the context of the crux at hebrews 5,7-8 (james swetnam) rev

8/20/2019 The Context of the Crux at Hebrews 5,7-8 (James Swetnam) Rev

1/20

NOTAS

THE CONTEXT OF THE CRUX AT HEBREWS 5,7-8

JAMES SWETNAM

An article in Biblica by the present author outlined a proposed solutionfor the crux at Heb 5,7-8 1. The present article will attempt to put this pro-posed solution in the general and particular context of the structure of the firstsix chapters of the epistle. This contextualization should help indicate theintention of the author of Hebrews and thus clarify and further commend theproposed solution. The structure on which this contextualization is based is,like the solution to the crux at Heb 5,7-8, a suggestion, to be judged on theintrinsic merits or lack thereof of the arguments adduced.

I. The Structure of Hebrews 1,1 – 6,20

1. Hebrews 1,1 – 3,6

Another article on the structure of the Epistle to the Hebrews con-

cluded that the section 1,1 – 3,6 is best divided according to a symmetri-cal pattern: after the exordium (1,1-4) comes a passage of exposition aboutthe risen-exalted Christ as Son of God (1,5-14) followed by a brief parae-nesis based on this exposition (2,1-4); then comes a passage of expositionon Jesus as son of Abraham, possibly under the title ‘Son of Man’ (2,5-18),followed by a brief paraenesis based on this exposition (3,1-6)2. Thisinterpretation of the structure of Hebrews has set the stage for the presentarticle about the crux at Heb 5,7-8, which will now analyze the structureof Heb 3,7 – 6,20 in order to situate 5,7-8 in its larger context.

2. Hebrews 3,7 – 6,20 a) Hebrews 3,7 – 4,11

Heb 3,7 – 6,20 begins with a quotation attributed to ‘the Holy Spirit’.This quotation is from Ps 95,7-11. At Heb 4,3-5 a passage from Ps 95,7-

1 J. Swetnam, «The Crux at Hebrews 5,7-8»,Bib 81 (2000) 347-361.2 J. Swetnam, «The Structure of Hebrews 1,1 – 3,6», Melita Theologica 43 (1992) 58-66.

Cf. also J. Swetnam, «Hebrews 1,5-14: A New Look», Melita Theologica 51 (2000) 51-68.

Filología Neotestamentaria - Vol. XIV - 2001, pp. 101-120Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de Córdoba (España)


2/20

1l which involves the ‘rest’ of the Promised Land is linked to the ‘rest’ of God after creation 3, suggesting that the author is effecting a ‘spiritualiza-

tion’ of the promise made to Abraham: the promise of receiving landbecomes a promise of receivng God’s own rest.4 Previous remarks in 3,1-6 with regard to Moses, based as they seem to be on 2,10-12 and theimagery of leading sons to glory,5 suggest that Christ who is foreshadowedby Moses, is the leader, under God, in this journey to the spiritualizedpromised land 6. This leader is explicitly invoked at 3,14 under the nameof Christ. He is not explicitly mentioned as ‘Jesus’, but another foreshad-owing of his leadership is mentioned—Joshua is presented under thename of ‘Jesus’ ( jIhsou'") (4,8) 7. Joshua did not give the people defini-tive entrance into the land; if he had, there would not be talk of another‘day’ in which entrance is still possible8.

This presentation of the journey of the people of God to enter into hisrest—with the apparently gratuitous 9 introduction of Joshua under thename of ‘Jesus’—serves as a preparation for the famous passage at Heb4,12-13 which speaks of God’s ‘word’ as ‘live and active and sharper thanany two-edged sword’:

3 The linking is effected by means of a gezera shawa , ‘an exegetical argument in whicha term in one verse of scripture is interpreted according to its use in another’ (cf. H. W.

Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1989], 128-129).4 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews,129-130.5

Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 1,1 – 3,6», 62-63.6 Cf. the use of the word ajrchgov~ in 2,10 and the comments of P. Ellingworth:«Hebrews’ use of provdromo~ (6:20) of Christ suggests thatajrchgov~ in Hebrews may have kept alive the hellenistic metaphor of a pioneer opening a path on which others canfollow. This suits both the immediate context here (aj gagov nta ) and the development in3:7 – 4:11 of the theme of God’s wandering people» (P. Ellingworth,The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Carlisle 1993] 161).

7 See Attridge, Hebrews , 130, under Heb 4,8. Attridge notes: «The reference to Joshua, whose name in Greek( jIhsou"̀) is the same as that of Jesus, suggests a typolog-ical comparison between oneajrchgov~ of the old covenant and that of the new. Such a typology was explicitly developed in later Christian literature, but it is not exploitedhere.» The present article will dispute this last observation: the typology is developed

with reference to circumcision.8

«The rest to which the psalm referred cannot have been the rest that Joshua pro-vided in the promised land. For then there would have been no need for the psalmist’sappeal to heed God’s voice ‘today’. The psalm’s reference to divine rest is seen to be nota simple analogy between the exodus generation and the psalmist’s audience, but a prophetic proclamation of the good news itself, a reaffirmation of God’s promise direct-ed to anyone who has faith» (Attridge,Hebrews , 130).

9 ‘Apparently gratuitous’—on the supposition that v. 8 is part of a passage serving asa preparation for 4,12-13 with its emphasis on scripture, there would seem to be no needto mention Joshua, who had nothing to do with God’s word. In v. 8 Joshua’s role as theone presumed to be leading the people into God’s rest is stressed. The ‘word’ of God forthe Israelites as for the Christians is contained in the promise to Abraham (Heb 4,1-2;cf. 6,15). Joshua failed in leading the people into the land. But in the current dominantinterpretation the word of God will somehow succeed where he did not.

102 James Swetnam


3/20

b) Hebrews 4,12-13

Zw` n ga;r oJ lov go~ tou ̀ qeou ̀ kai; ej nergh;~ kai; tomwv tero~ uJ pe;r pa s̀an mav cairan divstomon kai; pneuvmato~, aJrmw` n te kai; muelw` n,kai; kritiko; ~ ej nqumhvsewn kai; ej nnoiw` n kardiva": kai; oujk e[stinktivsi~ aj fanh;~ ej nwv pion auj tou ,̀ pav nta de; gumna; kai; tetrachlismev -

na toi`~ oj fqalmoi ~̀ auj tou ̀pro;~ o} n hJmi` n oJ lov go" 10.

Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from mar-row; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ⁄ Andbefore him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to theeyes of the one to whom we must render an account11.

The almost universal contemporary interpretation of the ‘word’(lov go" ) of v. 12 has it as referring to scripture12. This interpretation givesa superficially plausible exegesis of the passage, which speaks of the last-ing relevance of God’s word. But there are a number of difficulties withthis exegesis13:

1) The terminology is inconsistent. The fact that the occurrence ofoJlovgo" in v. 13 is different from the occurrence ofoJ lovgo~in v. 12 isodd, since the occurrences seem to be intended as a frame for the pas-sage. This change from lovgo~ as ‘word’ (of scripture) tolovgo~ as‘account’ is bizarre14.

10 Text after NA 27.11 Translation after NSRV (The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments.

New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition[Nashville, 1993] 219 [New Testamentsection]).

12 Attridge, Hebrews , 134, notes that «The identification of the Logos here as Christis common in patristic sources», some of which he identifies. He names several moderncommentators who follow this interpretation, but does not give his approval. See also W.L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC; 1991) 103, who strongly defends the contemporary con-sensus that lov go~ means scripture and not Christ.

13 See J. Swetnam, «Jesus aslov go~ in Hebrews 4,12-13»,Bib62 (1981) 214-224. The

difficulty with trying to understand Heb 4,12-13 comes in no small part from the factthat the passage has become an acceptedtopos for the efficacy of the word of scripture:Heb 4,12-13 is about the efficacy of the word of scripture because, as everyone knows,the word of scripture is sharper than a two-edged sword.

14 Cf. the remarks of A. Vanhoye: «Une inclusion ouvre et ferme la longue phrase[sc., 4,12-13]: les premiers mots présententoJ lovgo~ tou` qeou`et les derniers disent

hJmi`n oJ lovgo". Lovgo", il est vrai, n’est pas pris les deux fois dans la même acception:au début, il s’agit de la parole de Dieu; à la fin, il s’agit, soit de l’exposé en course,soit—plus probablement—du compte que nous aurons à rendre. Il en résulte pour letext une certaine bizarrerie, qui s’accentue encore, lorsqu’on remarque que le pro;~ o{n(traduit: «et c’est à lui») désigne lelovgo~du début: c’est à la parole qu’il faut adress-er la parole!» (A. Vanhoye,Structure littéraire littéraire de épître aux Hébreux [Paris19762], 102).

The Context of the Crux at Hebrews 5, 7-8 103


4/20

2) The imagery is inconsistent. In v. 12 the image is about the pene-trating power of oJ lov go~, whereas in v. 13 the image seems to refer to a

sacrifice or, possibly, to a wrestling hold15

.3) The description is inconsistent. It is not clear how a ‘two-edgedsword’ is appropriate for a sacrifice, much less for a wrestling hold16.

4) The language is inconsistent. The use of the illative particleou\ n in4,14 is anomalous. In 4,12 the word gavr refers to what immediately pre-cedes: on the reading of lov go~ as Scripture, the imagery involving thepenetrating power of the ‘sword’ gives the reason why the hortativespou-davswmenis used in the preceding verse, and yields a tolerable sense. Buton the same reading, the particleou\ n in v. 14 is more difficult to accountfor. It would normally refer to what immediately precedes. But even if theassumption is made that it alludes to the distant discourse about the highpriest in 2,13b-18—the only previous explicit mention ofajrciereuv~ inthe epistle—the transition from v. 13 is abrupt, and, in the end, unintel-ligible, for nothing in v. 13 refers to Christ as high priest17. Further, if oJlov go~ refers to scripture, the use of the participlezw` n (‘living’) modify-ing oJ lov go~ is inconsistent with the language involvingzw` n elsewhere inHebrews. In the epistle this wordzw` n is used of God himself (3,12; 9,14;10,31; 12,22), or of Christ (7,25; 10,20, or of human life (2,15; 7,8;9,17; 10,38; 12,9), but never of non-personal life. Heb 4,12 is the only text in Hebrews where zw` n would refer to non-personal life ifoJ lov go~refers to scripture.

A coherent solution to these problems would be to take the wordlov go~ as referring to Jesus Himself, as in the Johannine prologue18. Theabove inconsistencies are thus resolved at one stroke:

1) The terminology becomes consistent. If thelovgo~of the expres-sion oJ lovgo~at 4,12-13 is understood as referring to Jesus Himself19,it can have the same meaning in both verses. In v. 12 the allusion to

Jesus asoJ lovgo~ would refer to his ability as divine to furnish a spiri-tual circumcision of the heart needed to effect a definitive entry intoGod’s rest. The idea of circumcision comes from 4,8 and the allusion to

Joshua, who circumcised the Israelites on their entrance into the land

15 Attridge, Hebrews , 134-136.16 Attridge, Hebrews , 136.17 Ellingworth (Hebrews , 266) notes that ou\ n does not draw an inference from what

immediately precedes, and posits an interruption in the thought from 3,7 to 4,13. Attridge, too (Hebrews , 138-139), says that ou\ n is a ‘resumptive particle’. But neitherEllingworth nor Attridge indicates why the author of Hebrews thinks it appropriate toresume his discussion of Christ’s priesthood precisely at this point.

18 Cf. J. Swetnam, «A Possible Structure of Hebrews 3,7 – 10,39», Melita Theologica 45 (1994) 128-135.

19 The title ‘Jesus’ is suggested by the word jIhsou~̀ at 4,8 referring primarily to Joshua and indirectly to Jesus.

104 James Swetnam


5/20

(Josh 5,2-9) 20. In v. 13 the allusion to Jesus as oJ lovgo~refers to hisbeing with God the judge to act as intercessor, as is clear from what fol-

lows in 4,14-16.2) The imagery becomes consistent. The imagery of v. 12 involves theimagery of spiritual circumcision; the imagery of v. 13 involves theimagery of a sacrificial victim. V. 12 looks back to what precedes: the first

Jesus (Joshua) did not usher the people into God’s rest through his cir-cumcision, but the second Jesus will. V. 13 looks forward to what follows:God is judge of all, before whom nothing is hidden, but Jesus is with himas the Christians’ intercessor, i.e., as high priest.21

3) The description becomes consistent. The ‘two-edged sword’ (mav cairadivstomo" ), when viewed in the context of the diverse imagery of vv. 12-13,is seen to be a ‘two-edged knife’. In v. 12 it is the knife of circumcision usedby Joshua (Josh 5,2)22. In v. 13 it is the knife of sacrifice used by Abrahamfor the intended sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22,6—cf. Heb 11,17)23. V. 12 looksback to v. 8, where Joshua is portrayed as being unable to give rest to the peo-ple 24. V. 13 looks forward to vv. 14-16 and the discussion of the high priestas intercessor which is conveyed by the words pro;~ o} n hJmi' n oJ lov go" . Thedescription in the first third of v. 13 (kai; oujk e[stin aj fanh;~ ej nwv pion auj-

tou )̀ is about the omniscence of God and suggests that he is judge25. The

20 Thus the mention of Joshua makes sense: he is being implicitly contrasted with Jesus.The fact that in Greek the same word can be used for both facilitates the implicit contrast,

which is developed only with v. 12. (Cf. above, nn. 7 and 9.) The basis of this comparisonis the common element of ‘circumcision’ of the heart described in v. 12. Joshua was unableto effect this spiritual circumcision, but Jesus is, and this is the reason why the Christiansas a group will enter God’s spiritual rest whereas the desert generation of Israel did not andcould not. (Cf. above, n. 8.) Kardiva (‘heart’) in 3,8.10.12.15; 4,7 indicates the key factorin the failure of the desert generation to enter the land. The word kardiva is taken up in4,12 in the imagery; in the interpretation being advanced here this imagery involves cir-cumcision of the heart or spiritual circumcision, as in Rom 2,28-29. In Col 2,11-12 thisspiritual circumcision is identified with baptism. In this regard it is useful to compare thetext from Colossians with Heb 10,22, where the wordkardiva also occurs in the contextof baptism. (Cf. Attridge,Hebrews , 288-289, and Ellingworth, Hebrews , 523-524.)

21 This division of 4,12-13 into a verse which looks what precedes and a verse whichlooks at what follows can be compared to the way Heb 2,13a seems to face both forward

and backward (Swetnam, «Hebrews 1,1 – 3,6», 61).22 Cf. J. Moatti-Fine, La Bible d’Alexandrie: Jésus (Josué)(Paris 1996), 116-117, onmav caira as ‘knife’ at Josh 5,2. She also gives a lengthy presentation of the discussionabout spiritual circumcision which this verse has occasioned in the early Church.

23 Cf. M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: La Genése (Paris 1986), 193, on mav caira as‘knife’ in Gen 22,6.

24 Cf. the discussion in E. Gräßer, An die Hebräer . 1. Teilband. Hebr 1–6 (EkK;Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990), 214-216

25 «The picture of God in 4: 12-13 confirms the eschatological framework of Hebrewsas Alexandrian Jewish; God is Judge, and he does notonly judge at a general resurrectionof the dead, but at the end of each man’s life (10:25, 9:27. . . .)» (G. W. Trompf, «TheConception of God in Hebrews 4:12-13», Studia Theologica [Scandinavian Journal of Theology] 25 [1971] 130-131). Cf. also Ellingworth,Hebrews , 264.



6/20

middle third ( pav nta de; gumna; kai; tetrachlismev na toi`~ oj fqalmoì ~ auj- tou )̀ is about a sacrifice, with the sacrificial victim stretched out with the

neck ‘naked and laid bare’26

and exposed to the knife. It alludes to Christ asvictim and implicitly serves as an introduction to the final third of the verse which speaks of Christ aslov go~. He is acting as priestly intercessor as theresult of his sacrifice of self. This two-fold use ofmav caira is alluded to by the word divstomo~ (‘two-edged’): themav caira has two functions: it servesfor circumcision in v. 12 and for sacrifice in v. 13. And, like the knife, theverses speaking of these two functions look in opposite directions.

4) The language becomes consistent. Taking the expressionoJ lov go~ asreferring to Jesus as high priestly intercessor explains why the wordou\ n isused at v. 14; v. 13, with its portrayal of the lov go~ as intercessor pro;~

to; n qeov n, has given the occasion to refer to Jesus as high priest in theverse immediately following. The underlying supposition of Jesus as inter-cessor contained in the phrase pro;~ to; n qeov n is confirmed by the men-tion of Jesus’ intercessory role in 4,1627. Further, the word zw` n assumesa usage consonant with Heb 7,25 and 10,20 28.

26 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews , 264-265. There is a Jewish tradition, reflected in theTargum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Targum Neofiti on Genesis, that Isaac in v. 10 of bothtargums ‘stretches out his neck’ (hyrvvi eyep in Pseudo-Jonathan, hyravi eyep in Neofiti)after freely offering himself in sacrifice. Cf. M. Maher,Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible [The Targums] 1B; Edinburgh 1992), 8, and M. McNamara,TargumNeofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible [The Targums] 1A; Edinburgh 1992), 118. For the

text cf.: E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken 1984), 24 (for Pseudo-Jonathan) and A. Díaz Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum palestinense ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana . Tomo 1. Genesis (Madrid–Barcelona 1968), 127(for Neofiti). This is not to suggest, of course, that these two targums date in their presentform from the same period as Hebrews. But the fact that there was a tradition, even at a later date, about Isaac ‘stretching forth his neck’ at the moment of his sacrifice in Genesis,is striking, given the other allusions in Hebrews to this sacrifice, not to mention the explic-it reference to it at Heb 11,17. Cf. the views of P. S. Alexander, «Targum, Targumim», ABD , 6 (D. N. Freedman [ed.]; NewYork–London–Toronto–Syndey-Auckland 1992),323: «There are no good grounds for dating anything inNeof.later than the 3rd/4th cent.C.E.»; «. . .Ps.-J . can be seen as the ultimate stage in the evolution of the PT, which in itslatest strata betrays the influence of early medieval midrash».

27 For the present writer 4,15-16 are key elements for the understanding of the word

lov go~ in 4,13. For vv. 15-16 show in what sense Jesus as high priest is to be understoodin the context of v. 14, and v. 14 shows, by reason of the inferential particleou\ n, in whatsense the phrase pro;~ to; n qeov n is to be understood.

28 The interpretation advanced here that the lov go~ of Heb 4,12-13 is a designationof Jesus does not mean that the same word does not have a connection in Hebrews withScripture. At Heb 2,2 the word lov go~ refers to the Law, and at Heb 4,2 it seems toallude to the ‘word’ of Scripture in the citationShvmeron eja; n th`~ fwnh~̀ auj tou ̀ajkouvshtefrom Ps 95,7 at Heb 3,7. (Cf.: Attridge, Hebrews , 125; Ellingworth, Hebrews , 242).Thus when lov go~ is used to refer to Christ himself at Heb 4,12-13 it there serves as a prime analogate with reference to God’s communications past and present. Thesecommunications are alluded to at the very beginning of the epistle (1,1-2) and referredto constantly in the course of the work. (The fact that at Heb 2,2 the author of Hebrewsuses the word lov go~ to refer to the Law [which in Hebrews is understood as the Book

106 James Swetnam


7/20

In the interpretation being suggested here, Heb 4,12-13, with its useof lovgo~as a designation of Jesus, acts as a pivot in the section 3,7 –

6,20. Heb 4,12 sums up the first part, 3,7 – 4,11, which discusses thespiritualized promise of land, i.e., God’s rest, and prepares the way forthe following part, about Christ’s priesthood. By portraying Jesus asdivine (oJ lovgo") the author implicitly indicates why entrance into thespiritualized land of God’s rest is possible: Jesus, who is equal to God,is able to effect the spiritual circumcision of the heart needed for suchan entrance 29. Further, by portraying Jesus as divine (oJ lovgo"), theauthor implicitly indicates why entrance into this spiritualized land of God’s rest will be infallibly achieved by the group as a whole: again, thedivinely-effected spiritual circumcision is certain in its effects unlessthwarted by individual acts of disobedience30. Thus the lovgo~makespossible the attainment of the promise of land for those who remainpartakers in Christ, as the transition verse 3,6 introducing 3,7 – 6,20states 31.

Heb 4,13, on the other hand, introduces what is to follow by itsimagery of sacrifice and intercession which are associated with priesthood(Heb 4,14 – 5,10).

c) Hebrews 4,8-16

The division of 4,12-13 into two parts, one looking to what precedesand one looking to what follows, makes possible a suggestion about thestructure of the immediate context of these verses: Heb 4,8-11 is theimmediate paraenetic antecedent of Heb 4,12, and Heb 4,14-16 is theimmediate paraenetic consequence of Heb 4,1332.

Heb 4,8-11 is the immediate paraenetic antecedent for Heb 4,12, forthese verses focus on the contrast between Joshua and thelov go~ as

of Scripture—cf. Heb 9,19] is a strong argument against seeing thelov go~ of Heb 4,12-13 as referring to Scripture: if thelov go~ of Scripture [cf. Heb 3,7] was unable to effectan entrance for God’s people under Joshua, why should it do so for Christians?)

29

Cf. above, n. 20. The section Heb 1,5 – 2,4 was dedicated to showing the fulldivinity of the Son. Cf. Swetnam, «Heb 1,5-14», 61-62.30 Cf. J. Swetnam, «A Suggested Interpretation of Hebrews 9,15-18»,CBQ 27 (1965)

383.31 «Unfortunately scholars who take thelov go~ of vs. 12 to be the divine Logos

(Bruce, F. W. Farrar, T. H. Robinson, etc.), tend to create discontinuity in the thoughtof 3:7 – 4:13, by pointing to theoretical considerations which are not there» (G. W.Trompf, «The Conception of God in Hebrews 4:12-13», 127, n. 16). The present writer

will leave to the judgment of the reader whether the considerations about form and con-tent offered in this paper are ‘theoretical considerations which are not there’ or not.

32 The inferential particles are helpful indicators: the gavr of 4,12 points to what isprevious, just as theou` n of v. 14 points to what is previous but in the context of a parae-nesis, as at 4,1.11.16; 10,19.35; 13,15 (cf. Attridge,Hebrews , 138, n. 20).



8/20

regards the possibility of entering into God’s sabbath rest33. The prepara-tion for this immediate paraenetic antecedent for Heb 4,12 begins, of

course, at Heb 3,7, with its citation of Ps 95,7-8. Following this citationthere is a short paraenesis culminating in Heb 3,14 which echoes Heb 3,6even to the point of having the same verbal form ofkatev cw: katavscw-men34. Thus Heb 3,14 acts as a conclusion to the paraenesis following thecitation of Ps 95,7-11 at Heb 3,7-11 35. With v. 15 36 and the citation of Ps 95,7-8 begins a new subsection which terminates with a citation of thesame verses (in somewhat abbreviated form) at Heb 4,7.

The imagery of Heb 4,12 in the interpretation being followed heresuggests that Joshua is being considered from the standpoint of circum-cision. The circumcision of the body which he effected was unequal tothe task of ushering God’s people into God’s own rest; only the circum-cision of the heart effected by the lovgo~can make such an entrancepossible.

The section Heb 4,8-11 thus assumes an intrinsic paraenetic coheren-cy centering on the efficacy of thelov go~ of 4,12 as regards circumcisionand entrance into God’s own rest. Given the parallel nature of Heb 4,13

with regard to 4,12, the inference suggests itself that Heb 4,14-16, sym-metrical with Heb 4,8-11 as regards both length and position, assumesthe position of the immediate paraenetic consequence of Heb 4,13 whichcenters on the intercessory efficacy of thelov go" . Thus Heb 4,14-16describes the function of Christ as intercessor with God, as introduced by the phrase prov~ o} n hJmi` n oJ lov go" . The imagery is not of ‘entrance’ butof ‘approaching’— prosevrcesqai , a word which has cultic overtones inHebrews 37. V. 16 indicates the aspects under which approaching theajrciereuv~ is being considered: e[leo~ and cavri" 38.

33 «Sabbatliches Feiern wird die «Daseinsweise» des in die Gottesruhe eingekomme-nen Volkes Gottes sein» (Gräßer, An die Hebräer , 220).

34 «V. 14 is so similar in content to v. 6 as to have affected the textual tradition»(Ellingworth, Hebrews , 225).

35 The rather unusual configuration involving Heb 3,12-14 seems to be caused by the

desire of the author to emphasize the word uJ povstasi~ in 3,14. This word would seemto be of particular importance in Hebrews, acting as an indicator, with three analogousmeanings, of the major divisions of the epistle: Heb 1,1 – 3,6 (cf. the use of uJ povstasi~in 1,3), Heb 3,7 – 10,39 (cf. the use of uJ povstasi~ at 3,14), and Heb 11,1 – 13,19 (cf.the use of uJ povstasi~ at Heb 11,1). Any attempt to discern a macrostructure in theepistle would seem to have to come to terms with this word.

36 «The grammatical connections between vv. 14, 15, and 16 are uncertain»(Ellingworth,Hebrews , 225). Ellingworth suggests four possible interpretations. The onefollowed here is his #4: a full stop is placed after v. 14 and a comma after v. 15 (cf.Ellingworth, Hebrews , 225-226).

37 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews , 269-270.38 Attridge (Hebrews , 142) suggests that e[leo~ may refer in 4,16 to past transgres-

sions, while cavri~ refers to contemporary and future needs.

108 James Swetnam


9/20


10/20

author is thinking here of the patriarchs of Israel who received theannouncement of the promises, but not what was promised46. The recep-

tion of what was promised is reserved to the Christians who imitate thefaithful perseverance of the patriarchs47.The prime example of receiving promises through persevering faith is

Abraham (Heb 6,13-15). The texts cited from the Old Testament arefrom the aftermath of Abraham’s obedient offering of Isaac in Gen 22. Onthe occasion of his manifestation of persevering faith Abraham receives‘the promise’ ( ej pev tucen th` ~ ej paggeliva" ). Coming as it does immedi-ately following the citation of God’s oath to bless and multiply Abraham,this promise can only be understood as referring to the promise of prog-eny. That the author of Hebrews had only one promise in mind is con-firmed by his repetition of the singular in 6,17 (. . . toi`~ klhronovmoi~

th`~ ej paggeliva" ).In the context of the structure of Heb 3,7 – 6,20 being suggested here,the above texts involving ‘promise’ are significant. The author of Hebrewsis thinking of the two promises made to Abraham: the promise of enter-ing into God’s rest (4,1) and the promise of progeny (6,15).48 Further, if the analysis of the structure being advanced in this paper is correct, he isthinking of them together in relation to the paraenesis which he is giving

with regard to the entire section 3,7 – 6,20 (6,12). That the section 3,7 –4,12 is thus about the promise of entering into God’s rest would seem tobe evident. That the section 4,13 – 5,10 is about the promise of progeny is not evident at all. The problem here is to link the use of ej paggeliva /

ej paggelivai in 6,12.13.15.17 49, where the discussion is obviously aboutthe promise of progeny, with what precedes. This is what the presentarticle is attempting to do with a fresh view of the structure of 4,13 –6,20 50. If the structure is valid, the corollary is that the priesthood of

46 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews , 176.47 Ellingworth (Hebrews , 333) argues for a partial, temporal fulfillment of the prom-

ises as a type of the definitive future fulfillment reserved for Christians. But it wouldseem preferable to regard the ‘receiving of the promises’ even in Heb 11,33 as the recep-tion of the original promises made to the patriarchs, and not the fulfillment of the prom-

ises themselves, even in a partial, temporal guise. Thus the use of the word ej pitugkav nwin Heb 11,33 is consistent with its use in Heb 6,15.48 «The divine promises to Abraham involved two major components—that the patri-

arch would be the father of a great nation [cf. Gen 12:2-3; 15:5; 17:5] and that thisnation would inherit the land [cf. Gen 12:7; 13:4]» (Attridge,Hebrews , 178).

49 Cf. the discussion of Heb 6,13-15 above.50 The relation between priesthood, law and people in Heb 7,11-13 should also be

noted. The ‘people’ (laov") in Hebrews never changes (cf. Ellingworth,Hebrews , 190),but the ‘promises’, ‘covenant’ and ‘priesthood’ do. «The concept of the new covenant isco-ordinate . . . with that of Christ’s priesthood [sc., in Heb 8,6], and serves to show thatit is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a total re-ordering by God of his dealings

with his people. Both here and in 7:20-22, Jesus’ status in relation to the new covenantis not arbitrary or accidental; it is by divine appointment attested in scripture. Within

110 James Swetnam


11/20

Christ is intrinsically connected with the promise of progeny made to Abraham: it is through Christ’s priesthood that this progeny is definitive-

ly realized.51

Finally, this promise of progeny which is connected with thepriesthood of Christ is seen through the prism of the Aqedah: the prom-ise of progeny is viewed as being particularly certain because it is rein-forced by God’s oath given after Abraham passed God’s test of ‘faithfulperseverance’ (Heb 6,13-15). Thus the Aqedah, by reason of the rein-forcing oath of God with regard to his previous promises, has a specialrelation to those promises52.

f ) The Structure of Hebrews 3,7 – 6,20: A Summary

A summary of the above considerations yields the following outline: A 3,7-14 Citation of Ps 95,7-11 and paraenesis based uJ povstasi"

B 3,15 – 4,7 The ‘rest’ of Ps 95,7-11 is the ‘rest’ of Gen 2,2C 4,8-11 Anticipatory paraenesis looking forward to 4,12

D 4,12-13 oJ lov go" , stronger than a ‘two-edged knife’C’ 4,14-16 Consequent paraenesis following on 4,13

B’ 5,1-10 A’ 5,11 – 6,20 Summarizing paraenesis negative and positive

The entire section 3,12 – 6,20 is about the two promises made to Abraham of land and progeny. The section 3,7 – 4,13 is primarily aboutthe promise of land, and indicates that the goal of this promise is no

this re-ordering, the divine promises hold an essential but subordinate place»(Ellingworth, Hebrews , 409). In other words, the type of priesthood is crucial for thepromises. And since, in Hebrews, ‘promises’ refer primarily to the land and progeny promised to Abraham, Christ’s priesthood is crucial for the spiritualization of thesepromises. Underlying all of these considerations is the role of Melchizedek in Hebrews.Since the entirety of chapter 7 of the epistle is given to him, it is clear that this role isnot inconsiderable. The superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham is stated explicitly in7,4. What seems to be at stake here is the replacement of Abraham by Melchizedek as

the symbolic head of the new (Christian) people. The priestly nature of this people,based on the priesthood of Christ the Son of God, is implied by the author of Hebrews when he says that Melchizedek is ‘likened’ (aj fwmoiwmev no") to the Son of God andremains a priest forever (7,3): it is Christ who is the center and source of the new Christian people, and Melchizedek serves as the Scriptural elucidation. But Christ doesnot become the ‘Father’ of this Christian people. Precisely because He is Son they become related to God the Father in a special way through Him. In Hebrews, in a very real sense, God the Father replaces Abraham as the ‘father’ of the Christian people.

51 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 3,7 – 10,39», 137.52 Cf. Heb 11,17, where Abraham, on the occasion of his sacrifice of Isaac, is

described as ‘the one who had received the promises’ (oJ ta;~ ej paggeliva~ aj nadexav-meno"). The use of the plural with regard to the promises is all the more significant inthe light of v. 18, which singles out the promise of progeny.



12/20

longer an earthly ‘rest’ in the land of Canaan but God’s own ‘rest’. Theone who makes entrance into this ‘rest’ possible is Christ aslov go" . The

section 4,13 – 6,20 is primarily about the promise of progeny (cf. 6,13-18), and indicates that this progeny is not composed of those physically descendant from Abraham but of those who in some way come under theinfluence of the priesthood of Christ aslov go" . In order to come to a bet-ter understanding of what this implies it is necessary to study Heb 5,1-10in its context.

II. The Setting of Hebrews 5,7-8 in the Context of Hebrews 1,1 – 6,20

1. The Internal Structure of Hebrews 5,1-10

In Heb 3,15 – 4,7 the key structural factor is the gezerah shawahlink-ing the ‘rest’ of Ps 95,7-11 with the ‘rest’ of Gen 2,2. The key structuralfactor in the parallel section 5,1-10 would seem to be a parallel gezerahshawahlinking the ‘you’ (suv) of Ps 2,7 with the ‘you’ (suv) of Ps 110,4. Inlinking Ps 95,11 and Gen 2,2 the author shows that the ‘rest’ promisedto Abraham is really the ‘rest’ of God’s own life; in linking Ps 2,7 and Ps110,4, the author shows that the ‘you’ addressed in the psalm is really the‘you’ of the order of Melchizedek.

The crucial factor in understanding the meaning of this arrangementis the precise relevance of Ps 2,7, which, of course, is much discussed53.Ps 2,7 is cited three times in the New Testament: at Acts 13,33; at Heb1,5; and here at Heb 5,5. In Acts the context is unmistakable: the citationof Ps 2,7 is used with reference to the risen Christ54. Heb 1,5 also seemsto use Ps 2,7 with reference to the resurrection, to show that the resur-rection of Christ (Ps 2,7) implies his enthronement/exaltation (2 Sam7,14) 55. Thus there would seem to be nothing untoward in interpreting the citation of Ps 1,7 at Heb 5,5 as referring to the resurrection, eventhough no unanimity can be hoped for with regard to this view (or,indeed, of any other). The point of the gezerah shawah, then, is to show that at his resurrection Christ became a priest of the order of

Melchizedek.The fact that the resurrection of Christ is singled out as the occasionof His entering into the priesthood of the order of Melehizedek is thussignificant for the author of Hebrews. According to the interpretation of the epistle being advanced here his reasoning is as follows:

53 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews , 282, and further references there.54 «By his resurrection Christ was enthroned as Messiah, and from then on his human

nature enjoyed all the privileges of the Son of God,seeRm 1:4c» (The Jerusalem Bible [London 1985], 1821 [ad loc.]).

112 James Swetnam


13/20

Resurrection—as opposed to exaltation/enthronement—is possible forChrist only because He died, and He could die only because He had

assumed ‘blood and flesh’ (Heb 2,14-15). This ‘blood and flesh’ is thestuff of Christ’s sacrifice for the expiation of sins (Heb 2,17) offered onthe occasion of His being ‘tested’ ( peiravzw) as Abraham was tested at the

Aqedah (Heb 2,18; 11,17) 56. In Heb 5,1-10 Christ’s sacrifice preliminary to His resurrection (i.e., His sacrificial death on the cross) is alluded tothrough the use of the technical term ‘to offer’ ( prosfevrw)57 at 5,1.3 of the Old Testament Aaronic high priest, and at 5,7 of Christ. Thus theaccount of the Old Testament Aaronic high priest in 5,1-4, with its use of

prosfevrw at 5,1.3, reinforces the sacrificial nature of Christ’s ‘loud cry and tears’ (kraughv ijscurav, davkrua ) portrayed as sacrificial in naturethrough the use of the technical term ‘having offered’ ( prosenev gka" )(5,7)

58

. These are the ‘loud cry and tears’ uttered by Christ on the crossin His citing Ps 22 59. And this sacrifice on the cross is the bloody sacri-fice toward which the allusion to thetôdâ in Ps 22 is ordered 60.

The crux about Christ at Heb 5,7-8 ends with His offer of sacrificeimplicit in the citation of Ps 22 being accepted even though He was sonand could reasonably expect that such a plea not be honored by His Father(. . . kai; eijsakousqei;~ aj po; th;~ eulabeiva~ kaiv per w] n uiJov") 61.Christ is then ‘brought to perfection’ ( teleiwqeiv"), i.e., brought to a cor-poral completion appropriate for His divine nature at the time of his res-urrection (5,9) 62. Finally, the passage containing the crux ends at 5,10

with this risen state of Christ being ‘addressed by God as high priestaccording to the order of Melchizedek’ ( prosagoreuqei; ~ uJ po; tou ̀qeou`ajrciereu;~ kata; th; n tavxin Melcisevdek) (5,10). The term ‘addressed’( prosagoreuvw) is especially meaningful in the context, for it can refer toa peaceful greeting used as an expression of honor63. This fits in neatly

with the use of the gezerah shawahconstruction at 5,5-6, where the link-ing word ‘you’ (su ) is used of God to express his designation of Christhigh priest according to the order of Melchizedek at the moment of Hisresurrection.

55 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 1,5-14», 57-58 and 57, n. 21.56 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 1,1 – 3,6», 63-64.57 «In Hebrews, it [sc., prosfevrw] is used overwhelmingly (the passive in 12:7 is an

exception) in connection with sacrifice, especially but not only with the OT high priestsor Jesus as subject» (Ellingworth,Hebrews , 273).

58 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 5,7-8», 351, and 351, n. 21.59 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 5,7-8», 354-355.60 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 5,7-8», 356-360.61 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 5,7-8», 355-356.62 Cf. J. Swetnam, «Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews»,Bib

70 (1989) 75-78.63 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews , 296.



14/20

2. Hebrews 5,1-10 in Its Context in Hebrews

a) The Relation of Hebrews 5,1-10 to the Sacrifice of Isaac

In the suggested structure of Heb 3,7 – 6,20 given above, the verses4,12-13 are central because of their focus on thelov go~ as the pervasiveagent for the attainment of the promises made to Abraham of spiritual-ized land and spiritualized progeny. Heb 4,13 contains an allusion to thesacrifice of Isaac under the image of an outstretched neck waiting for thesacrificial knife ( tetrachlismev na). In the interpretation of Heb 5,7-8

which serves as the occasion of the present article, the ‘offering’ of Jesus‘with a loud cry and tears of prayers and petitions to the one able to saveHim from death’ (dehvsei~ te kai; iJkethriva~ pro;~ to; n dunavmenonsw/ vzein auj ton ejk qanav tou meta; kraugh ~̀ ijscura`~ kai; dakruvwn

prosenev gka" ) was said to take place on the cross when He cited theopening verse of Ps 22 as an indication of His willingness to undergo thefate of the protagonist of the psalm and not be saved by a divine inter-vention through Elijah.64 The fact that He was ‘heard although Son’( eijsakousqei;~ . . . kaiv per w] n uiJov") was attributed in part to an impliedcontrast with the Aqedah in Heb 11,17-19 65.

A problem with this interpretation is that in Hebrews there is no appar-ent indication that Isaac willingly offered himself as a sacrifice: in the text of the Aqedah at Gen 22,1-18 he seems to be purely passive and this passivity seems to be the background of the use of Gen 22 at Heb 11,17-19. Thus theimagery of Heb 4,13, if understood against this background, would arguefor a purely passive attitude on the part of Isaac. But this problem can besolved if one takes the free-will offering of Jesus in Heb 5,7-8 as an indica-tion that the author of Hebrews was referring to the tradition current in

Judaism at the time that Isaac offered himself willingly at the Aqedah.Though Gen 22,1-18 as it stands in the biblical text gives no indica-

tion that Isaac took an active part in the sacrifice66, by the first century A.D. the tradition accompanying this scriptural account had developed in Jewish tradition to the point where Isaac freely offers himself as a sacrifi-cial victim. This is clear in4 Maccabees 13,12 and at 16,20, where Isaac’scomportment is invoked as an example to be imitated by Jews whentempted to renounce their faith 67. The same tradition is found in Pseudo-

64 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 5,7-8», 353-355.65 Swetnam, «Hebrews 5,7-8», 356.66 But cf. the argument of H. C. White that the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham origi-

nally represented a rite of initiation in which Isaac is made to face death and to acceptit (H. C. White, «The Initiation Legend of Isaac», ZAW91 [1979] 1-30).

67 Cf.: J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah(AnBib 94; Rome 1981), 46; J. Levenson,The Death and Resurrrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven–London 1993), 187-187. Levenson dates4 Maccabees to between 18 and 55 A.D.

114 James Swetnam


15/20

Philo’s Biblical Antiquities 32,3 and 40,2-3 68. Finally, Flavius Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1,232, from the end of the first century A.D., also rep-

resents the tradition of Isaac’s free participation in Abraham’s sacrifice69

.Thus it is not impossible that the interpretation of Heb 5,7-8 proposedas a solution to the crux in these verses, involving as it does Jesus’ freeoffering of himself, can be situated in the same tradition as Isaac’s freeoffering of himself in the Aqedah. Consequently, at Heb 4,13, given therelevance of Ps 22 at Heb 5,7-8, there would seem to be no reason for notthinking that the author of Hebrews had Christ’s active offering of Himself in mind precisely as fulfillment of the sacrifice of Isaac by

Abraham presented in Heb 11,17-19 70.

b) The Relation of Hebrews 5,1-10 to the Expiatory Priesthood of Christ In the interpretation of Heb 4,13 given above the clause pro;~ o} hJmi` n

oJ lovgo~is understood to mean ‘with whom is the Word on our behalf’:the Word is taken to be Christ who is in God’s presence to intercede forChristians. This posture and function of Christ is taken up in the verses4,14-16 which are a follow-up to 4,13 according to the interpretationbeing advanced here: in v. 16 the Christians are urged ‘to approach withboldness the throne of grace in order to receive mercy and find grace fortime of need’ ( prosercwvmeqa ou\ n meta; parrhsiva~ tw` / qrovnw/ th`~

cavrito" , i{ na lavbwmen e[leo~ kai; cavrin eu{rwmen eij~ eu[kaironbohvqeian). The implication is that the Christians are to approach Christas high priest (cf. the preceding verse, ‘we have a high priest’— e[comenajrciereva) in his present state, which can only be, in the context of theepistle, in His risen state. Thus 4,13 implicitly refers to two differentstates of Christ’s priesthood: 1) the earthly state in which He was subjectto death (alluded to by the imagery of the outstretched neck); 2) therisen state in which He is no longer subject to death. 4,15 alludes to the

68 Levenson (Death and Resurrection, 189-190, dates Biblical Antiquities to ‘some time

in the first century C.E.’ Cf. his comments on pp. 190-190. Also Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac , 53-56. And, most recently, B. N. Fish, «Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as Intertext»,CBQ 62 (2000), 494, n. 42.

69 Cf. Levenson,Death and Resurrection, 190-192. Levenson (190) even suggests thatthe tradition about Isaac’s willing participation in his sacrifice may have begun withThe Book of Jubilees . Jubilees can be dated to the second century B.C. (cf. R. E. Brown–P.Perkins–A. J. Saldarini, «Apocrypha; Dead Sea Scrolls; Other Jewish Literature», Jerome Biblical Commentary , §67:17 [pp. 1058-1059]).

70 Cf. also Heb 2,18 where Christ is said to have been ‘tested’ ( peiravzw), the same word used of Abraham at the Aqedah as described in Heb 11,17. This parallel use of a word implying conscious awareness of the challenge of faith in the face of death wouldseem to be another indication that the author of Hebrews was aware of the tradition thatgave to Isaac an active role in the Aqedah.



16/20

first state of Christ by the use of the word ‘tested’ ( peiravzw), which, inthe context of the epistle, means that Christ has been exposed to the

need for faith in the face of death as Abraham and Isaac were (cf. Heb2,18 and 11,17) 71.Thus, in order to explain these data, one must think of Jesus’ priest-

hood as involving two stages: 1) the earthly stage in which His assuming human blood and flesh permitted His sacrificial death (cf. Heb 2,14); 2)the heavenly stage in which His resurrected body permits His exercise of the priestly ministry which has resulted from His earthly sacrifice.

This two-fold stage in the priesthood of Jesus is present in Heb 5,7-8.The first stage is alluded to in the phrase ‘in the days of His flesh’ ( ej n

tai`~ hJmevrai~ th` ~ sarko;~ auj tou )̀. The second stage is alluded to withthe words ‘addressed by God as high priest’ ( prosagoreuqei; ~ uJ po; tou`qeou ̀ajrciereuv"). In the context this refers to Christ becoming a priestaccording to the order of Melchizedek on the occasion of his resurrection(cf. Heb 5,5-6). The technical term for this in Hebrews is ‘to perfect’ or‘to complete’ ( teleiovw), used at Heb 5,9. In Hebrews, as understood by the present writer, this term refers to the second, definitive state of Jesus’priesthood willed by God. This definitive state implies physical ‘perfec-tion’ so that Jesus is no longer subject to death in any way72.

The activity of the risen Jesus in His definitive priestly stage includesthat of expiating the sins of the people (cf. Heb 2,17 as well as Heb4,16). The role of forgiver of sins is essential for the understanding of

Jesus Christ in Hebrews, for it is at the heart of His role as high priest, a role which is central in the epistle. Christ’s priestly role in the definitiveexpiation of sins is based on His once-for-all sacrifice in the first stage of His priesthood. But the continuing exercise of this expiation is in thesecond stage. As a result of this unique priesthood the nature of thecovenant between God and His people changes, and hence the people,in a sense, change as well.73 It is in this sense that the definitive fulfill-ment of God’s promise of progeny to Abraham is achieved: the progeny are God’s people definitively purified from their sins by the earthly andrisen Jesus.

71 Cf. Swetnam, «Hebrews 1,1 – 3,6», 61-65.72 Cf. Swetnam, «Christology and the Eucharist», 77-78.73 «En employant à plusieurs reprises le mot «peuple», l’épître aux Hébreux marque la

continuité entre le peuple d’Israël et l’Eglise chrétienne. Mais l’aspect de rénovation n’estpas ignoré pour autant, ni l’exigence d’une certaine rupture: l’auteur declare avec netteéque le sacerdoce du Christ entraîne nécessairement pour le peuple un changement deconstitution (7,11-12; cf. 9,10; 10,9; 13,9-4). Cest seulement dans la nouvelle allianceque se vérifie pleinement la parole: «Je serai leur Dieu et ils seront mon peuple», car la réalisation de cetter promesse est liée à la rémission effective des péchés (Jr 31,32-34;Héb 8,10-12; 20,16-18» (A. Vanhoye, Situation du Christ. Hébreux 1–2 [Lectio Divina 58; Paris 1969], 383).

116 James Swetnam


17/20

In terms of the tôdâ the first stage of Christ’s priesthood is the one in which the once-for-all-sacrifice of Himself takes place; the second stage of

Christ’s priesthood is the one in which He has arrived at his definitivepriestly perfection (cf. the word teleiwqeiv~ at 5,9) and in which Hebecomes a ‘cause of eternal salvation’ (ai[ tio~ swthriv a~ aijwnivou). Thisis the stage in which the Christians are urged to ‘draw near’ ( prosevrco-mai), a word with cultic overtones, is often used in Hebrews (cf. Heb4,16; 7,25; 10,1.22; 11,6; 12,18.22) 74.

c) The Relation of Hebrews 5,1-10 to the Priesthood of Christ according tothe Order of Melchizedek

The importance of Christ as lov go~ (according to the interpretationbeing advanced in this article) can hardly be exaggerated for the sectionHeb 3,7 – 6,20, for it dominates by reason of its place and by reason of its function. Given this interpretation, it comes as no surprise to find atHeb 5,1-10 a sub-section which is built around the belief that Christ atHis resurrection became a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Now Melchizedek, in his appearance in Hebrews, is contrasted with theLevitical priesthood of the old dispensation: ‘Without father, withoutmother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God he remains a priest in perpetuity’ (. . .aj pav twr ajmhv twr aj genealov ghto" , mhv te aj rch; n hJmerw` n mhv te zwh ~̀

tevlo~ e[ cwn, aj fwmoiwmev no~ de; tw` / uiJw` / tou ̀qeou,̀ mev nei iJ ereu;~ eij~ to;dihnekev") (Heb 7,3). And the contrast with the Levitical priesthood ismade with explicit reference to ‘perfection’ or ‘completion’ ( teleiwvsi" )(7,11). Thus, when the reader comes upon these words in Chapter 7 of Hebrews, there should be no surprise. For Melchizedek is a defining fig-ure for the purposes of the author of Hebrews, given his conviction of thecentrality of the priesthood of Christ for the fulfillment of the promise of progeny made to Abraham after the Aqedah.

If Melchizedek’s priesthood is like Christ’s priesthood, it is clear that thepeople who are shaped by Christ’s priesthood will be like Melchizedek’s

atemporal existence: without father, without mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life because made like the Son of God75.

74 «Prosevrcomai in cultic contexts is not to be understood as ‘approach’ in contrastto ‘arrive,’ but rather of communion with God in worship—the fulfilment, for Hebrews,of what the old dispensation could not achieve» (Ellingworth,Hebrews , 677-678. At p.671 Ellingworth remarks: «Prosevrcomai (cf. 4:16) is always used in Hebrews of wor-ship or nearness to God, but there is nothing to support a reference to the Lord’sSupper.» As is clear from the approach of the present writer, based as it is on thetôdâ ,this judgment with regard to the Eucharist does not seem correct.

75 Cf. above, n. 50.



18/20

Here the unique saving effect of thelov go~ is apparent. Just as the structureof Heb 3,7 – 6,20 indicates that the lov go~ is uniquely qualified to effect a

definitive entrance of God’s people into God’s rest, so the structure indicatesthat the lov go~ is uniquely qualified to create the people who are to enter76.The author of Hebrews mentions at Heb 5,9 that the Christ who has

been brought to ‘perfection’ has become ‘cause of salvation without end’(ai[ tio~ swthriv a~ aijwnivou) for all who obey Him. Because of this use of swthriva at Heb 5,9 in the context of the Christian tôdâ , it is possible toascertain at what point this ‘message of salvation’ had its ‘beginning of being spoken’ (Heb 2,3): at the institution of the Christian tôdâ by Jesus.

And because of the context of the Christiantôdâ it is also possible to ascer-tain what the author of Hebrews means by ‘obeying’ ( uJ pakouvw) Jesus,

whose command to His followers was ‘Do this in memory of me’. Andbecause the comparison with Melchizedek occurs in the context of theChristian tôdâ it is also possible to ascertain the relevance of the Christiantôdâ for the definitive fulfillment of the promise of a progeny which, likeMelchizedek, is without father, without mother, without genealogy, with-out beginning, without end: Eucharist generates God’s People77.

III. Summary and Conclusions

The present article was occasioned by a previous article which offereda tentative solution to the classic crux at Heb 5,7-8. That article, by rigidadherence to the syntax and vocabulary of the verses, supplied an initialinterpretation which viewed Christ as begging to die. Then the coinci-dence of vocabulary between the verses of the crux and Ps 22 led to a sug-gestion about a Sitz im Lebenfor this interpretation in the gospel por-trayal of Jesus: that Jesus begged to die by reciting the opening verses of Ps 22 on the cross and thereby freely accepting death when onlookersthought he would share their expectations that he could possibly still besaved. An analysis of Ps 22 in the light of thetôdâ suggested how Jesuscould ‘learn’ obedience from His sufferings freely accepted, just as did theone suffering in the psalm.

The present article seeks to understand the background of the sug-gested solution to the crux at Heb 5,7-8 by attempting to place it in itscontext in Hebrews. By interpreting the verses immediately previous to

76 Cf. the use of the word teleiovw at Heb 10,1, where by implication, since the law of the old dispensation could not ‘perfect’ those ‘approaching’ ( prosevrcomai ) cultical-ly, the new Law can.

77 Cf. the implications of the use of teleiovw and prosevrcomai in Heb 10,1 (above,n. 72) with regard to the Christians who approach the risen Christ in the Christian tôdâ .There is much more to be said about the Christian tôdâ in Hebrews than has been saidin the present article, but this will have to await separate treatment..

118 James Swetnam


19/20

the crux at 5,5-6 as a gezerah shawa the conclusion is drawn that throughthe resurrection (alluded to in 5,5) Jesus entered into the priesthood

according to Melchizedek (mentioned in 5,6). By interpreting the versesimmediately following the crux at 5,9-10 as alluding again to theChristian tôdâ (5,9) and to Jesus’ being addressed by God as a high priestaccording to the order of Melchizedek (5,10), the importance of thetôdâ and of Melchizedek is again brought to the fore.

The gezerah shawahof 5,5-6 is seen in the article as balancing a gezer-ah shawahat Heb 4,3-5 which the author of Hebrews presents as identi-fying the ‘Rest’ promised to Israel in the promised Land with the ‘Rest’ of God after creation. These two uses of gezerah shawahare interpreted inthe article as key texts in understanding the Christianization of the twopromises made to Abraham of Land (4,3-5) and Offspring (5,5-6).

The first gezerah shawahoccurs in a sub-section framed by citations of Ps 95 at Heb 3,15 and Heb 4,7 which emphasizes the role of the ‘heart’in entering the Rest of everlasting life. Immediately following this sub-section comes another sub-section on the inability of ‘Jesus’ (Joshua) tointroduce the people into this ‘Rest’ (4,8-11). This is prelude to 4,12 in

which the word lov go~ is interpreted as referring to Christ Himself, notto the word of Scripture. The imagery is understood as describing thespiritual circumcision of the heart needed for entry into God’s Rest.

4,13 is also seen as speaking of Christ aslov go" , but this time in Hisrole of intercessor with God. This explains why 4,14 has an inferential

particle introducing the theme of Jesus as high priest. The sub-section4,14-16 is an exhortation based as a consequence of 4,13 just as the sub-section 4,8-11is an exhortation based in anticipation on 4,12. There fol-lows another sub-section, parallel to 3,15-4,7, composed of the verses5,1-10. This is the sub-section in which the crux 5,7-8 occurs as a part of the discussion of Christ’s priesthood.

The fact that the word ‘Melchizedek occurs in the verse immediately before Heb 5,7-8 and is found immediately after, in 5,10, shows theimportance of this enigmatic Old Testament high priest for understand-ing the high priesthood of Christ in the whole section 4,13-5,10.

The passage 5,11 – 6,20 is interpreted in the present paper as being paraenetical, first negative (5,11 – 6,8) and then positive (6,9-20). Thisconcludes the entire section 3,7 – 5,10. This section opens at 3,7-14 witha citation of Ps 95 and an accompanying application to the idea of

uJ povstasi" . The latter word, along with its use at 1,3 and 11,1 (as somefuture article will attempt to show), is a defining element in themacrostructure of the epistle. The explanation for the relevance of Melchizedek for the high priesthood of Christ is found outside the pas-sage 3,7 – 6,20, at 7,1-28. But the explanation is prepared for in the pos-itive paraenesis at 6,9-20 which is based on a presentation of the promiseof progeny reaffirmed to Abraham with a promise by God as the after-



20/20

math of the sacrifice of Isaac. Thus the high priesthood of Christ in 4,13– 6,20, since it is interpreted in Hebrews as being prefigured by the high

priesthood of Melchizedek as presented in 7,1-28 as introduced by 6,9-20, should be seen as the vehicle of transmitting the Christianized prom-ise of progeny to Abraham by God. This progeny, like Melchizedek andhence like Christ, is viewed as being ‘without (human) father or mother,

without genealogy, without beginning of days nor end of life’ (7,3).Thus the key elements for understanding the background of the crux

at Heb 5,7-8 are Jesus as lov go~ in 5,13 and Jesus as prefigured by Melchizedek. That is to say, the crux at Heb 5,7-8, with its emphasis onChrist’s free sacrifice of Himself and the relation of this sacrifice to theChristian tôdâ , is intimately connected with the promise of God to

Abraham of Progeny following the sacrifice of Isaac. But in Hebrews, thisprogeny is brought to a spiritualized, Christianized fulfillment transcend-ing the promise of physical Progeny as the original promise in Gen 22 isusually understood.

James SWETNAMPontifical Biblical Institute

Piazza della Pilotta, 2500187 Rome (ITALY)

120 James Swetnam

the context of the crux at hebrews 5,7-8 (james swetnam) rev

Documents