the master’s college In These Last Days: The...

  the master’s college

In These Last Days:

The Son as the Final Communicative Act of God

a paper submitted to

the faculty of the bible department

in partial fulfillment of

BL 422: Greek Exegesis

dr. william varner

Spring 2007

by

clifford b. kvidahl

Introduction

            In his magisterial commentary on Hebrews, Harold Attridge gives the following description:

                The Document known as the Epistle to the Hebrews is the most elegant and sophisticated, and       perhaps the most enigmatic, text of first-century Christianity. Its author is unknown and the               circumstances of its composition remain mysterious. Its argumentation is subtle; its language              refined; its imagery rich and evocative.[1]

Because issues such as authorship, destination, and audience are left shrouded in mystery, it is difficult to determine with full confidence to reason for the composition of this marvelous sermon. Nevertheless, though these questions have yet to be answered, the message of Hebrews is clear and powerful. The author is writing to a group of people who are in danger of falling away from the Messiah and returning to the cultus practices. They had experienced severe persecution and began to question their commitment to the Messiah. It is the author’s (Auctor) desire to exhort and encourage the readers of this sermon to carry on and “lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and… run with endurance the race that is set before [them]” (Heb. 12.1).[2]

Historical Context

            As mentioned above, there are a number of issues that pose a problem for the interpreter of Hebrews; in order for him to be able to have a full understanding of this sermon he must consider these interpretative issues. “To know the author of an epistle, when it was written, its geographical destination, and something about its readership helps modern day readers to relate the teaching of that epistle more clearly and more consistently to their own concerns.”[3]

a. Authorship

            There have been a number of candidates proposed as potential authors of Hebrews. Some of them have survived the test of time, while others no longer are seriously considered.[4] The more serious potential candidates as of late would include Paul[5], Luke,[6] Barnabas, Apollos[7], and Priscilla (Aquila).[8] Although the authorship of Hebrews cannot be determined with absolute certainty, there are some textual clues that can be helpful in pointing us in the right direction.

i. Paul

            Although the early church held to a Pauline authorship of Hebrews, they were not without their doubts.[9] One of the strongest evidences for a non-Pauline authorship, apart from style and theological content, is found in Heb 2.3b: h[tij avrch.n labou/sa lalei/sqai dia. tou/ kuri,ou u`po. tw/n avkousa,ntwn eivj h`ma/j evbebaiw,qh [It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard]. This would seem to conflict with the account Paul recorded in Gal 1.11-12: Gnwri,zw ga.r u`mi/n( avdelfoi,( to. euvagge,lion to. euvaggelisqe.n u`pV evmou/ o[ti ouvk e;stin kata. a;nqrwpon\ ouvde. ga.r evgw. para. avnqrw,pou pare,labon auvto. ou;te evdida,cqhn avlla. diV avpokalu,yewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ [For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ], cf. 1 Cor 15.8. Paul’s testimony that he received the gospel directly from the Lord Jesus stands in direct contrast with the author of Hebrews testimony of receiving it from those who heard it from the Lord.

ii. Luke

            In his two-volume work The Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius records Clement’s belief that Hebrews was Paul’s writing, originally in Hebrew, but later translated into Greek by Luke. This accounts for the similarity of style between Hebrews and Luke-Acts (HE 6.14.2). Noticing the importance of similarity in style between Hebrews and Luke-Acts, David L. Allen notes that the similarity in style cannot be overlooked as mere coincidence. Of the 1,038 total vocabulary words in Hebrews, Allen notes that only 337 words do not occur in the writings of Luke.[10] One example of similarity in vocabulary is the use of Avrchgoj. Nowhere in the New Testament does Avrchgo,j occur outside of Hebrews and Acts (Acts 3.15, 5.31; Heb 2.10, 12.2), and all four times it occurs as a Christological title.

            One of the major objections to Lukan authorship (if he translated Paul’s Hebrew into Greek) is the use of the Old Testament. If Paul originally wrote this sermon in Hebrew, Luke departs from this in the Old Testament citations; Auctor uses exclusively for his Old Testament citations the LXX. Not only does he depart from the Hebrew in content, but also in meaning. For example, the MT at Ps 40.7 has the reading !z<ao (ear), where as the LXX 39.7 has sw/ma (body).[11]

iii. Barnabas

            The earliest recorded testimony to Barnabas as the author of Hebrews is from Tertullian. In his work On Modesty, Tertullian records his belief that Barnabas, a fellow comrade of Paul, was the author of Hebrews.[12] Also, the detailed Levitical cultic practices contained in Hebrews show a familiarity with the Old Testament sacrificial system. This would be common knowledge for someone from the tribe of Levi, in which case Barnabas was (Acts 4.36). Furthermore, the name Barnabas (Barnaba/j) means “son of encouragement” (ui`o.j paraklh,sewj), and is similar to the “word of exhortation” (tou/ lo,gou th/j paraklh,sewj) found at the end of Heb 13.

            But in spite of these similarities, they should not be taken as an identification of authorship. Although Barnabas was from the tribe of Levi, there is no record that he participated in the Levitical priesthood. Although there is a similarity in the phrases of Acts 4.36 and Heb 13.22, this should not to be taken as a possible coded reference of authorship.

iv. Apollos

            Since the time of Martin Luther, Apollos has received much attention as possible author of Hebrews. What we do know of Auctor is that he was a man that was well trained in the use of rhetoric. He was a skilled craftsman of the Greek language, and he used this to get the attention of the people to whom he writes. In Acts, Luke describes Apollos as an “eloquent man” (avnh.r lo,gioj), most likely referring to his rhetorical abilities.[13]

            The lack of any ancient writing attributed to Apollos works against his authorship. Because we do not have a written document penned by Apollos available to us, we cannot say with any certainty that he is the author of Hebrews. The textual evidence which we have passed down to us, points to a man who is highly trained and skilled in the art of rhetoric.

v. Priscilla (Aquila)

            The view that Priscilla (possibly with Aquila) wrote Hebrews was possibly first suggested by Adolf von Harnack.[14] He believed that the reason for their being no author named was because Priscilla was a woman, and because women were looked at as second class citizens this would have given Hebrews a lack of authority.

            There are two things against Harnack’s view. First, the intimacy in which Auctor shows towards the readers of Hebrews is not characteristic of one who wishes to hide their identity. It is evident to see that the author knows their audience well, and is acquainted with their circumstances. Second, the use of masculine participle dihgou,menon (Heb 11.32) cannot be read as an attempt to cover up Priscilla’s authorship.

            The evidence for the potential author of Hebrews is inconclusive and does not give any clear proof of who the writer is. Therefore, because we are left out any clear evidence to point us to an author we must concede to the words of Origen on this matter: ti,j de. o` gra,yaj th.n evpistolh.n, to. me.n avlhqe.j qeo.j oi=den (Eusebius HE 6.25.14).

Structure and Genre of Hebrews

            Like the making of books, theories on the structure of Hebrews seem to have no end in sight. A number of monographs and journal articles have been written (not to mentions the endless array of commentaries) seeking to find the meaning that the author conveyed by dissecting the text to find its structure. It has been analyzed from almost every known angle and has yet to produce a stable consensus.

