248 clare k. rothschild
persuasive, such connection. It argues that Hebrews’ illustration, explana-
tion, and development of the ἐφάπαξ death of Jesus—the primary purpose
of Hebrews in the estimation of many notable exegetes13—derives (viz.,
literary dependence) from romans 6:10. anticipating objections, this essay
will not argue that, as merely an instructional appendix, Hebrews lacks its
own integrity of competition.14 Its structural arrangement—possessing
some overarching similarities to romans15— is essentially different, con-
structed for a new set of historical exigencies.
’Εφάπαξ in the New Testament
Jesus’ once-for-all death is a central theme of Hebrews. commentator
James w. thompson aptly refers to the “pervasiveness of this theme in
Hebrews and its relative absence elsewhere in the new testament.”16
Hebrews 7:26–27 constitutes its first announcement. the adverb ἐφάπαξ
expresses the singularity of the event:
For it was indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, blameless,
undefiled, separated from the sinners and higher than the heavens, who
does not have daily need, like the high priests, to offer sacrifices, first on
behalf of their own sins then on behalf of the sins of the people. For this
he did once and for all when he offered himself (τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ
ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας).
Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice is reiterated with the adverb ἐφάπαξ in Heb
9:12 and 10:10.
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood,
once and for all [christ entered] into the sanctuary, obtaining an eter-
nal redemption (οὐδὲ δι ̓αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος
εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος). (Heb 9:12)
by this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus
christ once and for all (ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ
σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ). (Heb 10:10)
13 see, e.g., James thompson below.
14 see Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context
and Exegesis (waco, tx: baylor university press, 2006), 335. whereas I agree that Hebrews
has integrity of its own, I do not, however, agree that “it was conceived as a written
speech yet was never delivered as such, but rather was planned from the start as a literary
showpiece.”
15 “[t]he horizon of both books is related” (rothschild, “Hebrews as a Guide,” 573).
16 “EPHAPAX: the one and the many in Hebrews,” NTS 53 (2007): 567. see also recent
commentary: James thompson, Hebrews (paideia; Grand rapids: baker academic, 2008),
133–34, 163, 164, 186, 196.