Article

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
Jesus as ‘The One who 2014, Vol. 36(4) 383­–400
© The Author(s) 2014
Entered his Rest’: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
The Christological Reading DOI: 10.1177/0142064X14528442
jsnt.sagepub.com
of Hebrews 4.10

Nicholas J. Moore
Keble College, Oxford

Abstract
This article argues that in Heb. 4.10 the substantival aorist participle o( ei0selqw&n should
be translated ‘the one who entered’, and that its implied subject is Christ; it further
suggests that, understood this way, this verse coheres with Hebrews’ strong emphasis on
the completed nature of Christ’s salvific work, expressed in particular with the image of
Christ’s enthronement or session using Ps. 110.1. The article thus challenges the view that
the rest motif in Heb. 3–4 is purely a ‘sermon illustration’ with no connection to the strong
Christology pervading the rest of the letter; additionally it underscores the creativity
with which the author expresses the sufficiency of the Christ event, and strengthens the
proximity of the motifs of entering rest and entering the heavenly sanctuary.

Keywords
Christology, enthronement/session, Hebrews 3–4, Psalm 110, rest, structure

Introduction1
A glance at most modern English translations reveals that they take Heb. 4.10
to be a statement regarding what happens to those who enter God’s rest. For
example, the niv (1984) reads: ‘anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from

1. An earlier version of this piece was delivered at the Tyndale Fellowship Conference in July
2012. I am grateful to Markus Bockmuehl, Philip Church, Alexander Kirk, and Richard
Ounsworth for comments and conversations which have greatly helped its development.

Corresponding author:
Nicholas J. Moore, Keble College, Oxford, OX1 3PG.
Email: nicholas.moore@magd.oxon.org
384 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

his works, just as God did from his’, and the nrsv: ‘those who enter God’s rest
also cease from their labours as God did from his’.2 These translations take both
the substantival participle o( ei0selqw&n and the indicative verb kate/pausen in
a timeless and general sense, yet in doing so they obscure the fact that both
participle and verb are singular and aorist, and thereby prevent the reader from
seeing in this verse an implicit reference to Christ. This is not only a possible
reading of the Greek, but, as this article will argue, ought to be the preferred
interpretation.

Hebrews 4.10 in the Context of the Whole Letter

Hebrews 4.10 comes towards the end of the paraenetic section 3.7–4.13, which
takes the form of a citation and exposition of Ps. 95. This passage is notable for
its extensive use of the rest motif, which is not explicitly developed elsewhere
in the letter. Structurally, the passage comes just before the exhortation of 4.14-
16, which, together with the parallel section 10.19-25, forms an inclusio around
Hebrews’ central, cultic section.3 3.7–4.13 thus corresponds to 11.1-40: both sec-
tions exhort the audience to faithful perseverance through, respectively, negative
and positive Old Testament examples, and they fall just before and after the
cultic section. Furthermore, these two sections have another feature in common:
a striking lack of Christology (with the exception of a single elusive mention
of ‘Christ’ in each; cf. Heb. 3.14; 11.26). This absence is all the more surpris-
ing when one considers the pervasive high Christology, combined with a strong
sense of Jesus’ humanity, which is found in the rest of the letter, supremely but
not exclusively in its exordium and cultic section.
The problem of the apparent absence of Christology in these sections, given
its pervasiveness elsewhere in Hebrews, is a subset of the problematic relation-
ship of chs. 3–4 and 11 to chs. 5–10, a question which has long exercised schol-
ars. How are we to understand the relationship between pilgrimage and cult,
Sabbath rest and heavenly sanctuary, the horizontal and the vertical, eschatology

2. The decision to translate with a plural in the nrsv and niv (2011) reflects a general and laudable
desire in modern English usage for gender-inclusivity. In a few instances, however, the use of
the plural masks a potential christological or divine reference, as for example in the exegesis
of Ps. 8 in Heb. 2 (‘what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care
for him…we do not now see all things subject to him, but we see Jesus’). A brief survey of
modern French, German and Spanish translations of Heb. 4.10 suggests that these languages
are more comfortable with translating these terms in the singular—no doubt in part because
they have grammatical gender, which can thus be distinguished from biological gender—and
with using past forms.
3. Guthrie 1994: 102 identifies these two sections as the only instances in Hebrews of
‘overlapping constituents’: ‘a passage used simultaneously as the conclusion of one block of
material and the introduction to the next’.
Moore 385

and cosmology?4 The importance of ch. 11 for Hebrews’ Christology becomes

apparent when it is understood to culminate not in 11.39-40 but in 12.1-3, in the
light of which the ‘heroes of faith’ of 11.4-38 can be understood as typological,
rather than as purely exemplary.5 When it comes to Heb. 3.7–4.13, however,
while the context (particularly 3.1-6; 4.14-16) demonstrates a clear christologi-
cal framing,6 the passage itself does not obviously have any connection to the
Christology of the letter. This view is articulated perhaps most clearly by Judith
Wray, who argues that the concept of rest, which is the primary motif in this
section, is nothing more than a theological metaphor, an effective sermon illus-
tration which ‘remains theocentric and anticipatory and never quite becomes
christocentric and celebrative’; she concludes that ‘the writer makes no attempt
to identify a christological connection with the theme of rest’ (Wray 1998: 94,
89). To be sure, Wray is not unaware of the strongly christological sections fram-
ing this part of Hebrews; she also readily concedes that motifs of promise and
entrance are taken up again and developed by the author (Wray 1998: 90-91, 93).
The reasons for her conclusions are that rest is used negatively,7 never used again
in Hebrews8 and never explicitly associated with Christ.9 This article challenges
these points, contending that Heb. 4.10 allows the audience to infer a reference to
Christ; this constitutes a positive christological connection to the theme of rest,

4. Of course, these dichotomies are oversimplified. Nevertheless, the problem clearly exists both
in Hebrews itself and in the scholarly literature. Käsemann 1939 saw the pilgrim motif as
fundamental to the whole letter. Johnsson 1978 noted the dichotomy in terms of the treatment
of the different motifs, pilgrimage by Protestant and cult by Roman Catholic scholars.
Scholars continue to address the question; see the helpful problematization, with survey of
scholarship, in Whitfield 2013: 1-49. Note also the titles and subjects of Richard Ounsworth’s
doctoral thesis (Ounsworth 2010, published version 2012) and Jared Calaway’s monograph
(Calaway 2013).
5. A recent argument for reading the list of OT figures as types of Christ is offered by Richardson
2012. He utilizes both typology and the Graeco-Roman rhetorical category of encomium to
argue for this. Intriguingly, he suggests that ‘the reproach of the Christ’ in 11.26 is a reference
to solidarity with the suffering of the people of God, rather than a reference to Jesus (pp.
204-206).
6. So Koester 2001: 276 n. 131: ‘Yet the christological framing of the section…allows for
christological connections.’
7. ‘Since the illustration from Psalm 94...provides an argument via negativa, the text says more
about what rest is not than what rest is’ (Wray 1998: 90). This strikes me as an inadequate
ground for denying a christological connection to the theme of rest, given that the motifs of
promise and entrance also function negatively in Heb. 3–4, yet are developed christologically
later in the letter.
8. ‘The theme of rest...does not appear again and never becomes significant as a christological
metaphor’ (Wray 1998: 92).
9. ‘[T]he identification of the Christ with the rest remains unarticulated... The preacher never
proclaims the promise of rest as an explicit dimension of his christology’ (Wray 1998: 91).
386 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

and demonstrates that Heb. 3–4 corresponds more closely than Wray allows to
the Christology and soteriology that are manifest elsewhere in the letter.

History of Interpretation
Commentators have argued back and forth over the christological reading of
Heb. 4.10 since at least the early seventeenth century: William Gouge, although
he rejects this reading, is aware of others who advocate it (Gouge 1866, first
published posthumously in 1655). The Puritan John Owen argues for this inter-
pretation at some length in his commentary, the relevant volume of which was
first published in 1674 (Owen 1980). Despite this early English debate, the
christological reading subsequently made more of a mark in Continental schol-
arship (cf. Ebrard 1850: for; Delitzsch 1857: against), with the most significant
arguments advanced by Vanhoye (1963, second edition 1976), Andriessen and
Lenglet (1971: 75), and Sabourin (1973: 204). In recent scholarship Attridge
(1989: 131-32) and Cockerill (2012: 211-12) entertain the possibility, Braun
(1984: 115) and Ellingworth (1993: 255-57) argue against, and deSilva is in a
minority in actively promoting it (2000: 167-68); commentators such as Weiß
(1991), Lane (1991), Grässer (1990–97), Koester (2001) and O’Brien (2010)
do not even mention it. This somewhat ambivalent history, combined with the
unfortunate obstruction in modern English translations of the possibility of tak-
ing this interpretation, calls for a re-examination and re-presentation of the case
for this reading.
The case against the christological interpretation can be summarized as
‘insufficient evidence’: if the author of Hebrews intended his hearers to under-
stand this clause as a reference to Christ, he both should and could have given
more indication of it.10 This is not an insubstantial point, and it is along these
lines that Ellingworth offers a comprehensive rebuttal of six pieces of evidence
given by Andriessen and Lenglet.11 Against these objections, this article aims to
show that Hebrews does contain enough information to guide its readers towards
this understanding.

10. So, e.g., Gouge 1655; Delitzsch 1857; Braun 1984; Ellingworth 1993; Cockerill 2012.
11. Andriessen and Lenglet 1971: 75. Ellingworth 1993: 255-57. The six arguments are:
(1) the three other occurrences of a singular aorist of ei0se/rxomai refer to Christ’s entry into
heaven; (2) it is not uncommon for a vague expression to denote God or Christ; (3) Hebrews
uses the present for general statements, not the aorist; (4) believers are sharers in Christ,
who goes before them; (5) an implicit Joshua typology in Heb. 4.8 prepares the allusion
to the ‘true Joshua’ in v. 10; (6) Hebrews uses the plural in speaking of the approach of
Christians to God. To my mind arguments 2, 4 and 6 are inconclusive, but there is merit to
arguments 1, 3 and 5. Reference will be made to Ellingworth’s counter-arguments where
appropriate.
Moore 387

The argument will proceed in three stages. First, I will examine the grammati-
cal and syntactical issues surrounding the relationship of aorist indicatives and
participles to past time, and suggest that both the more general usage and the
context of Hebrews favour a priori a past translation. Secondly, it will be argued
that both the wider argumentative flow and the meaning of the particular verse in
question make better sense when 4.10 is understood as referring to a past event,
and that if this is the case, the referent of the participle must be Jesus. Thirdly,
the coherence of this motif with the Christology of the rest of Hebrews will be
demonstrated. In particular, it will be suggested that 4.10 constitutes a theologi-
cal parallel to Ps. 110.1, which Hebrews uses elsewhere to elaborate the doctrine
of the session of Christ.

In Search of Past Time

The question of whether verbal forms grammaticalize time remains a contested
one.12 While significant arguments have been advanced in the past few decades
against the view that time-reference is included in the base meaning of verbs,
some grammarians continue to argue that the unmarked form of the indica-
tive does grammaticalize time. If this is true, the third person singular aorist
indicative kate/pausen in Heb. 4.10 might be assumed to have past reference
(‘he/she entered’). However, most grammarians holding this view allow for
the existence of gnomic aorists,13 used to state general truths,14 and those on
both sides of the debate agree that ultimately context must play a large role
in determining meaning, given that contextual factors can and do override
basic components such as verbal aspect.15 The wider context of the argument
will be examined later, but for now we can note that the form kate/pausen
occurs twice elsewhere in Hebrews, both instances prior to this verse and in its
close context: in Heb. 4.4 it occurs in a citation of Gen. 2.2, stating that God
rested from his works; and in 4.8 it functions transitively in the first half of a

12. For a summary, see Wallace 1996: 504-12. Porter (1989: esp. 75-108) is a major proponent
of the view that tense contains no temporal reference; Fanning (1990: 198) defends the view
that tenses in the indicative mood do grammaticalize time.
13. An exception is Moule 1959: 12-13.
14. Porter 1989: 217-25, 233-38 distinguishes between ‘gnomic’ (true of all times) and ‘timeless’
(where a temporal reference does not exist), whereas many other grammars use ‘gnomic’ to
cover both of these, e.g., Fanning 1990: 208-209, though he does distinguish between the two
nuances. For the purposes of this article this distinction is inconsequential, though Porter does
explicitly identify Heb. 4.10 as an example of an ‘individual use of the timeless Aorist’ (1989:
237). Fanning, by contrast, classifies it as a proleptic aorist (1990: 269-70).
15. Fanning 1990: 126-96; see also Silva 1993 who is critical of both Fanning and Porter for
assuming there must be an ‘invariant’ part of a verb which is overridden by other factors.
388 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

counterfactual conditional: ‘if Joshua had given rest’ (i.e., Joshua did not give
rest). These instances both clearly have a past reference; in combination with
the rarity of gnomic aorists in the New Testament (Fanning 1990: 265; Wallace
1996: 507) this makes a gnomic sense less likely for kate/pausen.
Turning to the substantival aorist participle o( ei0selqw&n, matters become
more complex. It is more widely recognized that the participle does not gram-
maticalize time, certainly not in an absolute fashion, and any temporal refer-
ence is relative to the action of the main verb. As a general but not universal
rule, participles preceding the main verb tend to be antecedent to the action
of that verb, whereas those following the main verb tend to be concurrent
or subsequent; additionally, aorist participles tend to precede the main verb,
and present participles tend to follow it (Fanning 1990: 407; Porter 1989:
380-81; 1994: 188). These considerations suggest that we would expect
o( ei0selqw&n, which is both aorist and prior to the main verb, to be antecedent
to the action of the main verb; examination of the verse confirms this expecta-
tion: the action of entering rest is logically prior to the state of resting from
works.16 Furthermore, the gezera shawa argument, which brings in Gen. 2.2
to clarify the meaning of Ps. 95.11, requires that God’s rest from works is
ongoing into the psalm’s ‘Today’, that is, it continues after creation and is
not simply to be equated with the end of God’s creation work.17 In terms of
the author’s use of the aorist rather than the present, Ellingworth claims that
this is because the latter ‘would misleadingly suggest a process rather than a
punctiliar act’ (1993: 256). This is a slight overstatement, as the present parti-
ciple does not simply indicate process, nor does the aorist participle necessar-
ily indicate punctiliarity (Fanning 1990: 408-16), but, in substance, the point
holds that use of the aorist rather than the present here suggests completion.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that this is the only factor governing the
choice of the aorist here.18
What is more, consideration of Hebrews’ general usage of substantival partici-
ples may suggest that the aorist was chosen in 4.10 to imply past force. The letter
contains 33 substantival aorist participles, of which 17 are plural and 16 are singular

16. Contra Ellingworth 1993: 256 who takes ei0selqw&n to be ‘coincident action’. This point is
strengthened by the arguments of Laansma 1997 that kata&pausij should be understood as
‘resting place’.
17. Note that kate/pausen in Heb. 4.4, 8 does not have punctiliar force. In 4.4 it is best understood
as ingressive, and the same sense obtains in 4.10. On the fallacy of assuming that the aorist
always indicates ‘once-for-all’ action, see Stagg 1972.
18. Note also that when a participle is substantival—and particularly if it is used in a gnomic
sense, as Ellingworth takes it here—‘its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in
force’ (Wallace 1996: 615-16). This may suggest that the primary reason for using the aorist
is to imply antecedent action to the main verb.
Moore 389

(including the one in question here).19 All of the plural instances refer to a group
of people who did something in the past; similarly, 11 of the singular instances
refer unambiguously to the past. Of the five remaining participles, one is the case
in question, leaving four to account for. In Heb. 3.3 and 4 o( kataskeua&saj occurs
twice—first referring generically to ‘the builder of the house’, and, on the second
occasion, referring to God, ‘the builder of everything’. In the case of God, it is
clear that this refers to past action: God is ‘the one who prepared/built everything’;
but also in the case of the nonspecific ‘builder’, who is a builder because he or she
has built a house—and indeed it is precisely the relationship to the house that is in
view in 3.3. A similar argument obtains for the remaining participle, o( diaqe/menoj,
which comes twice, in Heb. 9.16 and 17. Although one might translate this as ‘the
testator’, a person can be a testator only if he or she has made a will at some point
in the past. Thus, all substantive aorist participles in Hebrews refer either explic-
itly or implicitly to the past, a consistent feature of the letter’s style, which means
that a gnomic sense for o( ei0selqw&n in Heb. 4.10 is not impossible but would be at
least unusual.20 Grammatical considerations are not decisive for or against either
interpretation, but they do give reason to favour a past sense.

Jesus, the Basis for Believers’ Rest

At this point we turn to the wider argument of which Heb. 4.10 forms a part. The
presence of the particle ga&r leads us to expect v. 10 to give the reason or cause
for v. 9.21 On the usual reading of v. 10, however, it does not give grounds for
v. 9 but rather introduces a clarification or explication of the sabbatismo&j.22

19. Substantival aorist participles in the plural occur in Heb. 2.1, 3; 3.16 (×2), 17, 18; 4.2, 3, 6;
6.4-5 (×4), 18; 11.31; 12.19. parapeso&ntaj in 6.6 might also be taken as substantival (as are
all four participles in 6.4-5, which depend on the article in 6.4, although note that a participle
does not require the article to be substantive; see Porter 1994: 183). In the singular: 3.2, 3, 4;
4.10; 5.5; 9.16, 17; 10.23, 28, 29 (×3), 30; 11.11, 17; 13.20. By contrast, present participles
that function as substantives tend overwhelmingly to have present or gnomic reference (e.g.,
2.11, 14, 18; 5.9; 7.25; 8.1, 4; 9.9, 28; 10.1, 14; 13.3, 24). They are also occasionally used
to describe past situations (e.g., 5.7; 7.6, 21; 12.20-21, 25), although this is most often with
verbs of speech, vision or e1xw. All statistical data have been obtained using BibleWorks9.
20. Backhaus 2009: 164 takes the participle as past, but sees this as a prophetic past tense,
underscoring the certainty of entering. However, the verse does not state that believers have
entered/will certainly enter rest, but rather describes the kind of rest that o( ei0selqw&n, whoever
he may be, enjoys.
21. BDAG, 189, ‘ga&r’ 1.; see also Owen 1980: IV, 333; deSilva 2000: 168.
22. Ellingworth 1993: 257 is forced to concede this meaning for ga&r here. Cf. BDAG, 189,
‘ga&r’ 2. This is a possible meaning, but more unusual. The hapax sabbatismo&j is usually
translated ‘Sabbath rest’, to underscore its connection with kata&pausij, although, given the
meaning of the cognate verb sabbati/zein, it is best understood as ‘Sabbath celebration’. See
Laansma 1997: 276-77, 279.
390 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

