1. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 173: “One of our fundamental pastoral tasks is to teach our congregations to find themselves in the stories of Israel and the early church.… Our pedagogy has failed miserably to teach this skill because we have usually tried too hard to make the text ‘relevant.’ Rather than seeking to make the text relevant, Paul seeks to draw his readers into the text in such a way that its world reshapes the norms and decisions of the community in the present. That is the task of biblical preaching.”
1. The masculine pronoun will be used throughout for the author of Hebrews, not merely for convenience but because of the masculine participle διηγούμενον (“tell”) with which he describes himself in 11:32. Ruth Hoppin, Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Fort Bragg, CA: Lost Coast Press, 1997), has tried unsuccessfully to revive Harnack’s proposal of Priscilla as author (Adolf von Harnack, “Probabilia über die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes,” ZNW [1900]: 16–41). See Mitchell, 5.
2. On the “confession” (3:1; 4:14; 10:23) of those receiving Hebrews see Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 226–29, and those cited on 227, n. 54; similarly Scott D. Mackie, “Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 125–28, esp. 126, n. 44.
3. Ellingworth, 3, lists a total of thirteen proposed authors.
4. This title may have been given to Hebrews by analogy with the titles of the Pauline letters (Bruce, 3). The letter conclusion in Heb 13:22–25 may have suggested association with Paul. Clement of Alexandria also seems to have known Hebrews by this title (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.3–4).
5. Also in manuscripts C, H, I, K, and P. In some manuscripts Hebrews also occurs between 2 Corinthians and Galatians. See Weiss, 117–18, esp. nn. 13, 14.
6. 
46, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus come from the East; Claromontanus, from the West.
7. For a helpful survey of the interpretation of Hebrews up to 1750 see Koester, 19–40.
8. See “When Did the Pastor Write This Sermon?” pp. 34–41 below.
9. In Phil. 12:2 Polycarp calls Christ “the eternal high priest” (cf. Heb 6:20; 7:3). For Irenaeus and Gaius of Rome’s use of Hebrews see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.26.3; 6.20.3. For Tertullian see Pud. 20. Cf. S. J. Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” Faith & Mission 18/2 (2001): 58.
10. Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 58. See Hippolytus, Haer. 6.30.9.
11. In Pud. 20, Tertullian describes Barnabas as one who “learned his doctrine from apostles and taught with apostles” (Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 59). One does not hear of Barnabas’s authorship again until Jerome, Epist. 129, Vir. ill. 5.59, mentions him as a suggestion made by some. For older commentaries who support Barnabas’s authorship see Spicq, 1:199–200, n. 8.
12. David Alan Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” Faith & Mission 18/2 (2001): 19; Andrew T. Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 3.
13. Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 58.
14. As quoted in D. L. Allen, “The Authorship of Hebrews: The Lukan Proposal,” Faith & Mission 18/2 (2001): 27.
15. See Athanasius, Four Discourses against the Arians 1.4.12; 1.36; 2.48; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio in laudem Basilii 38.1; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 12.17; Heen and Krey, 232–34; O’Brien, 3; Johnson, 6.
16. De Trinitate 4.11. See Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 58.
17. See Augustine, Christian Instruction 2.8.12–13; Civ. 10.5; 16.22; Jerome, Vir. ill. 5; Epist. 53.8; 129.3, 7.
18. Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 19.
19. Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 59. In Vir. ill. 5.59, Jerome repeats the suggestion first made by Clement of Alexandria that Paul wrote Hebrews originally in Hebrew (Mitchell, 3). Aquinas also accepted Luke as the translator of an original Pauline Hebrew letter (Allen, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 28).
20. O’Brien, 6.
21. Pace Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 4; Rom 6:12–14 and Gal 4:12–20 afford no real parallel with the way this blending of exposition and exhortation forms the very body of Hebrews.
22. Pace Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 4, who cites Rom 5:12–21 as parallel to Hebrews.
23. On the difference between the terminology of Hebrews and Paul see Ellingworth, 7–12; Attridge, 2–3.
24. Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews (WUNT 12/235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), has claimed, on the basis of the letter ending and other similarities with the Pauline writings, that the late first-century author of Hebrews was presenting himself as Paul. However, the way in which the author refers to himself in 2:1–4 and his failure to claim or even allude to apostolic authority make Rothschild’s contention untenable. For further criticism see Douglas Moo, Review of Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews, BBR 20 (2010): 295–96.
25. Attridge, 2–3; Ellingworth, 7–12.
26. In order to mollify the many significant acknowledged differences between Paul and Hebrews, Black attempts to show similarities. Many of these similarities, however, are superficial or very general. There is, for instance, little commonality between “sword” as the word of God in Eph 6:17 and its use in Heb 4:12–13. In the former it is part of the armor that the believer should put on and use. In the latter it refers to God’s probing the depths of the human psyche (pace Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 7). Nor is there much significance in the fact that both Paul and Hebrews use alpha-privative words and genitive absolutes (pace Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 4–16).
27. Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 20, cf. 18, translates the substantive participle ὁ γράψας not as “who wrote” but as “who wrote down.”
28. Pace Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews?” 20, the use of γράφω for Paul’s secretary Tertius in Rom 16:22 proves nothing except that this word could be used for a penman as well as for an author. In this regard it has the same range of meaning as the English word “write.” It is important also to note that Origen’s statement is found in Eusebius, who often prefers a compound form of γράφω when referring to a penman (see Mitchell, 2–4, for examples).
29. As Kistemaker (“The Authorship of Hebrews,” 61) has observed, Paul often breaks off in the middle of a sentence or follows a diversion. The pastor, however, has composed Hebrews so that “[e]very sentence … is complete and contributes to the flow of his argument.”
30. For a different attempt to revive Pauline authorship see E. Linnemann, “A Call for a Retrial in the Case of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Faith & Mission 19/2 (2002): 19–59.
31. Clement uses the Aaronic priesthood as a model for a Christian priestly hierarchy (see 1 Clem. 40:5; cf. Ellingworth, 13).
32. Allen, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 29, says there are fifty-three words uniquely common to Hebrews and Luke. However, this fifty-three contains four proper names, whereas proper names have been excluded from the fifty-six words uniquely common to Hebrews and Paul.
33. In both Acts 5:31 and Heb 2:10 ἀρχηγός (“Pioneer”) is also connected with σωτηρία (“salvation”).
34. George H. Guthrie, “The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews,” Faith & Mission 18/2 (2001): 50.
35. Guthrie, “The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews,” 43–44.
36. Guthrie, “The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews,” 50–52.
37. None have argued more vigorously for Apollos on the basis of Hebrews relationship to Philo than Spicq, 1:209–19. This introduction will argue below that Hebrews does not share the neo-Platonic worldview of Philo. Nor does Hebrews practice the allegorical exegesis so characteristic of Philo’s work.
38. Ellingworth, 21; Hagner, 23; and Pfitzner, 26.
39. F. W. Howard, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” Int 5 (1951): 80–91.
40. Francesco Lo Bue, “The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 75 (1956): 52–57.
41. T. W. Manson, “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 32 (1949–50): 1–17.
42. Guthrie, “The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews,” 44, lists Lenski, Lane, Ellingworth, Hagner, Pfitzner, and himself in support of a Roman destination.
43. L. D. Hurst, “Apollos, Hebrews, and Corinth: Bishop Montefiore’s Theory Examined,” SJT 38 (1985): 505–13.
44. Attridge, 4, objects that there may have been others like Apollos in the first-century church. More telling is the query raised by Bruce, 12: Would the church at Alexandria have forgotten that the Alexandrian Apollos was the author?
45. On the oral nature of Hebrews see David Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 212–14. See also Steve Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives,” TynBul 45 (1994): 248–50.
46. See O’Brien, 21; Johnson, 10.
47. C. Clifton Black II, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills,” HTR 81 (1988): 5, cites Aristotle, Rhet. 1.2.1358b; Cicero, Inv. 2.3.12–13; 2.51.155–58, 176; 2.58.176–77; and Quintilian, Inst. 3.4.12–16; 3.7.1–28; 3.8.1–6; 3.9.1.
48. Thompson, 6; Johnson, 8.
49. Thompson, 6.
50. Thompson, 6.
51. Hermut Löhr, “Reflections of Rhetorical Terminology in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 199–210, argues that the terms κεφάλιον (“main point,” 8:1), ἀναγκαῖον (“necessary,” 8:3); πρέπειν (“to be appropriate,” 2:10; 7:26), ἀδύνατον (“impossible,” 6:4; 10:4; 11:6), and λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως (“word of exhortation,” 13:22), suggest that the author was influenced by the type of logical argument characteristic of ancient rhetoric.
52. On the types of rhetoric see Aristotle, Rhet. 2.3.2–9; Quintilian, Inst. 3.4.1–16.
53. Attridge, 14; Harold W. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 (1990): 214; Pfitzner, 8, 21–22; Pamela Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context (SBLDS 156; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 11–12, and others identify Hebrews as “epideictic” rhetoric; Barnabas Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” NTS 35 (1989): 383; K. Nissilä, Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine exegetische Untersuchung (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 33; Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino, 1979), 74–78, 143–47, 230–44; and esp. Walter G. Übelacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell: Untersuchungen zu Exordium, Narratio und Postscriptum (Hebr 1–2 und 13, 22–25) (Coniectanea Neotestamentica or Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 21; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1989), 214–29, are among those who consider Hebrews “deliberative” rhetoric. Johnson, 13, describes Hebrews as “deliberative rhetoric with epideictic features.”
54. Although Attridge calls Hebrews “epideictic,” he affirms the parenetic purpose of the whole (Attridge, “Paraenesis,” 223).
55. Koester, 52–54. Cf. Lane, 1:lxxxix; deSilva, 46; Johnson, 13; and George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (repr.; Leiden: Brill, 1994; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 32–33. See Thompson’s succinct statement: “Thus one can conclude that Hebrews has elements of both deliberative and epideictic rhetoric, for it contains both praise for the work of Christ and a call for action by the reader” (Thompson, 12).
56. Hartwig Thyen, Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, n.s. 47; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), 10–23, 43–50, 62–72. Thyen bases his study on Philo’s commentary on Genesis, 1 Clement, and 4 Maccabees; Stephen’s speech in Acts 7; Barnabas, Hermas, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Hebrews. Thyen refers to Hebrews’ use of first and second person pronouns, to the way it introduces OT quotations with words that denote “saying,” and to other rhetorical features. Joseph A. Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews,” NovT 11 (1969): 261–69, summarizes Thyen. See also Franz Joseph Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung: Zur theologische Grundfrage des Hebräerbriefes (Münich: Zink, 1955), esp. 207, and the earlier interpreters he cites who spoke of Hebrews as a sermon. Gabriella 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 (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Boston: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 107–27, identifies Hebrews as a synagogue homily for Tisha be-Av according to the Palestinian Triennial Cycle. See also Gabriella Gelardini, “Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht”: Der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomilie zu Tischa be-Av (Biblical Interpretation Series 83; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007). Her proposal is interesting, but the evidence she cites from the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishnah is late (Mitchell, 16).
57. Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77 (1984): 277–99, finds this threefold pattern in a variety of sources: 1 Clement (283–85); the speeches in Acts (286–88); 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 (288); various Pauline passages (288–899); 1 and 2 Peter (289–91); Ignatius; and Barnabas (291–92). He also references Jewish sources such as Susanna, the Epistle of Jeremiah, and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (293–96). Wills’s case is somewhat weakened by his own acknowledgment that this “form” appears to be flexible (Wills, “The Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism,” 279).
58. Wills, “The Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism,” 277–99.
59. Black II, “Rhetorical Form,” 1–18.
60. Black II, “Rhetorical Form,” 7–11. See Black’s summary on 15–16.
61. Black II, “Rhetorical Form,” 5; Attridge, “Paraenesis,” 217. Cf. Guthrie, Structure, 32–33.
62. For instance, Gordon, 22, acknowledges that Hebrews contains “homiletic features,” but thinks that calling Hebrews a “homily” is an overstatement. Bénétreau, 1:26, still prefers the term “letter.”
63. The discussion below, entitled “The Sermon’s Rhetorically Effective Structure,” will confirm this fact.
64. Note the statement by Ronald E. Clements, “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28 (1985): 37: “The whole theme and character of these quotations is designed to show how richly valuable the Old Testament remains for the Christian in order that the whole fullness of God’s revelation may be known.” Cf. G. B. Caird, “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959): 45. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation (SNTSMS 36; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 108, argues that the pastor had probably developed his understanding of how Christ fulfilled the OT before composing this sermon. In the sermon, however, he uses what he has already developed as motivation for appropriate action.
65. The differences we have suggested between Hebrews as a “Christian homily,” the “synagogue homily,” and Hellenistic rhetoric are reminiscent of the differences Eisenbaum has found between the example list in Hebrews 11:1–38, Jewish example lists, and the use of example lists in the Greco-Roman world (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, passim, with her conclusions are on 225–27). Greco-Roman lists usually draw assorted examples from the recent past without regard for continuity between them. Since the Jewish works, like Ben Sirach 44–50, draw their examples from Scripture, those examples come from the ancient past and depict the historical continuity of Israel. In light of the fulfillment brought by Christ, however, the examples in Heb 11:1–38 depict the history not of ethnic “Israel” but of the people of God who have always anticipated his coming. See the comments on 11:1–40. In short, the Jewish lists differ from the Greco-Roman because they are interpreting Scripture; Heb 11:1–38 differs because it is interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture’s fulfillment in Christ.
66. Koester, 81, lists Attridge, Grässer, Hagner, Lane, Long, Pfitzner, Übelacker, Backhaus, Cody, Vanhoye, and Wray in support of this position. See also Weiss, 40–41.
67. See Weiss, 75.
68. Ellingworth, 78–79, categorizes the dangers facing the addressees as passive (lassitude, neglect, immaturity), active (apostasy), and external (the pressure of ostracism and persecution). The present exposition assumes that these were not separate but related problems.
69. R. W. Johnson, Going outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews (JSNTSup 209; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), has attempted to determine the situation and purpose of Hebrews by using Mary Douglas’s group/gird analysis of societies. He concludes that the ideal society envisioned by Hebrews is one that would be willing to incorporate new people into their fellowship. As Lincoln, A Guide, 53, says, this proposal runs counter to the obvious concern of the author to promote perseverance in the face of opposition. Furthermore, the very evidence Johnson provides shows that Hebrews is “strong group”/“weak grid,” not “weak group”/“weak grid” as he proposes. An analysis of “strong group”/“weak grid” fits well with Hebrews’ concern for perseverance.
