¹ Theissen, Gerd, Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969).Google Scholar For similar approaches, cf. Spicq, Ceslaus, L'Epître aux Hebreux (2 vols; Paris; Galbalda, 1952–1953)Google Scholar; idem, L'Epître aux Hebreux (Paris: Gabalda, 1977)Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Festschrift, C. H. Dodd; ed. Davies, W. D. and Daube, D.; Cambridge, 1954) 363–93Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964).Google Scholar For an important recent contribution to the assessment of the eschatological perspectives of Hebrews, cf. MacRae, George W., “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978) 179–99Google Scholar.

² Theissen consciously builds on the analysis of Hebrews by Käsemann, Ernst, Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959)Google Scholar. His definition of “Gnostic” is a broad phenomenological one. Cf. Untersuchungen, 127, n. 8, “Gnosis = Rückkehr zum Ursprung von jeder Schöpfung.” This is not the context in which to discuss the adequacy of such a definition. Suffice it to note that Theissen's use of the category does not presuppose the presence in the first century of the fully developed Gnostic mythology of the classical systems of the second and third centuries. He is willing (p. 129) to use the term “Frühgnosis” vel sim. to describe the religio-historical framework within which he sees Hebrews operating.

³ Buchanan, George Wesley, To the Hebrews (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1972)Google Scholar.

⁴ Hofius, Otfried, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom Endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (Tübingen: Mohr, 1970)Google Scholar

⁵ Theissen (Untersuchungen, 124–29) criticized Käsemann's reliance on Barnabas 15. Instead he appeals to texts of Philo which deal with the theme of “rest in God,” such as Quod Deus immut. 11, to which Käsemann had already drawn attention; Ques. Exod. 2.46; and Opific. mund. 100. On the other hand, Hofius (Katapausis, 59–74) surveys a variety of apocalypses where the motif of an eschatological place of rest appears, calling particular attention to 4 Ezra 7:36 and 8:52.

⁶ The The charge against the desert generation in 3:18 involves an interesting variant, πιστήσασιν, (P46, Lat) instead of πειθήσασιν, a variant which is paralleled in the allusions to the failure of the desert generation in Heb 4:6, 11. As most commentators recognize, the substitution of “faithlessness” for “disobedience” in these verses is most likely a simplifying correction, under the influence of the prominence of “faithlessness” in 3:19 and 4:2. Of course, for Hebrews lack of faith and disobedience are intimately connected.

⁷ Cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 55.

⁸ This move in the argument is already implicit in the comment that the author appends to his citation of Ps 95:11 in Heb 4:3, καίτοι τωᵔν ἔργων π καταβοληᵔς κόσμου γενηθέντων, “even though the works had been completed from the foundation of the world.” The force of this remark is to emphasize that the divinely promised “rest,” (or “my rest,” in the words of Ps 95:11) is not primarily a future reality pertaining primarily to human beings, but a feature of God's own existence which precedes and stands outside of human history. Buchanan's translation (Hebrews, 53), “namely, [from] the works [that] took place from the foundation of the world,” obscures the force of the remark, and is grammatically impossible. Although the particle καίτοι may have the significance which Buchanan gives it here, the anarthrous participle γενηθέντων cannot be construed as attributive, as Buchanan does. Hence the particle καίτοι must be seen in its more normal, adversative sense, used here with a genitive absolute.

⁹ Cf. especially Deut 12:9 and Exod 33:14. Buchanan (Hebrews, 64) also cites Deut 29:9, which is quite irrelevant to the issue.

¹⁰ Buchanan, Hebrews, 71.

¹¹ Ibid., 64.

¹² Ibid., 71. Buchanan here also cites Isa 58:13–14, which is hardly an appropriate parallel. Isa 58:12, to be sure, speaks of national restoraton, which is promised as a reward for the behavior enjoined in vv 9–10. The national restoration is not spoken of as “sabbatical” in any sense. V 13 constitutes yet another injunction, to keep the sabbath, which will also have its reward, as promised in v 14.

¹³ Buchanan, Hebrews, 71.

¹⁴ Hofius, Katapausis, 53–54. Hofius argues that the eschatological resting place can be associated with realities created from the foundation of the world, a notion with abundant parallels in apocalyptic and rabbinic literature. This understanding does not do justice to the way in which Hebrews formulates the connection between God's rest and the works of creation. Note in particular Heb 4:36 (on which see also n. 8 above). God's rest, in the words of the psalm “my rest,” is not included among the things created ab initio, i.e., it is not one of God's works. It is rather the state into which God enters when those works are accomplished. Any other relationship between the “works” of creation and the “rest” would make unintelligible the parallel drawn between God and his faithful people in Heb 4:10.

¹⁵ Ibid., 102–10. In discussing the term sabbatismos, which is a hapax in the NT, Hofius provides a useful collection of comparative material from later sources. This material is not decisive, however, for the interpretation of the term in Hebrews. Hofius also properly criticizes Käsemann's speculation that sabbatismos reflects Gnostic aeonic speculation about the Hebdomad.

¹⁶ The logic of the author of Hebrews' argument also reduces the significance of the observation by Hofius (Katapausis, 98) that there is a clear distinction between the katapausis language of Hebrews and the anapausis language of Gnostic texts, a fact which supports for Hofius the contention that Hebrews is speaking of a specific locale over against some Gnostic language about an eschatological state. It must be recognized that the term for the divine “rest” which Hebrews uses in this pericope is determined by the psalm which is the subject of the author's exegesis. The meaning of that language, however, depends on the exegesis. The relationship between Hebrews' concept of rest and that which appears in Gnostic sources needs to be more carefully considered and that cannot be done in detail here. Such an investigation will probably reveal important similarities due to the background of popular Platonism which affects both Hebrews and Gnosticism.

¹⁷ For analysis of the pericope and reference to further literature see in particular the commentary by Conzelmann, Hans, I Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1975) 164–69Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Unless the enigmatic reference to the “altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Heb 13:10) alludes to the eucharist, which is unlikely. For discussion of this verse, see Creed, J. M., “Hebrews xiii.10,” ET 50 (1938–1939) 13–15Google Scholar; Randall, E. L., “The Altar of Hebr. 13,10” Australasian Catholic Record (1969) 197–208Google Scholar; Filson, Floyd V., ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (London: SCM, 1967) 48–54; and the commentary by F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 401–2. In any case, it is clear that Christian sacraments are not a major interest of HebrewsGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Whether or not Paul's reading of the Exodus story as a typology of Christian sacraments was based on a previous Jewish justification of baptism is not relevant to our considerations here. It is clear that the significance which Paul gives the OT types derives from his judgment as to what the antitypes are. On the issue of a pre-Pauline tradition behind 1 Cor 10:2, cf. Conzelmann, I Corinthians, 165, n. 17.

²⁰ For the haggadic basis of the remark in 1 Cor 10:4, cf. Conzelmann, I Corinthians, 166, n. 25. Conzelmann correctly draws attention to two important features of the typological argument of Paul. On the one hand (p. 166, n. 18) “the very structure of the typology itself … tells against the direct equation of sacrament then and now.” Paul is not arguing that the OT types are to be precisely equated with their NT antitypes. At the same time, the type has its significance because of its relationship to a prior reality. “The ‘was’ of the typological statement, of the interpretation of the rock as being Christ, means real pre-existence, not merely symbolic significance” (I Corinthians, 167).

²¹ Ultimately, the significance of the types in Hebrews' cultic argument must be seen in the way that they point to the interiority of the new covenant, an interiority intimately associated with the primordial realities of which the types themselves are antitypes. Heb 10:5–10 is central for developing this understanding. Note also 8:10 and 9:14.