            If we believe that Auctor composed his work to be read aloud (thus making it a sermon instead of an epistle), then it seems logical also to think that he would have employed various literary elements in his sermon that would have aided the hearers and helped them to follow his argument. In crafting his sermon, Auctor took his time, carefully choosing his words and skillfully putting these words into larger discourse units, with the aim of persuading his readers not to return to that which is “growing old [and] ready to vanish away” (8.13).

a. Rhetorical Analysis

            Attempts to situate New Testament writings within a particular rhetorical genre are not as simple as one may think. Commenting on this difficulty Burton Mack states:

Most attempts to define precisely the issue of an early Christian argument fail, however, simply because the social circumstances of the early Christian movements did not correspond to the traditional occasions for each type of speech. Early Christian rhetoric was a distinctively mixed bag in which every form of rhetorical issue and strategy was frequently brought to bear simultaneously in an essentially extravagant persuasion. Thus the occurrence of traditional patterns of argumentation may not always be a firm basis upon which to judge the intention of a speech.[15]

In the ancient rhetorical handbooks, three types of rhetorical genre are mentioned: deliberative, judicial, and epideictic.[16]

            In Hebrews, elements of both deliberative and epideictic rhetoric are visible. The author’s use of deliberative rhetoric – the art of persuading or dissuading an audience to a particular action – can be seen most clearly in the passages of exhortation (Heb 2.1-4; 3.1, 7-13; 4.1, 11, 14-16; 6.1-3; 10.19-39; 12.1-13.19). In these passages Auctor is exhorting his hearers and persuading them to action. It is this form of rhetoric that Barnabas Lindars believes is employed in Hebrews. Lindars argues that because the main concern of deliberative rhetoric is to persuade its audience to accept a particular decision, it must be seen as the rhetorical genre in which Hebrews is written.[17] The composition of Hebrews is “thus a matter of changing [the readers] minds with regard to action.” [18]

            There are also signs of epideictic rhetoric in Hebrews. In the sermon, Auctor on a number of occasions praises the person of Christ, as well as the saints who died honorably (Heb 11). Attridge writes that Hebrews “is clearly an epideictic oration, celebrating the significance of Christ and inculcating values that his followers ought to share.”[19] He believes Hebrews “celebrates the ongoing significance of a person and certain events connected with him,” and that this “celebration functions to reinforce values and commitments associated with that person and those events.” Attridge affirms that Hebrews is “similar to the kind of  oratory  that one could hear in antiquity, and can even hear today, at wakes, weddings, funerals, national holidays, and, in some churches at least, on major holy days.”[20]

            In conclusion, it is best not to try and fit Hebrews into any rhetorical mold. Because elements of both deliberative as well epideictic rhetoric are present, it may well be that Auctor was utilizing both methods to convey the strongest message possible in order to get the full attention of his audience and to urge them to act in accordance to what they hear. Koestner describes best the reason for the author of Hebrews mixed use of rhetoric when he writes:

For listeners who remain committed to God and Christ, Hebrews is epideictic, since it maintains the values the already hold. For those tending to drift away from the faith, Hebrews is deliberative, since it seeks to dissuade them from apostasy and move them toward a clearer faith commitment.[21]

b. Discourse Analysis

            A relatively new discipline in Biblical studies, discourse analysis is the study of the grammar of the text above the sentence level. Jeffrey T. Reed defines discourse analysis as such:

Discourse analysis (less frequently referred to as Textlinguistics or Text Grammar) is a sub-discipline of modern linguistics that seeks to understand the relationship between language, discourse, and situational context in human communication.[22]

Richard Young defines discourse as “the communication of ideas through a set of signs (e.g., spoken or written words) within a situational context.”[23]

            As figure one below illustrates, when reading a text, one starts with the individual words that make up a sentence, then they move to the paragraph level, and finally to the discourse as a whole.

            Although discourse analysis is considered a new discipline, it is something that readers participate in as they read. When a person begins reading the book of Hebrews, he finds that he is analyzing the book not just at the sentence level, but rather at the level of the discourse as a whole. For example, to understand the theology of Auctor in the participle phase kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj, one must continue to read through the rest of Hebrews and interpret the discourse above the sentence level. Also, to understand just how superior the Son is to the angels (Heb 1.4), one has to continue to read the remainder of Heb 1(Heb 1.5-14) in order to understand. Therefore, the idea of discourse analysis is to understand the whole text-discourse of an author above the level of the sentence.

Fig. 1

The Exordium: Hebrews 1.1-4

1  Polumerw/j kai. polutro,pwj pa,lai o` qeo.j lalh,saj toi/j patra,sin evn toi/j profh,taij  2  evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn evla,lhsen h`mi/n evn ui`w/|( o]n e;qhken klhrono,mon pa,ntwn( diV ou- kai. evpoi,hsen tou.j aivw/naj\  3  o]j w'n avpau,gasma th/j do,xhj kai. carakth.r th/j u`posta,sewj auvtou/( fe,rwn te ta. pa,nta tw/| r`h,mati th/j duna,mewj auvtou/( kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj evka,qisen evn dexia/| th/j megalwsu,nhj evn u`yhloi/j(  4  tosou,tw| krei,ttwn geno,menoj tw/n avgge,lwn o[sw| diaforw,teron parV auvtou.j keklhrono,mhken o;nomaÅ

            In classical rhetoric, the exordium was an integral part of the orator’s speech. It is here that the author must gain both the attention and approval of his audience by skillfully crafting his arranging words. The exordium was used to “provide the theme of the speech while also establishing the credibility and authority of the speaker.”[24] It is of great importance that the author not only wins the attention of the people he is addressing, but he also must be careful not to offend from the start. He must prove to be one who is creditable and worthy of the trust of his audience. On the importance of the exordium Cicero writes:

In the Introduction of a cause we must make sure that our style is temperate and that the words are in current use, so that the discourse seems unprepared. An Introduction is faulty if it can be applied as well to a number of causes; that is called a banal Introduction. Again, an Introduction which the adversary can use no less well is faulty, and that is called a common Introduction. That Introduction, again, is faulty which the opponent can turn to his own use against you. And again that is faulty which has been composed in too laboured a style, or is too long; and that which does not appear to have grown out of the cause itself in such a way to have an intimate connection with the Statement of Facts; and, finally, that which fails to make the hearer well disposed or receptive or attentive.[25]

            The exordium was used to “provide the theme of the speech while also establishing the credibility and authority of the speaker.”[26] This is what takes place in Heb 1.1-4. To establish his credibility with his audience Auctor appeals to the character and faithfulness of God. Auctor skillfully begins his sermon is such a way as to have God as the orator. In these opening verses God is establishing the credibility of his Son as the final word and authority evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn [in these last days]. In these last days God has spoken to us evn ui`w [through a Son], one who is greater than the prophets (1.1-2), greater than the angels (1.5-2.18), greater than Moses (3.1-4.13), greater than Aaron (4.14-5.10), greater than Melchizedek (7.1-28), and greater than the Old Covenant and its sacrifices (8.1-10.18).

Heb 1.1 Polumerw/j kai. polutro,pwj[27] pa,lai o` qeo.j lalh,saj[28] toi/j patra,sin[29] evn toi/j profh,taij.[30]

            The author of Hebrews skillfully begins his sermon with the alliteration of p (polumerw/j, polutro,pwj, pa,lai, patra,sin, profh,taij) to immediately get the attention of his audience. In Hebrews alone Auctor utilizes the alliteration of p in 2.2 (eiv ga.r o` diV avgge,lwn lalhqei.j lo,goj evge,neto be,baioj kai. pa/sa para,basij kai. parakoh. e;laben e;ndikon misqapodosi,an), 7.25 (o[qen kai. sw,|zein eivj to. pantele.j du,natai tou.j prosercome,nouj diV auvtou/ tw/| qew/|( pa,ntote zw/n eivj to. evntugca,nein u`pe.r auvtw/n), 11.28 (Pi,stei pepoi,hken to. pa,sca kai. th.n pro,scusin tou/ ai[matoj( i[na mh. o` ovloqreu,wn ta. prwto,toka qi,gh| auvtw/n), 12.11 (pa/sa de. paidei,a pro.j me.n to. paro.n ouv dokei/ cara/j ei=nai avlla. lu,phj), and 13.19 (perissote,rwj de. parakalw/ tou/to poih/sai).[31]

            The fronting of polumerw/j kai. polutro,pwj pa,lai [in many parts and many ways long ago] ] is to emphasize the continuity and progression of God’s revelation, and it stands in contrast with the evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn in Heb 1.2. Auctor’s use of polu-root words was a common rhetorical feature in ancient writings.[32] James Moffat writes, “Greek prefaces and introductions of a rhetorical type were fond of opening with polu,j in some form or other.”[33] It is possible to see the two adverbs polumerw/j and polutro,pwj as hendiadys, thus making it a stylistic effect without expressing two separate ideas[34].

            The fronting and emphasis of polumerw/j kai. polutro,pwj pa,lai is to show that the revelation of God in the Old Testament was a continuous flow which came toi/j patra,sin evn toi/j profh,taij [to the fathers through the prophets]. God’s communication with the fathers was indeed in polumerw/j kai. polutro,pwj. He communicated by means of direct communication (Noah, Gen 6.13; Abraham Gen 12.1; Moses Exod 3.4; 33.11; ; Num 12.7-8, etc.), through visions (Gen 46.2; Num 12.6; 1 Sam 3.1; Ezek 1.1), and sometimes through appearances of Himself (Exod 19.17-25; cf. Heb 12.18-24).

            The reference toi/j patra,sin[35] [to the fathers] is not speaking of the patriarchs only, but it encompasses of the nation of Israel as a whole (cf. 3.9; 8.9)[36]. The Old Testament frequently speaks of “the fathers” in a corporate sense (cf. 1 Sam 12.6-8; 1 Kgs 8.21; Jer 11.7; Ezek 20.36).

            Likewise, evn toi/j profh,taij [through the prophets] refers to the prophets collectively rather than any particular prophet (cf. Heb 11.32: Daui,d te kai. Samouh.l kai. tw/n profhtw/n [David and also Samuel and the Prophets]),[37] and represent the means by which God communicated to the fathers in times past. Luke Johnson writes:

…Hebrews applies the title prophētēs in the discourse proper only as a general designation. As it is used in the prologue, therefore, the term is probably meant to suggest all the agents by whom God’s word and will were disclosed to the people, including angels, Moses and Joshua, and the priestly cult, in addition to all the heroes of faith recorded in chapter 11. But the term in the plural may also refer to the very texts of Scripture that report all these acts of revelation, and thereby also reveal them.[38]

God used numerous prophets as his messenger to the nation of Israel. There was a continuity and progression of revelation that stretched from the prophets until the time of the Messiahs coming.[39] The progressive revelation found is fulfillment and completion in the person of God’s ui`o,j.

Heb 1.2 evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn evla,lhsen h`mi/n[40] evn ui`w/|,[41] o]n[42] e;qhken klhrono,mon[43] pa,ntwn[44]( diV[45] ou- kai.[46] evpoi,hsen tou.j aivw/naj\

            These two verses (v.1-2a) denote a comparison between the two recipients of God’s communicative action:

Fig. 2

In the former times the God spoke on many occasions, through many means. But evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn [in these last days] God’s final revelation and communicative act in through His Son.

            The prepositional phrase evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn is a translation of the Hebrew ~ymi(Y"h; tyrIïx]a;B, (Gen 49.1; Num 24.14; Deut 4.30; 31.39; Jer 23.20; Dan 10.14), which carries with it an eschatological meaning.[48] The prophets of old spoke on a number of occasions of “the last days.” In his warning to the nation, Moses writes, “When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days [evpV evsca,tw| tw/n h`merw/n], you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice” (Deut 4.30). The prophet Jeremiah writes, “The anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his heart. In the latter days [evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n] you will understand it clearly” (Jer 23.20; cf. 30.24). After receiving the vision of man, an angel came to Daniel and interpreted the vision, and “came to make [him] understand what is to happen to [his] people in the latter days [evpV evsca,twn tw/n h`merw/n]. For the vision is for days yet to come” (Dan 10.14).[49]

            The anticipation of the eschaton is evident likewise in the New Testament. In his speech at Pentecost, Peter sees the death, resurrection, and exaltation to the right hand of God (which is also discussed by Auctor) as the inauguration of the last days [evn tai/j evsca,taij h`me,raij] (Acts 2.17). Also, Peter says of Jesus, “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times [evpV evsca,tou tw/n cro,nwn]for your sake” (1 Pet 1.20; cf. 2 Pet 3.3; Jude 18).

            Eschatological imagery is widespread in Hebrews. The “warning passages” contain exhortations to persevere through the hardships or face impendent doom. The audience is exhorted to pay close attention to what they have heard, lest they drift away from it, for they cannot escape the judgment of God if they neglect the salvation that they had proclaimed to them (Heb 2.1-3). Also, they are not to harden their hearts like the wandering Jews in the wilderness that provoked God and perished in the wilderness Auctor writes:

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end (Heb 3.7-11; cf. 1 Cor 10.1-13).

            They are to strive to enter into the rest which God has prepared for the, having the same message preached to them [euvhggelisme,noi] as was preached to the wilderness generation (Heb 4.1-2). But if they apostatize and fall away from the things which they have heard and partaken of (i.e. the power of the age to come [duna,meij te me,llontoj aivw/noj]) and shrink back from the living God, they have nothing to look forward to except “fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries” (Heb 10.27).

            Auctor also speaks of the Parousia in his sermon. In the catena of Old Testament quotations highlighting the superiority of the Son we read, “And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him” (Heb 1.6).[50] In speaking of the coming judgment, Auctor writes:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,  so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him [evk deute,rou cwri.j a`marti,aj ovfqh,setai toi/j auvto.n avpekdecome,noij eivj swthri,an] (Heb 9.27-28).

Also, while Auctor encourages them to remain faithful through their trials and to not lose heart, he writes:

For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For, "Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him." But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls (Heb 10.34-39).

The audience is also warned not to leave the fellowship of believers, but encourage [parakalou/ntej] one another to love and good deeds all the more “as [they] see the Day drawing near [o[sw| ble,pete evggi,zousan th.n h`me,ranÅ]” (Heb 10.24ff). Auctor’s concern for his readers is an eschatological concern that evident in his exhortations to remain faithful and persevere; his soteriology is based heavily on, and flow from his eschatology.

            God’s final and definitive communicative action come “to us through a Son [h`mi/n evn ui`w/|].” Whereas in the former times God communicated through many prophets, in these last and final days He has spoken through one who is a Son. The anarthrous ui`w/|[51] is not emphasizing an indefinite “son”, as in many, but rather is qualitative, emphasizing the nature of the Son. Dan Wallace writes:

The point is that God, in his final revelation, has spoken to us in one who has the characteristics of a son. His credentials are vastly different from the credentials of the prophets (or from the angels, as the following context indicates).[52]

As the Son of God, he is greater than the prophets who came before Him. Later in Hebrews Auctor says that while Moses [profh,thj] was faithful as a servant of God, Jesus was faithful over God’s house as a son [ui`o.j] (Heb 3.6). Likewise, the Son [ui`o,j] who is appointed by an oath is greater that the priests [avrciereu,j] who are appointed by the law (Heb 7.28).

            Not only has God spoken through a Son in these last days, but He has also appointed Him as “heir of all things [klhrono,mon pa,ntwn]” (Heb 1.2). Grammatically, God is still the subject of the relative clause [o]n e;qhken klhrono,mon pa,ntwn], but the focus is now shifted to the Son. This relative clause is the first of seven statements concerning the Son:

1. The Son is appointed heir of all things [o]n e;qhken klhrono,mon pa,ntwn] (v.2b).

2. The Son is the agent through whom God created the world [diV ou- kai. evpoi,hsen tou.j aivw/naj] (v.2c).

3. The Son is the radiance of the glory of God [o]j w'n avpau,gasma th/j do,xhj] (v.3).

4. The Son is the exact representation of God’s nature [o]j w'n…carakth.r th/j u`posta,sewj auvtou/] (v.3a).

5. The Son upholds everything by His word of power [fe,rwn te ta. pa,nta tw/| r`h,mati th/j duna,mewj auvtou/]      

    (v.3b).

6. The Son made purification for sins [kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj] (v.3.c)

7. The Son was exalted to the right hand of God [evka,qisen evn dexia/| th/j megalwsu,nhj evn u`yhloi/j] (v.3d).[53]

            The first statement about the Son, o]n e;qhken klhrono,mon pa,ntwn, is most likely an allusion to Ps 2.8, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage [th.n klhronomi,an], and the ends of the earth your possession.”[54] While Christ has been appointed heir, he has yet to take full possession of his inheritance. Attridge states that “the fullness of Christ’s inheritance is to be realized eschatologically,”[55] and that realization is occurs when Christ again returns and all his enemies are made subjected to Him (Heb 1.6, 13; cf. 1 Cor 15.24-28). The “all things” [pa,ntwn] does not refer to people specifically, but rather all created order (i.e. tou.j aivw/naj, v.2c).

            The second statement about the Son (again, contained in a relative clause), diV ou- kai. evpoi,hsen tou.j aivw/naj, portrays the Son as the agent of God’s creation. The Son is said to be the one through which the world (i.e. all creation) came into being. This echoes the prologue of John’s gospel when he writes:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him [pa,nta diV auvtou/ evge,neto], and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1.1-3; cf. 1 Cor 8.6; Col 1.16).

Similarly, the Lo,goj as God’s agent in creation is alluded to in Ps 33.6 (32.6 LXX), “By the word of the LORD [tw/| lo,gw| tou/ kuri,ou] the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” Auctor might also be drawing from the Wisdom tradition, in which wisdom is personified:

The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man (Prov 8.22-31).

The Wisdom tradition is also present in the apocryphal books of the Old Testament:

Wisdom praises herself, and tells of her in the midst of her people. In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth, and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory: “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a midst. I dwelt in the highest heavens, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. Alone I compassed the vault of heaven and traversed the depths of the abyss. Over the waves of the sea, over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held sway.” Among all these I sought a resting place; in whose territory should I abide? “Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose a place for my tent. He said, ‘Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.’ Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me, and for all the ages I shall not cease to be. In the holy tent I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion. Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my domain. I took root in an honored people, in the portion of the Lord, his heritage (Sir 24.1-12; cf. Wis 8.4).

In an article on Divine Wisdom, William Lane writes:

The formal statement concerning the Son of God in Hebrews 1.1-4 conforms to a class of statements descriptive of Divine Wisdom in the theology of Alexandrian Judaism. The writer introduces Jesus as the divine Son (1.2), but his functions are those of the Wisdom of God: he is the mediator of revelation, the agent and sustainer of creation, and the reconciler of men to God (1.2b-3). Each of these christological affirmations echoes declarations concerning the role of Divine Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon or of the Logos of Philo.[56]

            The tou.j aivw/naj [the created world] has a number of different uses in the New Testament. It can be used to refer to a long period of time (…he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old [evla,lhsen dia. sto,matoj tw/n a`gi,wn avpV aivw/noj profhtw/n auvtou/], Luke 1.70; cf. Acts 3.21), eternity (But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” [pro.j de. to.n ui`o,n\ o` qro,noj sou o` qeo.j eivj to.n aivw/na tou/ aivw/noj], Heb 1.8; cf. John 6.51), a certain age in history (…If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise [ei; tij dokei/ sofo.j ei=nai evn u`mi/n evn tw/| aivw/ni tou,tw|( mwro.j gene,sqw( i[na ge,nhtai sofo,j], 1 Cor 3.18; cf. Matt 12.32), a spatial idea or concept (By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God…” [Pi,stei noou/men kathrti,sqai tou.j aivw/naj r`h,mati qeou/], Heb 11.3). Auctor uses tou.j aivw/naj here to speak of the created worlds (spatially), in contrast to his usage elsewhere for a specific age or eternity (temporally).

Heb 1.3 o]j[57] w'n[58] avpau,gasma[59] th/j do,xhj[60] kai. carakth.r[61] th/j u`posta,sewj[62] auvtou/( fe,rwn[63] te ta. pa,nta tw/| r`h,mati[64] th/j duna,mewj[65] auvtou/( kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj[66] evka,qisen evn dexia/|[67] th/j megalwsu,nhj evn u`yhloi/jÅ[68]

            In the third statement about the Son (as with the previous two statements, the third statement is contained in relative clause) the subject grammatically shifts from qeo.j to ui`o,j with the use of the relative pronoun o]j. The Son is described as being “the radiance of the glory of [God] [avpau,gasma th/j do,xhj] and the exact imprint of his nature [carakth.r th/j u`posta,sewj auvtou/]” (Heb 1.3). With the use of avpau,gasma Auctor again draws upon the Wisdom tradition that is mentioned above.[69] The author of Wisdom writes concerning Wisdom, “For she is a reflection [avpau,gasma] of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (Wis 7.26; cf. Philo Spec. 4.123; Opif. 1.146; Plan. 1.50). 1 Clem 36 shows a lot of familiarity with Heb 1. One of the clearest allusions to Heb 1.3-4 is found in 1 Clem. 36.2, as illustrated in figure 3 below:[70]

Fig. 3

        Avpau,gasma can have either an active or passive meaning. The active meaning carries more of light coming from a object, whereas the passive would have more of a “reflecting” meaning.[71] According to Kittel, “both meanings would be possible according to usage and context, yet patristic consensus favours the interpretation that Christ is the effulgence of the divine doxa, as sunshine is of the sun or light of light.”[72]

            The fourth statement describes the Son as carakth.r th/j u`posta,sewj auvtou [the exact imprint of his nature]. Carakth.r is found only here in the New Testament, but it appears in the LXX three times: Lev 13.28, “for it is the scar [carakth.r] of the burn”; 2 Macc 4.10, “When the King assented and Jason came to office, he at once shifted his compatriots over to the Greek way of life [carakth.r]”; 4 Macc 15.4, “…We impress upon the character [carakth.r] of a small child….” Carakth.r also appears in Philo fifty-three times (e.g., Plant. 1.18, where it speaks of the imprint of the divine on the soul of man: o` carakth,r evstin o` avi,dioj lo,goj). James Moulton states that carakth.r is “used of the ‘mark,’ ‘impress’ made, with special reference to any distinguishing peculiarity, and hence = ‘an exact reproduction.’”[73]

            The fifth statement concerning the Son (which instead of being included in a relative clause is contained in a participle clause) speaks “His sustaining of all things by the power of His word” [fe,rwn te ta. pa,nta tw/| r`h,mati th/j duna,mewj auvtou]. Not only is the Son the agent through God created the world (Heb 1.2c), He is also the sustaining agent of all things. Paul refers to the Son  in Col 1.17 (which has similar thematic and theological concepts) as the one who holds all things [ta. pa,nta] together in Himself. The sustaining of everything is through, or by the means of the powerful word of the Son [tw/| r`h,mati th/j duna,mewj auvtou]. The very same word of power that created the aivw/naj is the same powerful word that sustains all things.

            The sixth statement concerning the Son (which is contained in a participle clause) concerns that sacrifice of the Son for the cleansing of sin [kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj]. This, according to Lindars, is the main issue of the Sermon. Lindars writes:

Thus everything is done to avoid alienating the readers at the outset, and the brief mention of purification of sins is to be seen as a rhetorical device. It is a well known ploy, whereby the ground is prepared for an important disclosure by dropping a hint, like sowing a seed which will germinate slowly in the ground.[74]

The Son’s redemptive work in Heb 1.3c [kaqarismo.n tw/n a`martiw/n poihsa,menoj] parallels his creative work in Heb 1.2c [diV ou- kai. evpoi,hsen tou.j aivw/naj]. Kaqarismo.n is fronted to emphasize the Son’s removal of sin. Kaqarismo.n occurs twenty-five times in the LXX/NT. In the majority of occurrences it refers to ritual or ceremonial cleansing (e.g. Exod 30.10; Lev 14.32). The closet parallel to Heb 1.3c in the Old Testament is Job 7.21: “Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity [kai. dia. ti, ouvk evpoih,sw th/j avnomi,aj mou lh,qhn kai. kaqarismo.n]?...” Likewise, in the New Testament it is mostly used of ceremonial and ritual cleansing (e.g. Mark 1.44; John 2.6). Only in Heb 1.3 and 2 Pet 1.9 is it used to speak of the cleansing that Jesus accomplished for believers. In a similar passage,  Heb 10.12 links the sacrifice of Christ with the exaltation of the Son to the right hand of God:

Fig. 4

            The seventh and final statement concerning the Son speaks of His exaltation. After the Son was made heir of all things, after he created the world, while he is presently sustaining all things through His powerful word, and after He made purification for sin, “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [evka,qisen evn dexia/| th/j megalwsu,nhj evn u`yhloi/j]” (Heb 1.3d). Auctor introduces what will be one of his main Old Testament passages in Hebrews, Ps 110. In Hebrews alone, Auctor alludes to Ps 110.1 four times, and quotes it directly once:

Fig. 5

            In the New Testament, Ps 110.1(109.1 LXX) is quoted five times (Matt 22.44; Mark 12.36; Luke 20.42-43; Acts 2.34-35; Heb 1.13). To be at the right hand [evn dexia/|] is a sign of authority. After God raised Jesus from dead, he was “exalted at the right hand of God [th/| dexia/| ou=n tou/ qeou/ u`ywqei,j]” (Acts 2.33). Paul, speaking of the confidence we have in Christ because of His death, resurrection, and exaltation to glory, writes, “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who dies – more than that, who was raised – who is at the right hand of God [o]j kai, evstin evn dexia/| tou/ qeou], who is indeed interceding for us” (Rom 8.34; cf. Eph 1.20; Col 3.1). At the glorification of the Son, God exalted Him to be at His right hand “until [his] enemies are made a footstool for [his] feet.”

Excursus - Heb 1.3: An Early Christian Hymn?                                                                                          

            Much has been written in regards to Heb 1.3 as an early form of a christological hymn. Lane writes, “The concentration of rare and distinctive vocabulary to describe the relationship of the Son to God has been one factor that has encouraged many interpreters to find in v 3 a hymn-fragment.”[75] Attridge comments that “both the form (participial style, balanced clauses) and the content (the pattern of pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation, the unique images of ‘effulgence’ and ‘imprint’) of this verse suggest that the author drew on an early Christian hymn, the vehicle through which such a high christology, based on the wisdom tradition, first emerged.”[76]

                Some of similarities mentioned above by Attridge and Lane are striking. In Heb 1.3 there are indeed some factors that would seem to cause this passage to stand out from the immediate context. When compared to other possible christological hymns in the New Testament, the similarities are striking:

                The first striking feature of all four of these hymns is that they all begin with the relative pronoun o]j. Also, they begin with a statement concerning the pre-existence of the Son (Phil 2.6, “Who, though he was in the form of God”; Col 1.15, 19, “He is the image of the invisible God… For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”; 1 Tim 3.16, “He was manifested in the flesh”; Heb 1.3, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature). They also includes an element of creation and the sustaining of creation (Col 1.16-17, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together”; Heb 1.3, “He upholds the universe by the word of his power”). Likewise, they include the incarnation (Phil 2.7b-8a, “born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form…”; 1 Tim 3.16b, “He was manifested in the flesh”). The sacrificial death of Jesus is also mentioned (Phil 2.8b, “he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross”; Col 1.18a, 20b, “He is…the firstborn from the dead…making peace by the blood of his cross”; Heb 1.3c, “After making purification for sins…”). Lastly, they include the glorification and exaltation of the Son (Phil 2.9-11, “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”; 1 Tim 3.16g, “…taken up in glory”; Heb 1.3d, “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high).

                It is interesting to notice that in all four of these passages the resurrection is not mentioned. Attridge notes in relation to Hebrew 1.3 that “as in christological hymns generally, there is no mention here of Christ’s resurrection…since he probably conceived of the resurrection and exaltation as a single event.”[77]

                But as intriguing as these similarities are, it may not be wise to assume that an author used a possible early hymnic source. To speculate on the inclusion of a christological hymn is one thing, but to say with all certainty that it is clear that Paul or Auctor modified whatever source he may have used to fit his purposes is a contradiction. If we are not certain that a early christological hymn was utilized, how can we be certain that this hymn was modified?[78]

Excursus - Heb 1.3: An Early Christian Hymn?[79]                                                                       

Heb 1.4 tosou,tw| krei,ttwn[80] geno,menoj[81] tw/n avgge,lwn[82] o[sw| diaforw,teron[83] parV auvtou.j keklhrono,mhken o;nomaÅ[84]

            At the exaltation of the Son to the right hand of God, the Son inherited a much greater name than the angels, because the inheritance that He has received is more excellent than theirs. The focus of comparison has shifted from the prophets and the Son in Heb1.1-2a to the Son and angels in Heb1.4-2.9.

            The inclusion of angels here should not be seen as an indication of a false view of angels, but rather as Auctor shows in Heb 2.2 they were mediators of the Old Covenant, as the prophets were mediators between God and the fathers. Not only has the son been appointed heir of all things [n e;qhken klhrono,mon pa,ntwn], but he has also inherited a name that is superior to the angels [o[sw| diaforw,teron parV auvtou.j keklhrono,mhken o;noma]. Heb 1.4 is connected to the rest of this chapter by uses of a “hook-word” avgge,lwn as well as an inclusion:

Fig. 6

Conclusion

            The author of Hebrews is a skilled and masterful artist. He knows how to use words in a vivid and lively fashion. Auctor strings together a rhetorical masterpiece that portrays his pastoral heart, as well as his ability to capture an audience for the sake of exhorting them to action. He is not concerned mostly with the style of his composition, but rather uses the style to capture the minds of a group of believers that are drifting away from the things which they have been taught and which Author exhorts them to pay closer attention to (Heb 2.1). He knows of their trials and persecution, that they have faced much opposition. But he exhorts them to remain faithful:

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised (Heb 10.32-36).

He reminds them that they have as examples of men and women who have endured much for the promise of better things, “and all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb 11.39-40). Auctor gently encourages them to “bear with [his] word of exhortation,” because it comes to them from the heart of a shepherd that desires his flock to be sanctified and maturing in the Son.

Bibliography

English Standard Version (ESV). Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001.

New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha (NRSV). New York: Oxford Press, 1991.

Abernathy, David. “God Has Spoken Through His Son: The Theology of Sonship in         Hebrews 1.” DavarLogos 3.1 (2004): 23-35.

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed.       Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979.

Allen, David. “The Authorship of Hebrews: The Lukan Proposal.” Faith & Mission 18.2   (2001): 27-40.

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the   New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University        of Chicago Press, 2000.

Attridge, Harold. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress       Publishers, 1989.

                        . “Paraenesis in a Homily (lo,goj paraklh,sewj): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, The ‘Epistle to the Hebrews.’” Semeia 50.1 (1990): 211-26.

Aune, David. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks.        Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987.

            . “Exordium.” In The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Know Press,     2003.

            . “Hebrews, Letter to the.” In The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early     Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Know Press,             2003.

            . “Rhetorical Genres.” In The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and           Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville: Westminster John Know    Press, 2003.

Barrett, C.K. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” The Background of the      New Testament and Its Eschatology. Eds. Davies, W.D., and D. Daube.       Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1956: 363-93.

Baugh, Steven M. “The Poetic Form of Col 1.15-20.” WJT 47.2 (1985): 228-45.

Black, David Alan. “The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation     and Proposal.” GTJ 7.2 (1986): 163-77.

                        . “Hebrews 1.1-4: A Study in Discourse Analysis.” WTJ 49 (1987): 175-     94.

                        . Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse           Analysis. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

                        . “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence           Reexamined.” Faith & Mission 18.2 (2001): 3-26.

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Garden City: Doubleday,       1997.

Bruce, F. F. “The Structure and Argument of Hebrews.” SWJT 28 (1985): 6-12.

                        . The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Caird, George B. “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” CJT 5 (1959): 44-51.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles St        Peter. Translated by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1963.

Cannon, George E. The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians. Georgia: Mercer          University Press, 1983.

Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo.7 An Introduction to the New Testament: 2ed. Grand    Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Clements, Ronald E. “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.” SWJT 28 (1985): 36-    47.

Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols. Translated by             Thomas L. Kingsbury. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1952.

deSilva, David, A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the       Epistle “to the Hebrews”. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins    of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Ebert, Daniel J. “The Chiastic Structure of the Prologue to Hebrews.” TrinJ 13.2 (1992):   163-179.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans,    1993.

France, R. T. “The Writer of Hebrews As A Biblical Expositor.” TynBul 47.2 (1996):         245-76.

Funk, Robert. Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian    Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

                        . Hebrews. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,             1998.

                        . “The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews.” Faith and Mission       18.2 (Sp. 2001): 41-56.

Hagner, Donald A. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973.

Harnack, Adolf von. “Probability about the Address and Author of the Epistle to the        Hebrews.” In The Bible Status of Woman. Lee Anna Starr. New Jersey: Pillar of        Fire, 1955: 392-415.

Helyer, “Larry R. Colossians 1.15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?” JETS 26 (1983): 167-79.

Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: W.B.        Eerdmans, 1977.

                        . “The Christology of Hebrews.” SWJT 28 (1985): 19-27.

Hoppin, Ruth. Priscilla: Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Other Essays. New       York: Exposition, 1969.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Know    Press, 2006.

Johnston, George. “Christ as Archegos.” NTS 27 (1981): 381-85.

Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the         Hebrews. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002.

Keener, Craig. IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove:       InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Kistemaker, Simon J. “The Authorship of Hebrews.” Faith & Mission 18.2 (2001): 57-      69.

Kittel, Gerhard. “avpau,gasma.” Pg. 501 in vol. 1 of Theological Dictionary of the New        Testament. Ed. G Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. Bromiley. 10 vols.           Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Koester, Craig. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New      York: Doubleday, 2001.

                        . “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity.” CBQ 64 (2002): 103-  23.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. “Jesus, The Mediator of a ‘Better Covenant’: Comparatives in    the Book of Hebrews.” Faith and Mission 21.2 (Sp. 2004): 30-49.

Lane, William L. “Detecting Divine Wisdom in Hebrews 1.1-4.” In The New Testament    Student and His Field. Ed. John H. Skilton. New Jersey: Presbyterian and          Reformed Publishing Co., 1982: 150-58.

                        . “Hebrews: A Sermon in Search of a Setting.” SWJT 28 (1985): 13-18.

                        . Hebrews 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991.

                        . Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991.

                        . “Hebrews.” Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its             Developments. Ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL:     InterVarsity Press, 1997: 443-58.

Lincoln , Andrew T. “Hebrews and Biblical Theology.” Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology    and Biblical Interpretation. Craig Bartholomew, et.al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,           2004.

Lindars, Barnabas. “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews.” NTS 35 (1989): 382-406.

Longenecker, Bruce W. Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of the New        Testament Chain-Link Transitions. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2005.

Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. MN: Fortress Press, 1990.

Martin, Ralph. Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 In Recent Interpretation and in the        Setting of Early Christian Worship. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd Ed. Stuttgart:    United Bible Societies, 2006.

Milligan, George. The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: With a Critical         Introduction. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899.

Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews          (ICC). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924.

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.        London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.

Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Nida, Eugene, J.P. Louw, A.H. Snyman, J.v.W. Cronje. Style and Discourse: With

            Special Reference to the Text of the Greek New Testament. Cape Town: Bible         Society of South Africa, 1983.

O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians (WBC). Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Olbricht, Thomas H. “Hebrews as Amplification.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament:      Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas   H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993: 375-87.

O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament.        New Testament Monographs, 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005.

Parson, Mikeal C. “Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews.” EvQ    60 (1988): 195-215.

Porter, Stanley E. and D.A. Carson. Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical         Greek. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005.

Robinson, W.W.B. “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1.1-4.” AJBA 2 (1972): 178-86.

Reed, Jeffrey T. “Discourse Analysis.” A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New      Testament. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997: 189-217.

Spicq, Ceslas, and James D. Ernest. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Thelwall, S. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV. Ed. A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapids:      Eerdmans, 1956.

Trotter, Andrew H. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker Book     House, 1997.

Turner, Nigel. A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. IV: Style. Edinburgh: T&T           Clark, 1976

Vanhoye, A. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Rome: Pontificio           Instituto Biblico, 1989.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan             Publishing Company, 1997.

Walters, John R. “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews.” AsTJ 51.2 (1996): 59-70.

Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The     Relationship between From and Meaning. London: T&T Clark, 2005.

Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970.

Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical          Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

----

                [1] Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1989: 1.

                [2] Unless noted otherwise, Scripture references are from the ESV.

                [3] Andrew J. Trotter, Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997: 27. Trotter continues, “This principle, known as reading a work in its historical and cultural context, occupies the place of primary importance in the interpretation of any writing. Literary genre, style, and grammatical and structural context are perhaps equally important but are often more easily ascertained. This is particularly true in the case of Hebrews, where so many of the answers about historical and cultural context are inconclusive.”

                [4] For a good summary of potential authors, see Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1993: 3-21; William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8. Dallas: Word Books, 1991: xlvii-li; Attridge, Hebrews, 1-6; Craig Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Anchor Bible, 2001: 42-46;

                [5] The witness of early church (first in the east, and then in the west) is strongly in favor of a Pauline authorship. Church fathers like Origen and Clement believed that Paul wrote Hebrews, but they had some reservations. Eusebius records that Clement wrote:

                And as for the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says indeed that it is Paul’s, but that it was written for      the Hebrews in the Hebrews tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for     the Greeks; hence, as a result of this translation, the same complexion of style is found in this                 Epistle and in the Acts: but that the [words] “Paul an apostle” were naturally not prefixed. For,                 says he, “in writing to Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against him and were suspicious of                him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name” (Eusebius HE         6.14.1-4).

Eusebius continues:

                But now, as the blessed elder used to say, since the Lord, being the apostle of the Almighty, was     sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through modesty, since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not           inscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, both to give due deference to the Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews also out of his abundance, being a preacher and apostle of the Gentiles”                 (Eusebius HE 6.14.5).

Eusebius likewise records the words of Origen:

                “That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s          rudeness of speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern        differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable,    and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as           true who has given attention to reading the apostle…But as for myself, if I were to state my own          opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostles, but that the style and composition belong     to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his       master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also.       For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the                epistle, in truth God knows” (Eusebius HE 6.25.11-14).

                [6] For a defense of a Lucan authorship of Hebrews, see David Allen, “The Authorship of Hebrews: The Lukan Proposal.” Faith & Mission 18.2 (2001): 27-40.

                [7] For a defense of Apollos as the author of Hebrews, see George H. Guthrie, The Case for Apollos as the Author of Hebrews.” Faith and Mission 18.2 (Sp. 2001): 41-56

                [8] For a defense of a Priscillian authorship, see Adolf von Harnack, “Probability About the Address and Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Appendix A in The Bible Status of Woman. Lee Anna Starr. New Jersey, Pillar of Fire, 1955: 392-415; Ruth Hoppin, Priscilla: Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Other Essays. New York: Exposition, 1969.

                [9] See the quotes from Clement and Origen in footnote 5 above.

                [10] “It is obvious from this brief historical survey that the linchpin for the Lukan authorship theory has been the lexical and stylistic similarity between Hebrews and the Lukan writings. There are a total of 4,942 words in Hebrews, with a total vocabulary of 1,038. Hebrews contains 169 hapax legomena (16.2 percent) and 168 other words not found in Luke or Acts (16.2 percent). Interestingly, in Hebrews and Luke-Acts are found the highest ratio of hapax legomena to total vocabulary in the entire New Testament. Of the total vocabulary in Hebrews, 337 words do not occur in Luke or Acts. Thus, two-thirds of the total vocabulary of Hebrews, or 67.6 percent, does occur in Lukan writings. This figure represents a significant level of recurrence and strongly links Hebrews with Lukan writings” (Allen, 28-29).

                [11] Other manuscripts (VLG, G) have w`ti,on, which is probably to bring it into conformity with the MT text (Ellingworth, 500).

                [12] On Modesty 20.

                [13] L&N 33.32 defines lo,gioj as “pertaining to attractive and convincing speech” (cf. Craig Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993). The author of Heb rhetorical mastery showed itself in his defense and exposition of the Old Testament scriptures (dunato.j w'n evn tai/j grafai/j), which is also evident in Heb. In On The Posterity and Exile of Cain 53, Philo uses the same phrase in his allegorical interpretation of the Tower of Babel in Gen 11. Philo says that these logi,wn avndrw/ [men of eloquence] “are in the habit of delivering their lengthy exposition and perorations.” (Philo, On The Posterity and Exile of Cain 53).

                [14] Probability About the Address and Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 407.

                [15] Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament. MN: Fortress Press, 1990: 35.

                [16] In his handbook on rhetoric, Aristotle gives the following definitions for the three main genres of rhetoric:

“Rhetoric falls into three divisions, determined by the three classes of listeners to speeches. For of the three elements in speech-making – speaker, subject, and person addressed – it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object. The hearer must be either a judge, with a decision to make about things  past or future, or an observer. A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator’s skill are observers. From this is follows that there are three divisions of oratory – (1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display. Political speaking [deliberative] urges us either to do or not to do something…Forensic speaking either attacks or defends somebody…The ceremonial oratory of display [epideictic] either praises or censures somebody” (Aristotle Rh. 1.3.1-10).

Cicero defines the three genres as such:

“The epideictic kind is devoted to the praise censure of some particular person. The deliberative consists in discussions of policy and embraces persuasion and dissuasion. The judicial is based on legal controversy, and comprises criminal prosecution or civil suit, and defence” (Cicero, Rhetorica ad Herennium, I.ii.2.

                [17] See Barnabas Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews.” NTS 35 (1989): 382-406. Lindars argues that once Hebrews is recognized as deliberative rhetoric, “every detail of the letter will be found to fall into place” (483).

                [18] Lindars, Rhetorical Structure, 383.

                [19] Attridge, Hebrews, 14. See also Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993: 375-87.

                [20] Harold Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (lo,goj paraklh,sewj): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, The ‘Epistle to the Hebrews.’” Semeia 50.1 (1990): 214. Attridge concludes that Hebrews is indeed an epideictic oration; cf. David Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987: 212-13.

                [21] Craig Koestner, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2001: 82; cf. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, 1.lxxix.

                [22] Jeffrey T. Reed, “Discourse Analysis.” A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997: 189-217. “Discourse analysis has emerged as an area of research within the discipline of linguistics in the last half of the twentieth century. It is a syntactical model of the various areas of linguistic investigation, and has the potential to unite semantics (what forms mean), syntax ( the organization of forms into meaningful units) and pragmatics (meaning of these forms in specific linguistic contexts) into one coherent framework” (Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between From and Meaning. London: T&T Clark, 2005: 22).

                [23] Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994: 247.

                [24] deSilva, Hebrews, 45.

                [25] Rhetorica ad Herennium, I. vii, 11.

                [26] deSilva, Hebrews, 45.

                [27] Both polumerw/j and polutro,pwj are adverbs expressing manner.

                [28] Temporal participle.

                [29] Indirect object.

                [30] Prepositional phrase conveying means.

                [31] See also Luke 1.1: evpeidh,per polloi. evpecei,rhsan avnata,xasqai dih,ghsin peri. tw/n peplhroforhme,nwn evn h`mi/n pragma,twn.

                [32] See Prologue of Sirach 1.1; cf. Luke 1.1, “evpeidh,per polloi. evpecei,rhsan avnata,xasqai dih,ghsin peri. tw/n peplhroforhme,nwn evn h`mi/n pragma,twn.” The writings of Philo contain a number of these polu-root words (see Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970: 70-7. A close parallel in Philo is Quis rer. 1.288: pollou.j de. kai. polutro,pouj.

                [33] James Moffat, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC). Edinburgh

                [34] Ellingworth, Hebrews, 91; contra Attridge, Hebrews, 37.

                [35] A few manuscripts (î12, î46, etc.) have h`mw/n following patra,sin.

                [36] See Moffat, Hebrews, 3.

                [37] This is also evident in the various Old Testament quotations that Auctor utilizes in his sermon (cf. Moses , Deut 32.43 LXX; Num 25.40; David, Ps 2.7; Ps 96.7; Ps 103.4; Nathan , 2 Sam 7.14; Isaiah , Isa 8.17-18; Jeremiah, Jer 31.31-34; Habakkuk, Hab 2.3-4; Haggai, 2.6). “[The prophets] are probably understood, in a broad sense, to encompass all those, from the patriarchs through Moses, Joshua, David, and the classical prophets, through whom God Speaks” (Attridge, Hebrews, 38-39).

                [38] Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, 2006: 65.

                [39] See F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990: 45-46.

                [40] Indirect object.

                [41] The anarthrous uiJovV emphasizes the quality of the “son,” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996: 244-45. Also, it is common for articles to be left out in prepositional phrases (BDF §§255), as well as with divine names (BDF §§254).

                [42] Although grammatically the subject is still qeo.j, the emphasis is on the ui`o,j. The subject switches to ui`o,j in v.3 with the fronted relative pronoun oJvV.

                [43] Double accusative of person-thing (Wallace, GGBB, 181-82).

                [44] Partative Genitive.

                [45] Preposition of means.

                [46] Emphatic use of kai. (also called an adjunctive, Wallace, GGBB, 671).

                [47] What is meant by discontinuity is that the continuous and multifaceted revelation of the Old Testament has ceased in the one person of Christ.

                [48] “evpV evsca,tou tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn is a Septuagintal expression that translates a Semitic temporal idiom for the future as distinct from the past” (Lane, Hebrews, 1.10; cf. Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. IV: Style. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976: 109-10; BDF §§234 (8).

                [49] “Hebrews’ distinctive (not Septuagintal) addition of tou,twn indicates that the last days have begun” (Ellingworth, Hebrews, 93).

                [50] The reference to the coming of firstborn into the world is a difficult exegetical matter. In verses introducing an Old Testament quotation, pa,lin is connected to a verbal idea of speaking, thus making it a continuation of a previous Old Testament quote or thought (cf. Heb 1.5; 2.13*2; 4.5, 7; 10.30). But it is also possible to take eivsaga,gh| to.n prwto,tokon eivj th.n oivkoume,nhn as a parallel with Heb 2.5 th.n oivkoume,nhn th.n me,llousan, both speaking of the future and coming world (cf. Lane, Hebrews, 1.26-28; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 116-20; contra Attridge, Hebrews, 55-57. He takes eivsaga,gh| to.n prwto,tokon eivj th.n oivkoume,nhn as speaking of the incarnation of Christ, thus making the catena of Old Testament quotations refer to Christ’s pre-existence (v.5), His incarnation (v.6), and His exaltation (v.13).

                [51] The anarthrous ui`w/| also occurs Heb 1.5; 3.6; 5.6, 8; 7.28, speaking of the Son of God.

                [52] Wallace, ExSyn, 245; cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 39.

                [53] Ellingworth, Hebrews, 95,  sees a chiastic arrangement in v.2b-3:

God has appointed Christ as heir                                     Enthronement

   Through him he created the world                                                Action in the universe

      He reflects God’s glory                                 Relation to God

      He bears God’s stamp                                                  Relation to God

    He upholds the universe                                                 Action in the universe

  (When he had made purification)                                  (reason for)

He sat down at God’s right hand                                      Enthronement

                [54] In Heb 1.2-3 two Psalms are alluded to that Author quotes in his catena of Old Testament passages: Psalm 2 (Heb 1.5) and Psalm 110 (Heb 1.13).

                [55] Attridge, Hebrews, 40.

                [56] William L. Lane, “Detecting Divine Wisdom in Hebrews 1.1-4.” In The New Testament Student and His Field. Ed. John H. Skilton. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982: 152.

                [57] Subject of evka,qisen.

                [58] Causal Participle. W'n stresses the timelessness of the “son.”

                [59] Predicate nominative.

                [60] Genitive of content/Attributive genitive.

                [61] Predicate nominative.

                [62] Genitive of content.

                [63] Circumstantial Participle.

                [64] Dative of means.

                [65] Attributive genitive.

                [66] Temporal and/or causal participle (cf. Wallace 624n 30).

                [67] Dative of place.

                [68] Dative of place.

                [69] See James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989: 163-212.

                [70] For further investigation see Donald A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973: 179-230.

                [71] BDAG, 99; cf. Williamson, Philo, 36-41.

                [72] Gerhard Kittel. “avpau,gasma.” Page 501 in vol. 1 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed. G Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

                [73] James Hope Moulton, and George Milligan. “carakth.r.” The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.

                [74] Lindars, Rhetorical Structure, 391.

                [75] Lane, Hebrews, 1.13

                [76] Attridge, Hebrews, 41.

                [77] Attridge, Hebrews, 46.

                [78] See comment made by Attridge, Hebrews, 42.

                [79] For further study on this subject, see Steven M. Baugh, “The Poetic Form of Col 1.15-20.” WJT 47.2 (1985): 228-45; Larry R. Helyer, “Colossians 1.15-20: Pre-Pauline or Pauline?” JETS 26 (1983): 167-79; Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians (WBC). Waco: Word Books, 1982: 31-63; George E. Cannon, The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians. Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1983: 11-49.

                [80] Comparative adjective.

                [81] Ellingworth comments that “the aorist geno,menoj suggests that the author is continuing to see the exaltation of the son as a single past event” (Ellingworth, Hebrews, 105).

                [82] Genitive of comparison.

                [83] Comparative adjective. BDAG refers to this as “Rare comparative” (BDAG, 239, s.v. 2).

                [84] Accusative direct object of keklhrono,mhken, which is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis.