The words tw~n lalhqhsome/nwn in Heb 3,5 allude to the words of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. This is argued from 1) the contrast between Christ and Moses in Heb 3,1-6 as understood against the background of Num 12,7[LXX]; 2) the thematic use of lale/w in Hebrews; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,20; 4) the place of Heb 3,5 in the structure of Heb 1,1–3,6. All to be understood against a Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 2,12 and Heb 13.
The words tw~n lalhqhsome/nwn in Heb 3,5 allude to the words of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. This is argued from 1) the contrast between Christ and Moses in Heb 3,1-6 as understood against the background of Num 12,7[LXX]; 2) the thematic use of lale/w in Hebrews; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,20; 4) the place of Heb 3,5 in the structure of Heb 1,1–3,6. All to be understood against a Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 2,12 and Heb 13.
The words tw~n lalhqhsome/nwn in Heb 3,5 allude to the words of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. This is argued from 1) the contrast between Christ and Moses in Heb 3,1-6 as understood against the background of Num 12,7[LXX]; 2) the thematic use of lale/w in Hebrews; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,20; 4) the place of Heb 3,5 in the structure of Heb 1,1–3,6. All to be understood against a Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 2,12 and Heb 13.
The words tw~n lalhqhsome/nwn in Heb 3,5 allude to the words of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. This is argued from 1) the contrast between Christ and Moses in Heb 3,1-6 as understood against the background of Num 12,7[LXX]; 2) the thematic use of lale/w in Hebrews; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,20; 4) the place of Heb 3,5 in the structure of Heb 1,1–3,6. All to be understood against a Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 2,12 and Heb 13.
The words tw~n lalhqhsome/nwn in Heb 3,5 allude to the words of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. This is argued from 1) the contrast between Christ and Moses in Heb 3,1-6 as understood against the background of Num 12,7[LXX]; 2) the thematic use of lale/w in Hebrews; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,20; 4) the place of Heb 3,5 in the structure of Heb 1,1–3,6. All to be understood against a Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 2,12 and Heb 13.
Hebrews has more to say about Melchizedek than what is said about him in LXX Ps 109,4 (perhaps also MT Ps 110,4) and Genesis 14. Heb 7,3 says that Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” and that “he remains a priest forever”. I discuss where the author gets this information from. Methodologically, priority should be given to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author uses elsewhere. I argue that the surplus information found in Heb 7,3.8 stems from arguments made from silence. The author explicitly makes arguments from silence in Heb 7,14.20.
The author suggests a Christological reading of Heb 9,11 in the sense that the genitive tw~n genome&nwn a)gaqw~n is understood as a genitivus qualitatis referring to the virtues that Christ obtained during his earthly life through his suffering. With regard to the problem of textual criticism, the interpretation argues for genome&nwn instead of mello/ntwn.
The word a)po/stoloj in Heb 3,1 is seen as a reference to the risen Jesus in Heb 2,12 who has been “sent” by God to reveal God’s name as Moses was “sent” to
reveal God’s name. Since Heb 2,12 is an allusion to the Christian tôdâ known as the Eucharist, the parallel with the word a)rxiereu/j is appropriate. The risen Christ is the son who reveals his father to those who have faith-trust as Jesus had faithtrust in the face of death. This revelation of a piece with a central theological theme of the New Testament, and is an invitation to enter liturgically into the death of Jesus so as to enter into his relation of son with his father.
The word a)po/stoloj in Heb 3,1 is seen as a reference to the risen Jesus in Heb 2,12 who has been “sent” by God to reveal God’s name as Moses was “sent” to
reveal God’s name. Since Heb 2,12 is an allusion to the Christian tôdâ known as the Eucharist, the parallel with the word a)rxiereu/j is appropriate. The risen Christ is the son who reveals his father to those who have faith-trust as Jesus had faithtrust in the face of death. This revelation of a piece with a central theological theme of the New Testament, and is an invitation to enter liturgically into the death of Jesus so as to enter into his relation of son with his father.
Whilst the scholarly consensus now concurs that Hebrews 13 forms part of the original text, the way in which it interacts with, or relates to, the previous chapters, remains a matter for debate. This paper establishes the relationship in terms of the use of the OT, particularly the way in which Hebrews 13 appropriates narratives from OT figures already discussed in chapters 1–12, thereby (re-)using them for its ethical discourse. Where the bulk of the letter (i.e. Hebrews 1–12) casts the OT protagonists as looking forwards to perfection under Christ, Heb 13,1-8 exhorts its readers to look backwards and learn from the model (or otherwise) behaviour of these same OT figures.
The phrase )ec e(no/j in Heb 2,11 is a standard crux. The article attempts to come to grips with it through a close reading of the text of Heb 2,8bc-18. This close reading leads to the conclusion that the 'one' mentioned in is the spiritual seed of Abraham composed of all those who, like Abraham exercise faith-trust in God in the face of death. But this spiritual seed of Abraham is modified by the faith-trust of Jesus brought to the perfection of his heavenly priesthood.
The note suggests that Heb 2,9 means that Jesus died physically so that he could die in the gaze of those who believe in him and thus be freed from the fear of death (2,15). It also suggests that Heb 2,8b-9 is a subsection about Jesus as the heavenly sacrificial victim and corresponds to Heb 2,14-16 which is about Jesus the earthly sacrificial victim. Heb 2,10-12 in turn is a subsection about Jesus as heavenly high priest and corresponds to Heb 2,17-18 which is about Jesus as earthly high priest.
The note suggests that Heb 2,9 means that Jesus died physically so that he could die in the gaze of those who believe in him and thus be freed from the fear of death (2,15). It also suggests that Heb 2,8b-9 is a subsection about Jesus as the heavenly sacrificial victim and corresponds to Heb 2,14-16 which is about Jesus the earthly sacrificial victim. Heb 2,10-12 in turn is a subsection about Jesus as heavenly high priest and corresponds to Heb 2,17-18 which is about Jesus as earthly high priest.
The originality of the Epistle to the Hebrews among the texts of the New Testament is a well established conviction. What this originality consists in, where it lies and how it manifests itself remain to be analysed. This article purposes to show that such a widespread and decisive notion for the Christian message as «hope» evinces particular traits in this epistle. Their presence is best understood by their relationship with Christology and, especially, with the theme of the celestial priesthood of the Son.
The words toi/j a)kou/sasin in Heb 4,2 are frequently taken as referring either to the Israelites of the desert generation who, in contrast to the majority, did believe in God’s care, or to the Christians who, in contrast to the desert generation, do believe. After indicating why each interpretation is unsatisfactory, the note argues from the wording of the entire verse in the context of the epistle as a whole that the words refer to the Christians who heard the words of the Lord as he instituted the Eucharist. He is the one who, through the linkage of faith, makes entrance into God’s rest possible.
This article develops the Christological implications of the three-fold grammatical interpretation of specific passive occurrences of verbs that designate transference with Jesus as the verbal subject. The discussion considers the Greek conceptualizations of transference and motion, the conditions that accommodate a three-fold grammatical interpretation of passive occurrences, and procedures for evaluating the contextual viability of these grammatical interpretations. The discussion then identifies verbal occurrences that admit to a three-fold interpretation with Jesus as subject, clarifies their traditional English translations, and develops the Christological implications of the three-fold interpretation of verbs in Mark 14,41, Heb 9,28, and Acts 1,11.
The meaning of the firstborn's ei)vsagwgh/ into the oi)koume/nh in Hebrews 1,6a is greatly disputed. Proposed interpretations are the presentation of the Son after the creation, his incarnation, his baptism, his exaltation and his parousia. The arguments seem to speak for the lastmentioned and against the currently very popular exaltation reading.
This short note examines the three occurrences of Paraite/omai in Heb 12,18-29 and suggests that the repeated use of the word demonstrates the author's evaluation of Israel's 'request' for distance from God at Sinai as a rejection of his word to them. While some have distinguished the meaning (and referent) of Paraite/omai in 12,19 from that in 12,25, this distinction is unsustainable in light of the use of Paraite/omai outside of Hebrews and of the flow of thought in Heb 12,18-29.