies, ¿ndings here concerning the relationship between soteriology, Christology, and divine speech contribute to ongoing debates concerning the cosmology of Hebrews. In particular, the writer’s insistence that the divine word provides access to the reality and location of salvation indicates a cosmological outlook that imagines the present existence of a heavenly ‘Zion’ which is accessible now. The identi¿cation of an implicit logos Christology operating in Hebrews will help to clarify Hebrews’ place in the development of early Christology. This, in turn, may help further to determine Hebrews’ date and the context of its composition. The conclusion that the writer believed that in expounding OT texts in light of Christ and applying them to his addressees he was speaking an authoritative divine word offers fresh insight to discussions concerning the way in which NT writers (particularly of the ‘epistolary’ works) understood the nature and signi¿cance of their activity.5 Findings concerning Hebrews’ structure and genre (a sermon expounding a series of OT texts), contribute to ongoing research within the discipline of church history into the nature of homiletical practice in the early church. This study af¿rms that Hebrews stands as the earliest 5. There is a suggestive point of contact here with Pauline studies, where there has been a developing consensus that Paul saw himself primarily as a reader and exegete of OT texts in light of Christ (R. B. Hays has been particularly inÀuential in advancing this thesis, notably in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989], and The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004]; for a summary of his thesis in this connection, see Conversion, pp.vii–xvi). Although Stanley would question and strongly nuance elements of Hays’s position (C. D. Stanley, ‘Paul’s “Use” of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters’, in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture [SBLSS 50; Leiden: Brill, 2008], pp.127–36), he accepts the centrality of OT Scripture to Paul’s programme and, signi¿cant in relation to this present study, argues that Paul believed that in using the words of Scripture to construct his arguments he claimed an authority from God and effected an encounter between his hearers and God himself (C. D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul [New York: T&T Clark International, 2004], passim, but esp. p.173). 1

168

Hebrews and Divine Speech

extant complete Christian sermon; it is therefore the most substantial single piece of evidence available giving us insight into the rhetorical form, theological substance, and pastoral concerns of early Christian homiletics. Certain ¿ndings in this investigation intersect with key concerns in the ¿eld of Christian doctrine relating to the theology of revelation and the philosophy of divine speech.6 A key question of Christian doctrine (especially since the Reformation) has been whether there is warrant—as Lutheranism and Reformed Protestantism in particular have claimed there is—for identifying Scripture as the ‘word of God’. This present study provides exegetical support from one NT book for the view that there is scriptural warrant for such a claim. Hebrews identi¿es OT Scripture as divine word and the author of Hebrews presents his own discourse as such as well. Recent decades have seen signi¿cant advances in the development of speech-act theory and its use in conceptualising and accounting for the historical Christian belief that God speaks.7 The ¿ndings of this study resonate with those developments and should help to further them; Hebrews af¿rms that God speaks and betrays the belief that his word consists not merely in verbal proposition but personal action. More than that, as a discourse, Hebrews is intended to function as a means of delivering a divine word and, in the view of the writer, itself constitutes a form of divine word. The writer shows his conviction that this word will effect an encounter between God and his addressees that will achieve its intended results in the addressees. 6. On the appropriateness and necessity of bringing the (sometimes disparate) disciplines of biblical studies and Christian doctrine together in constructive dialogue, see Watson, Text, pp.1–28. 7. See the wide-ranging explorations of this foundational doctrinal claim in relation to speech-act theory in N. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical ReÀections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), passim; T. Ward, Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Suf¿ciency of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), esp. pp.75–136, 298–309; K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Leicester: Apollos, 1998), esp. pp.197– 366; A. C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (London: Harper Collins, 1992), pp.272–312. There is also a degree of resonance here with the earlier work of Abraham, who argues that any adequate doctrine of divine revelation must be rooted in, and take serious account of, God’s action in history (see W. J. Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982], passim and esp. pp.44–66). 1

10. Conclusion

169

Set against all the foregoing ¿ndings, the conclusion that the writer views his own sermon as a form of divine speech (knowing that, for him, an encounter with the divine word entails the opportunity to receive salvation, access to the heavenly rest, a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, and the obligation to respond appropriately) contributes substantially to contemporary discussion within the disciplines of biblical studies, Christian doctrine, and theologically informed homiletics concerning the theology of preaching.8 It establishes Hebrews as a sermon that was intended not only to communicate divine truth to its hearers, but to effect an encounter between them and the very word of God. Since Hebrews is the earliest extant complete Christian sermon, historical and theological investigations into the theology and practice of Christian preaching must take into account Hebrews’ own robust theology of preaching.

8. Recent treatments of the theology of preaching with suggestive points of intersection with this present study include P. Adam, Speaking God’s Words: A Practical Theology of Preaching (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1996), passim; J. C. Meyer, Preaching: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), esp. pp.270–9; D. W. Johnson, The Glory of Preaching: Participating in God’s Transformation of the World (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), pp.21–100. 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY In the footnotes, where it is necessary to distinguish between multiple works by the same author, a date reference is also added in parentheses. For the Loeb Classical Library (LCL), individual entries are given below for each work of an infrequently cited author. For a frequently cited author (such as Philo), a single entry is given for the whole LCL collection of his works. Unless otherwise noted, throughout this study quotations from English translations of Philo’s works are drawn from the LCL editions. Abraham, William J. Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Adam, Peter. Speaking God’s Words: A Practical Theology of Preaching. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1996. Adams, Edward. ‘The Cosmology of Hebrews’. Pages 122–39 in Bauckham et al., eds., The Epistle to the Hebrews. Adams, J. Clifford. ‘Exegesis of Hebrews VI. 1f’., New Testament Studies 13 (1966–67), pp.378–85. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Alciphron, Letters. With a translation by Allen Rogers Benner and Francis H. Fobes. LCL 383. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949. Alexander, T. Desmond. ‘Abraham re-Assessed Theologically’. Pages 7–28 in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50. Edited by Richard S. Hess et al. 2d ed. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994. Allen, David L. Hebrews. New American Commentary 35. Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2010. Allen, David M. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Ambrose. ‘On the Christian Faith’. Pages 199–314 in Ambrose, Select Works and Letters. Translated by H. de Romestin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. N.d. Repr. 1989. —‘On the Holy Spirit’. Pages 91–158 in Ambrose, Select Works and Letters. Translated by H. de Romestin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. N.d. Repr. 1989. Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 24E. London: Doubleday, 2000.

Bibliography

171

Aristotle. The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric. With a translation by John Henry Freese. LCL 193 (Aristotle XXII). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939. —Nicomachean Ethics. With a translation by H. Rackham. LCL 73 (Aristotle XIX). Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. —Politics. With a translation by H. Rackham. LCL 264 (Aristotle XXI). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. Athanasius, ‘Against the Arians’. Pages 303–447 in Athanasius, Select Writings and Letters. Translated by Archibald Robertson. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. N.d. Rep. 1989. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. —‘God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory’. Pages 197–209 in The Forgotten God. Edited by A. Andrew Das and Frank J. Matera. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. —‘ “Let us Strive to Enter that Rest” the Logic of Hebrews 4:1-11’. Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980), pp.279–88. —‘Paraenesis in a Homily (ÂĠºÇË È¸É¸ÁÂûʼÑË): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the “Epistle to the Hebrews” ’. Semeia 50 (1990), pp.211–26. —Review of David Wider, Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersunchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67.1 (2000), pp.378–9. —Review of Tomasz Lewicki, ‘Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden!’: Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebraerbrief. Review of Biblical Literature 8 (2006). Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1988. Backhaus, Knut. Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Bakker, Adolphine. ‘Christ an Angel?’ Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 32 (1933), pp.255–65. Bandstra, Andrew J. ‘The Law and Angels: Antiquities 15.136 and Galatians 3:19’. Calvin Theological Journal 24.2 (1989), pp.223–40. Barclay, William. New Testament Words. London: SCM Press, 1964. Barnard, Jody A. The Mysticism of Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/331. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Barnett, Paul William. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Barrett, C. K. The Acts of the Apostles, I. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. —‘The Christology of Hebrews’. Pages 110–27 in Who Do You Say That I Am?. Edited by Mark Allan Powell and David R. Bauer. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. —‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Pages 363–93 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. Edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. —The First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2d ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1971. —The Gospel According to St. John. 2d ed. London: SPCK, 1978. —‘The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel’. Journal of Theological Studies NS 1 (1950), pp.1–15.

