Pneuma In Hebrews: Prophet And Interpreter

by Martin Emmrich

Martin Emmrich is a teaching fellow in NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary and adjunct professor at Eastern University and Reformed Theological Seminary (Washington, DC).

I. Introduction

There are three passages in the epistle to the Hebrews where the author has the Holy Spirit speak through scriptural texts (3:7–11; 9:6–10; 10:15–17). His pneumatology in these pericopes evinces some rather unique concepts that we shall try to develop in this article. Two of the texts deal with the (Spirit’s) citing of the LXX (3:7–11; 10:15–17). The third passage (9:6–10) does not feature an actual quotation. Here the Spirit functions as the interpreter of Scripture, in that he reveals the true significance of Yahweh’s tent of meeting and the sacerdotal service on the day of atonement.[1] The texts will be treated in corresponding order.

Before we can appreciate the Holy Spirit’s function in the respective passages, the author’s (in some ways) unique use of quotations should be elucidated. First of all, it has virtually been ignored that quotations in Hebrews (give or take a few, depending on what criteria are employed to identify them)[2] are almost always instances of divine utterances (1:5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8–9, 10–12, 13; 4:3, 7; 5:5, 6; 6:13–14; 7:21; 8:8–12; 10:37–38, etc.).[3] Conversely, when the author activates a text that does not consist of direct speech (such as narrative prose, cf. 3:1–6; 7:1–19) he prefers to retell or paraphrase the biblical account rather than to quote the text.[4] As is the case in 3:7 and 10:15, scriptural citations in Hebrews are introduced by words expressing diction. So, in the words of Markus Barth, the author

… refers to what “He says,” is “saying,” “said,” or to what “is said” (1:6; 2:12; 1:5; 3:15, etc.); also the verbs “testify,” “swear,” “reveal,” “blame,” “converse,” “command,” “promise” are used (2:6; 10:15; 6:13; 7:5, 8; 12:5, 20, 26). The present tense is preferred to the past tense, active forms to passive.[5] 

References to written sources, as frequently found in other NT documents (cf. Matt 2:5; 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 20:17; John 19:24; Rom 14:11; Gal 3:13, etc.), are “conspicuously absent from Hebrews.”[6] Moreover, since citations come from all parts of the tripartite canon (Pentateuch, Prophets, Writings), the author seems to view the Hebrew Scriptures as a monolithic and authoritative whole. All this clearly demonstrates that throughout the epistle the writer has brought to bear more or less methodically (but certainly consistently) the initial motto of God speaking ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων (“in these last days,” 1:2). Scripture is thus invested with an “oral and immediate character.”[7]

II. Exegesis

1. Heb 3:7–11

The quotation from Ps 95:7b–11 (LXX 94:7b–11) is introduced by the words διό, καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (“therefore, as the Holy Spirit is saying”). Viewed against the backdrop of the above facts, 3:7–11 (and so also 10:15–17) could be considered a citation “typical” for Hebrews, except that it is the πνεῦμα ἅγιον that speaks. That Ps 95:7–11 still qualifies as an instance of divine speech is evident from 3:15 and 4:3, where the words are presented as God’s utterance.[8] Because of the subordinate role of the Spirit in Hebrews[9] it is appropriate to suggest that God speaks through the Spirit as his agent of speech.[10] However, the Holy Spirit is by no means relegated to the status of the human mouthpieces that are (very rarely) named in the letter (4:7; 9:20; 12:21).[11] In the case of God speaking ἐν Δαυὶδ (4:7), the human penman is mentioned only because it was crucial for the author to direct the readership’s attention to the fact that David wrote the admonition of Ps 95:7–11 μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον, that is, long after the occupation of the promised land. Moses’ speech cited in 9:20 (Exod 24:8) also appears for the sake of supporting the main argument. Hebrews 9 contrasts the insufficient mode of sacrifice under the levitical system with the superior sacrifice of the New Covenant, the two arrangements being represented and inaugurated by blood through Moses and Christ, respectively. Moses, therefore, is named as the voice of Exod 24:8 because he functions as the anti-type of Christ and his inaugural blood within the framework of this synkrisis.[12]

Upon closer examination it becomes evident that the names of human speakers only are relevant as part of the author’s line of argument. Even more so, David and Moses are specified as voices from the past. They do not directly address the readers, rather, their words are quoted to fulfill a certain exegetical function. But when the Holy Spirit speaks the reader hears the divine viva vox that confronts head on in the here and now. The Spirit takes the divine speech from Ps 95 and “reprocesses” it in accord with the audience’s present needs. Consequently, the emphatic σήμερον (“today,” 3:7), the opening to the quotation from the Psalm, should be understood as the equivalent of ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων (“in these last days”).[13] As such the Spirit’s recycling of the oracle becomes an eschatological event of the first degree (i.e., tantamount to God speaking in the “last days”).

Some commentators have seen the καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον primarily as a reference to the Holy Spirit’s authorship of the biblical text.[14] Nevertheless, the language of 3:7 more specifically bespeaks the role of πνεῦμα ἅγιον as orator with a powerful eschatological thrust. In a real sense, therefore, the text of Ps 95 provides the matrix for the Spirit’s creation of a new oracle, and the warning μὴ σκληρύνητε (“do not harden,” 3:8) can now be heard as though it is issued for the very first time. The ultimate purpose for this use of Scripture is to achieve an unmediated impact on the addressees.

More or less subtle changes introduced by the author confirm our conclusions.[15] All in all, the text of the quotation in 3:7–11 differs from the text of Ps 94 in the LXX in six instances.[16] Because we cannot be sure as to the text or the version the author employed, conclusions about the cause for the differences are at best tentative. Only two divergences can be positively attributed to conscious remodeling for theological purposes.[17] These variations are found in v. 10a of the respective texts:

LXX Ps 94:9b–10a	Heb 3:9b–10a
καὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα μου (10) τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη· διὸ προσώχθισα τῇ γενεᾷ ἐκείνῃ	καὶ εἷδον τὰ ἔργα μου (10) τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη πρὀώχθισα τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ

The insertion of διό (“therefore”) connects the forty years to εἷδον (“they saw”) rather than to προσώχθισα (“I was angry”). As Kenneth J. Thomas notes, this addition is interpretative:

This use is obviously intentional since the author later, in iii.17, connects the phrase with προσώχθισεν as in the original text. Through this change τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη is related to τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ (iii.18) to form a parallelism equating ‘day’ and ‘forty years’.[18]

As a result, the distinguishing characteristic of the forty-year period is now Israel’s experiencing God’s gracious interventions on behalf of the nation (καὶ εἷδον τὰ ἔργα μου, “and they saw my works”), rather than God’s anger over Israel’s persistent rebellion. This textual addition serves the overall argument in that the length of Israel’s opportunity of witnessing God’s salvific activity heightened their responsibility to believe in God’s promises and persevere on the trek to the holy land. Thus, the emphasis on the period of grace puts Israel’s sin into perspective, which in turn is intended to elicit a renewed commitment on the part of the readership in view of the tokens of grace they have experienced (cf. 2:1–4; 6:4–6).[19] In this case, then, the Holy Spirit’s change of the wording (i.e., the author firmly believed the change he made was altogether willed by the Spirit) has created a different meaning and so re-presents the speech of Ps 95 as a new oracle that transcends its original context. It is in this sense that we must understand the notion of “the Holy Spirit is saying.”

