Abstract
This article addresses the connection between the Christological claims in Heb. 1.2b-4 and the scriptures cited in 1.5-13. The claims are closely matched by the following scriptures in each instance except one, namely, the assertion about the Son’s death in 1.3c. Given the importance of the Son’s death for the author’s Christology (and soteriology), the lack of correspondence is striking. To account for this apparent oversight, I suggest that the citation of LXX Ps. 8.5-7 in Heb. 2.6-8 takes up this claim. Through the catena and LXX Ps 8.5-7, the author supports his Christological claims and establishes that God’s speaking through the Son is consistent with his activity among the prophets.
The opening sentence of Hebrews, comprising 1.1-4, is widely regarded as one of the most creative sentences in the Greek New Testament. The statement strings together several dependent clauses and employs techniques such as alliteration to draw the reader into the message to come. 1 The author showcases at the start his rhetorical prowess, a feature that runs throughout the rest of the text. Yet, the statement is not simply one of rhetorical flourish. It is also theologically rich. The claims made about the Son (1.2b-4) set the tone and direction of the letter, for whatever else Hebrews is, it is a Christological text. The author is concerned throughout with explaining how Jesus’ life (earthly and heavenly) impinges on the lives of his readers in their present situation. The opening verses set out succinctly and forthrightly the Christology of the author.
Next, in 1.5-13 the author quotes seven scriptures that provide further details about the Son. The relationship between the opening Christological claims (1.2b-4) and the catena (1.5-13) has been widely recognized. While some note a fairly generic connection, others argue for a tighter relationship. In two important essays, John Meier (1985a, 1985b) draws attention to several features. First, there is a numerical symmetry: both sections consist of seven points. The remarks about the Son in 1.2b-4 consist of seven statements typically marked out by pronouns or participles modifying ‘in a Son’ (ἐν υἱῷ) (Meier 1985a: 172-73; cf. Bauckham 2004: 172). 2 The seven phrases are:
Three points should be briefly elaborated. First, the third claim consists of two phrases in the single participial expression begun by ὤν. The καί joins the two phrases together. Second, the sixth claim, although not having a participle or pronoun, is distinguished from the fifth by the change in theme and is part of the relative clause begun in 1.3. It is also marked off from the surrounding statements by the verb ἐκάθισεν. Third, the seventh claim is marked out by the participle γενόμενος, which ties the statement back to the phrase ‘in a Son’. It is possible that the last statement should not be considered as one of the Christological claims. 3 It certainly stands apart from the other claims. William Lane (1991: 7) and Daniel Ebert (1992: 168) have suggested that 1.4 parallels the opening statement in vv.1-2a. Both statements deal with revelation by contrasting the Son with other mediators. This view, however, misunderstands the function of the angels in the discourse, for they are not introduced in 1.4-14 as agents of revelation. 4
Second, Meier contends that 1.2b-4 and the catena have the same theological movement structured in a ring. He (Meier 1985b: 523) summarizes his findings: I would therefore maintain that, while the correspondence is not one-for-one, there is a general symmetry between the movement of thought in the seven Christological designations in Heb. l,2b-4 and the movement of thought in the seven OT citations in 1,5-14. In each case, the train of thought begins with Christ’s exaltation (1,2b; 1,5-6), moves back to creation (1,2c; 1,7), moves ‘farther back’ to preexistence, divinity, and eternal rule (1,3a; 1,8bc), moves forward again to creation as well as governance and guidance of creation (1,3b; 1,10-12), moves all the way up to exaltation again (1,3d; 1,13), and draws a final conclusion comparing Christ’s exalted status to the angels’ inferior role (1,4; 1,14). The ring closes where it opened.
Meier’s study is important because it recognizes the tight connections between the exordium and the catena. Nevertheless, several problems arise with Meier’s contention that the two passages share the same structure. Meier (1985a: 175) argued that the Christological claims and the catena share a numerical symmetry since both contain seven clauses or quotations. However, while the number seven is perhaps important and may indicate that the two passages were composed with some symmetry, the two sets of seven do not match up quite as Meier suggests. The Christological statement in 1.2b-4 contains seven distinct statements, but the catena, although having seven quotations, only has five Christological ‘movements’. The first two quotations in Heb. 1.5-6 (quoting Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14 respectively) are given to make the same point rather than two points. Additionally, 1.14 – the final conclusion – is not a scriptural quotation. If the two passages were meant to parallel each other in their structure, one would have expected a scriptural quotation to match 1.4 rather than a comment by the author. In fact, the focus of 1.14 is not Christological, as the supposed corresponding statement from 1.4 is, for the author shifts from Christ to the believing community in 1.14 (cf. Wider 2015: 36). This disjunction in how the two sections coordinate indicates that the fact that both sections have seven expressions is less important than Meier suggests.
