70. Spicq, 2:20. κύριος, “Lord,” emphasizes the sovereignty of the Creator. Hebrews uses this title for Jesus in 1:10; 2:3; 7:14; 12:14; and 13:20. It also uses “Lord” twelve times in reference to God when quoting the OT. Weiss, 167, n. 43.

71. κατʼ ἀρχάς harks back to Gen 1:1. By putting the word “beginning” in this prominent place this psalm quotation becomes “a christological reading of the first verse of Genesis comparable with the christological reading of that verse at the beginning of the Johannine prologue” (Bauckham, “Divinity,” 26).

72. The pastor was under no obligation to choose this psalm; thus there is no reason to argue that the Son’s role as the direct agent of creation is due to the constraints of the OT text. Pace Meier, “Symmetry,” 517–18.

73. See Prov 8:29; Isa 51:13; Jer 31:37; Job 38:4–7; and Vanhoye, Situation, 197.

74. The great majority of Greek manuscripts read ἐλίξεις, “you will roll [them] up,” instead of] ἀλλάξεις, “you will change [them].” The few manuscripts which read the latter have been conformed to the LXX text. See TCGNT, 593.

75. The words ὡς ἱμάτιον, “as an article of clothing,” are missing from the majority of manuscripts through conformity to the LXX, but they are strongly supported by a selection of the best manuscripts. See TCGNT, 593. 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), 136–37, attributes both of these variations in v. 12 to the Greek text used by the author of Hebrews. These variants are, however, admirably suited to the author’s purposes.

76. The addition of ὡς ἱμάτιον, “as an article of clothing,” means that ἀλλαγήσονται, “They will be changed,” has its own complement rather than being dependent on ὡς περιβόλαιον, “as a covering,” in the previous line.

77. Vanhoye, Situation, 198–99.

78. Cf. Weiss, 168, n. 45.

79. αὐτούς, “them,” is masculine plural and thus takes the masculine plural οὐρανοί, “heavens,” as its antecedent. The image of “rolling up” fits well with the “heavens.” However, both the psalmist and the writer of Hebrews intend to describe divine sovereignty over the entire created order, “the earth” and “the heavens.”

80. Ps 110:1a, “The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand” (italics added; see Vanhoye, Situation, 209; Meier, “Symmetry,” 519).

81. These “enemies” are certainly not the angels described in v. 14 as God’s servants sent for the benefit of the faithful. Their number probably includes evil human beings, such as apostates (10:26–31) and persecutors (10:32–39; 11:35–38; 12:1–12). It may also have included the “devil” and other spiritual powers. The main point is that all opposed to the Son will be submitted to him. See Braun, 46; Meier, “Symmetry,” 520, n. 48; Vanhoye, Situation, 218–20; and Bénétreau, 1:94.

82. See “This Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” and “The Rhetorical Shape of Hebrews and Its Use of the Old Testament,” pp. 45–46, 72–76, in the Introduction. Cf. Bénétreau, 1:89; Bruce, 63–64; and Ellingworth, 130.

83. Meier, “Symmetry,” 519, n. 46, suggests that the pastor restricted himself to seven quotations. If so, then the fact that Ps 110:1 is the seventh quotation is further evidence of its climactic character.

84. Belief that the angels ruled the nations may have been based on the LXX of Deut 32:8: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established boundaries for the nations according to the number of the angels of God.” Lane, 1:45; Koester, 213; and Attridge, 70, n. 9. Bruce, 71, also refers to Dan 10:20–21; 12:1.

85. λειτουργικά is the word here translated “ministering.” Words from the same root are used in relation to priestly service elsewhere in Hebrews: λειτουργός, “minister,” of Jesus as priest in 8:2; λειτουργία, “ministry,” of his priesthood in 8:6 and of the Aaronic priesthood in 9:21; λειτούργειν, “to minister,” of the Aaronic priesthood in 10:11. λειτούργειν and λειτουργία are commonly used for the tabernacle/temple ministry in the LXX. λειτουργός is occasionally used of a priest in the Greek Bible (Isa 61:6; 2 Esd 20:40; Sir 7:30). See Vanhoye, Situation, 221.

---

1. Pace F. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures (London: SPCK, 1959), 44–52, and Hagner, 40, who calls 2:1–4 a “parenthetical exhortation.” Because God has spoken in his Son (1:1–14), it is imperative to give heed to what he has said (2:1–4) in order to inherit the “great salvation” (2:3) soon to be described (2:5–18). Note “Lord” in 1:10; 2:4; “salvation” in 2:3, 5; and the contrast with angels throughout. See Vanhoye, Situation, 252–54; Lane, 1:36, and Weiss, 182.

2. See Koester, 209, n. 68, the sources there cited, and “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” in the Introduction (esp. pp. 54–55).

3. προσέχω, “pay attention” (BDAG, 879–80), could sometimes be used for keeping a ship on course toward its intended port (LSJ, 1512, cited by Koester). This connotation is suggested here by the use of παρραρέω (“drift”) below.

4. The “much greater” intensity of περισσοτέρως corresponds to the salvation brought by Christ with its effective remedy for sin (9:14; 10:5–10). This salvation is, therefore, “better” in kind, not degree. Note the significance of κρείττων, “better,” in 1:4; 6:9; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24. See Ellingworth, 135.

5. In the writer of Hebrews’ usage, words that begin with the preposition παρα often connote disregard for God. “To drift away” (παραρρεῖν) in 2:1; “rebellion” (παραπικρασμός) in 3:8, 15; “to rebel” (παραπικραίειν) in 3:16; “to be listless” (παρειμένος) in 12:12; and “to be carried away” (παραφέρειν) in 13:9. See Lane, 1:142.

6. Gareth Lee Cockerill, “A Wesleyan Arminian View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Batemann IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 261.

7. Heb 11:8–13 shows that the Christian life is a pilgrimage to the heavenly homeland.

8. See pp. 16–18 above and deSilva, 2–70. Schmidt’s exclusive emphasis on “moral lethargy” neglects the societal pressure and suffering described in 11:1–40 and other passages (T. E. Schmidt, “Moral Lethargy and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” WTJ 54, no. 1 [1992]: 167–73). On the other hand, McKnight puts undue emphasis on the final, deliberate, public act of apostasy (S. McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” TJ 13 [1992]: 40). Hebrews is concerned with the process of “drifting” that leads to apostasy.

9. Ellingworth, 137–38; Attridge, 64–65. The article with “word” (ὁ … λόγος) and the aorist tense “he spoke” (λαληθείς) suggest that the pastor has a specific time and place in mind and thus accord with a reference to Sinai (Vanhoye, Situation, 233–34).

10. Ellingworth, 104. Although Paul used angelic mediation to show the inferiority of the law (Gal 3:19), for most sources angelic mediation demonstrated the unique character of the law (Acts 7:38, 53; Jub. 1:27, 29; 2:1; Josephus, Ant. 15.136). See Koester, 205. In Hebrews the greatness of the angel-mediated revelation points only to the ultimate superiority of the greater revelation in the Son.

11. Cockerill, “Wesleyan Arminian,” 260, n. 6.

12. The pastor uses “word” instead of “law” for the Sinai revelation because he wants to emphasize its validity as a true revelation of God requiring obedience rather than its role as a type of Christ unable in itself to provide salvation (see this use of “law” in 7:19 and 10:1). Vanhoye, Situation, 234–35, agrees, pace Ellingworth, 138.

13. The similarity in both sound and meaning between παράβασις, “transgression,” and παρακοή, “disobedience,” is reminiscent of the similarity between πολυμερῶς, “at various times,” and πολυτρόπως, “in various ways” (1:1). The verb παραβαίνω, “transgress,” is used in the LXX to describe Israel’s sin with the golden calf (Exod 32:8; Deut 9:12, 16) as well for other transgressions. παρακοή, “disobedience,” corresponds to ὑπακοή, “obedience,” in 5:8 and ὑπακούειν, “to obey” (5:9). These words for “obedience” and “to obey” come from the same root as the words for “hearing” (ἀκοή; 4:2; 5:11) and “to hear” (ἀκούω; 3:7, 15, 16; 4:2, 7; 5:9). It is appropriate to give “obedience” (παρακοή) to “the things heard” (τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν, 2:1), as attested by “those who heard them” (ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων, 2:3).

14. βέβαιος, “valid,” is the first of several legal terms in these verses—ἔνδικος, “just” (v. 2); ἐβεβαίωθη, “was validated” (v. 3); and συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος, “adding his witness” (v. 4). Note words based on the same root as βέβαιος in Heb 3:6, 14; 6:19; 9:17; 13:9. See BDAG, 172. This usage shows “that God’s word is amply confirmed by the evidence of word and deed” (Ellingworth, 138). Legal terminology is particularly appropriate when making comparison with the Sinai revelation. See Lane, 1:37.

15. μισθαποδοσία (“reward”) is used with its usual positive sense in 10:35 and 11:36. Note also μισθαποδότης (“rewarder”) in 11:6. This word belongs to the often more sophisticated vocabulary of Hebrews not shared with the rest of the NT.

16. Vanhoye, Situation, 238–39. However, Heb 11:1–38 indicates that the OT faithful were obedient to God through trust in his promise even if they did not yet have the access to God’s presence experienced through Christ by NT believers (11:39–40).

17. “Here neglect is tantamount to rejection of God’s purposes (Jer 4:17; Wis 3:10; 2 Macc 4:14; Matt 22:5). Heedlessness is a trait of those who are overtaken by divine judgment (Matt 24:37–39; 25:1–17)” (Koester, 206).

18. “Though the menace which threatens the negligent is left imprecise, it is certainly perdition, as already suggested in 2:1, and it is presented as divine judgment in 10:27 and 31” (Bénétreau, 1:99 [my translation]).

19. Pace Bénétreau, 1:99, and many others.

20. Vanhoye, Situation, 241. The initial participle phrase ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου, “having a beginning to be spoken by the Lord,” relates the communication of this great salvation to “the Lord” Jesus; the main verb ἐβεβαιώθη, “was confirmed,” to those who heard him and relayed the message; and the concluding genitive absolute, δυνεπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ θεοῦ σημείοις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ ποικίλαις συνάμεσιν καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου μερισμοῖς κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν, “God himself bearing witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and apportionments of the Holy Spirit according to his will,” to God’s confirmation of the message.

21. The construction ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι is a bit strange (see Heb. 11:19; 2 Pet. 1:9). ἀρχήν must be taken as the object of λαβοῦσα and not the subject of λαλεῖσθαι for two reasons: first, if it were the subject of λαλεῖσθαι, then it would be necessary for the infinitive to complete the meaning of λαμβαίνω, something that never happens in the Greek Bible; second, it is the “great salvation,” not the “beginning,” which is spoken and is thus the implied subject of λαλεῖσθαι. This infinitive is, then, an epexegetical explanation of ἀρχήν showing the means of the “beginning.” Thus literally “having a beginning to be spoken through the Lord,” or “having a beginning by being spoken through the Lord.” The writer intentionally connects this revelation with Jesus. Cf. Koester, 211.

22. Lane, 1:39. It is better to understand “beginning” in this comprehensive way than to try to pinpoint the incarnation, exaltation, or some other point as the “beginning.” See Erich Grässer, “Das Heil als Wort: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Hebr 2, 1–4,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte, ed. Heinrich Baltensweiler and Bo Reicke (Tübingen: Siebeck, 1972), 263–66 (cited in O’Brien, 88).

23. Bachmann’s identification of “the Lord” in this passage with God and the word spoken with the prophetic word breaks the parallel with 1:1–4, weakens the significance of the comparison with angels in 1:5–14, underestimates the force of 1:10 for the meaning of “Lord,” and removes the Son’s incarnation and saving work from the central place in this passage which accords well with the rest of Hebrews. See M. Bachmann, “‘… gesprochen durch den Herrn’ (Hebr 2, 3): Erwägungen zum Reden Gottes und Jesu im Hebräerbrief,” Bib 71 (1990): 365–94.

24. Pace Weiss, 183–84. A preconceived idea of “early Catholicism” seems to lead Weiss and others to see in this description a reference to people who lived toward the end of the first century.

25. See Vanhoye, Situation, 243–44. This different use of the word “apostle” is no reason to deny that Hebrews affirmed the apostolic witness to Christ. Hebrews uses a terminology distinct from the rest of the NT.

26. English translations rightly supply this “him” lacking in Greek to show that the reference is to Christ. Bénétreau, 1:100–101, 104–5, gives an adequate critique of Attridge, Grässer, and others who argue that the reference is merely to the “message.”

27. In this passage συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος, a compound of σύν, “with,” and μαρτυρέω, “to bear witness,” means that God has added his confirming witness to the testimony of those who “heard the Lord.” Compare 1 Clem. 43:1 and see references in Bénétreau, 1:102, n. 1. The emphasis given God’s confirmation shows it to be decisive. In the following discussion “signs and wonders” is a translation of σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, and “miracles” of δυνάμεις.

28. However, Vanhoye’s suggestion (Situation, 244) that the present participle, συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος, “bearing witness along with,” indicates the continuation of the miraculous is weak. This participle qualifies the aorist verb ἐβεβαιώθη, “confirmed,” and describes what was going on at the time of confirmation.

29. It seems best to take πνεύματος as objective genitive since God is the doer of the action. Bénétreau, 1:104–5.

30. In 1 Corinthians 12 the Spirit gives supernatural “gifts” (χαρισμάτων, 1 Cor 12:4) for the edification of the church. In Heb 2:4 God gives special “apportionments” (μερισμοῖς) of the Spirit to his witness in order to work his confirming miracles through them. The unusual character of those “gifts” and the miracles effected by these “apportionments” show that they were according to God’s will (καθώς βούλεται, 1 Cor 12:11; and κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν, Heb 2:4). See Vanhoye, Situation, 247.

---

1. On retention of the singular “man” and “son of man” see the comments on v. 6 below.

2. υἱούς, “sons,” is inclusive of all the faithful, “sons and daughters.” “Sons” reinforces the parallel with “the Son.” In the ancient world “sons” were heirs. Thus by affirming that all are “sons” the writer includes both women and men in the inheritance of salvation (compare 1:14).

3. Although the angels are not as prominent in 2:5–18 as they were in 1:5–2:4, continued reference to them (2:5, 7, 9, 16) reinforces the complementary unity of these passages (Lane, 1:54; deSilva, 120; and Attridge, 94; pace Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 100).

4. Spicq, 2:29, and Weiss, 192, affirm the mutual relationship between 2:1–4 and 2:5–9. Mention of the “great salvation” in 2:1–4 anticipates the discussion of Christ’s humiliation and death in 2:5–9. γάρ (“for”) in v. 5 indicates that 2:5–18 provides additional motivation for the exhortation of 2:1–4 (pace Attridge, 69–70, n. 8) and thus confirms the connection with 1:1–14, which provided the initial motivation. Thus it is no surprise that γάρ also picks up the theme of submission from 1:1–14, as Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 101, contends.

5. Westfall’s failure to see how Ps 8:4–6 expounds Ps 110:1 contributes to her failure to recognize the close connection between 2:5–18 and 1:1–2:4 (Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 106). See George H. Guthrie, “‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CurBS 1 (2003): 281.

6. There is some validity to Koester’s argument that 2:5–9 is the propositio or “proposition” that introduces the Son’s suffering and death as the main theme of Hebrews underlying both his high-priestly work and his role as example of endurance (Koester, 219). Yet the high priesthood of Christ, introduced in 2:17–18, is the distinctive contribution of Hebrews. His eternal preexistence, assumption of humanity, suffering, obedience, and exaltation/session are all crucial to this priesthood.

7. On this relationship between 2:5–9 and 1:5–14 see also R. L. Brawley, “Discursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1: A Neglected Aspect of the Context,” CBQ 55 (1993): 84.

8. See G. H. Guthrie and R. D. Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis of the Use of Psalm 8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:5–9,” JETS 49 (2006): 239. Blomberg’s attempt to limit “about which we are speaking” to the coming quotation from Psalm 8 is forced and unconvincing (Craig L. Blomberg, “‘But We See Jesus’: The Relationship between the Son of Man in Hebrews 2.6 and 2.9 and the Implications for English Translations,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Context, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (LNTS 387; T&T Clark, 2008], 92–93). The identification of this “world” with the created world subjected to humanity finds no convincing support within the immediate or larger context.

9. οἰκουμένη, “world” (2:5), is used of the “world” the Son enters (1:6). See the comments on that verse. This world is the heavenly Most Holy Place (10:19–21) and homeland of God’s presence (11:10–13), which is eternal (12:25–29). See Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation, 42–44; F. F. Bruce, 71; O’Brien, 93.

10. Compare the “coming world of salvation” (τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν) with “those who are about to inherit salvation” (τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν) in 1:14. “About to” in 1:14 and “coming” in 2:5 translate the same participle. One could translate 1:14: “those who are coming to inherit salvation.” Compare 6:5 and 11:20.