172

Bibliography

Barth, M. ‘The Old Testament in Hebrews’. Pages 53–78 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Otto A. Piper. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. London: SCM Press, 1962. —Was Christ’s Death a Sacri¿ce? Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers 9. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1961. Bartlett, John R. 1 Maccabees. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 1998. Bauckham, Richard. ‘Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1’. Pages 167–85 in Stuckenbruck and North, eds., Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Bauckham, Richard et al., eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Exeter: Paternoster, 1962. Becker, Eve-Marie. ‘ “Gottes Wort” und “Unser Wort”. Bemerkungen zu Hebr 4,12-13’. Biblische Zeitschrift 44 (2000), pp.254–62. Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament. IV. 7th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877. Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: A. & C. Black, 1972. Black, C. Clifton II. ‘The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills’. Harvard Theological Review 81 (1988), pp.1–18. Bleek, F. Der Brief an die Hebräer Erläutert durch Einleitung, Übersetzung und Fortlaufenden Kommentar. 3 vols. Berlin: Dümmler, 1828–40. Borgen, Peder. ‘Philo of Alexandria’. Pages 333–42 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, V. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Bowker, J. W. ‘Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form’. New Testament Studies XIV (1967–68), pp.96–111. Boyarin, Daniel. ‘The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John’. Harvard Theological Review 94.3 (2001), pp.243–84. Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 14. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1984. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. —‘Textual Problems in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Pages 27–39 in Scribes and Scripture: New Testament Essays in Honour of J Harold Greenlee. Edited by David Alan Black. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Buchanan, George Wesley. ‘Eschatology and the “End of Days” ’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20 (1961), pp.188–93. —To the Hebrews. Garden City: Doubleday: 1972. Bultmann, Rudolf. ‘The History of Religions Background’. Translated by John Ashton. Pages 18–35 in The Interpretation of John. Edited by John Ashton. London: SPCK, 1986. Burchard, Christoph. ‘A Note on ‘RHMA in Josas 17:1 F.; Luke 2:15, 17; Acts 10:37’. Novum Testamentum 27.4 (1985), pp.281–95. Burnet, J. Early Greek Philosophy. 4th ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1930. Caird, George B. ‘The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Canadian Journal of Theology 5.1 (1959), pp.44–51. Callan, Terrance. ‘Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical Background of Gal 3:19b’. Journal of Biblical Literature 99.4 (1980), pp.549–67.

Bibliography

173

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St. Peter. Translated by William B. Johnston. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Carlston, Charles Edwin. ‘Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Journal of Biblical Literature 78.4 (1959), pp.296–302. Catto, Stephen C. Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research. Library of New Testament Studies 363. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. Chester, Andrew. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM Press, 1984. Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Cicero, De Oratore, I. With a translation by E. W. Sutton. LCL 348. London: William Heinemann, 1948. Clavier, H. ‘    dans l’Épître aux Hébreux’. Pages 81–93 in New Testament Essays. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Coles, R. A. et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, XXXVI. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1970. Collins, A. Yarbro. ‘Aristobulus: A New Translation and Introduction’. Pages 831–42 in Charlesworth, ed., OTP, II. Collins, John J. Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. —The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. London: Doubleday, 1995. Combrink, H. J. B. ‘Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Neotestamentica 5 (1971), pp.22–36. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles. Translated by James Limburgh, A. Thomas Kraabel and Donald H. Juel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Cosby, Michael R. The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK, 1989. Cran¿eld, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975. Dahl, N. A. ‘A New and Living Way’. Interpretation 5 (1951), pp.401–12. Danker, F. W., W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000. Davies, W. D. ‘A Note on Josephus, Antiquities 15.136’. Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954), pp.135–40.

174

Bibliography

Deissmann, G. Adolf. Bible Studies. Translated by Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. —Light from the Ancient Near East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. 2d ed. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872–74. Denney, James. The Death of Christ. London: Tyndale, 1951. DeSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBL Dissertation Series 25. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists. London: Duckworth, 1977. Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily. Book II. With a translation by C. H. Oldfather. LCL 303 (Diodorus II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. —The Library of History of Diodorus of Sicily. Fragments of Books XXXIII-XL. With a translation by Francis R. Walton. LCL 423 (Diodorus XII). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The Roman Antiquities. With a translation by Earnest Cary. LCL 373 (Dionysius VI). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947. Docherty, Susan E. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbett, 1952. —The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936. —The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Doeve, J. W. ‘Some Notes with Reference to      in Romans III 2’. Pages 111–23 in Studia Paulina. Edited by J. N. Sevenster and W. C. Van Unnik. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V., 1953. Dormandy, Richard. ‘Hebrews 1:1-2 and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen’. Expository Times 100 (1989), pp.371–5. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3d ed. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Dumbrell, W. J. ‘The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect’. Evangelical Quarterly 48 (1976), pp.154–9. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Studies in Biblical Theology, 2d Series 15. London: SCM Press, 1970. —Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2d ed. London: SCM Press, 1989. —The Epistle to the Galatians, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. —‘Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom or Wisdom Incarnate?’ Pages 75–92 in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Edited by Stephen C. Barton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Eerdmans, B. D. The Religion of Israel. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1947. Ehrhardt, Arnold. The Framework of the New Testament Stories. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1964.

Bibliography

175

Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993. —Review of Tomasz Lewicki, ‘Weist Nicht ab den Sprechenden!’ Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief. Journal of Theological Studies NS 57 (2006), pp.279– 81. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. ‘The Concept of Paraenesis’. Pages 47–72 in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, eds., Early Christian Paraenesis. Enns, Peter E. ‘Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1– 4:13’. Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993), pp.255–80. Enslin, Morton Scott. The Literature of the Christian Movement. Christian Beginnings III. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938. Epictetus. The Discourses as Reported by Arian, the Manual, and Fragments. With a translation by W. A. Oldfather. LCL (Epictetus I). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. —The Discourses as Reported by Arian, the Manual, and Fragments. With a translation by W. A. Oldfather. LCL (Epictetus II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Filson, Floyd V. ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. Studies in Biblical Theology, 2d Series 4. London: SCM Press, 1967. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Luke–Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. France, R. T. ‘The Writer to the Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor’. Tyndale Bulletin 47.2 (1996), pp.245–76. Freedman, H., ed., and Maurice Simon, trans. Midrash Rabbah Genesis. 10 vols. London: Soncino, 1939. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gelardini, Gabriella. ‘Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation’. Pages 107–27 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Biblical Interpretation Series 755. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Gilbert, G. H. ‘The Greek Element in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. American Journal of Theology 14.4 (1910), pp.521–32. Glasson, T. F. ‘Heraclitus’ Alleged Logos Doctrine’. Journal of Theological Studies NS 3 (1952), pp.231–38. Gleason, Randall C. ‘Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2’. New Testament Studies 49 (2003), pp.90–107. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976. —II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 41A. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.

176

Bibliography

Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer (Hebr 1–6). Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament XVII/1. Zurich: Benziger, 1990. —An die Hebräer (Hebr 7,1–10,18). Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament XVII/2. Zurich: Benziger, 1993. —An die Hebräer (Hebr 10,19–13,25). Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament XVII/3. Zurich: Benziger, 1997. —‘Das Heil als Wort: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Hebr 2,1–4’. Pages 261–74 in Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historisches Geschehen und Deutung in Neuen Testament. Edited by Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. —‘Der Historische Jesus im Hebräerbrief’. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 56 (1965), pp.63–91. —‘Hebräer 1,1-4. Ein exegetischer Versuch’. Pages 182–228 in Text und Situation. Edited by Erich Grässer. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973. Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898. —eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, III. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903. —eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, VI. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908. Grif¿ths, Jonathan. ‘Philo Made Easy’. Review of Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo. The Expository Times 119 (2008), pp.460–61. —Review of Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary. Churchman 122 (2008), pp.276–9. —‘The Word of God: Perfectly Spoken in the Son’. Pages 35–48 in The Perfect Saviour: Key Themes in Hebrews. Edited by Jonathan Grif¿ths. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2012. Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1973. Guthrie, George H. ‘Hebrews’. Pages 919–95 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. —‘Hebrews in Its First-Century Contexts’. Pages 414–43 in The Face of New Testament Studies. Edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Leicester: Apollos, 2004. —‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research’. Currents in Biblical Research 1.2 (2003), pp.271–94. —The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy, I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. Haacker, Klaus. ‘Creatio ex auditu. Zum Verständnis von Hbr 11 3’. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 60 (1969), pp.279–81. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Hanson, A. T. The Living Utterances of God: The New Testament Exegesis of the Old. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983. Harrington, Daniel J. What Are They Saying About the Letter to the Hebrews? New York: Paulist, 2005. Harris, Elizabeth. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 107. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 1994.

