You Are My Son - The Family of God in The Epistle To The Hebrews

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
486
Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg,
R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl,
Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn,
Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb,
Catrin H. Williams
ii
YOU ARE MY SON
The Family of God

in the Epistle to the Hebrews
Amy L. B. Peeler
LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing plc
First published 2014
© Amy L. B. Peeler, 2014
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any
information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the
publishers.
Amy L. B. Peeler has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identi¿ed as Author of this work.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining

from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury
Academic or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: HB: 978-0-56765-418-2

ePDF: 978-0-56764-390-2
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Peeler, Amy L.B.
You Are My Son / Amy L.B. Peeler p.cm
Includes bibliographic references and index.
ISBN 978-0-5676-5418-2 (hardcover)
Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations xi
Introduction 1
I. The Family of God 1
II. Outline of the Project 8
Chapter 1
‘MY SON’: THE APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS 10
I. The Description of God’s Son: Hebrews 1.1-4 11
A. God Spoke Through a Son 11
B. The Narrative of God’s Son 13
II. The Son as God’s Wisdom and Word: Hebrews 1.1-4 21
III. The Relationship Announced: Hebrews 1.5 29
A. The Introduction to the Citations (Heb. 1.5a):
Spoken By God 30
B. Quasi-Prosopopographic Exegesis 31
C. The Selection of These Citations 37
D. The Content of the Citations 40
E. Hebrews 1.5 as the Interpretive Lens for Hebrews 1.1-4 41
F. The Temporal Setting of the Citation 42
G. The Character of the Son and of the Father 46
IV. The Name and Its Inheritance: Hebrews 1.6-13 51
A. The Angels Worship the Firstborn: Deuteronomy 32.43 LXX 52
B. The Angels as Spirits and Flames: Psalm 103.4 LXX 55
C. The Worthy King: Psalm 44.7-8 55
D. The Unchanging Creator: Psalm 101.26-28 LXX 56
E. The Invitation: Psalm 109.1 LXX 58
F. The Inherited Name 59
V. Conclusion 61
1
vi Contents
Chapter 2
‘A SON’: THE SUFFERING HEIR OF GOD’S CHILDREN 64
I. The Son of Man Inherits All Things 66
Through the Suffering of Death: Hebrews 2.6-9
A. The Inheritance of Jesus: Psalm 8.7 66
B. The Inheritance of the ĎĠË Å¿ÉļÈÇÍ 71
C. Because of the Suffering of Death 74
II. It Was Fitting: Hebrews 2.10 77
A. The Action of God 77
B. Perfected as the Heir 78
C. God Leads Many ĎÇĕ to Salvation 80
D. The Character of a Father 83
III. Behold the Children Whom God Has Given to Me!
Hebrews 2.11-13 84
A. Jesus is Brother to Humanity: Psalm 21.23 LXX 85
B. The Trust of Jesus: Isaiah 8.17 LXX 89
C. Jesus’ Possession of God’s Children: Isaiah 8.18 LXX 91
IV. Inheritance in the Scriptures 94
A. The House of David: 2 Samuel 7 94
B. The Enemies of God and the People of God 96
V. Rescue from Death Through Death: Hebrews 2.14-16 98
VI. Conclusion 102
Chapter 3
‘MY SON, YOU ARE PRIEST’:
THE FILIAL CONTEXT OF THE CULTIC MOTIF IN HEBREWS 105
I. A Son Over His House: Hebrews 3.1-6 109
A. The Son’s Humanity and Death 109
B. The Son Over the Children 113
C. The Character of the Father and the Son 114
II. The Call of the Father 115
A. Honor and Glory 115
B. The Royal Appointment: Psalm 109.4 LXX 116
C. The Reiteration of the Familial Relationship: Psalm 2.7 LXX 117
III. The Word of the Oath Appoints a Son: Hebrews 7.1-10, 28 118
A. The Oath 118
B. Melchizedek 120
C. The Oath Appoints a Son 123
IV. The Experience of the Son 124
A. Suffering 124
B. Exaltation 128
1
Contents vii
V. The Inheritance Secured by the Priest 130

A. The Eternal Inheritance 130
B. Intercession 133
VI. The Will of God: Hebrews 10.1-23 135
VII. Conclusion 137
Chapter 4
‘MY SON’: THE ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRSTBORN 140
I. The New Covenant 142
II. ‘My Son’: The Audience of Hebrews as ϊÀÇÀ of God 144
A. The Proverb 144
B. The Similarities Shared by the ĎÇĕ of God:
The ¸À»¼ĕ¸ of the Lord 151
III. Exhortations to the Children: Hebrews 12.12-17 163
A. Positive Instructions 163
B. Negative Examples 164
IV. The Assurance: The Inheritance of the Firstborn 168
A. Two Mountains 168
B. Do Not Resist the One Speaking 171
C. Benediction 174
V. Conclusion 176
Conclusion 179
I. Contributions to Scholarship on Hebrews 181
II. Conclusion 193
Bibliography 194
Index of References 205
Index of Authors 222
1
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A monograph may be the product of one individual, but its completion

provides evidence of a community’s support. I am very grateful to Mark
Goodacre and the entire staff of the Library of New Testament Studies
Series for providing a place to share my work. I am also grateful to
Princeton Theological Seminary, and my teachers and colleagues,
including Carla Works, Judy Stack Nelson, Kara Lyons Pardue, Brittany
Wilson, Matthew Novenson, and especially Laura Sweat, for shaping me
as a New Testament scholar. I am deeply thankful for the assistance of
my advisor, J. Ross Wagner. From the beginning, he helped me ¿nd the
valuable among my many ideas and then prompted me to articulate them
with a clear voice. A special thanks is also due to the mentors who began
me on the journey of Biblical Studies in college: C. Mack Roark, Bobby
Kelly, Kevin Hall, and Todd Ream, and to my colleagues at Indiana
Wesleyan University, David Riggs, Sara Scheunemann, Lisa Toland,
Rusty Hawkins, Todd Ream, and Charles Bressler (for his editing skills!)
and Wheaton College, for encouragement along the way. Ellen Richard,
and especially Mike Kibbe for his painstaking editing, deserve special
thanks for their tireless work as my teaching assistants.
I have treasured my opportunity to dialogue with other Hebrews
scholars along the way, among them Gabriella Gelardini, Eric Mason,
Ken Schenck, David Mof¿tt, Kevin McCruden and all the members of
the Hebrews group at SBL. I hope my work contributes to our vital con-
versations.
Finally, I hope this volume, interested as it is in the family of God,
shows my thankfulness to the family and friends who have supported my
work along the way, including my parents, Perry and Pam Beverage, in-
laws, Claude and Linda Peeler, pastors, Doug Hoglund, Jim Warnock,
Claudia Nalven, Mark Tuscan; and best friends, Courtney and Blake
Connelly, John and Amanda Drury, Dawn and Kevin Orr, and Emily
Norman.
I sketched the proposal for this dissertation in the ¿nal weeks before
the birth of my daughter, Kate, defended it a few days before the birth of
my son, Maxson, and prepared it for publication while expecting my son,
x Acknowledgments
Kindred. The decision to focus on familial themes in Hebrews did not

arise out of my experience of becoming a mother, but it was certainly
enriched by it.
Finally, to my husband Lance, this project is as much your labor as
mine; for while I wrote, you read, edited, encouraged, prayed, worked,
cleaned, gardened, played music, and cared for the kids. You have been,
and remain, my greatest gift on earth. To you, and our sweet children, I
dedicate this study. May the delights we experience as a family continue
forevermore in the household of God.
1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1 Apol. Justin Martyr, First Apology

AB Anchor Bible
ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
Ad Heb. Aquinas, Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul
to the Hebrews
Ad Serap. Athanasius, Epistula ad Serapionem
de more Arii
Aet. mund. Philo, De aeternitate mundi
Agr. Philo, De agricultura
All. Heraclitus, Allegoriae
ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers
Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Ant. rom. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae
ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentary
ATJ Ashland Theological Journal
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
Ben. Seneca, De bene¿cis
BFChTh Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie
BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese
Bib Biblica
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BR Biblical Research
BRS Biblical Resource Series
BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Cael. Cicero, Pro Caelio
C. Ar. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series
CD Karl Barth, The Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. in 13 parts. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1956–69, 1975
Cher. Philo, De cherubim
Cic. Plutarch, Cicero
Clem. Seneca, De Clementia
Coh. ir. Plutarch, De cohibenda ira
Com. Jn. Origen, Commentarii in
evangelium Joannis
Conf. Philo, De confusione linguarum
Congr. Philo, De congress eruditionis gratia
CQ Classical Quarterly
De mundo Ps.-Aristotle, De Mundo
De or. Cicero, De Oratore
xii List of Abbreviations
De rer. nat. Lucretuis, De rerum natura

Def. orac. Plutarch, De defectu oraculorum
Det. pot. ins. Philo, Quod deterius potiori
insidari soleat
Deus Philo, Quod Deus sit
immutabilis
Dial. Origen, Dialogus cum Heraclide
Diatr. Epictetus, Diatribai
Dion. Athanasius, De sententia Dionysii
DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by
T. Desmond Alexander and David Baker. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2003
EBib Etudes bibliques
EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
El. Euripides, Electra
Eloc. Demetrius, De elocutione
Ep. Isocrates, Letters
Ep. Seneca, Epistles
Epitaph. Demosthenes, Epitaphius
EurHoch Europäische Hochschulschriften
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
ExpTim Expository Times
Flacc. Philo, In Flaccum
Frag. Epicurus, Fragments
Frat. amor. Plutarch, De fraterno amore
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Fug. Philo, De fuga et inventione
Gig. Philo, De gigantibus
Hist. Herodotus, Historiae
Hist. Polybius, Historiae
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
Hom. Heb. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam
ad Hebraeos
Hom. Num. Origen, Homiliae in Numeros
IB Interpreter’s Bible
IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
ICC International Critical Commentary
Il. Homer, Iliad
Inc. Athanasius, De incarnatione
Inst. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria
Int. Interpretation
Inv. Cicero, De Inventione rhetorica
Is. Os. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
1
List of Abbreviatins xiii
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

(Meyer-Kommentar)
LCC Library of Christian Classics
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LD Lectio Divina
Leg. Philo, Legum allegoriae
Leg. Plato, Leges
Legat. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium
LHBOTS Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
Lib. ed. Plutarch, De liberis educandis
Lives Diodorus Siculus, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
MBPS Mellen Biblical Press Series
Med. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Migr. Abr. Philo, De migratione Abraham
Mor. Plutarch, Moralia
Mos. Philo, De vita Mosis
Neot Neotestamentica
Nic. Isocrates, Nicocles
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements
NPNF The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
NRTh La nouvelle revue théologique
NTC New Testament Commentary
NTL New Testament Library
NTM New Testament Monographs
NTS New Testament Studies
OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary
Omn. prob. lib Philo, Quod omnis probus liber sit
Opif. Philo, De opi¿cio mundi
Or. Aeluis Aristides, Orations
Or. Dio Chrysostom, Oratoria
Ores. Euripides, Orestes
OTM Oxford Theological Monographs
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth.
2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–85
PadTS Paderborner Theologische Studien
Paideia Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament
Pan. Epiphanius, Panarion
Paneg. Isocrates, Panegyricus
PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs
Peregr. Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus
Phaedr. Plato, Phaedrus
Plant Philo, De plantatione
PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
Pol. Plato, Politicus
Post. Philo, De posteritate Caini
Praep. ev. Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica
Princ. Origen, De principiis
PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies
1
xiv List of Abbreviations
Quaest. in Gen Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones

in Genesin
Rer. Div, her. Philo, Quis rerum divinarum
heres sit
ResQ Restoration Quarterly
Rhet. Aristotle, Rhetorica
Sacr. Philo, De sacri¿ces Abelis et Caini
SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
Somn. Philo, De somniis
SP Sacra Pagina
Spec. Philo, De Specialibus legibus
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
SubBi Subsidia Biblica
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel
and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76
Them. Themelios
Theo. Or. Gregory of Nazianzen, Theological Orations
Thuc. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Thucydide
Tib. Suetonius, Tiberius
Tim. Plato, Timaeus
Tusc. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations
VE Vox Evengelica
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WTS Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift für die neuetestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der älteren Kirche
1
INTRODUCTION
I. The Family of God
The ¿rst words of the Epistle to the Hebrews declare: God, after speak-
ing, spoke ( o ¿¼ġË Â¸ÂûÊ¸Ë ëÂÚÂ¾Ê¼Å, Heb. 1.1). The artfully crafted
beginning of the sermon1 ‘to the Hebrews’2 con¿rms that this epistle has
1 The genre classi¿cation is one of the Epistle to the Hebrews’ many unresolved
questions; see Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), p.13; F. F.
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), p.3; B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan,
1928), pp.xxix–xxx; James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2008), p.3; William Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräer-
brief (FRLANT, 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906). Its lack of an
epistolary prescript, its inclusion of an epistolary postscript, and its focus upon the
importance of speech and hearing all result in a debate about its classi¿cation. The
text itself says that it is a ÌÇı ÂŦºÇÍ ÌýË È¸É¸ÁÂŢÊ¼ÑË, a word of exhortation (13.22).
The epistolary and oral features of the document lead me to af¿rm those who argue
that it was delivered to this congregation as a letter, but read as a sermon; see Paul
Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1993), p.62; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2006), p.10; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (AB, 36; New
York: Doubleday, 2001), p.81; and William L. Lane, Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC, 47;
Dallas: Word, 1991), p.1:lxxiv.
2 The ethnic makeup of the audience also remains disputed. A group of com-
mentators assumes the references to Jewish scriptures and cult suggests a Jewish
audience (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. Hebr. Argument1 [NPNF 14:363]; Bruce,
Hebrews, pp.xxiii–xxx; George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation,
Comment, and Conclusions [AB, 36; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972], pp.246–
67; Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a
New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation [SNTSMS, 36; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979], pp.26–51; Johnson, Hebrews, p.33; Simon J.
Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews [NTC; Grand Rapids: Baker,
1984], p.17; William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditions-
geschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes [WMANT, 53;
Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981], pp.251–60; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter
to the Hebrews [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], p.13). Others argue that the
text could just as easily reÀect a Gentile or mixed audience who has been introduced
2 You Are My Son
much to say about God because God has much to say. God speaks
twenty-three citations in Hebrews.3 In addition to these, the author
discusses God’s speech over thirty times.4 With the pervasive theme of
the ‘speaking God’,5 the author conveys a theological truth to his
to Jewish customs (Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer (HNT, 14; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1984], p.2; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.22; Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer
[3 vols.; EKKNT, 17; Zurich: Benziger, 1990–97], p.1:148–9; James Moffatt,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [ICC;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924; repr. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963], pp.xvi–xvii;
Ceslas Spicq, L’épitre aux Hébreux [2 vols.; EBib; Paris: Lecoffre, 1952–53],
pp.1:222–23).
3 Heb. 1.5, 6, 7, 8-9, 10-12, 13; 3.9-11; 4.3, 5, 7; 5.5, 7; 6.14; 7.17, 21; 8.5,
8-12; 10.30, 37-38; 11.18; 12.5-6, 26; 13.5.
4 Heb. 1.1, 2; 2.4; 3.16; 4.2, 6, 12-13; 5.4, 10, 12; 6.5, 13, 15, 17; 7.6, 11, 28;
8.6, 13; 9.15; 11.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 39; 12.19, 20, 25.
5 Two monographs analyze how the author’s emphasis on the speaking God
impacts the epistle. Tomasz Lewicki argues that a ‘Wort-Gottes-Theologie’ is the
foundation for the letter’s Christology and soteriology in ‘Weist nicht ab den
Sprechenden!’ Wort Gottes und Paraklese im Hebräerbrief (PadTS, 41; Paderborn:
Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004). In addition to Lewicki, David Wider also asserts that
Hebrews’ hermeneutical key is in the speech of God in Theozentrik und Bekenntnis:
Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens Gottes im Hebräerbrief (BZNW, 87;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997). God’s speech is the key theme in a dissertation by Gary
Smillie (‘Living and Active: The Word of God in the Book of Hebrews’ [Ph.D. diss.,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000]). As a sampling of the importance of this
theme, consider these statements. William L. Vander Beek claims, ‘[t]he content
of the whole epistle can be summed up under the heading, “In Praise of the God
Who Speaks” ’ (‘Hebrews: A “Doxology” of the Word’, Mid-America Journal of
Theology 16 [2005]: pp.13–28 [13]). Graham Hughes argues, ‘[t]he question which
has preoccupied [the author of Hebrews] more deeply than any other…has been that
of saying how we may conceive the Word of God…as being subject to historical
processes and yet remaining, recognizably, God’s Word’ (Hebrews and Hermeneu-
tics, p.3). Susan Lehne states, ‘…most commentators would agree that a major
concern of Heb. is God’s speaking and his people’s hearing of his Word…’ (The
New Covenant in Hebrews [JSNTSup, 44; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1990], p.12). William
Lane, in his two-volume commentary, concludes, ‘[t]he central theme of Hebrews is
the importance of listening to the voice of God in Scripture and in the act of
Christian preaching’ (Hebrews, p.1:cxxvii). In James W. Thompson’s recent com-
mentary, the theme of speech forms its structure: hearing God’s word with faithful
endurance (Heb. 1.1–4.13); discovering certainty and con¿dence in the word for the
mature (Heb. 4.14–10.31); on not refusing the one who is speaking (Heb. 10.32–
13.25). He asserts that, ‘[t]he centerpiece of the author’s persuasive effort is the
claim that “God has spoken in these days by a Son” ’ (Hebrews, p.20). Harold
Attridge asserts, ‘[i]n development of this conceit [that ‘readers and hearers of
scripture can listen to God speaking’] resides the most creative theological work of
1
Introduction 3
audience: God is not distant, but involves himself with humanity by

speaking to them.6
This af¿rmation, however, does not exhaust the theological implica-
tions of God’s act of speaking. The author proclaims something more
precise than the fact that God speaks to this audience; he also speci¿es
the mode of God’s speaking, namely that God speaks ëÅ ÍĎŊ (Heb. 1.2).
In this appeal to familial language, the author evokes God as a Father in
light of the relationship with Jesus his Son. The author thus af¿rms that
God is a relational God who engages Jesus and his human creation
through speech, but by asserting that God establishes a familial relation-
ship, the author depicts a particularly intimate and loving God.
The familial theme introduced by the phrase ëÅ ÍĎŊ continues to appear
at key junctures in the letter. The ¿rst time God speaks in Hebrews, he
declares his paternal identity in relationship with his Son (Heb. 1.5-6).
Before the author proclaims Jesus’ call to the Melchizedekian priesthood
(Heb. 5.5-6), God rearticulates this paternal relationship with Jesus. In
God’s ¿rst explicit address to the author and his audience,7 God himself
declares their status as his ÍĎÇĕ (Heb. 12.5-6). These examples indicate
that the author depicts God’s identity as Father throughout the sermon –
and hence portrays Jesus and then the audience as the family God
establishes.
In addition to these scriptures spoken by God, the author’s language
throughout the sermon gives evidence of the pervasiveness of the famil-
ial theme. The author uses the word È¸ÌûÉ for God at two pivotal points
in his argument (Heb. 1.5 and 12.9). Moreover, because the author
de¿nes God’s Fatherhood ¿rst and foremost in light of Jesus’ sonship at
the beginning of the sermon, every mention of Jesus as ÍĎĠË hereafter
invokes this relationship (1.2, 5, 8; 3.6; 4.14; 5.5, 8; 6.6; 7.3, 28; 10.29).8
this complex text’ (‘God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory’, in The
Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Paul J.
Achtemeier on the Occasion of His Seventy-¿fth Birthday [A. Andrew Das and Frank
J. Matera, eds; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], pp.197–210 [204]).
6 Lewicki argues that the author is trying to counter a view of God as distant
(‘Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden!’, p.14).
7 The only time the author includes a dative pronoun to specify that God is
speaking to the audience directly occurs in Heb. 12.5. See my argument in Chapter 4
that this proverb is best interpreted as the speech of God.
8 Pertaining to the relationship between ‘Son’ and ‘Father’, Pamela Eisenbaum
says similarly, ‘…since the author almost always portrays God as the speaker,
addressing himself to his Son, there can be no doubt that God’s relationship to Jesus
and by extension, Jesus’ followers, is as Father’ (‘Father and Son: The Christology
of Hebrews in Patrilineal Perspective’, in Feminist Companion to the Catholic
1
4 You Are My Son
In addition to the word ÍĎĠË, the author alludes to the Father/Son

relationship between God and Jesus when he describes Jesus’ status as
God’s heir at his right hand (1.2, 4; 8.1; 10.12; 12.2) and when he refers
to Jesus’ inheritance (1.2, 3, 13; 2.7-9; 5.9; 13.21).9 Moreover, their
relationship also provides the context in which God perfects Jesus (2.10;
5.5-9; 7.28) as a father teaches and trains his son.
Likewise, the author describes the relationship he and his readers have
with God in precisely the same terms. They are God’s ÍĎÇĕ (2.10; 12.5-
8),10 God’s children (È¸À»ĕ¸, 2.13-14), members of God’s household
(ÇčÁÇË, 3.6), and siblings of Jesus (Ò»¼ÂÎÇĕ, 2.11-12, 17; 3.1, 12; 10.19;
13.22) who are enduring God’s training (È¸À»¼ĕ¸, 12.5-11) as they look
forward to their inheritance as sons (1.14; 6.17; 9.15; 11.40; 12.11, 22-24,
28). There has been to date no concentrated treatment of the theological,
Christological, and ecclesiological implications of the pervasive familial
theme in Hebrews.11 This prevalent and vital theme of the letter deserves
Epistles and Hebrews [A.-J. Levine and M. M. Robbins, eds; London: T&T Clark
International, 2004], pp.127–46 [136 n.44]). David DeSilva states, ‘[t]he title “Son”
carries a message that Jesus’ honor and worth derives from the honor of the father,
God himself… Dwelling on Jesus’ status as “Son” is a reminder that God stands
behind the honor of this person…’ (Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000],
pp.85–6).
9 Pamela Eisenbaum also argues for the close connection between Jesus’
sonship and his role as God’s heir (‘Patrilineal Perspective’, p.141). I build upon
Eisenbaum’s work by placing more emphasis upon the complexity of Jesus’ lineage
as both the Son of God and also the son of man.
10 In my discussion of the text, I maintain the author’s gender exclusive use of
‘sons’ in the places where he uses ÍĎÇĕ. In Chapter 4, I argue that this language is
intentional, meant to reÀect the connection between Jesus’ ¿lial status and that of
the audience.
11 Many interpreters refer to the familial theme in Hebrews. Most prevalent is
recognition of the importance of Jesus as Son in Hebrews. Early in the twentieth
century, Julius Kögel asserted the fundamental importance of Jesus’ ¿lial status:
‘[i]n der uĎĠË-Bezeichnung umschliesst sich ihm der ganze Reichtum der Person wie
des Werkes Christi’ (Der Sohn und die Söhne: Eine exegetische Studie zu Hebräer
2,5-18 [BFChTh Jahrgang, 8, Heft 5+6; Güttersloh (C. Bertelsmann), 1904], p.116).
Later interpreters agreed. Lane states, ‘[t]he dominant motif is that of Jesus as the
Son of God’ (Hebrews, p.1:cxxxix). Similarly, Ben Witherington avers, ‘[w]ithout
question, the major christological category or terminology in Hebrews and the term
used to cover the scope of Christ’s work is Son’ (Letters and Homilies for Jewish
Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude [Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007], p.59). James D. G. Dunn notes the importance of
‘Jesus’ divine sonship’ for the letter (Christology in the Making: A New Testament
Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids:
1
Introduction 5
concentrated attention in order to answer this question: What purposes

are served by the author’s thoroughgoing appeal to the family of God?
I argue that the familial imagery shapes the author’s presentation of
the three primary persons of the sermon: God, Jesus, and the humans in
Eerdmans, 1989], pp.51–2), but Richard Bauckham states more forcefully, ‘[t]he
most fundamental category is that of the Son of God who shares eternally the unique
identity of his Father…’ (Jesus and the God of Israel: God Cruci¿ed and Other
Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 2008], p.236). Victor C. P¿tzner argues, ‘[t]hus, although both titles [Son and
High Priest] are vital for the Christology of the letter, the primary title is “Son” ’
(Hebrews [ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997], p.38). Similarly Donald Hagner
asserts that the designation Son or Son of God is ‘the central Christological designa-
tion’ (‘The Son of God as Unique High Priest: The Christology of the Epistle to the
Hebrews’, in Contours of Christology in the New Testament [R. N. Longenecker,
ed.; McMaster New Testament Studies; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], p.248).
Ellingworth emphasizes what Jesus’ role means for the theology of the letter: ‘[t]he
most distinctive developments in the letter’s teaching about God occur where the
writer speaks of God’s relationship with his son; for if christology is the centre of the
epistle’s teaching, that christology is rooted in teaching about God’ (Hebrews, p.66).
Pamela Eisenbaum, citing comparisons with the Pauline corpus, argues for the preva-
lence of the theme as a whole: ‘[a] comparative survey quickly reveals that Hebrews
places much greater emphasis on Jesus’ divine sonship than other NT writings, save
perhaps the Johannine literature’ (‘Patrilineal Perspective’, p.135). In addition to
recognizing the importance of this title, I call attention to the relational nature of this
term, namely, how its use also conveys truths about the Father of the Son.
Despite these widespread af¿rmations of the familial theme, only one other
monograph has examined familial themes in Hebrews: J. Scott Lidgett’s Sonship and
Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Epworth, 1921). He also
af¿rms the importance of this theme: ‘[t]he key is to be found, in my judgment, in
our Lord’s Sonship and in all that His Sonship reveals… Hence, as it has become
apparent to me, the subject of the Epistle is, above all else, Sonship and Salvation,
the latter being explicable only in terms of the former’ (Lidgett, Sonship and
Salvation, p.7). This largely forgotten work – among the major commentaries of
Hebrews, Lidgett is included in the bibliography of Bruce, Ellingworth, Lane, and
Spicq, yet he is never cited in any of these texts – provides a conversation partner
who, at times, provides support for my interpretations and, at others, provides ideas
to challenge. The major distinction between our projects is the weight given to
God’s Fatherhood. Lidgett argues that the author of Hebrews ‘assumes [the Father-
hood of God] throughout the Epistle, but [it] is only explicitly stated towards the
end’ (Lidgett, Sonship and Salvation, p.13). Similarly on p.93: ‘And while the writer
says nothing expressly about the Fatherhood of God, the whole of the Epistle turns
upon Sonship’. This project argues that the author explicitly presents the Fatherhood
of God at the very beginning of the sermon through God’s own speech and
continually throughout the letter. Therefore, I aim to explicate consistently, along
with the Christology and soteriology of the letter, its theology as well.
1
6 You Are My Son
relationship with them, the author and his audience. First, by portraying
God as Father, the author is able to convey diverse aspects of God’s
character. God exercises his sovereignty and magnanimity as a Father,
sharing aspects of his divine identity with his children. God also exer-
cises his soteriological will as a Father, disciplining his children through
suffering so that they might become perfect.
Second, by portraying Jesus as the Son,12 the author highlights both his
sovereignty and his obedience. Because he is the Son of God, he has
been elevated over all: the prophets, the angels, Moses, and the priests.
As the Son of God who became a son of man,13 he shows himself to be
perfectly obedient to his Father even in the face of death. Consequently,
God instates this obedient son as the resurrected and exalted heir of all
things, through this process Jesus provides the ultimate example of a son
of God.
Third, God’s paternal relationship with Jesus grants to the audience
members their identity and hope as children of God. Because God
perfects his Son Jesus through the process of suffering, death, and
resurrection, he is able to rescue the audience members from slavery
to the fear of death (2.15), cleanse them from sin (1.3; 2.17; 3.13, 17;
5.1; 8.12; 9.26; 10.12, 17), and bestow upon them the status and bene¿ts
of God’s children. As such, they, like Jesus, experience God’s discipline
so that they can dwell in God’s presence and share in the qualities of
God’s nature.14 Moreover, the author of Hebrews bolsters his readers’
12 See the treatment of Jesus as ‘der Sohn’ by William G. Loader (Sohn und
Hoherpriester, pp.7–141). Loader analyzes the relevant texts in Hebrews pertaining
to Jesus’ sonship and that of the audience. His primary interest, however, lies in
discovering the traditions that lie behind the author’s various – and at times seem-
ingly oppositional – Christological statements. On the other hand, my project inves-
tigates not what lies behind the assertions of sonship, but rather how those assertions
function for the construction of the letter’s Christology and its exhortation.
13 I use the phrase ‘son of man’ to refer to humanity as it seems the author does
with his reference to Ps. 8.4 in Heb. 2.6.
14 Interpreters of Hebrews often note the connection between Jesus’ ¿lial status
and that of the audience. Ernst Käsemann stated, ‘[w]hen J. Kögel supplied his essay
about Heb. 2.5ff with the title “The Son and the Sons” he captured with it in an
accurate manner a motif that claims critical meaning’ (Das wandernde Gottesvolk:
Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959],
p.58 [my translation]). David A. DeSilva states, ‘[f]rom the opening paragraph
through the concluding exhortations, he calls their attention to the Son… Remain-
ing connected to the community gives them “noble birth” as children of God’
(Perseverance, pp.58–9). So also Koester, ‘[c]entral to the confession was that Jesus
is the Son of God. Hebrews explicitly links the confession with Jesus’ divine sonship
in 4.14. The opening lines show that divine sonship was understood to include
1
Introduction 7
ability to endure with the knowledge that they are part of the inheritance
God has promised and Jesus has already secured.15 The example of the
relationship between God and Jesus gives them direction and hope; the
act of God’s relationship with Jesus gives them assurance.
The familial relationship forms one of the foundation stones upon
which this author constructs his homily. In addition to highlighting the
fact of Jesus’ and the audience’s sonship, perfecting, and inheritance, I
seek to elucidate the author’s description of the process through which
these realities came to be. God expresses his Fatherhood by calling his
Christ’s appointment as heir of all things in a manner congruent with the Scriptures,
together with his creative power, divinity, and glory (1.1–5)… The royal connota-
tions of the title “Son of God” imply that believers have a “confession of hope” of
inheriting a share in his kingdom (10.32-34; 13.3, 13)’ (Hebrews, pp.126–7). Patrick
Gray states, ‘[The author] takes quite seriously the notion that God’s Son is the
brother of all the faithful and explores the implications of this idea for those fortu-
nate to have the same father’ (‘Brotherly Love and the Christology of Hebrews’, JBL
122.2 [2003], pp.335–51). In his commentary, Attridge states, ‘[i]n Hebrews,
Christ’s status as heir is manifested in his exaltation to the “right hand” (v. 3d), a
transcendent position that guarantees his brethren their inheritance’ (Hebrews, p.40).
In a later essay, he states more forcefully, ‘[t]he whole short story of God in Hebrews
revolves around that relationship between God and God’s children. Through the
windows on that story opened by Hebrews there emerges a picture of a God passion-
ately involved not only with a single Son but with many children destined ultimately
to share God’s sabbatical rest’ (‘God in Hebrews’, p.202). I seek to show how this
connection functions on two levels. Jesus is both example of the perfect Son and the
one who makes sonship possible for others. In other words, the audience learns from
him how to attain their inheritance and learns that they are his inheritance. Jesus
serves as both the model and means of their familial relationship with God.
15 Scott D. Mackie also stresses the hortatory importance of the author’s famil-
ial imagery in his monograph, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (WUNT, 2/223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Much of this discussion
also appears in ‘Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews’, NTS 53 (2007), pp.114–
29. For Mackie, the aim of the ‘Son of God Christology’, which begins with the
‘Father’s declaration of Jesus’ Sonship’, and includes ‘Jesus’ reciprocal confession
of the fatherhood of God’ is to ‘elicit a confession of Jesus as the Son of God’ and to
‘solidify [the audience’s] resolve to publicly confess and identify with the Son of
God and his family’ (Eschatology and Exhortation, pp.216–17). I also seek to show
how the familial reality came to be for the audience, and consequently, why the
readers can trust the surety of this status. See also the essay ‘Brotherly Love and the
High Priest Christology of Hebrews’, where Patrick Gray shows the correspondence
between the epistle’s depiction of Jesus as brother and other depictions of sibling
relationships, particularly in Plutarch’s essay, ‘On Brotherly Love’ (De fraterno
amore 478A–492D). He also draws attention to Jesus’ status as the elder brother in
which Jesus acts as the guardian of his siblings.
1
8 You Are My Son
Son to suffer so that Jesus can be elevated to his own right hand where,
ultimately, he will inherit all things. By virtue of this process, the author
and his audience become members of God’s family; as such they have
faith that their present experiences con¿rm their ultimate eternal
participation in the household of God as part of Jesus’ own inheritance.
In other words, God’s paternal relationship with Jesus his Son shapes the
theology and Christology of the letter, and, in so doing, constructs the
identity of the audience, legitimizes their present experience, and sup-
ports them in their endurance. Because God is Father and Jesus is Son,
the author argues, the audience can be con¿dent in their status as God’s
children and in the promised future that status entails.
II. Outline of the Project
In order to present just how the author develops his argument about the
Fatherhood of God, the sonship of Jesus, and the identity of the commu-
nity, the structure of this book largely follows that of the sermon itself.
The ¿rst chapter treats Hebrews 1, analyzing the establishment of the
Father/Son relationship between God and Jesus in v. 5 and then tracing
the implications of that relationship in the ¿rst sentence (Heb. 1.1-4) and
in the catena of scriptural quotations that follow (Heb. 1.5-13). This
relationship de¿nes God as a Father for the entire sermon and provides
the foundation for Jesus’ glorious status as God’s Son and, hence, his
heir.
The second chapter of the book moves to the second chapter of
Hebrews to elucidate the interplay between God’s paternal perfecting of
Jesus and the establishment of humanity as children of God. God the
Father perfects the Son as heir by means of his suffering unto death.
In doing so, God establishes the means by which the Son secures his
inheritance, an inheritance that includes the audience of Hebrews as
children of God.
The third chapter unpacks the familial theme in the cultic sections of
the letter. Jesus’ priesthood is the vocation to which God his Father calls
him and through which God his Father perfects him. He is quali¿ed to
serve as high priest because he has been called, prepared, and exalted
by his Father. Serving as a high priest forever, he makes possible the
inheritance of salvation for his brothers and sisters and aids them on their
journey to attain it. This priestly provision and assistance leads to the
possession of his own all-encompassing inheritance.
1
Introduction 9
Finally, the fourth chapter attends to the audience’s status as children

of God, predominately as this is developed in Hebrews 12 and 13. In
these chapters, the author begins with the present implications for the
audience’s ¿lial identity. They too must endure discipline, and in doing
so they will inherit membership in God’s household and kingdom along
with all of God’s children. The closing benediction of the epistle warrants
consideration because it utilizes terms associated with the paternal char-
acter and actions of God and it calls for the attribution of glory to Christ.
In so doing, it acts as a ¿nal af¿rmation of the possession of Jesus’
inheritance and, as such, it assures the audience that they will attain their
place in God’s house.
At the beginning of Hebrews, God says, ‘You are my Son’ (ÍĎŦË ÄÇÍ ¼č
Êŧ). This relationship proclaims the identity of God and the identity of all
those who hear his voice. God is the Father who disciplines his children
so that they can attain the blessing of being in his presence. Jesus is the
preeminent Son who has already endured God’s training, sits in the place
of honor at God’s right hand, and awaits his inheritance. As that exalted
Son, he enables the recipients of Hebrews, as children of the Father and
siblings of the Son, likewise to endure suffering and so receive their
promised inheritance because they have him as their example and
assurance. The ¿rst words of God in Hebrews, albeit succinct, reverber-
ate throughout the letter and provide dominant themes for the author’s
theology, Christology, and exhortation.
1
Chapter 1
‘MY SON’: THE APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS
In the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews Jesus remains unnamed, but his identity is
without question: he is the Son of God.1 Equally important, that means
that God is his Father. This chapter traces the construction of this
relationship throughout Hebrews 1. Arranged into three sections, the ¿rst
attends to the story of God’s Son in 1.2-4, the second analyzes God’s
proclamation of the relationship in 1.5, and the ¿nal portion examines
God’s articulation of his Son’s inherited name in vv. 6-13. In this analy-
sis, I argue that the two citations in 1.5 anchor the author’s depiction of
the Father and Son relationship between God and Jesus. The proclama-
tion made by God in 1.5 orients the author’s story about Christ in vv. 2-4.
Moreover, because the author continues to evoke this relationship
throughout the rest of the chapter in his introductions to the citations, it
provides the basis for that which is attributed to Christ in vv. 6, 8-13.
As the author sketches the contours of this familial relationship, he
constructs an exalted Christology and a paternal theology. Jesus’ rela-
tionship with God distinguishes him from the angels (1.4) and, even
grander, as God’s Son, he is heir of everything (1.2, 13; 2.8). Interlaced
with this Christology, the opening section of the letter also introduces a
fatherly portrayal of God. Sovereign in his ability to grant such an
inheritance to his Son, God is generously paternal in his willingness to
do so.
This chapter serves the overarching argument of my thesis in two
respects. First, it demonstrates that the author maintains focus upon the
familial relationship between God and Jesus throughout the ¿rst chapter
of his sermon. He clearly does so in v. 5, but his utilization of familial
language and themes throughout the chapter shows that this is not simply
a theme he replicates from a citation, but one that he integrates into the
fabric of his argument. Second, it analyzes how the author’s consistent
appeal to the Father/Son relationship shapes vital elements of the identity
1 Through the use of the word ÍĎĠË or other familial terms (ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË, ÁÂ¾ÉÇ-
ÅÇÄñÑ, ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË, Ò»¼ÂÎĠË) the author describes Jesus as God’s Son throughout the
letter (Heb. 1.2, 4, 5, 6, 8; 2.11; 3.2, 6; 4.14; 5.5; 6.6; 7.3, 28; 10.29).
1. ‘My Son’: The Appointed Heir of All Things 11
of God and the identity of Christ.2 In the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews, the
author portrays God’s sovereign and sharing nature as well as Christ’s
exalted status through the paternal/¿lial relationship that exists between
them.
I. The Description of God’s Son: Hebrews 1.1-4
The opening sentence of the sermon contains an eloquent description of

God’s speech.3 It begins with a broad focus upon God’s manifold reve-
lations in the days of old, and then narrows in on the one through whom
God has spoken in the last days. By designating this medium of God’s
speech as God’s own Son, the author establishes the Son’s unparalleled
excellence and trustworthiness. He also begins to shape the audience’s
conception of the God who speaks through this particular medium. In
other words, read through the lens of the familial relationship, Heb. 1.1-4
shows the supremacy of the Son and the paternal generosity of the Father.
A. God Spoke Through a Son

The parallel structure of the opening clauses, ÇÂÍÄ¼ÉľË Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÍÌÉŦÈÑË
ÈŠÂ¸À ĝ ¿¼ġË Â¸ÂŢÊ¸Ë ÌÇėË È¸ÌÉŠÊÀÅ ëÅ ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÎŢÌ¸ÀË // ëÈЏëÊÏŠÌÇÍ ÌľÅ
÷Ä¼ÉľÅ ÌÇŧÌÑÅ ëÂŠÂ¾Ê¼Å ÷ÄėÅ ëÅ ÍÀŊ, which contrast the timing, address-
ees, and media of God’s speech, suggests several implications of Jesus’
sonship. First, this comparison between the vehicles of God’s communi-
cation highlights that calling Jesus ‘Son’ makes a statement about who he
is. The other medium through which God has spoken – the prophets –
2 Richard Bauckham’s Cruci¿ed God: Monotheism and Christology in the New

Testament (Disbury Lectures; Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1998) and also the
expanded version of the same work, Jesus and the God of Israel, informs my use of
the term ‘identity’. Bauckham uses the term to indicate ‘who God is’ as opposed to
the term ‘nature’ that describes, in Bauckham’s words, ‘what God is or what divinity
is’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, p.7). Identity cuts through the division of function
and ontology by asserting that ‘[c]ertain divine “functions”, if we have to use that
word, are not mere functions but integral to who God is’ (Jesus and the God of
Israel, p.235). With respect to Hebrews, I am using the term to indicate that, in the
words of Karl Barth, ‘God’s being is in God’s act of revelation’ (CD II/1, §28). The
relationships in which God is involved and the ways in which God acts in those
relationships reveal who God is. There is no indication in Hebrews that the being of
God is hidden behind, i.e., different from, the revelatory acts in God’s relationships.
3 The opening words of Hebrews are alliterative, repeating the ‘È’ sound:
ÈÇÂÍÄ¼ÉľË Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÍÌÉĠÈÑË ÈÚÂ¸À ĝ ¿¼ġË Â¸ÂûÊ¸Ë ÌÇėË È¸ÌÉÚÊÀÅ ëÅ ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÎûÌ¸ÀË.
Harold W. Attridge notes the use of alliteration and particularly the use of ÈÇÂįË in
contemporary literature as evidence of the author’s ‘rhetorical artistry’ (Hebrews,
pp.36–7 nn. 17–18).
1
12 You Are My Son
makes this clear. Being a prophet can become one’s identity; but in order
for this to happen, one must perform the actions of a prophet, namely,
hearing from God and then passing on God’s message (1 Sam. 3.1-21;
Amos 7.14-15; Jer. 1.1-19). Conversely, the status of sonship requires no
action on the son’s part to become a reality.4 A basic contrast exists
between the two media of God’s speech – the prophets are de¿ned by
what they do, and the Son is de¿ned solely by his relationship to God.
By focusing on his ¿lial identity, the author has signi¿ed that this one
who now serves as a vehicle for God’s communication to humanity
stands in a close relationship to God. This relationship differs signi¿-
cantly from the prophets.5 They held a close connection to God, but to be
a spokesman for God is not equal to the status of being God’s Son.6 It
follows that if the prophets were worthy of honor and respect, then God’s
Son is that much more worthy of honor and respect.7 Similarly, if the
4 In the following sections, I argue that the temporal language of vv. 4 and 5
does not indicate that Jesus had to make puri¿cation for sins ¿rst before he became
God’s Son. More broadly, I refer here to the meaning of the term within the biologi-
cal familial metaphor, where a son born to a father does nothing in order to become a
son. This is true even in Greece and Rome whose cultures included the exposure of
infants. Those who were not exposed, but allowed to live and of¿cially to join the
family, did nothing of their own action to gain this clemency. It was solely the
decision of the father (see John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandon-
ment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance [New
York: Pantheon, 1988], esp. pp.57–70). Even when the title ‘Son’ is used in a royal
context in Israel’s scriptures, as it is in the context of the citations that follow, the
situation remains the same. God designates David’s heir, Solomon, as his son before
he is born (2 Sam. 7.14; 12.24). David also, to whom Psalm 2 and Psalm 88 ( LXX)
refer, did nothing to earn God’s election of him to the Kingship (1 Sam. 16).
Whether by birth or by election, the conferral of the status of son is not conditional
upon any action of the one named son.
5 Cf. Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SP, 13; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1989),
p.37); Thompson, Hebrews, p.37.
6 In Israel’s scriptures, a prophet is one to whom and through whom God speaks
(Num. 12.6; Deut. 18.18, 19; Judg. 6.8; 1 Sam. 3.21; 1 Kgs 13.20; 2 Kgs 17.13;
21.10; 2 Chr. 12.5; Ezra 9.11; Amos 3.7; Hab. 1.1; Hag. 1.3; Zech. 1.1; 7.7; Jer.
7.25; 25.4) and one to whom God gives his Spirit (Num. 11.25, 29; 1 Sam. 10.6. 10;
19.23; Joel 2.28). Moses is held up as a prophet who knew the Lord face to face and
is unparalleled by any other (Deut. 34.10). Yet, as the author of Hebrews will make
clear (Heb. 3.1-6), no prophet – not even Moses – is known also as God’s Son.
7. With support from citations of Ben Sira, Dio Chrysostom, and Rhetorica ad
Herrenium, David DeSilva observes, ‘[i]n the Greco-Roman world, one’s honor or
standing depended largely on one’s parentage – whether one was born into low or
high status’. For Desilva, then, that means that, ‘[t]he title “Son” carries a message
that Jesus’ honor and worth derives from the honor of the father, God himself’
(Perseverance, p.85).
1
prophets could be trusted to bring God’s message, one from the very
family of God serves as an even more a trustworthy witness.8
Second, the different persons through whom God speaks also set up a
comparison between the images of God revealed in that speech. As one
who speaks ëÅ ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÎŢÌ¸ÀË, God acts as the divine Lord who inspires
prophetic speech.9 Speaking through the prophets, God de¿nes himself
as a God who communicates with his people. God continues to be a God
who addresses humanity when God speaks through his Son. At the same
time, in addition to revealing an action of God – the fact that God
communicates with humanity – God’s speech in a Son reveals another
aspect of the character of the God who speaks. To speak ëÅ ÍÀŊ – through
a Son – opens the possibility that God is speaking as a Father.10 God is
speaking through one who is a Son. This Son God has appointed as heir,
and he participated with God in creation. He reÀects God’s glory and
mirrors God’s being and sits at God’s right hand. In other words, his
participation in God’s activity, his proximity to God, his reÀection of
God’s image, and, most persuasively, his standing as God’s heir suggests
that he is, in fact, God’s Son. The ¿rst citation makes this association
explicit, but the narrative of the ¿rst four verses lays the groundwork.
Hence, if this Son is God’s Son, then by speaking through him, God
reveals his paternal identity to his addressees. Hence, in addition to
directing the attention of his hearers to the identity of the one through
whom God now speaks and his derivative superiority, the author also
provides his audience with a conception of God as a Father.
B. The Narrative of God’s Son

In addition to appearing ¿rst, Jesus’ status as God’s Son is the heading
onto which all the other descriptions of him in the opening period are
attached. If some of the pronouns of the ¿rst period were replaced with
their referent, Heb. 1.2-4 would read as follows: He appointed the Son
heir of all things. Through the Son, God made the ages; the Son is the
radiance of his glory and the imprint of his being. The Son bears all
8. A similar comparison is evident in the authors of the Synoptics in the parable

of the wicked tenants (Mt. 21.33-46; Mk 12.1-12; Lk. 20.9-19). There, the son is the
ultimate representative of the owner in comparison with the slaves, who serve as
representatives of the prophets (Mt. 23.29-31, 34, 37).
9. God can speak as a Father through the prophets (Isa. 1.4; Jer. 3.19; 38.9, 20
[LXX]; Hos. 11.1), yet God’s Fatherhood has to be conveyed through the content of
the prophet’s speech. The prophetic spokesman himself does not elicit God’s
paternal character the way the ¿lial spokesman does.
10 As J. Scott Lidgett states: ‘[t]he form of all God’s self-revelation being ¿lial,
its substance must, by consequence, be Fatherly’ (Sonship and Salvation, p.255).
1
14 You Are My Son
things by the word of his power. The Son made puri¿cation for sins. The
Son sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High. The Son is much
better than the angels to the degree that he has inherited a better name.
The narrative that runs through Heb. 1.2-4 is the story of God’s Son:11
as Son, Jesus reigns supreme. As such, it also proclaims that God, the
Father of the Son, includes Jesus in his qualities that are his as God.
The story begins with a close corollary to Jesus’ ¿lial status.12 As
God’s Son, God has appointed him as his heir.13 As be¿ts such a Father,
11 I am using the term ‘narrative’ here to describe the way in which the state-
ments about the Son in vv. 1-4 ¿t together. Although I am not arguing for a strict
sequential progression from one element to the next, the elements do convey a story
about the Son before, during, and after his priestly act. This use of the term follows
that of Richard Hays in his book The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Sub-
structure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),
p.6. Kenneth L. Schenck maintains that although the surface structure of Hebrews is
an argument, the sermon evokes a particular narrative (Understanding the Book of
Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003],
p.5 and Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacri¿ce
[SNTSMS, 143; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007], p.13). Richard
Bauckham refers to Heb. 1.2b-4 as ‘a sketch of the Son’s narrative identity’ (Jesus
and the God of Israel, p.237). Moreover, if diegesis or narratio is, as George
Kennedy translates it, a ‘ “leading through” of the facts’ (Aristotle: On Rhetoric: A
Theory of Civic Discourse [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], p.268), then
these verses qualify as a narratio of important elements. Who Jesus is, what he has
done, and what he has inherited are key facts for the entire sermon.
12 Contra Paul Ellingworth who argues, ‘[h]ere, as generally in biblical greek,
ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË does not, unless (as in Heb 9:16f) the context so speci¿es, imply the
transmission of property by a testator, but more generally the idea of taking perma-
nent possession (cf. Á¸ÌÚÊÏ¼ÊÀË in parallel to ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ in Ps 2:8), especially of
something given by God… [T]he link between Christ’s status as Son and as heir is
implied but not emphasized’ (Hebrews, pp.94–5). It does not follow that taking a
permanent possession given by God eliminates the option that God is also portrayed
as a Father entrusting his possessions to his Son as an inheritance. Moreover, if
one’s data includes Greek that appears outside of the Bible, evidence shows authors
who do employ ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË to discuss the transmission of goods (Isocrates, Ep.1.44;
Plato, Leg. 923c; Epicurus, Frag. 217). Contrary to Ellingworth, Werner Foerster
states, ‘[i]n Greek the word group ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË circles around the concept of inheri-
tance and never moves very far away from it (‘ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË, ÊÍºÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË, ÁÌÂ’,
TDNT 3:768). In this instance in Hebrews, the context does so specify the bestowal
of possessions from a Father to a Son. The proximity of inheritance and sonship in
both v. 2 and vv. 4-5 as also in Psalm 2 (see discussion below), in my view, empha-
sizes the link between Christ’s status as Son and as heir. Paul makes the same link
between sonship and inheritance in Gal. 4.7.
13 Attridge draws attention to the use of Ìĕ¿¾ÄÀ in this phrase that is also found
in Ps. 88.28 (LXX), where God appoints the King as his ¿rstborn, a verse to which
the author alludes with his use of ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË in v. 6 (Hebrews, p.39 n. 62).
1
God appoints his Son as heir of all things, thereby giving Jesus an
unparalleled authority – nothing is outside of his ownership. In addition,
the assertion that Jesus inherits all things suggests either that there are no
other children with whom God’s property is divided or that Jesus is the
preeminent heir to whom God has elected to give everything that is his.14
In either case, the honor bestowed upon Jesus as God’s Son is shared
with no other. Depicting Jesus as the heir of all things is one striking
brushstroke in Hebrews’ portrait of Jesus’ unmatched superiority. As
God’s Son and heir, Jesus is in a position of honor and authority
unequaled by anyone save God.15
With the statement that God appointed Jesus as heir of all things, the
author also begins to construct the nature of God’s character as a Father.
The giving of this unmatched inheritance is also a way of af¿rming
14 The standard in Greek law was that property passed from father to son and
was evenly divided among sons (Isaeus, On the Estate of Philoctemon 25 [Forster,
LCL]). In Athens, the father was not allowed to leave his property to others if he had
legitimate sons (Isaeus, On the Estate of Philoctemon 28, 59; John A. Crook, ‘Patria
Potestas’, CQ 17 [1967], pp.113–22). Roman law dictated the same except that
daughters were also eligible to inherit (preserved in Justinian’s Institutes 2.13.5).
Philo gives evidence of this standard of inheritance, namely, that fathers pass their
property on to their children (Congr. 23; Mos. 2.243; Spec. 2.124). In Israel’s
scriptures, a father’s property passed to his children (Gen. 25.5; Deut. 21.15-17;
Prov. 13.22; Ezek. 46.18), most often his sons, but not always, as depicted in Job
42.15 where Job includes his daughters in his testament (see also the exceptions in
the story of the daughters of Zelophehad in Num. 36.1-12 and in Josh. 17.3-6 that
prove the rule). Some texts speak of special rights for the ¿rstborn (Gen. 25.31-34;
Deut. 21.17). Normally, if there is more than one child, each child receives some
portion of the inheritance (Gen. 21.10; Deut. 21.17; Num. 26.55). In the case of
Abraham and Isaac, even though Abraham had other legitimate children through
Chettoura, he chooses to give ‘all that is his’ to Isaac (Gen. 25.5), and the other
children get gifts (Gen. 25.6). Even compared with this instance, the inheritance of
Jesus is still more comprehensive. Because he inherits all things, there is nothing
left – even gifts – to give to any other child. As the second chapter of Hebrews
makes clear, there are other children of God (2.10). Nevertheless, I argue that their
relationship to God is predicated upon God’s relationship with Jesus in ch. 2.
Consequently, Jesus is God’s preeminent Son, the only one to whom God would
give all things. All others take their status as God’s children and the inheritance that
comes with it only through him.
15 DeSilva highlights the honor associated with descent in Greek speeches,
rhetorical handbooks, and Hellenistic Jewish texts. He asserts, ‘[t]he author of
Hebrews, in presenting Jesus ¿rst of all as “Son”, is explicitly concerned with estab-
lishing Jesus’ honor’ (Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Mainte-
nance in the Epistle to the Hebrews [SBLDS, 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995],
p.212). In John’s Gospel, being God’s Son is of such a high honor that the Jews
charge Jesus with making himself equal with God (Jn 5.18).
1
16 You Are My Son
God’s supremacy as owner of all things; everything is at his disposal to

bequeath as he wishes. Hence, God and Father become mutually inter-
preting identi¿cations. God is a powerful Father who can give all things
to his Son because he is God, and God chooses to give all that is his to
the Son because he is a Father. A human testator cared a great deal to
whom he would pass on his possessions,16 but most often these posses-
sions were only passed on when he could no longer own them himself.17
God, on the other hand, is under no mortal necessity to pass on his
dominion. Instead, he has chosen to give all things to his Son without
relinquishing his position as sovereign. Consequently, God’s appointing
his Son as heir of all things implies that God is sharing his ownership of
everything with his Son forever.
In addition to giving his Son all things, God chose to include his Son
in the act of creating those things as well. ‘Through whom also’, the
author says, ‘God made the ages’ (1.2c). God involved his Son in his
activity of creating space and time.18 With this phrase, the author
involves Jesus in one of the activities – creation – that de¿nes God (Gen.
1–2; Pss. 101.26-27 [LXX]; 103 [LXX]; Isa. 45.18). Similar to the state-
ment about Jesus as an heir, this element of the story contributes to
Jesus’ greatness: added to sharing his ownership of all things is sharing
his (divine) act of creating all things. This statement also serves as a
temporal benchmark for their relationship by indicating that the Son was
there with his Father at least at the time of creation. In the words of
Athanasius, ‘Therefore, the Father is eternal, also the Son is eternal, for
by Him the ages have come’ (Ad Serap. 2.2.7).
16 Seneca notes, ‘…never are we more careful in our giving, never do we

wrestle more in making decisions… We search for those who are most worthy to
inherit our possessions, and there is nothing that we arrange with more scrupulous
care than this which is of no concern to ourselves’ (Ben. 4.11.5 [Basore, LCL]).
17 The normal point of transference was upon the death of the testator (Isaeus,
On the Estate of Philoctemon 34; James C. Walters, ‘Paul, Adoption and Inheri-
tance’, in Paul in the Greco-Roman World [J. Paul Sampley, ed.; New York: Trinity,
2003], pp.42–76; Jane F. Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life
[Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], pp.212–13; Edward Champlin, Final Judgments: Duty
and Emotion in Roman Wills, 200 B.C.–A.D. 250 [Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1991], p.1). The author of Hebrews asserts this reality in 9.16-17.
18 This is the wide semantic ¿eld of the term ¸ĊļÅ (Demosthenes, Epitaph. 2.7;
Diodorus Siculus 3.8.5; Philo, Spec. 1.170; Wis. 13.9; Mt. 12.32; 13.32; Rom. 12.2;
1 Cor. 1.20; 7.33).
1
The next element of the narrative states that the Son radiates God’s
glory and that he is a picture of his Father’s identity in relief.19 The
familial theme serves this imagery well. Just as a son often looks like his
father, so too does Jesus show forth the image of God.20 To see the Son is
to get a glimpse of his Father. Here, the author continues to add to the
greatness of the Son; as God’s Son, Jesus is the reÀection of God him-
self. This statement also increases his trustworthiness as a messenger of
God. The Son allows the audience to hear what God says, and he is also
the medium who allows them to see what God looks like.21 He is the one
through whom God has chosen to show forth his glory and his nature.22
The Son of God also upholds all things. This element of the story
suggests that, as God’s heir apparent, Jesus is, in some way, sustaining
all things. He does so through ÌŊ ģûÄ¸ÌÀ ÌýË »ÍÅÚÄ¼ÑË ¸ĤÌÇı. The words
of Jesus are always words of response to his Father. As the remainder of
the letter will show, God’s powerful word, which appoints Jesus his Son
as heir and priest forever in the line of Melchizedek (Heb. 5.5-6; 7.16-17,
21), is brought to its ful¿llment by the words of Jesus that embrace
God’s appointment (2.12-13; 10.5-8). Therefore, following upon his
powerful word of response, he secures eternal forgiveness for humankind
(10.14, 18) and takes his position at God’s right hand where everything
is subjected to him (1.13; 2.8; 8.1; 10.12). Thus the Son is the sustainer
of all things by his word that is a response to the word of his Father. In
other words, he is the sustainer of all things by virtue of their conversa-
tion.
19 X¸É¸ÁÌûÉ is the term for the image engraved on stamps and seals (Euripides,
El. 559; Plato, Pol. 289b; Diodorus Siculus 17.66.2) and also takes on the meta-
phorical meaning of what is characteristic of a person (Herodotus, Hist. 1.116; Plato,
Phaedr. 263b; Josephus, Ant. 13.12.1).
20 Writers also use Ï¸É¸ÁÌûÉ to describe the likeness that parents – especially
mothers – impress on their children, for example, in 4 Macc. 15.4. DeSilva high-
lights the connotation of family resemblance as well (Perseverance, p.89).
21 Daniel J. Treier notes the appeal to multiple senses in Heb. 12.18-29 (‘Speech
Acts, Hearing Hearts, and Other Senses: The Doctrine of Scripture Practiced in
Hebrews’, in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology [R. Bauckham,
D. Driver, and T. Hart, eds; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], pp.337–52 [346]).
Although the appeal to hearing is most prominent, allusions to other senses occur
throughout the letter (1.8-9; 6.5; 8.5; 12.2).
22 Basil asserts that the point of Heb. 1.3 is to ‘establish the true sonship, the
indivisibility, and the intimacy of the relationship of the Son to the Father’ (Letter 38
[Deferrari, LCL]).
1
18 You Are My Son
The masculine pronoun of this phrase is ambiguous; therefore, it is

also possible to view this phrase as the word of God’s power. In other
words, God’s speech empowers the Son to hold all things together. This
interpretation ¿ts well in the context of this section for several reasons.
First, in this sentence the author has already referred twice to the speech
of God. While at this point he could be introducing the importance of
Christ’s speech, which becomes explicit in 2.12, viewing it as God’s
speech retains the previous focus upon God as speaker. Second, inter-
preting the phrase as the word of God’s power also aligns the pronoun in
this phrase with that of the last. Previously, the author asserted that Jesus
was the imprint of his (God’s) character. Read this way, the pronouns in
v. 3a and v. 3b have the same antecedent. Third, in Hebrews 11, the only
other time that ģûÄ¸ is used in connection with the things of creation, it
is God’s word which knits the ages together. The author argues that this
is a belief held by himself and his audience (11.3). Hebrews 1.3b is an
appeal to the same belief. Here also God is involved with his creation
through his word, doing so in concert with his Son. Fourth, if this is a
reference to the word of God’s power, it preserves a progression in the
participial phrases that begins with the action of God and ends with the
action of Christ. In this fourth phrase, Christ bears all things, but if the
word of power is God’s, Christ only does so through his Father’s power-
ful word. Finally, and most bene¿cial for the familial interpretation of
this pericope, reading the powerful word as God’s retains the dynamic
between God and his Son established in the previous phrases. Asserting
that Christ bears all things increases his position of honor and authority
the author has already ¿rmly established. Being enabled to do so by
God’s powerful word continues the theme that the Son acts in the ways
appropriate only to Israel’s God because he is empowered to do so by
God his Father.23
With the next phrase of this narrative, Á¸¿¸ÉÀÊÄġÅ ÌľÅ ÖÄ¸ÉÌÀľÅ
ÈÇÀ¾ÊÚÄ¼ÅÇË, the author introduces the work of Christ with regard to sin,
a topic that will become the focus of much of the letter. At this point, it is
necessary only to note that it is God’s Son who makes puri¿cation for
23 Bernhard Weiss, who argues for the same referent of the pronouns in 1.3a
and 1.3b, also interprets this as God’s power (Der Brief an die Hebräer [KEK;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897], pp.45–6). Attridge dismisses this
interpretation (Hebrews, p.45), and this dismissal is appropriate if the alignment of
the pronouns in vv. 3 and 4 provides the only support. The other four reasons put
forth here increase the persuasiveness of this interpretation.
The author’s tendency to mix Father and Son as antecedents for the pronouns ‘his’
or ‘him’ suggests that he views the pre-existent Son as a personal being just as he
does the Father. This observation adds support for the argument that appears below.
1
sin. The author associates his honori¿c status with an experience that is,
as later portions of the sermon reveal, quite shameful (Heb. 12.2). This is
a foreshadowing of the argument developed in Hebrews 2 that Jesus’
status as God’s Son brings with it, along with God’s inheritance, God’s
pedagogical plan for Jesus’ act of puri¿cation.
After he performed the deed of puri¿cation, the Son sat down at God’s
side. He is not in the position of a servant standing around a throne, but
in the position of a sovereign, seated on the right hand of the majesty on
high.24 This is the ¿rst allusion to Ps. 110.1, quoted at the conclusion of
the catena (1.13), and invoked again several times throughout the letter.25
By proclaiming that Christ sits here, the author has proclaimed that
Christ’s place of honor and authority is superseded only by God himself.
No one could take this seat, unless, of course, the majestic one himself
allowed it. God, as might be expected of a father, allows his Son a place
of honor right next to him. They are enthroned together as Father and
Son.
The ¿nal phrase of this period reiterates the theme of the preceding
narrative, namely that the identity of the one through whom God is now
speaking is the basis for his superiority: ‘Having become as much better
than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they’
(1.3d). In this phrase, the author indicates that his high position corre-
sponds directly to the name he has inherited. The author has already
established that Jesus is God’s heir because he is God’s Son (1.2). To be
a son means that one inherits the name of one’s father, and that father’s
name is passed to the son.26 Because Jesus has inherited the name of his
24 To sit upon a throne is the right of the king (Deut. 17.18; 1 Sam. 2.8; 3
Kgdms 1.13; 2.12; Ps. 121.5 [LXX]). The same royal imagery is also applied to God
(Joel 3.2; Rev. 3.21). The right hand is a position of honor (Gen. 48.14; Ps. 110.1)
and an expression of God’s power (Exod. 15.6, 12; Deut. 33.12; Ps. 18.35). The
author draws a comparison between the seated position of Christ and the standing
position of the other priests in Heb. 10.11-12.
25 The author quotes from this psalm in Heb. 1.13; 5.6; 7.17, 21. There are
allusions to it in Heb. 1.3; 5.10; 6.20; 7.3, 11, 15; 8.1; 10.12; 12.2. George Wesley
Buchanan argues that Hebrews is a midrash on this text (Hebrews, p.xix). While it is
certainly important, this argument gives this psalm more weight than is warranted by
the vastly varied scripture references throughout the letter.
26 In Israel’s scriptures, ‘son of ____’ often designates an individual. This
phrase becomes part of his name (Gen. 11.31; Exod. 6.25; 33.11; Deut. 32.44;
1 Sam. 20.31; 2 Sam. 21.7, etc). In Aramaic, a son could be known by the same
name as his father by the addition of the particle bar (i.e., Bartimaeus in Mk 10.46).
In Hellenistic culture, the father’s name in the form of a genitive followed the ¿rst
name for use in public life. The use of the patronymic continued into the Roman and
imperial period in a variety of ways (Elaine Matthews, ‘Names, Personal, Greek’,
1
20 You Are My Son
Father, he is superior to the same degree that the name of his Father is
superior to all other names.27 At this point the author also introduces a
new element to the discourse: the Son’s superiority speci¿cally in rela-
tion to the angels.28 He is exalted above them because as God’s Son and
heir he has inherited God’s name – a claim no angel can make (1.6-13).
Because he is God’s Son, God his Father has appointed Jesus heir of
all things, implanted in him the reÀection of his own glory and character,
involved him in the creation of all things, and empowered the word of
OCD 1022–4). In the Roman system the of¿cial name included the name of one’s
father followed by ¿lius. Unof¿cially, a Roman used three names, the second of
which, the nomen, was the designation of one’s gens or family group. Most of these
originated as patronymics (Heikki Solin, ‘Names, Personal, Roman’, OCD 1024–6).
27 See the ¿nal section of the chapter for my argument for the precise name he
inherits.
28 Several scholars of Hebrews have seen in this comparison a possible polemic
against some kind of veneration of angels (Bruce, Hebrews, p.9; Darrell D. Hannah,
Michael and Christ; Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity
[WUNT, 2/109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999], pp.137–9; Randall C. Gleason,
‘Angels and Eschatology of Heb 1–2’, NTS 49 (2003), pp.90–107; Moffatt, Hebrews,
p.7; Hugh Monte¿ore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [BNTC;
London: Adam & Charles Black, 1964], p.35; Hans Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief
[HNT, 14; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1931], pp.14–15). Loren T.
Stuckenbruck articulates the position carefully. For him, underlying Hebrews 1–2
may be ‘a polemic against a Zeitgeist in which the Àuid ideas about angels and
preeminent heavenly ¿gures, however metaphorically conceived, were perceived as
a threat to a belief in a surpassing exaltation of Christ. The author of Hebrews takes
over this polemic to sharpen his readers’ perception of the message given through
Christ, through whom God has spoken “in these last days” (1:2)’ (Angel Veneration
and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse
of John [WUNT, 2/70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995], p.139). Others see it as that
which lays the groundwork for the comparison between the covenant mediated by
angels and that mediated by Christ (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.104; Kenneth L.
Schenck, ‘A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1’, JBL 120
[2001], pp.469–85; Spicq, Hébreux, p.2:52). Bauckham argues that the angels
‘…mark out the cosmic territory. They function, so to speak, as measures of onto-
logical status. To be above the angels is to be God, to be below the angels is to be
human’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, p.241; for a similar argument, see also Johnson,
Hebrews, p.84). Ernst Käsemann had much the same opinion in his reaction against
the ‘Tübingen tendency’ that pointed toward an underlying heresy with angels (Das
wandernde Gottesvolk, p.60). David Mof¿tt suggests that the stark difference
between Jesus and the angels is their nature: Jesus is human while angels are spirit
(Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection [NovTSup, 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011],
pp.47–53). In the rest of the letter, there seems to be no concern with angel worship;
therefore, the angels’ status as mediators of the covenant, ontological standing, and
spirituality make good sense for the reason of their appearance in chs. 1 and 2.
1
the Son so that it sustains all things and grants him access to the seat of
honor at his right hand. Because he is God’s Son – because God has
treated him as a magnanimous Father would treat a Son – he is superior.29
At the same time, the author tells his audience that the glorious and
powerful God created all times and places, and reigns majestically over
the universe. It is the God supreme who has chosen to speak with his
people in the past and in the present. In these last days, God’s speech has
come through one whom God determined to be heir of all things, through
whom God created, and to whom God imparted his glorious character.
Because he is Father, God shares his identity and actions with another.
Up to this point familial imagery has provided the lens through which
this narrative has been interpreted. Each element has contributed to the
knowledge of the excellence of the Son and the generosity of his Father,
both of which are expressed in the context of the relationship between
them. There is, however, another lens through which this section of the
letter has often been read, namely the close correspondence between the
opening sentence and the exaltation of Wisdom and the Word in Israel’s
scriptures and in the Hellenistic Jewish literature of the Second Temple
period.30
II. The Son as God’s Wisdom and Word: Hebrews 1.1-4
Almost every description attributed to Christ in Heb. 1.1-4 mimics

statements made elsewhere about God’s Wisdom or Word, often with the
same terminology. As Hebrews describes Jesus as the one through whom
God made the ages, others portray God’s Wisdom and Word as the
means through which God created the world. In Proverbs, Wisdom was
with God when he created the sky and the earth (8.26-29) and it is
Wisdom that ¿ts these things together (8.30). According to Wisdom of
Solomon, Wisdom fashioned all things (Wis. 7.21; 8.6c) and served God
in his making of humanity (Wis. 9.2). About the Logos, Philo states,
‘[a]nd the image of God is the Word through whom the whole universe
29 Similarly, Donald Hagner states, ‘[t]he remainder of ch. 1 is taken up with an

argument that is based on Old Testament quotations and concerns the superiority of
Christ to the angels. That superiority depends on the divine sonship of Christ’ (‘Son
of God’, p.250).
30 See especially L. K. K. Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of
Perfection in Philo and Hebrews [SBLDS, 25; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975],
pp.7–20. For an extensive comparison with Philo, see Spicq’s commentary
(Hébreux, pp.1:39–91).
1
22 You Are My Son
was framed’ (Spec. 1.81, Colson).31 Moreover, as Hebrews describes

Jesus as the imprint of God’s being, other authors assert that the Logos
reÀects aspects of God. Wisdom of Solomon extols wisdom as the
‘emanation of the unde¿led glory of the Almighty… [T]he radiance
(ÒÈ¸įº¸ÊÄ¸) of eternal light and spotless mirror of the working of God
and image of his goodness’ (Wis. 7.25-26). Philo refers to the eternal
word as the impress (Ï¸É¸ÁÌûÉ) of the seal of God (Plant. 18)32 and the
image (¼ĊÁļÅ) of God himself (Fug. 101). For Philo it is not the Son, but
the eternal Word that bears all things: ‘…the everlasting Word of the
eternal God is the very sure and staunch prop of the Whole. [This one,
ÇīÌÇË], who extending Himself from the midst to its utmost bounds and
from its extremities to the midst again, keeps up through all its length
Nature’s unvanquished course, combining and compacting all its parts’
(Plant. 8-9, Colson and Whitaker, LCL). As the author of Hebrews
begins to do in Heb. 1.3, Philo applies high priesthood to the Logos
(Somn. 1.215). Finally, as Hebrews concludes that the Son sits next to
God on his throne (1.3d), Wisdom is said to have received the same
place of honor (Wis. 9.4, 10).
These parallels even extend to the language of parentage. Some
describe Wisdom as the one whom God begat (e.g., Prov. 8.25). Philo
describes the Logos as God’s ¿rstborn, saying ‘[f]or the Father who
begat Him constituted His Word such a Bond of the Universe as nothing
can break’ (Plant. 9, Colson and Whitaker) and says that the Logos is
‘[God’s] true word and ¿rstborn Son’ (Agr. 51, Colson and Whitaker).33
Although this literature never unequivocally refers to Wisdom or Word
as God’s heir of all things,34 Philo does indicate that those who esteem
31 Similar statements include: ‘[a]nd when he [God] was fashioning the world,
he used this as his instrument’ (Migr. Abr. 6, Colson, LCL) and ‘its instrument is the
word of God, through which it [the universe] was framed’ (Cher. 127, Colson and
Whitaker, LCL).
32 Yet the correspondence here is not precise. To be the representation of God’s
seal – a device employed in the act of communication – is not equal to being the
representation of the essence (ĨÈĠÊÌ¸ÊÀË) of God.
33 See also Somn. 1.215 and Conf. 146.
34 By way of comparison, in Sirach, the inheritance of personi¿ed Wisdom is
limited to Israel and does not include all things (Sir. 24.8, 12). Contra Dey who sees
in Plant. 62–64, 69, Fug. 102, and Somn. 1.159 a reference to Word as the ‘heir not
only of the whole world but of God himself’ (Intermediary World, p.137). In this
section of De Plantatione, the inheritance of the whole world, and even of the Lord
of all, is the portion that comes along with Wisdom to the Levites, those who
represent the pure mind (Plant. 64). In Fug. 102, Philo is comparing the one who is
‘free from even unintentional offense’ with those who ‘have fallen’ (Colson and
1
Wisdom inherit all things, including God himself (Somn. 1.175; Mos.
1.155; Plant. 69).35 The close and pervasive correspondence demands the
conclusion that in his portrayal of Christ the author of Hebrews used
imagery that other Jewish authors of his time employed for God’s
Wisdom and God’s Word.36
The terminology used for God’s Wisdom and Word ¿nds parallels in
statements about the other regional gods and the deities of the philoso-
phical schools.37 Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that when these
Jewish authors utilized this imagery, they did not allow it to compromise
their commitment to monotheism. In these conceptions, God’s Wisdom
and God’s Word are not separate beings alongside God, but are aspects
of the one God.38
Whitaker, LCL). Again, a certain person is in view as the inerrant one who inherits
God himself. Finally, in Somn. 1.159 it is the person who is a ‘lover of virtue’
(Colson and Whitaker, LCL) who has the Lord as his inheritance. The Logos is not
in view.
35 This includes Moses (Mos. 1.155) and the Levites (Plant. 69).
36 See Attridge, Hebrews, p.40; Bruce, Hebrews, pp.47–8; Franz Delitzsch,
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (T. L. Kingsbury, trans.; 2 vols.; Clark’s
Foreign Theological Library, 4/20; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872–78], pp.48–9;
Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.99; DeSilva, Perseverance, pp.87–8; Grässer, An die
Hebräer, p.1:60; Johnson, Hebrews, pp.69–70; Sidney G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics
of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in
Philo Judeaus and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Basel Studies of Theology, 1; Zurich:
EVZ, 1965), pp.66–7; Spicq, Hébreux, pp.2:6–7; Ronald Williamson, Philo and the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), p.493; Witherington, Letters and
Homilies, p.102.
37 James D. G. Dunn refers to inÀuence from the cult of the Mesopotamian
goddess of love, Ishtar-Astarte, the Isis cult, and Stoic and Platonic thought
(Christology in the Making, p.169). Dunn mentions particularly Plutarch, Is. Os. 53
and Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11.5.
38 Dunn states: ‘it is very unlikely that pre-Christian Judaism ever understood
Wisdom as a divine being in any sense independent of Yahweh… Wisdom never
really becomes more than a personi¿cation…of a function of Yahweh, a way of
speaking about God himself, of expressing God’s active involvement with his world
and his people without compromising his transcendence’ and ‘the Logos of God
is God in his self revelation’ (Christology in the Making, pp.176, 230). Kenneth
Schenck says in agreement with Dunn, ‘…these two words [Wisdom and Word]
were commonplaces of the Jewish wisdom tradition which were never meant to
imply real, personal beings but rather personi¿ed aspects of God’s action in refer-
ence to the world’, and ‘the logos for Philo is a vehicle for sometimes complex
personi¿cations of God and the creation in relation to one another, rather than an
actual entity’ (‘Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews’,
JSNT 66 [1997], pp.91–117 [108 and 110]). Similarly, about Wisdom and Word,
1
24 You Are My Son
The author’s use of this language for the Son suggests that he is doing
the same, namely, ascribing divinity to the Son. On this point too there is
a general consensus. Commentators extol the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews as
an example of one of the ‘highest Christologies’ in the New Testament.39
This section of the letter asserts the close likeness between the Son and
God while also asserting the Son’s pre-existence; he was with God prior
to the moment of creation.40
Bauckham states, ‘[t]hey are not created beings, but nor are they semi-divine entities
occupying some ambiguous status between the one God and the rest of reality. They
belong to the unique divine identity’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, p.17). Yet
Bauckham disagrees with Dunn on whether these ¿gures are ‘envisaged as having
some form of distinct existence in reality’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, p.17).
Asserting that Wisdom is not a divine hypostasis, Dunn argues, ‘[i]t has not been
demonstrated that Hebrew thought was already contemplating such distinctions
within its talk of God’ (Christology in the Making, p.174). To the contrary, Bauck-
ham argues, ‘…these Jewish writers envisage some form of real distinctions within
the unique identity of the one God. If so, they are not abandoning or in any way
compromising their Jewish monotheism. The Second Temple Jewish understanding
of the divine uniqueness does not de¿ne it as unitariness and does not make
distinctions within the divine identity inconceivable’ (Jesus and the God of Israel,
p.17). It is not the task of this investigation to take a position on whether or not these
Jewish authors thought of distinctions within God, but to take up the question
whether or not this is the direction in which the author of Hebrews is moving. Others
argue that Wisdom and Word represent a departure from monotheism in Judaism;
see, Peter Hayman, ‘Monotheism – a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?’, JJS 42
(1991), pp.1–15 and Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second
God (London: SPCK, 1992).
39 William L. Lane says it most forthrightly: ‘[t]he writer of Hebrews held a
high Christology. A high Christology is one that acknowledges that God’s self-
disclosure found its ultimate expression in Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Son of
God incarnate’ (Hebrews, p.1:cxxvii). Bauckham avers, ‘Hebrews begins with an
overwhelming emphasis on the full and eternal deity of the Son’ (Jesus and the God
of Israel, p.237). Dunn asserts, ‘[t]he special contribution of Hebrews is that it seems
to be the ¿rst of the NT writings to have embraced the speci¿c thought of a pre-
existent divine sonship’ (Christology in the Making, p.55). So also Witherington,
‘…perhaps Hebrews most clearly and emphatically af¿rms a high or divine
Christology among all the New Testament witnesses’ (Letters and Homilies, p.106).
See also Attridge, Hebrews, p.25; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.71; and Hagner, ‘Son
of God’, p.252. I use the phrase ‘highest Christologies’ with caution, aware of
Johnson’s dissatisfaction with the terminology: ‘[t]he range of titles applied to Jesus
reveals how Hebrews eludes easy categorization of its Christology in terms of
“high” and “low”’ (Hebrews, p.50).
40 Schenck states: ‘[i]t is clear that the author [of Hebrews] af¿rmed the pre-
existence of Christ’ (‘Keeping His Appointment’, p.115), and Johnson: ‘[t]his Son is
the heir of all things, is the one through whom God created the world, and upholds
1
At this point, however, scholarship diverges into two notable trajecto-

ries. One trajectory argues that while this language portrays the Son’s
inclusion in divinity and his pre-existence, it does not do so in a personal
way. Dunn, for example, quali¿es his statement that Hebrews is one of
the ¿rst to propose a pre-existent divine sonship by saying ‘[i]t would
certainly go beyond our evidence to conclude that the author [of Hebrews]
has attained to the understanding of God’s Son as having had a real
personal pre-existence’.41 Dunn’s resistance to a personally pre-existent
Christ in Hebrews rests on the author’s use of language that appears in
texts describing Wisdom and Word. He states: ‘[i]f there is anything in
all this it suggests that the element of Hebrews’ Christology which we
think of as ascribing pre-existence to the Son of God has to be set within
the context of his indebtedness to Platonic idealism and interpreted with
cross-reference to the way in which Philo treats the Logos’.42
Kenneth Schenck reaches a similar conclusion, albeit proffered with
great caution.43 He deduces, ‘[w]hat seems certain is that Christ only
exists as a function of God, whether it be as his wisdom or in some other
way’.44 Like Dunn, Schenck’s hesitance to assign preexistence to the Son
is prompted by Hebrews’ language. He states:
the universe by his word of power (1:1–3). These three expressions place the Son at
the origin of all things with God…’ (Hebrews, p.50). Some earlier scholars arrived
at a similar opinion. Fred B. Craddock states, ‘[i]n these opening lines the entire
theme of his Christology is given by the author: the Son pre-existed with the
Father…’ (The Pre-existence of Christ in the New Testament [Nashville: Abingdon,
1968], p.129). Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly arrives at a similar assessment: ‘[i]t is well
known that the opening verses proclaim the pre-existence of Christ in terms of the
Wisdom myth (Wisd. 7:27)’ (Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and The Son of Man: A Study
in the Idea of Pre-existence in the New Testament [SNTSMS, 21; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1973], p.243).
41 Dunn, Christology in the Making, pp.55–6. G. B. Caird espouses a similar
idea. Maurice Wiles quotes him to say, ‘neither the Fourth Gospel nor Hebrews ever
speaks of the eternal Word or Wisdom of God in terms which compel us to regard it
as a person’ (‘Person or Personi¿cation? A Patristic Debate About Logos’, in The
Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George
Bradford Caird [L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright, eds; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987],
pp.281–89 [281]).
42 Dunn, Christology in the Making, p.54.
43 In several instances, Schenck urges ‘extreme caution’ in the interpretation of
the verses in Hebrews 1 (‘Keeping His Appointment’, pp.92, 113, 115).
44 ‘Keeping His Appointment’, p.119. In a later article, Schenck says similarly,
‘…the author only considered Christ to be the creator of the world in a ¿gurative
way – as the embodiment of God’s creative wisdom’ (‘Celebration of the Enthroned
Son’, p.476).
1
26 You Are My Son
Heb. 1.3 in particular alerts us to the possibility that wisdom and logos
motifs may be in the author’s mind when he speaks of Christ protologi-
cally. Immediately following the statement in 1.2 concerning Christ as
the agent of creation, ‘hymnic’ language appears that applies to Christ
images appropriate to both wisdom and logos. If this is in fact the origin
or nature of this language, then the possibility presents itself that these
verses have nuances or subtleties that should be taken into account in the
interpretation of Christ’s role in creation.45
Schenck’s caution against eisegesis is laudable, but he exercises caution

only in one direction, namely in the direction of assigning a personal pre-
existence to Christ. The reasons he puts forth for his certainty that Christ
is only a ‘function of God’ deserve an equal amount of caution.
An intrinsic part of these interpreters’ hesitancy to see in Heb. 1.1-4 a
depiction of the personal pre-existence of Christ is that the author is
drawing from Wisdom and Logos language. For both Dunn and Schenck,
since Hebrews uses the same terminology, it does so to convey the same
meaning, namely that Christ, like God’s Wisdom and Word, is an ‘idea
and purpose in the mind of God’.46 But why must shared language result
in shared meaning? To say that Hebrews uses language employed else-
where for Wisdom and Word does not prove that it uses that language in
the same way.
It needs to be recognized that in the opening sentence the author of
Hebrews is not drawing from Wisdom/Word descriptions alone. He
brackets his Sophia and Logos-like statements about Christ with an
assertion that Christ is God’s heir (1.2, 4). None of the texts surveyed,
however, describe God’s Wisdom or his Word as God’s heir of all
things.47 In these phrases it is much more likely that the author is drawing
from Psalm 2, from which he quotes in 1.5. In the Psalm, God gives the
nations and the ends of the earth as an inheritance to the King (Ps. 2.8).
Even if it is assumed along with Dunn and Schenck that Hebrews is
borrowing traditions and is using those traditions with the same mean-
ings as those which appear in their sources, Heb. 1.1-4 offer multiple
trajectories regarding the nature of the Son’s pre-existence. Hebrews
utilizes Wisdom/Word texts where the referent is a function of God. At
the same time, he also uses royal texts, where the referent – the heir – is
not an aspect of God but is a person. Parallels to the language of Heb.
1.2-4 are, at most, ambiguous. It is not clear whether the impersonal
traditions should trump the personal, or vice-versa.
45 Schenck, ‘Keeping His Appointment’, p.105.

47 Wisdom does inherit Israel in Sir. 24.8, 12. See n. 34 for a counter argument
to Dey’s suggestion that in Philo the Word is heir of all things.
1
In addition to the author’s use of Wisdom/Word language, these

authors have other dif¿culties with the idea of a personally pre-existent
Christ. Because Hebrews does not refer to Christ as the Creator each
time the author discusses the creative activity of God (2.10; 3.4; 11.3),
Schenck sees further con¿rmation that the author does not clearly describe
the personal pre-existence of Christ in Hebrews.48 It seems unnecessary,
however, to ask the author of Hebrews to mention both Christ and God
every time he speaks of creation in order to prove that he believes Christ
was personally involved in creation. According to 1.3, Hebrews views
creation as an action of God carried out in concert with his Son.49 The
author’s subsequent silence about the role of the Son in God’s creative
action (2.10; 3.4; 11.3) does not negate what the text establishes in the
¿rst chapter.
Schenck’s argument necessitates downplaying the importance of
God’s direct address to the Son in 1.10, where God talks about him
creating the earth and the heavens. Schenck argues, ‘Christ’s role as
creator is not the main point of the quotation’,50 and again, ‘the focal
point of 1:10-12 is not that Christ was the agent of creation’ because ‘not
all the salient points of a quotation are meant to be extracted from
another author’s use of it’.51 For him, the citations in 1.7, 10 are about the
permanence of ‘Christ’s lordship over the creation’.52 It is not clear,
however, why 1.10-12 must only emphasize one point – permanence – to
the exclusion of Christ’s role in creation. Moreover, if permanence was
the author’s focal point, why did he not cite only the portion of the text
that was relevant and eliminate the portion cited in v. 10?53
48 Schenck cites these two reasons succinctly in a footnote in ‘Celebration of

the Enthroned Son’: ‘[t]he biggest clues that the author uses creation language to
equate Christ with the creative wisdom of God come from Heb 1:3, which is an
allusion to Wis 7:26, and Heb 2:10, which actually speaks of God as the creator in
distinction from Jesus. Hebrews’ default mode is to refer to God as creator rather
than Christ (cf. 2:10; 3:4; 11:3)’ (‘Celebration of the Enthroned Son’, p.476).
49 Chrysostom views the phrase »À’ Çī as applicable to both the Father and the
Son, applied to the Son in 1:3 and the Father in 2:10. He concludes that it is not an
expression of ‘inferiority’ (Hom. Hebr. 4.4, Gardiner [NPNF1 14:384]).
51 Schenck, ‘Celebration of the Enthroned Son’, p.476.
52 Schenck, ‘Celebration of the Enthroned Son’, p.475.
53 Bauckham has harsh criticism for Schenck’s exegesis on this point: ‘his
treatment of 1:10-12 (on pp. 475–6) is very unsatisfactory. His comment that “one
cannot assume that all the salient points of a quotation are meant to be extracted
from another author’s use of it” (476) missed the precise character of the kind of
Jewish exegesis Hebrews employs and the meticulous composition of this catena in
1
28 You Are My Son
Dunn’s perception of Hebrews’ view of the Fatherhood (or rather, the

lack thereof) of God provides support for his idea that the author of
Hebrews thought of the connection between God and the (pre-existent)
Son not as a personal relationship but as a description of God and ‘a
manifestation of God’s radiance’.54 He argues, ‘[the author of Hebrews]
seems to avoid speaking of God as the Father of the Son (only in the
quotation from II Sam. 7.14 in Heb. 1.5)’.55 For Dunn, this avoidance
helps explain what he hears as the ‘impersonal tone’ of the references to
the Son in this section.56 In his view, the author’s use of the title ÍĎĠË is
not enough to assert that God is his Father because other authors use the
very same language of sonship to describe God’s Wisdom or Word
without differentiating those concepts as distinct entities. Hence, Christ’s
status as Son is not enough to indicate that the relationship between him
and God is a personal one.
If, however, Hebrews is not silent on the theme of God’s Fatherhood,
but instead emphatically portrays God as a Father, such a portrayal
suggests that the author is doing something different with the language
utilized elsewhere of Sophia and Logos. Hebrews’ emphasis on God’s
paternal identity implies a corresponding ¿lial identity.57 This familial
emphasis opens the possibility that God is involved in a relationship with
a person – distinct from himself – whom he has proclaimed to be his Son.
particular. If the author’s quotation from Ps. 102 was not meant to present Christ as
the personal agent of creation, he chose his text very badly, and modi¿ed its opening
words incomprehensibly’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, p.240).
54 Dunn, Christology in the Making, p.55. Conversely, Angela Rascher notes
the importance of the relationship between God and Jesus, ‘[d]iese Ansprache Gottes
als Vater durch Jesus ist im Hebr allerdings nicht zu ¿nden, nur der Sohn wird als
Sohn von Gott angesprochen. Die Bezeichnung, “Vater” für Gott spielt im Hebr
keine Rolle, jedoch die enge Beziehung von Gott und Sohn’ (Schriftauslegung und
Christologie im Hebräerbrief [BZNW, 153; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007], p.46). Even
so, she goes on to cite, in a footnote, the three instances that the author of Hebrews
designates God as Father.
57 Witherington comes to a similar conclusion: ‘[t]he author uses the language
of wisdom to describe Christ’s work, but he is not dealing merely with a preexisting
idea or a personi¿cation of wisdom; he is talking about a preincarnate person, indeed
an eternal one’ (Letters and Homilies, p.61). So also, Rascher, ‘[d]ie Beziehung von
Gott und Sohn kann im Hebr als die der zwei gleichberechtigten göttlichen Personen
beschrieben werden’ (Schriftauslegung, p.85). Dunn, incidentally, adopts this inter-
pretation in his treatment of John’s prologue. By joining the Logos language with a
Son of God Christology, ‘it becomes clear that for John the pre-existent Logos was
indeed a divine personal being’ (Christology in the Making, pp.243–4).
1
This relationship would also address another of Schenck’s concerns.

He wonders, ‘in what way the wisdom of God, the “reÀection” of his
glory and the “representation of his substance” might “learn” obedience
and be “perfected”’.58 His reading of the correlation between Hebrews
and other statements about God’s Wisdom and Word begs this question.
I would agree that it certainly seems opaque, if not nonsensical, if the
author is asserting that an aspect of God – God’s wisdom nonetheless –
has to learn something. If, however, he one who was with him in eternity
past is his Son, then, as the divine and human son, he can both reÀect the
nature of his father, yet still be able to learn through obedience. In this
reading, the two assertions are no longer logically inconsistent.59
Hebrews 1.5 cannot be easily dismissed. It constitutes that emphatic
portrayal of God and Christ in the relationship of Father and Son, a
relationship that ripples back through the story of God’s Son in vv. 1-4.
This relationship eliminates the ambiguity that arises from the author’s
use of both the wisdom and royal traditions and con¿rms that the lens of
a familial relationship is the one best suited to view the narrative of the
One through whom God is now speaking. The ¿rst sentence of this
sermon portrays the One through whom God is now speaking in a place
of unparalleled honor, trustworthiness, and authority. He has dealt with
sins. He is supreme over all things, things that he was involved in creat-
ing and is involved in sustaining, because God has appointed him as heir
of all things. He sits at God’s right hand showing forth God’s glory and
God’s nature. All of his honor and power stems from his status as God’s
Son. As the Father God, the Sovereign God has given to the one who
shows forth his glory and reÀects his character in everything so that he
might share his dominion over all things with the one who has inherited
his name. The author now yields his sermon to God to pronounce that
name and in so doing to pronounce his own name: Father.
III. The Relationship Announced: Hebrews 1.5
The pair of citations (Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14/1 Chr. 17.13)60 appearing
in Heb. 1.5 serves to emphasize the Father and the Son in relation to one

59 This is one of the primary topics of investigation in the second chapter.
60 It is dif¿cult to declare de¿nitively the source for the second citation because
the wording of the citation in Heb. 1.5b appears both in 2 Sam. 7.14 and in 1 Chr.
17.13. In each case, the Lord, through Nathan, makes a promise to establish the
throne of David’s heir forever. In the version in 2 Samuel, the cited sentence is
followed by God’s promise to punish the injustice of David’s heir, yet not to remove
1
30 You Are My Son
another.61 This dual focus is evident in the author’s mode of presenting

these citations, his selection of them, and the arrangement of the citations
themselves.
A. The Introduction to the Citations (Heb. 1.5a): Spoken By God

In Heb. 1.5, the author ceases talking about God’s speech as he had done
in the opening verses and, for the ¿rst of many times, allows God to
speak for himself. The author frames these citations as a conversation:
God spoke to someone (ĕÅÀ ºÛÉ ¼čÈ¼Å). The readers know who the
‘someone’ is because God’s ¿rst speech builds off the comparison in
v. 4. The introduction thereby indicates to the readers that the citations
will inform them about the person being addressed: that person, the Son,
is different from and better than the angels because God has made
proclamations to his Son that he never made to angels.
The superiority of the Son, however, is not the only effect of these
citations. Because the author has set up this speech as a conversation – as
his mercy. The version in 1 Chronicles lacks any note about possible unrighteous
acts of the king. Ellingworth suggests that 1 Chr. 17.13 ¿ts the context of Hebrews
best because it lacks reference to ‘the son’s sin’ (Hebrews, p.114). The bene¿t of
this text as the referent is that the author of Hebrews could think of the entire speech
concerning David’s heir (1 Chr. 17.11-15) as that which could apply to Jesus. On
the other hand, if the Chronicler could drop the reference to sin when taking over
1 Samuel, so could the author of Hebrews. Hence, it is dif¿cult to make a ¿rm
decision on the source text for this citation. See Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the
Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (FRLANT, 235;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp.49–52.
61 Those who highlight this relationship include Delitzsch, ‘The promise of
2 Sam vii speaks of a reciprocal relation between Jehovah and the seed of David’
(Hebrews, p.1:62); Thomas G. Long, ‘Second Sam 7:14 was employed to point to
the unique bond between God and Jesus’ (Hebrews [IBC; Louisville: John Knox,
1997], p.17; and Mitchell, ‘The author has selected LXX texts that highlight the
father/son relationship’ (Hebrews, p.51). Spicq indicates what this text says about
the relationship and God. ‘La seconde citation…est, comme la précédente, une
af¿rmation de la ¿liation divine du Christ, mais elle souligne surtout la continuité de
ses relations affectueuses aves son Père… Dans notre texte [Heb 1:5], il faut donc
comprendre au moins que Dieu a promis le secours de sa providence paternelle à son
Fils devenu homme (cf. Jo. VIII, 29; XVI, 32), mais l’auteur semble bien y voir une
af¿rmation de paternité proprement dite, de meme nature que la précédente’
(Hébreux, pp.2:16–17). Grässer calls attention to God through God’s speech and
through the relationship he shares with Christ: ‘Die Namensverleihung als Ausdruck
göttlicher Sohnschaft ist von Gott selbst verfügt’, and again, ‘Gott spricht in der
Schrift (italics original)’ (An die Hebräer, pp.1:72, 73). About the relationship, he
notes its eternal endurance: ‘Für den Heb heisst das: Es geht darum, dass das Vater-
Sohn-Verhältnis irreversibel ist’ (An die Hebräer, pp.1:75, 76).
1
God’s speech to someone else – he alerts his readers that through these
citations they are also going to learn something about the one speaking.
Hence, even if the content said nothing about God, the citations would
still disclose something about the character, or ethos, of God simply
because God is speaking them. In the ancient world, there was a wide-
spread understanding that speech disclosed character.62 By introducing
these verses as God’s speech, the author sets up the citations as a
conversation between two persons. As such, the dual emphasis upon both
the addressee and the addressor provides evidence of the relationship
between God and the one to whom God is speaking.
B. Quasi-Prosopopographic Exegesis
In order to highlight the way in which the author of Hebrews places
emphasis upon both God and the Son in Heb. 1.5, it is helpful to attend
to the rhetorical function of Heb. 1.5 as God’s speech. Hebrews 1.5
serves as evidence for the opening sentence of Hebrews: that God is a
God who speaks. By quoting scripture in this way, as that which is
spoken by God, the author is doing something that is distinct from his
own repetition of a written text. The author does not use scripture to
62 The rhetorical handbooks discuss the ways in which those who wrote and
delivered speeches might best construct a trustworthy and appealing character.
Aristotle was a very early proponent that a speech itself could convey character.
Previous to Aristotle, rhetoricians like Anaximenes of Lampsacus and Isocrates saw
character as part of the speaker’s reputation, a quality extrinsic to the speech itself
(Manfred Kraus, ‘Ethos as a Technical Means of Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical
Theory’, in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion: Essays from the 2002 Heidel-
berg Conference [Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson, eds; New York: T&T
Clark International, 2005], pp.73–87, esp. pp.76–7; and George Kennedy, A New
History of Classical Rhetoric [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994], p.48).
About ethos Aristotle states, ‘[t]here is persuasion through character whenever the
speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence… And
this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a
certain kind of person… [C]haracter is almost, so to speak, the controlling factor in
persuasion’ (Rhet. 1.2.4 [Kennedy]). Similarly, Cicero, in his De Oratore (ca. 55
BCE), declares, ‘…so much is done by good taste and style in speaking, that the
speech seems to depict the speaker’s character. For by means of particular types of
thought and diction, and the employment besides of a delivery that is unrufÀed and
eloquent of good nature, the speakers are made to appear upright, well-bred and
virtuous men’ (De or. 2.184 [Sutton]). Finally, Quintilian, a teacher of rhetoric from
the ¿rst century CE, asserts, ‘the speaker’s character shines through his speech’ (Inst.
6.2.13 [Russell]). In the ancient world, rhetoricians recognized the power of the
spoken word to convey character and assumed that a speaker could elicit a certain
impression of his character based on the words of his oration.
1
32 You Are My Son
support his own speech by loosely reformulating its basic ideas in his
own words or appealing to its written statements, but rather introduces
God himself to speak.63 As Koester notes, ‘[p]resenting God as speaker
was unconventional rhetorically and signi¿cant theologically. Some
speeches opened with an appeal that God or the gods might help the
speaker, but Heb. 1.1-4 identi¿es God as the speaker…so that listeners
are confronted not with the author’s reÀections about God but with
God’s words from the scriptures.’64 Hebrews’ penchant for presenting
divinely articulated scripture retains the focus on the community’s ability
to hear God’s address that the author established in the ¿rst sentence.
In Heb. 1.5, the author ¿nds warrant to make this claim – that God
speaks these scriptures – from the citations themselves. In their original
contexts these are all words spoken by God.65 The king reports God’s
speech to him in the Psalm (Ps. 2.7a), and Nathan relays to David the
Lord’s speech to him (2 Sam. 7.5). Therefore, like the king or Nathan,
the author of Hebrews is reporting God’s speech. Yet, the author of
Hebrews’ situation is slightly different. Because these are citations –
because he is repeating the king’s and Nathan’s reports of God’s
speech – it is important to note that he does the same thing as the king or
Nathan, namely, he reports God’s speech directly. For him to do so, he
had to ‘decrease the quotation level’66 by not repeating their introductions
63 Eisenbaum highlights the peculiarity of this feature of Hebrews: ‘[o]ne of

the most striking facts about Hebrews is that the author never uses “as it is written”,
an introduction which we ¿nd frequently in nearly all other ancient exegetes,
including those who also use saying verbs… [W]hat makes Hebrews unique in its
presentation of biblical citations is an unrelenting consistency in the use of saying
verbs (while totally avoiding any reference to scripture being written) and the lack of
acknowledgment of human speakers or authors’ (The Jewish Heroes of Christian
History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context [SBLDS, 156; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1997], pp.97–8). For more a more typical emphasis in the NT on scripture as written
see, e.g., Mt. 2.5-6; 4.4-10; 11.10; Mk 1.2; 7.6; 9.12; 12.10; Lk. 3.4; 20.17; 24.27;
Jn 2.17; 6.45; 12.14-16; Acts 7.42; 13.33; 15.15-16; Rom. 1.17; 8.36; 9.33; 11.8, 26;
1 Cor. 1.19; 2.9; 2 Cor. 8.15; Gal. 3.13; 4.27; 1 Pet. 1.16; Rev. 1–3. Philo, Conf. 160.
64 Craig Koester, ‘Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity’, CBQ 64
(2002), pp.103–23 [108]). Similarly, Eisenbaum states, ‘[t]he quotation will inevi-
tably appear to have an authority…precisely because the quotation will stand as
testimony external to the author’s point of view (Jewish Heroes, p.131).
65 Eisenbaum also notes the propensity of the author to quote direct speech.
‘[e]ach quotation contains either the literal words of God (although often a character
such as Moses is the actual spear), the oracular utterings of the prophets, or the
musings of the psalmist’ (Jewish Heroes, p.92).
66 Consider a forwarded email in which the text indents and color adjustments –
indicating to the recipient that this is indeed a forward – are removed and the text
1
to God’s speech (ÁįÉÀÇË ¼čÈ¼Å ÈÉĠË Ä¼, Ps. 2.7; ÌÚ»¼ Âñº¼À ÁįÉÀÇË, 2 Sam.
7.5). Hebrews silences the human medium in these texts and allows the
audience to hear God speaking directly.
With this move, the author’s mode of scriptural presentation resembles
a feature of rhetoric termed ethopoeia or prosopopoeia,67 an invented
¿rst-person speech in a voice other than the speaker’s own. With this
tool, the orator can relay the words of another person – living or dead,
general or speci¿c – or the speech of a thing – a country, the sea, a
quality, or, as Quintilian notes, the gods from heaven.68 The ancients
agree that it is highly effective, adding variety and drama to one’s
speech.69 Presenting the scriptures as the spoken word of God rather than
as written documents contributes to the oral makeup of the sermon and
adds to its effectiveness.70
Nevertheless, Hebrews avoids precisely replicating this tool. The way
in which Hebrews presents God’s speech differs from true prosopopoeia
in two key respects. First, the content of God’s speech does not originate
with Hebrews. One of the most important aspects of properly utilizing
prosopopoeia was the creation of ¿tting words, convincingly aligning
of the forward is presented as an original composition. Thanks are due to J. Ross

Wagner for drawing my attention to this helpful parallel.
67 There is some disagreement in terminology among the ancient writers as to
what counts as ethopoeia, what counts as prosopopoeia, and where they overlap.
Quintilian notes, ‘[s]ome con¿ne the term Prosopopoeia to cases where we invent
both the person and the words; they prefer imaginary conversations between histori-
cal characters to be called Dialogues, which some Latin writers have translated
sermocinatio [ethopoiia]. I follow the now established usage in calling them both by
the same name, for we cannot of course imagine a speech except as the speech of a
person’ (Inst. 9.2.31–32, Russell). Theon also includes the speech of people, both
general characters and speci¿c historical ¿gures, under prosopopoeia (Exercises 8).
The later progymnasmata distinguish ethopoeia, the speech of people, from
eidolopoeia, the speech of dead people, and prosopopoeia, the speech of inanimate
things (Hermogenes, Preliminary Exercises 9; Aphthonius the Sophist, Preliminary
Exercises 11).
68 Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.31. Dio Chrysostom does just this at the close of the
Olympic Oration when he imagines what the words of Zeus might be on such an
occasion and proceeds to vocalize them (Or. 85).
69 Demetrius says, ‘[t]he personi¿cation makes the passage much more lively
and forceful, or rather it really turns into a drama’ (Eloc. 266 [Innes]). Similarly,
Quintilian notes, ‘[t]hese both vary and animate a speech to a remarkable degree’
(Inst. 9.2.29 [Russell]).
70 Johnson, Hebrews, pp.45–6; Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, p.109; Hughes,
Hebrews and Hermeneutics, p.49; Thompson, Hebrews, p.20; Witherington, Letters
and Homilies, p.36.
1
34 You Are My Son
them with the character of the speaker and the nature of the situation.71
Quintilian, for example, teaches that
[the inner thoughts] are credible only if we imagine them saying what it is
not absurd for them to have thought!… But great powers of eloquence are
needed for this, since things which are false or in their nature unbeliev-
able must either strike the hearer with special force, because they surpass
the truth, or else be taken as empty nothings because they are not true.
(Inst. 9.2.30, 33 [Russell])
In his progymnasmata, Theon instructs,

[w]ords are attributed that are suitable to the speaker… First of all, then,
one should have in mind what the personality of the speaker is like, and
to whom the speech is addressed: the speaker’s age, the occasion, the
place, the social status of the speaker; also the general subject which the
projected speeches are going to discuss. Then one is ready to try to say
appropriate words. (Exercises 8 [Kennedy])
On this point, Hebrews’ utilization of this rhetorical tool signi¿cantly

differs from other examples. The author of Hebrews does not have to
concern himself with this issue because he does not create ex nihilo any
of the speeches of God. In his sermon, God only speaks the words that
have already been recorded in Israel’s scriptures. To put it differently,
for the author of Hebrews, Israel’s scriptures are spoken words, and in
most instances in his letter God speaks them.72 In Heb. 1.5, the author
need not wonder if God’s words are ¿tting to God’s character. God has
already spoken them in scripture. Accordingly, he can now present them
again as God’s speech for this community. The words are trustworthy
to reveal God’s character because, for those – like the author and the
recipients – who accept the authority of the scriptures, they are God’s
self-revelation.73
71 See similarly Theon, Exercises 8; Hermogenes, Preliminary Exercises 9. As

a negative example, Dionysius argues that Thucydides’ words are not ¿tting for the
Athenians and Melians (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 39–41).
72 See n. 3 in the Introduction for examples of citations placed in the mouth of
God. Compare this with the less frequent speeches of other persona. David, for
example, is only noted as the voice behind a quoted psalm in Heb. 4.7. Jesus speaks
the scripture in 2.12, 13; 10.5-8. The Holy Spirit is the speaker in 3.7-11, 15; 4.4;
10.15-17. Moses speaks in 9.20 and 12.21. The author attributes the quote in 2.6 to a
nondescript ÌÀË, and the audience gives voice to the citation in 13.6.
73 At several points the author introduces scripture as that which both he and
his readers know (10.30; 12.17). Luke Timothy Johnson argues that the author of
Hebrews is ‘an extraordinarily comprehensive and thorough reader of the LXX, whose
liberal use of citation and allusion suggest a con¿dence that the composition’s
1
In addition to this, the author of Hebrews’ presentation of God’s

speech differs from other ancient orators’ presentations of speech in a
second important way. Namely, the author of Hebrews does not engage
in the suppositional nature of prosopopoeia, conveyed by the question,
‘What if so and so were here to speak?’74 With this tool, Cicero, in a way,
brings Appius Claudius Caecus back to life to testify in front of the
audience (Cael. 33-34). Speaking in Caecus’s voice, Cicero makes his
presence almost palpable, thereby making his presentation more vivid
than if he had conveyed the speech in his own words. Yet, there is little
reason to believe that either Cicero or anyone in his audience was con-
fused by the dramatic moment. No one believed that Caecus had come
back to life and possessed Cicero and was, in actuality, speaking to the
audience.
When the orator reads the citations in Hebrews, however, he does not
suggest things that God might say to his audience were God present and
able to speak. Instead, the sermon acts as the vehicle through which God
does speak (1.2, 5-13; 3.7-11, 15; 4.7; 8.8-12; 10.15-17, 30, 37-38; 12.5-
6, 26; 13.5).75 The author declares that God has spoken to this audience,
hearers would have shared some degree of the author’s own competence as a reader’
(Hebrews, p.21). Eisenbaum states, ‘[g]iven the hermeneutical presuppositions of the
time, we can safely assume that, for the author of Hebrews, [the citations] are all
instances of divine utterance’ (Jewish Heroes, p.92). A Jewish ‘canon’ was not a
settled body of literature at this time; but by quoting from the Law (e.g., 8.20/Exod.
24.8), prophets (e.g., 8.8-12/Jer. 31.31-34), historical books (1.5/2 Sam. 7.14, and
writings (e.g., the various psalms in 1.5-13; and 12.5-6/Prov. 3.11), the author of
Hebrews is appealing to what a wide range of ¿rst-century Jews would consider
authoritative and what would later become canon. For a discussion of the complexity
of the issue of what was authoritative and to whom, see George W. E. Nickelsburg,
Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), pp.9–21.
74 Notice Demetrius’s example of prosopopoeia: ‘[i]magine that your ancestors
are rebuking you and speak such words, or imagine, Greece…’ (Eloc. 265 [Innes]).
The same hypothetical situation is described by the Rhetorica ad Herennium, ‘[b]ut
if this invincible city should now give utterance to her voice, would she not speak as
follows?… But if that great Lucius Brutus should now come to life again and appear
here before you, would he not use this language?’ (4.66 [Caplan, LCL]). See also
Cicero, Inv. 1.99–100 (Hubbell, LCL]), Dio Chrysostom, Or. 55; 85 (Cohoon, LCL).
Aphthonius titles his exercise in ethopoeia, ‘An Exercise in Characterization: What
Words Niobe Might Say When Her Children Lie Dead’ (Preliminary Exercises 11
[Kennedy]).
75 According to Harold W. Attridge, ‘Hebrews…operates with the conceit that
readers and hearers of scripture can listen to God speaking’ (‘God in Hebrews’,
p.203). The word ‘conceit’ could imply that this conviction is fanciful or self-
aggrandizing. The author’s assurance, however, that he and his readers do hear God
1
36 You Are My Son
and then proceeds – through the vehicle of the numerous citations in the
sermon – to introduce God’s (scriptural) speech to this community.
Because he is not creating a dramatic moment, but rather functioning as
the vehicle through which God is speaking, his technique does something
quantitatively and qualitatively different from other orators who use
prosopopoeia.76
The author of Hebrews cites scripture as that which God speaks. In so
doing, he mimics prosopopoeia by presenting a portion of scripture in
another’s voice to achieve the same striking dramatic effect as would any
other orator. Moreover, because he selects from the vast scriptures of
Israel words for God to speak, his citations, like prosopopoeia, construct
a particular perception of God for his audience, a particular ethos of God.
However, because he does not construct these words and because he
presents them as God’s actual (not imagined) speech for this community
to hear, it might be ¿tting to describe his method of citation as quasi-
prosopographical exegesis.77 He achieves a similar effect, but employs
different suppositions.
The point for the present argument is that Hebrews presents these
scriptures in such a way that God is evoked as a speaker before the
auditors. By using rhetorically informed exegesis to convey what God
has said, the author directs the attention of the audience to the two parti-
cipants of this conversation: the addressee of these words and the One
speaking is often expressed in the scriptures themselves (Gen. 21.12; Exod. 25.1;
Deut. 32.20; Josh. 1.1; 2 Sam. 7.4/1 Chr. 17.3; Pss. 2.7; 94.7 LXX; 109.1 LXX; Jer.
38.31 LXX; Hag. 1.1).
76 Paul does something similar in Romans 9–11 and 15 when he presents the
speech of God and Jesus in the ¿rst person. Paul, like the author of Hebrews, intro-
duces these texts as the speech of God (Rom. 9.9, 15, 25; 10.21; 11.4), but more
often introduces them as written documents (Rom. 9.13, 17, 33; 11.26; 15.9) or
names the human medium (Rom. 9.25; 10.19, 20). This comparison serves to
emphasize the oral nature of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For an analysis of Paul’s
use of ¿rst person speech for God, see Hans Hübner, Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum
Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11 (FRLANT, 136; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). Similarly Mark begins his Gospel with the speech of God,
but does so by introducing it as that which is written by Isaiah the prophet (Mk 1.1–
3). These comparisons show how the author of Hebrews is distinguished by his
emphasis upon the scriptures as God’s spoken word.
77 I derive this term from Martin Meiser’s term ‘prosopographic exegesis’ that
appears in his essay ‘Ancient Christian Exegesis of Psalms and Ancient Philology on
Homer’ where he uses it to describe how pagan, Christian, and Jewish exegetes
account for dif¿cult texts spoken by esteemed ¿gures (paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature; New Orleans, November 22, 2009).
1
who speaks them. By so doing, the author appeals to the authority of God
and displays his character. As the following section will explore, the
character God displays is that of a Father.
C. The Selection of These Citations

The author further highlights the relationship between God and Jesus,
speci¿cally the familial relationship between them, in his selection of
two texts, Ps. 2.778 and 2 Sam. 7.14. Both hold up God’s role vis-à-vis the
one he declares as his Son. In their original contexts God speaks the
words of the citations to the King of Israel. By applying these texts to
Jesus, the author is asserting that Jesus is the true King of Israel, the only
individual designated in Israel’s scriptures as the Son of God.79
Hebrews is not alone in ¿nding in these verses a reference to someone
other than a historic king of Israel. Other interpreters of Israel’s
scriptures also appealed to these citations to express their hope in a
future descendant of David. The prophets looked forward to the coming
of David’s heir (Isa. 11.1-5; Jer. 23.5-8; Ezek. 34.23-24; 37.24-25; Mic.
5.2-5). Similarly, the Psalms of Solomon recall God’s promise to David’s
descendent (Pss. Sol. 17.4) and call on God to raise up the son of David
to rule over Israel (17.21). Qumran scroll 4QFlor quotes the second
citation (2 Sam. 7.14) in reference to a coming ‘Shoot of David’ who
will deliver Israel (4QFlor III, 11).
Moreover, Hebrews is not alone in the New Testament in ¿nding in
these texts a reference speci¿cally to Jesus. For example, Luke quotes
the ¿rst citation, Ps. 2.7, in Acts 13.33, and two of the Gospel writers
allude to it in the baptismal narratives (Mt. 3.17; Lk. 3.22).80 Finally,
2 Sam. 7.14 is cited in 2 Cor. 6.18 and Rev. 21.7.81
78 This citation might have also been attractive to the author because of other
resonances it provides with the rest of the letter. As many commentators note, the
next verse says that God will give the king the nations as an inheritance (ÁÂ¾ÉÇ-
ÅÇÄĕ¸), echoing the author’s assertions about inheritance in vv. 2 and 4. Note also the
mention of Zion (v. 6; Heb. 12.22), the staff of the king (ģÚ¹»ÇË, v. 9; Heb. 1.8), the
instruction (È¸À»¼ĕ¸) of the Lord (v. 12; Heb. 12.5-11), and the proclamation of
blessing to those who trust in the Lord (v. 12; Heb. 11.6).
79 Pss. 2.7; 88.28 LXX; 109.3 LXX; 2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chr. 17.13; 22.10; 28.6. Meye
Thompson, The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament (Louis-
ville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p.47.
80 The ‘Western Text’ of Luke (D) contains the full citation, ‘You are my Son;
today I have begotten You’. References to other portions of Psalm 2 appear in Acts
4.25-26; Rev. 2.26; 12.5; and 19.15.
81 These authors utilize this text, however, as a reference to the people of God,
not the King of Israel.
1
38 You Are My Son
Concerning this double citation in v. 5, Harold Attridge notes that

‘these texts…were already joined to serve as messianic proof texts at
Qumran’.82 Attridge’s wording implies that the author of Hebrews is
utilizing these two texts for messianic proof as had already been done.
Hugh Monte¿ore is less circumspect and states bluntly: ‘[i]f our author
had done his own research into the Old Testament, some explanation of
his selection would have been likely. These testimonia seem to have
been taken from an existing catena of Old Testament proof texts.’83
George Brooke offers a more careful analysis in The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the New Testament.84 He suggests that ‘the citations of the opening
verses of Psalms 1 and 2 [in 4Q174] function merely as incipit phrases,
phrases which imply the rest of the Psalm’.85 Without arguing for any
kind of literary dependence of the author of Hebrews upon the Qumran
texts, Brooke suggests that ‘both authors were acquainted with a tradi-
tion whereby 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 belong together’.86 The author of
Hebrews’ awareness of this association locates him squarely within the
messianic milieu of ¿rst-century Judaism. Like others – most similarly
the author of 4Q174 – he discusses both Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 in
reference to a leader of God’s people. Nevertheless, his citation of these
texts is still worth noting because his appeal to these two precise texts
(Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14) appears unparalleled. While other authors cite
one or the other, and while the text from Qumran appeals to both chap-
ters, no other extant text cites both verses together. As far as we are
aware, these two texts were not already joined as a messianic proof text
unit ready at hand for the author of Hebrews to cite. Precisely at this
point the author of Hebrews shows his own creativity by joining citations
of these two texts. Consequently, because there is no evidence that these
82 Attridge, Hebrews, p.53. He says much the same in his essay ‘The Psalms in
Hebrews’: ‘[t]he two verses appear in tandem in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QFlor 3:10-
19) and their association was probably a traditional bit of Messianic proof-texting’
(‘The Psalms in Hebrews’, in The Psalms in the New Testament [S. Moyise and
M. J. J. Menken, eds; New York: T&T Clark, 2004], pp.197–212 [199]); see also
Steyn, Assumed LXX Vorlage, pp.29–31. Whereas Monte¿ore goes so far as to
suggest that these verses existed together in an earlier written form (Hebrews, p.43),
George Brooke offers, more reservedly, that the authors of both Hebrews and 4QFlor
‘were acquainted with a tradition whereby 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 belong together’
(Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p.77.
83 Attridge, Hebrews, p.43.
84 Brooke, Dead Sea Scrolls.
85 Brooke, Dead Sea Scrolls, p.76.
1
86 Brooke, Dead Sea Scrolls, p.77.
are a widespread pair of proof texts, his selection of these two texts
reveals his own interests and goals for the letter. He did, it seems, do his
own research into the Old Testament.
By citing these two texts, the author is able to discuss (or, more appro-
priately, to have God declare) Jesus as the Son of God in such a way that
God’s role as the Father of the Son is proclaimed as well. He draws from
a small group of texts in which God designates himself as the Father of
the king (Pss. 2.7; 88.28 LXX; 109.3 LXX; 2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chr. 17.13;
22.10; 28.6). He cites two of these and alludes to a third (Ps. 88.28 LXX)
in the introduction to the quotation in Heb. 1.6 (ĞÌ¸Å »ò ÈÚÂÀÅ ¼ĊÊ¸ºÚºþ
ÌġÅ ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇÅ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾Å).87 This verse is similar to the other
quotations in that God designates the king as his child. Finally, there is a
possible echo to Ps. 109.3 (ëÁ º¸ÊÌÉġË ÈÉġ îÑÊĠÉÇÍ ëÆ¼ºñÅÅ¾ÊÚ Ê¼) in v. 3
where Ps. 109.1 is invoked. Consequently, the author has selected what
is a minority theme from Israel’s scriptures88 as the departure point of his
sermon. In this way he is like the other ¿rst-century authors who found
messianic material in these rare texts. The author highlights the gravity
of this theme for his sermon by appealing to a wide swath of texts where
God portrays his relationship with Israel’s king as that of a Father and
son and by doing so in the space of only three verses at the beginning of
his address.
The distinction between the author’s quotation of Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam.
7.14 and his allusions to Ps. 88.28 LXX and Ps. 109.3 LXX reveals more
about his intent in selecting these texts. He cites the texts that include an
equal balance between the Father and the Son. The allusions to Ps. 88.28
and Ps. 109.3 LXX buttress the familial theme of the ¿rst chapter, but
Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14 explicitly highlight God’s role as a Father as
87 Psalm 88.28 LXX is the only time in Israel’s scriptures in which God desig-
nates one person as his ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË.
88 The scriptures of Israel give evidence of a relatively infrequent yet rich
understanding of God as their Father. Gen. 15.7-8; 48.15; Exod. 4.22-23; 15.17;
Num. 18.20, 21, 24, 26; Deut. 1.31-32; 8.5; 10.9; 12.12; 14.1; 18.2; 32.5-6, 10, 11,
18-20; 2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chr. 17.13; 22.10; 28.6; 29.10 [LXX only]; Pss. 2.7; 36.9, 22,
29 LXX; 67.6 LXX; 68.36 LXX; 72.15 LXX; 88.27-28 LXX; 102.13 LXX; 104.44 LXX;
118.111 LXX; Prov. 3.12; Hos. 1.10; 11.1; Mal. 1.6; 2.10; 3.17; Isa. 1.2, 4; 30.1, 9;
34.17; 43.6; 45.10-11; 46.3; 49.8; 50.1; 53.12; 57.13; 60.21; 61.7; 63.8, 16; 64.8
LXX; Jer. 3.4, 14, 19, 22; 4.22; 38.9, 20 LXX; Lam. 5.2-3; Ezek. 36.12; 44.28.
Marianne Meye Thompson states, ‘[i]t is unwise to exaggerate the number of
passages that present God as Father [in the Old Testament]. The relative infrequency
of the term “Father” for God does contrast sharply with the regular use of the term in
the New Testament’ (Promise of the Father, p.47).
1
40 You Are My Son
much as they do Jesus’ designation as the Son. Psalm 103.9 lacks the
word ÍĎŦË, a term included in the two other citations, suggesting that the
author intended to have God articulate the identity of the one through
whom he is now speaking with the term ÍĎŦË. This verse, where God says
‘ëÆ¼ºñÅÅ¾ÊÚ Ê¼’, highlights God’s parental role, but lacks the explicit
parallel of Jesus’ sonship. On the other hand, Ps. 88.28 LXX lacks a clear
and equal reference to God as a Father. Obviously, unlike 2 Sam. 7.14 it
lacks the word È¸ÌûÉ, but even in comparison with Ps 2.7, Ìĕ¿¾ÄÀ in
Psalm 88 does not highlight the metaphor of parenthood the same way
º¼ÅÅÚÑ does. It includes the idea of sonship, but lacks the parallel of
fatherhood. The citations depict God not only presenting Jesus as Son,
but himself as Father as well. They emphasize the relationship in which
Jesus stands with God, and hence, the identity imparted to each in the
context of that relationship.
D. The Content of the Citations

These citations emphasize the relationship between God and Jesus by
maintaining a balanced focus on the two on both macro- and micro-
levels. Looking at the two citations as a unit shows that the author has
created a chiastic pattern (see diagram below).89 Psalm 2.7a emphasizes
the Son, while Ps. 2.7b highlights the role of the Father in begetting the
Son. Conversely, 2 Sam. 7.14a lifts up the Father, while 7.14b focuses
upon the Son. By setting these citations next to one another, the author
has created a Son/Father: Father/Son pattern that gives as much weight to
the assertion of God’s Fatherhood as it does to the assertion of Jesus’
sonship.90 With these texts, the author has God assert explicitly – twice –
that upon declaring this one to be his Son, God has declared himself to
be a Father.91
On the level of the individual phrases, each of the four lines of the two
citations contains a reference to both the Father and the Son. In the ¿rst
line, the addressee is ‘my Son’, the Son of the speaker. In the second
89 Lane notes the chiasm as well (Hebrews, p.1:25).

90 Hence, the author’s addition of a second citation is not ancillary. Contra John
P. Meier: ‘[o]ne wonders whether this back-up citation [2 Sam 7.14] is included
merely to bring the number of quotes in the catena to the desired seven’ (‘Symmetry
and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1:5–14’, Bib 66 [1985],
pp.504–33 [507]).
91 Similarly, Walter Überlacker states, ‘[w]as der Sohn ist, ist er aufgrund
seiner Verbindung mit Gott. Und das, was er tut, kann er nur tun und vollbringen,
weil er, “Sohn” ist’ (Der Hebräerbreif als Appell [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,
1989], p.79).
1
line, it is the speaker – God – who begets him. In the third, God declares
himself to be a Father to this one, and, ¿nally, in the last, the Son takes
this ¿lial position in relation to the speaker. The chart below shows this
balance in each line and in the chiastic pattern of the two citations
together.92
A ÍĎĠË ÄÇÍ ¼č Êį
B ëºĽ ÊûÄ¼ÉÇÅ º¼ºñÅÅ¾ÁÚ Ê¼
B1 ëºļ ìÊÇÄ¸À ¸ĤÌŊ ¼ĊË È¸ÌñÉ¸
A1 Á¸ĕ ¸ĤÌġË ìÊÌ¸À ÄÇÀ ¼ĊË ÍĎĠÅ
With these citations, the author reiterates that the titles ‘Son’ and ‘Father’
mean nothing in isolation. To be Son or Father necessarily implies that
one is related to the other in a familial way.93
E. Hebrews 1.5 as the Interpretive Lens for Hebrews 1.1-4

In Heb. 1.5, God declares that Jesus is his Son. By selecting citations that
emphasize both the fatherhood of God and the sonship of Christ, by
introducing these citations as a conversation that places emphasis upon
both the speaker and the addressee, and by placing them so that they
create a balanced pattern between the Father and Son, the author has
articulated not only the supremacy of the Son, but more fundamentally,
the paternal/¿lial relationship between God and Jesus. These citations
speak equally of the Son and the Father because they proclaim the
relationship between them.
The relational nature of Heb. 1.5 elucidates what comes before it. In
the ¿rst four verses of Hebrews, the author uses imagery associated with
God’s Wisdom and Word to describe the Son. He does so in concert with
allusions to the Son as heir, which evokes scriptures about the King,
God’s royal Son. Above, I suggested that there is no way to decide –
based upon the ¿rst four verses alone – whether the impersonal traditions
should trump the personal, or rather the opposite. In response to Dunn’s
suggestion that this passage has an ‘impersonal tone’,94 I counter that the
92 The lines that focus upon the Son are shaded. The words that refer to the Son
are underlined, while the words that refer to the Father are in italics.
93 Similarly Origen states, ‘no one can be a father without having a son’, Princ.
I.2.10. Peter Widdicombe elucidates this statement by saying, ‘God as Father must
have a Son in order to be what he is, and the Son as Son must have a Father in order
to be what he is’ (The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius [OTM;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], p.69).
1
42 You Are My Son
way in which the author uses ÍĎĠË as the Son with whom God the Father
is involved in a relationship tips the balance created by his use of royal
and wisdom traditions in Heb. 1.1-4. Hebrews uses the language of Word
and Wisdom, but he does so to describe God’s Son and heir. The texts
that portray God’s Wisdom or God’s Word as God’s Son can imply a
fatherly nature for God, but Hebrews does not leave this role as an impli-
cation only. His emphasis on God’s Fatherhood in Heb. 1.5 suggests that
the ÍĎĠË of Hebrews 1 is not an aspect or a function, but a person. God
could not have a dialogic and truly paternal relationship with an aspect of
himself. In some other texts, Sophia and Logos may be designated as the
¿rstborn of God, but God never speaks to them directly to declare his
paternal relationship with them. Hence, the Son is a person who reÀects
God’s being, who participated with God in creation, and who reigns
alongside God bearing all things.95 Even in the midst of the congruence
between the language of Hebrews and that depicting God’s Wisdom and
Word, the familial relationship articulated so carefully in Heb. 1.5 pro-
vides the interpretive context for the author’s portrayal of God and Jesus
in the opening verses of Hebrews.
F. The Temporal Setting of the Citation

Another dif¿culty remains for seeing the personal relationship announced
in Heb. 1.5 reÀected back to Heb. 1.1-4. Interpreters have read 1.5 as that
which is spoken at a certain time, most often upon the moment of Christ’s
exaltation after his death, not as that which is a reÀection of God’s
eternal relationship with Christ. The interpretation asserts: After Jesus
made puri¿cation for sins, he sat down at God’s right hand. At that point
he became (º¼ÅĠÄ¼ÅÇË) better than the angels because at that point he
inherited the name Son. God speaks the citations of Heb. 1.5 at this
moment. This citation can establish a paternal/¿lial relationship between
God and Jesus, but in this temporal framework God’s words say nothing
about that relationship prior to Jesus’ priestly act and exaltation. Jesus
95 Origen arrives at this conclusion about the use of Wisdom language for
Christ: ‘[l]et no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal when we
call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to
be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise,
giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of
receiving His virtues and intelligence’ (Princ. I.2.2 [Widdicombe]). Directly previ-
ous to this statement, he states that the scriptures name Christ as both wisdom and
¿rst-born. Peter Widdicombe concludes, ‘[t]he Son’s real individual existence is one
of the main themes of Origen’s theology’ (Fatherhood, p.67 n.10). See also Com. Jn.
I.34.151, 243.
1
became the Son upon his exaltation, but was only proleptically so before
this point.96
This interpretation seems to be the motivating factor in G. B. Caird’s
short essay on the Christology of Hebrews where he concludes: ‘[t]he
author of Hebrews has no place in his thinking for pre-existence as an
ontological concept. His essentially human Jesus attains to perfection, to
preeminence, and even to eternity… [T]he right [to the highest place that
heaven affords] was guaranteed by the place he held in the eternal
purpose of God.’97 Caird appeals to Heb. 1.4 to say
[Jesus] had to become superior to the angels and to inherit the loftier name
(1.4). It was because of his death that he entered upon his heavenly glory,
through suffering that he attained perfection as the pioneer of man’s salva-
tion (2.9-10)… [The author of Hebrews] explored to the uttermost what it
means in the circumstances of this world for a man to be God’s son.98
Caird’s logic is that God had an eternal purpose for bringing humanity
to glory.99 Jesus ful¿lled that purpose by obeying God’s will,100 then
96 Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, p.99; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, p.25;

Bruce, Hebrews, p.13; Moffatt, Hebrews, p.9; Albert Vanhoye, Situation du Christ:
Épître aux Hébreux 1 et 2 (LD, 58; Paris: Cerf, 1969), p.139; Westcott, Hebrews,
p.21.
97 G. B. Caird, ‘Son By Appointment’, in The New Testament Age: Essays in
Honor of Bo Reicke (William C. Weinrich, ed.; 2 vols.; Macon, GA: Mercer Uni-
versity Press, 1984), pp.73–81 (81).
98 Caird, ‘Son By Appointment’, pp.76–7. He supports this reading with more
assertions than proof. He begins to challenge the traditional interpretation – that
Hebrews ‘opens with a reference to the eternal Son of God’ – by asserting that in
Hebrews ‘ “the Son” is always a title for the man Jesus’ (‘Son By Appointment’,
p.74). Yet this is precisely the issue in question, not the assumption from which one
can embark.
L. D. Hurst supports the position of Caird, ‘…the author [of Hebrews’] main
interest was not in a uniquely privileged, divine being who becomes man; it is in a
human ¿gure who attains to an exalted status’ (‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and
2’, in Hurst and N. T. Wright [eds], Glory of Christ, pp.151–64, here 163). He is
right to say that in Hebrews 1 the author has in view the humanity of Jesus. This is
most apparent in the reference to Jesus’ making puri¿cation for sins. Nevertheless,
the compilation of these statements – the declaration that the Son is heir of all things,
God, Lord, and Creator – suggest that for the author of Hebrews an ‘idealized king’
(Hurst, ‘Christology’, p.161) does not have to be exclusively from a divine person.
The second chapter of Hebrews, where Jesus is made lower than the angels (2.7-9)
and is made like his brothers and sisters (2.17) suggests that there was a time when
he was not human.
99 Caird, ‘Son By Appointment’, p.81.
1
100 Caird, ‘Son By Appointment’, pp.78–9.
44 You Are My Son
because he served as the pioneer of humanity’s salvation, he was

appointed to the rank of heir of the whole universe.101 Caird bases this
conclusion on the temporal indications in v. 4.
Granting that God proclaims this name (Heb. 1.5) – the name which
makes the Son better than the angels – at Jesus’ exaltation,102 it remains
plausible to interpret this announcement not as the establishment of
Jesus’ status as God’s Son but as a restatement of that fact. In this way,
these words are a ¿tting proclamation when one who is already a son
inhabits his throne.
The Rulers of Rome provide examples of this kind of proclamation.
Gaius Octavius Thurinus was adopted by his uncle Julius Ceasar in 44
BCE and was appointed as his heir in his will (Dio 45.1.2; 45.3.1). When
the Senate dei¿ed his adopted father in 42, he had the right to be Divi
¿lius, son of the god. Throughout his life, he continually invoked his
status as the divine Julius’ son. This title appears on coins stretching
from 17 BCE to 11 CE.103 He was obviously not being adopted over and
over again, but was asserting the status to which he had been adopted. In
the same way, when Tiberius began his reign (14 CE), his status as the
son of Augustus was announced before the Senate. Suetonius records,
‘[t]hen bringing in the will of Augustus, he had it read by a freedman…
The will began thus: “since a cruel fate has bereft me of my sons Gaius
and Lucius, be Tiberius Caesar heir to two-thirds of my estate” ’ (Life of
Tiberius 23; Tacitus, Annals 1.8 [Moore]). It was important for Tiberius
to present his status as heir in the words of Augustus himself to show
that he was the rightful successor to the throne. He had become the son
of Augustus ten years earlier (4 CE), but the audience was reminded of
101 Caird, ‘Son By Appointment’, p.77.

102 As the author uses the term later in the letter, the semantic range of ÊûÄ¼ÉÇÅ
comprises not only one speci¿c day, but a reference to continuing time (3.7, 13, 15;
4.7). Philo used the word in the same manner (Fug. 57). Many interpreters treat
God’s pronouncement ‘today’ in Heb. 1.5 as a description of a moment in eternity
past. Supported by Augustine (Exposition on the Psalms; NPNF1 8.2); Athanasius
(C. Ar. 2.23, 57); Aquinas (Ad Heb. 49); Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel,
p.251); Kistemaker (Exposition, p.37); Moffatt (Hebrews, p.9). Scott D. Mackie,
citing Aquila, H. I. Lee (From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Conscious-
ness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms [WUNT, 2/192; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2005], p.276) comes to the same conclusion: ‘[i]t is more appropriate
to see in the exaltation a “con¿rmation of his existing position and status, rather than
conferral of a new status”’ (Eschatology and Exhortation, p.213).
103 M. G. L. Cooley, ed., The Age of Augustus (London: London Association of
Classical Teachers, 2003), pp.203, 208.
1
this when he became emperor. The proclamation of his position as

Augustus’s heir when Tiberius started to reign was not a proclamation
that he had at that moment been adopted, but a reminder that he had been
previously adopted and was now coming into his inheritance, the posi-
tion of power as emperor.
The ¿rst natural born son to inherit the imperial role after his father
was Titus. The historians make no mention of a restatement of his posi-
tion as son of Vespasian upon his accession to the throne (79 CE). This
could be because he had been ruling with his father since Vespasian had
become emperor in 69, and there was little question of his right to rule
and, hence, no need for the reading of the will on this point. Neverthe-
less, his position as son of Vespasian was highlighted on the arch erected
to commemorate his sack of Jerusalem. It reads: ‘[t]he Senate and People
of Rome to the divine Titus Vespasianus Augustus son of the divine
Vespasian’.104 At Titus’s moment of triumph, which was commemorated
in stone, the arch reminded viewers of his excellence, his divinity, and
his ancestry. This example illustrates a pattern: at the moment of a
succession or victory, it was ¿tting praise of the ruler to restate – not
establish – his familial ties.
This same pattern appears within Israel’s history. When Solomon is
appointed King of Israel, David stands before the assembly and reminds
them that God has chosen him to be his son and that God will be a Father
to him (1 Chr. 28.6). David declares these words not to establish
Solomon as God’s chosen son, but to remind the attendees that this has
already happened (2 Sam. 7.14). Solomon now takes on the vocation for
which his sonship was a prerequisite, and, therefore, his status as God’s
son is restated – as a report of God’s very words – when he takes on his
role as king and builder of God’s temple.
This is a fruitful possibility for interpreting Hebrews. God’s words are
evidence not that Jesus is becoming God’s Son, but that he is taking his
seat next to God as God’s Son. His status as Son, therefore, is restated at
the moment that he has completed his act of puri¿cation and taken his
position of honor.105 The proclamation in Heb. 1.5 does not necessitate
104 James T. Chulp, ‘Identity and the Representation of War in Ancient Rome’,
in Fighting Words and Images: Representing War Across the Disciplines (Elena V.
Baraban, Stephen Jaeger, and Adam Muller, eds; Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2012), pp.209–32 [222]).
105 See, similarly, Schenck, ‘Keeping His Appointment’, p.91; keep in mind
that Schenck is hesitant to attribute a personally pre-existent sonship of Christ to
Hebrews.
1
46 You Are My Son
that he is inheriting the name ‘Son’ at this moment. Parallels from Roman
and Israelite history support reading the citation as God’s restatement of
that fact. No time exists when the Son was not appointed as heir. Yet, it
is after he makes puri¿cation for sins that he comes into possession of
his inheritance.106
G. The Character of the Son and of the Father

Through the citations in Heb. 1.5, the author has contributed to his
portrayal of each member of that relationship. They act as evidence of
the superiority of the one to whom God is speaking by asserting that this
one is not just God’s prophet, but his very own royal Son. In the ¿rst
sentence, the author has asserted these things in his own words – that
this one is a Son and that he sits at God’s right hand – but by reiterating
these facts through the medium of scripture, the author increases their
force. Moreover, because he presents these scriptures as the very words
of God, the authority of his assertions about the Son are unassailable.
If the author’s articulation of this status of sonship attributes to Jesus
great honor, how much more adulatory of Jesus it is when God himself
declares him Son. Jesus’ ¿lial status was important enough to include
double scriptural support. By using words his readers view as authorita-
tive and sacred and by presenting them as being spoken by God himself,
the author compellingly proclaims this one in the superior position as the
Son of God.
The honors embedded in these citations serve his stated point that
Jesus, as God’s Son, is superior to the angels (1.4). Nevertheless, it is not
simply that Jesus carries the name Son that makes him superior because
in certain places in Israel’s scriptures the angels are also referred to as
106 This is articulated well by Bruce McCormack: ‘[t]he One who was appointed
heir of all things in protology is the One who became superior to the angels and who
received His inheritance when He sat down at the right hand of God’ (‘The Identity
of the Son: Karl Barth’s Exegesis of Hebrews 1.1-4 [and Similar Passages]’, in
Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Pro¿les from the History of Interpretation
[Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier, eds; LNTS, 423; London: T&T Clark, 2012),
p.161. But precisely here, a problem announces itself. How can the Son already be
the Son in protology if he only enters into the fullness of his sonship (i.e., receives
his inheritance and his name) in his eschatological enthronement? The author’s
citation of Psalm 8 supports this interpretation. Jesus is crowned with glory and
honor, and all things are subjected to him after he is lowered below the angels
through the suffering of death (Heb. 2.8-9). See the discussion in the following
chapter.
1
ÍĎÇĖ ¿¼Çı.107 The angels may be known as the sons of God, but God never
107 Gen. 6.2, 4; Deut. 32.43 (a possible source of the third citation of the catena
in Heb. 1.6); Pss. 28.1; 88.7. When thinking of sons, particularly sons of God, could
a ¿rst-century audience have thought of angels? And when thinking of angels could
they have thought of them as sons of God? Numerous translators of the Hebrew
Bible certainly did so. Deuteronomy 32 provides two salient examples. In Deut.
32.8, 4QDeutj provides evidence of the reading -'!+ '1 in the last phrase. It is this
version that best explains most Greek manuscripts’ translation of ¸ºº¼ÂÑÅ ¿¼ÇÍ.
Hence, these Greek translators saw the sons of God as the angels in charge over
nations, an idea represented also in Jub. 15.31-32, Philo (Post. 89, 91-92), and
Origen (Hom. Num. 11.5 [GCS 30, p.86). Deut. 32.43 and Odes 2.43 present the
possibility that those who read these texts could have seen the sons of God as
parallel to the angels of God because of the format of Hebrew poetry. The trend
continues outside Deuteronomy. Three times in the book of Job the translators from
Hebrew to Greek opted to use ¸ºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼ÇÍ for -'!+ '1. In the ¿rst two references
the beings come to present themselves before the Lord. In the last, they shout and
sing at the time of creation, a moment the author of Jubilees also thought included
the participation of angels (Jub. 2.1-4). In Daniel’s story of the ¿ery furnace, the
fourth being who appears has the appearance of a son of God, which the Old Greek
translates as an ¸ºº¼ÂÇË ¿¼ÇÍ. In Dan. 3.28 Nebuchadnezzar attributes the deliverance
of the young men to an angel. So both the original story of Daniel and the translators
of 3.25 interpreted this son of God as an angel. Finally, three Psalms translate sons
as angels. The Aramaic translation of Ps. 29.1 has the psalmist call upon the bands
of angels as -'!+ '1, who bring to the Lord glory and might. In Ps. 82.6, the
syrohexapla reads the sons of the most high who judge Israel as angels. Psalm 89
asks who among the divine sons can be like the Lord (89.7). For they, the holy ones
(89.6, 8) praise the wonders and the faithfulness of God. The Syriac and targums
took these divine sons to be angels.
In other instances, interpreters see a correspondence between ÍÀÇÀ ¿¼ÇÍ and angels.
In the fantastic passage in Genesis 6 the narrator describes a time when the sons of
God (-'!+ '1) noticed the daughters of men, took them as wives, and bore children
with them. The Septuagint translates the phrase woodenly, the ÍÀÇÀ ÌÇÍ ¿¼ÇÍ perform
these actions, but for many early interpreters, this was an account of malicious
angels. First Enoch, the earliest reÀection on this passage, uses the term angels to
describe the ‘sons of heaven’ who mate with and de¿le the daughters of men (1 En.
6.2; 10.7, 8). When reÀecting upon the Genesis passage, it places both terms next to
each other: ‘the angels, the sons of heaven’ (6.2). In other places, Enoch puts sons of
heaven into parallel with watchers, another term it uses mostly for fallen angels
(1 En. 13.8; 14.3). Much literature of the second temple period opted for the same
translation (Jub. 4.15; 5.1; 1 En. 6–7; 39.1; T. Reub. 5.6; 2 Bar. 51.3; 56.12-16;
2 En. 18.4; Gen. Apoc. (1Qap Genar) 2.1. In Questiones et solutions in Genesin,
when he discusses the giants of Genesis 6, Philo states that Moses in describing the
angels refers to them as the sons of God (1.92). Josephus states that ‘many angels of
God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust’ (Ant. 1.3.1.73).
Simeon, a Rabbi, encouraged people not to think of the angels of Genesis 6 as angels
(an indication that some did) because he was troubled by their ability to sin (Brendan
1
48 You Are My Son
says to them, ‘I have begotten you’, or ‘I will be to you a Father’. Instead,

his superiority arises from the fact that in proclaiming Jesus’ identity as
the singular ÍĎĠË – which God never does on behalf of the angels – God
also proclaims his identity as Jesus’ Father. The author makes a state-
ment not just about Jesus’ title ÍĎĠË, but also about the relationship that
makes that title a reality. Jesus’ name indicates who he is in relation to
God, and the relationship in which he participates with God makes him
superior to the angels.
The citations also assert that God has chosen to establish himself
as his Father, which shows his intention to be an intimately relational
God forever.108 Both the citations themselves and the way in which they
are presented establish this. Most obviously, God shows himself to
be relational by speaking with another. The author has already declared
Byrne, Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of
All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background [Analecta biblica 83; Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1979], p.76). While other interpretive options appeared later,
D. W. Baker concludes, ‘…the “angels” view [was] the only contender into the
second century’ (‘Sons of God, Daughters of Man’, DOTP 794–5).
Outside the Genesis 6 reference, Philo refers to the ¸ºº¼ÂÇË of Exodus 23 as
God’s ¿rstborn son (Agr. 51). For those who want to be sons of God, they should
model the angel, even the archangel who is also God’s ¿rstborn (Conf. 146). The
Prayer of Joseph, a possibly Alexandrian ¿rst-century apocryphal work quoted by
Origen who says it is in use among the Hebrews, describes Jacob as an angel who is
the ¿rstborn and the chief among the sons of God. In The History of the Rechabites,
the Greek text of the narrative of Zosimus describes a person seeing a being who
looks like an angel and he thinks he is the son of God (5.4) (W. A. Craigie, ANF 10,
pp.220–4). The connection continues on in the writings of the rabbis, where there is
some evidence of sons and angels. In addition to referring to the angelic court as the
family of God, some rabbis argued that the son of God name given to both angels
and Israel, but the angels lost it through sin (Byrne, Sons of God, Seed of Abraham,
p.76). This brief account is but a sample of other extensive surveys of this literature,
like that of Brendan Byrne, who concluded that the terminology sons of god for
angels would have been fully acceptable (Sons of God, Seed of Abraham, p.2; Gert J.
Steyn, ‘Addressing an Angelomorphic Christological Myth in Hebrews?’, HvTSt
59.4 [2003], pp.1107–26). At the very least, this survey suggests enough of a con-
nection that if the author of Hebrews wanted to distinguish the name of Jesus from
the angels, the term Son on its own would not be a clear way to do so.
108 Many commentaries focus upon the Son of these citations but fail to observe
what they might indicate for the author’s view of God. B. F. Westcott’s comment is
a good example of a focus on the Son to the exclusion of the Father. He categorizes
both citations by their meaning for the Son, saying, ‘[t]he dignity of the Son as Son
is asserted in three connexions, in its foundation (ÊûÄ¼ÉÇÅ º¼ºñÅÅ¾ÁÚ Ê¼); in its
continuance (ìÊÇÄ¸À ¸ĤÌĿ ¼ĊË È¸ÌñÉ¸); and in its ¿nal manifestation (ĞÌ¸Å ÈÚÂÀÅ
¼ĊÊ¸ºÚºþ)’ (Hebrews, p.19).
1
that the God who speaks does not engage in divine monologues,109 but
instead speaks to others – to the ancestors and to us (Heb. 1.1-2). God’s
¿rst words bear this out. They are a dialogue, a direct address to another.
Hence, the dialogue captured in the citations and then highlighted by the
author’s introduction to them as God’s speech call into question Dunn’s
charges of the ‘impersonal tone’110 of this passage, and decrease the
likelihood that God is conversing with an aspect of himself.
Second, and more importantly, the very words that God speaks are
about the establishment of a relationship. He engages in a conversation
with Jesus, demonstrating that a familial relationship has been estab-
lished. As was made clear by others in antiquity who used paternal
themes to portray the divine, to say that God is a Father invokes ideas
of intimacy and care.111 The ¿rst thing God says establishes God as a
109 This challenges any ideas associated with a distant and non-involved God.
Tomasz Lewicki sees an aloof and alien God as one of the main problems among the
recipients of Hebrews (‘Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden!’, p.14).
111 See the references to God’s fatherhood in Israel’s scriptures in n. 88. Jewish
literature of the Second Temple period carries on many of the same emphases. God
is proclaimed as Father in relationship to members of Israel (Tob. 13.4; Apoc. Mos.
36.1; 43.4; 3. Macc. 7.6; T. Jud. 24.2, 3; T. Ab. 6.6; 20.12, 13; Jub. 1.25; 19.29).
Jews and others recognize that the Israelites were the children of God (Esth. 16.16
LXX; Sir. 36.17; Wis. 5.5; 12.19, 21; 16.10, 21; 18.4, 13; 19.6; 1 En. 62.11; 3 Macc.
6.28; Pss. Sol. 17.27; Sib. Or. 3.702; 5.202; T. Mos. 10.3). The familial relationship
is utilized in the themes of Israel’s sins (Bar. 4.8) and Israel’s restoration (Apoc.
Ezek. 2.1).
This trajectory of describing God as Father continues into rabbinic literature. A
prayer of Rabbi Akiba dated to the second century proclaims, ‘[o]ur Father our King
we have no king but you; Our Father our King for your sake have mercy on us’
(b. Ta’anit 25b; cited in Jakob J. Petuchowski, ‘Jewish Prayer Texts of the Rabbinic
Period’, in The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy [J. J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke,
eds; New York: Seabury, 1978], pp.21–44 [39]).
Among the Greeks and Romans this was a frequent way to refer to the divine. It
showed the god’s close connection with creation, including the human element of
that creation. In his twelfth oration concerning the origin of humanity’s knowledge
of the gods, Dio Chrysostom praises Zeus as ‘the king ruler and lord and father’
(Or. 12.22 [Cohoon, LCL]) and by speaking in the voice of Pheidias, the artist who
constructed the statue of Zeus at Olympia, has him do the same: ‘I…have set up…a
mild and majestic god in pleasing guise, the Giver of our material and our physical
life and of all our blessings, the common Father and Saviour and Guardian of
mankind’ (Or. 12.74 [Cohoon, LCL]). Dio argues that the knowledge of Zeus’s
kinship with humanity is evident to everyone (Or. 12.27). Through the words of
Pheidias, Dio portrays humans’ desire to sacri¿ce to images of the gods as similar to
1
50 You Are My Son
Father – not a King or a Judge, but a Father. By beginning here, the

author ensures that God’s paternal relation sets the tone for everything
else he says about God.112
In the second citation, the future tense of the verbs could indicate that
this relationship has no endpoint. God has begotten this one as his Son,
but he also promises that Jesus will continue to be his Son and he will
continue to be his Father. God involves himself in this relationship for
the future because the paternal identity will aptly describe God as long as
this relationship exists. Consequently, with the last line of these citations
the author introduces the theme of God as one who makes promises, a
theme invoked throughout the letter (1.13; 4.1; 6.12-13, 15, 17; 7.6; 8.6;
9.15; 10.23, 36; 11.9, 11, 13, 17, 33, 39; 12.26). God has promised to
maintain this familial relationship. Hence, God’s trustworthiness will be
proven in its continuance.
the desire of infants that long to be close to their parents (Or. 12.61). According
to him, the fatherhood imagery of the god conveys Zeus’ gentleness and solicitude
(Or. 12.75).
Several authors comment on the bene¿ts of thinking of the gods in a parental way.
Augustine quotes Varro who says that fear of the gods is the stance of the super-
stitious man, whereas the one who reverences them like parents is the religious man
(Augustine, City of God 6.9 [NPNF1 2:117]). Epictetus reÀects on the bene¿t of
thinking of oneself as a child of the god in several of his discourses (Diatr.1.3, 1.9).
Those who do so are able to live better because they know that they come from
something more than brute Àesh. He says, ‘[i]f a man could only subscribe heart and
soul, as he ought, to this doctrine, that we are all primarily begotten of God, and that
God is the father of man as well as of gods, I think that he will entertain no ignoble
or mean thought about himself. Yet, if Caesar adopts you no one will be able to
endure your conceit, but if you know that you are a son of Zeus, will you not be
elated?… [T]o have God as our maker, and father, and guardian, – shall this not
suf¿ce to deliver us from griefs and fears?’ (Diatr. 1.3.1–2; 1.9.7–8 [Oldfather]).
For writers like Dio Chrysostom and Epictetus, this language conveyed the gentle-
ness and compassion of the god. If Zeus is father, his children should live with the
conviction that the god knows them, cares for them, and expects them to live a life
worthy of a child of god. Philo’s statement serves as an excellent summation: ‘[f]or
what relation can be closer than that of a father to a son, or a son to a father?’
(Congr. 177 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]).
On the other hand, the paternal nature of God can also entail a severe dimension.
This is certainly true of Zeus who, although he is still called father, elicits great fear
(Homer, Il. 1.533-35; 14.414-18). Seneca views the deity as a severe father, whose
discipline shapes his children into virtuous people (Ep.1.5). Severity, particularly in
the use of discipline, applies as well to the fatherly God of Israel. I discuss this
aspect of God’s paternal character in the third chapter.
112 Aristotle referred to the opening section as the one in which the speaker
establishes the theme of the speech and his own credibility (Rhet. 3.14).
1
Finally, with these citations, the author has also revealed why God is
relational. These citations depict God as one who enters into a relation-
ship because God has chosen to do so. In Hebrews, God can be known
as Father ¿rst and foremost not because someone has named him as
such – not even Jesus – but because God has made and declared himself
to be Father. This relationship exists by God’s initiative. God’s words
and God’s actions establish Jesus as his Son and himself as Jesus’ Father.
By selecting citations that emphasize the relationship between Father
and the Son, by setting them so that they create a balanced pattern
alternating between each member, and by introducing them as God’s
speech, the author begins to shape his picture of God by declaring the
unparalleled superiority of the Son.
IV. The Name and Its Inheritance: Hebrews 1.6-13
As Heb. 1.5 provides the lens for reading Heb. 1.1-4, it also provides the
groundwork for the remaining citations of the chapter. Regarding the
Son’s inheritance and exaltation in those verses, many interpreters assert
that the name he inherits is ‘Son’113 – implying that Jesus became ‘Son’
at the moment of his exaltation. Such an assertion, however, is logically
troublesome. One can be in the relationship denoted by the word ‘Son’,
but one does not normally think of ‘Son’ as a name that one inherits.
Instead, a person who is a son inherits the name of his father. Bauck-
ham cogently argues that ‘the Son is the one who inherits the name from
his Father, not what he inherits. What he inherits must be something that
belongs to his Father, whereas “Son” is uniquely the Son’s title’.114 If
Heb. 1.5 is not the articulation of the name Jesus inherits, then it cannot
be support for the interpretation that Jesus becomes God’s Son only upon
his exaltation. Instead, it is God’s explicit announcement of Jesus’ iden-
tity based on his relationship with God. God’s articulation of ÍĎĠË is the
pronouncement of the relational reality on which the Name that Jesus
does inherit is based. In the remaining citations, God pronounces that
inherited name and the inheritance of all things (1.2) that will come
along with it.115
113 Attridge, Hebrews, p.47; Bruce, Hebrews, p.50; DeSilva, Perseverance,

p.92; Grässer, An die Hebräer, p.1:66; Lane, Hebrews, p.1:17; Mackie, Eschatology
and Exhortation, p.227; Spicq, Hebréux, p.2:11; Thompson, Hebrews, p.41.
114 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, p.239.
115 Rascher, ‘Wer der Sohn ist und welchen Status er hat, wird durch die
Zitatenreihe in Hebr 1,5-14 deutlich’ (Schriftauslegung, p.100).
1
52 You Are My Son
In the remainder of Hebrews 1, God speaks ¿ve more citations, four of

which portray roles God bestows to his Son. These citations say nothing
explicit about God being a Father or his dialogue partner being a Son.
Instead of diminishing the prominence of this theme, however, the
absence of any explicit familial language in the rest of the citations
brings into sharp relief the hand of the author.116 It is the author himself
who keeps the familial theme in focus with his introductions: ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË
in v. 6 and ÍĎĠË in v. 8. With the use of these terms, the author portrays
these statements as those which God the Father makes to his Son.
Consequently, by keeping this relationship in focus, the author has God
pronounce to his Son the unparalleled honors that come with the name
he inherits.
A. The Angels Worship the Firstborn: Deuteronomy 32.43 LXX

In the third citation of the catena, the author retains the familial focus
with the use of the term ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË. By af¿rming Jesus’ ¿lial relation-
ship to God, the author also reiterates the royal and cultic aspects that he
has already associated with that relationship. The only text in Israel’s
scriptures where a single person is designated as God’s own ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË
is Ps. 88.28 (LXX), a text in which the king is described as the Son of
God. This introduction functions as further evidence that the One
through whom God is speaking, is, in fact, the Davidic descendent to
whom God promised his eternal covenant. In addition, ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË is
associated with the priestly class.117 In certain traditions, the Levites are
set aside for God as the redemption of all the ¿rstborn children who
rightly belong to God. Hence, as this term reinforces that Jesus is God’s
Son, it also suggests his dual role as King and Priest. Finally, this term is
the ¿rst indication that there are other children of God. If Jesus is the
¿rstborn, he is preeminently, but not exclusively, God’s child.118
116 James Thompson notes, ‘[b]ecause in the catena the author is quoting and
using very little of his own language, the task of ascertaining his intention is espe-
cially dif¿cult’ (The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews
[CBQMS, 13; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982],
p.128). So also Susan Docherty states, ‘[a]lthough very brief, the importance of the
author’s introductions to his citations in providing new context to specify their
meaning in the way he wanted cannot be overstated’ (The Use of the Old Testament
in Hebrews [WUNT, 2/260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], p.154). It is important
to pay close attention to the author’s own words, for this is how he integrates the
quotations into his portrayal of God and Christ and the relationship between them.
117 Num. 3.12-13, 41, 45; 8.16-18.
118 Other early Christian writers use ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË to refer to Jesus and his place
as the ¿rstborn who will be followed by others (Rom. 8.29; Col. 1.15, 18; Rev. 1.5).
Similarly, in Hebrews 12, the audience comes to the mountain of God where there
1
The temporal setting of this declaration, uttered ĞÌ¸Å ¼ĊÊ¸ºÚºþ ÌġÅ

ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇÅ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾Å, is widely debated.119 The author uses this
term again in ch. 2, where the ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾ is the coming (ÄñÂÂÑ) realm
(2.5) ‘about which [the author] has been speaking’. This coming realm is
that which God did not subject to angels, but which he did subject to the
one who was both crowned with glory and honor and made lower than
the angels – one who, he notes in v. 8, is Jesus.120 That passage in ch. 2
suggests that the ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾ mentioned in Heb. 1.6 is the realm where
Jesus has taken his seat next to God. Consequently, God’s pronounce-
ment in Heb. 1.6 comes after Jesus has made puri¿cation for sins and sat
down. God now invites him to begin taking possession of that which
belongs to him as God’s heir. This is precisely how Chrysostom interprets
this introduction, saying, ‘[b]ut Paul names it as a Coming in, from the
metaphor of those who come to an inheritance and receive any portion
or possession’ (Hom. Heb. 3.1 [Gardiner]).
The citation itself121 provides further evidence of Jesus’ superiority
over the angels (the assertion in v. 4) because God commands them to
prostrate themselves in worship before the ¿rstborn. The Son becomes
the object of their worship. By having God command worship for the
is an assembly of the ¿rstborn ones (12.23). Hence, this introduction provides the
¿rst hint of the link between the sonship of Jesus and the ¿lial status of those who
trust in him.
119 For example, Attridge (Hebrews, p.56), Monte¿ore (Hebrews, p.45), and
Spicq (Hebréux, p.2:17) see this as a reference to the incarnation. DeSilva (Hebrews,
p.97), Loader (Sohn und Hoherpriester, pp.23–5), David Peterson (Hebrews and
Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the
Hebrews’ [SNTSMS, 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982], p.214
n.19), and Vanhoye (Situation, pp.152–7) are among those who place it at the exal-
tation. Finally, Käsemann (Das wandernde Gottesvolk, pp.98–101), Otto Michel
(Der Brief an die Hebräer [8th ed.; KEK, 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1949], p.113), and Westcott (Hebrews, p.37) interpret it as taking place at the
parousia. See David Mof¿tt’s thorough treatment of the term, where he concludes
that this is Jesus’ ‘entry into the true eternal inheritance God promised to his people’
(Atonement and Resurrection, pp.53–118).
120 For support of the Christological reading of the Psalm in Hebrews, see the
argument in Chapter 2.
121 No extant Vorlage preserves the precise citation found in Hebrews. The
psalter appended to Alexandrinus (the ‘Odes’) preserves the closest reading to
Hebrews’ version of Moses’ song. The only difference is that the psalter includes a
de¿nite article before Óºº¼ÂÇÀ (Á¸Ė ÈÇÉÊÁÍÅ¾ÊÚÌÑÊ¸Å ¸ĤÌŊ ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼Çı). If
this is a quotation from Deut. 32.43 as preserved in Vaticanus (Á¸Ė ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅ¾ÊÚÌÑÊ¸Å
¸ĤÌŊ ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë ÍĎÇÀ ¿¼Çı), then the author makes only one change, from ÍĎÇĕ to Óºº¼ÂÇÀ;
but if this is from Ps. 96.7 (ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅûÊ¸Ì¼ ¸ĤÌŊ, ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¸ĤÌÇÍ), he makes
four changes: the addition of Á¸ĕ, the form of the verb from second to third
1
54 You Are My Son
¿rstborn, the author has attributed yet another solely divine prerogative
to the Son. In Jewish thought and practice of the ¿rst century, worship
belonged only to God.122 This attribution of divine characteristics is
con¿rmed by the context of Deuteronomy 32,123 which has portrayed
God as the object of the worship of the people of Israel.124 Moreover, the
author contributes to his theme of the Son’s superiority over the angels
through the format of God’s speech. God does not speak to the angels
but about them. He refers to them in the third person, rather than address-
ing them in the second person. God has no conversation with the angels
as he does with the Son.
person, the elimination of the article, and substituting ¿¼Çı for ¸ĤÌÇı. Moreover,
there are no other quotations from Psalm 96 in Hebrews, whereas the author quotes
from Deuteronomy 32 – the Song of Moses – in 10.30. See David Allen, Deutero-
nomy and Exhortation in Hebrews (WUNT, 2/238; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007),
pp.44–57.
122 Bauckham does make reference to a few instances of apparent angel
worship, but concludes ‘it is very doubtful whether any substantial number of Jews
treated angels in a way that they would themselves have regarded as comparable,
even in degree, with the worship of God. Occasional prayer to angels should not be
confused with worship’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, pp.11–13). Larry W. Hurtado
focuses upon Jewish practice: ‘how and to whom Jews prayed, offered sacri¿ce, and
otherwise gave what they intended as worship of a divine ¿gure. For this, we have in
fact a good deal of evidence that devout Jews were quite scrupulous in restricting
full worship to the God of Israel alone’ (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in
Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], p.34).
123 Moses’ Song, preserved in Deuteronomy 32, is a particularly fruitful chapter
for the author. In addition to his quotation from v. 43, he also quotes from vv. 35-36
(Heb. 10.30). Moreover, this chapter contains numerous themes echoed in Hebrews
(God is not Ò»ÀÁ¸ĕÇË [Deut. 32.4//Heb. 6.10]; God leading his people [Deut. 32.12//
Heb. 2.10]; the sin of unfaithfulness [Deut. 32.20//Heb. 3.19]; God as a consuming
¿re [Deut. 32.22//Heb. 12.29]; God’s right hand [Deut 32.40//Heb. 1.13]; God’s
eternal existence [Deut. 32.40//Heb. 4.9–10]; Moses viewing the land of promise
from a distance [Deut. 32.52//Heb. 11.13]). It also includes several instances of a
portrayal of God’s relationship with people as that of a father with his children
(Deut. 32.5, 6, 10-11, 18, 19, 20). See also Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation,
pp.57–8.
124 Based upon the version of Deuteronomy 32 found at Qumran, Hurst presents
the possibility that the author of Hebrews thought of the ¿rstborn as representative
of the people of Israel so that the ‘him’ of Heb. 1.6 refers to the people of Israel.
He does not ¿nally embrace the anthropological interpretation of Deuteronomy,
however, stating in a footnote: ‘[t]his is the way I read the text until George Caird
pointed out the dif¿culty of such an interpretation in light of the larger context of
Deut. 32’ (‘Christology’, p.159 n.28).
1
The author’s use of what I have termed quasi-prosopographic exegesis

is even more striking here. In contrast to v. 5 where the author selects
texts that God has spoken in Israel’s scriptures, here the author puts into
the mouth of God texts that were in their original context spoken by
someone else. Through this scripture, the author brings forth not a human
command to worship God, but God’s command to worship his Son.
This is further evidence that by presenting Israel’s scriptures as God’s
spoken word, the author is crafting a particular understanding of God for
his audience. By making this God’s statement rather than Moses’, the
author profoundly contributes to his portrayal of the nature of the
relationship between God and his Son, and hence the character of God
displayed in that relationship. By his command, God shares the worship
due to him with his Son.
B. The Angels as Spirits and Flames: Psalm 103.4 LXX

In the following citation, the author highlights again the difference
between the Son and the angels when God directs toward the angels a
portion of Psalm 103 [LXX], a psalm that extols God’s work as creator.125
Cast as God’s speech, God speaks about himself when he refers to the
one who makes winds and ¿re his messengers and servants. The ontologi-
cal difference between angels and the Son is clear: the Son is begotten,
while angels are created. This lays the foundation for a contrast with the
enduring nature of the Son (Heb. 1.11-12). The difference takes on an
added dimension when the word ‘spirits’ is used to translate ÈÅ¼įÄ¸Ì¸
rather than ‘winds’, a translation ¿tting with the author’s later appropria-
tion of the word in 1.14 (angels are surely ministering spirits not minis-
tering winds). As Mof¿tt argues, the Son’s Àesh and blood distinguishes
him from the spiritual nature of the angels.126 In addition, because this is
third person rather than ¿rst person speech – because it is a description
and not a dialogue – it acts as further emphasis upon the contrasting
nature between the Son and the angels. As was the case in Heb. 1.6, God
never speaks to the angels but only about them.
C. The Worthy King: Psalm 44.7-8

The next citation redirects God’s speech back to his original addressee,
his Son. The author takes this citation from Psalm 44 – recorded in the
Sitz im Leben of a royal wedding – where the psalmist extols the great-
ness of the king and his bride. The author of Hebrews has cast it as
125 Like Psalm 109 quoted in Heb. 1.10-12, Ps. 103.2 and 6 portray creation as a
garment (ĸË ĎÄÚÌÀÇÅ).
1
126 Mof¿tt, Atonement and Resurrection, pp.141–2.
56 You Are My Son
God’s proclamation about the Son’s eternal throne and righteous scepter.
Several elements that had been under the surface of the discourse in
Hebrews now become explicit. The author has hinted at a royal Christol-
ogy by identifying Jesus as God’s Son, and implied as much with the
citations in v. 5 and the allusion to Ps. 89.28 in v. 6, all of which are
spoken to the King of Israel. Now the Son’s royalty is made explicit by
his anointing and subsequent possession of a throne, scepter, and king-
dom.127 Moreover, this citation casts Jesus as a worthy king who loves
righteousness and hates lawlessness and has a right to this eternal throne
because he is God’s Son.128 Finally, with this citation, the author adds yet
another divine quali¿cation to the Son: an eternal reign.129 God declares
that his throne lasts forever.130 There will be no end to his throne and,
consequently, no end to his reign.
D. The Unchanging Creator: Psalm 101.26-28 LXX

In the next citation, also addressed to the Son by the simple conjunction
of Á¸ĕ, the text cited in Hebrews has Êį at the beginning of the line,
127 Anointing with oil in Israel’s scriptures is primarily ascribed to kings and
priests. Exceptions include Elijah’s anointing of Elisha (1 Sam. 19.16) and the
prophet anointed by the Lord in Isaiah 61.
128 The last line of the citation could also be further support that Jesus is better
than the angels if they are the companions (Ä¼ÌĠÏÇÀ) that his anointing places him
above (Lane, Hebrews, p.1:30; Attridge sees this as the primary referent, although he
does not exclude others [Hebrews, p.60]). However, every other time the author
employs this word, it speaks of the human followers of Christ (3.1, 14; 6.4; 12.8
[see Athanasius, C. Ar. 1.46; Koester, Hebrews, p.195; Johnson, Hebrews, p.80]).
If humans are the referent, then it is possible to see Christ as anointed with the oil
of gladness in the midst of his human companions. ¸ÉÚ with the accusative could
also be translated as ‘by’ or ‘near’ (È¸ÉÚ, BDAG, 757). In Heb. 11.12, the author
cites Gen. 22.17 where È¸ÉÚ is used with the accusative in this way. More often
È¸ÉÚ is used with the accusative to convey that one thing is superior to another. In
all these instances (Heb. 1.4; 2.7, 9; 3.3; 9.23; 11.4; 12.24) save one (11.11), how-
ever, there is a comparative word to show that È¸ÉÚ should be translated as indicat-
ing a comparison. If this is an anointing in the midst of his companions, this text
foreshadows his priestly anointing that takes place among humanity (12.3) and,
though excruciating, includes an element of joy (Heb. 12.2). See Amy L. B. Peeler,
‘With Tears and Joy: The Emotions of Christ in Hebrews’, Koinonia 20 (2008),
pp.12–26.
129 These texts describe God as eternal: Exod. 15.18; Deut. 32.40; Pss. 9.7;
10.16; 29.10; 92.8; 102.12; Wis. 3.8; Sir. 39.20; Isa. 48.12; Lam. 5.19; 2 Macc. 1.25;
Sib. Or. frg. 1.16; T. Mos. 10.7.
130 God’s promise of Jesus’ eternal endurance is also an important theme of
Jesus’ priesthood (5.6; 7.24).
1
thereby highlighting the direct address of the citation.131 This is a citation

from the last stanza of Psalm 101, a Psalm of deliverance voiced by one
who is afÀicted.132 In this psalm, God hears the groaning of the prisoners
and sets them free from those who put them to death (101.20; see Heb.
2.15 and 5.7), with the result that the psalmist praises his name (101.21;
see Heb. 2.12).
As the Lord, the Son is involved in creation, laying the foundations of
the earth and creating the heavens with his hands. This phrase provides
scriptural support for the assertion in 1.2 that it was through the Son that
the ages were made. There is a subtle shift here, however, for the Son
who was the agent of God’s creation in 1.2 is now the actor. The psalm
elevates the Son to the same role as that held by God;133 both he and God
are the creators. In addition to the elevated status of the Son, this quote
also works to highlight the enduring nature of the Son. While creation
will be destroyed, grow old, be rolled up and changed, the Lord will
remain (Êİ »À¸ÄñÅ¼ÀË), stay the same (Êİ ĝ ¸ĤÌġË ¼Ċ), and never see his
years end (ÌÛ ìÌ¾ ÊÇÍ ÇĤÁ ëÁÂ¼ĕÐÇÍÊÀÅ). Because the angels are associated
with creation, this verse sharply contrasts him with their temporality.
With this address to his Son, God makes clear that his Son possesses an
eternal nature. He was there with God at creation and will remain with
God forever (cf. 13.8).
131 Some mss of the Greek Old Testament also have Êį at the beginning of the
line (A, Graeco-Latinum Veronense, Purpureum Turicense). Bauckham notes that the
author of Hebrews’ presentation of this text in this way places ‘the person addressed
(Jesus Christ) at the same beginning with which Genesis begins, the primordial
eternity before the creation of the heavens and the earth, for which the pre-existent
Christ is also here made responsible’ (Jesus and the God of Israel, p.243).
132 Several interpreters (B. W. Bacon, ‘Heb. 1.10-12 and the Septuagint
Rendering of Ps. 102.23’, ZNW 3 [1902], pp.280–5; C. D. F. Moule, The Birth of the
New Testament [BNTC, 1; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962], pp.77–8; Bruce,
Hebrews, pp.61–2; Simon J. Kistemaker, The Psalms Citations in the Epistle to the
Hebrews [Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest N.V., 1961], pp.79–80) see a messianic
address by God in the text of the Greek Psalm itself, due to the addition of the Êį
and the vocative ÁįÉÀ¼. This conjecture is possible, but not certain (see Attridge,
Hebrews, p.60 n.122). Whether this ascription is warranted by the Greek version
or not, the author still ascribes a name associated with God to Christ and God-like
qualities of creation and eternality.
133 In support of his argument that God’s role as sole creator of all things is one
thing which sets God apart from all other reality, Bauckham lists Isa. 40.26, 28;
42.5; 45.12, 18; 48.13; 51.16; Neh. 9.6; Hos. 13.4 LXX; 2 Macc. 1.24; Sir. 43.33;
Bel. 5; Jub. 12.3-5; Sib. Or. 3.20-35; 8.375-76; Sib. Or. frg. 1.5-6; frg. 3; frg. 5;
2 En. 47.3-4; 66.4; Apoc. Ab. 7.10; Pseudo-Sophocles; Jos. Asen. 12.1-2; T. Job 2.4
(Jesus and the God of Israel, p.9 n.8).
1
58 You Are My Son
E. The Invitation: Psalm 109.1 LXX

The conclusion of the catena mirrors its beginning: a rhetorical question
suggesting that a certain statement by God was never addressed to an
angel. This last statement of God in ch. 1 is the ¿rst explicit citation of
Ps. 110.1, a psalm that plays an integral role in the author’s argument. In
this psalm, the writer is reporting the speech of YHWH to his lord. In the
gospels, Jesus himself raises the question of how the Messiah can be the
son of David if David calls him ‘lord’ (Mt. 22.43-44; Mk 12.36; Lk.
20.42). The conclusion, made explicit in Acts 2.34, is that Jesus is the
Lord who is at the right hand of God. The author of Hebrews reads this
psalm with the same referent for the identity of ‘my Lord’.
The author ¿nds warrant for doing so in the context of the psalm itself.
First, like the previous citation, this psalm is also spoken to the ÁįÉÀÇË.134
The author’s second textual warrant for reading this psalm as that which
is addressed to the Son comes in v. 3. There, God says to this lord, ‘I
begot you from the womb before the morning star’.135 The author, who
makes great use of vv. 1 and 4, surely could not have missed the familial
resonances of v. 3 in the LXX.136 God and the one to whom God is
speaking are related by God’s act of begetting him. Just as was the case
with Ps. 2.7, this is the Father’s speech to his Son.
This psalm functions as divinely articulated scriptural support for 1.3c,
and brings to a climax the author’s portrayal of the superiority and
excellence of the Son who sits at the very right hand of God. Moreover,
this citation shows that his position at God’s right hand comes about by
God’s command. God’s word to his Son made the session of Christ at the
right hand of the majesty on high into a reality. Finally, it is a promise
from God himself that nothing will challenge the superiority of the Son:
he will reign supreme over all, even over his enemies.
With these citations the author has asserted – through the speech of
God himself – that worship, an eternal throne at God’s right hand, a
kingdom, the role of creator of all things, eternity, and eventual complete
134 This title is part of the introduction to God’s speech and not a direct address
of God himself. Hence, in maintaining these citations as the direct speech of God to
the Son, the author leaves the name ÁįÉÀÇË unexpressed here.
135 John Collins argues that the Greek presupposes a Hebrew reading wherein
the psalm speaks of the divine birth of the King; see Adela Yarbro and John J.
Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic
Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.17–
19. For further discussion of this verse, see below, p.117 n.30.
136 In addition to this resonance in v. 3, this psalm, like Psalm 2 and Psalm 44,
refers to the rod of the king (v. 2) and portrays God saying that this lord rules among
the holy ones (Heb. 2.11) in brightness (Heb. 1.3).
1
sovereignty belong to the Son. By portraying him as the eternal Creator-

King worthy of the worship of the angels, the author has portrayed God
attributing to his Son his own divine attributes.
F. The Inherited Name

These are not the only ways the author establishes the Son’s divine
status. Those things that God proclaims as belonging to his Son are
bound up with the names with which God addresses his Son. The Father
addresses the Son with two names in vv. 6-13, the only two vocatives of
the chapter. First, in the citation of Psalm 44, the author boldly positions
God addressing the Son as ¿¼ĠË.137 Second, in the citation of Psalm 101,
God addresses the Son with the name ÁįÉÀÇË. As the heir of his Father,
Jesus inherits the names by which his Father is known, ¿¼ĠË and ÁįÉÀÇË.
Like his Father, he is God. Because he is ¿¼ĠË, he has a just, righteous,
and eternal throne. Like his Father, he is Lord. Because he is ÁįÉÀÇË, he is
the creator and will endure forever. If Jesus inherits both of these names,
why does the author say that Jesus has inherited an ěÅÇÄ¸ in the singular?
I suggest that the author sees these names as a unit. Not God and Lord,
but Lord God, ÁįÉÀÇË ¿¼ĠË, a designation for God in Israel’s scriptures
(Gen. 2–4; Exod. 34.14; Lev. 8.35; Josh. 7.19; Judg. 4.23).138
137 The psalm itself presents this ambiguity. It is a psalm addressed to a king,
and the Àow of the psalm seems to indicate that the human author is addressing the
king as ¿¼ĠË in v. 7 (Attridge appeals to grammatical precedent and Jewish interpre-
tations to show that the author of Hebrews stands in a line of tradition which reads
¿¼ĠË as a vocative [Hebrews, p.58; see also Collins and Collins, King and Messiah,
pp.56–7]).
In the last stanza (Heb. 1.9), the vocative use of ¿¼ĠË is not as clear. Both instances
of ¿¼ĠË could refer to God and not the one being addressed, the meaning being, ‘God,
yes, your God has anointed you’ (Bruce, Hebrews, p.10; Westcott, Hebrews, p.27).
It could also be possible that the son is called ¿¼ĠË here again, either reading the ¿rst
¿¼ĠË as a vocative, ‘God, your God has anointed you’ (Attridge, Hebrews, pp.59–60;
Braun, An die Hebräer, p.40; DeSilva, Perseverance, p.99; Ellingworth, Hebrews,
p.124; Michel, Hebräer, p.118; Spicq, Hébreux, p.2:20); or reading the ¿rst ¿¼ĠË as a
title, ‘Your God has anointed you (as) God’.
Hurst agrees that the Son is addressed as ¿¼ĠË here, but sees this address connected
to Jesus’ status as King: ‘[n]o threat to monotheism was implied, nor was there any
divinization of the king as has been claimed for surrounding cultures. The author
could rightfully see Christ as the inheritor of the royal title “God” precisely because,
as ideal king, he represents God to the people’ (‘Christology’, p.160). Hurst may be
correct about the function of this verse in the LXX, but because the author of Hebrews
presents this citation as the speech of God, the divine address becomes quite inter-
esting. It is God, not another human, that is calling another person ¿¼ĠË.
138 Bauckham reaches a similar conclusion, ‘[t]he name that is so much more
excellent than those of angels must be the Hebrew divine name, the Tetragrammaton’
1
60 You Are My Son
The Son’s supremacy over the angels springs without hesitation from
this name that is different from (»ÀÚÎÇÉÇË) the names they possess. The
angels, while sometimes ÍĎÇĕ, are never gods or lords. Jesus is superior to
the angels because he has inherited a superior name, not ÍĎĠË but ¿¼ĠË and
ÁįÉÀÇË.
Along with the assertion of the Son’s divine superiority, the author
continues to construct a particular image of God his Father.139 God’s
speeches reiterate his supreme power. God has the power to command
his angels. God chooses whom to anoint as king.140 God will subdue all
enemies under the feet of his Son in the end. God permits his Son to
partake in the attributes of that very same divine supremacy. The author’s
crafting of the citation from Deuteronomy 32 portrays God commanding
not the worship of himself, but directing the angels to give their worship
to the ¿rstborn. In so doing, God presents himself as sovereign over the
angels and yet including his Son as co-object of their worship. The same
is true of v. 8. It is God who proclaims to his Son that he is to reign
forever. Only God could guarantee an eternal reign, and it is as a Father
that he does so for his Son. In vv. 10-12, the author shows that God
shares his divine role with the Son, this time the role of creator. Finally,
in v. 13, God has again shared his authority by raising the Son to the
favored position at his right hand and will use his power to make his Son
(Jesus and the God of Israel, p.239). Similarly, John Webster concludes: ‘At the end
of this movement, and in an emphatic position as the ¿nal word of the exordium,
stands a name; but it is a name which we do not know. Son? This seems natural in
view of the next verse where God addresses the Son (though ÍĎĠË there is as much
title as name). Is it, then, the tetragrammaton. This would accord with what has
already been said in the exordium about the Son’s deity. Perhaps there is a deliberate
withholding of the name… For, as one whose name is unknown, the Son is transcen-
dentally excellent, not speci¿able, in¿nitely regressive, bearer of the name beyond
names. And all this is because he is the Son of God’ (‘One Who Is Son: Theological
ReÀections on the Exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Bauckham, Driver,
and Hart [eds], Epistle to the Hebrews, pp.69–94 [93]). For a similar argument, see
Long, Hebrews, p.44–5.
139 Minor themes about God’s character arise from these citations as well. In
describing the Son as one who reigns with uprightness and justice, God is thereby
shown to be a just and wise Father who exalts his worthy Son to the eternal throne.
In addition, the author depicts God in the joyful context of anointing with the oil of
gladness. God instigates a celebration at the installment of his Son to his throne,
thereby showing himself to be a God who initiates joyous occasions.
140 This is clear from v. 9 (ìÏÉÀÊñÅ Ê¼ ĝ ¿¼ĠË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ), but is put into even
sharper relief by the author’s construction of this text as the direct speech of God to
the Son.
1
dominant over all. God’s paternal relationship with Jesus means that God
has opened himself up to share both the rights and responsibilities of his
status as God. Hence, the author highlights both the sovereign power and
graciousness of God as a Father to his Son.
God shares everything that is his with the Son because he shares his
identity with his Son. God has bequeathed to his Son his own name
ÁįÉÀÇË ¿¼ĠË and, in so doing, has granted to him all that comes with being
the Lord God.
V. Conclusion
The familial relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son
¿gures prominently throughout the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews. The author
highlights this relationship most clearly in the ¿rst citations (Heb. 1.5).
By selecting, arranging, and introducing Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7.14 in the
way that he does, the author af¿rms that God is related to Jesus as a
Father to a Son. Once the familial emphasis of Heb. 1.5 becomes clear, it
is also evident that this relationship forms the backdrop for the descrip-
tion of the Son in vv. 1-4 as well. There, the author combines the two
motifs of sapiential and Davidic Christology into the framework of a
familial relationship. Finally, by maintaining that God’s pronouncements
are the Father’s speech to his Son, the author keeps focus on their
relationship through the catena in vv. 6-13 and shows that as the Father
grants his name to his Son, God also grants to him all the rights and
responsibilities that come with that inherited name.
Because God is in relationship with one whom he has designated as
his Son and in that relationship has invited him to share in the creation,
sustenance, and governance of all things, the author has constructed a
Christology asserting that the one who has the name and attributes of his
Father is God. God speaks to the Son in psalms that were originally
addressed to God. He directs the worship of his angels to the Son. He
promises his Son that he will remain the same forever. He addresses him
by the name ÁįÉÀÇË ¿¼ĠË. This exalted Christology is a relational Christol-
ogy, attaining its height because of its integral and inseparable relation-
ship to Hebrews’ theology. Jesus’ superiority stems from his relationship
with God – from the reality that God is his Father and that he is God’s
Son. The familial relationship between God and Jesus conveys a
particular theological and Christological point that maintains a delicate
but distinct balance. Jesus shares God’s glory and divinity – his name is
Lord God – but he is not another god alongside the God of Israel; he is
God’s Son. God and the one through whom he is speaking are both God,
1
62 You Are My Son
both Lord, both reign, and both create. Nevertheless, despite all of these
designations of dignity, the Father/Son relationship retains a distinction
between the two. Jesus is not another God, but is God because he is the
Son of God.141
The ¿rst thing the author states about him – that he is the heir of all
things – aptly sums up the rest of the chapter. Through the chapter it
becomes clear that all things include speci¿cally the worship of angels,
an eternal throne, a role in creation, a seat at God’s right hand, and a
promise that everything will be subjected under his feet. He has inherited
all things because of who he is, the Son of the Lord God. Because God
the Father has allowed his Son to inherit his name, he has granted to him
the unparalleled authority, majesty, trustworthiness, and excellency that
comes with it. įÉÀÇË ¿¼ĠË has appointed his Son, įÉÀÇË ¿¼ĠË, as heir of
all things.
In constructing such an exalted Christology, the author has also built a
paternal theology in which God – without compromising his supremacy
– has involved another in his actions and attributes because he has given
his name to his Son as an inheritance. Not surprising for one versed in
Israel’s scriptures, the author has asserted God’s supremacy and power.
God made the ages. All things are at his discretion to give to his Son. He
commands the angels, establishes an eternal king, and subdues enemies.
He is the majesty on high. The author is also grounded in his tradition in
his portrayal of this powerful God as a relational God. The very ¿rst
thing the author of Hebrews says in his sermon is that God is a God who
speaks, and that God has opened himself to interact with others. The
author con¿rms this portrayal with the ¿rst words of God that proclaim
he has established himself in a familial relationship of Father and Son.
Moreover, he will maintain this relationship with his Son at his right
hand until the consummation of all things. In this relationship, he chooses
to use his supremacy to give an unsurpassed inheritance to his Son and to
guarantee that he will receive it in full. By crafting words addressed to
God as God’s address to his Son, the author shows that as his Father,
God shares those things that are his particular possessions – the worship
of the angels, a hand in creation, an eternal reign – with his Son. The
author’s exegetical use of Israel’s scriptures as God’s speech portrays
God as a magnanimous Father.
141 Origen highlights the distinction captured by Father/Son language (Dial. 2).
In his analysis of Origen, Widdicombe states, ‘[t]he words Father and Son identify
distinct, subsisting realities; it is logically impossible in using them not to distin-
guish the Son from the Father’ (Fatherhood, p.87).
1
The sonship of Jesus af¿rms both his excellency and his differentia-
tion from God. At the same time, the Fatherhood of God expresses both
his sovereignty and his inclusion of another in his glory. The identities of
both God and Jesus the author constructs through the presentation of
their familial relationship set the framework for the theological, Christo-
logical, and ecclesiological vision for the remainder of the letter. That
God is this kind of Father – powerful and magnanimous – and that Jesus
is this kind of Son – eternal and sovereign – provide the groundwork for
the author’s portrayal of another dynamic in their relationship: God is the
Father who perfects through suffering and Jesus is his obedient Son.
Both aspects of their relationship allow the author to declare that he and
his congregation are also ÍĎÇĕ of God.
1
Chapter 2
‘A SON’: THE SUFFERING HEIR OF GOD’S CHILDREN
‘Because of this, it is necessary that we hold fast to what we have heard’

(Heb. 2.1). With this particular statement interpreters of the New Testa-
ment mark out the beginning of a new chapter in the sermon to the
Hebrews.1 It is here, after the ¿rst exhortation to the audience (2.1-4),2
1 Albert Vanhoye’s classic analysis of the structure of Hebrews categorizes 2.1-

4 as the second subsection of the ¿rst main heading, ‘The Situation of Christ 1,5–2,
18’ (Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews [SubBi, 12; Rome:
Ponti¿cio Instituto Biblico, 1989], p.40a). George Guthrie’s text-linguistic analysis
of the Epistle treats 2.1-4 as the ¿rst warning of the exhortation section, 2.5-9 as a
subpoint to the catena of the ¿rst chapter, and 2.10-18 as the second point in the ¿rst
section, titled ‘The Position of the Son in Relation to the Angels’ (The Structure of
Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis [NovTSup, 73; New York: Brill, 1994], p.144).
Finally, Cynthia Westfall’s discourse analysis of Hebrews delineates 2.1-4 as the
¿nal subcategory of the ¿rst section, and 2.5-18 – ‘Jesus Identi¿ed with Humanity to
Become the High Priest of our Confession’ – as the second section (A Discourse
Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship Between Form and Meaning
[LNTS, 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005], pp.93, 100).
2 In 1.14 the author describes humanity as those who are about to inherit salva-
tion (ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄ¼ėÅ ÊÑÌ¾Éĕ¸Å). This nomenclature retains the familial theme so perva-
sive throughout the ¿rst chapter. Following upon the author’s portrayal of Jesus as
the Son whom God appointed heir (1.2), the designation of this group’s position as
heirs suggests that they too are God’s children. They explicitly enter into the
purview of the sermon again when the author extols the necessity for all of them –
his readers and himself – to pay attention to what they have heard (2.1). They have
heard about the salvation that will be inherited, and the author is concerned that they
might ignore it (2.3). He also indicates that they are familiar with this salvation on
more than just an auditory level. His primary concern is that they not drift away
(È¸É¸ÉÉñÑ) from the salvation about which they have heard (2.1). The danger of
moving away from it implies that they are in some way now attached to the salvation
that was proclaimed to them. Eric Mason argues that the author is warning his
audience not to ‘leave a commitment previously made’ (‘ “Now Faith Is”: Faith,
Faithfulness, and Unfaithfulness in the Epistle to the Hebrews’ [paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Midwest Region of the SBL, Bourbonnais, IL, 12
2. ‘A Son’: The Suffering Heir of God’s Children 65
that the author shifts his attention from Jesus’ exaltation above the angels
to his temporary inferiority below them (2.7a, 9a). Although hints of this
terrestrial episode appear in ch. 1 (‘having made puri¿cation for sins’
1.3c), it is not until this section that the driving concern of the author
turns to the human experience of Jesus. Having ¿rmly established the
familial relationship between God and Jesus and the exalted nature of
Christ based in that relationship, the second chapter Àeshes out that
which is penultimate to the events of ch. 1 by tracing the path Jesus took
on the way to his exalted position.3
Despite this change in emphasis, the Father/Son relationship between
God and Jesus remains essential for reading this portion of Hebrews as
well. Before he sits down at God’s right hand, the ÍĎĠË will become
human and will experience death. This chapter contends that these events
are as much a manifestation of Jesus’ ¿lial status as is his exaltation. The
¿lial nature of this journey is evident in two ways. First, Jesus experi-
ences this journey in the context of the familial relationship in which he
participates with God: God the Father calls Jesus the Son to take his
place as his heir after he experienced death. Second, the author is as
concerned with the inheritance of Jesus the Son in these verses as he is in
the ¿rst chapter. The difference in this section is that the author preaches
not that God has appointed Jesus as heir of all things, but how Jesus has
attained this position and what is included in his inheritance as God’s
Son. In other words, Jesus’ inheritance includes God’s many children,
and because it does so, he must suffer death to take his place as heir of
all things. I argue these two points as I treat each section of Heb. 2.6-16
where the author’s statements about God, Jesus, and humanity are
February 2011]). Their present attachment to this salvation makes them members of
the group to whom the author refers in 1.14. The author and his readers are God’s
heirs; they are poised to inherit God’s salvation. The language of inheritance indi-
cates early on that those whom the sermon addresses are children of God. Therefore,
his exhortation that they hold fast to what they have heard – namely the message
about God’s salvation – is an exhortation that they hold fast so that they might attain
their inheritance.
3 Unlike Craig Koester (‘Hebrews, Rhetoric, Humanity’, pp.103–23) and L. D.
Hurst (‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’, pp.151–64), who see the work of
Hebrews 1 as preparatory for the main point expressed in ch. 2, I see ch. 1 laying the
foundation of God’s relationship with Jesus and Jesus’ consequent glory which then
takes a surprising turn with focus on Jesus’ humanity in ch. 2. Both pictures are
equally important for the argument of the author, but the movement from exaltation
to humiliation captures the depths of what God and Jesus accomplished for humanity
in his humiliation that a move in the opposite direction could not have. By beginning
with the exalted picture of Jesus, the shocking force of Jesus’ humanity is all the
more apparent.
1
66 You Are My Son
conveyed through the lens of the familial relationship between God and
his many ÍĎÇĕ.
The arguments of this chapter contribute to my overarching thesis in
three ways. First, I show that the author continues his emphasis upon the
familial theme. The allusions to God’s Fatherhood (2.10, 11), the refer-
ences to the inheritance of Jesus (2.8), and the familial language of sons
(2.10), brothers (2.11, 12, 17), and children (2.13, 14) con¿rm that the
author has not relegated familial imagery to the ¿rst chapter. Second,
because he maintains this emphasis, the actions of God and Jesus
depicted in this section of the letter contribute to the reader’s perception
of their character. Jesus is the Son who trusts his Father to the point of
death because God the Father wills his Son to suffer so that he might be
perfected. Finally, this chapter introduces the identity of the audience of
Hebrews – the family of God – and the inheritance of salvation to which
they can look forward because they are included in the inheritance of
Jesus.
As Heb. 1.2 says, God has appointed his Son Jesus heir of all things.
Hebrews 2 describes how this appointment is realized in the relationship
between the Father and the Son by describing the vital role Jesus’
temporary inferiority in the cosmic hierarchy plays in the journey to his
exalted position. Jesus the Son of God becomes a son of man in order to
bring God’s sons and daughters into his household.
I. The Son of Man Inherits All Things Through the Suffering of

Death: Hebrews 2.6-9
Psalm 8.5-7 LXX serves as the entry point for the author’s discussion of
Christ’s humanity. In it, he ¿nds scriptural af¿rmation of Jesus’ inheri-
tance and Jesus’ human experience, which speci¿cally includes the
human experience of death. The author also draws out of this Psalm
God’s action leading to Jesus the Son taking his place as heir of all
things and the implications of this process for humanity.
A. The Inheritance of Jesus: Psalm 8.7

Although the author shifts his focus from Christ’s exaltation to his
humiliation in the second chapter, his citation of Psalm 8 and especially
his comments on it show that he remains interested in Jesus’ status as
heir. This psalm extols the God-given glory of all humanity. Praise
comes forth out of the mouths of babes and infants (v. 3)4 for the God
4 The characterization of the ones who praise God as children resonates with the
familial descriptions of Jesus and the audience throughout Hebrews.
1
who founded the great expanse of the heavens and the stars. In light of
the majesty of God, the psalmist wonders at God’s concern for humanity,
only a fraction of God’s immense creation. In addition to giving heed to
this small portion of his creation, God set the place of men and women
just below that of the angels,5 and bestows on them glory and honor.
Finally, in accord with the Genesis narrative (Gen. 1.26, 28), the psalmist
declares that God has placed people as sovereign over the things of the
earth, including beasts, birds, and sea creatures. The Psalm begins and
ends with praise to the Lord in light of his great goodness toward the
sons and daughters of men. The author of Hebrews cites vv. 5-7 and 8b
of this psalm. His citation ends with the psalmist’s proclamation that
God has subjected all things under the feet of humanity (ÈÚÅÌ¸ ĨÈñÌ¸Æ¸Ë
ĨÈÇÁÚÌÑ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ¸ĤÌÇı).
When the author discusses the psalm in the next few verses, he begins
by emphasizing the last line of his citation.6 For the author of Hebrews,
the phrase ‘all things’ truly means all things. The author states that when
God subjected all things, God left nothing (ÇĤ»ñÅ) that is not subjected
(ÒÅÍÈĠÌ¸ÁÌÇË) to him. Nothing is outside of the sovereignty of this
ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË. To prepare for this point, the author of Hebrews has not cited
Ps. 8.8-9, lines that delineate ÈÚÅÌ¸ as various types of animals. The
psalm, by specifying “all things” as members of the animal kingdom,
limits the meaning of ÈÚÅÌ¸. These lines circumscribe the dominion of
the son of man to earthly things. By not articulating these lines, the
author of Hebrews makes this son of man’s dominion more expansive
than that described in the original psalm.7 In light of his comments that
5 In this verse (Ps. 8.6), and in other places in Israel’s scriptures (Job 38.7; Pss.
96.7 LXX; 137.1 LXX; Dan. 2.11; 3.92 LXX), the translators of the Hebrew Vorlage
use Óºº¼ÂÇË for -'!+ '1 or -'!+. Through linguistic means, this choice conveys
the high place angels hold in the universe.
6 Craig L. Blomberg notes the ‘somewhat belabored emphasis on all things
being in subjection to the “him” of the psalm’ (‘ “But We See Jesus’: The Relation-
ship Between the Son of Man in Hebrews 2.6 and 2.9 and the Implications for
English Translation’, in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its
Ancient Contexts [Richard Bauckham et al., eds; LNTS, 387; London: T&T Clark,
2008], pp.88–99 [95]).
7 So also notes Albert Pietersma: ‘Hebrews makes it [ÈÚÅÌ¸] to include the
entire creation, therefore departing from the Greek of Psalm 8, and possibly from the
Hebrew as well. The appointment of the risen Christ, by God, thus comprises all’
(‘Text-Production and Text-Reception: Psalm 8 in Greek’, in Die Septuaginta –
Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septua-
ginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 [M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and
M. Meiser, eds; WUNT, 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], pp.485–501 [494]).
1
68 You Are My Son
follow the citation, the author’s selective citation of the psalm describes
God subjecting not just animals but actually everything.
The author’s citation – and subsequent reiteration – of Ps. 8.7b
establishes a connection with the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews. The words of
the last line, ÈÚÅÌ¸ ĨÈñÌ¸Æ¸Ë ĨÈÇÁÚÌÑ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ¸ĤÌÇı, echo the lan-
guage and the theme of the previously cited scripture text in Heb. 1.13.
There, in the words of Ps. 109.1 LXX, God promises to place the Son’s
enemies under his feet (¿ľ ÌÇİË ëÏ¿ÉÇįË ÊÇÍ ĨÈÇÈĠ»ÀÇÅ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ÊÇÍ).8
Both psalms depict God placing something under the feet of another.
The similarity of Ps. 8.7b to Ps. 109.1 makes Psalm 8 a ¿tting text to
describe God’s actions on behalf of his ¿rstborn Son.9 Some commenta-
tors exclude any reference to Jesus in the citation of Ps. 8.7.10 For exam-
ple, Victor C. P¿tzner writes: ‘[t]hat the psalm quotation must be read as
¿rst referring to humanity becomes clear in the initial comment on the
text in verse 8b. God made no exceptions in giving humans universal
dominion.’11 Blomberg agrees and clari¿es what he thinks the author
means in v. 8b: ‘[o]nce humans were given dominion over every inch of
this planet’.12 If this is the point the author wished to make, it would serve
his argument well to quote Ps. 8.8-9. By not doing so, the comments of
the author suggest that the phrase ‘all things’ encompasses much more
than the earth alone. Although it is not a royal psalm,13 the author’s
citation and explanation of it cast it as a reference to the inheritance of
God’s Son.
While similar, these two psalm texts are not synonymous. In Psalm 8,
God subjects not just enemies, but all things (ÈÚÅÌ¸). The completely
comprehensive scope of God’s action thereby establishes a link with the
author’s ¿rst assertion about the Son in Heb. 1.2. In this verse, the author
states that the Son is the one whom God has appointed as heir of all
8 Other books in the New Testament establish a connection between Psalms 8

and 109 LXX in referring to Jesus (1 Cor. 15.25-27; Phil. 3.21; Eph. 1.20-22).
9 Authors who see a Christological interpretation of this line include Attridge
(Hebrews, p.72); Braun (An die Hebräer, p.56); Bruce (Hebrews, p.74); DeSilva
(Perseverance, p.110), Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.152); George Guthrie and Russell
D. Quinn (‘A Discourse Analysis of the Use of Psalm 8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:5–9’,
JETS 49.2 [2006], pp.235–46); Johnson (Hebrews, p.91); Spicq (Hébreux, p.2:32);
Windisch (Hebräerbrief, p.20).
10 Moffatt, Hebrews, p.24; Monte¿ore, Hebrews, pp.57–8.
11 P¿tzner, Hebrews, p.62.
12 Blomberg, ‘But We See Jesus’, p.95.
13 Psalm 8 is classi¿ed as a hymn of praise and more speci¿cally as a psalm of
creation (Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 [WBC, 19; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2004], p.106).
1
things (ÈÚÅÌ¸). By adding emphasis to the statement of Ps. 8.7b that God
subjects all things under his feet, the author evokes both the last and the
¿rst statements about the Son in Hebrews 1.
Ps. 109.1/Heb. 1.13 Ps. 8.7/Heb. 2.8 Heb. 1.2

ÁÚ¿ÇÍ ëÁ »¼ÆÀľÅ ÄÇÍ ÈÚÅÌ¸ ĨÈñÌ¸Æ¸Ë ğÅ ì¿¾Á¼Å ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇÅ
ïÑË ¸Å ¿ľ ÌÇİË ëÏ¿ÉÇÍË ÊÇÍ ĨÈÇÁÚÌÑ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ÈÚÅÌÑÅ
ĨÈÇÈĠ»ÀÇÅ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ÊÇÍ ¸ĤÌÇı
Sit at my right hand You subjected all Whom he appointed
until I place your enemies things under his feet heir of all things
under your feet
Psalm 8 describes a human’s sovereignty over all things. For the author
of Hebrews, this sovereignty precisely describes the inheritance God
grants to his Son (ÈÚÅÌ¸, Heb. 1.2). Consequently, in Ps. 8.7b, the author
¿nds a scriptural assertion of the Son’s unparalleled inheritance and
God’s act of subjecting it under his feet. In other words, for the author,
Palm 8 depicts God’s installation of Jesus as heir of everything that
rightfully belongs to him as God’s Son.
The resonance of Ps. 8.7b with Heb. 1.2 and Heb. 1.13/Ps. 109.1 LXX
also illuminates the temporal quali¿cation the author adds to the last line
of the citation. Immediately after his assertion that nothing is left in
rebellion against God’s Son (2.8b) comes the author’s admission that this
sovereignty is not yet perceivable (ıÅ »ò ÇĥÈÑ ĝÉľÄ¼Å ¸ĤÌŊ ÌÛ ÈÚÅÌ¸
ĨÈÇÌ¼Ì¸ºÄñÅ¸). The scope of the Son’s sovereignty is unquestioned, but
the timing is not as settled as the psalm text suggests. Such an admission
is not due to the faulty perception of the audience, but comes because
Christ’s unchallenged sovereignty is not yet a full reality.
The author’s temporal quali¿cation regarding the time when all things
will be subjected to Jesus aligns with his previous statements about
Jesus’ inheritance. The Son has been appointed as God’s heir (1.2). An
heir is usually14 one who looks forward to the possession of his inheri-
tance.15 Moreover, Jesus awaits God’s subjection of his enemies (1.13;
cf. 10.13), with God commanding him to sit at the right hand until (ïÑË)
the time that God subjects his enemies. Interestingly, Psalm 109 exerts
14 In a few examples, ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË indicates someone who already possesses the

things in question: Plutarch, Cic. 41.3 (1.881f); Judg. 18.17; Mic. 1.13 (W. Foerster,
‘ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË, ÊÍºÁÂ¾ÉÇÅĠÄÇË, ÁÌÂ’, TDNT 3.767–85).
15 Mt. 21.38/Mk 12.7/Lk. 20.14; Rom. 4.13; Gal. 3.29; 4.1; Tit. 3.7; Heb. 6.17;
11.7; Jas 2.5. DeSilva notes, ‘[h]e is “heir of all things”, a designation with a
distinctly eschatological tenor’ (Perseverance, p.87). So also Johnson about this
designation, ‘[it] points to his eschatological victory’ (Hebrews, p.67).
1
70 You Are My Son
inÀuence on the way in which the author is reading Psalm 8. A time will
certainly come when God will subject all things to his Son, but that time
has not yet arrived from the temporal perspective of the author and his
audience.16
The author reads a three-stage movement in the Psalm.17 First, inter-
preters of Hebrews largely agree that the author interprets the two com-
plementary phrases of Ps. 8.6 – which in the psalm describe the present
state of humanity – as a narrative of the journey Jesus experiences from
humiliation to exaltation.18 Although the author and his readers see a
Jesus who has been made lower than the angels (Heb. 2.9), he certainly
retains that lowered state no longer. As the previous chapter of Hebrews
forcefully argued, Jesus is now elevated above the angels. The author
plays upon the dual meaning of the phrase ¹É¸Ïį ÌÀ, which can function
either as an indicator of degree or as an indicator of time.19 Jesus was
lowered below the angels for a time but is now exalted above them,
where he has been crowned with glory and honor. Second, the author
makes a similar temporal distinction between the citation in Heb. 2.7b
and Heb. 2.8a.20 The psalm is correct as portraying God subjecting all
things to the Son. Hebrews’ only quali¿cation is that this event has not
yet been fully consummated. ‘But now’, the author says, ‘we do not yet
see all things having been subjected to him’ (Heb. 2.8c). Therefore, Jesus
was lowered below the angels, is now crowned with glory and honor, and
looks forward to the time when he will possess the inheritance promised
by his Father. By emphasizing the totality and futurity of the events
depicted in Ps. 8.7b, the author presents this psalm text as an af¿rmation
of the great hope that God the Father avows that Jesus, the Son, will one
day take full possession of all things, his promised inheritance.
16 So also Attridge, ‘the manifest and complete subjection of all things is yet to
be accomplished’ (Hebrews, p.72).
17 So also James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the
Hebrews in Light of the Aqedah (AnBib, 94; Rome: Ponti¿cal Biblical Institute,
1981), p.162.
18 Attridge, Hebrews, p.72; Bruce, Hebrews, p.72; John Calvin, The Epistle of
Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (W. B. Johnston, trans.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1963), p.56; DeSilva, Perseverance, p.109; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.151; Grässer,
An die Hebräer, p.1:121; Johnson, Hebrews, p.90; Mitchell, Hebrews, p.66, Moffatt,
Hebrews, p.23; and Westcott, Hebrews, pp.43, 45.
19 ‘¹É¸ÏįË, ¼ė¸, į’, LSJ, p.328.
20 Contra Blomberg, who states, ‘[s]o only humanity can be spoken of as
already having had the earth in subjection to itself, however brieÀy’ (‘But We See
Jesus’, p.94). In his treatment of v. 6, the author shows that he is not bound to the
time line laid out in the psalm. He interprets it in such a way that it aligns with the
experience of Jesus described in his comments that follow.
1
B. The Inheritance of the ĎĠË Å¿ÉļÈÇÍ

In light of ch. 1, it comes as no surprise that the author would again
assert the supremacy of the Son over the entirety of God’s creation. Next
to God, the Son reigns, awaiting the time when all things – which are
rightfully his as God’s Son and heir – are subjected under his feet. The
author’s presentation of Psalm 8, however, offers an interesting counter-
point to the same themes in the ¿rst chapter’s catena of citations. Jesus
is still the ÍĎĠË who will inherit all things. The great difference in this
section of Hebrews is that the author portrays Jesus in this position of
sovereignty not simply as the ÍĎĠË but more precisely as the ÍĎĠË
ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÇÍ.21
Ascribing these lines of the psalm – Ìĕ ëÊÌÀÅ ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË ĞÌÀ ÄÀÄÅćÊÁþ
¸ĤÌÇı, õ ÍĎġË ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÇÍ ĞÌÀ ëÈÀÊÁñÈÌþ ¸ĤÌĠÅ; (Ps. 8.5) – to the Son of God
described in Hebrews 1 is not without controversy. Some commentators
on Hebrews interpret these lines anthropologically to the exclusion of
any reference to Jesus. Moffatt, for example, clearly represents this line
of thought: ‘[t]he application to the messiah of words like those quoted
in v. 6 is forced, and “Hebrews” has no room for the notion of Christ as
the ideal or representative Man’.22 This argument sits ill with the
statement appearing a few verses later where the author portrays Jesus as
a human being. Here, the author declares that Jesus took on Àesh and
blood (v. 14) and that he was made like his siblings in all ways (v. 17).
Moreover, he is a representative man due to the fact that he has tasted
death for all (2.9). The author was under no compulsion to cite v. 5 of
the psalm. Consequently, without any break or shift between Heb. 2.6
and 2.7, reading the citation as a continuous description of Jesus, who by
21 If the author knows of the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ tradition applied to Jesus
(so argued Pauline Giles in ‘The Son of Man in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, ExpTim
86 [1975], pp.328–32), he does not employ it explicitly in his explanation of Psalm 8
or elsewhere in the letter. Without appealing to the gospel tradition, Mof¿tt high-
lights messianic connections to the Son of Man present in intertestamental literature
(Atonement and Resurrection, pp.125–7). ĎġË ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÇÍ, for the author to the
Hebrews, could then describe Jesus’ humanity (Attridge, Hebrews, p.74; Grässer, An
die Hebräer, p.118; Johnson, Hebrews, p.90; Koester, Hebrews, p.215; Lane,
Hebrews, p.1:47; Mitchell, Hebrews, p.65) and also his messianism. This psalm
provides the bene¿t of describing Jesus’ humanity with familial language.
22 Moffatt, Hebrews, p.23. Similarly Blomberg states: ‘[t]he ¿rst line of the
quotation is the hardest of all to ¿t into a Christological view…” (‘But We See
Jesus’, pp.93–4), and Monte¿ore concludes: ‘[i]n this ¿rst citation of Psalm viii
Jesus is not mentioned nor do the words refer to him… [O]ur writer does not apply
“the Son of Man” in Psalm viii. 4 to Jesus at all’ (Hebrews, p.57).
1
72 You Are My Son
being lowered below the angels, became a human being achieves a

coherence for the argument.23
If the author is appealing to this psalm to describe the humanity of
Jesus, then it follows that Jesus takes his place as the Sovereign under
whom God will subject (1.13) his inheritance of all things (1.2) as an
ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË. The contribution of Psalm 8 to the sermon is that God’s Son
takes his place as God’s heir precisely as a human being.
David Mof¿tt argues this point persuasively in his book, Atonement
and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews.24 Surveying
literature produced by different groups in the Second Temple period,
Mof¿tt traces a hope for ‘the inheritance of a renewed, incorruptible
world’ that will come to the faithful of Israel.25 Although some Jewish
texts that reÀect upon Psalm 8 emphasize the lowliness of humanity in
comparison with the angels,26 others highlight the glory of humanity
reigning over the creation.
The author of 4 Ezra makes a connection between Psalm 8 and
inheritance. He asserts that God ‘placed Adam as ruler over all the works
which you had made’ (6.54 [Metzger]). The author then suggests that as
those who have come from Adam, the chosen people should be in
possession of the created world. Such, however, is not the case. Instead,
the nations rule over them. The author points out this dissonance to the
Lord, ‘[b]ut we your people, whom you have called your ¿rst-born, only
begotten, zealous for you, and most dear, have been given into their
hands. If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not
possess our world as an inheritance?’ (6.58-59 [Metzger]). The angel
sent by God replies that Israel will inherit the coming world. Mof¿tt
concludes, ‘…the unseen city of Zion/Jerusalem is the heavenly reality
that God’s people will inherit and that one day will be revealed when
God transforms or renews the present world’.27
23 Johnson says similarly, ‘[f]or Hebrews, however, this “psalm of David” is

even truer when applied to the “man” and “son of man” who is Jesus’ (Hebrews,
p.90). Also in support of a reference to Jesus in this line are Attridge (Hebrews, p.73;
‘The Psalms in Hebrews’, p.205), Braun (Hebräer, p.54), DeSilva (Perseverance,
p.109), Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.152), Loader (Sohn und Hoherpriester, p.37),
Michel (Hebräer, p.71), Spicq (Hébreux, p.2:31), and Windisch (Hebräerbrief,
p.20).
25 Mof¿tt, Atonement and Resurrection, p.82.
26 3 En. 5.10; Pesiq. Rab. 34a; b. Sanh. 38b.
1
In another likely allusion to Psalm 8, 2 Baruch includes God’s promise

that the coming world is for the righteous ones, and it is a crown of great
glory (15.1-8). The righteous will ‘inherit this time of which it is spoken,
and to them is the heritage of the promised time… For the coming world
will be given to these’ (44.8-15 [Klijn]). At this point their excellence
will be greater even than the angels (51.11-12).
Similarly, the Dead Sea Scrolls include hope for the restoration of the
‘glory of Adam’ and ‘all the inheritance of Adam’28 wherein the vindica-
tion of the faithful would include ‘blessings of peace and everlasting life
in the realm of God’s ultimate promised inheritance’. Moreover, ‘…that
inheritance [extends] beyond the borders of the land to encompass the
entire world’.29 So also in Jubilees, the Lord promises to Israel that they
will ‘rule in all the nations as they have desired. And after this, all of the
earth will be gathered together and they will inherit it forever’ (32.18-19
[Wintermute]). From several citations in the Life of Adam and Eve,
Mof¿tt concludes, ‘ “another earth and another heaven” mentioned in
3:10 is intended to be identi¿ed with the inheritance God plans to give
his people in the coming age’.30
In light of these texts, Mof¿tt deduces that ‘the promise God made to
Abraham regarding the land is taken ultimately to be a promise to inherit
the world as it will be in the coming age’.31 Mof¿tt argues that the author
of Hebrews, similar to his contemporaries surveyed above, appeals to
Psalm 8 ‘to demonstrate that the ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾ to come…is not subjected to
the angels, but to the human beings who are about to inherit it (1:14;
2:5). The man called Jesus is the ¿rst human being to have obtained this
inheritance.’32
Along with others,33 Mof¿tt offers a ¿tting critique to those who read
the citation of Psalm 8 exclusively in the direction of anthropology or
Christology. ‘The attempt to draw a sharp distinction between the
anthropological and the Christological interpretations of the use of Ps 8
in Heb 2 looks, therefore, like a false dichotomy… Christology and
anthropology are inextricably intertwined.’34 This psalm is about both
28 1QS 4.23a; 4Q171 3.2a.

33 DeSilva, Perseverance, pp.108–12; Koester, Hebrews, p.221; Lane,
Hebrews, p.1:48; Schenck, Setting of the Sacri¿ce, pp.54–9.
1
74 You Are My Son
Jesus and humanity because Jesus is a human being. The author’s treat-
ment of Psalm 8 reveals that when he speaks of the Son, the title refers to
more than just his divine quali¿cations. Indeed, it points to God’s Son
who became a son of man and remained so when he was seated at the
right hand of God as God’s heir.35
C. Because of the Suffering of Death

Hebrews af¿rms that Jesus is the heir of all things. In ch. 1, the author
emphasizes that as the Son of God, Jesus has been promised an inheri-
tance including all that has been created by both him and his Father. In
ch. 2, the author appeals to Psalm 8, in accord with other Jewish tradi-
tions, to argue that as an ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË Jesus has taken the place God
intended for all humanity as the heir of all things. Because Jesus is both
the divine Son and the human Son, he is the heir of all things.
According to the argument of ch. 2, however, his dual sonship is not
all that is required in order for him to take full possession of his com-
prehensive inheritance. One more critical quali¿cation for his placement
at God’s right hand is needed. The author of Hebrews asserts that Jesus
took his place as heir of all things because he suffered, and particularly
because he suffered death. Jesus’ death thus features as one more vital
element that leads to his sovereign position as God’s heir seated at God’s
right hand.
When the author speci¿es the identity of the speci¿c son of man in
question in Psalm 8 – Jesus is named for the ¿rst time – the author also
articulates the means through which this son of man came to be crowned
with glory and honor: the suffering of death (»ÀÛ Ìġ ÈÚ¿¾Ä¸ ÌÇı ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ,
Heb. 2.9). In light of the author’s comparison with angels in his introduc-
tion to this text (2.5) and the reference to angels in the psalm, this phrase
illuminates both his humiliation below the angels and his exaltation
above them.36 First, the humiliation reached its nadir in his experience of
death. His participation in mortality provides the incontrovertible
evidence that Jesus was placed below the angels.37 Angels were created
beings (as Heb. 1.7 asserts), but as spirits, they were not subject to the
same limited time on earth as humanity.38 His suffering of death shows

36 Attridge also ¿nds here a ‘reference to the pivotal event where humiliation
ends and exaltation begins, his “suffering of death” ’ (Hebrews, p.73).
37 So also Johnson: ‘the Son has…so completely entered into the sphere of
human existence as to embrace mortality, in contrast to the “ministering spirits”
(1.14) who need not face death’ (Hebrews, p.91).
38 Luke 20.36 preserves a tradition that angels were not subject to death.
Speaking of those in the resurrection, Jesus says, ‘neither are they still able to die,
1
that he was an ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË all the way through to the experience of

mortality itself. Second, the phrase also provides the reason why Jesus
attained his honorable and glorious position: ‘we see Jesus, who was
lowered below the angels for a time, crowned with glory and honor,
because of the suffering of death (2.9)’.39 By setting the phrase this way,
the author argues that Jesus’ death caused him to be crowned with glory
and honor.40
In the author’s citation of the psalm, God’s act of crowning him with
glory and honor is directly followed by God’s act of subjecting his
inheritance – all things – under his feet. This connection results from the
absence of Ps. 8.7a, Á¸Ė Á¸ÌñÊÌ¾Ê¸Ë ¸ĤÌÇÅ ëÈĖ ÌÛ ìÉº¸ ÌľÅ Ï¼ÀÉľÅ ÊÇÍ
(‘You have set him over the works of your hands’).41 By not citing Ps.
8.7a,42 an immediate link exists between Christ’s position of glory and
his position as God’s heir. Hence, if the phrase »ÀÛ Ìġ ÈÚ¿¾Ä¸ ÌÇı
for they are like the angels’. First Enoch contains a similar sentiment. Enoch is
instructed to tell the Watchers of heaven: ‘[s]urely you, you [used to be] holy,
spiritual, the living ones, [possessing] eternal life… Indeed you, formerly you were
spiritual (having) eternal life, and immortal in all the generations of the world”
(15.4, 6, [Isaac]). So also, Philo states, ‘So too, when Abraham left this mortal life,
“he is added to the people of God” (Gen 25:8), in that he has inherited incorruption
and become equal to the angels, for angels – those unbodied and blessed souls – are
the host and people of God’ (Sacr. 1.5 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]).
39 Similarly, Attridge states, ‘[w]hat this text reveals about the Son and his
exalted status is that such status is dependent upon what happens to Jesus as a human
being, in the pre-eminently human event of his death (Hebrews, p.75; cf. Lane,
Hebrews, p.1:49).
40 The same pattern is evident in Heb. 1.3-4. Before Jesus sat down at the right
hand of the majesty on high, he made puri¿cation for sins. In the center section of
the letter, the author will show how making puri¿cation was part of the sacri¿cial
process beginning with Jesus’ experience of death.
41 The mss of Hebrews that include this line are easily explained as adjustments
to the LXX. The more dif¿cult reading that lacks this line, preserved in P46 B Dc K L
et al., is preferable (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament [2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], p.594).
42 This line makes the same assertion as the phrase in Ps. 8.7b. In both, God
places the son of man in an authoritative position over God’s creation (Pietersma,
‘Text-Production’, pp.493–4). It is vv. 8 and 9 – not v. 7 – that circumscribe the
dominion of this man to earthly things). Moreover, the author has already associated
the Son with the ìÉº¸ ÌľÅ Ï¼ÀÉľÅ ÊÇÍ in the citation of Ps. 101.26 LXX in the ¿rst
chapter (Heb. 1.10). Koester also asserts the similarity between Ps. 8.7a and b and
concludes, ‘[t]he omission may have been accidental, or the author may have
abbreviated the text to focus on what was most important for interpretation’
(Hebrews, p.214). What is more important to the author is the reference to Jesus’
inheritance, all things which God subjects.
1
76 You Are My Son
¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ states that Jesus is crowned with glory and honor because he
suffered death, the phrase also suggests as well that the suffering of death
results in Jesus taking his position as God’s heir. Only after he tastes
mortality does God’s Son take his place as God’s heir.
God subjects all things under the feet of Jesus because he is the Son of
God who became a son of man to the point of death. It should not be
missed, however, that he can take his exalted place as a human who has
encountered death because of the action of God. It is God who appoints
him to this position and God who subjects all things under his feet, but
God is also involved in the journey to his exalted position as well. The
author’s presentation of this aspect of the divine role begins with his
citation of Psalm 8.
Psalm 8 is an address to God and thereby attributes to him the actions
of the psalm: ‘You, God, placed him below the angels. You crowned him
with glory and honor, and you subjected all things under his feet.’ The
author clearly established in the ¿rst chapter that it was God who exalted
Jesus, and here, through the lines of the psalm, he adds that it was also
God who humbled him. Since death is the culmination of Jesus’ human
experience and the condition for his exaltation, the psalm implies that
God, as the agent of the humiliation and exaltation, is involved in the
experience of death that lead to Jesus’ position as God’s glorious and
honorable heir. In v. 9, the author con¿rms this implication in his own
words. It is by the grace of God43 that Jesus tastes death. God humbles
Jesus and gives him the grace to journey through death. This is the way
in which God bestows the gift of inheritance on his Son, the heir.
One ¿nal phrase must be noted before proceeding to the next pericope:
ĨÈòÉ È¸ÅÌĠË. Jesus’ bitter death brought about by God’s grace takes place
for everyone. With this phrase the author introduces the idea that Jesus’
journey through death to his exalted position as heir of all things (ÈÚÅÌ¸)
radically alters how all people (È¸ÅÌĠË) stand in the face of death. The
next section of Hebrews 2 places more emphasis upon God’s action in
instating Jesus as his heir and the bene¿ts afforded to humanity that stem
from his instatement.
43 The variant of v. 9, ÏÑÉÀË ¿¼ÇÍ, supported primarily by the Church Fathers

along with minuscules 0243 and 1739 and mss of the Vulgate and Syriac versions,
lacks the widespread support of ÏÚÉÀÌÀ ¿¼Çı. Metzger suggests that it was either a
scribal lapse or a marginal gloss referring to 1 Cor. 15.27 (Textual Commentary,
p.594). Internally, the variant makes little sense in the context of both the continuous
action of God in vv. 6-9 and also the argument of the following verse (2.10), that it
was God who perfected Jesus through suffering.
1
II. It Was Fitting: Hebrews 2.10
Hebrews 2.10 reiterates the same elements that appear in the preceding
pericope. First, through his suffering, Jesus is changed. Second, it is God
who utilizes suffering in his interactions with Jesus. Finally, Jesus’
suffering directly affects many others. Consequently, these two portions
of Hebrews 2 – the citation of/comments on Psalm 8 in vv. 6-8 and Heb.
2.10 – are mutually interpreting. Together, they contribute to Hebrews’
perspective on how God’s paternal relationship with Jesus impacts
humanity. God’s will that Jesus suffer death allows him to be the heir of
everything, including God’s many ÍĎÇĕ.
A. The Action of God

The author states explicitly that God is active in Jesus’ death (2.10).
God,44 whom the author describes as the one for whom (»À’ ĞÅ) and
through whom (»À’ Çī) all things exist,45 uses suffering (»ÀÛ È¸¿¾ÄÚÌÑÅ) to
perfect Jesus. The instrumental phrase »ÀÛ È¸¿¾ÄÚÌÑÅ suggests that
because death is one form of suffering Jesus experienced (ÈÚ¿¾Ä¸, 2.9),
death is included in the sufferings (È¸¿¾ÄÚÌÑÅ) mentioned here.46 This
verse acts as con¿rmation, following the suggestion of the psalm and the
author’s comments on the psalm, that it was God’s action that brought
44 The pronoun ¸ĤÌŊ is not as explicit as the noun ¿¼ĠË would be, leading
several patristic interpreters to argue that the author is referring to the Logos
(Athanasius, Inc. 10.3 [NPNF2 4:41]; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comm. Hebr.
[PG66.957]; Theodoret of Cyr, Comm. Hebrews [PG82.693]). On the other hand, the
prepositional phrases and the reference to the grace of God that is instrumental in
Christ’s death in v. 8 is strong support for ¿¼ĠË as the pronoun’s antecedent (so also
Attridge, Hebrews, p.82; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.159; Johnson, Hebrews, p.95;
Koester, Hebrews, p.227; Lane, Hebrews, p.1:55; Martin Luther, ‘Lectures on the
Epistle to the Hebrews 1517–1518’, in Luther: Early Theological Works [James
Atkinson, ed. and trans.; LCC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1962], pp.19–
250 [56]; Michel, Hebräer, p.78; Mitchell, Hebrews, p.72; Spicq, Hébreux, p.1:37).
45 Describing God with prepositional phrases that point to God’s sovereignty
over creation occurs frequently in Hellenistic literature. See Ps.-Aristotle, De mundo
397b; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 4.23; Aelius Aristides, Or. 45.14; Philo, Spec. 1.208;
Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.3; Rom. 11.36; 1 Cor. 8.6; Col. 1.16.
46 De¿ned more broadly in v. 10, the pathos of Jesus is not focused on death, as
it is in v. 9, but is expanded by the use of a plural noun to include the death
mentioned in v. 9 and other experiences of suffering as well. So also, O’Brien states,
‘[b]ecause the paragraph is framed by references to what Jesus suffered (2:10, 18),
then what it asserts must be understood in light of his suffering death’ (Hebrews,
p.103). In support as well are DeSilva (Perseverance, p.114) and Ellingworth
(Hebrews, p.161).
1
78 You Are My Son
about Jesus’ experience of death. Death was not an unexpected event that
happened to Jesus; his death took place under the purview of God’s
direction. God utilized this experience of suffering to perfect (Ì¼Â¼ÀľÊ¸À)
Jesus. Whereas in the psalm the author ¿nds a reference to Jesus’ glori¿-
cation and crowning following upon an allusion to his humiliation and
death, in v. 10 the author emphasizes the perfection that follows upon
Jesus’ death.
B. Perfected as the Heir

For centuries, the perfecting of Jesus has been a crux interpretum of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.47 The previous chapter cited Kenneth Schenck’s
statement of puzzlement: ‘one might still ask in what way the wisdom of
God, the “reÀection” of his glory and the “representation of his sub-
stance” might “learn” obedience and be “perfected” ’.48
Interpreters who draw a connection between Jesus’ perfection and his
exaltation/vocational establishment49 as the ultimate high priest provide a
47 DeSilva, Perseverance, p.194; Thompson, Hebrews, p.66. Texts like these

were prime fodder for the Arians who argued that Christ was ‘a creature and
changeable’ (Rowan A. Greer, The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the
Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews [BGBE, 15; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen,
1973], p.96). Athanasius countered their interpretations by arguing that the Word,
and not God, was the subject of perfection of the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË (Inc. 10.3 [NPNF2 4:41]).
Gregory Nazianzen, on the other hand, interprets the dif¿culties Christ experienced
in learning outlined in 5.7-9 as a drama ‘whose plot was devised on our behalf’
(Theo. Or. 4.6 [NPNF2 7:311]). John R. Walters gives voice to the problem for con-
temporary interpretation: ‘[t]his passage strikes the modern reader as rather curious
and inappropriate with respect to Christ because it af¿rms he had to learn obedience
from what he suffered, and he had to be perfected… And it is at this point that our
own sensibilities cause us to take a logical wrong turn. The processes of learning
obedience and being perfected need not start from negative moral ground’ (Perfec-
tion in New Testament Theology: Ethics and Eschatology in Relational Dynamic
[MBPS, 25; Lewiston: Mellen Biblical, 1996], p.109). David Peterson presents a
history of interpretation of the issue of perfection in Hebrews ranging from J. Kögel
(1905) to L. K. K. Dey (1975) (Hebrews and Perfection, pp.1–20). To these, John
M. Scholer adds more recent works (Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to
the Hebrews [JSNTSup, 14; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1991], pp.185–6), and in 2008, Kevin
B. McCruden published another monograph-length study of the issue, arguing that
Jesus’ perfection reveals the divine bene¿cence toward humanity (Solidarity
Perfected: Bene¿cent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews [BZNW, 159; New
York: W. de Gruyter, 2008]).
49 Various nuances exist, of course, between these positions. J. Kögel argued
that Jesus’ perfection is best understood as his glori¿cation, a state from which he
would then lead others to salvation (‘Der Begriff Ì¼Â¼ÀÇıÅ im Hebräerbrief im
1
helpful way forward. He has been perfected not in the sense that he was
personally imperfect,50 but in the sense that now, after suffering, he is ¿t
to exercise perfectly his role. I argue in what follows that attention to the
familial dynamics of Hebrews shows that by being perfected, Jesus is
also made ¿t to be God’s heir who will inherit all things.
Support for the correlation of Jesus’ perfection and his position as
God’s heir is established through several connections with the previous
verses. First, as noted, the author describes God as the one for whom (»À’
ĞÅ) and through whom (»À’ Çī) all things exist. Because this description
refers to the sovereignty of God over all creation, it also establishes a
connection with Jesus’ inheritance.51 As the one through whom all things
exist, God is the creator of that which he has promised to his Son as an
inheritance (1.2). As the one for whom all things exist, God involves his
Son in his ultimate sovereignty over all things. This assertion of God’s
sovereignty thus evokes the sovereignty Jesus shares as his Son and heir.
Zusammenhang mit dem neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch’, in Theologische

Studien: Martin Kähler zum 6. Januar 1905 dargebracht [ed. Friedrich Giesebrecht;
Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1905], pp.35–68). He is followed by the similar proposals of
Koester (Hebrews, p.124), James Kurianal (Jesus Our High Priest: Ps 110, 4 as the
Sub-structure of Heb 5,1–7, 28 [EurHoch, 23/693; Frankfurt: Lang, 2000], pp.219–
33), Lane (Hebrews, p.1:195), Lidgett (Sonship and Salvation, pp.148–9), and
Moises Silva (‘Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews’, WTJ 39 [1976], pp.60–71).
Mof¿tt argues that the perfection of Jesus’ mortality makes him quali¿ed to enter
heaven (Atonement and Resurrection, pp.195–8). David Peterson has championed
the vocational interpretation wherein Jesus is quali¿ed to be the ultimate high priest
through obedience in Hebrews and Perfection. Attridge proposes a similar inter-
pretation (Hebrews, p.86), and Lane includes it in his sequence of possible interpre-
tations as well (Hebrews, p.1:57). In the same trajectory, Thomas G. Long states,
‘the idea is that Jesus was made “¿t” vocationally and functionally, not morally’
(Hebrews, p.41). Despite different emphases, all these interpretations make a con-
nection between Jesus being made perfect and his taking his place of honor and
glory at God’s right hand.
50 Arguments for viewing the perfection of Jesus as the moral/ethical devel-
opment of his humanity include those by Oscar Cullmann (The Christology of the
New Testament [Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall, trans; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1964], pp.92–3); O. Holtzmann (‘Der Hebräerbrief und das Abend-
mahl’, ZNW 10 [1909], pp.251–60); Moffatt (Hebrews, p.67); Hughes, Hebrews,
p.187); Westcott (Hebrews, p.49); and Allen Wikgren (‘Patterns of Perfection in the
Epistle to the Hebrews’, NTS 6 [1959–60], pp.159–67). These theories are not easily
reconcilable with the author’s argument that Jesus was sinless and blameless (4.14;
7.26), which implies that Jesus committed neither sins of commission nor of
omission (see McCruden, Solidarity Perfected, pp.19–20).
51 Ellingworth also sees the connection back to vv. 8-9, ‘À’ ğÅ ÌÛ ÈÚÅÌ¸ Á¸Ė »À’
Çī ÌÛ ÈÚÅÌ¸ echoes ÌÛ ÈÚÅÌ¸ in v. 8, and thus indirectly refers to the quotation from
Ps. 8’ (Hebrews, p.159).
1
80 You Are My Son
Second, a parallel between 2.9 and 2.10 informs the meaning of

perfection. In the latter, the result of Jesus’ suffering is that he is
perfected. In the former, his suffering results in his being crowned with
glory and honor and taking his place as God’s heir to whom all things
will be subjected. The suffering of Jesus establishes a connection
between two results of his suffering: namely, his perfection and his
taking his place as God’s heir.
Suffering God’s Consequent Action

v. 9 ÀÛ Ìġ ÈÚ¿¾Ä¸ ÌÇı ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ ĠÆþ Á¸Ė ÌÀÄĉ ëÊÌ¼ÎÚÅÑÊ¸Ë
through the suffering of death ÚÅÌ¸ ĨÈñÌ¸Æ¸Ë
crowning with glory and honor
subjecting all things
v. 10 »ÀÛ È¸¿¾ÄÚÌÑÅ ¼Â¼ÀľÊ¸À
through sufferings to perfect
Hebrews 2.10 provides a way to understand how the author can employ
the verb Ì¼Â¼ÀĠÑ with respect to Jesus. For Jesus to be perfected does not
mean that he was imperfect or immature. The connections with the
previous pericope (2.6-9) suggest that when God perfects Jesus, God
made Jesus ¿t to be his heir.
C. God Leads Many ĎÇĕ to Salvation

The author boldly claims that God’s use of suffering to perfect Jesus was
¿tting (ìÈÉ¼È¼Å). Other writers describe what is ¿tting for God to do,52
but the statement by the author of Hebrews is distinguished by claiming
that it is ¿tting to associate God with suffering.53 Several interpreters of
Hebrews explain this daring move by showing that the author bases
God’s perfecting of Jesus through suffering on ‘human needs and the
salvi¿c action that meets them’.54 The author makes the connection
between Jesus’ perfection and human salvation evident with two phrases:
‘leading many sons and daughters to glory’ (ÈÇÂÂÇİË ÍĎÇİË ¼ĊË »ĠÆ¸Å
Òº¸ºĠÅÌ¸) and ‘the author of their salvation’ (ÌġÅ ÒÉÏ¾ºġÅ ÌýË ÊÑÌ¾Éĕ¸Ë
¸ĤÌľÅ).
52 Plutarch, Is. Os. 78 (383A); Def. orac. 29 (426 B); Aristobulus (Eusebius,
Praep. ev. 13.12.7–8); Philo (Leg. all. 1.48; Aet. mund. 41); Josephus (Ap. 2.168).
53 Attridge states, ‘[t]he use of the term in this context is a rather bold move,
since in Greek and Greco-Jewish theology it would not have been thought “proper”
to associate God with the world of suffering’ (Hebrews, p.82). So also Moffatt:
‘Philo has the phrase, not the idea’ (Hebrews, p.29).
54 Attridge, Hebrews, p.82; see similarly Koester (Hebrews, p.235), Lane
(Hebrews, p.1:55), O’Brien (Hebrews, p.103), and Westcott (Hebrews, p.48).
1
1. Leading Many Sons and Daughters

God perfects Jesus through suffering in concert with leading many sons
and daughters (ÈÇÂÂÇİË ÍĎÇİË) to glory. This af¿rmation is more precise,
however, than a general soteriological comment. In addition to portray-
ing the blessed state to which they are journeying, it also highlights the
¿lial status of those who reap the bene¿t of God’s perfection of Jesus.
The familial connection is most obvious in the author’s description of
those whom God is leading as ÍĎÇĕ. The author’s use of ÍĎĠË conveys
something important that is lost in inclusive translations.55 The author
does not employ the gender-neutral È¸À»ĕ¸ as he does in the following
verses (2.13-14). Instead, he uses ÍĎÇĕ, surely not to imply that only men
will share in God’s glory, but because it draws a connection between
them and the Son (ÍĎĠË) through whom God has spoken. Therefore, as it
was true with the Son, so also it is true for the many ÍĎÇĕ. By the designa-
tion ‘sons and daughters’,56 the author is asserting that the God who
created all things has chosen to involve himself with humanity as their
Father.
Second, the author displays the familial relationship between God and
these people in God’s action toward them. In this relationship, God leads
(ÓºÑ) them. This word is used in passages describing a parent leading
children57 and God as a Father leading his children.58 More importantly,
however, in two other instances in Hebrews, the author uses this word to
describe God’s actions toward Jesus. In ch. 1, God led (¼ĊÊ¸ºÚº¾) the
¿rstborn (1.6) into the inhabited realm. In ch. 13, he led (ÒÅÚºÑ) the
great shepherd of the sheep up from the dead (13.20). God performs the
same action with respect to his Son and to humanity.
Finally, God leads them into glory, a term almost exclusively related
to Jesus elsewhere in Hebrews. Glory is that which Jesus emanates (1.3),
that which God has bestowed on Jesus (2.7, 9; 5.5), and that which is due
to Jesus (3.3; 13.21). Moreover, in each of these instances Jesus takes on
the quality of glory as the Son, thereby suggesting that the many children
come into glory by virtue of their ¿lial relationship to God as well.
Moreover, as the ¿rst of several ‘journey’ metaphors in which those who
55 For example, the Geneva Bible, NAB, NLB, and NRSV translate ÍĎÇĕ as
‘children’. The Message paraphrase moves even farther from the imagery with the
word ‘people’.
56 It is interesting to speculate how the female members of this audience might
have responded to being designated as ÍĎÇĕ and as heirs, particularly in a culture
where it was the norm for sons to inherit the father’s property (see above, p.15 n. 14).
57 Gen. 46.7; Exod. 2.10; 1 Macc. 6.15; Philo, Leg. 3.84.
1
58 Jer. 3.14; 38.9; Rom. 8.14.
82 You Are My Son
have faith in God are moving toward his Sabbath rest (4.9-10), his holy
place (6.19), his eternal city (11.10, 16; 12.22), and his mountain (12.22),
»ĠÆ¸ functions as another description of the realm in which God dwells.59
The author also associates glory (»ĠÆ¸) with God (1.3) and his presence
(9.5). God is leading these people into a realm that characterizes God
himself. Just as God established a relationship with the Son in such a
way that he commands the Son to sit at his right hand, so too he estab-
lishes a relationship with humanity that is directed toward bringing his
children to the realm of his glorious presence.
2. The Captain of Their Salvation

The second phrase that conveys the salvi¿c implications for humanity of
God’s perfection of Jesus comes when the author describes Jesus as the
ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË of their salvation. In one sense, God’s perfecting of Jesus is
directly related to Jesus’ establishing the salvation of God’s many
children. An ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË, generally denoting a leader,60 is often a founder or
author in the sense of one who establishes something.61 It may also refer
to a leader in the sense of one who blazes a trail ahead of his followers.62
Hence, in addition to the idea that Jesus establishes their salvation, this
title also indicates that Jesus is the forerunner of the group God is leading
on the path toward glory.63 For those attuned to the LXX, it would have
been dif¿cult to miss the association between Jesus the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË and his
namesake, `¾ÊÇıË, one of the pioneering spies from Num. 13.2-3 and 16,
whom the author mentions in 4.8. If Hebrews encompasses all aspects of
the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË term, then David Allen’s claim sheds light on the author’s
appeal to this story from Israel’s scriptures: ‘the term embraces Christ’s
dual Joshuanic function, both the captain of the NC [i.e., New Covenant]
59 Similarly Johnson states, ‘God’s plan is not to elevate only Jesus to his
presence and power, but other humans as well, who are his “many sons” ’ (Hebrews,
p.96). Attridge (Hebrews, p.83), Braun, Hebräer, p.59), DeSilva (Perseverance,
p.114), and Koester (Hebrews, p.228) espouse a similar interpretation.
60 Exod. 6.14; Num. 10.4; 16.2; 25.4; Deut. 33.21; 1 Chr. 5.24; 1 Esdr. 5.1;
Neh. 2.9; Isa. 3.6. See Gerhard Delling, ‘ÓÉÏ¾ºÇË’, TDNT 1:487–8.
61 Plato, Tim. 96B; Isocrates, Paneg. 4.61; Diodorus Sciculus 15.81.2; 16.3.5;
Josephus, Ant. 7.207.
62 Polybius, Hist. 2.40.2; referring to Heracles (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 33.47;
Heraclitus, All. 34.8; Aelius Aristides, Or. 40.14); Num. 14.4 (this reference includes
Joshua as an ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË); Judg. 5.2; Jdt. 14.2; 1 Macc. 9.61.
63 Attridge notes, ‘Christ as ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË ful¿lls the function of various guides
on the heavenly path’ (Hebrews, p.88). Similarly, Ellingworth states, ‘ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË in
Hebrews may have kept alive the Hellenistic metaphor of a pioneer opening a path
which others can follow’ (Hebrews, p.161).
1
community and the one who likewise discharges their salvation inheri-
tance’.64
As with the earlier statement about God’s leading them to glory, this
phrase also highlights the ¿lial status of those who are being saved. These
¿lial overtones of salvation are established at the end of the ¿rst chapter.
There, the author asserts that in comparison to Jesus who is seated at
God’s right hand, the angels are sent out to render service to humanity.65
In retaining the theme of family that is so pervasive throughout the ¿rst
chapter, the author portrays humanity as heirs. The angels minister to
those who are about to inherit (ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄñÑ) salvation. Following on the
author’s portrayal of Jesus as the Son whom God appointed heir (1.2),
their66 position as heirs strongly suggests that they too are God’s chil-
dren.67 Consequently, when the author designates Jesus as the author of
salvation he is, at the same time, referring to the inheritance of God’s
many sons and daughters. Moreover, since Jesus is the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË of God’s
many sons and daughters (ÈÇÂÂÇİË ÍĎÇįË), the author draws forth another
emphasis of the term ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË: the head of a family (Exod. 6.14; Num.
13.3; 1 Chr. 5.24; 26.26; 1 Esdr. 5.1; Neh. 7.70, 71). As the perfect heir,
he becomes the one leading (ÒÉÏ – ¸ºĠË) God’s children. His leadership
on the path toward glory suggests he is in a place of authority over God’s
sons and daughters. God thus perfects Jesus as his heir through suffer-
ings so that he becomes the head of God’s family leading the many ÍĎÇĕ
to glory. Consequently, this verse suggests that when Jesus is established
as God’s heir, he takes under his care the sons and daughters of God.
D. The Character of a Father

In his essay on the rhetorical function of the author’s theological use of
ÈÉñÈ¼ÀÅ, Alan Mitchell argues that God’s perfecting of Jesus through
suffering is ¿tting both because of what it achieves for humanity and also
64 Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation, p.172.

65 A tradition of angelic service on behalf of humanity is reÀected in the
scriptures of Israel (Ps. 90.11; Tob. 5.1-16; T. Levi 3.5), Philo (Gig. 12, 16; Deus
158; Somn. 1.141), the New Testament (Mt. 4.11; 26.53; Mk 1.13), and Rabbinic
writings (Mek. 3.98, 105).
66 See the discussion of Heb. 1.14–2.4 in n. 2 above.
67 Lidgett makes a similar connection, saying, ‘[f]ilial access to God…is the
essential meaning of Salvation’ (Sonship and Salvation, p.117). This verse provides
a clear example of the way in which DeSilva’s commentary falls short of highlight-
ing the prevailing familial theme. Because Christians are ‘bene¿ciaries of God’s
favor and deliverance’ by being God’s heirs, it resonates better with the theme of the
letter to say that the audience should stay faithful to their Father, rather than to their
‘patron’ (Perseverance, p.103).
1
84 You Are My Son
because it is suited to the character of God. In other words, God’s action

‘shows who God is’.68 I argue that the author’s portrayal of God’s action
perfecting Jesus as his heir so that humanity might be saved and led into
glory reveals God’s character as that of a Father. Just as he is Jesus’
Father and as such leads Jesus to his glorious position as the heir of God,
so also he is their Father. And, as such, he leads them on a journey to
their inheritance where they will share in his glory. God’s perfection of
Jesus as his heir is correlated with God’s paternal leading of his many
children into their inheritance.
The revelation of God’s paternal character in his action with Jesus
suggests that the author’s statement that God used suffering to bring his
many sons and daughters into their inheritance might not be so bold after
all. It is ¿tting for God to act in this way because he is a Father who
leads his children into their inheritance. God’s salvi¿c action, however,
is not the only aspect that is appropriate to his paternal nature. God’s use
of suffering is also appropriate to his role as a Father. There is a tradi-
tion, to which the author of Hebrews will allude in ch. 12, that asserts it
is well within the purview of God to be associated with suffering. Such a
purview is appropriate to God because God does so as a Father. In Heb.
2.10, the author only begins to draw the connection between suffering
and God’s paternal nature. Hence, in this discussion of the suffering of
Jesus, the author’s attention includes God’s fatherly actions in securing a
key part of Jesus’ inheritance.
III. Behold the Children Whom God Has Given to Me! Hebrews
2.11-13
The preceding exegesis of Heb. 2.10 made three points. First: God
perfects Jesus as his heir. Second: God, as a Father, is leading his many
sons and daughters to their own inheritance of salvation. These two
arguments point to the paternal actions of God and are connected by the
third point: in perfecting Jesus as his heir, God secures Jesus’ inheritance
that includes God’s many sons and daughters. The next section supports
these arguments by examining Jesus’ ¿rst speech in Hebrews (2.11-13),
wherein he reiterates his humanity, his mortality, and his subsequent
inheritance of God’s children.
68 Alan Mitchell, ‘The Use of ÉñÈ¼ÀÅ and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews

2:10’, CBQ 54 (1992), pp.681–701 (694).
1
Like his Father, Jesus speaks the words of Israel’s scriptures. Jesus
responds to God69 through these three citations – so divided by the
author’s introductory remarks.70 Through this method, the author con-
structs for Jesus – just as he did for God in the ¿rst chapter – a particular
ethos through his utilization of quasi-prosopographic exegesis. The
author displays Jesus’ humility through an af¿rmation of his humanity,
his trust with an allusion to his death, and his mediatorial role by his
con¿dent declaration that he possesses God’s children.
A. Jesus is Brother to Humanity: Psalm 21.23 LXX

Jesus’ ¿rst speech is a citation from Ps. 21.23 LXX.71 It con¿rms his
complete participation in humanity, and its context serves as an allusion
to his death. With this citation, Jesus establishes himself as a messenger72
69 Attridge (‘The Psalms in Hebrews’, pp.208–9); Lewicki (‘Weist nicht ab den

Sprechenden’, pp.38–47), Mackie (Eschatology and Exhortation, pp.217–19),
Rascher (Schriftauslegung, p.3), and J. Ross Wagner (‘Faithfulness and Fear,
Stumbling and Salvation: Receptions of LXX Isaiah 8:11-18 in the New Testament’,
in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard
B. Hays [J. R. Wagner, C. K. Rowe, and A. K. Grieb, eds; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008], pp.76–106 [99]) are among those who call attention to the dialogic nature of
the two opening chapters of Hebrews.
70 The division into three separate citations serves to emphasize three distinct
points (Attridge, Hebrews, p.90; Bruce, Hebrews, p.38; Ellingworth, Hebrews,
p.169; Wagner, ‘Faithfulness and Fear’, p.99 n. 79). In my analysis, these points are
Jesus’ presence among his brothers and sisters, his act of trusting God while there,
preeminently in his death, and his subsequent possession of them.
71 Like other authors of New Testament documents (Mt. 27.46; Mk 14.34;
15.34; Lk. 23.46; Jn 12.27; Rom. 15.9, 11; 2 Cor. 4.13-14), the author of Hebrews
hears the voice of Christ in the Psalms. For an analysis of this convention in early
Christian texts, see Richard Hays, ‘Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s Use of an Early
Christian Exegetical Convention’, in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of
Leander E. Keck (A. J. Malherbe and W. A. Meeks, eds; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993), pp.122–36.
72 The psalm uses the verb »À¾ºñÇÄ¸À whereas the author of Hebrews uses
ÒÈ¸ºº¼Âľ. Commentators largely agree that this was the change of the author, not
the reÀection of a different Greek Vorlage (Attridge, Hebrews, p.90; Delitzsch,
Hebrews, p.1:123; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.168; Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the
Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of Its InÀuence with Special Consideration
to the Use of Hab 2:3-4 in Heb 10:37-38 [WUNT, 2/160; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003], p.62; Johnson, Hebrews, p.98; Koester, Hebrews, p.230; Lane, Hebrews,
p.1:59). This alteration could arise from the inÀuence of the other psalm Jesus
speaks in the sermon. Ps. 39.6, the verse that comes directly before those spoken
by Jesus in Heb. 10.5-8, includes the psalmist’s declaration to God that he has
1
86 You Are My Son
of God’s name73 to his siblings. This citation provides scriptural support

for the author’s assertion that Jesus is not ashamed to use terminology
that places him in a sibling relationship with those who are being sancti-
¿ed (ÇĎ ÖºÀ¸½ĠÄ¼ÅÇÀ, 2.11). His lack of shame arises from the fact that
they are all from one source (ëÆ îÅĠË).
Little disagreement exists among interpreters that those being sancti-
¿ed are the many sons of v. 10 and that the one who sancti¿es is the
author of salvation, Jesus.74 The bare identi¿er îÅġË, on the other hand,
has elicited a number of possible interpretations. Ellingworth summarizes
the two options: a neuter noun suggesting a ‘common stock’ or ‘common
humanity’ or a masculine noun designating God, Adam, Abraham, or
‘an unspeci¿ed ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË’.75 Mof¿tt suggests that the ambiguity, empha-
sized by the numerous interpretations attributed to it, might be the design
of the author.76
This hunch ¿ts well within the complexity present in these verses. On
one hand, Jesus’ af¿rmation of his brotherhood with those who are being
sancti¿ed points to the humanity he shares with them. Psalm 8 declares
that God lowered him to the state of humanity; with Psalm 21, Jesus
himself declares his embrace of this position. Human beings are his
siblings because he has become their brother; he too is a son of man.
Hence, the statement that they are all from one source at least points to
the reality that they are all children of humanity.77
proclaimed (ÒÈûºº¼ÀÂ¸) and spoken of the creations, the marvels, and the thoughts
of God. This change could be evidence that the author associated the two Psalm
speeches of Jesus.
73 Jesus is proclaiming Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ. In the words of the psalm, Jesus is speak-
ing to God, so the name he is proclaiming is God’s name. The proclamation of this
name is the reiteration of the identity of God and the majesty associated with his
name. At the same time, because the author has declared that Jesus has inherited
God’s name as God’s Son (1.4), it is also simultaneously a reiteration of the glory
associated with the name Jesus also bears as his Son. Even here, in the midst a
strong af¿rmation of Jesus’ humanity, the author of Hebrews intimately links this
proclamation with an assertion of Jesus’ divinity.
74 Attridge, Hebrews, p.88; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Chrysostom Baer, trans.; South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s, 2006], 2.3.130;
Braun, Hebräer, p.60; Chrysostom, Hebrews 4.5 (NPNF1 14, p.384); Grässer, In die
Hebräer, pp.134–5; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.63; Koester, Hebrews, p.229; Lane,
Hebrews, p.1:58; Spicq, Hébreux, p.2:40; Weiss, Hebräer, p.79.
75 Hebrews, pp.164–5. The last category should also include those who postu-
late a Gnostic background (Attridge, Hebrews, p.89 n. 115).
77 Mof¿tt also argues, ‘in the broadest sense the term “one” most probably
connotes humanity’ (Atonement and Resurrection, pp.131–2). He goes on to argue
1
Jesus’ parallel statement that he will deliver this message in the midst
of the assembly (ëÅ ÄñÊĿ ëÁÁÂ¾Êĕ¸Ë) supports the point that his fraternal
designation is a reference to his humanity. Two contextual clues suggest
that the assembly in question is the earthly assembly of believers.78 First,
the theme of the chapter is Jesus’ entrance into the human experience. He
is an ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË (2.6), lowered below the angels (2.7, 9), who shares in
Àesh and blood (2.14), and was made like his siblings in all things (2.17).
In light of this consistent emphasis, it is ¿tting to imagine that Jesus’
words also describe his earthly experience amid his siblings. Second, this
setting is supported by the resonance of this citation with Heb. 2.3.79 In
both places, Jesus is a messenger of God, proclaiming a great salvation
(2.3) and the name of God (2.12), respectively. Because in 2.3 the author
is discussing the message Jesus delivered during his earthly ministry (the
word of the Lord which was passed down to the author and his audience
by those who heard Jesus), it is likely that in his next reference to Jesus
as a messenger of God, the author is describing the proclamation of the
same message.80 In Ps. 21.23, the author sees Jesus proclaiming his
for a speci¿c reference to Adam (pp.132–41). In light of the Adamic interpretations

of Psalm 8, this speci¿c reference might well have occurred to the hearers of
Hebrews. My concern is to show the way in which it points to the humanity of Jesus,
whether that be from Adam or from the common nature of humanity. Ellingworth
captures the point: ‘[i]n the present passage, the author’s concern is with Jesus’
identi¿cation with human nature (“Àesh and blood”, v. 14) and its sufferings (v. 10)
and trials (v. 18)’ (Hebrews, p.165).
78 Attridge suggests, ‘the ordinary Christian connotation of ëÁÁÂ¾Êĕ¸ should not
be ignored’ (Hebrews, p.90). He differentiates this connotation from the ëÁÁÂ¾Êĕ¸
mentioned in 12.23 that points to the heavenly assembly (Hebrews, p.90 n. 130),
contra Lane who locates this proclamation (Heb. 2.12) at the parousia (Hebrews,
p.1:59). While a future proclamation of God’s praise is not excluded here, the
movement of the passage in Hebrews is focused upon Jesus’ sibling relationship
with humanity, his trust in God, and his possession of his brothers and sisters. A
similar triad – humanity, death, possession of children – in the passages around this
one indicates that the primary referent here is to Jesus’ earthly proclamation. He
must ¿rst proclaim God’s name to them as a human before he can ask them to join in
God’s praise with him in heaven. Ben Witherington sees a similar time line in the
statements of Jesus: ‘[a]ll three [statements of Jesus] could be envisioned as coming
forth from the mouth of the earthly Jesus, though perhaps the last one is to be seen as
spoken by the exalted Lord. The trust saying especially seems to reÀect the Sitz im
Leben of the earthly Jesus’ (Letters and Homilies, p.155 n. 234).
79 So also Johnson, ‘[Ps 21:23] reminds us that the “start” (ÒÉÏŢ) of this salva-
tion was the things spoken by the Lord (Heb 2:3)’ (Hebrews, p.99).
80 Attridge also sees this statement, like Heb. 10.5-8, pointing to the incarnation
of Jesus (Hebrews, p.90).
1
88 You Are My Son
willingness to be humbled to the nature and sphere of humanity. He is

not ashamed to call human beings his siblings because he became a
human dwelling among humans.
The context of the ¿rst quotation (Ps. 21.23 LXX) puts into sharper
relief the circumstances in which Jesus proclaims God’s name. Both
Matthew and Mark place the lament of this Psalm on the lips of Jesus at
his passion (Ps. 22.2 LXX in Mt. 27.46 and Mk 15.34). The author of
Hebrews, who has already shown himself to be a creative reader of
widely cited texts, quotes from the ¿rst lines of the exuberant section of
praise rather than from the lament. In a section infused with discussions
of the suffering and death of Christ (2.9, 10, 15), however, the quotation
establishes, at least for those familiar with the psalm in its entirety, a
connection with Jesus’ experience of death. Radu Gheorghita argues,
‘[e]ven though the Author does not quote from the ¿rst part of the psalm
as do the Evangelists, it is indisputable that the writer associates this
psalm with the Passion of Christ’.81 Despite Gheorghita’s con¿dence,
this association has been disputed.82 It is impossible to know if the author
intended to elicit a connection with the tradition – presented by the
Evangelists – that Jesus quoted from Psalm 21 LXX upon the cross.
Nevertheless, for those familiar with the psalm this statement would have
been heard in light of the suffering described in its beginning portion.
Consequently, the suffering described there (i.e., Á¸Ė ¼ĊË ÏÇıÅ ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ
Á¸Ìûº¸ºñË Ä¼, ‘and into the dust of death you lowered me’, Ps. 21.16
LXX) elicits a connection with Jesus’ sufferings, especially the suffering
of death, described in the previous verses (Heb. 2.9, 10).83 Hence, the
citation of Ps. 21.23 LXX, which the author places upon the lips of Jesus,
reiterates that he became a son of man and, for those aware of the entire
psalm, also points to the suffering of death he experienced in that state.84
81 Gheorghita, Role of the Septuagint, p.63. Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.167),

Geoffrey W. Grogan (‘Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study
of Hebrews 2.5–18’, VE 6 [1969], pp.54–71), Johnson (Hebrews, p.99), and Westcott
(Hebrews, p.52) also see connections with this citation and the suffering of Jesus.
82 For example, Attridge asserts with equal con¿dence, ‘Hebrews does not,
however, allude to the passion simply by quoting this psalm…’ (Hebrews, p.90).
83 In addition to the proclamation of his willingness to become human and the
possible references to his death, this statement also reveals the attitude Jesus displays
in the circumstances of his humility and death. When he is lowered below the angels
to the assembly of his brothers and sisters and dies, he continues to proclaim God’s
name and sing his praises. The author is beginning to show Jesus as the example of
how to respond with con¿dence to the suffering one experiences as a child of God.
84 The author’s primary point with this citation is that Jesus became a brother
of humanity and was not ashamed to address them in this manner. An explicit
citation of Ps. 21.2 LXX is not necessary for two reasons. First, in much of the second
1
B. The Trust of Jesus: Isaiah 8.17 LXX

The brief citation from Isaiah 8 portrays Jesus as a model of faithfulness
and provides an allusion to the moment in which he expressed his
faithfulness most pointedly: his death. In this statement, Jesus promises –
emphatically with the author’s addition of ëºļ85 – that he will be one
who trusts in God. If Isaiah 8 is the source of the citation,86 then the
speaker in Isaiah 8 – similar to the psalmist of Psalm 21 – chooses to
trust in God in the midst of incredibly dif¿cult circumstances. Others are
disregarding God’s law (Isa. 8.16),87 and God himself has ‘turned away
his face from the house of Jacob’ (Isa. 8.17). Even in these trying
circumstances, he takes his stand of trust.
Primarily, then, this citation introduces Jesus’ faith in God.88
Subsequently, the author refers to Jesus as one who is faithful (2.17; 3.2),
and even as the ultimate example of faith (12.2). The author intends that
chapter – both before and after this citation – the author describes the suffering and
the death of Jesus. His suffering remains on the minds of the audience even if Jesus
does not articulate it here. Moreover, in these citations Jesus displays an attitude of
con¿dent trust in God, thus providing a model for the audience of the way in which
they should respond to God in the midst of their own dif¿culties (13.6). The author
would not be able to convey this attitude through the cry of dereliction.
85 None of the possible three references contain the pronoun. Its presence could
be the reÀection of the author’s use of a different LXX text (Attridge, Hebrews, p.90
n. 33) or his own addition in order to bring this verse into parallel with the following
citation (Lane, Hebrews, p.58).
86 The brevity of the second citation results in several possible scriptural loca-
tions from where it might come (Isa. 8.17; 12.2; 2 Sam. 22.3). The third citation’s
location in Isaiah 8 leads most interpreters to argue for Isaiah 8 as the second state-
ments’ scriptural locale as well (Attridge, Hebrews, p.90; Braun, Hebräer, p.63;
Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.168; Gheorghita, Role of the Septuagint, p.64; Koester,
Hebrews, p.231; Lane, Hebrews, p.1:59; Spicq, Hébreux, p.2:42). Gheorghita
highlights how the differences in the Septuagint reading of this text, which ‘obscure
the relationship between certain words, their referents and antecedents’ made it
attractive to a number of Christian interpreters (Role of the Septuagint, pp.64–5).
Similarly, Wagner calls attention to the way in which the third person speaker (Á¸Ė
ëÉ¼ė), who could be identi¿ed as the ÁįÉÀÇË, distinct from ¿¼ĠË, may have suggested
the voice of Christ speaking this text (‘Faithfulness and Fear’, p.103).
87 This is the reading of the LXX (ÌĠÌ¼ Î¸Å¼ÉÇĖ ìÊÇÅÌ¸À ÇĎ ÊÎÉ¸ºÀ½ĠÄ¼ÅÇÀ ÌġÅ
ÅĠÄÇÅ ÌÇı Äü Ä¸¿¼ėÅ), but not the MT (' ] + C !:Lk k :L8). For a discussion
-L=% !K3
of the interpretive quality of LXX Isaiah, see J. Ross Wagner, ‘Identifying “Updated”
Prophecies in Old Greek (OG) Isaiah: Isaiah 8:11–16 as a Test Case’, JBL 126
(2007), pp.251–69.
88 This is not, of course, only a mental assent. Jesus demonstrates his belief in
God by acting out his faith in God. Todd D. Still comments, ‘[i]n this anonymous
“word of exhortation”, Christ is lauded as one who trusts in God and is trustworthy
1
90 You Are My Son
his audience, by looking to Jesus’ example, similarly adopt this stance of

faith in God (3.1; 4.3, 11; 10.23; 12.2).89 Hence, the author’s presentation
of Jesus as an exemplar for his human siblings is appropriate because his
attitude is one that he displays as a human. Jesus, like all of his brothers
and sisters, must adopt a stance of trust made evident by a pledge of
abiding faith in God.90 Consequently, the second citation spoken by Jesus
reverberates with the preceding theme of Hebrews 2 that emphasized
Jesus’ status as a son of man. Jesus’ humanity is once again af¿rmed in
his bold declaration of trust in God.
The second statement, in which Jesus proclaims his trust in God, also
points toward the moment in which he expressed his trust most
emphatically. Although the author never again uses the verb È¼ĕ¿Ñ in
reference to Jesus, he does describe Jesus as being faithful (ÈÀÊÌĠË) to
God (2.17; 3.2).91 The statement that Jesus lived without sin (4.16) also
implies that Jesus was always faithful toward God. In these statements it
is clear that, for the author, Jesus’ death serves as the supreme expression
of his faithfulness. The author makes this association with the cultic
language he applies to Jesus. In 2.17, Jesus is faithful as a high priest.
Similarly in 3.2, Jesus is faithful as the one sent by God (ÒÈĠÊÌÇÂÇË) and
as the high priest (ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼įË). It is in this priestly role that he makes
atonement for the sins of the people (2.17). The later portions of the
letter show that Jesus’ service as the ¿nal high priest in this atoning act
necessitates his own death (7.27; 9.14; 10.10). In Heb. 5.7, following the
author’s assertion that it was God who called Jesus to the priesthood, the
author portrays Jesus displaying his trust in God by praying to the one
who is able to save him from death. Stating the connection between faith
and death explicitly in 12.2, the author declares Jesus to be the perfecter
before God. What is more, Christ is set forth in the letter as the example of one who
lived a faithful life and died a faithful death’ (‘Christos as Pistos: The Faith[fullness]
of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Bauckham et al. [eds], A Cloud of
Witnesses, pp.40–50 [49]).
89 Attridge states, ‘[t]his citation is…an allusion to that which above all is
or ought to be the characteristic of all God’s children, their faithful reliance upon
God. The citation thus alludes to the theme of faith or ¿delity that will become
increasingly important as the test develops’ (Hebrews, p.91; see also Still, ‘Christos
as Pistos’, p.46; Wagner, ‘Faithfulness and Fear’, pp.101, 104).
90 So also Johnson, ‘[t]he point here is that the Son and his brothers are not
merely linked ontologically but also morally: as he responds to God in faith, so shall
they – or so they should!’ (Hebrews, p.99). Moffatt (Hebrews, p.33) and Vanhoye
(Situation du Christ, p.344) also see a reference to the humanity of Christ.
91 Ellingworth also sees a connection to ‘the motif of Christ’s trust in the
Father, cf. v. 17 (ÈÀÊÌĠË); 3.1-6; 12.2…’ (Hebrews, p.169).
1
of faith in light of the fact that he endured the cross. The latter references
to Jesus’ faith in the letter – as a faithfulness expressed in death – suggest
that Jesus shows his greatest trust in God when he dies. The context of
Hebrews 2 supports this interpretation, where before and after this verse
the author mentions the death of Jesus (2.9, 14). Moreover, an allusion to
Jesus’ death resonates with the context of Psalm 21, which describes the
impending death of the psalmist. All of these factors strongly suggest
that Jesus’ proclamation of trust in God displays the attitude he main-
tained throughout life, but most emphatically in his death. By highlight-
ing his attitude in the face of death, this citation evokes a recollection of
the event of his death as well.
C. Jesus’ Possession of God’s Children: Isaiah 8.18 LXX

In the ¿nal citation, the focus widens back from Jesus to include again
the brothers and sisters of Jesus. It af¿rms that after Jesus becomes
human and dies, God grants him authority over God’s many children.
Employing the term È¸À»ĕ¸, the closing citation of Jesus’ speech parallels
the reference to the Ò»¼ÂÎÇĕ of his ¿rst statement.92 This term ¿ts into the
familial theme running throughout the letter thus far by portraying
humanity as children (as does 2.10, 11, 12, 14, 17).
Children, though, of whom? In Isaiah 8, the children belong to the
speaker. The beginning of the chapter describes the birth of the prophet’s
son who is to be named Ì¸ÏñÑË ÊÁįÂ¼ÍÊÇÅ, ĚÆñÑË ÈÉÇÅĠÄ¼ÍÊÇÅ (‘Swiftly
Spoil, Quickly Plunder’) because, before he is old enough to speak, the
king of Assyria will receive the strength and wealth of Damascus and
Samaria (8.4). Therefore, the children of Isa. 8.18, who are signs and
portents (Á¸Ė ìÊÌ¸À ¼ĊË Ê¾Ä¼ė¸ Á¸Ė ÌñÉ¸Ì¸), are most naturally understood
as the children of the speaker. In Hebrews, however, the previous refer-
ences to the sibling relationship between Jesus and humanity suggest that
they are not his own offspring, but his brothers and sisters. Read in light
of Heb. 2.6-8 – along with the anthropological interpretation of ëÆ îÅĠË –
Jesus’ articulation of Isa. 8.18 describes the relationship between him
and his fellow sons and daughters of humanity.93
92 Wagner states, ‘Jesus’ twin avowals of a close familial bond with human
beings now frame the central af¿rmation of his trust in God’ (‘Faithfulness and
Fear’, p.99).
93 Similarly Mof¿tt argues that ‘in light of the ongoing contrast between the
Son and the angels in the context, this latter declaration is probably to be thought of
in terms of the Son’s proclamation of his identi¿cation with humanity…’ (Atone-
ment and Resurrection, p.124).
1
92 You Are My Son
Read in light of Heb. 2.10, however, the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ mentioned here takes
on another relational connection as well. There, the author depicts
humanity as ÍĎÇĕ, establishing a similarity between Jesus’ relationship to
God and their own. Since both children (2.13b) and sons (2.10) describe
humanity, then the È¸À»¼ĕ¸, in addition to being sons and daughters of
humanity, are also the many sons and daughters of God. As noted above,
Jesus and his brothers are from one source (ëÆ îÅĠË) by virtue of their
humanity. It is also the case that they are from one source (ëÆ îÅĠË) due to
their relationship to God. The argument from proximity suggests that it is
a viable option to view ¼đË as a signi¿er for God, the agent who perfects
in the previous verse.94 If v. 10 favors reading îÅĠË as God, v. 11b grants
even more precision. The fact that they are all ëÆ îÅĠË is the reason why
Jesus is not ashamed to address those he is sanctifying with the name
Ò»¼ÂÎÇĕ. If their derivation from a singular source results in the
relationship of brotherhood, then that implies that it is the relationship of
parentage that creates brotherhood. The author declares something even
more intimate than ‘they are all God’s creatures’.95 God is now the
source of Jesus and those he sancti¿es in the sense that he is the Father
of them all.96 By becoming their brother and experiencing death, Jesus
ensures that the children of humanity are also sons and daughters of God.
By becoming a ÍĎĠË of man and trusting God in death, Jesus establishes
the identity of the many ÍĎÇĕ of humanity as God’s own ÍĎÇĕ.
Moreover, he also establishes the future they anticipate. The relation-
ship between Jesus and the È¸À»ĕ¸ portrayed in this statement is one
of ownership. Jesus describes these children as people who have been
given to him. Patrick Gray helpfully points to the Roman system of
tutela impuberum as a way to understand this fraternal stewardship. He
explains, ‘[a] tutor, often an old brother, became responsible for the care
of minor children and their inheritance until they reached the age of
majority, thus heightening the older brother’s natural duty to take care
of his younger siblings. Jesus, then, is pictured as the guardian of the
audience.’97
94 So also, Attridge, Hebrews, pp.88–9.

95 Johnson, Hebrews, p.97.
96 Aquinas (Hebrews, 2.3.130), Braun (Hebräer, p.60), Chrysostom (Hebrews,
4.5 [NPNF1 14:384]), DeSilva (Perseverance, p.115), Gray (‘Brotherly Love’,
p.339), Koester (Hebrews, p.229), Lane (Hebrews, p.1:58), Spicq (Hébreux, p.2:41),
Wagner (‘Faithfulness and Fear’, p.100), Westcott (Hebrews, p.50), and Windisch
(Hebräer, p.22) reach this conclusion.
97 Patrick Gray, Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman
Critiques of Superstition [SBLABS, 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2003], p.126 n. 50. This argument also appears in ‘Brotherly Love’, p.340.
1
The implication of Jesus’ guardianship over humanity is certainly

present here. Nevertheless, Gray’s association between Jesus’ citation of
Isa. 8.18 and the Roman system of tutela impuberum suggests that when
the children reach the age of maturity and attain their inheritance, Jesus’
guardianship over them will cease. The context of this statement, how-
ever, works against a temporary time frame for Jesus’ possession of the
children. First, these children are given to him by God. This divine
giving establishes a connection with the other gifts of God to Jesus that
the author has already mentioned in the sermon. Whereas in Heb. 1.2
God appointed his Son as heir of all things and in Heb. 2.8 God subjects
all things under the feet of the Son, here God gives to his Son ÌÛ È¸À»ĕ¸.
This connection suggests that just as no time limit exists for God’s other
gifts, so too are the children an enduring possession.
Because Hebrews asserts that God gives to his Son all things and the
children, it suggests that the children are a part of all things that God
gives to his Son as an inheritance – a point that ¿nds support in the
author’s organization of Jesus’ speech. In Heb. 2.12-13, Jesus’ declara-
tion that he possesses these children follows an assertion of his own
humanity and an allusion to his death. This movement follows the pat-
tern of the author’s treatment of Psalm 8, where Jesus’ session as God’s
heir was predicated upon his becoming human and suffering death. It is
also similar to Heb. 2.10 where Jesus’ perfection as God’s heir through
suffering is associated with his leadership of God’s children. Jesus’
articulation of scripture captures the same ideas.98 Because he trusted
God in the midst of his brothers and sisters, he can declare that God has
given the children to him.
The sections of Hebrews surveyed thus far – Heb. 2.6-9, 10, 12-13 –
share a constellation of themes. Jesus is depicted as the Son – both the
Son of God (2.11) and a son of man (Heb. 2.6, 11) – and, in both respects,
he is a brother to humanity (2.12).99 In this state, he experiences the
98 Ellingworth calls this ‘a voluntary act of Christ…within the purpose of God’

(Hebrews, p.166).
99 Christ’s brotherly love, therefore, is even more radical than the parallels to
which Patrick Gray draws attention. Jesus does humble himself, as does Plutarch’s
ideal brother. Nevertheless, Jesus is not just an older brother who, to the best of his
ability, downplays the disparity between his fortune and that of his human brothers
and sisters (‘Brotherly Love’, p.342). Instead, he is the Son of God who fully
became a son of man. In this act of unparalleled humbleness, Jesus frees his siblings
from the devil who not only slanders them before God in the ¿nal judgment, similar
to a contemptuous brother (‘Brotherly Love’, p.348) but who also held them in
slavery to the fear of death throughout their lives (»ÀÛ È¸ÅÌġË ÌÇı ½ýÅ, 2.15). The
parallels with Plutarch show that Jesus’ brotherly act makes a greater impact than
anything described in his writings.
1
94 You Are My Son
suffering of death (2.9, 10, 12), and, subsequently, he is elevated to a

position of authority. In this position of authority as God’s heir (2.8-9),
God also establishes him as the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË of salvation and gives his
children to Jesus (2.13). These sections reiterate the theme that God the
Father through suffering perfects his Son as heir of all things, including
God’s many sons and daughters.
IV. Inheritance in the Scriptures
In his appeal to Psalm 8, Psalm 21, and Isaiah 8, the author portrays
Jesus being entrusted with God’s children when, as a ÍĎĠË ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÇÍ, he
takes his place as God’s heir of all things. Many of the other scriptures
from which the author has cited throughout Hebrews 1 and 2 contain
aspects of a similar story. God’s Royal Son takes possession of people –
including the people of God – in his role as Sovereign.100
A. The House of David: 2 Samuel 7

Second Samuel 7, cited as the speech of God in order to articulate the
relationship that exists between God and Jesus, and, consequently, why
Jesus is superior to the angels (Heb. 1.5), includes the images of king-
ship, sonship, inheritance, and possession of people. At the outset of this
chapter, the narration portrays King David sitting in his house in domina-
tion of all his enemies whom the Lord has given to him as an inheritance
(Á¸Ì¸ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄñÑ; 2 Sam. 7.1). In light of his great prosperity, David is
troubled that he lives in a house of cedar while the ark of God dwells in a
tent. That night, God’s word comes to Nathan the prophet. He af¿rms
that David is the leader over God’s people, Israel (ëÈĖ ÌġÅ Â¸ĠÅ ÄÇÍ ëÈĖ
ÌġÅ ÊÉ¸¾Â; 2 Sam. 7.8), that his enemies have been destroyed, that his
100 One of the other texts cited in Hebrews 1, Deut. 32.43, is worthy of mention
here as well. The author of Hebrews invokes Moses’ song from Deuteronomy 32
(the author appeals to this song again in ch. 10 to assert the reality of God’s judg-
ment [10.30/Deut. 32.35, 36]) to show that when God leads his Son into the
ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾, he instructs his angels to worship his Son (1.6). Previous to this line, the
song describes the Most High distributing the nations – Adam’s sons – among the
angels of God. The people of Jacob became the allotment of the Lord’s inheritance
(v. 9). Because the author – through the voice of God – uses this text to portray an
action directed toward Jesus, it also resonates with Jesus’ sovereignty over the
children of God. For a reader who, through his Christological lens, is able to make a
distinction between the Most High (ĝ ĩÐÀÊÌÇË) and the Lord (as evidenced in Heb.
1.3 and 1.10), it is possible to see God giving the people of Israel to the Lord (i.e. the
Son) as his inheritance.
1
name is great, and that he has been given rest. Despite God’s rejection of
David’s request to build a house for God to live in (ÇĤ Êİ ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄûÊ¼ÀË
ÄÇÀ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇı Á¸ÌÇÀÁýÊ¸ĕ Ä¼; 2 Sam. 7.5), God promises that David will
build a house for him (7.11). The house that God has in mind is David’s
offspring, his royal heir (7.12).
To David’s heir, God makes several important promises. First, God
will prepare (îÌÇÀÄÚ½Ñ) his kingdom, and it will be an eternal throne (¼ĊË
ÌġÅ ¸ĊľÅ¸; 2 Sam. 7.12-13, repeated in v. 16). Second, he will be the one
to build God’s house, that is, the temple. Third, as the author of Hebrews
cites, God promises to be a Father to him and that he, David’s heir, will
be a son of God (7.14). Finally, along with his kingdom and his throne,
his house will be ¿rmly established (ÈÀÊÌÑ¿ûÊ¼Ì¸À) by God forever
(7.16).
When David praises God for these wonderful promises to his house
(7.18, 19), he recalls the story of when God redeemed the people of
Israel. God prepared (îÌÇÀÄÚ½Ñ) his people Israel for himself; God estab-
lished them as a people forever (ïÑË ¸ĊľÅÇË); and God became a God to
them (ëºñÅÇÍ ¸ĤÌÇėË ¼ĊË ¿¼ĠÅ). Hence, the text gives evidence of a
correspondence between God’s establishment of David’s heir and God’s
establishment of the people of Israel.
7.12-14 God prepared a This included an God establishes a
kingdom eternal throne relationship with the
King (Father/Son)
îÌÇÀÄÚÊÑ ÌüÅ ÒÅÇÉ¿ļÊÑ ÌġÅ ¿ÉĠÅÇÅ ëºĽ ìÊÇÄ¸À È¸ÌñÉ¸,
¹¸ÊÀÂ¼ĕ¸Å ¸ĤÌÇı ¸ĤÌÇı ïÑË ¼ĊË ÌġÅ Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌġË ëÊÌ¸À ÄÇÀ
¸ĊľÅ¸ ¼ĊË ÍĎĠÅ
7.24 ¸Ė ÷ÌÇĕÄ¸Ê¸Ë Â¸ġÅ ïÑË ¸ĊľÅÇË Êį, ÁįÉÀ¼, ëºñÅÇÍ
Ê¼¸ÍÌŊ ÌġÅ Â¸ĠÇÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË ¼ĊË ¿¼ĠÅ
ÊÇÍ ÊÉ¸¾Â
God prepared a A forever people God establishes a
people relationship with the
people (God/People)
This correspondence suggests that when God promised an eternal throne

to David’s heir that lasting sovereignty included an intention for him to
reign over God’s eternal people, Israel. Because Israel is God’s people
forever, and David, the leader of Israel, is praying that his house, mean-
ing his heir, would be granted sovereignty forever, the prayer draws a
connection between the people of God and the authority of David’s
descendents. The play on words regarding David’s house applies to
Solomon’s house as well. Solomon will be the one responsible for
building the house of God, but he will also rule over God’s house, the
1
96 You Are My Son
family of Israel.101 As God’s kings, both David and his heir – who is also
proclaimed by God to be God’s son (2 Sam. 7.14) – have inherited
rulership over God’s people, and for his heir he prays this authority may
last forever.
B. The Enemies of God and the People of God

One consistent thread of the story of the king’s possession of people is
that when the king takes his place of sovereignty, God subdues his
enemies. The author of Hebrews includes this theme of the royal
narrative when he cites Ps. 109.1 (Heb. 1.13; 10.13). Psalm 2, the text
cited with 2 Sam. 7.14, includes this theme as well. In that psalm, the
speaker recounts God’s proclamation of the Father/Son relationship
between himself and the king when God establishes him on Zion, God’s
holy mountain (Ps. 2.6). After God declares that the king is his son, God
promises to give to the king a bountiful inheritance. The ends of the earth
will be his possession, and the nations will be his (Ps. 2.8). When God’s
Son is established as king, he will inherit all the earth, including the
nations. The relationship of the king with his subjects, however, is harsh.
He shepherds them (ÈÇÀÄ¸ĕÅÑ) with an iron rod (Ps. 2.9a), and shatters
them like a potter would shatter a vessel (Ps. 2.9b). His relationship with
the people of the nations he inherits resembles Ps. 109.1 LXX, where God
places the enemies of the king under his feet.
In a similar way, Psalm 44, cited as the words of God spoken to his
Son proclaiming his eternal kingdom and his name, ¿¼ĠË (1.8-9), high-
lights the dominance of the Son over his enemies. In this psalm, addressed
to Israel’s king, the psalmist praises the king’s arrows that are sharp in
the hearts of his enemies (44.6 LXX). In the midst of this acclamation, the
psalmist also declares that people shall fall under the king (Â¸ÇĖ ĨÈÇÁÚÌÑ
ÊÇÍ È¼ÊÇıÅÌ¸À).
Although it is most likely that the author is citing Isaiah 8 in Heb.
2.13, 2 Samuel 22 is another possibility,102 a song of David praising God
for subjecting people under his feet. The content of his song is the great
salvation God has granted to his king and the mercy he has shown to his
anointed (ÌŊ ÏÉÀÊÌŊ ¸ĤÌÇı) forever (ïÑË ¸ĊľÅÇË; v. 50). When God hears
the cry (ÁÉ¸Íºû, cf. Heb. 5.7) of this one who is trusting in him (v. 3) and
101 The statement in 1 Chr. 28.21 also supports Solomon’s rule over the people
of Israel when David assures Solomon that everything, including the priests, Levites,
skilled craftsman, the rulers, and all the people are his to command.
102 Wagner aptly notes, ‘it is likely that the homilist has Isa. 8.17 in mind here,
though not necessarily to the exclusion of the other passages’ (‘Faithfulness and
Fear’, p.101 n. 84).
1
delivers him, God makes him the head of nations (v. 44), and his enemies
fall under his feet (v. 39). In light of God’s actions, the psalmist con-
fesses God among the nations and sings his name (v. 50; cf. Heb. 2.12).
The subjugation of enemies may not the only and ¿nal meaning of
these psalms. As Psalm 2 continues, it offers another path to the kings of
the earth. If they continue to stand against the Lord and his anointed (Ps.
2.2), they will be crushed under the authority of God’s Son the King. If,
however, they are willing to be instructed (È¸À»¼įÑ; 2.10) and seize upon
instruction (»ÉÚÆ¸Ê¿¼ È¸À»¼ĕ¸Ë; 2.12), they can avoid God’s wrath. By
serving the Lord with fear, they can rejoice in him, albeit with trembling.
Blessing – rather than wrath – comes to all those who trust (ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ
È¼ÈÇÀ¿ĠÌ¼Ë) in the Lord (ëÈ’ ¸ĤÌŊ). Psalm 2 portrays God’s Son the King
inheriting the nations, including those who are given the option to trust in
the Lord through submitting to discipline.
Similarly, in Psalm 44, the author uses the term ‘peoples’ (Â¸Çĕ) to
describe those who fell under the king. At the end of the psalm, however,
the psalmist declares that the peoples (Â¸Çĕ) will confess the king forever
and ever (44.18). Finally, in 2 Samuel 22, in addition to his enemies,
God places a people subject to David (v. 44). While these people are still
cast in a negative light,103 they are described as the people who are under
him (ĨÈÇÁÚÌÑ) and whom God disciplines (È¸À»¼įÑ; v. 48). Because the
author of Hebrews describes the discipline of the Lord as a distinguish-
ing feature of the children of God (12.5-11), he might have viewed this
verse in such a way that it portrays the king ruling over God’s people,
instead of God’s enemies.
In eleven out of the thirteen texts to which the author appeals in chs. 1
and 2,104 the ruler takes possession of a people. These people include the
enemies of the king and also those people who come to trust in and
praise the Lord. For those familiar with these Psalms, this current Àows
through the argument at the beginning of Hebrews. The story in these
texts resonates with the author’s assertions that Jesus, who is God’s royal
103 They are placed in parallel with foreign sons who lie (v. 45) and the enemies
of the king (v. 49).
104 This theme is not apparent in Psalms 96 and 103. Texts that include this
theme are 2 Samuel 7 and 22; Deuteronomy 32; and Psalms 2, 21 (discussed below),
44, 101 (discussed below), and 109. Psalm 8 does not exactly ¿t the pattern because
people are not speci¿ed as part of the ‘all things’. As I have argued, however, the
author’s argument in the latter part of ch. 2 includes people as part of the ÈÚÅÌ¸
of the psalm. Isaiah 8 does not align neatly with the pattern because the person in
question who is given possession of the È¸À»ĕ¸ is not a ruler. Nevertheless, because
the author understands Jesus to speak this text, it becomes the description of the
sovereign Son ruling over God’s people.
1
98 You Are My Son
heir and is himself the Lord, as a part of his complete sovereignty

inherits the people of God when he takes his place at God’s right hand.
Jesus’ divinity, humanity, and royalty – all the qualities afforded to
him as Son – qualify him to be the heir of all things. As the Son of God,
God his Father has appointed him heir of all things. As a son of man,
God elevates him to his intended position as heir of all things. As his
royal Son, God places into his possession the children of God. The
familial relationship between God and Jesus is the ground from which
every legitimation for Jesus’ claim to his inheritance arises. Because God
is his Father and he is God’s Son, he is the divine, human, royal, and
perfected heir of all things. Because of their relationship, humans can
take their place as the children of God and look forward to their inheri-
tance of salvation because they are the inheritance of Jesus.
V. Rescue from Death Through Death: Hebrews 2.14-16
In order to be made perfect as heir of all things, including God’s sons

and daughters, Jesus the Son has to experience death. That argument
seems counter-intuitive in light of Hebrews 1. Why would Jesus, the
Son of God, who is exalted over all things including the angels have to
suffer – even suffer death – in order to be made perfect as heir of all
things? Having been appointed as God’s heir (Heb. 1.2), is he not already
perfect in this way? If he is human, has God not already subjected all
things under his feet (2.8)? If he is royal, are not the ends of the earth and
the nations promised to him as his inheritance (Ps. 2.8)? Most incredibly,
if he is the Son, who is God (1.8), should not all things already belong to
him?
The recurring idea throughout ch. 2 – that part of Jesus’ inheritance
includes humanity – provides the answer to these dif¿cult questions. It is
because Jesus inherits humanity that he must suffer death in order to be
¿t perfectly and completely to be heir of all things. Hebrews 2.14-16
provides a reason why his death is a necessary prerequisite for his estab-
lishment as God’s heir.
Jesus’ becoming human and dying ¿gures prominently in this section
of Hebrews 2 as it has in the others. The author begins by stating that
because the children of God partake of Àesh and blood, so also Jesus
shares in Àesh and blood with them (2.14). That which was implied by
Psalm 8 and articulated by Jesus in Heb. 2.12-13, the author now states
unequivocally in his own words. Jesus shares in the tangible realities of
human existence. By sharing in Àesh and blood, he also embraces Àesh
and blood to their natural end, death. As in 2.9, the author claims that
Jesus embraces the entire human condition all the way to its mortal end.
1
The author immediately connects Jesus’ participation in Àesh and

blood to the effects of his death (»ÀÛ ÌÇı ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ). Jesus’ participation in
the human condition and his subsequent death affect the dire situation in
which all humanity ¿nds itself. The author’s description of the human
situation is bleak. Women and men are enslaved (ÌÇįÌÇÍË…»ÇÍÂ¼ĕ¸Ë) and
subject to the fear of death (ĞÊÇÀ ÎĠ¹Ŀ ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ…ìÅÇÏÇÀ öÊ¸Å).105 Here,
the author is appealing to a widespread topos, appearing in Israel’s scrip-
tures106 and Greco-Roman literature.107 This slavery is not just a condition
of the aged, who are closer to death, but applies to all humanity through-
out their lives (»ÀÛ È¸ÅÌġË ÌÇı ½ýÅ).108 Even more oppressive is the fact
that this slavery is not limited to the natural sphere and therefore solely a
psychological condition. Instead, Hebrews 2 asserts that it is a super-
natural reality: the devil holds the power of death.109 Because humanity
is enslaved to the fear of death, they are bound to the devil – death’s
proprietor – through this fear.110
In view of this oppressive situation, the author proclaims that Jesus,
through his death, brought about a fundamental change for humanity.
First, through death, he rendered the devil ineffective.111 Consequently,
105 I ¿nd Moffatt’s reading of this verse largely persuasive. =ÅÇÏÇÀ when it
means ‘subject to’ is followed by a dative, in this case ÎĠ¹Ŀ ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ (cf. Mt. 5.21,
22). Therefore, ÒÈ¸ÂÂÚÆ¾ is completed by »ÇÍÂ¼ĕ¸Ë (Hebrews, p.35). It provides
a neater way to read the ‘slightly awkward dative’ (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.174).
Nevertheless, it is not completely persuasive because ÒÈ¸ÂÂÚÆþ is so far from
»ÇÍÂ¼ĕ¸Ë. Whatever reading is adopted, the meaning is largely clear. Those who are
rescued by Christ are freed from the slavery that the fear of death brings.
106 Pss. 6.6; 17.5; Hos. 13.14; Sir. 41.1-4.
107 E.g. Euripides, Orest. 1522; Lucretius, De rer. nat. 1.102-26; Lucian,
Peregr. 23, 33; Plutarch, Mor. 34B; 106D; Cicero, Letters to Atticus 9.2a; Tusc.1;
Seneca, Ep. 24; 30.17; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.17.25; 1.27.7-10; 2.18.30; 4.7.15–17; Dio
Chrysostom, Or. 6.42; Philo, Omn. prob. lib. 22; Leg. 17. See Gray, Godly Fear,
p.112.
108 Patrick Gray suggests that the thought of death brings fear because it is
followed by judgment and it holds in it demonic power (Godly Fear, p.113).
109 An idea found in other literature as well: Wis. 2.24; Jo. Asen. 12.9; Jub.
49.2; Ezekiel the Tragedian in Epiphanius, Pan. 64.29.6; Jn 8.44; 1 Pet. 5.8.
110 Ellingworth states, ‘[i]n this construction, ÒÈ¸ÂÂÚÆþ does not specify from
what or from whom people are liberated, though v. 14 would strongly suggest the
devil’ (Hebrews, p.174).
111 Since the devil is a supernatural and even angelic being in some literature
(Job 1.6-12; 2.1-10; 2 En. 31.3; L.A.E. 10.16, 41), Jesus’ defeat of this angel might
be one of the several reasons the author emphasized his supremacy over the angels
in the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews. For an emphatic argument of this point, see Georg
Gäbel, ‘Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in Angels: The
1
100 You Are My Son
by his defeat of the one who held death’s power, Jesus eliminated the
power of death that cast a shadow over the entire lifetime of humanity
(2.15). Because Jesus became human and died, he is able to rescue
humanity from their slavery to fear. They are no longer the slaves of the
devil.
In the following verse, the author af¿rms the transference of posses-
sion achieved by Jesus’ death. Through death, humanity ceases to be the
slaves of the devil and becomes instead the possession of Christ. The
author states this by saying that Jesus took hold of the seed of Abraham.
The most basic picture here is that Jesus takes the descendents of
Abraham into his grasp and possession.112 It also connotes the imagery of
Jesus’ embracing humanity in order to help them.113 By participating in
human nature to its ultimate end (2.14-15), he wrested humanity from
their overlord the Devil and brought them into the grasp of Christ.
On this point, two other psalms quoted by the author in the ¿rst two
chapters serve as interesting intertexts. First, Hebrews appeals to Psalm
101 to assert the Son’s role in creation and his eternal and unchanging
nature (Heb. 1.10-12). Prior to the verses cited (Ps. 101.26-28), the
psalmist notes that the Lord heard the groaning of the prisoners and
rescued the sons of those who had been put to death (v. 21). The result is
that when peoples and kingdoms are gathered together to serve the Lord,
the name of the Lord and his praise are declared in Zion and in Jerusalem
(vv. 22-23). The Lord thus wins a people for himself by rescuing sons
who are in bondage and who have faced death. In the end, they serve him
and praise his name.
Psalm 21 LXX, which the author cites the text as that which Jesus
speaks concerning his announcement of God’s name to his siblings (Heb.
2.12), also resonates with the themes of family and deliverance. In the
closing lines of the psalm, the psalmist claims that his offspring will
Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception (F. V. Reiterer,

T. Nicklas, and K. SchöpÀin, eds; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Year-
book 2007; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007), pp.357–76.
112 Attridge argues, ‘[t]he verb used to describe Christ’s act, ëÈÀÂ¸Ä¹ÚÅ¼Ì¸À,
basically means “lay hold of”… The picture of Christ, the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË, taking hold of
his followers on the way to glory is in perfect conformity with the imagery of the
whole passage’ (Hebrews, p.94).
113 Johnson points to Jer. 31.32, cited in Heb. 8.9, as an example of this use of
the word (Hebrews, p.102). Attridge suggests that this sense is too speci¿c, but it is
not clear why ‘help’ would not be a viable interpretation of the term in the example
he provides, Sir. 4.11 (Hebrews, p.94 n. 176). Moreover, Koester points out the
context of the verb in which Christ takes hold of people to rescue them (2.15) and to
help them in their testing (2.18) (Hebrews, p.232).
1
serve the Lord. Because the Lord acted, presumably by delivering the
psalmist (v. 21), a people yet to be born will proclaim the righteousness
of the Lord (v. 32). God’s deliverance of the psalmist results in the
family of Israel (v. 24) – including the family of the psalmist himself, his
seed – serving and praising the Lord. If the author heard the voice of
Jesus in the psalm, it is possible to hear Ìġ ÊÈñÉÄ¸ ÄÇÍ, not as the speak-
er’s biological offspring, but as those whom the speaker has embraced in
his possession (ÊÈñÉÄ¸ÌÇË ¹É¸ÛÄ ëÈÀÂ¸Ä¹ÚÅ¼Ì¸À; Heb. 2.16). The
speaker declares that his seed will serve and praise the Lord who is King
of all the nations because God delivered him.
Christ’s death provides the antidote to humanity’s pervasive bondage
to the fear of death. Attridge states:
Hebrews does not explain precisely how it is that Christ’s death frees
human beings from such fear [of death]. This is, in part, due to the fact
that liberation was a ¿xed part of the underlying tradition and no explana-
tion of it was felt to be required. Insofar as the Christological exposition
of the text does implicitly provide one, it consists of two elements. On the
one hand, as in the myths of a hero’s victory over death, Christ’s death is
an example of endurance. On the other hand, his exaltation de¿nitely
con¿rms his victory and provides an access to God that renders death and
the fear it inspires irrelevant.114
Attridge is correct to highlight the exemplary element of Christ’s death,

to which the author will appeal in ch. 12 (vv. 3-11) and Christ’s victory
over death that provides access to God (Heb. 10.19-20). Nevertheless, it
is this second element that points toward the precise explanation of how
Christ’s death frees from fear. Humanity is free from the fear of death
because Christ’s death-defeating death has changed their status. They are
no longer slaves of death, and therefore of the Devil, but now are the
possession, the inheritance, of Jesus, the Son. Those in his possession are
the children of God. Hence, they no longer have to fear death, but can
look forward to the inheritance that belongs to God’s children of being
saved from death and dwelling with God in glory. Christ’s death estab-
lishes them as ÍĎÇĕ who are heirs of salvation, and as such Death and the
fear of it no longer have dominion over them. If Jesus is to be the heir of
all things including humanity, he has to rescue them from the grasp of
the Devil, the proprietor of death. Jesus accomplishes this rescue through
his own death.
1
114 Attridge, Hebrews, pp.93–4.
102 You Are My Son
VI. Conclusion
In Hebrews 2, the author establishes several points. After Jesus suffers

death, he attains his glorious position as God’s heir (2.6-9). After this
event, he is perfected as the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË of God’s many sons and daughters
(2.10). As Jesus trusts God, he is entrusted with the possession of God’s
children (2.12-13; 3.1-6). In the act of dying, Jesus completes the ¿rst
step necessary for his rescue of humanity from the Devil (2.14-16). The
narrative traced here provides an answer to a question posed by Bruce
McCormack, ‘How can the Son already be the Son in protology if He
only enters into the fullness of His Sonship (i.e. receives His inheritance
and His name) in His eschatological enthronement?’115 It is true that God
grants to Jesus all things as his inheritance; but in order to take posses-
sion of the human component – since humanity is bound to death – Jesus
must win his inheritance through dying. By following his Father’s will,
Jesus does what is necessary to attain his inheritance.
These assertions are distinguishable manifestations of the same theme:
the process by which Jesus attains his inheritance and the content of it.
Blomberg, in support of his purely anthropological reading of Psalm 8 in
Hebrews 2, suggests that ‘it would be odd if Hebrews chose to begin
there (Ps 8:5) if the author’s intended focus from the outset was the
exalted nature of Christ’.116 The conclusion of this investigation is that it
is not odd for the author to begin the second expositional section with
Psalm 8. For him, the exaltation is not antithetical to Jesus’ human
experience but is, in fact, the outcome of it. To begin with Psalm 8 in a
description of the exalted status of Jesus is certainly not odd because the
exalted nature of Christ as heir of all things is dependent on his becom-
ing human and dying. It makes sense that Jesus’ perfection as God’s heir
could only come about through suffering death because in death he
rescues that portion of his inheritance – namely humanity – which was
estranged from God.117 Humanity is bound in slavery to the fear of death,
whose power is held by the Devil. Therefore, in order for Jesus to take
possession of the entire inheritance that God has promised him, including
humanity, Jesus is lowered below the angels to become an ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË and
die. Through this process he defeats death and the devil and takes posses-
sion of humanity. He removes them from their slavery and reinstates
115 McCormack, ‘Identity of the Son’, p.161.

116 Blomberg, ‘But We See Jesus’, p.93.
117 A vitally important part of his rescue of humanity is the cleansing of sin he
achieves through his priestly act of death. The cultic aspect of his death is the focus
of the following chapter.
1
them as children of God on the way to their own inheritance in the

glorious presence of God. When God crowns Jesus after Jesus experi-
ences death, God establishes Jesus as the rightful heir that he is and
humanity as his rightful inheritance.
The author of Hebrews argued in the ¿rst part of his sermon that Jesus
always existed as the Son of God, and the close corollary is also true:
Jesus always existed as God’s heir, the one whom God appointed over all
things (1.2b). Because his inheritance came under the sway of another,
he had to do something, namely, defeat death, to win his inheritance
back. Hence when he took his seat at the right hand of God, having
become perfect, his perfection included his reinstatement as the heir of
God, always heir, but now having completed the process by which his
inheritance could return to his control.
The second chapter of Hebrews serves as a hinge between what comes
before and after it. First, it is a necessary complement to the ¿rst chapter.
The preceding investigation of Hebrews 1 explicated the exalted position
of Jesus and argued that he inhabited that position because of the ¿lial
relationship in which he is joined to God. The second chapter continues
to refer to that exalted position, but describes the process that preceded
Jesus’ installation at God’s right hand. This chapter shows that when
God the Father exalts his Son he does so by humbling him and subjecting
him to the process by which he becomes perfect.
Consequently, the second chapter grants further insight into the char-
acter of both the Son and the Father. The Son is willing to be humbled to
the state of humanity so that he can proclaim God’s name to his brothers
and sisters. He consistently displays an attitude of trust in God. Most
impressively, he is willing to die in order to win humanity back into the
domain of God’s family. In these attitudes and actions, the author is
showing his audience what it means for Jesus to be God’s ÍĎĠË and
therefore is displaying the template of the perfect child of God. At the
same time, he also shapes the audience’s perception of the character of
God: he is a Father who uses suffering for the purpose of perfecting his
children. Chapter 2, however, provides only the introduction to this
aspect of God’s Fatherhood. It lays the groundwork for the author’s
continuation of the theme of God’s paternal use of suffering.
Second, ch. 2 foreshadows later themes in that here the author intro-
duces humanity’s stake in the familial relationship between God and
Jesus. The daughters and sons are key components of the inheritance
over which Jesus is appointed; they, like Jesus, are the children of God.
This identity and the future it promises shape the author’s exhortations
for them in the following chapters.
1
104 You Are My Son
In order to continue to address the divine characterizations and the

implications for the audience in the Father/Son relationship between God
and Jesus, the next chapter turns to the author’s explication of Jesus’
priesthood. Just as Jesus’ Father was active in the process by which his
Son became heir of all things, so he is also active in the process by which
his Son becomes high priest. Similarly, the author continues to show the
faithfulness of Jesus in the enactment of his priestly role. The way in
which their relationship works itself out in his priestly mission has
profound implications for the audience, namely, how they can attain their
own inheritance of God’s salvation.
1
Chapter 3
‘MY SON, YOU ARE PRIEST’:

THE FILIAL CONTEXT OF THE CULTIC MOTIF IN HEBREWS
The two previous chapters sought to show the vital relationship between
Jesus’ ¿lial status and his inheritance. Because he is the Son of God, God
the Father has appointed him as heir of all things. Because he became a
son of man and passed through death, his inheritance is all-encompass-
ing, in particular it includes humanity who had been enslaved to death.
God’s paternal inclusion of his Son in his sovereignty and Jesus’
unswerving faithfulness as God’s human Son result in his session at the
Father’s right hand as heir of all things.
In the penultimate verse of Hebrews 2 – Ğ¿¼Å ĵÎ¼ÀÂ¼Å Á¸ÌÛ ÈÚÅÌ¸ ÌÇėË
Ò»¼ÂÎÇėË ĝÄÇÀÑ¿ýÅ¸À – the author succinctly states two recurring themes
of the second chapter: Jesus’ participation in the human condition and
God’s will that he participate. Jesus is made like his brothers and sisters
in all ways (Heb. 2.17).1 In the preceding verses, the author sketches out
what ‘all ways’ entails. The brothers and sisters of Jesus share in Àesh
and blood (2.14), and they anticipate death with fear (2.15). Conse-
quently, his participation in Àesh and blood and his facing of the reality
of death make it evident that Jesus became completely human, and, in
light of the author’s depictions of God’s action in the chapter in lowering
Jesus to the state of humanity (2.8-9) and in perfecting him through death
(2.10), the passive of ĝÄÇÀĠÑ is best read as a divine passive.2 It is God
1 The close connection between Jesus’ grasp of the seed of Abraham and his
becoming like his siblings suggests that reading ëÈÀÂ¸Ä¹ÚÅ¼Ì¸À in light of the
incarnation, which many patristic interpreters did (e.g., Ambrose [De Fide 3.11.86
(NPNF2 10:255)]; Chrysostom [Hom. Hebr. 5.1 (NPNF1 14:388)]), ¿ts well within
the context of the passage (Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], pp.117–19; Johnson, Hebrews, p.102;
Mof¿tt, Atonement and Resurrection, p.131). This nuance of the word does not
appear in other literature. Therefore, this meaning is suggested by the context, not
bound in the word itself.
2 This reading ¿nds support, for example, in Lane (Hebrews, p.1.64), Michel
(Hebräer, p.87), Long (Hebrews, pp.60–1), and Vanhoye (Situation du Christ,
p.368).
106 You Are My Son
who made Jesus like his brothers and sisters in all ways. Because the
Son’s obedience to the Father’s will accomplished this transformation,
Jesus, in taking hold of the seed of Abraham (2.16), rescued them (2.15).
In addition to summarizing preceding themes of the chapter, v. 17
points forward as well. The same prominent theme – God’s actions in
bringing about Jesus’ humanity – results in a previously unarticulated
identity of Jesus:3 because he was made like his brothers and sisters in
all ways, he became a merciful and faithful high priest (2.17).4 Jesus’
priesthood becomes a dominant theme in the central section of the letter
(4.14–10.25), and remains close at hand even in the closing section
(12.2, 24; 13.12).
Even as he describes the nature of Jesus’ priesthood, however, the
author frequently integrates it with assertions of Jesus’ sonship. In ch. 3,
Jesus is both high priest (3.1) and Son (3.6) over the ÇčÁÇË of God, a term
used for the tabernacle/temple5 but employed in Hebrews predominantly
as a reference to a family/household (3.2, 5, 6; 8.8, 10; 11.7). The author
employs both cultic and ¿lial titles again in 4.14, and in 5.6 connects
God’s pronouncement about Christ’s priesthood with God’s declaration
of his status as Son. In ch. 7, the absence of any mention of Melchi-
zedek’s lineage indicates that he is like the Son of God (7.3). At the close
of ch. 7, unlike the law that appoints weak men, the word of the oath
appoints, strikingly, not a perfected ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË, but a perfected ÍĎĠË as high
priest (7.28). In the summarizing statement of 8.1, Jesus is the high priest
who is in the place God has invited him to sit as his royal Son. So also in
3 ‘Son’ and ‘priest’ do not exhaust the descriptions of Jesus in Hebrews, but
interpreters agree they represent two dominant Christological foci. Loader (Sohn und
Hoherpriester) divides his analysis of the letter according to this schema, and Mikeal
Parsons calls these ‘the two predominant titles found in Hebrews’ which ‘serve to
surface the major thrust of the christological arguments found in Hebrews’ (‘Son and
High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews’, EQ 60 [1988], pp.195–216).
So also Harold W. Attridge, ‘[t]he citation of the two texts [Ps 2:7 and Ps 109:4 LXX]
serves to link the key Christological motifs of Son and High Priest’ (Hebrews,
p.146), and Paul Ellingworth, ‘[i]t is highly probable that the author’s thinking about
Christ revolves around the two poles represented by the titles “Son” (1:2) and “high
priest” (2:17)’ (Hebrews, p.67).
4 No other author of the New Testament attributes to Jesus the title of ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼įË,
or even Ď¼É¼įË. This is the distinctive mark of the author’s Christology. Expressions
of the uniqueness of this theme are found in Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.67), Johnson
(Hebrews, p.49), Koester (Hebrews, p.109), Lane (Hebrews, p.1:cxl–cxli), Spicq
(Hébreux, p.1:301), and Witherington (Letters and Homilies, p.59).
5 E.g., Exod. 23.19; 34.26; Deut. 23.19; Judg. 18.31; 2 Sam. 12.20; 1 Kgs 5.17,
19; 8.17, 20; 1 Chr. 6.33; 9.11, 13, 26.
1
3. ‘My Son, You Are Priest’ 107
ch. 10, Jesus is the priest who, after presenting his one offering, is seated
at God’s right hand awaiting the subjection of his enemies – a portion of
his inheritance – under his feet (10.13). Finally, the author asserts that
Jesus is a great priest over God’s house/household (10.21). Hence, when
the author discusses the priesthood of Jesus, he does so with continuing
emphasis upon Jesus’ status as God’s Son. The familial dynamic between
God and Jesus is therefore inextricable from Jesus’ status as God’s ¿nal
high priest.
By highlighting the familial theme throughout the cultic sections of
the letter, this investigation contributes to my overall thesis in several
ways. First, and most obviously, the author builds the divine Father/Son
relationship into the fabric of his argument about Christ’s priesthood.
Second, because he consistently appeals to this relationship, the actions
of the Father and the Son in the cultic context contribute to the charac-
terization of their Fatherhood and sonship. In these sections, the author
continues the theme introduced in ch. 2: God’s fatherly actions include
both exaltation and training. In so doing, the author also continues to
emphasize the perfect faithfulness of the Son. Finally, the Son’s priestly
vocation serves to strengthen the faith of the audience, speci¿cally
because it is through his priestly offering and intercession that Jesus
secures his inheritance. Because the Son has performed and continues to
perform his priestly role, the audience can trust that he will take full
possession of his inheritance; as a result, they (as members of Jesus’
inheritance) will attain their inheritance and dwell in the household of
God.
Hence, Heb. 4.14, ‘a great high priest has passed through the heavens,
Jesus, the Son of God’, succinctly articulates the two dominant themes of
Hebrews’ Christology.6 Jesus is Son and Priest. Interpreters cannot help
but to acknowledge the presence of these identities, but have not yet
reached an interpretive consensus concerning their relationship. Is it
the case – as Deborah Rooke argues – that Jesus ‘was a priest forever,
whether he liked it or not, because of the sonship granted to him by the
deity’,7 or, conversely – as David Mof¿tt states – that ‘Jesus’ role as
priest seems therefore to be distinct from – i.e. not predicated upon – his
status as Son’?8 Moreover, Mof¿tt argues that Jesus’ sonship is not just
distinct from his priesthood but also that the proclamation of Jesus as
6 See above, p.106 n.3.

7 Deborah Rooke, ‘Jesus as Royal Priest: ReÀections on the Interpretation of the
Melchizedek Tradition in Hebrews 7’, Biblica 81 (2000), pp.81–94 (83).
1
108 You Are My Son
Son – and therefore, as king – conÀicts with the assertion of his priest-
hood for audience members who know and respect the Mosaic law.9 In
other words, does the genealogy of Jesus automatically entail his priest-
hood or does it conÀict with his priesthood? Is Jesus priest because he is
Son or in spite of the fact that he is Son?
The ‘Son/priest’ conundrum is not so easily divisible, chieÀy because
the terms ‘Son’ and ‘priest’ carry multiple meanings. In calling Jesus
‘Son’ the author denotes both his relationship to God and his relationship
to humanity; he is Son of God and son of man. Similarly, in calling Jesus
priest, the author locates Jesus in relationship to different priestly orders.
He shares similarities with the Levitical priests (4.14–5.7) but stands in
the priestly order of Melchizedek (5.6; 6.20; 7.17, 21). Knowing which
¿lial relationship and which priestly order is in play in each instance
determines the particular relationship between the two identities.
On the one hand, I agree with Mof¿tt and others who argue that Jesus’
priesthood is not ‘implicit in his status as royal Son’.10 His high priest-
hood is not automatic to his sonship; he must become quali¿ed for this
cultic role. On the other hand, I disagree with Mof¿tt that the author
treats Jesus’ lineage as a problem to be solved when he is arguing for his
status as priest. The author realizes that Jesus’ lineage bars him from the
Levitical priesthood, but also recognizes that it serves as a quali¿cation
for the Melchizedekian one. That is to say, in my opinion the author of
Hebrews does not view the two dominant roles of Christ running along
on two parallel or even clashing tracks. Instead, he describes Jesus’
sonship and priesthood as reciprocal identities both located within and
existing because of the paternal actions of God.
How does the author show the identities of Christ embedded in the
Fatherhood of God? Initially, he shows that it is God the Father who calls
Jesus to the priesthood. Then, as a compliment to that call, he empha-
sizes Jesus’ sonship as a quali¿cation to stand in the line of Melchizedek.
Next, the author appeals to the pedagogy and inheritance of Jesus as
means of quali¿cation for his priesthood. Finally, he shows how Jesus’
priestly actions secure the possession of his inheritance. All four moves
highlight God’s actions as Father in the Son’s enactment of his vocation
as high priest.
9 See especially Mof¿tt’s essay, ‘Jesus the High Priest and the Mosaic Law:
Reassessing the Appeal to the Heavenly Realm in the Letter “To the Hebrews”’, in
Problems in Translating Texts About Jesus: Proceedings from the International
Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2008 (Mishael Caspi and John T.
Greene, eds; Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2011), pp.195–232.
1
I. A Son Over His House: Hebrews 3.1-6
Hebrews 3.1-6 provides a ¿tting place to begin the investigation of the

relationship between Jesus’ sonship and his priesthood. Most obviously,
the author employs both titles in this pericope. In Heb. 3.1-6, Jesus’ ¿lial
faithfulness (ĸË ÍĎĠË, 3.6) to God as apostle and high priest (3.1) results
in his placement over God’s household (3.6). Beyond that lexical moti-
vation, the opening sentences of ch. 3 exhibit a multidirectional quality.
By referring to Jesus’ humanity and his death and suggesting God’s role
in these experiences, this passage points back to Hebrews 2, where the
author portrayed Jesus as the Son of God who secured his inheritance by
submitting to his Father’s will to become a son of man. By reiterating
that Jesus is high priest, it also points forward to the remainder of the
letter where the author frequently describes Jesus as a cultic/mediatorial
¿gure.11 As this passage points both back and forward, it continues to
describe the dynamics of the relationship between God and Jesus as
Father and Son. In doing so, it also establishes the implications of those
interactions for humanity, including the readers of the letter themselves.
Hence, this passage serves as a microcosm of much of the argument of
the letter, asserting that Jesus, by accepting God’s will that he become
human and defeat death, takes possession of his place as Son and heir
over God’s household.
A. The Son’s Humanity and Death

In this second exhortation of the letter, the author urges his audience to
consider (Á¸Ì¸ÅÇûÊ¸Ì¼) Jesus, whom he names with two titles that
complement one another to highlight Jesus’ mediatory role. As Johnson
states, ‘[t]here is…a ¿ne symmetry in the combination apostolos kai
archiereus that goes beyond the obvious alliteration. As the aposotolos
is sent by God to deliver the summons from God to humans through the
proclamation of the good news, so the archiereus is preeminently the one
who responds from the side of humans to God.’12 As the terms work
together to highlight Jesus’ role as mediator (Heb. 8.6; 9.25; 12.24), they
function independently to highlight the reality and breadth of Jesus’
human experience.
11 Albert Vanhoye links the opening of ch. 3 to the verses that precede it
through the repetition of ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼įË. He also sees this pericope as the opening of the
second part of the letter, comprising 3.1–5.10 (Structure and Message, p.24). I argue
that the allusion to Jesus’ humanity and the declaration of Jesus’ status as high priest
connect this pericope with a broader spectrum of the letter than simply 2.17–5.10.
1
110 You Are My Son
First, Jesus’ designation as an apostle (ÒÈĠÊÌÇÂÇË)13 portrays Jesus as

one sent by God. As this description recalls his role as God’s messenger
(Heb. 2.3, 12),14 it also serves as a reference to his humanity: when God
sent him, Jesus came as an embodied human being.15 In ch. 2, the author
argued that God lowered Jesus below the angels to become an ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË
(2.7, 9) and made him like his brothers and sisters in every way (2.17).16
The author urges the audience not to forget that Jesus is the apostle, the
one whom God sent. That description of Jesus implies an important
corollary: when he was sent, it was as a human.
Second, he names Jesus ‘high priest’. As previously noted, this dis-
tinguishing feature of Hebrews ¿rst appears at the end of ch. 2. Here, the
author’s description of Jesus as a merciful and faithful high priest is
dependent on his ‘being made like his brothers and sisters in all ways’
(2.17). Consequently, when the author refers to Jesus again as the high
priest a few verses later, he elicits this role’s connection to Jesus’
humanity. By ascribing these titles to Jesus, the author thereby reiterates
his human nature.
As both apostle and high priest, Jesus is faithful to the One who
appointed (ÈÇÀñÑ) him to these roles.17 God’s appointment of him to the
vocation of apostle and, ultimately, high priest are the vocations for
13 The direct attribution of this title to Jesus is unique in the New Testament.
There is a possible allusion to Jesus as an apostle in Lk. 11.49. It is not unusual,
however, for Jesus to be described (often by himself) as the one sent from God
(Mt. 10.40; 21.37; 23.34, 37; Mk 9.37; 12.6; Lk. 4.43; 9.48; 10.16; 13.34; Jn 3.17,
34; 5.36, 38; 6.29, 57; 7.29; 8.42; 10.36; 17.3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20.21; Gal. 4.4;
1 Jn 4.9, 10, 14). Justin Martyr uses this word in reference to Jesus (1 Apol. 12.9;
63.10 [ANF p.1:166, 184]), which supports the argument that this title might be
traditional (Attridge, Hebrews, p.107 n. 36).
14 So also Attridge, Hebrews, p.107.
15 Similarly, Koester states: ‘Jesus was sent to deliver his brothers and sisters
by taking on blood and Àesh’ (Hebrews, p.249). Ellingworth sees this title as a
possible allusion to the incarnation, but makes this connection dependent upon 1.6
referring to the incarnation as well (Hebrews, p.199). It is not clear to me that the
meaning of 3.1 must depend on the interpretation of 1.6. Chapter 2 is suf¿cient to
establish that when Jesus was sent from God, he was sent as a human being, even if
1.6 refers to his exaltation over the coming realm.
16 This is reiterated in ch. 10 where Jesus, on coming into the world (10.5),
states that God prepared a body for him (Ps. 40.7-9).
17 His appointment includes both his high priesthood and his apostleship. So
also Johnson (Hebrews, p.107) and Lane (Hebrews, p.1:76). Contra Attridge
(Hebrews, p.108) and Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.202), who presume the author limits
this appointment to the priestly of¿ce.
1
which he is made human.18 Chrysostom understands this verse precisely

in this way. He states:
[b]eing about to place Him [Jesus] before Moses in comparison…he begins
from the Àesh [from His Human nature]… ‘Who was faithful’, he says, ‘to
Him that made him’ – made [Him] what? ‘Apostle and High Priest’. He is
not speaking at all in this place of his Essence, nor of His Godhead; but so
far concerning human dignities (Hom Heb. 5.4 [Gardiner]).19
Consequently, interpreters need not make a sharp division between

interpreting ÌŊ ÈÇÀûÊ¸ÅÌÀ as ‘to the one who appointed him’ or ‘to the
one who made him’20 because the phrase incorporates both his appoint-
ment to a vocation and his being made human. To be faithful as an
apostle and high priest is for Jesus to be faithful as a human being. He
accepted God’s call to go where he was sent, to the sphere of his human
brothers and sisters.
In addition to signaling his entrance into the human condition, the
designation of Jesus as the high priest also foreshadows the author’s full
explication of his death. At this point in the letter, the author has twice
associated Jesus’ cultic activity with the removal of sins (1.3; 2.17). It
will not be until the center section of the letter, however, that he clearly
states that Christ’s atoning sacri¿ce consists of his own body and blood
(7.27; 9.12, 14, 15; 10.10; 12.24; 13.12). Nevertheless, the mention of
his priesthood includes death and the manipulation of blood. In light of
the references to his death in ch. 2 and the association between his
experience of all things human – including death – and his priesthood in
2.17, a reference to Jesus as priest brings with it an allusion to his death.
This connection between his priesthood and his death would not be
obvious based upon the model of Jewish sacri¿ce – the priest was not
required to kill himself – but the associations between death, blood,
and priesthood and the connections between Jesus’ priesthood and his
full human experience prepare the way for the author’s ingenious and
unexpected combination of the two. The author waits to make the
connection explicit, but even here he begins to argue that by accepting
God’s call to be high priest, Jesus also accepted God’s call to perform
18 Johnson argues, ‘[t]he phrase to poiesanti auton is most naturally translated

as “the one who made him,” with “making” understood as “creating”… [F]or
Hebrews, the human Jesus is surely a creature – this is precisely the point that the
author has just been arguing (2:10–18)!’ (Hebrews, p.107).
19 Similarly argued by Athanasius (C. Ar. 2.9 [NPNF2 4:353]; Dion. 11 [NPNF2
4:181]) and Ambrose (De Fide 3.11.82–86 [NPNF2 10:244]).
1
20 As stated by Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.202) and Hughes (Hebrews, p.130).
112 You Are My Son
the duties of his priesthood, including dying so that he could offer his
own body and blood.
Jesus’ faithful attitude before God offers a ¿tting comparison to
Moses: Jesus is faithful just as Moses was faithful.21 Through the citation
of Num. 12.7, the author of Hebrews alludes to the story from Numbers
12 where the Lord chides Aaron and Miriam for speaking against Moses.
The Lord declares to them that Moses, in comparison with all the other
prophets, hears from God’s mouth and has seen the glory of the Lord
(Num. 12.8). Nevertheless, even in light of these quali¿cations, the
author of Hebrews asserts that Jesus is worthy of more glory than Moses.
Jesus’ faithfulness, however, is not the quality that makes him more
glorious. Jesus is not more faithful than Moses. Rather, the difference
between them is that while Moses is faithful as a servant, Jesus is faithful
as a son. At this point in the letter, the author’s use of the term ÍĎĠË
evokes the glory Jesus possesses as Son of the Lord God (ch. 1) and the
honor and glory he came to possess when he became a son of man
(ch. 2). Moses, on the other hand, is never speci¿cally designated as a
ÍĎĠË of God. By default he possesses the glory included in being a
descendent of Adam, but he is not equal to the glory afforded to Jesus as
man and God, both of which are included in his status as ÍĎĠË.
Jesus’ faithfulness as a Son suggests the relational corollary: whereas
Moses was a faithful servant to the Lord (Num. 12.6-8),22 Jesus was a
faithful Son to God his Father. It was his Father who appointed him to
21 Mary Rose D’Angelo states that Moses is ‘a ¿gure so determinative in the

history that no theologian who is in any way the heir of Judaism can avoid coming to
terms with his role in the tradition as a whole’ (Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews
[SBLDS, 42; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979], p.2). Similarly Johnson states,
‘[a]mong human mediators, then, Moses is surely the main ¿gure to whom Jesus
must be compared; Deut 34:10 declares con¿dently, “Never since has there arisen a
prophet in Israel like Moses”’ (Hebrews, p.108). Finally, Cynthia Long Westfall
agrees, ‘Moses is a highly respected individual and leader who functions as a type of
Christ, rather than the target of a polemic’ (‘Moses and Hebrews 3:1–6: Approach or
Avoidance?’, in Christian–Jewish Relations Through the Centuries [JSNTSup, 192;
S. E. Porter and W. R. Pearson, eds; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000], pp.175–
201, here 201). John Lierman catalogues evidence from a variety of literature where
authors assign Moses the titles of apostle, high priest, and servant. He suggests that
in Heb. 3.1-5, ‘the writer’s conception of Moses, or perhaps the conception of Moses
among his readers, with which he has to contend, shapes his presentation of Christ’
(The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the
Setting of Jewish Religion [WUNT, 2/173; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], p.76).
22 Moses also appears as the servant of the Lord in Exod. 4.10; 14.31; Num.
11.11; Deut. 34.5; Josh. 1.1, 13, 15; 8.31, 33; 9.24; et al.; 1 Kgs 8.53, 56; 18.12; 2
Chr. 1.3; 24.6, 9.
1
the role of apostle. In other words, it was his Father who called him to
become human. Likewise, his Father appointed him to the priesthood,
meaning that it was his Father who called him to sacri¿ce himself.
Therefore, since it was God who appointed him to these roles, it was God
who willed that he become human and die so that he could be a faithful
apostle and high priest. As in ch. 2, Jesus thus lived out his mediatorial
roles as a faithful Son in response to the will of his Father.
B. The Son Over the Children

The author calls attention to Jesus’ distinction above Moses in one other
respect as well. Whereas Moses is located in God’s house, Jesus is above
it (ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ). In v. 4, the author states the seemingly obvious fact that
every house has a builder. For a letter concerned with earthly and
heavenly structures and cities – things built by human and divine hands23
– this comment is not irrelevant. Instead, it allows the author to make a
corresponding statement about God. Just as every house has a builder, so
too do all things have a builder and, in fact, God is the one who builds all
things. This portrait of God reinforces the author’s portrayal of God as
the sovereign creator (Heb. 1.2; 2.10).24 Moreover, the statement in v. 4
reveals the expanse of God’s house (vv. 2, 5, 6). If God is the builder of
all things, then God’s house is the entirety of creation itself. Therefore,
this theological aside also establishes a connection to the inheritance of
Jesus. By describing God as the builder of all things, the author reminds
his readers of the inheritance Jesus will ultimately and fully possess. It is
¿tting that Jesus is over God’s house (ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ¸ĤÌÇı), because as the
Son of God and son of man, this is his promised inheritance.25 That the
author again refers to Jesus as ÍĎĠË here makes the association between
God’s house and Jesus’ inheritance more plausible. The author crafts
Heb. 3.6 to sound like a variation on the theme of Heb. 1.2: Jesus is
God’s Son whom God has set over all things that God has created.
In this position of sovereignty, Jesus is also over God’s children, just
as the author asserted throughout ch. 2. From the expanse of all things,
the author immediately narrows the scope of God’s house to a very
intimate composition. God’s house includes the author himself and the
23 Heb. 8.2; 9.11, 23; 11.10, 16; 12.22.

24 God’s sovereignty as fashioner of everything out of nothing is a common
place as seen in, e.g., Isa. 40.28; 45.7; Wis. 9.2; 11.17; 13.4; 2 Macc. 7.28; 4 Macc.
12.21; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 15.6.6.
25 Similarly also Attridge, ‘[t]he extension of the initial analogy to the cosmic
level intimates the full signi¿cance of the honor and glory that is Christ’s as Son’
(Hebrews, p.110).
1
114 You Are My Son
audience to whom he is writing (Çī ÇčÁĠË ëÊÄ¼Å ÷Ä¼ėË). With this speci-
¿cation, the author has shifted from a discussion of structures to a
discussion of households.26
Locating the readers as members of God’s household reinforces the
familial tones of the initial address in 3.1. In what could be read as a
typical address in literature of the New Testament, the author proclaims
that the readers themselves are Ò»¼ÂÎÇĖ ×ºÀÇÀ. They are the siblings
whose Àesh and blood Jesus shared and of whom he is not ashamed
(2.11, 14, 17). Moreover, they are holy (×ºÀÇÀ) ones who are being
sancti¿ed (2.11) and who share the same parentage – both human and
divine – as Jesus. As holy brothers and sisters of Jesus, they are the ones
who have been rescued from slavery to the fear of death and who are
now journeying toward the inheritance of their salvation as ÍĎÇĕ of God.
By de¿ning himself and his readers as part of God’s household, the
author locates this group of people within the inheritance of Jesus. As
God’s Son, Jesus is over all things that God builds. In line with ch. 2 and
with the citations cited by the author, Jesus’ exaltation over all things
includes God’s children, who are his holy brothers and sisters (3.1), the
audience of Hebrews themselves. The author follows his description of
Jesus’ faithfulness as a Son to his Father in becoming human and dying
with a picture of Jesus reigning over God’s family. Jesus is faithful as an
apostle, as a high priest, and as the steward over his inheritance, includ-
ing the children of God. Hence, the themes of ch. 2 appear again. God
has granted to the audience of Hebrews the honor of being his children
and the assurance of being Jesus’ inheritance.
C. The Character of the Father and the Son

By directing the congregation’s attention to Jesus, the author presents
vital facts about the character of God and of Jesus. The author highlights
Jesus’ faithfulness as a Son, both in his apostleship and in his priesthood.
He also reaf¿rms the message of Hebrews 1 by showing that God gives
all that he has built – all things including the readers – to his Son. God
does so, however, after Jesus has shown himself faithful to God in the
roles of apostle and high priest. God the Father calls Jesus to become
human and to die before he places him over all things, and Jesus exe-
cutes these roles with exemplary faithfulness.
This paragraph also provides the audience with another glimpse of
God’s fatherly character, particularly the involved role he plays in
26 Both meanings are widely attested for ÇčÁÇË: as a house (e.g., Lk. 11.17; Acts
16.34; 1 Cor. 11.34; Rom. 16.5; Josephus, Ant. 4.74), and as a household (Gen.
42.12; Lk. 10.5; 1 Cor. 1.16; 1 Tim. 3.4, 12; Hermas, Vis. 1.1.9; Sim. 7.2).
1
making the readers his children. The earlier assertions that every ÇčÁÇË is
built by someone and that God is the builder of all things highlight that
because the readers are in fact the ÇčÁÇË of God, then it can be none other
than God himself who constructed them to be his household. The author
is not discussing building materials but people, not God only as a builder
of the framework but also as the One who gathers the members of a
household, a Father.
Hebrews 3.1-6 reinforces the themes of the preceding chapters. Jesus
takes on humanity and dies in response to the appointment of his Father.
Because he does so, God places him as heir of all things. For humanity,
God’s relationship with his Son means that they too can be children of
God and can look forward to dwelling in God’s house because they are
included in the inheritance of Jesus. By articulating that Jesus is faithful
as a high priest, the author also points forward in this section to the rest
of the letter where all these themes come to particular expression in the
priesthood of Jesus.
II. The Call of the Father
Following the ¿rst extended exhortation (3.7–4.13), the author of

Hebrews returns in earnest to a discussion of Jesus’ priesthood. It is
clear, ¿rst of all, that God the Father appoints Jesus to the priesthood.
His citation of Ps. 109.4 LXX, his prefacing of that citation with Ps. 2.7
LXX, and his appeal to honor and glory demonstrate the paternal instiga-
tion of Jesus’ appointment.
A. Honor and Glory

Hebrews 5.5 picks up where Heb. 3.6 left off, continuing to emphasize
Jesus’ status as God’s Son. It cannot be forgotten, however, that between
these verses intervenes an entire section of Hebrews – almost two
chapters – in which there is no explicit mention of either the sonship of
Jesus or of the Fatherhood of God. Because of this arrangement, it is not
obvious that the ¿rst part of the sermon and its familial subject matter set
the theme for the ¿fth chapter of Hebrews as well.
Nevertheless, the author signals his return to the same subject by
making linguistic connections to the opening section of Hebrews. Before
God’s speech of the psalm texts, the author states that Christ did not take
this honor (ÌÀÄû) for himself (Heb. 5.4) and that he did not glorify
(»ÇÆÚ½Ñ) himself (Heb. 5.5). The previous time these two terms appear
together is in 3.3, where Jesus’ status as Son over the house of God gives
him more glory (»ĠÆ¸) than Moses, just as the builder of the house has
1
116 You Are My Son
more honor (ÌÀÄû) than the structure itself. God, as the builder of all
things (3.4), has great honor. Because the author depicts God building a
household, his honor is associated with his role as the Father of that
očÁoË. Similarly, the glory that Jesus receives is that of a Son over a
servant (3.6). These connections show that the author associates glory
and honor with God’s honor as a Father and Jesus’ glory as a Son. This
association is also present in 2.7-9, the other occurrence in the letter of
both terms (»ĠÆ¸ and ÌÀÄû) together. God’s crowning of Jesus with glory
and honor is directly linked to his appointment as heir of all things
(2.8).27 When the author asserts that Jesus did not honor or glorify
himself, it follows that it was God who did so, the author having already
established that honor and glory are qualities present within God’s
familial relationship with Jesus.28
B. The Royal Appointment: Psalm 109.4 LXX

Psalm 109 LXX emphasizes the ¿lial status of its addressee in two ways.
First, it addresses the king. The prescript denotes that it pertains to
David, and the content of the psalm describes the powerful rule of the
addressee. Because the king of Israel was thought of as the son of God,29
27 See the argument above, pp.68–70.

28 This is an af¿rmation of David DeSilva’s work in which he asserts that honor
is a vitally important concept in Hebrews (see his overview of this theme in the letter
on in Despising Shame, pp.5–6; cf. his Perseverance in Gratitude, pp.58–69). At the
same time, I would critique the context in which DeSilva locates the author’s
discussion of honor. The author never associates God’s glory and honor with that of
a Benefactor or Patron. Instead, God’s glory and honor are that of a Father that he
imparts to his Son (see Despising Shame, pp.264–7).
29 In Israel’s scriptures, it is only the king who is singled out and explicitly
called God’s Son. Psalm 2 refers to the king as the Son and heir of God (2.7-8). The
psalms extol David as the ¿rstborn (Ps. 88.28 LXX) and the one begotten of God
(Ps. 109.3 LXX). In the historical books, God makes a promise through Nathan to
David that he will take on David’s heir as his own son (2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chr. 17.13;
22.10; 28.6).
Israel was not alone in ascribing a familial relationship to God and the king. The
Egyptian king Thutmose III recounts when Amon-Re addressed him as his son. The
same claim is made for Amen-hotep III as well (James B. Pritchard [ed.], Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1969], pp.374–5). Canaanite literature and art depict the king as
the son of El (Dahood, Psalms I, pp.11–12). Despite this correspondence, it does not
seem that Israel made a similar move in deifying the king. The literature of Israel
ascribed to the king the great honor of being God’s Son, and hence, asserted God’s
intimate involvement with the people of Israel through the representative person of
their king. Nevertheless, they did not elevate this position of honor to one in which
1
this psalm ¿ts in with the royal sonship motif. God is appointing the
king, his Son, to the priesthood. Second, in Ps. 109.3 LXX, the Lord
asserts, ‘From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you’.30 While
the mention of a womb suggests that God might be serving an assisting
role in the birth of this ruler, God’s use of a ¿rst person assertion,
ëÆ¼ºñÅÅ¾ÊÚ Ê¼, evokes God’s parental role, particularly in the context of
Hebrews 5 in which Ps. 2.7 appears (ëºĽ ÊûÄ¼ÉÇÅ º¼ºñÅÅ¾ÁÚ Ê¼). The
entirety of the psalm, and particularly its third verse, suggests that God
appoints one whom he has established as his Son to the eternal priest-
hood in the order of Melchizedek.
C. The Reiteration of the Familial Relationship: Psalm 2.7 LXX

Most importantly, before introducing Ps. 110.4, the author has God
articulate another citation that he has already presented as the speech of
God in the ¿rst chapter. Psalm 109.1 LXX would have worked well here
for several reasons. First, the author quoted this citation in the ¿rst
chapter and placed it as the ¿nal climactic citation of the catena.31
Second, as a widely used psalm it is likely that this verse would have
provided a safe ground for agreement from his listeners.32 Finally, and
most obviously, Psalm 109 is the psalm from which the second citation
was drawn. If the hearers agreed with the author that God had com-
manded Christ to sit at his right hand, it would not have been a dif¿cult
jump to agree that God also called Christ to be a priest because this call
was preserved in the same psalm in the same conversation with the same
ÁįÉÀÇË.33
This, however, is not the move the author makes. Instead, he chooses
to preface God’s appointment of Jesus to the priesthood with a quotation
the King was equated with God. The king did not become another Deity equal to the
Lord God (Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [Biblical
Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p.113; Sigmund Mowinckel, The
Psalms in Israel’s Worship [BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], p.58).
30 This reading is unique to the LXX. The MT seems to highlight the youth of the
addressee, although the precise meaning of the Hebrew is quite dif¿cult to ascertain
(William P. Brown, ‘A Royal Performance: Critical Notes on Psalm 110:3ag-b’, JBL
117 [1998], pp.93–6).
31 Johnson, Hebrews, p.81; Lane, Hebrews, p.1:32; O’Brien, Hebrews, p.65.
32 Koester argues, ‘[o]nce the “lord” from Ps 110:1 is identi¿ed with Christ – as
was common in early Christianity – it is but a small step to identify Christ as the
priest like Melchizedek mentioned in Ps 110:4’ (Hebrews, p.109).
33 Similarly Koester states, ‘He could have observed that if Ps 110:1 refers to
the exalted Jesus, then Ps 110:4 also applies to him: You are a priest forever accord-
ing to the type of Melchizedek’ (Hebrews, p.298).
1
118 You Are My Son
from Ps. 2.7. The appeal to this particular psalm is understandable

because Psalm 2 shares important similarities with Psalm 109. Primarily,
the author has already established in the ¿rst chapter that they both
pertain to Jesus. In the author’s presentation, Jesus is the ‘you’ addressed
by the psalm. Moreover, these are both royal psalms describing God’s
chosen ruler of his people. Finally, both Psalm 2 and Psalm 109 are
psalms in which God speaks directly to the king. Moreover, God speaks
to him as his Son.34 Psalm 2 and Psalm 109, in both their original con-
texts and in their presentation in Hebrews, record words between God
and his Son, the King. In these ways, Psalm 2 is a ¿tting preface to
Psalm 109.
By quoting from Psalm 2 rather than from an earlier verse of Psalm
109, the author makes his starting point a verse in which God explicitly
and clearly establishes the paternal/¿lial relationship between himself
and Jesus. Thus, God who speaks Ps. 109.4 has just articulated his status
as a Father. Prefacing Psalm 109 with the possibly unexpected choice of
Psalm 2 highlights the Father/Son relational context for the priestly call
of Jesus.35 God’s speech to Jesus in Heb. 5.6 continues to be what God’s
conversation with Jesus has been in Hebrews up to this point – the
speech of a Father to his Son.
III. The Word of the Oath Appoints a Son: Hebrews 7.1-10, 28
Having established that Jesus’ call comes from God the Father in ch. 5,
the author adds the complement that it is Jesus the Son who serves as
priest in the next section of the letter. He does so by repeating the oaths
God speaks to Jesus (5.6, 10; 6.20; 7.11, 17, 21), a member of the tribe of
Judah, the tribe from which David’s heir would come (7.14), highlight-
ing genealogy in his presentation of the story of Melchizedek (7.1-10),
and concluding this section with the assertion that God appoints a Son as
high priest (7.28).
A. The Oath
As noted above, Jesus becomes high priest because God said so. God
spoke to him, saying, ‘You are priest forever according to the order of
Melchizedek’ (Ps. 109.4 LXX; Heb. 5.6). As the author emphasizes the
34 Of the other royal psalms, only Psalm 131 and Ps. 89.5 share this feature.
35 Note the comment of Attridge: ‘Ps 2:7 appears again at Heb. 5.5, linking the
theme of Christ’s sonship to the claim that he is a priest. However Hebrews under-
stands the claim, it insists on the fundamental importance of Christ’s sonship’
(‘Psalms in Hebrews’, p.200).
1
differences between Jesus’ priesthood and the priesthood of Aaron’s

order, he presents God’s oath to Jesus twice more (7.17, 21), noting that
the Aaronic priests can appeal to no such divine oath (7.20b). The oath
spoken by God provides one of the foundational planks upon which the
author builds his argument for Jesus’ priesthood. In the midst of this
presentation of God’s word, the author of Hebrews emphasizes the
importance of oaths through a brief excursus on oaths in 6.13-18 in
which he aims to demonstrate the faithfulness of God. When God made a
promise to Abraham, he swore according o himself because there is
nothing greater upon which he could have sworn. It is no surprise, then,
that Abraham obtained the promises (6.15) because God had promised
and sworn, both acts founded upon and demonstrating his trustworthy
character. Therefore: just as Abraham saw the promises of God ful¿lled,
so too will Jesus.
When the author invokes this oath multiple times does he also call
forth its background as a psalm spoken to the descendant of David?36 His
consistent appeal to the ¿rst verse of the psalm,37 a verse other early
believers frequently interpreted as applying to Jesus, the Messiah, the
Son of David,38 makes his knowledge of the psalm’s background more
likely. Moreover, because he acknowledges his awareness (and his
audience’s as well) that Jesus arose from the tribe of Judah (7.14) – in
other words, David’s tribe (1 Chronicles 2) – in between the ¿rst and
second appearance of the oath, his knowledge of the genealogy of the
36 Evangelia C. Dafni concludes, ‘[i]t is obvious that the LXX understands the
psalm in a messianic sense’ (‘Psalm 109[110],1–3 in the Septuagint: Its Translation-
Critical, Tradition-Historical, and Theological Setting’, in Psalms and Hebrews:
Studies in Reception [Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn, eds; LHBOTS, 527; New
York: T&T Clark, 2010], pp.241–59 [248]). Don Juel, summarizing the ¿ndings of
Hay, concludes, ‘…in the ¿rst century the verses in question could be read as part
of the constellation of biblical passages referring to the one coming from the line
of David. Extant Jewish tradition permits us to say at least that much. The “Son of
David” passage in the Synoptics presumes that the scribes understood the psalm
verse as a reference to the Messiah’ (‘Christ at the Right Hand: The Use of Psalm
110 in the New Testament’, in Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of
the Old Testament in Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988], pp.135–50
[141]).
37 The author quotes from Ps. 110.1 in Heb. 1.13 and alludes to it in Heb. 1.3;
8.1; 10.12; 12.2.
38 Quotations of Psalm 110 appear in the Gospels (Mt. 22.44; Mk 15.9; Lk.
20.42), Acts 2.34, and 1 Cor. 15.25. Allusions to it appear in other letters as well
(Rom. 8.34; Eph. 1.20; Col. 3.1). For an analysis of this text by early believers in
Jesus, see David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity
(SBLMS, 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), and Juel, ‘Christ at the Right Hand’.
1
120 You Are My Son
psalm’s addressee increases the likelihood that he was aware of the

messianic connotations of this verse. Jesus is quali¿ed for this priesthood
because God says so in an oath that was interpreted as spoken to a son of
David, which Jesus is as a member of the tribe of Judah. Hence, Jesus’
sonship, particularly his status as a son of Judah, makes him a ¿tting
addressee of Psalm 110.
B. Melchizedek
At the beginning of ch. 7, the author turns his attention to the only other
mention of Melchizedek in Israel’s scriptures, found in Gen. 14.17-20.
Through the retelling of this story, the author establishes, among other
things, that Melchizedek the priest stands outside the priestly line of
Levi.
The author’s discussion of Melchizedek highlights the genealogical
differences between Melchizedek on the one hand and the Levitical
priests on the other. He designates Abraham as the patriarch and the
priests as the sons of Levi (7.4). They have come out of the loins of
Abraham and therefore those from whom they extract a tithe are their
brothers (7.5). Abraham is the one who has the promise (7.6), which in
6.13 is a promise related to his status as a father, the promise that he will
be blessed and multiplied. It can be said that Levi pays a tithe to
Melchizedek because he was in the loins of his father (7.10). Conversely,
Melchizedek is the one who does not share the same genealogy as that of
the priests (7.6). In fact, there is no mention of the ancestry of this King
of Righteousness and King of Peace, leading the author to conclude that
Melchizedek has no mother, no father, and no genealogy (Heb. 7.3).
In the author’s reading of Genesis 14, ancestry contributes to the
greatness of Melchizedek over the Levitical priests. The Levites have
the great honor of claiming Abraham the patriarch – the one to whom
God made his enduring promise – as their father. This great honor is a
detriment, however, in their ‘meeting’ with Melchizedek. As the sons of
Abraham, residing in the loins of their father, they play the same role that
he does in the story, namely, the position of the inferior one. The
Levitical priests take the place of inferiority – as evidenced by their act
of paying the tithe and by being blessed – because they, as descendants,
participate in the actions of their father Abraham.
The fact that Melchizedek blessed Abraham while Abraham gave
Melchizedek a tithe (Heb. 7.2, 6) demonstrates that Melchizedek is
superior to Abraham (7.7). And since Levi is a participant in that bless-
ing (as Abraham’s progeny; cf. 6.13), he is likewise a participant in his
father’s giving of a tithe (7.9–10).
1
For the author of Hebrews, the story in Genesis 14 of Melchizedek’s

act of blessing and reception of the tithe displays his greatness (È¾ÂĕÁÇË,
7.4). If these acts are the evidence of his superiority, what is the cause?
In other words, what factor distinguishes him from and elevates him
above the other priests? The author foreshadows his following argument
(7.23-25) by asserting twice that Melchizedek lives eternally and the
other priests do not. He has no end of life, allowing him to abide forever
as priest (7.3); in contrast with the priests who die, he lives (7.8). Mof¿tt
concludes, ‘Melchizedek – being without father, without mother, that
is, without a genealogy and without beginning or end of days – is not
a priest because of his lineage (he has none, cf. 7.6), but because he
“remains” (ÄñÅ¼À, 7.3) or “lives” (½ĉ, 7.8)’.39
While I agree that it is life that distinguishes Melchizedek from priests
who die, I counter that Melchizedek is this kind of abiding priest because
of his lack of human lineage. In other words, the author of Hebrews
associates Melchizedek’s abiding nature with his familial status. His
extension into eternity future corresponds to his extension into eternity
past. He has no human ancestry because he lacks father, mother, and,
consequently, any genealogical record, and he has no human ancestry,
and no end of life, because he is similar to the Son of God. By using this
¿lial title and by attending to genealogical issues throughout this section,
the author suggests in this passage that the greatness of Melchizedek,
evident in the story in Genesis, arises from his likeness to the Son of
God. In other words, he is immortally great because his lack of human
ancestry shows him to be similar to the one who has a divine ancestry.
Lest I attribute too much greatness to Melchizedek – I do not think the
author of Hebrews imagines the priest from Genesis as another Son of
God alongside Jesus – let me assert that he plays primarily a literary
role.40 The author notices that he stands outside the Levitical line, and in

40 Gareth Cockerill describes Melchizedek’s function for the author of
Hebrews: ‘He abruptly appears in the narrative unannounced by genealogy or family
connection. He dispenses and recon¿rms God’s blessing on Abraham, receives
Abrahams’ homage, and then, just as abruptly, disappears from the text… Thus the
pastor is able to discern in the unique role played by this character a foreshadowing
of the eternal being of the Son. The pastor’s commitment to a literal encounter
between Abraham and Melchizedek and his concomitant assumption of Melchize-
dek’s humanity frees him to use Melchizedek without fear that Melchizedek might
become the Son’s rival. Thus we have a Melchizedek adequate to foreshadow but
unable to compete with the Son’ (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012], p.306).
1
122 You Are My Son
this outside place, he is the greater one. What is true of Melchizedek –

that he is superior to the Levitical priests – is also true of Jesus because
Jesus is a priest in his order. When the author maps this exchange in
Genesis onto the characters with whom he is most concerned – Jesus and
other priests – Jesus stands in the place of Melchizedek as the Levitical
priests stand in the place of Abraham. As the Son of God, Jesus also
stands also outside the Levitical ancestry just as Melchizedek does. His
status as Son of God, outside the Levitical line, puts him in the superior
position, just like Melchizedek.
In this liminal place outside the boundaries of genealogy, particularly
the correct genealogy, Jesus cannot be a priest according to the law
(7.11, 12, 16), in other words, according to the words of Moses (7.14).
Hence, this is certainly a dif¿culty for Jesus’ priesthood. The author
acknowledges that Jesus could not serve on earth (8.4). If the audience of
Hebrews, like the Qumran community41 or the authors of the Testament
of Judah,42 did not believe that a king should also be a priest, they would
also have had a hard time accepting that Jesus, outside the Levitical line,
outside the prescription of the law, could be a priest.
While the author acknowledges this in 7.13-14, the fact of Jesus’
lineage functions for him not only as a dif¿culty to overcome, but also as
a blessing to celebrate. Being outside the line of Aaron excludes Jesus
from the Levitical priesthood (7.16). The way in which the author
contrasts this priesthood with that of Melchizedek reveals which order he
thinks more valuable. As opposed to a system built on descent,43 the
order of Melchizedek arises from indestructible life. Moreover, the
Levitical priesthood performs functions that, while instructive, have
proven to be weak and ineffective (7.18, 19). This system has become
Ò¿ñÌ¾ÊÀË (7.18).44 Jesus’ lineage as the Son of God places him outside the
41 1QS 9.11. James H. Charlesworth et al. (eds), Rule of the Community and
Related Documents (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Texts with English Translations; PTSDSSP, 1; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), p.40.
42 T. Jud. 21.1-5. See Mof¿tt’s description of these texts in ‘Jesus the High
Priest’, p.198.
43 The adjective Ê¸ÉÁĕÅ¾Ë also carries the negative connotation of being external,
impermanent, and corruptible. Harold Attridge cites evidence from Paul (Rom. 7.14;
1 Cor. 3.1; 2 Cor. 3.3), Ps. Democritus (C,7 [FVS II.228.25]), Sib. Or. (frg. 1.1), and
Philo (Sacr. 63) for these connotations of the term (Hebrews, p.202).
44 Mof¿tt argues that the nulli¿cation of the law means that it does not apply to
Jesus because he is in heaven (‘Jesus the High Priest’, p.229). Other interpreters
understand this phrase to indicate that the law has been abrogated presently on earth
(Attridge, Hebrews, p.203). In either case, it seems that Jesus’ lineage outside the
line of Levi keeps him outside of a system that is not the ultimate reality, whether or
not it continues to function on earth.
1
Levitical line, alongside Melchizedek. God’s placement of Jesus in the

order of Melchizedek, whose descent comes from God rather than Levi,
disquali¿es him from a priesthood that served God’s people for a time,
but that ultimately proved insuf¿cient to bring internal and permanent
cleansing. This placement outside the Levitical line like Melchizedek
makes him inadequate for an inadequate priesthood, and as the author of
Hebrews sees the salvi¿c plan of God developing, that cannot be a bad
thing.
C. The Oath Appoints a Son

The ¿nal contrast between Jesus and other priests in 7.28 provides the
strongest support for the argument that Jesus’ sonship supports rather
than complicates his standing as priest in the order of Melchizedek. In
the concluding verse of ch. 7, the author presents a comparison between
Jesus and the other high priests delineated in the chart below:
Levitical Priests Jesus
Law word of the oath that comes after the law
appoints as high priests [appoints as the high priest]
Men Son
who have weakness who has been perfected
Whereas the law appoints to the priesthood men, the word of the oath
that came after the law (i.e., spoken not to Moses but to David’s heir)
appoints a Son. The other priests are, of course, sons, namely sons of
Abraham and Levi as the author has just belabored. Similarly, this Son is
also an ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË, as the author has boldly proclaimed in chs. 2 and 4. To
state the contrast in this way – a Son vs. men – highlights that Jesus is a
Son in a way the other high priests are not.
In Hebrews, as stated, Jesus’ status as Son is a complicated one. As I
have argued, his identity as Son of God puts him outside the line of Levi
in a way foreshadowed by the character of Melchizedek in the story of
Genesis 14. At the same time, Jesus is also a son of Judah, putting him
inside the lineage of the addressee of the oath of Ps. 109.4. These two
sonships create a logical problem. Is he inside the line of Abraham or
not? The author, in my opinion, plays upon Jesus’ dual sonship as Son of
God and son of man – so fully developed and articulated in the ¿rst two
chapters – in his reference to Jesus as the Son whom the oath appoints
in 7.28.
The word of the oath appoints a son who has been perfected forever
(7.28). In other words, in order for Jesus to be the rightful recipient of
this oath, he had to remain forever and he had to be a son. Mof¿tt’s
1
124 You Are My Son
arguments for the necessity of Jesus’ resurrected life for his priesthood
provide an instructive and helpful parallel. In order to be high priest in
the order of Melchizedek, in order for the word of the oath to apply
to him, he argues, Jesus must possess eternal, abiding, forever life.45
Similarly, in order for him to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek,
in order for the oath to apply to him, he must be a son – a son of Judah to
whom the oath is spoken and a Son of God who stands outside the
Levitical line. Jesus stands outside the Levitical order and inside the
Melchizedekian one because he is God’s son, whom God made to be a
son of man. He could not be this ¿nal high priest were he not this Son.
IV. The Experience of the Son
Although the author of Hebrews views Jesus’ ¿lial identity as integral to

his priesthood, he does not present his priesthood as a vocation
automatically entailed in his identity as Son. Instead, he shows how Jesus
is quali¿ed to become the ¿nal high priest because he experiences all his
¿lial role entails. Jesus meets some of the basic requirements for the
priesthood, namely being taken from among men and having something
to offer to God (5.1), because God the Father trains him unto perfection.
By calling him to experience the human condition, including its suffering
even to the point of death, God ensures that Jesus is quali¿ed to become
high priest. He also meets the requirements for his eternal priesthood
because he has been perfected by his Father, and thereby performs his
priestly ministry in the presence of God forever. Because Jesus is God’s
Son and experiences both the suffering and the exaltation that is entailed
in this relationship, he becomes quali¿ed to be the high priest that he is.
A. Suffering
Brief references to the Son’s suffering and priesthood in chs. 2 and 4 lay
the groundwork for one of the most dramatic portrayals of Christ’s
humanity in ch. 5,46 where the author of Hebrews asserts again that Jesus’
humanity and death – willed by God his Father – work toward his
installment as high priest. As mentioned, the close of ch. 2 portrays Jesus
participating in the human condition, including suffering and death.

46 About v. 7, Bruce L. McCormack states, ‘we come now to one of the most
vivid portrayals of the real humanness of Jesus to be found in the NT’ (‘“With Loud
Cries and Tears”: The Humanity of the Son in the Epistle to the Hebrews’, in
Bauckham, Driver, and Hart [eds], Hebrews, pp.37–68 [64]).
1
Similarly, right after the declaration of Jesus’ priestly role (2.17), the
author asserts that he suffered in the midst of temptation. In other words,
in that which he suffered, he was being tested.47 Because of the con-
nection between suffering and testing in 2.18, and because it is God who
submits his Son to suffering (2.10), it is best to view God as the agent of
È¼ÀÉ¸Ê¿¼ĕË as well.48 God tests Jesus’ obedience in regard to death, as he
does with Abraham in 11.17, by presenting him with the opportunity to
experience death. Consequently, because he was tested by God his Father
and obeyed by experiencing the fullness of humanity in death, he is the
great high priest that he is.
A similar theme appears when the author returns to his discussion of
the priesthood at the end of ch. 4. The second statement about their great
high priest is that he has been tested in every way (È¼È¼ÀÉ¸ÊÄñÅÇÅ »ò
Á¸ÌÛ ÈÚÅÌ¸, 4.15). This portrayal of Jesus the high priest evokes his
participation in every aspect of humanity (2.17), including the testing
experienced in suffering (2.18). Because his testing is related to what he
suffered (2.18), and his suffering culminates in his human experience of
death (2.9), the range of his testing encompasses the audience’s tempta-
tions and extends even farther. The difference between his testing and
theirs is that he has faced the test of death.49 His true sympathy for them
arises from his total human journey.50 The great high priest to whom the
author and his audience appeal is able to sympathize (ÊÍÄÈ¸¿ñÑ) with
their weaknesses, not because he himself is weak, but because he is
strong. He was tested in the full range of human experience, including
death, yet he did not succumb to sin. In other words, his experience of
human nature – taking on Àesh and blood and dying – allowed him to
become the merciful high priest.
47 So also Attridge, ‘[Hebrews] refers to the fact that Christ in his suffering was
tested’ (Hebrews, p.96).
48 Koester, Hebrews, p.242.
49 According to the author, his audience has not yet faced this particular test
(1.4).
50 The other priests, on the other hand, moderate (Ä¼ÌÉÀÇÈ¸¿ñÑ) toward those
who are ignorant and deceived. In literature contemporary with Hebrews (Attridge
lists Philo, Leg. all. 3.129, 132-34; Spec. leg. 3.96; Plutarch, Frat. amor. 18 (489C);
Coh. ir. 10 (458C); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.61; Ep. Arist. 256;
Josephus, Ant. 12.3.2 §128, [Hebrews, p.143]), Ä¼ÌÉÀÇÈ¸¿ñÑ is typically used as
an indication of moderating the emotion of anger. The comparison indicates a
difference of degree between human priests and Christ in their compassion. Christ
does not just moderate his feeling toward those who are ignorant – he actively
sympathizes with them (so also Attridge, Hebrews, pp.143–4).
1
126 You Are My Son
Verse 7 locates the actions of Christ and God that follow in ‘the
days of his Àesh’.51 This phrase refers to the time when Jesus participated
with humanity in Àesh and blood (2.14). In this state of humility, Jesus
offers up prayers and supplications to God, the One who has the power
to save him from death (ÈÉġË ÌġÅ »ÍÅÛÄ¼ÅÇÅ Êň½¼ÀÅ ¸ĤÌġÅ ëÁ ¿¸ÅÚÌÇÍ).
Jesus’ attitude is very similar to that which he displayed in ch. 2: he
places his trust in God (as made evident by continuing to direct his
requests to God). Nevertheless, a striking difference exists between
Jesus’ attitude here and in ch. 2. There, he was singing praises to God
and proclaiming his trust (2.12-13). Here, he is offering up his requests
Ä¼ÌÛ Á¸ÉÍºýË ĊÊÏÍÉÜË Á¸Ė »¸ÁÉįÑÅ.52 While contemporary readers may
interpret this as vulnerability or even weakness, for Jewish readers of the
¿rst century the picture of Jesus in v. 7 is of a person praying boldly and
sincerely.53
God honored this honest attitude of trust: Jesus was heard because of
his reverence.54 As those who know the message of salvation (2.3-4), the
51 This is widely accepted. For example, Johnson, Hebrews, p.145; Lane,

Hebrews, p.1:109, Mof¿tt, Atonement and Resurrection, pp.190–1.
52 In his discussion of Esau, the author includes the note about his tears (Ä¼ÌÛ
»¸ÁÉįÑÅ) to indicate the seriousness with which he sought a place for repentance
(12.17). These two terms (ÁÉ¸Íºû and »ÚÁÉÍ) express the intensity of the priest’s
dismay upon Ptolemy’s insistence to enter the inner sanctum of the temple (3 Macc.
1.16).
53 Attridge calls attention to this phrase as evidence of piety in Jewish sources.
He cites Pss. 21.24; 114.8; 1 Esdr. 5.62; 2 Macc. 11.6; 3 Macc. 5.7, 25; 1QH 5.12;
Philo, Det. pot. ins. 92; Leg. all. 3.213; Quaest. in Gen. 4.233; Rer. div. her. 19
(Hebrews, pp.150–1 nn.171, 172). In 3 Macc. 5.7, Jewish prisoners direct their tear-
ful cries toward God their father.
54 So also Patrick Gray concludes, ‘¼ĤÂÚ¹¼À¸ conveys the idea of healthy
caution together with that of reverent attentiveness to the divine will’ (Godly Fear,
p.205). An alternative is to interpret this phrase, ¼ĊÊ¸ÁÇÍÊ¿¼ĖË ÒÈġ ÌýË ¼ĤÂ¸¹¼ĕ¸Ë, ‘he
was heard (and therefore delivered) from his fear (of death)’ as implying that Jesus
died without the concomitant fear of death (supported by Buchanan, Hebrews, p.98;
Monte¿ore, Hebrews, pp.98–9; Windisch, Hebräer, p.43). The other uses of ¼ĤÂ¸-
¹¼ĕ¸ in Hebrews (11.7; 12.28), however, indicate that when the author uses the word,
he does so in reference not to fear in general, but to a fear of God, or reverence. This
de¿nition ¿ts well in this context as a description of the reverence Jesus showed
in his prayers toward God. Jesus’ capacity to serve as a sympathetic high priest
(4.15) would be severely limited were his experience of death free of any fear.
Consequently, he is heard and delivered not, of course, from his reverence of God,
but because of it, another possible translation of ÒÈĠ (as in, for example, Mk 2.4; Lk.
19.3; Acts 22.11). The interpretation that Jesus was heard because of his reverence
¿nds support in Attridge (Hebrews, p.152), Braun (An die Hebräer, p.152),
Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.291), Johnson, (Hebrews, p.146), Koester, (Hebrews,
1
audience is aware that God did certainly rescue him from death (13.20).
At the same time, they are also aware that God did not rescue him before
death. The author has set up a classical question of theodicy. If God is
powerful and good, will he not prevent death from happening, especially
to his Son?55 Verse 8 is the author’s way of redirecting this expectation.
Verse 8 begins with Á¸ĕÈ¼É ĵÅ ÍĎĠË: ‘even though he was a son’, and
continues, ‘he learned obedience from what he suffered’. The author’s
use of ÍĎĠË here must be interpreted in light of the ÍĎĠË of 5.5. Jesus is not
just a son, but is God’s own Son. Only in this way does the exceptional
tone of the ¿rst phrase of v. 8 make sense. Even though Jesus was God’s
own Son who reÀected God’s glory, was the imprint of God’s being,
participated with God in creation, and would reign with God forever –
even though this was all true – through what he suffered he learned what
it meant to obey his Father.56
Jesus’ experiences of humanity and death culminate in him being
perfected (Ì¼Â¼ÀÑ¿¼ĖË). In line with the passive surveyed in previous
sections, the passive employed here suggests that God is the one who
perfected Jesus. Because Jesus obeyed the one to whom he was praying,
he was perfected by him. Moreover, since he experienced these things as
God’s Son, the implication is that God as his Father used suffering and
death to perfect him.
Parallel to the assertion of Jesus’ perfection is a declaration of his
priesthood. Having learned ¿lial obedience through what he suffered, he
was appointed high priest by God according to the order of Melchizedek
(ÈÉÇÊ¸ºÇÉ¼Í¿¼ĖË ĨÈĠ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼İË Á¸ÌÛ ÌüÅ ÌÚÆÀÅ ¼ÂÏÀÊñ»¼Á).
Jesus’ appointment as high priest is a result of his incarnation, death, and
resurrection, in other words the process by which he becomes perfect.
Perfection, priesthood, and sonship coalesce again in Heb. 7.28 and
point to Jesus’ experiences as God’s Son that shaped his priesthood.
There, the author argues that the law appoints men who have weakness,
p.289), Lane (Hebrews, p.1:109), Thompson (Hebrews, p.111), and Witherington

(Letters and Homilies, p.200). Martin Luther describes the interaction in this way,
‘[i]t is yet natural and in keeping with a father’s love that in spite of our sin he would
listen to his Son [pleading] on our behalf. Consequently, set off against our own sin,
which would otherwise cause God to deny us everything, is the love which he could
not deny his own son’ (‘Lectures’, p.114).
55 This is an ancient concern. Thomas Aquinas states, ‘[o]n the contrary, it
seems that He was not heard,… for himself, since the chalice did not pass from Him,
which yet he requested’ (Hebrews, 5.1.257).
56 So stated by Attridge, ‘[t]he force of the remark is that Jesus is not an
ordinary son, who might indeed be expected to learn from suffering (12.4-11), but
the eternal Son’ (Hebrews, p.152).
1
128 You Are My Son
whereas the word of the oath appoints a Son who has been perfected.57
His ‘having been perfected’ invokes the aforementioned narrative of
Jesus’ perfection. The author’s discussion of Jesus’ perfecting in chs. 2
and 5 suggests that the suffering of Jesus was not limited to but culmi-
nated in death.
The author interrupts his discussion of the perfecting of Jesus in the
Melchizedekian priesthood (5.9; 7.28) and argues that perfection results
from training (5.11-14). Because suffering is the means through which
perfection comes, the law of the Levitical priesthood provides no avenue
toward perfection for the priest himself (cf. 7.19). On the other hand,
Jesus is perfect because he completed God’s call for him to be a priest
who offered himself. Jesus has obediently endured to the end – to death
itself – the suffering to which his God appointed him (5.8; 12.2). By
taking on this role, Jesus learned to obey God through what he suffered,
and through his ultimate act of obedience became the perfected one.
Jesus’ obedient trust that he demonstrated while being perfected by his
Father allows him to meet the requirements for priesthood.58
B. Exaltation
Jesus becomes quali¿ed for the priesthood because of the suffering he
experiences that was willed by his Father. To be the ultimate and eternal
high priest, however, he must also receive the reward that comes from
his Father: the inherited blessing of exaltation.
This particular ¿lial distinction from the other high priests appears in
the author’s ¿rst statement about their ‘great high priest’, namely, that
Jesus has passed through the heavens (4.14). This declaration recalls the
exalted place Jesus has taken as God’s Son (1.3, 13; 2.8). The Levitical
priests serve on earth (8.5; 9.6-10), but Jesus has passed through the
heavens (4.14; 7.26), gone into the inner sanctum of God’s dwelling
place (6.20), and taken his seat on the right hand of God (1.3, 13; 8.1;
10.12), serving before God’s very face (8.1; 9.24). The conclusion to ch.
7 reiterates the same idea. By referring to Jesus as the one who has been
perfected (Heb. 7.28), in addition to referring to the process that quali¿ed
him to be high priest, the author also evokes the status he holds in his
perfection, his status in God’s presence as God’s heir of all things. His
status as God’s perfected and exalted heir places the administration of his
priesthood in the very presence of God in heaven. As the perfected Son
of God, he administers his priestly duties at the throne of God. In other
57 See the chart above, p.123.

58 So also Attridge, ‘through sonship characterized by faithful endurance…
Christ attains “perfection” ’ (Hebrews, p.87).
1
words, Jesus is perfected through the process of suffering and death he

endures. He is perfected through sufferings (2.10), and then becomes the
cause of eternal salvation and the priest (5.9). He reigns as the son who
has already been perfected (7.28). It is the end result of this process.59
But what does it mean for Hebrews to say that Jesus is perfect? What
does the state of perfection entail for him? The author of Hebrews associ-
ates perfection with the state of those who are in the presence of God.
The spirits made perfect are those who dwell with God on Mount Zion
(12.23). The law could perfect nothing, and so instead, God introduced a
better hope that would allow access to God (7.19). In other words, for
Jesus to be perfect is to be allowed to sit in the presence of God.60
What God has done for Jesus, therefore, is what Jesus is doing for
those who believe in him. He is perfecting them so that they too can
draw near to God (something the law could never enable). They can be
in God’s presence (12.23) because Jesus has dealt with the two prob-
lems that separated them from God, sin and death. He has puri¿ed their
sins and conquered death, granting them sancti¿cation and life, the
qualities needed to dwell in the presence of God. If perfection is equated
with the ability to be in the presence of God, then Jesus, of course,
possessed perfection when he reigned with God even before the moment
of creation.61 Hence, it might even be non-sensical to speak of the per-
fection of God, since this should be assumed. That points to the fact that
the arrival at perfection relates to his incarnation. The difference is that
post-incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension Jesus has that same
perfection as a son of man as well. He has opened up the way and serves
as the pioneer so that others can achieve the same freedom from sin and
death, the same perfection, so that they too can dwell in the presence of
God forever. His perfection, then, is his session in the presence of God,
59 So also Mof¿tt, Atonement and Resurrection, p.196.

60 Attridge reaches a similar conclusion, ‘[a]s the christological picture of
Hebrews unfolds, this glori¿cation/perfection will be explicated in terms of Christ’s
priestly access to the transcendent realm of God’s presence’ (Hebrews, p.87). Mof¿tt
arrives at the same conclusion about perfection, saying that it is the ‘ability of the
human being to come into God’s presence… Perfection is therefore closely bound
up with the puri¿cation of the human being such that humanity and God’s presence
can dwell together’ (Atonement and Resurrection, pp.199–200).
61 I agree with Mof¿tt that Jesus could not be a priest before his death, but, in
my opinion, it does not follow that ‘before his life and death on earth Jesus was not
perfect’ (Atonement and Resurrection, p.199). Perfection is related to Jesus’ position
as priest, but is broader than that, as Mof¿tt himself later states. Hence, if perfection
is equated with access to the presence of God, this quality was possessed by Jesus
before his life and death on earth.
1
130 You Are My Son
where he serves as priest and reigns as Son awaiting the ultimate sub-
jection of his rightful inheritance, now won back from the control of
death and the Devil.62
In 4.14 ÍĎĠË, even ÍĎĠË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı, is a multidimensional title. The Son
of God is the one who became a son of man, experienced death, and
subsequently took his place as God’s heir. Jesus is perfected as priest
through the suffering and exaltation willed by his Father. That which
Jesus experiences as God’s Son (becoming human, dying, and being
made perfect as God’s heir) allows him to be the high priest who can
both sympathize with humanity and perform his priestly duties in God’s
presence forever. Because he is the Son who has become the great high
priest, he has experienced every aspect of the human condition and can
sympathize. Even more impressive, he can do so from the powerful
position of God’s right hand.
V. The Inheritance Secured by the Priest
The sovereign place that belongs to Jesus as Son where he sits as high
priest elucidates a symbiotic element of the relationship between Jesus’
¿lial and priestly identities. Jesus’ priesthood is possible because of what
he experiences as God’s Son, but it is also true that his priestly acts are
the means by which he secures his inheritance, a promised inheritance of
all things, which includes God’s many sons and daughters. His priestly
service supports the attainment of his inheritance in two ways. First, his
priestly offering makes possible his brothers’ and sisters’ inheritance,
namely eternal salvation. Second, through his priestly intercession he
aids his brothers and sisters so that they can attain their inheritance. By
establishing the possibility of salvation and leading his brothers and
sisters into their inherited place in God’s household, he secures the
human portion of his own inheritance.
A. The Eternal Inheritance

The ¿rst way in which Jesus’ priestly ministry secures his inheritance of
all things is that he establishes for God’s many children their own inheri-
tance of salvation. Early in the letter, the author portrays humanity’s
salvation in terms of inheritance.63 Men and women who look forward to
62 Peterson reaches a similar conclusion: ‘[perfecting] must have something to

do with his ascension and enthronement as the one “crowned with glory and honor”,
destined to rule over all in “the world to come”’ (Hebrews and Perfection, p.67).
63 Similarly, Grant Osborne states, ‘[the writer’s soteriology] must be under-
stood as the present possession of a future inheritance’ (‘‘Soteriology in the Epistle
1
salvation anticipate inheriting this salvation (1.14). In ch. 5, the author

connects Christ’s perfection and his priesthood with the creation of this
inheritance given to God’s many sons and daughters. Because he learns
obedience from what he suffers, he becomes perfect. In this perfect state,
he becomes the cause (¸ċÌÀÇË) of salvation for those who are obedient to
him. In other words, when Jesus is perfected, he establishes the inheri-
tance of the audience.
What is this inheritance of salvation and how does Jesus make it a
reality? First, Jesus can provide the eternal inheritance of salvation
because his priestly offering, similar to the sacri¿ces of the old cove-
nant,64 removes sin. As a high priest, God appoints him, like those before
him, to offer gifts and sacri¿ces for sin (5.1). The author employs the
language of puri¿cation (1.3), atonement (2.17), redemption (9.12),
sancti¿cation (10.10; 13.12), and perfection (10.14) to convey what
Jesus achieves with his offering.
Beyond its similarity to previous offerings, Jesus’ offering also
achieves eternal and internal cleansing. First, when he offers his singular
sacri¿ce, he secures eternal redemption (¸ĊÑÅĕ¸Å ÂįÌÉÑÊÀÅ, 9.12). In
Israel’s scriptures redemption is associated with a release from slavery
(Exod. 6.6; Deut. 7.8; 13.5; Mic. 6.4). In Hebrews, this redemption
implies redemption from the enslavement to the fear of death (2.15), and,
consequently, this serves as a variation on the recurrent theme of eternal
salvation (1.14; 2.10; 5.9; 7.25).65
It is in ch. 9 that the author discusses the second contrast in earnest.
Juxtaposed with God’s promise to forget sins forever in the New
Covenant, the ¿rst covenant (9.1) has a perpetual system to deal with sin.
The priests serve the outer tent continually, and the high priest enters the
inner tent once a year (Heb. 9.6-7). Nevertheless, even this frequent
service is ineffective. The author asserts that these gifts and sacri¿ces are
not able to perfect the consciences of the one who worships in this way.
Instead, they are acts of justi¿cation affecting only the Àesh (9.10).
to the Hebrews’, in Grace Unlimited [Clark H. Pinnock, ed.; Minneapolis: Bethany

Fellowship, 1975], pp.143–66 [155]). Craig Koester draws attention to the close
connection between Jesus’ sonship and his inheritance and the audience’s sonship
and its inheritance of salvation: ‘[b]ecause their salvation consists in being cleansed
from sin and granted entrance into the presence of God, Jesus’ provision of this
salvation brings God’s many children into God’s sovereignty and hence under his
authority as well’ (‘God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to
Hebrews’, in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology [Jan G.
Van der Watt, ed.; Boston: Brill, 2005], pp.361–87).
64 For example, Exod. 29.46; Lev. 4–5; 9–10; Num. 7.
1
65 Attridge, Hebrews, p.249 n. 65; Johnson, Hebrews, p.237.
132 You Are My Son
In great contrast to the offerings that are not able to cleanse the
conscience, the priestly service that Christ renders in which he offers his
own blood in the greater and more perfect tent affects precisely this
internal puri¿cation (9.14). The author consequently draws a close con-
nection between Jesus’ priestly offering and the New Covenant. Because
Jesus puri¿es the conscience, he brings about the covenant of which
Jeremiah spoke. Now, in addition to God forgetting sins, God can also
inscribe his laws on the inner parts of his people (10.16-17).
The author portrays this thorough removal of sin as an inheritance.
Hebrews 9.15-17, in discussing the effectiveness of a covenant/testa-
ment66 makes a vital contribution to this theme. God’s will to grant the
inheritance of eternal salvation was not available until a death occurred
(9.15). In other words, while the testator lives, the covenant is not in
force (ĊÊÏį¼À). The death that made this salvation possible is the death of
Jesus because it resulted in the redemption of the transgressions com-
mitted under the ¿rst covenant. Just as his death released humanity from
the power of the devil (2.14), so also it released humanity from the chains
of transgression. When he has dealt with sin, those called by God are
able to receive the promise of their eternal inheritance (ÌüÅ ëÈ¸ºº¼Âĕ¸Å
ÌýË ¸ĊÑÅĕÇÍ ÁÂ¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸Ë, 9.15), or in the words of 5.8, to receive their
eternal salvation. The author has now made clear that the inheritance to
which they look forward is a salvation from both death and sin.
Salvation in Hebrews, however, is not only a negative concept, a
salvation ‘from’, but also a salvation ‘for’. At the close of ch. 9, the
author says that Christ was offered once to remove the sins of many.
Having done so, he will appear a second time to bring salvation to those
who are eagerly awaiting him (9.28). He removed sin; therefore, he can
now bring salvation. Hence, those who will inherit salvation are both
delivered from the consequences of death and sin and anticipate partici-
pation in the presence of God.
As the author shows how Jesus’ priesthood is different from that
prescribed by the law, the author emphasizes that he brings a better hope
that allows nearness to God (7.19). It is Jesus, as the abiding priest who
never dies, who is able to save unto the utmost67 those who approach God
66 Attridge highlights this shift in meaning and the reason for it: ‘[t]he notion of
the inheritance secured by Christ’s death leads to a general principle about what a
»À¸¿ûÁ¾ requires’ (Hebrews, p.255).
67 The phrase ¼ĊË Ìġ È¸ÅÌ¼ÂñË can indicate both qualitative and quantitative
completeness. Both meanings capture what the author portrays about salvation
through Jesus (Attridge, Hebrews, p.210; Koester, Hebrews, p.365; O’Brien,
Hebrews, p.274).
1
through him (7.25). His blood and Àesh allow entrance to the holy place
inside the veil (10.19). What provides the hope is God’s oath issued to
the inheritors of the promises (6.17). To be with God is their inheritance
of salvation.
By establishing his brothers’ and sisters’ eternal salvation in God’s
presence, Jesus opens the door for the ¿nal consummation of his own
inheritance.68 The author describes the destination toward which the
people of God are moving as glory (2.10), God’s house (3.6), and Mount
Zion where God dwells (12.22-24) – all of which connect their salvation
with entrance into the presence of God. The author also shows that in
these places Jesus reigns over those who dwell there:69 he is the leader
of those who are being led into glory (2.10), he is set over the house of
God (3.6), and he is the mediator who allows entrance to the mountain
(12.24). Because their salvation consists in being cleansed from sin and
obtaining entrance into the presence of God, Jesus’ provision of this
salvation brings God’s many children into God’s sovereignty and hence
under his authority as well. This brief sketch of Hebrews’ soteriology
shows that when humanity comes into its inheritance of salvation, Jesus
takes possession of his own inheritance.
B. Intercession
The audience of Hebrews, however, has not yet attained their inheritance
of salvation; they do not yet dwell in the presence of God. Therefore, in
order to attain his own inheritance, Jesus aids his brothers and sisters on
their journey to God through his priestly intercession. The word for
intercession occurs only once (7.25), but the theme of Jesus’ continued
priestly service on behalf of his brothers and sisters ¿gures prominently
throughout Hebrews.
This aspect of his priestly ministry ¿rst appears after the author’s
initial designation of Jesus as high priest (2.17-18). The suffering he
experienced associated with his testing allows him to give aid (¹Ç¾¿ýÊ¸À)
to his brothers and sisters who are also tested so that they will not give
68 Similarly Patrick Gray concludes, ‘Jesus plays an indispensable role in secur-

ing an inheritance for his siblings… [The audience members] owe their promised
inheritance to his of¿ces in both senses of the word, that is, his assistance as well as
his “of¿cial” capacities as brother and high priest. Apart from the mediation of their
devoted sibling, Hebrews describes no other way by which the readers will receive
the promises’ (‘Brotherly Love’, p.348).
69 Koester makes a similar observation: ‘[h]ope of entering eternal Sabbath rest
means that the readers, like the Son, will experience a life that transcends the
mortality of the present and share in the joy of life under Christ’s everlasting reign
(Heb 1:9–12)’ (‘God’s Purposes’, p.369).
1
134 You Are My Son
up in the pursuit of attaining their inheritance. Note also 4.15-16:

because Jesus has been tempted in every way, he is able to sympathize
with the weaknesses of his siblings. Jesus’ ability to sympathize propels
the author to encourage his readers to approach the throne of grace with
boldness. Because Jesus sits at God’s right hand and can understand their
struggles, they have an advocate in heaven who can provide them with
grace and help in their times of need. He can assist them so that they will
not be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (3.13) and fall short of
dwelling in God’s presence.
In ch. 6, the author encourages them to imitate those who inherited the
promises of God (6.12). God’s promises are a sure and ¿rm anchor for
their souls. Moreover, those promises are closely related to the person of
Jesus.70 He is the one who has gone inside the veil to serve as priest
(6.19-20). Therefore, the priestly service he performs there helps them
hold fast to the promises of their inheritance. In 7.25, the author relates
Jesus’ status as the eternal priest and his ability to save his followers
completely and eternally to his continual intercession. Since he lives
forever, he is always able to intercede for his brothers and sisters (7.25).
In other words, he is there to assist them until they reach their ¿nal goal:
God’s glorious presence (2.10) manifest in God’s house (3.6). Through
his intercession and aid, he helps God’s many children persevere until
they reach their inheritance of salvation.
The end of ch. 9 captures the triple impact of Jesus the Son’s priestly
work. At the time of the author and his readers, Jesus has purchased
forgiveness for sin (9.26). When Jesus enters into heaven, the true tent,
to take his place as God’s Son and heir, he appears before the very face
of God (9.24). There, his one offering removes sin (9.26). He will appear
again, and at that time his purpose will be for salvation from the con-
tinuing reality of sin and death and for entrance into the eternal dwelling
with God. That inheritance of salvation will be revealed to those who,
with his aid and intercession, eagerly await joining him in God’s house.
By establishing their inheritance of salvation and continually living to
aid them on their journey to their attaining salvation, Jesus the Son, in his
priestly role, provides the means through which he will attain his own
inheritance.
70 Attridge also concludes that ‘the word constitutes a “promise” for Christians
because of the status it accords Christ as heavenly intercessor and “forerunner”…
The analogy established between Christ and the anchor of hope is certainly inten-
tional and signi¿cant’ (Hebrews, pp.182, 184). Similarly Johnson states: ‘[t]hat his
present hearers have this encouragement “safe and sure” is certainly linked not only
to God’s speech but also to God’s action in exalting Jesus to his right hand as Lord’
(Hebrews, p.171).
1
VI. The Will of God: Hebrews 10.1-23
Hebrews 10 summarizes the points the author discusses throughout the

center section of the letter. Jesus becomes human and dies by follow-
ing the will of his Father. In so doing, he becomes quali¿ed to be the
eternal high priest where he secures forever the redemption of God’s
children. The ¿rst half of ch. 10 concludes the author’s cultic argument
by presenting the faithfulness that characterizes Jesus the Son and the
eternal salvation this faithfulness achieves for God’s many daughters and
sons.
This chapter marks a return to the assertion that the sacri¿ces
prescribed by the law are not effective (cf. 7.18-19; 8.7; 9.10, 13). In this
section, the author articulates scriptural proof for his claim that it is
impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to remove sins (Heb. 10.4).
Psalm 39 LXX asserts that God did not desire nor was he pleased by
sacri¿ces, offerings, and whole burnt offerings. The mode of the author’s
presentation of this citation is to yield this portion of his sermon, for the
second time, to the words spoken by Jesus.
The author situates this quotation when Jesus comes into the world,
strongly suggesting a reference to the incarnation.71 In contrast to God’s
disregard for sacri¿ce, God prepared a body for Jesus.72 The next phrase
presents a complementary idea, with a focus upon the work of Jesus.
Juxtaposed with God’s lack of pleasure over burnt offerings, Jesus states
that he has come to do God’s will.73 The alternating structure of the
psalm suggests that the body and God’s will are related. The ful¿llment
of God’s will is not found in the offering of sacri¿ce; God did not desire
(Ò¿¼ÂñÑ) these things. Instead, God’s will is the offering of a body. This
ÈÉÇÊÎÇÉÚ God did desire. God willed that his Son take on a body and
then offer that body. Jesus purposed to come to do God’s will with the
body God had prepared for him, and then, even more important, he acted
out his intent.74
71 Attridge, Hebrews, p.273; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.500; Grässer, Hebräer,

p.2:214–15; Koester, Hebrews, p.432; Spicq, Hébreux, p.2:304.
72 Here is another clear indication of the author’s use of the Psalms in Greek.
Psalm 40.7 in the MT reads: 'X =' ‘ears you hollowed out for me’. The
: V - ' 1 $,
author’s engagement with the Greek text allows him to reiterate Jesus’ participation
in Àesh and blood and God’s orchestration of that participation (cf. Heb. 2.17).
73 Here the author’s citation differs from the LXX with the absence of the ¿nal
verb of v. 9, ë¹ÇÍÂû¿¾Å. In so doing, the author makes ÌÇı ÈÇÀýÊ¸À the in¿nitive
complement of øÁÑ, showing Jesus’ intention to come to perform God’s will.
74 Fittingly, Gregory Nazianzen states, ‘[f]or to possess the disposition is not
enough, just as it would not be enough for us, unless we also proved it by our acts;
for action is the proof of disposition” (Or. Bas. 4.6 [NPNF2 7:311]).
1
136 You Are My Son
After he presented this singularly effective offering (Äĕ¸Å ¿ÍÊĕ¸Å), he

took his seat at God’s right hand to wait for the subjugation of his
enemies (10.12-13). Through the citation and explication of Psalm 40,
the author appeals once again to the perfecting and consequent perfection
of Jesus. This priest alone, after he completed God’s will by offering his
body – after he became human, died, and ever-living presented that
offering to God – took his place as God’s perfect heir.
Once again, Jesus’ performance of God’s will has profound implica-
tions for the author and his audience. First, through this divinely willed
offering, they are sancti¿ed (10.14). In Jesus’ act, the audience members
of Hebrews become those who are being sancti¿ed, and Jesus becomes
the sancti¿er (2.10). Because he offered up his own body, they can take
on the mantle of the holy brothers and sisters (3.1). Unlike the blood of
animals that sancti¿es only the Àesh (9.13), his body sancti¿es the entire
person. Second, the means of his perfection is the means of their
perfection as well. In his one offering, they are perfected (Ì¼Ì¼Â¼ĕÑÁ¼Å).
Previous to this point in the letter, the author speaks of perfection as only
that which has been impossible for humanity. The law of sacri¿ce
perfects nothing (7.19), including the conscience (9.9) and those who
worship under the direction of the law. Jesus’ offering surmounts this
impossibility. His one offering achieves that which humanity could not
attain in the law: perfection. Moreover, because his one offering was
for sins forever (¼ĊË Ìġ »À¾Å¼ÁñË) – unlike other priests who present sacri-
¿ces daily (v. 11) – he has achieved perfection forever (¼ĊË Ìġ »À¾Å¼ÁñË).
With this temporal indicator, the author evokes a connection with the
audience’s eternal salvation (5.9), or in other words, their eternal inheri-
tance (1.14; 9.15). When Jesus takes his place as God’s heir through the
offering of his body, he makes his siblings’ status as God’s heirs a
reality.
This awesome ef¿caciousness of Jesus’ offering provides the stepping-
off point for the author’s second citation of Jeremiah 38. In this condensed
version, the author limits the citation to the proclamation of the com-
ing of the covenant, the internal implantation of God’s laws, and the
forgiveness of sins. The author concludes, ‘and where there is forgive-
ness of these, there no longer remains an offering for sins’ (Heb. 10.18).
Because of Jesus’ offering, there is not only complete remission of past
sins (9.14) but also no need ever to offer any other sacri¿ce for future
sins as well. His one offering for sins forever negates any further need
for sacri¿ce. Eternal perfection is now a reality because of his offering.
By bringing forgiveness for all sin and by sanctifying the author and
the readers, Jesus has opened the way into God’s holy dwelling place. In
1
the author’s last attribution of the title Ď¼É¼įË to Jesus, he is the great
priest who provides access to God’s holy place by his blood and through
his Àesh. They now can boldly go inside the veil because their high priest
reigns over God’s house (10.21; cf. 3.6). Through his priestly work, they
are sancti¿ed members of this household and heirs of God. In ch. 10, the
audience hears – from Jesus himself – his intention to offer himself up.
This is an indispensable passage for describing God’s will that his Son
suffer so that he might secure the inheritance of God’s many children and
thereby secure his own inheritance of all things.
VII. Conclusion
At the beginning of his treatment of the priesthood of Jesus (4.14), the

author proclaims that Jesus, the Son of God, is high priest. He is called to
the priesthood by his Father. The preceding arguments ¿nd a fellow
witness in J. Scott Lidgett: ‘our Lord is said to have been “named of God
a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek.” His Divine calling rests
upon His unique relationship to God, and in a very real way,…upon this
unique relationship being that of Sonship.’75 Jesus is high priest by virtue
of being God’s Son. The author points to this ¿lial priority in three ways.
First, he emphasizes that the oath of God that appoints the ¿nal and
eternal high priest comes from God the Father to Jesus his Son. Hebrews
5.5-6 emphasizes the familial relationship between God and Jesus by
citing Ps. 109.4, connecting this call to the honor and glory that belong to
Jesus as God’s Son, and most emphatically, prefacing this call with Ps.
2.7.
Jesus can be priest because he is Son of God become a son of man,
outside the line of Levi and in the order of Melchizedek. Before he
assumes this post, he faces death and, in doing so obediently, he is per-
fected by his Father. God’s use of suffering to perfect Jesus as his heir is
the same process by which Jesus is able to become high priest. Because
priests represent humanity to God, in order for Jesus to be a priest he had
to be human. In addition to this basic, but important, requirement, his
participation in humanity provides him with the means for the second
requirement of priesthood: that he has something to offer to God (5.1b).
In ch. 8, the author states again that the purpose of appointing high
priests is so that they can offer gifts and sacri¿ces. Therefore, since Jesus
is a high priest, it is necessary that he also have something to offer (8.3).
At the end of ch. 7, the author speci¿es the content of that offering:
1
75 Lidgett, Sonship and Salvation, p.34.
138 You Are My Son
unlike the previous high priests who had to offer sacri¿ces for them-
selves and for others often, Jesus offered the sacri¿ce of himself once
(7.27). In Hebrews 9 and 10 also, Jesus’ priestly sacri¿ce for sins (1.3)
that he offers to God is himself (9.14, 25). This consists of offering his
own blood (9.12; 10.19; 12.24; 13.12) and his own Àesh (10.19). Jesus
accomplishes sancti¿cation by offering the body he has taken on (10.10,
14). The anomaly in his situation is that Jesus meets the requirement for
the priesthood in unexpected ways. He becomes human, and then he
offers himself as a sacri¿ce. The process by which he is perfected is the
same process by which he is quali¿ed to become a high priest. Jesus
endures this process as a faithful and obedient Son because this is the
path of suffering his Father willed for him.
Having been perfected, Jesus takes his place at the right hand of God.
There, he performs his priestly ministry in God’s presence, in the real
tabernacle not built by hands (9.11). As priest, he is higher than the
heavens and sits in this celestial position as God’s royal Son. He is able
to enact his priestly service in the very throne room of God in heaven
because this is the place where he has been invited to sit by God his
Father. He has access to God and this makes his priestly service exceed-
ingly better than that of any previous high priest.
Finally, Jesus’ priestly acts are the way in which he wins his inheri-
tance of God’s many sons and daughters. The author correlates Jesus’
priesthood and inheritance in two ways. First, his priesthood secures the
eternal inheritance of salvation for God’s many sons and daughters. The
presentation of his body to God sancti¿es them, and establishes their
salvation from sin and into God’s presence. In other words, he makes the
New Covenant, wherein their sins are forgiven and they are drawn into
the people and family of God, a reality. Second, his intercession before
the face of God aids them on their journey. In this realm, he is the only
priest who is able to intercede forever so that he can save forever all
those who are approaching God through him, thereby opening the way
for his ¿nal eternal possession of all things.
As the Son of God in the line of Melchizedek, Jesus is appointed to
the priesthood as a Son by his Father. He is the Son who has suffered in
the act of giving himself in death and thereby has become perfected. By
portraying the suffering Jesus experiences in preparation for his priest-
hood as the will of God his Father, the author displays the character of
both the Son and the Father. He continues to paint Jesus as the ultimate
example of an obedient and faithful Son. The previous chapter sought to
show the ways in which the author depicted the humble and faithful
character of Jesus in his willingness to become human and to trust God
1
even to the point of death. The author continues to refer to these actions
throughout the letter as he discusses the way in which Jesus is perfected
and is quali¿ed to serve as high priest. When he is established as high
priest, he also reigns sovereignly over those whose inheritance of salva-
tion he has established. God his Father prepared him for the priesthood
through suffering so that he might establish the inheritance of salvation
for many others and subsequently attain his own inheritance of all things.
Jesus could not be the ultimate heir were he not to secure his inheritance
in his role as high priest, and Jesus would not have been high priest were
it not for the call, suffering, and exaltation he experienced in relationship
with God his Father.
The perfecting of Jesus which results in his placement as God’s heir
and priest is also one important way the author constructs the nature of
God as Father. When the author describes these events, he portrays the
character of Jesus in response to actions of God. When the author
describes the suffering of Jesus – that he takes on a human body and dies
– God is the One who wills this process. In addition to portraying God as
a Father who grants to his Son an unparalleled inheritance, the author
shows that God the Father uses suffering to perfect even his ¿rstborn Son
so that he might be the perfect heir and high priest.
If the Father used suffering to perfect even his sinless Son, the
audience should expect no less in their interactions with God. Consider-
ing Jesus’ perfecting as the action of God his Father reveals the way in
which the author lays the groundwork for his exhortation in ch. 12 to
which I turn in the following chapter. The dynamics of God’s paternal
relationship with Jesus show the audience the kind of children they
should be in light of the Father to whom they belong.
1
Chapter 4
‘MY SON’: THE ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRSTBORN
Throughout Hebrews the nature of God’s paternal character takes shape

through the author’s depictions of the Father’s words and actions toward
his Son, Jesus. When he appoints him as his heir, God the Father guaran-
tees that his Son will possess all things. When he perfects his Son
through suffering, God the Father prepares the way for Jesus to take his
place both as God’s heir and as God’s high priest.
Threads run throughout the letter indicating that the audience is
privileged to stand in the same relationship with God. They are the many
ÍĎÇĕ whom God is leading to glory (2.10), the siblings of Jesus (2.11, 17;
3.1), and the children of God (2.13, 14). They are about to inherit
salvation (1.14), are the heirs of the promise (6.17), and look forward to
receiving their eternal inheritance (9.15). These threads come together
with greatest vibrancy in the twelfth chapter. Therefore, this chapter
analyzes how the author’s portrayal of the familial identity of God, Jesus,
and the audience throughout the letter culminates at its close to undergird
and propel his exhortations to faithfulness
I begin with a discussion of the ways in which the author’s treatment
of the New Covenant ¿ts with his proclamation that he and his listeners
are children of God. This provides an entry point for the more explicit
and extensive declarations of familial standing in the ¿nal sections of the
letter. Treatment of these explicit declarations begins with the author’s
bold proclamation in Hebrews 12 that he and his audience are the sons
and daughters of God. He makes this proclamation in two ways. First, he
cites Prov. 3.11-12 as evidence of God’s paternal discipline of them.
Second, in his analysis of the proverb that follows, he shows how his
audience’s relationship with God mirrors Jesus’ experience as God’s
Son. His portrayal of Jesus’ suffering has prepared the way for his
encouragement that, as God’s children, his audience should not be sur-
prised that they are experiencing suffering that is in fact God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸.
Moreover, his repeated reference to the seat Jesus takes at God’s right
hand encourages the audience that they too will attain their reward if they
4. ‘My Son’: The Assembly of the Firstborn 141
endure the discipline that they are presently experiencing. God declares
them to be his children and their experience of dif¿culties and hope,
resembling those of Jesus the Son, con¿rms that they all share the same
Father.
Unlike Jesus, however, they have not yet ¿nished the race. The third
section of the chapter, therefore, analyzes the admonitions and warnings
that follow the citation and interpretation of Prov. 3.11-12. The author
presents ways they can endure their ¿lial training, and delineates atti-
tudes they should avoid so as not to forfeit the race of faith they are
running (12.1-2). The warnings the author has issued throughout the
letter1 culminate in the author’s appeal to the story of Esau. Through it,
the author shows the great consequences they would face if they squan-
dered their birthright and consequently lost their promised inheritance.
Despite their intensity, these admonitions and warnings are not the
author’s ¿nal word. The fourth section of the chapter turns to the assur-
ances the author issues at the close of his sermon concerning the blessed
future awaiting his congregation. First, the author follows the warning
about Esau with a glimpse of the inheritance that awaits his readers as
ÍĎÇĕ of God. He locates his audience at the edge of the mountain of God
at the top of which the ÈÉÑÌÇÌĠÁÇÀ are celebrating. In light of that which
lies ahead, the author exhorts them not to resist God who is speaking. By
adhering to the one who speaks to them in his Son (ëÅ ÍĎŊ, 1.2), they will
continue to have before them the model of their own ¿lial relationship
with God and the reward that comes to those who abide in it.
His next assurance is even grander. By keeping their eyes focused and
their ears attuned to the familial relationship between God and Jesus,
they will also have before them the reality of Jesus’ status as the reigning
heir of all things.2 They have nothing to fear because in addition to the
fact that God is their helper (13.6), God is also the One who raised Jesus
1 The author has asserted that his audience should pay attention to what they
have heard, lest they drift away (2.1). They should not harden their hearts like the
wilderness generation (3.8–4.11). The author warns that it is impossible to renew to
repentance those who fall away (6.6). Moreover, if his audience continues willfully
sinning, he asserts that there will no longer remain a sacri¿ce for their sins (10.26).
2 My argument that Jesus provides both the model and the means for the audi-
ence to be the children of God ¿nds support in the writings of the early Church
Fathers. Peter Widdicombe concludes that, for Origen, ‘[t]he Father–Son relation is
the means by which creation is brought into being and it is also both the means and
the model for the subsequent restoration of that creation to the knowledge of God, a
restoration that entails our coming to sonship and the knowledge of God as Father’
(The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius [Oxford Theological Mono-
graphs; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994], p.63.
1
142 You Are My Son
from the dead and established him as Lord of all (13.20). Jesus’ status as
the reigning, glorious Lord and heir – a status promised by his Father and
secured by Jesus’ sacri¿cial death, victory over death, and living inter-
cession – balances the author’s warnings. The author empowers them to
run boldly toward their inheritance with the knowledge that they are a
part of that inheritance of Jesus Christ, the reigning Son of God.
I. The New Covenant
The New Covenant, a powerful image in Hebrews,3 also supports the

author’s presentation of his reader’s status as God’s children and the
inheritance of salvation that comes with it. In Heb. 8.1, the author arrives
at an important summary point in the sermon. The chief point of the
things he has discussed, the author notes, is that he and his readers have a
high priest. He describes this high priest in several ways, reiterating the
connections he has established between Jesus’ sonship and his priest-
hood. He begins with the fact that he has taken his seat at the right hand
(ëÅ »¼ÏÀÜЪ ÌÇı ¿ÉĠÅÇÍ [Ps. 109.1 LXX; cf. Heb. 1.13]). Because they have a
high priest at God’s right hand, they have a priest who, having dealt with
sins, is awaiting his inheritance of all things (including all people) as he
leads them to their inheritance of salvation.
The ful¿llment of God’s oath in the establishment of Jesus’ priesthood
has another implication for humanity – it inaugurates the New Covenant
that God promised would come ‘after those days’ (Jer. 38.33 LXX/Heb.
8.10).4 The author asserts this connection twice in his lead up to his
lengthy citation of the New Covenant passage. First, since Jesus has
become priest forever, he has likewise become the guarantee (ìººÍÇË) of
a better covenant (7.22). Similarly, in 8.6, Jesus’ possession of a more
excellent priestly ministry is related to his role as mediator of a better
covenant. This covenant has been given its legal force (Å¼ÅÇÄÇ¿ñÌ¾Ì¸À) by
better promises – i.e., God’s promise that Jesus would serve as a priest
forever and thus make possible this better covenant for all time.5 At the
3 See Lehne, New Covenant.

4 This linking between priesthood and covenant is unique in the New Testament,
as Attridge notes (Hebrews, p.220).
5 Luke Timothy Johnson states, ‘[c]ertainly, the author must want to include the
oath made in the psalm to the messiah king like Melchizedek that his priesthood
would last forever’ (Hebrews, p.203; contra Attridge who sees the better promises as
those aspects of the New Covenant delineated in the citation [Hebrews, p.226]).
Because the promise mentioned in 8.6 provides the basis for the Covenant and
because the author has linked the promise closely with God’s oath (6.13, 17), it is
1
same time, the plural term ‘promises’ (ëÈ¸ºº¼Âĕ¸À) suggests that not just
the promise of the priesthood is in view, but also the promise of sonship
(Heb. 1.5; 5.5), the fountainhead from which the priestly promise springs.
The New Covenant has four distinguishing features, each of which
resonates with the status of the members’ of the New Covenant as chil-
dren and heirs of God. First, this is an internal covenant in which God
places his laws into the minds of the covenant participants and writes
them upon their hearts (Heb. 8.10). Earlier in this chapter of Jeremiah
from which the quotation comes, the author describes the one who has
God’s words in him as God’s beloved son and delightful child (Jer. 38.20
LXX). Hence, Jeremiah establishes a connection between the internal
impartation of God’s law and the status of being God’s child. Second,
this covenant establishes God as the God of these people and they as his
people. The statement Á¸Ė ìÊÇÄ¸À ¸ĤÌÇėË ¼ĊË ¿¼ĠÅ, Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌÇĖ ìÊÇÅÌ¸ĕ ÄÇÀ ¼ĊË
Â¸ĠÅ is a common covenant formula appearing throughout Jeremiah
(7.23; 11.4; 24.7; 38.1; 39.38) and other prophets (Zech. 8.8; Ezek. 11.20;
14.11; 36.28; 37.23; cf. Jub. 1.24-25). Nevertheless, its appearance
in Hebrews resonates clearly with God’s early statement to Jesus in
Heb. 1.5.
Hebrews 8.10e ìÊÇÄ¸À ¸ĤÌÇėË ¼ĊË ¿¼ĠÅ

Hebrews 1.5c ëºĽ ìÊÇÄ¸À ¸ĤÌľЪ ¼ĊË È¸ÌñÉ¸
Hebrews 8.10f Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌÇ ìÊÇÅÌ¸ĕ ÄÇÀ ¼ĊË Â¸ĠÅ

Hebrews 1.5d Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌĠË ìÊÌ¸À ÄÇÀ ¼ĊË ÍĎĠÅ
The close similarity suggests the possibility that the same relationship
pertains between God and his covenant people as that which exists
between God and Jesus: the relationship of father and child. This is
supported by the fact that earlier in Jeremiah 38 LXX God expresses
precisely this relationship with his New Covenant people, saying ‘I
became a Father to Israel and Ephraim is my ¿rstborn’ (38.9), and
‘Ephraim is my beloved son, a child to delight in; because, since my
words are in him, I will remember him with remembrance’ (38.20).
Third, this covenant eliminates the need for introduction to God because
best to view the promises of 8.6 as, primarily, God’s promise to Christ that he would
be a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (contra Paul Ellingworth, who sug-
gests that Ps. 110.4 cannot be in view because ‘that stage of the argument is now
past’ [(Hebrews, p.411]). It is true that the author does not again refer to Melchi-
zedek, but Ellingworth’s conclusion is without warrant in view of the fact that
Christ’s priesthood is a major focus of chs. 9–10, before the second citation of
Jeremiah 38 (Heb. 10.16-17).
1
144 You Are My Son
everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know God (Jer. 38.34; Heb.
8.11). The comprehensiveness of the extent of this knowledge – God is
known by all (ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë) – invokes the inheritance of Jesus by which he
brings all things, including all people, under his domain and therefore the
domain of God. Finally, this covenant issues forth in God’s mercy and
eternal forgetfulness of the sins of the covenant members (Heb. 8.12). In
the following chapters, the author will explicate how Jesus’ experiences
as God’s Son result in forgiveness for God’s many sons and daughters.
For those attuned to the connections within the letter and/or the connec-
tions within the larger context of Jeremiah 38, the New Covenant citation
solidi¿es the audience’s status as children of God.
II. ‘My Son’: The Audience of Hebrews as ϊÀÇÀ of God
As the implications of the New Covenant passage show, in accordance

with the authors of Israel’s scriptures6 and other believers in Jesus,7 the
author of Hebrews declares the members of his audience to be members
of the family of God. He articulates this status most thoroughly through
citing of Prov. 3.11-12 and highlighting the similarities his audience
shares with Jesus, God’s ¿rstborn Son.
A. The Proverb
Hebrews 12.4-11 centers on a citation from Proverbs 3. These verses8
are one of two places in Israel’s scriptures where the discipline of God
6 Among the scriptures of Israel, Exod. 4.22-23; Deut. 32.6; Isa. 63.16; 64.8;
Jer. 3.19; 31.9; Hos. 11.1-3, and Mal. 2.10 declare the paternal/¿lial relationship
between God and Israel most explicitly.
7 The New Testament documents are much more proli¿c in their use of Father-
language for God than in Israel’s scriptures. Salient examples include Jesus’
teaching on prayer (Mt. 6.9; Lk. 11.2) and the greetings in the Pauline letters (Rom.
1.7; 1 Cor. 1.3; 2 Cor. 1.2-3; Gal. 1.1; Eph. 1.2; Phil. 1.2; Col. 1.2; 1 Thess. 1.1;
2 Thess. 1.2; 1 Tim. 1.2; 2 Tim. 1.2; Phlm. 3).
8 This proverb, like this section of the epistle, begins with an exhortation against
forgetting (Prov. 3.1; Heb. 12.5 ëÈÀÂ¸Å¿ÚÅÇÄ¸À). In addition, both include a promise
of peace (Prov. 3.2, 17, 23; Heb. 12.11) and healing (Prov. 3.8, 22; Heb. 12.13) to
those who heed the instruction given. Other similarities between this chapter of
Proverbs and the letter as a whole include examples of trust (È¼ÈÇÀ¿ļË) in God’s
wisdom (Prov. 3.5, 23) and in God (Heb. 2.13); drawing near (ëººĕ½Ñ) to wisdom
(Prov. 3.15) and to God (Heb. 7.19); the steadfastness (ÒÊÎ¸ÂûË) of wisdom (Prov.
3.18) and the anchor of hope (Heb. 6.19); the inheritance of glory that comes to the
wise (Prov. 3.35) and to those whom God is saving (Heb. 1.14; 2.10). These
1
is related to his role as a Father.9 Hebrews’ author is appealing to a tradi-

tion widespread in the ¿rst-century world, wherein the educative role of
fathers was superimposed on God.10
Proverbs 3.11-12 asserts that the Lord disciplines and punishes his
children.11 The proverb begins with a pair of exhortations for the
similarities show the resonance of the Epistle with much of Proverbs 3, the primary
difference being that this section of Hebrews lacks the emphasis on the wisdom of
God—although, as discussed, the author uses language resonant with wisdom litera-
ture in his discussion of the Son in Hebrews 1 (see above, pp.21–24).
9 The other instance is Deut. 8.5: ‘Á¸Ė ºÅļÊþ Ìĉ Á¸É»ĕß ĞÌÀ ĸË ¼ċ ÌÀË È¸À»¼įÊ¸À
ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË ÌġÅ ÍĎĠÅ ¸ĤÌÇı ÇĩÌÑË ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ È¸À»¼įÊ¼À Ê¼’ (And you will know in
your heart that as a certain man disciplines his son so also the Lord your God will
discipline you). This verse from Deuteronomy does not ¿t as well within the author’s
argument for two primary reasons. First, the lack of the vocative ÍĎñ makes it less
direct and also less familial. In addition, it casts God’s discipline as that which will
happen in the future, whereas Proverbs speaks of God’s discipline as a present
reality for those in God’s family. As the following discussion will show, the audi-
ence of Hebrews is not awaiting God’s discipline, but must endure it in the present.
These are the only two verses that juxtapose God’s paternal character with his use
of È¸À»¼ĕ¸. Second Samuel 7.14 includes the same idea with different terminology.
God promises that he will punish (ëÂñºÆÑ ¸ĤÌġÅ ëÅ ģÚ¹»ÑЪ ÒÅ»ÉľÅ) the heir of David
if he is unjust.
10 To which the author of Hebrews appeals (Heb. 12.9-10). See also Deut. 8.5;
21.18; Prov. 13.24; 19.18; 23.13; 29.17; Wis. 11.10; Sir. 7.23; 30.2, 13; Seneca, Ben.
5.5.2-3; 24.1-2.
11 The same assertion appears in the Psalms of Solomon: ‘He will warn the
righteous as a beloved Son, and his discipline is as of the ¿rstborn’ (Ps. Sol. 13.9),
and ‘your discipline on us is as on a ¿rstborn only son to turn away an obedient soul
from obtuse ignorance’ (Ps. Sol. 18.4). God’s discipline of his people is also evident
in Deuteronomy. Their experiences in the wilderness were God’s tests to see
whether or not they would keep his commandments. Similarly, they needed to know
that once they went into the land, God would discipline them as any father would
(Deut. 8.2-5). Wisdom of Solomon reiterates this picture of God’s interactions with
this generation. ‘For when they were tested, even though being disciplined in mercy,
they knew how the ungodly, being judged with anger were being tortured. For on the
other hand, these you tested warning as a father, but those you examined, condemn-
ing as a severe king’ (Wis. 11.9-10). Josephus also interprets God’s discipline of the
wilderness generation as evidence of God’s paternal relationship with them: ‘Moses
came now boldly to the multitude, and informed them that God was moved at their
abuse of him, and would inÀict punishment upon them, not indeed such as they
deserved for their sins, but such as parents inÀict on their children, in order to their
correction’ (Ant. 3.311 [Whiston]).
The idea of God’s paternal discipline appears also in 2 Baruch where the author
asserts that which the Jews of his time are experiencing (dated to 100 CE) is the
impartial judgment of God: ‘[t]herefore, he did not spare his own sons ¿rst, because
1
146 You Are My Son
addressees as they encounter God’s discipline, outlining the appropriate

response of those who are God’s children. They should not despise
(ĚÂÀºÑÉñÑ) the discipline of the Lord, nor should they faint (ëÁÂįÑ) when
his reproof comes. This scripture warns against both a negative attitude
and an apathetic response. The motivations for their actions are grounded
in knowledge of God’s motivation for discipline – those who experience
his discipline are those he loves, the sons and daughters he has received.
The author’s sole appeal to wisdom literature serves as the culmina-
tion of his portrayal of God’s identity as a Father in relationship to the
audience. Through the citation of this Proverb, his introduction to it
(12.5a), and his emendation of it (12.5b), the author reminds his audience
of who they are: the ÍĎÇĕ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı. Their identity helps them to understand
why they are experiencing dif¿culties, and provides one key to unlock-
ing the con¿dence they need to grasp the reward when they ¿nish their
race.
1. The Introduction: An Appeal Spoken to You as Sons

Beginning with his introduction to the citation, the author emphasizes the
relationship depicted in Prov. 3.11-12. The author presents this citation
like all others in this letter as a spoken word. In this instance he uses a
form of ÂñºÑ (»À¸ÂñºÇÄ¸À) to introduce a scripture that is directed toward
he afÀicted them as his enemies because they sinned. Therefore, they were once
punished, that they might be forgiven’ (2 Bar. 13.9-10, Klijn). Similarly in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, a prayer of the group asserts Israel’s status as God’s son and God’s
correction that comes along with being his child (‘You have called Israel “My son,
my ¿rstborn” [Exod. 4.22], and You have chastened us as a man chastens his child’
(4Q504 3.5-7 [Wise]).
Philo reÀects on God’s discipline of the wilderness generation from Deuteronomy
8 and Solomon’s general admonishment about God’s discipline of his people from
Proverbs. Philo concludes: ‘[s]o we see that reproaching and admonition are counted
so excellent a thing, that they turn our acknowledgement of God into kinship with
Him, for what relation can be closer than that of a father to a son, or a son to a
father?’ (Congr. 177 [Colson and Whitaker, LCL]; See also Opif. 156 where God the
Father of all ¿ttingly punishes Eve and the serpent).
The educative role of the divine Father also appears in non-Jewish Greco-Roman
literature. In De providentia, Seneca asserts that God, ‘the all-glorious parent, being
no mild taskmaster of virtues, rears, as strict fathers do, with much severity’, and
also ‘[t]hose whom God approves, whom God loves, he toughens, examines, and
exercised’ (1.5 [Basore]). About Heracles, Epictetus notes that as Zeus’s own son,
he ‘accepted orders, toiled, and exercises’ (Diatr. 3.26.31). Hence, the author of
Hebrews’ assertion that God disciplines his children is an expected description of
what God, as a Father, properly does.
1
his audience.12 He says to his audience, ‘this scripture is spoken to you’

(ĨÄėÅ). In so doing, he makes the addressees clear, but does not explicitly
name the speaker.
Notwithstanding, the context of the citation and the entirety of the
letter itself suggest that the author envisions God speaking this scrip-
ture to the audience. Based upon statistics alone, the fact that God speaks
the majority of the scriptural citations in the letter favors God as the
speaker of this citation.13 On the other hand, because Prov. 3.11-12 is not
introduced explicitly as the speech of God, this citation could be part of
the minority group of scriptures spoken by someone other than God. In
this case, a possible candidate is the human speaker of the text in its
original setting, Solomon (Prov. 1.1). Yet, the author’s previous modus
operandi does not favor this option. In the few instances where a human
speaks a citation, indicated either by the content of the citation itself or
by the context in which it appears in Hebrews (9.20; 12.21), the author
mentions the human speaker explicitly (ÑÍÊýË in both 9.20 and 12.21).
Conversely, in every instance except one (Heb. 6.14), where God is
speaking, the author allows context alone to determine this. In other
words, when God speaks, the author does not normally name God explic-
itly in the introduction to the citation, suggesting that the author’s default
assumption is that God speaks the scriptures of Israel.14 If he wants to
highlight the human speaker of the citation, he does so explicitly. The
absence of a mention of Solomon, or even an unnamed ÌÀË, decreases the
likelihood that the author of Hebrews envisions a human speaker of this
citation.
12 The author uses ÂñºÑ in some form more than any other word to introduce
scriptural citations as speech (Heb. 1.5, 6, 7, 13; 2.6, 12; 3.7; 4.3, 7; 5.6; 6.14; 7.21;
8.8, 9; 9.20; 10.5, 30; 12.5, 26, 31; 13.5). Â¸ÂñÑ is used twice (5.5; 11.18).
¸ÉÌÍÉñÑ and Î¾Äĕ each appear once (7.17 and 8.5 respectively).
13 As stated previously, God speaks the citations in Heb. 1.5, 6, 7, 8-9, 10-12,
13; 3.9-11; 4.3, 5; 5.5, 7; 6.14; 7.17, 21; 8.5, 8-12; 10.30, 37-38; 11.18; 12.26; 13.5.
By way of comparison, Jesus speaks the scriptures in Heb. 2.12, 13 and 10.5-8. The
author highlights the Holy Spirit as the speaker in Heb. 3.7-11, 15; 4.4, 7; and 10.16-
17. Moses voices Heb. 9.20 and Heb. 12.21, and the author attributes the verse in
Heb. 2.6 to a nondescript ÌÀË. Finally, he puts Heb. 13.6 on the lips of himself and his
readers. This delineation shows that God speaks close to twice the citations (21) as
all the other speakers combined (13). The number of verses spoken also represents
the propensity of the author to present scriptural citations as God’s speech. God
speaks 30 of the verses in Hebrews, while the speeches of the other speakers add up
to 21 verses.
14 This is true even in ch. 1, where God is clearly the speaker (1.1), but in
the introductions to the citations the author does not mention ¿¼ĠË in 1.5, 6, 7, 8, 10,
or 13.
1
148 You Are My Son
The second point in favor of reading this citation as the speech of God
is that it is introduced as a text that is spoken to the audience members as
sons and daughters. Since the author states that it is addressed to them as
sons, he implies that the one speaking this citation is their Father. Desig-
nating them in this way draws upon the ¿lial identity the author utilized
for his readers throughout the letter. Previous to this point, the author of
Hebrews depicts the audience as sons and daughters of God (2.10; 3.6).
Moreover, the ¿lial status of the addressees in relation to God is the
emphasis of the explanation that follows (Heb. 12.7, 9). Because the
letter consistently portrays them as the children of God, that strongly
suggests that God is the Father who is speaking to them.
One hurdle to the interpretation that God speaks these verses from
Proverbs is that the citation itself speaks about God in the third person
(the discipline of the Lord, when you are reproved by him, the Lord
disciplines, he whips every son whom he receives). On the other hand,
this poses no problem for the author in several previous instances. For
example, in the ¿rst chapter of Hebrews, this phenomenon occurs twice.
At Heb. 1.6, the author does not adapt the citation so that God says, ‘Let
all my angels worship’. Instead, God refers to himself as God when
he calls the angels, Óºº¼ÂÇÀ ¿¼Çı. Likewise in his speech to his Son in
v. 9, God does not say ‘I have anointed you’, but instead ‘your God has
anointed you’. The clearest example of this occurs in Heb. 10.30. There,
the author presents two different verses as the speech of God. First-
person speech appears in the former, but the verse uses third-person
speech to convey the latter. God speaks Deut. 32.36 (‘The Lord will
judge his people’) – which is in its context the word of Moses – right
after saying, ‘Judgment is mine; I will repay’. The evidence of these
citations suggests that the author has no dif¿culty with casting third-
person speech about God as the speech of God himself. Because this
scripture is spoken and because it is spoken to those who are designated
as children, it is most likely that God the Father speaks this citation to the
audience as his sons and daughters.15
15 Those who also view this as God’s speech include Günther Bornkamm,
‘Sonschaft und Leiden’, in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim
Jeremias (Walter Eltester, ed.; BZNW, 26; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), pp.188–98
[196]); A. B. Davidson (The Epistle to the Hebrews [Handbooks for Bible Classes
and Private Students; Grand Rapids. Zondervan, 1950], p.136); Johnson (Hebrews,
p.320); Kistemaker (Hebrews, p.374); Koester (Hebrews, p.526); Lane (Hebrews,
p.2:420); J. C. McCullough (‘The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews’, NTS 26
[1980], pp.363–79); Peterson (Hebrews and Perfection, p.173); and Weiss (Hebräer,
p.3:321).
1
2. Addition: ‘My Son’

The way in which the author cites the proverb also puts emphasis on the
¿lial position of the addressees, and, consequently, the paternal identity
of God. While the opening of this verse in Hebrew, ' 1C, would be
translated into English as ‘my son’, 16 the majority of Greek witnesses to
Proverbs include only ÍĎñ before the command against taking lightly the
discipline of the Lord.17 The textual witness of Hebrews, however,
suggests that in his citation of Prov. 3.11 God calls the addressee ‘my
son’ with the addition of ÄÇÍ after ÍĎñ.18
Beginning with ÍĎñ ÄÇÍ gives to the whole citation a more personal
tone.19 To preface a command with ÍĎñ adds a more intimate dimension to
the command, and this intimacy is compounded by calling the addressee
my son. Moreover, the inclusion of this ¿rst-person pronoun puts
emphasis on the speaker. Beginning with this pronoun frames the entire
speech with the voice of God conveyed through ¿rst-person speech.20 In
addition to an increased presence of the speaker, the appearance of the
ÄÇÍ more emphatically suggests the speaker’s role as a Father, compared
with the presence of ÍĎñ alone. The addressee is not just any son, but
belongs to the speaker as son. The pronoun ÄÇÍ brings emphasis on
God’s role as the speaker of this citation and also on God’s role as the
Father of the addressees.
16 The presence of the pronominal suf¿x in the MT indicates that the author
of Hebrews could be citing from a Hebrew Vorlage (Attridge rejects this outright
[Hebrews, p.367]) or an unattested Greek textual variant that reÀects this Hebrew
reading.
17 The exceptions are mss 23, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and
Theodoret. Ellingworth suggests that these are assimilations to the text of Hebrews
(Hebrews, p.368).
18 Some mss of Hebrews eliminate the ÄÇÍ, including D* 81 614 630 and 1241s.
This elimination is best explained by an adjustment to the majority LXX reading.
Most commentators view the ÄÇÍ as an addition by the author (Attridge, Hebrews,
p.361; Delitzsch, Hebrews, p.2:312; Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.648; Lane, Hebrews,
2:420; Spicq, Hébreux, p.2:392; Steyn, Quest, p.338 n.73;Witherington, Hebrews,
James and Jude, p.330). This is supported by Philo’s citation of this verse. When he
quotes Prov. 3.11-12 in a discussion about bene¿cial afÀiction, he does not include
the ‫ג‬ÇÍ (Congr. 177).
19 Delitzsch refers to the addition of ÄÇÍ as ‘more tender and mother-like’
(Hebrews, p.2:312). Lane (Hebrews, p.420), McCullough (‘Old Testament Cita-
tions’, p.320), Mitchell (Hebrews, p.271), and Spicq (Hebréux, p.2:392) also
highlight the personal tone supplied by this pronoun.
20 The author achieves a similar effect in 10.30 when ¿rst person speech
precedes and therefore sets the tone for how the third person speech about God is
heard as the speech of God himself.
1
150 You Are My Son
In addition to a focus on the speaker and an increased closeness,

strikingly, the presence of this pronoun brings the citation of Proverbs
into parallel with the ¿rst citation of the letter. With the addition of ÄÇÍ,
the citation in Heb. 12.5 begins with the same two words as the citation
in Heb. 1.5: ÍĎĠË and ÄÇÍ.21 This correspondence suggests that, if this
is the emendation of the author, his addition of the ¿rst-person posses-
sive pronoun is more than a ‘natural expansion’.22 To the contrary, the
presence of the pronoun shows the correspondence of God’s address to
both his ¿rstborn Son and his many sons and daughters. In his ¿rst
speech to each in the letter, God addresses both Jesus and the congrega-
tion of this sermon as ‘my son’.23 The author is saying ‘because God is
the Father of Jesus and has spoken to him as such, he is your Father and
can speak with the same kind of care and concern’.
The author places great emphasis on the father/child relationship
described in the verses from Proverbs through his introduction to the
citation and his particular quotation of it.24 In addition to being the con-
tent of the ¿rst and ¿nal phrases of the proverb (ÍĎñ ÄÇÍ, Äü ĚÂÀºļÉ¼À
È¸À»¼ĕ¸Ë ÁÍÉĕÇÍ and Ä¸ÊÌÀºÇė »ò ÈÚÅÌ¸ ÍĎġÅ ĞÅ È¸É¸»ñÏ¼Ì¸À), the familial
relation between God and the addressees is the departure point of the
citation as well (øÌÀË ĨÄėÅ ĸË ÍĎÇėË »À¸Âñº¼Ì¸À). Hence, the entire quota-
tion is framed by God’s role as a Father and the audience’s status as his
children. The author ampli¿es the familial theme of the Proverb by
casting it as the speech of God the Father and by aligning it with God’s
speech to his ¿rstborn Son.
This citation, much like the catena of the ¿rst chapter, becomes in the
hands of the author a vehicle through which God displays his paternal
character, but in this case that character is directed toward the audience.
By portraying this as God’s speech, the author contributes to the por-
trayal of God as a relational God, and speci¿cally in a relationship that
establishes him as a Father. Furthermore, read as the speech of God, this
citation shows that it is God who established the audience of Hebrews as
21 The only difference is that in Heb. 12.5 the ÍĎĠË is in the vocative case.
22 Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.648. Attridge makes a similar remark (Hebrews,
p.361).
23 The author asserts that God is speaking to the audience in the very ¿rst verse
of the sermon (1.1), and God speaks about their fathers through the Holy Spirit in
3.9, and also God talks about his righteous one in 10.38, but it is not until 12.5 that
God addresses the audience directly.
24 As stated above, it is impossible to determine if the author added the ÄÇÍ or
was simply using a translation that more closely resembled the MT. Whatever the
case, I do not think the similarity between his quotation in 1.5 and 12.5 was lost on
him.
1
his children and himself as their Father. Just as he did with Jesus, God
makes this familial relationship a reality through his word – calling them
ÍĎñ ÄÇÍ – and through his act – receiving them. Hebrews 12.5-6 solidi¿es
the audience’s identity as the children of God as well as God’s initiative
in the establishment of his relationship with them.
B. The Similarities Shared by the ĎÇĕ of God: The ¸À»¼ĕ¸ of the

Lord
In his comments on the citation, the author highlights the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ of God
the Father. In doing so, he draws on an argument that has run throughout
the letter: Jesus has experienced suffering, and through this suffering he
has reached his perfect position as God’s reigning heir. The dif¿cult
circumstances of the audience and the reward to which they look forward
correspond to Jesus’ own experience. If they, like Jesus, are children of
God, then they should not be surprised that they experience the same
paternal discipline as they look forward to a similarly joyful reward.
¸À»¼ĕ¸/È¸À»¼įÑ is a broad term indicating guidance. It can take the
form of training for the purpose of shaping the immature25 or reproof for
the purpose of correcting the errant.26 Because the two lines of the prov-
erb invoking God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ are coupled with phrases describing God’s
reproof/correction (ëÂñºÏÑ) and God’s use of the whip (Ä¸ÊÌÀºĠÑ), the
citation itself connotes an idea of punitive correction.27
On the other hand, the context into which the author places the citation
presents the non-punitive element of È¸À»¼ĕ¸. Clayton Croy, in his mono-
graph Endurance in Suffering, highlights the athletic imagery of the
passage, the fact that the readers are chided for no speci¿c sins, and the
example of the faithful Israelites (including Jesus) who endure dif¿cult
circumstances, in order to argue that this text conveys God’s non-
punitive educative discipline. In other words, Hebrews emphasizes that
God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ is not retrospective (punishing an error of the audience)
25 This is the case in Prov. 4.1; 8.10; Acts 7.22; 22.3; 2 Tim. 3.16; Sir. 1.27;
50.27; Wis. 1.5; 3.11; Josephus, Vita 196, 359; Philo, Leg. 3.167, 244.
26 ¸À»¼ţ¸ is used this way in Prov. 5.12; 22.5; Lk. 23.16, 22; 1 Cor. 11.32;
2 Cor. 6.9; 1 Tim. 1.20; 2 Tim. 2.25; Sir. 33.25; Philo, Leg. 2.90.
27 Clayton Croy (Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12.1–13 in Its Rhetorical,
Religious, and Philosophical Context [SNTSMS, 98; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998], p.89), DeSilva (Perseverance in Gratitude, p.449), Charles
H. Talbert (Learning Through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the
New Testament and in Its Milieu [Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament; Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical, 1991], p.71), and Thompson (Hebrews, p.254) are some who
highlight the punitive nature of the quotation.
1
152 You Are My Son
but prospective (instilling maturity so that they might ¿nish the race).28
Croy concludes that the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ of God of which the author is speaking is
not God’s punishment, but God’s training.
In her review of Croy’s work, Cynthia Long Westfall cites ‘the
warnings in the discourse, the writer’s accusation that they had regressed
in their spiritual understanding, and the exhortation in 12.1 to get rid of
entangling sin’ to argue that ‘the concept of correction is as relevant to
the immediate context [of Hebrews] as it is in the quotation of Prov.
3.11-12’.29
Westfall is correct to point out that the author harshly criticizes his
audience in the ¿fth chapter, accusing them of becoming lazy (ÅÑ¿ÉÇĕ)
and in need of being taught that which they themselves should be
teaching (5.11-12), and suggesting that because they are stymied in their
growth, they are in need of correction. Nevertheless, the author follows
this accusation with the encouragement that just as they are presently
ministering to the saints, they should show the same haste toward the
certainty of hope until the end (6.11). If they do so, they will not become
lazy (ÅÑ¿ÉÇĕ). As is the case with many of the author’s warnings, he
softens his harsh word with an assurance. Therefore, some ambiguity
exists as to whether or not he views his audience as lazy. On the one
hand, he does think they should be teachers by now rather than remain
in need of basic instruction (5.12). On the other hand, although he
expresses a concern about their laziness, he does not think them too
immature to discuss the dif¿cult word about Melchizedek he introduces
at 5.10. Consequently, Westfall’s charge of spiritual regression ¿nds
only partial support in the text.30 Moreover, even if the author does think
that his audience is truly lazy, the best remedy for that laziness might not
be whipping but exercise. In other words, training might be the best
pedagogical solution, rather than correction.
The author’s exhortation in 12.1 to put off easily besetting sin is
equally ambiguous. It could be that the author envisions his addressees
entangled in sin and needing to let go of it; if so, it would be the sole
reference to such present entanglement with sin in the letter. On the other
28 This summary of his main arguments appears on pp.2–3. Other recent com-
mentators on Hebrews also adopt this interpretation of È¸À»¼ĕ¸, including DeSilva
(Perseverance in Gratitude, p.447), Johnson (Hebrews, p.319–20), Thompson
(Hebrews, pp.251–2), and Witherington (Hebrews, James, and Jude, p.330).
29 Cynthia Long Westfall, Review of C. N. Croy, Endurance in Suffering,
JSNT 76 (1999), pp.121–2.
30 Paul Andriessen also cites the author’s statement in 6.12 as evidence that he
does not think the audience is lazy (‘La communauté des “Hébreux”: Était-elle
tombée dans la Relachement?’, NRTh 96 [1974], pp.1054–66 [1057]).
1
hand, several commentators argue that the singular reference to sin

indicates sin in general rather than a list of speci¿c sins. Peterson states,
‘[t]he use of the singular here should warn us against understanding a
simple moralism or call to asceticism. Our writer is concerned with sin
itself, rather than with speci¿c sins.’31 If the author is concerned that his
listeners put off sin itself, then this exhortation falls in line with the
pattern established in the rest of the letter. The possibility does exist that
they could be deceived by sin (3.13) or that they could continue willfully
in sin (10.26). These are, it must be noted, possibilities not yet realized.
They should be vigilant to put off the sin that lurks in their path and
continue to struggle against it (12.4).
Westfall’s appeal to the warnings in the letter as support for a correc-
tive understanding of È¸À»¼ĕ¸ is unconvincing. The warnings in the letter
are always followed by the author’s assurance that they have not yet
committed the act under discussion. They must pay attention to what
they have heard because they have not yet drifted away (2.1). He is con-
vinced of better things for them, namely that he and they have salvation
(6.9). Presently, they possess boldness and should not throw it away
(10.35). Finally, as the following discussion will suggest, the author
places them at the foot of the mountain of God on the way to possessing
their inheritance, unlike Esau who squandered his (12.22). He warns
them against the sin of apostasy, precisely because they have not yet
committed it.
Finally, the similarities between the many ÍĎÇĕ and Jesus add support
for this interpretation of È¸À»¼ĕ¸. Because Jesus the Son provides the
example for them, and he was not being corrected but was being trained
unto perfection, then that suggests that the author stresses that presently
the audience experiences the educative rather than punitive aspect of
God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸.32
1. The ¸À»¼ĕ¸ of Jesus

The analysis in Chapters 2 and 3 of this study brought attention to the
fact that the author frequently notes that Jesus endures suffering as God’s
Son. This is clearest in the author’s emphatic assertion in Heb. 5.7 where
31 Peterson, Perfection, p.169. So also, Attridge, Hebrews, p.355; Lane,

Hebrews, p.2:409; Michel, Hebräer, pp.428–9.
32 At times, in the education of children, the line between educative and puni-
tive is not so clearly de¿ned. The author’s presentation of Prov. 3.11-12 leaves open
the possibility that the audience could experience punishment as God’s children, but
that is not the motivation for the dif¿culties they are enduring at the time the author
is writing to them.
1
154 You Are My Son
Jesus learns to obey through suffering even though he was a Son. It also
appears in Heb. 7.28 where Jesus is the Son who has been perfected.
Since suffering is the vehicle that leads to perfection (2.10; 5.5), this
suggests that Jesus is the Son who experienced suffering in order to
become perfect and to sit in God’s presence.
Three times in ch. 2, the author implies that God perfects Jesus
through sufferings precisely as his Father. First, the author’s presentation
of the Father/Son relationship is apparent in the terms he uses to describe
humanity in vv. 10-11. Those whom God is leading are the many ÍĎÇĕ,
and they are those whom Jesus is not afraid to address as brothers. That
implies that God is portrayed in these verses as a Father. Second, as
discussed in Chapter 2, one viable interpretation of the ambiguous ëÆ îÅĠË
in Heb. 2.11 is that it refers to descent from a common father. Third, the
reference to God’s use of testing (È¼ÀÉÚ½Ñ) in 2.18 is paralleled in other
texts that speak about God’s fatherly discipline. In the proverbial tradi-
tion this term is put into close association with È¸À»¼ĕ¸ in Wis. 3.5 and
Sir. 4.17, as well as the education by God as a Father in Wis. 11.9–10.
¼ÀÉÚ½Ñ therefore becomes another way of describing the divine Father’s
process of bringing his Son to perfection.33
Adding to these portrayals of the suffering of the Son, the author
summarizes Jesus’ participation in suffering – and subsequent victory –
at the beginning of Hebrews 12. There he states that after Jesus endured
death on the cross and the shame that came with this death, he took his
seat at the right hand of God’s throne. The language the author uses in
this summation reiterates that Jesus takes part in these events as God’s
Son. First, the use of Ì¼Â¼ÀÑÌûË recalls the process of perfection Jesus
experienced as God’s Son at the hand of his Father (2.10; 5.8-9; 7.28).
Moreover, the statement that Jesus endured (ĨÈñÄ¼ÀÅ¼Å) the cross fore-
shadows the author’s description of endurance (ĨÈÇÄñÅÑ) as endurance of
God’s paternal discipline (12.5-11). Because Jesus is being held up as an
example for the audience (12.2), this also suggests that Jesus’ endurance
is a Son’s endurance of his Father’s discipline. Finally, Jesus’ session at
God’s right hand, as the ¿nal allusion to Ps. 109.1 LXX in the letter,
evokes the theme of Christ’s inheritance. After his endurance of the
33 Pamela Eisenbaum draws the same conclusion: ‘God created the circum-
stances by which Jesus was tested. In other words, Jesus’ sufferings are the direct
result of God’s discipline insofar as God is Jesus’ Father’ (‘The Necessity of
Discipline, and the Pursuit of Perfection in Hebrews’, in Asceticism and the New
Testament [L. E. Vaage and V. L. Wimbush, eds; New York: Routledge, 1999],
pp.331–53 [341]).
1
suffering through which God his Father perfected him, Jesus took his
place as the royal Son and heir whom God invites to share in his
sovereignty over all things.
These passages suggest that God displays his Fatherhood in ways that
utilize suffering to make his Son perfect. The paternal role in which God
uses suffering resonates with the topos of divine paternal discipline, or
È¸À»¼ĕ¸.
To state that readers should understand God’s perfecting of Jesus as
God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ is not a novel idea. Several interpreters of Hebrews view
Jesus’ perfecting as an educative process,34 and L. K. K. Dey argues in
precisely these terms saying, ‘…the author [of Hebrews] has interpreted
the suffering, temptation, and death of Jesus…as an education (paideia)
which leads to progress/betterment and in the end to perfection’.35 Dey’s
connection between perfection and È¸À»¼ĕ¸, however, has not remained
unchallenged. Harold Attridge charges that Dey’s notion of È¸À»¼ĕ¸ is
ill de¿ned. Hebrews, Attridge says, emphasizes suffering ‘in a way that
the Greek proverbial tradition does not’.36 Attridge’s critique highlights
a problem in Dey’s analysis. Dey argues that there is a tradition in
Hellenistic Jewish literature that understands suffering and temptation as
the ‘ “paideia” which leads to perfection’, citing Philo (Somn. 2.107; Quis
Her. 73), Wis. 1.9-10; 12.22; 2 Macc. 6.12, 15, 27-28, 31 and 4 Macc.
10.10-11.
The problem is that in none of these texts is È¸À»¼ĕ¸ explicitly linked
with perfection. In one passage Philo connects the phrase Ä¸¿¼ėÅ È¸¿¼ėÅ,
to which the author of Hebrews appeals in Heb. 5.8, to perfection, and in
another he joins the same phrase to the experience of children. Neither of
these texts, however, mentions È¸À»¼ĕ¸. On the other hand, the texts from
the LXX speak of dif¿culties Israel experiences as God’s fatherly È¸À»¼ĕ¸,
but in no instance do these lead speci¿cally to perfection for those who
are being disciplined.
If God’s perfecting of Jesus can be understood as God’s fatherly
È¸À»¼ĕ¸ of Jesus, it is not because these two terms were explicitly linked
in a tradition already available for the author. Instead, viewing Jesus’
perfecting as his È¸À»¼ĕ¸ ¿ts in the thought world of Hebrews because of
the correspondence between God’s relationship to Jesus and God’s
34 Eisenbaum, ‘The Virtue of Suffering’, p.341; Peterson, Perfection, p.94;

John R. Walters, Perfection in New Testament Theology: Ethics and Eschatology in
Relational Dynamic (MBPS, 25; Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical, 1996), p.88.
35 Dey, Intermediary World, p.222.
1
36 Attridge, Hebrews, p.153 n.197.
156 You Are My Son
relationship to humanity;37 that is, the concepts of perfection and È¸À»¼ĕ¸

in Hebrews are united because God exercises the same fatherly actions
toward both Jesus and humanity.
2. The ¸À»¼ĕ¸ of the ĎÇĕ

The author begins his analysis of Prov. 3.11-12 with a positive counter-
point to the negative commands of the citation: instead of not despising
(Äü ĚÂÀºļÉ¼À) and not fainting (Ä¾»ò ëÁÂįÇÍ), they should endure
(ĨÈÇÄñÅ¼Ì¼).38 This endurance is related to their training (È¸À»¼ĕ¸).
The two terms are also joined in Ps. Sol. 10.2 and 14.1, both of which
discuss ‘those who endure [the] discipline’ of the Lord (ÌÇėË ĨÈÇÄñÅÇÍÊÀÅ
È¸À»¼ĕ¸Å). There, È¸À»¼ĕ¸ follows ĨÈÇÄñÅÑ as a simple accusative, while
in Hebrews it is the object of the preposition ¼ĊË.39 The preposition func-
tions either as an indication of the goal toward which the discipline is
moving, as in ‘endure for the purpose of discipline’40 or as a description
37 Matthew Thiessen provides support for this position in his analysis of

Hebrews 12 in light of the wilderness motif in chs. 3 and 4. He argues that Hebrews
12 ‘should be understood as an allusion to the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ that Israel experienced in the
wilderness period’ where ‘the wilderness wanderings as a period of educative disci-
pline (sometimes described using athletic imagery) in which God’s people were
prepared for entry into the land of promise, and that this discipline demonstrated the
legitimate familial ties between the people and God their father’ (‘Hebrews 12.5-13,
the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline’, NTS 55 [2009], pp.366–79 [373]).
38 Commentators debate whether or not this word should be read as a statement
of the audience’s present behavior or as a command. Both ways of reading this word
have support in the letter. They are presently experiencing dif¿culties (10.32-34;
12.8), yet they need to continue to do so in a faithful way (12.1, 14-17). The Àexibil-
ity of this word expresses again a theme that has run throughout the whole sermon:
the double-sided exhortation of ‘hold fast’ (exhibited in Heb. 3.6, 14 [Á¸ÌñÏÑ]; 4.14;
10.23 [ÁÉ¸ÌñÑ]; 10.35 [Äü ÒÈÇ¹ÚÂ¾Ì¼]; 10.36 [ĨÈÇÄÇÅýË ºÛÉ ìÏ¼Ì¼ ÏÉ¼ĕ¸Å]; 12.1
[»À’ ĨÈÇÄÇÅýË]; 12.17 [do not ÒÈÇ»ĕ»ÑÄÀ] yet also ‘keep moving’). Johnson argues
for reading the verb as an indicative, as a ‘clari¿cation of their experience in light
of the scriptural citation’ (Hebrews, p.320), as do Delitzsch (Hebrews, p.2:314),
Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.650), and Moffatt (Hebrews, p.201). Croy argues that in
addition to the exhortation of 12.1 and the commands of 12.12-13, the imperative
reading should be favored due to the fact that ‘the readers have completely forgotten
the exhortation which addresses them as sons (vs. 5)’. He adds, ‘it seems reasonable
that 7a reissues the exhortation’ (Endurance in Suffering, p.199). Attridge (Hebrews,
p.361), Lane (Hebrews, p.2:421), and Koester (Hebrews, p.528) also support reading
the verb as an imperative.
39 The variant ¼À is not well supported externally and could be an assimilation to
the ¼Ċ of v. 8 (Ellingworth, Hebrews, p.650).
40 So argued by Ralph Marcus, ‘On Causal ’, JBL 70 (1951), pp.129–30
and ‘The Elusive Causal ’, JBL 71 (1952), pp.43–4.
1
of the implied predicate accusative: ‘endure [your situation] as disci-

pline’. It does not make sense of the context of the passage to see the
author urging them to endure so that at the endpoint they can experience
God’s discipline.41 The commands Äü ĚÂÀºļÉ¼À and Ä¾»ñ ëÁÂįÇÍ pertain-
ing to God’s discipline are spoken to them in the present. Instead, it is
better to read the author equating the endurance of their situation – what
they are doing and must continue to do – with God’s discipline. The
particular quality that God’s training takes on for them is the imperative
that they should keep going in the midst of dif¿culties. The challenging
assignment they have is to resist collapsing in the midst of or walking
away from the race God has set for them no matter what the circumstances
might be.42 Koester states the idea well: ‘[t]he idea is that endurance is
part of their training in faith’.43 They should view whatever dif¿culties
they experience as the disciplinary call of God to endure them.44
Next, the author appeals to the pedagogical tradition from which the
citation came. If a father has a child, the father educates that child.
Conversely, if someone in his audience does not experience discipline,
that indicates that he is not a child of God, but illegitimate (ÅĠ¿ÇË). This is
another warning that is followed by the author’s assurance to his readers
that it does not apply to them. About God’s discipline, he states: úË
ÄñÌÇÏÇÀ º¼ºĠÅ¸ÊÀÅ ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë (you all have become sharers). Moreover, by
describing them as ÄñÌÇÏÇÀ of discipline, the author is using a term
employed in other places in the letter to describe the audience (3.1, 14;
possibly at 1.9). As they have become sharers in Christ the ¿rstborn Son
(3.14), so also they have become sharers in the discipline God uses for
his children.45 In addition, the use of the perfect of ºĕÅÇÄ¸À suggests that
41 Hence, Johnson is correct to counter that ‘one would not endure in order to
bring about discipline’ (Hebrews, p.320).
42 Croy reads the verse in this way, saying that endurance is ‘interpreted as
God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ in 4-11’ (Endurance in Suffering, p.199), and that the conclusion of
the author is: ‘[a]ccept your situation (i.e. endure it) as discipline (7a)’ (Endurance
in Suffering, p.200).
43 Koester, Hebrews, p.528.
44 Koester chooses not to insert the precise experience that should be endured
due to his interpretation that the ‘context downplays the magnitude of the listener’s
suffering (12.4)’ (Hebrews, p.528). Although the fact that they have not endured
death lessens the degree of what they are experiencing, it also extends the length.
Because they have not died, they still have much to endure. Hence, it is appropriate
to see a reference to the sufferings of the audience as that which they should endure.
So also Lane: ‘[t]he trials of the community are seen as disciplinary in nature’
(Hebrews, p.2:422).
45 Hence, Attridge is correct to assert the paraenetic effect of the motif of Jesus’
education in 5.8: ‘the effect of the motif here is primarily paraenetic. Although
1
158 You Are My Son
this status is already an established reality. The audience has experienced

God’s discipline because they have experienced a great contest of suffer-
ings (10.32) and have shown their ability to endure (ĨÈÇÄñÅÑ, 10.32). As
those who have not yet given up, but have the race of endurance in front
of them (12.1), they are participants in God’s disciplinary use of the need
for endurance of their trials. Instead of being a source of discouragement,
these dif¿culties should encourage the audience insofar as they are proof
of their participation in the discipline that God brings upon his ÍĎÇĕ. In
other words, they are experiencing God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ because they are his
sons and daughters.
The author introduces the bene¿ts of being a son or daughter of God
and undergoing God’s discipline through a comparison with human
fathers. In the past, they all respected the fathers of their Àesh who
disciplined them. Their earthly fathers disciplined their children for a
relatively short amount of time (ĚÂĕº¸Ë ÷ÄñÉ¸Ë). God has no time limit;
his discipline could last for one’s entire life. Moreover, the fathers of
the Àesh disciplined according to what seemed good or right to them
(Ìġ »ÇÁÇıÅ). They were, according to their own limited judgment, trying
to do the right thing. By contrast, God based his discipline on that which
was bene¿cial. God does not have to guess at what was best, but works
that which will certainly be for the good of the recipient of his disci-
pline.46
Hebrews does not use hortatory language at this point, a concern for the audience is
transparent’ (Hebrews, p.153). Nevertheless, I question if this theme is ‘primarily
paraenetic’. Attridge indicates that any Christological speculation about the nature of
Jesus’ learning ‘can be misdirected’ for the reason that ‘Jesus is presented as one
who “learns obedience” (ĨÈ¸ÁÇûÅ) in the midst of suffering because that is what the
addressees are called upon to do’ (p.153). The rhetorical situation helps to shape this
particular way the Christology of the letter comes to expression. Nevertheless, it is
not simply a move prompted by the needs of the addressees, as if it did not reÀect the
author’s deeper theology. The reality of the Christology—Jesus’ experience as
God’s Son—in concert with the theology—God’s action as Jesus’ Father—is the
ground for the paraenesis the author presents to his audience.
46 Attridge interprets the phrase this way, holding up the difference between
‘arbitrary subjective judgment’ and ‘what is objectively “bene¿cial”’ (Hebrews,
p.363). The contrast sharpens if the ¿rst phrase is not read as judiciously for the
biological fathers. It is possible that they disciplined their children according to what
seemed best for them and not for their children. The phrase is so read by Chry-
sostom: ‘they afÀict chastisement…ful¿lling [their own] pleasure oftentimes, and
not always looking to what was expedient’ (Hom. Heb. 29.3, Gardiner [NPNF1
p.14:500]). This interpretation also appears in Johnson (Hebrews, p.322) and Martin
Luther (‘Lectures on Hebrews’, p.232).
1
Based on this pattern, the author argues that it is a matter of eternal

importance to submit themselves to the Father of spirits.47 While there
is no mention of the bene¿ts garnered by respecting their biological
fathers, the result of their submission to God their Father is that they will
live (½ûÊÇÄ¼Å). This is a ¿tting reward coming from a Father whom the
author frequently names the living God (Heb. 3.12; 9.14; 10.31; 12.22).
Moreover, the goal of God’s disciplinary action is that he might impart
to his children his own holiness. The God whose throne is the most holy
place (10.19) indeed wants to impart that holiness to his children.
Finally, the author admits that from the perspective of those who are
presently experiencing discipline, God’s discipline seems to be full of
grief and not joy (12.11). Later on, however, those who have been
trained by it receive the peaceful fruit of righteousness as a reward for
their endurance. In the ¿nal benediction the author designates God as the
God of peace.48 Attridge is right to see the connection between this
epithet and the author’s admonition to pursue peace in 12.14,49 yet it is
also important to highlight the connection between this description of
God’s character and the type of fruit that blossoms in the life of his
children who are trained by him (12.11). The God characterized by peace
produces peaceful fruit in the lives of his sons and daughters.
In listing the rewards that come to those children who are trained by
God’s discipline, the author is showing a correspondence between God’s
Fatherhood over these sons and daughters and his Fatherhood over Jesus.
God’s motivation for disciplining his children is their great bene¿t. This
bene¿t is God sharing aspects of his own character. The living God gives
life. The holy God gives his holiness. The just God (6.10) gives right-
eousness. The God of peace (13.20) gives peace. In both relationships,
47 ‘Spirit’ can be a term used to refer to humanity (Attridge lists Dan. 5.14;
Rev. 22.6; Hermas, Vis. 3.12.3; and Philo, Somn. 2.273). The comparison here is
between their biological fathers, and God who is not so directly related to them by
Àesh and blood. The use of this phrase, ‘Father of spirits’ also points to the
relationship God shares with the audience that goes deeper than biology. He created
their inner being, and his rewards affect their ultimate destiny (cf. ‘spirits of just men
made perfect’ [Heb. 12.23]).
48 This divine terminology, never extant in the LXX, appears in the New Testa-
ment only in the letters of Paul (Rom. 15.33; 16.20; 2 Cor. 13.11; Phil. 4.9; 1 Thess.
5.23). Delitzsch describes this as ‘one of Paul’s favourite designations for God’
(Hebrews, p.2:402). Clare K. Rothschild puts this phrase forward as evidence that
‘the author of Hebrews intentionally conforms here to Pauline usage’ (Hebrews as
Pseudepigraphon: The History and Signi¿cance of the Pauline Attribution of
Hebrews [WUNT, 235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], p.69).
1
49 Attridge, Hebrews, p.405 n.14.
160 You Are My Son
God shares with his children aspects of his own identity: sovereignty
with his Son, and life, holiness, righteousness, and peace with many sons
and daughters.
Moreover, God’s fatherly perfection of his ¿rstborn Son makes possi-
ble the rewards awaiting his other children at the end of their journey. In
order to provide life, God, through the perfecting of his Son (2.10; 5.8-
9), has freed them from the fear of death (2.15) and opened up a living
way to God’s throne (10.20). Similarly, just as Jesus’ journey as God’s
Son ransomed them from the grip of death, so too did it set them on the
road to holiness (2.11; 10.10, 14, 19). Jesus’ actions in response to his
Father freed them from the grip of death and sin so that they can submit
to the Father of Jesus Christ – their own Father – and take on his charac-
ter. God’s paternal relationship with Jesus provides both the model and
the possibility for the rewards his many sons and daughters will reap at
the end of their training.
What, then, about perfection? If the author is identifying a correspon-
dence between the suffering Jesus endured and the suffering his audience
is enduring, a similar correspondence should exist between the results of
their endurance. Just as Jesus was perfected through suffering, so too
should the audience of Hebrews become perfect through the suffering
God their Father utilizes to discipline them.
As shown above, righteousness and a share in holiness result from
God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ in ch. 12. In several places earlier in the letter, the author
connects righteousness and holiness with perfection. First, in Heb. 5.14,
the author chides his audience over their dullness with respect to their
ability to hear (ÅÑ¿ÉÇĖ º¼ºĠÅ¸Ì¼ Ì¸ėË ÒÁÇ¸ėË). He takes up the common
moral-philosophical trope contrasting those who partake of milk with
those who partake of solid food (Heb. 5.12).50 He describes the individ-
ual who partakes of milk as a babe (ÅûÈÀÇË) and those who have solid
food as the mature ones, the Ì¼Â¼ĕÑÅ. His other description of the ÅûÈÀÇË –
as one who is ÓÈ¼ÀÉÇË ÂĠºÇÍ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë – implies that what differentiates
the Ì¼Â¼ĕÑÅ is that they have been tested by this word of righteousness.
Their possession of the habit (ïÆÀÅ) of discerning good and evil shows
that they can not only hear the righteous word but also act upon it. They
possess this habit because their senses have been trained (º¼ºÍÄÅ¸ÊÄñÅ¸).
This discussion reveals one of the de¿nitions the author attributes to the
Ì¼Â¼ĕÇÑ word group. The Ì¼Â¼ĕÑÅ, in contrast to infants, are mature
people who have been trained.
50 Isa. 28.9; 1 Cor. 3.2; 1 Pet. 2.2; Odes 19.1ff.; Philo, Agr. 9; Migr. Abr. 29;
Congr. 19; Somn. 2.9; Omn. prob. lib. 160; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.39; 3.24.9; Seneca,
Ep.88.20.
1
ÍÄÅÚ½¼ÀÅ, to train, occurs again in this twelfth chapter. The coveted

prize of the peaceful fruit of righteousness comes to those who have been
trained (º¼ºÍÅÄ¸ÊÄñÅÇÀË) through God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ (12.11). Using language
of the Greco-Roman educational system, which associates ºÍÄÅÚ½Ñ and
È¸À»¼ĕ¸,51 the author argues that those who are trained share in God’s
loving and bene¿cial paternal discipline.
The combination of these two passages shows the connection between
perfection and God’s fatherly care of his many children. God, in order to
discipline his children, trains them (Heb. 12.11) – and those who endure
this training become mature or perfect (Heb. 5.14). The Ì¼Â¼ĕÑÅ are the
children of God who have been trained through his È¸À»¼ĕ¸; perfection is
the attribute of God’s tested and trained children.52
Another instance of the connection between perfection and È¸À»¼ĕ¸
of God’s many children occurs in a later portion of ch. 12. Here, the
author provides his audience with a glimpse of the heavenly Jerusalem,
the city of God. Included in this city is the assembly of ¿rstborn ones,
who are described as the spirits of the righteous who have been perfected
(ÈÅ¼įÄ¸ÊÀ »ÀÁ¸ĕÑÅ Ì¼Ì¼Â¼ÀÑÄñÅÑÅ). That they are described as spirits
(ÈÅ¼įÄ¸Ì¸) recalls the designation for God in 12.9 as the Father of spirits.
The description of them as righteous implies that they have received
God’s peaceful fruit of righteousness that comes to his children who
have been trained (12.11). Their righteousness is proof that God has
perfected them.
3. Jesus and the Many Children

Consequently, for Jesus and for God’s many sons and daughters, the
same result (perfection) through the same process (suffering) in the
context of the same relationship (paternal/¿lial) implies that the same
rationale is in play in both circumstances, namely God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸. The
correspondence between God’s actions with his many children and those
with his ¿rstborn Son lead to the conclusion that Jesus is perfected
because he is the Son of God who endures the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ – the pedagogical
training – of his Father. Moreover, since the suffering that God utilizes to
51 Epictetus, Diatr. 2.18.27; 3.12.7; Isocrates, Nic. 10; Philo, Mos. 1.48;
Plutarch, Lib. ed. 2D-E. Croy discusses the close association between ºÍÄÅ¸Êĕ¸
and È¸À»¼ĕ¸ as two different, yet closely related, types of training (Endurance in
Suffering, pp.158–9).
52 Walters also highlights the correspondence between these passages and
concludes that ‘[b]eing ÌñÂ¼ÀÇË does after all involve the capacity of making moral
judgments, and increasingly so. Such moral growth is by the instructive, disciplining
grace of God’ (Perfection in New Testament Theology, p.112).
1
162 You Are My Son
perfect Jesus is the same suffering that prepares Jesus to be high priest,
the author portrays the high priesthood of Jesus as that for which Jesus
is quali¿ed because he experiences and endures the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ of his Father.
It is not inconsequential that the author’s portrayal of the perfecting of
Jesus in the priesthood of Melchizedek is interrupted by the author’s
de¿nition of perfection as the result of training (5.11-14).53 That which
Jesus experiences in preparation for his reign as God’s heir and God’s
high priest is the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ of his Father.
Because he faithfully and obediently endured God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸, he serves
as the ultimate example of the perfect Son. He endures God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ so
that he might be perfect. The correspondence in relational status and
result adds support for the thesis that the audience experiences God’s
È¸À»¼ĕ¸ not as correction, but primarily as training toward maturity. Just
as it was the will of his Father that Jesus suffered so that he might be
perfected, so also God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ causes the many ÍĎÇĕ to experience suf-
fering so that they might reach the realm where God’s perfected children
dwell. The nature of God’s Fatherhood as manifest in his relationship
with Jesus is the same nature God displays toward the audience: disci-
pline for the sake of ultimate perfection.
After con¿rming the ¿lial connection between the audience and Jesus
by highlighting the audience’s status as God’s ÍĎÇĕ, the author points to
the similarities between his audience’s and Jesus’ experience of God’s
Fatherhood in two ways. First, the suffering Jesus experiences as God’s
Son through the will of his Father shows that the author draws a connec-
tion between the dif¿culties Jesus experiences and those experienced by
his audience. Just as God’s ¿rst speech to Jesus portrayed what he
experiences of God’s Fatherhood in these last days – the attainment of
his position of honor as God’s heir – so also, the citation of Prov. 3.11-12
describes the paternal discipline which presently characterizes God’s
loving familial relationship that the audience of Hebrews experiences as
God’s children in these last days.
Second, the similarity between Jesus and the audience is reinforced by
the author’s presentation of the bene¿ts that come to those who endure
God’s training. For both, suffering results in perfection, which is a state
in which the child comes to share in the characteristics of the Father so
that they can dwell in his presence. After being perfected through suffer-
53 Similarly, James Thompson notes, ‘[u]nlike other paraneses, this one does
not serve as the transition to a new theme. It stands as the interruption of the theme
of the High priesthood of Christ’ and argues that ‘Heb 5.11–14…is fundamentally
important for illuminating the theological assumptions and intention of the author of
Hebrews’ (Christian Philosophy, p.19).
1
ing, Jesus reigns next to God sharing in God’s sovereignty over all
things. The audience members are presently enduring God’s discipline
and will subsequently come to share in his qualities so they can celebrate
on Mt. Zion. The author has made clear to them that these realities – life,
holiness, righteousness, and peace – are theirs, if only they endure. The
addressees of Hebrews are privileged to stand in the same relationship
with God as does Jesus. God, therefore, expresses his paternal role with
both Jesus, the son of man, and the audience of Hebrews by utilizing his
È¸À»¼ĕ¸ to bring them to perfection.
III. Exhortations to the Children: Hebrews 12.12-17
A. Positive Instructions
Because the audience of Hebrews, unlike Jesus, is still in the midst of
experiencing God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸, the author employs the exhortation that
follows to instruct his audience how they might be able to help one
another to endure it. He does so with four injunctions. First, he calls his
listeners to restore (ÒÅÇÉ¿ĠÑ) certain de¿ciencies.54 He describes the hands
of some of those among the group as È¸É¼ÀÄñÅ¸Ë. ¸Éĕ¾ÄÀ describes that
which is drooping or weak,55 but can also describe that which is weak to
the point of inactivity.56 Correspondingly, he describes their knees as
È¸É¸Â¼ÂÍÄñÅ¸, a verb that connotes both weak things57 and things that
are weak to the point of being paralyzed.58 After this restoration, those
who are impeded or, if taken in its stronger form, even halted in their
ability to keep moving, can fully join in the race.
54 The weak hands and wobbly knees constitute a phrase that also appears in
Isaiah (35.3) and Sirach (25.23). In Sirach, the weak hands and knees are the result
of living with an unpleasing wife. More similar to the passage in Hebrews, Isaiah 35
describes the great joy of those whom the Lord is saving and gathering to Zion
(35.10; cf. Heb. 12.22). This great promise encourages those who have not yet
attained this salvation to keep their strength until they see it become a reality. In
addition, the transition out of the wilderness (Isa. 35.1; cf. Heb. 3.8, 17), the glimpse
of the glory of the Lord (Isa. 35.2; cf. Heb. 1.3; 2.7, 9), and the encouragement
offered in this text (Isa. 35.4; cf. Heb. 12.5) strengthen the possibility that the author
of Hebrews is alluding to this text to encourage his readers to press on to Zion just as
Isaiah encourages his readers to do the same.
55 Deut. 32.36; T. Job 18.3; Diodorus Siculus 14.105.2; Philo, In Flacc. 10;
Josephus, Ant. 6.35.
56 Sir. 4.29; 1 Clem. 34.1.
57 Gen. 19.11; Diodorus Siculus 20.72.2.
1
58 Lk. 5.18, 24; Diodorus Siculus 18.31.4.
164 You Are My Son
To this the author adds the second injunction that they should make
straight paths for their feet (ÌÉÇÏÀÛË ĚÉ¿ÛË ÈÇÀ¼ėÌ¼ ÌÇėË ÈÇÊĖÅ ĨÄľÅ), an
allusion to Prov. 4.26 (ĚÉ¿ÛË ÌÉÇÏÀÛË ÈÇĕ¼À ÊÇėË ÈÇÊĕÅ).59 He issues his call
to make straight paths for the sake of those with crippled limbs (ÏÑÂĠË),
whose hands and knees are not functioning at their full capacity. Making
the paths straight ensures that the weak ones will not be put out of joint
(ëÁÌÉñÈÑ). If this were to happen, they would be paralyzed and would
not be able to continue on the path. If, however, the readers make straight
paths, the weak would not be disquali¿ed from the race, but would instead
be healed (12.13). Straight paths – in addition to making the race easier
to run – will also repair the maladies of the members of their group.
The third and fourth charge is for the audience to pursue peace with all
and to pursue holiness. In v. 11, peaceful fruit was the reward that came
to those who allowed themselves to be trained by God’s discipline.
Similarly, God’s own holiness is that which God gives to his children
who remain under his discipline (12.10). God is training them so that
they might share in his holiness and attain peace. God sets the path that
leads to these things. Nevertheless, their response should be to keep
moving toward that quality God has promised to give them. As an added
motivation, the author asserts that those who do not have holiness will
not be able to see the Lord (12.14). Those who are not holy will not be
able to enter his holy place.
All four of the author’s exhortations involve forward movement.60
First, they are to restore the knees needed for walking. Second, they
should make straight paths. Third and ¿nally, they should follow after
both peace and sancti¿cation. In sum, they need to keep running the race
set before them (12.1), and to aid the members of their community who
are having a dif¿cult time doing so, so that they can all attain the bene¿ts
promised by God to his children.
B. Negative Examples
The author follows the instructions for these positive steps with negative
warnings, which culminate in the story of Esau, a story of disregarding
59 The fourth chapter of Proverbs also shows many resonances with the author’s
instructions in Hebrews 12. It begins with a call for children to listen to the instruc-
tion (È¸À»¼ĕ¸) of their father (4.1), and continues to address the listener as a son (ÍĎñ,
4.10). For the child who heeds the instruction, the father promises life (4.22, 23; cf.
Heb. 12.9) and healing (4.22; cf. Heb. 12.13).
60 Ernst Käsemann sees in the verbs of motion ‘a clear picture of the conspicu-
ous position of our motif [the wandering people of God]’ in the ¿nal chapters of the
letter (Wandering People, p.100).
1
one’s familial status and subsequently losing one’s inheritance. The

author begins by exhorting them to look out for one another (ëÈÀÊÁÇÈñÑ).
Doing so will help them to avoid three disastrous outcomes. First, being
mindful of one another will prevent anyone from falling short of the
grace of God. God makes his graciousness evident in that which God
gives to his children who complete his training: peace, righteousness,
holiness, and life. If, however, they give up on the race, they will fall
short of attaining the gracious gifts of God. Second, to buttress his point,
the author articulates another warning drawn from Deuteronomy. There,
after Moses outlines the blessings and curses entailed in the covenant, he
describes one who turns away from God and serves the gods of the
nations, describing that person as a root that produces bitterness and gall.
Such a person receives his just punishment with the elimination of his
name (Deut. 29.20), but his actions also lead into the story of the fail-
ure and punishment of the entire nation (Deut. 29.26-28). The author of
Hebrews notes that if a bitter root comes to their community, this root
could cause the contamination of many. These two injunctions combine
to form a powerful image. The one who falls short is like one who falls
in the middle of the race path. He becomes a great cause of stumbling for
those who are endeavoring to ¿nish the race, and he becomes a hindrance
to exactly what the congregation should strive for – peace and sancti¿-
cation.61 Because he tarnishes peace with bitterness, he subsequently
eliminates the possibility of holiness. The contamination he brings would
ruin the sanctity of the group and thus eliminate their chance to see God.
The author constructs the third outcome to be avoided with an appeal
to the example of Esau, whom the author calls immoral and vile. The use
of ÈĠÉÅÇË, or fornicator, is effective because the metaphor of fornication
was used frequently to describe one who turned away from God and his
blessings.62 ¹ñ¹¾ÂÇË, or ungodly, also provides an apt foil because it is
used as the opposite of ×ºÀÇË.63 This description of Esau provides a sharp
contrast to the sancti¿ed devotion to God the author wishes the readers
to pursue.
As one of the harshest warnings in the entire letter, the author appeals
to this story to exhibit the incredible loss his readers would face if they
disregard their position as children of God. The crime on which the
author focuses is Esau’s giving up of his rights as Isaac’s ¿rstborn child
61 DeSilva states that ‘the “root of bitterness”…has the power to threaten the
community precisely with regard to its peace (“causing trouble”) and sanctity (“and
many have become de¿led through it”)’ (Perseverance in Gratitude, p.457).
62 Hos. 2; 3.1; Isa. 57.8-9; Jer. 2.20; 3.2, 9; 13.27; Ezek. 16; 23; 43.7, 9.
1
63 Lev. 10.10; 1 Sam. 21.5; Ezek. 22.6; 44.23.
166 You Are My Son
and trading it for the temporary enjoyment of one meal (Gen. 25.32-34).
He favored meeting his immediate physical need for food rather than
considering the longstanding blessings of his birthright.
In v. 17, the author proceeds directly to the other major event in the
life of Esau. As Isaac was nearing death, he did not bestow upon Esau
the blessing of the ¿rstborn (Genesis 27). This is the place where the
author of the Hebrews leaves the story – in the fact that Esau was
rejected. As the narrative continues in Genesis, Isaac does issue some
sort of blessing upon Esau. Even though it ends on a slightly positive
note – that Esau will not be in slavery forever (Gen. 27.40) – Esau surely
does not interpret it in a positive light. After the ‘blessing’ is pronounced,
Esau holds a grudge against his brother who has tricked him and wishes
to kill Jacob (Gen. 27.41).
The author of Hebrews reiterates the ¿nality of Esau’s rejection by
asserting that he was unable to ¿nd a place for repentance (Ä¼Ì¸ÅÇĕ¸Ë º¸É
ÌĠÈÇÅ ÇĤÏ ¼īÉ¼Å). Interpreters have attributed the action of Ä¼Ì¸ÅÇĕ¸ to
both Isaac and Esau. If it refers to Esau’s action,64 then the word indi-
cates that he was not able to revoke the consequences of selling his
birthright. Esau functions, then, as an example of a person who could not
undo his careless action. This very negative view of Esau ¿nds attesta-
tion in much of the rest of the Old Testament and in intertestamental
literature. In the Minor Prophets, for example, Jacob is the loved brother
and Esau is the hated one (Mal. 1.3). Esau is covered with shame and cut
off forever (Obad. 1.10), and Esau's punishment is not revoked (Amos
1.11). Jubilees says that all Esau’s deeds were ¿erce (19.14). He was
malicious since youth, devoid of virtue, and lacked the ability to do what
is right (35.10-13). The pseudo-blessing of Isaac on Esau also includes
the note that after Esau removes the yoke of his brother, he will ‘surely
sin completely unto death and [his] seed will be rooted out from heaven’
(Jub. 26.34, Wintermute). Philo paints Esau as one who was ‘crafty in
wickedness’ (Leg. 3.2, Colson and Whitaker), and his story provides the
stimulus for saying that ‘the bad man is based on vice and passion’
(Sacr. 81, Colson and Whitaker).
On the other hand, other interpreters have read Ä¼Ì¸ÅÇĕ¸ as a change in
the mind of Isaac pertaining to the situation of Esau.65 If interpreted in
this way, Esau was asking Isaac to revoke the mistaken blessing he had
given to Jacob and, instead, give Esau the blessing of the ¿rstborn. When
Esau begged to receive the blessing and found no place for repentance,
64 E.g., Koester, Hebrews, p.542; Lane, Hebrews, p.2:458.

1
65 Hughes, Hebrews, p.541; Spicq, Hebréux, p.2:402.
that indicates that Esau could not convince Isaac to change his mind and
give him a genuine blessing (Gen. 27.36-40), even though he asked with
tears (Gen. 27.34).
The particular attribution of Ä¼Ì¸ÅÇĕ¸ is not ¿nally determinative for
the interpretation of this warning. The way in which the author retells the
story implies that Esau was ineffective either to undo his own deed or to
change the mind of Isaac because Esau had squandered his status as the
¿rstborn son. With no mention of the deception of Jacob, Esau’s inability
to inherit the blessing becomes the consequence of giving up his birth-
right. Whether the turnabout is Esau’s or Isaac’s has little consequence
for the ¿nal result. Both Esau’s selling of the birthright and Isaac’s
giving away of the blessing remain unchangeable realities. In the
author’s retelling of the story, Esau is culpable for his own misfortune,
suggesting that he had a hand in his irremediable situation.
By joining the events in Esau’s life in this way, the author highlights
the close connection between the status of being a ¿rstborn child and
inheritance. Because Esau thoughtlessly gave up the ¿rst, he lost the
ability to attain the second. By appealing to the sobering highlights of
Esau’s story, the author casts his departure as a turning away from one’s
family, uniting again the concepts of endurance and ¿lial status (12.4-
11). Esau’s misstep was that he did not hold on to what would have
given him the many bene¿ts that belong to the ¿rstborn child. Because
he forfeited his status as the ¿rstborn, he lost the blessing that came with
it. He could not get it back, even though he pleaded his case with tears.
The author thus lifts up his story as a chilling negative example for the
readers.
The example of Esau provides a stark reiteration of the warnings that
appear previously in the sermon.66 In ch. 6, the author describes someone
who has partaken of God’s Spirit, God’s word, and God’s power. If that
person falls away (È¸É¸ÈĕÈÌÑ), it is impossible for him to repent. This is
because he has shamed God’s Son. With slightly different language, in
ch. 10, the author asserts that if a person sins willfully after knowing the
truth, there is no longer a sacri¿ce for her sins but only an expectation of
judgment. In so doing, she insults God’s spirit, regards the blood by
which she was sancti¿ed as common, and tramples on God’s Son (10.26-
31). These are not minor offenses. The author seems to be describing
nothing short of apostasy.67

67 Attridge, Hebrews, p.370; Bruce, Hebrews, p.352; Ellingworth, Hebrews,
p.322; Johnson, Hebrews, p.163. Seneca captures the gravity of disinheritance when
he discusses the feelings of fathers who are hesitant to disinherit their children:
1
168 You Are My Son
If members from this congregation scorn their position as God’s

child – if they treat with contempt their fellowship with God’s ¿rstborn
Son – they cannot enjoy the inheritance that comes with being God’s
child. Hebrews 12.7-11 has stated that if they endure, they will reap the
bene¿ts promised to God’s sons and daughters; Heb. 12.12-17 argues
that if they do not, they will fall short of God’s grace, harm their commu-
nity, and lose their inheritance as did Esau. God has received them into
his family; God addresses them as his sons and daughters and treats them
as his legitimate children. On the other hand, the bene¿ts that come with
their status as children of God have not yet been fully secured by them. If
they forfeit this status by breaking connection with God’s preeminent
Son, they have no hope of persuading God to grant them their inheritance.
Their inheritance is inexorably bound to their status as God’s children.
The inherited blessing only comes to God’s children, and God’s children
are those who remain obedient members of his Son (3.14; 5.9).
IV. The Assurance: The Inheritance of the Firstborn
The dire warning made explicit in the story of Esau is just that: a
warning, not a fact. Therefore, the author follows this account with two
encouragements for his audience. They stand at the very foot of the
mountain of God where God’s children dwell, and they are privileged to
hear God continue to speak to them as a Father through his Son.
A. Two Mountains
Despite the intensity of this warning, the author is quick to assure his
readers that the great misfortune of Esau does not presently apply to
them. On the contrary, in the rhetorical climax of the letter,68 the author
‘[d]oes any father in his senses disinherit a son for his ¿rst offence? Only when great
and repeated wrong-doing has overcome his patience, only when what he fears
outweighs what he reprimands, does he resort to the decisive pen; but ¿rst he makes
an effort to reclaim a character that is still unformed, though inclined now to the
more evil side; when the case is hopeless, he tries extreme measures’ (Clem. 1.14.1
[Basore]).
68 Witherington states, ‘[a]s would be expected in the peroration of epideictic
rhetoric, our author chooses to ¿nish quite literally in a blaze of divine glory, using
highly emotive rhetoric to bring his argument home and indelibly imprint it in the
audience’s mind… From a rhetorical viewpoint the ¿nal exhortation is in the
emphatic position, and one may conclude that this is what our author has been
working toward all along as a climax to his discourse’ (Letters and Homilies, p.336).
Those who also view this section as climactic include Ellingworth (Hebrews, p.669),
1
locates them at the foot of the very mountain where all of God’s ¿rstborn
children are celebrating the attainment of their inheritance.
Earlier, in Hebrews 3–4, the author warned his readers not to pattern
themselves on the disobedience displayed by the wilderness generation.
He alludes to that story again in Hebrews 12, however, in order to
declare to his audience that they are in a different position from that of
the wilderness generation. They have not approached the same mountain.
Approach or movement toward something is an important theme in
Hebrews. In all seven instances, the verb ÈÉÇÊñÏÇÄ¸À is used to describe
coming before God (4.16; 7.25; 10.1, 22; 11.6; 12.18, 22), but Heb.
12.18 is the only instance in which the author uses fearful language to
describe approaching God. He paints a picture of an ominous place
burning with ¿re and surrounded in darkness, gloom, and a windstorm.
Trumpets blast and a voice speaks words such that those who hear beg
for silence. Here, the author is recounting the story of the wilderness
generation standing before Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19). It is such a powerfully
holy place that even if a beast touched the mountain, it would have to be
stoned (Heb. 12.20/Exod. 19.13). It is striking that his ¿rst description
of the place is ‘that which can be touched (Ð¾Â¸ÎÑÄñÅĿ)’. Since this
mountain can be touched, it holds the prospect of death. The author
asserts that this place was so fearful that even Moses, whom he holds up
as an exemplary character earlier in the letter (3.1-5; 11.24-28), proclaims
his fear and shows it bodily through trembling.
Juxtaposed to this terrifying scene towers the mountain the audience
has approached. They have come to Mt. Zion, the mountain associated
with Jerusalem, the city of King David (2 Sam. 5.7; Pss. 2.6; 101.2).
Because Jerusalem is the dwelling place of the temple, by extension it is
also designated as the dwelling place of God (Pss. 9.12; 19.13). For
Hebrews, Zion is the city of the living God, a descriptor of God the
author utilizes throughout the letter (3.12; 4.12; 9.14; 10.31; 12.11).
Finally, the author names the mountain as Jerusalem. In the case of
Hebrews, as for other authors of the time (2 En. 55.2; Philo, Somn.
2.250; Gal. 4.26; Phil. 3.20), it is a heavenly Jerusalem, aligning with
Grässer (Hebräer, p.3:302), Guthrie (The Structure of Hebrews, p.143), Koester

(Hebrews, p.548), and Lane (Hebrews, p.2:448). Kiwoong Son argues that this
section is ‘essential for the interpretation of the Epistle’ because it sheds light on the
way which the author uses Israel’s scriptures, employing some ‘to explain the inferi-
ority of the ¿gures and cultic institution’ and others ‘to depict the superior nature of
the person and ministry of Jesus’ (Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24
as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle [PBM; Milton Keyes: Paternoster, 2005],
pp.23, 78).
1
170 You Are My Son
Hebrews’ focus on heavenly things. The readers have a heavenly calling

(3.1). Jesus took his sacri¿ce to a heavenly temple (9.23), and the faithful
of Israel’s past were looking forward to a heavenly city (11.16). As the
author directs his audience’s attention to Mt. Zion, they are able to gaze
into this heavenly realm.
Moving on from a description of the place to a description of the
beings located there, the author delineates ¿ve different people or groups
of people, alternating between divine and human constituents. He begins
with a large gathering of angels who are celebrating. The angels have not
been mentioned since the opening two chapters where the author showed
their inferiority in comparison with Jesus (1.5, 13) and their disadvantage
in comparison with human beings (2.16).69 Nevertheless, in the picture of
God’s holy city, the angels also join in the celebration.
There with the angels dwells the assembly of the ¿rstborn. Firstborn
(ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË) is the terminology the author uses to speak of Jesus in the
¿rst chapter (1.6). In this instance, this is not the assembly that belongs
to the ¿rstborn one (ÈÉÑÌÇÌĠÁÇÍ, singular), but the assembly (ëÁÁÂ¾Êĕ¸)
that is made up of ¿rstborn ones (ÈÉÑÌÇÌĠÁÑÅ, plural). Every member of
the assembly is given the honorable designation of being the ¿rstborn.
This is a reiteration of the sermon’s theme that those who follow Jesus
are considered children of God (2.10, 12-13, 14; 3.6; 12.5-9), and it is
especially comforting after the warning about Esau, who squandered his
birthright and lost access to the blessings that come to the ¿rstborn
(12.15-17). It is the story of Esau that most plausibly accounts for the
change in the author’s language from ÍĎÇĕ to ÈÉÇÌļÌÇÁÇÀ. Those who hold
fast to God attain the great blessings that come to the ¿rstborn children.
The author further describes the congregation as those who have been
registered (ÒÈÇºÉÚÎÑ) in heaven.70 A reference to a written document is
striking in a letter so concerned with speaking and listening. Therefore,
in addition to referring to their registry in heaven, this way of describing
the congregation correlates with the scripture spoken twice in Hebrews
that God, in the New Covenant, will write his laws on the minds of his
people (ëÈÀºÉÚÎÑ, Jer. 31.33/Heb. 8.10; 10.16). The assembly of God’s
children are enrolled in heaven because they have been inscribed with
God’s law.
69 Jesus did not take hold of the nature of angels (2.16), and so the angels serve
as ministers to those people who Jesus did aid.
70 To be legally registered (ÒÈÇºÉÚÎÑ) also appears in Lk. 2.1, 3, and 5.
Attridge (Hebrews, p.375 n.72) also notes that a registry in heaven is a recurring
theme (Exod. 32.32; Ps. 68.29 LXX; Isa. 4.3; Dan. 12.1; Lk. 10.20; Rev. 13.18; 17;
Hermas, Vis. 1.3.2; Sim. 2.9).
1
Having described this place as the city of the living God, the author
then says explicitly that God is there. He describes God as the judge of
all, a rather ominous description that highlights the paradoxical nature of
the community’s ability to approach this mountain. God is judge; never-
theless, they can approach with con¿dence. This paradox is intensi¿ed
by the fact that there with God are the spirits of righteous people who
have been made perfect. The three-word description (ÈÅ¼įÄ¸ÊÀ »ÀÁ¸ĕÑÅ
Ì¼Ì¼Â¼ÀÑÄñÅÑÅ) draws upon themes established earlier in the chapter
where the author portrays God as a pedagogical Father. In v. 9, the
author describes God as the Father of spirits, who disciplines his children
so that they might attain righteousness. Moreover, Jesus learns obedience
through the process God uses with him as his Father (2.11; 5.8-9; 7.28).
Jesus, who is perfect in faith through his obedient action (12.2), has per-
fected the faith of the congregation (10.14). These people have been
included in the dwelling place of God because God, through his fatherly
actions with Jesus and with his many sons and daughters, has prepared
them to pass the test of his judgment.
Finally, the people join in this gathering as God’s faithful children
because the way has been opened to them through the mediator of the
New Covenant (12.24), Jesus himself. His sprinkled blood, as the author
argues in other places (Heb. 9.12, 14; 10.19; 13.12), gives them access to
God.71 The author describes this blood as that which speaks better than
the blood of Abel. The author asserted in 11.4 that even though Abel
died, he still speaks because the faith expressed in his gift to God showed
him to be righteous.72 In comparison, Jesus’ blood is not all that speaks
for humanity. Jesus himself – unlike Abel – is alive to intercede before
God (7.25) because he has been exalted as heir to the right hand of his
Father.
B. Do Not Resist the One Speaking

The second assurance begins in the form of an admonition: they should
remain on guard lest they resist the One who is speaking to them. The
author’s exhilarating picture of the city of God might tempt some of his
interpreters to think that he believes the audience has already arrived.73
71 It is possible that the community experiences these realities in the present

through the practice of the Eucharist. Thanks to Michael Kibbe for calling my
attention to this interesting connection.
72 Does Jesus’ blood speak better because it is redemptive and Abel’s cried out
for justice? Or are both, as martyrs, atoning in some, but Christ’s blood is atoning
for all forever (Attridge, Hebrews, p.377)?
73 George Wesley Buchanan suggests that upon their arrival, ‘[t]hose who had
received the bene¿ts of Christ’s atonement joined the throng of those saints gathered
1
172 You Are My Son
With the warning that follows, he shows that this is not the case. They,
like the Israelites before Sinai, stand at the foot of the mountain. They
are not yet at the top. Because they do not yet reside in this heavenly
Jerusalem, his admonition for them therefore is this: watch out so that
you do not resist the One who is speaking. The author does not want
them to make the same mistake of the wilderness generation who resisted
the God who spoke to them and were consequently punished by being
denied entrance to the Promised Land (Exod. 20.19; Ps. 95.7-8; Heb. 3.7-
8, 15; 4.7). Since God is speaking to them not from an earthly mountain,
but from heaven itself, they have even less hope of turning away from
his voice without recompense. To buttress this warning, the author adds
that the One speaking to them has promised to shake both the heavens
and the earth. Nothing shakable can withstand his thunderous voice
(12.26). Finally, he leaves them with a chilling picture of who God is.
Quoting Deuteronomy, the author asserts that ‘our God is a consuming
¿re’ (Deut. 4.24; 9.3).74
at Mount Zion when Jesus was cruci¿ed’ (Hebrews, p.223). Similarly Bruce states,
‘“You have come” may denote their conversion to Christianity… So, by virtue of
their accepting the gospel, the readers of this epistle had come to that spiritual realm
some of whose realities are detailed in the following clauses’ (Hebrews, p.355).
74 This description of God resonates with that in Exodus 24, a narrative to
which the author alludes in Heb. 9.19-20. After the covenant ceremony involving
blood in vv. 3-8, Moses and his colleagues come up onto the mountain of God. This
action, however, departs from the instructions of vv. 1-2. At the beginning of this
chapter, God told Moses that only he would be allowed to draw near to the Lord. His
companions could ascend with him and worship at a distance, but they were speci-
¿cally commanded not to draw near (ÇĤÁ ëººÀÇıÊÀÅ). Moreover, the people were
prohibited even from coming up with Moses and the others (24.2). After the ceremony,
however, the necessity of distance is absent, and, most strikingly, Moses is not singled
out. There, together they see (v. 10). The last time they saw anything, in Exodus 20,
it was the mountain smoking. That sight resulted in fear, trembling, and the
observers removing themselves at a distance from God (Exod. 20.18). According to
the LXX, in ch. 24, however, this small group of Israelites not only sees the place
where the God of Israel stands, but also even dines there.
After this intimate and more inclusive event, Moses and Joshua go up higher onto
the mountain. While they ascend, the sons of Israel remain at the foot of the mountain
watching. On this occasion when they see the manifestation of the glory of the Lord
appearing now not just as smoke but as a consuming ¿re (ÈıÉ ÎÂšºÇÅ), the text makes
no mention of their fear. At the close of the Sinai episode, the people of Israel look
up on the mountain and see the Lord’s glory as a Àaming ¿re. Hence, like Moses and
Joshua, the righteous spirits who have been perfected dwell with this ¿re unscathed
and those observing the ¿re from the ground need not be afraid.
1
The designation of this ¿ery God as the One who is speaking (ÌġÅ
Â¸ÂÇıÅÌ¸) recalls a recurrent theme throughout the letter. Throughout,
the author has portrayed God speaking to the audience (1.2; 3.7–4.7; 8.8-
12; 10.30-31, 37-38; 12.5-6). The ¿rst thing the author says about
himself and his audience in the ¿rst sentence of the sermon is that they
are people to whom God is speaking (ëÂÚÂ¾Ê¼Å ÷ÄėÅ, Heb. 1.2). More-
over, because God speaks to them ëÅ ÍĎŊ, God’s speech is embodied in
the relation of the Father and the Son. It is, therefore, paternal speech.
Consequently, since God’s speech in the last days is delivered as a Father
and, in these last days, God is speaking to the audience of the sermon,
the audience hears God speaking to them as a Father. His speech points
them to the relationship that makes him Father, the relationship between
himself and Jesus, the Son. This relationship reminds them of the suffer-
ing Jesus experienced through the will of his Father and the subsequent
honor and glory he attained from his Father. They are reminded that as
children of God their lives can follow the same pattern.
Since they hear God speaking as a Father (1.2), they are given bold-
ness to reply to God in the same way Jesus does: as children. In support
of the author’s exhortation that they embrace a lack of covetousness
(ÒÎÀÂÚÉºÍÉÇË), the author brings forth God to speak for the ¿nal time,
saying: ÇĤ Äû Ê¼ ÒÅľ ÇĤ»’ ÇĤ Äû Ê¼ ëºÁ¸Ì¸ÂĕÈÑ (Heb. 13.5).75 This
assurance gives the audience, for the ¿rst time, boldness to speak the
scriptures. They speak the words from Psalm 117: ÁįÉÀÇË ëÄÇĕ ¹Ç¾¿ĠË, ÇĤ
ÎÇ¹¾¿¾ÊÇÄ¸À, Ìĕ ÈÇÀûÊ¼À ÄÇÀ ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇË,76 and they proclaim the Lord as
their helper (Heb. 13.6). In light of all this, they do not have to fear the
action of any person. They give voice to a stance of trust in God similar
to the attitude of trust that Jesus himself articulated, ëºĽ ìÊÇÄ¸À È¼ÈÇÀ¿ĽË
ëÈ’ ¸ĤÌŊ (2.12).77
75 This statement resonates with several texts from the LXX, including Gen.
28.15; Deut. 31.6; Josh. 1.5. Attridge suggests that both Philo (Conf. ling. 166) and
the author of Hebrews might be citing from a variant of Deut. 31.6, 8.
76 Psalm 117 LXX includes several themes emphasized in Hebrews: the psalmist
declares that the Lord became salvation to him (vv. 14, 28; cf. Heb. 1.14), that the
Lord disciplined him (v. 18; cf. Heb. 12.4-11), and that the Lord did not hand him
over to death (v. 18; cf. Heb. 2.15-16).
77 Attridge eloquently notes: ‘[b]y the ¿nale of Hebrews, the followers of Jesus,
in the person of the homilist and his audience, have assumed the role of Jesus in
his dialogue with God. Their prayer of the psalm is what Heb. 13.15 calls for, an
acknowledgement of God. Their prayer af¿rms their faith in God’s ¿delity, a faith-
fulness that trumps all threats of judgment’ (‘The Psalms in Hebrews’, p.212). So
also J. Ross Wagner states: ‘Jesus’ solidarity with the community…implies that
these “children” and “brothers” will emulate his attitude of trust. This expectation
1
174 You Are My Son
Despite the ¿lial similarities the audience of Hebrews shares with

Jesus, there remains one radical difference between them. Because they
are vulnerable to sin (2.1; 3.6, 7-8, 12, 15; 4.1, 11; 5.11; 6.4-6; 10.26-31,
35-39; 12.1, 12-17, 25) and he was and is sinless (4.15; 7.26), his exam-
ple alone is no guarantee that they too will dwell in the presence of God
forever. In ch. 12, the author puts before his audience the examples of
two sons. Jesus, who will take possession of all the blessings of his
inheritance (1.3, 13; 2.8-9; 12.2), and Esau who, because he gave up his
birthright, did not (12.17). The author issues the warnings that he does
because it is yet to be determined whose example they will follow.
Therefore, the author’s exhortations for endurance are bolstered by
more than just an appeal to the example of Jesus’ sonship alone. The
function of the author’s depiction of the familial relationship between
Jesus and God is not exhausted by its service as the model for God’s
relationship for humanity. Even more fundamental than its exemplary
role, the author’s presentation of God’s paternal relationship with Jesus
reveals that it is this very relationship that makes God’s paternal relation-
ship with humanity a reality. Because God the Father perfected his Son
Jesus and established him as the heir of all things and the eternal high
priest, the audience of Hebrews can be con¿dent that they are the chil-
dren of God and as such will receive the inheritance promised to them.78
C. Benediction
The author reinforces the con¿dence of the audience with his closing
benediction (13.20-21) in which he points to Jesus’ status as the reigning
Son and heir of God. Here, he calls God the God of peace (ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÌýË
¼ĊÉûÅ¾Ë).79 The God of peace made peace an attainable reality for the
audience when he raised Jesus up from the dead. For the fourth time in
the letter, God is portrayed as the one who leads his children (1.6; 2.10;
8.9). Previously, he led Jesus, his ¿rstborn Son, into the ÇĊÁÇÍÄñÅ¾ (1.6),
but here the focus is that out of which he is leading Jesus, the realm of
comes to explicit expression as the sermon approaches its hortatory climax’ (‘Faith-
fulness and Fear’, p.104).
78 Heather Gorman argues that the author puts emphasis on the juxtaposition of
positive and negative appeals: ‘[a]ppeals to negative pathos never stand alone as an
end in themselves. They work together with positive appeals toward the greater goal
of encouraging a group of weary Christians to maintain their faith in spite of their
suffering’ (‘Persuading Through Pathos: Appeals to the Emotions in Hebrews’, RQ
54.2 [2012], pp.77–90 [88]).
79 This description of God appears in the Pauline letters (Rom. 15.33; 16.20;
2 Cor. 13.11; Phil. 4.9; 1 Thess. 5.23).
1
the dead (Å¼ÁÉľÅ). This is the explicit af¿rmation of the resurrection,

which has been supposed throughout the letter.80 The living God is the
God who can bring people back from death (11.19, 35), just as Jesus
trusted that he could do (5.7). By doing so with his Son, Jesus, the power
of death was defeated forever (2.14).
In the benediction, the author designates Jesus as the great shepherd of
the sheep.81 Previously, the attribution of greatness had been attached to
his role as high priest (4.14; 10.21). In a similar way, the shepherd
metaphor af¿rms both his participation with humanity and also his
distinct position of leadership over them. It ¿ts well with the imagery of
Jesus as the ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË (Heb. 2.10; 12.2). Because God has brought the
shepherd up from death, the shepherd can similarly lead the sheep.
The path on which God leads Jesus proceeds on the blood of the
eternal covenant. The reference to blood reiterates Jesus’ complete parti-
cipation in the human condition (2.14; c.f. 2.17; 4.15) and, in that
participation, his sacri¿cial act (9.12, 14). This is the ¿nal reference to
the obedient suffering of Jesus through which his Father perfected him.
The shedding of this blood made possible humanity’s entrance into
God’s holy sanctuary (10.14) because it was through this blood that the
New Covenant was established (12.24). The New Covenant is the eternal
covenant because it is based on the promise that Jesus will be priest
forever (Ps. 109.4 LXX; Heb. 5.6; 6.20; 7.17, 21, 28) and will provide the
eternal inheritance of redemption/salvation and forgiveness to its
participants (5.9; 8.12; 9.12, 15; 10.17).
As the benediction opens with the articulation of God’s name, it closes
with the articulation of the Jesus’ name, the name he has inherited from
his Father (1.10): ÁįÉÀÇË. This is an af¿rmation of his highly exalted
position as God’s Son, which he has held from eternity. It is also an
af¿rmation that he has wrested power from the power of death and sin,
and now reigns as Lord over all things. Having obediently endured his
Father’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸, this perfected Son has taken his rightful place as God’s
heir. The good news proclaimed by the author of Hebrews is that this
supreme Lord is in fact the Lord of his readers. They are members of his
kingdom (12.28) and, even more, members of his household (3.6). Jesus
80 As David Mof¿tt argues persuasively in Atonement and Resurrection.

81 Both Lane (Hebrews, p.2:562) and Rothschild (Hebrews as Pseudepigra-
phon, p.70) highlight the similarity to Isa. 63.11-12, which refers to God leading up
Moses, the great shepherd of the sheep. For those with ears to hear, this is one more
af¿rmation of Jesus’ superiority over Moses. It is also a royal association between
Jesus, and his ancestor David, who tended the sheep (1 Sam. 16.19; 17.34; 1 Chr.
17.7; Pss. 77.70; 151.1; Ezek. 27.24; 34.23).
1
176 You Are My Son
is now Lord over all, and the audience of Hebrews is privileged to

participate in the blessings of his Lordship.
The author desires that God would strengthen his readers in all good
things so that they might perform God’s will. Jesus, their brother, has
already completed God’s will, which resulted in their sancti¿cation
(10.7, 9, 10). God’s will for the audience is that they are sancti¿ed
(10.10) and receive what was promised to them (10.36), their eternal
inheritance (6.12, 17; 9.15).
This is all possible through Jesus Christ, who is worthy of glory for all
eternity. As God’s Son, he is the radiance of his Father’s glory (1.3). As
God’s Son perfected through suffering, he has obtained the victor’s
crown of glory and honor as sovereign heir over all things (2.9). His
position of glory has been inaugurated and will remain forever, and the
hope of the children of God is secure because their inheritance of
salvation from death and sin and entrance into God’s city is bound up in
the Son’s glorious reign.
V. Conclusion
The interpretation of Hebrews 12–13 set forth here highlights the

culmination of the letter’s familial themes. The Father/Son relationship
between God and Jesus shapes the author’s exhortation to his audience in
two ways. First, Jesus’ sonship provides the model for their own identity,
present experiences, and goal. At the beginning of ch. 12, the author
reminds the readers that Jesus has endured the suffering his Father willed,
which came to fruition in his death on the cross (12.2). Subsequently, he
has taken his place as God’s Son at the right hand of his Father (12.2).
Following this summary, the author incontrovertibly establishes his
readers’ identity as ÍĎÇĕ of God. The story of God’s relationship with
Jesus thereby provides the template for the relationship the audience has
with God.
By describing the process by which Jesus takes his place as God’s
heir as God’s paternal training, the author lifts up Jesus as the ultimate
example of a Son who endures intense suffering to obey his Father
faithfully. By showing that God teaches even his ¿rstborn, preeminent,
eternal, exalted, and divine Son through suffering – even the suffering of
the cross – the author argues that the nature of God’s Fatherhood is
to perfect his children through their obedient endurance of their own
challenging circumstances. The utilization of suffering shows God to be
a Father who disciplines and Jesus to be an obedient Son. Their actions
in this relational interplay provide for the audience a picture of the kind
of Father God is and the kind of children they should be. God will lay
1
before them their own dif¿cult contest, and they should also respond
with faithful endurance. The author then comforts them with the assur-
ance that their trying experiences are the È¸À»¼ĕ¸ of God their Father.
The path that Jesus takes as God’s Son provides hope for the audience.
After he endured God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸, he took his honorable and glorious seat
at God’s right hand, where he awaits the consummation of his universal
inheritance. Because the audience is experiencing God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ just as
Jesus did, they too can look forward to receiving their reward. The author
motivates them by vividly portraying the greatness of the inheritance that
awaits them. The audience of Hebrews can be assured that as they
endure – supported by God himself through Jesus’ priesthood – they will
join in the joyous assembly of God’s ¿rstborn.
The second way in which Jesus’ sonship corresponds to the ¿lial
status of the audience of Hebrews is that Jesus’ status as heir – promised
by his Father and secured by his sacri¿cial death, victory over death, and
living intercession – balances the author’s warnings with the assurance
that they are a part of this guaranteed inheritance. This study has sought
to show how the author of Hebrews offers this stalwart assurance to his
audience. First, in his appeals to various scriptures throughout the
opening sections of Hebrews (1.5–3.6), the author speci¿es that as the
heir of all things, Jesus’ inheritance includes the children of God. Sec-
ond, he shows throughout the letter how the suffering that Jesus endures
is the way in which Jesus wins and sustains the human component of his
inheritance through the sacri¿ce and intercession enacted in his priest-
hood. Consequently, although his warnings against squandering their
inheritance present real possibilities, they are only that: possibilities
whose volume is tempered in the presence of the resounding voice of
God, who in speaking to them ëÅ ÍĎŊ declares that they are the inheri-
tance of Jesus. As such, the ‘Hebrews’ can be con¿dent that they will
attain their own inheritance of salvation among the assembly of the
¿rstborn. They can run boldly toward their inheritance because they
know they are the inheritance of Jesus Christ, the reigning Son of God.
As children of God, the audience of Hebrews can trust that their
experience of God’s È¸À»¼ĕ¸ will lead to the possession of their inheri-
tance, just as it did for Jesus, because, as children of God – those to
whom God is speaking in his Son – they are the inheritance of Jesus. The
author can be so intense in his warnings because his claim of what God
the Father has done in concert with his Son, Jesus, is so comprehensive.
He leaves them with the assurance that Jesus is now glori¿ed forever as
the Lord who will inherit all things. As the children of God, they are part
of the inheritance that Jesus has won through death and continually
sustains through his priestly intercession. Their boldness and boast of
1
178 You Are My Son
hope is grounded in the fact that God is faithful (10.23). He has promised
to place all things under the feet of his Son in his household, including
his many sons and daughters, the ‘Hebrews’ themselves.
Just as the author begins his sermon with a picture of the family of
God, so too he brings it to a close by appealing to this relationship.
God’s Fatherhood, constituted in the reality of Jesus’ sonship, surfaces
throughout the entirety of the letter creating the concomitant ¿lial
identity and hope of the audience. Second, the training the audience is
experiencing and the reward to which they look forward continue to
point to the character of God as Father and remind the audience of Jesus’
faithful response as Son. It is in the ¿nal section that the author fully
discusses the pedagogical side to God’s fatherly nature. Finally, the
closing sections of the letter also offer the fullest picture of the audi-
ence’s identity and inheritance, including the guaranteed inheritance of
Jesus upon which both rest.
1
CONCLUSION
Most interpreters of the Epistle to the Hebrews acknowledge the presence

of the familial theme in the sermon, but none have explored the theme’s
theological, christological, and ecclesiological implications throughout
the letter. Seeking to advance the understanding of Hebrews by ¿lling in
this lacuna, this study devotes concentrated attention to the portrayal of
God as Father, Jesus as Son, and the author and his congregation as chil-
dren of God.
I have followed the author’s presentation of the family of God
throughout his argument. In my ¿rst chapter, I argued that the author
begins his sermon by presenting Jesus’ exalted position in terms of his
¿lial relationship with God. Following this description of the Son (vv. 1-
4), the author emphatically asserts the existence of the relationship that
grants Jesus his supreme position through a pair of scriptural citations
(1.5). By setting up the citations of Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14 as a conver-
sation, by choosing citations that equally portray God’s role as a Father
and Jesus’ role as a Son, and by arranging them so that each line and the
citation as a whole focus on both the Father and the Son, the author has
God himself proclaim in Heb. 1.5 God’s own ethos as a Father and
Jesus’ identity as a Son – thus setting the tone for the rest of the sermon.
I argued that the force with which the author articulates this relationship
suggests that Heb. 1.5 provides the best context in which to interpret the
statements about the Son in vv. 1-4. The Son, whom God appointed as
heir of all things, who reÀects God’s glory, who participated with God in
the creation of all things, and who continues to participate in their
sustenance, is the person with whom God relates as a Father. Out of this
relationship, God bestows on his Son God’s own name, addressing him
as both ¿¼ĠË and ÁįÉÀÇË. Certain rights and responsibilities accompany
this name: the worship of the angels, an eternal reign, participation in
creation, and sovereignty over all things. Spoken by God in vv. 6-13, the
scriptural catena con¿rms that Jesus is the supreme heir because the all-
powerful God, who is his Father, has chosen to share with him all things.
My next chapter argued that the author maintains his focus on God’s
family in the second chapter of Hebrews. The author’s emphasis that God
subjects all things under the feet of the son of man of Psalm 8 functions
180 You Are My Son
as a reiteration of the author’s citation of Ps. 109.1 LXX in Heb. 1.13 as

well as his statement that God appointed Jesus as heir of all things in
Heb. 1.2, suggesting that he reads Psalm 8 as a scriptural declaration of
Jesus’ status as God’s heir. The new element he contributes to his argu-
ment at this point shows that Jesus takes this exalted position precisely as
a human who has experienced death. God makes Jesus perfect through
this process (2.10), not because Jesus was lacking in any way, but
because as he reenters the presence of God, he makes possible the same
entrance for the human portion of his inheritance who was enslaved to
the fear of death (2.14-15). Through his defeat of death, Jesus’ siblings
can now follow him, their ÒÉÏ¾ºĠË, to their own participation in God’s
glory. Hence, Jesus wins back humanity from slavery so that he becomes
the perfect heir of all things. Each section of Hebrews 2, along with the
scriptures cited and alluded to by the author, presents this story. By
responding to God’s initiative, Jesus became human and died. Through
this process, he became the perfect heir who, reigning next to God, will
inherit God’s children who had been enslaved to the fear of death.
In my third chapter, I moved to the center section of the letter to show
the integral connection between Jesus’ priestly vocation and his status as
Son. The author emphasizes that Jesus’ call to the priesthood comes from
his Father (Hebrews 5) and that it is God’s Son whom God calls to be
priest in the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7). Jesus is quali¿ed for this
¿nal supreme priesthood because of what he experiences as God’s Son:
becoming human, dying, and being raised to God’s right hand. On the
other hand, through his priestly offering of his own body and blood, he
secures salvation from sin for his many brothers and sisters. As he sits as
God’s heir next to God’s throne, he intercedes for his siblings to aid
them on their journey. Through both of these priestly acts – his offering
and his intercession – he supports the ultimate possession of his own
inheritance: the many ÍĎÇĕ of God.
The author’s presentation of the status and future he and his audience
share as ÍĎÇĕ of God provides the content of my ¿nal chapter. Beginning
with how the new covenant motif resonates with the family of God
theme, I then analyze the ¿nal chapters of Hebrews, where the author
clearly proclaims that God is Father to his readers. He does so by
presenting Prov. 3.11-12 as God’s address to ‘my son’. This relationship
interprets the present dif¿culties of the audience (they are undergoing the
fatherly discipline of God) and sets the goal toward which they are mov-
ing (the attainment of aspects of God’s character, including life, peace,
holiness, and righteousness). It becomes clear that the author has been
portraying God’s paternal relationship with Jesus as a model for the
audience. Just as Jesus was perfected through suffering, so too can they
1
Conclusion 181
be perfected, because they are all ÍĎÇĕ of God. Positive encouragements

and negative warnings, which reach a climax in the story of Esau who
abandoned his birthright, exhort the audience to remain in this familial
relationship with God, no matter how dif¿cult it might be. To the author’s
great relief, the audience has not yet followed in the footsteps of Esau,
and so he reminds them of the inheritance to which they are looking
forward. He directs their gaze to the top of God’s Mt. Zion, where all the
¿rstborn children of God dwell in celebration. From this mountain, God
continues to speak to them. Because God speaks to them in his Son, they
have continually before them the example of Jesus’ relationship with God
the Father. Even more powerful than his example, Jesus’ status as the
reigning and glorious Lord, and his priestly intercession which accom-
panies this status, assures the audience that they are a part of his promised
and won inheritance. This assurance provides stalwart encouragement for
them to hold fast to their confession (3.6, 14; 10.23) and ¿nish the race
(12.1).
I. Contributions to Scholarship on Hebrews
My recognition of the prominence and function of the familial theme in

Hebrews provides plausible answers to a number of signi¿cant problems
that continue to bedevil interpreters of the letter, even as it challenges
several inÀuential interpretations. First, the preceding investigation
directly opposes those who argue that the familial language, particularly
the author’s depiction of God’s Fatherhood, remains a muted theme in
the letter. For example, James Moffatt argues,
…while the author knows the primitive Christian idea of God’s father-
hood, it is not in such terms that he expresses his own conception of
God… [T]he author of ÈÉġË î¹É¸ĕÇÍË lays no stress upon the Fatherhood
of God for men; except in connexion with the discipline of suffering, he
never alludes to the goodness of God as paternal, even for Christians, and
indeed it is only in OT quotations that God is called even the Father of
the Son (15 55).1
1 Moffatt, Hebrews, p.xxxv. With a similar argument, Angela Rascher states,

‘[d]iese Ansprache Gottes als Vater durch Jesus ist im Hebr allerdings nicht zu
¿nden, nur der Sohn wird als Sohn von Gott angesprochen. Die Bezeichnung,
“Vater” für Gott spielt im Hebr keine Rolle, jedoch die enge Beziehung von Gott
und Sohn. Auch ist im Hebr keine Unterscheidung in der Verwendung von “Sohn”
und “Gottes Sohn” festzustellen’ (Schriftauslegung, p.46). Alexander C. Purdy also
notes, ‘…[the author] does not stress the correlative, “Father,” in the Johannine
fashion. Only twice is God called the Father, even of the Son (1.5; 5.5, both O.T.
1
182 You Are My Son
My investigation challenges each of Moffatt’s claims. That the author

connects God’s Fatherhood of the audience to the prominent theme
of suffering (2.9, 10, 18; 5.8; 9.26; 10.32; 12.5-11; 13.12) speaks to its
importance rather than its lack of stress. Second, the author frequently
connects God’s goodness to his Fatherhood. God is leading many ÍĎÇĕ to
glory (2.10). God has made those in the audience members of his house-
hold (3.1-6). He disciplines them as a Father so that they can share in his
life, holiness, righteousness, and peace (12.5-11). He treats all of his
children as ¿rstborn, inviting them to dwell in his presence on Mt. Zion
(12.22). Finally, the appearance of God’s fatherhood in the scriptural
quotations increases, rather than decreases, its importance for the sermon.
The author builds his argument upon the scriptures of Israel. Proof of the
authoritative value they hold for him lies in his dominant method of
citation. they are the spoken words of God.
Moffatt’s argument, along with the statements of others, ignores both
the author’s ability to convey the idea of God’s Fatherhood without
explicit use of the title È¸ÌûÉ and also the relational connotation of other
terms, such as Son, child, brother, heir, inheritance, and È¸À»¼ĕ¸.2 In
addition to beginning and concluding his sermon with explicit discus-
sions of God’s Fatherhood in relation ¿rst to Jesus and then to God’s
many ÍĎÇĕ (1.5; 12.5-6), references to these relationships permeate his
argument. God as Father perfects His Son through suffering (becoming
human and dying, 2.8-9, 10, 17; 3.1; 4.15; 5.7-8; 7.28; 10.10; 12.2).
Jesus’ obedient response as the trusting Son results in his position as the
exalted heir (1.3, 13; 2.8-9; 3.6; 4.14; 5.9-10; 7.28; 8.1; 10.5-7, 12; 12.2;
13.20-21). Through this process humanity becomes members of God’s
household who are looking forward to the attainment of their own
inheritance (1.14; 2.10, 12; 3.1-6; 5.9; 7.25; 8.8-12; 9.15; 10.14; 12.5-11,
22-24). To ignore or diminish the importance of the family of God the
quotations), and that God is the Father of men only appears in connection with the
discipline of suffering (12.9)’ (The Epistle to the Hebrews [IB, 11; New York:
Abingdon, 1955], p.599).
2 For example, Paul Ellingworth states, ‘…in Hebrews as a whole, Christ’s
Sonship is a major theme, but “Father” is not prominent as a title for God (12.9)’
(Hebrews, p.114). Similarly, Hugh Monte¿ore says, ‘[The author of Hebrews]
employs [the catena] to describe the status of the Son, not that of God the Father.
Nowhere else in this Epistle is God described as the Father of Christ’ (Hebrews,
p.45). Even J. Scott Lidgett tends to downplay the theme of fatherhood: ‘[t]his
doctrine [the Fatherhood of God] is assumed throughout the Epistle, but is only
explicitly stated towards the end’ (Sonship and Salvation, p.13) and ‘[a]nd while the
writer says nothing expressly about the Fatherhood of God, the whole of the Epistle
turns upon Sonship’ (Sonship and Salvation, p.93).
1
Conclusion 183
Father is to miss the author’s dominant picture of God and Christ and,
consequently, to miss one of the most compelling ways he supports the
exhortation to his audience.
Second, I argue that the author’s paternal presentation of God is the
foundational image in his theology. God is certainly a holy God with
whom humans could not dwell had Jesus not granted access through his
death, resurrection, session, and intercession. Yet this access is won
because of the way in which God disciplines and grants an inheritance
to his Son. When humans come into his presence, they do so as his
children. In highlighting the paternal motif, I call into question the pre-
siding theological motif in David DeSilva’s 1995 monograph, Despising
Shame and in his subsequent commentary on Hebrews, Perseverance in
Gratitude. DeSilva argues that the author constructs a particular picture
of God in order to inÀuence the behavior of the readers. With this argu-
ment, my reading of Hebrews is in complete agreement. I disagree,
however, with the picture of God DeSilva constructs. For him, the author
of Hebrews’ primary theological image is that of God as the divine
Benefactor or Patron.3 In this imagery, Jesus is the ‘patron of the
Christian community and [serves] as broker of the patronage of God’,4
and the author and his audience are often described as the ‘friends’ or
‘clients’ of God.5 While some reviewers found this interpretation insight-
ful,6 many more, like myself, questioned the ¿ttingness of imposing this
language on the text.7 Bene¿ts and gratitude clearly play a role in the
soteriological narrative of Hebrews. Nevertheless, the author of Hebrews
does not use patron language (¼Ĥ¼ÉºñÌ¾Ë) for God or for anyone else in
his sermon.
3 For example, Despising Shame, pp.181, 210–11, 220, 231, 234, 242, 247, 248,
256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 264, 266, 296, 308, 315, 318; Perseverance in Gratitude,
pp.50, 59, 63, 113, 121, 238, 349, 504.
4 DeSilva, Despising Shame, pp.26, 211, 220; Perseverance, p.433.
5 DeSilva, Despising Shame, pp.236, 238, 240; Perseverance, pp.58, 63.
6 These include Peter Davids, CBQ 60 (1998), pp.363–5; Clayton N. Croy, ATJ
29 (1997), pp.143–5; and Paul Ellingworth, EvQ 74 (2002), pp.77–8.
7 James Thompson’s critique is apt: ‘[t]hese categories – honor and shame,
patron and client, advantage and disadvantage – are so thickly superimposed on
Hebrews that they distort the reading of the text’ (ResQ 43 [2001], pp.187–9).
Attridge (Bib 82 [2001], pp.584–6), Arnold S. Browne (JTS 52 [2001], pp.285–7),
Iain D. Campbell (Them 28 [2002], pp.82–4), David M. Hay (Int 55 [2001], pp.191–
2), Don Howell (JETS 42 [1999], p.161), Koester (CBQ 62 [2000], pp.749–50),
Stephen Motyer (Anvil 18 [2001], pp.138–9), and Charles Talbert (PRSt 28 [2001],
pp.141–2) raise similar concerns.
1
184 You Are My Son
The utilization of this language in DeSilva’s interpretation alters the

perception of the relational metaphor of the letter. Fathers and their
children were certainly bound in a relationship of reciprocity in which
bene¿ts and honor passed from one to another. The relationship between
a father and a son, however, differs from that of a patron and a client
insofar as all fathers are (or should be) benefactors, but not all benefac-
tors are fathers. Seneca, in his treatise on bene¿ts, recognizes the
superiority of the familial relationship. He states, ‘my father supported
me. If I repay this kindness, I give him more than I received, because he
has the pleasure, not only of being supported, but of being supported by a
son, and receives more delight from my ¿lial devotion than from the
food itself’ and ‘what is more fortunate than that old man who declares
everywhere to everyone that he has been conquered in bene¿ts by his
son? What, again, more blissful than to be overcome in such a contest?’8
The honor a son gives to a father carries more value than any other
bestowal of gratitude. DeSilva himself recognizes that the extension of
God’s bene¿ts to include adoption and the giving of inheritance is
‘exceptional even in personal patronage’.9 By consistently casting God as
a Benefactor and the audience as his clients, DeSilva detracts from the
depth of relationship the author conveys with the familial language he
does employ. As DeSilva correctly argues, the audience owes honor for
the inestimable bene¿ts God has afforded to them, but readers grasp the
depths of this reciprocity even more when they see that it takes place
between a Father and his children. As an example of the gravity lost with
DeSilva’s interpretive lens, his treatment of the warning passages
describes the author’s argument thus: ‘[h]e therefore makes the address-
ees aware of the danger through a number of stern warnings designed to
arouse fear and dread in the hearers of the consequences of pursuing a
course which would provoke their Patron’.10 To the contrary, the warning
passages speak of trespasses against the Son of God (6.6; 10.29) and,
hence, elicit the insolence committed against his Father. Even more
striking, Esau’s story warns against squandering one’s inheritance, or
disregarding the bene¿ts associated with sonship. The author warns them
not to spurn their birthright. In addition to the risk of losing their reputa-
tion as a grateful person,11 they would lose their very inheritance. To the
8 Seneca, Ben. 3.32, 38 [Basore].

9 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, p.131.
10 DeSilva, Despising Shame, p.256. Similar language includes, ‘the addressees
are wavering in their commitment to their Patron’ and ‘[t]he author seeks to motivate
them to reconsider, in light of the impossibility of a return to their spurned benefac-
tor’ (pp.244, 256).
1
11 Seneca, Ben. 3.6.2; 3.17.1-12.
Conclusion 185
sin of ingratitude,12 those described in the warning passages add the sin
of parental disrespect.13 The danger before them is that they might
dishonor their Father, an even more dreadful atrocity than the disrespect
of a Patron.
Consequently, recognizing the gravity of the offense actually increases
the salvi¿c assurance offered by the passage. Whereas a patron might
take offense at any number of missteps and cease to offer bene¿ts, only
very serious and repeated misdeeds quali¿ed a son to be disinherited.14
The audience can trust that as heirs of salvation (1.14) they will attain
their salvation, if they avoid the grave sin of apostasy. Even more assur-
ance comes from knowing that they are the inheritance of Jesus, the
sinless son, who will never do anything to squander his inheritance of all
things.
Some reviewers charge that DeSilva’s patron/client metaphor results
in a picture of God as a heavenly overlord whose grace is downplayed in
the emphasis on the reciprocity demanded of the readers.15 Jason A.
Whitlark offers one of the most extended critiques on this front in his
monograph, Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light
of the Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World.16
Whitlark argues that DeSilva has a ‘backward-looking attitude’ that
12 DeSilva argues, ‘[f]ailure to show gratitude, however, was classed as the

worst of crimes, being compared to sacrilege against the gods, since the Graces were
considered goddesses’ (Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, p.110).
13 See Sir. 3.1-16.
14 The quote from Seneca bears repeating: ‘[d]oes any father in his senses
disinherit a son for his ¿rst offence? Only when great and repeated wrong-doing has
overcome his patience, only when what he fears outweighs what he reprimands, does
he resort to the decisive pen; but ¿rst he makes an effort to reclaim a character that is
still unformed, though inclined now to the more evil side; when the case is hopeless,
he tries extreme measures’ (Clem. 1.14.1 [Basore]).
15 Howell articulates the problem in this way: as opposed to indebtedness,
‘[g]race (ÏÚÉÀË), however, is God’s unmerited, unconstrained favor offered to an
undeserving people who respond with praise and thanksgiving, grounded in the
constant realization that such a debt could never be repaid’ (review of Despising
Shame, p.163). Similarly, Talbert states, ‘DeSilva left this reviewer feeling at the end
that Hebrews belongs to synergistic covenantal nomism where grace may get one
into the believing community, but where human obedience, motivated by gratitude,
is necessary to transport one into the Age to Come. The data to counteract such an
impression are abundantly present in Hebrews (e.g. 4.16; 8.10; 10.14, 16; 12.5-11;
13.5-6, 12, 20-21, etc.) but DeSilva leaves them undeveloped in this commentary’
(review of Perseverance in Gratitude, p.142).
16 Whitlark, Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the
Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World (PBM; Colorado Springs:
Paternoster, 2008).
1
186 You Are My Son
privileges gratitude for past bene¿ts over faith in the promised future as
the motivating factor in the exhortation.17 More fundamentally, he argues
that DeSilva operates with an ‘optimistic anthropological assumption’
which must af¿rm that ‘Jesus’ bene¿ts are based upon his estimation of
the believer’s worth and reliability to make an equitable return for
bene¿ts received’.18 DeSilva assumes that human beings do have the
capacity to ‘engage in a relationship of reciprocity with God’, whereas
Whitlark argues that Hebrews operates with a more pessimistic anthro-
pology that assumes humans must be transformed from within before
they can respond to God.19
Ultimately, I think these critiques are not fair. DeSilva convincingly
shows that the system of reciprocity is entirely one of grace. Ideally, the
benefactor freely gives and the client freely responds in gratitude.20 His
appeal to this metaphor, while enlightening in its revelation of the culture
of the ancient world, does not fully capture the pathos of the author of
Hebrews’ argument. By attending to the author’s portrayal of God as a
Father, my analysis avoids the problems associated with DeSilva’s
theological model. First, it avoids projecting a title upon God without
attestation in the letter and seeks to allow the author – through his
exposition of Israel’s scriptures and God’s revelation in Jesus Christ – to
de¿ne who God is and, subsequently, what God’s Fatherhood entails. In
so doing, my interpretation of Hebrews highlights the depth of
relationship between God and his people. By God’s initiative, humanity
is brought into relationship with him as their Father. In this relationship,
God has even more right to deserve their respect and obedience (12.9).
Moreover, the audience can be con¿dent that, short of the apostasy of
disdaining one’s place in God’s family (12.16), this relationship will
endure. A patron/client relationship simply does not convey the intimacy
and endurance that a familial relationship naturally does.
Third, the author’s emphasis on God’s paternal relationship with Jesus
provides a forceful argument for a high Christology in the letter,21
advancing the work of scholars who advocate for the same christological
stance. For example, John Webster draws from the exordium to argue for
the divinity of Jesus in Hebrews. About the phrase ëÅ ÍĎŊ, he states,
17 Whitlark, Enabling Fidelity, p.144.

18 Whitlark, Enabling Fidelity, p.141.
19 Whitlark, Enabling Fidelity, pp.145–6.
20 DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, p.129.
21 See my argument against James D. G. Dunn, Kenneth L. Schenck, G. B.
Caird, and L. D. Hurst above, pp.25–9, 41–6).
1
Conclusion 187
‘[t]he real force of the phrase here is to locate the being of the Son in
God, and so to reinforce his uniqueness’. Moreover, ‘[b]ecause God’s
speaking ëÅ ÍĎŊ is God speaking in person, it requires us somehow to
conceive of a repetition or differentiation within the being of God
himself’.22 I noted that the author surrounds his use of wisdom/word
terminology in Heb. 1.1-4 with royal references to Jesus’ status as God’s
heir. Webster reaches the same conclusion when he says ‘[w]hat matters
is not the putative background of what is said in (for example) Wisdom
Christology, but the identity of the one by whom this divine action is
undertaken’.23 My investigation provides support for the prominence of
Christ’s ¿lial identity in the ¿rst four verses by highlighting the author’s
emphatic portrayal of the relationship between God and the Son
proclaimed in Heb. 1.5 by God himself. The relationship depicted there
suggests that God’s Son, who shares the name of his Father, is God’s
personal heir who has reigned alongside God since before creation and
who will reign with God the Father forever.
In a similar way, my investigation strengthens arguments for Christ’s
divinity that are drawn from some interpreters’ discussions of Melchize-
dek. For example, Jerome H. Neyrey argues that the alpha-privitive
statements about Melchizedek in 7.3 – ÒÈÚÌ¾É ÒÄûÌÑÉ Òº¼Å¼¸ÂĠº¾ÌÇË –
reÀect common topoi of Hellenistic philosophy on what constitutes a true
god. In the context of Hebrews, the statement ultimately describes not
Melchizedek, but Jesus.24 Richard Bauckham supports this argument with
evidence from Jewish sources and argues that
when adopted into the context of the Jewish understanding of God, such
hellenistic god-language undergoes an important re-functioning. It
becomes monotheistic language… [W]hat the author of Hebrews says of
Melchizedek in 7.3 is precisely what he said of Christ in applying the
words of Ps 102 to him in chap. 1. In both cases, this is the full eternity of
the only true God.25
By highlighting the importance of genealogy in the Melchizedek discus-

sions, I reinforce this argument. The author utilizes the story of Melchi-
zedek to point to the divine nature of Jesus by using it to highlight Jesus’
status as God’s Son.
22 Webster, ‘One Who Is Son’, pp.78 and 80.

23 Webster, One Who Is Son’, p.84.
24 Jerome H. Neyrey, ‘“Without Beginning of Days or End of Life” (Hebrews
7.3): Topos for a True Deity’, CBQ 53 (1991), pp.439–55.
1
25 Bauckham, ‘The Divinity of Jesus Christ in Hebrews’, pp.15–36, here 31.
188 You Are My Son
Hence, this study challenges those interpreters who place an inordinate

focus on the humanity of Jesus.26 The humanity of Jesus is indeed a
vitally important aspect of the letter, but imbalanced attention to it can
serve to minimize the author’s assertions of Jesus’ divinity. Instead, I
argue that the author portrays Jesus’ humanity as dependent on Jesus’
status as Son. Jesus is human precisely because he is the Son of God who
has become a son of man through obedience to the will of his Father.
Authors like Käsemann and Koester are right to point to the importance
of Jesus’ human experience. For example, arguments such as that of
David Mof¿tt’s second chapter offer important insight into Hebrews:
‘[t]he way the author employs and explicates Ps 8 indicates that it is the
Son’s humanity – his Àesh and blood – that gives him the right to sit at
God’s right hand and reign over the other heavenly beings’.27 Neverthe-
less, I argue that this statement does not represent the full picture of the
author’s argument in the letter because it fails to account for the author’s
placement of Jesus’ humanity within the paternal/¿lial relationship with
God. Interpreters need not emphasize one aspect of Christology to the
diminishment of the other because the author of Hebrews unites both
Jesus’ humiliated and exalted natures in the ¿lial relationship he has with
God the Father.
26 Examples of such scholars with whom I have engaged in the dissertation

include G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst (see above, pp.41–6). For example, Hurst states,
‘[t]hat chapter one is mainly about the historical Jesus is obvious from the opening
of the epistle (1.2) where God speaks through a “Son”. When did he speak? It could
not have been through the pre-existent Logos, since “in these last days” clearly
points to the work of the Jesus in history’ (‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’,
p.156). Hurst conÀates the timing of God’s address with the medium; that is, God
can speak to this audience through a Son in the last days without it being necessary
that the Son as person only began to exist in the last days. Ernst Käsemann’s
argument works in a similar direction, de¿ning Jesus’ sonship principally in terms of
his humanity rather than his relationship with God: ‘…as Christ is the Son, he is
such principally in relationship to the sons. In other words, he is Son as ÈÉÑÌĠÌÇÁÇË
(cf. 1.6)’ (Das wandernde Gottesvolk, p.100). Finally, Craig R. Koester’s article
elevates God’s concern for humanity over God’s relationship with his Son. The
thesis of propositio of the letter is ‘God’s designs for human beings are accom-
plished through the suffering and exaltation of Christ’ (‘Future of Humanity’,
p.105). I af¿rm the importance of this statement for Hebrews, but argue that it is
founded on God’s paternal relationship with Jesus, which Koester relegates to the
status of a preparatory idea: ‘[t]he depiction of the Son of God enthroned in heaven
does not address the principal concern of the speech; instead, it has an important
preparatory function’ (‘Future of Humanity’, p.107).
1
Conclusion 189
Fourth, my argument about the author’s emphasis on the familial

theme helps explain the author’s peculiar logic in arranging his Chris-
tological assertions in the way that he does, namely that his discussion of
Christ’s exalted status largely precedes his discussion of Christ’s
humiliation. Initially, I show that this division does not neatly fall into
distinct sections, exaltation in Hebrews 1, humiliation in Hebrews 2. On
the one hand, Heb. 1.3 refers to Jesus’ humiliation; on the other hand,
Hebrews 2 has numerous references to his exaltation, by referring to
Jesus’ status as God’s heir. God crowns him with glory and honor (2.7b,
9), subjects all things under his feet (2.8-9), perfects him so that he can
lead God’s many ÍĎÇĕ to glory (2.10), and gives him possession of his
children (2.13b). Therefore, I argue that the dominant note in the ¿rst
chapter is his exaltation, but in the second chapter the author couples this
emphasis with his portrayal of Jesus’ humiliation. This aim of such an
arrangement is to bolster the con¿dence he is seeking to instill in his
audience. At the beginning and at the conclusion of his sermon he
proclaims Jesus’ status as heir of all things. Jesus’ status provides a most
solid assurance for the author’s audience. Jesus is the reigning Lord
because God the Father, who keeps his promises (6.12-18; 11.11), has
promised that his Son will ultimately take possession of all things. After
presenting this vision, he then sketches out the impact Jesus’ exalted
position has for his audience by describing how Jesus became heir of all
things, including humanity.28 By beginning with Jesus’ exalted status as
heir of all things, the author presents the ¿rst half of an inclusio. The
assurance of Jesus’ exalted status (Hebrews 1; 13.20-21) surrounds his
sermon.
Fifth, the familial theme suggests a way in which to understand the
Son’s perfection through suffering. The process of perfecting is the
training he experiences as God’s Son. It is not the ¿lling in of an
imperfection or the culmination of a process of maturation; rather, it is
the attainment of his inheritance as Son as he sits at God’s right hand. He
is perfected when he takes his position of glory and honor as the heir of
all things. He would not have been able to reach this state of perfection
had he not endured the particular dif¿culties to which his Father called
him. In his death, he removed the barriers that kept humanity outside his
28 Similarly, Koester states, ‘[b]y reminding listeners that exaltation followed

Jesus' cruci¿xion, it provides a perspective from which the meaning of Jesus' death
can be comprehended’ (‘Future of Humanity’, p.107. As stated, I disagree, however,
with his sharp distinction between the subject matter of the ¿rst and second chapter
whereby the exaltation of Jesus as Son loses its place of prominence.
1
190 You Are My Son
sovereignty and hence became the heir of all things that were promised
to him as God’s Son. Drawing together the various arguments of David
Peterson, my interpretation con¿rms that
…the context gives a very broad perspective on what that perfecting
involved. In the ¿rst place, it must have something to do with this ascen-
sion and enthronement as the one ‘crowned with glory and honour’,
destined to rule over all in ‘the world to come’ (verses 5-9). In the second
place, it must include ‘the suffering of death’, which is the ground of his
exaltation (verse 9), the means by which he robs the Devil of his power
and delivers his people from ‘lifelong bondage’ (verses 14-15), and the
means by which he expiates the sins of the people (verse 17). Finally, it
may be seen to involve his whole incarnate experience, by means of
which he became ‘a merciful and faithful high priest’ (verse 17), but
particularly his suffering, which equipped him to help those who are
similarly tested.29
Jesus’ perfection as God’s heir accounts for all of these features. He

suffers because he experiences the paideia of his Father so that he can
inherit humanity and take his place as the perfect, complete heir of God’s
entire creation. Moreover, my interpretation avoids the problem raised by
Peterson’s vocational interpretation, articulated by Kevin B. McCruden:
a vocational model of perfection assumes at least to some degree the
notion of the necessity for Christ’s development, if only in the sense of
Christ having to prove himself. To this extent, Peterson’s model opens
itself to the same criticism brought to bear against the moral/ethical
model. How can a notion of development, whether conceived along moral
or vocational lines, rest harmoniously alongside those passages in the
epistle that emphasize such qualities as Christ’s sinlessness (Heb 4.15) or
‘unde¿led’ character (Heb 7.26)?30
Jesus has to suffer into order to be perfected as God’s heir most impor-
tantly because there is something amiss in creation itself. God’s human
creation has been captured by the power of death.
Sixth, and closely related to the explication of Jesus’ perfection, is the
way in which the paternal/¿lial relationship in Hebrews informs the
relationship between Jesus’ status as high priest and Son. I have argued
that the author’s consistent assertion of God’s Fatherhood and Jesus’
sonship suggests that ‘Son’ is the dominant identity from which ‘high
priest’ arises as a vocation.31 His priestly call arises out of the ¿lial
29 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, p.67.

30 McCruden, Solidarity Perfected, p.21.
31 See above, pp.107–8. Eric Mason asserts that Jesus’ priesthood constructs
Hebrews’ central theme (‘You Are A Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish
1
Conclusion 191
relationship he has with God, becomes a reality through the dynamics of

this relationship, and then serves that relationship as his priestly vocation
secures his inheritance.
Finally, attention to the family imagery of Hebrews tips the balance
toward the initiative of God in the soteriological interplay between
divine and human agency. While supporting a widespread assertion that
Jesus’ sonship provides both the model for the audience’s ¿lial status
and also makes their status a reality,32 I explicate how both of those
assertions are true as articulated by the author through his use of familial
language. With regard to Jesus’ status as model, I showed that Jesus
experiences testing through suffering through the will of his Father so
that he can be perfected. Similarly, the audience participates in the same
relational dynamics with God. More importantly, with regard to Jesus’
¿lial status as the cause of the audience’s ¿lial status, I show that
because God has perfected Jesus as heir, humanity is rescued from
slavery, brought into the household of God, and set on a path to attain
their own inheritance.
The author’s audience certainly has a role to play in holding to their
faith and pursuing after their goal. They are to remain faithful. Patrick
Gray’s 2003 essay ‘Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of
Hebrews’ captures this sentiment as he shows the correspondence
Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews [STDJ, 74;
Leiden: Brill, 2008], pp.13, 38), but he also notes both that Jesus is priest because
‘God appointed him to the of¿ce’ (p.25) and that ‘The author has an understanding
of Jesus as priest which has resulted from conscious, sustained theological reÀection
on Ps 2:7 and Ps 110:1, 4’ (p.38).
32 David Peterson captures both well. First, he asserts that Jesus’ perfection
achieves the perfection of the audience: ‘[t]hey are to remember the whole process
by which he was perfected as their saviour and high priest in order to appreciate the
help he can give for running the race that is set before them (12.1ff.). His life of
obedience, his sacri¿cial death and heavenly exaltation are the means by which he
was perfected. Believers in turn are perfected by the very actions and accomplish-
ments that perfect Christ’ (Hebrews and Perfection, p.186). Second, he articulates
Jesus’ role as model: ‘[t]he perfecting of Christ “through suffering” provides a
pattern for Christian discipleship. Christians share to a certain extent in the same
struggle or contest that Christ endured and, because he pioneered the way, they have
the prospect of enjoying his victory if they share his faith and manifest the same sort
of perseverance in the face of hostility and suffering’ (Hebrews and Perfection,
p.187). Similarly, Mof¿tt states, ‘[i]f they endure, they will receive their inheritance.
Not only is this exempli¿ed by Jesus, but because of who Jesus is and what he has
done, their hope for that inheritance is even more secure’ (Atonement and Resurrec-
tion, p.301).
1
192 You Are My Son
between the epistle’s depiction of Jesus as brother and other depictions

of sibling relationships, particularly in Plutarch’s essay, ‘On Brotherly
Love’ (De fraterno amore 478A–492D). There, Gray argues that the
‘ful¿llment of what had been promised’ for the audience and for their
ancestors is, ‘in the hands of the audience’. He concludes:
If the audience does not get to the ¿nish line, according to the logic of
11.40, then no one gets there. The consequences of the readers’ actions
in 12.1-13 thus extend far beyond themselves to all those mentioned
in ch. 11. With this remarkable move the author raises the stakes con-
siderably and seeks to impress upon his audience the gravity of the
situation and the crucial role they play in salvation history. In this
presentation, then, Christ elevates his brothers by granting them a
digni¿ed role in God’s plan without in any way diminishing his own
unique status.33
Each member of the audience must endure until the end, but I argue
that Jesus’ ultimate position as Sovereign and Savior and Heir has
already been guaranteed. The emphasis falls upon what has taken place
in the familial relationship between God and Jesus. The audience of
Hebrews participates in this relationship because of the actions of God
and Jesus, but is not responsible for bringing all of salvation history to its
culmination.
Responsible interpretations of Hebrews cannot deny that the author is
legitimately concerned that the audience of Hebrews might turn away
from their participation in Christ. This is a real and terrifying possibility.
If they fall away, they do so to the extent that they repudiate who God
has already declared them to be: his own children. This rejection,
however, is only a possibility that has not yet been actualized. As God’s
children, supported by the aid of the Father (13.8) and the intercession of
the Son, the author is con¿dent that they will reach the promised rest
where they dwell with all God’s ¿rstborn children in God’s household.
This con¿dence rests not just on Jesus’ example of traversing a similar
path, but also on the status he attains at the end of this path. Jesus’ prom-
ised aid means a great deal to the audience, most especially because he
administers his bene¿ts from his position as God’s heir. God’s promise
(1.2, 13; 2.8-9) and Jesus’ victory (2.15) result in Jesus’ status as heir
apparent of all things. It is this reality that most assures the audience of
the security of their identity and future.
1
33 Gray, ‘Brotherly Love’, p.343.
Conclusion 193
II. Conclusion
In the ¿rst moments and in the closing thoughts of the sermon, the author
of Hebrews presents God’s nature as a Father. There and in between, he
describes the dynamics of God’s Fatherly character: granting to his son
an unparalleled inheritance, his own name, and the roles and honors that
come with it, and subjecting his Son to the process of perfecting so that
humanity too can be God’s own ÍĎÇĕ. In this relationship, the Son attains
his inheritance of all things. This theological motif provides a framework
in which major portions of the letter ¿t into a coherent picture of one
early believer’s attempt to propel his own brothers and sisters into the
home of their faithful Father.
1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aelius Aristides. The Complete Works: Orations Xvii-Liii. Translated by C. A. Behr.

Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Allen, David M. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews. WUNT, 2/238. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Andriessen, Paul. ‘La communauté des “Hébreux”: Était-elle tombée dans la
Relachement?’ La nouvelle revue théologuque 96 (1974), pp.1054–66.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.
1885–87. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George A. Kennedy.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
———. ‘God in Hebrews: Urging Children to Heavenly Glory’. Pages 197–210 in The
Forgotten God: Perspectives in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Paul J.
Achtemeier on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by A. A. Das and
F. J. Matera. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
———. ‘The Psalms in Hebrews’. Pages 197–212 in The Psalms in the New Testament.
Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
———. Review of D. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Bib 82 (2001), pp.584–6.
Bacon, B. W. ‘Heb. 1. 10–12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102.23’. ZNW 3 (1902),
pp.280–5.
Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. London: SPCK,
1992.
Basil. Letters. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1926–1934.
Bauckham, Richard. Cruci¿ed God: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament.
Disbury Lectures. Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1998.
———. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Cruci¿ed and Other Studies on the New
Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Blomberg, Craig L. ‘ “But We See Jesus”: The Relationship Between the Son of Man in
Hebrews 2.6 and 2.9 and the Implications for English Translation’. Pages 88–99 in
A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts. Edited by
Richard Bauckham et al. LNTS, 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Bornkamm, Günther. ‘Sonschaft und Leiden’. Pages 188–98 in Judentum, Urchristentum,
Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by Walter Eltester. BZNW, 26.
Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960.
Boswell, John. The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western
Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance. New York: Pantheon, 1988.
Bibliography 195
Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. HNT, 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984.
Brooke, George J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2005.
Brown, William P. ‘A Royal Performance: Critical Notes on Psalm 110:3ag-b’. JBL 117
(1998), pp.93–6.
Browne, Arnold S. Review of D. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. JTS 52.1 (2001), pp.285–7.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment, and Conclusions.
AB, 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1972.
Byrne, B. Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All
Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background. Analecta biblica, 83. Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1979.
Caird, G. B. ‘Son By Appointment’. Pages 73–81 in The New Testament Age: Essays in
Honor of Bo Reicke. Edited by William C. Weinrich. 2 vols. Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press, 1984.
Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Translated by W. B.
Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Campbell, Iain D. Review of D. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Themelios 28 (2002), pp.82–4.
Champlin, Edward. Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills, 200 B.C.– A.D.
250. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Vol. 1 of The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations.
Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Chulp, James T. ‘Identity and the Representation of War in Ancient Rome’. Pages 209–32
in Fighting Words and Images: Representing War Across the Disciplines. Edited by
Elena V. Baraban, Stephen Jaeger, and Adam Muller. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2012.
Cicero. De Inventione Rhetorica. Translated by H. M. Hubbell. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
———. Letters to Atticus. 4 vols. Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. LCL.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
———. On the Orator. Translated by E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham. 2 vols. LCL.
———. Pro Caelio. Translated by R. Gardner. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1958.
———. Tusculan Disputations. Translated by J. E. King. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Cockerill, Gareth. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Collins, Adela Yarbro and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine,
Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Cooley, M. G. L., ed. The Age of Augustus. London: London Association of Classical
Teachers, 2003.
Craddock, Fred B. The Pre-existence of Christ in the New Testament. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1968.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. WBC, 19. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.
Crook, John A. Patria Potestas. CQ 17 (1967), pp.113–22.
1
196 You Are My Son
Croy, Clayton N. Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious,

and Philosophical Context. SNTSMS, 98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
———. Review of D. DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community
Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ATJ 29 (1997), pp.143–5.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Translated by Shirley C.
Guthrie, Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964.
D’Angelo, Mary Rose. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBLDS, 42. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1979.
Dafni, Evangelia C. ‘Psalm 109(110),1–3 in the Septuagint: Its Translation-Critical,
Tradition-Historical, and Theological Setting’. Pages 241–59 in Psalms and
Hebrews: Studies in Reception. Edited by Dirk J. Human and Gert J. Steyn.
LHBOTS 527. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.
Dahood, Mitchell, S.J. Psalms I. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Davids, Peter. Review of D. DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and
Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQ 60 (1998), pp.363–5.
Davidson, A. B. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private
Students. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950.
Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by T. L. Kings-
bury. 2 vols. Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, 4/20. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1872–78.
Demetrius. On Style. Translated by Doreen C. Innes and W. Rhys Roberts. LCL.
Demosthenes. Funeral Oration. Translated by J. H. Vince et al. 7 vols. LCL. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1930–49.
DeSilva, David A. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in
the Epistle to the Hebrews. SBLDS, 152. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
———. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the
Hebrews’. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. BRS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997. Reprint of Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John
McHugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961. Translation of Les Institutions
de l’Ancien Testament. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1958, 1960.
Dey, L. K. K. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews.
SBLDS, 25. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.
Dio Chysostom. Discourses. Translated by J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby. LCL.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932–51.
Diodorus Siculus. Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. 12 vols. LCL.
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. De Thucydide. Translated by Stephen Usher. 2 vols. LCL.
———. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. 9 vols. LCL.
Docherty, Susan. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews. WUNT, 2/260. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins
1
of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Bibliography 197
Eisenbaum, Pamela Michelle. ‘Father and Son: The Christology of Hebrews in Patrilineal
Perspective’. Pages 127–46 in Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and
Hebrews. Edited by A.-J. Levine and M. M. Robbins. London: T&T Clark
International, 2004.
———. The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context.
SBLDS, 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
———. ‘The Virtue of Suffering, the Necessity of Discipline, and the Pursuit of
Perfection in Hebrews’. Pages 331–53 in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited
by L. E. Vaage and V. L. Wimbush. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993.
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. EvQ 74 (2002), pp.77–8.
Epictetus. Discourses. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Epicurus. Fragments. Translated by Eugene O’Connor. Great Books in Philosophy.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1993.
Euripides. Electra. Translated by David Kovacs. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1998.
———. Orestes. Translated by David Kovacs. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2002.
Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.
Reprint of Preparation for the Gospel. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1903.
Gäbel, Georg. ‘Rivals in Heaven: Angels in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Pages 357–76 in
Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception.
Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Yearbook 2007. Edited by F. V. Reiterer,
T. Nicklas, and K. SchöpÀin. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007.
Gardner, Jane F. Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
Gheorghita, Radu. The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews: An Investigation of Its
InÀuence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38.
WUNT, 2/160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Giles, Pauline. ‘The Son of Man in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. ExpTim 86 (1975),
pp.328–32.
Gleason, Randall C. ‘Angels and Eschatology of Heb 1–2’. NTS 49 (2003), pp.90–107.
Gorman, Heather. ‘Persuading Through Pathos: Appeals to the Emotions in Hebrews’.
RQ 54.2 (2012), pp.77–90.
Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer. 3 vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament, 17. Zurich: Benziger, 1990–97.
Gray, Patrick. ‘Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews’. JBL 122
(2003), pp.335–51.
———. Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of
Superstition. SBLABS, 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
Greer, Rowan A. The Captain of Our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of
Hebrews. BGBE, 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1973.
Grogan, Geoffrey W. ‘Christ and His People: An Exegetical and Theological Study of
Hebrews 2.5–18’. Vox Evangelica 6 (1969), pp.54–71.
1
198 You Are My Son
Guthrie, George H. and Russell D. Quinn. ‘A Discourse Analysis of the Use of Psalm
8:4–6 in Hebrews 2:5–9’. JETS 49 (2006), pp.235–46.
———. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. NovTSup, 73. New York:
Brill, 1994.
Hagner, Donald. ‘The Son of God as Unique High Priest: The Christology of the Epistle
to the Hebrews’. Pages 247–67 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament.
Edited by R. N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2005.
Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study in the
Idea of Pre-existence in the New Testament. SNTSMS, 21. Cambridge: Cambridge
Hannah, Darrell D. Michael and Christ; Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in
Early Christianity. WUNT, 2/109. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1999.
Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Int 55 (2001), pp.191–2.
Hayman, Peter. ‘Monotheism – a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?’ JJS 42 (1991),
pp.1–15.
Hays, Richard B. ‘Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s Use of an Early Christian Exegetical
Convention’. Pages 122–36 in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of
Leander E. Keck. Edited by A. J. Malherbe and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993.
———. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11.
2nd ed. BRS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Heraclitus. Allegoriae. Translated by Philip Ellis Wheelwright. Princeton: Princeton
Herodotus. Histories. Translated by A. D. Godley. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Holtzmann, Oscar. ‘Der Hebräerbrief und das Abendmahl’. ZNW 10 (1909), pp.251–60.
Homer. Illiad. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1924–25.
Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds. Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Howell, Don. Review of D. DeSilva, Despising Shame: Honor, Discourse, and
Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JETS 42 (1999), p.161.
Hübner, Hans. Gottes Ich und Israel: Zum Schriftgebrauch des Paulus in Römer 9–11.
FRLANT, 136. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
Hughes, Graham. Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New
Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation. SNTSMS, 36. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977.
Hurst, L. D. ‘The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2’. Pages 151–64 in The Glory of Christ
in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird.
Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
1
Bibliography 199
Isaeus. Isaeus. Translated by E. S. Forster. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1927.
Isocrates. Letters. Translated by La Rue Van Hook. Vol. 3. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
———. Nicocles. Translated by George Norlin. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1928.
———. Panegyricus. Translated by George Norlin. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1928.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2006.
Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL.
Juel, Don. ‘Christ at the Right Hand: The Use of Psalm 110 in the New Testament’. Pages
135–50 in Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament
in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Justinian. Institutes. Translated by Peter Birks and Grant McLeod. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Käsemann, Ernst. Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957.
Kennedy, George. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1994.
———. trans. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric.
Writings from the Greco-Roman World, 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2003.
Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. NTC. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1984.
———. The Psalms Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van
Soest N. V., 1961.
Koester, Craig. ‘God’s Purposes and Christ’s Saving Work According to Hebrews’. Pages
361–87 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by
Jan G. Van der Watt. Boston: Brill, 2005.
———. Hebrews. AB, 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
———. ‘Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity’. CBQ 64 (2002), pp.103–23.
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. CBQ 62 (2000), pp.749–50.
Kögel, Julius. ‘Der Begriff ¼Â¼ÀÇıÅ im Hebräerbrief im Zusammenhang mit dem
neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch’. Pages 35–68 in Theologische Studien: Martin
Kähler zum 6. Januar 1905 dargebracht. Edited by Friedrich Giesebrecht. Leipzig:
A. Deichert, 1905.
———. Der Sohn und die Söhne: Eine exegetische Studie zu Hebräer 2,5–18. BFChTh.
Jahrgang, 8, Heft 5+6. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1904.
Kraus, Manfred. ‘Ethos as a Technical Means of Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical
Theory’. Pages 73–87 in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion: Essays from the
2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson.
New York: T&T Clark International, 2005.
Kurianal, James. Jesus Our High Priest: Ps 110, 4 as the Sub-structure of Heb 5,1–7, 28.
EurHoch, 23/693. Frankfurt: Lang, 2000.
1
200 You Are My Son
Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 vols. WBC, 47. Dallas: Word, 1991.

Lee, Aquila H. I. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early
Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT, 2/192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2005.
Lehne, Susan. The New Covenant in Hebrews. JSNTSup, 44. Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1990.
Lewicki, Tomasz. ‘Weist nicht ab den Sprechenden!’: Wort Gottes und Paraklese im
Hebräerbrief. PadTS, 41. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004.
Lidgett, J. Scott. Sonship and Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London:
Epworth, 1921.
Lierman, John. The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in
the Setting of Jewish Religion. WUNT, 2/173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Loader, William R. G. Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes. WMANT, 53. Neukirchen–Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.
Long, Thomas. Hebrews. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1997.
Lucian. The Passing of Peregrinus. Translated by A. M. Harmon. LCL. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1936.
Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Translated by W. H. D. House. LCL. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1924.
Luther, Martin. ‘Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1517–1518’. Pages 19–250 in
Luther: Early Theological Works. The Library of Christian Classics. Edited and
translated by James Atkinson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1962.
Mackie, Scott D. ‘Confession of the Son of God in Hebrews’. NTS 53 (2007), pp.114–29.
———. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT, 2/223.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Translated by C. R. Haines. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Marcus, Ralph. ‘The Elusive Causal ǼǿȈ’. JBL 71 (1952), pp.43–4.
———. ‘On Causal ǼǿȈ’. JBL 70 (1951), pp.129–30.
Mason, Eric. ‘“Now Faith Is”: Faith, Faithfulness, and Unfaithfulness in the Epistle to the
Hebrews’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Region of the SBL.
Bourbonnais, IL, February 12, 2011.
———. ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly
Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. STDJ, 74. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
McCormack, Bruce L. ‘The Identity of the Son: Karl Barth’s Exegesis of Hebrews 1.1-4
(and Similar Passages)’. Pages 155–72 in Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews:
Pro¿les from the History of Interpretation. Edited by Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J.
Treier. LNTS, 423. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
——. ‘“With Loud Cries and Tears”: The Humanity of the Son in the Epistle to the
Hebrews’. Pages 37–68 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology.
Edited by R. Bauckham, D. Driver, and T. Hart. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
McCruden, Kevin B. ‘Compassionate Soteriology in Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the Gospel of
Mark’. BR 52 (2007), pp.41–56.
———. Solidarity Perfected: Bene¿cent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
BZNW, 159. New York: W. de Gruyter, 2008.
McCullough, J. C. ‘The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews’. NTS 26 (1980), pp.363–
79.
Meier, John P. ‘Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb 1:5–14’.
1
Bib 66 (1985), pp.504–33.
Bibliography 201
Meiser, Martin. ‘Ancient Christian Exegesis of Psalms and Ancient Philology on Homer’.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. New
Orleans, LA, November 22, 2009.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New
York: United Bible Societies, 1994.
Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 8th ed. KEK, 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1949.
Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. SP, 13. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1989.
———. ‘The Use of ÉñÈ¼ÀÅ and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10’. CBQ 54 (1992),
pp.681–701.
Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Repr. 1963.
Mof¿tt, David. Atonement and the Logic of the Resurrection in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. NovTSup, 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
———. Jesus the High Priest and the Mosaic Law: Reassessing the Appeal to the
Heavenly Realm in the Letter “To the Hebrews”’. Pages 195–232 in Problems in
Translating Texts About Jesus: Proceedings from the International Society of
Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2008. Edited by Mishael Caspi and John T.
Greene. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2011.
Monte¿ore, Hugh. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. BNTC. London: Adam
& Charles Black, 1964.
Motyer, Stephen. Review of D. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Anvil 18 (2001), pp.138–9.
Moule, C. D. F. The Birth of the New Testament. Black’s New Testament Commentary
Companion, 1. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1962.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. BRS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004. Reprint of The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas,
with forward by James Crenshaw. New York: Abingdon, 1962.
Neyrey, Jerome H. ‘“Without Beginning of Days or End of Life” (Hebrews 7:3): Topos
for a True Deity’. CBQ 53 (1991), pp.439–55.
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–89. 14 vols.
Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity,
and Transformation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Hebrews. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Osborne, Grant. ‘Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. Pages 143–66 in Grace
Unlimited. Edited by Clark H. Pinnock. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975.
Parsons, Mikeal. ‘Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews’. EvQ 60
(1988), pp.195–216.
Peeler, A. ‘With Tears and Joy: The Emotions of Christ in Hebrews’. Koinonia 20 (2008),
pp.12–26.
Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in
the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’. SNTSMS, 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1982.
Petuchowski, Jakob J. ‘Jewish Prayer Texts of the Rabbinic Period’. Pages 21–44 in The
Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy. Edited by J. J. Petuchowski and M. Brocke. New
York: Seabury, 1978.
P¿tzner, Victor C. Hebrews. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.
1
202 You Are My Son
Pietersma, Albert. ‘Text-Production and Text-Reception: Psalm 8 in Greek’. Pages 485–

501 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung
veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited
by M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser. WUNT, 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008.
Plato. Laws. Translated by R. G. Bury. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1926.
———. Phaedrus. Translated by Harold North Fowler. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
———. Statesman. Translated by Harold North Fowler and W. R. M. Lamb. LCL.
———. Timaeus. Translated by R. G. Bury. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1929.
Plutarch. Lives. 10 vols. Translated by Bernedotte Perrin. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
———. Moralia. 16 vols. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Polybius. The Histories. 6 vols. Translated by W. R. Patton. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd
ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, Ralph Marcus, and G. H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL.
Pseudo-Aristotle. De Mundo. Translated by E. S. Forster and D. J. Furley. LCL.
Purdy, Alexander C. The Epistle to the Hebrews. IB, 11. New York: Abingdon, 1955.
Rascher, Angela. Schriftauslegung und Christologie im Hebräerbrief. BZNW, 153.
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007.
Rooke, Deborah W. ‘Jesus as Royal Priest: ReÀections on the Interpretation of the
Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7’. Bib 81 (2000), pp.81–94.
Rothschild, Clare K. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Signi¿cance of the
Pauline Attribution of Hebrews. WUNT, 235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Schenck, Kenneth L. ‘A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1’.
JBL 120 (2001), pp.469–85.
———. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacri¿ce. SNTSMS,
143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
———. ‘Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews’. JSNT 66
(1997), pp.91–117.
———. Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2003.
Scholer, John M. Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup,
14. Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1991.
Seneca. Epistles. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
———. Moral Essays. Translated by John W. Basore. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Silva, Moises. ‘Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews’. WTJ 39 (1976), pp.60–71.
Smillie, Gary. ‘Living and Active: The Word of God in the Book of Hebrews’. Ph.D.
1
diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000.
Bibliography 203
Smyth, Herbert W. Greek Grammar. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956.
Son, Kiwoong. Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18-24 as a Hermeneutical Key
to the Epistle. PBM. Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2005.
Sowers, Sidney G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the
Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judeaus and the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Basel Studies of Theology, 1. Zurich: EVZ, 1965.
Spicq, Ceslas. L’épitre aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Ebib. Paris: Lecoffre, 1952–53.
Steyn, Gert J. ‘Addressing an Angelomorphic Christological Myth in Hebrews?’. HvTSt
59.4 (2003), pp.1107–26.
———. A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews.
FRLANT, 235. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Still, Todd D. ‘Christos as Pistos: The Faith(fullness) of Jesus in the Epistle to the
Hebrews’. Pages 40–50 in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its
Ancient Contexts. Edited by R. Bauckham et al. LNTS, 387. New York: T&T Clark,
2008.
Strack, Hermann L., Paul Billerbeck, and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud
and Midrash. Translated by Marcus Bockmuehl. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1996.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and
in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT, 2/70. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1995.
Swetnam, James. Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Light of the
Aqedah. Rome: BIP, 1981.
Tacitus. Annals. Translated by John Jackson. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
Talbert, Charles H. Learning Through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in
the New Testament and in Its Milieu. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. College-
ville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Perspectives in Religious Studies 28
(2001), pp.141–2.
Thiessen, Matthew. ‘Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline’.
NTS 55 (2009), pp.366–79.
Thompson, James W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the
Hebrews. CBQMS, 13. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America,
1982.
———. Hebrews. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. ResQ 43 (2001), pp.187–9.
Thompson, Marianne Meye. The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New
Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.
Treier, Daniel J. ‘Speech Acts, Hearing Hearts, and Other Senses: The Doctrine of
Scripture Practiced in Hebrews’. Pages 337–52 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and
Christian Theology. Edited by R. Bauckham, D. Driver, and T. Hart. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009.
Überlacker, Walter. Der Hebräerbreif als Appell. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989.
Vander Beek, William L. ‘Hebrews: A “Doxology” of the Word’. Mid-America Journal
of Theology 16 (2005), pp.13–28.
1
204 You Are My Son
Vanhoye, Albert. Situation du Christ: Épître aux Hébreux 1 et 2. LD, 58. Paris: Cerf,
1969.
———. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. SubBi, 12. Rome:
Ponti¿cio Istituto Biblico, 1989.
Wagner, J. Ross. ‘Faithfulness and Fear, Stumbling and Salvation: Receptions of LXX
Isaiah 8:11-18 in the New Testament’. Pages 76–106 in The Word Leaps the Gap:
Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. R.
Wagner, C. K. Rowe, and A. K. Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
———. ‘Identifying “Updated” Prophecies in Old Greek (OG) Isaiah: Isaiah 8:11-16 as a
Test Case’. JBL 126 (2007), pp.251–69.
Walters, James C. ‘Paul, Adoption and Inheritance’. Pages 42–76 in Paul in the Greco-
Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. New York: Trinity, 2003.
Walters, John R. Perfection in New Testament Theology: Ethics and Eschatology in
Relational Dynamic. MBPS, 25. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical, 1996.
Webster, John. ‘One Who Is Son: Theological ReÀections on the Exordium to the Epistle
to the Hebrews’. Pages 69–94 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology.
Edited by R. Bauckham, D. Driver, and T. Hart. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Weiss, Bernhard. Der Brief an die Hebräer. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1897.
Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1928.
Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The
Relationship Between Form and Meaning. LNTS, 297. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
———. ‘Moses and Hebrews 3:1–6: Approach or Avoidance?’ Pages 175–201 in
Christian–Jewish Relations Through the Centuries. JSNTSup, 192. Edited by S. E.
Porter and W. R. Pearson. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000.
———. Review of C. N. Croy, Endurance in Suffering. JSNT 76 (1999), pp.121–2.
Whitlark, Kevin. Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the
Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World. PBM. Colorado Springs:
Paternoster, 2008.
Widdicombe, Peter. The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius. OTM. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1994.
Wider, David. Theozentrik und Bekenntnis: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Redens
Gottes im Hebräerbrief. BZNW, 87. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1997.
Wikgren, Allen. ‘Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews’. NTS 6 (1959–60),
pp.159–67.
Wiles, Maurice. ‘Person or Personi¿cation? A Patristic Debate about Logos’. Pages 218–
89 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory
of George Bradford Caird. Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1987.
Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Windisch, Hans. Der Hebräerbrief. HNT, 14. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1931.
Witherington, Ben, III. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-rhetorical
Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2007.
Wrede, William. Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbrief. FRLANT, 8. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906.
1
INDICES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
HEBREW BIBLE/ Exodus 9–10 131

OLD TESTAMENT 2.10 81 10.10 165
Genesis 4.10 112
1–2 16 4.22-23 39, 144 Numbers
1.26 67 4.22 146 3.12-13 52
1.28 67 6.6 131 3.41 52
2–4 59 6.14 82, 83 3.45 52
6 47, 48 6.25 19 7 131
6.2 47 14.31 112 8.16-18 52
6.4 47 15.6 19 10.4 82
7.28 123 15.12 19 11.11 112
11.31 19 15.17 39 11.25 12
14 120, 121, 15.18 56 11.29 12
123 19.13 169 12.6-8 112
14.17-20 120 20 172 12.6 12
15.7-8 39 20.18 172 12.7 112
19.11 163 20.19 172 12.8 112
21.10 15 23 48 13.2-3 82
21.12 36 23.19 106 13.3 83
22.17 56 24 172 13.16 82
25.5 15 24.1-2 172 14.4 82
25.6 15 24.2 172 16.2 82
25.8 75 24.3-8 172 18.20 39
25.31-34 15 24.8 35 18.21 39
25.32-34 166 24.10 172 18.24 39
27 166 25.1 36 18.26 39
27.34 167 29.46 131 25.4 82
27.36-40 167 32.32 170 26.55 15
27.40 166 33.11 19 36.1-12 15
27.41 166 34.14 59
28.15 173 34.26 106 Deuteronomy
42.12 114 1.31-32 39
46.7 81 Leviticus 4.24 172
48.14 19 4–5 131 7.8 131
48.15 39 8.35 59 8.2-5 145
206 Index of References
Deuteronomy (cont.) 34.5 112 45, 61, 95,

8.5 39, 145 34.10 12, 112 96, 116,
9.3 172 145, 179
10.9 39 Joshua 7.16 95
12.12 39 1.1 36, 112 7.18 95
13.5 131 1.5 173 7.19 95
14.1 39 1.13 112 7.24 95
17.18 19 1.15 112 12.20 106
18.2 39 7.19 59 12.24 12
18.18 12 8.31 112 21.7 19
18.19 12 8.33 112 22 96, 97
21.15-17 15 9.24 112 22.3 89
21.17 15 13.3-6 15 22.39 97
21.18 145 22.44 97
23.19 106 Judges 22.45 97
29.20 165 4.23 59 22.49 97
29.26-28 165 5.2 82 22.50 96, 97
31.6 173 6.8 12
31.8 173 18.31 106 1 Kings
32 47, 54, 60, 1.13 19
94, 97 1 Samuel 2.12 19
32.4 54 2.8 19 5.17 106
32.5-6 39 3.1-21 12 5.19 106
32.5 54 3.21 12 8.17 106
32.6 54, 144 10.6 12 8.20 106
32.8 47 10.10 12 8.53 112
32.10-11 54 16 12 8.56 112
32.10 39 16.19 175 13.20 12
32.11 39 17.34 175 18.12 112
32.12 54 19.16 56
32.18-20 39 19.23 12 2 Kings
32.18 54 20.31 19 17.13 12
32.19 54 21.5 165 21.10 12
32.20 36, 54
32.22 54 2 Samuel 1 Chronicles
32.35-36 54 5.7 169 2 119
32.35 94 7 38, 94, 97 5.24 82, 83
32.36 94, 148, 7.1 94 6.33 106
163 7.4 36 9.11 106
32.40 54, 56 7.5 32, 33, 95 9.13 106
32.43 47, 52–4, 7.8 94 9.26 106
94 7.11 95 17.3 36
32.44 19 7.12-14 95 17.7 175
32.52 54 7.12-13 95 17.11-15 30
33.12 19 7.12 95 17.13 29, 30, 37,
33.21 82 7.14 12, 28–30, 39, 116
35, 37–40,
22.10 37, 39, 118, 137, 36.22 39

116 179, 191 36.29 39
26.26 83 2.7-8 116 39 135
28.6 37, 39, 45, 2.8 14, 26, 96, 39.6 85
116 98 40.7-9 110
28.21 96 2.9 37, 71, 96 44 55, 58, 59,
29.10 39 2.10 97 96, 97
2.12 37, 97 44.6 96
2 Chronicles 6.6 99 44.7-8 55
1.3 112 8 46, 68, 71, 44.7 59
12.5 12 73, 74, 76, 44.18 97
24.6 112 77, 79, 86, 67.6 39
24.9 112 87, 94, 97, 68.29 170
98, 102 68.36 39
Ezra 8.3 66 72.15 39
9.11 12 8.4 6 77.70 175
8.5-7 66, 67 82.6 47
Nehemiah 8.5 71, 102 88 12, 40
2.9 82 8.6 67, 70, 71 88.7 47
7.70 83 8.7 66, 68, 69, 88.27-28 39
7.71 83 75 88.28 14, 37, 39,
9.6 57 8.8-9 67, 68 40, 52,
8.8 67, 68, 75 116
Esther 8.9 75, 76 89 47
16.16 49 8.14 71 89.5 118
8.17 71 89.6 47
Job 8.21 94 89.7 47
1.6-12 99 9.7 56 89.8 47
2.1-10 99 9.12 169 89.28 56
38.7 67 10.16 56 90.11 83
42.15 15 17.5 99 92.8 56
18.35 19 94.7 36
Psalms 19.13 169 95.7-8 172
1 38 21 86, 88–91, 96 97
2 12, 14, 26, 97, 100 96.7 53, 67
37, 38, 58, 21.2 88 10.22-23 100
61, 96, 97, 21.16 88 101 57, 59, 97,
116, 118 21.21 101 100
2.2 37, 97 21.23 87 101.2 169
2.4 37 21.23 85, 88 101.20 57
2.6 37, 71, 96, 21.24 101, 126 101.21 57, 100
169 21.32 101 101.26 75
2.7 29, 32, 33, 22.2 88 101.26-28 56, 100
36-40, 58, 28.1 47 101.26-27 16
71, 106, 29.1 47 102 187
115, 117, 29.10 56 102.12 56
36.9 39 102.13 39
Psalms (cont.) 149, 152, 35.3 163

103 16, 55, 97 153, 156, 35.4 163
103.2 55 162, 180 35.10 163
103.4 55 3.11 35, 149 40.26 57
103.6 55 3.12 39 40.28 57, 113
103.7 40 3.15 144 42.5 57
104.44 39 3.17 144 43.6 39
109 55, 68, 69, 3.18 144 45.7 113
97, 116– 3.22 144 45.10-11 39
18 3.23 144 45.12 57
109.1 36, 39, 58, 3.35 144 45.18 16, 57
68, 69, 96, 4.1 151 46.3 39
142, 154, 4.26 164 48.12 56
180 5.12 151 48.13 57
109.1-3 119 8.10 151 49.8 39
109.3 37, 39, 8.25 22 50.1 39
116, 117 8.26-29 21 51.16 57
109.4 106, 115, 8.30 21 53.12 39
118, 123, 13.22 15 57.8-9 165
137, 175 13.24 145 57.13 39
110 119, 120 19.18 145 60.21 39
110.1-3 119 22.5 151 61 56
110.1 19, 58, 23.13 145 61.7 39
117, 119, 29.17 145 63.8 39
191 63.11-12 175
110.4 117, 143, Isaiah 63.16 39, 144
191 1.2 39 64.8 39, 144
114.8 126 1.4 13, 39
117 173 3.6 82 Jeremiah
117.14 173 4.3 170 1.1-19 12
117.18 173 8 89, 91, 94, 2.20 165
117.28 173 96, 97 3.2 165
118.111 39 8.4 91 3.4 39
121.5 19 8.16 89 3.9 165
131 118 8.17 90, 96 3.14 39, 81
137.1 67 8.17 89 3.19 13, 39,
151.1 175 8.18 91 144
11.1-5 37 3.22 39
Proverbs 12.2 89 4.22 39
1.1 147 28.9 160 7.23 143
3 145 30.1 39 7.25 12
3.1 144 30.9 39 8.6 143
3.2 144 34.17 39 11.4 143
3.5 144 35 163 13.27 165
3.8 144 35.1 163 23.5-8 37
3.11-12 140, 141, 35.2 163 24.7 143
144–7,
25.4 12 Hosea 4.4-10 32

31.9 144 1.10 39 4.11 83
31.31-34 35 2 165 5.21 99
31.32 100 3.1 165 5.22 99
31.33 170 11.1-3 144 6.9 144
38 143, 144 11.1 13, 39 10.40 110
38.1 143 13.4 57 11.10 32
38.9 13, 39, 81, 13.14 99 12.32 16
143 13.32 16
38.20 13, 39, Joel 21.33-46 13
143 2.28 12 21.37 110
38.31 36 3.2 19 21.38 69
38.33 142 22.43-44 58
38.34 144 Amos 22.44 119
39.38 143 1.11 166 23.29-31 13
3.7 12 23.34 13, 110
Lamentations 7.14-15 12 23.37 13, 110
5.2-3 39 26.53 83
5.19 56 Obadiah 27.46 85, 88
1.10 166
Ezekiel Mark
11.20 143 Micah 1.1-3 36
14.11 143 5.2-5 37 1.2 32
16 165 6.4 131 1.13 83
22.6 165 2.4 126
23 165 Habakkuk 7.6 32
27.24 175 1.1 12 9.12 32
34.23-24 37 9.37 110
34.23 175 Haggai 10.46 19
36.12 39 1.1 36 12.1-12 13
36.28 143 1.3 12 12.6 110
37.23 143 12.7 69
37.24-25 37 Zechariah 12.10 32
43.7 165 1.1 12 12.36 58
43.9 165 7.7 12 14.34 85
44.23 165 8.8 143 15.9 119
44.28 39 15.34 85, 88
46.18 15 Malachi
1.3 166 Luke
Daniel 1.6 39 2.1 170
2.11 67 2.10 39, 144 2.3 170
3.25 47 3.17 39 2.5 170
3.28 47 3.4 32
3.92 67 NEW TESTAMENT 3.22 37
5.14 159 Matthew 4.43 110
12.1 170 2.5-6 32 5.18 163
3.17 37 5.24 163
Luke (cont.) Acts 2.9 32

9.48 110 2.34 58, 119 3.1 122
10.5 114 4.25-26 37 3.2 160
10.16 110 7.22 151 7.33 16
10.20 170 7.42 32 8.6 77
11.2 144 13.33 32, 37 11.32 151
11.17 114 15.15-16 32 11.34 114
11.49 110 16.34 114 15.25-27 68
13.34 110 22.3 151 15.25 119
19.3 126 22.11 126 15.27 76
20.9-19 13
20.14 69 Romans 2 Corinthians
20.17 32 1.7 144 1.2-3 144
20.36 74 1.17 32 3.3 122
20.42 58, 119 4.13 69 4.13-14 85
23.46 85 7.14 122 6.9 151
24.27 32 8.14 81 6.18 37
8.29 52 8.15 32
John 8.34 119 13.11 159, 174
2.17 32 8.36 32
3.17 110 9–11 36 Galatians
3.34 110 9.9 36 1.1 144
5.18 15 9.13 36 3.13 32
5.36 110 9.15 36 3.29 69
5.38 110 9.17 36 4.1 69
6.29 110 9.25 36 4.4 110
6.45 32 9.33 32, 36 4.7 14
6.57 110 10.19 36 4.26 169
7.29 110 10.20 36 4.27 32
8.29 30 10.21 36
8.42 110 11.4 36 Ephesians
8.44 99 11.8 32 1.2 144
10.36 110 11.26 32, 36 1.20-22 68
12.14-16 32 11.36 77 1.20 119
12.27 85 12.2 16
16.32 30 15 36 Philippians
17.3 110 15.9 36, 85 1.2 144
17.8 110 15.11 85 3.20 169
17.18 110 15.33 159, 174 3.21 68
17.21 110 16.5 114 4.9 159, 174
17.23 110 16.20 159, 174
17.25 110 Colossians
20.21 110 1 Corinthians 1.2 144
23.16 151 1.3 144 1.15 52
23.22 151 1.16 114 1.16 77
1.19 32 1.18 52
1.20 16 3.1 119
1 Thessalonians 1.2 2–4, 10, 110, 147,

1.1 144 14, 16, 19, 148, 170,
5.23 159, 174 20, 26, 35, 174, 188
51, 57, 58, 1.7 2, 27, 74,
2 Thessalonians 64, 66, 68, 147
1.2 144 69, 72, 79, 1.8-13 10
83, 93, 98, 1.8-9 2, 17, 96,
1 Timothy 103, 106, 147
1.2 144 113, 141, 1.8 3, 10, 37,
1.20 151 173, 180, 52, 60, 98,
3.4 114 188, 192 147
3.12 114 1.3 4, 6, 17– 1.9-12 133
19, 22, 26, 1.9 59, 60, 94,
2 Timothy 27, 58, 65, 157
1.2 144 81, 82, 94, 1.10-12 2, 27, 55,
2.25 151 111, 113, 60, 100,
3.16 151 119, 128, 147
131, 138, 1.10 27, 75,
Titus 163, 174, 147
3.7 69 176, 182, 1.11-12 55
189 1.13 2, 4, 10,
Philemon 1.3-4 75 17, 19, 50,
3 144 1.4-5 14 54, 60, 68,
1.4 4, 10, 12, 69, 72, 96,
Hebrews 18, 26, 30, 119, 128,
1–2 20 43, 44, 53, 142, 147,
1 8, 20, 21, 56, 58, 86 170, 174,
42, 52, 58, 1.5–3.6 177 180, 182,
65, 71, 74, 1.5-13 8, 35 192
81, 94, 97, 1.5-6 3 1.14–2.4 83
98, 112, 1.5 2, 3, 8, 10, 1.14 4, 55, 64,
114, 145, 12, 26, 65, 73, 74,
147. 187, 28–32, 34, 131, 136,
189 35, 38, 41, 140, 144,
1.1–4.13 2 42, 44–6, 173, 182,
1.1-5 7 51, 55, 56, 185
1.1-4 8, 11, 21, 61, 94, 2 15, 19, 20,
26, 29, 32, 143, 147, 53, 65, 66,
41, 42, 51, 150, 170, 73, 74, 76,
61, 179, 179, 181, 77, 90, 94,
187 182, 187 97–9, 102,
1.1-3 25 1.6-13 10, 20, 51, 103, 105,
1.1-2 49 59, 61, 107, 109-
1.1 1, 2, 58, 179 14, 124,
147 1.6 2, 10, 14, 126, 154,
1.2-4 10, 13, 14, 39, 47, 52- 180, 189
26 56, 81, 94, 2.1-4 64
Hebrews (cont.) 134, 136, 89–91,

2.1 64, 141, 140, 144, 105, 106,
153, 174 148, 154, 110, 111,
2.3-4 126 160, 170, 114, 125,
2.3 64, 87, 174, 175, 131, 135,
110 180, 182, 140, 175,
2.4 2 189 182, 190
2.5-18 64 2.11-13 84 2.18 77, 87,
2.5-9 64, 190 2.11-12 4 100, 125,
2.5 6, 53, 73, 2.11 10, 58, 66, 154, 182
74 86, 91, 93, 3–4 169
2.6-16 65 114, 140, 3 106, 109,
2.6-9 66, 76, 80, 154, 160, 156
93, 102 171 3.1–5.10 109
2.6-8 77, 91 2.12-13 17, 93, 98, 3.1-6 12, 90,
2.6 6, 87, 93, 102, 126, 102, 109,
147 170 115, 182
2.7-9 4, 43, 116 2.12 18, 34, 57, 3.1-5 112, 169
2.7 56, 65, 70, 66, 87, 91, 3.1 4, 56, 90,
81, 87, 93, 94, 97, 106, 109,
163, 189 110, 147, 110, 114,
2.8-9 46, 79, 94, 173, 182 136, 140,
174, 182, 2.13-14 4, 81 157, 170,
189, 192 2.13 34, 66, 92- 182
2.8 10, 17, 53, 94, 96, 3.2 10, 89, 90,
66, 69, 70, 140, 144, 106, 113
77, 79, 93, 147, 189 3.3 56, 81,
98, 116, 2.14-16 98, 102 115
128 2.14-15 100, 180, 3.4 27, 113,
2.9 56, 65, 70, 190 116
74, 75, 77, 2.14 66, 87, 91, 3.5 106, 113
80, 81, 87, 98, 99, 3.6 3, 4, 10,
88, 91, 94, 105, 114, 106, 109,
98, 110, 126, 132, 113, 115,
125, 163, 140, 170, 116, 133,
176, 182, 175 134, 137,
190 2.15-16 173 148, 156,
2.10-11 154 2.15 57, 88, 93, 170, 174,
2.10-18 64, 111 100, 105, 176, 181,
2.10 4, 15, 27, 106, 131, 182
54, 66, 76- 192 3.7–4.13 115
78, 80, 84, 2.16 101, 106, 3.7-11 34, 35,
86–8, 91– 170 147
4, 102, 2.17–5.10 109 3.7-8 172, 174
105, 113, 2.17-18 133 3.7 44, 147
125, 129, 2.17 4, 6, 43, 3.8–4.11 141
131, 133, 66, 87, 3.8 163
3.9-11 2, 147 4.16 90, 169, 6.6 3, 10, 141,

3.9 150 185 184
3.12 4, 159, 4.22 164 6.10 54, 159
169, 174 4.23 164 6.11 152
3.13 6, 44, 134, 5 117, 118, 6.12-18 189
153 131, 180 6.12-13 50
3.14 56, 156, 5.1 6, 124, 6.12 134, 176
157, 168, 131, 137 6.13-18 119
181 5.3 96 6.13 2, 120,
3.15 34, 35, 44, 5.4 2, 115 142
147, 172, 5.5-9 4 6.14 2, 147
174 5.5-6 3, 17, 137 6.15 2, 50, 119
3.16 2 5.5 2, 3, 10, 6.17 2, 4, 50,
3.17 6, 163 81, 115, 69, 133,
3.19 54 118, 127, 140, 142,
4 124, 125, 143, 147, 176
156 154, 181 6.19-20 134
4.1 50, 164, 5.6 19, 56, 6.19 82, 144
174 106, 108, 6.20 19, 108,
4.2 2 118, 147, 118, 128,
4.3 2, 90, 147 175 175
4.4 34, 147 5.7-9 78 7 106, 120,
4.5 2, 126, 5.7-8 182 123, 137,
147 5.7 2, 57, 90, 180
4.6 2 96, 147, 7.1-10 118
4.7 2, 34, 35, 153, 175 7.2 120
44, 147, 5.8-9 154, 160, 7.3 3, 10, 19,
172 171 106, 120,
4.8 82 5.8 3, 128, 121, 187
4.9-10 82 132, 155, 7.4 120, 121
4.10 164 157, 182 7.5 120
4.11 90, 174 5.9-10 182 7.6 2, 50, 120,
4.12-13 2 5.9 4, 128, 121
4.12 169 129, 131, 7.7–4.7 173
4.14–10.31 2 136, 168, 7.7 120, 124,
4.14–10.25 106 175, 182 126
4.14–5.7 108 5.10 2, 19, 118 7.8 121, 127
4.14 3, 6, 10, 5.11-14 128, 162 7.9-10 120
79, 106, 5.11-12 152 7.10 120
107, 128, 5.11 174 7.11 2, 19, 118,
130, 137, 5.12 2, 152, 122
156, 175, 160 7.12 122
182 5.14 160, 161 7.13-14 122
4.15-16 134 6 134, 167 7.14 118, 119,
4.15 125, 175, 6.4-6 174 122
182, 190 6.4 56 7.15 19
6.5 2, 17 7.16-17 17
Hebrews (cont.) 8.10 106, 142, 10.1-23 135

7.16 122 143, 170, 10.1 169
7.17 2, 19, 108, 185 10.4 135
118, 119, 8.11 144 10.5-8 17, 34, 85,
147, 175 8.12 6, 144, 87, 147
7.18-19 135 175 10.5-7 182
7.18 122 8.13 2 10.5 110, 147
7.19 122, 128, 8.20 35 10.7 176
129, 132, 9–10 143 10.9 135, 148,
136, 144 9 131, 132, 176
7.21 2, 17, 19, 134, 138 10.10 90, 111,
108, 118, 9.1 131 131, 138,
119, 147, 9.5 82 160, 176,
175 9.6-7 131 182
7.22 142 9.9 136 10.11-12 19
7.23-25 121 9.10 131, 135 10.11 136
7.24 56 9.11 113, 138 10.12-13 136
7.25 131, 133, 9.12 111, 131, 10.12 4, 6, 17,
134, 169, 138, 171, 19, 119,
171, 182 175 128, 182
7.26 79, 128, 9.13 135, 136 10.13 69, 96,
190 9.14 90, 111, 107
7.27 90, 111, 132, 136, 10.14 17, 131,
138 138, 159, 136, 138,
7.28 2–4, 10, 169, 171, 160, 171,
106, 118, 175 175, 182,
123, 127– 9.15-17 132 185
9, 154, 9.15 2, 4, 50, 10.15-17 34, 35
171, 175, 111, 132, 10.16-17 132, 143,
182 136, 140, 147
8 137 175, 176, 10.16 170, 185
8.1 4, 17, 19, 182 10.17 6, 175
106, 119, 9.16-17 16 10.18 17, 136
128, 142, 9.16 14 10.19-20 101
182 9.19-20 172 10.19 4, 133,
8.2 113 9.20 34, 147 138, 159,
8.3 137 9.23 56, 113, 160, 171
8.4 122 170 10.20 160
8.5 2, 17, 147 9.24 128, 134 10.21 137, 175
8.6 2, 50, 109, 9.25 109, 138 10.22 169
142 9.26 6, 134, 10.23 50, 90,
8.7 135 182 156, 178,
8.8-12 2, 35, 147, 9.28 132 181
173, 182 10 94, 107, 10.26-31 167, 174
8.8 106, 147 110, 135, 10.26 141, 153
8.9 100, 147, 137, 138, 10.29 3, 10, 184
174 167 10.30-31 173
10.30 2, 34, 35, 12.1-2 141 12.15-17 170

54, 94, 12.1 152, 156, 12.16 186
147-49 158, 164, 12.17 34, 126,
10.31 159, 169 174, 181, 156, 166,
10.32–13.25 2 191 174
10.32-34 7, 156 12.2 4, 17, 19, 12.18-29 17
10.32 158, 182 56, 89, 90, 12.18 169
10.35-39 174 106, 119, 12.19 2
10.35 156 128, 154, 12.20 2, 169
10.36 50, 156 174–6, 12.21 34, 147
10.37-38 2, 35, 147, 182 12.22-24 4, 133,
173 12.3-11 101 182
10.38 150 12.3 56 12.22 37, 82,
11 18, 192 12.4-11 127, 144, 113, 153,
11.2 2 157, 167, 159, 163,
11.3 2, 18, 27 173 169, 182
11.4 2, 56, 171 12.4 153, 157 12.23 53, 87,
11.5 2 12.5-11 4, 37, 97, 129
11.6 37, 169 154, 182, 12.24 56, 106,
11.7 2, 69, 106, 185 109, 111,
126 12.5-9 170 133, 138,
11.8 2 12.5-8 4 171, 175
11.9 2, 50 12.5-6 2, 3, 35, 12.25 2, 174
11.10 82, 113 151, 173, 12.26 2, 35, 50,
11.11 2, 50, 56, 182 147, 172
189 12.5 3, 144, 12.28 4, 126,
11.12 56 146, 147, 176
11.13 2, 50, 54 150, 156, 12.29 54
11.16 82, 113, 163 12.31 147
170 12.7-11 168 13 9, 81
11.17 2, 50, 125 12.7 148, 156, 13.3 7
11.18 2, 147 157 13.5-6 185
11.19 175 12.8 56, 156 13.5 2, 35, 147,
11.24-28 169 12.9-10 145 173
11.33 50 12.9 3, 148, 13.6 34, 89,
11.35 175 164, 171, 141, 147,
11.39 2, 50 182, 186 173
11.40 4, 192 12.10 164 13.8 57, 192
12–13 176 12.11 4, 144, 13.12 106, 111,
12 9, 52, 84, 159, 161, 131, 138,
101, 139, 164, 169 171, 182,
140, 154, 12.12-17 163, 168, 185
156, 160, 174 13.13 7
161, 164, 12.12-13 156 13.15 173
169, 174, 12.13 144, 164 13.20-21 174, 182,
176 12.14-17 156 185, 189
12.1-13 192 12.14 159, 164
Hebrews (cont.) Wisdom of Solomon 43.33 57

13.20 81, 127, 1.5 151 50.27 151
142, 159 1.9-10 155
13.21 4, 81 2.24 99 Baruch
13.22 4 3.5 154 4.8 49
21.12 100 3.8 56
3.11 151 Bel and the Dragon
James 5.5 49 5 57
2.2 160 7.21 21
2.5 69 7.25-26 22 1 Maccabees
7.26 27 6.15 81
1 Peter 7.27 25 9.61 82
1.16 32 8.6 21
5.8 99 9.2 21, 113 2 Maccabees
9.4 22 1.24 57
1 John 9.10 22 1.25 56
4.9 110 11.9-10 145, 154 6.12 155
4.10 110 11.10 145 6.15 155
4.14 110 11.17 113 6.27-28 155
12.19 49 6.31 155
Revelation 12.21 49 7.28 113
1–3 32 12.22 155 11.6 126
1.5 52 13.4 113 15.4 17
2.26 37 13.9 16
3.21 19 16.10 49 OLD TESTAMENT
12.5 37 16.21 49 PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
13.18 170 18.4 49 Apocalypse of Abraham
17 170 18.13 49 7.10 57
19.15 37 19.6 49
21.7 37 Apocalypse of Moses
22.6 159 Ecclesiasticus 36.1 49
1.27 151 43.4 49
APOCRYPHA AND 3.1-16 185
SEPTUAGINT 4.11 100 Apocrypon of Ezekiel
1 Esdras 4.17 154 2.1 49
5.1 82, 83 4.29 163
5.62 126 7.23 145 2 Baruch
24.8 22, 26 13.9-10 146
Tobit 24.12 22, 26 15.1-8 73
5.1-16 83 25.23 163 44.8-15 73
13.4 49 30.2 145 51.3 47
30.13 145 51.11-12 73
Judith 33.25 151 56.12-16 47
14.2 82 36.17 49
39.20 56
41.1-4 99
1 Enoch Letter of Aristeas Testament of Levi

6–7 47 256 125 3.5 83
6.2 47
10.7 47 Life of Adam and Eve Testament of Reuben
10.8 47 3.10 73 5.6 47
13.8 47 10.16 99
14.3 47 10.41 99 Testament of Abraham
15.4 75 6.6 49
15.6 75 3 Maccabees 20.12 49
31.3 99 1.16 126 20.13 49
39.1 47 5.7 126
62.11 49 5.25 126 Testament of Job
6.28 49 2.4 57
2 Enoch 7.6 49 18.3 163
18.4 47
47.3-4 57 4 Maccabees Testament of Moses
55.2 169 10.10-11 155 10.3 49
66.4 57 12.21 113 10.7 56
3 Enoch Odes of Solomon QUMRAN

5.10 72 2.43 47 1QH
19.1 160 5.12 126
4 Ezra
6.54 72 Psalms of Solomon 1QS
6.58-59 72 10.2 156 4.23a 73
13.9 145 9.11 122
History of the Rechabites 14.1 156
5.4 48 17.4 37 1Qap Genar
17.21 37 2.1 47
Joseph and Aseneth 17.27 49
12.1-2 57 18.4 145 4Q171
12.9 99 3.2a 73
Sibylline Oracles
Jubilees 1.1 frg 122 4Q504
1.24-25 143 1.5-6 frg 57 3.5-7 146
1.25 49 1.16 frg 56
2.1-4 47 3.20-35 57 4QFlor
4.15 47 3.702 49 3.10-19 38
5.1 47 5.202 49 3.11 37
12.3-5 57 8.375-76 57
15.31-32 47 BABYLONIAN TALMUD
19.14 166 Testament of Judah Sanhedrin
19.29 49 21.1-5 122 38b 72
32.18-19 73 24.2 49
35.10-13 166 24.3 49 Ta’anit
49.2 99 25b 49
OTHER RABBINIC WORKS Aristotle Demetrius

Mekilta Rhetorica De elocutione
3.98 83 1.2.4 31 265 35
3.105 83 3.14 50 266 33
Pesiqta Rabbati Athanasius Demosthenes

34a 72 Epistula ad Serapionem Epitaphius
de more Arii 2.7 16
APOSTOLIC FATHERS 2.2.7 16
1 Clement Dio
34.1 163 Orationes contra Arianos 45.1.2 44
1.46 56 45.3.1 44
Shepherd of Hermas 2.9 111
Similitude 2.23 44 Dio Chrysostom
2.9 170 2.57 44 Oratoria
7.2 114 6.42 99
De sententia Dionysii 12.22 49
Vision 11 111 12.27 49
1.1.9 114 12.61 50
1.3.2 170 De incarnatione 12.74 49
3.12.3 159 10.3 77, 78 12.75 50
33.47 82
CLASSICAL AND ANCIENT Augustine 55 35
CHRISTIAN WRITINGS City of God 85 33, 35
Aelius Aristides 6.9 50
Orations Diodorus Siculus
40.14 82 Basil 3.8.5 16
45.14 77 Letter 14.105.2 163
38 17 15.8.2 82
Ambrose 16.3.5 82
De ¿de ad Gratianum Cicero 17.66.2 17
3.11.82-86 111 De Oratore 18.31.4 163
3.11.86 105 2.184 31 20.72.2 163
Aphthonius the Sophist De inventione rhetorica Diogenes Laertius

Preliminary Exercises 1.99-100 35 Lives
11 33, 35 1.3 77
Letters to Atticus
Apuleius 9.2a 99 Dionysius of
Metamorphoses Halicarnassus
11.5 23 Pro Caelio Antiquitates romanae
33–34 35 8.61 125
Aquinas
Commentary on Tusculanae disputationes De Thucydide
the Letter of Saint Paul 1 99 39–41 34
to the Hebrews
49 44
Epictetus Herodotus Against Apion

Diatribai Historiae 2.168 80
1.3 50 1.116 17
1.3.1-2 50 Life
1.9 50 Homer 196 151
1.9.7-8 50 Iliad 359 151
1.17.25 99 1.533-35 50
1.27.7-10 99 14.414-18 50 Justin
2.16.39 160 First Apology
2.18.27 161 Isaeus 12.9 110
2.18.30 99 On the Estate of 63.10 110
3.12.7 161 Philoctemon
3.24.9 160 28, 59 15 Justinian
3.26.31 146 34 16 Institutes
4.7.15-17 99 2.13.5 15
Isocrates
Epicurus Epistulae Lucian
Fragments 1.44 14 The Passing of
217 14 Peregrinus
Nicocles (Or. 3) 23 99
Epiphanius 10 161 33 99
Panarion
64.29.6 99 Panegyricus (Or. 4) Lucretius
4.61 82 De rerum natura
Euripides 1.102-26 99
Electra John Chrysostom
559 17 Homiliae in epistulam Marcus Aurelius
ad Hebraeos Meditations
Orestes 3.1 53 4.23 77
1522 99 4.4 27
4.5 92 Gregory of Nazianzen
Eusebius 5.1 105 Theological Orations
Praeparatio evangelica 5.4 111 4.6 78, 135
13.12.7-8 80 29.3 158
15.6.6 113 Origen
Josephus Commentarii in
Heraclitus Antiquities evangelium Joannis
Allegoriae 1.3.1.73 47 I.34.151 42
(Quaestiones homericae) 3.311 145 I.34.243 42
34.8 82 4.74 114
6.35 163 Dialogus cum Heraclide
Hermogenes 7.207 82 2 62
Preliminary Exercises 12.3.2 §128 125
9 33, 34 13.12.1 17 Homiliae in Numeros
11.5 47
De principiis Legatio ad Gaium De sacri¿ces Abelis et

I.2.2 42 2.90 151 Caini
I.2.10 41 3.2 166 1.5 75
3.84 81 63 122
Philo 3.167 151 81 166
De aeternitate mundi 3.244 151
41 80 17 99 De somniis
1.141 83
De agricultura Legum allegoriae 1.159 22, 23
9 160 1.48 80 1.175 23
51 22, 48 3.129 125 1.215 22
3.132-34 125 2.9 160
De cherubim 3.213 126 2.107 155
127 22 2.250 169
De migratione Abraham 2.273 159
De confusione linguarum 6 22
146 22, 48 29 160 De Specialibus legibus
160 32 1.81 22
166 173 Quod omnis probus 1.170 16
177 50 liber sit 1.208 77
22 99 2.124 15
De congress eruditionis 160 160 3.96 125
gratia
19 160 De opi¿cio mundi De vita Mosis
23 15 156 146 1.48 161
177 146, 149 1.155 23
De plantatione 2.243 15
Quod deterius potiori 8–9 22
insidari soleat 9 22 Plato
92 126 18 22 Leges
62–64 22 923c 14
Quod Deus sit 64 22
immutabilis 69 22, 23 Phaedrus
158 83 263b 17
De posteritate Caini
In Flaccum 89 47 Politicus
10 163 91–92 47 289b 17
De fuga et inventione Quaestiones et solutiones Timaeus

101 22 in Genesin 96B 82
102 22 1.92 47
57 44 4.233 126 Plutarch
Cicero
De gigantibus Quis rerum divinarum 41.3 69
12 83 heres sit
16 83 19 126
73 155
De fraterno amore Pseudo-Aristotle De Clementia

18 125 De mundo 1.14.1 168, 185
478A-492D 7, 192 397b 77
De providentia
De cohibenda ira Quintilian 1.5 146
10 125 Institutio oratoria
6.2.13 31 Epistulae morales
De defectu oraculorum 9.2.29 33 1.5 50
29 80 9.2.30 34 24 99
9.2.31-32 33 30.17 99
De Iside et Osiride 9.2.31 33 88.20 160
53 23 9.2.33 34
78 80 Suetonius
Rhetorica ad Herennium Tiberius
De liberis educandis 4.66 35 23 44
2D-E 161
Seneca Tacitus
Moralia De bene¿cis Annals
106D 99 3.32 184 1.8 44
34B 99 3.38 184
3.17.1-12 184 Theon
Polybius 3.6.2 184 Exercises
Historiae 4.11.5 16 8 33, 34
2.40.2 82 5.5.2-3 145
24.1-2 145
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Allen, D. M. 54, 83 D’Angelo, M. R. 112

Andriessen, P. 152 Dafni, E. C. 119
Attridge, H. W. 1–3, 7, 11, 14, 18, 23, 24, Dahood, M. 116
35, 38, 43, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 68, 70–2, 74, Davids, P. 183
75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 85–90, 92, 100, 101, Davidson, A. B. 148
106, 109, 110, 113, 118, 122, 125–9, 131, De Vaux, R. 117
132, 134, 135, 142, 149, 150, 153, 155, DeSilva, D. A. 4, 6, 12, 15, 17, 23, 51, 53,
156, 158, 159, 167, 170, 171, 173, 183 59, 68–70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 82, 83, 92, 116,
151, 152, 165, 183–6
Bacon, B. W. 57 Delitzsch, F. 23, 30, 85, 149, 156, 159
Baker, D. W. 48 Delling, G. 82
Barker, M. 24 Dey, L. K. K. 21, 22, 78, 155
Barth, K. 11 Docherty, S. 52
Bauckham, R. 5, 11, 14, 20, 24, 28, 44, 51, Dunn, J. D. G. 4, 5, 23–5, 28, 41, 49
54, 57, 60, 187
Blomberg, C. L. 67, 68, 70, 71, 102 Eisenbaum, P. M. 3–5, 32, 33, 35, 154, 155
Bornkamm, G. 148 Ellingworth, P. 1, 2, 5, 14, 20, 23, 24, 30,
Boswell, J. 12 59, 68, 70, 72, 77, 79, 82, 85–90, 93, 99,
Braun, H. 2, 59, 68, 72, 82, 86, 89, 92, 126 106, 110, 111, 126, 135, 143, 149, 150,
Brooke, G. J. 38 156, 167, 168, 182, 183
Brown, W. P. 117
Browne, A. S. 183 Foerster, W. 14, 69
Bruce, F. F. 1, 20, 23, 43, 51, 57, 59, 68, 70,
85, 167, 172 Gäbel, G. 99, 100
Buchanan, G. W. 1, 19, 126, 172 Gardner, J. F. 16
Byrne, B. 48 Gheorghita, R. 85, 88, 89
Giles, P. 71
Caird, G. B. 25, 43, 44, 54 Gleason, R. C. 20
Calvin, J. 70 Gorman, H. 174
Campbell, I. D. 183 Grässer, E. 23, 30, 51, 70, 71, 86, 135, 169
Champlin, E. 16 Gray, P. 7, 92, 93, 99, 126, 133, 192
Charlesworth, J. H. 122 Greer, R. A. 78
Chulp, J. T. 45 Grogan, G. W. 88
Cockerill, G. 121 Guthrie, G. H. 64, 68, 169
Collins, A. Y. 58, 59
Collins, J. J. 58, 59 Hagner, D. 5, 21, 24
Cooley, M. G. L. 44 Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. 25
Craddock, F. B. 25 Hannah, D. D. 20
Craigie, P. C. 48, 68 Hay, D. M. 119, 183
Crook, J. A. 15 Hayman, P. 24
Croy, C. N. 151, 156, 157, 161, 183 Hays, R. B. 14, 85
Cullmann, O. 79 Holtzmann, O. 79
Howell, D. 183, 185
Index of Authors 223
Hübner, H. 36 Mof¿tt, D. 20, 53, 55, 71–4, 79, 86, 87, 91,
Hughes, P. E. 1, 2, 33, 79, 105, 166 105, 107, 108, 121, 122, 124, 126, 129,
Hurst, L. D. 43, 65, 188 175, 188, 191
Hurtado, L. W. 54 Monte¿ore, H. 20, 38, 53, 68, 71, 126, 182
Motyer, S. 183
Johnson, L. T. 1, 20, 23–5, 33, 35, 56, 68– Moule, C. D. F. 57
72, 74, 77, 82, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 100, 105, Mowinckel, S. 117
106, 110–12, 117, 126, 131, 134, 142, 148,
152, 156–8, 167 Neyrey, J. H. 187
Juel, D. 119 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 35
Käsemann, E. 6, 20, 43, 53, 164, 188 O’Brien, P. T. 1, 77, 80, 117, 132
Kennedy, G. 14, 31 Osborne, G. 130, 131
Kistemaker, S. J. 1, 44, 57, 148
Koester, C. 1, 6, 7, 32, 56, 65, 71, 73, 75, Parsons, M. 106
77, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 89, 92, 100, 106, Peeler, A. 56
110, 117, 125, 126, 131–3, 135, 148, 156, Peterson, D. 53, 78, 79, 130, 148, 153, 155,
157, 166, 169, 183, 188, 189 190, 191
Kögel, J. 4, 78, 79 Petuchowski, J. J. 49
Kraus, M. 31 P¿tzner, V. C. 5, 68
Kurianal, J. 79 Pietersma, A. 67, 75
Pritchard, J. B. 116
Lane, W. L. 1, 2, 4, 24, 40, 51, 56, 71, 73, Purdy, A. C. 181, 182
75, 77, 79, 80, 85–7, 89, 92, 105, 106, 110,
117, 126, 127, 148, 149, 153, 156, 157, Quinn, R. D. 68
166, 169, 175
Lee, A. H. I. 44 Rascher, A. 28, 51, 85, 181
Lehne, S. 2, 142 Rooke, D. W. 107
Lewicki, T. 2, 3, 49, 85 Rothschild, C. K. 159, 175
Lidgett, J. S. 5, 13, 79, 83, 137, 182
Lierman, J. 112 Schenck, K. L. 14, 20, 23–7, 29, 45, 73, 78
Loader, W. R. G. 1, 6, 53, 72, 106 Scholer, J. M. 78
Long, T. 30, 79, 105 Silva, M. 79
Luther, M. 77, 127, 158 Smillie, G. 2
Solin, H. 20
Mackie, S. D. 7, 44, 51, 85 Son, K. 169
Marcus, R. 156 Sowers, S. G. 23
Mason, E. 64, 190, 191 Spicq, C. 2, 20, 21, 23, 30, 51, 59, 68, 72,
Matthews, E. 19, 20 77, 86, 89, 92, 106, 135, 149, 166
McCormack, B. L. 46, 102, 124 Steyn, G. J. 30, 38, 48, 149
McCruden, K. B. 78, 79, 190 Still, T. D. 90
McCullough, J. C. 148, 149 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 20
Meier, J. P. 40 Swetnam, J. 70
Meiser, M. 36
Metzger, B. M. 75, 76 Talbert, C. H. 151, 183, 185
Michel, O. 53, 59, 72, 77, 105, 153 Thiessen, M. 156
Mitchell, A. C. 12, 30, 70, 71, 77, 84, 149 Thompson, J. W. 1, 33, 51, 52, 78, 127, 151,
Moffatt, J. 2, 20, 43, 68, 70, 71, 79, 80, 90, 152, 162, 183
99, 156, 181 Thompson, M. M. 37, 39
Treier, D. J. 17
224 Index of Authors
Überlacker, W. 40 Westfall, C. L. 64, 112, 152

Whitlark, K. 185, 186
Vander Beek, W. L. 2 Widdicombe, P. 41, 42, 62, 141
Vanhoye, A. 43, 53, 64, 90, 105, 109 Wider, D. 2
Wikgren, A. 79
Wagner, J. R. 85, 89–92, 96, 173 Wiles, M. 25
Walters, J. C. 16 Williamson, R. 23
Walters, J. R. 78, 155, 161 Windisch, H. 20, 68, 72, 92, 126
Webster, J. 60, 187 Witherington, Ben, III 4, 23, 24, 28, 33, 87,
Weiss, B. 18, 86, 148 106, 127, 149, 152, 168
Westcott, B. F. 1, 43, 48, 53, 59, 70, 79, 80, Wrede, W. 1
88, 92

You Are My Son - The Family of God in The Epistle To The Hebrews

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

You Are My Son - The Family of God in The Epistle To The Hebrews

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

The Family of God

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

First published 2014

© Amy L. B. Peeler, 2014

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

ISBN: HB: 978-0-56765-418-2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

V. The Inheritance Secured by the Priest 130

A monograph may be the product of one individual, but its completion

Kindred. The decision to focus on familial themes in Hebrews did not

1 Apol. Justin Martyr, First Apology

De rer. nat. Lucretuis, De rerum natura

KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

Quaest. in Gen Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones

I. The Family of God

audience: God is not distant, but involves himself with humanity by

In addition to the word ÍĎĠË, the author alludes to the Father/Son

concentrated attention in order to answer this question: What purposes

II. Outline of the Project

Finally, the fourth chapter attends to the audience’s status as children

‘MY SON’: THE APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS

I. The Description of God’s Son: Hebrews 1.1-4

The opening sentence of the sermon contains an eloquent description of

A. God Spoke Through a Son

2 Richard Bauckham’s Cruci¿ed God: Monotheism and Christology in the New

B. The Narrative of God’s Son

8. A similar comparison is evident in the authors of the Synoptics in the parable

God’s supremacy as owner of all things; everything is at his disposal to

16 Seneca notes, ‘…never are we more careful in our giving, never do we

The masculine pronoun of this phrase is ambiguous; therefore, it is

II. The Son as God’s Wisdom and Word: Hebrews 1.1-4

Almost every description attributed to Christ in Heb. 1.1-4 mimics

29 Similarly, Donald Hagner states, ‘[t]he remainder of ch. 1 is taken up with an

was framed’ (Spec. 1.81, Colson).31 Moreover, as Hebrews describes

At this point, however, scholarship diverges into two notable trajecto-

Schenck’s caution against eisegesis is laudable, but he exercises caution

45 Schenck, ‘Keeping His Appointment’, p.105.

In addition to the author’s use of Wisdom/Word language, these

48 Schenck cites these two reasons succinctly in a footnote in ‘Celebration of

Dunn’s perception of Hebrews’ view of the Fatherhood (or rather, the

This relationship would also address another of Schenck’s concerns.

III. The Relationship Announced: Hebrews 1.5

58 Schenck, ‘Keeping His Appointment’, p.106.

another.61 This dual focus is evident in the author’s mode of presenting

A. The Introduction to the Citations (Heb. 1.5a): Spoken By God

63 Eisenbaum highlights the peculiarity of this feature of Hebrews: ‘[o]ne of

of the forward is presented as an original composition. Thanks are due to J. Ross

In his progymnasmata, Theon instructs,

On this point, Hebrews’ utilization of this rhetorical tool signi¿cantly

71 See similarly Theon, Exercises 8; Hermogenes, Preliminary Exercises 9. As

In addition to this, the author of Hebrews’ presentation of God’s

C. The Selection of These Citations

Concerning this double citation in v. 5, Harold Attridge notes that

D. The Content of the Citations

89 Lane notes the chiasm as well (Hebrews, p.1:25).

E. Hebrews 1.5 as the Interpretive Lens for Hebrews 1.1-4

F. The Temporal Setting of the Citation

96 Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, p.99; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, p.25;

because he served as the pioneer of humanity’s salvation, he was

B. The Inheritance of the ĎĠË Å¿ÉļÈÇÍ

C. God Leads Many ĎÇĕ to Salvation

68 Alan Mitchell, ‘The Use of ÉñÈ¼ÀÅ and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews