Here is how I envision Hebrews the basic structure of 1,1 3,6:

Transcription

1 Entry #17 Hebrews 1,1 3,7. On the occasion of the centenary celebration of the foundation of the Pontifical Biblical Institute (May 7, 2009) I would like to acknowledge publicly my gratitude to the Institute for the research which it has made possible for me during my more than forty-eight years of residence here. I would like to perform this act of filial gratitude by presenting the following considerations on Hebrews 1,1 3,6. Ever since I took a course on the Epistle to the Hebrews at the Institute from the now Albert Cardinal Vanhoye in the autumn semester of the academic year I have made the epistle the center of my exegetical interests. The published results may be seen by a consultation of my Bibliography. Père Vanhoye opened my eyes to the importance of structure for the understanding of a biblical text. There have been a number of false starts since then as I tried to come to grips in print a bit prematurely with various aspects of the epistle. And, of course, even when I now think I have arrived at an interpretation of a given passage I think of the interpretation in terms of plausibility and not of proof (cf. the Home Page). With these caveats firmly in place I would now like to advance an interpretation of Hebrews 1,1 3,6 in which I think I have finally arrived at a plausible understanding of the passage in terms of structure and meaning. What follows has been arrived at by a process of dialectic between structure and meaning, with adjustments constantly being made at either end in order to achieve an organic whole. The acid test of the plausibility of what is here presented is its ability to suggest solutions to the major cruces in the text. Here is how I envision Hebrews the basic structure of 1,1 3,6: 1,1-4: Prologue 1,5-18: Exposition on the Son of God 2,1-4: Paravklhsi" on the foregoing exposition 2,6-18: Exposition on the Son of Man 3,1-6: Paravklhsi" on the foregoing exposition All of this is tied together by the presence of the word ujpovstasi" in 1,3. Both as Son of God and Son of Man the Son is the imprint of God s

2 inner being: a New Testament foreshadowing of ujpovstasi" at Chalcedon. This word ujpovstasi" is used at Heb 3,14 and 11,1 in different but analogous senses to indicate the two other major parts of the epistle. A detailed explanation of 1,1 3,6 follows. Hebrews 1,1-4: Prologue God as subject: A) Polumerw`~ kai; polutrovpw~ pavlai oj qeo;~ lalhvsa~ toi`~ patravsin ejn toi`~ profhvtai~ B) ejp j ejscavtou twǹ hjmerwǹ touvtwn ejlavlhsen hjmiǹ ejn uijw/`, C) o]n e[qhken klhronovmon pavntwn, D) di j ou kai; ejpoivhsen tou;~ aijwǹa~: Son as subject: E) o}~ w}n ajpauvgasma th`~ dovxh~ F) kai; carakth;r th`~ ujpostavsew~ aujtou`, G) fevrwn te ta; pavnta tw/` rjhvmati th`~ dunavmew~ aujtou`, H) kaqarismo;n twǹ ajmartiwǹ poihsavmeno~ I) ejkavqisen ejn dexia/` th`~ megalwsuvnh~ ejn ujyhloi`~, J) tosouvtw/ kreivttwn genovmeno~ twǹ ajggevlwn o{sw/ diaforwvteron par j aujtou;~ keklhronovmhken o[noma. An initial reading, besides noting the obvious contrast between God as subject of the action and the Son as subject, also notes the initial contrast in A and B between the revelation made in the prophets and the revelation made in the son. In addition to this theme of revelation (expressed in part by the Greek verb lalevw) there are other themes important in the epistle which are introduced in the prologue: the theme of inheritance (C), the theme of creation (D, G) the theme of glory (E), the theme of underlying reality (F), the theme of purification from sin (H), the theme of exaltation (I), and, finally, the theme of the Son s name and his superiority to the angels (J). Of course these themes appear in the prologue as part of a summary introduction; only as the epistle goes on are they developed. But it can

