98 James Swetnam But they refuse to pursue the matter further because they say the author of Hebrews has no particular interest in the Eucharist. The present writer begs to differ and has offered considerations regarding the Eucharist in the epistle (24). But even apart from the above considerations, which point indirectly to the words of Moses in Heb 3,5 as being compared implicitly to the words of Jesus spoken at the institution of the Eucharist, there is the immediate context of Heb 3,5 which points to Eucharist implications. This immediate context is understood to be Heb 3,1-6. As argued recently in this journal, Heb 3,1-6 has not only a decidedly liturgical caste, but a specifically Eucharistic meaning. The reason for this is the use of the words ajpovstolo" and ajrciereuv" in parallel at the beginning of the passage at Heb 3,1, and the relevance of the word ajpovstolo" to Heb 2,12 and the Christian tôdâ, as argued in great detail in the note alluded to above (25). 4. Hebrews 3,5 in the Light of the Structure of Hebrews 1,1–3,6 Considerations about the structure of the first chapters of Hebrews can also be adduced to support a Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 3,5. The framework in which the verse occurs may plausibly be viewed as follows (26): 1,1-4: exordium to the entire epistle and to what immediately follows; 1,5-14: exposition on Jesus as son [of God]; 1,1-4: paraklêsis based on preceding exposition; 2,5-18: exposition on Jesus as son of man; 3,1-5: paraklêsis based on the preceding exposition. In 2,3 there is reference to a salvation which had a beginning of “being spoken” (lalei'sqai) “through the Lord”. The present writer has interpreted these words as an allusion to the Eucharist, which had its beginning with Christ and hence is the beginning of Christian salvation (27). This “beginning of being spoken” indicates that the Christian salvation consisted in words that were uttered by Christ and heard by persons different from the author of the epistle and his addressees (persons referred to as “us” by the author of the epistle). The transmission was of such a solemn type that the author speaks of its being “validated” as it was handed on, a process which suggests tradition (28). In an epistle in which the Eucharist figures prominently a Eucharistic interpretation of a process involving a validation of tradition makes excellent sense (29). In the context of 2,1-4 the “salvation” referred to is contrasted with nur in Zusammenhang mit einer realistischen Abendmahlehre verständlich” (O. MICHEL, Der Brief an die Hebräer [KKNT 13; Göttingen 121966] 320). (24) With regard to Heb 13 cf. n. 17 above, and with regard to Heb 2,12 cf.: J. SWETNAM, “ jEx eJnov" in Hebrews 2,11”, Bib 88 (2007) 522-524 and J. SWETNAM, “oJ apostolo" in Hebrews 3,1”, Bib 89 (2008) 255-256. jv (25) Cf. SWETNAM, “oJ ajpovstolo" in Hebrews 3,1”, 252-262. This note is to be interpreted with the caution explained in n. 4 at the beginning of this note. (26) Cf. SWETNAM, “ jEx eJnov" in Hebrews 2,11”, 518. (27) Cf. J. SWETNAM, “The Structure of Hebrews: a Fresh Look”, Melita Theologica 41 (1990) 33. (28) Cf. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 67. (29) Again, cf. note 4 at the beginning of this animadversio.