Bibliography

177

Harris, Rendel. Testimonies, Part II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920. Hartmann, Louis F., and A. DiLella. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23; Garden City: Doubleday, 1978. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. —Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Head, Peter. Christology and the Synoptic Problem. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Heinemann, W. ‘Preaching in the Talmudic Period’. Pages 467–70 in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2d ed., vol. XVI. Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1974. Heracleitus, On the Universe. With a translation by W. H. S. Jones. LCL 150. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. Héring, Jean. L’Épître aux Hébreux. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1954. Ho¿us, Otfried. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/11. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970. Howard, W. F. Christianity According to St. John. London: Duckworth, 1943. Hughes, Graham. Hebrews and Hermeneutics. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Hunt, Arthur S., ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, VII. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1910. —ed. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, VIII. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1911. Hurst, L. D. ‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’. Pages 151–64 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. —The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003. —One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. London: SCM Press, 1988. Instone-Brewer, David. ‘James as a Sermon on the Trials of Abraham’. Pages 250–68 in Williams et al., eds., The New Testament. —Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. Text und Studien zum Antiken Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Isaacs, Marie E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 73. Shef¿eld: JSOT Press, 1992. Jobes, Karen H. ‘The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7’. Trinity Journal 13.2 (1992), pp.181–91. Johnson, Darrell W. The Glory of Preaching: Participating in God’s Transformation of the World. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.

178

Bibliography

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Jones, W. H. S. ‘Introduction’ In Heracleitus, On the Universe, LCL 150, 451–68. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. de Jonge, M., and A. S. van der Woude. ‘11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’. New Testament Studies 12 (1965–66), pp.301–26. Jordaan, Gert J. C. and Pieter Nel. ‘From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews’. Pages 229–40 in Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception. Edited by Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 527. London: T&T Clark International, 2010. Josephus. With translations by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–65. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. London: SCM Press, 1980. —The Wandering People of God. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville and Irving Sandberg. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Katz, Peter. ‘The Quotations from Deuteronomy in Hebrews’. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1958), pp.213–23. Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A. & C. Black, 1963. Kistemaker, S. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: Soest, 1961. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Knox, Wilfred L. Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1942. London: British Academy (Humphrey Milford), 1944. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 36. London: Doubleday, 2001. Köster, Helmut. ‘Die Auslegung der Abraham-Verheissung in Hebräer 6’. Pages 95–109 in Studien zur Theologie der Alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Klaus Koch. Neukirchener–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehung, 1961. Laansma, Jon. ‘The Cosmology of Hebrews’. Pages 125–43 in Cosmology and New Testament Theology. Edited by Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough. Library of New Testament Studies 355. London: T&T Clark International, 2008. —‘Hidden Stories in Hebrews: Cosmology and Theology’. Paper presented at ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology’ conference. St. Andrews, Scotland. July 2006. Lane, William L. Hebrews 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 47A. Dallas: Word, 1991. —Hebrews 9–13. Word Biblical Commentary 47B. Dallas: Word, 1991. Langkammer, P. Hugolinius. ‘ “Den er zum Erben von allem eingesetzt hat” (Hebr 1,2)’. Biblische Zeitschrift 10 (1966), pp.273–80. Lehne, Susanne. The New Covenant in Hebrews. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 44. Shef¿eld: JSOT Press, 1990. Leonard, William. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1939.

Bibliography

179

Leschert, Dale F. Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Dissertation Series 10. Lewiston: Mellen, 1994. Lewicki, Tomasz. ‘Weist Nicht ab den Sprechenden!’: Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief. Paderborner Theologische Studien 41. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004. Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. A Greek–English Lexicon. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1897. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972. —The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Linss, Wilhelm C. ‘Logical Terminology in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Concordia Theological Monthly 37.6 (1966), pp.365–9. Lo Bue, Francesco. ‘The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Journal of Biblical Literature 75.1 (March 1956), pp.52–7. Longenecker, Richard. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Mackie, Scott D. ‘Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews’. New Testament Studies 53 (2007), pp.114–29. —Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/223. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. —‘Heavenly Sanctuary Mysticism in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Journal of Theological Studies NS 62 (2011), pp.77–117. MacLeod, David J. ‘The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews’. Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (1989), pp.185–97. Mann, Jacob. The Hebrew Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, I. Cincinnati: Jacob Mann, 1940. —The Hebrew Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, II. Cincinnati: MannSonne Publication Committee, 1966. Manson, T. W. ‘The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 32.1 (1949), pp.1–17. Manson, William. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconstruction. The Baird Lecture, 1949. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1951. Margulis, B. ‘Gen. XLIX 10/Deut. XXXIII 2-3: A New Look at Old Problems’. Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969), pp.202–10. Marshall, I. Howard. Kept by the Power of God. London: Epworth, 1969. —The Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Mathewson, Dave. ‘Reading Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament’. Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999), pp.209–25. McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. McCullough, J. C. ‘Hebrews in Recent Scholarship’. Irish Biblical Studies 16 (1994), pp.66–86. McKay, K. L. ‘Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek’. Novum Testamentum 34.3 (1992), pp.209–28.

180

Bibliography

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Corrected ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975. Metzger, Bruce M. et al., trans. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Meyer, Jason C. Preaching: A Biblical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an Die Hebräer. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Miller, Ed. L. ‘The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos’. Journal of Biblical Literature 112.3 (1993), pp.445–57. —‘The Logos of Heraclitus: Updating the Report’. Harvard Theological Review 74.2 (1981), pp.161–76. Moffatt, James. Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Monte¿ore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: A. & C. Black, 1964. Motyer, Stephen. ‘The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?’ Tyndale Bulletin 50.1 (1999), pp.3–22. Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930. Nairne, Alexander. The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915. Narborough, F. D. V. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930. Nash, Ronald H. ‘The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977–78), pp.89–115. Nauck, Wolfgang. ‘Das ħÅ Paräneticum’. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 49 (1958), pp.134–5. —‘Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes’. Pages 199–206 in Judentum Urchristentum Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by Walther Eltester. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960. Nongbri, Brent. ‘A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4-12’. Novum Testamentum 45.3 (2003), pp.265–79. O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Hebrews. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Oecumenius. ‘       ’. Pages 279–454 in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Posterior, CXIX. Edited by J. P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1864. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Ounsworth, Richard. Joshua Typology in the New Testament. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/328. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Owen, H. P. ‘The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Hebrews V.11–VI.3’. New Testament Studies 3 (1956–57), pp.243–53. Oxford English Dictionary, IX. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Philo. With translations by F. H. Colson et al. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–62.

Bibliography

181

Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pike, Kenneth L. ‘Beyond the Sentence’. College Composition and Communication 15 (1964), pp.129–35. Plato. Laws, II. With a translation by R. G. Bury. LCL 192 (Plato XI). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. —Phaedo. Translated by Patrick Duncan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928. —Phaedo. With a translation by Harold North Fowler. LCL 36 (Plato I). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Plotinus. Ennead III. With a translation by A. H. Armstrong. LCL 442 (Plotinus III). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Shef¿eld: JSOT Press, 1992. Pseudo-Phocylides. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. With a translation by P. W. Van der Horst. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Reed, Jeffrey T. ‘Discourse Analysis’. Pages 189–217 in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. New Testament Tools and Studies XXV. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Rendall, R. ‘The Method of the Writer to the Hebrews in Using Old Testament Quotations’. Evangelical Quarterly 27 (1955), pp.214–20. Richardson, Christopher A. Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/338. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Riggenbach, Eduard. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1987. Rissi, Mathias. Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs: Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers und seiner Leser. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/41. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. Robinson, H. Wheeler. Religious Ideas of the Old Testament. London: Duckworth, 1956. Robinson, Theodore H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1948. Rothschild, Clare K. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Signi¿cance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I/235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Sandmel, Samuel. ‘Parallelomania’. Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962), pp.1–13. Schenck, Kenneth. A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. —Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. —‘God Has Spoken: Hebrews’ Theology of the Scriptures’. Pages 321–36 in Bauckham et al., eds., The Epistle to the Hebrews. Schippers, R. ‘The Pre-Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians II 13-16’. Novum Testamentum 8 (1966), pp.223–34. Schunack, Gerd. Der Hebräerbrief. Zürcher Bibelkommentar. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2002. Scott, Martin. Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 71. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 1992. Seneca. Epistulae Morales. With a translation by Richard M. Gummere. LCL 76 (Seneca V). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920.

