Tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn in Hebrews 3,5 95 categorization tends to support the view that there is indeed a thematic role which is being played by the word. God is presented as “speaking in the prophets” in six places: in 2,2 (the speaking of the Law through angels); in 4,8 (the speaking of David in Ps 95); in 7,14 (the speaking of Moses as regards the tribe of Judah; in 11,4 (the speaking of Abel’s blood as a witness to faith); and in 11,18 (the speaking of God in scripture as regards Isaac as the vehicle of the fulfillment of God’s promise of offspring to Abraham). Four occurrences may be listed immediately under God “speaking in a son”: in 2,3 (an explicit attribution to “the Lord” of “speaking”) and in 12,24 and 12,25 (in connection with the “speaking” of Christ’s blood). In 5,5 God is pictured as “speaking” at the moment of the son’s resurrection through the use of citations from Ps 2,7 and Ps 110,4. Here the Old Testament words have a New Testament meaning. God is introduced as speaking not explicitly “in” a son but “with regard to” (prov") a son. The wording of the texts themselves indicates that God is speaking “to” a son, and thus, by implication, “in” what is happening to the son. Four occurrences remain to be accounted for. In 2,5 and 6,9 the author of the epistle appropriates the use of lalevw in using it with reference to his own “speaking”. In 2,5 he relies on the authority of a citation from Ps 8 which he introduces by means of the word diamartuvresqai, a word which has a connotation of divine authority independently of the one citing it (11). In 6,9 he uses the present tense to indicate that he is continuing the discourse which he had pronounced in 5,11–6,8 (12). Now, in 6,9-28, he assumes a positive tone, by giving his encouraging opinion about a contingent fact – that the addressees will choose what is better for themselves. But he uses the authoritative verb lalevw to make this statement about a contingent fact, something which he realizes is beyond his competence as an authoritative spokesman whose duty is to present the sureties of faith. Hence the apologetic tone conveyed by eij kai; ou{tw". He can present an explanation of the oJmologiva on the basis of his personal authority because that is what he is authorized to do, but his personal conviction about the future conduct of the addressees does not entitle him, strictly speaking, to use a statement based on such authority. It is all part of his use of literary convention in order to encourage the addressees (13). But where does the author of Hebrews get the authority which he seems to have on this reading of his appropriating lalevw to himself? An answer seems to be given by the third use of lalevw as yet unaccounted for: 13,7. There lalevw is used of the “leaders” of the addressees who “spoke” to them the “word of God” (to;n lovgon tou' qeou'). This expression is usually taken as legw (cf. BAUER, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, §3 [col. 942]). Thus the string of the v various forms of levgw in Heb 1,5.6.13 can probably best be interpreted as continuing a “speaking” “in a son”. Cf. Heb 5,5 where the word lalevw is used with Ps 2,7 with regard to the son, and the following psalm citation is introduced by levgei. (11) H.-F. WEIß, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KKNT 13; Göttingen 151991) 193-194. (12) ELLINGWORTH, Hebrews, 329. (13) Cf. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 174-175 for information about the conventions involved but apart from the present writer’s interpretation involving lalevw.