Meier’s reading also overlooks several verses. Gareth Cockerill (2012: 102 n. 12) notes that Meier does not take account of 1.3c or 1.9. Hebrews 1.9 is part of the quotation of LXX Ps. 44.7-8 (ET 45.6-7), so it is possible to include this whole citation as evidence for Meier’s reading. 5 It is not necessary that every word from a verse be paralleled directly with a Christological claim. This lessens the force of Cockerill’s criticism. More significant is that Meier can provide no parallel in the catena for Heb. 1.3c (its absence from Table 1 is not by accident). Meier (1985b: 523 and n. 58), aware of this problem, suggests that 1.9a or 1.9bc could provide a parallel, but he considers it doubtful. 6 Jody Barnard (2012: 136-43, 219), however, develops this possibility. Drawing parallels to the Testament of Levi, he suggests that the ‘scepter of justice’ (Heb. 1.8) and the act of anointing (1.9) are better understood as indications of the Son’s priestly investiture than royal messianic concepts. 7 Additionally, he contends that the language of ‘son’ is given priestly connotations in 1.3, which are then developed in the quotations in 1.5-6. These readings, however, are not entirely persuasive. The conclusion that the Son sits on the throne (1.3d, 13) points more directly to kingly motifs than priestly. Additionally, given the widespread understanding of these texts in royal messianic terms, it is doubtful that a reader would draw connections with priestly notions without any clear guidance from the author. The author of Hebrews provides no direction to the readers that these texts should be interpreted in any way other than how they are typically understood. The problem remains, then, that 1.3c finds no counterpart in the catena. Indeed, it is striking that the author of Hebrews has gone to such lengths to support his Christological claims with scriptural texts, but on this point – a crucial idea for his whole argument – he seems to have missed out entirely.
Meier’s ring structure
It is precisely this problem that I address in this article. Simply stated, my argument is that the quotation of LXX Ps. 8.5-7 (ET 8.4-6) in Heb. 2.6-8 is the missing scriptural element. This quotation continues in the same vein as the catena in that it supports and expands on the Christological claims made in the opening sentence. In particular, the Psalms text connects with the third Christological claim (Heb. 1.3c) and adds support to the life pattern of the Son. To establish this claim, the article proceeds in two parts. First, I explore in greater depth the connections between the exordium and the catena. Having established the tight relationship between the two, secondly, I provide evidence for linking the assertion about the Son’s death with Ps. 8.5-7. Finally, I draw out some implications of this argument for the interpretation of Hebrews.
1. The Connections Between the Exordium (1.1-4) and the Catena (1.5-13)
Hebrews 1.2b-4 encapsulates the author’s Christology. These statements set forth key ideas about the Son’s relationship to God, his role in creation and salvation, and his exaltation. Brought together in a creed-like statement, the individual Christological claims actually point beyond themselves to larger theological ideas. 8 For example, sonship is an important theme in Hebrews, but what is meant by it is not made clear in the opening sentence. Similarly, several of the words, such as ἔθηκεν or γενόμενος, are open to multiple meanings. The third claim in particular is rather imprecise. As concise assertions, the Christological claims point toward certain ideas, but they themselves are summaries of larger theological beliefs. As a result, each of the claims begs for greater explanation. The catena following the initial claims provides the author’s first step toward filling out the meaning of the claims. This section explores how the catena expands on the Christological claims made in 1.2b-4.
1.1 Enthronement of the Son
That the catena is designed to expand on the opening sentence is clear, although the way in which it does this is less obvious. A common view suggests that, because of the contrast drawn between the angels and the Son, the catena is intended as a polemic. The author could be critiquing the worship of angels (cf. Col. 2.18) or the idea that believers will worship with the angels. The target has been identified as a deficient Christology in which Christ is viewed as an angel (see the discussions and literature in Lane 1991: 8; Attridge 1989: 51-53). Recently Randall Gleason (2003) has proposed that the author critiques the reliance on angels for ‘national deliverance and personal hope’.
The view that the catena is a polemic against some errant Christology has, however, been strongly criticized. The text gives no clear indication that it is countering a false view about angels here or anywhere else in the letter (Lane 1991: 9; Bauckham 2004: 171). On the contrary, the author’s positive use of angels in Heb. 2.1-4 is difficult to understand if 1.4-14 is aimed at some false view of angels. Additionally, 12.22 suggests that the believing community is, in some way, presently joined with the angels. Whether the author envisions the believing community as worshiping together with the angels is not made clear. In view of this later statement, though, it is doubtful the author would be rejecting some form of angel worship or worship with the angels in 1.4-14 and then make such a careless claim at the end of his work. 9
Rather than reading the catena as a polemic, several recent studies have emphasized the enthronement motif that runs throughout the catena. 10 The enthronement motif provides a clear connection to the exordium. The exordium begins with an allusion to enthronement when it identifies the Son as heir (1.2). This may be alluding to Ps. 2.7, which is also the first text quoted in the catena (Heb. 1.5). The author cites 2 Sam. 7.14 in parallel with Ps. 2.7 to reinforce the notion of God speaking to the Son about their relationship. The idea is that these words are spoken at the point when the Son is installed on his throne. The sixth Christological claim also brings the enthronement imagery to the forefront through the allusion to LXX Ps. 109.1 (ET 110.1). This text is quoted at the end of the catena (Heb. 1.13), where it functions like a capstone that holds the previous quotations together. The description of the Son’s throne and his rule in Heb. 1.8-9 (quoting LXX Ps. 44.7-8 [ET 45.6-7]) belongs also to the focus on enthronement.
Additionally, the motif of enthronement explains the references to the angels broadly as well as the citation of Deut. 32.43 in Heb. 1.6 specifically. According to Richard Bauckham (2004: 172), ‘In Jewish literature the transcendence of God is frequently portrayed by locating God’s cosmic throne in the heights of heaven, far above all other heavenly beings, the angels’. 1 Enoch 14 refers to God’s ‘lofty throne’, which the angels cannot even approach (14.18-22), and 2 En. 20.3 describes Enoch, who is among the angelic host in the seventh heaven, viewing God ‘from a distance, sitting on his exceedingly high throne’ (for these texts, see Bauckham 1999: 53). 11 When the Son is enthroned ‘in the highest’ (Heb. 1.3), he takes a position above the angels, for he assumes the throne of God (1.13). It is precisely because the Son assumes the throne of God that he is the object of their worship, as 1.6 (quoting Deut. 32.43) indicates. 12 The angels’ worship of the Son indicates that he is the rightful heir and confirms his status as the enthroned king. The angels, therefore, are part of the author’s description of the Son as enthroned. This explains why angels drop out of the picture so quickly: the author employs the angels to make a specific point about the Son’s identity and nothing more.
The theme of enthronement overlies the whole of the catena. This theme, however, does not exhaust the connections between the catena and the exordium. The Christological claims in the exordium are broader than the theme of enthronement, and the scriptural texts cited in the catena (Heb. 1.5-13) connect to these other ideas.
1.2 The Son and Creation
The second Christological claim asserts that the Son was the agent of creation: διʼ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας (Heb. 1.2). 13 The Son’s role in creation reappears in the quotation of LXX Ps. 101.26-28 (ET 102.25-27) in Heb. 1.10-12. The quotation begins by asserting that the Son was already present at the beginning (σὺ κατʼ ἀρχάς). This is demonstrated by the next statement: ‘you laid the foundations of the world and the heavens are the works of your hands’. The phrase κατʼ ἀρχάς may be intended to recall Gen. 1.1 (ἐν ἀρχῇ) and Prov. 8.22-23 (ἀρχήν; ἐν ἀρχῇ). The placement of σύ at the beginning of the citation, rather than in the third place as it is in the LXX (κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς σύ), may be emphatic. 14 Regardless, the point is clear: the Son exists prior to creation and is the one through whom creation came into existence.
The quotation of LXX Ps. 103.4 (ET 104.4) in Heb. 1.7 may also be referring to the Son as the creator of the angels: καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει· Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. It is not clear, however, who is indicated by ὁ ποιῶν. Meier (1985b: 512) notes that all the scriptural quotations in the catena refer to the Son, not God the Father even if the Father is the speaker (as in 1.5-6, 13). This suggests that the author of Hebrews would have understood this text as spoken by the Father about the Son. The Son is the one who ‘makes’ the angels into spirits/winds (πνεύματα) and flames of fire. 15 One may object to this view since, according to the previous quotation (Heb. 1.6 quoting Deut. 32.43), God commands the angels to worship. Since God is the acting agent in Heb. 1.6, one could assume that he remains the acting agent in 1.7. 16 That the author understands ὁ ποιῶν as the Son seems more likely, though. All the quotations make a direct Christological claim, and this statement would not have a direct Christological point if ὁ ποιῶν refers to someone other than the Son (cf. Pierce 2020: 53).
The Son’s role in creation is also the point of the fourth Christological claim: φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ (Heb. 1.3). The difference between the second and fourth Christological claims is that the second focuses on the act of bringing creation into existence while the fourth refers to the process of sustaining creation. This subtle distinction may be found in the words that the Son will be the one who brings creation to its end: ‘like a cloak, you will roll them up’ (Heb. 1.12 quoting LXX Ps. 101.28 [ET 102.27]). The passive verbs (παλαιωθήσονται, ἀλλαγήσονται) used in the psalm may also be understood as divine passives, in this case describing the Son’s activity. Regardless of whether this suggestion is correct, the idea that the Son is involved in creation, as the fourth Christological claim indicates, is clearly supported by the scriptures included in the catena.
1.3 The Divine Identity of the Son
The quotation from LXX Ps. 101.26-28 (ET 102.25-27) in Heb. 1.10-12 also connects with the third Christological claim from the exordium: ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ (1.3a). The third Christological claim is not referring to an act done by or through the Son, but rather makes an ontological assertion about the Son’s nature. The Son shares in the unique identity of God. The psalm also takes an ontological focus in the final statement: ‘but you yourself are [σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ] and your years will not cease’ (Heb. 1.12b quoting LXX Ps. 101.28 [ET 102.27]). 17 This statement contrasts with the previous one about creation’s impermanence (Heb. 1.12). Additionally, the phrase ‘but you remain’ in the middle of the quotation (1.11) emphasizes the Son’s eternality and immutability. Each of these statements is about the eternal and immutable nature of the Son, a feature that he shares with God.
The quotations of LXX Ps. 103.4 (ET 104.4) and LXX Ps. 44.7-8 (ET 45.6-7) in Heb. 1.7 and 1.8-9, respectively, also highlight the eternality and immutability of the Son. The author finds in LXX Ps. 103.4 the idea that the angels are susceptible to change. The angels are said to have been made, and the description of them as being changed into πνεύματα and ‘flame of fire’ suggests, in the view of most commentators, their mutability and temporality. 18 This text is juxtaposed with the next two, which speak about the Son, as the μέν … δέ connecting 1.7 and 1.8 indicates. The angels’ mutability contrasts with the eternal rule of the Son that is mentioned in the quotation of LXX Ps. 44.7 (ET 45.6) and LXX Ps. 101.26-28 (ET 102.25-27). Moreover, as noted above, the quotation from LXX Ps. 101 contrasts the Son’s immutability with the eventual destruction of heaven and earth (Grässer 1990: 92). Commenting on the opening and closing phrases of the quotation from LXX Ps. 101, Bauckham (2004: 181) writes, ‘The opening and concluding affirmations of the Son’s primordial eternity and his eschatological eternity frame what is said about the creation, which came into being and perishes, decays and is renewed, its existence subject to the will of the only eternal One’. Creation itself will be destroyed, discarded like a worn-out garment, but the Son ‘is the same’, the one who ‘remains’.
In the catena, these quotations from LXX Pss. 44, 101 and 103 emphasize the primary characteristics of eternality and immutability. In relation to the Christological claims of the exordium, these psalms give specific content to the broad assertion of the third Christological claim. To announce that the Son is ‘the radiance of his glory and the exact imprint of his being’ is to mean specifically that the Son is eternal and immutable. 19
1.4 Summary
To summarize: this analysis has shown that the exordium and catena are closely connected. Indeed, as Erich Grässer (1971: 71) states, 1.1-4 and 1.5-14 stand together as ‘thesis and interpretation’. 20 This connection extends beyond the reference to angels and the theme of exaltation to each of the Christological claims, except one. Such a close relationship between the two sections, however, raises the question of why there appears to be no scriptural support for the claim about the Son’s sacrificial death. Rather than being an oversight by the author, I suggest that the author intended the quotation of Ps. 8 in Heb. 2.6-9 to provide support.
2. Psalm 8 (Hebrews 2.5-9) and the Christological Claims of the Exordium
After the catena in 1.4-13, the author includes one of his infamous exhortations (2.1-4). In this particular one, he encourages the readers to ‘pay careful attention’ to what they have read. He warns them that if the message delivered by angels, presumably a reference to the Mosaic law, was binding, they can be certain that the message he brings is also binding. This message was announced by the Lord and confirmed by the work of the Spirit. After this brief exhortation, the author introduces and then quotes LXX Ps. 8.5-7 (ET 8.4-6). He follows the quotation with an interpretation in Heb. 2.8b-9. In this section I show how the author’s focus on Ps. 8 connects with the catena and opening sentence. The evidence presented here indicates that the focus on Ps. 8 is intended to provide support to the third Christological claim (Heb. 1.3c). 21
2.1 Connecting 2.5-9 with the Catena
Although some scholars link 2.5-9 directly with 2.1-4 (e.g., Blomberg 2008: 91-92; Easter 2014: 38), several pieces of evidence suggest the author intended the argument in 2.5-9 to be understood as a continuation of the argument begun in 1.5. First, the statement in 2.5 is best understood as resuming the main argument that was broken off at 1.14 by the exhortation in 2.1-4. Both 1.5-14 and 2.1-4 contrast the Son and the angels, but they employ different approaches (Stuckenbruck 1995: 127-28). In 2.1-4 the author assumes the validity of the angels’ message when he uses a lesser to greater argument to argue for the superiority of the message about the Son. Because judgment was certain for those who disobeyed the angels’ message, it is even more certain for those who disobey the Son’s message. In 1.5-14, however, the Son and the angels are on opposing sides of a register. The contrast between the Son and the angels in 2.5 resumes the antithetical perspective of 1.5-14.
Second, the term οἰκουμένη (2.5) has already appeared in 1.6 (‘but again when the first born was led into τὴν οἰκουμένην’), the only other place it appears in Hebrews. Given the careful use of language in Hebrews, the two verses should be read together. In Hebrews, οἰκουμένη likely refers to the place where God himself presently dwells, and 1.6 makes best sense as a reference to the Son entering the place of God’s dwelling where he is enthroned. 22 The author employs οἰκουμένη in 2.5 to reconnect with the scene described in 1.5-13. The description of the οἰκουμένη as ‘coming’ or ‘about to be’ (τὴν μέλλουσαν) does not point against this connection, but instead is part of the eschatological tension of Hebrews (cf. deSilva 2000: 97). In 6.5, the author refers to the ‘powers of the coming age’ (μέλλοντος αἰῶνος), although they are already present in the lives of the readers (cf. 12.22-29).
Third, the quotation from Ps. 8 ties in with the exaltation motif that runs throughout the catena. According to the author’s interpretation of Ps. 8, the subjection of all things to the Son is still to come (Heb. 2.8c). This matches LXX Ps. 109.1, which the author quoted in Heb. 1.13: the Son’s enemies have not yet been placed under his feet. Both texts look forward to the time when the Son’s authority will be all-encompassing. The author’s understanding of Ps. 8 begins from his prior claims about the Son.
2.2 Connecting Psalm 8 with the Christological Claims
The previous arguments indicate that 2.5-9 continues the argumentative line that was broken off in 1.13 (or 1.14). In addition to these arguments, several features about the author’s interpretation of Ps. 8 in Heb. 2.8b-9 point back to the third Christological claim in 1.3.
First, a link between the citation of Ps. 8 and the exordium is seen in the Son’s pattern of life described in both. Throughout Hebrews, suffering is identified as the pathway to glory (e.g., 5.8-10; 12.2). This is stated first in the exordium when the author describes how the Son’s death for sin precedes his exaltation: ‘having made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high’ (1.3). The statement indicates that the Son’s session follows after his sacrificial act (cf. Moore 2020: 526-27). The connection between suffering and exaltation remains undeveloped in the catena but reappears in the author’s interpretation of Ps. 8 in Heb. 2.9: Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον. The act of crowning the Son with glory and honor denotes the exaltation of the Son and aligns with his being seated on the throne. The phrase διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου likely indicates the reason the Son is exalted, namely ‘because of his death’. Psalm 8.7, as the author of Hebrews understands it, provides the pattern of suffering leading to glory. When one connects the Ps. 8 citation with the exordium, then it becomes evident that the author got his claim about the Son’s pattern of life from Ps. 8.
Recognizing this pattern leads to a second connection between Ps. 8 and, in this case, specially the third Christological claim. The Christological claim in Heb. 1.3c makes the Son’s sacrifice on behalf of sin an essential element in the author’s Christology. The catena, however, by-passes this part of the Son’s story. As noted above, all the other elements in the Christological claim are paralleled in the catena. This aspect, however, reappears in the author’s interpretation of Ps. 8 when, in Heb. 2.9, he inserts the expression διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου between two lines from the psalm: τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρʼ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον
The interjection of this remark about the Son’s death between two lines from the psalm indicates that the author finds the psalm to be, in some way, speaking about the Son’s death. It seems likely that the expression διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου provides the reason that the Son is lower than the angels. 23 He is lower precisely because he experiences suffering and death (cf. 2.14-16).
Buried among the other Christological claims in the exordium, the phrase καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος can appear almost insignificant. It seems to lack the grand declaration of the other expressions that describe the Son as creator and ruler. This claim, as we have seen, was not picked up by the catena. It seems instead that the author has reserved his scriptural justification of this phrase for the citation of LXX Ps. 8.5-7 in Heb. 2.6-9. Just as the catena provided scriptural support and elaboration of the other Christological claims, so also the author cites LXX Ps. 8.5-7 to support his claims about the Son.
By delaying the citation, the author indicates two things. First, this statement about the Son’s sacrifice is more important than the other claims for the author’s purposes in this writing. Although Koester (2001: 85) goes too far when he identifies Heb. 2.5-9 as the ‘proposition’ of the argument, the significance of these verses for the author’s argument should not be underestimated. Including the citation of Ps. 8.5-7 in the catena would have risked readers missing the significance of it. Second, this is the first text that the author interprets, which suggests that he thought the meaning of the text was not as obvious when compared to the texts in the catena. Linking Ps. 8 with the Son’s death, exaltation and eventually his full sovereignty required more justification.
3. Implications for Understanding Hebrews
The previous sections have shown how the catena and the quotation of LXX Ps. 8.5-7 develop the author’s Christological claims made in Heb. 1.2b-4. In particular, I have argued that the author’s citation of Ps. 8 and his interpretation in Heb. 2.6-9 relates to the third Christological claim (1.3c). By making this connection, every Christological claim is supported by a scripture. These scriptures are cited not only as proof of the Christological claim, but also to elaborate on the claims. The initial statement of the Christological claims is vague. The scripture texts provide further information and clarification. In this final section, I draw out implications from this argument (1) for how the scriptural texts and the Christological claims relate to the opening statement about God speaking (1.1-2a); and (2) what the link between 1.3c and Ps. 8 indicates for understanding the atonement in Hebrews.