The other possible interpretative change in the quotation concerns the substitution of ταύτῃ (“this”) for ἐκείνῃ (“that”). Now, Judith H. Wray claims that τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ (“this generation”) “appears to be standard Christian usage, appearing twenty-three times in the NT, while τῇ γενεᾷ ἐκείνῃ [‘that generation’] is not to be found in the NT canon.”[20] Besides the fact that her count is inaccurate (αὔτη as a qualifier of γενεά does in fact occur 21 times in the NT), a closer examination of the respective verses reveals that this conclusion is in need of revision. Wray fails to account for the fact that outside the gospels the NT only features two additional references to the said phrase (Heb 3:10; Acts 2:40). All the other occurrences are concentrated in the synoptics, that is, to be precise, in Jesus’ teachings (Matt 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 7:31; 11:29, 30, etc.). Here the use of αὔτη as a near demonstrative is conditioned by the immediacy of Jesus’ appeal to his audience: “this generation” is the preferred form of reference to a present group of people.[21] Thus, to speak of “standard Christian usage” tends to cloud the issue. There is no evidence that in the case of Heb 3:10 the change was introduced simply because it would have been natural for the author to use αὔτη in lieu of ἐκείνη. Nor is there any precedence for the claim that the septuagintal τῇ γενεᾷ ἐκείνῃ “would have sounded strange to the ears of those who heard this sermon.”[22] After all, the addressees were probably quite familiar with the language of the LXX (the author certainly was!), where the crucial phrase is by no means a hapax legomenon (cf. Judg 2:10; Jer 8:3).

Thomas has suggested that the substitution of ταύτῃ for ἐκείνῃ serves as a reminder of Jesus’ harangues against the scribes and Pharisees as “this generation” (cf. Matt 23:36).[23] “Such an echo of Jesus’ words strengthens the OT quotation, used … as a warning against unbelief.”[24] Whether or not the language has been coined to conjure up reminisces about Jesus’ use of “this generation” may be left undecided. Nonetheless, I think the change does serve to move the audience closer to the line of fire, so as to prepare the way for directly applying the severe warnings of Ps 95 to the listeners.[25]

In summary, καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (“as the Holy Spirit is saying”) and the following citation from Ps 95 introduces the Holy Spirit as the voice of God. The words of the LXX text are reused and changed in such a way as to create a “new word from God.” In part, this act of recycling the oracle is built on the appropriation of the citation’s initial word σήμερον (“today”). 3:13 (ἄχρις οὗ τὸ σήμερον καλεῖται, “while it is called today”) indicates that the term has been raised from its original context to generate a virtual pneumatic speech act. The function of the Spirit as orator is thus presented in decidedly eschatological terms. The Spirit’s exhortation to the wandering people of God is an eschatological event and shows that the author viewed the πνεῦμα θεοῦ in his appropriation of Scripture as the prophetic Spirit operating no longer through human instrumentality (i.e., a prophetic figure), but solely on the basis of the use of Scripture.

2. Heb 10:15–17

The second citation from the Jewish Scriptures attributed to the Holy Spirit is introduced by the words μαρτυρεῖ δέ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (“and the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us,” 10:15a). Interestingly, (parts of) both quotations (i.e., 3:7–11; 10:15–17) take an alternative form in that the speaking subject switches to God (cf. 3:7–11, 15; 4:3 & 8:8–12; 10:15–17). Is there a reason why citations that otherwise could be (and in fact are) associated with God speaking are proclaimed through the agency of the Spirit? So far, only Werner Bieder has attempted to afford an explanation in regards to the shift in our text (10:15–17):

Kapitel 8 steht in einem vor allem christologisch heilsgeschichtlichen Rahmen, während in Kapitel 10 die Bereitschaftserklärung des zur Inkarnation bereiten Christus zu den Exhortationen in 10:19ff. führt, die das Leben im Neuen Bund voraussetzen. Das Leben des Neuen Bundes beruht aber auf der Vergebung der Sünden (10:18), und es ist der Heilige Geist, der dieses Leben auf Grund der Vergebung der Sünden gibt und gewährleistet. 

(Chapter 8 is above all couched in a christological, redemptive historical framework, while Christ’s affirmation in chapter 10 … leads to the exhortations in 10:19ff., which assume the life of the New Covenant. But the life of the New Covenant is based on the forgiveness of sins … and it is the Holy Spirit who affords this life… .)[26]

However, the epistle never categorically states that the “new life” is imparted by the Spirit. One may applaud and defend Bieder’s proposition on the basis of the tenor of other early Christian texts (cf. John 3:5–8; 2 Cor 3:6, 17–18), but the author of Hebrews does not commit himself in this way. Rather, God is the one who changes and so gives life in a salvific sense (cf. 8:10–12). So while it is true that our passage deals with what the author calls “New Covenant” and that the New Covenant (at least in one sense) rests on the forgiveness of sins, Bieder’s conclusion that the Holy Spirit heads the quotation in 10:15-17 because it is he who gives life lacks specificity. Instead, another, perhaps more cogent explanation can be afforded.

As we said earlier, quotations in Hebrews predominantly show God as the speaking subject (cf. 1:5–13; 5:5–6; 11:18; 12:26; 13:5, etc.), sometimes Christ (cf. 2:12–13; 10:5–7), and only twice the Holy Spirit. Oftentimes oracles are cited to invite the reader to “listen in on a dialogue between God and the Son” (cf. 1:5–13; 2:12–13; 5:5–6; 10:5–7).[27] On the other hand, direct divine address (i.e., first person) to the community is notably attenuated in the author’s use of the LXX.[28] It is here where he prefers to bring the Spirit into focus. We already saw in 3:7–11 how the author has the Holy Spirit approach the audience through the text of Ps 95. The phrase μαρτυρεῖ δέ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· (10:15a) likewise indicates that what is following is to be read as a direct address (ἡμῖν, “to us,” quotation involving the use of the first person) to the audience. In contrast to this, the longer quotation from Jer 31:31–34 in 8:8–12 has God as the speaking subject, and it does not enter the text as a formal speech to the community: μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς (“for finding fault with them”) λέγει (“he says,” 8:8a).[29] Only in one instance (13:5) God is entertaining a dialogue with the addressees.[30] The words “I will never leave you, I will never forsake you” (Deut 31:6) promise God’s abiding presence among the pilgrims as an incentive for faithful perseverance. It would have been tantamount to defeating the very (and only) purpose for this quotation to have it mediated by what “the Holy Spirit says,” rather than introduced by the emphatic αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν (“for he himself says/has said”). Hence, apart from 13:5, we can discern the author’s tendency to have direct speech to the audience (quoting scriptural texts) delivered by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit’s role as the eschatological orator (cf. above under 3:7–11) is thus taking on sharper contours.

As we take a closer look at the citation from Jer 31:33–34, we note first of all that the author uses the words he ascribes to the Holy Spirit as a confirmation (hence: μαρτυρεῖν, “to bear witness, to confirm”) of a claim that is not directly made in the quoted text: ὅπου δέ ἄφεσις τούτων, οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας (“where there is forgiveness of these [i.e., sins], there is no longer a sacrifice for sin,” 10:18, cf. 10:14). The author took the liberty of reading the covenantal language of Jer 31 in cultic and sacrificial terms. The prophetic oracle has also been appropriated via textual changes.[31] There are four variations from the LXX text of Jer 31:33–34 (cf. 8:10–12), but only two of them have relevance for our study.

The change from “the house of Israel” (LXX Jer 31:33) to “with them” (πρὸς αὐτοὺς, 10:16) has clearly been governed by the author’s concern to actualize the oracle: πρὸς αὐτοὺς parallels the ἡμῖν (“to us”) in the quotation formula and allows for a more direct textual application to the readers than is the case in 8:8–12. In 3:7–11, the other oracle attributed to the Holy Spirit, a very similar effect has been achieved through the substitution of “this generation” (3:10) in place of “that generation” (LXX Ps 94:10). Again, it is noteworthy that besides 13:5 only these two recycled speeches in Hebrews have been upgraded in such a way as to draw the readers into the text and to create a quasi dialogical atmosphere.[32] As we have noted, the author tendentiously prefers to involve the Holy Spirit as viva vox when God thus engages the readers; textual alterations appear to be part and parcel of the Spirit’s activation and appropriation of biblical oracles.

Thomas suggests that the “exchange of phrases ἐπὶ καρδίας [‘on the hearts’] … ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν [‘on the mind’] from εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν [‘into the mind’] … ἐπὶ καρδίας [‘on the hearts’] in 10:16 appears to have been for the purpose of bringing νόμους [‘laws’] and καρδίας [‘hearts’] together.”[33] Thus, following Kistemaker’s analysis,[34] he argues that the exchange of these phrases is due to the importance of the terms νόμος and καρδία in ch 10 (cf. 10:1–10) and chs. 3–4 (cf. 3:12; 4:12), respectively. To this we may add that, apart from 8:10 and 10:16 (where the use of the noun is dictated by the text of Jer 31), διάνοια simply has not found its way into the epistle’s vocabulary. The author’s word of preeminent choice in describing humankind’s (more precisely: the readers’) innermost being throughout the epistle is καρδία (cf. 3:8, 10, 12, 15; 4:7, 12; 8:10; 10:16, 22 [2 times]; 13:9).[35] For him, to have God’s law as the focal point of the preceding pericope (10:1–10) written on the hearts (and not “minds”) of the addressees (10:16) appears to have been the more natural alternative in the Holy Spirit’s unmediated affirmation to the audience.[36] In other words, the author’s decision (if a conscious decision was involved at all) to have the phrases trade places could also have been motivated by the quotation’s quality (or function) as the Spirit’s speech to the listeners. As a byproduct, the exchange has generated an inverted literary parallelism (i.e., a-b-b-a pattern).[37]

3. Heb 9:6–10

This pericope is preceded by a brief discussion of the make-up and furnishings of the Mosaic tabernacle (9:1–5), mostly based upon Yahweh’s directions for the manufacturing of the tent and its inventory recorded in Exod 25–26. At 9:6 the emphasis shifts to the priestly functions within the tabernacle, in particular to the high priest’s entry into the inner sanctuary on the day of atonement (cf. Lev 16). Here the author singles out the two main points (as he sees it) that make this ritual associated with the tent blameworthy. First of all, the way into God’s presence (i.e., the inner sanctuary) was restricted to the annual occasion of the high priest’s service in the act of the “remembrance of the (people’s) sins” (cf. 10:3).[38] Secondly, the atoning ritual failed to bring about decisive purgation for the sinner(s), since the scope of its efficaciousness was limited to δικαιώματα σαρκός (9:10), that is, external aspects of cleansing.

Based upon the foregoing ideas (9:7)[39] and the presupposition that the earthly tabernacle was an antitype of the celestial one (cf. 8:2), the author credits the Holy Spirit for revealing the truth that prior to the advent of Christ there was no free and unimpeded access into God’s presence (9:8). Moreover, v. 9 makes clear that these stringent levitical precautions pertaining to entrance into the inner tent are symbolic for the “present time.”

Πνεῦμα ἅγιον thus makes his appearance as scriptural ἑρμηνεύς, the “revealer of secrets.” Hegermann sees the Holy Spirit in 9:8 as “Sprecher der an Mose ergangenen Kultweisung” (“speaker of the cultic prescriptions for Moses”).[40] But, for the sake of specificity, this idea lacks textual support and fails to appreciate what is in the forefront of the author’s mind, namely, to underscore the exposition’s (9:8–10) character as eschatological revelation.[41] The eschatological drive of the assertion derives retroactively from the emphatic Χριστὸς δέ in 9:11: it is only in the light or on the basis of Christ’s coming that the secret has been divulged.

The Spirit’s interpretation of the texts dealing with the tabernacle is by no means a matter of course. The conclusion that the architecture and the temporary cultic validity of the portable sanctuary somehow entailed a “not yet” (μήπω, 9:8) in regard to the disclosure of the “way into the holy place” is not obvious and can only be drawn via this pneumatic rendering of Scripture.[42] As is clear from other NT documents, the verb δηλοῦν (“to show”) is a suitable choice for conveying this notion of disclosure of something formerly concealed (cf. 1 Cor 3:13; 1 Pet 1:11–12; 2 Pet 1:14).[43] The use of δηλοῦν in Heb 9:8 serves to bring out the character of the Spirit’s exposition as a revelation to the audience. This disclosure of the deeper import of Scripture is an inherently eschatological one, inasmuch as it builds on the reality of the Christ event (cf. 9:11).