182

Bibliography

Silberman, Lou H. ‘Prophets/Angels: LXX and Qumran Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Pages in 91–101 Standing Before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays. Edited by Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell. New York: KTAV, 1981. Smillie, Gene R. ‘Contrast or Continuity in Hebrews 1.1-2?’ New Testament Studies 51 (2005), pp.543–60. —‘Living and Active: The Word of God in the Book of Hebrews’. Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000. —‘ “ȅ ȁȅīȅȈ ȉȅȊ ĬǼȅȊ” in Hebrews 4:12–13’. Novum Testamentum 46.4 (2004), pp.338–59. —‘ “The One Who Is Speaking” in Hebrews 12:25’. Tyndale Bulletin 55.2 (2004), pp.275–94. —‘ “The Other ȁȅīȅȈ” at the End of Heb. 4:13’. Novum Testamentum 47.1 (2005), pp.19–25. Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Waco: Word, 1984. von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I–IV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1911–13. Son, Kiwoong. Zion Symbolism in Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Souter, A. et al. Oxford Latin Dictionary, I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Sowers, Sidney G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews. Zurich: Evz-Verlag, 1965. Spicq, C. ‘ºÁÍɸ et ÉĠ»ÇÄÇË dans Hébr. VI. 19-20’. Studia Theologica 3 (1949), pp.185–6. —‘L’Authenticité du chapitre XIII de l’Épître aux Hébreux’. Coniectanea Neotestamentica XI (1947), pp.226–36. —L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2d rev. ed. Paris: Cerf, 1957. —L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1952. —Notes de Lexicographie Néo-Testamentaire, II. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 22/2. Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions Universitaires, 1978. Stagg, Frank. ‘The Abused Aorist’. Journal of Biblical Literature 91.2 (1972), pp.222–31. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. —‘Paul’s “Use” of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters’. Pages 125–55 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. SBL Symposium Series 50. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Stanley, Steve. ‘The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives’. Tyndale Bulletin 45 (1994), pp.245–71. Starr, James, and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, eds. Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Stegner, William Richard. ‘The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily’. Pages 51–69 in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Edited by David E. Aune. SBL Sources for Biblical Study 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Stewart, R. A. ‘Creation and Matter in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. New Testament Studies 12 (1966), pp.284–93.

Bibliography

183

Stiebert, Johanna. ‘The Maligned Patriarch: Prophetic Ideology and the “Bad Press” of Esau’. Pages 33–48 in Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll. Edited by Alastair G. Hunter and Philip R. Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 348. London: Shef¿eld Academic Press, 2002. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. ‘ “Angels” and “God”: Exploring the Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism. Pages 45–70 in Stuckenbruck and North, eds., Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., and Wendy E. S. North, eds. Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Early Christianity in Context. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 263. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Svendsen, Stefan Nordgaard. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Swetnam, James. ‘Another Note on  as Christ in Hebrews 4,12-13’. Filologia Neotestamentaria 18 (2005), pp.131–5. —Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah. Analectica Biblica 94. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981. —‘Jesus as ĠºÇË in Hebrews 4,12-13’. Biblica 62 (1981), pp.214–24. —‘On the Literary Genre of the “Epistle” to the Hebrews’. Novum Testamentum 11 (1969), pp.261–9. —‘Sacri¿ce and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observation and Surmises on Hebrews 9,26’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968), pp.227–34. —Review of David Wider, Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersunchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief. Journal of Theological Studies NS 49 (1998), pp.789–91. Synge, F. C. Hebrews and the Scriptures. London: SPCK, 1959. Tasker, R. V. G. ‘The Integrity of the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Expository Times 47 (1935–36), pp.136–8. —The Old Testament in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. Theissen, Gerd. Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969. Theophrastus. Characters. With a translation by Jeffrey Rusten, I. C. Cunningham, and A. D. Knox. 2d. ed. LCL 225. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. London: Harper Collins, 1992. Thomas, Kenneth J. ‘The Old Testament citations in Hebrews’. New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65), pp.303–25. Thompson, James W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982. —Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. —‘ “That Which Cannot Be Shaken”: Some Metaphysical Assumptions in Heb 12:27’. Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975), pp.580–97. Thyen, Hartwig. Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. de Tischendorf, Constantinus. Novum Testamentum Graece. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1873.

184

Bibliography

Tobin, Thomas H. ‘Logos’. Pages 348–56 in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV. Treier, Daniel J. ‘Speech Acts, Hearing Hearts, and Other Senses: The Doctrine of Scripture Practiced in Hebrews. Pages 337–50 in Bauckham et al., eds., The Epistle to the Hebrews. Trompf, G. W. ‘The Conception of God in Hebrews 4:12-13’. Studia Theologica 25 (1971), pp.123–32. Übelacker, Walter. ‘Paraenesis or Paraclesis: Hebrews as a Test Case’. Pages 319–52 in Starr and Engberg-Pedersen, eds., Early Christian Paraenesis. Vaganay, Léon. ‘Le Plan de L’Épître aux Hébreux’. Pages 269–77 in Mémorial Lagrange. Paris: Gabalda, 1940. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Leicester: Apollos, 1998. Vanhoye, Albert. A Different Priest: The Letter to the Hebrews. Translated by Leo Arnold. Series Rhetorica Semitica. Miami: Convivium, 2011. —Review of George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews. Biblica 76 (1996), pp.587–90. —Situation du Christ: épître aux hébreux 1 et 2. Lectio Divina 58. Paris: Cerf: 1969. —Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by J. Swetnam. Subsidia Biblica 12. Rome: Ponti¿cio Istituto Biblico, 1989. —La Structure Littéraire de L’Épitre aux Hébreux. Studia Neotestamentica 1. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963. Vermes, Geza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 4th ed. London: Penguin, 1995. Vriezen, Th. C. ‘Prophecy and Eschatology’. Pages 199–229 in Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Edited by G. W. Anderson. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1953. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Walters, John R. ‘The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews’. Asbury Theological Journal 51.2 (1996), pp.59–70. Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007. Walton, Francis R. ‘The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera’. Harvard Theological Review 48 (1955), pp.255–7. Ward, Timothy. Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Suf¿ciency of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Watson, Francis. Text and Truth: Rede¿ning Biblical Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997. Wedderburn, A. J. M. ‘The “Letter” to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter’. New Testament Studies 50 (2004), pp.390–405. Weiss, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Macmillan, 1889. Westfall, C. L. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews. Library of New Testament Studies 297. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Widdess, A. G. ‘A Note on Hebrews XI. 3’. Journal of Theological Studies NS 10.2 (1959), pp.327–9. Wider, David. Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 87. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.

Bibliography

185

Williams, Clarence Russell. ‘A Word-Study of Hebrews 13’. Journal of Biblical Literature 30.2 (1911), pp.129–36. Williams, C. S. C. The Acts of the Apostles. London: A. & C. Black, 1964. Williams, P. J. et al., eds. The New Testament in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1, Isaiah 1–5. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 4. Leiden: Brill, 1970. —‘The Incarnation of the Logos in Hebrews’. Expository Times 95 (1983–84), pp.4–8. Wills, Lawrence. ‘The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity’. Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984), pp.277–99. Windisch, Hans. Der Hebräerbrief. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1913. Witt, R. E. ‘Hypostasis’. Pages 319–43 in Amicitiae Corolla. Edited by H. G. Wood. London: University of London Press, 1933. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo, I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse: Philosophical ReÀections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Worley, David R. ‘Fleeing to Two Immutable Things, God’s Oath-taking and Oathwitnessing: The Use of Litigant Oath in Hebrews 6:12-20’. Restoration Quarterly 36.4 (1994), pp.223–36. Wray, Judith Hoch. Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest. SBL Dissertation Series 166. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God, II. London: SPCK, 1996. Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament, I–III. Translated by John Moore Trout et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek. Translated from the 4th Latin ed. by Joseph Smith. Rome: Ponti¿cio Istituto Biblico, 2001.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1.1-31 128 1.2 127 1.3 102, 129 1.6 129 1.9 129 2.2 76 4.10-11 143 4.10 143, 144 4.11 145 12.2-3 115 12.2 108 12.6-7 70 12.7 70 15.5 108, 115 15.10 83 15.18-21 70 17.5-8 41 22 108, 114, 115, 118, 119 22.11 118 22.13 118 22.14 118 22.16-18 116 22.16-17 107, 118 22.16 115, 117 22.17 70, 108, 110, 118 25.30 134 26.34-35 134 49.1 39 Exodus 10 10.21-22

