under his feet. In this way, the promise for humanity latent in Ps 8 was fulfilled.
49. There were Jewish legends of a refusal of the angels to worship Adam in the Garden. Hebrews shows no acknowledgement of this, however, making it speculative to propose that the worship of the risen Son (a new Adam) is intended specifically as a response to that legend.
2:1–4
“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge.”
Context
The first in a series of exhortations, 2:1–4 does several things. It allows the audience to settle back into their seats after that remarkable beginning to the sermon while at the same time it bracingly summons them to greater attentiveness. It begins to make explicit what this teaching must mean for life even as it adds to the teaching. Again, if we take 1:5—2:18 as a single thread of thought, then 2:1–4 does much the same thing that 5:11—6:20 is going to do: The sermon will begin a topic (in the later passage it will be an exposition of Ps 110:4), pause for a warning, and then continue with the same theme but on a different plane. In both cases what is said before the warning lays a foundation for what is to be said after.
It is well that the student of this letter glance ahead to the coming warnings (5:11—6:12 and those within 10:19—12:29) to gauge the seriousness of the situation of the readers and the urgency of the preacher’s concerns. In that light the relative gentleness of this first warning can be appreciated while its restrained power is also heard. It is evident that this is a pastor. He is not out to make a point. He is out to win the lives of people he loves, and he wishes not to lose their attention but rather to gain it.
The internal argument of 2:1–4 is made up of two Greek sentences: Firstly, we have the exhortation proper (v. 1), which is not a command but an assertion of what is necessary. Secondly, this is given support (vv. 2–4) by another artfully rounded sentence such as was used in 1:1–4 (called a period). This simple structure involves, however, a number of rationales for the exhortation: It begins with therefore, alluding back to all that precedes. It gives a result to be avoided (so that we do not drift) as well as a basis (for since the message . . . ). Finally, vv. 5–18 supplies a further basis when it begins with for (= ESV’s Now).
Therefore we must pay attention
so that we do not drift
For (if the message spoken was firm) how will we escape
neglecting such a great salvation
which (having been first spoken through the Lord) was confirmed by those who heard
God himself testifying
Background
Firstly, beginning here we notice that the writer’s strategy is less one of translating the gospel into the story of their Italian lives than of translating their lives into the story of the Abrahamic promise. This strategy—so effective rhetorically and theologically—is in part why it is difficult for us to reconstruct their situation. For our reconstruction see the introduction to the commentary.
Secondly, most twenty-first-century readers of this commentary will not doubt that God spoke and founded the new covenant in Jesus, but evidence for that historical event will have been lacking for the original readers who are coping with the costs of faith. As if anticipating the new covenant text itself (8:7–13) the writer uses the language of legal confirmation and witnesses at this point, establishing the reliability of the word proclaimed to them. God has spoken and the new covenant has been confirmed. The need for the writer to do this is a matter of this church’s history. The institution of the new covenant itself is an historical event of the first magnitude.
Thirdly, it is evident that this church has heard at least some of the story of Jesus’ life such as we have it in the Gospels (e.g., 2:3, 8–9, 14–18; 5:7–8; 6:1, 6; 7:13–14; 12:1–3; 13:12). He wishes for them to hold this history before their eyes along with the Scriptural witnesses.
Fourthly, we must speculate to some extent on the origin of the tradition that the law was mediated through angels (2:2). The original accounts of the Pentateuch made no mention of angelic mediation though Ps 68:17 hints at angels attending God as he ascends from Sinai to the temple mount in Jerusalem. Reference can also be made to Deut 33:2; the Hebrew is ambiguous but the LXX’s rendering made the presence of angels explicit. Jewish traditions, however, took angelic involvement in the giving of the law for granted (e.g., Jub. 1:27; 2:1, 26; 5:1–2; Josephus, A.J. 15.5.3 [possibly]; CD 5:18), as did Paul (Gal 3:19)50 and Stephen (Acts 7:38, 53; cf. Herm. Sim. 8.3.3). It is possible that allusions such as that to the angel of the Lord at the burning bush (Exod 3:2) and the angel God sent before the people (Exod 14:19; 23:20–33; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16) were partially in mind, insofar as they make explicit the presence of angels in the history of the exodus within which the law was given. It might be that the cosmic phenomena surrounding the giving of the law on Mount Sinai were later associated with the “angels of the elements.”51
Comments on Wording
2:1 pay much closer attention to what we have heard. “Attentiveness” involves both growing understanding (cognitive aspects) and embodied, social involvement (behavioral aspects), just as “faith” will be interchangeable with obedience (e.g., 3:16–19); see 5:11–14. What the preacher will be teaching is latent in what they have already heard and confessed so that they are to be faulted for not having discovered these things. There is no benign inattentiveness.
drift away. The nautical image can have the sense of drifting away from a mooring or by one’s intended anchorage. Even passive neglect in the face of clear warnings amounts to positive rejection; later passages will mention more active rebellion (3:7–11; 6:6; 10:26–31), either as a general possibility or as realized by at least some. Here and elsewhere the writer envisages just two possibilities: a process of growth or one of apostasy.
2:2 the message declared by angels proved to be reliable. See above for the tradition, and see on 1:5–14 for what this signals about the relationship of the covenants that were both spoken by God.52
every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution (cf. 10:28). These punishments themselves belonged to the shadows and patterns of the drama of the Son’s salvation (8:5), indicating the ultimate consequences of the speech of God in the Son (see on 12:25–29).
2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? The greatness of it, that it is salvation, and its inescapability are all indicated in 1:1–14, but it is the exposition to come that will fill all of these out. After that is completed another version of this warning is given in 12:25–29, which see. The term for ignore, neglect could be a softened characterization of what was in fact their more open affront but it is more likely a rhetorically understated way of getting at the immense danger of even neglect. It might be objected that the idea of just recompense, which was just invoked in v. 2, would require a penalty no greater than divine “neglect.” This would misunderstand both the seriousness of despising the blood of the covenant (10:29) and the seriousness of divine neglect.
was attested to us by those who heard. The term for attested is a cognate of the term used for binding in v. 2; they both have legal connotations. The gospel of the new covenant—effected by Christ’s offering (9:1–28)—was duly confirmed by the apostolic witness (cf. 1 Cor 1:6; 11:23; 15:3; Phil 1:7), with God himself bearing witness (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 1:4–7;
