Των λαληθησομένων In Hebrews 3,5

The words των λαληθησομένων in Heb 3,5 have not received the attention they merit. They occur in a verse which has echoes of Num 12,7[LXX], and this tends to direct the attention to their Old Testament antecedents(1). In addition, the word λαλέω seems to resume the theme of God’s “speaking” at the beginning of the epistle, at Heb 1,1 (2). Both of these indications merit further investigation. But they need to be considered in the context of still a third line of reasoning which points to Heb 9,19-20, where λαλέω is used in connection with ’ inauguration of the Sinai covenant. But this third line of reasoning must be carried out in the structured context of Heb 1,1-3,6 if it is to be suasive. The present study will examine first the approaches based on the relevance of Num 12,7 [LXX] and the thematic use of λαλέω, and will then turn to the relevance of Heb 9,19-20 before studying the results of these investigations in the structured context of the first part of the epistle.

1. The Relevance of Numbers 12,7[LXX] The presence of the words Μωϋσής, θεράπων, οίκος and πιστός in the text of Num 12,7 [LXX] has led to the inference that the author of Hebrews had this verse in mind when he wrote 3,5 (3). But, as not infrequently in Hebrews, the author of Hebrews puts the words to different use. Moses is indeed “faithful”, but for the author of Hebrews he is assigned a role subordinate to the “son”, 1.e., . In this subordinate role he gives a witness to that which “will be spoken” instead of being the one to whom God “speaks” (4). This subordination of Moses to Jesus is the true relevance of Num 12,7 with regard to the explanation of των λαληθησομένων in Heb 3,5. For just as the parallelism of Jesus with Moses dominates Heb 3,1-6, so, by implication, it dominates the allusion contained in των λαληθησομένων. If Moses is giving witness in 3,6 there is only one person, judging from the context of 3,1-6, he could be giving witness to — Jesus. Hence the meaning of των λαληθησομένων is to be found in some relation invoking Moses and Jesus.

2. The Relevance of λαλέω The fact that the word λαλέω occurs so prominently at the very beginning of the epistle, with regard to God in 1,1 and with regard to the son in 1,2,

(') Cf.: H.W. A tt r id g e , The (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA 1989) 111; W.L. L a n e , -8 (WBC 47A; Dallas, TX 1991) 78. For a lengthy commentary on the possibilities as regards the Old Testament cf.E P.llin g w orth , The Epistle to the Hebrews. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand Rapids, MI - Carlisle, England 1993) 207-208. (2) Cf. A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 111 ; L a n e , Hebrews. (3) Cf. F. Sc h rö g er , Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU 4; Regensburg 1969) 95-101. (4) Cf. A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 111. 94 James Swetnam would seem to indicate that for the author of the epistle the word has a particular significance. But if there is a particular significance it has not figured prominently in contemporary commentaries on the epistle as such a thematic significance presumably should(5). The word λαλέω occurs sixeen times in Hebrews: 1,1 — of God; 1,2 — of God with reference to the son; 2,2 — passive, with “through ”; 2,3 — passive with “through the son”; 2,5 — of the author of the epistle; 3,5 — passive with no explicit indication of agent; 4,8 — of ; 5,5 — of God; 6,9 — of the author of the epistle; 7,14 — of “Moses”, i.e., the Mosaic Law; 9,19 — ofMoses; 11,4 — of the blood of Abel; 11,18 — of God; 12,24 — of the blood of Jesus; 12,25 — of Jesus; 13,7 — of the leaders of the Christians. The first two occurrences of λαλέω are found in the key verses 1,1 and 1,2. In 1,1 God is said to have “spoken” “in the prophets”(6). The unstated supposition underlying this verse is that God’s “speaking” (λαλέω) in recognized sources is uniquely and definitively authoritative and should be respected accordingly. To belabor the point would have been to insult the author’s addressees. In 1,2 this speaking is brought into relation with the son. The son’s speaking is said to be God’s speaking. The reason for this identification is to invest the speaking of the son with the authority of God(7). This, too, needs no further explanation, given the Christian faith of the addressees: Heb 1,2 as regards the authoritative nature of the son’s speaking is a reminder for the epistle’s addressees, not a disclosure(8). Thus the word λαλέω has a connotation of divine authority in its first two occurrences in the epistle, occurrences which indicate that λαλέω has a thematic role in what follows (9). Most of the other fourteen occurrences of λαλέω can be divided without hesitation into one or other of the two principal categories of God’s “speaking in the prophets” (1,1) and “speaking in a son” (1,2) (10). This facility in

(5) Attridge, for example, refers to the use of the word as initiating the “theme” of God’s “speech”(A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 111). But he does not explore the implications of this assessment. The present writer knows of no detailed attempt to understand how the author of Hebrews uses the word λαλέω throughout his work. (6) “God’s address of old came ‘through’ (έν) the prophets, agents with whom Hebrews is not, in fact, much concerned. They are probably understood, in a broad sense, to encompass all those, from the patriarchs through Moses, , David and the classical prophets, through whom God speaks”(A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 38-39). O A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 37-38. (8) It should be noted that the “speaking” in a son is mentioned as a matter of fact in which the faith assent of the addressees is presumed. The author of the epistle in what follows will attempt to help the addressees understand the implications of their faith with regard to the challenge which they are facing and to remind them of their obligations and opportunities in its regard. He is not trying to solicit faith — he presumes it. He is concerned that the addressees not lose their faith or become weak in it. (9) In terms of lexicography this use of λαλέω would seem to fit in category 2ε of Bauer: “Das Reden kann v. näher bestimmter Art sein” (W.B a u er , Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der früchristlichen Literatur, K. A land - B. A land [eds.] [Berlin - New York 61988] col. 941). It is worth noting how often in the Patristic period the subject of the verb λαλέω is one of the divine persons or one of the Old Testament prophets. Cf. G.W.A.L am pe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961) 790-791. (10) It should be noted that Hebrews seems to carry on the usage of Septuagint Greek of continuing on with the content of something introduced by λαλέω by using a form of Των λαληθησομένων in Hebrews 3,5 95

categorization tends to support the view that there is indeed a thematic role which is being played by the word. God is presented as “speaking in the prophets” in six places: in 2,2 (the speaking of the Law through angels); in 4,8 (the speaking of David in Ps 95); in 7,14 (the speaking of Moses as regards the tribe of ; in 11,4 (the speaking of Abel’s blood as a witness to faith); and in 11,18 (the speaking of God in scripture as regards as the vehicle of the fulfillment of God’s promise of offspring to ). Four occurrences may be listed immediately under God “speaking in a son”: in 2,3 (an explicit attribution to “the Lord” of “speaking”) and in 12,24 and 12,25 (in connection with the “speaking” of Christ’s blood). In 5,5 God is pictured as “speaking” at the moment of the son’s resurrection through the use of citations from Ps 2,7 and Ps 110,4. Here the Old Testament words have a New Testament meaning. God is introduced as speaking not explicitly “in” a son but “with regard to” (πρός) a son. The wording of the texts themselves indicates that God is speaking “to” a son, and thus, by implication, “in” what is happening to the son. Four occurrences remain to be accounted for. In 2,5 and 6,9 the author of the epistle appropriates the use of λαλέω in using it with reference to his own “speaking”. In 2,5 he relies on the authority of a citation from Ps 8 which he introduces by means of the word διαμαρτύρεσθαι, a word which has a connotation of divine authority independently of the one citing it(11). In 6,9 he uses the present tense to indicate that he is continuing the discourse which he had pronounced in 5,11-6,8 (12). Now, in 6,9-28, he assumes a positive tone, by giving his encouraging opinion about a contingent fact - that the addressees will choose what is better for themselves. But he uses the authoritative verb λαλέω to make this statement about a contingent fact, something which he realizes is beyond his competence as an authoritative spokesman whose duty is to present the sureties of faith. Hence the apologetic tone conveyed by εί και οΰτως. He can present an explanation of the ομολογία on the basis of his personal authority because that is what he is authorized to do, but his personal conviction about the future conduct of the addressees does not entitle him, strictly speaking, to use a statement based on such authority. It is all part of his use of literary convention in order to encourage the addressees (13). But where does the author of Hebrews get the authority which he seems to have on this reading of his appropriating λαλέω to himself? An answer seems to be given by the third use of λαλέω as yet unaccounted for: 13,7. There λαλέω is used of the “leaders” of the addressees who “spoke” to them the “word of God” (τον λόγον τού θεού). This expression is usually taken as

λέγω (cf. B a u er , Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, §3 [col. 942]). Thus the string of the various forms of λέγω in Heb 1,5.6.13 can probably best be interpreted as continuing a “speaking” “in a son”. Cf. Heb 5,5 where the word λαλέω is used with Ps 2,7 with regard to the son, and the following psalm citation is introduced by λέγει. .H.-F. Weib, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KKNT 13; Göttingen 151991) 193-194 (״) (12) E llingw orth , Hebrews, 329. (13) Cf. A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 174-175 for information about the conventions involved but apart from the present writer’s interpretation involving λαλέω. 96 James Swetnam referring to preaching(14). The way the text is formulated indicates that the speaking of the leaders was validated in some way as being part of a tradition(15). In view of the present writer’s interpretation of the thirteenth chapter of Hebrews, this “speaking” should be understood in a liturgical sense in context of the Christian tôdâ(16). There is question in Heb 13,7 of authorized leaders, as the text makes clear. And they “speak” the word of God authoritatively. The “word of God” is here to be understood as Jesus himself, for otherwise the following verse 13,8 is an inexplicable insertion(17). Thus it would seem that the authoritative “speaking” of God has been passed on to the leaders of the community and in some sense the author of the epistle. Just why this extension of authority took place seems hinted at in 2,3-4 where “the beginning of being spoken of the salvation by the Lord” was officially validated in some way (cf. the use of βεβαιόω and witnessed to by God (συνεπιμαρτυρέομαι) (18). The author of the epistle and the leaders who speak the word of God to the faithful are those commissioned to validate the beginning of the speaking of salvation through the Lord(19). And they can do this because they have the authority to do so. Thus Heb 2,5 and Heb 6,9 as well as Heb 13,7 can be put in the category of God’s “speaking in a son”. There remains one text for examination: Heb 3,5.

3. Ααλέω in Hebrews 3,5 in the Light of Heb 9,19-20 A preliminary assessment of Heb 3,5 above in its context has led to the result that the agent of “the things which will be spoken” (των λαληθησομένων) probably is Jesus Christ, for he is the one with whom Moses is being compared in the passage 3,1-6. An assessment of the word λαλέω in the entire epistle has led to the conclusion that it connotes the authority of God in speaking, and that this authority was shown in the old dispensation in God’s speaking “in the prophets” and in the new dispensation in his speaking

(14) W .L . L a n e , -13 (WBC 47B; Dallas, TX 1991) 526-527. (15) “The formulation indicates that the leaders were a link in the chain of tradition that accounted for the reliable transmission of the message of salvation to the audience”(L an e , Hebrews 1-8,527). (16) The detailed presentation of the Christian tôdâ, in Chapter 13 of Hebrews, must be kept in mind in all that follows in this note. The addressees presumably had not heard/read Chapter 13 when they heard/read Heb 3,5, but they certainly were aware of the tradition which the author of Hebrews presumed in writing Heb 13: it is inconceivable that they were unaware of the liturgical tradition of the faith which they professed. Cf.Sw J. etnam , “A Liturgical Approach to ”,Letter and Spirit 3 (2006) 159-173 and, in a shorter but clearer version, J.S w etnam , “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13”,The Incarnate Word 1 (2006) 3-17. (17) “This apparently isolated statement [sc., 13,8] has no syntactic connection with what precedes or follows; its content also seems general and unrelated to the surrounding exhortation”(E llingw orth , Hebrews, 704). (18) Cf. A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 65-67, for discussion of the legal language in 2,1-4. (19) E llingw orth (Hebrews, 139) states with regard to Heb 2,3 that “it is significant that the author claims no distinct authority for him self’. Perhaps this failure to claim authority for himself was caused by his not needing to make such a claim. In Heb 13,17 he presumes the authority to exhort the addressees to behave as regards their leaders who, he asserts (13,7) have authority themselves. This would seem to imply that the author of the epistle had some sort of authority himself. Cf. n. 16 above. Των λαληθησομένων in Hebrews 3,5 97

“in a son”. Putting these two preliminary assessments together, the result is that in 3,5 God is “speaking in a prophet” (Moses) to give witness to a “speaking in a son” (Christ). A common reason for minimizing this conclusion is that the author of Hebrews does not seem to develop any theme touching on the Eucharist(20). The text which Hebrews seems to have in mind in Heb 3,5 is Heb 9,20, where Moses and the word λαλέω are found in the same context, the only such instance in Hebrews: When every command according to the law had been spoken (λαληθείσης) by Moses to the entirety of the people, and after he had taken the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop he sprinkled the book itself and all the people, saying, “This (τούτο) is the blood of the covenant which God ordered for you” (9,19-20). What is intriguing about the words which Moses “speaks” (21) in 9,20 is the fact that the citation from Ex 24,8 which they purport to reproduce have been altered slightly(22). Some commentators say that the alteration has been done for reasons which have to do only with the author’s arguments in the epistle. But most authors concur that the alteration seems to have been done in order to allude to the words of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ(23).

(20) As regards Heb 9,20: “The author, it is true, shows no sign of direct or explicit concern with the eucharist as regularly celebrated in the church. He is, however, concerned in the passage with the inaugural ceremony of the old covenant, and this strongly suggests a corresponding allusion to the inaugural ceremony of the new covenant, that is, to the initial celebration of the Lord’s Supper”(E llingw orth , Hebrews, 469). The burden of the present paper, of course, is that since the author of Hebrews is directly and explicitly concerned with the Eucharist (cf. above, n. 16), the inauguration of the old covenant by Moses presages the Eucharistie inauguration of the new by Jesus. (21) The word attributed to Moses in 9,20, λέγω, is to be understood as the usage in which λέγω follows λαλέω in continuing its sense. Cf. above, η. 11. (22) The principle change is the substitution of τούτο for Ιδου, of the Septuagint. Interestingly enough, this is not indicated in N-A27 but it is Thein Greek New Testament, B. A l a n d , K. A la n d , J. K aravidopoulos , C.M. M a rtini and B .M . M etzger (eds.) (Stuttgart 7th printing 42003) 759, a text which is supposed to dependN on -A 27. Cf. L a n e , Hebrews 9-13,245. (23) The reason for the refusal to credit with certitude the change as alluding to the Eucharist is the inability of the authors to see any relevance for an allusion to the Eucharist in Hebrews. The strength of the argument which sees an allusion to the Eucharist does not depend only on the substitution of the New Testament’s τούτο for the Septuagint’s iöot>_but on the typology implied. Underlying the text is the supposition that the action of Moses in instituting the old covenant is a prefiguring of Christ instituting the new. EllingworthCf. (Hebrews, 469) for the authors involved and for the argumentation. Ellingworth observes that the argumentation falls short of “proof’, but that is something which should be taken for granted in any exegetical endeavor: literary analysis by its nature yields plausibility, not proof. An author for whom there is no doubt about the allusion is O. Michel. With regard to the alleged allusion in Heb 9,20 he observes: “Hebr spricht nur in Andeutungen vom doch setzt er Lehre und Feier voraus”. And in a note to this ,(<״Herrenmahl (z.B., 13 sentence he observes: “Wenn Hebr nicht ausführlich von den Sakramenten spricht, so hängt dies mit der Beschränkheit seines Themas, vielleicht auch mit der Arkandisziplin, auf keinen Fall aber mit einer Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber dem Herrenmahl oder einer unkultischen Beurteilung des Gottesdienstes zusammen. Der Bundesgedanke und die Exegese von Jer3 1 3!-34 sind nor auf Grund der Abendmahlstiftung, die Polemik Hebr 1310 98 James Swetnam

But they refuse to pursue the matter further because they say the author of Hebrews has no particular interest in the Eucharist. The present writer begs to differ and has offered considerations regarding the Eucharist in the epistle (24). But even apart from the above considerations, which point indirectly to the words of Moses in Heb 3,5 as being compared implicitly to the words of Jesus spoken at the institution of the Eucharist, there is the immediate context of Heb 3,5 which points to Eucharist implications. This immediate context is understood to be Heb 3,1-6. As argued recently in this journal, Heb 3,1-6 has not only a decidedly liturgical caste, but a specifically Eucharistie meaning. The reason for this is the use of the words απόστολος and άρχιερεύς in parallel at the beginning of the passage at Heb 3,1, and the relevance of the word απόστολος to Heb 2,12 and the Christiantôdâ, as argued in great detail in the note alluded to above(25).

4. Hebrews 3,5 in the Light of the Structure of Hebrews 1,1-3,6 Considerations about the structure of the first chapters of Hebrews can also be adduced to support a Eucharistie interpretation of Heb 3,5. The framework in which the verse occurs may plausibly be viewed as follows (26): 1.1-4: exordium to the entire epistle and to what immediately follows; 1.5-14: exposition on Jesus as son [of God]; 1,1-4:paraklêsis based on preceding exposition; 2.5-18: exposition on Jesus as son of man; 3.1-5:paraklêsis based on the preceding exposition. In 2,3 there is reference to a salvation which had a beginning of “being spoken” (λαλεισθαι) “through the Lord”. The present writer has interpreted these words as an allusion to the Eucharist, which had its beginning with Christ and hence is the beginning of Christian salvation(27). This “beginning of being spoken” indicates that the Christian salvation consisted in words that were uttered by Christ and heard by persons different from the author of the epistle and his addressees (persons referred to as “us” by the author of the epistle). The transmission was of such a solemn type that the author speaks of its being “validated” as it was handed on, a process which suggests tradition(28). In an epistle in which the Eucharist figures prominently a Eucharistic interpretation of a process involving a validation of tradition makes excellent sense(29). In the context of 2,1-4 the “salvation” referred to is contrasted with

nur in Zusammenhang mit einer realistischen Abendmahlehre verständlich” (O.M ic h el , Der Brief an die Hebräer [KKNT 13; Göttingen 121966] 320). (24) With regard to Heb 13 cf. η. 17 above, and with regard to Heb 2,12 cf.: J. S w etna m , “’Εξ ενός in ,11”, Bib 88 (2007) 522-524 and J.S w etna m , “ό απόστολοςin Hebrews 3,1”,Bib 89 (2008) 255-256. (25) Cf. Sw etna m , “ό απόστολοςin Hebrews 3,1”, 252-262. This note is to be interpreted with the caution explained in n. 4 at the beginning of this note. (26) Cf. Sw etna m , “ ’ Εξ ενός in Hebrews 2,11”, 518. (27) Cf. J.S w etnam , “The Structure of Hebrews: a Fresh Look”,Melita Theologica 41 (1990) 33. (28) Cf. A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 67. (29) Again, cf. note 4 at the beginning of thisanimadversio. Των λαληθησομένων in Hebrews 3,5 99

Mosaic Law which also was “validated”, i.e., just as the Mosaic Law was God’s official means of providing for the salvation of the Exodus generation, to the words spoken by Christ are God’s official means of providing for the salvation of the Christians. In 2,1-4 the context is of a word of encouragement on the basis of the son as God (1,5-14). When juxtaposed with the Mosaic Law in contrast, this allusion to the Eucharist would seem to refer to the Eucharist as the divine presence amid God’s people. Just as the “book of the Law” (cf. Heb 9,19) was the symbol of God’s presence among the people of the Exodus generation, so the Eucharist is God’s real presence (cf. Heb 13,8) among the people of the Christian generation who are engaged in their own exodus (cf. Heb 3,6-4,12) (30). A Eucharistie interpretation of Heb 3,5 would create a parallel to the Eucharistie interpretation at Heb 2,3. But the context would be Jesus as son of man, not as son of God. Just as Heb 2,3 builds on the son as divine to interpret the son as the divine presence for the Christian generation, so Heb 3,5 builds on the son as man to interpret the expiatory effects of the Eucharistie blood (cf. Heb 2,17 and Heb 9,19), effects which are made possible by the son’s blood and flesh (cf. Heb 2,14) (31). Thus the relevance of Heb 3,5 for Heb 2,13b-18 (expiation of sin based on Christ’s blood) matches the relevance of Heb 3,5 for Heb 9,20 (purification of the blood sprinkled by Moses). Finally, this interpretation of the words των λαληθησομένων in Heb 3,5 would illumine the use of λαλεισθαι at Heb 2,3: the “speäking” in Heb 2,3 refers to God “speaking in a son” just the “speaking” in Heb 3,5 refers to God “speaking in a prophet”, with the latter speaking foreshadowing the former.

* * * The present note has attempted to interpret the words των λαληθησομένων in Heb 3,5 in a Eucharistie sense. Four complementary approaches were suggested as a way to understand Heb 3,5: 1) the relevance of Num 12,7 [LXX] as used in Heb 3,1-6 (the author of Hebrews uses the text as the source of his vocabulary to contrast Moses and the “son”, i.e., Jesus); 2) the relevance of the thematic use of the word λαλέω in Hebrews (it is used of God’s speaking “in the prophets” and “in a son”; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,19-20 (the only instance in Hebrews where Moses is said to “speak” [λαλέω] is in a context in which the Eucharist is plausibly seen as being alluded to) makes a good pairing with the words of Moses in 3,5 which occur in a context in which the Eucharist is a key them); 4) the relevance of the structure of Heb 3,1-3,6 (a Eucharistie allusion at Heb 3,5 would match a Eucharistie allusion at Heb 2,3). All of this argumentation was set against the present writer’s Eucharistie interpretations of Heb 13 and Heb 2,12 previously published elsewhere.

(30) The vocabulary of Heb 2,4 also conveys the idea that the Christians are engaged in an exodus which mirrors the first Exodus. Cf.A ttrid g e , Hebrews, 67. n. 60. (31) The well-known inversion of the “blood and flesh” instead of “flesh and blood” in Heb 2,14 is probably caused by the author’s desire to call attention to the role of the son’s blood in expiating sin in what follows.E Cf.llingw orth , Hebrews, 171. 100 James Swetnam

The conclusion to be drawn from the above presentation is that the Eucharist is a key element in the understanding of Heb 3,5 as it is in Heb 2,3; Heb 2,12; and Heb 13.

Pontificio Istituto Bíblico James Sw etnam Via della Pilotta, 25 1-00187 Roma

SUMMARY

The words των λαληθησομένων in Heb 3,5 allude to the words of Christ at the institution of the Eucharist. This is argued from 1) the contrast between Christ and Moses in Heb 3,1-6 as understood against the background of Num 12,7[LXX]; 2) the thematic use of λαλέω in Hebrews; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,20; 4) the place of Heb 3,5 in the structure of Heb 1,1-3,6. All to be understood against a Eucharistie interpretation of Heb 2,12 and Heb 13. Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.