Yet the flow of thought runs as follows: v. 8 points out that Joshua did not give
the Israelites rest, and v. 9 says that rest remains for God’s people, a statement
which leaves open the question of how it is the case that this rest remains open
in the recipients’ present.23 If v. 10 is to provide an answer to this question, the
only way in which it can do so is by understanding kate/pausen—and thus also
o( ei0selqw&n—as a reference to past time: rest remains open because someone has
entered rest and rested from his works. Once this is established, it becomes clear
that the only available referent of this participle is Jesus. Of the three different
groups in view in chs. 3–4 (the wilderness generation, Joshua’s generation and the
audience of the letter),24 none has yet entered rest;25 the only agents of whom this
can be affirmed are God and Jesus—and as o( ei0selqw&n is compared to God, this
leaves Jesus as the only possible referent. In support of this, it can be noted that all
three aorist singular indicative instances of ei0se/rxomai in Hebrews (6.20; 9.12,
24) refer to the past entrance of Christ into the (heavenly) Most Holy Place.26
On the christological reading of v. 10, then, the ga&r has its full force: ‘for the
one who entered his rest27 (i.e. Jesus) has also rested from his works’. That is, it

23. The fronting of a)polei/petai suggests that this is the primary question left open by v. 9,
rather than the issue of what the sabbatismo&j is like. Contra Laansma 1997: 296 who thinks
the question that v. 9 raises is ‘from what do believers rest?’—yet this conflicts with his own
contention that sabbatismo&j refers not to rest but to Sabbath celebration.
24. One other possible referent has been suggested to me (at a meeting of the Oberseminar of the
Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, LMU, Munich, January 2013): the ‘faithful departed’,
possibly including the faithful generation who entered Canaan and Jesus-believers from the
community who have died (cf. Rev. 14.13). While Hebrews shows an interest in believers
who have died (e.g., Heb. 4.2; 12.23), it strongly emphasises their solidarity with the present
generation of believers and, further, their dependence on them for full perfection (11.39-40).
It therefore seems very unlikely that this group would be alluded to in Heb. 4.10.
25. Although in 4.3 we find a present tense of ‘enter’, from the wider context of the passage, and
especially 4.11 (‘make every effort to enter’), it is clear that the audience has not yet entered
the rest. Pace Lane 1991: I, 99 who takes ei0serxo&meqa in 4.3 to be a true present. O’Brien
2010: 165-66 takes it to be a futuristic present; deSilva 2000: 154-56, meanwhile, emphasises
the continuous aspect of the present tense: we are in the process of entering the rest, such that
if we continue we will indeed enter it, but if we do not, we will be debarred from entering, just
as the wilderness generation was.
26. This use of the singular is Owen’s second point (1980: IV, 333). Cf. Vanhoye 1976: 100 n. 1;
also Ellingworth 1993: 255-56, who concedes that this is ‘accurate as stated’; he goes on to
note two aorist plural constructions using ei0se/rxomai with the wilderness generation as the
subject (3.19; 4.6), but this does not explain why the author did not use a plural participle at
4.10, especially given that ‘the people of God’ are in view in 4.9.
27. This is generally taken to mean God’s rest; if the verse refers to Christ, it could be a reference
to Christ’s rest, but there does not seem to be much commending this reading—rather, the
sense is that Christ joins God in his rest. Owen nevertheless sees a reference to Christ’s rest as
both evident and central to the interpretation of Heb. 4.10 (1980: IV, 333). On the background
of the rest motif, see Laansma 1997: 17-158, and on rest in Hebrews, see pp. 252-358; he
argues that it should be understood consistently as ‘resting place’.
Moore 391

is because Jesus has completed his salvific work that rest remains open for the
people of God. Not only this, but the flow continues into v. 11, indicated by ou]n.
The urgent appeal of v. 11 is based not merely on v. 9, but on the grounds given
in both vv. 9 and 10: a Sabbath celebration remains because Jesus has entered
God’s rest, ‘therefore let us make every effort to enter that rest’.28 By way of
summary of this argument, the flow of vv. 8-11 can be set out diagrammatically:

  8 If Joshua had given them [his generation] rest, he [God] would not speak
later about another day (implication: Joshua did not give the Israelites
rest).
 9 So then (a!ra; because God speaks later about another day) there remains
a Sabbath celebration for the people of God.
10 For (ga&r; spelling out the grounds of Sabbath remaining) the one who
has entered his rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from
his (i.e. rest remains for God’s people because Jesus has entered rest,
signifying the completion of his salvific work).
11 Therefore (ou]n; on the basis of Jesus’ completed entry) let us strive to
enter that rest (i.e., referring back to vv. 9-10 and not only v. 9).29

At this point it will be helpful to give voice to an important objection: ‘it is

difficult to understand why, if the author had wished to speak of Christ’s entry
into God’s place of rest, he should not have done so plainly’.30 DeSilva suggests
that the author has given the reader enough information to read this statement
as a reference to Jesus (2000: 168); while this is true, more can be said. In v. 8
the author refers to 0Ihsou=j—not 0Ihsou=j the Messiah, but 0Ihsou=j the son of
Nun, Moses’ successor. This reference would likely have stopped readers in their
tracks—in what sense could Jesus (who is mentioned by that name twice prior
to this point in Hebrews, in 2.9 and 3.1) have given the Israelites rest?—until

28. The link between Christ’s entry into rest and believers’ entry into that same rest is
further strengthened by the intimate connection between Jesus and God’s people, who are
me/toxoi tou= Xristou= (3.14; cf. 2.10; 6.20; 12.2; on Christ’s solidarity with believers, see
McCruden 2008: 45-69, esp. 45-49). Thus it is fair to affirm that, for Hebrews, believers
will experience the same kind and quality of rest that God enjoys; however, this does not to
my mind constitute an argument for the christological reading of Heb. 4.10 (pace Vanhoye,
Andriessen and Lenglet, and deSilva).
29. Nairne 1913: 321 hints that a christological reference in 4.10 might set up the description of
Christ in 4.14-16: ‘“For he that is entered,”…of v. 10 prepares for, “who hath passed through
the heavens,” of v. 14’.
30. Ellingworth 1993: 257; Andriessen and Lenglet 1971 point out that Hebrews elsewhere
uses vague expressions for God and Christ. Ellingworth counters that Hebrews also uses
vague expressions to describe the authors of scripture, e.g. 2.6 (p. 256). On its own, this
consideration is not decisive in either direction.
392 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

they realized that the reference is in fact to Joshua, who brought the Israelites
into the Promised Land but did not actually give them rest. The ambiguity of the
name 0Ihsou=j involves the readers in untangling the author’s meaning; but this
is not merely an unfortunate side-effect of two people having the same name:
rather, the process of distinguishing Joshua from Jesus also points to the similari-
ties between the two figures. It is partly on this basis that Richard Ounsworth has
argued at length for a Joshua typology in Hebrews.31
Ounsworth notes the broad narrative similarities between the situation of
the wilderness generation poised to enter Canaan and that of the audience of
Hebrews awaiting an eschatological rest: both audiences have ‘been evange-
lized’ (Heb. 4.2), a fact which highlights the exceptional faithfulness of Joshua
and Jesus (cf. Jesus’ role in announcing salvation in Heb. 2.3). Joshua and Jesus
both exceed Moses in terms of faithfulness, and they succeed where Moses did
not, namely, in bringing God’s people into the place of rest. Dissimilarity (also an
inherent feature of typology) exists in the fact that Joshua, although he brought
the Israelites into Canaan, did not ultimately give them rest. The audience was
probably already prepared to see an analogy between Joshua and Jesus, and they
would be ‘struck anew by this identity when the name 0Ihsou=j appears at 4.8,
because of the structure and argument of this section of the Epistle’ (Ounsworth
2012: 96). If the audience thus understands Israel’s relationship to Joshua as in
some degree analogous to their relationship to Jesus, they are thereby prepared
for a reference to Jesus in relation to the present availability of divine rest.32
The similarity in wording between vv. 8 and 10 reinforces this connection, ena-
bled by the possibility of using katapau&w both transitively and intransitively:
compare ei0 ga_r au)tou_j 0Ihsou=j kate/pausen (v. 8, ‘if Jesus/Joshua had rested
them’) with kai\ au)to_j kate/pausen (v. 10, ‘he himself also rested’).33

31. Ounsworth 2012: esp. 55-97, though note that he barely discusses 4.10 and does not mention
the christological reading; cf. Vanhoye 1976: 100, who speaks of the ‘chemin ouvert…par le
nouveau Josué notre précurseur’ (emphasis original). Whitfield 2013: 247-57 also argues that
Joshua son of Nun is a model for Hebrews’ description of Jesus, and opts for the christological
reading of 4.10 (pp. 244-45, 252-53; thanks to Michael Kibbe for drawing this to my attention).
Whitfield additionally seeks to revive the view of J. Rendel Harris and F.C. Synge that Joshua
the high priest (Zech. 3) also underlies the presentation of Jesus in Hebrews. Ellingworth
1993: 256 objects that Hebrews usually makes typological comparisons explicitly.
32. 0Ihsou=j next comes in 4.14, but here the reference is clearly to Jesus, as prepared by the
present tense of e0xontej and the lengthy description, ‘a great high priest who has passed
through the heavens’. 0Ihsou=j occurs a further 10 times in Hebrews, making a total of 14
occurrences, of which all except 4.8 refer to Jesus.
33. Delitzsch 1857: 144 raises a similar objection against Ebrard (see also Gouge 1655: I, 318),
wondering why the author did not simply use ‘Christ’, in response to which it can be noted
that the use of a different name or title for Jesus would disrupt an intended comparison
between 0Ihsou=j son of Nun and 0Ihsou=j the Messiah.
Moore 393

Moreover, the comparison of God with o( ei0selqw&n, if this is Jesus, demon-

strates a further way in which Jesus the antitype surpasses Joshua the type: the
statement juxtaposes the creative works of God with the salvific works of Christ
(note that ta_ e1rga is used to refer to God’s saving acts in the quotation of Ps.
95.9 in Heb. 3.9). This, then, enables us to identify the ‘works’ with confidence,
something which defenders of the standard reading are unable to do.34 There is a
careful patterning: each party enters rest only after the completion of his specific
and deeply important task, a parallel which becomes less exact if o( ei0selqw&n
refers to believers.35
All of the above considerations together make the christological reading not
only possible but likely, and on this basis it is suggested that Heb. 4.10 ought to
be translated along the following lines: ‘For the one who entered God’s rest has
himself also rested from his works, just as God did from his.’

Rest and the Completion of Christ’s Work

The remaining part of this article aims to demonstrate the coherence of the chris-
tological understanding of 4.10 with the emphasis elsewhere in Hebrews on the
completion of Christ’s work, particularly as expressed through its use of Ps.
110.1. First, it is necessary to deal with a problem arising from Heb. 7.25. This
verse describes the ongoing intercession of the exalted Christ for his people, a
clear statement of present heavenly activity which suggests that Hebrews does
not envisage Christ as ceasing from work. However, to draw this conclusion is
to make the false assumption that rest is to be equated with cessation from activ-
ity; in fact, the biblical idea of rest on which Hebrews draws seems to imply the

34. E.g., Ellingworth 1993: 257. The noun e1rgon appears nine times in Hebrews; in 6.1 and 9.14
it refers to the dead works of humans; in 6.10 and 10.24 it is the good works of Christians. Yet
in 1.10 and 4.3, 4 it refers to the creative works of God, and in 3.9 (citing Ps. 95) it denotes
God’s salvific works among the wilderness generation; as it is Ps. 95 which gives rise to the
idea that rest remains to be entered, it is entirely plausible that the same sense obtains here.
Wray 1998: 78-79 has an excursus on ‘work’, but, like Ellingworth, remains ambiguous on
whether believers will rest from ‘dead works’ or ‘good works’ in Heb. 4.10. Cockerill 2012:
212 identifies them as ‘the “works” of one’s earthly pilgrimage’, but goes on to speak of
resting from the pressures that a Christian faces, not from the works themselves; Laansma
1997: 296-97 rejects ‘dead works’, but admits that ‘to choose between “good works” and
“toils”...is difficult’.
35. Owen notes this patterning as his fourth argument for this reading (1980: IV, 333). Note also
the conjunction of the ideas of creation and session/rest in Heb. 1.2-3. Although here the
Son is involved in the work of creating and sustaining all things, he does not sit down until
he has completed the work of providing purification for sins. Cockerill 2012: 211 notes this
patterning, though he does not ultimately opt for this reading: ‘redemption parallels creation:
just as God rested from his works of creation, so the Son has now rests [sic] from his works
of redemption… rest established by God, access provided through Christ’.
394 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

cessation of one form of activity (God’s creation, the wilderness wandering)

in favour of another (sustaining creation, living in the land), a notion which
finds support in the tradition in Jn 5.17 regarding Jesus’ work on the Sabbath
being akin to God’s continued work.36 Additionally, there is an important sense
in which, for Hebrews, Christ has finished his salvific work, and the author sees
no contradiction between this predominant emphasis and his statement in 7.25.37
Both the notion of Christ’s session at the right hand of God (Ps. 110.1) and the
recurrent emphasis on the e0fa&pac or a#pac nature of Christ’s offering (Heb.
7.27; 9.12, 26, 28; 10.10) serve to underline the completed nature of the atone-
ment that Christ has achieved.38
Turning to Ps. 110, it is well known that this is the Old Testament chap-
ter most cited in the New.39 The use of this psalm by Hebrews to establish
and interweave the ideas of Christ’s Lordship, Sonship and Priesthood has
been noted and explored.40 Psalm 110.1, which describes the enthronement of
a ‘lord’ figure, is from the very beginning of Hebrews associated with Christ’s
priestly work (1.3), and this idea is taken up and expanded later (cf. esp. 8.1-
2; 10.12-13).41 Psalm 110.4, meanwhile, is the starting point of Hebrews’

36. The issue of whether or not God works on the Sabbath was contested in the Second Temple
period. According to Jub. 2.18, God and the two highest classes of angels observe the Sabbath,
apparently while the lower classes of angels preside over creation; Philo, by contrast, holds
that God works even on the Sabbath—as the perfect Being he always rests, even when
working (Leg. All. 1.5; Cher. 87-90; Quaest. in Gen. 2.56); rabbinic solutions include the
contention that God may act as he pleases in his own private domain, or that God rests from
his work as creator but not from his work as judge. See Doering 1997: 185-86.
37. ‘In the context of Hebrews rest does not mean inactivity, since from his position of rest, the
Son sustains all things by his word (1:3) and actively intercedes on behalf of others (7:25)’
(Koester 2001: 279). A further parallel which supports this understanding is the fact that
future rest for believers will entail Sabbath celebration (sabbatismo/j, 4.9), not idleness.
38. It is important to be clear that Hebrews’ use of e0fa&pac and a#pac implies completion rather
than strict punctiliarity or singularity: on the Day of Atonement, which forms the primary
model for Hebrews’ elucidation of Christ’s death, and which is described as a#pac tou=
e0niautou= in Exod. 30.10 (LXX), Lev. 16.34 (LXX) and Heb. 9.7, the high priest entered the
Most Holy Place more than once (twice according to Philo, Leg. Gai. 306-307, once with
the blood of the bull for himself, and once with the blood of the goat for the people; other
interpreters reckoned he must have entered at least three times, first with incense, cf. Lev.
16.12-14, and m. Yoma 1.1-4; 7.4 counts four entries). See Moffitt 2011: 289-94 and passim,
who argues that the atonement should be understood as a sequence (but a finished sequence,
not an ongoing one).
39. E.g., Guthrie says that it is ‘quoted or alluded to twenty-two times’. This figure includes five
such references in Hebrews. See Beale and Carson 2007: 943.
40. See, e.g., Anderson 2001; Leschert 1994: 212-41; Loader 1978: 205-208; Wallace 2003.
41. Barnard 2012: 271-74 suggests that the motif of Jesus sitting at God’s right hand emerged
independently of Ps. 110.1 but is often manifested using that text, though he notes the
difficulty in determining the sequence of the development.
Moore 395

extensive discussion of Melchizedek.42 Indeed, these citations and allusions

are so great in number and so widely distributed throughout the letter that
George Buchanan described the whole book as ‘a homiletical midrash based
on Psalm 110’ (Buchanan 1972: xix).43
The general impression that Ps. 110 is important for Hebrews is confirmed by
a close look at the quotations from and allusions to the psalm in the letter. Psalm
110.1 is cited in Heb. 1.13, while Ps. 110.4 is cited three times (Heb. 5.6; 7.17,
21). In addition to these direct quotations, there are at least 13 allusions to the
psalm.44 Of the total of 17 citations and allusions, 6 refer to v. 1 of Ps. 110, and
11 to v. 4.
Taking these six references to v. 1, it is of note that four of them describe an
enthronement which is not simply messianic, but which contains a sacerdotal
or cultic element as well. Thus Heb. 1.3 states that ‘When [the Son] had made
purification for sins, he sat down’; 8.1: ‘we have such a high priest, one who is
seated at the right hand’; 10.12: ‘when Christ had offered for all time a single
sacrifice for sins, he sat down’; and 10.13 follows on in the same cultic context
as the previous verse. The cultic idea is of course not absent from Ps. 110, which
speaks in v. 4 of the priesthood of Melchizedek, and Hebrews intertwines and
elaborates these ideas. The implication of the association of a sacrificial con-
text with the idea of sitting down is made clear by 10.11-12, which contrasts
the Levitical priests endlessly standing at their cultic service with Christ sit-
ting down after offering his single sacrifice.45 That is, the session of Christ for
Hebrews implies not just his enthronement as Messiah, but also the completion
of his priestly, atoning work. This is seen right from the beginning of the let-
ter in 1.3. Moreover, the precise nature of that sacrificial work requires Jesus
to enter the heavenly Most Holy Place in his role of high priest, as is made

42. Primarily ch. 7, but anticipated in 5. 6, 10 and 6.20.

43. So also Stanley 1994: 253: Hebrews ‘is most fundamentally an exposition of Psalm 110:1 and
4’. As a result, he sees the psalm as the key to the structure of Hebrews; a similar application
of this thesis, though yielding different results, is the attempt by Jordaan and Nel 2010 to
discern in Ps. 110 (as a whole) the structure for the whole of Hebrews.
44. These are 1.3; 5.10; 6.20; 7.3, 11, 20, 24, 25, 28; 8.1; 10.12, 13; 12.2. I have included only
those allusions which come directly from Ps. 110, such as ‘the order of Melchizedek’, ‘for
ever’, ‘the oath’, ‘seated/sat down’ etc., not ones which are too general or could derive
from elsewhere (e.g., just ‘Melchizedek’ or ‘high priest’). I have therefore discounted the
following references: 2.9, 17; 3.1; 10.21; 12.22 (Jordaan and Nel 2010: 229); 2.5, 8; 5.5;
7.1-2, 4-10 (Stanley 1994: 251); cf. also Beale and Carson 2007: 919-95. I am aware that
the term ‘allusion’ is somewhat imprecise, as is the distinction between an allusion and a
quotation. Here I use ‘allusion’ in a relatively narrow sense to refer to actual occurrences of
words, phrases and syntax that are found in the alluded OT text. Beale and Carson 2007: xxiii
acknowledge this difficulty, yet do not go on to define allusion.
45. Note the rabbinic tradition (Gen. R. 65.21) that angels have no knee joints and thus can only
stand in God’s presence, an indication of reverence; see Barnard 2012: 77.
396 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

explicit in 4.14; 6.19-20; 9.11-12, 24. This emphasis on completion is reinforced

by Hebrews’ extensive use of e0fa&pac and a#pac to refer to Christ’s offering,
often in close conjunction with an emphasis on entrance (9.12) or with the use of
Ps. 110 (Heb. 7.27; 10.10).46 All this demonstrates that the cultic construal of the
session of Christ adds to it the idea of entrance.
With this background in place, we can return to Heb. 4.10. When this verse
is read christologically, a couple of considerations demonstrate that it is closely
parallel to the Christology associated with Ps. 110.1: the first is the notion of
entrance, which, as argued, is an essential precursor to the idea of session for
the author of Hebrews. The identification of kata&pausij as a resting place
rather than a state reinforces this connection:47 just as the ascended Christ has
entered heaven, construed as a sanctuary, so also he has entered God’s resting
place, which remains a future hope for his people. The second reason to discern a
parallel is the close match between the sequencing of both ideas. It is significant
that, just as rest follows works (of salvation), so Christ’s session follows the
completion of his sacrificial work of purification.48 This patterning was high-
lighted above: in the context of ch. 4, God’s rest on the seventh day followed his
works of creation, and Jesus’ rest followed his works (of salvation), just as else-
where in Hebrews Jesus’ session follows his sacrificial work. Once this parallel
is noted, Hebrews’ creativity with regard to the idea of ‘sitting at the right hand’
is revealed: in addition to developing the concept of a cultic session in contrast
to the ongoing, standing service of the priests, the author associates this priestly-
messianic session with the concept of rest, which is achieved by the prophetic
leader figure of the new Joshua.

Conclusion: Rest, and the Rest of the Letter

It remains to draw out the implications of the reading advocated in this article.
The christological reading of Heb. 4.10 brings closer together the two ideas of
entering God’s rest and entering the Most Holy Place. Some proximity between
these is generally admitted by most commentators; thus, for example, Koester

46. More than the rest of the NT put together; the only other places this term is found to describe
the death of Christ are Rom. 6.10 (e0fa&pac) and 1 Pet. 3.18 (a#pac). See n. 38, above, on the
background and connotations of this term.
47. Laansma shows that the local meaning of kata&pausij is prominent in the LXX. Combined
with the context of Heb. 3–4 and the evidence in postbiblical Jewish literature of expectation
for a future resting-place, this strongly suggests that kata&pausij should be understood
locally; sabbatismo&j, by contrast, is the activity or state which occurs within that resting
place (1997: 17-158, 252-358, esp. 276-83).
48. ‘This emphasis on completion fits well with what the pastor will say about Jesus’ session as
evidence that his saving work is complete and sufficient (10:11-14)’ (Cockerill 2012: 211).
This is very well put, though Cockerill ultimately opts for the usual reading of 4.10.
Moore 397

states that ‘the motif of God’s people sojourning in the desert is one of the three
great cycles of images in Hebrews, along with entering the sanctuary and journey-
ing to Zion’ (2001: 262). Such a statement is uncontroversial so far as it goes, but
leaves open the possibility that these ‘cycles of images’ are no more than that—
three figurative aides which are juxtaposed but not related to each other. Yet if
Jesus has entered the true rest, which Canaan foreshadowed, before and on behalf
of his people, then it transpires that the rest motif is saying something which will
be re-expressed later in terms of Jesus entering the true sanctuary, of which the
tabernacle was a ‘shadow’ (8.5), before and on behalf of his people. Although not
dependent on the parallel with Ps. 110.1, this association is strengthened by that
connection, given that Ps. 110.1 elsewhere is used to describe the completion of
Christ’s cultic work. It is not that these ideas are identical, but that the striking
similarities in their patterning suggest that they both provide a window not merely
onto God’s salvific action, but onto his salvific action through Christ.49
This brings us back to Wray’s contention that rest remains only a theological
metaphor within Hebrews, and that it is not connected with Christ. At one level,
Wray’s conclusion that the concept of rest in Heb. 3–4 is largely ‘theocentric and
anticipatory’ is uncontroversial: Christology is not overly prominent or devel-
oped in Heb. 3.7–4.13. Nevertheless, Christology is present; indeed, it would be
surprising if Christ were far from the thoughts of either author or audience, given
the extensive and exalted Christology found in the sections that precede and
follow the exposition of Ps. 95. This article has shown that there is significant
evidence suggesting that, in addition to Heb. 3.14, one other reference to Christ
can be discerned in 4.10, with the implication that rest does become christocen-
tric towards the end of this section of Hebrews. Yet this reference is not simply
a ‘christological connection’; it is rather a christological foundation, introducing
Christ as the basis for the Sabbath rest that remains available to God’s people.

References
Anderson, D.R.
2001 The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (Studies in Biblical Literature; New
York: Peter Lang).
Andriessen, P. and A. Lenglet
1971 De brief aan de Hebreeën (Het Nieuwe Testament; Roermond: Romen).
Attridge, H.W.
1989 The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Her-
meneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

49. This lends substance to the intuition of Attridge 1989: 128: ‘The Christians’ “entry into rest”
parallels Christ’s entry into the divine presence and in fact their entry is made possible by his’.
On the proximity of these motifs, see also Ounsworth 2012 and Calaway 2013.
398 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

Backhaus, K.
2009 Der Hebräerbrief (Regensburger Neues Testament; Regensburg: Friedrich
Pustet).
Barnard, J.A.
2012 The Mysticism of Hebrews: Exploring the Role of Jewish Apocalyptic Mysticism
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT, 2.331; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson
2007 Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids. MI:
Baker Academic; Nottingham: Apollos).
Braun, H.
1984 An die Hebräer (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament; Tübingen: Mohr).
Buchanan, G.W.
1972 To the Hebrews (2nd edn; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Calaway, J.C.
2013 The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and
its Priestly Context (WUNT, 2.349; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Cockerill, G.L.
2012 The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Delitzsch, F.
1857 Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer, mit archäologischen und dogmatischen
Excursen über das Opfer und die Versöhnung (Leipzig).
deSilva, D.A.
2000 Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the
Hebrews’ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Doering, L.
1997 ‘The Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees’, in M. Albani, J. Frey and
A. Lange (eds.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ, 65; Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck): 179-205.
Ebrard, J.H.A.
1850 Biblischer Commentar über sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 5.2. Der
Brief an die Hebräer (Königsberg: Unzer).
Ellingworth, P.
1993 The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Fanning, B.M.
1990 Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford Theological Monographs;
Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Gouge, W.
1655 A Learned and Very Useful Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews:
Being the Substance of Thirty Years Wednesdayes Lectures at Black-fryers, Lon-
don (London: Printed by A.M., T.W. and S.G. for Joshua Kirton).
1866 A Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews: Being the Substance of Thirty
Years’ Wednesday’s Lectures at Blackfriars, London (Edinburgh: James Nichol).
Moore 399

Grässer, E.
1990–97 An die Hebräer (3 vols.; EKK; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchener).
Guthrie, G.H.
1994 The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis (NovTSup, 73; Leiden:
Brill).
Johnsson, W.G.
1978 ‘The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-century Scholarship’, ExpTim 89: 104-108.
Jordaan, G.J.C. and P. Nel
2010 ‘From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews’,
in D.J. Human and G.J. Steyn (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception
(London: T&T Clark): 229-40.
Käsemann, E.
1939 Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Koester, C.R.
2001 Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 36; New
York: Doubleday).
Laansma, J.
1997 ‘I will give you rest’: The ‘Rest’ Motif in the New Testament with Special Refer-
ence to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT, 2.98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Lane, W.L.
1991 Hebrews (2 vols.; WBC, 47; Dallas: Word).
Leschert, D.F.
1994 Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s
Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms (NABPRDS, 10; Lewis-
ton, NY: Edwin Mellen).
Loader, W.R.G.
1978 ‘Christ at the Right Hand: Ps 110:1 in the New Testament’, NTS 24: 199-217.
McCruden, K.B.
2008 Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(BZNW, 159; Berlin: De Gruyter).
Moffitt, D.M.
2011 Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (NovT-
Sup, 141; Leiden: Brill).
Moule, C.F.D.
1959 An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd edn; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Nairne, A.
1913 The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark).
O’Brien, P.T.
2010 The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
400 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(4)

Ounsworth, R.J.
2010 ‘Pro&dromoj u(pe\r h9mw~n ei0sh~lqen 0Ihsou=j (Hebrews 6.20): The Soteriology of
Christ’s Entry into the Heavenly Sanctuary in Relation to Joshua’s Entry into the
Promised Land’ (DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford).
2012 Joshua Typology in the New Testament (WUNT, 2.328; Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck).
Owen, J.
1980 An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Reprint of the 1855 edn [London:
Johnstone & Hunter]; ed. W.H. Goold; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Porter, S.E.
1989 Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and
Mood (SBG, 1; New York: Peter Lang).
1994 Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd edn; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Richardson, C.A.
2012 Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in
the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT, 2.338; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Sabourin, L.
1973 Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Leiden: Brill).
Silva, M.
1993 ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect’, in D.A. Carson and S.E.
Porter (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Cur-
rent Research (Sheffield: JSOT Press): 74-82.
Stagg, F.
1972 ‘The Abused Aorist’, JBL 91: 222-31.
Stanley, S.
1994 ‘The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives’, TynBul 45: 245-71.
Vanhoye, A.
1963 La Structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer).
1976 La Structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux (2nd edn; Paris: Desclée de
Brouwer).
Wallace, D.
2003 ‘The Use of Psalms in the Shaping of a Text: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 in
Hebrews 1’, RestQ 45: 41-50.
Wallace, D.B.
1996 Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Weiß, H.-F.
1991 Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK, 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Whitfield, B.J.
2013 Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4 (BZNW, 194; Berlin: De
Gruyter).
Wray, J.H.
1998 Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of
Truth: Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (SBLDS, 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press).