¹ While RSV has ‘We are sharing in Christ’, NEB reads ‘We have become Christ's partners’, and NAB, ‘We have become partners of Christ’. NJB translates ‘We have been granted a share in Christ’, and NIV, ‘We have come to share in Christ’. Instead of ‘sharing in Christ’, I prefer to translate ‘partaking’ or ‘participant in Christ’. The reason is because ‘to share’ has a wider sense that may or may not include the connotation of likeness between the partaker and that in which one partakes. For quotations I regularly use the RSV except for the translation of μἐιτοχοι in 3.1, 14 and υπόοταις in 3.14, which I translate ‘determination’. For the former, I follow substantially H. W. Attridge's commentary The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 106 and 117–18Google Scholar. For the translation of the latter I am indebted to Hollander, H. W., ‘$$$υπο´οταις’, EWNT 3 (1983) 972–3Google Scholar; and Attridge, , Hebrews, 118.Google Scholar

² Spicq, C., Notes de lexicographie néotestamentaire. Supplément (Fribourg, Suisse: Éditions Universitaires, 1982) 2, 555–8.Google Scholar

³ Westcott, B. F., Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980) 84–5.Google Scholar

⁴ Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (MeyerK 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 189.Google Scholar

⁵ Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964) 68.Google Scholar

⁶ Braun, H., An die Hebräer (HNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1984) 96.Google Scholar

⁷ Michel, O., Hebräer, 189.Google Scholar

⁸ Attridge, H. W., Hebrews, 117–19Google Scholar. Commenting on Heb 3.1, he says that ‘the terminology of participation … has, at least in this context, some of the connotations associated with the Platonic notion that things in the material world of change and decay have their reality by “participation” in an ideal realm’ (Hebrews, 106).

⁹ See: Plato, Phaedo 100D; Parm. 129–131. Aristotle (Metaph. 1.6.3–4) equates the Platonic concept of μepsilon;τοχη with the υι´υοις of the Pythagoreans.

¹⁰ See: Hanse, H., ‘μepsilon;τοχη’, TDNT 2 (1968) 830–2Google Scholar; Attridge, , Hebrews, 106, 117–18.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hebrews does use the concept of shadow (σκια, 8.5; 10.1), but applies it to the Old Testament in relation to the New in order to bring out the temporary nature of the Mosaic institutions, designed to prepare Christ's accomplishment by which believers partake in the permanent and unshakable reality of the heavenly realm.

¹² No book or major article has been published on the concept of community in Hebrews since P. Teodorico da Castel monograph, S. Pietro's, La chiesa nella Lettera agli Ebrei (Torino: Marietti, 1945)Google Scholar. This is an area that awaits an updated research. Teodorico draws his plan on the categories of classic systematic theology and works extensively with patristic interpretation. He discusses the following issues: (1) images of the church; (2) her teaching office; (3) her sanctifying role; and (4) her administration. Dealing with the images of the church, his main concern is whether they refer to the earthly or to the heavenly community. In these contexts, he sees in the, μἐιτοχοι of 3.1, 14 an indication of the doctrine of mystical body in Hebrews and emphasizes with the majority of the Fathers the idea of vital union between Christ and believers, without any mention of a possible philosophical connotation.

¹³ Vanhoye, A. in Prêtres anciens, Prêtre nouveau selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1980) 105–8Google Scholar argues with good reason that the name that Christ received as superior to the angels finds the best expression in that of ‘high priest’.

¹⁴ See: Mark 9.37; Matt 10.40; 15.24; Luke 10.16; Gal 4.4; and John 3.17, 34; 5.36; 6.29, 57; 7.29; 8.42; 10.36; 11.42.

¹⁵ See Vanhoye, A., Prêtres, 117–18Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See: Aalen, Sverre, ‘“Reign” and “House” in the Kingdom of God’, NTS 8 (1962) 215–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and D'Angelo, M. R., Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS 42; Montana: Scholars, 1979) 83–9Google Scholar. The statement that the builder of the house is greater than the house (3.3) is essential for the argument that Jesus is superior to Moses. Hence, pace Attridge (Hebrews, 110) I think that Hebrews assumes that Jesus is the builder of the house.

¹⁷ See S. Aalen, ‘Reign and House’, 233–40.