70. See the fine discussion of the recipients’ situation in Lincoln, A Guide, 52–68.
71. See the monograph by David A. deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), and his commentary in which he expounds Hebrews in terms of honor/shame and the patron/client relationship. See also the summary in Lincoln, A Guide, 48–51.
72. The recent popular commentary by Fudge demonstrates the fallacy of attempting to avoid this question. His refusal to address this issue becomes a de facto decision to interpret Hebrews as if it were not written to Jewish believers.
73. Bruce, 382; Ellingworth, 78–80; Bénétreau, 1:28–29; W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 53; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 258. Koester, 71, however, thinks that identification with the synagogue may not have provided much protection.
74. Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, ed. J. D. G. Dunn (New Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 4–15; cf. Bruce, 382; Ellingworth, 78–80; Donald G. Guthrie, 31–38.
75. M. Goulder, “Hebrews and the Ebionites,” NTS 49 (2003): 393–406.
76. Cf. Mitchell, 9, 11.
77. Gordon, 15.
78. Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Int 57 (2003): 276, anachronistically introduces ethnic distinctions foreign to Hebrews when he says, “Hebrews gives no indication that the renewed people of God is anyone other than Israelites.” There is nothing in Hebrews that either overtly or implicitly defines the people of God in terms of ethnicity. Furthermore, Williamson’s further affirmation that “the sacrificial system” was “the only issue of the old covenant that was superseded” is misleading. This assertion appears to be based on a faulty interpretation of Heb 7:11–14. Moreover, it minimizes the difference that this change entails. The reality of cleansing from sin and access to God anticipated by the Old Covenant has now come to fruition in Christ.
79. See Goulder, “Ebionites,” 395, n. 6. Cf. Koester, 48, who emphasizes that the hearers’ relationship to Greco-Roman culture, to the Jewish subculture, and to the Christian community is more important than ethnicity.
80. Some argue that the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity had not yet occurred when Hebrews was written. See Susan E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (WUNT 2/260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 1, and the sources cited in her note 1. Thus, according to this view, it is anachronistic to speak as if Christianity and Judaism were understood as separate religions at that time. Assuming, for the moment, that the recipients of Hebrews were “Jewish Christians” as defined above, they may not have thought of themselves as “Christians” of Jewish background but simply as followers of the Jewish religion who acknowledged Christ. In the final analysis, however, this distinction is not as significant for the interpretation of Hebrews as some would claim. The whole burden of Hebrews is that fulfillment in Christ reveals the true purpose of the Old Covenant—a purpose very different from that embraced by practicing Jews who did not believe in Christ. Thus, even if the recipients thought of themselves as adherents of the Jewish religion who followed Christ, they would still be sharply distinguished from other Jews in both belief and practice. This situation might lead to ostracism and persecution or to felt need and nostalgia for former practices just as much as if the recipients thought of themselves as “Christians” who had formerly practiced Judaism.
81. Weiss, 56–57. Pace Goulder, “Ebionites,” 393–406.
82. Pace Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe (JSNTSup 219; New York and London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), who often argues as if the pastor’s interaction with the OT was direct interaction with contemporary Judaism.
83. See pp. 43–45, “Fundamental Assumptions,” under “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” below.
84. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 3, 142, passim, contends that the pastor has “denationalized” OT history so that it no longer refers to Israel but to the people of God in general who find fulfillment in Christ. Her position assumes that the pastor began with something like the nationalistic hero list of Sirach 45–50. If so, this supposed process of “de-nationalization” occurs completely outside the text of Hebrews.
85. Pace Salevao, Legitimation, 404.
86. Bruce, 6–7; O’Brien, 11. One might think or modern converts from animism or other religions in various parts of the world who keep a charm or talisman hidden away “just in case.”
87. Bruce, 6.
88. Pace Weiss, 71. See Ellingworth, 24.
89. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), a book of essays delivered at the 2006 St Andrews Conference on Hebrews and Theology, contains five essays and seventy-five pages on this subject: Richard B. Hays, “‘Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews,” 151–73; Oskar Skarsaune, “Does the Letter to the Hebrews Articulate a Supersessionist Theology? A Response to Richard Hays,” 174–82; Mark D. Nanos, “New or Renewed Covenantalism? A Response to Richard Hays,” 183–88; Morna D. Hooker, “Christ, the ‘End’ of the Cult,” 189–212; Nehemia Polen, “Leviticus and Hebrews … and Leviticus,” 213–25. For a helpful discussion see also Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” 268–69, and esp. Gordon, 24–29, 36–53.
90. Pace J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 180–84, cited by Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” 268–69, there is no hint of a Marcionite rejection of the OT in Hebrews.
91. In this sermon the pastor is not concerned with those who have never heard of Christ. He is quite clear, however, that there is no salvation for those who are clearly confronted with but reject Christ (6:4–10).
92. Thus Gordon, 53, is correct when he writes, “The implication [of Heb 6:6 and 10:29] is that it is the recognition or rejection of Christ that determines whether one stands within the biblical faith continuum and that, from a Christian point of view, becomes constitutive of the breach between nascent Christianity and Judaism.”
93. This is apparently what Hays, “New Covenantalism,” 167, attempts to do when he says, “Would not the logic of Hebrews’ own symbolic world allow us to propose that [Jews who do not recognize Jesus as Mediator of the New Covenant], too, insofar as they continue to trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, greet the promises from afar?” The weakness of this assertion is attested by the last five words, “greet the promises from afar.” Those described in Heb 11:13 by this phrase could not enter into those promises apart from “us” and the work of Christ that “we” enjoy (see the commentary below on 11:39–40). See the critique of Hays in Skarsaune, “Supersessionist Theology,” 174–82.
94. For an extensive list of points of contact between Hebrews and Paul see L. D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought (SNTSMS 65; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 108. For a briefer summary see Lincoln, A Guide, 41.
95. William Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951).
96. See the evaluation of Manson in Hurst, Background, 89–106. Lincoln, A Guide, 42, notes that while Stephen rejects the Temple, which Hebrews does not mention, he seems to approve of the wilderness Tent, which Hebrews considers provisional.
97. On Hebrews and the Johannine literature see Spicq, 1:109–38.
98. On the similarity with 1 Peter see Attridge, 30–31, and Ellingworth, 15–17.
99. Bruce, 29, n. 125.
100. On Rom 3:25 as a reference to the Day of Atonement see Hooker, “‘End’ of the Cult,” 205.
101. For example, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. Note the following widely accepted definition of an apocalypse: “An apocalypse is defined as a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world” (John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 4–5; cited by Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 31). Such writings were distinctive in the vividness with which they described the heavenly world, populating it with angels and other beings around the throne of God.
102. Lincoln, A Guide, 43. The following phrases are typical of such thinking: “the world to come” (τὴν οἰκουμένην μέλλουσαν, 2:5), “but now once for all at the consummation of the ages” (νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, 9:26), and esp. “the powers of the age to come” (δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, 6:5). See Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 35–36.
103. See 1 En. 17:15; 4 Ezra 7:50, 112–13, 119; 2 Bar. 44:8–15; 83:4–9; T. Levi 10:2; and the discussion in Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 30.
104. Lincoln, A Guide, 43, argues that Hebrews makes use of this two-age paradigm. See also Michel, 58; Koester, 100–104; deSilva, 27–32; Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefes (WUNT 41; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987), 125–30; 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), 363–93; and James C. Miller, “Paul and Hebrews: A Comparison of Narrative Worlds,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 250.
105. deSilva, 27–32; Hurst, Background, 38–42; Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 45; Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 63; Barrett, “Eschatology,” 393. Lincoln, A Guide, 42.
106. The earliest apocalyptic texts, such as 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–82, emphasize the spatial distinction between heaven and earth; later apocalyptic writings such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch give more weight to temporal eschatology (Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 31–32). On the shaking of the universe at the Judgment compare 4 Ezra 10:25, 28; 2 Bar. 32:1–4; and Sib. Or. 3:675–80 with Heb 12:25–29 (Koester, 103). “What is significant for the interpretation of Hebrews is that in this literature vertical and horizontal dimensions are found side by side, so that a restored Jerusalem and its Temple can be depicted both as the heavenly Jerusalem and Temple and as the Jerusalem and Temple which are to come to earth at the end” (Lincoln, A Guide, 43).
107. Note the heavenly world in 1QS 11:8 and the establishing of God’s reign on earth through the overthrow of this present evil world in 1QM 11:5–10. There are a number of other parallels between Hebrews and the scrolls: The writers of the scrolls understood themselves as a “New Covenant” community (1QS 1:16–18). Their separation from the Jerusalem Temple (1QHab 8:9; 9:9) parallels Hebrews’ rejection of the OT sacrificial system. They, too, conceived of prayer as a “spiritual sacrifice” (4QFlor 1:6; 1QS 8:6–8; 9:3–11). Their expectation of a priestly as well as a royal messiah (1QSa 2:1–21) is reminiscent of Hebrews’ emphasis on Christ’s high priesthood. Yet they were obsessed with laws of purity that Hebrews rejects (1QS 1:11–12; 6:17–22) and anticipated the re-establishment of a purified Temple sacrificial system. See Hurst, Background, 43–66, and the literature he cites. See also the commentaries by Bruce, Hughes, and Buchanan. There have been many studies that compare various passages in or aspects of Hebrews with the scrolls. See, for instance, the references given in the commentary below on Heb 7:1–10.
108. Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1970), 60–63.
109. See the comments on 8:1–2 and 9:23–24 below.
110. Thus one must be wary of reading everything the pastor says from the perspective of apocalyptic without contextual warrant. Michel, 204–5, for instance, argues that “passed through the heavens” in Heb 4:14 is a description of the multiple heavens (usually three or seven) characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic. As already noted above, Hebrews refrains from such speculations. See also Edward Adams, “The Cosmology of Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 132.
111. In this commentator’s judgment, however, he does believe that the “spirits of the” departed “righteous” are with God in heaven. See the comments on 12:23.
112. See pp. 41–59, “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament.”
113. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 31–50.
114. Hurst, Background, 7, nn. 1–2, lists Grotius in 1646 as the first to suggest similarity between these two writers and E. Ménégoz, Le théologie de l’épître aux Hébreux (Paris, 1894) as the first to fully develop this comparison.
115. In the quotation from Gen 2:2, “And God rested on the seventh day” (καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ), only Philo (Posterity 64) and Hebrews (4:4) attest the underlined words. Only in Philo, Confusion 166, and Heb 13:5 does one find the following quotation conflated from Josh 1:5 and Deut 31:8: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὔδʼ οὐ μὴ σε ἐγκαταλίπω). The other commonalities suggested by K. L. Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study after Thirty Years,” SPhilo 14 (2002): 128, are less significant.
116. For instance, both use athletic and pedagogical language for moral development. Compare Heb 5:11–14; 12:1–3, 12–13 with Agriculture 9.160. See Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 127. Cf. R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 296.
117. Spicq, 1:39–166.
118. Thompson, 21–26. Cf. Johnson, 15–21.
119. For the most extensive collection of these sources with translation into German see Wilfried Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebräerbrief (BZNW 116; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 135–368. There are, of course, significant differences between Philo and the speculations on “rest” found in the Gnostic literature of the second to fourth centuries. See Jon Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 98; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1997), 154–58. Hofius and Laansma have exposed the weakness of Käsemann’s derivation of the supposed “wandering-people-of-God” motif (Heb 3:1–4:13) from Gnosticism. See E. Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. R. A. Harrisville and I. L. Sundberg (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), esp. 17–96; Hofius, Katapausis, passim; and Laansma, Rest Motif, passim. Yet Grässer, 1:209–11, 218–20; and Braun, 90–93, who retain sympathy for Käsemann’s proposal, often loosely associate Philo, Joseph and Aseneth, and Gnostic sources. See also Gerd Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (Studien zum Neuen Testament 2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969), 124–26. There may be some justification for this association if all are taken simply as witness to the metaphysical dualism in question. In speaking thus, however, one must be wary of anachronism and of overgeneralization. Hebrews lacks many features characteristic of Gnostic literature such as the creation of the world by a demiurge, human beings’ possessing a spark of the divine, and salvation by knowledge (Lincoln, A Guide, 47).
120. Barrett, “Eschatology,” 363–93. Cf. Koester, 283; Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 114, 119; and Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 6.
121. Moffatt, liv, xxxiv; Scott, 102, 109–12, 120.
122. Weiss, 96–114, distinguishes between what he calls “(Jewish) apocalyptic eschatology” and “(Jewish) Hellenistic eschatology.” The first is linear in that the future age of salvation follows the present evil age. The second is a Hellenistic Jewish modification of the first in which the contrast between a heavenly and an earthly world is combined with the contrast between the ages. Hebrews, then, uses various currents from this “Hellenistic eschatology” to demonstrate the present effectiveness of Christ.
123. See George W. MacRae, “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978): 179–99; G. W. MacRae, “‘A Kingdom That Cannot Be Shaken’: The Heavenly Jerusalem in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Tantur Yearbook (1979–80): 27–40; and G. E. Sterling, “Ontology versus Eschatology: Tensions between Author and Community in Hebrews,” SPhilo 13 (2001): 190–211.
124. See, for instance, James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy (CBQMS 13; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), 41–52. Cf. Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews (SBLDS 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 123.
125. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 64–133.
126. Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 64–133.
127. Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 129.
128. See the concise summary of Philo’s worldview in Montefiore, 6–7.
129. For his exegesis of the relevant passages see Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 64–133. He admits the tenuousness of his own argument when he says, in regard to 9:27–28; 10:25, 36–39, that he had to establish his position from “sparse evidence and from cross references within the context” (Eisele, Ein unerschütterliches Reich, 124). Eisele follows the lead of Grässer, 2:88, 206–7.
130. Williamson, Philo and Hebrews, passim. Even Mackie, who would leave room for neo-Platonic influence, speaks of the author operating “loosely” within “Middle Platonic cosmology.” Mackie (quoting Barrett, Eschatology, 309) goes so far as to say that the author “redefines the structure and the very nature of the cosmos with his proclamation ‘that what lies between heaven and earth, God and man, is not the difference between the phenomena of sense-perception and pure being, but the difference between holiness and sin’” (Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 119–20). Finally, “the author’s use of terms and concepts common to Middle Platonic cosmology is extremely limited” (Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 120).
131. Hurst, Background, 7–42. Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 112–35, presents no evidence that detracts from Williamson’s main thesis.
132. The pastor does not even describe this “rest” as heavenly lest he divert his hearers’ attention from the fact that it is future and from the resultant need for perseverance (Laansma, Rest Motif, 282–83). This is no cessation of activity but a joyous future “Sabbath celebration” (4:9) anticipated by the picture of such a celebration in 12:22–24 (Laansma, Rest Motif, 273, 281–83). Furthermore, the pastor’s belief in the resurrection of the dead preempts entrance into final blessedness at death. See the comments below on 11:17–19, 35 and the more extended argument in Gareth L. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35): A Key to the Structure and Rhetorical Purpose of Hebrews 11,” TynBul 51 (2000): 215–34.
