James Swetnam, «Another Note on Lo/goj as Christ in Hebrews 4,12-13.», Vol. 18 (2005) 129-134
An article by the present writer in a previous number of Filologia Neotestamentaria
argued that the conventional interpretation of the lo/goj of
Heb 4,12-13 as signifying the word of God in Scripture was inadequate
because it was inconsistent with the terminology of the context, with the
imagery of the context, with the description of the context, and with the language
of the context. In contrast, to take the word lo/goj as meaning Christ
as Word resolved each of these inconsistencies. The present note situates the
proposed interpretation of Christ as Word in the context of Heb 3,7-4,11,
arguing that this preliminary passage supposes some agency to account for
the assurance of entry into God’s Rest for the People of God as such.
Another Note on Λόγος as Christ in Hebrews 4,12-13 131
rary interpretation would seem to imply that it is effective positively or
negatively, depending on the choice of the Christians. Positively, in that it
effects for them entry into God’s rest if they do not allow their hearts to
become hardened by a lack of faith-trust; negatively, in that it efficaciously
condemns them if they allow their hearts to become hardened and thus
fail to enter into God’s rest through lack of faith-trust. But in either case
the decisive element would seem to be attitude of the individual Christian
to the hardening of his or her heart through lack of faith-trust. If such is
the case, the language of v. 12 seems misdirected: it should be about the
power of human choice, not about the power of Scripture. In other words,
the contemporary reading of λόγος in Heb 4,12-13 would seem to imply
that the author is addressing each and every Christian with the implicit
warning that each and every one could enter or each and every one could
fail: it was up to them to decide by the way they controlled their heart in
the listening of the word in Scripture. In the case a Christian succeeded
in not allowing his heart to be hardened, the word would efficaciously
usher him into God’s rest; in the case he did not succeed, the word would
efficaciously note his failure.
But a close reading of the text in question would seem to indicate a
quite different interpretation.
With regard to the desert generation which perished in the desert,
there seems to be no distinction: all perished (cf. 3,16-19; 4,6). The word
of God was directed to them as a warning not to lose trust in God’s
saving presence, but they did, and the result was their failure to enter
God’s rest (cf. the citations of Scripture, which speak of failure in the
plural: 3,7b-11; 3,15; 4,3; 4,5; 4,7). Thus the threat of failure was, at least
potentially, over the group as a whole (as a matter of fact, the threat of
failure for the group materialized). But this does not seem to be the case
with the Christians. Whenever the author warns his addressees about the
possibility of failure, he does so in individual terms. Cf.: 3,12 (“lest there
be in any one of youâ€); 3,13 (“lest any one of you become hardenedâ€); 4,1
(“lest any one of you be thought to have fallen shortâ€); 4,11 (“lest any one
fall into the same pattern of disobedienceâ€). But when he speaks in terms
of positive success, he speaks of a group entering: 3,13 (“encourage each
otherâ€); 3,14; 4,2; 4,3; 4,6; 4,11. Therefore, the picture which emerges is
not symmetrical. The warning to the Exodus generation was to all on
the supposition that all could fail (and, as a matter of fact, all did fail) to
enter into God’s rest. But the warning to the Christians is to all on the
supposition that isolated individuals could fail to enter into God’s rest,
not that all as a group could fail.
But with 4,8 a new perspective comes into play. Vv. 4,8-11 stand out-
side the framing device of the warning about hardening one’s heart (4,7