The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

1/11

"LET US STRIVE TO ENTER THAT REST"THE LOGIC OF HEBREWS 4:1-11

Harold W. Attridge

Perkins School of TheologyDallas, TX 75275

One of the most controverted questions in the study of theEpistle to the Hebrews is the nature of the eschatological perspective which it represents, and a focal point of the debate about thisissue is the passage on the "rest" which awaits the addressees(4:1-11). The two ends of the spectrum of recent interpretationare represented by Theissen1 on the one hand, who sees Hebrewshere as developing a "Gnostic"2 tradition paralleled by materials inPhilo, and by Buchanan3 and Hofius4 on the other, who seeHebrews as working wholly within the framework of Jewish apocalyptic expectations. Parallels adduced by these interpreters are, to

*Gerd Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebrerbrief (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1969). Forsimilar approaches, cf. Ceslaus Spicq, LEpitre aux Hbreux (2 vols; Paris; Galbalda,

1952-53); idem, LEptre aux Hbreux (Paris: Gabalda, 1977); C. K. Barrett, "TheEschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews," The Background of the New Testamentand its Eschatology (C. H. Dodd Festschrift; ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube;Cambridge, 1954) 363-93; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964). For an important recent contribution to the assessmentof the eschatological perspectives of Hebrews, cf. George W. MacRae, "HeavenlyTemple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews," Semeia 12 (1978) 179-99.

2Theissen consciously builds on the analysis of Hebrews by Ernst Ksemann, Daswandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebrerbrief (3d ed.; Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959). His definition of "Gnostic" is a broad phenome-

nological one. Cf. Untersuchungen, 127, . 8, "Gnosis = Rckkehr zum Ursprungvon jeder Schpfung." This is not the context in which to discuss the adequacy of

h d fi iti S ffi it t t th t Th i ' f th t d t

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

2/11

280 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

one degree or another, illuminating,5 but the concentration onthese parallels may obscure the dynamics of Hebrews' argument,which should serve as the fundamental criterion by which to assessthe work's eschatology. This brief paper will attempt to illuminatethose dynamics.

The pericope in question is part of a longer section beginningwith 3:1 where it is argued that Jesus is superior to Moses as theson is superior to a servant within a household. The addressees,who have already been described as "partakers of a heavenlycalling" (3:1), are said to be members of that household, if they

hold fast to their hope (3:6b). What follows, from 3:7-4:11, isessentially a complex bit of paraenesis which develops the implications of the conditional clause in 3:6b. That paraenesis proceedswith an exegesis of Ps 95:7-11, cited in Heb 3:7-11.

The psalm quotation provides three essential componentswhich are subsequently developed. It begins with the adverbsmeron. On the one hand, this provides the author with the basisfor the exegetical argument in 4:7-8, that David would not have

spoken of a day of rest after the conquest if the conquest hadmade that rest possible. At the same time the author takes thatopening of the psalm as an address to his own generation (3:15, cf.4:7). Thus "today" has a dual significance. It is interpreted bothwithin the context of the supposed original utterance of the psalmby David and within the context of those who hear the challengeof the psalm "at the end of these days" (1:2). That the promiseand challenge of the Scriptures are available in the author's

"today" is an important element of this paraenetic passage. Notein particular 4:3, "For we who believe are entering the rest." Thepsalm also compares its hearers with the desert generation(3:8-10). Development of this typology is, of course, a majorelement in what follows, where the author takes pains to point outthat the cause of the failure of the desert generation to obtain thepromised rest was its disobedience due to lack of faith (3:1819).6

5Theissen (Untersuchungen, 124-29) criticized Ksemann's reliance on Barnabas

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

3/11

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE 281

Finally, the conclusion of the psalm quotation (3:11) provides thebasis for the argument about God's rest in 4:1-11. The crux of the

author's argument lies in those verses and they merit closerscrutiny.

The theme of this section is enunciated in the first verse ofchapter four. A promise to enter God's "rest" has been left inforce. That promise is, however, conditional on faithful obedienceto God. Therefore the current heirs of the promise are warned tobe fearful of falling short (4:1) and are encouraged to strive toenter the "rest" (4:11).

In order for these exhortations to make sense it is necessaryfor our author to show that the promise is still in effect. That, infact, is the major import of the verses standing between theinclusio of the two hortatory subjunctives of 4:1 and 11. Theauthor could conceivably have made his point with a simpleobservation which now forms almost an aside in this section. In vv7-8, he again cites the opening of Psalm 97 and remarks thatDavid's call to hear the voice of God "today" would make little

sense if the "rest" mentioned in the psalm had been achieved bythe members of the Exodus generation. Had the author beencontent with this observation, he would have advanced a relativelysimple typology. The Christian community would correspond tothe Exodus generation as antitype to type. The type did notachieve its divinely intended goal because of faithless disobedience.Therefore the antitype must pick up where the type left off, befaithful and obedient to God's will and enter the "rest." This is

basically the way in which the argument here is understood bythose who see Hebrews as operating within an apocalypticframework, with a local understanding of katapausis. On thisreading the remarks of vv 3-5 are otiose, to say the least.

In fact, however, the author seems to lay heavy emphasis onthose verses, for they apparently provide the demonstration of hisessential contention, that the promise to enter God's rest stillremains open. Note that 6 summarizes the preceding argument

and seems to drawan exegetical inference from it. What vv 3-5 ineffect achieve is to define God's "rest" in such a way as to supportth l i th t th hi t f th t t i ibilit

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

4/11

282 HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW

The author argues by means of a gezara shawa.1

In Heb 4:3, theterm katapausis from Psalm 95 is associated with the verb kate-

pausen in Gen 2:2. This suggests that the "rest" promised in the psalm is the same as the rest into which God himself entered on the first sabbath.

8That suggestion is made explicit in 9, "There

fore a sabbatismos is left for the people of God." It seems clearthen that the author's argument, in his own estimation, hingesupon the equation of katapausis and sabbatismos, that is, upon theredefinition of the first term by means of the second.

What, in fact, has the author achieved by the redefinition? For

those who view this pericope simply in terms of Jewish apocalypticeschatology, the author's argument is hardly clear. For Buchanan,

who understands "rest" in the light ofOT usage9

as a reference to"quiet, independent existence on the promised land,"

10the term

sabbatismos reflects the association of "rest" terminology with the

sabbath rest, and the sabbatical and jubilee years.11

Its use in Heb4:9 "provided a basis for understanding national 'rest' in sabbaticalterms."

12But ultimately for Buchanan the use of the sabbatismos

terminology is simply to point to God's behavior as a prototype forthat ofIsrael, who will, like God, rest from her works.

13While the

7Cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 55.

8This 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,

, "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 futurereality 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 may have the significance which Buchanan gives it

here, the anarthrous participle cannot be construed as attributive, as

Buchanan does. Hence the particle must be seen in its more normal, adversa

tive sense, used here with a genitive absolute.9Cf. 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,!1. uIbid 64

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

5/11


prototypical function of God's rest in this passage is clear, Buchanan's insistence on the interpretation of the key terminology

here in essentially political terms leaves the relationship betweentype and antitype purely formal. Buchanan, in fact, fails to recognize that in Heb 4:4-5 an attempt is made to redefine the termkatapausis.

For Hofius, for whom the "rest" is a locale, specifically theheavenly fatherland (Heb 11:14), the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:4), and the heavenly temple (10:1a),

14the

term sabbatismos provides a more precise definition of what the

people of God have to expect in their eschatological katapausis,namely, the festivity and praise ofa sabbath celebration.

15Some of

these connotations may well attach to the term used in Hebrews,but to determine the basic sense of the term here by appeal toparallel material is questionable. The most relevant factors forinterpreting katapausis here are (1) the fact that it summarizes theimplications of the gezara shawa argument of Heb 4:4-5, and (2)that it is in turn interpreted by the remarkof 10 "he who enters

his rest himself has rested from his work as God did from his."Thus the redefinition of katapausis in Ps 95:11 by the author ofHebrews decisively dissociates the term from its potential politicalor apocalyptic connotations. To enter God's "rest" is not to takepossession of the land of Israel, nor to enter a concrete eschatological temple. Rather, it is to have a share in God's eternal"sabbatical" repose.

16

14Hofius, 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 unintelli

gible 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 hapaxin the NT,

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

6/11


The redefinition of God's rest provided in w 3-9 substantiallyaffects the logic of the typological exhortation used here. The

author of Hebrews does not make a simple analogy between hiscontemporaries and the Exodus generation, but rather advances arather complex argument which may be outlined as follows. TheChristian community corresponds to the Exodus generation asantitype to type. Furthermore, the goal which the Exodus generation pursued corresponds to the goal which Christians pursue inthe same way, as antitype to type. However, the type in thisanalogy (the rest in the land of Canaan) is itself an antitype of a

more original type, the state of rest which God himself entered atthe completion of the week of creation.

The complex relationship among the items under discussion inthis pericope is by no means unique. A similar set of relationshipsobtains in at least one other appeal to the Exodus generation inearly Christian paraenesis and precisely the same relationship isperceived by the author of Hebrews in his discussion of the templecult. These two parallels will be discussed in turn.

In 1 Cor 10:1-13 Paul also appeals to the Exodus generation inhis warning to the Corinthian community not to presume on theefficacy of their sacramental activity.17 As in Hebrews the mainthrust of the analogy is the comparison between Israelites andChristians and, as in Hebrews, the inference drawn from theanalogy is an ethical one: "These things occurred as types of us, sothat we might not be desirous of evils, as many of them desired"(1 Cor 10:6). "Do not be idolaters . . . nor let us commit

fornication . . . nor let us tempt Christ" (1 Cor 10:7-9). The basisof the comparison is also, as in Hebrews, a presumption thatChristians live at the end of time: "These things happened in atypical way to them, and were written as a warning for us, onwhom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Cor 10:11, cf. Heb 1:2).

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. Themeaning of that language, however, depends on the exegesis. The relationship

' f i i G i

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

7/11


Paul, just as the author of Hebrews, is not content with thesimple correspondence between the failure of the Exodus generation and the potential failure of the Corinthian community. Healso finds further analogies between the Exodus experience andthe Christian experience which lend his basic exhortation addedforce. The Israelites, like the Christians, experienced a "baptism"by passing through the sea and being led by the cloud (1 Cor10:2). They also partook of a "eucharist" in the manna (1 Cor10:3). They in fact partook of "Christ" in the rock which followedthem.

In highlighting those aspects of the Exodus experience whichcan be interpreted typologically of the Christian sacraments, Paul isobviously focusing on an aspect of the OT account which is of littleinterest to Hebrews.

18His typological exegesis is suited to the

needs of his particular argument with the Corinthian community.Nonetheless, there is a generic similarity between the way Pauland the author of Hebrews use Exodus traditions. Both find in theevents recounted in the Hebrew Scripture a significance which is

perceptible only on the basis of the antitypes of those events inChristian experience.

19This phenomenon perhaps makes more

comprehensible the reinterpretation of the "rest" motif in Hebrews. The author ofHebrews, like Paul, is by no means bound tothe primary, literal force of the language recounting those events.

Another related feature of Paul's exegesis in 1 Corinthians 10parallels the moves which Hebrews makes. As in Hebrews, Paulfinds that the events of the Exodus acquire their eschatological

significance because they are in some way related to a primordialreality. This is certainly the force of the rather obscure remark thatthe rock which followed the Israelites in the desert was Christ (1

18Unless 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 J M Creed, "Hebrews xm 10," ET 50

(1938-39) 13-15, E L Randall, "The Altar of Hebr 13,10" Australasian Catholic

Record (1969) 197-208, Floyd V Filson, ' Yesterday" A Study of Hebrews in the

Light of Chapter 13 (London SCM, 1967) 48-54, and the commentary by F F

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

8/11


Cor 10:4)} In this remark Paul apparently accords a highersignificance to the Exodus events than does the author of He

brews. For the latter there seems to be no question that the restpursued by the Exodus generation was anything more than thesettlement in the land (cf. esp. Heb 4:8). That literal "rest,"however, pointed to another, more basic reality which actuallyconstituted the content of God's promise. For Paul, the Exodusgeneration actually did have access to "Christ." In both cases thecorrespondence drawn between historical types and antitypes ismade possible because the types themselves stand in some rela

tionship to some prior reality.The formal correspondences between Paul and Hebrews on the

significance of the Exodus events suggest that both are operatingwithin a tradition of Christian reflection on the subject. ThatHebrews in particular is dealing with a traditional type of exegesishere is not surprising, given the location within the plan of thewhole work of the pericope in question. The heart of the dogmaticargument of Hebrews, focusing in Christ the High Priest of a new

covenant, extends from 5:14-10:39. The novelty of the argumentis clearly indicated in 6:1-3. What precedes the central dogmaticsection, from 1:1-4:13, is in many ways a prologue, bounded bythe references to God's word (1:1; 2:2; 4:12-13).

The second, and perhaps more significant, parallel to the complex exegetical logic of Heb 4:3-10 appears later in the epistle, inthe discussion of the relationship of the old and new sacrificialsystems, within the context of the discussion of the old and new

covenants. Basic to this discussion, as to the analogy between theExodus generation and the Christian community, is the correspondence between new and old (Heb 8:8, 13). Intersecting thisanalogy is, however, another, comparing and contrasting the earthly and the heavenly. On the one hand the relationship between oldand new is of type to antitype, as is clear from the whole

20For the haggadic basis of the remark in 1 Cor 10:4, cf. Conzelmann, 1

Corinthians, 166, n. 25. Conzelmann correctly draws attention to two important

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

9/11


discussion. On the other hand the OT type in this relationshipclearly derives its significance from the antitype: "For the Law,

having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very imageof those things . . ." (Heb 10:1). The types are, moreover,antitypes of more fundamental realities: "For Christ did not enterinto holy place made by hands, antitypes of the true holy places,but into heaven itself' (Heb 9:24).

The significance of Christ's entry into the heavenly sanctuarypresents its own problems, and the ultimate significance of thewhole typological scheme underlying the argument of Hebrews

needs to be assessed as to the way in which the primordial "type"is ultimately conceived. This issue cannot be treated in detailhere.

21What is important to note for our purposes is the way in

which the logic of the argument functions. The old covenant's typedoes not, by any means, precisely define the significance of thenew covenant's antitype. Rather, the former achieves its significance from the intersection of two vectors, as it were, the definitive events establishing new covenant and the primordial realities

to which those events of the new covenant both point and provideaccess.

Thus the exegetical logic implicit in the typological use of theExodus in other early Christian paraenesis, the logic made explicitin the comparison of new and old covenants in Hebrews 9-10, andindeed throughout much of Hebrews generally, is precisely thelogic at work in the passage in the Exodus generation in Heb3:1-4:11.

Conclusion

Hebrews is by no means an easy text to understand. Itcombines various Jewish and Hellenistic traditions in a subtle andintricate way and often significantly redefines the significance oftraditional material. Parallels to its imagery and language fromapocalyptic, Jewish philosophical and Greek religious sources canoften be suggestive about the significance of the text or about thepresuppositions of its original audience, but they cannot be by

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

10/11


themselves decisive for exegesis of Hebrews. This is especially truein those passages where our author deals with eschatological ma

terial. At work throughout Hebrews is a complex process ofinterpretation of inherited symbols. The logic of this process mustbe carefully observed if any adequate interpretation of the text isto be possible. While this paper has not definitely solved thequestion of Hebrews' eschatology, it has attempted to providesome guidelines for its resolution.

7/31/2019 The Logic of Heb 4.1-11

11/11

Documents

The Logic of Heb 4.1-11