133. Adams, “Cosmology,” 122–39. There can be no question, in Adams’s view, of 12:25–29 describing the created world as a changeable and ever-changing copy of an unchangeable heavenly world. Indeed, he believes that Hebrews anticipates the recreation of the material world (Adams, “Cosmology,” 136–38). Whether or not this is true, one can say that the “inhabited world” to come (2:5) promised as an inheritance to the faithful, the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22), is just as “concrete” as the Jerusalem that comes down from heaven in Rev 21:9–27.
134. These differences are well illustrated by the way both authors handle Melchizedek. See the exposition of 7:1–25 below and Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Melchizedek without Speculation: Hebrews 7:1–25 and Genesis 14:14–24,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Context, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (LNTS 387; T&T Clark, 2008), 128–44, esp. 134–36. Schenck’s attempt to find traces of Philonic allegory in Heb 7:1–3 and 9:5 is unfounded (Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 125). Furthermore, pace Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” 124, the fact that Philo occasionally practices literal interpretation is without significance for his relationship to Hebrews. It was normal for many interpreters to practice such interpretation when it suited their purpose.
135. Note Thompson’s statement: “The author not only contrasts the old with the new; he claims that the new is ontologically superior to the old because it belongs to the transcendent world” (23).
136. There is no support for Johnson’s statement, 20, that “Jesus’ priestly act is one that is ‘once for all’ because it takes place in the realm of ‘true being,’ namely heaven (9:26).” This assertion brings neo-Platonic assumptions to the text.
137. See the commentary below on 8:1–5.
138. The fact that heaven is superior because it is God’s dwelling place has deep OT roots that are maintained in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and is thus no sign of neo-Platonism (pace Johnson, 19).
139. Pace Käsemann, Wandering, 58–60. Hebrews says that the Old Covenant and Tent could not provide access into the place of God’s presence (9:1–10). It attributes the impotence of the Mosaic Tent to the fact that it was earthly and dependent on mortal humanity (7:11–19; 9:1–10). However, it never presents that Tent as representative of the earthly.
140. See the commentary on 13:13.
141. Laansma, Rest Motif, 356.
142. 1 Clement, it should be noted, can no longer be dated with certainty to A.D. 96; it may have been written as early as the 70’s or 80’s (Andrew Gregory, “I Clement: An Introduction,” ExpTim 117 [2006]: 227–28). It was known and still read in Corinth as a letter sent to that church from the church at Rome in the middle of the second century (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.16; 4.22–23). See L. L. Welborn, “On the Date of First Clement,” BR 29 (1984): 35–54 [repr. in Encounters with Hellenism: Studies in the First Letter of Clement, ed. C. Breytenbach and L. L. Welborn [Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums; Leiden: Brill, 2004], 197–216); T. J. Herron, “The Most Probable Date of the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” Studia patristica 21 (1989): 106–21; and Andrew Gregory, “Disturbing Trajectories: I Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Development of Early Roman Christianity,” in Rome, the Bible, and the Early Church, ed. P. Oakes (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 142–66.
143. Compare 1 Clem. 9:3 with Heb 11:5; 1 Clem. 10:7 with Heb 11:17; 1 Clem. 17:1 with Heb 11:37; 1 Clem. 21:1 with Heb 12:1; and 1 Clem. 27:2 with Heb 6:18. For a thorough discussion of 1 Clement’s use of Hebrews see Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 34; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 179–95.
144. For more detailed argumentation see Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Heb 1:1–14, 1 Clem. 36:1–6, and the High Priest Title,” JBL 97 (1978): 437–40. See also P. Ellingworth, “Hebrews and 1 Clement: Literary Dependence or Common Tradition?” BZ 23 (1979): 262–69.
145. For the account of Paul selecting Timothy as his assistant see Acts 16:1–3 (ca. A.D. 49).
146. Käsemann, Wandering, 24–25; Moffatt, xxiv, xxvi; Braun, 2; and Weiss, 72–73, are representative statements of this position.
147. See Grässer, 3:30, 57–59. Pamela M. Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 229–32. This approach minimizes the personal references in Hebrews and casts doubt on the integrity of 13:22–25. For refutation see Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 9–11; Weiss, 72–74; and the comments on 13:22–25 below.
148. For the latter see Windisch, 131–33, passim; Braun, 1, passim.
149. Moffatt, xxxi–xxxiv. Cf. Käsemann, Wandering, 59, who claims that the Jewish cult is “a specific representation of what is earthly.”
150. Weiss, 58–60.
151. Thompson, 36, 41; cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.39.
152. Kistemaker, 15–16, however, belongs with group three in his belief that the recipients were attracted to Judaism.
153. Mitchell, 26–27, appears to fear admission of a predestruction date lest he be forced to concede an “anti-Jewish” element within Hebrews’ argument.
154. Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Stanley E. Porter (JSNTSup 73; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 223; Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 131–48; and Gelardini, “Tisha be-Av,” 107–27. It is doubtful whether Hebrews was written to address the shock of the Temple’s fall felt by a Gentile house church in Rome (pace Mitchell, 26–27; cf. Koester, 53).
155. Thus deSilva, 1–32, argues for a mixed Jewish-Gentile house church in Rome shortly after Jerusalem’s fall. Like those who locate Hebrews later in the first century, he thinks the problem faced by the recipients is societal pressure and fatigue rather than attraction to Judaism. Yet he would not affirm the dominance of neo-Platonic dualism as many of them do.
156. Bruce 3–21; Ellingworth 21–33; Hagner, 1–8; Hughes, 10–32; Bénétreau, 1:21–23; Lane, 1:li–lxvi; George H. Guthrie, 19–23; O’Brien, 9–20; and many others.
157. Spicq’s magisterial commentary, on the other hand, was the premier defense of Hebrews’ close relationship to Philo. Yet he advocated a predestruction date and located Hebrews’ recipients in Jerusalem. While not denying the influence of neo-Platonism, he saw Hebrews’ association with Philo as evidence that it was directed to Jewish Hellenists like those associated with Stephen (Acts 6–7). See Spicq, 1:4–6, 221–31, 243–44, 254–57. He thought these Jewish Hellenists had been priests and were longing to return to their former role. Later he altered his position, affirming that they were of Essene background (Ceslas Spicq, “L’Épître aux Hébreux: Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran,” RevQ 1 [1958–59]: 365–90). Johnson, 17–21, 41, also argues for an early date (A.D. 45–70), but for the influence of Philo.
158. Bruce, xxiii–xxxv, 14, 267–69; Lane, 1:liii–lx; Ellingworth, 23–33; Koester, 49–50; O’Brien, 14–15; George Guthrie, 9–23; and Pfitzner, 31–32. Some who affirm a postdestruction date and a mixed or Gentile audience also favor a house church at Rome (deSilva, 2; Weiss, 76; cf. Attridge, 11). In addition, several listed above in favor of a date soon after Jerusalem’s destruction favor this position (Aitken, “Portraying the Temple”; Mitchell; Kistemaker).
159. Delitzsch, 1:4, 20–21; 2:46, 140, 332, 414; Westcott, lxii–lxxix; Hughes, 19; Buchanan, 255–56; Spicq, 1:220–52. For a list of earlier interpreters who held this position see Spicq, 1:234, n. 4. See also the various articles by Randall C. Gleason (“The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8,” BSac 155 [1998]: 2–91; “The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7–4:11,” BSac 157 [2000]: 281–303; and “The Eschatology of the Warning in Hebrews 10:26–31,” TynBul 53 [2002]: 97–120]. Carl Mosser, “Rahab outside the Camp,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 383–404; and Peter Walker, “Jerusalem in Hebrews 13:9–14 and the Dating of the Epistle,” TynBul 45 (1994): 39–71, argue that the call to go “outside the camp” in Heb 13:13 was a call to leave Jerusalem. See the commentary on that verse.
160. These subscriptions read, “to the Hebrews” (א, C, I, Ψ 33); “to the Hebrews written from Rome (Italy)” (A, P); “to the Hebrews written from Italy through Timothy” (1739, 1881, many others); “to the Hebrews written from Rome by Paul to those in Jerusalem” (81); “to the Hebrews written in Hebrew from Italy anonymously through Timothy” (104); “an epistle of Paul to the Hebrews written from Italy through Timothy” (0285). Jerome, Vir. ill. 5, and Chrysostom, Hom. Heb. 2, argued for a Jerusalem destination due to Hebrews’ interest in the Jewish sacrificial system.
161. ἡγούμενοι (“leaders”) in Heb 13:7, 17, 24. Cf. 1 Clem. 21:6; Hermas, Vis. 2.2.6; 3.9.7.
162. Lane, 1:lix–lx; O’Brien, 15. Rom 16:2–5, 14, and 15 suggest the existence of house churches at Rome by A.D. 60.
163. For the expulsion of the Jews in A.D. 49 see Suetonius, Claud. 25.4.
164. Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews,” 232–37, argues that, like 2 Peter and 1 Clement. Hebrews lacks the seeming anti-Jewish polemic characteristic of both the earlier NT books and works from the mid-second century such as Barnabas and the writings of Justin and Tertullian. She suggests that this indicates a late first- or early second-century time when there was a strong sense of commonality between Jews and Christians in face of the common enemy, Rome.
165. It is significant that Weiss, 57, 95, admits this fact since he persists in dating Hebrews late.
166. Pace Eisenbaum, “Locating Hebrews,” 228–29, there is no reason to suppose dependence on the synoptic tradition of the torn curtain (Mark 15:38; Matt 27:51; Luke 23:44). Mitchell’s suggestion that Hebrews develops theological motifs from Mark is interesting but tenuous (Mitchell, 10–11).
167. O’Brien, 19, for instance, compares Hebrews’ Christology with the Christology of Paul in 1 Cor 8:6 and with the pre-Pauline tradition evident from Phil 2:6–11 and Col 1:15–20.
168. Note the use of the present tense in 7:28; 8:3; 9:7; 9:25; 13:11.
169. Gordon, 32–33; Bruce, 32; O’Brien, 19; Johnson, 39.
170. 1 Clem. 40–41; Josephus. Ant. 4.6.1–8 (102–50); 4:7.1–7 (51–87). Josephus uses the past tense in Ant. 4.9.1–7 (224–57). See Attridge, 8, n. 58; Kistemaker, “The Authorship of Hebrews,” 63, n. 27; and Koester, 53.
171. Montefiore, 3. Cf. Bénétreau, 1:21.
172. Moffatt, xxii, is typical of late-date advocates who explain this omission by arguing for the Gentile nature of the recipients and by distancing them both temporally and geographically from this event.
173. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 140–42, 170–75, passim.
174. See J. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 75; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 141–43, who argues that Hebrews pictures its recipients as parallel to Israel in Deuteronomy on the verge of crossing into Canaan.
175. Braun, 109; Ellingworth, 68–69; Hofius, Katapausis, 178, n. 337; Laansma, Rest Motif, 275. Since the pastor shows virtually no interest in the earthly Promised Land (Grässer, 1:209; Weiss, 281; Ellingworth, 235, 254; Hofius, Katapausis, 56), one can hardly say that he saw it as a “partial” but not the “true fulfillment” of the promise (pace Rissi, Theologie, 18; Westcott, 100; Bruce, 105, 109). At best one might say, on the basis of Heb 4:1–11, that he saw it as a “type” of that “true fulfillment.” See “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament,” pp. 41–59 below.
176. Thus pace Steve Motyer, “The Temple in Hebrews: Is It There?” in Heaven on Earth, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Simon Gathercole (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2004), 177–89, it is unlikely that references to the Mosaic Tent were intended as veiled references to the Temple.
177. See “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament,” pp. 41–59 below.
178. Cf. Koester, 50; Attridge, 6–8.
179. George H. Guthrie, “‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CurBS 1 (2003): 272.
180. R. T. France, “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” TynBul 47 (1996): 246.
181. The rhetorical style of Hebrews and the quality of the pastor’s Greek suggest that the recipients as well as the author were most at home in the Greek language. Thus it was only natural for the pastor to use the Greek text of the OT accepted by his hearers. See Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 275; R. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews (WUNT 2/160; Tübingen: Siebeck, 2003), 2. For a visual summary of the quotations, allusions, etc. in Hebrews, see the helpful chart in George H. Guthrie, “Old Testament in Hebrews,” in DLNTD (1997): 846–49. In this chart Guthrie omits the quotation of Ps 110:4 in Heb 7:17, but appears to rectify this oversight in George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 968.
182. Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 273.
183. The LXX differs from the Hebrew/English OT in the chapter-verse numbering attributed to many of the passages quoted by Hebrews: Ps 8:4–6 = 8:5–7(LXX); Ps 22:22 = 21:23(LXX); Ps 40:6–8 = 39:7–9 (LXX); Ps 45:6–7 = 44:6–7(LXX); Ps 95:7–11 = 94:7–11(LXX); Ps 97:7 = 96:7(LXX); Ps 102:25–27 = 101:26–28(LXX); Ps 104:4 = 103:4(LXX); Ps 110:1, 4 = 109:1, 4(LXX); Ps 118:6 = 117:6(LXX); and Jer 31:31–34 = 38:31–34(LXX).
184. This reckoning takes Isa 8:17 and 8:18 in Heb 2:13 as two different quotations. It does the same with Deut 32:35 and 36 in Heb 10:30. It also includes Hab 2:3–4 (Heb 10:37–38), although this quotation has no introductory formula because the pastor clearly implies that God is the speaker of these words. On the other hand, this list excludes Gen 14:17–20 (Heb 7:1–10); Ps 97:7 (Heb 1:6); and Isa 26:20–21 (Heb 10:37–38). The first of these has no introductory formula; the second is a quotation of Deut 32:43 rather than Ps 97:7; and the third is insufficiently clear. Guthrie’s chart, mentioned above, also lists five quotations from Ps 95:7–11 or some part thereof (Heb 3:7–11; 3:13, 3:15; 4:3–5; 4:7) and two from Ps 40:6–8 (Heb 10:5–7; 10:8–9). It is difficult to determine just how many times the pastor quotes from these two psalms because of the way he comments on them in midrashic fashion immediately after their initial quotation. Why, for instance, does Guthrie list Heb 4:3, 5 as one quotation from Ps 95:11 and not two? The same question could be asked about Ps 40:6–8 in Heb 10:8–9. One gets a truer picture by omitting the recitations from Pss 40:6–8 and 95:7–11 in the interpretations that follow the full quotation of each.
185. While all agree on the principal quotations used by Hebrews, it can be difficult to distinguish between quotations, allusions, and other references to the OT. Thus it is not surprising that various interpreters differ in their count. For instance, L. T. Johnson, “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” Int 57 (2003): 239, finds forty-one quotations; R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 164, thirty-eight; Spicq, 1:331, thirty-six; Michel, 151, thirty-two; Caird, “Exegetical Method,” forty-seven, and Westcott, 472, twenty-nine. The difficulty here is illustrated by Guthrie, who on one occasion lists thirty-six quotations, thirty-five allusions, eighteen instances where OT material is summarized, and fourteen where an OT name or topic is mentioned without specific OT context (Guthrie, “Old Testament in Hebrews,” 843); but on another occasion lists thirty-five, thirty-four, nineteen, and thirteen, respectively (Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 274); and on yet another occasion thirty-seven, forty, nineteen, and thirteen (Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old, 919).
186. See Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 44–51; Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 175–85; R. T. France, “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” TynBul 47 (1996): 245–76; J. R. Walters, “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” Asbury Theological Journal 51 (1996): 59–70; and the discussion of Hebrews’ structure below.
187. See on 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 45:6–7; 102:25–27; 104:4; 110:1 in Heb 1:5–14; Pss 8:4–6; 22:22; and Isa 8:17–18 in Heb 2:5–18; Ps 110:4 in Heb 7:1–28; Ps 40:6–8 in Heb 10:5–10; and Jer 31:31–34 in Heb 8:7–13; 10:15–18.
188. See Deut 32:35–36 in Heb 10:30; Ps 95:7–11 in 3:7–4:11; Prov 3:11–12 in Heb 12:4–11; Hab 2:3–4 in 10:36–38; Hag 2:6 in 12:25–29.
189. Pace Gelardini, “Tisha be-Av,” 117, use of the Greek Bible does not indicate acceptance of noncanonical books.
190. Stephen Motyer, “The Psalm Quotations of Hebrews 1: A Hermeneutic-Free Zone?” TynBul 50 (1999): 8. “The author reports the words of Scripture as the evidence supporting his contention that Christ is far greater than the angels. The style of the argument is not revelatory, but argumentative, appealing to evidence and reason” (Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 5, italics original).
191. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 5–31. This declaration distinguishes what God has spoken in his Son from his previous speaking. Therefore, pace Ellingworth, 41–42, 351; A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London, 1965); Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961), 210–13, and others (see Erich Grässer, “Der Hebräerbrief 1938–1963,” Theologische Rundschau, Neue Folge 30 [1964]: 207), the preexistence of the Son is not the key to the pastor’s use of the OT. The OT quotations that God addresses to the Son (e.g., Pss 2:7; 110:1, 4) or the Son to God (Pss 22:22; 40:6–8; Isa 8:17–18) pertain to the Son’s incarnation, suffering, and exaltation, not to the time of his preexistence. See Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 7–10 and Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 286. On the other hand, the fact that the Son becomes incarnate (2:5–18; 10:5–10) presupposes his preexistence.
192. “The community does not precede the divine speech.… God’s speech is that which calls and constitutes the community” (John Webster, “One Who Is Son: Theological Reflections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 77–78).
193. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 43, mentions all of these continuities save the last. The fact that all will attain the ultimate goal only through the Son (11:39–40) clenches the identity of those both before and after Christ as the one people of God. According to Heb 2:5–18, Christ assumed the humanity of God’s already existing people in order to bring them to this goal. See the commentary on 3:1–6 and 11:1–40. Cf. Webster, “One Who Is Son,” 76: “the relation of Israel and the church is not a matter of the history of religion but of the history of revelation.” Yet to speak of “Israel” and “the church” as separate is to go outside the pastor’s frame of reference.
194. “With God as the understood subject, Hebrews introduces citations with expressions such as ‘He said’ (1:5), ‘He says’ (1:6; 2:12; 8:8; 10:15), ‘by saying’ (3:15), ‘He has said’ (4:3), ‘the one who said’ (5:5), ‘He has promised’ (12:26), and ‘He swore by saying’ (6:13–14)” (Johnson, “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” 240). The Son answers God’s declarations to him by “saying” Ps 22:22; Isa 8:17–18; and Ps 40:6–8 (Heb 2:12–13; 10:5–7) (Harold W. Attridge, “God in Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 104–6). Hebrews introduces Ps 95:7–11 with “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). See the commentary on “the Holy Spirit testifies to us” in 10:15. The indefinite introduction of Ps 8:4–6 in Heb 2:5–10 (“one has testified, saying”) keeps the focus on God (Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 274–75). Cf. “it is testified concerning him” (7:17). Γέγραπται (“it has been written,” Heb 10:7) is part of the quotation.
195. Webster, “One Who Is Son,” 77, quotes Michel, 95, “His coming to earth and his exaltation, his word and his way are God’s speaking to us” (italics original).
196. This section has been divided according to the different parts of the OT canon for convenience. It is, however, the typical content of the various sections and the type of material they contain more than a rigid division of the canonical books. Thus Deut 32:43 and 2 Sam 7:14 come under this section though they are found in the Pentateuch and the historical books, respectively.
197. See Docherty, Old Testament, 197, passim.
198. In fact, since Deuteronomy is framed as direct address, it is not surprising that Hebrews contains as many quotes from Deuteronomy (9:19; 31:6–8; 32:35, 36, 43) as from all of the rest of the Pentateuch together (Gen 2:2; 21:12; 22:17; Exod 24:8; 25:40).
199. On the Messianic nature of Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 45:6–7; and Ps 110:1 see the commentary on 1:5–14 below. Ps 45:6–7 (Heb 1:8–9) addresses the King/Messiah as “God.” On this basis the pastor ascribes to the Son the praise offered God in Ps 102:25–27 (Heb 1:10–12).
200. God’s words to his Son are reinforced by the Scriptural injunction to and description of the angels in Deut 32:43 (Heb 1:6) and Ps 104:4 (Heb 1:7). These verses command the angels to worship the Son and affirm their created malleable, as opposed to his eternal, nature. The ambiguity as to whether God or his Son is the one speaking these words to the angels only heightens the difference between them and the Son.
201. Cf. Attridge, “God in Hebrews,” 104–6. On the pastor’s rationale for attributing these passages to the Son, see the relevant portions of the commentary below. The praise of the psalmist in Ps 8:4–6 (Heb 2:5–10) becomes the word of God which the pastor uses to explain how the Son obtained the exaltation affirmed in Ps 110:1 (Heb 1:13) through suffering and death.
202. Steve Stanley, “A New Covenant Hermeneutic: The Use of Scripture in Hebrews 8–10” (Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 1994), as summarized by Gheorghita, Septuagint, 18–19, calls the fulfillment of these passages in the high priesthood of Christ and the New Covenant “prophetic” fulfillment. Unfortunately, Stanley’s dissertation was unavailable to this commentator.
203. These appear to be the passages that Stanley, “A New Covenant Hermeneutic,” describes as having “universal” fulfillment (cited in Gheorghita, Septuagint, 18–19).
204. Harold Attridge, “The Psalms in Hebrews,” in The Psalms in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 210–12.
205. Dunnill, Covenant, 135, 141–43, misses the fine nuance of Hebrews when he suggests that the writer envisions his hearers “on the Edge of the Land.” The pastor does not want his hearers to suffer the fate of the wilderness generation who “rebelled” on the verge of entrance at what should have been the conclusion of their pilgrimage. Furthermore, the pastor would insist that the time for obedience is now. Yet it is more accurate to say that the recipients are, like the faithful of chapter 11, in need of endurance because they are on pilgrimage to their heavenly destiny. Allen has pointed out many helpful connections between Hebrews and Deuteronomy, yet his attempt to present Hebrews as a re-presentation of Deuteronomy also fails to take adequate account of Hebrews’ dominant concern for perseverance amid suffering. Furthermore, the faithful of Hebrews do join the people of old before Sinai. They stand before the fulfillment Sinai only typified. They do not stand on the verge of entering Canaan; they stand before the heavenly home which the faithful of old also anticipated. See David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation (WUNT 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
206. Dunnill’s suggestion that the hearers are “at the door of the Tent of Meeting” is also misleading (Dunnill, Covenant, 135, 146–48). Through Christ the faithful are able to enter.
207. Both from the fact that Christ has taken his seat at the right hand of God (1:3, 13) and from many indications within the OT itself the pastor is convinced that the reality typified by land/city/Most Holy Place is nothing less than the heavenly abode of God.
208. This appears to coincide with the “typological” fulfillment advocated by Stanley, “A New Covenant Hermeneutic,” according to Gheorghita, Septuagint, 18–19.
209. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 187–88, passim.
210. Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 45:6–7; and Ps 110:1 were probably applied to Jesus as David’s heir (see Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 13–17, and many commentaries). However, the fulfillment of these passages by the exalted eternal Son of God has become so axiomatic that mention of David would be both unnecessary and distracting.
211. The translation of πατρίδα in 11:14 as “homeland” may remind the English reader of the term “Promised Land.” The two expressions, however, have nothing in common. The first does not include the Greek word for “land” and can mean “home city” as well as “homeland.” See on 11:14 in the commentary below. The only time the pastor mentions the earthly Promised Land is when he says that Abraham lived “in the land of promise, as in a foreign land” (11:9). The commentary below suggests that this statement might be paraphrased, “the so-called land of promise.”
212. See the discussion on pp. 34–41 of the date when Hebrews was written.
213. Since Sinai and Zion are opposites, they do not represent the Old and New Covenants, as Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 44, and others contend. Hughes admits that the continuity between the two has been reduced to a bare minimum. In fact, it has been reduced to zero.
214. Thus we can agree with Lincoln, A Guide, 78, that the change in the law brought by Christ’s fulfillment is a change in the whole law—including the moral law. It does not, however, change all in the same way. Performance of the rituals is no longer necessary, the ethical demand is intensified.
215. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 68–71. The continued popularity of this continuity/discontinuity contrast is evidenced by the recent studies of Lincoln, A Guide, 79–81, and Hays, “New Covenantalism,” 155.
216. Hughes admits that the author shows no embarrassment at this supposed tension between continuity and discontinuity within his work. Stanley, “A New Covenant Hermeneutic,” as summarized in Gheorghita, Septuagint, 18–19, appears to have corrected this inappropriate contrast between continuity and discontinuity.
217. Thus Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 71, is mistaken when he distinguishes between the texts that continue to address the community and those no longer valid. The descriptions, for instance, of the Mosaic Tent and its ritual as summarized in 9:1–10 continue to be valid as the Word of God that affirms the typological nature of the old order.
218. Thus the objections of A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Sawing Off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously ad Hebraeos,” JTS 56 (2005): 393–414, are misdirected. The pastor does not destroy the basis for the superiority of the New Covenant by establishing the ineffectiveness of the Old. He does not simply abolish the Old or reject its categories. Rather, he argues that it was a God-intended type that would be fulfilled by and give meaning to the New Covenant.
219. “In the first place the author believed that the old covenant was a valid revelation of God. It had been superseded and fulfilled but not abrogated. It contained a genuine foreshadowing of the good things to come, not a Platonic illusion of ultimate reality” (Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 46). Long ago Westcott perceived the positive place that the OT occupies in Hebrews (Westcott, lviii, lxxxii–lxxxiii, 4, 480–86). See also Lane, 1:cxxx–cxxxv.
220. See Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 288–90, and Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 12–13. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 101–10; Salevao, Legitimation, 345–83, esp. 345–57; Susanne Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, ed. David Hill and David E. Orton (JSNTSup 44; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 13, 97–98, and others affirm a typology in Hebrews where there is correspondence, contrast, and superiority between a type and its fulfillment. Richard M. Davidson, “Typology in the Book of Hebrews,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Springfield, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 121–86, is helpful but fails to adequately distinguish the different ways in which OT figures, etc. prefigure Christ.
221. See the commentary, esp. on 2:5–18; 3:1–6; 3:7–4:11; and 11:1–40.
222. See the summaries in Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 279–83 and Docherty, Old Testament, 63–82. Bateman has compared Hebrews to the rabbinic rules of exegesis and to the catena at Qumran (Herbert W. Bateman IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13 [American University Studies, Series VII: Theology and Religion 193; New York: Peter Lang, 1997]; H. W. Bateman, “Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5–13 and 4QFlor 1:1–19,” JETS 38 [1995]: 11–27). Williamson’s massive study includes comparison of the use of Scripture in Philo and Hebrews (Williamson, Philo and Hebrews). F. Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), focuses on the particular methods used by Hebrews and contemporary sources. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, compares Heb 11:1–40 with contemporary hero lists such as that found in Sirach 45–50.
223. Docherty does not mention the argument from less to greater, probably because she focuses on the quotations in Hebrews chapters 1, 3, and 4 where it does not occur. Despite this lack, her selection of the quotations in these chapters as representative is not without justification (Docherty, Old Testament, 7–8, 143).
224. Hebrews 1:1–14, however, does more than string the text together. As the commentary below will demonstrate, the pastor skillfully joins these quotations in order to advance his argument. See Docherty, Old Testament, 152.
225. Docherty, Old Testament, 81–82, 119.
226. See Docherty, Old Testament, 89–90. Such lists were attributed to Hillel, Ishmael, and Eliezer ben Yose. For the list of Hillel’s rules see Bateman IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 9.
227. Docherty, Old Testament, 102–20, refers to Arnold Goldberg and those who have followed him—Alexander Samely and Philip Alexander. Her discussion of Hebrews appears to depend most on the work of Samely.
228. Docherty, Old Testament, 140–41, 177 (i), 180, 194 (i), 196–97, thinks that the author of Hebrews has seldom altered the LXX text he received. She attributes many of the ways in which he deviates from our standard LXX text to the fluidity of the LXX text in the first century and thus to alternate readings (Docherty, Old Testament, 121–42). In this way she argues a reverence for the text characteristic of later rabbinic interpretation. Bateman would allow the author of Hebrews more leeway in editing his received text. He, however, thinks this in accord with contemporary Jewish practices (Bateman IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 121–48).
229. See Docherty, Old Testament, 197–98, and her discussions of the wider context of each quotation studied.
230. Docherty, Old Testament, 177 (ii) and often.
231. Docherty, Old Testament, 178 (xi, xii), 195 (iii, iv), and often.
232. Docherty, Old Testament, 180, 195 (v, viii), passim.
233. Docherty, Old Testament, 178 (xiv, xv), 196 (xi). For instance, the occurrence of “son” in 2 Sam 2:7 (Heb 1:5) and its openness to eschatological interpretation may have been a problem for others, to which Hebrews had a ready answer (Docherty, Old Testament, 153–54). The apparent attribution of deity to the king or messiah in Ps 45:7–8 may also have been a problem for some. Such examples could be multiplied from most of the quotations Docherty examines.