¹⁸ Concerning $$$ὸỳογία, see: Castelvecchi, J., ‘La homologia en la carta a los Hebreos’, Ciencia y Fe 19 (1963) 329–69Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., ‘Das Bekenntnis in Hebräerbrief’, ThBl 21 (1942) 56–8Google Scholar; Michel, O., Hebräer, 172–4Google Scholar; Hofius, , ‘$$$ὸ$$$ογία’, EWNT 2 (1981) 1255–63.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Hebrews does not refer to the mission of the church to preach the word of salvation to non-Christians. Rather, it is concentrated on strengthening the community in the faith received with an emphasis laid on dissuading believers from returning to a Mosaic levitical system.

²⁰ See: Gal 3.26; 4.5–7; Rom 8.14–17; Eph 1.5; Titus 3.5; John 1.12; 1 John 3.1.

²¹ Associated with participation in Christ is participation in the Holy Spirit (μἐτόχο;υς… $$$πνepsilon;ὑματ;οςὰγιου, 6.4). For, in the Pauline tradition, which is resounding here, the bestowal of divine sonship results from the gift of the Spirit (Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6).

²² See: Matt 25.34; Luke 22.29, 30; 1 Cor 6.9–10; Gal 5.21; Eph 5.5; Rev 3.21.

²³ Heb 3.5; 8.5; 9.9; 9.23–24; 10.1.

²⁴ For the thesis that identifies the community of Hebrews with a conservative Jewish Christian group see: Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953) 159–84Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., Hebrews, XXIII–XXXGoogle Scholar; Dahms, J. V., ‘The First Readers of Hebrews’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977) 365–75Google Scholar; Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P., Antioch & Rome (New York: Paulist, 1982) 151–8.Google Scholar

²⁵ Shortly before finishing this paper, I found a brief article on the priestly character of the church in Hebrews: Moe, A., ‘Der Gedanke des allgemeinen Priestertums in Hebräerbrief’, TZ 5 (1949) 161–9Google Scholar. I agree with it with qualifications; for instance, its contention that $$$τἐỳἐιῷσαι in Hebrews is a technical term meaning ‘to consecrate’ cannot be proved. On the concept of ‘perfection’ in Hebrews, see: Peterson, D., Hebrews and Perfection (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982) 26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Attridge, , Hebrews, 83–7.Google Scholar

²⁶ Heb 13.10 has been a prominent text in the discussion of whether there is a reference to the eucharist in this letter. In it, the mention of the altar of sacrifice refers most probably to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Yet the image of eating seems to allude to a celebration in which the benefits of the sacrifice are appropriated. Furthermore, the image of eating seems to hint more at the eucharist than at baptism. In confirmation of this, the text implies a frequent practice of eating which is less congenial with the baptismal celebration. See: Michel, O., Hebräer, 499–503Google Scholar; and Strobel, A., Der Brief an die Hebräer (NTD 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 249.Google Scholar

²⁷ While the sense of ‘confidence’ usually attributed to ὺπόσταοτς does not seem to have certain support in the LXX or in the secular Greek, the sense of ‘determination’ or ‘resolution’, connected with ‘enterprise’ and coupled with ‘audacity’, fits with the use of the word in secular Greek (Polybius, , Hist. 4Google Scholar.50.10 and 6.55.2; Thucydides, Hist. 1.144.4; Josephus, Ant. 18.1.6) and in Paul (2 Cor 11.17; see: 11.21; and 10.2). Furthermore, applied to Heb 3.14b, ‘determination’ suits well the meaning of the parallel phrase of 3.6b, in which ‘boldness’ and ‘pride’ are emphasized. See on this: Koester, H., ‘ὺπόσταοτς’, TDNT 8 (1972) 571–88Google Scholar; Hollander, H. W., EWNT 3. 972–3Google Scholar; and Attridge, , Hebrews, 118–19.Google Scholar

²⁸ See: Feuillet, A., ‘Premiers-nés. Nouveau Testament’, DBS 8 (1972) 498–500Google Scholar; and Michel, O., Hebräer, 464–5.Google Scholar

²⁹ Spicq, Thus C., L'épître aux Hebreux (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1977) 210.Google Scholar