371
such woman, at such a time, surely a little doubt,
a but did not take this any further as he considered
just touch of fear, would be quite natural. And if
a that our author does not work out the sombre
she had no fear we would say, quite rightly, that the
story was unrealistic.
In each one of us, there is a mixture of faith and
doubt, confidence and fear, and that is why it comes
as something of a relief to us to discover that this
woman who comes to Jesus and is commended by
him for her great faith is one in whom we can also
recognize some of our own weaknesses. Yet, in spite
of any doubts and fears which may have lingered -
and the Evangelist refers to the woman as she is
confronted by Jesus as trembling with fear - Jesus
can still say to her, My daughter, your faith has
cured you. Go in peace, free for ever from this
trouble.
1
K. Čapek, Apocryphal Stories, (London, 1949).
Hebrews 1:1-2 and the Parable of
the Wicked Husbandmen
BY MR RICHARD DORMANDY,
BA,
RIDLEY HALL, CAMBRIDGE
THE first two of Hebrews have traditionally
verses
been seen as setting up a contrast between the
prophets and the superior Son. The Son is Gods
ultimate revelation, the fulfilment of his prophetic
word.2 But although this accords well with a certain
reading of the rest of the epistle, the proposal here
will be that we should interpret the verses in a
different light. The polemical nature of Hebrews
has frequently been pointed out3 though rarely taken
much further.4 Rather, many commentators become
preoccupied with the intrinsic nobility of its
doctrine (Hughes, p. 1). But the polemical influence
is a powerful one, and can be seen to be a controlling
factor in Hebrews.
The thrust of this article is that we need to shift
the emphasis of our understanding of Hebrews 1:1-
2, seeing the verses as an appropriately polemical
prologue to what may turn out to be almost a
polemical tract. The key to this understanding is to
see the text as belonging to the same broad
traditions as the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen. Just as the writer to the Hebrews is
very much aware of the shame of Jesuss rejection,
so too is this highly polemical parable, implicating
as it does, mainstream Judaism in the rejection of
Gods final revelation to them and particularly in
the death of Jesus. Moffatt noticed a parallel,
perhaps even an allusion, to the synoptic parable,
thought of the parable (p. 5). But the connections
with the Epistle to the Hebrews are manifold,
especially in view of the latters emphasis on the
positive significance of the death of Jesus. This
Jesus, despised by his people, was subsequently
vindicated by God, and this too is emphasized both
in the parable and the epistle.5 The following
argument will suggest that there may also be a more
specific link between the parable and the first two
verses of Hebrews in particular.
To see the opening verses of Hebrews as simply
setting up a contrast between the old and the new is
not, in fact, without problems. For the weight of
New Testament thought places the Son in continuity
with the prophets, who are acclaimed and
appropriated, rather than being thought of as in any
way insufficient.6 This is not to set up a false
dichotomy between two approaches to the text, but
the point is made simply to raise our suspicions on
the traditional interpretation. Of course the missing
article in en huii5 could be emphatic in the large
tragic style (Nairne, 26) and it would be ridiculous
to suggest there was no sense of contrast or
fulfilment implicit here. Indeed, certain writers see in
this very contrast the link between parable and
epistle? But to stress this idea too much is to throw
up more problems than are solved. On the other
hand, as soon as we think of the writer of the epistle
as assuming continuity between the prophets and the
Son it is not hard to make the connection between
these verses and the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen. It is in the light of this parable, and
the traditions it was part of, that we need to
understand the opening verses of Hebrews.
The rest of this article is in three sections. The
first will attempt to justify my understanding of the
text in terms of its links with the rest of the epistle
and also with the parable. The second will suggest
that the traditions enshrined in the parable were part
of a matrix of ideas common among early Christian
congregations, and therefore not unlikely to impinge
on the writers own thoughts. The final section will
look more closely at the particular verses in
question.