139 138

10.21 16.9 19 19.12-13 19.12-13 19.16 19.16–20.26 19.19 20 20.18 20.19 20.22 22.7 24.8 24.17 31.18–32.35 Leviticus 9.5 10.10 25.23 Numbers 12–16 12–14 12 12.7 13–14 13 13.7 13.14 13.26 13.27 13.30 14 14.1-4 14.7-9

139 136 50 138 139 138 140 138 50 140 140, 141 148 136 143 45 22

136 135 55

23, 33, 81 69 34 29, 33 34, 74 70, 73, 82 82 73 70 70 70 69, 70, 75, 82 70 70

14.7 14.9 14.10 14.11 14.13-19 14.16 14.20-25 14.20-23 14.23 14.24 14.43-45 15–16 16.5-7 18.4 24.14 Deuteronomy 4.1–5.33 4.10-14 4.11 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.15-16 4.23-24 4.24 4.30 4.36 5.22 5.25-27 5.25-26 5.25 5.27 5.28-29 12.9 17.6 18.15

70 74, 75 70 75 70 70 75 69 70 75 80, 81 34 29 137 39

140 135 135, 136 138 135, 140, 141 141 135 135 135, 150 39 148 138 147 140 141 136 147 41 29 148

Index of References 19.10 25.1 29.17 LXX 29.18 31.16 32.35-36 32.47 33.2

41 137 134, 135 134, 135 134 29 80 50

Judges 2.16-19 2.17 3 3.16 3.20 3.21-22 3.30 11.27 13.8

81 134 32, 81 29, 32, 81 29, 32, 81 81 81 137 101

2 Samuel 7 7.12-14 7.13-14 7.14

41 41 41 41

1 Kings 2.19

48

2 Kings 12.2 12.3

101 101

1 Chronicles 17.13

41

Job 28.12-28 28.25-27

65 65

Psalms 2 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 7.11

41 41 41 29, 41 41 137

8.4-6 16.8 22.7 22.22 32.6 33.6 33.6 LXX 33.9 34.5 40.7-9 95 95.7-11 95.7-8 95.7 95.11 102.25-27 106.20 107.20 LXX 110 110.1 110.4-5 110.4

118.130 LXX 119.130 151 Proverbs 1–9 1.20-30 3.11-12 3.11 8.22-31 8.22-26 8.27-30 8.29-30 8.32-36 17.28 27.14

29, 34 48 115 29 63 129 63, 101 129 101 12 34, 56, 69, 99, 165 33-35, 69, 165 158 29, 33, 78 29, 69, 76 44 63 63 27, 48 27 48 27, 29, 34, 98, 106, 110, 111, 114–16, 119, 122– 4 101 101 50

66 65 30, 34 157 43, 65, 161 65 65 43 65 74 74

187 Isaiah 2.2 8.17 8.18 33.22 40.5 52.7 52.7 53.1 55.11 55.11 60.1

40 29 29 137 45 71 70 71 63 63 101

Jeremiah 2.20 3.6-9 7.16 23.20 25.19 30.24 31.31-34 37.24 49.7-16 49.39

134 134 137 39 39 39 22, 34 39 133 39

Ezekiel 10.18 16.15-17 22.26 38.16 44.23

45 134 135 39, 40 135

Daniel 2.28 10.14

39, 40 39, 40

Hosea 3.5

39, 40

Obadiah 1–9

133

Micah 4.1 7.8

39, 40 101

188 Habakkuk 2.3-4 2.3-4

Haggai 2.6

Index of References

34 30, 35, 126

2.6

30, 148, 149, 153 132

Malachi 1.2-3

133

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1.3 9 2.5 12 11.19 68 12.36 86, 155 15.12 67 26.36-46 9 28.15 67 Mark 1.2 14.32-42 16.20 Luke 1.1 2.23 2.25 3.29 7.35 16.2

12 9 57

20.20 22.26 22.39-44

36 12 157 9 68 86, 155, 156 67 154 9

John 1.1-4 1.1-2 2.22 12 12.37

161 129 67 71 71

12.38 12.48-49 19.17-20 Acts 1.20 2.1-13 2.14-20 2.17 2.22 2.25 4.31 4.39 7 7.38

71 71 9

20.17-35 21.20-25

12 60 20 40 60 48 154 154 15 15, 49–51, 94 50, 51 154 20 20 19, 67 154 154 154 20 67 20 86, 155, 156 20 20

Romans 1.1 1.9 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.25 10.14-21 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 12.1 12.8

58 112 94 12 56 146 71 71 71 71, 72 71, 72 20 19

7.53 8.25 13.14-41 13.15-41 13.15 13.46 14.12 15.22 17.24-27 18.14 19.35-40 19.40

14.12 15.4 15.8

86, 155 157 59

1 Corinthians 1.1 1.4-7 1.6 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.30 2.4 2.6 3.19 7.33 10.1-14 15.50

58 60 59, 60 58 67 43 68 60 43 43 43 20 41

2 Corinthians 1.1 1.3 1.23 3.9 4.4-6 4.6 6.14–7.1

58 157 112 95 102 102 20

Galatians 1 2.19 3.1-5 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.9 3.10 3.19 5.1 6.6

58 103 72 72 72 72 143 12 50, 51 20 67

Ephesians 1.1 1.18 3.9

58 102 102

Index of References 1.1

Philippians 1.1 1.8 1.14 2.1 3.19

58 112 154 20 134

Colossians 1.15-20 2.2-3 3.16

68 68 67

1.2-4 1.2-3 1.2

1.3 1 Thessalonians 2.9 72 2.11-12 72 2.13 72 2.29-13 72 2.29 72 4.1 20 1 Timothy 4 4.13 2 Timothy 3.1 Hebrews 1–12 1 1.1–4.16 1.1–2.18 1.1-4

1.1-3 1.1-2

22 19, 160

40

1.4–2.18 1.4-14 1.4

1.5–2.4 1.5-14 1.5-13 1.5 1.6

153 31, 48 26 26 2, 4, 29, 36, 37, 44, 48, 49, 53, 58, 61, 62, 79, 82, 83, 97, 113, 129, 130, 146, 161, 162, 164 36 1, 2, 17, 37, 38, 41, 47, 52, 143, 144, 148

1.7 1.8-12 1.8 1.9 1.10-12 1.10 1.13 1.14

1.23 2.1-4

2.1

17, 31, 36, 47, 52, 53 3, 37, 42 44, 129 6, 37, 41, 43–5, 52– 4, 58, 99, 128, 129, 146, 149, 151, 161, 162 5, 14, 37, 43–8, 79, 103, 129, 130, 146, 163, 164 143 36 13, 37, 48, 52, 54, 109 28, 29, 31, 49 31, 51 29, 49, 55 12, 17, 24, 41, 166 12, 13, 132 87 166 41, 58, 89 96 44 58 17 13, 29, 51, 54, 109, 133 145 2, 5, 17, 48, 49, 52, 53, 57, 58, 61, 73, 98, 159 9, 29, 30, 36, 49, 53,

189

2.2-4 2.2-3 2.2

2.3-4 2.3

2.4 2.5–3.6 2.5–3.3 2.5-18 2.5 2.6-8 2.8-18 2.9 2.10 2.11-12 2.12-13 2.12 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 3–5 3–4 3 3.1–4.14 3.1–3.6 3.1-6 3.1-3 3.1-2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4-13

54, 57, 58, 73, 109 29, 56 13, 54 3, 5, 9, 38, 48–50, 53–6, 73, 78, 93, 116, 148, 163, 164 55 11, 46, 52–4, 57– 9, 96, 97, 100, 154, 164–6 57, 58 28 29 34 51, 87, 93 13, 29 29 24, 89 54 166 29, 166 12 88, 89 83 108 87, 89, 127 113 23, 33 69 34, 77 26 143 58 29 30 17, 24, 30, 59 33 9, 109 29, 69

190 Hebrews (cont.) 3.4 29 3.5-6 54 3.5 29, 148 3.6–4.13 34 3.6 29 3.7–4.1 28 3.7-13 29 3.7-11 13, 33, 35, 69, 165, 166 3.7-10 56 3.7 78, 158, 166 3.8 30 3.10 93 3.11 75, 76 3.12 17, 30, 83, 165 3.13 30, 157, 158, 165 3.14–4.1 29, 69 3.14 29, 46, 55, 157 3.15 29, 33, 69, 158 3.16-19 29 3.16-18 17, 74 3.17 74 3.18 75 3.19 74 3.25 158 4–5 80 4 34, 77, 79, 80, 121 4.1-11 77 4.1-3 165 4.1 24, 29, 30, 69, 73, 74, 88, 121, 164 4.2-16 2, 69 4.2-11 28, 29, 69, 75, 82, 89 4.2-3 29 4.2 3, 5, 17, 69, 70,

Index of References

4.3-7 4.3 4.6 4.7-11 4.7 4.8-10 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11–7.28 4.11

4.12-16 4.12-14 4.12-13

4.12

4.13-16 4.13

73–5, 82, 89, 90, 92, 93, 124, 163, 165, 166 29 29, 69, 75, 77, 88 88 90 29, 38, 69, 78, 90, 99 29 89 89 76 26 24, 29, 30, 80, 82, 88, 89 28, 29, 69, 80, 88 89 2, 6, 29, 35, 62, 69, 79–81, 83, 85, 88, 90, 105, 138, 157, 161, 162 3, 5, 15, 29, 32, 62, 69, 74, 79–85, 88, 89, 93, 125, 150, 153, 159, 162, 163, 165 138 3, 5, 17, 79, 81, 82, 84–90, 93, 104, 155, 161, 163, 165, 166

4.14–8.13 4.14-16

4.14

4.15–6.20 4.15 4.16

5–10 5 5.1–10.39 5.1–10.25 5.1–7.28 5.1-10 5.1-4 5.1 5.3 5.5–7.28 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8-9 5.9 5.10 5.11–6.12

5.11–6.8 5.11–6.3 5.11–6.2 5.11

5.12

143 29, 33, 35, 78, 80, 88, 142 22, 30, 31, 80, 88–90, 161 26 89 22, 30, 77, 81, 88, 89, 113, 137, 138, 142 32 34, 107 46 29, 91 28 91 29 87 154 34 29, 115 29, 106, 115 9, 29, 54 58 54 33, 98 2, 29, 33, 91, 106, 107 106 99 97 3, 5, 24, 87, 88, 90–3, 98, 99, 104, 163, 165, 166 3, 10, 91, 93–6, 99, 100, 105, 123

Index of References 5.13

5.14 6 6.1-12 6.1-2 6.1

6.2 6.3 6.4-12 6.4-8 6.4-6 6.4-5 6.4 6.5

6.6 6.7 6.8-9 6.8 6.9-12 6.9

6.10 6.11 6.12-20 6.12 6.13–7.28 6.13-20 6.13-16

3, 5, 91, 93–6, 105, 123, 163, 165 100 57, 110, 136 116 97 3, 5, 87, 91, 94–8, 100, 102, 105, 163, 165 97 87, 93, 102 9, 99, 101 102, 105, 124 91, 101 101, 103 101, 105 5, 43, 91, 99, 100, 103, 105, 130, 150, 163, 164 101, 102 100, 101, 104, 105 104 101, 102 106 54, 87, 101, 105, 109 10, 105 99, 107 70 106–8, 118, 121 2, 106, 162 57, 106, 110 124

6.13-15 6.13

6.14 6.15

6.16-17 6.16 6.17-20 6.17-18 6.17

6.18-19 6.18

6.19-20 6.19 6.20

6.22 6.26-28 7 7.1–10.18 7.1-28 7.1-14 7.1 7.2 7.6-7 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.11-19 7.11

108 24, 70, 91, 106, 107, 143 104, 108, 115, 118 107, 108, 118, 119, 121, 143 122 56, 110, 113, 116 109 115, 117, 158 107, 109– 17, 120, 121, 124, 133, 157, 162 121 107, 109, 110, 114, 117, 121, 122, 124, 157 110, 124 56, 57, 77, 122 33, 77, 92, 106, 116, 121, 122 124 103 96, 110, 119, 123 29 26 106 24, 104 13, 96 109 104, 121 104, 109 83 53 24, 88

191 7.14 7.15-28 7.15-22 7.15 7.16 7.18-25 7.18 7.19 7.20-23 7.20 7.21 7.22

7.23-25 7.23 7.24 7.25

7.26-28 7.26 7.27 7.28

8.1–10.25 8.1–10.18 8.1-5 8.1-2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4-6 8.4 8.5 8.6

8.7 8.8 8.13

9 106, 110 119 109 123 122 122, 123 109, 110, 122, 123 54 110, 119, 122, 123 110, 115 13, 109, 115, 119, 120, 122, 124, 162 123 39 120 54, 83, 120, 122, 127, 137 123 120 124 3, 5, 106, 107, 110, 122, 123, 125, 163 26, 28 26, 34 142 25 88 9 127 53 88 143, 151 9, 13, 109, 113, 120, 121, 124, 143 24 12 9, 10

192 Hebrews (cont.) 9–10 9, 10, 145 9.1 88 9.6-24 17 9.7 102, 145 9.8 146 9.9 151 9.11-28 10 9.11-14 46 9.11-12 76 9.11 24, 109 9.12 77, 102, 145 9.13-14 13, 54 9.14-22 143 9.14-15 143 9.14 13, 17, 83, 127, 145 9.15-17 121 9.15 9, 109, 113, 120, 121, 124, 143 9.16 121 9.17 56, 83 9.19-21 145 9.19 143 9.22 145 9.23 9, 88, 109 9.24-25 77 9.24 9, 76, 77, 113, 145 9.25 39, 77 9.26 43, 102, 145, 146 9.27-28 113 9.27 17, 102 9.28 54, 102, 127 10.1 137, 145 10.2 102, 103, 151 10.5-10 13 10.5-7 166 10.5 12, 24, 77, 128

Index of References 10.7 10.10 10.11-14 10.14 10.15-17 10.15 10.19–12.29 10.19-25 10.19-23 10.19-22 10.19-20 10.19

10.20-25 10.20 10.22 10.23 10.24 10.25 10.26-39 10.26-35 10.26-31 10.26-28 10.28-29 10.28 10.29 10.30 10.31-34 10.31 10.32–12.3 10.32-34 10.32 10.34 10.35 10.36–12.3 10.36 10.37-38 10.38 11 11.1–12.3

12 102 39 102 166 12 26 29 33 77 146 17, 30, 31, 88, 145, 158 54 83 30, 137, 145 30, 157 24, 30 17, 100, 157, 158 9 28, 29 56 29 13 29 17, 29 29, 137 29 83 34 154 10, 24 109 29, 30, 88 30, 35, 126 121, 126 13, 30, 35, 126 83 8, 126, 144 28

11.1-40 11.1 11.2 11.3

11.4 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.13 11.16 11.17-19 11.17 11.20 11.21 11.25 11.26 11.32 11.33 11.35 11.39-40 11.39 11.40 12 12.1-17 12.1-12 12.1-3 12.1 12.3 12.4-17 12.4-16 12.4-13 12.4-7 12.4 12.5-8 12.5-6 12.5 12.7-11 12.7 12.9-11 12.9

30, 35 24, 46, 126, 136 126 2, 5, 8, 43, 103, 126– 30, 162–4 144, 162 137 54, 96 108 121 77, 119 119, 121 77, 109 119 121 104 104 14 129 1, 17, 38 96, 121 109 13, 109 121 109 121, 131 131 131 30 24, 30, 31 9, 30 30 28 34 9 9, 30 13 30 100, 157, 158 30 30 13 43, 83

Index of References 12.10 12.11 12.12-17 12.12 12.13 12.14-17 12.14-15 12.14 12.15 12.16 12.17 12.18–13.19 12.18-29

12.18-28 12.18-25 12.18-24

12.18-21 12.18-20 12.18-19 12.18

12.19

12.20 12.21 12.22-24 12.22-23 12.22

12.23-24

127 96 30 24, 30 30 132, 138 131 30 134, 135 132, 134, 136 104, 109, 142, 154 30, 35 2, 34, 104, 131, 132, 137 132 28 30, 131, 132, 136, 146, 148 135 135 138, 140 22, 24, 131, 132, 135–8, 140, 149, 151 3, 5, 131, 135, 140, 141, 147, 151, 163, 164 139, 141 140 78, 138, 142, 150 142 17, 22, 77, 83, 132, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 164 145

12.23 12.24

12.25-29

12.25-28 12.25

12.26-27 12.26

12.27 12.28–13.19 12.28

12.29

13

13.1-25 13.1-19 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.7-18 13.7-8 13.7

132, 137, 138, 142 47, 109, 113, 120, 124, 132, 138, 141– 7, 149, 151, 154, 162 17, 56, 131, 146, 149, 151 28, 104 2, 22, 30, 54, 132, 138, 146– 9, 151, 152, 165, 166 147 30, 102, 131, 132, 148, 149 30, 102, 132 30 17, 30, 132, 150, 153 104, 132, 135, 147, 150 8, 16, 17, 86, 153, 157 2, 26 153 24, 30 30 30 17, 134, 137 159 58, 154 3, 5, 17, 30, 59, 97, 100, 153–

193

13.8 13.9

13.10-13 13.10-12 13.10 13.12 13.13 13.14 13.15-16 13.15 13.16 13.17

13.18 13.19 13.20-25 13.20-21 13.20 13.21 13.22-25 13.22

5, 159, 163–6 154, 159 24, 30, 100, 154, 155 28 17 151 9, 46 30 17, 77 17 30, 88 30 3, 5, 30, 86, 87, 153–5, 159, 160, 163, 166 30, 87, 159 157–9 30, 153 17 24 127, 128 16, 17 3, 5, 16, 17, 100, 105, 124, 153, 156– 60, 163, 165, 166

James 5.3

40

1 Peter 1.4-5 1.16 2.4 4.5 4.11

41 12 137 86, 155 154

194

Index of References

2 Peter 1.18 1.19 3.3-4 3.5

55 56 40 129

Revelation 4.1 21.2-7

146 41

APOCRYPHA/DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS Tobit 11.14 51 Wisdom of Solomon 6.18 55 7 44, 161 7.22 44, 66 7.24 43 7.25-26 14, 66 7.25 44, 45 7.26 43–5 7.27 43, 66 7.32 161 9.1-2 67 9.1 129 9.4 68 9.9-10 68 13.9 43 18.15-16 63, 83 18.15 63 18.16 83 Ecclesiasticus 1.28 3.11 24 24.9 24.23 29.15 42.15

137 41 66 66 66 119 129

Baruch 3.9–4.4 4.1

66 66

1 Maccabees 10.24 10.25 10.46 12.9

18 19 19 157

2 Maccabees 6–7 7.28 15.8-11

14 128 19

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 42.2 66

Testament of Levi 5.5-6 51 QUMRAN 11Q5 151

50

RABBINIC LITERATURE Genesis Rabbah 65.2 134 65.10 133 65.15 133, 134 PHILO De Abrahamo 273 118

2 Baruch 32.4-5 44.7

150 157

De aeternitate mundi 129 39

2 Enoch 30.8

66

De agricultura 51 64

4 Ezra 8.52

77

De cherubim 36

Jubilees 1.27 1.29 2.1 6.22 12.4 25.1 30.12 30.21 50.1-2 50.6 50.13

51 51 51 51 129 134 51 51 51 51 51

Odes of Solomon 16.19 129 Pseudo-Philo 15.6 51 Pseudo-Phocylides 124 79

43

De confusione linguarum 146 64 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 117-118 43 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 57 129 De ebrietate 9–10 86

133 39

De fuga et inventione 108 65 137 63, 104 139 102 39 133 97 67

Index of References De gigantibus 52 65 Legum allegoriae 2.6 74 3.2 133 3.34 74 3.169 63, 104 3.174-75 63, 104 3.204 116–18 3.207 116 De migratione Abrahami 6 43 28 43 102 65 158 112 De opificio mundi 146 45 De plantation 10 179 18 50

111, 112 74 46 45

De praemiis et poenis 2.29 79 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 88 54 130-31 84 185 65 205 65 225 83 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 120 133 De sobrietate 3 54

De somniis 1.143 1.188 1.215

143 46, 92 64

De specialibus legibus 2.9 116 4.31 111, 112 4.123 45 De virtutibus 208

133, 134

De vita Mosis 2.123 57, 60 2.166 143 JOSEPHUS Antiquities 1.1 7.32 15.136 15.136b 15.66-67 16.118 16.124-25 16.24 4.133 7.193

46 74 51 50 50 111, 113 113 112 112 111, 112

EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS 1 Clement 1.3 154 27 129 Ambrose De fide 4.7.73

83

De Spiritu Sancto 2.11.128 83

195 Anonymous Constitutiones apostolicae 8.5 20 GRAECO-ROMAN SOURCES Aristobulus Frag. 5 67 Aristotle Rhetorica 1.3.1 21 1.3.33 21 2.23 1397b12 54 Ethica nichomachea 6.10 79 Politica 1275b19

79

Athanasius Orationes contra Arianos 2.72 83 Cicero De oratore 2.40.170

54

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 2.52.5 92 5.37.2 38 40.3.5 50 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae 9.59.5 111 Epictetus Diatribai 2.18.27 3.24.9

99 99

196 Heraclitus Fragments 2.3-4 Homer Odyssea 1.1-4 Plato Leges 11.915D

Index of References

63

Phaedo 113D 115D

74 93

36

Plotinus Enneades 3.6.7.13

46

56

Theophrastus Characteres 27.5 79

PAPYRI Oxyrhynchus Papyri 40.4 137 474.33-34 86, 155 522.26 86, 155 890.9-10 86 1049.1 85, 155 1104.22 85 1119.17 59 1153.20-21 85, 155 2783.25 137

INDEX OF AUTHORS Abraham, W. J. 168 Adam, P. 169 Adams, E. 127, 128, 150 Adams, J. C. 96, 97 Alexander, D. T. 108, 115 Allen, D. L. 12, 14, 17, 32, 80, 134, 135 Andersen, F. I. 39, 40 Attridge, H. W. 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 31, 38–41, 43, 45–7, 52–4, 56–8, 63, 73–8, 83–7, 90, 92, 93, 95–9, 101–4, 111, 113, 114, 118, 122, 126, 129, 134–8, 141, 144, 148, 153, 154, 156, 157 Aune, D. E. 14, 17 Backhaus, K. 3, 4 Bakker, A. 51 Bandstra, A. J. 50 Barclay, W. 63 Barnard, J. A. 151 Barnett, P. W. 157 Barr, J. 7, 8, 62 Barrett, C. K. 19, 40, 51, 60, 66, 67, 71, 139, 157 Barth, M. 11, 12, 85, 87, 146 Bartlett, J. R. 18 Bauckham, R. 44, 52 Beasley-Murray. G. R. 97, 102 Becker, E.-M. 3, 5, 69, 85 Bengel, J. A. 10, 11, 27, 114, 146 Best, E. 72, 73 Black, C. C. II 21 Bleek, F. 111, 112, 114 Borgen, P. 64 Bowker, J. W. 23 Boyarin, D. 68 Braun, H. 75, 79, 92, 107, 113, 116, 122, 142, 144, 148 Bruce, F. F. 26, 40, 41, 48, 74, 84, 109, 114, 118–20, 128, 148, 149 Buchanan, G. W. 27, 39, 40, 91, 148 Bultmann, R. 65 Burchard, C. 63 Burnet, J. 63

Caird, G. B. 12–14, 27, 31, 34, 38, 139 Callan, T. 51 Calvin, J. 86, 108, 114, 156 Campbell, C. R. 107, 108, 136 Carlston, C. E. 103 Catto, S. C. 23 Chester, A. 41, 63, 66, 68 Childs, B. S. 25, 26, 80 Christensen, D. L. 50 Clavier, H. 4, 6, 83, 85 Cockerill, G. L. 17, 53, 73, 93, 98, 154, 157, 160 Coles, R. A. 137 Collins, A. Y. 67 Collins, J. J. 40, 41 Combrink, H. J. B. 12, 13, 34 Conzelmann, H. 60 Cosby, M. R. 14, 157 Cotterell, P. 8 Cranfield, C. E. B. 71, 72 Dahl, N. A. 77 Davies, W. D. 50 DeSilva, D. A. 14, 16, 31, 41, 45, 86, 91, 99, 144, 156 Debrunner, F. 64 Deissmann, G. A. 18, 55, 56 Delitzsch, F. 83, 95, 97, 144 Denney, J. 146 Dey, L. K. K. 67, 109 DiLella, A. 40 Dillon, J. 64 Docherty, S. E. 13, 14, 31, 41, 54, 76 Dodd, C. H. 14, 62, 73 Doeve, J. W. 94 Dormandy, R. 37, 144 Driver, S. R. 50 Dumbrell, W. J. 137, 142 Dunn, J. D. G. 42, 44, 51, 63, 65–8, 83, 102 Eerdmans, B. D. 39 Ehrhardt, A. 127, 128 Ellingworth, P. 4, 5, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52– 4, 59, 80, 83, 86, 90, 91, 93, 123, 127, 136, 137, 148, 154, 156, 159

198

Index of Authors

Engberg-Pedersen, T. 16, 18, 20 Enns, P. E. 76 Enslin, M. S. 4, 42 Filson, F. V. 16, 17 Fitzmyer, J. A. 60 Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T. 50, 51 France, R. T. 11, 12, 17, 27, 31, 34 Freedman, D. N. 39, 40 Freedman, H. 134 Fung, R. Y. K. 51 Gelardini, G. 22 Gilbert, G. H. 13 Glasson, T. F. 63 Gleason, R. C. 10, 51 Goldstein, J. A. 18 Grässer, E. 4–6, 9, 40, 42, 43, 54, 73, 80, 92–4, 102, 107, 113, 118, 121, 130, 131, 142, 146, 148, 155, 156, 159 Grenfell, B. P. 86 Griffiths, J. 2, 4, 15 Guthrie, D. 72 Guthrie, G. H. 12–15, 24–7, 33, 35, 131 Guthrie, W. K. C. 63 Haacker, K. 126, 127 Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 52 Hanson, A. T. 44 Harris, E. 64, 66, 67 Harris, R. 14 Hartmann, L. F. 40 Hays, R. B. 167 Héring, J. 84, 95, 96, 100, 102, 111, 114, 120, 122, 148 Head, P. 137 Heinemann, W. 23 Hengel, M. 66 Hofius, O. 75 Howard, W. F. 44 Hughes, G. 3, 5, 6, 16, 51–3, 55, 85, 94, 106, 121, 139, 144, 158 Hughes, P. E. 40, 83, 95, 97, 146 Hunt, A. S. 85, 86 Hurst, L. D. 13–15 Hurtado, L. W. 52, 63, 66, 68 Instone-Brewer, D. 18, 54, 76 Jeremias, J. 50 Jobes, K. H. 157

Johnson, D. W. 38, 39, 169 Johnson, L. T. 4, 5, 17, 83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93, 108, 115, 120, 121, 128, 134, 139 Jones, W. H. S. 63 de Jonge, M. 51, 52 Jordaan, G. J. C. 27 Käsemann, E. 13, 71, 73, 75, 102, 137 Katz, P. 11, 135 Kelly, J. N. D. 19 Kistemaker, S. 12–14, 31, 34 Klauck, H.-J. 14, 16 Knox, W. L. 67 Köster, H. 46, 106, 117 Koester, C. R. 4, 5, 40, 44, 46, 47, 73, 79, 80, 83, 84, 90, 94, 98, 108, 111, 120, 127, 132, 136, 140, 141, 147, 154 Laansma, J. 77, 139, 150 Lane, W. L. 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 31, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 52, 53, 58, 59, 74, 77, 79, 80, 82–4, 86, 91, 95, 99, 101, 102, 111, 113, 123, 126–8, 131–8, 140–4, 149, 151, 154–6, 159 Langkammer, P. H. 42 Lehne, S. 5, 77, 94, 107, 109, 121, 124, 137, 139 Leonard, W. 10, 11 Leschert, D. F. 13 Lewicki, T. 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 36, 40, 49, 53, 54, 58, 74, 80, 106, 110, 131, 132, 144, 146, 166 Lindars, B. 9, 14, 15 Linss, W. C. 109 Lo Bue, F. 10, 11 Longenecker, R. 11, 12, 27, 34 Mackie, S. D. 10, 39, 78, 151 Macleod, D. J. 24, 25 Mann, J. 23 Manson, T. W. 11, 51 Manson, W. 10, 15, 27, 139 Margulis, B. 50 Marshall, I. H. 19, 135 Mathewson, D. 91 McConville, J. G. 50 McKay, K. L. 107 Metzger, B. M. 74 Meyer, J. C. 169

Index of Authors Michel, O. 4–6, 15, 73, 75, 80, 85, 87, 97, 120, 127–9, 131, 137, 144, 147, 149, 150, 154, 155 Miller, E. L. 63, 68 Milligan, G. 59 Moffatt, J. 26, 46, 73, 74, 82, 127, 131, 134, 137, 139, 141, 147, 148, 150, 154 Montefiore, H. W. 14, 31, 73, 84, 102, 111, 148 Motyer, S. 31 Moulton, J. H. 59 Nairne, A. 26 Narborough, F. D. V. 33 Nash, R. H. 15, 42, 43 Nauck, W. 20, 33 Nel, P. 27 Nongbri, B. 98 O’Brien, P. T. 5, 53, 73, 94, 155, 159 Oepke, A. 111, 120, 143 Oswalt, J. N. 40 Ounsworth, R. 69, 75 Owen, H. P. 95, 99 Peterson, D. 96, 97, 100, 110, 120, 123, 136, 142, 145 Pietersma, A. 1, 32, 81 Pike, K. L. 8 Porter, S. E. 107, 136 Preisker, H. 119 Reed, J. T. 8 Rendall, R. 14 Richardson, C. A. 129 Riggenbach, E. 102 Rissi, M. 6 Robinson, H. W. 146 Robinson, T. H. 43, 44, 83, 90 Rothschild, C. K. 38, 149 Sandmel, S. 8 Schenck, K. 1, 5, 15, 43, 64, 67 Schippers, R. 72 Schlier, H. 55, 56 Schmidt W. H. 63 Schmitz, O. 157 Schneider, J. 137 Schunack, G. 88 Scott, M. 65, 66 Seebass, H. 39, 40

199

Silberman, L. H. 50, 51 Smillie, G. R. 2, 5, 37–9, 41, 85–7, 144, 147–9, 154–6 Smith, R. L. 40 von Soden, H. F. 30 Son, K. 75, 77, 144, 146, 158 Sowers, S. G. 13, 42, 117, 148 Spicq, C. 6, 14, 17, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45–7, 56, 58, 59, 76, 84, 90, 103, 114, 120, 122, 127, 128, 144, 148, 153, 154 Stählin, G. 157 Stagg, F. 108 Stanley, C. D. 17, 27, 33, 167 Stanley, S. 17 Stegner, W. R. 23 Stewart, R. A. 129 Stiebert, J. 133 Strathmann, H. 57 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 51 Svendsen, S. N. 6 Swetnam, J. 4, 6, 22, 83, 85, 108, 118, 146 Synge, F. C. 14 Tasker, R. V. G. 12, 17, 134 Theissen, G. 75 Thiselton, A. C. 168 Thomas, K. J. 11, 12 Thompson, J. W. 10, 11, 36, 38, 39, 56, 57, 75, 77, 119, 131, 133, 139 Thyen, H. 16, 22 de Tischendorf, C. 30 Tobin, T. H. 64, 67 Treier, D. J. 3, 4 Trompf, G. W. 82, 84, 85 Turner, M. 8 Übelacker, W. 18 Vaganay, L. 24 Vanhoozer, K. J. 168 Vanhoye, A. 17, 24, 25, 47, 54, 107, 131, 148 Vermes, G. 41 Vriezen, Th. C. 39, 40 Wallace, D. B. 72, 107, 136 Walters, J. R. 26, 27 Waltke, B. K. 40 Walton, F. R. 50 Ward, T. 168 Watson, F. 7, 168

200

Index of Authors

Wedderburn, A. J. M. 153 Weiss, H.-F. 73, 80, 113, 114, 122, 154–6 Westcott, B. F. 26, 41, 45, 73, 79, 83, 93–5, 127, 128 Westfall, C. L. 26, 34 Widdess, A. G. 126 Wider, D. 3, 37, 38, 80, 100, 103, 127, 131, 132 Williams, C. R. 153 Williams, C. S. C. 51, 60 Williamson, H. G. M. 40 Williamson, R. 4, 6, 14, 15, 32, 39, 42, 44, 46, 65, 81, 83–5, 114, 116–18, 127–9, 162 Wills, L. 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28

Windisch, H. 85, 87 Witt, R. E. 46 Wolfson, H. A. 43, 67 Wolterstorff, N. 168 Worley, D. R. 111, 112, 114, 115 Woude, A. S. van der 51, 52 Wray, J. H. 76–8 Wright, B. G. 1, 32, 81 Wright, N. T. 45 Zahn, T. 26 Zerwick, M. 108, 127, 136