3 be presumed that the tradition in which the addressees lived their Christian commitment made the mere mention of such topics significant in the verses of such a carefully-worded introduction. Thus, at the end of v. 4, it does not seem rash to infer that the addressees would think that they had not heard the last of these topics. But a re-reading of the prologue points to an additional set of emphases in the intention of the author. Along with the studied major contrast between God as subject of the verbs (vv. 1-2) and Son as subject of the verbs (vv. 3-4) is a studied minor contrast between the subject God and the non-subject Son in vv. 1-2 (cf. ejn uijw/`, di j ou which refer to the Son), and the subject Son and the non-subject God in v. 3 (cf. the first aujtou`, and th`~ megalwsuvnh~ with reference to God). Further, there is a dual reference to creation (o}n e[qhken klhronovmon pavntwn, v. 2c; fevrwn te ta; pavnta tw'/ rjhvmati th`~ dunavmew~ aujtou` in v. 3b) flanking references to God s glory (dovxa) and underlying reality (ujpovstasi~) in v. 3a. These symmetrical indicators have been taken by more than one commentator as indications of chiasm. But it does not seem necessary to burden the verses with this formal tag; it is sufficient to point out the chiasm-like pattern. A coherent interpretation of these various elements would seem to be the following: Clause A serves as an introduction. Clauses B, C, and D culminate in clause E. Clause E refers to God s glory, i.e., something which can be considered as outside God insofar as he acts as revealer (B), donor (C) and creator (D) through the Son. Clause F refers to God s underlying reality, i.e., something which can be considered as inside God in contrast to his external glory. But clauses E and F also refer to the Son as one who reproduces the external glory of God as its ray and his underlying reality as its imprint. Thus the descriptions in E and F interact: the Son is portrayed both as other and as being intimately non-other both as regards what is outside God and as regards what is inside God. Clauses E and F have as their grammatical subject the Son, but they can be considered as flowing from what precedes by reason of the intimate connection between what is said of the Son in relation to God (>). But with clause G this intimate connection with God ceases, so that clause F can be considered as opening on to what follows (<). Clause G begins the next series of clauses, with the son figuring in

4 his own right as creator (G), redeemer (H), and exalted one (I). Clause A and clause J are marked by aorist participles indicating the terminated nature of God s act of revealing (lalhvsa~) and of the Son s act of becoming (genovmeno~) in time. But God s acts are then presented as finite verbs (ejlavlhsen, e[qhken, ejpoivhsen) whereas the Son is described by participles (w[n, fevrwn, poihsavmeno~) until the finite verb ejkavqisen, which, because of the contrast with the preceding participles, assumes the role of a climax for the whole passage: God s activity in the past and the Son s activity as well, culminates in the Son s exaltation viewed as a terminated act. It is at this moment, with the Son exalted, that what follows in the epistle is pictured as being situated. No listener/reader of the prologue could possibly have been able to take explicit cognizance of all of the above analysis of the text at first contact. But the contention of this analysis is that it is objectively there for the finding. The author of Hebrews was a master of what he was about, and the listener/reader is thus advised that what is to follow is going to need close attention if it is to be understood as it was meant to be understood. The underlying purpose of the exordium is to introduce the reader to the intimate relation which exists between God and his Son, a relation in which other is not fully other. This relation is clarified less inadequately in what follows by a further explanation of the Son s name, i.e., nature, which sets him apart from angels. Clause J serves as the transition between the first three verses of the exordium and what follows in Heb 1,5-13. Thus the prologue at this level of the implied relation of God and son can be expressed schematically as follows: A) B) C) D) > E) F) < G) H) I) J)

5 A) polumerw`~ kai; polutrovpw~ pavlai oj Qeo;~ lalhvsa~ toi`~ patravsin ejn toi`~ profhvtai~ B) ejp j ejscavtou twǹ hjmerwǹ touvtwn ejlavlhsen hjmiǹ ejn uijw/`, C) o}n e[qhken klhronovmon pavntwn, D) di j ou kai; ejpoivhsen tou;~ aijwǹa~: > E) o}~ w]n ajpauvgasma th'~ dovxh~ F) < kai; carakth;r th`~ ujpostavsew~ aujtou`, G) fevrwn te ta; pavnta tw/ ` rjhvmati th`~ dunavmew~ aujtou`, H) kaqarismo;n twǹ ajmartiwǹ poihsavmeno~ I) ejkavqisen ejn dexia/` th`~ megalwsuvnh~ ejn ujyhloi`~, J) tosouvtw/ kreivttwn genovmeno~ twǹ ajggevlwn o{sw/ diaforwvteron par j aujtou;~ keklhronovmhken o[noma. In this reading, the prologue at the level of the implied relation of God and Son is seen as introducing what immediately follows (Heb 1,5-14) because this latter section treats of the son in relation to God. In contrast, the prologue at the level of incipient themes functions as an introduction to the entire epistle. The transition verse (1,4) sums up the prologue by an allusion to the name which the Son has inherited, which name is precisely and paradoxically Son. For the word Son sums up succinctly, from the standpoint of the Son, the prologue at the level of the implied relation of God and Son. Further, the word Son provides the basic theme for what follows in 1,5 3,6. 1,5-14: Exposition on the Son of God 1,4 serves as a concluding verse for the prologue by taking the seating of the Son at the right hand of God indicated in 1,3 and applying it to the Son s resulting superiority to the angels, the subject of the section which follows, 1,5-14. Thus it also function as a transition verse.

6 The use of the anarthrous o[noma to end the prologue hints at the polyvalency of the name in question: son. That the o[noma is in fact son seems plausibly indicated by 1,5. First of all, the two Old Testament citations are so arranged that the word uijov" is found in places of emphasis at the beginning of the citation from Ps 2,7 and at the end of the citation from 2 Sam 7,14: UiJov" mou ei\ su, ejgw; shvmeron gegevnnhkav se; jegw; e[somai aujtw'/ eij" patevra, kai; aujto;" e[stai moi eij" uijovn; Further, these two citations form a gezera shawa by reason of the same word uijov", so that what is said of Ps 2,7 can be understood of 2 Sam 7,14, and what is said of 2 Sam 7,14 can be understood of Ps 2,7. This is the crucial point for all that follows, for thus understood, the son of Ps 2,7, who for the author of Hebrews was generated by God at the moment of his resurrection (cf. Heb 5,6) is the son of the royal line of David, and the son of the royal line of David is the son of Ps 2,7. That is to say, at the moment of the resurrection the earthly Jesus of the royal house of Judah (cf. Heb 7,14) becomes the son generated by God. And this son generated by God is the Son of the prologue, the imprint of God s inner being (ujpovstasi"). The messiah of the house of David at the moment of his resurrection stands revealed for who he is: God s Son. Thus the word uijov" is shown to have two meanings in the context: the son of the royal line of David and the Son of God as presented in the prologue. (Which seems to explain in part the lack of article with the word o[noma in 1,4.) But of course the Son as Son did not rise from the dead for the simple reason that the Son as Son never died. This follows in terms of the epistle from the general tenor of the prologue. Hence the allusion to the resurrection must refer to the exaltation of the Son after his earthly sojourn. And that, in fact, is the point of 1,5-14: for a time the divine Son was less than the angels (Heb 2,9) because of his mortal body, but now he has been restored to his rightful place as superior to them (Heb 1,4) because his body is no longer mortal: they no longer enjoy the prerogative of immortality as compared to the incarnate Son. This is the basis of the Son s renewed superiority which is forcefully presented in

7 what immediately follows (and, of course, much discussed in the commentaries). The principal structural elements are the frames constituted by the phrase tivni ga;r ei\pevn pote tw'n ajggevlwn in 1,5 and the phrase pro;" tivna de; tw'n ajggevlwn ei[rhkevn pote in 1,13. This theme of saying (levgw to distinguish it from the word lalevw, to speak ) is maintained within the frame by the use of the neutral levgei in 1,6 and 1,7. The content of the passage contributes to the formal framing devices constituted by the various tenses of levgw: the angels are relentlessly put down with relation to the son. In the passage the Old Testament citations have God speaking to the son (vv. 5, 8-9, 10-12) but only about the angels (v. 6, v. 7, v. 13). (The preposition prov" in vv. 7, 8 and 13 is best taken as in the sense of with regard to or toward, a meaning it arguably has in all other occurrences in the epistle [1,8; 2,17; 10,16; 11,18; 12,11; 13,13]). 1,14 summarizes this theme of the angels inferiority while providing a transition to the paravklhsi" which follows at 2,1-4. In the context of this general structure it would seem possible to discern a three-fold substructure: (1) v. 1; (2) vv. 7-12; (3) v. 13. The brevity of the first and third units frames the extended treatment in the central substructure. This three-fold substructure can plausibly be interpreted as an adaptation of the ancient Near Eastern enthronement ceremony: (1) the elevation of the new king to divine status is fulfilled in a strikingly literal way in the exaltation of the son of Judah at the moment of the resurrection; (2) the presentation of the divine king to the gods of the pantheon becomes the presentation of the exalted Son to the angels; (3) the moment of the enthronement becomes the sitting of the Son at the right hand of God. The inhabited world (oijkoumevnh) of 1,6 into which God introduces the Son a second time (cf. 10,5) is the world of men. The first time God introduced the Son into the world of men the Son assumed a mortal body which made him for a time inferior to the angels. But this second introduction is into the world to come (cf. 2,5), the world dominated by the reality of the Son in possession of an immortal body.

8 The central subsection, vv. 7-12, is highlighted by the explicit use of the words qeov" (v. 8) and kuvrio" (v. 10), which are the two principal ways of referring to the divinity in the Old Testament (~yhla and hwhy). V. 13 gives the actual enthronement of the Son in the words of Ps 110,1. The proviso at the end of the verse indicates that the full dominion of the Son in the world of men dominated by the resurrection has not yet arrived. V. 14 is a transition verse leading to the paravklhsi" of 2,1-4. It is important, for its wording sets the tone for the interpretation of the passage it leads to. The general tenor of v. 14 is that the angels are subservient, which continues the theme of vv They are employed for service. Equally important, the word leitourgikov" implies that this service (diakoniva) of the angels involves worship. (Cf. 1,7 with its emphasis on the angels as creatures subordinate to God and with the use of the word leitourgov".) They are sent (ajpostellovmeno") by God, a foreshadowing of Jesus who is also one who is sent (ajpovstolo" cf. 3,1). The word swthriva prepares the way for the use of the same word at 2,3. 2,1-4: Paravklhsi" on the Foregoing Exposition The tone of exhortation through 2,1-4 sets it apart from the tone of exposition of what precedes and what follows. The passage builds on the superiority of the Son over the angels which has been re-established at the enthronement, and uses this superiority to urge obedience to the salvation (swthriva) which had its beginning of being spoken (ajrch; lalei'sqai) through the Lord (oj kuvrio"). Having just made a major point out of the fact that the Son is kuvrio" (cf. 1,10), the author now uses this title designating his divinity to reinforce the superiority which the author has taken great pains to establish in the previous section. To introduce the salvation which had its beginning of being spoken through the Lord the author evokes the giving of the Mosaic Law, which he presents as a lovgo" which was spoken through angels (oj di j ajggevlwn lalhqei;" lovgo"). The liturgical nature of the angels ministry indicated in 1,14 is important here for understanding the way in which the Mosaic Law is being regarded. This in turn affects the way in which the salvation of the Lord is to be regarded: it involves worship.

9 The nature of the salvation which had its beginning of being spoken through the Lord is crucial for the understanding of the passage. It involves worship. But it also involves oral speaking, for it was the beginning of being spoken (ajrch; lalei'sqai) which was effected by the Son as Lord. Not only does the salvation involve worship and speaking, but it involves worship and speaking in a legally verifiable way (cf. the use of the word bevbaio" in 2,2 and bebaiovw in 2,3). Finally, not only does this salvation involve worship and speaking in a legally verifiable way, but it does so in the context of being handed on from one generation to the next (h{ti" ajrch;n labou'sa lalei'sqai dia; tou' kurivou ujpo; tw'n ajkousavntwn eij" hjma'"). For the addressees, living as they were in the tradition of the Christian tôdâ, this is plausibly taken as an allusion to the institution of the Eucharist. Just as the Mosaic Law began through the instrumentality of the angels (2,2), so the Christian law began through the instrumentality of the Lord. (The use of word lovgo" to express the Mosaic Law hints at the fact that in the new dispensation the Lord himself is the Law. Cf. Heb 13,7-8.) The emphasis on the angels and the Lord as instruments (di j ajggevlwn, dia; tou' kurivou) and the use of the verb lalevw (lalhqeiv", lalei'sqai) allude to the sovereign role of God and of his speaking in the Son which is his definitive speaking for mankind. After the mention of the giving of the law on Sinai, Heb 2,4 introduces the theme of the first exodus more explicitly with allusion to the signs and wonders which are accompanying the Christians on their exodus shmei'a, tevrata, dunavmei"). These signs and wonders are in imitation of the signs and wonders accompanying the Israelites after their receiving the law. The mention of God (sunepimarturou'nto" qeou') and Holy Spirit (pneuvmato" ajgivou merismoi'") in the context of the salvation instituted by the Lord (dia; tou' kurivou) in the preceding verse suggests that it is the Christian God who is accompanying the Christians on their new exodus. Just as the signs and wonders of the first exodus were designed to reassure the Israelites of God s presence among them, so the signs and wonders of this new exodus are designed to reassure the Israelites of God s presence among the Christians. The Eucharist, in other words, is being looked upon as a divine presence among God s people. The Lord himself is the New Law. (All of this, of course, presumes an atmosphere of profound faith based on profound faith-trust.)

10 2,6-18: Exposition on the Son of Man The section is introduced by v. 5 which carries on the theme of the preceding exposition and paravklhsi" involving the Son s superiority to the angels. But at the same time a new theme is introduced by the mention of the verb ujpotavssw the world of men (oijkoumevnh) is subordinate not to angels but to the risen Son. JUpotavssw introduces a citation from Ps 8,5-7, where it is found in v. 7 (2,8a in Hebrews). Further, the author plays on the word ujpotavssw three times immediately after the psalm citation in 2,8bc. The verb serves to emphasize the phrase ujpokavtw tw'n podw'n aujtou' which in turn serves to link the citation with the citation of Ps 110,1 back at Heb 1,13 (ujpopovdion tw'n podw'n sou). The gezera shawa which results links 1,5 2,4 with 2,5 3,6 and reinforces the relevance of ujpovstasi" as a common denominator for the entire section. The precise role of the citation of Ps 8 in Heb 2 has been discussed endlessly, of course. (As, of course, have many of the other points being advanced here.) The interpretation of Ps 8 in Hebrews advanced here is not only that the psalm citation in general is being interpreted midrashically with reference to Jesus (cf. Heb 2,9), but that the words a[nqrwpo" and uijo" ajnqrwvpou are being distinguished and interpreted midrashically. The words in question are being applied to the only persons mentioned explicitly in the exposition on the psalm which follows, Jesus and Abraham, with a[nqrwpo" referring to Abraham and uijo" ajnqrwvpou referring to Jesus. (A Jewish midrash on Ps 8 subsequent to the New Testament makes a similar distinction.) The midrashic application is that Jesus is the spiritual son of Abraham in the sense that he has faith-trust in the face of death as Abraham had. (The faith-trust of Jesus in the face of death is the major theme of the subsection cf. 2,13a.) As understood in the interpretation being advanced here, the subsection 2,8bc-18 is one of the most artfully elaborated passages in the New Testament, worthy of comparison with Gal 3. So artfully elaborated that perhaps it is an indication that the epistle was meant to be pondered with

11 a written text in hand. (Perhaps, initially, under the guidance of the epistle s author?) 2,8bc-9: The risen Jesus as victim 2,10-12: The risen Jesus as one sent to announce God s name 2,13a: The theme of faith-trust applicable to the entire subsection 2,13b-16: The earthly Jesus as victim 2,17-18: The earthly Jesus as high priest 2,13a with its attribution of faith-trust to Jesus is seen as being relevant to the entire passage 2,8bc-18 by reason of its central position in the structure of the passage. 2,12, with its mention of ajdelfoiv, refers to what precedes 2,13a; 2,13b, with its mention of paidiva, refers to what follows 2,13a. The brothers of Jesus are constituted by their faith-trust in the face of their own personal deaths just as Jesus was in the face of his (this aspect of faith-trust dominates 2,8bc-12), and the children of Jesus are constituted by their faith-trust in the face of another s death as Abraham was at the Aqedah (this aspect dominates 2,13b-18). It was this faith-trust of Abraham that Jesus came to share, just as it was faithtrust in the face of his personal death which he inaugurated and which is constitutive of the identity of his brothers. The two types of faith-trust are viewed in v. 1l as constituting a unity (ejx ejnov"). The passage 2,5-18 is about the two stages in the priesthood of Jesus, the earthly priesthood based on his earthly body (cf. Heb 10,5), and the heavenly priesthood based on his heavenly, i.e., risen, body. (Thus the priesthood of Christ has an ontological basis.) But the priesthood of Jesus necessarily involves himself as victim (Heb 7,27; 9,14). Christ makes the transition from his earthly high priesthood to his heavenly high priesthood at the moment of his resurrection, when his earthly body is perfected (teleiovw). In his capacity as heavenly high priest he presides at the Christian tôdâ, the Eucharist (v. 12) and announces the Christian name of God, Father. The correspondences between the earthly victim and the heavenly victim, the earthly high priest and the heavenly high priest, permit insight into the theology of the priesthood of Jesus. When 2,8bc-9 is viewed in the perspective of 2,14-16 a plausible solution to the cruces in 2,9 suggest themselves. The earthly victimhood of Jesus is designed to free the spiritual children of Abraham from the fear of death; in the

12 corresponding heavenly victimhood the victim Jesus, now risen, can be gazed upon (blevpomen jihsou'n dia; to; pavqhma tou' qanavtou dojxh/ kai; timh/' ejstefanwmevnon) so that the testing involved in his facing death can be re-lived by those who believe in him and in this way his process of dying is seen as a dying so that he may thus taste death (geuvshtai qanavtou i.e., go through the experience of death as victim [cf. 2,18: ejn w/ ga;r pevponqen aujto;" peirasqeiv"]) for all. (The famous crux of how Jesus dies so that he can taste death.) This is the result of God s favor (cavriti qeou'), i.e., the resurrection is a gift of God, unmerited even by Jesus (cf. the e[prepen of the following verse introducing the rehearsing of the raising by God of Jesus from the dead and terminating in glory). V. 8bc goes to great lengths to indicate that the subordination of all things (i.e., including the great enemy, the diavbolo", who controls death) has been achieved only in principle and not in fact, so that v. 9 explains how the freeing from death is achieved despite the continued existence of these two enemies. Placing 2,17-18 in juxtaposition with 2,10-12 indicates that the expiation of sin which the earthly priest achieved by his shedding of blood on the cross (cf. 9,22) is continued by the heavenly priest by his sanctifying his brothers (v. 11). This act of sanctification is pictured as taking place in the context of the Christian tôdâ, which is centered on the bloody sacrifice referred to in vv (This is a key text in indicating that all Christians are called to holiness, a holiness granted them by God in and through the Eucharist.) Thus Heb 2,5-18 gives a profound view of the priesthood of Jesus which is composed of two interconnected stages linked by the resurrection and which is intrinsically connected with Jesus victimhood. All of this is considered under the aspect of faith-trust (2,13a), for it is this faith-trust which the author of Hebrews wishes to emphasize for the addressees as they face the perils of Nero s Rome. 3,1-6: Paravklhsi" on the Foregoing Exposition Just as 2,1-4 draws motives of encouragement from 1,5-14, so 3,1-6 draws motives of encouragement from 2,5-18. The passage begins with reference to Jesus as ajpovstolo" and ajrciereuv". Both words refer to what has preceded, 2,5-18. Apostolos refers to vv. 8bc-12, and high

13 priest refers to vv. 13a-18. They are parallel because apostle refers to Jesus being sent as Moses was sent to announce God s name (Exodus 3,14). It is this function of announcing God s name which Jesus exercises in 2,12. Thus apostle here implicitly involves worship, inasmuch as it is exercised in the context of the Christian tôdâ, which explains why it is parallel with high priest. Jesus is pistov", faithful, in 3,2 because he withstood the testing of his faith-trust (alluded to in 2,18 by the participle peirasqeiv"). 3,2 thus begins the extended comparison with Moses which continues through the whole passage. In the passage the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament are each called an oi\ko". Moses was faithful in the house as a servant (v. 5), where Jesus is faithful over the house as Son (v.6). In vv. 3-4 there is an allusion to Jesus as the one who founded, kataskeuavzw, the house under God who is the founder (kataskeuavzw) of all things. V. 6 reminds the addressees that they themselves constitute the house which Jesus founded, a fact which is conditioned by their maintaining the boldness (parrhsiva) and boasting based on hope (ta; kauvchma th'" ejlpivdo"), i.e., their independence of the Mosaic dispensation. Of central importance is v. 5, with its portrayal of the role of Moses as servant (qeravpwn): it is in witness to the things which would be spoken (eij" martuvrion tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn). The allusion is to Heb 9,20, the only other passage in Hebrews where Moses is associated with the verb lalevw. There the words used by Moses in the rite of expiation at the initiation of the Sinai covenant have been modified slightly but significantly to make them allude to the words of institution of Jesus at the initiation of the new covenant. Thus 3,1-6 has a profoundly Eucharistic meaning, just as does 2,1-4. But whereas in 2,1-4 there was question of the Son as divine and his presence with the Christians on their new exodus, in 3,1-6 there is question of the Son as priest and his role in the expiation and sanctifying of men in the context of his faithtrust. In 3,1-6 the role of the oi\ko" of the Old and New Dispensations in conjunction with the expiatory nature of the covenants by which they were instituted is suggestive. The entire passage can be said to revolve around these two subjects. * * *

14 The above material is the product of more than forty-six years of trying to come to grips with the thought of the Epistle to the Hebrews by way of analyzing its structure and meaning. The following items in the Bibliography can be consulted for more detailed argumentation: 58, 63, 84, 145, 152, 174, 179, 188, 191, 196, 208, 211. But in a sense the fits and starts by which I arrived at the above analysis, and the secondary literature from which I learned so much either by way of acceptance or rejection of the views of others, are not crucial for evaluating the above material. The basis question is: Does the above interpretation unite structure and meaning in the light of Catholic tradition accepted in faith into an organic, plausible whole? These are the three elements which I take into consideration when I try to come to grips with a text in Scripture. ( Structure, of course, comprises such subordinate realities as the meaning of words and sentences, which in turn depends on morphology, syntax and lexicography, among other things). Structure in this broad sense, i.e., sentences joined together in an intelligible pattern, I take to be the material element of which meaning is the form which gives it intelligibility. Catholic tradition accepted in faith comes in as something which illumines but which may not be a part of the final meaning lest the integrity of the Scriptural text be violated by the introduction of extraneous elements.. In conclusion, in this entry dedicated to the Pontifical Biblical Institute on the occasion of its 100 th Anniversary on May 7, 2009, I wish to thank first the students of my twenty-two seminars at the Institute, beginning in the spring semester of 1980 and ending in the spring semester of 2003, dedicated to New Testament Cruces or The Semitic Background of the New Testament. There were more than two hundred of them, and our many hours of discussion together helped me considerably in my attempts to come to grips with all texts of Scripture, including Hebrews 1,1 3,6. In addition, I would like to thank all the students to whom I taught a course on the Epistle to the Hebrews: attempting to formulate one s thinking in order to present it to intelligent people is an excellent way to deepen one s grasp of a topic. These were students I taught at: Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.; Bishop Fulton Sheen House of Formation, Chillum, Maryland, U.S.A.; The Franciscan University of Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio, U.S.A.; Grootseminarie, Rolduc, Kerkrade, The Netherlands; Priesterseminarie, Sint- Janscentrum, 's-hertogenbosch, The Netherlands; Jnana-Deepa

15 Vidyapeeth, Pontifical Institute of Philosophy and Religion, Pune, India; Seminarium Incarnatae Sapientiae, Alba Iulia, Romania; St. Bruno House of Studies, Segni, Italy; Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Catholic Theological Institute for Oceania, Guam, U.S.A. (22 March 2009, with slight modifications 27 September 2009)