234. See, for instance, Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 11, 15–20.
235. Docherty’s suggestion that this sense of progression is due to Hebrews’ eschatological orientation is true but insufficient as an explanation (Docherty, Old Testament, 197–98). Eschatology finds its fulfillment in Christ.
236. Docherty, Old Testament, 180, 192, 197.
237. Docherty repeatedly notes that Hebrews not only sees the OT as God’s speech but, by emphasizing the “oath” of God, identifies it as exalted speech. See Docherty, Old Testament, 149, 178 (ix), 193, 195 (vii), 197.
238. Docherty, Old Testament, 179 (xix).
239. In all fairness, she does suggest that the relationship between Hebrews’ literary genre and its use of Scripture should be a matter for further study (Docherty, Old Testament, 205).
240. Weiss, 181; Moffatt, xlvi; Schröger, Der Verfasser, 71, passim. Cf. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 184–85.
241. Spicq, 1:337–38, 349. See Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 284. For Emmrich’s claim that the pastor practices “pneumatological” exegesis see the comments on 3:7–11; 9:6–10; and 10:15–18 below (M. Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews: Prophet and Interpreter,” WTJ 64 [2002]: 55–71).
242. Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 104–7, 118; Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 297. See the discussion of “Continuity and Typology” on pp. 52–54 above.
243. See Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 63–64, 98–107; Hughes uses the word “invite” on p. 63, “suggest” on p. 107
244. See Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, 63–64.
245. Lincoln, A Guide, 76, acknowledges Hebrews’ assertion that the old order was never effective, though he does not fully develop the significance of this fact.
246. On the care with which the pastor interprets the OT and the respect he gives to the context and logic of the text see Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 7–8; Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament,” 284; Dale F. Leschert, 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 10; Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1994), 15–20, passim. Cf. also Gheorghita, Septuagint, 57; Ellingworth, 41.
247. For the historical and chronological approach to the OT that distinguishes Hebrews from the pesher interpretations of Qumran see Docherty, Old Testament, 196 (xiv, xv). See also Motyer, “Psalm Quotations,” 11, and Weiss, 66.
248. Pace Salevao, Legitimation, 404, Bénétreau, 1:40, and many others, there has been no break or fissure in God’s revelation.
249. Clements, “Old Testament,” 36. “I should like to suggest that, so far from being an example of fantastic exegesis which can be totally disregarded by modern Christians, Hebrews is one of the earliest and most successful attempts to define the relation between the Old and New Testaments, and that a large part of the value of the book is to be found in the method of exegesis which was formerly dismissed with contempt” (Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 45).
250. Andrew T. Lincoln, “Hebrews and Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al. (Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 333–34, contends that contemporary Christians can “critique and relativize” objectionable teachings in the NT as well as the OT on the basis of the same tradition about Christ that Hebrews used. This contention contains several further inconsistencies in addition to the definitive objection given in the text above. It minimizes the fact that the only access one has to such tradition is in the NT. Thus critiquing the NT on the basis of the tradition about Christ comes very close to critiquing the tradition itself. Interpreters who do this make themselves, not the NT, the standard. Hebrews explains but does not critique this tradition. The writer of Hebrews who put such a premium on the OT as the word of God would never have agreed that the books of the NT were nothing more than “culturally conditioned, witnesses to the eschatological fulfillment in Christ” (Lincoln, “Biblical Theology,” 333, n. 22). Finally, Lincoln’s contention that the “not yet” aspect of fulfillment in Christ gives legitimization to such critique of Scripture is little more than rhetoric. The “not yet” of Hebrews does nothing to relativize the finality of the fulfillment already achieved by Christ. It refers simply to his return “for salvation” (9:28) at the Judgment.
251. In his 1991 commentary Weiss, 79, still felt it necessary to deny this atomistic approach. See France’s concise comments on the unity of Hebrews (France, “Biblical Expositor,” 248–49).
252. Übelacker, Appell; Koester, 79–86; Thompson, 13–20.
253. Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 44–51; Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 175–85; France, “Biblical Expositor,” 245–76; and Walters, “Rhetorical,” 59–70.
254. A. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de l’épître aux Hébreux (2nd ed.; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1976). The first edition was published in 1963. See also A. Vanhoye, “Discussions sur la structure de l’Épître aux Hébreux,” Bib 55 (1974): 349–80, and A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia Biblica 12; Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1989).
255. Guthrie, Structure; Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (LNTS 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005). For a summary of suggested structural analyses before Guthrie see Lane, 1:lxxxiv–xc, and Guthrie, Structure, 1–23. For a favorable and concise summary of Guthrie’s work see Lane, 1:xc–xcviii. See brief summaries of both Guthrie and Westfall in O’Brien, 30–34. See also Barry C. Joslin, “Can Hebrews Be Structured? An Assessment of Eight Approaches,” CurBS 6 (2007): 99–129.
256. For evaluation of Vanhoye see James Swetnam, “Form and Content in Hebrews 1–6,” Bib 53 (1972): 368–85; James Swetnam, “Form and Content in Hebrews 7–13,” Bib 55 (1974): 333–48; M. Gourgues, “Remarques sur la ‘structure centrale’ de l’épître aux Hébreux: A l’occasion d’une réédition,” RevBib 84 (1977): 26–37; and Guthrie, Structure, 11–17. Vanhoye’s analysis obscures the close parallels between 4:14–16 and 10:19–25 (O’Brien, 29). The segmentation of Hebrews that we will propose below demonstrates how the chiastic balance between 1:1–4:16 and 10:19–12:29 serves the linear progression of the pastor’s appeal.
257. Instead of recognizing that the salvation provided by Jesus the High Priest is the word of God proclaimed by Jesus as Apostle, Westfall insists on arbitrarily keeping the roles of High Priest and Apostle separate from each other simply because they come from different semantic domains (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 112). Furthermore, she mistakenly insists that there are two houses of God in 3:1–6, one pertaining to Moses and one to the Son (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 117). These two mistakes contribute to her arbitrary assertion that Jesus is the speaker of Ps 95:7–11 in 3:7–4:11 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 115). However, even if one granted these assumptions, there is no direct indication in the text that 3:7–4:16 “develops Jesus’ role as a messenger/apostle” (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 110).
258. On the division between the expository and hortatory passages see Guthrie, Structure, 112–45. When Guthrie, Structure, 126, says that Christ’s sacrifice “finds its superiority in its heavenly locale (9:11, 23–24),” he confuses, as is common among many, the evidence for the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice with its cause. Christ’s sacrifice provided him with entrance into heaven as High Priest, but it was not offered in heaven (see on 9:11–15). This mistake has led Guthrie to an unfortunate attempt at dividing the expository parts of Hebrews between heaven and earth (Guthrie, Structure, 121–24). Thus, 7:1–28 takes place on earth, but 8:3–10:18 (following a transition in 8:1–2) in heaven. Heb 7:1–28, however, pertains to the exaltation and eternal nature of the Son; on the other hand, the incarnate obedience that constituted Christ’s effective sacrifice in 10:5–10 is at the heart of 8:1–10:18. Guthrie’s comment that “spatial orientation is not primary” in 7:1–28 actually applies to much of Hebrews (Guthrie, Structure, 122).
259. It is often difficult to determine if a passage is expository or hortatory. Westfall, for instance, criticizes Guthrie’s identification of Heb 11:1–40 as hortatory (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 19–20).
260. Guthrie, Structure, 79–82. Cf. Wolfgang Nauck, “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes,” in Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche: Festschrift für J. Jeremias (ed. Walther Eltester; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1960), 200–203. Weiss, 46–47, criticizes Vanhoye for neglecting the significance of these two passages. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 137, acknowledges them but also fails to give them due place. Gelardini’s attempt to make 3:1–6:20 a unified section is unconvincing (Gabriella Gelardini, “From ‘Linguistic Turn’ and Hebrews Scholarship to Anadiplosis Iterata: The Enigma of a Structure,” HTR 102 [2009]: 63; Gelardini, “Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht,” 249–87). Her arguments for the semantic coherence of this section are weak. The idea that Christ’s high priesthood is paralleled by the intercession of Moses in Numbers 13–14 is unjustified. Heb 3:5 makes it clear that Moses is not “faithful” as a priest but as a “witness to things that would be said.” Furthermore, 4:14–5:10 only begins to explicate the faithfulness of the Son. His faithfulness is defined by his incarnate obedience, explicated in 8:1–10:18 (10:5–10). Finally, “Unbelief of the Sons” and “Sinful People Need the High-Priestly Ministry” are less than appropriate titles for Heb 4:14–6:12 and 4:14–5:10 respectively.
261. “The logic is that God has ‘spoken’ through a Son, who not only uttered God’s word but who was God’s word, since he communicated God’s will through his life, death, and exaltation” (Koester, 104–5).
262. Weiss, 52–54, rightly affirms the importance of high priesthood in section two for the author’s appeal in section three.
263. Along with the arousal of emotions (pathos) and the use of reason (logos), ancient orators would also attempt to move their audiences by ethos or “character.” It was essential that the hearers believe in the integrity and competency of the speaker. The author of Hebrews says little about his own character but emphasizes the faithfulness of God, who speaks both in the prophets and in his Son (1:1). See the discussion of logos, pathos, and ethos in Koester, 87–92. Cf. Johnson, 14.
264. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 208–11, is correct when he contends that “drawing near” through Christ the High Priest refers to a true experience of cleansing and entrance into God’s heavenly presence. Pace Mackie, however, this fact does not negate but provides the resources for persevering as the pilgrim people of God.
265. Mackie, “Son of God,” 114–29; Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 216–30.
266. Übelacker, Appell, 106–9, 185–97.
267. Heb 12:14–17 is included with this section because it echoes the covenantal language intrinsic to Sinai and characteristic of vv. 18–24.
268. Because the finished work of Christ climaxed in his session, the God who spoke at Sinai now offers salvation from Zion. In 12:22–24 all three images coalesce—land/City; Most Holy Place, and the Mount of God’s self-disclosure.
269. The warning in 2:1–4 anticipates the example of the wilderness generation in 3:1–19. The example of Esau in 12:14–17 is the foil or opposite of those enrolled in the catalogue of the faithful according to 11:1–40.
270. If the Sinai imagery is not yet apparent in 12:4–13, it is only inferred in 2:5–18 by the contrast with the angels.
271. Michel, 8, and Wolfgang Nauck (“Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes,” in Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche: Festschrift für J. Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester [Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1960], 199–206) both divide Hebrews into three major sections, as we have done, although both include 13:1–25 in the third major section. Nauck would end the second section at 10:31 because of the parallels between 4:14–16 and 10:19–25. In the 1936 edition of Michel’s commentary (p. v) he ended the section at 10:18. However, on p. 8 of the 1966 edition he ends the second section after 10:39 (i.e., 1:1–4:13; 4:14–10:39; 11:1–13:25). Rafael Gyllenberg, “Die Komposition des Hebräerbriefs,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 22–23 (1957–58): 137–47, is mistaken when he includes 4:14–16 with the previous section. See the discussion in Weiss, 47–48, who also insists that one cannot begin the last section at 11:1.
272. The internal structure of each of these passages sustains this arrangement. See the commentary below.
273. This section, 4:14–16, is in brackets because it is actually, as noted above, the introduction to 4:14–10:18 rather than the conclusion of 3:1–4:13. Yet it is chiastically parallel to 10:19–25, the introduction to 10:19–12:29.
274. See Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 216–26.
275. Cf. Koester, 554; Thompson, 273–74.
276. “Son” is clearly the fundamental designation with which the pastor begins and the overarching designation that sustains his entire argument. The pastor develops sonship in terms of Christ’s high priesthood and “pioneership.” “Son” is associated closely with God’s ultimate self-disclosure; “High Priest,” with Christ’s sacrifice and with his ability to cleanse from sin; “Pioneer,” with his resulting ability to bring God’s people to the ultimate goal of their pilgrimage in God’s presence. Thus the title “Pioneer” is introduced (2:10) well before the failed pilgrimage of the wilderness generation (3:7–4:11) and reasserted in 12:1–3 at the climax of the roll call of faithful pilgrims (11:1–40).
277. Bruce, 180, entitles 8:1–10:18, “Covenant, Sanctuary, and Sacrifice.” For a more detailed analysis of this section see the introduction to 8:1–10:18 on pp. 345–48 below, and G. L. Cockerill, “Structure and Interpretation in Hebrews 8:1–10:18: A Symphony in Three Movements,” BBR 11 (2001): 179–201.
278. France, “Biblical Expositor,” 261, affirms the centrality of Psalm 110 though he does not develop its importance for the structure of Hebrews. Buchanan’s (xix) designation of Hebrews as a “homiletic midrash” on this psalm may not be as exaggerated as France supposes. See Lincoln, A Guide, 13, 69.
279. Ps 110:1 is the OT text most often cited by the NT (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 21–23). In addition to Hebrews see Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42–43; 22:69; Acts 2:33–35; 5:31; 7:55–56; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; 2:6; Col 3:1; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21. See also Attridge, “Psalms,” 198, and David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973).
280. Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 47, argues that Psalms 8, 95, and 110, and Jeremiah 31 “are the dominant passages that control the four main sections of Hebrews.” However, he discusses only Ps 110:4, never Ps 110:1. This is a glaring omission in his otherwise very helpful study. This omission leads Caird to make Psalm 8, rather than Ps 110:1, the dominant passage in 1:1–2:18. Although France, “Biblical Expositor,” 261, affirms the central importance of Ps 110:1, neither he nor others who have developed Caird’s approach (Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 175–85; Walters, “Rhetorical,” 59–70) have corrected Caird’s deficiency by affirming the significance of Ps 110:1 in 1:1–2:18 or showing how it unifies the other major quotations. France follows Longenecker in identifying 1:1–2:4 as a separate exposition of a catena of OT quotations on a par with the later expositions of Psalms 8, 95, and 110, and Jeremiah 31(LXX 38). Furthermore, France and Walters both add Hab 2:6 as central to 10:32–12:2(3) and Prov 3:11–12 as central to 12:4–13 and 12:3–13:19, respectively. France finds an additional exposition of “Mount Sinai” in 12:18–29. Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 47–49, thinks the pastor has chosen the main passages of his exposition because they point to the self-confessed inadequacy of the old order. According to Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 185, these passages also were understood as speaking of the Messiah and/or “God’s redemption in the last days.” The pastor was also influenced in his choice of passages by other concerns, such as the hortatory character of Psalm 95(LXX 94):7–11.
281. Some scholars, such as Bruce, 28, have identified Psalm 40 as the dominant passage in this part of Hebrews. The studies by Caird, Longenecker, France, and Walters cited above all opt for Jer 31:31–34. Walters goes so far as to say, “Psalm 40 turns out to be of little more importance to the argument of this section than are Exodus 24:8, which is quoted in 9:20, and Deuteronomy 32:35 and Psalm 135:14, which are quoted in 10:30” (Walters, “Rhetorical,” 65). Caird appears to be attracted to Hebrews’use of Jeremiah 31 because it is “a perfectly sound piece of exegesis” (Caird, “Exegetical Method,” 47). I would not deny the importance of Jeremiah for Heb 8:1–10:18. However, I would affirm the crucial importance of Ps 40:6–8. As will be demonstrated in the exegesis below, the pastor argues from Jer 31:31–34 to Ps 40:6–8. This psalm passage is the pinnacle of his argument for the superiority of Christ.
282. Attridge, “God in Hebrews,” 104–6.
283. Note how Ps 110:1 and 4 unite Heb 4:14–10:18. The pastor begins this central section of Hebrews with Ps 110:4 (Heb 5:5–6). He joins it to Ps 110:1 at the pivotal center of this section (Heb 8:1–2), and then concludes with Ps 110:1 as he approaches the end (Heb 10:11–14). See Attridge, “Psalms,” 197–98.
284. France, “Biblical Expositor,” 257. Cf. Walters, “Rhetorical,” 65–66.
285. In my judgment it is more accurate to see this indirect reference to Ps 110:1 in 12:22 than to argue that 12:18–29 is an exposition “on Mount Sinai,” as advocated by France, “Biblical Expositor,” 259. Heb 12:18–21 does not even name Mount Sinai. Furthermore, the pastor’s emphasis is on the “Mount Zion” to which his hearers “have come.” He directs their attention to the “mediator of a new covenant” (v. 24) who has accepted God’s invitation, “Sit at my right hand” (Ps 110:1).
286. Just as Ps 110:1 was supported by a catena of quotations in chapter 1 and explained by Ps 8:6–8, Ps 22:22, and Isa 8:17–18 in chapter 2, so “you have come to Mount Zion” is preceded by the exposition of Prov 3:11–12 in 12:3–13 and followed by the use of Hag 2:6 in 12:25–29. Ps 8:6–8 showed why the Son must suffer (2:5–10). Prov 3:11–12, why the “sons and daughters” must suffer (12:4–13).
287. Ps 110:4 (Heb 5:5–6; 5:10; 6:20; 7:1–25) gives 4:14–7:28 a certain coherence. At its very heart (5:5–6) the comparison/contrast between Aaron and Christ in 5:1–10 announces the theme of 7:1–28. Furthermore, the exhortation in 5:11–6:20 leads directly into 7:1–28. Yet 5:1–10 also announces themes that will be developed in 8:1–10:18. The exhortation in 5:11–6:20 has relevance for what the pastor will say in these chapters as well. Thus, while recognizing the coherence that is there in 4:14–7:28 it is helpful when expounding this central section of Hebrews to divide it into four main parts as we have done in the discussion above and the outline at the end of this introduction (4:14–5:10; 5:11–6:20; 7:1–28; 8:1–10:18). See further discussion in the introduction to 4:14–10:18 on pp. 218–20 below. One must not forget, however, that the central point of the unit comes at 8:1–2.
288. The introductory material in 10:19–39 is closely associated with and flows into the history of the ancient faithful in 11:1–40. The coming of Jesus in 12:1–3 brings this history proper to a climax. Yet in a broader sense 10:19–39 introduces the entire concluding main section of the book. The judgment intimated by the “coming one” in 10:36–39 does not come to fruition until 12:25–29. Thus, in order to recognize the introductory and transitional role of 10:19–39, the outline at the end of this introduction has put a major break between 10:39 and 11:1 as well as at the pivotal point after 12:3. See the introduction to 10:19–39 on pp. 460–63 in the commentary below.
289. As noted in the text above, “You have come to Mount Zion” describes the results of Christ’s session. Thus we have here put Ps 110:1 in parentheses.
290. Thompson, 19, for instance, calls 1:1–4 the exordium; 1:5–4:13 the narratio; 4:14–10:31 the probatio; and 10:32–13:25 the peroratio. Koester, ix–xii, 83–86, on the other hand, describes 1:1–2:4 as the exordium, 2:5–9 as the “proposition,” 2:10–12:27 as a series of “arguments,” and 12:28–13:21 as the “peroration.” He divides the argument into three series (2:10–6:20; 7:1–10:39; and 11:1–12:27). While acknowledging the importance of 2:5–9, in my judgment it is better to follow Üeblacker’s identification of 2:17–18 as the pastor’s “proposition” (Übelacker, Appell, 193–95; cf. O’Brien, 26). Furthermore, Koester’s analysis misses the key importance of 4:14–16 and 10:19–25. It may also be somewhat misleading for many that he identifies 5:11–6:20 and 10:26–39 as “traditional digressions.” This designation may be correct in terms of the technical language of ancient rhetoric. However, one must not suppose that these sections are “digressions” in the sense that they fail to carry forward the pastor’s purpose. There is virtually nothing in this “sermon” that is superfluous to its rhetorical or persuasive impact.
291. Übelacker, Appell, 214–29. Cf. Nissilä, Hohepriestermotiv, 74–78, 143–47, 230–44.
292. On this subject see both Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Biblical Interpretation Series 75; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 13–23, esp. 18; and Stephen R. Holmes, “Death in the Afternoon: Hebrews, Sacrifice, and Soteriology,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 229–52, esp. 248–49.
293. The fact that no other NT writer develops Christ’s high priesthood is insufficient reason to deny its intrinsic nature. Furthermore, the intrinsic character of Christ’s high priesthood does not exclude other complementary ways of describing the reality of his person and work. No one description can exhaust the reality of Christ.
294. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 200–201.
295. Koester, 119–23, with justification, argues that the OT makes a distinction between purification/cleansing (καθαρισμός, καθαρίζω) as the removal of uncleanness and sanctification (ἁγιάζω, ἁγιασμός) as being made holy or being set apart for God. A layperson could be purified or ritually clean without being set apart for God by sanctification. A priest, however, not only had to be clean but sanctified or set apart for God in order to enter the Holy Place. See also Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 192; David G. Peterson, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 34; and deSilva, 202. This distinction, however, is of minimal importance when applied to moral defilement. Moral defilement is what prevents one from entering the presence of God. By its removal one is set apart for God with the privilege of such entrance. Hebrews also refers to perfection (τελειόω). This term emphasizes the privilege of entering God’s presence as a result of purification/sanctification. See on 7:19; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; and 12:23 below.
296. Some argue that Hebrews conceives of sin as both “defilement” and “unfaithfulness” (Pfitzner, 43–44). However, unfaithfulness or disobedience is defilement. A rebellious person is a defiled person.
297. The numbering in parenthesis following each of these sections designates the parallel section in part I (and part II, A, 1) above. See the structural-rhetorical analysis of Hebrews on pp. 60–79 above.
1. Thus there is a tight coherence in 1:1–2:4 (see Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning [LNTS 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005], 89–99). It is important, however, to recognize the way in which 2:5–18 both reinforces 2:1–4 and completes 1:5–14.
1. For Heb 1:1–4 as the exordium or introduction to this sermon see Walter G. Übelacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell: Untersuchungen zu Exordium, Narratio und Postscriptum (Hebr 1–2 und 13, 22–25) (Coniectanea Neotestamentica or Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 21; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989), 106; A. Vanhoye, Situation du Christ: Épître aux Hébreux 1–2 (Paris: Cerf, 1969), 52–54; Thompson, 18–19; the commentaries cited in Koester, 174–75; and the Introduction to this commentary above (pp. 63, 76–77). Koester’s identification of 1:1–2:4 as the exordium gives inadequate consideration to both the unique character of 1:1–4 and the close association between 1:1–2:4 and 2:5–18.
2. Although these verses do not mention Christ’s high priesthood, they still (pace Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 98–99) introduce what follows by laying a foundation for that priesthood.
3. G. R. Smillie, “Contrast or Continuity in Hebrews 1.1–2?” NTS 51 (2005): 543–60, makes several important observations. On the one hand, the pastor uses none of the words in this opening section that he so skillfully uses elsewhere to depict contrast (e.g., ἀλλά, “but”; κρείττων, “better”; μείζον, “greater,” etc., Smillie, “Contrast or Continuity,” 550–52). There are also other features that affirm continuity between God’s word in the prophets and in the Son (Smillie, “Contrast or Continuity,” 552–56). Most of these are noted in the commentary below. These facts suggest that the element of contrast in 1:1–4 has often been overdone. On the other hand, one cannot remove all contrast because of the elevated diction with which the pastor describes the Son as the agent of God’s revelation in vv. 2–3 (Smillie, “Contrast or Continuity,” 558). When one sees fulfillment as an affirmation of continuity, then the unity of God’s word throughout history is in complete harmony with the superiority and finality of what he has said in Christ. Both what God has said in the prophets and what he has said in his Son are valid as revelation, though the latter provided the “great salvation” (2:3) typified by the former. See “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” in the Introduction to this commentary (pp. 41–59, esp. 52–54).
4. The importance of these statements is highlighted by the fact that “he has spoken” (1:2) and “he has sat down” (1:3b) are the main verbs in the Greek text of vv. 1–2 and 3–4 respectively (Lane, 1:3–9).
5. See Vanhoye, Situation, 52–54.
6. Vanhoye argues that “at various times and in various ways” is separate from “of old” and without parallel. Vanhoye, Situation, 56–57. When these words are included, this opening phrase that describes “of old” has eleven syllables and thus corresponds well with the ten syllables of its contrasting counterpart that begins with “at the end of these days.”
7. A few manuscripts, probably including 12, have ὑμῶν, “our,” after πατράσιν, “fathers,” thus making the connection between the “fathers” and the present Christian readers explicit. However, the use of “fathers” without a qualifier “marks the relation of ‘the fathers’ to the whole Church” (Weiss, 138 [translation mine]). Cf. Vanhoye, Situation, 57–58.
8. The pastor uses a complementary participle, “having spoken” (λαλήσας), to describe God’s address in the prophets (1:1), but the finite verb “has spoken” (ἐλάλησεν) in reference to the Son (1:2a). See Übelacker, Appell, 79. Though most English versions translate the participle as complementary, the pastor’s emphasis is on what God has said in the Son. Compare the attributive construal of this participle in the NKJV (“God, who spoke …”) with the temporal interpretation of the NASB (“God, after he spoke …”).
9. These two words, πολυμερῶς and πολυτρόπῶς, both begin with the morpheme πολυ. No other extant pre-second-century author uses them in combination. πάλαι, “of old”; πατράσιν, “fathers”; and προφήταις, “prophets,” also begin with a “p” sound and thus give an aural cohesion to this verse.
10. See Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.29; 1.37–42. Cf. Mitchell, 35, 41.
11. For multiplicity as incompleteness see 7:23–24, 27; 9:25–28; 10:1–3, 11–14; Bénétreau, 1:66; and Riggenbach, 5. What might have been thought richness before Christ is now seen as the preliminary revelation that it was.
12. See Hughes, 36. Pace Ellingworth, 91.
13. See ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν in Jer 23:20; 49:39 and the variants ἐπʼ ἐσχάτῳ τῶν ἡμερῶν (Deut 4:30) and ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν (Jer 30:24, Ezek 38:16, Dan 2:28, Dan 10:14, Hos 3:5, and Mic 4:1). These phrases translate the Hebrew 
, “at the end of days.”
14. Ellingworth, 93, refers to the Hebraic influence shown by the adjectival use of a noun in the genitive case. See also Riggenbach, 3.
15. Bénétreau, 1:65–66.
16. Weiss, 139.
17. On this interpretation Hebrews’ use of the singular ἐσχάτου rather than the more common LXX plural ἐσχάτων is purposeful. Compare also 1 Pet 1:20: ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων, “at the end of the ages.”
18. Cf. Luke 24:25 and John 6:45. Both Moses (1 Clem. 43:1) and David (Acts 2:30) can be called prophets.
19. Here ἐν with the third inflectional form is the locative of sphere (“in the prophets”/“in the Son”) rather than the instrumental of agency (“by the prophets”/“by the Son”). The quality of the author’s Greek prohibits limiting ἐν to the significance of the Hebrew preposition ב (Riggenbach, 4). Nor, pace Braun, 19, is it necessary to draw on Hellenistic speculation about God’s spirit displacing the personality. Cf. Weiss, 134.
20. Spicq, 2:58.
21. For studies which affirm the use of a hymn see Koester, 178–79.
22. John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1, 5–14,” Bib 66 (1985): 524–28; J. Frankowski, “Early Christian Hymns Recorded in the New Testament: A Reconsideration of the Question in the Light of Hebrews 1, 3,” BZ 27 (1983): 183–90.
23. Nor is 1 Clem. 36:1–6 witness to a preexisting tradition quoted by both Hebrews and 1 Clement, as claimed by J. C. O’Neill, “‘Who Is Comparable to Me in My Glory?’ 4Q491 Fragment 11 (4Q491C) and the New Testament,” NovT 42 (2000): 33–35. For 1 Clement’s dependence on Hebrews see the Introduction and the literature there cited (p. 34, n. 144).
24. Meier, “Symmetry,” 524–28. See also Thompson, 33.
25. John P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Heb 1, 1–14,” Bib 66 (1985): 176–77.
26. See Bénétreau, 1:66–67; Spicq, 2:5; Vanhoye, Situation, 62–64; and Koester, 178.
27. Bénétreau, 1:66; Riggenbach, 6; Thompson, 39.
28. As both Daniel J. Ebert IV, “The Chiastic Structure of the Prologue of Hebrews,” TJ 13 n.s. (Fall 1992): 163–79; and Meier, “Structure,” 168–89 agree. Ebert argues for the following chiastic parallels: the prophets/Son in 1:1–2a and the Son/angels in 1:4; “whom he made heir of all” (v. 2b) and “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (v. 3d); “by whom he made the worlds” (v. 2c) and “by making purification for sin” (v. 3d). The central focus is on “being the radiance of his glory and the express image of his nature; and bearing all things by the word of his power.” Ebert’s weakest link is the relationship between 1:1–2a and 1:4. Meier, “Structure,” 188–89, avoids this problem by beginning at v. 2b. “Whom he made heir of all” is parallel both to “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” and to the Son’s superiority over the angels in v. 4. Note “heir” in 1:2b and “inherited” in 1:4. “By whom he made the worlds” (v. 2b) corresponds with “bearing all things by the word of his power” (v. 3b). The central emphasis falls on “being the radiance of his glory and the express image of his very being.” Meier does not adequately account for “by making purification for sin” (v. 3c). Ebert’s link between “by whom he made (ἐποίησεν) the worlds” and “by making (ποιησάμενος) purification for sin” is worth consideration (Ebert, “Chiastic Structure,” 170–71).
29. Riggenbach, 6–8.
30. “[B]ut the author’s assumption is that high priesthood is a part of the role of Jesus as Son” (Harold S. Songer, “A Superior Priesthood: Hebrews 4:14–7:27,” RevExp 82 [1985]: 348, citing Robinson, 59–60, in support). Cf. also, “… One through whom the world was made, the One who is the ‘exact imprint of God’s very being’ is not the ‘eternal Son’ (if by that is meant a Son whose identity is abstracted from the humanity he would assume in the incarnation) but the Son whose identity is already established in that he is appointed heir of all things” (Bruce L. McCormack, “‘With Loud Cries and Tears’: The Humanity of the Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews,’” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 59).
31. Note the quotation of Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 in v. 5 below, along with Ps 45:6–7 in vv. 8–9 and Ps 110:1 in v. 13. Although these verses find their fulfillment in David’s heir, they are attributed directly to the exalted Son who shares in the universal reign of God without reference to David. This omission is in accord with Pamela Eisenbaum’s observation that Hebrews avoids reference to the earthly institutions so closely associated with kingship—land, Jerusalem, and Temple (Pamela Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context [SBLDS 156; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], passim). Hebrews speaks only of a “heavenly” home, a “heavenly” Jerusalem that is identical to the “heavenly” Most Holy Place where the Son sits enthroned at God’s right hand as heir of all things. The session of the Son, affirmed so clearly in the immediately following verses, sets the stage for these heavenly realities. In this light, then, the pastor is probably not consciously arguing that Jesus is both a Priest like Aaron and a King like David.
32. Vanhoye, Situation, 66. αἰῶνας refers to “The sum of the ‘periods of time’ including all that is manifested in and through them” (Westcott, 8). Many would also include the coming eternal world of salvation. See Ellingworth, 96; Hughes, 40, n. 10; Koester, 178; and Meier, “Structure,” 178, n. 40. Vanhoye is probably correct, however, when he argues that “made” restricts reference to the temporal created order.
33. Richard Bauckham, “The Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 15–18. The terms for “all things” and “the worlds” are “monotheistic language designed to distinguish God from the whole of the rest of reality” (Bauckham, “Divinity,” 21).
34. Wider is correct in observing the theocentric basis of these opening verses, even if he draws conclusions unwarranted by the text. David Wider, Theozentrick und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief, ed. Erich Grässer (BZNW 87; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 12–13.
35. Ebert, “Chiastic Structure,” 167–74, and Meier, “Structure,” 188–89. See the summary of their arguments on p. 92, n. 28 above.
36. Braun, 25; Bénétreau, 1:68–69. The Greek term ἀπαύγασμα can be active, “radiance,” or passive, “reflection.” It is active in Philo’s Spec. Laws 4.123; and Creation 146, but passive in Planting 50. It is difficult to tell whether ἀπαύγασμα is active or passive in Wis 7:26, where wisdom is “the radiance/reflection (ἀπαύγασμα) of everlasting light.” “A pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty” (NRSV) in 7:25 supports the active; “a spotless mirror of the working of God” (NRSV) in 7:26b, the passive. Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, Theodoret, and Gregory of Nyssa affirmed the active, as did the orthodox Fathers during the Arian controversy. See Spicq, 2:6 and Hughes, 42.
37. See Philo, Drunkenness 133.
38. Bénétreau, 1:69.
39. For χαρακτήρ, “exact imprint,” see BDAG, 1078, 2. Although ὑπόστασις may be used otherwise in Heb 3:14; 11:1, there can be no dispute that here it refers to the essence or actual being of God.
40. Since “the radiance of God’s glory” and “the exact imprint of God’s very being” both complement the participle ὤν (“being”), they are to be taken together as complementing one another (Spicq, 2:8).
41. Bénétreau, 1:70. Braun, 26–27. According to Hughes, 44, the first phrase emphasizes identity with God’s nature; the second, the separateness of the Son’s person. Spicq, 2:6–9, takes the opposite position. Both are guilty of overinterpretation. Pace Koester, 180, however, the finality of revelation in the Son is dependent on his identity with God.
42. “The word of his power” is a Hebraism in which the possessive “power” is used as an adjective and “his” qualifies “word” (Bénétreau, 1:72).
43. Hughes, 45, n. 22; Westcott, 13–14; and Meier, “Structure,” 182. Although Ellingworth, 100–101, claims that contemporary evidence for this usage is scarce, Spicq, 2:9–10, finds examples in the LXX, Philo, and rabbinic literature. Hughes, Westcott, and Spicq cite Patristic support.
44. Note the reference to the second coming in “until I make your enemies a stool for your feet” (Heb 1:13 quoting Ps 110:1). See also the exposition of Ps 8:4–6 in 2:5–9 below.
45. As noted above, Ebert, “Chiastic Structure,” 167–74, sees these two participial phrases as the central focus of vv. 1–4.
46. Koester, 176, 178.
47. Meier, “Structure,” 182–83.
48. These participles are bound together by the particle τέ (Riggenbach, 8).
49. According to Weiss, 144–45, this description of the Son is “beyond time” and yet underlies all.
50. Riggenbach, 8. Lane’s (1:5) concessive rendering, “Although he was the radiance … and although he bore all things,” pits the Son’s roles as revealer and sustainer against his exaltation.
51. Spicq, 2:8. Note Lane’s evaluation: “although Jesus was the preexistent Son of God, … he entered into a new dimension in the experience of sonship by virtue of his incarnation, his sacrificial death, and his subsequent exaltation” (Lane, 1:26).
52. See BDAG, 488, 3, b, c; Friedrich Hauck and Rudolf Meyer, “καθαρός, καθαρίζω, καθαρότης,” TDNT 3:412–26.
53. Instead of τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, “of his power, having made purification for sins,” uncial 0243 and minuscules 6, 424 (corrected), 1739, and 1881 (original) have τῆς δυνάμεως, διʼ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, “of power, through himself having made purification for sins.” 46 is in essential agreement but reads διʼ αὐτοῦ instead of διʼ ἑαυτοῦ.
54. Compare “through whom he made (ἐποίησεν) the worlds” with “having made (ποιησάμενος) purification.” Ebert, “Chiastic Structure,” 170–71, argues that the pastor has deliberately replaced the more common καθαρίζω (“purify”) in this last clause with καθάρισμον … ποιησάμενος in order to establish this parallel.
55. See “The Rhetorical Shape of Hebrews and Its Use of the Old Testament,” pp. 72–76 in the Introduction above.
56. Ellingworth, 103. The Son’s session at the right hand makes his sharing in the divine majesty and dignity absolutely clear. See Riggenbach, 12 and Spicq, 2:11. Bauckham, “Divinity,” 32, reminds the reader that the Son does not sit on a second throne beside God’s but “on the righthand part of the one heavenly throne.”
57. See Bénétreau, 1:73; Weiss, 151; and Attridge, 46, n. 139.
58. The participle γενόμενος, “having become” (v. 4), qualifies the finite verb of v. 3, ἐκάθισεν, “he sat down.”
59. George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (repr.; Leiden: Brill, 1994; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 100–102.
60. Bauckham, “Divinity,” 21–22, argues that the Son inherits the divine name YHWH, translated as κύριος (“Lord”) in the Greek OT, rather than the name “Son.” This suggestion is supported by the opening words of Ps 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord.” This important psalm verse is alluded to in Heb 1:3 and quoted in 1:13. “Lord” is also the title given to the exalted Christ in Phil 2:9–11. Cf. Johnson, 73. In my judgment, however, this interpretation faces two obstacles. First, Bauckham is forced to take the “today” of Ps 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” as a timeless “today” (Bauckham, “Divinity,” 33–34). Second, it is as “Son” that Christ is contrasted with the angels in the following verses. See esp. v. 5. Nevertheless, Meier may be overconfident when he says, “… to try to avoid taking onoma [name] as the title Son is an exercise in avoiding the obvious” (Meier, “Structure,” 187).
61. Pace Attridge, 54–55; Braun, 32–33; and Pfitzner, 39.
62. He became “better” than the angels because he had become the fully effective Savior by offering a “better” sacrifice (9:23) which established a “better” priesthood (7:18–19) and covenant (7:22; 8:6) through which the faithful enter the “better” (i.e., heavenly) homeland (11:16). In these references “better” is a form of κρείττων, which within Hebrews denotes superiority in kind, not degree.
63. Hughes, 54–55.
64. Schenck argues that Hebrews did not believe in the personal or actual preexistence of the Son any more than the Wisdom tradition, upon which Hebrews is dependent, affirmed the personal or actual preexistence of “Wisdom” (Prov 8:22–31; Sir 24:1–22; and Wis 6:1–9:18, esp. 7:12, 22; 8:4–5; 9:1–9). The Son was “preexistent” only as a function of God. See Kenneth Schenck, “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews,” JSNT 66 (1997): 115; Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story behind the Sermon (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 17, nn. 24–25. One might note that Schenck’s method of argument is a classical case of reductionism—descriptions applied to Christ can mean no more than they did in the contemporary world in spite of their new context (cf. Vanhoye, Situation, 65–70; cf. 112–17).
65. Emphasis should be placed on the word “scattered.” According to Bar 3:37, Wisdom lived on earth; according to 1 En. 42:1–2, Wisdom was exalted to heaven; according to Wis 9:4, Wisdom is seated beside the divine throne. These kinds of statements each serve a particular purpose in their individual contexts and are not brought together to form a comprehensive picture of personified “Wisdom.” For a discussion of relevant references in the Wisdom literature see Craig R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS 22; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989), 108–12.
66. On this subject see Daniel J. Ebert IV, “Wisdom in New Testament Christology, with Special Reference to Hebrews 1:1–4” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1998), 40–111 (cited in O’Brien, 53, n. 64). Cf. Gordon D. Fee, “Wisdom Christology in Paul: A Dissenting View,” in Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and Sven K. Søderlund (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 251–79.
67. See Bauckham, “Divinity,” 22, n. 13. Cf. Johnson, 68–69.
68. Meier, “Structure,” 186, n. 60.
1. Bénétreau, 1:95; Weiss, 158–60.
2. See 1 Enoch 39; 2 Enoch 17, 20–23; 3 En. 1:12; 27:2; Jub. 2:2; T. Levi 3:5; 1QSb 25–26; 4Q400 (4QShirShabba) (cited in Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews [WUNT 223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 214, n. 5).
3. See Deut 32:8–9; Dan 4:10, 13, 20; Sir 17:17; Jub. 35:17; and 1 En. 20:5.
4. See the comments on v. 7 below.
5. Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; Jub. 1:27, 29; 2:1; and Josephus, Ant. 15.136.
6. Thompson, 41. Pace M. Goulder, “Hebrews and the Ebionites,” NTS 49 (2003): 393–99, there is no anti-angel polemic in Hebrews. Note the positive references to angels in 1:14, 2:5, and 12:22. See Weiss, 158–60; Meier, “Symmetry,” 522, n. 56; and Koester, 199–200. There is no sign that Hebrews was combating the veneration of angels (Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 214–15).
7. Thus it is misleading to say, as Koester, 197, does, that these quotations “are taken from each of the major categories of OT writings.”
8. The LXX title ascribed to this second ode, “Ode of Moses in Deuteronomy,” demonstrates that it is an intentional duplication for liturgical use. See Lane, 1:28.
9. Several of these passages were originally addressed to the King/Messiah. Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 occur in 4QFlor, a collection of Messianic proof texts from Qumran. John N. Allegro, “Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrāšîm,” JBL 77 (December 1958): 350–54. Ps 2:7 is applied to Christ in Acts 4:26–27; 13:33–34 (cf. Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15) and alluded to at his baptism (Matt 3:16–17; Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:21–22). On the Messianic use of these verses, see Spicq, 2:16, and Koester, 199. For a detailed comparison between 4QFlor 1:1–19 and Heb 1:5–13 see H. W. Bateman, “Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5–13 and 4QFlor 1.1–19,” JETS 38 (1995): 11–27 and Herbert W. Bateman IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13 (American University Studies, Series VII: Theology and Religion 193; New York: Peter Lang, 1997), 149–206. See the section on Hebrews’ use of the OT in the Introduction (pp. 41–59, esp. 45–46).
10. Τίνι γὰρ … τῶν ἀγγέλων (v. 5) and πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων (v. 13) are stylistic variations similar in meaning. For the emphasis added by the second phrase see on v. 13 below.
11. The attentive eye will also note another element of form here in that the pastor presents the nature and position of the Son and of the angels in a chiasm; thus: the Son’s nature, the angels’ position, the Son’s position, the angels’ nature, a substratum elegant in its subtlety.
12. Meier, “Symmetry,” 523, finds exaltation in 1:2b, 5–6; creation in 1:2, 7; “preexistence, divinity, and eternal rule” in 1:3a, 8bc; creation and governance in 1:3b, 10–12; and exaltation again in 1:3d, 13. He omits vv. 3c and 9. His interpretation of the Son as Creator in 1:7 is strained (Meier, “Symmetry,” 511–13). Koester, 197, and Weiss, 156, affirm general agreement between 1:5–14 and 1:1–4.
13. Notice how the author allows the importance of Ps 110:1 to come into focus. He alludes to this verse in 1:3, quotes it at the climax of his catalog of quotations in 1:13, and expounds it with the help of Psalm 8 in 2:5–9.
14. See Meier, “Symmetry,” 530. 1 Clem. 36:1–6 is quoting Hebrews and is thus no evidence for the derivation of these quotations from a traditional list. For the dependence of 1 Clement on Hebrews see the Introduction and the literature there cited (p. 34, n. 144).
15. See Vanhoye, Situation, 139, 143–44.
16. “Sons of God” occurs in the MT of Gen 6:2, 4; Pss 29:2; 89:7–8; Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7. In Deut 32:8 an original “sons of God” has been emended to “sons of Israel.” The LXX retains “sons of God” in Gen 6:2, 4 and Ps 29:2 and 89:7. In Deut 32:8 and Job it substitutes “angels of God” (Job 38:7, “my angels”). When “sons of God” is used for a class of heavenly beings, it would be better if it were translated as “sons of the divine.”
17. Vanhoye, Situation, 130–31.
18. See the discussion in Vanhoye, Situation, 139–42.
19. Attridge, 53–55; Bénétreau, 1:79; Bruce, 54; Braun, 35; Ellingworth, 114; Hughes, 54; Lane, 1:24–26; Koester, 191; Westcott, 21; Weiss, 160–61; Meier, “Symmetry,” 504–5; and Vanhoye, Situation, 142–43.
20. Spicq, 2:23, argues that the Son is enthroned as heavenly king in fulfillment of Pss 2:7 and 110:1, originally addressed to the Davidic King at his enthronement. Westcott, 3, contends that in these opening verses of Hebrews the Son fulfills the roles of prophet, priest, and king. Braun, 31, however, shows the paucity of references to Davidic kingship. According to Hebrews, it is as High Priest that the Son is enthroned on high as God’s complete self-revelation.
21. Lane, 1:26–27; Attridge, 55–57; Weiss, 162; Ellingworth, 117; O’Brien, 69; and Vanhoye, Situation, 155–57.
22. By putting “again” with “brings,” a translation like the NKJV implies a reentry and thus prevents reference to the incarnation: “But when He again brings the firstborn into the world.” Since δέ, “but,” is always translated as if it were at the beginning of the sentence, the combined expression δὲ πάλιν, “but again,” probably qualifies “he says” rather than “he brings in.” “But again (δὲ πάλιν) he says … ‘Let all the angels of God worship him,’” parallels “and again (καὶ πάλιν), ‘I will be to him a Father …’” in v. 5. See Meier, “Symmetry,” 509, and Bénétreau, 1:82. Thus “again” provides no impediment to locating God’s command to the angels at the incarnation. Neither, however, does it provide supporting evidence. For a defense of the incarnation as the occasion in view, see Spicq, 2:17; Montefiore, 45–46; and Moffatt, 10–11. Bateman IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 222, lets the synoptic Gospels provide the context for his interpretation rather than Hebrews when he suggests that the pastor is referring to Jesus’ baptism as the time when God brought him “into the world.”
23. Riggenbach, 19–20; Braun, 37; Michel, 113. Contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the aorist subjunctive of εἰσαγάγῃ, “he brings in,” does not indicate future time but time coordinate with that of the main verb. See MHT, 3:112. Wallace is mistaken when he groups ὅταν, “when”/“whenever” with ἕως, ἄχρι, and μέχρι as terms which mean “until” and indicate action future in reference to the main verb. His own example belies his point: μακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς, “blessed are you whenever they revile you.” The reviling precedes or is co-terminus with the blessing. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 479.
24. At the first of these events they praise God (Luke 2:13–14); at the second they form the Son’s entourage (Matt 16:26). Vanhoye, Situation, 155–57.
25. Ardel B. Caneday, “The Eschatological World Already Subjected to the Son: The Οἰκουμένη of Hebrews 1.6 and the Son’s Enthronement,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (LNTS 387; T&T Clark, 2008), 28–39. Cf. Lane, 1:27; Koester, 193; Weiss, 162–63; Johnson, 79; Mitchell, 48.
26. Cf. Meier, “Symmetry,” 507. Note that the contrasting picture in 12:18–21 is bereft of fellowship.
27. On the “firstborn” as God’s heir see Deut 21:15–17; cf. 2 Chr 21:3; Ps 89:28. Spicq, 2:18. For the combination “firstborn” and “heir” see Exod 4:2–23; cf. Rom 8:31 and Col 1:13–15.
28. This verse could easily have been in the writer’s mind after quoting Ps 2:7 because Ps 2:8 is also a promise of universal dominion. Vanhoye, Situation, 157–59. Note also the perpetuity of the king’s throne mentioned in Ps 89:29 and in Ps 45:6, cited in Heb 1:8. Cf. Weiss, 163.
29. Vanhoye, Situation, 157–59.
30. Compare Rom 8:29; Col 1:15; and Col 1:18, where πρωτότοκος, “firstborn,” is used to show Christ’s relationship respectively to Christians, creation, and those who are resurrected. For usage contemporary with Hebrews see Spicq, 2:17.
31. Westcott, 20.
32. This reading of Deut 32:43 is followed by the NRSV, the ESV, the NAB, and the NLT. See Arie van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses: On the Pre-Masoretic Version of Deut 32:43,” in Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. F. García Martínez (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 53; Leiden and New York: Brill, 1994), 93–100.
33. For a full discussion of v. 6b, see G. L. Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6: Source and Significance,” BBR 9 (1999): 51–64.
34. It is more difficult to use the Oxford translation of the LXX to show these parallels because it translates υἱοὶ θεού as “divine sons” rather than as “sons of God.”
35. Odes 2:43b reads οἱ ἄγγελοι θεοῦ; 2:43d, υἱοὶ θεοῦ. Deut 32:43b reads υἱοὶ θεοῦ; and 2:43d, ἄγγελοι θεοῦ. There is almost no other textual variation between Deut 32:1–43 and Odes 2:1–43. Thus it appears that both texts represent the same translation of the original. It is clear, then, that, pace David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation (WUNT 238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 49, this variation in the use of “angels”/“sons” was the result of scribal alteration—perhaps at the time of conflation.
36. The Hebrew word here is 
, usually translated as “God,” but occasionally used for “gods” or heavenly beings. The NRSV and ESV read “gods” in Deut 32:43, while the NAB and NLT read “angels of God.”
37. The first italicized line is a translation of the first line of the MT, which differs from the first line of 4QDeut32 only in the substitution of 
, “gentiles,” for 
, “heavens”; and in an alternate pointing of 
, the last three consonants of the line. The MT points 
, 
“his people.” They are unpointed in the text of 4QDeut32 and thus could just as easily have been pointed 
“with him,” as represented by the first line of the LXX translation. Thus the first italicized line duplicates this first line of the LXX text. The next two italicized lines have no equivalent in the sparse MT, but the fact that they duplicate the second and fifth lines of the LXX text is apparent even in English.
38. Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6,” 51–57. It is more likely that conflation would occur between the two Greek translations because they differ more than the probable Hebrew texts upon which they are based (Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6,” 57).
39. The MT has not only omitted reference to the “divine beings” in line two but altered “his sons” in the next line to “his servants”: “he will avenge the blood of his servants.” See van der Kooij, “Song of Moses,” 93–100.
40. In the text of Deut 32:43 as we have it in 4QDeut32, 
, “gods” or “divine beings,” in line two, is followed by 
, “his [God’s] sons,” in the next line. Pace Allen, Deuteronomy, 49, these two lines do not identify the “sons” with the “angels” by being parallel. The mortal “sons” whose “blood” God will “avenge” can hardly be identified with the “angels of God.” Furthermore, “for he will avenge the blood of his sons” is clearly parallel to the two following lines.
41. The LXX never uses υἱοὶ θεοῦ to translate 
. ἄγγελοι translates 
in Pss 8:5 and 138:1 and ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ in Ps 97:7. ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ is closest to the (οἱ) ἄγγελοι θεοῦ of Deut 32:43 because the αὐτοῦ, “his,” refers to God and has no Hebrew equivalent. See Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6,” 55.
42. See Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6,” 58.
43. Hughes, 60, n. 24; Vanhoye, Situation, 164–65; Ellingworth, 120; and Cockerill, “Hebrews 1:6,” 60–61. In Deut 32:43 God will “vindicate” his “sons” and cleanse his land for his people. So in Hebrews the Son brings God’s “sons” to “glory,” and his sacrifice cleanses the heavenly homeland (Heb 9:23). Cf. Attridge, 57, n. 79.
44. Note the contrasting μέν/δέ (“on the one hand”/“on the other”) in vv. 7 and 8, indicating the contrasting relationship between the angels (v. 7) and the Son (vv. 8–12). For Hebrews’ frequent use of this μέν/δέ construction see 3:5–6; 7:5–6, 8, 18–20; 8:4, 6; 9:23; and 10:11–12. Weiss, 164, n. 32, and Spicq, 2:19.
45. “God,” the subject of v. 5, continues to speak in vv. 6 and 7. One may assume that the pastor is able to attribute Deut 32:43 (in v. 6) and Ps 104:4 (in v. 7) to God because of his conviction that all Scripture is divinely inspired.
46. πρός with the accusative indicates the angels “about” which something is said in v. 7 and the Son “to” whom something is said in v. 8. See Attridge, 57, n. 80 and Ellingworth, 120.
47. The word for “makes” is also used in 12:27 to describe the created world which will pass away. Meier’s suggestion that the Son and not God “makes his angels winds, his ministers a flame of fire,” is interesting but questionable (Meier, “Symmetry,” 512–13). The hearers would not have had sufficient clues to make this association.
48. Pace Koester, 193–94, and Vanhoye, Situation, 170–75, 220, the parallel with “a flame of fire” shows that πνεύματα should be translated as “winds” rather than as “spirits.” See Bénétreau, 1:84; Riggenbach, 21–22, n. 45. The pastor prevents his hearers from giving undue dignity to the “ministering spirits” (λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα) of v. 14 by calling them “winds” (πνεύματα) in v. 7.
49. Yalquṭ Shimʿoni 2.11.3 seems to be a commentary on Ps 104:4: “God changes us [the angels] hour by hour … ; sometimes he makes us fire, and sometimes wind” (Bruce, 59, n. 81). For further references see Lane, 1:29; Bruce, 58; and Hughes, 62, n. 32.
50. The pastor may have written πυρὸς φλόγα (“a flame of fire”) instead of the πῦρ φλέγον (“a flaming fire”) found in the standard text of the LXX in order to balance πνεύματα (“winds”) at the end of the previous line (Bateman IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 129). The two expressions are parallel in meaning.
51. Vanhoye, Situation, 173–75; Westcott, 25.
52. Most English versions translate the Hebrew text of Ps 104:4: “He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants” (NIV). Hebrews follows the LXX translation, “He makes his angels winds, his ministers a flame of fire,” which is also a possible rendering of the Hebrew (note how the ESV translates the Hebrew text of Psalm 104). As Vanhoye has noted, the ancients probably did not make a great distinction between God’s servants and the natural elements they directed (Vanhoye, Situation, 174–75).
53. There can be no question that the articular nominative ὁ θεός, “God,” is used here to affirm the deity of the one addressed. This construction is the normal form of direct address to God throughout the Greek Bible. The literal translations of Aquila and Theodotion make this significance explicit by replacing the articular nominative with the vocative. See Riggenbach, 23, n. 50. Furthermore, the only other way this nominative could be construed would be something like, “God is your throne forever and ever.” Such a statement is unparalleled in the OT. Unlike “God is my Rock,” it makes the one addressed superior to God (Vanhoye, Situation, 180–81). Furthermore, “God is your throne” would be at odds with the Son seated at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3, 14; 8:1; 12:1–3). See the argument in Meier, “Symmetry,” 513–14, and compare Bruce, 59–60; Hughes, 64; Montefiore, 47; Michel, 118; and Vanhoye, Situation, 176–77. See Murray J. Harris, “The Translation and Significance of Ὁ ΘΕΟΣ in Hebrews 1:8–9,” TynBul 36 (1985): 138–49, for a detailed defense of the vocative in v. 8. He, however, thinks that v. 9 is probably nominative and a reference to the Father (149–51).
54. Ellingworth, 125.
55. Psalm 45 is the psalmist’s address to the king. However, since all Scripture is from God, the pastor can join this passage to Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 as the word of God (cf. Lane, 1:29). On the Messianic use of this psalm, see Riggenbach, 22, n. 47, and Spicq, 2:19. However, Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (56, 63, 86) would suggest that the Jews of his day did not accept its Messianic significance. Spicq, 2:19, says that while the title “God” was used metaphorically for the OT king, it is applied to the Son “in the proper sense (cf. v. 3)” (“au sens proper”). See also Weiss, 65.
56. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος was used often in the LXX for eternity. See Spicq, 2:19.
57. See, for instance, Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:13. Spicq, 2:19.
58. With most interpreters, the reading σου, “your” (singular) kingdom is to be preferred over the variant αὐτοῦ, “his” kingdom. See TCGNT, 592–93.
59. This change has been brought about by the transfer of the article from before the second ῥάβδος to the first and by the addition of the genitive article τῆς before εὐθυτητος. The LXX’s ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου: becomes in Hebrews ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.
60. Vanhoye, Situation, 185. Although εὐθύτητος is used nowhere else in NT, it has the sense of “moral rectitude” or “justice” in the LXX and often translates the Hebrew roots 
or 
. Spicq, 2:19.
61. Attridge, 59; Riggenbach, 24; Ellingworth, 124; and Bruce, 60, agree that the Son is again addressed as “God” in v. 9.
62. Bénétreau, 1:86; Spicq, 2:19; Westcott, 27; Hughes, 65; Vanhoye, Situation, 192; Attridge, 60; Ellingworth, 124; Koester, 195. Meier’s artificial attempt to restrict the reference of this psalm to the eternal deity of the Son is forced by his desire to make each of these verses in 1:5–14 parallel to specific elements in the prologue (Meier, “Symmetry,” 515).
63. See Riggenbach, 24. Pace Meier, “Symmetry,” 516, and Braun, 40–41.
64. The same Greek word, μέτεχξοι, is used for “companions” in 1:9 and “partakers” or “companions” of Christ in 3:14. See Bruce, 61; Westcott, 27; Calvin, 14. Vanhoye, Situation, 192–94, thinks the reference is primarily to God’s people without excluding the angels also present in 12:22–24.
65. Bénétreau, 1:86, and Weiss, 165–66, are representative of those who admit the anointing refers to the exaltation but deny that loving “righteousness” and hating “lawlessness” has any reference to incarnate obedience. However, even Bénétreau admits that incarnate obedience suits the immediate context. See Harris, “Hebrews 1:8–9,” 159.
66. “By having ‘loved righteousness and hated lawlessness’ Christ has engaged his whole existence for the realization of God’s design and the elimination of sin. This phrase of the psalm evokes the grand combat of the Passion in the spirit of the Christian” (Vanhoye, Situation, 188 [my translation]). Cf. Koester, 202.
67. Westcott, 28.
68. For this two-part division of the quotation see Vanhoye, Situation, 196.
69. “Your companions” at the end of v. 9 is μετόχους σου in Greek. Verse 10 begins with the emphatic second person singular pronoun σύ, “you.” Codex Sinaiticus follows the MT by omitting “you” (σύ) and “Lord” (κύριε). Codex Vaticanus reads, “from the beginning the earth you, Lord (σὺ κύριε), founded”; and Codex Alexandrinus, “from the beginning you, Lord (σὺ κύριε), the earth founded.” The pastor follows Alexandrinus in the location of “Lord” but has moved “you” to the beginning to put emphasis on the one addressed.