96 James Swetnam referring to preaching (14). The way the text is formulated indicates that the speaking of the leaders was validated in some way as being part of a tradition (15). In view of the present writer’s interpretation of the thirteenth chapter of Hebrews, this “speaking” should be understood in a liturgical sense in context of the Christian tôdâ (16). There is question in Heb 13,7 of authorized leaders, as the text makes clear. And they “speak” the word of God authoritatively. The “word of God” is here to be understood as Jesus himself, for otherwise the following verse 13,8 is an inexplicable insertion (17). Thus it would seem that the authoritative “speaking” of God has been passed on to the leaders of the community and in some sense the author of the epistle. Just why this extension of authority took place seems hinted at in 2,3-4 where “the beginning of being spoken of the salvation by the Lord” was officially validated in some way (cf. the use of bebaiovw and witnessed to by God (sunepimartureomai) (18). The author of the epistle and the leaders who speak v the word of God to the faithful are those commissioned to validate the beginning of the speaking of salvation through the Lord (19). And they can do this because they have the authority to do so. Thus Heb 2,5 and Heb 6,9 as well as Heb 13,7 can be put in the category of God’s “speaking in a son”. There remains one text for examination: Heb 3,5. 3. Lalew in Hebrews 3,5 in the Light of Heb 9,19-20 v A preliminary assessment of Heb 3,5 above in its context has led to the result that the agent of “the things which will be spoken” (tw'n lalhqhsomenwn) probably is Jesus Christ, for he is the one with whom Moses v is being compared in the passage 3,1-6. An assessment of the word lalew inv the entire epistle has led to the conclusion that it connotes the authority of God in speaking, and that this authority was shown in the old dispensation in God’s speaking “in the prophets” and in the new dispensation in his speaking (14) W.L. LANE, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47B; Dallas, TX 1991) 526-527. (15) “The formulation indicates that the leaders were a link in the chain of tradition that accounted for the reliable transmission of the message of salvation to the audience” (LANE, Hebrews 1–8, 527). (16) The detailed presentation of the Christian tôdâ, in Chapter 13 of Hebrews, must be kept in mind in all that follows in this note. The addressees presumably had not heard/read Chapter 13 when they heard/read Heb 3,5, but they certainly were aware of the tradition which the author of Hebrews presumed in writing Heb 13: it is inconceivable that they were unaware of the liturgical tradition of the faith which they professed. Cf. J. SWETNAM, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13”, Letter and Spirit 3 (2006) 159-173 and, in a shorter but clearer version, J. SWETNAM, “A Liturgical Approach to Hebrews 13”, The Incarnate Word 1 (2006) 3-17. (17) “This apparently isolated statement [sc., 13,8] has no syntactic connection with what precedes or follows; its content also seems general and unrelated to the surrounding exhortation” (ELLINGWORTH, Hebrews, 704). (18) Cf. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 65-67, for discussion of the legal language in 2,1-4. (19) ELLINGWORTH (Hebrews, 139) states with regard to Heb 2,3 that “it is significant that the author claims no distinct authority for himself”. Perhaps this failure to claim authority for himself was caused by his not needing to make such a claim. In Heb 13,17 he presumes the authority to exhort the addressees to behave as regards their leaders who, he asserts (13,7) have authority themselves. This would seem to imply that the author of the epistle had some sort of authority himself. Cf. n. 16 above.