I
An immediate objection to this interpretation of
the text may be that it does violence to the apparent
link between these verses and the teaching of the rest
of the epistle (Naime, lxxix, Hughes, 38).
Traditionally the epistle is seen as an original and
creative exposition of the superior priesthood of
Christ, for which his supremacy over the prophets
provides an apt introduction. But in fact this only
372
throws up the question: what is the teaching of the
rest of the epistle? Many would use Nairnes phrase
to describe it as The Epistle of Priesthood (T & T
Clark [1915] but when Jesus is first named the high
priest of our confession, in 3:1, the doctrinal basis
of this title is already assumed. It does not need to
be explained. Indeed, Vanhoye has argued strongly
for a theology of Jesuss priesthood within some of
the earliest strata of Christian thought. Spicq, too,
considered the teaching on priesthood in Hebrews to
be derivative, though more specifically from
Johannine theology.9 Thus those who look for the
origin of the theology of 1 Clement in Hebrews
alone, certainly need to look further. The writer of
the epistle is making use of established doctrine in
order to make a further point. Surely the point of
the epistle isnt simply that Jesus is High Priest, or
even that he is the great(est) High Priest.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is a polemical
apologia. Its insistent and reiterated theme is the
vindication of the despised and crucified one, the
constant implication of which is the vindication of
those despised Christians who throw their lot in with
him (cf. Schweizer, Lordship, 68f). The assertion of
supremacy, is a declaration of vindication.
The Sitz im Leben of the epistle is therefore to be
found in conflict between emerging church and
synagogue. The emphasis on confession is indicative
of this,1 while at the same time suggestive that such
conflict was widespread.l l It is not unlikely that the
writer had in mind particularly those non-Jews, for
whose allegiance Jews and Christians were vying.2
If the synagogues were ridiculing belief in this
crucified messiah, then our writer tells his readers
that the despised crucifixion is nothing to be
ashamed of (esp. 12:1-3), that the despised one has
been vindicated (Schweizer, Lordship, 73-4), that he
is the genuine fulfilment of Israel, and superior to
everything the synagogues have to offer.13 The
epistle is not therefore to be seen as an abstract
theological treatise so much as a polemical tract.
This is not to say that the writer is uninterested in
theology, for his whole argument is crucially
christological, but that we need to shift the emphasis
of our understanding of the letter.
The recipients of the letter are to be seen as
Christians, quite possibly Gentile as well as Jewish,
who are being tempted to turn, or return, to the fold
of traditional Judaism 14 The argument about who is
obedient (e.g. 3:16-18) suggests a background of
both sides accusing the other of apostasy. The
writers insistent we have (Westcott, 106), his
appropriation of the heroes of the Old Testament,
Mount Zion, and of the God of Israel (e.g. 5:7;
10:20; 13:11; cf: Neufeld, Confession, 136) amount
to an almost boastful presentation of ammunition
with which his readers can fire back at the
synagogues who despiseand persecute them. His
arguments are intended for Christians and are
deliberately offensive to Jews in their championing
of the crucified one (Moule, Sanctuary). In what
amounts to a conflict situation with the synagogues,
the writer encourages his readers to follow his
example of daring and boldness in confessing the
truth. The writer everywhere insists on the duty of
the public confession of the faith. The crisis claimed
not simply private conviction but a clear declaration
of belief openly in the face of men (Westcott, 106,
cf. 11; 12:18-24, 29).
But can we be justified in seeing a link between
the passage and the Parable, which are now
preserved in very different writing genres? Section II
will go some way to answering this question, but at
this stage, we can make some preliminary remarks.
The first is that considering the diversity of situation,
occasion, history and date of the New Testament
writings, their homogeneity is quite remarkable, and
suggests a widely dispersed, but quite tight, matrix
of common doctrine and logia. Although Hebrews is
different in genre from the synoptics, so is the Gospel
of Thomas, which also has the Parable. The
similarity of the particular logia in Thomas and the
synoptics might be taken as being proportional to
the overall similarities between these different genres.
