Tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn in Hebrews 3,5 99 Mosaic Law which also was “validated”, i.e., just as the Mosaic Law was God’s official means of providing for the salvation of the Exodus generation, to the words spoken by Christ are God’s official means of providing for the salvation of the Christians. In 2,1-4 the context is of a word of encouragement on the basis of the son as God (1,5-14). When juxtaposed with the Mosaic Law in contrast, this allusion to the Eucharist would seem to refer to the Eucharist as the divine presence amid God’s people. Just as the “book of the Law” (cf. Heb 9,19) was the symbol of God’s presence among the people of the Exodus generation, so the Eucharist is God’s real presence (cf. Heb 13,8) among the people of the Christian generation who are engaged in their own exodus (cf. Heb 3,6–4,12) (30). A Eucharistic interpretation of Heb 3,5 would create a parallel to the Eucharistic interpretation at Heb 2,3. But the context would be Jesus as son of man, not as son of God. Just as Heb 2,3 builds on the son as divine to interpret the son as the divine presence for the Christian generation, so Heb 3,5 builds on the son as man to interpret the expiatory effects of the Eucharistic blood (cf. Heb 2,17 and Heb 9,19), effects which are made possible by the son’s blood and flesh (cf. Heb 2,14) (31). Thus the relevance of Heb 3,5 for Heb 2,13b-18 (expiation of sin based on Christ’s blood) matches the relevance of Heb 3,5 for Heb 9,20 (purification of the blood sprinkled by Moses). Finally, this interpretation of the words tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn in Heb 3,5 would illumine the use of lalei'sqai at Heb 2,3: the “speaking” in Heb 2,3 refers to God “speaking in a son” just the “speaking” in Heb 3,5 refers to God “speaking in a prophet”, with the latter speaking foreshadowing the former. * ** The present note has attempted to interpret the words tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn in Heb 3,5 in a Eucharistic sense. Four complementary approaches were suggested as a way to understand Heb 3,5: 1) the relevance of Num 12,7 [LXX] as used in Heb 3,1-6 (the author of Hebrews uses the text as the source of his vocabulary to contrast Moses and the “son”, i.e., Jesus); 2) the relevance of the thematic use of the word lalevw in Hebrews (it is used of God’s speaking “in the prophets” and “in a son”; 3) the relevance of Heb 9,19-20 (the only instance in Hebrews where Moses is said to “speak” [lalevw] is in a context in which the Eucharist is plausibly seen as being alluded to) makes a good pairing with the words of Moses in 3,5 which occur in a context in which the Eucharist is a key them); 4) the relevance of the structure of Heb 3,1–3,6 (a Eucharistic allusion at Heb 3,5 would match a Eucharistic allusion at Heb 2,3). All of this argumentation was set against the present writer’s Eucharistic interpretations of Heb 13 and Heb 2,12 previously published elsewhere. (30) The vocabulary of Heb 2,4 also conveys the idea that the Christians are engaged in an exodus which mirrors the first Exodus. Cf. ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 67. n. 60. (31) The well-known inversion of the “blood and flesh” instead of “flesh and blood” in Heb 2,14 is probably caused by the author’s desire to call attention to the role of the son’s blood in expiating sin in what follows. Cf. ELLINGWORTH, Hebrews, 171.