08_Biblica_2_AM_C_Swetnam_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:18 Pagina 604 604 JAMES SWETNAM This becomes clear from the way the thematic word lale,w is used in Heb 1,2. Further, based on the way the word lale,w is used in Heb 1,2 it is clear that the speaking “in” (evn) the Son is more important than the speaking “in” (evn) prophets in that the former is the “final and decisive” speaking in God’s dealings with humanity 12. Given this background it is instructive to see how the author of Hebrews views the terminus of God’s speaking “through” the angels, i.e., with regard to the Mosaic Law. He views it as a “word” (lo,goj): o` di vavgge,lwn lalhqei.j logoj (Heb 2,2). Further, this lo,goj, though ending up as a “book” (bibli,on, , Heb 9,19), was spoken (lale,w) by Moses to all the people (Heb 9,19). The Mosaic Law, then, would seem to be the o` lo,goj th/j avkoh/j, “the word heard”, by the desert generation. It contained the promises of entrance into the land which was the goal of their wandering. In Heb 3,16 those who re- belled are said to have been the ones who, having “heard” (avkou,santej), had gone out of Egypt through the instrumentality of Moses. Heb 3,16 thus supports the interpretation of o` lo,goj th/j avkoh/j given above. The problem now is to identify in the epistle the term of God’s parallel speaking “through the Lord” in the words of the institution of the Eucharist. In the context of Heb 4,2 the word lo,goj appears at Heb 4,11-12 13. The present writer has long argued for the minority interpretation of this word in the latter two verses in the sense of lo,goj of the Johannine prologue 14. In addition to the arguments involving the immediate context of Heb 4,12- 13 indicating that the lo,goj of Heb 4,12 is not the word of Scripture, the above argumentation involving the parallelism between the terminus of God’s speaking “through” the angels and “in” Moses and “through” and “in” the Son should now be considered. o` lo,goj th/j avkoh/j as involving the Son should be somehow intrinsically superior to o` lo,goj th/j avkoh/j in- volving Scripture, for the speaking in the Son is “final and decisive”, as the thematic prologue of the epistle makes clear. Thus, on the supposition “The final and decisive address of God to humanity occurs not ‘of old’ 12 but, literally, ‘at the end of these days’ …. The lively sense that the author and his community live at the final point of God’s dealing with humanity is not, of course, unique, but is shared by Jewish apocalyptists and by many early Christians” (ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 39). In support of this view Attridge refers to Heb 9,6-10 and 10,25. He could also have cited Heb 3,1-6 and the radically different roles of Moses and Jesus as Servant “in” the house and Son “over” the house in the context of the use of the verb lale,w by Moses at 3,5. Noted by LANE, Hebrews 1–8, 98. 13 J. SWETNAM, “Jesus as lo,goj” in Hebrews 4,12-13”, Bib 62 (1981) 214- 14 224; ID., “The Context of the Crux at Hebrews 5,7-8”, Filología Neotesta- mentaria 14 (2001) 103-107; ID., “A Close Reading of Hebrews 3,7–4,11 and Logos as Christ in Hebrews 4,12”, Melita Theologica 58 (2007) 43-51. Of course others have held this view long before the present writer. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati