Των Λαληθησομένων in Hebrews 3,5

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 Moses’ 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., Jesus. 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 Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA 1989) 111; W.L. L a n e , Hebrews 1-8 (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 angels”; 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 David; 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, Joshua, 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 New Testament 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 Judah; 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 Isaac as the vehicle of the fulfillment of God’s promise of offspring to Abraham). 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).

Load more