The meaning of the “present time” (9:9) and its relation to the “time of reconstruction” mentioned in 9:10 (cf. καιρὸς διορθώσεως) is of special interest for us. Two main approaches have crystalized in the more recent exegetical tradition. Some view the “present time” as referring to the present new age (cf. 8:13) inaugurated by Christ’s coming. Robert H. Smith, for example, believes that the author “might be saying that the old cult, for all its faults and limitations, is … a faint echo of eternal verities.”[44] These “eternal verities” have now been established, so Smith, by Jesus’ exaltation. Most scholars who follow this view juxtapose the “time of reconstruction” (9:10) with the “present time” (9:9).[45]

Again, others view the “present age” as the equivalent of ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως (“this creation,” 9:11), representative of the old order, resulting in a contrast between the former phrase and the “time of reconstruction.”[46] It is perhaps symptomatic of the weakness of these somewhat conflicting approaches that proponents of each view claim to detect in the language of 9:9–10 “the Jewish apocalyptic doctrine of the two ages, widely attested in the NT.”[47] Yet, as a matter of fact, the word αἰών, elsewhere in Hebrews used to express this notion (cf. 6:5; 9:26), is notably absent from either of the phrases under discussion. Moreover, posing a contrast between the old order (“present time”) and the “time of reconstruction” in terms of the latter having superseded the former[48] tends to cloud the issue. It is true, 6:5 clearly indicates that the writer saw the “power of the coming age” as having already intruded into the experience of the community. But with this he also inherently acknowledges that in some sense the turn of the αἰῶν has not yet been realized: the advent of Christ has inaugurated the διαθήκη καινή (“New Covenant,” 9:15), but falls short of bringing about the age of consummation; the latter remains a future expectation. I would therefore suggest to understand the “present time” as the “time of reconstruction” (the two phrases being synonymous) without importing the idea of the turn of the age(s) into this section’s language.[49] Form the author’s perspective the “present time” coincides with the “last days” (ἐσχάται αἱ ἡμέραί (1:2), and Christ’s advent occurred “at the end of the ages” (ἐπὶ συντελεί́ τῶν αἰώνων (9:26). Nonetheless, “the last days” as much as the “end of the ages” technically form the conclusion or final phase, yet not the termination, of the present dispensation, or, if I may say so, the old order.[50]

So the “present time” as the “time of reconstruction” has both covenantal as well as eschatological quality. Viewed in this light, the Holy Spirit’s function as the medium of revelatory interpretation of Scripture is part and parcel of the διόρθωσις (“reconstruction”). For the christological understanding of theLXX’s cultic regulations initiated by the Spirit serves the purpose of conducting worship that tallies with the eschatological situation the readers found themselves in. As such, the Spirit contributes to the “reconstruction.”

Summarizing our findings thus far, the author’s conception of the Holy Spirit’s use of Scripture entails two fundamental ideas, namely, oration and interpretation. Πνεῦμα ἅγιον operates as the divine orator, engaging the audience in a dialogue which originates from the quotation of an oracle (3:7–11; 10:15–17). The Spirit’s address to the community through the biblical text is so immediate that the recycling of the text creates a new oracle that can now be heard as though it had been uttered for the very first time.[51] Moreover, the pneumatic speech(es) to the wandering people of God is (are) decidedly eschatological in thrust. We noted that the author’s tendency to have such direct address mediated by the prophetic Spirit without human instrumentality: the Spirit himself now assumes the role of the prophets who used to deliver the divine oracles “to the fathers” (cf. τοῖς πατράσιν, 1:1).

But the author of the epistle also viewed πνεῦμα as the revealer of interpretative secrets (9:6–10).[52] Again, this use of Scripture is implicitly eschatological, since the impetus for this kind of pneumatic interpretation derives from the historical reality of Christ’s advent. The Spirit’s agency in the (christological) interpretation of Scripture is thus an aspect of the “(end-)time of reconstruction.”

III. Synthesis

How do these concepts square with the author’s contemporary pneumatological traditions? To begin with, the literature of the intertestamental period and beyond (i.e., Rabbinic documents) evinces a strong tendency to depict the Spirit as the source of invasive inspired speech, including prophecy and praise (although the Spirit as the source of wisdom, guidance, and special insight is equally, if not even more, common).[53] However, most of the descriptions of the prophetic Spirit’s activity relate to the distant past. As is evident from 1 Macc 4:46 (cf. also 9:27; 14:41)[54] and Josephus’s Apion 1.41,[55] the view that the prophetic Spirit had “ceased” with the last prophets was known not only to the tannaitic Rabbis.[56] On the other hand, the Spirit’s recycling of oracles in Heb 3:7–11 and 10:15–17 qualifies as prophecy (a prophetic speech act) and as such lacks any concrete parallels outside of the NT, where we find frequent references to the “revival” of the Spirit of prophecy (cf. Acts 2:17–18; 19:6; Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 11:4ff.; 13:9; 14:3ff.; Rev 19:10). But even among these references, our texts from Hebrews distinguish themselves. Prophetic activity, so far as it is mentioned in the NT, still involves some form of human instrumentality, while the author of Hebrews has the Spirit himself as the prophetic orator deliver the oracle(s) to the community. Perhaps the closest parallels to our texts are found in the Rabbinic literature. Here too utterances of the Holy Spirit take the form of oration: “The Holy Spirit cries (רוה הקודשׁ צווחת) and says (ואמרה), ‘But the eyes of the wicked shall fail, and they shall not escape …’ “ (Exod. Rab. 15:15, quoting Job 11:20).[57] “The Holy Spirit cries, ‘I hate the congregation of evildoers’ “ (Num. Rab. 15:21, quoting Ps 26:5).[58] “The Holy Spirit came forth and said to him, ‘Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a joyful heart; for God now accepts your works’ “ (Num. Rab. 17:2, quoting Eccl 9:7).[59] The dialogical aspect of the pneumatic speech act is specially pronounced in Sifre Deut. 355:17, a commentary on the Mosaic blessing (Deut 33:24–29):

O Jeshurun, there is none like God, riding through the heavens to help you, through the skies in his majesty. The ancient God is a refuge, a support are the arms everlasting … And the Holy Spirit says, ‘Happy are you, Israel, who is like you’ [Deut 33:29]. And the Israelites say, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’ [Deut 6:4]. And the Holy Spirit says, ‘And who is like your people, Israel, a unique nation in the earth’ [1 Chr 17:21]. The Israelites say, ‘As an apple tree among the trees of the wood …’ [Cant 2:3]. And the Holy Spirit says, ‘As a lily among thorns’ [Cant 2:2] …[60]

The above texts demonstrate that the unmediated oratorical function of the Holy Spirit, particularly characterized by the use of Scripture, was well known among the Rabbis. But they cannot claim any eschatological focus, which evidently governs the quotations in Heb 3:7–11 and 10:15–17. Rabbinic texts introducing the Holy Spirit as orator are in essence “windows into the past,” since they are mainly designed to afford special insight into various events in the history of Israel. In this sense, the Spirit does not engage the current audience as he does in our passages in Hebrews.[61] Rabbinic texts also reveal a certain “disregard” for forms: scriptural language in pneumatic speech acts is borrowed from virtually every genre irrespective of whether a text features direct discourse or not, whereas the author of Hebrews, based upon his maxim “God is speaking,” uses quotations of direct speech almost to the point of precluding any other canonical text form.[62] As we have seen, this notion is even heightened in the two passages where the Spirit addresses the community.[63]

The Holy Spirit as the revealer of (interpretive) secrets—and thus dispenser of wisdom—as manifested in Heb 9:6–10 is a concept that boasts many parallels in the literature of the Hellenistic period.[64] To begin with, the apostle Paul prayed for the bestowal of the Spirit as πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως (Eph 1:17),[65] which (at least in part) is a reference to the Spirit’s revelatory capacity in the interpretation of Scripture.[66] He also saw the Spirit as a teacher of spiritual matters leading the community to the discernment “of all things” (ὁ δέ πνευματικὸς [i.e., “the one aided by the Spirit”] ἀνακρίνει [τὰ] πάντά, 1 Cor 2:15). 1 John 2:27 too underscores the Spirit’s function as teacher in assuring the epistle’s readers that τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων καὶ ἀληθές ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ψεῦδος. The “anointing” most certainly denotes the Holy Spirit,[67] and his role as διδάσκαλος would have to include instruction through biblical insights.[68]

Outside of the NT canon, Sir 39:6–8 affords a very eloquent attestation to the idea of Spirit-induced interpretative sapience:

If the great Lord wills, he [the interpreter] will be filled with the Spirit of understanding (πνεύματι συνέσεως ἐμπλησθήσεται); he will pour out his words of wisdom (ἀνομβρήσει ῥήματα σοφίας αὐτοῦ) … He will direct his counsel and knowledge, and he will reflect upon his [God’s] hidden things (ἐν τοῖς ἀποκρύφοις αὐτοῦ διανοηθή- σεται); he will make known the instruction of his teaching, and he will glory in the law of the Lord’s covenant.

The latter remark indicates that “hidden things” as the object of the scribe’s contemplation are to be associated with things that are hidden “in the law of the Lord’s covenant.” These deep mysteries are revealed to the seeker through the interpretative aid of the “Spirit of understanding.”[69] A comparable notion of pneumatic insights is seen in Philo’s claim of being able to solve exegetical enigmas of the sacred texts through the “invisible Spirit” (πνεῦμα ἀόρατον) speaking to him via an inner voice (Som. 2.252). The same idea is expressed in Cher. 27, where the deeper meaning of Torah is said to be revealed to him by the “echo” (cf. ὑπηξεῖν) of the voice of the divine Spirit. Josephus too attributed higher interpretative insights to the sphere of the Spirit: Daniel’s prowess to interpret accurately the elusive writing on the wall of King Belshazzar’s palace (cf. Dan 5:1-30) is due to the inspiration of τὸ θεῖον πνεῦμα (Ant. 10.235–39).[70] Another conspicuous testimony to the concept can be adduced from Wis 9:17: “Who has known your counsel (βουλή), except you gave wisdom and sent your Holy Spirit from on high?” The term βουλή implies the written will of God, because v. 18 claims that men who were so endowed were “taught the things that are pleasing” to God. Such teaching has to be related to the inscripturated divine will.

As is apparent from 1 QS 5:9, revealed interpretive insights were essential to the identity of the Qumran community, and in 1 QH 20:11–13 the Holy Spirit is (at least implicitly) accredited for the conveyance of special insights: “… I have listened faithfully to your wondrous counsel (לסוד פלאכה) by your Holy Spirit. You have opened within me knowledge (דעת) in the mystery of your insight (ברז שׁכלכה) …”[71] This revelation of God’s hidden wisdom communicated through sapiential terms can hardly be divorced from scriptural instruction, even though the Qumran writings, unlike Heb 9:6–10, evince no explicit association between the Holy Spirit and interpretation.[72] On the other hand, special exegetical insights were viewed among the Qumran sectarians as part and parcel of their eschatological identity (which cannot be maintained for other extra-biblical sources),[73] very much like the authors of the NT saw themselves as the custodians of new scriptural insights. In Heb 9:6–10, as in other NT text, this eschatological spin, of course, is entirely christological, and in this sense the Spirit-inspired interpretation of the LXX distinguishes itself from Qumran exegesis.

In summary, the author’s pneumatological perspective in connection with the Spirit’s use of Scripture can be conceived in terms of unmediated charismatic (i.e., prophetic) utterances of the Holy Spirit, since the texts we have examined in this article (3:7–11; 10:15–17) exhibit a strong dialogical character. Even though this remarkable dialogical nuance is less clear-cut in 9:6–10, the Spirit’s interpretation of tabernacle-related texts indicates that the author of Hebrews saw the Holy Spirit as being engaged in leading the community into profound christological insights that were communicated ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων. Thus, the Spirit’s revealing of interpretive secrets can be categorized as an additional aspect of this intimate “end-time dialogue.”

Notes

1. To be sure, the Spirit’s quoting the Hebrew Scriptures also entails interpretation. Yet, the meaning of the text is transformed primarily by placing it in a new context, rather than to recount (not quote) an event or the description of an object (i.e., the tabernacle) in order to elucidate its significance.
2. Scholars have tallied the number of citations in Hebrews from 29 up to 35. See Simon Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Van Soest, 1961), 16.
3. Pamela M. Eisenbaum’s recent study is the first to draw attention to this feature of the epistle (The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 92). For the author of Hebrews, God is also speaking in those quotations of direct speech where the speaker is referred to in the third person (cf. 1:6, 7, “he says;” 4:3, “as he said;” 13:5, “he himself has said,” etc.). The same is true for quotations following a passive verb of speaking (cf. 7:17, “for it is testified”). In three instances it is Christ who speaks through/in citations (2:12, 13; 10:5–10). All in all, there are only three “real” exceptions to the “rule,” namely 13:5 (cf. also 13:6 quoting Ps 118:6 [117:6] as the confession of the Psalmist), 2:6–8 (Ps 8:5–7) with its ambivalent formula διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις (“but somewhere someone solemnly testified,” cf. 4:4), and Moses’ inaugural words quoted in 9:20 (Exod 24:8).
4. Heb 4:4 (“And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” quoting Gen 2:2) and 11:5 (Enoch was “not found because God translated him,” quoting Gen 5:24) are the only exceptions. In the latter case the quotation is so brief and yet so loaded with essential information that it is difficult to imagine how Enoch’s translation and his “not being found” could have been retold without inflating the account. Instead, because the author was here looking for short but salient examples of how the “ancients gained approval” (cf. 11:2), he broke with his tendency to avoid quoting biblical narrative and conveniently introduced the terse remark from Gen 5:24 about Enoch’s departure. The words from Gen 2:2 (in Heb 4:4), which too do not constitute direct discourse, may have been imported into the author’s work for lexical purposes, namely to explain the meaning of κατάπαυσις (“rest”). As is clear from context, the promise is held out in terms of “rest” as the noun of the concluding phrase of the governing quotation from Ps 95:7–11. The quotation of Gen 2:2, then, serves as a “definition” of the crucial noun. On this point see HaroldW. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 24.
5. Markus Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper (ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder; New York: Harper, 1962), 53–78, 59.
6. Ibid., 58.
7. Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 99.
8. Interestingly, Heb 10:15–17, the second quotation by the Holy Spirit ( Jer 31:33), also takes on the alternative form of a direct word from God (Heb 8:8–12).
9. Cf. Herbert Braun: “… πνεῦμα [ist] für Hb also unzentraler als bei Paulus” (An die Hebraër [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1984], 51).
10. Mathias Rissi, Die Theologie des Hebraërbriefs (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), 32.
11. Heb 12:21 can be neglected in our discussion as a very minor exception to the avoidance of calling attention to human authorship/speech. The quotation consists of only two words (ἔκφοβός ἐιμι, “I am terrified,” Deut 9:19) and, as Eisenbaum rightly argues, “is present for no other reason than to make the scene at Sinai more vivid” ( Jewish Heroes, 96 n. 22).
12. Synkrisis is a technical term in Greek rhetoric. It denotes a comparison of two representatives of a type. This rhetorical device is common in the NT, cf. John 1:17; 1 Cor 10:1–4; 2 Cor 3:7–16. Cf. Christopher F. Evans, The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Williams’s Trust, 1988), 5–6.
13. After all, λέγει (“he says”) carries the present tense, with the force that the Holy Spirit is speaking now.
14. Cf. Frederick F. Bruce with respect to 3:7: “The Holy Spirit is viewed as the author of the OT revelation …” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 95 n. 23; cf. also Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990], 63; Ceslas Spicq, L’E´ pître aux He´breux II [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1952], 72; Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of the Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament [London: Heythrop, 1976], 125).
15. To say that the author is responsible for the changes in the text does not contradict the claim that the Spirit is speaking. Rather, because the author claims the Spirit as the speaker, the alterations are also understood to be willed by the Spirit. In fact, they thus are the Spirit’s alterations.
16. For a detailed description and analysis of these discrepancies see Judith H. Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth—Early Christian Homiletics of Rest (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 64–66. LXX Ps 94:7–8, 11 show absolute agreement with Heb 3:7–11; only Ps 94:9–10 differs from the text as quoted in Hebrews.
17. Some of the (alleged) changes have been attributed to the author’s aesthetic preferences. For example, the shift from εἴδοσαν (LXX Ps 94:9b) to εἷδον (3:9b) could have been introduced to create rhyme with ἑ͂ιπον (3:10). Cf. Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 65.
18. Kenneth J. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” NTS 11 (1964–65): 303- 25, 307; cf. also Hans J. B. Combrink, “Some Thoughts on the Old Testament Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Neot 5 (1971): 22-36, 30.
19. Cf. Harald Hegermann, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988), 94.
20. Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 65.
21. Indeed it would seem rather awkward for a speaker to face his audience and yet to address them as “that generation.” At the very “best,” this could qualify as an insult.
22. Wray, Rest as a Theological Metaphor, 65.
23. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” 307.
24. Ibid., 307.
25. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 218.
26. Werner Bieder, “Pneumatologische Aspekte im Hebräerbrief,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte (ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972), 251–59.
27. Cf. Barth, “Old Testament,” 62. Barth also notes that, unlike the Son, the Holy Spirit never engages God in a dialogue.
28. There is in fact only one instance of such direct address: αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν, οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω (“For he himself has said, ‘Never will I leave you,’ “ 13:5). For a discussion see below.
29. Here the text of Jeremiah 31 fulfills the didactic function of explaining why a κρείττονός διαθήκης (“better covenant,” 8:6) had to supersede the Mosaic arrangement.
30. The word “dialogue,” of course, assumes a restrictive meaning. There is a sense in which the entire letter represents a divine-human dialogue (cf. 1:2).
31. In 8:8–12 the author follows the LXX text. As Thomas indicates, “here is conclusive evidence that he knew the original text yet chose variant wordings to suit his purposes” (“The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” 310).
32. In 13:5 it is the change in person that effects this dialogical nuance: [κύριος ὁ θεός σου] οὐ μή σε ἀνῇ οὔτε μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ(LXX Deut 31:6) shifts to the first person (οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ’ οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω, Heb 13:5) and thus converts the encouragement into a direct address to the readership. “The Lord your God will never leave you nor forsake you (LXX Deut 31:6)” becomes “Never will I leave you …” (Heb 13:5).
33. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” 311.
34. Kistemaker, Psalm Citations, 129.
35. Upon occasion, πνεῦμα (4:12; 12:9, 23) as well as ψυχή (4:12; 6:19; 10:39; 12:3; 13:17) are used to refer to the spiritual aspect of the human being.
36. Accordingly, the author saw no need to change the LXX text in 8:10, since here the citation from Jer 31 does not serve as a direct speech “to us” (ἡμῖν, 10:15). Rather, the quotation formula reads μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς (τὸν οἷκον ‘Ισραὴλ) λέγει (“for finding fault with them, he says,” 8:8). William L. Lane’s proposition that the alteration of διάνοια (“mind”) and καρδία (“heart”) “shows that both words are synonymous terms related to the center of an individual’s interior life,” while generally sound, tends to ignore the author’s preference for using καρδία in the above mentioned sense (cf. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 [Dallas: Word, 1991], 268).
37. We know from other texts in the NT that writers used this technique for aesthetic purposes. Cf. Rev 1:16; 2:1: ἔχων ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀστέρας ἑπτὰ … κρατῶν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ (“having in his right hand seven stars … holding the seven stars in his right hand”); 12:12; 13:1, 11: οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν … ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης … ἐκ τῆς γῆς (“Woe to the earth and the sea … out of the sea … out of the earth”).
38. Of course, the text refers only to inadvertent sins (ἀγνοημάτων, 9:7). Leviticus 16 does not qualify sin as committed in ignorance (cf. περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 16:5). In fact, Lev 16:21 relates the atoning rituals to “all the lawless deeds … and all the unrighteous practices and all the sins” of the Israelites. The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the author, well familiar with the regulations of the Pentateuch, applied the Torah’s fundamental distinction between inadvertent and deliberate sins (which were generally not covered by atoning rituals, cf. Num 15:27–31) to the prescriptions of Lev 16. He thus inferred that “all sins” cannot be taken in an absolute sense, since this would imply an apparent contradiction with texts that put a limit on the efficacy of sin offerings. Rabbinic sources evince a similar approach (cf. t. Yoma 5:6; 8:9). Weiss suggests that ἀγνόημα (“sin committed ignorantly”) substitutes the earlier ἁμαρτία (“sin,” cf. ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, “to offer sacrifice for sins,” 7:27) and is thus not restricted to sins committed “by accident.” He cites various sources for the synonymous use of the two terms (Sir 23:2; 1 Macc 13:39; Tob 3:3, cf. Der Brief an die Hebräer, 455).
39. Τοῦτο looks back to what is said in v. 7 (cf. 6:3; 7:27; 9:27; 13:17 for the same semantic function of τοῦτο in Hebrews).
40. Hegermann, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 173.
41. The word ἔτι (“while, yet”) in v. 8 has eschatological overtones, for “the author believes that he and his addressees live in a time in which the way into the holy places has in fact been opened up. The author will return to speak of the “new and living way” by which the believers have ‘entrance into the holy places’ through a quite different ‘curtain’ in 10:19–20” (David A. de Silva, Perseverance in Gratitude—A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 300).
42. On the other hand, the idea that animal sacrifices are not an adequate sacrifice for sin, so emphatically expounded in 9:11–14, is already found in the literature of the Psalms and the prophetic writings, cf. James W. Thompson, “Hebrews 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice,” JBL 98 (1979): 567-78. Walther von Loewenich was the first to develop the argument that Hebrews’ view of the levitical sacrificial system is an extrapolation of the Hebrew Scripture’s (particularly the prophetic) critique of the cultus (cf. “Zum Verständnis des Opfergedankens im Hebräerbrief,” TBl 12 [1933]: 167-72).
43. The verb also shows up in Heb 12:27. This verse features the writer’s interpretation of the prophetic oracle of Hag 2:6 in terms of the pending removal of “what can be shaken” (τῶν σαλευομένων). That the shaking of the created order implies its complete removal is not necessarily apparent from the oracle. As is the case in 9:8, the verb has eschatological overtones: it is now (νῦν) that the full extent of the promised shaking has become clear. Nevertheless, 12:27 is different from 9:8 in that δηλοῦν does not introduce a typological interpretation. Cf. Lane’s discussion on this verse (Hebrews 9–13, 481–83).
44. Smith, Hebrews (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 108; so also Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 209–11; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 301–2; Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 440–41; Hagner, Hebrews, 134; Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 250; Bieder, “Pneumatologische Aspekte,” 257.
45. Here Smith is remarkably inconsistent by assigning καιρὸς διορθώσεως (“time of reconstruction”) to the future age when God will set “all things right (cf. Acts 3:21)” (Hebrews, 108; so also Bieder, “Pneumatologische Aspekte,” 258). In my opinion, it is hardly tenable to contend from the text that the “time of reconstruction” has in fact not yet dawned. The whole argument in 9:11–14 assumes that this time already begun with Christ’s superior sacrifice.
46. So Benetreau, L’Epitre aux Hebreux 2, 73; cf. also Guthrie, Hebrews, 183; Young, “The Gospel According to Hebrews 9, ” 201–2; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 224; Spicq, L’E´ pître aux He´breux II, 254–55; Braun, An die Hebräer, 261.
47. Cf. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 440–41.
48. Cf. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 224.
49. Perhaps even the above mentioned “intrusion of the coming age” was not at all in the forefront of the author’s mind but Christ’s inauguration of the New Covenant. As I indicated, the covenantal theme does not necessarily entail the arrival of the new age.
50. Grässer holds a very similar view; he rightly stresses and seeks to preserve the tension inherent in the author’s choice of language (An die Hebräer [Hebr 7:1–10:18], 135).
51. The cumulative effects of the textual changes contribute to the creation of this new dialogical “atmosphere.”
52. The Spirit’s interpretation of the Jewish Bible can be termed “mysterious,” insofar as the truths extracted from the text are not necessarily apparent. In the case of 9:6–10 this aspect is specially pronounced: the descriptions of the tabernacle with its division into two main compartments in and of themselves do not have any predictive value. At the very least we can say that the author attributes a typological interpretative approach to the Spirit.
53. Cf. Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 112; Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts—Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996), 5–12; idem, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 86–104. Turner criticizes Menzies’s approach, in that he (Menzies) virtually refuses to see miraculous activity as belonging to the sphere of the Spirit according to the pneumatological convictions of early Judaism. Such a narrow definition of what Menzies calls the “Spirit of prophecy” (his terminology here tends to be misleading, unless “prophecy” is made to comprise aspects of the Spirit’s activity that have little or nothing to do with prophecy proper, such as wisdom, guidance) is indeed falling short of taking into account the (admittedly few) references to miraculous activity. After all, the LXX translators generally preserved πνεῦμα κυρίου as the agent of supernatural power/deeds in all those places of the Hebrew Bible where “it would have to be understood as the power of some kind of miraculous deeds” (Turner, Power from on High, 107). Given the popularity of the LXX, its readership would not have denied that miracles can also be attributed to the work of the Spirit (cf. Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; Ezek 2:2; 3:12; 8:3). So while we may note a reluctance to introduce “new” Spirit-induced miraculous phenomena in the intertestamental period, there was no denial that according to Jewish tradition the Spirit used to be associated (at least in some cases) with such events. The evidence from the Targumim concurs on this point (cf. Turner, Power from on High, 107–8).
54. Cf. also 1 Macc 3:48, which text indicates that in order to learn the divine will one had to consult written (canonical) records.
55. It is remarkable that Josephus never speaks of contemporary prophets as Spirit-inspired agent. Cf. Bieder, “πνεῦμα,” TDNT 6:375.
56. Cf. t. Sota 13:2: “When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died as the last prophets, the Holy Spirit withdrew from Israel.” On this point see Arthur Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950), 123–24; The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (New York: KTAV, 1968), 99–100; Peter Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der Rabbinischen Literature (München: Kösel Verlag, 1972), 89–111. Philo (Mos. 2.40) claims that the authors of the LXX were “not mere interpreters but hierophants and prophets to whom it had been granted in their honest and guileless minds to go along with the most pure Spirit of Moses.” But it seems that Philo’s view of the inspiration of the LXX led him to call the translators “prophets.” For him, the same degree of inspiration was at work in the making of the LXX as was the case when the prophets were first moved by the Spirit to write the Hebrew Scriptures. Some passages in the Hebrew Scriptures seem to anticipate the cessation of prophecy in Israel (cf. Ps 74:9; Hos 3:4–5; Zech 13:2–5, although this text may refer only to false prophets). Joseph Blenkinsopp suggests that the shift from Spirit- inspired prophetic guidance to the scribal activity of commentating on already existing texts began during the last decades of Judah’s monarchy (A History of Prophecy in Israel [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 227–28).
57. The quotation from Job 11:20 is activated in the context of God’s judgment on the Egyptians at the Red Sea.
58. This text from the Psalter shows the Spirit’s response to Israel’s sin in the golden calf apostasy (cf. Exod 32).
59. The Rabbis put Eccl 9:7 into the mouth of the Holy Spirit in an attempt to explain the language of 1 Kgs 8:65 (Solomon holding a fourteen day festival upon the dedication of the temple). For they held that the last day of the festival coincided with the (eighth day of the) feast of booths. Since the idea of Israel failing to observe the day of atonement on the tenth day of the month Tishri was unacceptable to the Rabbis, they had the festivities sanctioned by this utterance of the Spirit.
60. Cf. also Sifre Deut. 356:4, which shows a very similar dialogical pattern involving the Holy Spirit as interlocutor. Quite apparently, רוח הקודשׁ אמרה (“the Holy Spirit says”) could be used interchangeably with “Scripture” as the speaking subject (cf. Sifre Deut. 39:2, הכתוב אמר, “Scripture says”).
61. The Rabbinic בת קול as a “voice from heaven” (cf. b. Sabb. 30a) and its relation to the Holy Spirit is amatter beyond the scope of the present study. May it suffice to point out that the Bath Qol as a somewhat inferior agent served instead of the Holy Spirit (cf. b. Yoma 9b; b. Sota 48b). In Rabbinic literature the “daughter of a voice” is often recorded to have appeared for the settlement of various disputes (usually of a theological kind) among the Rabbis (cf. b. Sota 21a). Apparently, letters sent down from heaven were believed to serve the same purpose (cf. b. Yoma 69b; b. San. 64a).
62. It is true that the author of Hebrews evinces a “monolithic” understanding of Scripture, in that he, like the Rabbis (and other NT writers, for that matter), quotes material from all parts of the Hebrew canon. But he is consistent in choosing direct speech as his quotations, a feature not to be found in any other Jewish documents of (roughly speaking) that time.
63. It is also noteworthy that the Holy Spirit is not referred to elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures in quotation formulas. Ellingworth makes this interesting observation (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 512).
64. This perspective on the work of the Spirit is likely to have its roots in prophetic texts such as Ezek 36:26–27, which promises that the divine Spirit will teach Israel to walk in God’s law.
65. Gordon D. Fee claims that the expression “directly derives from Isa 11:2, where the Spirit who is to rest on the Messiah is further described as πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως [‘Spirit of wisdom and understanding’]” (God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994], 675).
66. It is true that the apostle’s foremost concern in Eph 1:17–23 is the experiential aspect of Christianity (cf. 1:18). However, both for the apostle as well as for his Ephesian readership, this notion would also have implied the Spirit’s working through God’s revealed will in Scripture.
67. Cf. Kenneth Grayston, The Johannine Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 78, 92–93.
68. On the role of the Spirit as biblical interpreter see Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible (Wheaton: Victor, 1994), 75–80.
69. Again, the blessings associated with the filling of the Spirit are not to be limited to scriptural interpretation, but it seems obvious that whatever insights are granted to the scribe, they are “tethered to Torah” (cf. John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 198).
70. Levison argues that “by adding the article, τό, and the adjective, θεῖον, Josephus clarifies that the spirit which inspired Daniel was the spirit of God” (Spirit in Judaism, 169). LXX Dan 5:12 has πνεῦμα ἅγιον (“Holy Spirit”) instead of Aramaic רוצ יתורה (“excellent spirit,” cf. also 6:3). While πνεῦμα ἅγιον in the LXX almost invariably denotes the divine Spirit (cf. Ps 50:11; 142:10; Wis 1:5; 7:22 [?]; 9:17; Sir 48:12; Isa 63:10, 11), there are texts from the Qumran library that use “holy spirit” with respect to the spirit of the elect (cf. 4 Q268 frg. 1, 7:4; 4 Q270 frg. 9, 2:11; these texts talk about “defiling one’s holy spirit,” an expression that probably does not depict the divine Spirit, since the covenanters could alternatively speak of “defiling oneself “ [נפשׁו, cf. 4 Q270 frg. 9, 12:11]). George Johnston traces the background of this concept to T. Naph. 10:9: “Blessed is the man who does not defile the holy spirit from God, which has been put and breathed into him, and blessed is he who returns it to his Creator as pure as it was on the day when he entrusted it [to him]” (“ ‘Spirit’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ in the Qumran Literature,” in New Testament Sidelights: Essays in Honor of Alexander C. Purdy [ed. H. K. McArthur; Hartford: Hartford Seminary Foundation Press, 1960], 27–42, 33).
71. Cf. also 1QH9:32, a text which speaks of “steadfast truth (אמת נכון)” supporting the author; the very next line praises the Holy Spirit’s involvement in his life. Here too the Spirit’s function as interpreter could have been in view: “… You have supported me with steadfast truth; you have delighted me with your Holy Spirit and [guided me] until this day.”
72. Still, as Levison points out, “for a community so steeped in the biblical tradition that truth cannot be conceived of without recourse to biblical conception and phraseology—a community in which the Holy Spirit can be a means of knowing God and God’s mysteries …, for this community, it is not difficult to envisage that biblical interpretation by authorized, learned leaders was indeed attributed to the Holy Spirit” (Spirit in Judaism, 202).
73. It was generally believed that the ancient inspired writers of the Hebrew Bible spoke of persons and predicted events belonging to the generation of the end-time era, the inauguration of which was considered to be coincidental with the formation of the desert community and the rise of the “Teacher of Righteousness.” The Teacher and a few qualified elders fulfilled the role of the God-appointed eschatological interpreter(s), being invested with the charismatic gift of revealing the unknown secrets of Scripture (cf. 1 QpHab 7:11). Cf. Michael A. Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,” in Mikra (ed. M. J. Mulder, M. E. Stone, and S. Safrai; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 339–77, 360.