Hebrews Carnival April 2012

Jared Calaway has a proposal about The Social Network of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  He also contemplates the application of the Social Sciences to Hebrews.

Cliff Kvidahl provides a brief review of David M. Allen's Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews.  He also has a blurb and table of contents of the forthcoming book, Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews.

Ben at Arminian Perspectives is Debunking the False Faith View of the Hebrews Warning Passages.

Kevin Brown has a series on The Christology of Hebrews: Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

William Mounce has a discussion on Covenants and Wills in Hebrews 9:16–17.

Eerdmans interviews Gary Cockerill, author of the forthcoming NICNT commentary on Hebrews: Part 1. Part 2.

Jim West promises a review of Cockerill's book when he is finished reading it.

Hebrews Carnival May 2011

The month of May saw the following contributions to the book of Hebrews:

Dan Fabricatore has A note on ἐφάπαξ: Once for all in Hebrews 10:10.

Ken Schenck discusses the CEB translation of  Hebrews 1:5-14.

Kenneth Way discusses the Handling of "Heroes" in Hebrews 11.

Kevin Brown has some reflections on Hebrews, Jesus, and Creation in Hebrews 1:2, 10.

Horace Jeffery Hodges discusses Hebrews 9:14-17 on Covenant and Testament.  He takes διαθηκη in this context to mean "covenant."  He then moves on to Hebrews 9:15 and asks whether it is Specifically about Israelites and their Descendants.  He then interacts with my comments on 9:14-17.

Horace Jeffery Hodges is puzzling over the meaning of Hebrews 9:23 - "heavenly things themselves be cleansed."  He discusses Brooke Foss Westcott's and  Kenneth L. Schenck's take on Hebrews 9:23.

Ken responds with his own post asking, What is cleansing the heavenly sanctuary in Heb. 9:23?

Hebrews Carnival July 2010

William Varner talks about his experience of seeing the oldest extant manuscript of the book of Hebrews, P46, in the Chester Beatty Papyrus collection. He notes that even in this oldest of manuscripts the title was "To the Hebrews." He gives a picture of it here.

Steven Coxhead has a discussion on The Eternal Nature of the Eternal Covenant in Hebrews.  He has a follow-up discussion on When Jesus Became Our Great High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Zondervan has posted an excerpt of the complete chapter on Hebrews from Carson, Moo, and Naselli, Introducing the New Testament.

Arminian Today has a meditation on Hebrews 7:23-28 entitled, Jesus, My Faithful, Perfect High Priest.

McCullough's Survey of Research on Hebrews

McCullough, John C. “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980): 141-65; 3 (1981): 28-43.

John Cecil McCullough, an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, was professor of New Testament at Near East School of Theology in Beirut, Lebanon and later at Union Theological College and Queen’s University in Belfast, Ireland, and is (was?) editor of Irish Biblical Studies. His dissertation was on “The OT Quotations in Hebrews” and he has published several articles on Hebrews.

The purpose of McCullough’s article is to trace and assess the trends in Hebrews scholarship in the previous two decades.

Part I:

Authorship: numerous authors have been proposed over the years. In recent years scholars have proposed Apollos (Roncaglia; Spicq; Manson; Héring; Lo Bue), Priscilla and Aquila (Hoppin), and Barnabas (Robinson). A consensus has emerged that Paul is not the author, even among Catholic scholars who now suggest that Hebrews was written by one of Paul’s pupils (142).

Religious Background:

Philo: after examining the author’s “vocabulary, literary style, theological arguments, exegetical methods, schemes of thought, [and] psychology,” Spicq concluded that the author was heavily influenced by Philo and was probably his pupil who later converted to Christianity (143). Friedrich Schröger more cautiously suggested that Philo and the author of Hebrews had a common Alexandrian background (144). Sidney Sowers similarly claimed that the author came from the same school of Alexandrian Judaism as Philo (144). Ronald Williamson dismantled Spicq’s thesis of Philonic influence in a detailed study of the linguistic evidence, themes, ideas, and use of scripture (144-145).

Qumran: the discovery and publication of the Qumran scrolls brought new interest to the religious background of the book of Hebrews. Scholars began to note some important parallels between Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Michel; Yadin) and to surmise that the addressees had some connection with the Essene community (Yadin; Kosmala). But by the early sixties scholars began to urge greater caution about seeing direct connections with the scrolls (Bruce; Coppens; Braun). It was more likely that Hebrews and the Qumran community shared a common cultural milieu (Flusser). (145-146)

The publication of fragments containing references to Melchizedek again prompted Yadin to posit a direct connection with Hebrews; he claimed the author was addressing converted Essenes. But again, other scholars were more cautious; the Melchizedek figure in the scrolls merely helps us understand the Jewish environment within which the author of Hebrews was working (Van der Woude; de Jonge; Fitzmyer). Other scholars do not think that one needs to appeal to the Qumran scrolls to understand why Hebrews referred to Melchizedek (Horton; McCullough; Buchanan). (146-148)

Gnosticism: Some scholars have claimed that Hebrews was written to oppose a type of Gnosticism (Perdelwitz; Bornkamm; T. W. Manson), while others have proposed that Gnosticism provided the thought patterns for the book (Käsemann). While there is little evidence that Gnosticism existed during the first century, the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls have prompted scholars to look for early forms of Gnostic thought in Judaism. Some scholars have tried to trace Hebrews and Qumran within a Gnostic trajectory (Batdorf; Dey). (148-150)

Merkabah Mysticism: Some scholars have suggested that the religious background to Hebrews is the Merkabah mysticism of Jewish Apocalyptic (Hofius; Schenke; Williamson thought it possible). More research needs to be done before this connection can be made tenable (150-151).

Date and Destination: no clear census has emerged regarding the destination of the book. The terminus ad quem for the dating is fixed at 96 AD since Hebrews is utilized by 1 Clement. Scholars are also divided about whether 70 AD is a relevant date for Hebrews. Some scholars have argued for a date prior to 70 AD because the fall of the Jerusalem cultus would certainly have been mentioned (Robinson; Buchanan; Strobel; Bruce; Montefiore). (151-152)

Literary Genre: Some scholars have argued that the epistolary ending is not original to Hebrews (Thyen; Buchanan), while other have claimed that the typical greeting is now missing from Hebrews (Spicq; Marxsen). Renner suggested that Hebrews is a pseudepigraphal letter. The prevailing opinion is that Hebrews is a sermon. Thyen has argued that Hebrews is a sermon in the style of the Jewish Hellenistic homily. (152-153)

Literary Structure: In 1940 Leon Vaganay proposed an outline with five sections that evince a symmetrical pattern; the center section being the largest and thus the central theme of the book (153). Albert Vanhoye also presented a symmetrical structure by highlighting six literary devices that the author employed (154). James Swetnam offered an alternative outline based on content rather than literary criteria. While the literary structure is still up for debate, McCullough concludes that literary devices must be taken into consideration when discerning the structure of Hebrews, but content is “the final decisive factor in determining what outline the author followed” (156).

Part II:

Use of the OT:

Text: scholars generally agree that Hebrews quotes from the LXX, rather than from the Hebrew OT. Some have proposed that the author knew no Hebrew at all (Sowers; Nairne). The question then became, what version of the LXX did the author use? Some argued that the author utilized a text resembling Codex Alexandrinus (Bleek; Büchsel; Swete), while others argued for Codex Vaticanus (Leonard). Various scenarios have been proposed to explain the divergences of Hebrews’ quotations from any extant LXX text (Padva; Spicq; Thomas). Schröger concluded that many of the quotations are from a version known to us, four quotations are from a version unknown to us, and some quotations are due to the author’s own emendation of the text. Others have suggested that the author utilized a testimony book (Harris; Synge), a pre-Massoretic Hebrew text (Howard), a synagogue lectionary (Burch), or that simply the author had a lapse in memory (Grässer). Recent text-critical work in the LXX has demonstrated that Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus are just two versions that happen to survive; one should not expect the precise version which Hebrews utilized to also have been preserved. Also the author’s textual vorlage might differ from one OT to another, so that one must examine the textual tradition of each book individually (28-30).

Exegetical Methods: scholars have tried to discern the exegetical methods employed by the author of Hebrews. Some scholars have detected rabbinic methods (Padva; M. Barth et al), while others find Qumranic pesher exegesis (Gärtner). Scholars have also tried to explore the underlying attitude of the author towards the OT. McCullough explains that Hebrews does not reflect the rabbinic attitude which tended “to find a complete code of life to serve the needs of the Palestinian Jewish community” (32). Schröger argued that Hebrews displays a Qumranic approach which viewed the OT as a mystery (raz) which could only be interpreted correctly by a pesher which would be given to God’s chosen person at the right time, i.e., in the end time (32-33). Yet, while scholars note the similarities between Hebrews and pesher exegesis (e.g., Bruce; Kosmala), there is no evidence that Hebrews viewed the OT as a mystery which had to be deciphered (Coppens). According to McCullough, Philo “assumed texts have a twofold meaning, a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning” (33). Kümmel claimed that Hebrews unambiguously employed the allegorical method, while Vénard states that the author only used it in a limited way, while Sowers asserts the lack of any allegory in Hebrews (33). Hebrews’ approach to the OT is best described as typological, which finds parallels between the OT and the NT; the OT prefigures the NT and finds its fulfillment in it (34). Some scholars believed that Hebrews frequently employed typology (Bleek; Riggenbach; Delitzsch), and many acknowledge that it occurs at least some of the time in the book (Westcott; Moffatt; Spicq; W. Manson; Michel; Bruce; Goppelt). However, some scholars suggested that Hebrews sought a sensus plenior in the OT passages (Van der Ploeg), while others denied this (Grässer).

Individual Themes and Passages:

Covenant: there has been considerable debate over the meaning of diatheke in Hebrews. Diatheke can mean either “covenant” or “last will or testament” (35). In 13 of the 17 usages in Hebrew, diatheke appears to mean “covenant.” However, the four occurrences in 9:15-17 seem to require the connotation “last will or testament.” Quell claims that the author of Hebrew envisages both meanings, but in doing so he contradicts himself. Campbell, however, attempts to defend Hebrews, claiming that Greek wills were similar to the OT covenant (36). Others scholars have attempted to argue that one consistent meaning runs through the whole work. Some scholars claimed that the meaning is “covenant” throughout (Moulton; Westcott; Kilpatrick; J. Hughes), while others assert that “last will or testament” is the meaning (Riggenbach; Deissmann; Payne; Swetnam).

Hebrews 6:4-6: Some scholars have tried to soften the teaching of this passage (Spicq; Proulx & Schökel; Sabourin; Elliott). Others have tried to determine how the author came to this opinion that appears to go against the grain of other early Christian writings (Carlston; Buchanan).

This article provides a useful survey of the period covered.

Hebrews Carnival February 2010 - Part 1

We are only halfway through the month of February and already there has been considerable discussion on the Book of Hebrews this month. So, I thought I would make mention of those posts we have thus far, rather than waiting until the end of the month:

Rafael Rodríguez criticizes another scholar who portrays the author of Hebrews as someone who was not bound by cultural constraints, while addressing an audience that was bound. Rather, The author of Hebrews was himself bound in the first century CE.

Joel Watts argues that the author of Hebrews mined the Old Testament for theological truth about Christ and the Church, not historical fact.

Joel Watts also reflects on Hebrews 11:1-3 noting that faith is not merely a belief system but action and commitment.

Steven Coxhead expounds on The Concept of Faith in Hebrews. He concludes that "the concept of faith in the book of Hebrews confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, but it also includes a strong assurance that the fullness of what God has promised will come true (Heb 11:1), which results in power to persevere despite opposition."

Coxhead also ponders the Similarities in the Concept of Faith between Paul and the Author of Hebrews.

Brant Pitre claims that Hebrews does envision a new ministerial priesthood. Hebrews 7:12 suggests a change in the priesthood, not a dissolution. He interprets the "altar" of 13:10 to refer to the Eucharistic sacrifice. The post has provoked a considerable discussion.

Peter Kirk responded with a post of his own, Only One New Priest and Sacrifice, contending that the new priesthood Hebrews envisions is found in only one person, Jesus Christ. Hebrews 13 is not arguing for a special caste of priests offering the sacrifice of the Mass, but indicates that all believers offer up sacrifices of praise and good works.

Phillip Long in his post Hebrews and the New Covenant (Part 1) argues that Hebrews is not supersessionistic. Hebrews does not teach that the Church has replaced Israel, but that the Old Testament promises find their fulfillment in Jesus and the New Covenant. In Part 2 he goes on the state that the New Covenant merely succeeds the Old Covenant chronologically; it is how God is dealing with His people in the present age.

In his discussion of Jesus and the Heavenly Sanctuary, Long notes that Jesus' priesthood and sacrifice is superior because Jesus serves in a heavenly sanctuary.

Long also identifies four things from Hebrews 10:32-39 that the audience of Hebrews suffered in their endurance in the Christian faith.

Long also muses about the midrashic use of The Old Testament in Hebrews.

Ken Schenck exults that his monograph Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Setting of the Sacrifice is now available in a more inexpensive paperback. Finally, the book is now within my price range!

Clifford Kvidahl queries What Do Calvin and Arminius Have to do with Auctor? He concludes that one must not impose an anachronistic Calvinist or Arminian reading on the warning passages in Hebrews, but that they must be understood within their literary context.

Brian Tucker reports that Jeffrey Gibson argued at the SBL Midwest meeting that the Sitz im Leben of Hebrews was the Jewish War and that the author was concerned to address "issues of non-violence in the context of the threat of the Roman and Jewish desire for violent revolt by the zealots."

October 2009 Hebrews Carnival

The book of Hebrews has been getting considerably more attention this past month.

We begin with some book reviews:

Rafael Rodriguez continues his posts on Gabriella Gelardini's edited volume, Hebrews: Contemporary Methods--New Insights, with a reflection and review of Scott Hahn's essay, "Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθηκη in Heb 9:15-22." In a second post, More on Hebrews, he reviews essays by Gelardini, Ellen Aitken, Knut Backhaus, and Benjamin Dunning. I share his skepticism about Aitken's reading of Hebrews. He finishes his review with some comments on Pamela Eisenbaum's and James Millers' essays.

Rafael now has begun a review of Barry Joslin's, Hebrews, Christ, and the Law: The Theology of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:1-10:18.

Diglot has a review on Faithful to the End: An Introduction to Hebrews through Revelation by Terry Wilder, J. Daryl Charles, and Kendell Easley. He also reviews Ben Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude.

Next we turn to the text of Hebrews:

Peter Head continues his posts on textual criticism of Hebrews in P46 with some notes on Hebrews 2:9.

Tommy Wasserman notes the registration of the newly-discovered Hebrews fragment as P126.

Wasserman also draws attention to an article by Martin Karrer on Hebrews and the LXX (Karrer has also written a two-volume commentary on Hebrews in German).

Next we consider specific passages on Hebrews:

William Varner ponders whether the the author of Psalm 8 (quoted in Hebrews 2) had Jesus in mind or whether Jesus is the fulfillment of the psalm in the sense he is the ultimate human being.

Jason quotes a passage from William Lane on Hebrews 2:14 regarding the devil and death.

Ken Schenck resumes his explanatory notes with posts on Hebrews 2:9-18, Hebrews 10:1-18 and Hebrews 10:19-39.

William Watson Birch has a discussion on the meaning of archegos (author) in Hebrews 2:10 and 12:2 in one of his discussions about Jacob Arminius' theology.

Joel Watts offers a comparison of translations on Hebrews 6:1-18.

Peter Lopez offers his study notes for Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 7. He also gives his reflections on Week 4, Week 5, and Week 6 of his Bible Study.

Stuart Mizelle revisits Hebrews 10:24, offering his own rendering of the verse.

Rick Saenz discusses the word peitho in Hebrews 13:17 and concludes that the word in context means more than to obey your leaders, but also to have confidence in them and to trust in them. Alan Knox concurs. See his older post, Obey and Submit?.

Finally, we conclude with some general reflections on Hebrews:

Clifford Kvidahl, in his post, Come, Let Us Go to the Wilderness, relates his view that the author "wanted his readers to see themselves as members with OT Israel in their wilderness journey." Could this be the reason why the author focuses on the tabernacle rather than the temple? In a second post, Faith in the Wilderness, he considers the placement of the faith chapter within the overall presentation of Hebrews.

Hebrews' Message to the World and Church

Hoare, Edward. “Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Message to the World, and to the Church of Our Own Time.” Pages 309-13 in The Official Report of the Church Congress, Held at Wolverhampton, on October 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, 1887. Edited by C. Dunkley. London: Bembrose, 1887.

Edward Hoare (1812-1894) was Vicar of Holy Trinity, Tunbridge Wells (1853-1894) and Hon. Canon of Canterbury. He was apparently known as the “Protestant pontiff of Tunbridge Wells.” A biography of his life can be found here.


There is no direct message to the world, since the epistle is addressed to those who had come out of the world. What does Hebrews say about the world?
1) It was created by Jesus (2:2).
2) It is now being upheld by Him (1:3).
3) It is about to be shaken, or removed by Him (12:27).
4) He has provided for His people a kingdom which cannot be shaken. The message to the world then could be that people should not seek their security in this world, but in Christ.

The message to the church: no local church is addressed, but it is addressed to Jewish Christians who were tempted to lapse back into the Jewish faith. What then is the message for the church?
1) We should not be disheartened if we encounter people who are tempted to return to the bondage from which they once appeared to have been delivered. If people were tempted to relapse into Judaism in apostolic times, we should not be surprised if we find the same attitude in our day and age.
2) We should not leave this tendency alone, but we should vigorously oppose it.
3) This tendency should be opposed with the careful, argumentative exposition of the word of God, even as the author of Hebrews did.
4) If we wish to see men established in the truth, we must direct their attention to the great realities, and not merely the framework, of the gospel. For example, in one passage he mentions the church, but he does not mention its organization–its bishops, priests, or deacons–but it is described as “the Church of the first-born which are written in heaven” (12:23). “The new birth, and the name written in the book of life, these were the distinctive realities by which alone the Church was described” (311). Moreover, he does not emphasize the sacraments, but points them to the sacrificial death of Christ.
5) The message of the epistle is that the sum and substance of all reality is in the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Christ is the fulfiller and fulfillment of all the types and prophecies. The perfection of Christ is brought out in connection with his priesthood, sacrifice, and covenant: a) the successional Aaronic priesthood is now replaced by the unsuccessional priesthood of Christ; Christ’s priesthood is eternal; b) the numerous and repetitious sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood is now replaced by the one, perfect sacrifice of Christ; and c) Christ is the mediator of a better covenant which is based on better promises–holiness, fellowship with God, knowledge of the Lord Himself, and forgiveness of sins.

Diatheke in Hebrews 9:16-17

Gardiner, Frederic. On διαθηκη in Heb. ix. 16, 17." Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 5 (1885): 8-19.

Frederic Gardiner (1822-1889) was an American Episcopal clergyman. He became professor of the literature and interpretation of scripture at Gambier (Ohio) Theological Seminary in 1865, professor of OT language and literature in Berkeley Divinity School (Middletown, Conn.) in 1867, and professor of NT interpretation and literature in 1883, also at Berkeley. In 1880 he founded the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis and was the first editor of its journal, 1880-1883, and served as its president, 1887-1889.

The term διαθηκη in Hebrews 9:16-17 has been alternatively rendered as testament or covenant in various English translations. Commentators are equally divided over the meaning of the term in this passage. Gardiner attempts to resolve this difficult problem, arguing that διαθηκη is best rendered as covenant.

Gardiner first looks at the surrounding verses of the passage. He believes that διαθηκη in verse 15 is best rendered as covenant. He gives several reasons for this conclusion: 1) διαθηκης καινης is the ordinary scriptural designation for the Christian dispensation, 2) the term μεσιτης requires the sense of covenant, 3) πρωτη διαθηκη is never used of will, but of covenant, 4) “inheritance” is always used in respect of humanity, never of God, 5) the idea of a will as the disposition of property after one’s death was a foreign idea to ancient Israelites, 6) the author of Hebrews obviously has the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 in mind, and 7) the sanction of the old covenant by blood in Exodus 24:5-8 is especially in view in 9:18-20.

In Classical Greek the term διαθηκη usually referred to a testament or will—the disposition of property by the owner after his death—although on occasion it could mean covenant. In Koine Greek the term usually meant covenant (e.g., Philo). The LXX uses διαθηκη as the translation of ברת and always was used in the sense of covenant. In the majority of the passages in the NT the meaning is clearly covenant.

Proceeding to verses 18-20, Gardiner points out that this these verses refer to Exodus 24 in which the covenant is sanctioned with blood. Here the meaning of διαθηκη can only mean covenant.

In verse 16 the phrase οπου γαρ διαθηκη clearly indicates that διαθηκη must have the same sense as the previous verse. Likewise, in verse 18 the connective οθεν clearly points back to the previous verses. Therefore, in order for the passage to make sense, διαθηκη must be consistently construed as covenant.

There are some terms in these two verses that some say require the meaning of testament. There is the mention of the death of the διαθεμενοι, and the διαθηκη is in force επι νεκροις. These are the two crucial expressions that must be explored. The verb διατιθημι is frequently used in conjunction with διαθηκη in the LXX and it always is in the context of making a covenant. The LXX overwhelmingly translates the Hebrew term כרת as διαθηκη. It always means covenant; it never refers to a will. The term νεκροις must essentially refer to the same thing as the διαθεμονος. The plural noun νεκροις poses problems for those favoring the rendering testament, for there can only be one testator for one testament. This problem is lessened, according to Gardiner, if the sense were covenant.

Gardiner concludes that the term διαθεμονος must refer to the victim who “makes” (i.e., ratifies or confirms) the covenant. Although he acknowledges that this usage is unusual, it poses less problems than the translation testament, and it makes perfectly good sense within the larger context. In verse 15 Christ is spoken of as the mediator and the sin-offering of the new covenant. These ideas are reiterated towards the end of the same chapter. Thus, this double idea must apply to verses 16-17 as well. Christ is both the mediator of the covenant and the sacrificial victim whose death ratifies the covenant.

I think that Gardiner makes a very persuasive case that we must construe διαθηκη as covenant consistently throughout the whole of chapter 9 in Hebrews.

Testament or Covenant?

Purton, J. S. “Testament or Covenant?: A Note on Hebrews ix. 15-22.” Expositor. First Series, 7 (1878): 73-77.

Purton deals with the thorny problem of the translation of διαθηκη in Hebrews 9:15-22, which many interpreters take to mean “testament” rather than “covenant” within the context (and is so rendered in the KJV). The mention of an inheritance in verse 15 supports this interpretation. Purton, however, argues that the association of a testament with an inheritance was not so familiar to the Hebrew mind. The term διαθηκη would most likely retain the meaning of “covenant” as it does throughout the LXX, as the Greek translation for the Hebrew word berith. In addition, it was natural for the Jews to associate the inheritance of the land with the covenant. Thus, Purton contends that διαθηκη should be translated consistently as “covenant” in Heb 9:15-22.

The prevailing idea of chapters 8-10 is the analogy and contrast between the old and new covenants. Purton remarks that “the turning point, both of this analogy and this contrast, is the fact that both the covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death . . . , not ordinary natural death, but a sacrificial, expiatory, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as its essential feature” (75). Thus, when the author of Hebrews says that death and bloodshed were necessary to validate a covenant, he was referring to the law of sacrifice.

As attractive as Purton’s solution is, I find his translation rather forced. He renders verses 16-17 as follows:

“For where there is a covenant, the covenanter’s death must (according to the Law) be borne (i.e., by the victim which dies for him vicariously); for a covenant is ratified over dead bodies (of sacrificed animals), since it never is valid when the covenanter lives (i.e., so long as his life is not forfeited, or acknowledged to be forfeited, for sin by the vicarious death of the victim offered for him).”

The most natural way to take the Greek of this passage is that covenanter (διαθεμενος) himself, not some vicarious victim, must die before the covenant is enacted. The fact that Purton must supplement his translation with long parenthetical explications detracts from his argument. I wonder: if the author was writing to Hellenistic Jews (or even Gentiles) would the notion of διαθηκη meaning “testament” been so unfamiliar to them? And couldn’t the author have played upon the ambiguity of the term διαθηκη to make his argument—a strategy that he seems to employ elsewhere in his book? (For example, the author seems to play off the ambiguity of the term “rest” [καταπαυσις] as referring to the promised land and to God’s eschatological Sabbath rest in chapters 3 and 4).