^{page 88 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 95–6.

^{page 89 note 2} Cf espDelitzsch, F., Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11 (trans. Kingsbury, T. L.; Edinburgh, 1868), 201;Google ScholarMoffatt, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York, 1924), p. 158;Google ScholarSpicq, C., L' Épître aux Hébreux, 11 (Paris, 1953), 333:Google Scholar‘…the attitude of the apostate in time of persectuion’ Käsemann, E., Das wandemde Gottesvolk (2nd ed.Göttingen, 1961), p. 25, would seem to agree with the prevailing view when he identifies the cognate ὑποστολ⋯ (x. 39) with apostasy.Google ScholarRobinson, T. H., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1933), p. 152, states that the word is in line with what the author has said about apostasy, but that itGoogle Scholar‘may have a wider and milder meaning’. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (13th ed.Göttingen, 1966), pp. 363 f.Google Scholar, finds a gradation of possible meanings in the word ranging from a drawing back from the worshipping assembly (X. 25) to defection. But in discussing Hebrews' use of Hab. ii. 4 (in contrast to Paul's), he says that for Hebrews ‘…kommt es auf das Element der Treue und Ausdauer, auf die Warming vor dem Abfall an…’, ibid. p. 365. Thus, Michel here also appears to opt for apostasy. However, elsewhere in a discussion of ‘Abfall’ (ibid. p. 82), he says: ‘Allerdings mag man bedenken, daß Abfall nicht ein einziges Geschehen meint, sondern einen ganzen Prozeß, der seine Folgen nach sich zieht. Oder man legt Wert darauf, den Willen zum Kampf gegen die Gemeinde und gegen Christus zu betonen, der einen entsprechenden gegensätzlichen Willen zur Umkehr ausschließt.’ When Robinson concedes the possibility of a ‘wider and milder meaning’ and Michel speaks of a ‘stairstep of meanings’, or of defection as a ‘process’ rather than a ‘single event’, they suggest the issue to which this essay is addressed.

^{page 89 note 1} The γ⋯ρ of X. 36 is inferential rather than causal. On the one hand, ὑπομον⋯ (x. 36) resumes the notion of ὑπομ⋯νειν (παθημ⋯των) in X. 32–4. (Cf. 11 Cor. v. 4 where Paul returns with the γ⋯ρ…σκ⋯νει to the thought of σκ⋯νος introduced in v. 1.) On the other hand, ὑπομον⋯ carries forward the idea of ‘continuing in’ from the μ⋯ ⋯ποß⋯λητε in x. 35.

^{page 90 note 1} The ἴνα-construction of x. 36 b is to be understood as a result and not a final purpose clause, see Burton, Ernst De Witt, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (3rd ed.Edinburgh, 1889), p. 93. He argues that although ‘…the purpose of ὑπομον⋯ is contained in the clause…, yet the function of this clause is not telic. Its office is not to express the purpose of the principal clause, but to set forth a result (conceived, not actual) of which the possession of ὑπομον⋯ is the necessary condition.’Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 2} For ⋯with the explanatory γ⋯ρ, see I Cor. iii. 3; cf. Heb. vii. 10.

^{page 90 note 3} (1) ⋯ (Heb. x. 37 b) is inserted before ⋯ρχ⋯μενος (Hab. ii. 3A); (2) οὐ μ⋯ χρον⋯σῃ (Hab. ii. 3b) is changed to the future οὐ χρον⋯σει (Heb. X. 37b); (3) the μον following π⋯στεως (Hab. ii. 4b) is removed to follow δ⋯καιος (Heb. x. 38a); (4) a κα⋯ is inserted before ⋯⋯ν in Heb. X. 38b (Hab. ii. 4a); (5) Heb. X. 38 reverses the order of Hab. ii. 4a and ii. 4b. Judgement as to modifications of Habakkuk is based upon Rahlfs' and the Cambridge editions of the LXX text.

^{page 91 note 1} The fact that the expression μικρ⋯ν ⋯σον ⋯σον is found in the LXX only at Isa. xxvi. 20 strengthens the assumption that we are dealing with an excerpt from this verse. Aside from Heb. X. 37 a, the expression is found elsewhere in early Christian literature in 1 Clement 50. 4 in a fuller citation of Isa. xxvi. 20.

^{page 91 note 2} Op. cit. p. 198.

^{page 91 note 3} Op. cit. p. 362 n. 2.

^{page 91 note 4} That in Hebrews an allusion to the Old Testament can intend not only the specific expression quoted or paraphrased but the broader Old Testament context as well has been shown by Köster, Helmut, ‘Outside the camp’, H.T.R. LV (October 1962), pp. 299–315. In his treatment of Heb. xiii. 11–13, Köster observes that the author paraphrases Lev. xvi. 27 (Heb. xiii. 11), and that he does this as a way of introducing the Old Testament context (Lev. xvi. 28) on which the argument in Heb. xiii. 12–13 is based. This is to say that both Lev. xvi. 27 and xvi. 28 are intended with the paraphrase of the former. This is not to suggest, however, that every citation of the Old Testament in Hebrews should be viewed as a reference to the broader Old Testament context in which the citation: is found. The point is that our passage (Heb. X. 37) is not the only instance of such a procedure in the epistle.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 1} The paradigmatic use of the addressees' actions in X. 32–9 finds its parallel in vi. 9–12. In both passages reference to actions by the community is turned into a hortatory paradigm for its continuing existence. In vi. 9–12, however, the ‘work’ and ‘love’ of the community refers to intra-faith intercourse still being manifested by the community. In X. 32–6 the reference is also to the manner of the community's past contact with the outside world, which the author calls his hearers to resume.

^{page 92 note 2} Observe that in xii. 1 ff., where the theme of the community's endurance is resumed and brought to its climax, the exhortation here is not based in the community's past but grounds in Jesus' endurance of the cross (xii. 2), i.e. his endurance of hostility from sinners (xii. 3). This suggests the view that, whereas the community's past can be used paradigmatically by the author, the final basis for his exhortation lies in the word of the cross.

^{page 93 note 1} See C. Spicq, op. cit. p. 333, who recognizes the connection between X. 39 and iii. 7–iv. 13: ‘Le vs. 39…ne prend tout son sens qu'en fonction du peuple de Dieu pérégrinant (iii. 7–iv. 13).’

^{page 93 note 2} The paradigm is drawn from Ps. xcv (LXX), which in turn is a commentary on Num. xiv – the account of the rebellious congregation that, fearing it would perish in a struggle with the Canaanites, did not believe the good report of Joshua and Caleb and drew back in fear from the invasion of Canaan. Vanhoye, Albert, ‘Longue marche ou accès tout proche? Le context biblique de Hébreux’, Biblica XLIX (1968), 9–26Google Scholar, has shown that in Heb. iii. 7–iv. 11 the author is working from the LXX version of the psalm and not the Hebrew. The former does not refer to Massah and Meribah (MT Ps. xcv) but alludes instead to Israel's refusal to enter Canaan described in Num. xiv. Vanhoye points out that in commenting on the psalm the author of Hebrews ‘resorts instinctively to formulae from Nu. 14; 3a: 8–13; Dt. 1: 19–40; 9: 23; Ps. 105: 24, that is to say, to passages that refer to the refusal to enter Canaan’, ibid. p. 19.

^{page 94 note 1} Op cit. p. 82.

^{page 94 note 2} Ibid. p. 365.

^{page 94 note 3} Ibid. p. 83.

^{page 94 note 4} The full scope of the crisis, of course, is not to be delineated on the basis of our passage alone.

^{page 94 note 5} This possibility is also supported indirectly by Michel when he allows that Hebrews uses the traditional contrasts: ‘“Unmündige” – “Vollkommene”’ and ‘“Milch” – “feste Speise”’, in v. 11–14 in connection with the question of the understanding of scripture, op. cit. pp. 233 f.