The letter to the Hebrews opens with a powerful announcement about the identity of the Son. However, the claims about the Son in 1.2b-4 should not be separated from the words that actually begin the letter. The exordium falls into two parts. The first part describes God’s speaking activity initially through the prophets and now through his Son (1.1-2a) followed by a description of the Son through whom God has spoken (1.2b-4). While more words are given to the description of the Son, the first part is crucial for the direction that it sets regarding the method the author will adopt in his work. By beginning with the issue of how God has revealed himself, the author indicates that at stake in his work is the relationship between God’s two revelatory acts. On the surface the opening verse seems to stress discontinuity between God’s two acts: (1) God spoke in ‘many ways and at many times’ previously which could indicate incompleteness or variability; and (2) God employed multiple ‘prophets’ in the past but in the present he speaks in only one person (Koester 2001: 177; Johnson 2006: 65-66). The contrast, however, does not indicate discontinuity but rather difference. 24 For the author’s point is to establish that the same God has always been at work among his people and that his final revelation has now been given. The opening statement points to a progressive relationship between God’s speech by the prophets and his speech by his Son. 25
Interestingly, the ‘prophets’ as a group play a rather insignificant role in Hebrews. They are only mentioned again in 11.32 where they are the last mentioned in a quick succession of names that brings the list of faithful people to a conclusion. Stories associated with individual prophets are mentioned in 11.33-38, but the author of Hebrews does not specifically name any. Additionally, of the scriptural texts cited in Hebrews, most come from Psalms and only two texts normally classified as prophetic are quoted: Isa. 8.17-18 in Heb. 2.13 and Jer. 31.31-34 (LXX 38.31-34) in Heb. 8.8-12; 10.16-17 (see Attridge 1989: 38 n. 42). The lack of quotations from explicitly prophetic literature suggests that the category of ‘prophets’ in 1.1 is broader than the prophetic writings (contra Ellingworth 1993: 92-93). It seems likely that when mentioning the ‘prophets’ in 1.1 the author has in view all through whom God formerly spoke. It is this broader view of the referent of ‘prophets’ that enables a link between the opening statement and the catena (1.5-13) and the quotation of Ps. 8 that follows (rightly, Weiss 1991: 139; contra Ellingworth 1993: 93). The scripture texts quoted in Heb. 1.5-13 and 2.6-8 come to the aid of the author by supporting his assertions with the language of the ‘prophets’. 26
By ordering his opening statement around God’s activity of speaking and drawing attention to the two ways in which God has spoken, the author points to a central feature of his work. He is concerned throughout to demonstrate that God’s speech in his Son coheres with that of his previous speaking activity. Hebrews is an exercise in correlating God’s activity in his Son with his prior activities, and it is this concern that leads the author to repeatedly ground his view of Christ in the scriptures. That he finds in scripture contrasts between Christ and God’s prior activities is not itself a problem so long as the author can identify other places where God has spoken that do speak of God’s activity in Christ. 27 This concern with linking the Son with God’s prior speaking activity is taken up immediately in the catena (1.5-13) and the quotation of LXX Ps. 8.5-7, for here the author will give the first explicit example of how the two speaking activities correlate. The catena is not a literary piece merely tagged to the end of the exordium nor is the quotation of Ps. 8 part of a new argument. Rather, together they offer the first piece of evidence demonstrating how God’s speaking activities align.
Connecting the author’s citation and interpretation of Ps. 8 with the Christological claim made in Heb. 1.3c (‘having made purification for sins’) also has implications for the view of atonement presented in Hebrews. A long-running dispute addresses whether the author of Hebrews viewed Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice and where precisely Jesus offered himself. R. Jamieson (2017; cf. 2018: 4-12) provides a comprehensive review of the debate and identifies five different views. Four of the views treat Jesus’ death as in some manner an atoning sacrifice. The fifth view argues that it is in heaven after his resurrection that Jesus effects atonement by offering himself. It is not his death that is the offering for sin, but his life. In recent scholarship this fifth view has been most forcefully stated by David Moffitt (see esp. 2011; cf. 2008, 2017, 2019). He (Moffitt 2011: 220) writes, ‘Jesus’ immortal, resurrection life is the sacrifice – that is, the object that Jesus offers to God – that he offered to effect atonement’. Moffitt argues that the language of ‘body’, ‘blood’ and ‘self’ used in Hebrews for Jesus’ sacrifice refer to Jesus’ resurrection life which he presents to God in heaven. Drawing on Leviticus, Moffitt (2011: 257-71) stresses that ‘blood’ is connected with life not the death of a sacrificial victim. Jesus’ death is necessary for his self-offering in heaven because it begins the process that results in redemption. Crucially, though, his death is not itself an atoning sacrifice.
References to Jesus’ death, Moffitt (2011: 285-95) argues, highlight the suffering he underwent as a human being (e.g., Heb. 5.7-10; 12.2). This is what is in view in 2.9-10 (and 2.14-18) when the author writes about Jesus undergoing ‘the suffering of death’. Moffitt (2011: 285) writes, ‘The logic in these passages emphasizes the Son’s representative participation in the mortal, human condition’. Moreover, these verses do not employ sacrificial language to describe the death of Jesus. Sacrificial and high priestly language appears at 2.17-18, which aligns with the narrative that presents his sufferings as ‘a precondition for him to become a high priest’ (Moffitt 2011: 286).
Moffitt’s emphasis on Jesus’ humanity and his resurrection as crucial for understanding Jesus’ high priestly duties in heaven are important correctives to views that place all the focus on Jesus’ death (cf. also Easter 2014: 107-31; Jamieson 2018: 23-94). Moreover, his account of the narrative of Jesus’ existence accounts for large portions of Hebrews. At the same time, though, his insistence that Jesus’ offering is his resurrection life, not his death, does not fully account for everything Hebrews says about Jesus’ death. In fact, the link between Ps. 8 and Heb. 1.3c points to a correlation between Jesus’ death and his sacrifice for sin. As discussed above, the author interprets Ps. 8 as a narrative of suffering to glory, which he argues Jesus has enacted. In the narrative pattern shared between 1.3 and 2.9, the phrase καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος aligns with διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου as the reason the Son is rewarded. ‘Suffering of death’ may indicate the entire process of the slaughtering of the sacrificial victim to the presentation of its life-blood on the altar. If this is the case, then, ‘suffering of death’ in 2.9 functions as a metonymy for the entire sacrificial event in Jesus’ existence: his death on the cross, resurrection and presentation of himself as an atoning sacrifice to the Father. The parallelism, however, suggests something more narrowly focused: Jesus’ death is the means of making purification for sins. Regardless of which option is taken, the correlation between Jesus’ death and the purification for sins indicates that his death has a more direct connection to the sacrifice he presents to God. R. B. Jamieson (2017: 341) correctly notes that ‘Hebrews never explicitly says something like “Jesus offered himself in his death” or “Jesus offered himself on the cross”’. The parallel between 2.9 and 1.3c, however, leads the reader to make this connection. Psalm 8, as the author interprets it, provides him with scriptural support for his claim that the Son made purification for sin. It does so by establishing that his death is an act of purification for sin. 28
Conclusion
The opening statement of Hebrews has long fascinated readers. The robust Christology combined with powerful rhetorical features draws readers into a text that does not fail to deliver. From beginning to end readers’ imaginations and theological awareness are stretched and pulled in new ways. The author’s creativity is not mere window dressing, though, for he addresses a community facing real challenges. To answer these challenges, he presents to them the God who has spoken in the prophets and in the Son. Through the words of the ‘prophets’ quoted in 1.5-13, the author supports and gives meaning to the Christological claims that he asserts in the opening sentence (1.2b-4). Each claim is tied to the catena except one: ‘having made purification for sins’ (1.3c). The lack of any reference to this claim in the catena is not an oversight by the author. Instead, he reserves the scriptural counterpart to this claim for the quotation of LXX Ps. 8.5-7 in Heb. 2.6-9. With this citation and interpretation of Ps. 8, the author establishes that Jesus’ death makes purification for sins. Moreover, he shows to his readers that God’s speaking activities are consistent. For a wavering community, this message is one of hope and a basis for a faithful life. 29
Footnotes
1.
Hebrews was almost certainly originally a sermon. As it is now, it comes as a letter (Heb. 13.22). I will use ‘author’ and ‘reader’, but ‘preacher’ and ‘listener’ would also work.
2.
The subject of ἐκάθισεν is ὅς at the beginning of 1.3.
3.
4.
Both Lane and Ebert view the exordium as a chiasm, although with differences. In neither of their chiasms, however, does the two statements about the Son’s role in creation align. This suggests that the exordium is not structured as a chiasm.
5.
I use the designation Septuagint/LXX for convenience without making any judgments about the development of the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
6.
What Meier does not point out is that this connection would disrupt the ring structure that supposedly unites the two sections.
7.
8.
Previous scholars suggested that 1.3 particularly was a hymn adopted by the author. As with views about hymnic material elsewhere in the New Testament, the trend is away from identifying this verse as a hymn. Regardless of whether it was a hymn adopted by the author of Hebrews or his own creation, the statement is thoroughly integrated into Hebrews.
9.
10.
In addition to the commentaries, see, e.g., Hurst 1987; Schenck 1997, 2001; Jipp 2010; 
: 45-144. While emphasizing the enthronement motif, the interpretations are not the same on key issues such as when Jesus was appointed ‘Son’ and whether the author refers to Jesus as a divine or human figure.
11.
I have cited the J version of 2 Enoch. The A version is similar. For the texts, see Macaskill 2013: 94-95. Interestingly, the J version puts God’s throne in the tenth heaven, thereby increasing the distance between God and the angels. On the textual issue and the problem this presents for the cosmology of 2 Enoch, see the note in : 134 note a.
12.
The citation of Deut. 32.43 has generated many questions since the textual tradition varies. For details, see Cockerill 1999; summarized in 2012: 105-108. Cf. also Guthrie 2007: 931-32. Hurst’s (1987: 159) claim, based on his reading of 4QDeut (4Q44) 32.43, that the author of Hebrews has in view the people of God, is surely mistaken. The citation may be of LXX Ps. 96.7 (ET 97.7) or a combination of this and Deut. 32.43 (see the discussion in : 70-74, 94-95).
15.
Whether πνεύματα should be interpreted as ‘spirit’ or ‘wind’ has no implications for my point (compare Koester 2001: 193-94 with Cockerill 2012: 108 n. 48) The identification of the angels as λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα in 1.14 may support interpreting πνεύματα in 1.7 as ‘spirits’. On the other hand, the parallel with πυρὸς φλόγα suggests ‘winds’ (cf. Grässer 1990: 81 n. 74). Likewise, I do not think it matters much if ποιῶν indicates that the Son ‘changes’ the angels from one thing to another or has the more precise notion that he ‘created’ them (so : 512-13). Either position aligns with my main point.
16.
17.
Building on observations by B.W. Bacon (1903) and C.F.D. Moule (1962: 79), Hurst (1987: 160-61) argues that the author is not applying a statement about God to the Son but instead reporting what God spoke to the Messiah. He bases this claim on the Greek translation of Ps. 101.24 which renders the Hebrew ענה (MT 102.24) as ἀπεκρίθη. This indicates, he claims, that two actors are now involved, and God is addressing the Messiah as a king. This interpretation, however, is unpersuasive: not only does the context in Hebrews already point to the inclusion of Christ in the divine, but the simpler solution is to recognize here the common Christian practice of ascribing texts describing YHWH to Christ. Note also, in the third edition of Moule’s book (published in 2000), he rejects Bacon’s idea on the grounds that it was common practice in early Christianity to interpret texts as referring to Christ as divine: ‘B. W. Bacon’s extremely ingenious rescue-operation is therefore perhaps inappropriate’ (2000: 100 n. 2). See also : 229-33.
18.
Bruce 1990: 59; Meier 1985b: 512-13; Lane 1991: 29; Cockerill 2012: 108-109. Ellingworth (1993: 120-21) argues that the focus of this verse lies on the angels’ status as ‘servants’ (λειτουργούς; cf. Heb. 1.14) and the idea of mutability is not present. Certainly in 1.14 the author draws out the status of the angels as servants, but in light of 1.8-12, the changeable nature of the angels is at least part of the point. Moffitt (2011: 44-145, esp. 47-53) argues that the contrast here and in the whole of 1.5–2.9 is between the Son, as a human, who is elevated to the throne and the angels as ‘ministering spirits’ (1.14; cf. 1.7). The contrast is not between Jesus’ divinity and the angels as created. I find his suggestions intriguing, and I think he is right to stress the role of Jesus’ humanity for the theology of Hebrews. But I am not convinced that the difference can be located so precisely in the nature of the angels as ‘spirits’. The main contrast here seems to be more on the issues of mutability and eternality (see also : 52-54, 58).
19.
Whether eternal refers only to the future or encompasses the past as well is debated. Caird (1984) and Hurst (1987) dismiss any notions of preexistence. Schenck (1997: 115), more cautiously, contends that the author thought of Christ as preexistent in some manner: ‘What seems certain is that the pre-existent Christ only exists as a function of God, whether it be as his wisdom or in some other way’. Dunn (1989: 208-209), who focuses on wisdom motifs, comes close to Schenck. Caird and particularly Hurst have to stretch the meaning of the passages too far to eliminate all hints of preexistence. Dunn forces the text through a Wisdom Christology. Schenck is correct that preexistence is not the primary motif in the author’s Christology, but he also is too cautious in his explanation. See Bauckham 2004: 184-85; : 69-94, especially 80-81.
20.
‘Die enge literarische und sachliche Verzahnung von 1,1-4 und 1,5-14 kommt dabei so zum Ausdruck, daß beide Abschnitte im Verhältnis von These und Interpretation zueinander stehen.’
21.
The most debated issue in the interpretation of Heb. 2.5-9 is whether the author understand Ps. 8 ‘anthropologically’, referring to humanity in general, or ‘Christologically’, referring specifically to Christ. This issue is too complex to address here. The interpretation presented here aligns with a Christological interpretation, which I have defended in .
22.
There is significant debate about the meaning of οἰκουμένη. Moffitt (2011: 53-118) provides a comprehensive review of the issues. For a briefer presentation, see .
23.
Positioned between the two lines of the Psalm, the phrase διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου likely modifies both (cf. Karrer 2002: 172; : 31).
24.
There is no disjunctive particle between 1.1 and 1.2, despite the insertion of ‘but’ in many English translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NRSV). For a critique of the discontinuity reading, see Smillie 2005: 543-60. : 112-13) gets the balance right.
25.
The preposition ἐν should be taken as instrumental (with, e.g., Attridge 1989: 38 n. 41; Koester 2001: 177; contra Weiss 1991: 138; : 90 n. 19).
26.
27.
I have in mind particularly the contrast the author draws between Christ’s priesthood and the Levitical priesthood (chs. 7–10). Although arguing for the insufficiency of the Levitical rites, the author contends that Christ parallels the Levitical priests (5.1-10). His views do not fit neatly into categories of continuity-discontinuity or acceptance-rejection. On the relationship between Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice and the Levitical, see .
28.
For clarity, atonement in Hebrews includes more than Jesus’ death (cf., e.g., 7.22), but not less. argument that what Jesus offers in heaven is the sacrificial death that he endured seems to combine well both Hebrews’ claim that the offering takes place in heaven and the attention given to Jesus’ death.
29.
I would like to thank Matthew Easter, Timothy Brookins and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback.