Abstract
This article argues that in Heb. 4.10 the substantival aorist participle ὁ εἰσελθών should be translated ‘the one who entered’, and that its implied subject is Christ; it further suggests that, understood this way, this verse coheres with Hebrews’ strong emphasis on the completed nature of Christ’s salvific work, expressed in particular with the image of Christ’s enthronement or session using Ps. 110.1. The article thus challenges the view that the rest motif in Heb. 3–4 is purely a ‘sermon illustration’ with no connection to the strong Christology pervading the rest of the letter; additionally it underscores the creativity with which the author expresses the sufficiency of the Christ event, and strengthens the proximity of the motifs of entering rest and entering the heavenly sanctuary.
Introduction 1
A glance at most modern English translations reveals that they take Heb. 4.10 to be a statement regarding what happens to those who enter God’s rest. For example, the
Hebrews 4.10 in the Context of the Whole Letter
Hebrews 4.10 comes towards the end of the paraenetic section 3.7–4.13, which takes the form of a citation and exposition of Ps. 95. This passage is notable for its extensive use of the rest motif, which is not explicitly developed elsewhere in the letter. Structurally, the passage comes just before the exhortation of 4.14-16, which, together with the parallel section 10.19-25, forms an inclusio around Hebrews’ central, cultic section. 3 3.7–4.13 thus corresponds to 11.1-40: both sections exhort the audience to faithful perseverance through, respectively, negative and positive Old Testament examples, and they fall just before and after the cultic section. Furthermore, these two sections have another feature in common: a striking lack of Christology (with the exception of a single elusive mention of ‘Christ’ in each; cf. Heb. 3.14; 11.26). This absence is all the more surprising when one considers the pervasive high Christology, combined with a strong sense of Jesus’ humanity, which is found in the rest of the letter, supremely but not exclusively in its exordium and cultic section.
The problem of the apparent absence of Christology in these sections, given its pervasiveness elsewhere in Hebrews, is a subset of the problematic relationship of chs. 3–4 and 11 to chs. 5–10, a question which has long exercised scholars. How are we to understand the relationship between pilgrimage and cult, Sabbath rest and heavenly sanctuary, the horizontal and the vertical, eschatology and cosmology? 4 The importance of ch. 11 for Hebrews’ Christology becomes apparent when it is understood to culminate not in 11.39-40 but in 12.1-3, in the light of which the ‘heroes of faith’ of 11.4-38 can be understood as typological, rather than as purely exemplary. 5 When it comes to Heb. 3.7–4.13, however, while the context (particularly 3.1-6; 4.14-16) demonstrates a clear christological framing, 6 the passage itself does not obviously have any connection to the Christology of the letter. This view is articulated perhaps most clearly by Judith Wray, who argues that the concept of rest, which is the primary motif in this section, is nothing more than a theological metaphor, an effective sermon illustration which ‘remains theocentric and anticipatory and never quite becomes christocentric and celebrative’; she concludes that ‘the writer makes no attempt to identify a christological connection with the theme of rest’ (Wray 1998: 94, 89). To be sure, Wray is not unaware of the strongly christological sections framing this part of Hebrews; she also readily concedes that motifs of promise and entrance are taken up again and developed by the author (Wray 1998: 90-91, 93). The reasons for her conclusions are that rest is used negatively, 7 never used again in Hebrews 8 and never explicitly associated with Christ. 9 This article challenges these points, contending that Heb. 4.10 allows the audience to infer a reference to Christ; this constitutes a positive christological connection to the theme of rest, and demonstrates that Heb. 3–4 corresponds more closely than Wray allows to the Christology and soteriology that are manifest elsewhere in the letter.
History of Interpretation
Commentators have argued back and forth over the christological reading of Heb. 4.10 since at least the early seventeenth century: William Gouge, although he rejects this reading, is aware of others who advocate it (Gouge 1866, first published posthumously in 1655). The Puritan John Owen argues for this interpretation at some length in his commentary, the relevant volume of which was first published in 1674 (Owen 1980). Despite this early English debate, the christological reading subsequently made more of a mark in Continental scholarship (cf. Ebrard 1850: for; Delitzsch 1857: against), with the most significant arguments advanced by Vanhoye (1963, second edition 1976), Andriessen and Lenglet (1971: 75), and Sabourin (1973: 204). In recent scholarship Attridge (1989: 131-32) and Cockerill (2012: 211-12) entertain the possibility, Braun (1984: 115) and Ellingworth (1993: 255-57) argue against, and deSilva is in a minority in actively promoting it (2000: 167-68); commentators such as Weiß (1991), Lane (1991), Grässer (1990–97), Koester (2001) and O’Brien (2010) do not even mention it. This somewhat ambivalent history, combined with the unfortunate obstruction in modern English translations of the possibility of taking this interpretation, calls for a re-examination and re-presentation of the case for this reading.
The case against the christological interpretation can be summarized as ‘insufficient evidence’: if the author of Hebrews intended his hearers to understand this clause as a reference to Christ, he both should and could have given more indication of it. 10 This is not an insubstantial point, and it is along these lines that Ellingworth offers a comprehensive rebuttal of six pieces of evidence given by Andriessen and Lenglet. 11 Against these objections, this article aims to show that Hebrews does contain enough information to guide its readers towards this understanding.
The argument will proceed in three stages. First, I will examine the grammatical and syntactical issues surrounding the relationship of aorist indicatives and participles to past time, and suggest that both the more general usage and the context of Hebrews favour a priori a past translation. Secondly, it will be argued that both the wider argumentative flow and the meaning of the particular verse in question make better sense when 4.10 is understood as referring to a past event, and that if this is the case, the referent of the participle must be Jesus. Thirdly, the coherence of this motif with the Christology of the rest of Hebrews will be demonstrated. In particular, it will be suggested that 4.10 constitutes a theological parallel to Ps. 110.1, which Hebrews uses elsewhere to elaborate the doctrine of the session of Christ.
In Search of Past Time
The question of whether verbal forms grammaticalize time remains a contested one. 12 While significant arguments have been advanced in the past few decades against the view that time-reference is included in the base meaning of verbs, some grammarians continue to argue that the unmarked form of the indicative does grammaticalize time. If this is true, the third person singular aorist indicative κατέπαυσεν in Heb. 4.10 might be assumed to have past reference (‘he/she entered’). However, most grammarians holding this view allow for the existence of gnomic aorists, 13 used to state general truths, 14 and those on both sides of the debate agree that ultimately context must play a large role in determining meaning, given that contextual factors can and do override basic components such as verbal aspect. 15 The wider context of the argument will be examined later, but for now we can note that the form κατέπαυσεν occurs twice elsewhere in Hebrews, both instances prior to this verse and in its close context: in Heb. 4.4 it occurs in a citation of Gen. 2.2, stating that God rested from his works; and in 4.8 it functions transitively in the first half of a counterfactual conditional: ‘if Joshua had given rest’ (i.e., Joshua did not give rest). These instances both clearly have a past reference; in combination with the rarity of gnomic aorists in the New Testament (Fanning 1990: 265; Wallace 1996: 507) this makes a gnomic sense less likely for κατέπαυσεν.
Turning to the substantival aorist participle ὁ εἰσελθών, matters become more complex. It is more widely recognized that the participle does not grammaticalize time, certainly not in an absolute fashion, and any temporal reference is relative to the action of the main verb. As a general but not universal rule, participles preceding the main verb tend to be antecedent to the action of that verb, whereas those following the main verb tend to be concurrent or subsequent; additionally, aorist participles tend to precede the main verb, and present participles tend to follow it (Fanning 1990: 407; Porter 1989: 380-81; 1994: 188). These considerations suggest that we would expect ὁ εἰσελθών, which is both aorist and prior to the main verb, to be antecedent to the action of the main verb; examination of the verse confirms this expectation: the action of entering rest is logically prior to the state of resting from works. 16 Furthermore, the gezera shawa argument, which brings in Gen. 2.2 to clarify the meaning of Ps. 95.11, requires that God’s rest from works is ongoing into the psalm’s ‘Today’, that is, it continues after creation and is not simply to be equated with the end of God’s creation work. 17 In terms of the author’s use of the aorist rather than the present, Ellingworth claims that this is because the latter ‘would misleadingly suggest a process rather than a punctiliar act’ (1993: 256). This is a slight overstatement, as the present participle does not simply indicate process, nor does the aorist participle necessarily indicate punctiliarity (Fanning 1990: 408-16), but, in substance, the point holds that use of the aorist rather than the present here suggests completion. Nevertheless, this does not mean that this is the only factor governing the choice of the aorist here. 18
What is more, consideration of Hebrews’ general usage of substantival participles may suggest that the aorist was chosen in 4.10 to imply past force. The letter contains 33 substantival aorist participles, of which 17 are plural and 16 are singular (including the one in question here). 19 All of the plural instances refer to a group of people who did something in the past; similarly, 11 of the singular instances refer unambiguously to the past. Of the five remaining participles, one is the case in question, leaving four to account for. In Heb. 3.3 and 4 ὁ κατασκευάσας occurs twice—first referring generically to ‘the builder of the house’, and, on the second occasion, referring to God, ‘the builder of everything’. In the case of God, it is clear that this refers to past action: God is ‘the one who prepared/built everything’; but also in the case of the nonspecific ‘builder’, who is a builder because he or she has built a house—and indeed it is precisely the relationship to the house that is in view in 3.3. A similar argument obtains for the remaining participle, ὁ διαθέμενος, which comes twice, in Heb. 9.16 and 17. Although one might translate this as ‘the testator’, a person can be a testator only if he or she has made a will at some point in the past. Thus, all substantive aorist participles in Hebrews refer either explicitly or implicitly to the past, a consistent feature of the letter’s style, which means that a gnomic sense for ὁ εἰσελθών in Heb. 4.10 is not impossible but would be at least unusual. 20 Grammatical considerations are not decisive for or against either interpretation, but they do give reason to favour a past sense.
Jesus, the Basis for Believers’ Rest
At this point we turn to the wider argument of which Heb. 4.10 forms a part. The presence of the particle γάρ leads us to expect v. 10 to give the reason or cause for v. 9. 21 On the usual reading of v. 10, however, it does not give grounds for v. 9 but rather introduces a clarification or explication of the σαββατισμός. 22 Yet the flow of thought runs as follows: v. 8 points out that Joshua did not give the Israelites rest, and v. 9 says that rest remains for God’s people, a statement which leaves open the question of how it is the case that this rest remains open in the recipients’ present. 23 If v. 10 is to provide an answer to this question, the only way in which it can do so is by understanding κατέπαυσεν—and thus also ὁ εἰσελθών—as a reference to past time: rest remains open because someone has entered rest and rested from his works. Once this is established, it becomes clear that the only available referent of this participle is Jesus. Of the three different groups in view in chs. 3–4 (the wilderness generation, Joshua’s generation and the audience of the letter), 24 none has yet entered rest; 25 the only agents of whom this can be affirmed are God and Jesus—and as ὁ εἰσελθών is compared to God, this leaves Jesus as the only possible referent. In support of this, it can be noted that all three aorist singular indicative instances of εἰσέρχομαι in Hebrews (6.20; 9.12, 24) refer to the past entrance of Christ into the (heavenly) Most Holy Place. 26
On the christological reading of v. 10, then, the γάρ has its full force: ‘for the one who entered his rest 27 (i.e. Jesus) has also rested from his works’. That is, it is because Jesus has completed his salvific work that rest remains open for the people of God. Not only this, but the flow continues into v. 11, indicated by οὖν. The urgent appeal of v. 11 is based not merely on v. 9, but on the grounds given in both vv. 9 and 10: a Sabbath celebration remains because Jesus has entered God’s rest, ‘therefore let us make every effort to enter that rest’. 28 By way of summary of this argument, the flow of vv. 8-11 can be set out diagrammatically:
8 If Joshua had given them [his generation] rest, he [God] would not speak later about another day (implication: Joshua did not give the Israelites rest).
9 So then (ἄρα; because God speaks later about another day) there remains a Sabbath celebration for the people of God.
10 For (γάρ; spelling out the grounds of Sabbath remaining) the one who has entered his rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his (i.e. rest remains for God’s people because Jesus has entered rest, signifying the completion of his salvific work).
11 Therefore (οὖν; on the basis of Jesus’ completed entry) let us strive to enter that rest (i.e., referring back to vv. 9-10 and not only v. 9). 29
At this point it will be helpful to give voice to an important objection: ‘it is difficult to understand why, if the author had wished to speak of Christ’s entry into God’s place of rest, he should not have done so plainly’. 30 DeSilva suggests that the author has given the reader enough information to read this statement as a reference to Jesus (2000: 168); while this is true, more can be said. In v. 8 the author refers to ’Ιησοῦς—not ’Ιησοῦς the Messiah, but ’Ιησοῦς the son of Nun, Moses’ successor. This reference would likely have stopped readers in their tracks—in what sense could Jesus (who is mentioned by that name twice prior to this point in Hebrews, in 2.9 and 3.1) have given the Israelites rest?—until they realized that the reference is in fact to Joshua, who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land but did not actually give them rest. The ambiguity of the name ’Ιησοῦς involves the readers in untangling the author’s meaning; but this is not merely an unfortunate side-effect of two people having the same name: rather, the process of distinguishing Joshua from Jesus also points to the similarities between the two figures. It is partly on this basis that Richard Ounsworth has argued at length for a Joshua typology in Hebrews. 31
Ounsworth notes the broad narrative similarities between the situation of the wilderness generation poised to enter Canaan and that of the audience of Hebrews awaiting an eschatological rest: both audiences have ‘been evangelized’ (Heb. 4.2), a fact which highlights the exceptional faithfulness of Joshua and Jesus (cf. Jesus’ role in announcing salvation in Heb. 2.3). Joshua and Jesus both exceed Moses in terms of faithfulness, and they succeed where Moses did not, namely, in bringing God’s people into the place of rest. Dissimilarity (also an inherent feature of typology) exists in the fact that Joshua, although he brought the Israelites into Canaan, did not ultimately give them rest. The audience was probably already prepared to see an analogy between Joshua and Jesus, and they would be ‘struck anew by this identity when the name ’Ιησοῦς appears at 4.8, because of the structure and argument of this section of the Epistle’ (Ounsworth 2012: 96). If the audience thus understands Israel’s relationship to Joshua as in some degree analogous to their relationship to Jesus, they are thereby prepared for a reference to Jesus in relation to the present availability of divine rest. 32 The similarity in wording between vv. 8 and 10 reinforces this connection, enabled by the possibility of using καταπαύω both transitively and intransitively: compare εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ’Ιησοῦς κατέπαυσεν (v. 8, ‘if Jesus/Joshua had rested them’) with καὶ αὐτὸς κατέπαυσεν (v. 10, ‘he himself also rested’). 33
Moreover, the comparison of God with ὁ εἰσελθών, if this is Jesus, demonstrates a further way in which Jesus the antitype surpasses Joshua the type: the statement juxtaposes the creative works of God with the salvific works of Christ (note that τὰ ἔργα is used to refer to God’s saving acts in the quotation of Ps. 95.9 in Heb. 3.9). This, then, enables us to identify the ‘works’ with confidence, something which defenders of the standard reading are unable to do. 34 There is a careful patterning: each party enters rest only after the completion of his specific and deeply important task, a parallel which becomes less exact if ὁ εἰσελθών refers to believers. 35
All of the above considerations together make the christological reading not only possible but likely, and on this basis it is suggested that Heb. 4.10 ought to be translated along the following lines: ‘For the one who entered God’s rest has himself also rested from his works, just as God did from his.’
Rest and the Completion of Christ’s Work
The remaining part of this article aims to demonstrate the coherence of the christological understanding of 4.10 with the emphasis elsewhere in Hebrews on the completion of Christ’s work, particularly as expressed through its use of Ps. 110.1. First, it is necessary to deal with a problem arising from Heb. 7.25. This verse describes the ongoing intercession of the exalted Christ for his people, a clear statement of present heavenly activity which suggests that Hebrews does not envisage Christ as ceasing from work. However, to draw this conclusion is to make the false assumption that rest is to be equated with cessation from activity; in fact, the biblical idea of rest on which Hebrews draws seems to imply the cessation of one form of activity (God’s creation, the wilderness wandering) in favour of another (sustaining creation, living in the land), a notion which finds support in the tradition in Jn 5.17 regarding Jesus’ work on the Sabbath being akin to God’s continued work. 36 Additionally, there is an important sense in which, for Hebrews, Christ has finished his salvific work, and the author sees no contradiction between this predominant emphasis and his statement in 7.25. 37 Both the notion of Christ’s session at the right hand of God (Ps. 110.1) and the recurrent emphasis on the ἐφάπαξ or ἅπαξ nature of Christ’s offering (Heb. 7.27; 9.12, 26, 28; 10.10) serve to underline the completed nature of the atonement that Christ has achieved. 38
Turning to Ps. 110, it is well known that this is the Old Testament chapter most cited in the New. 39 The use of this psalm by Hebrews to establish and interweave the ideas of Christ’s Lordship, Sonship and Priesthood has been noted and explored. 40 Psalm 110.1, which describes the enthronement of a ‘lord’ figure, is from the very beginning of Hebrews associated with Christ’s priestly work (1.3), and this idea is taken up and expanded later (cf. esp. 8.1-2; 10.12-13). 41 Psalm 110.4, meanwhile, is the starting point of Hebrews’ extensive discussion of Melchizedek. 42 Indeed, these citations and allusions are so great in number and so widely distributed throughout the letter that George Buchanan described the whole book as ‘a homiletical midrash based on Psalm 110’ (Buchanan 1972: xix). 43
The general impression that Ps. 110 is important for Hebrews is confirmed by a close look at the quotations from and allusions to the psalm in the letter. Psalm 110.1 is cited in Heb. 1.13, while Ps. 110.4 is cited three times (Heb. 5.6; 7.17, 21). In addition to these direct quotations, there are at least 13 allusions to the psalm. 44 Of the total of 17 citations and allusions, 6 refer to v. 1 of Ps. 110, and 11 to v. 4.
Taking these six references to v. 1, it is of note that four of them describe an enthronement which is not simply messianic, but which contains a sacerdotal or cultic element as well. Thus Heb. 1.3 states that ‘When [the Son] had made purification for sins, he sat down’; 8.1: ‘we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand’; 10.12: ‘when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down’; and 10.13 follows on in the same cultic context as the previous verse. The cultic idea is of course not absent from Ps. 110, which speaks in v. 4 of the priesthood of Melchizedek, and Hebrews intertwines and elaborates these ideas. The implication of the association of a sacrificial context with the idea of sitting down is made clear by 10.11-12, which contrasts the Levitical priests endlessly standing at their cultic service with Christ sitting down after offering his single sacrifice. 45 That is, the session of Christ for Hebrews implies not just his enthronement as Messiah, but also the completion of his priestly, atoning work. This is seen right from the beginning of the letter in 1.3. Moreover, the precise nature of that sacrificial work requires Jesus to enter the heavenly Most Holy Place in his role of high priest, as is made explicit in 4.14; 6.19-20; 9.11-12, 24. This emphasis on completion is reinforced by Hebrews’ extensive use of ἐφάπαξ and ἅπαξ to refer to Christ’s offering, often in close conjunction with an emphasis on entrance (9.12) or with the use of Ps. 110 (Heb. 7.27; 10.10). 46 All this demonstrates that the cultic construal of the session of Christ adds to it the idea of entrance.
With this background in place, we can return to Heb. 4.10. When this verse is read christologically, a couple of considerations demonstrate that it is closely parallel to the Christology associated with Ps. 110.1: the first is the notion of entrance, which, as argued, is an essential precursor to the idea of session for the author of Hebrews. The identification of κατάπαυσις as a resting place rather than a state reinforces this connection: 47 just as the ascended Christ has entered heaven, construed as a sanctuary, so also he has entered God’s resting place, which remains a future hope for his people. The second reason to discern a parallel is the close match between the sequencing of both ideas. It is significant that, just as rest follows works (of salvation), so Christ’s session follows the completion of his sacrificial work of purification. 48 This patterning was highlighted above: in the context of ch. 4, God’s rest on the seventh day followed his works of creation, and Jesus’ rest followed his works (of salvation), just as elsewhere in Hebrews Jesus’ session follows his sacrificial work. Once this parallel is noted, Hebrews’ creativity with regard to the idea of ‘sitting at the right hand’ is revealed: in addition to developing the concept of a cultic session in contrast to the ongoing, standing service of the priests, the author associates this priestly-messianic session with the concept of rest, which is achieved by the prophetic leader figure of the new Joshua.
Conclusion: Rest, and the Rest of the Letter
It remains to draw out the implications of the reading advocated in this article. The christological reading of Heb. 4.10 brings closer together the two ideas of entering God’s rest and entering the Most Holy Place. Some proximity between these is generally admitted by most commentators; thus, for example, Koester states that ‘the motif of God’s people sojourning in the desert is one of the three great cycles of images in Hebrews, along with entering the sanctuary and journeying to Zion’ (2001: 262). Such a statement is uncontroversial so far as it goes, but leaves open the possibility that these ‘cycles of images’ are no more than that—three figurative aides which are juxtaposed but not related to each other. Yet if Jesus has entered the true rest, which Canaan foreshadowed, before and on behalf of his people, then it transpires that the rest motif is saying something which will be re-expressed later in terms of Jesus entering the true sanctuary, of which the tabernacle was a ‘shadow’ (8.5), before and on behalf of his people. Although not dependent on the parallel with Ps. 110.1, this association is strengthened by that connection, given that Ps. 110.1 elsewhere is used to describe the completion of Christ’s cultic work. It is not that these ideas are identical, but that the striking similarities in their patterning suggest that they both provide a window not merely onto God’s salvific action, but onto his salvific action through Christ. 49
This brings us back to Wray’s contention that rest remains only a theological metaphor within Hebrews, and that it is not connected with Christ. At one level, Wray’s conclusion that the concept of rest in Heb. 3–4 is largely ‘theocentric and anticipatory’ is uncontroversial: Christology is not overly prominent or developed in Heb. 3.7–4.13. Nevertheless, Christology is present; indeed, it would be surprising if Christ were far from the thoughts of either author or audience, given the extensive and exalted Christology found in the sections that precede and follow the exposition of Ps. 95. This article has shown that there is significant evidence suggesting that, in addition to Heb. 3.14, one other reference to Christ can be discerned in 4.10, with the implication that rest does become christocentric towards the end of this section of Hebrews. Yet this reference is not simply a ‘christological connection’; it is rather a christological foundation, introducing Christ as the basis for the Sabbath rest that remains available to God’s people.
Footnotes
1.
An earlier version of this piece was delivered at the Tyndale Fellowship Conference in July 2012. I am grateful to Markus Bockmuehl, Philip Church, Alexander Kirk, and Richard Ounsworth for comments and conversations which have greatly helped its development.
2.
The decision to translate with a plural in the
3.
4.
Of course, these dichotomies are oversimplified. Nevertheless, the problem clearly exists both in Hebrews itself and in the scholarly literature. Käsemann 1939 saw the pilgrim motif as fundamental to the whole letter. Johnsson 1978 noted the dichotomy in terms of the treatment of the different motifs, pilgrimage by Protestant and cult by Roman Catholic scholars. Scholars continue to address the question; see the helpful problematization, with survey of scholarship, in Whitfield 2013: 1-49. Note also the titles and subjects of Richard Ounsworth’s doctoral thesis (Ounsworth 2010, published version 2012) and Jared Calaway’s monograph (
).
5.
A recent argument for reading the list of OT figures as types of Christ is offered by . He utilizes both typology and the Graeco-Roman rhetorical category of encomium to argue for this. Intriguingly, he suggests that ‘the reproach of the Christ’ in 11.26 is a reference to solidarity with the suffering of the people of God, rather than a reference to Jesus (pp. 204-206).
6.
7.
‘Since the illustration from Psalm 94…provides an argument via negativa, the text says more about what : 90). This strikes me as an inadequate ground for denying a christological connection to the theme of rest, given that the motifs of promise and entrance also function negatively in Heb. 3–4, yet are developed christologically later in the letter.
8.
9.
10.
So, e.g., Gouge 1655; Delitzsch 1857; Braun 1984; Ellingworth 1993; .
11.
Andriessen and Lenglet 1971: 75. : 255-57. The six arguments are: (1) the three other occurrences of a singular aorist of εἰσέρχομαι refer to Christ’s entry into heaven; (2) it is not uncommon for a vague expression to denote God or Christ; (3) Hebrews uses the present for general statements, not the aorist; (4) believers are sharers in Christ, who goes before them; (5) an implicit Joshua typology in Heb. 4.8 prepares the allusion to the ‘true Joshua’ in v. 10; (6) Hebrews uses the plural in speaking of the approach of Christians to God. To my mind arguments 2, 4 and 6 are inconclusive, but there is merit to arguments 1, 3 and 5. Reference will be made to Ellingworth’s counter-arguments where appropriate.
12.
For a summary, see Wallace 1996: 504-12. Porter (1989: esp. 75-108) is a major proponent of the view that tense contains no temporal reference; : 198) defends the view that tenses in the indicative mood do grammaticalize time.
14.
Porter 1989: 217-25, 233-38 distinguishes between ‘gnomic’ (true of all times) and ‘timeless’ (where a temporal reference does not exist), whereas many other grammars use ‘gnomic’ to cover both of these, e.g., Fanning 1990: 208-209, though he does distinguish between the two nuances. For the purposes of this article this distinction is inconsequential, though Porter does explicitly identify Heb. 4.10 as an example of an ‘individual use of the timeless Aorist’ (1989: 237). Fanning, by contrast, classifies it as a proleptic aorist (: 269-70).
15.
Fanning 1990: 126-96; see also who is critical of both Fanning and Porter for assuming there must be an ‘invariant’ part of a verb which is overridden by other factors.
16.
Contra Ellingworth 1993: 256 who takes εἰσελθών to be ‘coincident action’. This point is strengthened by the arguments of that κατάπαυσις should be understood as ‘resting place’.
17.
18.
Note also that when a participle is substantival—and particularly if it is used in a gnomic sense, as Ellingworth takes it here—‘its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force’ (: 615-16). This may suggest that the primary reason for using the aorist is to imply antecedent action to the main verb.
19.
Substantival aorist participles in the plural occur in Heb. 2.1, 3; 3.16 (×2), 17, 18; 4.2, 3, 6; 6.4-5 (×4), 18; 11.31; 12.19. παραπεσόντας in 6.6 might also be taken as substantival (as are all four participles in 6.4-5, which depend on the article in 6.4, although note that a participle does not require the article to be substantive; see : 183). In the singular: 3.2, 3, 4; 4.10; 5.5; 9.16, 17; 10.23, 28, 29 (×3), 30; 11.11, 17; 13.20. By contrast, present participles that function as substantives tend overwhelmingly to have present or gnomic reference (e.g., 2.11, 14, 18; 5.9; 7.25; 8.1, 4; 9.9, 28; 10.1, 14; 13.3, 24). They are also occasionally used to describe past situations (e.g., 5.7; 7.6, 21; 12.20-21, 25), although this is most often with verbs of speech, vision or ἔχω. All statistical data have been obtained using BibleWorks9.
20.
21.
BDAG, 189, ‘γάρ’ 1.; see also Owen 1980: IV, 333; : 168.
22.
Ellingworth 1993: 257 is forced to concede this meaning for γάρ here. Cf. BDAG, 189, ‘γάρ’ 2. This is a possible meaning, but more unusual. The hapax σαββατισμός is usually translated ‘Sabbath rest’, to underscore its connection with κατάπαυσις, although, given the meaning of the cognate verb σαββατίζειν, it is best understood as ‘Sabbath celebration’. See : 276-77, 279.
23.
The fronting of ἀπολείπεται suggests that this is the primary question left open by v. 9, rather than the issue of what the σαββατισμός is like. Contra : 296 who thinks the question that v. 9 raises is ‘from what do believers rest?’—yet this conflicts with his own contention that σαββατισμός refers not to rest but to Sabbath celebration.
24.
One other possible referent has been suggested to me (at a meeting of the Oberseminar of the Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, LMU, Munich, January 2013): the ‘faithful departed’, possibly including the faithful generation who entered Canaan and Jesus-believers from the community who have died (cf. Rev. 14.13). While Hebrews shows an interest in believers who have died (e.g., Heb. 4.2; 12.23), it strongly emphasises their solidarity with the present generation of believers and, further, their dependence on them for full perfection (11.39-40). It therefore seems very unlikely that this group would be alluded to in Heb. 4.10.
25.
Although in 4.3 we find a present tense of ‘enter’, from the wider context of the passage, and especially 4.11 (‘make every effort to enter’), it is clear that the audience has not yet entered the rest. Pace Lane 1991: I, 99 who takes εἰσερχόμεθα in 4.3 to be a true present. O’Brien 2010: 165-66 takes it to be a futuristic present; : 154-56, meanwhile, emphasises the continuous aspect of the present tense: we are in the process of entering the rest, such that if we continue we will indeed enter it, but if we do not, we will be debarred from entering, just as the wilderness generation was.
26.
This use of the singular is Owen’s second point (1980: IV, 333). Cf. Vanhoye 1976: 100 n. 1; also : 255-56, who concedes that this is ‘accurate as stated’; he goes on to note two aorist plural constructions using εἰσέρχομαι with the wilderness generation as the subject (3.19; 4.6), but this does not explain why the author did not use a plural participle at 4.10, especially given that ‘the people of God’ are in view in 4.9.
27.
This is generally taken to mean God’s rest; if the verse refers to Christ, it could be a reference to Christ’s rest, but there does not seem to be much commending this reading—rather, the sense is that Christ joins God in his rest. Owen nevertheless sees a reference to Christ’s rest as both evident and central to the interpretation of Heb. 4.10 (1980: IV, 333). On the background of the rest motif, see : 17-158, and on rest in Hebrews, see pp. 252-358; he argues that it should be understood consistently as ‘resting place’.
28.
The link between Christ’s entry into rest and believers’ entry into that same rest is further strengthened by the intimate connection between Jesus and God’s people, who are μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ (3.14; cf. 2.10; 6.20; 12.2; on Christ’s solidarity with believers, see : 45-69, esp. 45-49). Thus it is fair to affirm that, for Hebrews, believers will experience the same kind and quality of rest that God enjoys; however, this does not to my mind constitute an argument for the christological reading of Heb. 4.10 (pace Vanhoye, Andriessen and Lenglet, and deSilva).
29.
30.
Ellingworth 1993: 257; point out that Hebrews elsewhere uses vague expressions for God and Christ. Ellingworth counters that Hebrews also uses vague expressions to describe the authors of scripture, e.g. 2.6 (p. 256). On its own, this consideration is not decisive in either direction.
31.
Ounsworth 2012: esp. 55-97, though note that he barely discusses 4.10 and does not mention the christological reading; cf. Vanhoye 1976: 100, who speaks of the ‘chemin ouvert…par le nouveau Josué notre précurseur’ (emphasis original). Whitfield 2013: 247-57 also argues that Joshua son of Nun is a model for Hebrews’ description of Jesus, and opts for the christological reading of 4.10 (pp. 244-45, 252-53; thanks to Michael Kibbe for drawing this to my attention). Whitfield additionally seeks to revive the view of J. Rendel Harris and F.C. Synge that Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3) also underlies the presentation of Jesus in Hebrews. : 256 objects that Hebrews usually makes typological comparisons explicitly.
32.
’Ιησοῦς next comes in 4.14, but here the reference is clearly to Jesus, as prepared by the present tense of ἐχοντες and the lengthy description, ‘a great high priest who has passed through the heavens’. ’Ιησοῦς occurs a further 10 times in Hebrews, making a total of 14 occurrences, of which all except 4.8 refer to Jesus.
33.
Delitzsch 1857: 144 raises a similar objection against Ebrard (see also : I, 318), wondering why the author did not simply use ‘Christ’, in response to which it can be noted that the use of a different name or title for Jesus would disrupt an intended comparison between ’Ιησοῦς son of Nun and ’Ιησοῦς the Messiah.
34.
E.g., Ellingworth 1993: 257. The noun ἔργον appears nine times in Hebrews; in 6.1 and 9.14 it refers to the dead works of humans; in 6.10 and 10.24 it is the good works of Christians. Yet in 1.10 and 4.3, 4 it refers to the creative works of God, and in 3.9 (citing Ps. 95) it denotes God’s salvific works among the wilderness generation; as it is Ps. 95 which gives rise to the idea that rest remains to be entered, it is entirely plausible that the same sense obtains here. Wray 1998: 78-79 has an excursus on ‘work’, but, like Ellingworth, remains ambiguous on whether believers will rest from ‘dead works’ or ‘good works’ in Heb. 4.10. Cockerill 2012: 212 identifies them as ‘the “works” of one’s earthly pilgrimage’, but goes on to speak of resting from the pressures that a Christian faces, not from the works themselves; : 296-97 rejects ‘dead works’, but admits that ‘to choose between “good works” and “toils”…is difficult’.
35.
Owen notes this patterning as his fourth argument for this reading (1980: IV, 333). Note also the conjunction of the ideas of creation and session/rest in Heb. 1.2-3. Although here the Son is involved in the work of creating and sustaining all things, he does not sit down until he has completed the work of providing purification for sins. : 211 notes this patterning, though he does not ultimately opt for this reading: ‘redemption parallels creation: just as God rested from his works of creation, so the Son has now rests [sic] from his works of redemption… rest established by God, access provided through Christ’.
36.
The issue of whether or not God works on the Sabbath was contested in the Second Temple period. According to Jub. 2.18, God and the two highest classes of angels observe the Sabbath, apparently while the lower classes of angels preside over creation; Philo, by contrast, holds that God works even on the Sabbath—as the perfect Being he always rests, even when working (Leg. All. 1.5; Cher. 87-90; Quaest. in Gen. 2.56); rabbinic solutions include the contention that God may act as he pleases in his own private domain, or that God rests from his work as creator but not from his work as judge. See : 185-86.
37.
‘In the context of Hebrews rest does not mean inactivity, since from his position of rest, the Son sustains all things by his word (1:3) and actively intercedes on behalf of others (7:25)’ (: 279). A further parallel which supports this understanding is the fact that future rest for believers will entail Sabbath celebration (σαββατισμός, 4.9), not idleness.
38.
It is important to be clear that Hebrews’ use of ἐφάπαξ and ἅπαξ implies completion rather than strict punctiliarity or singularity: on the Day of Atonement, which forms the primary model for Hebrews’ elucidation of Christ’s death, and which is described as ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ in Exod. 30.10 (LXX), Lev. 16.34 (LXX) and Heb. 9.7, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place more than once (twice according to Philo, Leg. Gai. 306-307, once with the blood of the bull for himself, and once with the blood of the goat for the people; other interpreters reckoned he must have entered at least three times, first with incense, cf. Lev. 16.12-14, and m. Yoma 1.1-4; 7.4 counts four entries). See : 289-94 and passim, who argues that the atonement should be understood as a sequence (but a finished sequence, not an ongoing one).
39.
40.
See, e.g., Anderson 2001; Leschert 1994: 212-41; Loader 1978: 205-208; .
41.
42.
Primarily ch. 7, but anticipated in 5. 6, 10 and 6.20.
43.
So also Stanley 1994: 253: Hebrews ‘is most fundamentally an exposition of Psalm 110:1 and 4’. As a result, he sees the psalm as the key to the structure of Hebrews; a similar application of this thesis, though yielding different results, is the attempt by to discern in Ps. 110 (as a whole) the structure for the whole of Hebrews.
44.
These are 1.3; 5.10; 6.20; 7.3, 11, 20, 24, 25, 28; 8.1; 10.12, 13; 12.2. I have included only those allusions which come directly from Ps. 110, such as ‘the order of Melchizedek’, ‘for ever’, ‘the oath’, ‘seated/sat down’ etc., not ones which are too general or could derive from elsewhere (e.g., just ‘Melchizedek’ or ‘high priest’). I have therefore discounted the following references: 2.9, 17; 3.1; 10.21; 12.22 (Jordaan and Nel 2010: 229); 2.5, 8; 5.5; 7.1-2, 4-10 (Stanley 1994: 251); cf. also : 919-95. I am aware that the term ‘allusion’ is somewhat imprecise, as is the distinction between an allusion and a quotation. Here I use ‘allusion’ in a relatively narrow sense to refer to actual occurrences of words, phrases and syntax that are found in the alluded OT text. Beale and Carson 2007: xxiii acknowledge this difficulty, yet do not go on to define allusion.
45.
46.
More than the rest of the NT put together; the only other places this term is found to describe the death of Christ are Rom. 6.10 (ἐφάπαξ) and 1 Pet. 3.18 (ἅπαξ). See n. 38, above, on the background and connotations of this term.
47.
Laansma shows that the local meaning of κατάπαυσις is prominent in the LXX. Combined with the context of Heb. 3–4 and the evidence in postbiblical Jewish literature of expectation for a future resting-place, this strongly suggests that κατάπαυσις should be understood locally; σαββατισμός, by contrast, is the activity or state which occurs within that resting place (: 17-158, 252-358, esp. 276-83).
48.
49.
This lends substance to the intuition of Attridge 1989: 128: ‘The Christians’ “entry into rest” parallels Christ’s entry into the divine presence and in fact their entry is made possible by his’. On the proximity of these motifs, see also Ounsworth 2012 and .