11. The primary referent of “such a great salvation” in 2:3 is not final entrance into the coming “world” of salvation but God’s provision in Christ for perseverance. Pace Brawley, “Discursive Structure,” 90. The pastor’s goal is to present the grandeur of this provision in all of its majesty.

12. Verse 5 begins emphatically with οὐ … ἀγγέλοις (“not … to angels”).

13. See ὑποτάσσω (“subject”) in both 2:5 and 2:8 (Ps 8:6).

14. Hebrews’ use of this psalm has been facilitated by the LXX translation of , “God/gods” (Ps 8:5) as “angels.” The OT context requires a translation like “gods”/“heavenly beings” (NASB, NRSV) or “angels” (TNIV, ESV). Compare Ps 82:1b. The Targums, Syriac translation, and many Jewish commentators support the LXX. Westcott, 44. See Bénétreau, 1:112, and Vanhoye, Situation, 270–71.

15. This verse could describe the subjection that occurred at Christ’s session (Eph 1:20–23; 1 Pet 3:22) and that final subjection of all to him at his return (1 Cor 15:25–27; Phil 3:21). Hebrews integrates these two perspectives by affirming that the subjection that took place in principle at the exaltation would become a visible reality at Christ’s return.

16. Compare the way in which he alone develops Ps 110:1 in the light of Ps 110:4.

17. διαμαρτύρομαι, “attest” (2:6), is an intensified form of μαρτυρέω, “to bear witness” (7:8, 17 and 10:15).

18. Philo occasionally used such indefinite formulas of citation even when he knew the speaker (Unchangeable 74, Planting 90, Drunkenness 61). See Hughes, 83, n. 60, and Koester, 213–14. Here, however, the use of this indefinite form is purposeful. It shows that Psalm 8 is not spoken by the Father to the Son (1:5–14) or by the Son to the Father (2:10–13). On the way Hebrews introduces Scripture see “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” in the Introduction (esp. pp. 44–45, n. 194).

19. Compare the δέ, “but,” of 2:6 with the δέ of 1:6, 8.

20. Guthrie and Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis,” 238–39.

21. Guthrie and Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis,” 243–44, suggest that similarities between Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 and Hebrews support a Messianic understanding. See also Bruce, 72–74 and Hughes, 84–85. Certainly it would not have been long before readers who were familiar with the Gospels might have heard Messianic overtones when reading Hebrews (R. T. France, “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor,” TynBul 47 [1996]: 262). Yet “son of man” in Heb 2:6 lacks the definite article usually attached to it when Jesus uses it as a self-designation. Furthermore, the author of Hebrews gives no evidence of a Messianic understanding of this term elsewhere. See 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), 104–5. In 2:5–18 the pastor is clearly asserting the humanity of Jesus. For critique of Käsemann’s proposal that Gnostic, primal-man speculations have influenced this passage, see Attridge, 74–75 and Weiss, 197–98. Even Braun, 54, who affirms such influence on Paul, denies its presence in Heb 2:5–9.

22. Ps 8:6 is associated with Ps 110:1 in both 1 Cor 15:25–27 and Eph 1:20–23. Note the italicized portions of these verses: 1 Cor 15:25–27 (ESV): 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies (θῇ πάντας τοὺς ἐχθρούς, from Ps 110:1) under his feet [ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, from Ps 8:6). 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet” (πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ; Ps 8:6). Eph 1:20–23 (ESV): 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand (καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ, from Ps 110:1) in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet (πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, from Ps 8:6), and gave him as head over all things to the church.” See Ellingworth, 150–51.

23. It is true that the pastor offers no interpretive comment on this opening line of the psalm (O’Brien, 96, n. 76, citing Attridge, 74; Lane, 1:47; Ellingworth, 149; L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright [Oxford: Clarendon, 1987], 151–64, esp. 153). This fact, however, does not mean that he intends to make an independent statement about humanity in vv. 6–8 before applying this psalm to Jesus in v. 9. In v. 9 he identifies Jesus as the referent of the entire quotation.

24. Thus the way in which the TNIV and the NRSV render “man” and “son of man” respectively as “mortals” (TNIV)/“human beings” (NRSV) and “human beings” (NRSV)/“mortals” (TNIV) obscures the pastor’s attribution of this passage to “Jesus.” See Brawley, “Discursive Structure,” 84, n. 13. Cf. deSilva, 108.

25. Thus we agree with Bruce, 72–74; Hughes, 84–85; and Weiss, 197–98, that the pastor’s intention from the beginning is the application of this psalm to the Son. Brawley holds this position and lists a number of its supporters (Brawley, “Discursive Structure,” 84, n. 13). For an effective defense using discourse analysis see Guthrie and Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis,” 235–46.

26. Guthrie and Quinn, “A Discourse Analysis,” 243. “Remember” and “visit” express God’s “twofold regard of thought and action.” In the LXX and the NT ἐπισκέπτεσθαι refers almost exclusively to a visitation for the benefit of the one visited. See Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; Acts 15:14 (Westcott, 43). The pastor is not distracted with what is peripheral to his purpose in order to comment on these terms. When the text was applied to “Jesus,” they may have suggested the gracious way in which God sustained him and exalted him to his right hand.

27. Pace Westcott, 41, 45; Moffatt, 21, 23; Riggenbach, 37–38; Montefiore, 55, 57, 58; Bénétreau, 1:109–10; and O’Brien, 97, who contend that the pastor does not apply the psalm to Jesus until v. 9 (or v. 8c). For a recent comprehensive statement of this position see Blomberg, “‘But We See Jesus,’” 88–99. For others who support this interpretation see the literature cited by Blomberg.

28. According to this interpretation of v. 8bc, the application of Psalm 8 to Jesus was based on belief in him as representative of humanity and thus the one through whom humanity obtains its destiny. Even some like Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 119, still affirm this interpretation, though they note its weakness. The pastor clearly believes that God’s purposes for the creation are fulfilled in the destiny of the people of God (1:1–4, 14). Elsewhere, however, he is not concerned with the salvation of humanity as a whole but with the perseverance of God’s people. O’Brien, 105, would reconcile the idea of Jesus as the representative human and the pastor’s narrower focus on the perseverance of God’s people when he says, “The divine purposes for the whole of humanity, picked up from Psalm 8, find their fulfillment in the Son and those who belong to him.” However, in vv. 14–18 below the pastor follows a very different line of argument. In these verses he does not say that the Son became human in order to represent humanity. He says that the Son became human because the people of God were human. He became human in order to represent the people of God as their High Priest.

29. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 109–10. Leschert also notes that the γάρ (“for”) of v. 8 refers back to the subordination of the coming world in v. 5.

30. In an indirect way Blomberg, “‘But We See Jesus,’” 99, admits this fact when he says that, if one misses the insights that come from interpreting 2:6–8a as the author’s making a statement about the human condition, then one has “no other comparable passage in the letter from which to glean them.” The anthropological interpretation is a foreign body in Hebrews.

31. Compare the ἕως (“until”) of Ps 110:1b with the οὔπω (“not yet”) of Heb 2:8 in reference to Ps 8:6.

32. Ps 8:6a: “and you established him over the works of your hands.” Although there is strong external evidence for including this line in Heb 2:7, it was probably added to conform with the LXX of Psalm 8. TCGNT, 593–94, and Vanhoye, Situation, 264–65.

33. Ps 8:7: “sheep and all cattle, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens and the fish of the seas, the things passing through the sea.”

34. This forceful double negative (“nothing … unsubjected”) indicates that this comprehensive “all” includes, but, pace Braun, 55, cannot be restricted to, the coming world of salvation.

35. “In a state of subjection” catches the nuance of the perfect passive participle ὑποτεταγμένα.

36. Pace Weiss, 193–94, and Brawley, “Discursive Structure,” 84, 91, the pastor is not rebuking his hearers because they do not see what they should see with eyes of faith. This is shown by the way he associates himself with them in the inclusive “we.” It is also substantiated by the way he subsequently affirms that they “do” see the incarnate and exalted Lord.

37. See 3:1; 4:16; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:2, 24; 13:12. Weiss, 197. According to Westcott, 45, “The personal name Jesus … always fixes attention on the Lord’s humanity.…”

38. “On account of the suffering of death” qualifies “having been crowned with glory and honor.” Throughout Hebrews Christ’s suffering is the cause or means of his session (1:3; 9:12; 10:12). As 2:10 says, it is through this suffering that he is “perfected” as the savior of God’s people. See Bruce, 75–76; Westcott, 45; and Spicq, 2:33.

39. Cf. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 112–13. Their use by the author is in full accord with his main contention that the High Priest of God’s people is fully able to assist them in the present (4:14–16; 8:1–2; 10:19–25) because of the once-for-all sacrifice (7:12; 9:28; 10:10) by which he entered God’s presence “once for all” (9:12).

40. As does διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου (“on account of the suffering of death”). διά with the accusative, “on account of,” instead of διά with the genitive, “through” or “by means of.” Elsewhere the pastor may say that Jesus achieves exaltation “by means of” his death (cf. 1:3). Here, however, he emphasizes that God exalts him “on account of” his death.

41. The Greek, but not the Hebrew, will allow this temporal rendering, which is followed by the NASB, RSV, NRSV, and ESV in both vv. 7 and 9. The NIV and NKJV are correct to use “a little lower” in both verses. By combining the temporal “a little while” with the plural “mortals” (v. 7), the NRSV incorrectly implies that being “lower than the angels” is a temporary state rather than a description of humanity. See Westcott, 44; J. Kögel, Der Sohn und die Söhne: Eine Exegetische Studie zu Hebr 2:5–18 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1904), 25; and Vanhoye, Situation, 287.

42. See Westcott, 45 and Vanhoye, Situation, 287. Attridge, 76, n. 65, denies the continued humanity of the Son because he fails to see the nature of this paradox. His attempt (76, n. 64) to remove the force of the perfect is unconvincing. He argues that the temporal expression, “for a little while,” limits the continuing effect of the perfect. However, the very point to be proved is that βραχύ τι is a temporal qualifier. In the other examples Attridge cites, 9:26; 10:14; and 11:5, temporal qualifiers do not negate the continuing effect implied by the perfect tense. Attridge cites the following in support of his position: Moffatt, 23; Michel, 139; 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), 33; and David G. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 214, n. 20.

43. “The exaltation is not understood here as annulment of the humiliation. It is only as the Humiliated One that Jesus is much more the Exalted One” (Weiss, 196, n. 14 [my translation]). Cf. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 112–13.

44. Thus the pastor contrasts the final consummation of all things that “we do not yet see” (v. 8b) with physical eyes, and the incarnate Jesus and exalted Son whom “we” do “see” with the eyes of faith. This distinction between two kinds of “seeing” comes from the context and not from the use of different Greek words (ὁράω in v. 8; βλέπω in v. 9). Cf. Brawley, “Discursive Structure,” 85, n. 15.

45. “Stress is laid not upon the single historic fact that the Lord suffered death (διὰ τὸ παθεῖν θ.), but on the nature of the suffering itself (διὰ τὸ πάθημα)” (Westcott, 45–46). “The emphasis is on Jesus’ suffering unto death rather than on the fact of death itself” (Montefiore, 58).

46. In a strictly grammatical sense, “so that by the grace of God for all he might taste death” qualifies “on account of the suffering of death” (Michel, 139). However, Attridge, 76, is correct: “The clause thus relates to the whole of what precedes and indicates the basic purpose of the savior’s mission that culminates in his death and exaltation.” Cf. Montefiore, 58; Westcott, 46; Spicq, 2:34; F. F. Bruce, 76; Ellingworth, 155; and O’Brien, 100. The exaltation was the “confirmation” and “empowering” of his death with “universal validity” (Weiss, 199).

47. Although the alternative reading “without God” (χωρὶς θεοῦ) occurs only in a few Syriac Peshitta manuscripts, one Vulgate manuscript, and a few Greek minuscules, it was known by Origen, Eusebius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Jerome, Ambrose, and others. All the main Alexandrian and Western manuscripts, including ⁴⁶, support χάριτι θεοῦ, “by the grace of God.” Despite this paucity of external evidence, Braun and Montefiore accept χωρὶς θεοῦ, “without God,” as the most difficult and therefore preferred reading. Montefiore, 59, suggests that it accords with the pastor’s preference for χωρίς, which occurs thirteen times in Hebrews. “Without God” means that Jesus suffered death without the comfort of God. Michel, 139–40, TCGNT, 594, and all who follow the better-attested reading, argue that χωρίς θεοῦ was added as a marginal comment by a scribe under the influence of 1 Cor 15:27 to exclude God from the “all” for whom Christ died or the “all” subjected to Christ. A later copyist thought it a correction to χάριτι θεοῦ and thus emended the text. An original χάριτι θεοῦ is in accord with the way Hebrews attributes salvation to the divine initiative and is particularly fitting in light of the next verse’s (2:10) affirmation of the appropriateness of Jesus’s death to the character of God. See Weiss, 200–201; Spicq, 2:35; and Westcott, 46. Bruce, 70–71, n. 15, seems to think that χωρὶς θεοῦ was a scribal annotation later incorporated into the text by mistake and then “corrected” to χάριτι θεοῦ.

48. The masculine singular “for all” means “not only for ‘all,’ but ‘for each’” human being (Westcott, 46). When “all” is neuter in Hebrews, it is usually plural (Spicq, 2:35).

49. Montefiore, 59. The ruler of all offers salvation to all. See Weiss, 200.

50. Vanhoye, Situation, 292.

51. Vanhoye, Situation, 292. O’Brien, 100, n. 102, refers to Isa 51:17; Jer 49:18; Matt 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; 14:24; and John 8:52.

52. Thus vv. 10–18 are the logical development of “the grace of God” in 2:9 (Weiss, 204; cf. Lane, 1:55). The writer of Hebrews would have been astonished at any attempt to sever the saving work of the Son from the Father. He knows nothing of a wrathful Father opposed by a merciful Son.

53. διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα (“on account of whom the all and through whom the all”). The article τὰ makes πάντα absolute (see v. 8). “The end of the creation, of the universe and of all history is the same One by whom all has come into existence” (Spicq, 2:37 [my translation]). The pastor underscores the deity of the Son by using the same διά (διʼ οὗ) with the ablative of agency for both God (2:10) and the Son (1:2) (Westcott, 48).

54. The participle ἀγαγόντα, “bringing” or “leading,” is accusative, modifying “God,” the understood subject of the infinitive τελειῶσαι, “to perfect” (Lane, 1:56; Hughes, 102; O’Brien, 104). It is also telic, expressing the “divine design” (Vanhoye, Situation, 307, 309–10; Weiss, 206). The aorist tense of both participle (ἀγαγόντα, “bringing”) and infinitive (τελειῶσαι, “to perfect”) does not require simultaneous action (Montefiore, 60). God’s intention of bringing his children to glory will not reach consummation until the return of Christ. Christ’s being “perfected” was achieved at his exaltation/session.

55. For a discussion of “glory” as both receiving approval and entering God’s presence see Koester, 228. “To enter God’s glory (on the final day) is to enter the sphere where God’s presence is manifest (Isa 60:19), and this signifies life everlasting with him (Rom 2:7; 5:2; 1 Cor 15:42–43; Eph 1:18; 1 Pet 1:21; 5:10)” (O’Brien, 105).

56. Spicq, 2:38, citing Westcott. See also Weiss, 205.

57. Ellingworth, 647, is representative of many who miss this perhaps subtle yet important difference when he says, “Christ, by taking human nature and offering it to God as high priest, ‘brings many sons to glory,’ thus making them his brothers and children of God” (emphasis added).

58. Note the pastor’s use of πρέπει, “it is fitting,” rather than δεί, “it is necessary” (Vanhoye, Situation, 306). See Spicq, 2:36 and Westcott, 48. Cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.48; 3.203; and Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.168 (cited by O’Brien, 103).

59. Alan C. Mitchell, “The Use of πρέπειν and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” CBQ 54 (1992): 681–701, esp. 688–89, 694–97, has shown how the language of appropriateness (πρέπειν, “to be appropriate”) was used in ancient rhetoric. The speaker would attempt to show how the course of action advocated was suited to the character of the speaker, the needs of the hearers, and the circumstances in which they found themselves. When hearers grasped this appropriateness with both their imagination and their feelings, they were much more likely to be moved, than by mere logical argumentation.

60. ἀρχηγός has a broad range of meaning such as “leader,” “ruler,” “instigator,” and “founder” (BDAG, 138–39). “Pioneer” is most appropriate within the context of Hebrews. When people like Lane, 1:56–58, 62–63, interpret ἀρχηγός as the “champion” who delivers from death, they ignore the immediate context of v. 10 and interpret this word as if it occurred in vv. 14–15. Both Lane and Weiss are influenced by religious backgrounds alien to Hebrews. Lane thinks of the OT “Divine Warrior” and of Jesus as the “strong man” (Luke 22:28–30). Weiss (211–12) envisions the Gnostic redeemed redeemer, though he admits that there is no evidence for the association of ἀρχηγός with this myth. Loader’s contention that ἀρχηγός was first used in relation to the resurrection is unsupported, nor do Acts 5:31, Heb 2:10, or Heb 12:1–3 refer to Jesus’ “heavenly activity” (Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester, 20).

61. See Hughes, 100, and Koester, 228.

62. The term ἀρχηγός (ἀρχή, ἄγω), “pioneer,” is reminiscent of ἀγαγόντα (ἄγω), the word used in this verse for God’s “bringing” or “leading” his sons and daughters to glory.

63. Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Hebrews 2:5–18,” Vox Evangelica (1969): 54–71 and Leopold Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Studies in the History of Religion [Supplement to Numen] 25; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 210–11. ἀρχηγός, “Pioneer,” is not used of Moses in the LXX. However, when the people rebelled at Kadesh-Barnea (3:7–19), they wanted to choose “another” ἀρχηγός to replace Moses (Num 14:4). Moses led God’s “son” (singular) out of Egypt toward the Promised Land (Exod 4:21; Hos 11:1) just as this Pioneer leads the “sons and daughters” to glory (Vanhoye, Situation, 311).

64. διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου in v. 9, διὰ with the accusative singular, indicates cause: “because of the suffering of death” Jesus was “crowned with glory and honor.” διὰ παθημάτων, διά with the genitive, indicates means: “by means of sufferings” he was “perfected” as Savior. The unqualified plural, παθημάτων (“sufferings”), refers not merely to Christ’s death but to the lifelong process of suffering that culminated in his death. See O’Brien, 107; Bénétreau, 1:122; and Johnson, 97.

65. Peterson’s contention that the whole series of events from incarnation to exaltation constituted the perfection of Christ as Savior is, in one sense, true (Peterson, Perfection, 73). Yet one must not obscure the pastor’s emphasis on the centrality of the Son’s suffering and on his obedience (10:5–10).

66. Spicq, 2:39–40.

67. See the discussion in Lane, 1:57–58, and Ellingworth, 161–63. τελείουν was often used in the context of priestly consecration (Exod 29:9; 32:35; Lev 4:5; 8:33; 16:32; Num 3:3; 2 Macc 2:9; 4 Macc 7:15; Sir 34 [31]:10) even if alone it was not a technical term for this act (Peterson, Perfection, 29–30). Furthermore, the noun τελείωσις (“perfection”) appears frequently within such contexts: Exod 29:22, 26, 27, 31, 34; Lev 7:37; 8:22 (21); 29 (28). Cf. Lev 8:26 (25), 31, 33. Philo, Heir 251; Alleg. Interp. 3.130; Migration 67; Moses 2.149 (Peterson, Perfection, 254, n. 6). Thus the Hebrews’ context would make it virtually impossible for the hearers to miss the priestly associations of this term. Weiss’s attempt, 209, to exclude the priestly by separating “perfection” and exaltation in 2:10; 5:9; and 7:28 is unconvincing. Even he must admit that these references are “near” the cultic sphere and that the cultic connotation is present when Hebrews refers to the inability of the law to bring perfection (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1, 14). On the priestly connotation of perfection in Hebrews see Gerhard Delling, “τελειόω,” in TDNT 8:82–84; Martin Dibelius, “Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief,” in Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze II: Zum Urchristentum und zur hellenistischen Religionsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1956), 160–76; Mathias Rissi, “Die Menschlichkeit Jesu nach Hebr. 5.7 und 8,” TZ 11 (1955): 28–45; and Olaf Moe, “Der Gedanke des allgemeinen Priestertums im Hebräerbrief,” TZ 5 (1949): 161–69.

68. Thus Peterson, Perfection, 66–73, is correct when he emphasizes the vocational nature of this perfection. However, one need not minimize the other connotations of this rich term that fit well with this vocational understanding and have an appropriate place within the context of Hebrews.

69. Similarity of sound helps the pastor associate these words: ἀρχηγός, “pioneer,” and ἀρχιερεύς, “high priest,” both begin with ἀρχή, “beginning,” “first.” ἀρχηγός is, as noted above, a combination of ἀρχή and ἄγω, the same word used in the participle ἀγαγόντα, translated above as “bringing” many sons and daughters into glory. The Son is the “arch-priest” and the “arch-bringer.”

70. See on 1:1–3 and cf. Moises Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976): 60–71.

71. πάντες (“all”) qualifies both οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι (“those being sanctified”) and ὃ ἁγιάζων (“the one sanctifying”), thus emphasizing their commonality derived ἐξ ἑνός (“from one”). Riggenbach, 51.

72. See Vanhoye, Situation, 334; Hughes, 105; and Pfitzner, 66.

73. For ἑνός (“one,” ἐξ ἑνός, “from one”) as a reference to Adam, see J. Héring, 19. For Abraham as the progenitor of humanity, see Buchanan, 32; Ellingworth, 165; Johnson, 97; J. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 75; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992), 209–13; Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefes (WUNT 41; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987), 60; and J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), 132–34.

74. Spicq, 2:40–41. However, Spicq also says that “of one” corresponds to “by the grace of God” in v. 9 (Spicq, 2:41). deSilva’s reference (114) to Stoic tradition of the common origin of humanity in God is irrelevant here.

75. Montefiore, 62.

76. Thus Lane, 1:58, is correct when he says, “Both the Son and those who are sons share a common familial relationship that is rooted in the gracious determination of God to bring his children to their destiny through the redemptive mission of the Son.…” So also Montefiore, 62, who affirms that God’s people have the same “parent” because they are his “sons” but in a different way from the “Son.” Westcott, 50; Koester, 230; Bruce, 81; Attridge, 89; and O’Brien, 109, agree that ἑνός (“one”) refers to God. See R. Laub, Bekenntnis und Auslegung: Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbrief (BU 15; Regensburg: Pustet, 1980), 77.

77. See the following passages in the Greek Bible: Exod 31:12; Lev 20:8; 21:15; 22:9, 16, 32, though God can also “sanctify” through an agent like Moses (Exod 19:24; 29:1; Lev 8:11–12). This term is also used with reference to Jesus in Heb 10:14; 13:12. See Lane, 1:58; O’Brien, 108.

78. The term for “make holy” or “sanctify” (ἁγιάζω), introduced here in 2:11, is closely related to “cleanse”/“purify” (καθαρίζω, 9:14) and to “purification” (καθαρισμός, 1:3). While “make holy” may denote consecration to God (BDAG, 10, 2), it is a consecration brought about by cleansing from sin through the atonement provided by Christ’s sacrifice (see Otto Procksch, “ἁγιάζω,” TDNT 1:111–12). The old sacrifices could cleanse only “the flesh” but Christ’s sufficed for the cleansing of “the conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (9:11–14). See the commentary on 10:5–10, 29 (cf. 13:12). This deliverance from sin is something the faithful have both experienced in a definitive way (10:10) and continue to experience (2:10).

79. deSilva, 115; Koester, 230.

80. This exposition develops Attridge’s insightful suggestion that 2:12–13 contains the Son’s answers to God’s address in 1:5–14 (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).

81. Hebrews quotes this psalm according to the standard LXX text except that it substitutes ἀπαγγελῶ, “proclaim,” for διηγήσομαι, “tell, relate.” For suggestions on the significance of this change see Ellingworth, 168.

82. NT writers, taking their cue from Jesus, saw how clearly Psalm 22 described his passion: his bones were not broken (John 19:31–36; Ps 22:16–17); his garments were divided by lot (Matt 27:35; John 19:23–24; Ps 22:18); and he was mocked by his tormentors (Matt 27:39–43; Ps 22:7–8). See Hughes, 107. “The ground of the application in the first case lies in the fact that the language used goes beyond the actual experience of David, or of any righteous sufferer” (Westcott, 50). deSilva, 116, adds, “… since the final word was spoken through the Son, the earlier words can frequently find their ‘true’ meaning when spoken by him as well.” Thus Hebrews is using a passage that was widely understood by Christians as a reference to the Messiah (Johnson, 99).

83. Hughes, 108. It makes better sense of both the original psalmic and the present contexts if Christ proclaimed these words at his exaltation/session rather than at his second coming (Lane, 1:59) or incarnation (Attridge, 90).

84. See Bénétreau, 1:125–26. “Brothers and sisters” is clearly a designation for the people of God as evidenced by the parallel expression “congregation” in Ps 22:22b.

85. The way in which the LXX of Isaiah introduces Isa 8:17 with “and one shall say” (absent in the Hebrew text) has made it easy to apply Isa 8:17–18 to Christ. One might translate the LXX of Isa 8:17, “And one shall say, I will wait for God, … and I will put my trust in him (καὶ πεπιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπʼ αὐτῷ).” Compare the Hebrew text as represented by the NRSV/ESV, “I will wait for the LORD, … and I will hope in him.”

86. The use of 2 Samuel 22 in Christian liturgy makes a reference to this passage all the more likely. See Lane, 1:59 and Vanhoye, Situation, 344–45. There is no reason to believe the author of Hebrews has Isa 12:2 in mind.

87. See Lane, 1:59–60 and Ellingworth, 169. Compare the way in which the pastor uses the same phrase, καὶ πάλιν, “and again,” in Heb 10:30 to divide the quotation from Deut 32:35–36.

88. This emphasis on faithfulness implies the humanity of the Son (Bénétreau, 1:126–28). Thus it is unclear why Attridge, 91, doubts reference here to “the frailty of Christ in his human condition.” See Vanhoye, Situation, 344 and Moffatt, 33. deSilva, 116, has been led astray by the patron/client relationship when he proposes that this is the Son’s confidence in his people.

89. Compare “I will put my trust in him” (Isa 8:17) with “He trusted in God, let him deliver him” (Matt 27:43). Spicq, 2:42.

90. This unity between the Son and his “children” is no evidence for the influence of the Gnostic redeemed-redeemer myth as argued by 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), 147–49, and supported by Braun, 63–64. See Bruce, 84; Lane, 1:60. Hebrews does not reflect Gnostic terminology, and the existence of this myth contemporary with Hebrews is highly problematic. The pastor’s emphasis on the preincarnate relationship between Christ and God’s people is more naturally explained by his conviction that Christ came to enable the people of God, already brought into existence through God’s OT revelation, to attain their final destiny.

91. Spicq, 2:42, demonstrates that Isaiah is a type of Christ as God’s faithful representative and the focal point of God’s people. See also Westcott, 51–52. The “children” given once to Isaiah and now to Christ are the faithful people of God.

92. Note the risen Christ’s use of this term, παιδίον, plural παιδία, to designate an affectionate relationship with his disciples (John 21:5). παιδίον is less encumbered by ideas of physical descent than its synonym, τέκνον, but both can be used in a figurative sense. See L&N §9.46, and Albrecht Oepke, “παῖς, παιδίον, παιδάριον, τέκνον, τεκνίον, βρέφος,” TDNT 5:638.

93. As indicated in the note above, the word here translated “child” is παιδίον. Heb 12:4–11 employs the related verb form παιδεύω, meaning “to discipline,” “to train,” and the related noun, παιδεία, “discipline,” “training.”

94. Michael E. Gudorf, “Through a Classical Lens: Hebrews 2:16,” JBL 119 (2000): 105–8, has suggested, on the basis of classical usage, that it is the “fear of death” from the last clause of v. 15 that has “taken hold of” the “seed of Abraham” in v. 16a. This suggestion is interesting, but it unnecessarily shifts the subject, which is Christ throughout these verses, and destroys the parallelism between vv. 14–15 and 16–18 by making v. 16a parenthetic.

95. “Therefore, since the children share blood and flesh” (14a); “For clearly it is not angels he has taken hold of, but the seed of Abraham he has taken hold of” (16).

96. “He himself in like manner became a partaker with them” (14b); “Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made like the brothers and sisters in every way” (17a).

97. “In order that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (14c); “in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God” (17b).

98. “And set free those who by fear of death throughout their lives were subject to bondage” (v. 15); “to make atonement for the sins of the people” (v. 17c).

99. See 4:15; 5:8; 7:26; 9:14; and Pfitzner, 67.

100. Thus, as Attridge, 75, n. 58, demonstrates, the Christology of vv. 14–15 is not derived from the Gnostic myth, as proposed by Weiss, 219–21, and others. Neither, however, is it dependent on a more undefined Hellenistic syncretism, as advocated by Attridge, 79–82.

101. Pace Attridge, 92, who denies that Hebrews attests the “Pauline” understanding of the relationship between sin and death.

102. See the commentary below on this chapter, especially on 11:17–19, 35. Cf. also the comments on 5:7–10.

103. Ellingworth, 170–71, is correct in observing that the repetition of “children” underscores the inferential significance of οὖν, “therefore.” Cf. Hughes, 110. Pace Attridge, 91.

104. Weiss, 217.

105. Thus μετέσκεν is inceptive aorist: the Son “began to share” in their humanity. On the other hand, κεκοινώνηκεν is the emphatic perfect emphasizing the present condition of God’s people: they “share” the human condition. See Lane, 1:60; Bénétreau, 1:129; Spicq, 2:43; and Attridge, 92.

106. Pace Ellingworth, 171. See references in Spicq and Bénétreau cited in the previous note.

107. Ellingworth, 171. “Blood and flesh” also occurs in Eph 6:12. Cf. Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; 1 En. 15:4.

108. So Spicq, 2:43, and Montefiore, 64.

109. The pastor is referring to Christ’s death but omits the personal pronoun in order to emphasize that the intimidating power of “death” was destroyed by “death” itself. See Riggenbach, 55.

110. καταργέω, “destroy,” can also mean “‘to deprive something of its power’ (Rom 3:31; Eph. 2:15)” (O’Brien, 115, citing L&N §76.26; Koester, 231).

111. See Weiss, 219–21, Attridge, 79–82, and the sources they cite.

112. Spicq, 2:43–44. Gen 2:17: “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” This connection between sin and death was native to the OT and widespread in the Hellenistic world. See Wis 1:13; 2:23–24; Montefiore, 65; and Bruce, 86.

113. For apocalyptic expectations of the Messiah’s triumph over demonic forces see Attridge, 92, n. 153; O’Brien, 114, n. 161; and the sources they cite, including As. Mos. 10:1; T. Levi 18:2; T. Dan 5:10; T. Jud. 25:3; Sib. Or. 3:63–74; 1 En. 10:13; 4 Ezra 13:1; 1QH 6:29; 1QM 1:11, 13, 15, 17.

114. deSilva, 118. See also Attridge, 93, nn. 165–66, and Spicq, 2:44. Although the pastor refers to the common human preoccupation with death, what he has to say would certainly fortify his hearers against anticipated persecution (Lane, 1:54, 61). Johnson, 100; Koester, 232; and O’Brien, 116, n. 174, cite what contemporary philosophers like Seneca, Dio Chrysostom, Lucretius, Plutarch, and Cicero have to say about the fear of death.

115. Pfitzner, 68; Attridge, 94; O’Brien, 117. Pace Karl-Gustav E. Dolfe, “Hebrews 2, 16 under the Magnifying Glass,” ZNW 84 (1993): 290, the “seed of Abraham” does not refer to the Jews per se. As noted in the Introduction (pp. 20–21, 43–44), the pastor never distinguishes between an old and new people of God. “[S]uch a reading is impossible in this context” (Johnson, 102, n. 5).

116. See “In the day of my taking them (ἐπιλαβομένου μου) by the hand to lead them out of Egypt,” Jer 31:32 quoted in Heb 8:9. ἐπιλαβομένου is the aorist middle participle of ἐπιλαμβάνομαι. See O’Brien, 117 and Koester, 240. Hebrews, however, is not interested so much in past deliverance as in future perseverance. Thus Christ’s high-priestly work is not pictured primarily as that which made them the people of God but as that which enables them to persevere as the people of God. This passage may have verbal reminiscences with Isa 48:8–10, which speaks of the “seed of Abraham (σπέρμα Αβρααμ) of whom God says, “I have helped (ἀντελαβόμην).” Compare also “my child” (παῖς μου, Isa 48:8) with “children” (παιδία, 2:13, 14), and “fear not” (μὴ φοβοῦ, Isa 48:10) with “fear of death” (φόβῳ θανάτου, 2:15) (cf. Lane, 1:63–64; deSilva, 119–20). These similarities, however, are no reason to assimilate the meaning of ἐπιλαμβάνεται (“take hold of”) to the related verb ἀντιλαμβάνεται (“help”), as done in many translations (NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV). See Vanhoye, Situation, 357–58, and Bénétreau, 1:131. Lane and deSilva, cited above, think Hebrews has substituted ἐπιλαμβάνεται for ἀντιλαμβάνεται under the influence of Jer 31:32.

117. Several factors show that “take hold of” is not a reference to the incarnation, as suggested by Spicq, 2:45–46, and held by many Church Fathers and reformers: first, it is individuals, not human nature, that the Son “takes hold of.” Second, those individuals are the people of God, not human beings in general. Third, if “take hold of” (v. 16) and “in every way made like his brothers and sisters” (v. 17a) both refer to incarnation, then Hebrews would be saying, “he became incarnate; therefore he became incarnate.” See Hughes, 117–19.

118. Vanhoye, Situation, 357–58.

119. Ellingworth, 180, calls this identification a “moral obligation.”

120. τὰ πρὸς τὸ θεόν, “things pertaining to God,” is a standard phrase in the LXX Pentateuch meaning “with regard to God” (e.g., Exod 4:16; 18:19). Lane, 1:65.

121. For this dual understanding of πιστός (“faithful,” “trustworthy”) see, among others, Bénétreau, 1:133–34; Bruce, 88; Attridge, 95, nn. 189–90; and O’Brien, 121.

122. In 1 Sam 2:35 God promises: “I will raise up to myself a faithful priest … and I will build him a sure house” (καὶ ἀναστήσω ἐμαυτῷ ἰερέα πιστὸν … καὶ οἰκοδομήσω αὐτῷ οἶκον πιστόν). deSilva, 120, suggests that this mention of a “faithful house” may have led to the use of Num 12:7, in which Moses is “faithful” in all God’s “house” (Heb 3:2, 5). Mary Rose D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS 42; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 70–76, carries this argument further. She believes that the “royal priesthood” of Hebrews is based on both this oracle of a faithful priest and Nathan’s oracle to David of a royal descendant (2 Sam 7:14–16/1 Chr 17:12–14). The clause “I will make him faithful in my house” (πιστώσω αὐτὸν ἐν οἴκῳ μου, 1 Chr 17:14) establishes a verbal link between the two. In fact, however, the pastor makes no overt use of 1 Sam 2:35. It would not have provided the justification for a non-Aaronic priest supplied by Ps 110:4.

123. See Vanhoye, Situation, 376–77, and Johnson, 104.

124. On the parallel between Christ’s being “perfected” in v. 10 and his becoming High Priest in v. 17 see George Guthrie, Structure, 77–78.

125. Riggenbach, 61–62, n. 59.

126. The phrase “the people” is a common OT expression for the people of God and thus, like “sons and daughters,” “brothers and sisters,” “children,” and “seed of Abraham,” identifies the present hearers with God’s people throughout history. See Vanhoye, Situation, 382–83.

127. Vanhoye, Situation, 384.

128. Bénétreau, 1:135.

129. Vanhoye, Situation, 385–86. Interpreters differ on the relationship between the relative clause, ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν, “by/because of what he has suffered,” and the participle, πειρασθείς, “having been tested,” or “because/when he was tested.” It is grammatically possible for the relative clause to qualify the participle; or the participle, the relative clause. The NRSV, given in the text above, follows the first option by translating the participle as causal and the relative as instrumental. The ESV follows the second, construing the relative as causal and the participle as temporal: “Because he himself has suffered when tempted.” As explained in the text above, the context of Hebrews supports this second option.

130. This emphasis is shown by the fact that the relative clause is given the initial emphatic position, by the use of the perfect tense, πέπονθεν, “he has suffered,” and by the intensive αὐτός, “he himself has suffered” (see O’Brien, 122–3). Weiss, 227, calls Christ’s sufferings the prototype of trials faced by God’s people.

131. The perfect tense of πέπονθεν (“he has suffered”) not only puts emphasis on Jesus’ suffering, as noted above, but it suggests that he successfully brought it to a conclusion (through obedience) and that its beneficial effects continue (cf. Spicq, 2:49).

132. Note how the pastor opens this sermon in v. 1 with five “p” words—πολυμερῶς (“various times”), πολυτρόπως (“various ways”), πάλαι (“of old”), πατράσιν (“fathers”), and προφήταις (“prophets”)—and closes this first section in 2:18 with three—πέπονθεν (“he has suffered”), πειρασθείς (“having been tested”), πειραζομένοις (“those who are being tested”).

---

1. Albert Vanhoye, “Longue marche ou accìs tout proche? Le context biblique de Hébreux 3, 7–4, 11,” Bib 49 (1968): 18–19.

2. “The present situation of the readers is seen to virtually merge with the situation of the ‘Fathers’ at Kadesh” (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], 264). One might also say that the situation of the “Fathers” has merged with that of the first recipients. Instead of contrast (1:1–2), or the argument from less to greater, the pastor uses comparison: “we have received good news just as they” (4:2; Ellingworth, 214; contra Spicq, 2:71; Weiss, 256). The superiority of the Son in 3:1–6 does not anticipate a superior people of God (pace Bénétreau, 1:158) but the superior privileges brought by Christ that are ultimately beneficial for God’s people both before and after the incarnation (cf. 11:39–40). Even Bénétreau (1:158) must admit “a strong bond of continuity.” Pace Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 117, 121–22, there is nothing in this text that distinguishes a “house of Jesus” and a “house of Moses” (cf. her reference to “God’s house” on p. 125).

3. Thus, the pastor does not prematurely introduce the Son as an example to be emulated in 3:1–6 or 3:7–19 (see Victor Rhee, Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology and Ethics [New York: Peter Lang, 2001], 94–96). The strategic moment for the Son’s example will not arrive until 12:1–3.

4. Once one realizes that there is one people of God, then it is misleading to speak of the “old” people as a type of the “new.” The people of God in the past provide examples for the people of God in the present. See on typology under “The Sermon’s Use of the Old Testament” in the Introduction (pp. 52–54). Many, such as Spicq (2:71–72) and Weiss (255–56), recognize a strong continuity between God’s people before and after the incarnation but continue to speak of a “typological” relationship. Spicq can say that both Christians and Israel have “received the same (mémes) promises, pass through analogous (analogue) tests, are exposed to the same (mémes) danger of apostasy, are going toward similar (sembles) purposes, and are exhorted to faithfulness in identical (identiques) terms” (2:71–72). Yet he calls the wilderness generation “the figure of the Christian people” (2:71). The key is, with Laansma, Rest Motif, 275, to recognize that God’s people throughout history have always pursued the same “rest” (contrast Spicq’s “similar [sembles] purposes”). The pastor simply does not think in terms of “Israel” and “the Church” (cf. Ellingworth, 216).

5. Thus while the difference “between the wilderness generation and the author’s first readers is formally temporal … , in substance …,” it is the difference between unbelief and obedience (Ellingworth, 216, italics original). The exemplary use of the OT faithful (11:1–38), who have now through Christ (11:39–40) come with all the obedient to Mount Zion (12:22–24), assumes the unity of the people of God from Creation (11:1–3) to Consummation (12:25–29).

6. Even Grässer admits that Hofius has corrected Käsemann by showing that the theme of 3:7–4:11 is the crisis at Kadesh rather than the wilderness wandering (Erich Grässer, “Das Wandernde Gottesvolk: Zum Basismotiv des Hebräerbriefes,” ZNW 77 [1986]: 167–69).

7. Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1970), 117–39; Vanhoye, “Longue marche,” 9–26. Laansma, Rest Motif, 263, lists twelve features of 3:7–4:11 that conclusively identify this incident with the Kadesh rebellion in Num 14:1–45.

8. Bénétreau, 1:160–63. Witness God’s affirmation that their “hearts are always going astray” (Heb 3:10b, citing Ps 95:10b). This phrase in the psalm reminds the reader of God’s charge (Num 14:22) that Kadesh was the climax of repeated disobedience. Bénétreau also reminds the interpreter that “testing” God was a common description of the wilderness generation’s behavior. The rebellion at Kadesh was not just a rhetorical synecdoche in which a part is used for the whole of the wilderness period, as argued by Koester, 264, n. 124. It was the climax of Israel’s rebellion in Hebrews just as it was in the OT.

9. See the commentary on chapter 11, and esp. William G. Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” JBL 97 (1978): 239–51.

10. This lack of journey-motif in Heb 3:7–4:11 belies Käsemann’s claim that the pastor’s exposition of Psalm 95 is based on the Gnostic myth of the soul’s journey through the cosmos to heaven (Käsemann, Wandering, 67–96, 240). See esp. Laansma, Rest Motif, 310–14.

11. Pace Lane, 1:90, Hebrews nowhere pictures the wilderness journey “as normative in the life of the people of God because it was a period of spiritual formation.”

12. Lane, 1:90.

13. Hofius, Katapausis, 140–43.

14. Ellingworth’s (222) attempt to reduce the force of this wilderness-generation warning to a mere caution against passive lethargy is unconvincing. His interpretation of “to turn away from the living God” as “desertion” instead of “deliberate disobedience” is without support, especially in light of Num 14:11.

---

1. See pp. 153–57, the introductory comments on 3:1–4:13.

2. On the consequential nature of ὅθεν (“therefore”) in v. 1, see Spicq, 2:64, and compare 2:17; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18; and 11:19. See also Weiss, 240, and Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 111.

3. The adjective “holy” (ἅγιοι) comes after “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί) but before “partakers of the heavenly calling” (κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι). Most translations take “holy” with the preceding expression, “holy brothers and sisters”; some construe it with what follows, “holy partners in a heavenly calling” (NRSV). Spicq, 2:64, understands it as an independent substantive, “brothers and sisters, holy ones, partakers of the heavenly calling.” This adjective is often used substantively for the “saints” or “holy ones” in Acts, the Pauline letters, 1 Peter, and the Apostolic Fathers (cf. Heb 6:10; 13:24). It had already been used for Israelites in the LXX. See Braun, 77. Spicq is right in affirming that “holy” identifies these believers as the privileged people of God, but misled in excluding the personal moral transformation described in Heb 9:11. Pace E. Grässer, “Mose und Jesus: Zur Auslegung von Hebr 3:1–6,” ZNW 75 (1984): 5–6, the future eschatological orientation of this call does not preclude, but rather implies, present moral and spiritual transformation.

4. For the use of such designations by early Christians, Jews, and other contemporary religious groups see Braun, 77.

5. Cf. P. Auffret, “Essai sur la structure littéraire et l’interprétation d’Hébreux 3, 1–6,” NTS 26 (1979–80): 381.

6. Koester, 242. Compare Phil 3:14; Eph 2:6; and 2 Tim 4:18.

7. See Weiss, 242. The Son “partook” (μετέσχεν) of his people’s humanity (2:14) so that they might be “partakers” (μέτοχοι) of the heavenly calling” (3:1). On the significance of the heavenly and the earthly in Hebrews see the Introduction (pp. 24–34).

8. Compare ἀπόστολος, “apostle,” with ἀποστέλλω, “send.” Similar ideas occur in such passages as Matt 10:40; John 13:20 and 14:9.

9. In the First Apology Justin calls Jesus “Son of God and Apostle” (12.9) and “Angel/Messenger [ἄγγελος] and Apostle” (63.5, 10, 14). In this last reference Justin appears to be dependent on Exod 23:20 LXX: “Behold, I send my angel [ἄγγελος] before you.” Instead of “angel,” the Samaritan Targum reads “apostle” in Exod 23:20 (and in Exod 20:23; 32:34). Thus Justin’s reading might bear witness to a conflation of two textual traditions in Exod 23:20—one that read “angel/messenger” (ἄγγελος); and one, “apostle” (ἀπόστολος). Lane, 1:75, suggests that if the author of Hebrews knew of such a variant reading, it might have influenced his use of “apostle” in this verse.

10. The NT understanding of ἀπόστολος as the accredited representative of another is unparalleled in contemporary Hellenistic Judaism but similar to the significance of the or “apostle” in later rabbinic Judaism. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολος,” TDNT 1:420–24.

11. For the association of “son” with 1:1–2:4 and “high priest” with 2:4–18 see on those passages above and Bénétreau, 1:150, n. 1; Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 8–9, and esp. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 112.

12. It is probable that the use of “apostle” for Jesus was motivated by the contrast with Moses, who functioned as God’s designated representative in the OT and in Hellenistic Judaism, even if he was not called by the title “apostle” in those sources. See Weiss, 244–48, and Ellingworth, 199. According to Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολος,” TDNT 1:419, the rabbis referred to Moses (along with Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel) as God’s “apostle” () because things took place through him such as water from the rock that were “normally reserved for God.” Rengstorf, TDNT 1:421–22, and others have suggested that the joining of “apostle” and “high priest” in Heb 3:1–6 reflects the rabbinic identification of the high priest as God’s “apostle” (). Heb 3:1–6, however, does not present Moses as a type of Christ in the capacities of both apostle/revealer and high priest as suggested by Spicq, 2:65. See the critique in Hughes, 127–28. The traditions about Moses’ priesthood introduced by Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews (SBLDS 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 157–61, are alien to the text of Hebrews, which attributes no priestly function to Moses. Moses is a type of Christ as revealer (1:1–2:4) and leader of the wilderness generation (3:7–4:11); the Aaronic high priest is a type of Christ as high priest. Koester’s attempt, 243, to connect ἀπόστολος, “apostle,” with ἀρχηγός, pioneer” (2:10), is superficial and unconvincing.

13. If “Pioneer” (2:10) evoked Moses’ role as leader of God’s people toward the Promised Land, “Apostle” (3:1) reflects Moses’ role as supreme OT agent of revelation.

14. The terms “apostle” and “high priest” are closely bound together by one article, τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα, thus designating two closely related aspects of the one described. Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 114, acknowledges the close relationship between these terms but fails to see that Christ’s high priesthood fulfills his apostleship. This oversight is in agreement with her failure to see the close relationship between 1:1–2:4 and 2:5–18.

15. The suggestion that Apostle refers to Christ’s earthly and High Priest to his heavenly ministry obscures the fact that the Son becomes the full revelation of God only when he has completed the work of redemption (pace Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 9). These terms affirm the inseparable unity of revelation (“apostle”) and redemption (“high priest”), not, as Spicq, 2:65, suggests, between incarnation and redemption. Bénétreau’s (1:150) proposal that Christ represents God to us as “apostle,” and us to God as “high priest” (cf. Johnson, 107; Pfitzner, 73), also fails to grasp the true interrelationship between the two.

16. O’Brien, 130, citing BDAG, 709, and L&N §33.274.

17. Compare the REB, “the faith we profess.” See Hughes, 129. According to Koester, 243, the presence of the definite article favors reference to a formulated body of material with definite content. He also suggests that the exhortation to “hold” the confession “fast” in 4:14 and 10:23 indicates that its content could be “identified and grasped (cf. 4:14; 10:23).” Weiss, 243–44, thinks the pastor is referring to their baptismal confession.

18. References are given above. See Spicq, 2:64–65.

19. Attridge, 108, thinks the confession affirmed Christ as “Son” and perhaps as “Apostle” and “High Priest.” O’Brien, 130, thinks that “Apostle and High Priest” would have been appropriate for the hearers’ confession because they fit well with all the author has been saying. One would, however, have expected these terms to appear elsewhere in a confessional context (129, n. 20). Ellingworth, 199, would restrict the confession to “Son” alone. Bénétreau, 1:151, thinks the evidence insufficient to posit a fixed confession of any kind.

20. Pace O’Brien, 131, and the NRSV: “consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, was faithful to the one who appointed him.…” See also Lane, 1:71.

21. Thus all of v. 2 is the object of “consider” (Auffret, “Essai,” 382).

22. Hughes, 120; Westcott, 57; E. Grässer, Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief (MTS 2; Marburg: Elwert, 1965), 21–22; and I. G. Wallis, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (SNTSMS 84; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 148, argue that πιστός applies primarily to the exalted Apostle and High Priest; Koester, 243; Montefiore, 67; and Moffatt, 37, among others, that its primary function is to describe Jesus’ incarnate obedience.

23. ποιήσαντι, the aorist participle of ποιέω, should probably be translated “appointed” (1 Sam 12:6 LXX; Mark 3:14; Acts 2:36) and not “made.” Hebrews distinguishes the Son from all created things (1:1–3). See Koester, 244, and Spicq, 2:65–66. Yet Grässer’s suggestion (“Mose und Jesus,” 12) that this term includes a reference to the “making” of Jesus’ human body is interesting (cf. Johnson, 107). In 10:5–10 the Son does refer to the “body you prepared for me.” Such an interpretation focuses the emphasis even more firmly on Jesus’ faithfulness to God as a human being. It is probably going beyond what the context would warrant to join both connotations as an affirmation that the incarnation was the time of the Son’s appointment as “Apostle and High Priest.”

24. It makes more sense to say that he was “faithful” to God than that he was “accredited with God,” as argued by A. Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest according to the New Testament (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1986), 96–98. After his initial presentation Vanhoye acts as if the text said “accredited” or “worthy of trust” by God’s people. Jesus, however, is worthy of his people’s trust because he has been faithful to God. See Koester, 243–44.

25. Thus since Christ was πιστός in the active sense of “faithful,” he was also πιστός in the passive sense of “trustworthy.”

26. The one who came to do God’s will (10:5–10) and was “without sin” (4:15) was indeed more “faithful” than Moses. Such superiority is not, however, the pastor’s point in this passage. Dey’s critique of Spicq, whose title for this section is “The Faithfulness of Christ Is Superior to That of Moses” (my translation), is correct (Dey, Perfection, 156; Spicq, 2:63). Cf. Attridge, 109, n. 63; O’Brien, 131.

27. D’Angelo, Moses, 65–93, has argued that Heb 3:2 is a quotation of the Nathan oracle in 1 Chr 17:14 with only a secondary allusion to Num 12:7. 1 Chr 17:14 reads, “I will make him faithful in my house” (πιστώσω αὐτὸν ἐν οἴκῳ μου). According to this interpretation, the author uses the Nathan oracle to establish the faithfulness of Christ in v. 2 and Num 12:7 to affirm the faithfulness of Moses in v. 5 as a basis for comparing the two. See also Lane, 1:76–77. However, reference to 1 Chr 17:14 is very unlikely for several reasons. First, 1 Chronicles does not fit the syntax of this passage. It requires taking πιστόν with τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτόν, “to the one who made [or appointed] him faithful,” in order to make this phrase the equivalent of πιστώσω αὐτόν, “I will make him faithful” (1 Chr 17:14). It is much more natural for πιστόν to modify the Ἰησοῦν it follows. In any case, “I will make him faithful” is a questionable translation of πιστώσω αὐτόν in 1 Chr 17:14. See Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, comps., Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 494. Second, reference to 1 Chronicles requires one to make “as was Moses” (ὡς καὶ Μωϋσῆς) a parenthesis and to take “in all his house” (ἐν [ὅλῳ] τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ) with Jesus. Even without the questionable ὅλῳ (all), this phrase clearly reflects Num 12:7 rather than any version of the Nathan oracle. Furthermore, it could not refer to Jesus because according to v. 5 he is not “in” but “over” God’s house. Third, if the ὅλῳ (all) is original, reference to Num 12:7 is certain in v. 2. On the other hand, the addition ὅλῳ (all) by a later hand in conformity to Num 12:7 only underscores the way in which Heb 3:2 was heard as a citation of that verse. In fact, verbal similarity with Num 12:7 and dissimilarity with 1 Chr 17:14 make it difficult to imagine a reader hearing this verse in any other way. The pastor may well have withheld ὅλῳ (all) until the climax of his contrast between Moses and Christ in v. 5. At that point it enhances the superiority of Christ by exalting the one whom Christ surpasses. Cf. Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 12, n. 49. Although external evidence for ὅλῳ (all) is evenly balanced, internal evidence favors scribal conformity of v. 2 to v. 5 and Num 12:7. See TCGNT, 594–95.

28. Both in Numbers 12 and in Hebrews “his house” refers to God’s “house” (Ellingworth, 201). Dey, Perfection, 175–76, argues that in 3:3, 4 “his house” refers to the universe, in 3:6 to the human soul, and in 10:21 to the heavenly sanctuary in which God dwells. His interpretation of v. 6 is especially strained.

29. Various commentators refer to Jewish speculations about the exalted, heavenly status of Moses as mediator with God. See Attridge, 105. Even Grässer, who often sees Hellenistic speculations as the source of NT Christology, argues that this passage is based on Moses’ OT role as revealer and leader through the wilderness rather than on such speculations (Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 14).

30. Moses 1.155–58; Sacrifices 9. See Koester, 251.

31. Pace Dey, Perfection, 155. See Lane, 1:79–80.

32. “For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (ESV, italics added; cf. TNIV, TEV, NRSV).

33. The conjunction γάρ (“for”) shows that vv. 3–4 give the motivation for v. 1 (Ellingworth, 203–4).

34. Lane, 1:77, is certainly correct when he asserts that this verse indicates the degree of glory by which the Son surpasses Moses. Pace Ellingworth, 203.

35. Koester, 244.

36. See Weiss, 247, n. 33, and O’Brien, 132. Cf. 1:2, 9; 2:9.

37. For examples of parallel proverbs see Koester, 245.

38. Dey, Perfection, 166–68, is correct when he argues that the writer of Hebrews is here expressing a parallel relationship. The immediate context, however, suggests the identification of the “house” with the people of God in a way not evidenced by the examples from Philo cited by Dey.

39. Ellingworth, 204. For “house” as a description of God’s people see Exod 16:31; Hos 8:1; Jer 12:7; and Heb 8:8. According to Targum Onqelos (cf. Fragmentary Targum) Num 12:7 reads, “among my whole people” (Koester, 245). Grässer admits that this use of “house” for the people of God is based on Num 12:7 and the biblical tradition (“Mose und Jesus,” 17–18). It is unclear why he goes on to insist that the “house” imagery in Hebrews is developed by the use of Alexandrian cosmology and anthropology when he admits that Hebrews differs significantly from Philo, who understands the “house” of Num 12:7 as the human soul in which God dwells (Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 18–19). On Philo’s use of house, see R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 109–14. Nor does the “house” of Hebrews picture the people of God collectively as the dwelling place of God. Rather, it is God’s “house” or people who enter God’s heavenly dwelling place.

40. ὁ κατασκευάσας αὐτόν (“the one who established it”) is parallel to οὗτος (“this one”) at the beginning of v. 3, and thus to τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα … Ἰησοῦν, (“the Apostle and High Priest … Jesus”) in v. 1. On this interpretation v. 4b affirms the deity—not the identity—of “the one who established” the people of God (pace Auffret, “Essai,” 390).

41. Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 17.

42. Contrast Justin Martyr’s belief that it was the Son who spoke to Moses through the burning bush (1 Apol. 63, quoted in Heen and Krey, 52).

43. BDAG, 526–27; L&N §77.6; and Ellingworth, 204. Thus its use here in v. 3 prepares for its use in regard to creation in v. 4 (Isa 40:28; 43:7; Wis 11:24; 13:4; cf. Gen 1:2). For further examples of the use of this term see Spicq, 2:67.

44. According to Weiss, 247, γάρ joins v. 4 to v. 3. See also Lane, 1:77, and Koester, 252. Koester (252, n. 119) says Windisch, Moffatt, Spicq, Héring, and Hughes take v. 4 as a parenthesis. He cites Dey in support of the integral nature of this verse (Dey, Perfection, 166). Although Attridge, 104, thinks v. 4 parenthetical, yet he says that “… it seems to evoke the Son’s association with God that ultimately renders him superior to any other intermediary between God and humanity.”

45. Note the way Targum Neofiti translates Num 12:7, “In the whole world I have created, [Moses] is faithful” (Koester, 245).

46. The definite article ὁ with the substantive participle phrase ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας, and the absence of a comparable article with “God” (θεός) shows clearly that “the all-things establishing one” is the subject of whom deity is predicated. Compare John 1:1.

47. Weiss, 248, n. 38, thinks it “completely unlikely” that this verse ascribes deity to Christ. He quotes Grässer approvingly, “With v. 4b it should not be said that Jesus is God, but that he belongs on the side of God, while Moses belongs on the side of human beings” (my translation). Grässer gives his case away when he admits that Jesus as Son and Creator is greater than Moses (Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 16). In light of the way in which Hebrews has already affirmed the deity of the Son in 1:1–14, such denial reveals more about Weiss and Grässer’s reluctance to concede this point than about the meaning of the text. See also the comments on Heb 7:1–3 below. Cf. James Swetnam, “Form and Content in Hebrews 1–6,” Bib 53 (1972): 376–78. Weiss concedes that many early Christian interpreters understood this verse as an affirmation of Christ’s deity.

48. See Attridge, 111. “Christ” appears in 5:5; 6:1; 9:11, 14, 24, 28; 10:10; 11:26; 13:8.

49. Contrary to Attridge, 111, who seems to think Hebrews belittles Moses. See Lane, 1:78.

50. In Jewish thought Moses was the most significant person in salvation history, sometimes even thought of as higher than the angels (Ellingworth, 194). The writer of Hebrews, however, shows no interest in such speculations. Attridge, 111, warns against making too much of the θεράπων/δούλος (“steward”/“servant”) distinction because the author takes θεράπων from Numbers 12. The pastor, however, has chosen to quote this passage for the very reason that it gives the highest evaluation of Moses in the OT. On θεράπων as “honored servant” see Lane, 1:78.

51. Exod 5:21; 7:10, 20; 8:3, 4, 9 (2x), 11, 21, 24, 29, 31, etc. God uses this term to speak of Job, “my servant,” a number of times. See Lane, 1:78.

52. Otherwise Isaac is once called the “steward” of God (Gen. 24:44) and Joshua is once called the “steward” of Moses (Exod 33:11).

53. “Steward” is our translation of the Greek word θεράπων. David is called the δούλος, “servant” or “slave” of God.

54. S. C. Layton, “Christ over His House (Hebrews 3:6) and Hebrew ,” NTS 37 (1991): 473–77, has suggested that the phrase “over his house” comes from an LXX expression for the royal steward—compare 1 Kgs 10:5 (οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ οἴκου, “those over the house”) and 15:5 (ἐπὶ τῷ οἴκῳ) and also in the LXX addition following 1 Kgs 2:46, ἐπὶ τόν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, “over his house.” The interpretive significance of this observation is questionable. Christ is here the “Son,” not a steward. The phrase arises in contrast to the description of Moses as “in” God’s house. It associates the Son with God.

55. See deSilva, 138; Hughes, 136; and Auffret, “Essai,” 385–86, 395. Some have suggested that Moses’ witness consisted of “the things that would be spoken” by himself (Bénétreau, 1:154) or that he was a witness of the things that God would speak to him (Ellingworth, 208). Ellingworth argues that the OT context supports this last interpretation. Bénétreau thinks that reference to words spoken by Moses underscores the faithfulness of Moses emphasized in this passage. The larger context of Hebrews, however, is decisive for the future words that God would speak “in one who is Son” (1:1), who is immediately mentioned in v. 6a (Auffret, “Essai,” 385). This interpretation detracts nothing from the faithfulness of Moses.

56. Swetnam argues that the words cited in 9:20 by which Moses established the Old Covenant bear witness to Christ’s words of institution in the eucharist (James Swetnam, “Τῶν λαληθησομένων in Hebrews 3, 5,” Bib 90 [2009]: 93–100). Aside from other objections, this interpretation is far too restrictive. All that Moses did in establishing the old order bears witness to what God has spoken through the incarnation, obedience, suffering, and exaltation of the Son. That is why the old system is such a good type and foreshadowing of the new.

57. Thus, pace Grässer, “Mose und Jesus,” 5, the contrast between the Son and Moses is significant for the doctrinal sections yet to come. However, as noted above, this contrast has little influence on the immediately following discussion of the wilderness generation (3:7–4:11). The Son may be superior to Moses, but the present people of God are one with the wilderness generation.

58. Verse 6b concludes the argument of these verses and is closely joined to what has gone before by the relative pronoun οὗ, “whose” (Auffret, “Essai,” 382).

59. Ellingworth, 196. Nor is there any reason to take the “house” over which Christ is the “Son” in 3:6a as God’s heavenly dwelling (pace James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy [CBQMS 13; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982], 92).

60. Verse 14 reads “for we have become partakers in Christ” instead of “whose household we are.”

61. Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 172–219. See also Bruce, 94; Hughes, 138; George Guthrie, 134–36; and O’Brien, 135–36.

62. Fanning, “Classical Reformed,” 207–18.

63. Fanning (“Classical Reformed,” 197–99, esp. 198) cites Christ’s permanent priesthood and consequent ability to save “forever” in 7:25 as an example of Hebrews’ affirming the perseverance of believers. Yet he neglects to note that this benefit is specifically for “those who are drawing near to God through him.” The present participle “drawing near” (προσερχομένους) describes an ongoing activity co-terminus with the receipt of Christ’s benefits. The pastor seems to be concerned lest they cease to draw near and thus cease to receive the salvation Christ provides. Compare the exhortations to “draw near” (προσερχώμεθα) in 4:16 and 10:22. Fanning’s neglect of this present tense verb is surprising in light of his close attention to syntax in Heb 3:6b.

64. Fanning, “Classical Reformed,” 178–80.

65. Osborne comments, “The descriptions are incredibly powerful portrayals of real Christian experience” (Grant R. Osborne, “A Classical Arminian View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Batemann IV [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007], 128; cf. also pp. 89–90).

66. For a more comprehensive evaluation of Fanning see my response to him on pp. 233–45 of the same volume in which his work appeared.

67. George Guthrie, 136.

68. The gratuitousness of this argument is demonstrated by the fact that it could be used to nullify any exhortation that seemed to imply believers could lose their eternal salvation.

69. κατάσχωμεν, “let us hold fast,” occupies the final emphatic position in the Greek sentence in anticipation of the example to be introduced in the following verses.

70. Thus although many early and widespread manuscripts include μέχρι τέλους βεβαίον, “firm until the end,” in v. 6, its omission is substantiated by both authorial and scribal probability. In line with his focus on the wilderness generation, the author would be most likely to omit this phrase. However, in accord with v. 14, copyists would be most likely to supply its lack. See TCGNT, 595.

71. Thus this construction would represent a present general condition with a constative, rather than a culminative, aorist in the protasis (“if” clause). For a discussion of the present general condition see Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 696–99; of the constative aorist, 557–58.

72. See Attridge, 112. For the use of παρρησία for boldness in approaching God see Philo, Heir 5–7; Josephus, Ant. 2.52; 5:38; and Lane, 1:79.

73. For this understanding of παρρησία, “boldness,” see S. B. Marrow, “parrhēsia and the New Testament,” CBQ 44 (1982): 440–41.

---

1. Use of the wilderness generation/Kadesh rebellion as the quintessential example of disobedience had a long history, both within the Bible and in Second Temple Judaism—Num 23:7–13; Deut 1:19–25; 9:3; Pss 95:7–11; 106:24–26; Neh 9:15–17; CD 3:6–9; 4 Ezra 7:105; 1 Cor 10:1–12 (Weiss 256–57, nn. 11, 12; Lane, 1:85). The author of Hebrews, however, does not evince the particular influence of any other source, but has adapted the widespread use of this example to his own purposes.

2. See Laansma, Rest Motif, 283, 288–89.

3. In light of 4:11, Weiss correctly characterizes this entire exposition of Psalm 95 as “warning” (255–56).

4. In vv. 12–14 God’s address to Israel has been applied directly to the addressees of Hebrews (Weiss, 254).

5. Ellingworth, 225.

6. Note βλέπετε, a second person plural imperative, “See!” in v. 12; βλέπομεν, “we see,” in v. 19. In order to capture this nuance of concern we have translated the first of these verbs, βλέπετε, as “be alert.”

7. διό, “therefore,” connects the exhortation in v. 8, μὴ σκληρύνητε, “do not harden your hearts,” and thus the whole psalm, with v. 6 (Weiss, 258, n. 18; cf. Lane, 1:84; Ellingworth, 217; O’Brien, 140, n. 83). Riggenbach’s (84–85) contention that the psalm is a parenthesis and that διό, “therefore,” connects v. 12 to v. 6 is artificial (cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 127, n. 785). The pastor would not introduce this psalm of exhortation as the very word of God addressed to his hearers in the present and not include it as part of his own exhortation.

8. However, Emmrich introduces a distinction foreign to Hebrews when he contends that the author is referring to the Spirit’s present role as the one addressing the hearers through Scripture to the virtual exclusion of his role as Scripture’s author (M. Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews: Prophet and Interpreter,” WTJ 63 [2002]: 55–71; Martin Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Amtscharisma, Prophet, and Guide of the Eschatological Exodus [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003], 27–32). As noted above, the pastor maintains a strong sense of continuity between the people of God old and new. The pastor can address this psalm of exhortation to his hearers because they are part of the one people of God to whom the psalm was originally directed. “Today” is always the time of urgent obedience for God’s people (cf. Deut 4:1, 2, 26; 5:32; 6:2; Josh 24:17). The warnings God gave his people of old are not vitiated or replaced but only intensified by the coming of Christ (cf. 2:1–4 and comments on 12:18–21). Thus, it is misleading that Emmrich, “Pneuma in Hebrews,” 58, calls the pastor’s use of this psalm a “new oracle,” even if “today” has been colored by the pastor’s conviction that these are the “last days” (1:1).

9. Bénétreau, 1:158–59, calls this “hearing” of God’s word the temporal and logical condition for hardening/not hardening the heart through disobedience/obedience.

10. Compare οὐκ εἰσήκουσάν μου τῆς φωνῆς, “they have not obeyed my voice” (Num 14:22), with ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, “if you hear his voice” (Ps 95:7b/Heb 3:7b).

11. Pace P. E. Enns, “Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” WTJ 55 (1993): 265–66, the parallel character of Hebrew poetry detracts nothing from the fact that “Meribah” (“rebellion”) and “Massah” (“testing”) taken together recall Exod 17:1–7 rather than Num 20:10–13.

12. See the introduction to 3:1–4:13 (pp. 153–57), Lane, 1:85, and many others. Enns, “Re-Creation,” 266, agrees. The psalm clearly does not concern God’s refusal to let Moses and Aaron enter the land (Num 20:12; Deut 1:37), as suggested by Hofius, Katapausis, 33–35. That refusal referred to only two people and was accompanied neither by an oath nor by the strong condemnation evidenced in Ps 95:7–11. See Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 158, 161.

13. Psalm 95:11, “I swore () in my wrath (),” echoes Deut 1:34: “And the LORD … was angered (), and he swore ().”

14. See Laansma, Rest Motif, 263.

15. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 161.

16. Vanhoye shows many other connections between the Greek translation of this psalm and Numbers 14 as well as between Hebrews’ interpretation and Numbers 14 (Vanhoye, “Longue marche,” 10–11, 16–17).

17. In modern English one could try to bring out the place-name significance of these terms by capitalization: “Do not harden your hearts as at Rebellion, as on that day at Testing.” The LXX translators had no such option. They could maintain these terms as place names by transliterating them as “Meribah” and “Massah,” or they could communicate their meaning by translating them as “rebellion” and “testing.” They chose the latter. As a result of this choice these terms have lost all association with the place of the people’s rebellion in Exod 17:1–7 (Vanhoye, “Longue marche,” 9–26). περιπικρασμός (“rebellion,” Ps 95:8/Heb 3:8) appears nowhere else in the Greek OT (Vanhoye, “Longue marche,” 13–14). Nor is πειρασμός (“testing,” Ps 95:8/Heb 3:8) used elsewhere to translate “Massah.” The cognate verb form, however, πειράζω (“to test”), is often used to describe Israel’s persistent and characteristic disobedience in the wilderness. “The day of testing” is clearly a reference to the time, not the place, of an event (Vanhoye, “Longue marche,” 15–16). “Where your fathers tested me” (Ps 95:9) is probably a reference to Num 14:22, where God speaks of the rebellion at Kadesh as the climactic tenth time of their testing him (cf. Vanhoye, “Longue marche,” 14, 16–17).

18. The LXX consistently brings out the character of Israel’s conduct in the wilderness by the way it translates the place names commemorating the people’s disobedience. Compare Deut 6:16 in the Oxford translation of the LXX and in the NRSV translation of the Hebrew text: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God, as you tempted in the Temptation” (Deut 6:16 LXX); “Do not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah” (Deut 6:16 NRSV). Note also Deut 9:22: “And at the Burning also and at the Temptation and at the Graves of Lust, you were provoking the Lord your God” (Deut 9:22 LXX); “At Taberah also, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked the Lord to wrath” (Deut 9:22 NRSV).

19. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 155.

20. The self-evident nature of the reference to Kadesh in Ps 95:7b–11 is attested not only by the LXX translation, but also by rabbinic literature and by the Targums (see Hofius, Katapausis, 42–47).

21. This translation brings out the wordplay between συναγωγῇ (“congregation”) and ἐπισυνεσταμένῃ (“gather/congregate against”) in the expression τῇ συναγωγῇ τῇ πονηρᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ ἐπισυνεσταμένῃ ἐπʼ ἐμέ.

22. See Bénétreau, 159–62, and the comments in the introduction to 3:1–4:13 (pp. 153–57) above.

23. Other ways in which his quotation of Psalm 95 differs from the standard LXX text are of little interpretive significance (Weiss, 259). (1) The standard LXX text of Ps 95:9 reads, “where your fathers tested me, proved me (ἐδοκίμασαν), and saw my works.” Hebrews reads, “where your fathers tested me with proving (ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ), and saw my works” (variation underlined). Both the verb δοκιμάζω (“to prove, test”) and the instrumental use of the related noun, δοκιμασία (“proving, testing”), emphasize the seriousness of the people’s offense before God. Note Attridge’s (115) comment: “In any case it [“with proving”] reinforces the note of accusation in the original text, since δοκίμασία has connotations of close and even skeptical scrutiny.” Some translations, such as the NRSV and the ESV, omit “by proving” as superfluous and awkward in English. (2) Hebrews’ use of “this” (ταύτῃ) generation in v. 10 instead of the LXX “that” (ἐκείνῃ) generation facilitates contemporary application of the wilderness warning. (3) Mere difference in spelling separates the second aorist of Heb 3:10, εἶπον, “I said,” from εἶπα, the second aorist with first aorist ending found in the LXX.

24. Weiss, 259–60.

25. Weiss, 260. This evidence, however, is qualified by the fact that Heb 10:30 and Rom 12:19 may follow an elsewhere unattested textual variant of Deut 32:35 LXX (Ellingworth, 542).

26. It is true, as Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 191, n. 71, notes, that the author tends to cite a longer passage accurately and then treat it a bit more freely when he interprets it. Note, for instance, Jer 31:31–34, first quoted in Heb 8:8–12, then interpreted in 10:16–17; and Ps 40:6–8, quoted in 10:5–7 and expounded in 10:8–9. Yet the addition of διό (“therefore”) is a very minor change comparable with the possible adaptations made by the pastor in the quotation of Ps 45:6–8 in 1:8–9, and even with variations in the quotation of Jer 31:31–34 in 8:8–12.

27. Riggenbach, 82–83. Others agree that the pastor is probably responsible for the insertion of διό (“therefore”), though evaluations of its significance vary (Attridge, 115; Lane, 1:88–89; O’Brien, 143; McCullough, “Old Testament Quotations,” 371; and Docherty, Old Testament, 138). Pace Docherty, Old Testament, 138, 186, διό (“therefore”) does not divide Psalm 95 into two distinct quotations. By its very meaning this term welds these clauses more closely together (see McCullough above).

28. Riggenbach, 83–84; Docherty, Old Testament, 138; and McCullough, “Old Testament Quotations,” 371, suggest that the addition of διό (“therefore”) identifies the forty years not only with the time of God’s mighty “works” but also with the time of the people’s disobedience: “they both tested me and saw my works for forty years.” It is true that the wilderness generation continued to disobey God during the forty years that followed their exclusion from God’s “rest” at Kadesh in Num 14:1–45. One need look no further than their complaints in Num 20:10–13 and 21:4–9 and the sin at Baal Peor in Num 25:1–15. The pastor’s emphasis, however, is on the rebellion at Kadesh as the climax of previous disobedience and thus as the incident that brought definitive retribution.

29. The concessive nature of the Hebrew original is clear in most English translations of Ps 95:9: “your ancestors tested me … though they had seen my work” (NRSV, italics added). Since the people had seen God’s mighty works of deliverance, they should not have “tested” him. The LXX translates the Hebrew , “though” or “although,” as καί, usually translated as “and”: “your fathers tested me … and they saw my works” (italics added). It is possible, however, for καί to have the sense of “although.” See Bénétreau, 1:163. Cf. Weiss, 259.

30. Bruce, 99 n. 57, suggests that the pastor saw a typological relationship between the exodus, the forty-year wilderness wandering, and Kadesh on the one hand and Christ’s death, a forty-year period, and the supposed imminent destruction of Jerusalem on the other. In addition to Qumran sources, he refers to the interpretation of Ps 95:10 in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a, as a prophecy that the Messianic time would last for forty years. Enns, “Re-Creation,” 273–75, on the other hand, thinks that the pastor is intentionally differentiating the forty-year period of his hearers from that of the wilderness generation. His hearers are experiencing a period of blessing in Christ (v. 10); the wilderness generation experienced forty years of judgment (v. 17). The pastor, however, gives no clear indication that he would establish a parallel between two forty-year periods. Connections with contemporary sources that speak of an end-time forty-year period are tenuous. See Spicq, 2:74; Attridge, 115; and Moffatt, 45, for further discussion and references. Enns’s suggestion, in particular, fails to account for the fact that the pastor is committed to the unity of the one people of God throughout time. One wonders if the recipients would have recognized that something so subtle as the insertion of διό (“therefore”) was intended to distinguish their situation from the forty-years’ punishment of the wilderness generation. See O’Brien, 143. Pace Hofius, Katapausis, 127–30 (cf. Attridge, 115, and Lane, 1:88–89), there is no reason to believe that the author of Hebrews derived two forty-year periods from Ps 95:10—one of blessing preceding, and one of judgment following, Kadesh.

31. A. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de l’épître aux Hébreux (2nd ed.; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1976), 93–94. The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive. After all, the mighty “works” by which God delivered his people from Egypt were acts of judgment upon the Egyptians. For the wilderness period as a time of experiencing God’s wonders see Exod 16:35; Deut 2:7; 8:4; 29:5; Neh 9:21; and Amos 2:10; as a time of suffering his judgment see, in addition to Psalm 95, Num 14:33–34; 32:13; Deut 8:2; Josh 5:6. There is no hint in Hebrews of the wilderness period as a time of Israel’s obedience (contrast Hos 2:14–15). The argument that the mighty “works” by which God delivered his people from Egypt, rather than his works of judgment, would form a more appropriate parallel with God’s “works” of creation in 4:1–5 (see Attridge, 115, n. 28) or the works that confirmed the gospel in 2:4, cannot override the concerns of the immediate context.

32. Hebrews follows the LXX translation of God’s oath in Ps 95:11, “if they should enter into my rest,” εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν μου. The “if” clause of an oath requires a “then” clause in which the speaker normally invokes self-destruction: “if so and so, then I will die.” Since the speaker of this oath is God, Bénétreau’s suggestion is convincing: “If they should enter into my rest, then I would not be the living God” (Bénétreau, 1:163–64).

33. The exhortation not to harden one’s heart was often used to warn people against repeating the sins of their ancestors (Neh 9:16–17, 29; 2 Chr 30:8; Jer 7:26; Acts 19:9). See Koester, 255.

34. The present imperative βλέπετε indicates “an enduring consideration: constantly guard …” (Spicq, 2:75). See BDAG, 179, and cf. Matt 24:4; Mark 13:5; Luke 21:8; Acts 13:40; 1 Cor 10:12; and Heb 12:25.

35. Thus the pastor is concerned not only that individuals within the church might fall, but that their example and influence might cause the whole church, or a large part thereof, to follow the example of the wilderness generation (Hofius, Katapausis, 132–33, pace Michel, 188). Concern for the whole community and concern for the individuals it contains are mutually reinforcing. These concerns reflect God’s own burden for his people (O’Brien, 145, n. 118; Lane 1:86).

36. “Of unbelief” describes the quality of the heart (Lane, 1:82i; Ellingworth, 222).

37. In Jer 16:12 and 18:22 an evil heart characterizes those who deliberately reject God and follow their own devices (O’Brien, 146).

38. Bénétreau, 165, n. 1, is correct when he criticizes those who would divide sharply between the two aspects of ἀπιστία meaning. In Hebrews it refers first of all to “unbelief,” to the refusal to trust God. Such unbelief, however, results in “unfaithfulness” to God’s person and direction. In the same way πιστός (“faithful,” 3:2, 5) describes the Son and Moses as those who trusted in God and thus were faithful to God.

39. The Greek words translated as “unbelief” (ἀπιστία), “faithful” (πιστός, 3:2, 5), and “faith” (πίστις, throughout 11:1–38) are from the same root.

40. The articular infinitive phrase, ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος, “in falling away from the living God” (the Greek infinitive becomes an English gerund) is epexegetical, defining “an evil heart of unbelief” (Ellingworth, 222; Bénétreau, 165; Weiss, 260; Koester, 158; Johnson, 117; O’Brien, 146, n. 125; and MHT, 3:146). Pace Spicq, 2:75–76, who thinks the infinitive shows the result of such a heart, “to the point of turning away from the living God.” O’Brien, 146, n. 122, notes the similarity of sound that reinforces the connection between the Greek words for “unbelief” (ἀπιστίας) and “falling away” (ἀποστῆναι).

41. Compare ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος (“in falling away from the living God”) and Caleb’s words in Num 14:9a: ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου μὴ ἀποστάται γίνεσθε (“but from the Lord do not become rebels”). ἀποστῆναι (“to fall away”) is reminiscent of ἀποσταὶ γίνεσθε (“do not become rebels”).

42. Weiss, 261–62. See, for example, 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Isa 37:4, 17; Hos 2:1; Dan 6:21. Hebrews also speaks of the “living” God in 9:14; 10:31; and 12:22. For this expression in ancient Jewish writings see Jub. 1:25; 21:4; 3 Macc 6:28; and Jos. Asen. 8:5–6; 11:10. The NT makes free use of this OT description of God: Matt 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26; 2 Cor 3:3; 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10; and Rev 7:2; 15:7.

43. Cf. Weiss, 261–62.

44. See Bénétreau, 1:166, n. 1; Riggenbach, 86; and Weiss, 262.

45. The pastor makes no explicit contrast between the “living God” and idols (see Spicq, 2:75). Nevertheless, he and his hearers were certainly familiar with the way in which this term set God apart from idols both in the OT and in contemporary Jewish and Christian apologetic (see Weiss, 262, n. 31, and references in n. 42 above). It was this connotation that made the expression so appropriate. For examples of “falling away from the living God” as apostasy, see BDAG, 157–58, 2a.

46. Pace Weiss, 262. See Bruce, 99–100; Bénétreau, 166, n. 1.

47. The solution in v. 13 stands in contrast to the problem mentioned in v. 12. Note the “but” with which this verse begins (Ellingworth, 223).

48. See λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως (Heb 13:22). Riggenbach, 87.

49. Ellingworth’s (223) preference for “comfort” or “encouragement” in light of the broader context (6:18; 10:25; 12:5; 13:19, 22) and the LXX’s preferred use of this term miss the urgency of the immediate context.

50. See O’Brien, 148.

51. καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν is a stronger statement than καθʼ ἡμέραν (10:25) (Ellingworth, 223). Thus it expresses the urgency of the exhortation but provides no sufficient grounds for assuming that the community addressed practiced daily meetings (Weiss, 262–63, n. 35; Bénétreau, 1:166; pace Windisch, 31; Michel, 188; and Hofius, Katapausis, 132).

52. The Syriac version of 10:25 describes “today” as lasting “until the Day of judgment (10:25)” (Koester, 259). See Ellingworth, 224.

53. Lane, 1:87. The pastor is aware that God now speaks his word of invitation through the exalted Son rather than through the prophets (1:1–3). However, in accord with his general emphasis in the interpretation of this psalm, he makes no distinction between the “today” of those who lived before Christ and of those, like his hearers, who live after (1:5). The invitation to obedience has not been changed—only enabled and intensified by the work of Christ. Thus Braun, 85–86, is mistaken when he tries to keep the “today” of Christ’s exaltation (1:5) and the “today” of God’s address (3:7–19) completely separate because the one is “Christological” and the other “paraenetic.”

54. Unbelief is the origin, essence, and effect of this hardening (Riggenbach, 88).

55. Weiss, 263, compares this passage with Paul’s reference to “sin” as a power in Rom 7:11. Cf. Riggenbach, 87. Sin deceives by offering something as more valuable, certain, and easily obtained than God’s promises.

56. Hughes, 148, sees a reference here to the serpent deceiving Eve in the garden (cf. 1 Tim 2:14).

57. See Riggenbach, 81–82.

58. Many sensitive consciences have been deeply depressed by misunderstanding the pastor’s intention. The apostasy he envisions is as definitive and unmistakable as the wilderness generation’s refusal at Kadesh. The perpetually unrepentant nature of their rebellion is demonstrated by their subsequent attempt to take the land on their own (Num 14:39–45) and by their behavior during the years of wilderness wandering. As God said, “They always go astray in heart” (Ps 95:10). Those seriously concerned for their spiritual welfare have not “fallen away from the living God.”

59. Lane, 1:87.

60. Although it was the Canaanite threat that led to the wilderness generation’s disobedience, the allure of earthly good was the occasion for Esau’s profanity (12:14–17). For a further discussion of faith see the exposition of 11:1–6 below and Gareth L. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection (Heb. 11:35): A Key to the Structure and Rhetorical Purpose of Hebrews 11,” TynBul 51 (2000): 223–26.

61. Koester, 259.

62. For this understanding of “for” (γάρ) in “for we have become,” see Bénétreau, 167.

63. See comments on Heb 11:39–40; 12:22–24 below.

64. Bénétreau, 167; Koester, 260; Lane, 1:87; and Riggenbach, 88, would limit this term to the idea of “partners with” Christ.

65. “The egalitarian tone of ‘partner’ in English makes it less suitable to the point being made by Hebrews” (Johnson, 118).

66. Ellingworth, 227 (cf. Westcott; Hughes; Braun). Compare “for we have become participants in Christ” (μέτοχοι γὰρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγόναμεν, 3:14) with “participants in the heavenly calling” (κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, 3:1) and “having become participants in the Holy Spirit” (μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου, 6:4).

67. The noun μέτοχοι, “sharers,” is from the same root as the verb used in 2:14 to affirm that the Son “partook” (μετέσχεν) of the humanity of God’s people.

68. Weiss, 264. O’Brien, 150, n. 141 (citing Hofius, Katapausis, 133, 215, n. 820; Ellingworth, 226; and Koester, 260), notes that 2 Esd 7:28; 14:9 and 1 En. 104:6 use the word μέτοχοι (“partners,” “participants”) for the companions of the Messiah and the residents of heaven. It is through being “sharers” in Christ that his followers realize their “heavenly calling” (3:1).

69. See E. Nardoni, “Partakers in Christ (Hebrews 3.14),” NTS 37 (1991): 456–72, though it is difficult to see how this participation, as described by Nardoni, is similar to the Platonic participation of the physical world in the reality of the noumenal, as he suggests.

70. Ellingworth, 227, suggests that ἐάνπερ may throw “more emphasis than ἐάν on the following condition.” The translation “if only” (cf. NAB) attempts to catch this nuance.

71. “The beginning of our confidence” (NKJV), “our first confidence” (NRSV/ RSV), “our original confidence” (ESV), or “the confidence we had at first” (NIV). Pace Spicq, 2:77–78, and Riggenbach, 90–91, Ruth 1:12 and Ezek 19:5 provide no support for such an understanding (Helmut Köster, “ὑπόστασις,” TDNT 8:580–82). “Reality” is a better translation in the first of these references; “plan,” in the second. Riggenbach’s (90–91) objection to “steadfastness” or “endurance” because it is characteristic of the course but not the beginning of the Christian life is without force.

72. Köster, “ὑπόστασις,” TDNT 8:580–86.

73. Weiss, 265–66. ὑπόστασις, “steadfastness,” “reality,” stands in contrast to ἀποστῆναι, “to fall away,” in v. 12.

74. Ellingworth’s “the confident frame of mind in which you began the life of faith” (228) misses this nuance. Cf. H. Dörrie, “Ὑπόστασις, Wort- und Bedeutungsgeschichte,” Nachrichten (von) der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 3 (1955): 39. The term “steadfastness” describes and gives content to the colorless “basic position we had at the beginning” espoused by Lane, 1:81. Cf. Bénétreau, 168.

75. βεβαία, “firm,” is the feminine form of the adjective used to describe the certainty of God’s word through the angels in 2:2.

76. Thus Köster, “ὑπόστασις,” TDNT 8:585–88, argues that all three occurrences of this word (ὑπόστασις) in Hebrews (1:3; 3:14; 11:11) reflect the dualistic way it was used in Middle Platonism to describe the unchanging reality of God and the world of ideas. The clearest evidence for such influence is its use in 1:3 for the “very being” of God. Yet the “very being” of God revealed in the redemption of Christ is utterly unlike the transcendent God of Middle Platonism. Köster’s contention that all three usages must be the same is obviously groundless.

77. See Attridge, 119; Johnson, 118.

78. “While it is being said” translates the articular infinitive ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι. Attridge suggests that this infinitive should be taken as middle and instrumental rather than, as in the translation we have followed, passive and temporal. Thus he would translate it “by saying.” The hearers are to warn one another and hold firm to the reality they have received (vv. 12–14) “by saying” to one another the words of the psalm: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not let your hearts be hardened.” Attridge, 119–20. This suggestion is interesting but perhaps overly subtle.

79. Thus this verse is both a summary reminder of what has gone before (NASB; NIV; Lane, 1:88) and an introduction to what follows (REB; NJB; Ellingworth, 228; Koester, 261; Weiss, 266; Grässer, 1:192).

80. Lane, 1:89; cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 137.

81. According to Riggenbach, 91, vv. 15–19 bring out the significance of the psalm as warning, and lay the foundation for its use as promise to follow.

82. Hofius, Katapausis, 135–36.

83. Taking the participle ἀκούσαντες (“having heard”) as concessive (Lane, 1:82r) better suits the context than the temporal rendering of the NASB, “when they had heard,” or the attributive interpretation of the NRSV, “Now who were they who heard?”

84. Compare the “all” (πάντες) of Heb 3:16 with “the whole congregation” (πᾶσα ἡ συναγωγή) and with “all the sons of Israel” (πάντες οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραηλ).

85. Hughes, 153–54, rightly emphasizes that the people who experienced this great deliverance were the last we would expect to rebel against God.

86. Compare τίνες, “who,” with τινές, “some.” This interpretation takes the partciple as temporal, “when they had heard.” It also construes the οὐ in the second part of the sentence as a simple negative—it “was not all those who came out of Egypt,” rather than as indicating a question expecting an affirmative response—it “was all those who came out of Egypt … , was it not?”

87. Spicq, 2:78–79; Weiss, 267, n. 12; Riggenbach, 92–93.

88. Attridge, 120, but cf. Ellingworth, 229–30. We have already noted above the way in which vv. 16–18 contain a series of questions. Verses 17 and 18 also begin with a form of τίνες: compare τίνες γάρ (v. 16) with τίσιν δέ (vv. 17, 18).

89. Spicq, 2:78–79. The strongest support for the translation “some” is the ἀλλʼ which begins the second clause of v. 16: ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Ἀιγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως, “but not all of those who came out of Egypt through Moses.” If this sentence is a question, then ἀλλʼ must be taken as affirmative or as linking a series of questions without adversative force (Lane, 1:82). Ellingworth, 229–30, provides classical precedents for such usage.

90. Although the English translations differ, vv. 17 and 18 both begin with τίσιν δέ in the Greek text.

91. This verse shows clearly that the author of Hebrews is familiar with the standard LXX reading according to which this forty-year period is the post-Kadesh time of judgment, not a pre-Kadesh time of seeing God’s wonders (Ellingworth, 232). See the comments on vv. 9–10 above.

92. The aorist substantive participle τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν (“those who sinned”) is a clear reference to the sin at Kadesh-Barnea that preceded the forty-year wandering (Ellingworth, 233).

93. Koester, 261.

94. Again the aorist participle τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν (“to those who disobeyed”) fits well as a reference to the commission of the specific sin at Kadesh-Barnea punished by God’s oath.

95. Note the emphatic position of ἀπιστίαν, “unbelief,” at the end of v. 19.

96. “The disobedience which is rebellion against God (4:6, 11) has its ultimate basis in the unbelief which does not trust the goodness and power of God (cf. 3:12)” (Riggenbach, 95, my translation). Cf. Bénétreau, 1:169.

97. Although v. 19, introduced by καὶ βλέπομεν, “and so we see,” gives every evidence of bringing vv. 15–18 to a conclusion, the author may also be thinking of Num 14:39–45. Cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 137.

98. Cf. T. K. Oberholtzer, “The Warning Passages in Hebrews, Part 2 (of 5 Parts): The Kingdom of Rest in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” BSac 145 (1988): 188.

99. “The absolute or elliptical use of εἰσελθεῖν reflects the author’s lack of interest in the earthly Promised Land (→ v. 18). He implies that in failing to enter Canaan, the wilderness generation thereby, or a forteriori, lost their place in God’s final resting-place” (Ellingworth, 236).

100. There is no reason to think that the pastor uses “rest” for the earthly Promised Land in 3:12–19 but for eternal “rest” in 4:1–11, pace Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 127–37, and Harold W. Attridge, “‘Let Us Strive to Enter That Rest’: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11,” HTR 73 (1980): 286. Leschert claims that the focus on Kadesh-Barnea in chapter 3 indicates that the pastor’s initial concern was with the physical Promised Land. However, the statement that Joshua did not give them “rest” in Heb 4:8 makes it clear that, even for the wilderness generation, this “rest” was no earthly inheritance. Heb 4:11b still has the Kadesh disobedience in view. The pastor had no need to define “rest” when discussing the sin and punishment of the wilderness generation in 3:12–19. Thus he effectively withheld that definition until 4:1–11, when he began urging his hearers to enter what that generation had lost.

---

1. The references to “entering rest” (vv. 3, 11), “we who have believed” (v. 3a), and “the same example of disobedience” (v. 11) suggest that not only vv. 1 and 11 but also vv. 3a and 11 form an inclusion around this passage (Guthrie, Structure, 79). This observation reinforces the unity of vv. 1–3a.

2. Ellingworth, 237, argues that the “therefore” (οὖν) in 4:1 shows the dependence of these verses on 3:16–19. Weiss, 267, confirms the relationship between the “let us fear” of 4:1 and the “unbelief” of 3:19.

3. We have included v. 3a with vv. 1–2. Otherwise our segmentation of this passage (vv. 1–3a, 3b–10, 11) follows Laansma, Rest Motif, 285. Note the first person plural in vv. 1–3a and v. 11.

4. Compare Ellingworth: “Here, however, continuity is maintained between the people of God in the old and new dispensations: there is for the writer of Hebrews only one λαὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.” Ellingworth, 255.

5. Note how the encouragement of v. 3a parallels the warning of v. 1.

6. Thus there is a dividing point between vv. 5 and 6. Nevertheless, it is crucial to note the distinctness of vv. 1–3a and to keep the course of the pastor’s argument in vv. 3b–10 together. Thus the analysis above does not give the prominence to this dividing point attributed to it by Lane, 1:95–96, Pfitzner, 79, and Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 96–97, who divide this section into two parts—vv. 1–5 and vv. 6–10.

7. Note the detailed chiasm that Laansma finds in vv. 3b–5 (Jon Laansma, “The Cosmology of Hebrews,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology, ed. J. T. Pennington and S. M. McDonough [London: T&T Clark, 2008], 288).

8. Note the inferential particles οὖν and ἄρα, both translated “therefore,” in vv. 6 and 9 respectively.

9. Pace Judith Hoch Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 91, the fact that “rest” language is limited to Heb 3:7–4:11 is no barrier to its obvious identification with the “city”/“homeland” language of chapter 11. Hebrews often uses the specific language of an OT text only when expounding that text. Compare the use of “the order of Melchizedek” only in 5:6, 10; 6:20; and 7:1–25.

10. See the commentary on 11:32–38 and pp. 49–51 in the Introduction for a discussion of the exemplary use of people who were already in the land.

11. For further discussion and for the association of Land, City, and Temple/Most Holy Place in the OT and contemporary Judaism see pp. 651–53, and esp. p. 652, n. 49. It is particularly important to keep in mind both that the pastor uses Promised Land and Most Holy Place language in different ways and that he believes they describe the same reality. In fact, any anomaly caused by Jesus entering the Most Holy Place but his followers entering the heavenly Homeland/City/“Rest” (see Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 137, n. 56) is clarified by the identity of the two in 12:22–24. His entrance is clearly the source of theirs. Instead of seeing all of these different descriptions as referring to the same entity, Hofius distinguishes between a heavenly Most Holy Place, within a heavenly Temple, within a heavenly Homeland. This causes him to err by insisting that the “rest” of God’s people is not in the heavenly Homeland as a whole but only in the Most Holy Place that has been entered by Jesus. Since, according to 10:19, Christ has entered the Most Holy Place, then this place must be the “rest” his people will enter. See Hofius, Katapausis, 53–54. This position suffers from several fatal flaws. First, it ignores Hebrews’ parallel use of the wilderness generation and “rest” with the faithful of chapter 11 and the “heavenly homeland.” Second, it contradicts the evidence Hofius himself has presented. He has shown how rest, land, and sanctuary are identified in Jewish interpretation contemporary with Hebrews. Third, it ignores the prima facie association between “rest” and Promised Land in the OT. Fourth, it overlooks the fact that Hebrews does not make such clear distinctions between the terms it uses for the place of final fellowship with God. Abraham was seeking both “a city that has foundations” (11:10) and a “heavenly country” (11:16). Fifth, it is based on an inadequate interpretation of Heb 10:19. Heb 10:19 is not referring primarily to final entrance into God’s “rest,” but to present entrance in order to receive grace for perseverance. Furthermore, Hofius’s contention (Katapausis, 37–41) that Psalm 95 in its original context already identified God’s “rest” with worship in the Temple is both hypothetical and without relevance to the interpretation of Hebrews because it would not have been recognized by either the pastor or his hearers. See Laansma, Rest Motif, 42–45.

12. In light of the obvious identification between rest/homeland and the sanctuary of Christ’s session established in the text above, one cannot limit this “rest” to a millennial kingdom centered in the earthly Promised Land (cf. 11:13–16), pace Buchanan, 64–74; Walter C. Kaiser, “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” BSac 130 (1973): 135–50; S. D. Toussaint, “The Eschatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews,” GTJ 3 (1982): 70–74; and T. K. Oberholtzer, “The Warning Passages in Hebrews: The Kingdom of Rest in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” BSac 145 (1988): 185–96. For extensive critique of this position see deSilva, 156–63. Hebrews knows nothing of speculation about six world ages culminating in a millennial Sabbath, as found in Barnabas (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, 1954], 369–73).

13. Laansma, Rest Motif, 278–79. For more extensive discussion see Laansma, Rest Motif, 252–358. Hofius has demonstrated that Psalm 95 is referring to a “place” and not just a “state” of rest in the Hebrew original as well as in the LXX (Hofius, Katapausis, 33–41). This understanding is confirmed by rabbinic interpretation (Hofius, Katapausis, 42–43). Laansma agrees that both Psalm 95 and Hebrews use κατάπαυσις for a “place of rest,” but shows that Hofius has gone beyond the evidence when he contends that this word has virtually become a technical term for such a place (Hofius, Katapausis, 48–50).

14. While Hofius, Katapausis, 59–90 (summaries on pp. 74, 90), may exaggerate Hebrews’ commonalities with ancient Jewish apocalyptic, he is correct in his critique of the Gnostic origin for Hebrews’ idea of “rest” propounded by Käsemann, Wandering; Grässer; Theissen; and Braun. Hebrews shares almost nothing with later Gnostic speculations about “rest” as a preexistent state lost by a cosmic fall into matter and restored by knowledge of its true origin. Gnostic sources use ἀνάπαυσις instead of κατάπαυσις for “rest,” do not develop this concept in conjunction with the OT texts on the wilderness wandering, and, in complete variance with Hebrews (2:14; 10:5), are based on a dualistic view which rejects the body and the material world (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 142). Nor does Hebrews evidence significant similarity with Philo’s understanding of “rest.” Philo never refers to Psalm 95 in this regard, and his discussion of Gen 2:2 involves Pythagorean-like numerical speculations and discussion of the immutability of God (Posterity 64; Alleg. Interp. 1.6, 16; Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 139–40). Furthermore, he allegorizes the wilderness wandering as “an ethereal journey of the virtuous mind returning from its temporary sojourn in an earthly body to its heavenly home” (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 138; cf. Posterity 64). If Philo is so distant from Hebrews, he can hardly bear witness to an earlier Gnosticism upon which Hebrews is dependent (Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 143). Braun and others who maintain Gnostic influence are often characterized by two methodological flaws. First, they operate with an untenably broad definition of “Gnosticism” that includes everything from Philo to Joseph and Aseneth and the Nag Hammadi documents. Second, they argue for Gnostic influence on the basis of minimum similarity between this broadly defined Gnosticism and Hebrews. Thus Braun, 93, cites the fact that Hebrews locates God’s resting place in heaven as evidence of Gnostic influence. Even he admits that Hebrews “does not develop the complete breadth of gnostic thought” about God’s rest (Braun, 93).

15. This identification is substantiated by the way the OT identifies “rest” with the Promised Land (Deut 12:10; see also Exod 33:14; Deut 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1). Cf. O’Brien, 163, and Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 162–63. Furthermore, both rabbinic and apocalyptic literature interpreted “rest” and “land” as the final dwelling place of God’s people in his presence (Hofius, Katapausis, 43–47, 59–74). In order to deny this connection between the “rest” and the “heavenly homeland” Wray must minimize the naturalness of this association based on both the OT and the parallels from contemporary literature. She must also downplay many other features of Hebrews 3 and 4. See Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 91.

16. Laansma, Rest Motif, 106–11; O’Brien, 164.

17. See Laansma, Rest Motif, 306.

18. See also O’Brien, 165–66, for a collaborating summary of the arguments in support of the position taken above.

19. οὖν, therefore, draws out the implications of the example just given in 3:15–19.

20. The aorist hortatory subjunctive, φοβηθῶμεν, is ingressive—“let us begin to fear” in a way we haven’t feared before (Lane, 1:93).

21. Laansma, Rest Motif, 285, n. 156.

22. This “promise” was for the people of God of all time. It finds its fulfillment in Christ. All of God’s people, both from before and after Christ, will together receive the final fulfillment of this promise through Christ at the end (Laansma, Rest Motif, 303).

23. The present participle καταλειπομένης, “remaining,” is a genitive absolute that modifies ἐπαγγελίας, “promise,” thus literally, “a promise remaining.” It can have both causal, “because a promise remains,” and temporal, “while a promise remains,” significance. Laansma, Rest Motif, 285, n. 156, affirms the temporal.

24. Bénétreau, 1:170; O’Brien, 160; cf. Michel, 191; Attridge, 124; and Weiss, 275. Ellingworth, 239–40 and Laansma, Rest Motif, 285, n. 156, argue for “seem to have fallen short.” Some would construe δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑστερηκέναι as “lest anyone should think that he or she has come too late” for the promise. This interpretation takes δοκῇ as “lest anyone should think” and ὑστερηκέναι as “to have come too late” (instead of as “to have fallen short”). The pastor, however, is concerned about impending unbelief, not about an eschatological misconception (see Attridge, 124).

25. The larger context and the use of both the wilderness generation and the faithful of chapter 11 as examples indicate that the opposite of “having falling short” is not “having attained” but perseverance in faith and obedience until final attainment.

26. The term εὐαγγελίζω (“preach the good news”) is related to the word εὐαγγέλιον (“gospel”) and is often used in the NT for its proclamation. The Greek reader would also have perceived a wordplay between εὐαγγελίζω and the related word ἐπαγγελία (“promise”) in v. 1. The “promise” was the “good news” that was proclaimed.

27. Of course, since the faithful of old enter God’s eternal blessing (11:9–10, 13–16), it makes little sense to argue that the unfaithful of old have forfeited anything less.

28. “Formally, the contrast is one of generations; in substance, it is between listening, believing, obeying, and holding fast on the one hand, and the failure to do so on the other.” Ellingworth, 254.

29. “The word which they heard” is literally “the word of hearing” (ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς). This interpretation takes “of hearing” as a descriptive genitive (see Hughes, 157 and Attridge, 125). Remember Ps 95:7, “Today, if you hear.…” Thus the reference is to the word of God that they actually did “hear,” although without obedience. This allows “of hearing” to have the same connotation as “those who heard” (τοῖς ἀκούσασιν) later in the verse. Both words refer to the receiving of information, not to obedience. The idea of obedience is contained in the expression “by faith” (τῇ πίστει).

30. The Greek reads, συγκεκερασμένους [“having joined themselves”] τῇ πίστει [“by/with faith”] τοῖς ἀκούσασιν [“to those who heard”]. It is better to take τῇ πίστει (“by/ with faith”) with the following substantive participle τοῖς ἀκούσασιν (“to those who heard”) than with the preceding adverbial participle (“having joined themselves”). Thus the text reads “not having joined themselves to those who heard with faith,” rather than “not having joined themselves by faith to those who heard.” In 3:16 “those who heard” refers to the rebels and thus needs the qualifying “with faith” here to clarify the referents as obedient hearers. Although τῇ πίστει would more clearly refer to τοῖς ἀκούσασιν if it followed the participle, Hebrews often brings words forward out of normal order for emphasis. Note the separation of τηλικαύτης (“such a great”) from the word it modifies (σωτηρίας) in the phrase in τηλικαύτης ἀμελήσαντες σωτηρίας (2:3). This phrase is literally, “such a great” (τηλικαύτης) “having neglected” (ἀμελήσαντες) “salvation” (σωτηρίας). Consider also the way πίστει (“by faith”) is given the initial position throughout chapter 11. However, even if the statement is construed as “not joining themselves by faith to those who heard,” it still speaks of their identity with the people of God, though the association with chapter 11 is not as clear. For this interpretation of συγκεκερασμένους see Spicq, 2:81; Attridge, 126, n. 45; and Laansma, Rest Motif, 286.

31. The articular τῇ πίστει, “with/by faith,” in 4:2 anticipates the anarthous πίστει, “by faith,” in 11:3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. All of these uses are instrumental of means. When introducing the catalogue of faithful in 10:39 the pastor uses ἐκ πίστεως, “by faith,” the ablative of means, in dependence on Hab 2:4. The pastor then uses the ablative of means διά πίστεως, “through faith,” in 11:33 as a summary description of all those in the climactic compact section of his catalogue. Note the similar διὰ τῆς πίστεως in v. 39 used to summarize the entire catalogue. It is, perhaps, significant that in the first (τῇ πίστει, 4:2) and last (διὰ τῆς πίστεως) of these references the pastor uses the article as a pointer to the faith he will and then has described.

32. συγκεκερασμένους is the perfect middle or passive participle of συγκεράννυμι, to “mix” or “join,” denoting an enduring identification with the people of faith. The middle fits well with the pastor’s emphasis on the responsibility of the wilderness generation for their unbelief. In the UBS⁴ and NA²⁷ editions of the Greek NT this participle is accusative plural masculine, modifying ἐκείνους, “those ones,” “them” (the wilderness generation). Literally, “those ones not having joined themselves to those who heard with faith,” or, as we have translated causally above, “because they had not joined themselves to those who heard with faith.”

33. Some manuscripts read συγκεκερασμένος, nominative singular masculine, instead of συγκεκερασμένους, accusative plural masculine. In these manuscripts συγκεκερασμένος modifies λόγος—“the word which they heard did not profit them, not being joined by faith to those who heard.” In a few of these manuscripts this reading is made smoother yet by substituting the genitive plural participle τῶν ἀκουσάντων, “of those who heard,” for the dative plural, “to those who heard.” The participle now qualifies τῇ πίστει, “not being joined to the faith of those who believed.” Some manuscripts have taken another course, replacing the masculine plural aorist active participle τοῖς ἀκούσασιν, “to those who heard,” with a neuter plural aorist passive, τοῖς ἀκούσθεισιν, “to the things they had heard.” Thus the whole phrase would read, “not being joined by faith to the things they had heard.” All three of these options remove the awkwardness of the wilderness generation’s not being “joined” to “those who heard with faith,” that is, to the believing congregation of God’s people. In the first two variations, “those who heard” refers to the disobedient wilderness generation itself. In the third, the participle has been altered to refer to “the things they had heard.” Nevertheless, as argued above, reference to “those who heard with faith” fits well with the pastor’s emphases. Thus it has all the marks of authenticity—an appearance of awkwardness to copyists, appropriateness for the author’s argument, and the strongest manuscript support. It is indeed the reading that can explain the others (Laansma, Rest Motif, 286, n. 162; Attridge, 125–26; Weiss, 278, n. 88; Lane, 1:93h). Thus there is no need, with Hughes, 157–58, Bruce, 103, n. 4, and others to postulate a primitive corruption of the text. For the manuscript evidence see TCGNT, 595.

34. Thus present continuous action fits naturally in the context of this passage. Cf. Montefiore, 83; Attridge, 126; and the extensive discussion in Laansma, Rest Motif, 305–10. Mitchell, 97, achieves the same effect by calling this verb an “ingressive” present, indicating “a present state that will be completed at a future time.” As deSilva, 155, has pointed out, those who insist that “we who are entering” affirms present entrance treat this verb as perfective. Furthermore, the psalmist says nothing about entering God’s rest “today”; rather, “today” is the time for obedience, the time when one must not “harden” one’s heart. See the critique of Lane, 1:99 and Andrew T. Lincoln, “Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation, ed. Donald A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 212–13 in deSilva, 153–56. Wray’s attempt to find at least a hint of present entrance in this verse reveals the lack of evidence for such a position (Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 73–85, cf. 34, 47).

35. The lack of a qualifying genitive (i.e., “my” rest) and the probable lack of the article, although it is present in all other uses of this noun in Hebrews, prepare for the writer’s explanation of this rest as something more than the land of Canaan. See Ellingworth, 246.

36. Pace Ellingworth, 246, the “we-statement” format does not rob this statement of gnomic or general significance. Hebrews always uses the plural when speaking of believers’ access to God, but the singular when addressing the possibility of apostasy.

37. In v. 6 the pastor uses οὖν, “therefore,” but in v. 9, ἄρα.

38. Lane, 1:100. Compare the “he” of the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV in v. 4 to the “it” of the NRSV. It is unclear why Ellingworth, 247, thinks that “Scripture” is the subject in v. 4.

39. Hebrews, along with Philo, quotes Gen 2:2 as follows: καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ, “and God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” The standard text of the LXX omits ὁ θεὸς ἐν, thus reading “And he rested on the seventh day from all his works.” The addition of ὁ θεός only emphasizes the obvious fact that “God” is the subject of this statement. τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ is locative of time with or without the preposition ἐν. Ellingworth notes that ὁ θεὸς ἐν appears in the Hexaplaric manuscripts of the LXX. He also suggests that the retention of the superfluous καί at the beginning of the quotation evidences Hebrews’ reluctance to edit the text he received. Thus it is unclear why Ellingworth (248) does not think Hebrews and Philo are witnesses to an alternate LXX textual tradition.

40. As suggested by many commentators. See Weiss, 269; Attridge, 128–29. The LXX text of Gen 2:2 uses the verb κατέπαυσεν (“he rested”; from καταπαύω); that of Ps 95:11 employs the related noun κατάπαυσιν (“rest”; accusative singular of κατάπαυσις). This practice of associating passages that contained the same term was traditional and not limited to the rabbis, as evidenced by its use in Philo (Attridge, 129, n. 77).

41. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 190, is correct when he says that this practice “can be used in a perfectly legitimate manner where the meaning warrants a verbal connection.” Attridge, 130, n. 92, thinks that the “again” (πάλιν) in v. 5 shows that the writer of Hebrews is thinking of the “rest” in Ps 95:11 as a repeated mention of God’s resting in Gen 2:2.

42. Ellingworth, 248, refers to Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Lane, 1:100, says that Gen 2:1–3 was read after Ps 95:1–11 in the liturgy of the Greek-speaking synagogue, though Attridge (129, n. 83) reminds us that this practice is not attested before the sixteenth century.

43. In a similar way the pastor will explain Ps 110:4 in Heb 7:1–10 by reference to Gen 14:17–20.

44. “His works” is an allusion to the “works” of creation in Gen 2:2 rather than to God’s “works” of blessing and judgment mentioned in Ps 95:9 (Heb 3:9) and experienced by Israel when leaving Egypt and traveling through the wilderness. Furthermore, he entered his “rest” after completing his works. Thus the “rest” must not be thought of as one of his works (Lane, 1:99; deSilva, 165). See Attridge, 130, for the Jewish background of the Sabbath as God’s eschatological rest.

45. Thus Attridge, 130, may be right when he suggests that the reference might be to David as a prophet and not just to the book of Psalms, as argued by Moffatt, 52, and Bruce, 108.

46. For προείρηται, “as it has been said before” or “as it has already been said,” as a reference to the pastor’s previous citation of this verse in 3:7b–8 and 3:15 see Ellingworth, 252.

47. It is not clear why Ellingworth argues that Ps 95:11 is a direct promise of “rest” and thus removes the negative way in which it is used in this passage. This interpretation is unnecessary and appears to run contrary to the plain meaning of the text. Ellingworth, 250.

48. M. Thiessen, “Hebrews and the End of the Exodus,” NovT 49 (2007): 353–69, argues that Hebrews sees the whole history of Israel up to the present as taking place during the exodus. He appears to understand this exodus period as the time between the literal exodus from earthly Egypt and final entrance into the heavenly homeland. This awkward pairing of one “earthly” event (the exodus) and one “heavenly” (entrance into the land) introduces confusion and causes him to miss the typological nature of OT institutions and events. He almost seems to understand the present verse not as a declaration that the earthly Promised Land was not the true “rest” but that Joshua did not bring the people into the earthly Promised Land: “Israel has been brought out of Egypt but has never, even up until his [the author’s] own day, entered into the land that God had promised them” (Thiessen, “Exodus,” 354–55).

49. There is really no evidence for Attridge’s (130) suggestion of a possible Joshua/Jesus typology based on the ἀρχηγός, “pioneer,” title used in 2:10. Leschert, Hermeneutical Foundations, 126, n. 13, cites others in support of such a typology. The pastor refuses to be distracted by the obvious similarity between these two names (Ellingworth, 253). When referring to “Jesus,” the pastor usually puts this name in the final emphatic position, as in 2:9. However, he deemphasizes this reference to “Joshua” by denying the name either the first or last emphatic position in the Greek sentence.

50. Ellingworth, 253–54.

51. Laansma, Rest Motif, 278–79, has demonstrated conclusively that κατάπαυσις in this passage refers to the place of future blessedness. Attridge’s contention (“‘Let Us Strive,’” 282–83) that κατάπαυσις (“rest”) must be nothing more than a state because it is “defined” by σαββατισμός (“Sabbath celebration”) is reductionistic. His argument that “rested from all his work” (v. 10) describes a state begs the question. “If we translate κατάπαυσις in v. 10 locally the sense is, ‘the one who enters God’s resting place rests from his works as God did from his.’ The Sabbath celebration takes place in the resting place, and is made possible by resting from one’s works. This is perfectly intelligible, and Attridge’s objections (Attridge, 131, n. 108) are without force” (Laansma, Rest Motif, 281, n. 142, emphasis original).

52. Lane, 1:102. σαββατισμός occurs in Justin, Dial. 23.3 (born A.D. 168); Epiphanius, Pan. 30.2.2 (A.D. 315–403); Martyrdom of Peter and Paul 1 (end of third century); and Apos. Con. 2.36.2 (fourth century). All of these authors use this term to describe a Sabbath celebration of rest from normal work and joyful worship of God. Each uses the term σάββατον when referring to the Sabbath itself. See Hofius, Katapausis, 103–5. Thus Käsemann’s contention that Hebrews’ identification of this rest with σαββατισμός parallels the Gnostic identification of the final place of rest as the Sabbath/Seventh Heaven has no support. As “Sabbath celebration,” σαββατισμός denotes neither the seventh day nor cessation and quietude. Hofius, Katapausis, 116–17.

53. There is nothing in the text to support Bénétreau’s argument that “Sabbath celebration” describes present daily access to God parallel with the present weekly access of the Jewish Sabbath (Bénétreau, 183).

54. καὶ αὐτός is emphatic: “he himself even.”

55. Attridge, 131, suggests this interpretation as a possibility and, in n. 110, cites Franz-Joseph Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung: Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebräerbriefes (Munich: Zink, 1955), 134–35; Leopold Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study, Studies in the History of Religion (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 204; and Vanhoye, La structure littéraire, 99–100, in its support. Ellingworth, 255–57, summarizes the arguments presented for this position in Andriessen and Lenglet, 75, who follow Vanhoye and Schierse. See also deSilva, 167–69.

56. See Attridge, 131, n. 110.

57. The faithful “rest from the labors of a faithful life in this world” (Laansma, Rest Motif, 358). For a full discussion of alternatives see Laansma, Rest Motif, 296–300. He refers to promised deliverance from suffering in 4 Ezra 7; Rev 14:13; and 2 Thess 1:3–10.

58. Hofius, Katapausis, 55, misses this distinction when he identifies God’s “rest” as one of the works of creation.

59. Both φοβηθῶμεν (“let us fear”), as noted above, and σπουδάσωμεν (“let us be diligent”) are ingressive aorists (hortatory subjunctive) urging the hearers to a new level of precautionary “fear” and diligence of pursuit (see Lane, 1:94).

60. οὖν (“then,” “therefore”) shows that this exhortation is dependent on the preceding argument.

61. Note the word order in 4:11b: ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ τῆς ἀπειθείας. ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ, “in the same,” has been brought forward and separated from the noun it modifies, ὑποδείγματι, “example,” by the subject τις, “anyone.” Furthermore, τῆς ἀπειθείας appears to have been separated from the ὑποδείγματι that it qualifies by the verb πέσῃ. It is possible, but not likely, that τῆς ἀπειθείας is an ablative of means qualifying πέσῃ, “fall through unbelief.” Qualification of ὑποδείγματι is more likely because the pastor normally attributes “disobedience” (3:18; 4:6) or “unbelief” (3:19) to the wilderness generation. Thus by moving ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ forward and reserving τῆς ἀπειθείας for the end, the pastor appears to have used the liberty afforded by Greek syntax to emphasize these terms.

62. Ellingworth, 258–59, argues that ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ … ὑποδείγματι is instrumental of means or cause, “by means of the same example.” It is difficult, however, to understand how observing this example would cause anyone to fall. Thus a locative makes better sense: lest anyone fall “into the same example,” that is, into the same kind of disobedience experienced by the wilderness generation.

63. In fact, ⁴⁶ reads ἀπιστίας, “of unbelief,” in 4:11 instead of ἀπειθείας, “of disobedience.”

---

1. See Pfitzner, 85.

2. Although Westfall, Discourse Analysis, 140–42, agrees that v. 11 concludes 4:1–11, she makes 4:11–16 a separate unit that concludes the first major section of Hebrews and introduces the second. She bases this on the thrice-repeated οὖν accompanied by hortatory subjunctives (σπουδάσωμεν, “let us be diligent”; κρατῶμεν, “let us hold fast”; and προσερχώμεθα, “let us approach”) in 4:11, 14, and 16. Verses 12–13 support the exhortation of v. 11; v. 15 supports the exhortation of v. 14; and 5:1–10 supports the exhortation of v. 16. Verses 11–13 are supposed to summarize 3:1–4:11; vv. 14–15, 1:1–2:18; and v. 16 introduces what follows. However, the reintroduction of high priesthood in v. 14 divides it sharply from vv. 11–13. Verse 14 is no summary of 1:1–2:18. Westfall’s analysis does not account adequately for “Having then a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.” As noted in the commentary below, these themes will be developed in what follows. The fact that this phrase precedes and provides motivation for the exhortation of v. 14 also suggests a significant break between vv. 13 and 14. On the coherence and function of 4:14–16 see pp. 218–20 below.

3. Cf. Lane, 1:96; Attridge, 133; Weiss, 284; O’Brien, 174.

4. See the section entitled “The Sermon and Its Rhetorically Effective Structure” in the Introduction (pp. 60–77).