The less direct similarity between Hebrews 1:1-2 and
the synoptic parable is also in keeping with the
difference in genre. The fact that epistles are not
gospels does not mean that the two are mutually
exclusive. Indeed Hebrews itself has a striking
number of references to the Jesus of history (e.g. 1:3,
9, 13; 2:9; 8:1; 10:10, 12:2). The peripatetic role of
the apostolic bands must have made this common
fund all the more available. While there is a
difference in genre between Epistle and Gospel, and
while there may have been differences in precise
Sitzen im Leben, the struggle with the synagogues is
attested to almost universally thoughout the New
Testament, and it is this struggle which may well
have provided the occasion of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. If the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
was used by the emerging church in the context of
that struggle, it would not at all be surprising to find
some reference to it in Hebrews. If the epistle was
composed in Palestine the connection is even more
likely, though if it were written in Rome we still have
links between Marks gospel and that city.
To understand Hebrews as a polemical tract is to
invest it with the homogeneity it deserves, because in
making the theology of the epistle subservient to the
apologetic and polemical purpose we are lessening
the divide between the former and the so-called
hortatory passages. Nairne made this link (lxxi-

lxxvii), but too many commentators since then have
destroyed it again by an over-emphasis on the
theology of the letter alone. To understand Hebrews
as a polemical tract is also to see the first two verses
as providing a most apt introduction. If they share a
common mindset with the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen, and if such a mindset was sufficiently
widespread that it would have been recognized by
the readers, then the offensive and polemical nature
of these opening verses against the synagogues could
hardly be missed. The implication right at the start
of the epistle is to remind readers that their Pioneer
was not only sent in the line of the prophets, but
persecuted and killed like the prophets, by Gods
disobedient people, who are now the readers own
persecutors (12:1-11).
II
What evidence is there to suggest that such a makes the same link. More importantly, I would
mindset was common among Christian
congregations, and that it was in some way enshrined
in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen?
The parable itself is dependent on a much older
tradition in Judaism, that of the rejected prophet,
(cf. Neh 9:26; 2 Chron 24:19-22; Jer 7:25-26; Amos
2:11-12; 3:7; Asc Isa; Sifre Dt 32:9 312) That this
theme was crucial to the emergent church we can be
in no doubt. The whole notion of divine visitation
and the rejection of that visitation provides the
raison dtre for Lukes history of the church. It and Luke are emphatic over against Mark, that the
finds particular expression in that logion shared with
Matthew, 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the
prophets and stoning those who are sent to you (Lk,
13:34= Mt 23:37) in which Jesus is clearly identified
as within the prophetic line. However, the idea was
crucial for the church not simply because it enabled
them to understand the cross, but because it
extended into their own experience of rejection as
well (I Thes 2:15). It is not without significance that
the martyred prophets are held up as examples to be
followed, of misunderstood men of faith in Hebrews
11: 36-8.
The care with which the gospel accounts have been
pieced together suggests not only that the parable
was generated by such traditions, but also that it
generated its own traditions. The question of
whether Mark or Thomas contains the earliest form
is still unsettled 15 but either way, the fact that the
parable has been worked and reworked is indicative
of its importance in early Christian tradition. In
Mark 12:4 we have already, perhaps, a specific
interpretation in the reference to the head wound,
which would therefore be seen to be picking up what
Mark knew of the details of Jesuss mockery (Mk
15:19). Matthew and Luke with more clarity of style,
drop this detail, preferring to keep the allusions, at
373
this stage, to the rejected prophet traditions. Lukes
substitution of traumatizo for Mark and Matthews
apoktein is again demonstrative of a keenness to
underline the sons death as unique, a view shared
emphatically by the writer to the Hebrews.166
The inclusion of the quotation from Psalm
118:22-3 (LXX) is again to be seen as evidence for the
parables being important in formative Christian7
tradition. That the reference to Solomons Temple&dquo;
was part of the early Christian teaching is clear from
its appearance elsewhere in the New Testament (cf.
Lk 2:34; Acts 4:11; Rom 9:32; 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Pet 2 :7-
8). Possibly it was included in the parable in order to
bring together a number of important and related
ideas in one easily accessible tradition. But it is not
only in the gospels that we find a link between the
Wicked Husbandmen tradition and development of
the Temple tradition. Stephens speech in Acts 7
contend that the writer to the Hebrews is also
making the same link, from 1:1-2, right through all
his polemical teaching about the Tabernacle. In their
rejection of Jesus, in the line of the prophets, the
Jews have missed the provision of the new and living
way, and are left only with the destruction of the
old Temple system.
The most obvious alteration in the synoptic
accounts of the parable is the matter of when the
son was cast out of the vineyard. Both Matthew
son is first cast out of the vineyard and then killed.
Marshall is of the opinion that it is more probable
that the order in Lk and Mt is designed to make the
murder the climax (Luke, 731) but surely the link
between this and Hebrews 13:12f is too striking to
be so lightly dismissed. Is it not more likely that all
three were drawing on a common tradition here?
Such a common fund was used to strengthen the
evangelists stories and the letter-writers
argument.9
There is plenty of evidence, then, to suggest that
there was a matrix of common tradition which served
to produce both the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen in the forms we know it and several
references elsewhere in the New Testament,
particularly in the Epistle of the Hebrews. With this
in mind, how do we read Hebrews 1:1-2?
III
Of course, we immediately notice ep eschatou ton
himer5n toutn, and even if it were to be translated
at the end of these days, the eschatological
significance cannot be missed. It is an understanding
of impending judgment that is wholly in accord with,
and integral to, the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen. The same notion of approaching
374
judgment is assumed throughout the Epistle to the
Hebrews, most immediately in 2:1-3. The author does
work out the sombre thought of the parable
(Moffatt, 5) in the section on disobedience (3:16-ff),
in chapter 12, in the exhortation to go with Jesus
outside the camp (13:12), and elsewhere. It is the
disobedient people of God, the Jews, who will be
punished, and the obedient people of God, the
Christians, who will be vindicated, as their Leader
has already been. Commenting on he had only one
son (Mk 12:6), Robinson says: His choice of the
word eschaton may betray theological overtones, as
in the similar conjunction of ideas Heb 1:2.20
Another striking similarity is the use of klronomos
This reference to Jesus as heir is not in itself common
in the New Testament. Normally it is the Christians
who are designated heirs (Rom 8:17, co-heirs with
Christ, Gal 4:7) Here, Jesus is the heir, as in the
parable. Moffatt again says the meaning is the same:
he was &dquo;appointed heir&dquo;, but he then draws a
distinction because he says that the heir in the
parable was not appointed heir of the universe (5).
But the text does not say that Jesus is appointed heir
of the universe, but of all things, which could just
as easily be a pointer to his vindication at the right
hand of God, which the author then works out,
initially in 2:9-3:6. The fact that Jesus is the one
appointed heir serves to underline the horror of the
Jews reaction of him. In the parable, the designation
of the son as heir is of some christological
significance, but in Hebrews 1:1-2 it is even more
charged with such significance. This does not suggest
a different tradition, but development from the
common fund of tradition (cf. Nairne, 27).
The idea that in Hebrews we have a paraenetic
development of a tradition, which in the gospel we
have in its more original story form is also suggested
by the specific reference to tois prophitais. This is to
be seen, then, as an understanding on the part of the
writer that those servants who were sent to the
wicked Husbandmen were indeed to be identified
with the prophets. The Son is most certainly the final
revelation of God, giving rise to a certain amount of
contrast between him and the prophets, but there is
also a strong theme of continuity. They are alike in
that they all came from God bearing divine
revelation and with tragic irony, in that they are all
rejected. The theme of Jesuss opponents being the
descendants of the prophet killers is quite common
in the gospels, notably Mt 23:29f= Lk 11:47f, as well
as in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. In
Hebrews 1 the theme again emerges, though it is
implied rather than spelt out. -
That Hebrews l:l-2 and the Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen may have shared a common mindset is
not a suggestion that appears in many commentaries
on the Epistle. Though some have seen links between
the two passages, they have not shown the full
significance of such links. I believe that a recognition
of the connections between the two may be an
important factor in our understanding of the
prologue to this most eloquent of apologetic tracts,
for it transforms the verses from being simply a
theological statement about Jesuss fulfilment of the
old to being a polemical broadside as well. In
bringing to mind the traditions associated with the
Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, the writer is
investing his prologue with the dark and foreboding
notions of rejection and judgment, notions which,
along with the themes of the suffering and
vindication of the crucified one and his followers,
are central to the purpose and theology of the
epistle. He is not anti-semitic as such, but he writes
to and from a situation of Jewish-Christian conflict
born out of Christian christological claims.
I am very grateful to Dr Douglas de Lacey for reading
through a draft of this article, and for his kind comments
and suggestions.
1
G. W. Buchanan, who sees three contrasts in the first
two verse The Epistle
( to the Hebrews (Anchor Bible
[1972]).
2
The commentaries by B. F. Westcott (Macmillan
[1906]), A. Nairne (CUP [1917]), J. Moffatt (T. & T. Clark
[1924]), T. H. Robinson (MNTC [1933]), H. Montefiore (A.
& C. Black [1964], F. F. Bruce (MMS [1965], J. Héring
(Eng. tr. [1970], P. E. Hughes (Eerdmans [1977]), D.
Guthrie (IVP [1983]). These will be referred to by the name
of the author.
3
A. Nairne, F. C. Synge, Hebrews and the Scriptures
(SPCK [1959]), C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New
Testament (A. & C. Black [
4
1981]).
3
Nairne and Moule being the most significant
exceptions.
5
Cf. E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship (SBT 28,
SCM [1960]), 68f.
6
This is certainly the case in Heb 11.
7
St Mark (CBSC, CUP [1902]), 130,
Cf. G. F. Maclear,
A. Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de lépître aux Hébreux
(Desclée de Brouwer [1976], W. R. G. Loader, Sohn und
Hoherpriester (Wissenschaftliche Monographies 53,
Neukirchener Verlag [1981]), 63, H. Braun, An die Hebräer
(Möhr [1984]), 22.
8
A. Vanhoye, Prêtres Anciens Prêtre Nouveau (Editions
du Seuil [1980], cf. O. Cullmann, The Christology of the
New Testament (SCM [1963], 87-9 105-7).
9
C. Spicq, Lorigine johannique de la conception du
Christ-prêtre dans lEpître aux Hebreux (EB [1952]).
10
Cf. V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confession
(E. J. Brill [1967]), 143 and 134.
11
Strongly suggested by W. Horbury, Aaronic Priesthood
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ( JSNT 19 [1983]).
12
W. Horbury, The Benediction of the Minim ( JTS, NS
33 [1982])., 51.

13
C. F. D. Moule, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (
JTS, NS 1,
[1950]), Birth of New Testament, 60, 100-101.
14
Cf. J. D. M. Derrett, Cursing Jesus ... (NTS 21:4
[1975]).
15
Cf. W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Eerdmans
[1971]), 416, nn. 7 and 8, I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of
Luke (Paternoster [1978]), 727.
16
Cf. A. M. Stibbs, The Finished Work of Christ (Tyndale
[1963]).
17
Cf J. Jeremias in TDNT 1 [1964], 792f, TDNT 4 [1971],
278.
18
A. M. Hunter, Stephens speech in Acts is really a
sermon on this parable (
The Gospel according to St Mark,
TBC, SCM [1949]), 115.
19 J. A. T. Robinson, The Parable of the Wicked
Husbandmen ( NTS 21:4 [ 1975]), 449, 461.
20
Robinson, op.cit., 447, though in view of Mk 12:22 he
does admit that eschaton could be a stylistic preference.
Short Comments
One Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes
THE Revd O. T. Owens interesting article on John
21:11 in the November 1988 issue (pp. 52-54) needs,
I think, some supplementation.
Let it be granted that the number 153 is
symbolical; but symbolical of what? To find the
Evangelists intention we should, as Mr Owen says,
look at the context. There is, however, no obvious
connection between vv. 1-14 and 15-23. The first is
about catching fish, the second about feeding sheep.
The natural implication is that 1-14 relate to the
mission of the church, 15-23 to its government and
nourishment. This is supported by Peters statement
at v. 3 I am going fishing (hypag halieuein). The considers the Hadad imagery of Isaiah 28:15 and 18,
evangelist (whose Gospel shows signs of
acquaintance with those of Mark and Luke) will
have known that Jesus had said that his disciples
were to be fishers of men (haleeis anthri5p5n, Mk
1:17, Mt 4:19). It is therefore natural to suppose that
this episode is symbolic of the task of the church to
bring the souls of men to Christ. The various
mathematical attempts made to give the number
significance, from Origen onwards, are about the
Trinity, the perfection of the church, and Christian
conduct, not about the churchs missionary task. The
same difficulty lies in the way of attempts to explain
the number by means of gematria (adding together
the numerical values of the letters of a word). If Mr
Owen is right in thinking that by gematria 153 is the
number of the word Pisgah, this is far from the
natural context of vv. 1-14 and few if any of the
contemporary readers of the Gospel would see the
significance of the allusion to the death of Moses. A
further objection to all mathematical interpretations
375
of the number, whether by gematria or otherwise, is
that there is nothing in ch. 21 to hint (as is hinted
for the number of the beast at Rev 13:18) that such
an interpretation has to be looked for.
A much more plausible explanation of the number
153 is to be found in Jeromes statement (P.L. XXV,
474c) that according to the poet Oppian (c. AD 180)
there are 153 species of fish in the world. This would
make the number mean that every type of humanity
is to come into the church, and none will escape
because the net will not be broken (unlike the net in
Lk 5:6). Unfortunately Jerome was mistaken:
Oppian gives no figure, and, as R. M. Grant has
pointed out (HTR 42 [1959], 273-275), in whatever
way the various species mentioned by Oppian are
counted, they do not add up to 153. However,
Jerome must have got this figure from somewhere,
and it is not impossible that the number was stated
by some earlier author and could have been known
to the Fourth Evangelist or whoever wrote ch. 21.
This, however, is not more than conjecture, and even
if the Evangelist knew of it, it remains doubtful
whether any reader of the Gospel would have been
likely to understand the allusion.
It seems, therefore, that the significance of the
number 153 remains still, as it was to Augustine, an
unsolved mystery.
J. M. Ross, CBE, MA
LONDON
The Covenant with Death in Isaiah 28
In an article written in 1970, Hartmut Gese
and asks whether, in the light of his interpretation
of the whip as that of Baal Hadad, the Mwt with
whom those he assumes to be the partners of the
anti-Assyrian coalition have entered into a covenant
relationship, should be understood mythologically,
as Mot, the Canaanite God known from Ugarit as
the counterpart of Baal. Other commentators note
aspects of the Baal imagery or the dual meaning of
Mwt, but none except Gese link the ideas together.-2
Gese himself rejects the suggestion on the grounds
that it would be improbable to see Mwt as a
protector against Assyria, that the parallelism of
Mwt and Swl removes the thought-world to another
completely, and most notably that the suggestion
transposes the material of a vegetation myth into the
historical realm. The question as to whether Hadad
may be seen as an Adonis figure is one whose
pertinence is difficult to see. That of whether the
myth was known in the period is indeed an open
one, but one which we hope to answer in the