GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press

Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14

Author(s): John P. Meier
Source: Biblica, Vol. 66, No. 2 (1985), pp. 168-189
Published by: GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42610949 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 12:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Biblica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168

Structure and Theology in Heb 1,1-14

In NT research,the relationshipof the structureof a given book

to that book's theologyis a problematicvariable. In a work like 1
John, for instance, the very existence of a clear structureis dis-
puted(!); and so a close nexus between the book's structureand its
theologicalcontentbecomes very difficultto establish. Lying close
by in the traditionalcanon but at the opposite end of the structural
spectrumis the Epistle to the Hebrews. Its intricatestructureand
dense theology are so tightlyinterwoventhat an investigationof
Hebrews' literarydesign inevitablydraws one into the heart of its
theology(2). The work of L. Vaganay(3),C. Spicq(4), A. Descamps(5),
W. Nauck(6), O. Michel(7), and above all A. Vanhoye(8) has made

(l) See thetreatment by R. Brown, The Epistlesof John(GardenCity,

NY 1982) 116-129.
(2)For an overviewof varioustheorieson thestructure of Hebrews,see
A. Vanhoye,La structure littérairede l'épîtreaux Hébreux(Paris- Bruges
1963) 11-32.
(3)L. Vaganay, "Le plan de Fepitreaux Hebreux",MémorialLagrange
(Paris 1940)269-277.
(4)C. Spicq,L'épîtreaux Hébreux(2 vols.,Pans 1952 and 1953),espe-
ciallyI, 27-38; Spicq is favorableto Vaganay'sapproach. A shortsummary
of thesetwovolumes,withrevisedbibliography, can be foundin Spicq'sone
volumework,also entitled L'épîtreaux Hébreux(Paris 1977),especially32-
34. Unlessexpressly noted,subsequent referencesin thisarticlewill be to
Spicq's two volume work.
(5)A. Descamps,"La structure de l'épîtreaux Hébreux",Revuediocé-
saine de Tournai9 (1954) 251-258,333-338,as reported by Vanhoye,La
structure, 31.
(6)W. Nauck, "Zum Aufbaudes HebräerbriefesJudentum, Urchristen-
tum,Kirche(ed. W. Eltester;Berlin1960) 199-206.
(7)0. Michel, Der Briefan die Hebräer(Göttingen 61966) 29-35; also
his "Zur Auslegung des Hebräerbriefes'', NT 6 (1963) 189-191,wherehe
favorstheapproachof Vaganayand Vanhoye.
(8)BesidesLa structure , see his Der Briefan die Hebräer. Griechischer
TextmitGliederung und deutscher Übersetzung (Fano 1966),whichis also

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Structure in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology 169

this abundantlyclear. What E. Grösserhas writtenabout Heb 1,1-4

could be applied to almost the whole of the Epistle: "For [the] exe-
gesis [of Heb 1,1-4]it is, I think,of the greatestimportancethat one
understandthat the stylisticcare and meticulouslycomposed struc-
ture are a factorin the author's intention. We are thereforeinter-
ested in the analysisof the literarystructurenot simplyas something
alongside of exegesis, but preciselyas exegesis"(9). While Grässer
had only the firstfour verses of the Epistle in mind, I think his
remarksapply equally well to the whole of the firstchapter. Com-
mentatorshave tried repeatedlyto grasp the exact connection be-
tweenthe exordium(l,l-4)(10) and the catena of seven OT citations
(l,5-14)(n). Much of the previous work contains valid insights,but
I thinksome importantlinks- both structuraland theological-have
been overlooked. The purpose of this article is to investigatethe
structureof Heb 1 and to suggesta new way of lookingat its literary
design. More precisely,this articlewill suggestthat thereis both a
numericalsymmetry and a symmetry in the movementof theological
thought between 1,1-4 and 1,5-14. It is hoped that a properappre-
ciation of the literarystructure (12) and flow of thoughtin Heb 1 may

availablein othermodernlanguages;Situationdu Christ(Paris 1969); and

his Latinnoteson individualsectionsof the epistle:ExegesisEpistulaead
Hebraeos.Cap. /-77(Rome 1968); De Epistolaad Hebraeos.SectioCentralis
(Cap. 8-9) (Rome 1972). For a critiqueof Vanhoye'sapproach,see Nauck,
"Zum Aufbau",and also J. Bligh, "The Structure of Hebrews",HeyJ5
(1964) 170-177.
(9)E. Grässer, "Hebräer1,1-4. Ein exegetischer Versuch",Text und
Situation(Gütersloh 1973) 183; emphasishis,translation mine.
(10)See Ibid., 187, for the of
justification the "exordium".
designation
Cf. W. Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs(Göttingen1906)
6.
(n)So, e.g.,J. Moffatt,TheEpistleto theHebrews(NewYork 1924)9;
Spicq,L'épître, II, 15, witha remarkable quotationfromAquinasthatfore-
shadowssomeof thepointsin thisarticle;L. Dey, The Intermediary World
and Patterns ofPerfection in Philoand Hebrews(Missoula1975) 146-147;O.
Hofius,Der Christushymnus Philipper2,6-11(Tübingen1976) 86,88-89;G.
Hughes,Hebrewsand Hermeneutics (Cambridge1979) 7-8; J. Thompson,
"The Structure and Purposeof theCatenain Hebrews1,5-13",The Begin-
ningsof Christian Philosophy (Washington, DC 1982) 128-140.
(12)Itshouldbe made clear fromthe beginning that,whenI speakof
I am speaking
structure, ofthestructure consciouslyintendedbytheauthor-
hence,the"surfacestructure" as opposedto the "depthstructures" investi-
gatedby certainstructuralists.

Biblica
66(1985) 12

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170 J. P. Meier
also shed lighton such varied and disputed questions as the Chris-
tologyof the Epistle, the precise Christologicalreferenceof various
OT citationsin chapterone, and the supposed presenceof tradition-
al hymnicmaterialin Heb 1,2-4.

I. Numerical Symmetryin Heb 1,1-4 and 1,5-14

That thereare numericalpatternsin Hebrews in generaland in

Heb 1 in particularis widelyadmitted(13). Almost all commentators
point to the catena of seven OT citationsin Heb 1,5-14 as an indis-
putable example. What is less frequentlynoted is that there is a
"chain" of Christological designations in the exordium (1,1-4),
namely in l,2b-4. The question of a possible correlationbetween
these two chains arises,but firstone must face the problemof prop-
erly isolating and enumeratingthe Christologicaldesignations or
predicationsin l,2b-4. Then one may attemptto grasp the order of
thought,if any, in the chain and to correlateit with the chain in
1,5-14.
First, let us take a quick glance at the exordium as a whole.
The chain of Christologicaldesignationsis foundin what is probably
the most beautifulperiodic sentencein the NT, Heb l,l-4(14). The
continuity, discontinuity, and superiorityof the revelationof the new
covenant vis-à-vis the old is affirmedin the main clause {ho theos
lalēsas . . . elalësen, 1,1-2a). In all the subsequentdependentclauses
(relativeand participial,w. 2b-4), the claim of 1,1-2a is Christologi-
cally grounded and explicated. As the periodic sentence proceeds,
one notes a gradual shiftin the agent/subject:in w. l-2a God is the
grammaticalsubject and primaryagent of revelation. Indeed, the
Son is not even mentionedin v. 1. The Son appears for the first
time at the end of v. 2a in the role of instrumentalagent of revela-

