The Structure of Hebrews Revisited1

George H. Guthrie gguthrie@uu.edu

Society of Biblical Literature

2006 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC Hebrews Consultation

I wish to begin by thanking the steering committee for the Hebrews

consultation, particularly Professors Bauer and Gelardini, for the invitation

to present and enter dialogue on the important topic before us today.

Having thought about the structure of Hebrews for about twenty years

now, it remains for me an intriguing subject, a challenging puzzle to which

one can return time and again to find new puzzles within the puzzle, as

well as suddenly discernible pieces that seem to fall into place. Yet,

thankfully, there have been many dialogue partners in working the

literary puzzle, including the two colleagues joining me today. Thus, I am

grateful for the ongoing process, and hope to contribute to, as well as learn

from, the discussion before us.

1© Copyright 2006 by George H. Guthrie, Jackson, TN, USA. All rights reserved. This publication may be quoted, yet no part of it may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author.

To stimulate our thinking as we begin this dialogue, I want to draw an

analogy between the structure of Hebrews and a form of structural

representation from the hard sciences, obviously an area outside of

literary and biblical studies. If we looked to the world of molecular

science, what might be the molecular model that would most correspond

to the dynamics we find in Hebrews? Would Hebrews’ structure, perhaps,

parallel a fairly linear picture, such as model A in Figure 1, which perhaps

calls to mind thematically oriented approaches built on the back of the

κρείττων motif?:

Or, in the vein of works that have questioned whether Hebrews has a

discernable outline, might we, rather, draw on the more enigmatic Model

B:

Perhaps a double helix, depicted in Model C, might be more in line with the

structural dynamics in the book, highlighting the delicate dance between

the expositional material on the Son and the more directly hortatory

material:

Or, with Wolfgang Nauck and others, might the structure of Hebrews more

closely correspond to a nicely-balanced, three-tier organization, a tri-

partite scheme, such as that represented by Model D?:

Or finally, might model E, based on concentric circles, calling to mind, for

instance, the work of Vanhoye, provide a better depiction of the dynamics

in Hebrews?:

Of course, analogies break down rather quickly, but anyone who has

studied the history of interpretation concerning Hebrews’ structure will

recognize in these models parallels with suggestions made concerning the

book’s organization. Perhaps none of these, or from another vantage

point, each of these in its own way, serve as helpful depictions of dynamics

in the macro-structure of Hebrews. It is telling that this one book has

spawned so many widely varying attempts at displaying its framework in a

coherent fashion.

I want to suggest that the great complexity of Hebrews, which has been

such a bane to those seeking to unlock its organization, and such a

stimulus for varied readings of its structure, serves also as a very great

boon, for the book’s power and elegance as a discourse are concomitant

with its complexity. As Aristophanes wrote half a millennia before the

author of Hebrews put pen to medium, “High thoughts must have high

language,” and the language and thoughts and, we might add, the style

here are high indeed. How then, with its inherent complexity, are we to

get at the book’s structure?

An Overview of the Structure of Hebrews

I understand the structure of Hebrews much in line with that presented in

my Novum Testamentum Sup. volume of 1994 and reiterated in my 1998

commentary on Hebrews, yet with a number of minor adjustments here

and there. My current reading of the book’s organization you have before

you in Figure 2. On this reading of Hebrews’ structure, there exist three

general movements in the discourse, the first and second overlapping at

4:14-16 and the second and third overlapping at 10:19-25. Thus, my

approach has this similarity with the tripartite scheme of Wolfgang Nauck,

to which I have long been indebted, or the more recent approach of my

colleague Cindy Westfall. At the same time, the approach insists that there

exists both a brilliant interplay between expositional spans and more

overtly hortatory spans in the book, and that these subgenres, while

dynamically interweaving both rhetorically and semantically, have distinct

features and functions, which must be taken into account in structural

assessments of the book. These subgenre neither should be held apart, as

if they were two parallel but separate rivers flowing side-by-side, nor

should they be mingled to the point that their distinctiveness and unique

contributions to the discourse become obscured. More on this in a

moment.

The expositional material focuses on the Son of God, in 1:5-2:18 addressing

“The Son, Our Messenger, in Relation to the Angels,” the angelic beings

here used as a point of reference to celebrate both the exaltation, in 1:5-14,

and incarnation, in 2:10-18, of the Son. The quotation of Ps. 8:4-6 at Heb.

2:5-9 functions as a key, intermediary transition in this section, since the

psalm text contains both elements of exaltation (“you have crowned him

with glory and honor, you put all things under his feet’) and incarnation

(“you made him lower than the angels for a little while”). Heb. 2:5-9,

moreover, coheres around the topic of the submission of all things to

Christ, the term ὑποτάσσω used, four times, once in the introductory

formula, once in the quotation itself, and twice in the comment on the

quotation in v. 8.

The second main movement of Christology runs from 4:14-10:25 and

concerns “The Position of the Son, our High Priest, in Relation to the

Earthly Sacrificial System.” Notice the symmetry of this great central

section of the book. It stands framed by a grand inclusio at 4:14-16 and

10:19-25 and consists of two primary movements: 5:1-10/7:1-28 address the

Appointment of the Son as a Superior Priest” and 8:3-10:18 “The Superior

Offering of the Appointed High Priest.” These movements each have three

embedded discourses: an introduction, followed by a discourse on the

superiority of a figure (in the case of Melchizedek) or an institution (in the

case of the new covenant) from the Jewish Scriptures, followed by an

explication of Christ’s superior priesthood. In 7:11-28 his priesthood is

proclaimed as superior on the basis of a superior, Melchizedekan

priesthood proclaimed in Ps. 110:4, and in 9:1-10:18 his new covenant

offering is demonstrated as superior, based on superior blood, a superior

place of offering, and the finality of Christ’s decisive offering.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the expositional material on Christ

develops both logically and spatially. Logically, the discourse begins with

the Son as exalted Lord of the universe, his superior status setting up the

dynamic a fortiori argument of 2:1-4. The discourse then transitions to the

topic of incarnation, the focus of 2:10-18, via the quotation of Ps. 8 at 2:5-9,

since the Son had to take on flesh and blood to die for the sins of the

people. Then comes the great central section of Hebrews, which deals with

Christ’s high priesthood. High priests are appointed from among people

and thus can empathize with their weaknesses. So too the Christ was

appointed (5:1-10, 7:1-28) from among people and can sympathize with

their weaknesses, and this appointed priest must have something to offer,

the superiority of his offering treated extensively in 8:3-10:18. One aspect

of the offering’s superiority concerns the place of offering—in heaven—the

discourse thus moving back to a focus on the heavenly realm where it

began.

This expositional treatment of Christ, however, integrates dynamically

with and serves the hortatory purpose of the book. In my book The

Structure of Hebrews, I suggest the following concerning the central purpose

of this New Testament writing: “The purpose of the book of Hebrews is to

exhort the hearers to endure in their pursuit of the promised reward, in

obedience to the Word of God, and especially on the basis of their new

covenant relationship with the Son.”

Thus the hortatory material in the book constitutes the end purpose of all

the expositional materials. At points this relationship is rhetorically

associated in the most direct of fashions, as in the case of the relationship

between 1:5-14 and 2:1-4, the first of these units laying the foundation and

basis for the a fortiori argument in 2:1-4. At other times the semantic and

pragmatic association of a unit of exposition with the exhortation that

follows seems less dynamic, but it must be stressed that semantic

continuity exists in every case as the author moves from his exposition on

Christ to the hortatory materials that form the discourse’s end goal.

Thus, the hortatory material contributes to the discourse both by drawing

force from the expositional material and by reiteration of key themes and

forms found in other blocks of exhortation, the author using especially

encouragement, warnings, promises, and positive and negative examples.

These materials especially cohere around the vital importance of hearing

and responding to the Word of God.

Notice, for instance, the content and symmetry of the warning passages

evenly spaced throughout Hebrews. At 2:1-4 we find the a fortiori

argument that warns of the importance of paying attention to the word of

Salvation heard through the superior Son. The terse warning of 4:11-13

provides a fitting reminder of the power and effectiveness of God’s word,

which flows from the treatment of Ps. 95 and Gen. 2:2 in 3:7-4:11,

challenging the audience to hear God’s voice today and enter God’s rest.

The warning of 6:4-8 concerns the negative example of those who had

fallen away from the faith, who, among other descriptions, had tasted

God’s good word. At 10:26-31 one finds another harsh warning, built

around yet another a fortiori argument, which has similarities with both

2:1-4 and 6:4-8. Here, the person who rejects the Son of God, regarding the

blood of the new covenant as common, can expect a more severe

punishment than the person who had disregarded the law of Moses.

Finally, the warning of 12:25-29 again emphasizes listening to God’s voice

and offers yet another a fortiori argument to drive the point home. These

warnings are rhetorically effective, in part, because they reiterate time and

again a focal message: God’s word must be heard and obeyed, and the one

who does not respond to that word appropriately faces the judgment of

God.

In some ways, the most arresting use of exhortation is in the digressio

beginning at 5:11 and extending to 6:20. Digressions were used in ancient

oratory, not to distract from the main topic at hand, but rather,

strategically, to refresh the hearer in the midst of a logically developing

argument and to rivet the attention with supportive but varied material.

Quintillian, The Orator’s Education, 4.3.14-17, writes of the effectiveness of

digressions:

“. . . there are so many different ways of diverging from the straight path of a speech. . . . When these are subordinate to Arguments involving similar subjects, they are not felt as Digressions, because they cohere with the whole; but many such passages are inserted with no such coherence with the context, and serve to refresh, admonish, placate, plead with, or praise the judge. Such things are countless. . . . one who breaks off in the middle must get back quickly to the point where he left the main track.

This is exactly what the author accomplishes in 5:11-6:20. By the time he

returns to the topic of Melchizedek, anticipated in 6:13-20, and re-

activated as a primary topic of discussion in 7:1-10, the hearers’ ears are

straining to hear this more advanced teaching alluded to in 5:11. So much

for my digression on the use of digressions.

Forms of lexical recurrence

This reading of Hebrews’ structure builds in part on discerning distinctions

between three types of lexical repetition, and I want to suggest that

identifying these distinctions proves mandatory for unraveling Hebrews’

structure. In the ancient rhetorical handbooks, extensive attention was

given to the various strategic uses of the repetition of terms, phrases and

clauses. Orators of the ancient world were well versed, for example, in

various ways of using words as a powerful tool of amplification of a theme,

transition from one theme to another, or the marking of discourse

movements. We also find a number of devices in the biblical literature that

demonstrate literary strategies, especially utilizing distant parallelism, to

mark movements in a discourse.

I want to mention three distinct forms of lexical repetition found in

Hebrews, and demonstrate various conventions from the first century

world that illustrate the last two. These forms of repetition might be

labeled: simple lexical repetition, lexical stitching, and structural framing.

First, the author of Hebrews utilizes what might be called simple lexical

repetition. This form of repetition might involve uses of a term at various

points in the discourse, or throughout a section, thus enhancing discourse

cohesion. For instance, the word ἔργον occurs nine times in Hebrews (Heb.

1:10; 3:9; 4:3-4,10; 6:1,10; 9:14; 10:24), three of the occurrences speaking of

God’s work of creation, one referring to his miraculous works in the

wilderness, two referring to so-called dead works by people, two having to

do with human good works, and one having to do with the correspondence

between God resting from his work and the rest found by those who cease

from their own works (4:10). These uses of ἔργον constitute a minor theme

in the book, contributing in a small way to the cohesiveness of the

discourse through lexical repetition. Other terms, such as the use of υἵος

in 1:1-3:6, or ἄγγελος in the first two chapters of the book, or ὑπομένω and

its cognates in 10:32-12:17 have a greater discourse role to play but, for the

most part, build discourse cohesion via simple lexical repetition.

A second form of lexical recurrence might be called lexical stitching, by

which two parts of the discourse are stitched together in the book’s

structural development. The rabbinic principle of verbal analogy, by which

a rabbi brought two scriptural passages together for consideration based

on their common wording, offers one example of this form of lexical

recurrence. For instance, the quotation of Ps. 110:1 at Heb. 1:13, with its

proclamation to the Son that his enemies would be put ὑποπόδιον τῶν

ποδῶν σου gives rise to the quotation of Ps. 8:4-6 at Heb. 2:6-8a, a scriptural

text that also ends with the submission of all things under τῶν ποδῶν.

Verbal analogy also forms the basis of the association of Ps. 95 with Gen.

2:2 in Heb. 4, both passages referring to God’s rest. Thus, the passages

stand stitched together by virtue of common wording.

Yet there exists in Hebrews a number of identifiable transition techniques

that also work on the basis of lexical stitching. Bruce Longenecker, in his

2005 book Rhetoric at the Boundaries, demonstrates conclusively that crafted

transition techniques are spoken of overtly in the rhetorical handbooks,

but also are clearly identifiable in many literatures of the ancient world,

including the biblical literature, Philo, and Josephus. The second century

rhetor Lucian writes of a discourse:

Though all parts must be independently perfected, when the first is complete, the second will be brought into essential connection with it, and attached like one link of a chain to another; there must be no possibility of separating them; no mere bundle of parallel threads; the first is not simply to be next to the second, but to have fellowship with it by mixing across the boundaries.

Thus clarity is achieved, according to Lucian, by interweaving the subjects

addressed by the orator.

In The Structure of Hebrews I treated transition techniques extensively,

isolating eleven, and I would like to focus for a moment on two of these.

The first, what commonly are referred to as “hook words,” were a

transition technique by which the end of one unit and the beginning of the

next were stitched together by the use of a repeated term or terms. This

literary device, first detected by Leon Vaganay and incorporated into the

analysis of Albert Vanhoye, is utilized throughout the book of Hebrews,

almost every unit of text stitched to its neighbors by this technique or a

variation on this technique. For example, I have suggested above that Heb.

2:5-9 forms a distinct unit, cohering around the theme of “submission,”

which is meaningfully integrated with the units that go before and follow

it. Heb. 2:10-18, picks up on and develops the theme of the Son’s

incarnation, his solidarity with “the sons” of God. As the author moves

fluidly from the first of the units to the second, there exists a great

continuity, as well as a discontinuity. The discontinuity involves a

deactivation of the theme of the submission of all things, but the

continuity involves a carrying forward of themes related to the Son’s

incarnation, and the result that he, by his suffering, takes many sons to

glory. To facilitate the transition from the first to the second movement,

the author uses several hook words, namely, forms of πάθημα, πᾶς, αnd

δόξα, as shown in Fig. 3:

Heb. 2:9 τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.

Heb. 2:10

Ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι᾿ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι.

There is, however, a variation on this transition technique that has to do

with the interplay of the two primary literary forms that dominate

Hebrews. When the author shifts between exposition on the Son of God to

exhortation of his hearers, not only does he build continuity between the

adjacent units via hook words, he also effects a stitching of the expository

unit to the next expository unit. The same can be said as the author moves

from exhortation to exposition, back to exhortation, and this phenomenon

occurs every time there is a change in genre in Hebrews.

Let me offer an example of this phenomenon, which occurs at two of the

most important transition points in the discourse. At the end of chapter

two, we find the first reference to the high priesthood of Christ. As the

author shifts to exhortation at 3:1 the high priest theme is reiterated and

then deactivated until 4:14. As the author moves from 2:18 to 3:1, several

hook words are used. These are forms of ὅθεν, ἀδελφός, πιστός, and

ἀρχιερεύς, as seen in Figure 4.

Heb. 2:17-18 ὅθεν ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι, ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι.

Heb. 3:1-2 Ὅθεν, ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι, κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν, πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτὸν ὡς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἐν [ὅλῳ] τῷ οἴκῳ

Figure 4

Given the lexical elements that facilitate the transition from the section on

Christ’s incarnation to the synkrisis with Moses, the movement might be

depicted as in Fig. 5:

Yet, there also are a number of hook words here at the end of chapter two,

which tie this unit of exposition to the great embedded discourse on

Christ’s superior priesthood, which extends from 4:14-10:25. These are

seen in Figure 6:

Heb. 2:17-18 ὅθεν ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι, ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι.

Heb. 4:14-5:3 Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας. οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. προσερχώμεθα οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεος καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν. Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὴν ὀφείλει, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, οὕτως καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν.

Given this data, there exists both a transition from 2:10-18 to 3:1-6, but also

a dynamic transition from 2:10-18 to the point at which the author

resumes his Christological exposition at 4:142 and following. These

transitions might be depicted as in Fig. 7:

2Although 4:14-16 constitutes hortatory material, I have argued elsewhere that it forms a unique, overlapping transition between the hortatory material of 3:1-4:12 and the expositional material of 5:1-10:18. In short, the author both wraps up the exhortation with twin hortatory subjunctives—“hold fast” and “draw near”—and introduces the great Christological, central section of Hebrews.

Presented with this data, can there be any doubt that the author in some

way wished to mark development of Hebrews’ discourse via these

extensive lexical links? I think not, and any treatment of the structure of

Hebrews must account for such data.

This brings us to the third form of lexical recurrence in Hebrews, namely

structural framing. Two literary devices contribute to the marking of the

beginning and ending of discourse units in Hebrews by the use of strategic

placement of repeated lexical items. First, the author uses inclusio, a

literary device found extensively both in the Jewish scriptures (e.g. Ps. 118;

Lev. 11?; Deut. 1-28; Jer. 25 ) and the New Testament literature (e.g., Mark’s

Gospel, James), which consisted of lexical elements at the beginning and

ending of a discourse movement. Rather than decreasing discourse

cohesion, the opening and closing of inclusions in Hebrews, constitute a

form of lexical cohesion and serve as orientation markers for the hearer or

reader, much like our use of subheadings in a book chapter. This was

especially important in ancient literature, in which words and sentences

ran together. Would anyone suggest that the use of subheadings in a book

chapter decrease discourse cohesion? No. They function rather to signal

transitions in a discourse, providing a helpful orientation for the hearer or

reader.

Since our time is limited, I will focus on just two examples of the author’s

many uses of this device, but they offer vitally important data for

discerning Hebrews’ structure. The most important of these, arguably the

most pronounced marking of Hebrews’ discourse, is the inclusio opened at

Heb. 4:14-16 and closed at Heb. 10:19-25, as presented in Fig. I1:

Heb. 4:14-16 Heb. 10:19-25

Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τοῦ θεοῦ,

Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἱερέα μέγαν διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, Ἰησοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ,

κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας. προσερχώμεθα . . . μετὰ παρρησίας εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν.

κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν προσερχώμεθα μετὰ παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων

Here we have no fewer than nine lexical parallels and a general structure

built around the confession of Christ’s great priesthood, followed by two

exhortations, “hold fast” and “draw near”. Notice that in Heb. 10:19-25

there is an inversion of a number of the elements as found in 4:14-16. The

structure of 4:14-16 and 10:19-25, as well as the sheer density of their

lexical parallels, marks these two passages as forming the most

pronounced inclusio in the book, a bracket that marks off the great central

section of Hebrews’ Christology.

Another pronounced use of inclusio, see in Figure I2, occurs at 5:1-4 and

7:26-28, the author marking clearly the section of the discourse on “The

Appointment of the Son as a Superior High Priest.” In 5:1-4 the author

introduces the section of the Son’s appointment to high priesthood by

offering general principles concerning how high priests are appointed.

Having argued forcefully for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, the

author, in 7:26-28, then recapitulates much of the terminology used in 5:1-

4, but highlights the contrasts between the old covenant priests, appointed

under the law, and the new covenant high priest, appointed via the oath of

God proclaimed in Ps. 110:4. The key term in both passages is καθίστημι,

used only in Hebrews at 5:1 and 7:28.

Heb. 5:1-4 Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὴν ὀφείλει, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, οὕτως καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμὴν ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καθώσπερ καὶ Ἀαρών.

Heb. 7:26-28 Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς, ὅσιος ἄκακος ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος, ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας. ὁ νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον.

Here inclusio is used to mark clearly the beginning and ending of a major

movement in the discourse.

There is, however, another literary device, found especially in the Jewish

scriptures, which I have called “parallel introductions.” Two of the most

significant uses of this device in Hebrews may be seen in Figs. P1 and P2.

At Heb. 1:5 the author introduces his string of OT texts with a rhetorical

question, followed by the quotation of Ps. 2:7: “For to which of the angels

did he ever say, ‘You are my son, today I have become your father’?” As

for its place in our structural depiction of Hebrews, this quotation of Ps. 2:7

stands at the beginning of point I which concerns “The Position of the

Son, Our Messenger, in Relation to the Angels,” a section running from 1:5-

2:18.

We find Ps. 2:7 repeated at Heb. 5:5 with the words, “the one who said to

him, ‘you are my son, today I have become your father,’ also says similarly

in another place, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of

Melchizedek.” This reiteration of Ps. 2:7, a clear reference back to the

quotation of the passage in Heb. 1:5, stands near the beginning of point II

in our structural depiction of Hebrews, a movement in the discourse

which, building in part on Ps. 110:4, addresses “The Position of the Son,

Our High Priest, in Relation to the Earthly Sacrificial System” (4:14-10:25).

This parallel introduction facilitates a fluid transition from the first major

expositional span of material, to the second.

I would suggest, moreover, that this parallel introduction could not occur

at the very beginning of point II because, as already demonstrated, 4:14-16

and 5:1-4 have other structural duties to perform, including the crafting of

the two key uses of inclusio described above, and playing part in the distant

hook words joining the end of point I and the beginning of point II.

Yet, 5:1 has yet another role to play in the structural crafting of Hebrews;

for this first verse in IIA, on “The Appointment of the Son as a Superior

High Priest,” forms a clear parallel introduction with 8:3, the first verse in

IIB, “The Superior Offering of the Appointed High Priest” (8:3-10:18), as

seen in Figure P2.

Heb. 5 :1

Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν,

Heb. 8 :3

Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται· ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν τι καὶ τοῦτον ὃ προσενέγκῃ.

It is no coincidence that the introduction to IIA, which treats “The

Appointment of the Son as a Superior High Priest,” focuses on

appointment, and the introduction to IIB treats “The Superior Offering of

the Appointed High Priest,” focuses on the need for our high priest also to

have an offering. Once again, by use of an identifiable set of repeated

lexical material, the author crafts a transition technique that plays a key

role in structurally framing Hebrews’ discourse.

Conclusion

In the latter half of this presentation I have attempted to demonstrate the

distinctions between a simple form of lexical recurrence in Hebrews,

lexical stitching, and structural framing. Our time has been all too brief to

offer more than a few examples of the rich set of rhetorical and literary

devices the author has at his command. Although the examples given are

among the most important, many other examples of hook words, distant

hook words, and inclusiones, could have been presented if time had

permitted, and there is at least one other point at which a parallel

introduction occurs.

These rhetorico-literary patterns in Hebrews cannot be written off as mere

speculation. Rather, they constitute firm data that correspond squarely

with prominent structuring devices found in the Jewish scriptures, the

New Testament generally, and the Greco-Roman handbooks on rhetoric.

We neglect such conventions at the risk of obscuring rather than

elucidating Hebrews complex yet highly crafted structure. These devices,

in concert with much else, make Hebrews a discourse of extraordinary

power and beauty, a great work of art as well as theological reflection and

exhortation.

In the conclusion to my monograph on the structure of Hebrews, I likened

the book to a piece of music by Mozart, suggesting that an original

audience would not have had to identify, on the spot, all of the devices

used here, in order to have been moved profoundly by this wonderful

sermon. In this vein, Quintilian wrote, “The learned therefore know the

principles of Composition, but even the unlearned know its pleasures” (The

Orator’s Education, 9.4.116). I am certain that Hebrews was a joy to hear, as

well as a powerful cautionary proclamation, in its original setting, but I am

convinced that the well educated in that setting would have recognized it

as an example of rhetorical sophistication. Hopefully, understanding more

of the principles of its composition, its crafting, will work too for our

understanding of and pleasure in this discourse. May we hear it well and

respond to its message.