03)See, e.g., the numericalpatternsMichel detectswithinchap.11

414-415,419 n. 7).
CBrief,
(14)Spicq,L'épitreaux Hébreux(one volume 1977 work)56: "...une
seulepériode,qui constitue sans doutela phrasegrecquela plus parfaite
du
NouveauTestament. . .". See also BDF #464; suchperiodsare rarein the
NT outsideof Hebrews.For theauthorof Hebrewsas a masterof rhythmic
prose,see F. Blass, Briefan die Hebräer. TextmitAngabederRhythmen
(Halle 1903) 1-3. Moffatt,Hebrews,lvj-lvji, comparesHebrews'rhythm
and rhetoricto thatof Isocrates.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology
Structure 171

tion {en carryingan instrumentalsense, like the Hebrew bé){ÌS). In

v. 2b, the Son, installedas heir,is the recipientof Goďs action (ac-
cusative case), while in v. 2c he is again the instrumentalagent
(<dVhou' this time of creation. From v. 3a to the end of v. 4, the
Son is the grammaticalsubject and the chiefagent,God being men-
tioned only indirectlyby pronounsor periphrasis. On the one hand,
then,froma rhetoricalviewpointit is true that the whole of 1,1-4
divides neatly into two parts: w. 1-2 (God as subject) and w. 3-4
(the Son as subject)(16). Yet, when one attends to the increasingly
Christologicalslant of the whole period and notes the carefullyor-
dered list of Christologicaldesignations,another kind of caesura,
Christologicalas well as rhetorical,might be placed at the end of
v. 2a, where "Son" is firstmentioned. Everythingthat follows is
grammatically dependent(directlyor indirectly)on huiç and formsa
chain of varied descriptionsof the Son, referring to eitherhis char-
acter (nature) or his action (creative and redemptivework)(17). As
Vanhoye notes, the author of Hebrews purposelyomits the definite
articlebeforehuiç in v. 2a, so as to raise questions and expectations
that are answered by the relative and participial clauses that fol-
low(18).
At this point, a criticalproblem arises: How many distinctde-
signationsor predicationsof the Son should we count in w. 2b-4?
Commentatorsdisagree on what constitutesa single Christological
designation and consequently on how many designations occur.
F.F.Bruce, for example, counts seven "facts ... about the Son of
God"(19). Bruce, however, restrictsthe enumerationto w. 2b-3.

(15)Whileadmitting the possibility

of a semitism here,Vanhoyeprefers
to stressthe sense of "in". God does not simplyorderthe prophetsto
speak; He himself speaksin them( ExegesisEpistulaead Hebraeos,Cap. I -II,
35; Situation, 58-59).
(16)SeeVanhoye,Situation , 12,52;cf. Grässer, "Hebräer1,1-4",189.
As Grässernotes,theverydevelopment of theperiodshowsthatourauthor
developsthetheology of 1,1-4preciselyas Christology.
(17)Grässer ("Hebräer1,1-4",189)claimsthatall therelativeclausesof
w. 2b-3 have onlyone function:to qualifythe Son as the eschatological
Wordof God to us. But thatis to narrowthefocusof thecatenaunduly.
(18)Vanhoye,Situation , 61. In La structure
, 67, Vanhoyeadmitsthat,
whileGod is stillthesubjectof therelativeclausesin 2bc,thetwoaffirma-
tionsconcerntheSon and thuspreparethewayforthe secondhalfof 1,1-
4.
(19)F.F. Bruce, The Epistleto theHebrews(GrandRapids 1964) 3.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172 J. P. Meier

Hence, for him, the seven designationsare: (1) God appointed the
Son heir of all things(v. 2b); (2) throughthe Son God made the
worlds (v. 2c) ; (3) the Son is the effulgenceof God's glory(v. 3a) ; (4)
and the veryimage of his substance(also v. 3a); (5) the Son upholds
all thingsby the word of his power (v. 3b); (6) the Son made purif-
ication of sins (v. 3c); and (7) the Son sat down at the righthand of
the majesty on high (v. 3d)(20). As is clear, Bruce omits v. 4 from
his list of "seven facts",even thoughin his commentaryhe places it
with the firstthreeverses, over against 1,5-14. J.H.Davies, on the
otherhand, counts only six clauses expoundingthe uniquenessof the
Son(21). Davies arrivesat the number six by countingthe whole of
v. 3a ("being the effulgenceof his gloryand the image of his sub-
stance") as one clause and designation. At the same time, Davies,
like Bruce, excludes v. 4 fromthe enumerationof those clauses that
expound the uniqueness of the Son. Thus he arrivesat the number
six.
Amid these disagreements,what we must ask is whetherthere
are objective criteriaforidentifying and enumeratingthese clauses of
Christologicalpredication. One obvious objective criterionis the
grammaticalstructureof 1,1-4,a structurethat is clearlythe product
of painstakingcompositionby our author. The author has carefully
made huiç at the end of v. 2a a grammaticalpivot. All the clauses
followinghuiç depend directlyor indirectlyupon it, and all these
clauses are linked to huiç by eithera relativepronoun or a partici-
ple. The natural thing to do, therefore,is to count as a unit of
Christologicaldesignationeach clause linked to huiç by a relative
pronoun or a participle(22). Hence I thinkit not subjectiveor arbi-
traryto lay out w. 2b-4 in the followingpatternof units,with the
relativepronouns and participlesemphasized(23).

(20)Ibid.,3-8.
(21)J.H. Davies, A Letterto Hebrews(Cambridge1967) 19-20.
(22)Strictlyspeaking,the participlesmodifyhuiç throughthe relative
clauseintroduced by hos. But the rhetoricalarrangementand thought con-
tentclearlyshowthateach clauseformsa distinct unitexpressinga distinct
aspectof theSon's natureor work.
(23)Whiletherelativehos is positioned of v. 3a, it is of
at thebeginning
coursethesubjectof ekathisen in v. 3d; hencethebrackets.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology
Structure 173
v. 2a en huiç
(1) 2b hon ethēkenklēronomonpantõn,
(2) 2c di 'hou kai epoiēsen tous aiõnas,
(3) 3a [hos] On apaugasma tēs doxês kai charaktertēs
hypostaseõsautou,
(4) 3b pherOn te ta panta tç rhēmatitēs dynameõsautou,
(5) 3c yf katharismontõn hamartiõnpoiEsamenos
(6) 3d [hos] ekathisenen dexiq,tēs megalõsynêsen hypsêlois ,
(7) 4a tosoutçkreittöngenomenos tön aggelön
4b host)diaphoröteron paťautous keklēronomēkenonoma.
This schema does no violence to the grammaticalstructureby
omittingv. 4 from the rounded period- a questionable procedure
which reaches a climax of grammaticalviolence when some com-
mentatorsdetach v. 4 fromw. 1-3 and place it with w. 5-14(24). If,
instead,we followthe lead of the writer,we are presentedwith sev-
en clauses, each one dependingdirectlyor indirectlyon huiç, each
one tied to huiç by a relative pronoun or participle,and each one
expatiatingon one aspect of the Son's nature or work. Thus, ac-
cordingto the criterionenunciatedabove, the complex clause intro-
duced by genomenosin v. 4 deserves to be included in this list of
predicationsas much as the clauses introducedby õn, pherõn, or
poiēsamenos(25). There are thus seven designations.
Againstthis count of seven predications,some mightobject that
the presence of both the participlegenomenos and the correlative
hosç in one verse demands that we recognizetwo separate Christo-
logical designationsin v. 4. But v. 4 is an example of synkrisis,a
figureof speech beloved of our author,who is fond of "proportion-
al" or "analogical" thinking (26). As is clear froma simple reading

(24)So,e.g., P. Teodorico, L'epistolaagli Ebrei (Turin 1952) 47; P.

Hughes,A Commentary on theEpistleto theHebrews(GrandRapids 1977)
50.
(25)Thispointcould be supportedby more detailedconsiderations of
thought-content, but formethodological reasonsa fullconsideration of the
theologicalcontentof theseclausesis reservedto a following article.
(26)Onsynkrisis, see Bruce,Hebrews, 2 n. 6 and xlviii n. Ill, whereit is
also calledan a fortioriargument and comparedto therabbis'qal wahomer.
Grässer("Hebräer1,1-4",225) pointsouttheuse of similarconstructions in
7,20-22;8,6; 10,25;one mightadd 3,3. See also R. Williamson,Philoand
theEpistleto theHebrews(Leiden1970)93-95. Commentators debateover
whether "proportional", or "comparative"
"analogical","correlative", is the
best designation of our author'smode of thoughtwhenhe uses synkrisis.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 J. P. Meier
of the period,v. 4 encapsulatesone comparativethought,which both
rounds off 1,1-4 and introduces1,5-14. Hence, it should be counted
as one Christologicaldesignationor predication,despite the presence
of both a participleand a correlativepronoun in the same verse.
Grammatically,it is genomenoswhich- throughhos in v. 3a- refers
back to huiç in v. 2a and ties v. 4 to the largerstructure.
One other objection could be raised against the count of seven
Christologicalstatementsin l,2b-4. While Davies counts the whole
of v. 3a (õn apaugasma tês doxěs kai charaktertēs hypostaseõsau-
toví)as one clause, Bruce divides v. 3a into two separate "facts" or
Christologicaldesignations. Davies seems to have made the better
choice. First,if we use the rule of thumbthat an introductory par-
ticiple or relativepronoun signals a new unit, both apaugasma and
charakterare predicativenominativesof the one participleõn. Sec-
ond, while doxěs seems naturallyto call for an autou, the author
thinksit sufficient to place one autou at the end of the whole clause,
after hypostaseõs . The one autou really qualifies both doxěs and
hypostaseõs , and so nicely rounds off the entire clause(27). Third,
the two nouns are simply two alternate expressions of the Wis-
dom/Law/imagespeculation seen in Prov 8,22-36, Sir 24,1-23, Wis
7,25-26,Bar 3,9-4,4, as well as in Philo- a Wisdom speculationvar-
ious NT authors use to describe the préexistentand creative Christ
(e.g., John 1,1-18; 2 Cor 4,4; Phil 2,6-11; Col l,15-20)(28). Finally,
one may appeal to an independentand coincidentallyconcurring
authority. In his structuralanalysis of the Greek text of Hebrews,
Vanhoye,who is not concernedwith the question of the exact num-
ber of Christologicaldesignations,naturallyplaces the whole of v. 3a
togetheron one line(29). In sum, a division of v. 2b-4 into seven

This semanticquarreldoes not obscuretwo basic points:(1) the figureof

synkrisis demandsthat the two partsof the comparisonin v. 4 (tosou-
tç.. . hosç)be takentogetheras expressing one thought and one Christological
designation; (2) thewholeof v. 4 is attachedto therestof theperiodand to
huiçin particular onlythrough genomenos .
(27)Admittedly,thissecondargument wouldnot be valid forthosewho
see doxěsas a semitism, reflectingthe absolutekãbôdas a periphrasis for
God. Even in thiscase, though,the othertwo arguments are stillproba-
tive.
(28)Forfurther especiallym Philo,see Bruce, Hebrews
references, , 4-6;
Williamson,Philo,36-41and 74-80.
(29)Vanhoye,Brief,8. Spicq ( L'épître , II, 8) also seemsto be m favor
of taking1,3a as one unit. According to him,apaugasma and charaktěr ,

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Structure in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology 175

of the period,v. 4 encapsulatesone comparativethought,which both

roundsoff 1,1-4 and introduces1,5-14. Hence, it should be counted
as one Christologicaldesignationor predication,despite the presence
of both a participleand a correlativepronoun in the same verse.
Grammatically,it is genomenoswhich- throughhos in v. 3a- refers
back to huiÇ in v. 2a and ties v. 4 to the largerstructure.
One other objection could be raised against the count of seven
Christologicalstatementsin l,2b-4. While Davies counts the whole
of v. 3a (õn apaugasma tês doxês kai charaktertēs hypostaseõsau-
tou) as one clause, Bruce divides v. 3a into two separate "facts" or
Christologicaldesignations. Davies seems to have made the better
choice. First,if we use the rule of thumb that an introductory par-
ticiple or relativepronoun signals a new unit, both apaugasma and
charaktērare predicativenominativesof the one participleõn. Sec-
ond, while doxês seems naturallyto call for an autou, the author
thinksit sufficientto place one autou at the end of the whole clause,
after hypostaseõs. The one autou really qualifies both doxês and
hypostaseõs,and so nicely rounds off the entire clause(27). Third,
the two nouns are simply two alternate expressions of the Wis-
dom/Law/imagespeculation seen in Prov 8,22-36, Sir 24,1-23, Wis
7,25-26,Bar 3,9-4,4, as well as in Philo- a Wisdom speculationvar-
ious NT authors use to describe the préexistentand creative Christ
(e.g., John 1,1-18; 2 Cor 4,4; Phil 2,6-11; Col 1,15-20)(28). Finally,
one may appeal to an independentand coincidentallyconcurring
authority. In his structuralanalysis of the Greek text of Hebrews,
Vanhoye,who is not concernedwith the question of the exact num-
ber of Christologicaldesignations,naturallyplaces the whole of v. 3a
togetheron one line(29). In sum, a division of v. 2b-4 into seven

joinedwithout anydefinitearticleto thesameparticiple,express"two com-

plementary aspectsof thesameidea".
i30)For thestuctural delimitation,see Vanhoye,Situation,119-120.
(") See Vanhoye,Situation, 121; and Brief,8-9. Vanhoyesees an alter-
natingpattern of constrast:
Son- angels(w. 5-6),angels-Son (w. 7-12),and
Son- angels(w. 13-14). It mightbe asked,though,whether thethirdcon-
trast(w. 13-14,angels-Son) is as clearas theothers.
(32)Onthisadditionof the kai, see Moffatt,Hebrews,13 n. 1. Van-
hoye (Situation , 175) remainshesitanton whether kai is meantto createa
separation or a closerconnection.
(33)SoGrässer,"Hebräer1,1-4",202-203:"The closeliterary and mate-

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 J. P. Meier

The furtherquestion, which must now be raised, is whetherthis

symmetry is merelynumerical. Does the correspondenceof the two
groups of seven simplyaim at rhetoricalneatnessand aestheticsatis-
faction,perhaps conjuringup a sense of Christ'sperfection(teleiotēs)
by the use of seven's? Or is therealso a theologicalsymmetry in the
two groups of seven, a correspondencein the movementof Christo-
logical thought-patterns?That is the question we must now investi-
gate.

II. Theological Symmetryin Heb 1,1-4 and 1,5-14

By a theologicalsymmetryin Heb 1,1-4 and 1,5-14 I mean that

one finds the same generalpatternand movementof Christological
thoughtin the seven designationsof Christand in the seven quota-
tions used to groundthose designations. Obviously,to demonstrate
such a symmetryone must firstindicate the exact meaning of each
of the seven Christologicaldesignationsand of each of the OT cita-
tions (as interpretedChristologicallyby our author). Only then can
a correlationbe shown. Hence, I shall firstbrieflyindicate the the-
ological significanceof each memberin the seven Christologicalde-
signationsand then ask whetherthereis a correspondencewith the
seven citations.

The Seven ChristologicalDesignations

(1) The first Christologicaldesignation speaks of "[the Son]

whom he [God] appointed heir [klēronomon]of all [things]". Along
with O. Hofius and M. Bourke,I thinkit best to see here a reference
to the exaltationof Jesus,which is furtherdescribed in w. 3d-4 as
enthronement at the righthand(34). Indeed, the substantiveklěrono-

rialdovetailing thatbothsectionsrelate
of 1,1-4and 1,5-14is so articulated
to eachotheras thesisto interpretation. The predications in V. 2-
of dignity
4 are verified in
point-for-point sectionV. 5-14, and indeedwiththe helpof
OT citations...". Unfortunately, Grässer'sattemptat seeinga point-for-
pointverification does notmaterialize; do notadherestrict-
his observations
ly to the orderof in
designations Heb l,2b-4.
(34)Hofius,Christushymnus,76 alongwithn. 5; M. Bourke, The Epis-
tle to the Hebrews",JBC II. 383: "His beingmade heiris not an event
outsidetime,previousto theincarnation; it tookplacewhenhe entered glory
afterhis passion(cf.Rom 8:17)". See also Michel, Brief,103.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 and Theology
Structure in Heb 1,1-14 177

mon of v. 2b returnsas the verb keklēronomēken, at the end of v. 4,

where the context shows that "inheritingthe name" is connected
with the exaltationat the righthand. Admittedly,it is possible to
take ethēkenin v. 2b as an eternal declaration by God- as a few
exegetesdo(35). But such an interpretation fitsneitherthe immedi-
ate contextnor the general thoughtof the Epistle, which identifies
the decisive act of redemptionwith the death-exaltationof Jesus.
Indeed, the whole central section of the Epistle (8,1-9,28) is dedi-
cated to explicatingthis pivotal event of bloody sacrificeand trium-
phal entranceinto the heavenly sanctuary (36). The immediate con-
text likewise argues for interpreting1,2b in referenceto exaltation.
As the author begins in 1,5 to commenton his Christologicaldesig-
nationswiththe firstof the OT citations,he chooses Ps 2,7 in which
God addresses the enthronedKing as Son. In the next verse of the
psalm (not quoted in Heb 1,5), God goes on to promise the en-
thronedSon: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your
inheritance[klēronomian]and the ends of the earth as your posses-
"
sion [kataschesin] (Ps2,8). In a sense, this verse of the psalm
simplyexplicitâtesthe terse klëronomonpantön of 1,2b.
A similar idea occurs in the author's exegesis of LXX Ps 8,5-7
in Heb 2,5-9. In commentingon Ps 8,7 ("you have placed all things
[panta] under his feet"), the author observes that this verse is not
yet true of humanityin general (Heb 1,8); but in some sense it is
true even now of Jesus (Heb 1,9). For a little while (during his
earthlylife), Jesus was made lower than the angels. But now, be-
cause of his exaltation, he is "crowned with glory and honor"
(Ps8,6), with all things-in fact or in promise- (") under his feet.

(35)SoB. Westcott,The Epistleto theHebrews(London1889)7; also,

withhesitation,Moffatt,Hebrews,5.
(36)J.HÉRING,L'épîtreaux Hébreux(Neuchâtel1954)21 holdsthatthe
twointerpretations(fromall eternityand at theexaltation)neednotexclude
each other;similarly,
Davies, Hebrews,19.
(37)Honus (Christushymnus , 96-98) arguesforcefullythatthe universal
subjectionis a fullfactat the exaltation.Vanhoye,on the otherhand,
claimsthatthereference to universaldomination fitsthefunctionJesuswill
obtainat thelastjudgment (Situation
, 291). But even thisinterpretationis
not in conflictwiththe affirmation thatGod constituted Jesusheirof all
thingsat theexaltation.Perhapsit wouldbe helpfulin thismatterto dis-
tinguishbetweentwotypesofeschatology in Hebrews,as G. Hughes does in
Hebrews and Hermeneutics,66-74:theChristological-doctrinalsectionsof the

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 J. P. Meier
It seems likely,therefore,that Heb 1,2b refersto Christ'sexaltation
afterhis death(38). In l,2bc taken together,the author's thoughtis
moving fromthe eschatologicalto the protological(39). It is proba-
bly the failureto appreciatethis "retrogressive"orderin the author's
Christologicalthoughtthat leads some commentatorsto understand
ethēken as an eternaldecree. It probably seems to them the only
logical interpretationof a clause coming just before a referenceto
creating the worlds (v. 2c). The question, though,is: "logical" by
whose logic? Our author is apparentlyproclaimingthe Son to be,
not the Alpha and the Omega, but the Omega and the Alpha.
(2) The time-reference of 1,2c is much clearer: "throughwhom
also he made the worlds [<aiõnas]". The Son, the eschatologicalheir
of all thingsand mediator of redemption,is such preciselyon the
ground of his being the mediator of creationi40). The plural form
aiõnas may be intended to conjure up both the presentage/world
(ton kairon ton enestēkotaof Heb 9,9) and the futureage/world(ten
oikoumeněnten mellousan of Heb 2,5). As the exalted Son, Christ
rules over what he created in the beginning:both the old world
doomed to pass away and the heavenly world which lies before a
redeemedhumanityas the goal of its pilgrimage. In short,the word

Epistletendto stressrealizedeschatology, whilethe ecclesiological-parenetic

sectionstendto stressfuturist eschatology.In chap.1, a Christological pas-
sage,theemphasisis on all thatis alreadyrealized.
(38)Forthedisputeoverwhether Heb 1,2bmeansthatJesusentersinto
actualownership and possessionof all thingsat his exaltation, see Hofius,
Christushymnus , 77 n. 8 and 95-101;and Vanhoye,Situation , 62-64.
(39)So,correctly, Grässer,"Hebräer1,1-4",214; and Michel, Brief,94.
Michel notes(p. 94 n. 1) thatEphraem, Chrysostom, and theGreekexegetes
in generalreferthe ethèkento the exaltation.WhileSpicq ( L'épître , II, 5)
observesthattheSon in one sensealwayshad fullrightovertheuniverse, he
adds thatChristas man does not exercisesovereignty beforetheascension.
A similarlineof argument is pursuedby H. Montefiore,TheEpistleto the
Hebrews(London1964) 34.
Í40)Kai in 1,2ccouldsimplymean"also". But,aftera relativepronoun
it can carrya senseof "preciselyas such"; cf. Grässer, "Hebräer1,1-4",
214. Theremaythusbe a noteof logicalnexusor correspondence; see also
Spicq,L'épître, II, 6; Moffatt,Hebrews , 5. Whether aiõnas carriesa tem-
poralor spatialmeaning neednotdetainus; thewordprobably includesboth
(so Hofius,Christushymnus , 78 n. 11). The view of F. Schierse (Verheis-
sungundHeilsvollendung [Munich1955]67-75,whichseeksto restrict aiõnas
to theinvisibleworld,is unlikely and has not receivedwidesupport.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology
Structure 179

in theologicalnuance, is basical-
aiõnas of v. 2c, forall its difference
ly identicalwith the pantõn of v. 2b (41). At his exaltation,the Son,
in his perfectedhumanity,is constitutedheir of what the préexistent
Son created kať archas (Heb 1,10)(42). As we have already seen,
what is startlingin v. 2bc taken togetheris that the thoughtmoves
in reverse: fromthe definitiveact of exaltationto the initial act of
creation. Our author characteristically views the various moments
in the Christological drama from the vantage point of exalta-
tion(43).
(3) Having moved back fromexaltationto creation,our author
will ultimatelymove forwardagain to exaltation in the relative
clause beginningwith hos and ending with ekathisen.. . en hypsělois
(1,3d). But his movementis neitherso simple nor so direct. After
the mention of creation in v. 2c, there is- if one may so speak of
mattersbeyond the grasp of reason- a furthermove "backward"
into the eternalexistenceof the Son in his relationshipto God (his
Father)(44): "being the effulgenceof [his] gloryand the image of his
being"(45). The firstthingto be noted about this clause in 1,3a is
what comes first:the presentparticipleõn. One notable manifesta-
tion of our author'smasteryof Greek rhetoricthroughoutthe Epistle
is his subtle use of Greek tenses and moods. Heb 1,1-4 is alreadya

(41)So,rightly, Moffatt,Hebrews,5.
(42)These remarks are indebtedto Hofius, Christushymnus , 78-79. As
Hofiusobserves, it is thisinterplayofeschatology and protologythatexplains
the curiousvisionof our author:the préexistent Son becomesSon at the
exaltation.It is almosta Christological adaptation of theNT baptismalpar-
énesisto theChristian: becomewhatyouare. For theviewthatbothmes-
siahshipand mediation of creationare rootedin theauthor'sidea of Christ's
sonship,see F. Büchsel,Die Christologie des Hebräerbriefs
(Gütersloh 1922)
14.
(43)Thispoint,so wellmadeby Thompson("Structure'', 128-140)in ref-
erenceto Heb 1,5-14,can be legitimately extendedto the whole of our
author'sChristological thought.
Í44)Thoughit is obviousthattheauthorconsidersGod (ho theos)to be
theFatherof "the Son"- otherwise thetwo OT citationsin Heb 1,5 make
no sense-, theauthorstrangely avoidsdirectly givingGod thetitleho pater
in referenceto Jesus;see, however,the title,"the Fatherof spirits",in
12,9.
(45)Themuchdebatedand stillunresolved questionof whether in 1,3a
apaugasmacarriesan activemeaning(radiance, so Bruce)or passivemeaning
so Bourke)neednotdetainus; see thecommentaries,
(reflection, ad loc.; and
Williamson,Philo,37.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 J. P. Meier

prime example. The presenttense of the participleõn is striking.

With one exception(46), õn is surroundedin 1,1-4 by verbs in the
aorist or perfecttenses: lalësas, elalësen, ethëken,epoiēsen,poiēsa-
menos, ekathisen,genomenos, and Jceklēronomēken.All of these
verbs speak of particularevents within(or, in the case of epoiēsen,
at the beginningof) the historicaldrama of salvation. In the mythic
language and thought-modesof the author, all the actions of God
and the Son can be placed on a time-linereachingfromcreationto
exaltation and all refereither to unique past acts determiningthe
flow of salvation history(the aorists) or to the permanenttrium-
phant state of Christ flowingfrom the past event of being exalted
(the perfect,keklēronomēken).Amid this stringof discretepast ac-
tions,the presentstativeparticipleõn stands out like a metaphysical
diamond against the black crepe of narrative. As previouslynoted,
we have here an example of the Wisdom speculationalreadypresent
in the Hebrew OT (Proverbs8), developed in Palestine in second-
century B.C. "proto-Pharisaic" theology (Sirach 24), given more
Greek-philosophicalexpressionin Septuagintal/Alexandrian Judaism
(Wis 7,26, apaugasma gar estin[sophia] photos aïdiou), and reaching
its culminationin Philo of Alexandria. Granted, R. Williamson is
perfectly correctin stressingthe theologicaldifferencesbetweenPhilo
and Hebrews and the danger of facilelytaking verbal parallels for
identical thought(47). The Jewishphilosophicaltraditionof Alexan-
dria is recycledby the author of Hebrews to expresshis own unique
synthesisof Christiantheology. Nevertheless,if one pushes this val-
id insighttoo far,it is all too easy to fall into an apologetic stance
that creates an unbridgeablegulfbetweenthe good revelationof the
NT and the evil philosophyof the Greeks (and, implicitly,of the
patristicperiod). It is high time that we recognize that in a few
startlingpassages in the NT like Heb 1,2-3 and John 1,1-3, the
thoughtof some firstcenturyChristiansbegan,ever so tentatively, to
move beyond purely historicalmodes of conception and narration
and to probe the speculative,philosophicalimplicationsof theirtre-
mendous affirmations about God, Christ,and humanity. In the case
of Hebrews, it is not true that the author took over fromAlexan-

(46)Pherõn,whichdenotesan act which,whilenotexisting

fromall eter-
nity,willcontinueforever,
grantedtheperduranceof theheavenlyworld.
(47)Onapaugasma,see Williamson,Philo,36-41; on charakter,74-80.
Williamson'sgeneralconclusions
can be foundon pp.576-580.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Structure in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology 181

drian Judaism only individual, isolated words, with totallychanged

meanings. He also took over a Weltanschauung , a whole group of
philosophical underpinnings and presuppositions which can be
vaguelylabeled "middle Platonism". It is not withouta certainjus-
tificationthat J.Thompson entitleshis collection of essays on He-
brews The Beginningsof ChristianPhilosophy. It is a historicalfact
thatthe middle Platonismof Hebrews was also the major philosoph-
ical milieu in which the pre-NiceneFathersthoughtand wrote,espe-
cially when they struggledover Christologicalquestions raised pre-
ciselyby such textsas Heb 1,1-4 and John 1,1-18. There is no mag-
ical dividing line at A.D. 100, cordoningoff the pristineNT from
the scruffy Fathers. For betteror for worse, Hebrews 1 and John1
share the same philosophicalbed as JustinMartyrand Origen.
All this is said by way of rejectingthe nervous tendencyof
some commentatorsto explain away or pass over quicklythe meta-
physicalweightand thrustof Heb 1,3a in favorof the Son's heilsges-
chichtlichefunction (48). The factof the matteris that a certainfirst-
century Christian author, steeped in Alexandrian-Jewishtheology,
was able to integratespeculation about eternal existence and rela-
tionshipwith God into more traditionaland historicalNT affirma-
tions about Jesus Christ. In this he went beyond most of NT
thought,but by that very fact he pointed the way into the patristic

(48)See,forinstance,theintriguing in theremarks
oscillation of H. Mac-
Neill (The Christology of theEpistleto theHebrews[Chicago1914]56-63).
On the one hand,MacNeill affirms that 1,3 does set forth"the inneror
essentialrelationof the preincarnate Son to God" (p. 60). On p. 62 he
states:"And yet,thoughsharing in and expressingthegloryof God and pic-
turingin himselfat once metaphysically, mentally,morally,and spiritually
theverynatureand beingof God, he is continually dependent on God, alike
in his historical as Jesusand in his pre-existent
manifestation lifeas Son".
It comesas a surpriseto readon thesamepagesthattheauthorof Hebrews
maynothavethought "any moredefinitely of thepersonof thepreincarnate
Son thanPhilo thoughtof the personof the Logos or thanthe writerof
Wisdomof Solomonthoughtof the personof Wisdom..." (p. 61). It is
true,as MacNeill,says,thatwe are dealingherewitha metaphor (p. 61); but
thatis equallytrueof Hebrews'description of Christ'searthlyworkand
heavenlyexaltation.How else is one to speakof suchthings?Presenceof
metaphor does notproveabsenceof seriousthought.It is truethatHebrews
has notdevelopedthefull-blown doctrine
patristic of theSon's "eternalgen-
eration"(p. 63); butthethrustof Hebrews'philosophical affirmations willin
due timeraisethequestion.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182 J. P. Meier

period. We need not be surprised,then,that in l,2b-3a, the author

has moved consistently"backward" from exaltation (ekathisen)to
creation (epoiěseri)and to timelesspréexistence(ön)(49).
(4) In Heb 1,3b, the train of Christologicalthought,having
moved backwardfromexaltationthroughcreationto timelesspréex-
istence, now begins to "round the tmu". It moves forwardfrom
timeless préexistenceto the Son's role in preservingthe world he
helped create: "sustaining [pherön ] all things by his(50) mighty
word(51)". We have in pherõn the only other presenttense in the
exordium. However, the sense of the present tense in pherõn is
slightlydifferentfromthat in õn. The participleõn spoke of a time-
less préexistenceof the Son with God, priorto and capable of exist-
ing apart from any relation to the created worlds. As soon as ta
panta (= tas aiõnas) is reintroducedinto the picture,we are back to
a considerationof the Son's relationto createdtime and space. The
Son's conservingfunctiondid begin at some point (creation,v. 2c),
and so in that sense it is not timelessor eternal. Yet, once creation
occurs, the Son continues to uphold creation now and forever-at
least as regardsthe world which is to come (Heb 2,5), the lastingcity
which is still to come (from our viewpoint) but which is already
presentin heaven (13,14 and 12,22). Thus, the presenttense of phe-

(49)Obviously,to speak of moving"backward"into "timelesspréexis-

tence"is to speakmetaphorically or mythically.But thisis precisely what
our authoris doing. This articleseeksto grasphis thought, not a modern
hermeneutical reformulation of his thought.
(50)Onthe textualdifficulty involvedin autouand its possibleconnec-
tion with the followingclause, see Grässer, "Hebräer 1,1-4", 185; B.
Metzger,A TextualCommentary on theGreekNew Testament (New York
1971) 662. The dispute over whether autou in 1,3b refers to the Son (so
Grässer, 185; Westcott,Hebrews , 14; Moffatt,Hebrews , 8), or to God as
in v. 3a (so B. Weiss,Der Briefan die Hebräer[Göttingen 1897]45), or pos-
siblyto either(Vanhoye,Situation , 79) need not detainus.
(51)Besidestheplainidea of carrying, upholding, conserving, pherõnmay
also connotea directing ofcreationto itsappointed goal(so Bruce,Hebrews ,
6; cf.Moffatt,Hebrews , 7; Hughes,Hebrews , 45 n. 22). Hofius(Christus-
hymnus , 83) stressesthatgovernance as well as conservation is included.
This positionis rejectedby Grässer ("Hebräer1,1-4",221),whoinsiststhat
the truemeaningis foundin the "parallel"of Col 1,17( synestěken ). One
mightask whether thepherõnof Heb 1,3includesnotonlythesynestěken of
Col 1,17but also something liketheeis autonektistaiof Col 1,16. At the
veryleast,pherõnis morethansimplya repetion of Heb 1,2c,as Williamson
correctly observes(Philo,97).

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology
Structure 183

rõn indicates this ongoing action of upholding creation,an action

whichwill always continuebut which did not always exist. Looking
backward,we can see thatpherõnhad a beginning. This is not true
of õn, which refersto what is eternal in the strictsense, without
beginningor end. Consequently,pherõn, despite its present tense,
does imply a retimi from the outer limits of theological specula-
tion-timeless, eternal existence with God- back toward the Son's
functionin the world and history (52).
(5) The fifthChristologicaldesignationplaces us squarelywithin
salvation history,indeed at the heart of the decisive saving event:
"having brought about [poiēsamenos] the purification of sins"
(1,3c)- i.e., having purifiedbelievers from their sins. In the terse
and dense message of the exordium,the author skips over the idea
of incarnationand moves immediatelyto what concerns him most
about the earthlyJesus: his sacrifice. Strangely,this is the only
clause in the exordium which touches upon this main doctrinal
theme of Hebrews: the redeemingwork of Christthe high priestin
offering himselfonce and forall as a sacrificefor sins (see especially
4,14-5,10; 7,1-10,18). The once-and-for-all,ephapax nature of
Christ'ssacrifice,which is hammeredhome by the author in his lat-
er exposition (cf. ephapax at 7,27; 9,12; 10,10; and hapax at
9,7.26.27.28) is perhapshintedat here by use of the aorist participle
poiēsamenos. In fact,the firstuse of ephapax in the Epistle occurs
withthe aorist formepoiěsen(7,27): "Unlike the highpriests,[Jesus]
does not need daily to offer[presentinfinitive]sacrifices,firstforhis
own sins, then forthe [sins] of the people; for this he did once and
for all [epoiěsen ephapax], by offering[aorist participle] himself".
The factthat,forthe author,Christ'ssacrificeis constitutednot only
by the bloody death on the cross but also by the entranceinto the
heavenly sanctuary (53) may explain why, for this time alone in the

Grässer,"Hebräer1,1-4",220: "Whilethefirstpairof
(52)So,rightly,
predicationsof dignity
weremoreoriented towardtherelationof therevealer
to God, thenextlinesof thehymnare more[oriented] toward[hisrelation]
to theworld"(translationmine). It is strange,
then,thatGrässerclaimsthat
the"temporalaspect"ofpherõnis not emphasized(p. 221).
Vanhoye,De Epistolaad Hebraeos.Sectio Centralis
(53)So,correctly,
(Cap.8-9), 198. See also Hofius, Christushymnus,85-86,especiallynn.42
and 43, againstGrässer, "Hebräer1,1-4",224, who playsdownthe death
on thecross("an episode")in favorof theexaltation,
therealgoal. Yet,in
a somewhatcontradictory way,Grässerlaterstatesthat 1,3c is the most

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 J. P. Meier

exordium,he has shiftedthe participleto the end of the clause: rhe-

toricallyand theologicallypoiēsamenos is juxtaposed to the finite
verb ekathisen(54).
(6) With 1,3d we arrive at the finiteverb of the relativeclause
introducedby hos, which reaches all the way back to huiç: "[the
Son] who. . . sat down at the right[hand] of the Majesty on high".
It is exegetingthe obvious to say that v. 3d refersto the exaltation
of Christ afterhis death. The chief Scripturetext behind v. 3d is
LXX Ps 109,1, which is explicitlyquoted for the firsttime in 1,13.
The idea of the "heavenly sitting" or exaltation dominates the
thoughtof the Epistle much more than citations of or allusions to
Ps 109,1 or 4 (Heb 5,6.10; 6,20; 7,17.21; 8,1; 10,12; 12,2) would lead
one to believe(55). The whole argumentof the Epistle revolves
around the idea of the Son who has become the perfecthigh priest
by his death and exaltation(56). It is fitting,
therefore,that the main

important sentencein the exordium, becauseit indicatesthethemeof He-

brews:theatonement of sins(p. 224).- Bruce errsin theoppositedirection,
by practically reducing thesacrificeto thecross(see,e.g.,Hebrews , 200-201).
In Bruce'sfavor,it mustbe admitted thatthesacrificedoes notcontinuein
heavenafterJesus'entrancewithhis blood,a pointVanhoyealso stresses.
On thiswholesubject,see also J. Jeremias,"ZwischenKarfreitag und Os-
tern. Descensusund Ascensusin der Karfreitagstheologie des NeuenTesta-
mentes",Abba (Göttingen 1966) 323-331;Jeremias' concernwithreckoning
daysis, of course,foreign to our author'sthought.
(54)Cf.D. Hay, Gloryat theRightHand (Nashville1973) 143. Notethe
joiningofthetwoeventsof sacrifice (or death)and exaltationin 10,12:mian
hyperhamartiõn prosenegkas thiisianeis to diēnekesekathisen en dexiç tou
theou; and in 12,2: Iēsoun, hos.. . hypemeinen stauronaischyněskata-
phronēsas en dexiçte touthronou toutheoukekathiken. As can be seenthe
authoris capableof usingeitherthe aoristor the perfect whenreferring to
thesessionat therighthand,depending on whether thedefinitive,once-and-
for-allclimax of the drama or its perduring effectis uppermost in his
mind.
(55)In a sense,thewholetheological achievement of theauthorrestson
thefactthathe aloneamongNT writers read"theologically''
beyondthefirst
verseofPsalm 109 (themostfrequently quotedversein theNT), noticedthe
claimof v. 4, connected it withv. 1, and drewouttheimplications forChris-
tologyand soteriology.
(56)SeeMichel, "Der theologische Willedes Hebräerbriefes'',Brief,58-
83, especially74: ". . .Jesusdies as a victim,to createby thatact thepre-
supposition forhis serviceas highpriestin heaven The act of dyingis
necessarily incorporated intohis priestly whilehis priestly
office, servicein
thepropersensebeginsonlyaftertheexaltation"(translation mine).

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology
Structure 185

verb within the relative clause should be the one which affirms
Christ'sseat at the righthand.
(7) The seventhand final Christologicaldesignationis expressed
by the complicatedsynkrisisof 1,4: "Having become ( genomenos ) as
superior (kreittön)(57) to the angels as the name (onoma) he has
inheritedis [superior]to theirs". This final designationspeaks of
one consequence of the Son's exaltationat the righthand. Because
of his exaltation,his position in the heavenly world has become
clearlysuperiorto that of the angels and this correspondsnicely to
the fact that he has inherited(keklēronomēken) a name or title that
is superiorto the name "angel".
We should notice firstof all that v. 4 speaks of an event involv-
ing what the Son "became" ( genomenos ). Apparentlythis "becom-
ing" takes place at or immediately subsequent to the exaltation,if
one mayjudge both fromthe position of v. 4 immediatelyafterv. 3d
and fromthe veryidea of becomingsuperiorto someone else in the
heavenly sphere. To translategenomenos as "showing himself" or
"proving himselfto be", as some modern versions do, does not do
justice to the thoughthere and avoids the contrastwith õn in 1,3a.
It is simplya translator'sattemptto smooth over the clash of ideas
in 1,2-4. Heb l,2-3a spoke of the préexistentSon, creator of the
world and perfectimage of God's being. Now, v. 4 speaks of him
as havinginherited,at the time of his exaltation,a name superiorto
that of the angels. The clash is the resultof two different streamsof
Christologicaltraditionsflowinginto one channel. What the author
is doing is bringingtogetherin one periodic sentencea Christology
of préexistentWisdom (e.g., Phil 2,6; John1,1) and a Christologyof
Jesus who is enthronedas Son or Lord at the time of his resurrec-
tion/ascension(e.g., Rom 1,4; Acts2,34-36; 13,33; Phil 2,9-11). As
the example fromPhilippians 2 shows(58),the author of Hebrews is

(57)Kreittönoccursthirteentimesin Hebrews(out of nineteen NT uses).

It expresses
thesuperior qualityofthenameand statusoftheSon; thebetter
hopeChristians have; thesuperiorityof thenewcpvenant,foundedon better
promises;the superiorsacrificeof Christ;the better,heavenlypossession
Christianshope for,thesuperiorlifeof the resurrection;themorepowerful
intercession
of Jesus'blood- in short,thesuperiorityof theneweconomyof
salvationJesushas inaugurated.See Grässer, "Hebräer1,1-4",225-226.
(58)Asis clearfromthecomparison, I maintainthatPhil 2,6 does con-
taina referenceto préexistence.In thisI disagreewiththestimulating works
of J. Murphy-O'Connor("Christological Anthropologyin Phil. II, 6-11",

Biblica
66(1985) 13

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 J. P. Meier
not alone in this theologicaltendency(59). But, with the quasi-meta-
physicalclaim about the Son in 1,3a, the clash between ontological
and functionalSon-Christology in 1,2-4 strikesthe modernreader as
harsh(60). O. Michel is probably correctin suggestingthat our au-
thor thinksof a gradual perfectionor realizationof Christ'ssonship
in steps or stages(61). Indeed, the juxtapositionof these two differ-

RB 83 [1976]25-50,C. Talbert ("The Problemof Pre-existence in Philip-

pians2,6-11",JBL 86 [1967] 141-153),and especiallyJ.Dunn in his fasci-
natingbook,Christology in theMaking (Philadelphia1980). WhileDunn's
workdemandsa thorough reply,let me simplynoteherethatI thinkDunn
overplaysthe Adam references in Paul's thought.But, even granting the
Adam-reference in the Philippianshymn,thereare problemswithDunn's
thesis. The hymnclearlypresupposes a before(2,6) and an after(2,7-8)in
Christ'stransition to the statusof dyingservant.Indeed,a transition from
beforeto afteris essentialto theAdam story.Whatis this"before"in the
situationof Christif not préexistence?Wheredo we have theidea in the
NT thatforsomeperiodJesusdweltin a perfect Adamicexistence on earth
beforehe freelychoseto takeon our suffering? If the Adam storyis the
referent in thehymn,Dunnwillhave to do betterin explaining the"before"
situation of Christ. The naturalcandidateremainspréexistence.
(59)A numberof recentworkssituateHeb 1,2-4in the contextof NT
hymns:e.g.,Bornkamm, "Bekenntnis", 197-198;R. Deichgräber,Gottes-
hymnus undChristushymnus in derfrühenChristenheit (Göttingen1967)138;
R. Martin, CarmenChristi(Cambridge1967) 305 n. 8; J.T. Sanders, The
New TestamentChristological Hymns (Cambridge1971) 19; Hofius,
Christushymnus , 92-102. Theseauthorsare certainly in seeingparal-
correct
lels,thoughat timestheparallelsare overdrawn and thedifferences ignored.
As shallbe seen,I am skeptical aboutidentifying a traditional
hymnin Heb
1,2-4;see PartIII below.
C60)On this,see F. Büchsel, Cristologie , 7. It is artificial
to tryto
avoidtheclashbyclaiming, as Käsemanndoes (Gottesvolk, 59,and following
him, Grässer, "Hebräer1,1-4",215 n.209; Thompson,"Structure", 131
n. 4), thatthe references to the Son in passageslike 1,2 and 5,8 are merely
"proleptic".Especiallyin the case of 5,8,the wholeargument dependson
JesusbeingtheSon beforehis exaltation:"Son though(kaiper)he was,he
learnedobediencefromwhathe suffered. . .". The pointlies in theshockof
the Son undergoing suffering. On this,see U. Luck, "Himmlischesund
irdisches Geschehenim Iļebrāerbrief", NT 6 (1963) 192-215,especially 205.
(61)Michel, Brief,106 n. 1. Westcott (Hebrews,16-17)interprets the
thought withthelaterChalcedonian modelof twonatures;similarly, Spicq,
L'épîtreII, 12. On thetensionbetweenthe eternalSon and the salvation-
historical Son, see Hofius,Christushymnus, 92-93,who sees a parallelwith
theproclamation ofYahweh'skingship in theOT psalmsand prophets.Ho-
fiusobservesthatYahwehis and alwayshas beenking,yetin an eschatolog-
ical contextthepromiseis made thatYahwehwillbecomekingon thelast

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Structure
and Theology
in Heb 1,1-14 187

ent typesof Christologyalmost demands some kind of "process-Son-

ship" as a way towardssynthesis. Unfortunately, the author of He-
brewsnever explains in detail how this sonship can be realized pro-
gressivelythroughthe stages of the saving drama withoutany atten-
uation of the truthof l,2-3a. He never seems to sense our problem.
Yet, whetherhe does or not, the author poses a problem with his
Son-Christologythat will loom large throughoutthe patristicperi-
od.
The main point for us, though,is that v. 4 speaks of the event
of becoming superiorat or immediatelyfollowingupon the exalta-
tion, an event connectedwith a name (<onoma). The name that is
inheritedis in all probabilitythe title Son(62). The previous and
subsequent contextsboth speak for this identification. It was just
afterthe firstmention of "Son" in 1,2a that the author firstused
klēronomon;the inclusion keklēronomēken implies that onoma is to
be understoodas the title Son. The flow of thoughtinto the first
OT citationalso suggeststhat onoma be understoodas "Son." Im-
mediatelyaftersaying: "he has inheriteda name" (v. 4), the author
asks rhetorically in v. 5 : "for to which of the angels did he ever say,
'My son [huios] are you; I this day have begottenyou'; and again:
'I shall be a father to him and he shall be unto me a son
(huionY"(63). Given this Scripturalexplanationand grounding(gar)
in v. 5 of the statementin v. 4, to tryto avoid takingonoma as the
title Son is an exercisein avoiding the obvious. True, many differ-
ent titles and designationsare given to Jesus in 1,5-14, in chap. 2,

day.-Butdoes thisparalleldo justiceto thepersonal, existential

"perfecting"
thatthe Son undergoes throughsuffering (e.g.,Heb 5,5-10)? On thewhole
question,see MacNeill, Christology , 56, 96, 102,and 407. MacNeillfeels
thatthe authorof Hebrewsneveradequatelyfusedadoptionistic and meta-
physicalsonships.More sympathetic to Hofius'approachis Peterson,He-
brewsand Perfection, 119.
Bruce, Hebrews
(62)So, rightly, , 8. As Bruceobservesin n. 36, thisdif-
ferentiatesHeb 1,4fromPhil2,9,wheretheonomais probably kyrios.Also
in favoroftakingonomaas Son are Bornkamm, "Bekenntnis",196; Hofius,
Christushymnus , 90; P. Hughes, Hebrews , 51; and Käsemann,Gottesvolk,
58.
(63)Noticethe skillof our authorin choosingand arranging two Psalm
quotations whichyieldan inclusionwiththeword"Son" {huiosmou.. . eis
huion). Withsuch an emphasison huios,it is extremely difficult
to take
onomaas meaninganything else.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 J. P. Meier
and throughoutthe rest of the Epistle(M). But the flow of thought
in Heb 1,1-5 seems to indicate that,forthe author of Hebrews,Son
is the title of Jesus which embraces all the rest. As F. Büchsei says
so well: "All the statementsabout Jesus in the Epistle to the He-
brews are rooted in the idea that Jesus is the Son of God God
calls him Son: this is the name by which he ranks above even the
angels (1,4,5)(65)".
We have come to the end of our brief survey of the seven
Christologicaldesignationsin Heb l,2b-4. If our analysis of the
meaningof the individual designationsis correct,then a certainpat-
tern and movement of thoughtemerge. The author begins to de-
scribe the Son (huiç, v. 2a) in termsof his exaltationto the status of
heir (v. 2b), then moves back to the Son's mediation of creation
(v. 2c), then "moves back" still fartherto the Son's eternal,timeless
relationshipto God (v. 3a). Then the author turns around and
moves forwardto the Son's conservationof what he helped create
(v. 3b), then forwardagain to the Son's sacrificefor sins (death and
entranceinto the heavenly sanctuary,v. 3c), then forwardagain to
his being seated at the righthand in heaven (v. 3d), and finallyto
the consequence of his exaltation: his perduring(66) superiorityvis-
à-vis the angels (v. 4). Puttingall of this into a diagram,we arrive
at somethinglike a "ring structure",a ring that describes the Son
fromthe viewpointof exaltationas startingpoint and exaltationas
goal.

(M)A valid pointmade by Vanhoye,Situation, 93-94. See also West-

cott, Hebrews,17: "By the'name' we are to understand probablynotthe
nameof'Son' simply.. . buttheNamewhichgathered up all thatChristwas
foundto be by believers. . .". Similarly,
butmorecautiously, Moffatt,He-
brews,8: "... it [onoma]carriesthegeneralOrientalsenseof 'rank' or 'dig-
nity'... it is needlessto identify onoma outrightwithhuios,thoughhuios
bringsout its primary meaning";so too MacNeill, Christology, 36; similar-
ly,Dey, The Intermediary World,147.
(65)Büchsel,Christologie, mine); cf. Grässer, "Hebräer
5 (translation
1,1-4",206.
(66)The perfect tenseof keklëronomëken makesa subtlepoint The eter-
nal Son did,fora littlewhile(brachu ) becomelowerthantheangels(2,9) by
entering intothisworldas man(10,5). But his exaltation is thatevent(now
past) whichguarantees him permanent (in fìinctional,
superiority salvation-
historical terms)overtheangels.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 in Heb 1,1-14
and Theology
Structure 189

(creation)

l. honethēken (exaltation)
7. kreittön onoma
(result
af exaltation)
ekathisen
(exaltation)
harismon poiësamenos
Ûn ath.and entranceintothe
Ol creauon; x
heavenlysanctuary)
It is this ring structurethat i» the key to the movementof the
author'sChristologicalthoughtin l,2b-4. Withoutit one misses the
retrogressive and then progressiveflow of designations. It may be
that many commentatorson Hebrews have been puzzled by the ex-
act importof the stringof designationsin l,2b-4, especiallyin rela-
tion to the whole of chap. 1, preciselybecause theyhave not grasped
the ring structurewhich the author is using.

Box 39, Curley Hall John P. Meier

Catholic Universityof America
Washington,DC 20064

SOMMAIRE
La structure et la théologiede Heb 1 a depuislongtemps été étudiéepar
les exégètes.Cet articlevise à faireune nouvellesuggestion. Il avancequ'en-
tre 1,1-4et 1,5-14,il existetoutà la foisune symétrie numériqueet une
symétrie dans le mouvementde la pensée théologique.L'auteurprouve
d'abordque l,2b-4contient exactement septaffirmations christologiques.En-
suite,il notequ'à peu prèstousles commentateurs reconnaissent que 1,5-14
est bâtià partirde septcitationsde l'AncienTestament. Allantplus loin,il
chercheà montrer que la symétrie est davantageque simplement numérique.
Il existeaussi une symétrie théologiqueentrel,2b-4et 1,5-14.Pourprouver
cetteaffirmation, le présentarticlecommencepar examiner les septdésigna-
tionschristologiques de l,2b-4.Le modèlequi émergealorsest celui d'une
«structure circulaire» qui partde l'éxaltation
pourremonter versla création
et au delà versl'éternelle préexistencepuis,en sensinverses'orienteversla
permanence de la création, la mortet l'entréedans le sanctuaire célestepour
revenirfinalement à l'exaltation
et à son aboutissement. La questionsuivit
alorsde savoirsi les versets5-14présentent un déroulement de penséesimi-
laire.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:25:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions