Hebrews 2:5–9 cites Psalm 8:4–6 (8:5–7 LXX). This is at once obvious and, perhaps, the only point of consensus yet reached on this part of Hebrews. I can worry, in fact, that a Google search might quickly overturn even this small consensus, were it to return results arguing for a Hebrew rather than Greek Vorlage! I mention the scholarly debate not with any intention to survey it further. One may find that done in any number of places.1 I mention it to justify my present aim, which is to offer a fresh reading of the citation. After all, it is one thing to claim fresh insight about an existing muddle, such as this, and quite another to claim it for a long-established given. Clever students (and, perhaps, Richard Bauckham!) might attempt the latter, while the rest of us should probably content ourselves with the former.

In what follows, I want to return to a minority report I offered in an earlier work.2 There I claimed that Hebrews reads Psalm 8:5a as a description of what humans lost in the fall. That is, when humans sinned, according to the psalm, they were “made lower than angels.”3 In that earlier work I insisted that this was a possible reading of Psalm 8; here I want to suggest that it is the best reading of Hebrews 2.

1. Argument

To justify this claim—to prove that Hebrews reads Psalm 8:5a (angels; see “Table 1” below) as a description of what humanity lost in the fall—I will make four arguments about Hebrews 2:5–9. Each builds on the one before it and focuses on how Hebrews reads Psalm 8, (mostly) leaving to the side whether this is how others read Psalm 8 before or after Hebrews.

I will show, first, that Psalm 8 describes humans. It is about Jesus, of course, but not just about Jesus. Second, I will show that Psalm 8 does not describe humanity’s experience now. The descriptions used in the psalm once did, but they no longer do. Third, I will show that Psalm 8 describes instead humanity’s future status. It is a status Jesus has already achieved, if only in part, and it is one to which he is “leading many sons and daughters” (Heb 2:10). Fourth, I will show that Psalm 8 turns humanity’s protology (his original status at creation) into eschatology (his future status at the new creation), by reading Genesis 1–2 in light (or, better, against the dark backdrop!) of Genesis 3.

Table 1: Snapshot of Psalm 8:5–6 in Hebrews 2:5–9

1.1. Psalm 8 Describes Humanity (Heb 2:8c–9a)

“8cYet at present we do not see everything subject to them. 9aBut we do see Jesus….”4

Hebrews reads Psalm 8 as a description of humanity. This is the so-called “anthropological” reading of Hebrews 2:5–9. It contrasts with the “Christological” reading, which claims that Hebrews applies the psalm to Jesus exclusively or uniquely. There is no need to enter that debate fully here.5 It is enough simply to re-assert that the “anthropological” approach better aligns with a straightforward reading of the psalm and of Hebrews, the latter especially seen in the author’s transition between 2:8c and 2:9: “We do not see everything subject to [αὐτῷ]. But we do see Jesus.” Had Hebrews intended to apply the psalm to Jesus only, then we would expect the order of αὐτῷ and “Jesus” to be reversed. We would expect to read: “We do not see everything subject to Jesus. But we do see him [αὐτόν] … crowned.” The present syntax, however, points to Jesus not as the psalm’s only referent but as its representative referent, one representing but not replacing a larger referent.

This is why we are not surprised when Hebrews goes on to name this larger referent at the end of Hebrews 2:9. There we are told that “Jesus … [is] crowned with glory … because he suffered death … for [ὑπὲρ] everyone.” The preposition may, of course, rule out representation if it refers exclusively to Jesus’s substitutionary death, but Hebrews suggests this is a false choice. Just a few lines later the author says that Jesus’s death allows him to substitute for (2:17) and identify with (i.e., represent) others (2:18). Also, if Hebrews thought the psalm’s promise terminated on Jesus, then one wonders why he so quickly goes on to talk about the glory promised to so many besides Jesus (2:10).

Here we may also note that Hebrews reads Psalm 8 as a reflection on Genesis 1–2 and, as such, a reflection on humanity’s creation. There was precedent for reading the psalm this way, to say nothing of the overlap between the psalm and the Genesis account (cf. Ps 8:6 with Gen 1:28).6 Beyond this, Hebrews everywhere cites OT texts that are themselves reflecting on other, earlier OT texts.7 Hebrews cites (1) Psalms 2:7 and 110:1, which reflect on God’s earlier covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7;8 (2) Psalm 95:7–11, which reflects on Israel’s earlier wilderness experience, described in Exodus 17:7, Numbers 14:21–23, and Deuteronomy 12:9;9 (3) Psalm 110:4, which reflects on the only other place Melchizedek appears in the OT: Genesis 14:17–20;10 and (4) Jeremiah 31:31–34, which reflects on Israel’s “first” covenant (see τὴνπρώτην, Heb 8:13) in Exodus 19:4–6 and Deuteronomy 29:1–4.11 Not only are there clear linguistic ties connecting these later and earlier OT texts, but Hebrews occasionally cites these earlier texts too, indicating the author not only used OT texts that reflected on earlier OT texts but that he did so deliberately. We need not look far for proof, considering the author’s very first citation, Psalm 2:7 (Heb 1:5a), reflects on and is immediately followed by 2 Samuel 7:14 (Heb 1:5b; for another example, see Gen 14:17–20 in Heb 7:1–3).12

In short, according to Hebrews, Psalm 8 describes not just Jesus’s experience, but humanity’s as well, not least since the psalm’s language is borrowed from Genesis 1–2.

1.2. Psalm 8 Does Not Describe Humanity’s Present Experience (Heb 2:8c)

“8cYet at present we do not see everything subject to them.”

Psalm 8 describes humanity, but, according to Hebrews, not humanity’s present experience. What this means is that while the language of the psalm might be drawn from Genesis 1–2, humanity’s experience in the psalm and in Hebrews is not. The author highlights the incongruity when he says in Hebrews 2:8c, “yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.”

It is not just the reality of Psalm 8:6b (dominion), however, that is out of step with humanity’s present experience, so too is the reality of Psalm 8:5b (glory). After all, humans will, but do not presently, experience the “glory” of Psalm 8:5b (Heb 2:10). Even Jesus did not experience the psalm’s “glory” until he died (2:9). Thus, were Psalm 8:5b a present reality for humans, as it was in Genesis 1–2, then why is it not true of humans now (Heb 2:10) and why was it not true of Jesus until he died (2:9)?

What Hebrews implies about Psalm 8:5a (angels) is another matter. So much turns on what βραχύ τι implies about humanity’s original status, a point we shall return to below. Here we might simply note, first, that if βραχύ τι refers to humanity’s original inferiority (“made a little lower”), Hebrews could deny this present reality only by somehow insisting that humans are now still or, perhaps, even more inferior to angels. Or, second, if βραχύ τι refers to humanity’s original, if temporary inferiority (“made for a little while lower”),13 then Hebrews could deny this reality only by insisting that humanity’s original, temporary status has been extended: we are made lower even longer. Or, third, if βραχύ τι describes humanity’s post-fall reality (“made a little lower” or “made for a little while lower” as a result of the Fall), then the language of Psalm 8:5a already points to the incongruity between humanity’s original and present experience.14

For now, we can set aside the ambiguity of Psalm 8:5a (angels) and note that Hebrews suggests the psalm’s two other descriptions (dominion and glory) do not describe humanity’s present experience. The language once did, when used in Genesis 1–2, but it no longer does, according to Psalm 8—or, at the least, according to Hebrews’ reading of Psalm 8.

1.3. Psalm 8 Describes Humanity’s Future Experience (Heb 2:9a)

“9aBut we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while…”

According to Hebrews, Psalm 8 describes, instead, humanity’s future experience. We see this right on the surface of Hebrews 2:8c, when the author says, “We do not yet see everything in subjection to them” (NRSV). Were Hebrews reading Psalm 8:6b (dominion) simply as a description of what humanity no longer experiences, we would expect ἔτι (“still”)15 not οὔπω (“yet”).16 Similarly in Hebrews 2:5, the author links Psalm 8:6b (cf. ὑπέταξεν in v. 5, with ὑπέταξας in v. 8, citing Ps 8:7b LXX) with a future experience in “the world to come.” Hebrews claims, in other words, that Psalm 8:6b creates an expectation for humanity that has yet to be fulfilled. When the author then says that Jesus experienced “glory” only after death (Heb 2:9) and, moreover, that humans have yet to experience this same glory (2:10), Hebrews implies something similar about Psalm 8:5b (glory).

One might, of course, wonder why Hebrews answers the unfulfilled expectation of dominion (Ps 8:6b) with Jesus’s present (and humanity’s future) experience of glory (Ps 8:5b). Why match unrealized dominion with present glory? One might expect, instead, for Hebrews 2:8c to say, “Yet at present we do not see humanity crowned with glory,” or for Hebrews 2:9a to say, “But we do see everything subject to Jesus”?

It certainly cannot be the case that Hebrews 2:9a implies that Jesus has not also fulfilled Psalm 8:6b (dominion), even if only in part (ἕως, Heb 1:13, with καταργήσῃin 2:14–15), considering the clear linguistic ties between the fulfilled Psalm 110:1 (“Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool”) and the expectation of Psalm 8:6b.17 Rather, the author draws our attention to the unrealized promise of Psalm 8:6b (Heb 2:8c) because it provides him with the clearest link between the psalm’s vision and humanity’s status in Genesis 1–2 (see, esp., Gen 1:28)18 and the clearest incongruity between the psalm’s vision and humanity’s present status.

While the audience’s suffering (see, esp., Heb 10:32–35; also 11:1–40)19 may have raised questions about the unrealized promise of Psalm 8:5a (angels) or Psalm 8:5b (glory), it certainly raised questions about the painfully unrealized promise of Psalm 8:6b (dominion), especially in light of the psalm’s mention of “enemies” (Ps 8:2).20 The author knew that if his audience did not feel the incongruity between their present experience and the psalm’s vision (cf. e.g., a similar observation in 4 Ezra 6:59),21 they would fail to see the fittingness of his argument (cf. διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦθανάτου, Heb 2:9, with ἔπρεπεν, 2:10) and continue to stumble over their Christian confession.22

Hebrews also implies that Psalm 8:5a (angels) creates an as-yet unrealized expectation for humanity. When Hebrews 2:9 says, “we … see Jesus crowned,” the author implies that Jesus is also no longer lower than angels, especially if we follow the NIV (or the NRSV, ESV, CSB, NET, et al.) and translate the βραχύ τι in Psalm 8:6a LXX (8:5a ET)/Hebrews 2:7, 9 as “a little while lower” instead of “a little lower.” Hebrews’ earlier argument, in fact, requires this translation, for at least two reasons.

First, in Hebrews 1, Jesus’s enthronement leads to his superiority to angels. In Hebrews 1:3–4, the author says, “After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became [γενόμενος] as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.” Jesus “sat down,” which is to say, he was enthroned (see 1:13) or “crowned” (2:9) and, as such, “became … superior to … angels.” Just a few lines later, the author says something similar. According to Hebrews 1:8–9, Jesus “has [been] set … above [his] companions,” precisely because he has been “anoint[ed] [ἔχρισεν]” and, thus, enthroned (citing Ps 44:7–8 LXX [45:6–7 ET]). These “companions” may not refer to angels, but the statement is from a series of similar honorifics (see Heb1: 5a, 5b, 6, 8–9, 10–12, 13) given as proof of Jesus’s superiority to angels (see γάρ, 1:5).23 It is just two verses earlier, in fact, that Jesus’s installation in (over?) the world to come (see περὶ ἧςλαλοῦμεν, 2:5) results in God’s explicit command that angels “worship him” (1:6, citing Deut 32:43). If Jesus’s enthronement leads to his superiority to angels in Hebrews 1, it then surely leads to the same result in Hebrews 2.

Second, Hebrews suggests that the same event that led to Jesus’s enthronement in Hebrews 2, led to his enthronement in Hebrews 1. In Hebrews 2:9, Jesus is “crowned … because he suffered death [διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦθανάτου].” Similarly, in Hebrews 1:9, Jesus is anointed because (“this is why [διὰτοῦτο]” [CSB]) of his character (i.e., “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness”), which Hebrews later says was forged through suffering (i.e., death). “He learned obedience from what he suffered” (5:8). In both Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 2, therefore, faithful and obedient suffering led to Jesus’s enthronement. It would make nonsense of the author’s argument for the same enthronement caused by the same event to lead to Jesus’s exaltation over angels in Hebrews 1 but not in Hebrews 2.24

According to Hebrews, Psalm 8 anticipates humanity’s future glory (Heb 2:9a, 10), dominion (2:8c; cf. 2:5), and superiority to angels (2:9a, in the light of 1:3–4, 5–14). Each—and, especially, dominion—is something “we do not yet see,” but each has been secured by humanity’s representative, Jesus.

1.4. Psalm 8 Describes What Humanity Lost (Heb 2:9b)

“9bnow crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death”

According to Hebrews, when Psalm 8 uses the language of Genesis 1–2 to talk about humanity’s future superiority, glory, and dominion, the psalm implies that such realities were, at some point, lost. We see this in the connection Hebrews draws between Jesus’s death and the fulfillment of Psalm 8’s promise.

Jesus was “crowned [ἐστεφανωμένον]” only “because [δία] he suffered death” (Heb 2:9).25 And he was crowned in this way “so that … he might taste death for everyone” (2:9). As noted above, the idea of a “death for [ὑπέρ]” others implies substitution and anticipates the sacrificial logic Hebrews develops most fully in Hebrews 9:16–17. Though the interpretation of this text is disputed, on at least one reading,26 Hebrews insists that sinners cannot be restored to a relationship with God without first dying, if only—and “by the grace of God” (2:9)—vicariously.27 It is the reason so much attention is given in Exodus 24 and Hebrews 9:18–22 to the role of sacrificial blood in the inauguration of (sinful) Israel’s covenant at Sinai. It also explains the author’s summary note in 9:22b that “without the shedding of blood”—without death—“there is no forgiveness” (cf. Lev 17:11).

To say that Jesus fulfilled Psalm 8:5b (glory) only “because he suffered death … for” others implies that sin stood in the way of Psalm 8’s promise and that Jesus’s death was the sacrificial means of removing that sin.28 The fact that Hebrews and Leviticus, on which Hebrews so clearly depends (see, esp., Heb 9:1–10), insist that sacrifices must be blameless further clarifies that the sin requiring Jesus’s death was not his own—which is, in any case, a claim Hebrews elsewhere explicitly makes (cf. ἄμωμοςin Heb 9:14 with, e.g., LXX Lev 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6, 9; 4:3, 14, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18, 25; 9:2, 3; 12:6; 14:10; 22:19, 21; 23:12, 18; see also Heb 4:15; cf. 1:8–9; 3:2; 5:7–10; 7:26; 10:5–10; et al.).

According to Hebrews, Psalm 8 implies that humanity’s original status is out of step with his present experience and expected to be restored. Hebrews also insists that this restoration is accomplished by Jesus’s sacrificial death. This implies that humanity’s original and now promised status was lost when humanity sinned in Genesis 3. How else might we explain the “not yet” in Hebrews 2:8c? That is, what other event might Hebrews point to that could explain the psalm’s transformation of humanity’s protology into eschatology?

It is worth noting, in any case, how often elsewhere, both in Judaism and in Christianity, the events of Genesis 1–2 were read in light of Genesis 3.29 Hebrews, in fact, goes on to describe Jesus’s death, not, at least at first, as the means of forgiving sin (2:17; cf. 9:15–22) but rather of destroy[ing] … the devil” (2:14, NRSV; διὰ τοῦ θανάτου),30 humanity’s first and greatest enemy, who is, in both Jewish and Christian tradition, linked with the serpent of Genesis 3.31

If Psalm 8 implies that humanity’s original status has been lost, this presumes a certain understanding of Psalm 8:5a (angels). If sin stands in the way of humanity’s superiority to angels, as it does for his restored glory (Ps 8:5b) and dominion (Ps 8:6b), then Hebrews reads Psalm 8:5a not only as a promise of humanity’s future superiority (“a little while”) but as an implicit description of his original superiority and, moreover, of how such superiority was lost.

Let me offer three further observations to justify—or, at the least, clarify—this conclusion. First, if Psalm 8:5a does not imply humanity’s original superiority but refers instead to humanity’s original inferiority, then it is hard to explain how the implicit promise of Psalm 8:5a fits with the promises of Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b. In the latter, Hebrews promises the restoration of original realities—humanity’s glory and dominion are restored. But, in the former, such a promise would anticipate simply the restoration of humanity’s inferiority, if only temporary inferiority. This, however, would be out of step with the fulfillment Hebrews describes. Jesus is crowned, exercising dominion, and superior to angels. If we are to make Psalm 8:5a’s fulfillment parallel with Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b, then, on this reading, we would expect Jesus’s continued inferiority to angels, not his present superiority over them.

Table 2: Restoration of Original Inferiority Denied

Second, if Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b describe what humanity lost, then it is likely that Psalm 8:5a also describes something that humanity lost. In what way, however, could humanity’s original inferiority be lost? If, for example, Hebrews thinks Psalm 8:5a implies only the present continuation of original inferiority (“you made them lower … and they still are”), then this would be out of step with how Hebrews reads Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b. In both of these cases, something is lost. Or, if Hebrews thinks Psalm 8:5a implies the extension of an original, if temporary inferiority (“you made them for a little while lower … and they still are”), one still wonders how such a loss would be demonstrable? In the case of both Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b, humanity’s status is conspicuously lost (2:8c). How could this be true if Psalm 8:5a refers to humanity’s original inferiority, temporary or not?

Table 3: Loss of Original Inferiority Implausible

Third, if Psalm 8:5a describes humanity’s original inferiority, temporary (“you made them for a little while lower”) or not (“you made them a little lower”), then the fulfillment of Psalm 8:5a would be out of step with the fulfillment of Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b. In the latter, humanity’s original status is restored; whereas, in the former, humanity’s original status is reversed. Reclaimed glory and dominion are somewhat ill-fitting matches with reversed inferiority.

Even if Hebrews implies the future escalation of humanity’s original status, the escalation of Psalm 8:5a would still be out of step with the escalation of Psalm 8:5b and 8:6b. In the latter, humanity’s original status is restored permanently. Humans are made, to borrow from Augustine, not able to lose glory and not able to lose dominion.32 But this is surely different from the escalated reality of Psalm 8:5a, where humanity’s original status is not simply restored permanently but is reversed permanently.33

Table 4: Escalation of Original Inferiority Unparalleled

The way Hebrews reads Psalm 8 implies the author thought humanity’s original status included glory (8:5b), dominion (8:6b), and superiority to angels (8:5a). To suggest anything else would fail to take on board the reason Hebrews gives for why Psalm 8 turns humanity’s original status into his future status (sin) and the parallelism Hebrews implies between the psalm’s promises, not least the manner in which each is fulfilled in Jesus (restoration, if also permanent). All this suggests why the best reading of Hebrews affirms that in Psalm 8:5a we see both judgment and promise: “because of sin, God made humans lower than angels, if also only for a little while.” According to Hebrews, the reversal of status promised in the psalm is surprisingly accomplished through the sacrificial death of the Messiah, whom the Christian confession identifies as Jesus.34

2. A Concluding Reflection

In conclusion, I will leave to the side the correspondence between my reading and early Jewish thought and what this correspondence (rightly!) implies about Hebrews’ hermeneutical strategy.35 Suffice it to say that Hebrews is not the first to promise humanity’s superiority over angels nor to tie his present inferiority to Genesis 3.36

Instead, I want to conclude by drawing attention to the correspondence between my reading and Hebrews’ Christology. If we don’t read Hebrews in this way, we may overlook an important part of the letter’s central theme. In Hebrews 2:7a and elsewhere, Hebrews wants us to see how thoroughly Jesus identifies with fallen humanity (κατὰ πάντα… ὁμοιωθῆναι, 2:16).37

It is of course true that Hebrews insists upon Jesus’s sinlessness (4:15). Were he not, then his sacrifice would not have been “blameless” (9:14), he would not have been raised from the dead (i.e., “heard,” 5:7–9),38 and he would not have been appointed a Melchizedekian priest (5:10).39 Still, Hebrews everywhere also insists that Jesus identifies with sinful humans, to the extent that he experienced our “fear of death” (2:15; 5:7–8) and “weaknesses” (4:15), along with the “suffer[ing]” associated with “tempt[ation]” (2:18). In this way, Hebrews implies, especially in its use of Psalm 8:5a, that Jesus’s experience was so very much like our own and so very different from (pre-fall) Adam’s.40 The weakness Jesus experienced was out of step with the “very good” world God made in Genesis 1.41

If we fail to see how Hebrews reads Psalm 8:5a, then we may miss the fullness and, indeed, profound goodness of Hebrews’ Christology (see 2:18; 4:14–16). If Jesus ran his race to heaven from the depths of Psalm 8:5a, this suggests just how truly “fitting” he is to be our “pioneer[ing]” example (2:10; see also 12:1–3).42

[1] See, e.g., Jason Maston’s recent account (and the literature he cites) in “‘What Is Man?’ An Argument for the Christological Reading of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2,” ZNW 112 (2021): 89–104, esp. 90 n. 3.

[02] Jared Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, LNTS 537 (New York: T&T Clark, 2015).

[03] Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 51.

[04] Bible quotations are from the New International Version, unless otherwise noted.

[05] Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 38–53.

[06] Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 42, including n. 100.

[07] Gabriella Gelardini’s table points to this, even while it serves another purpose (“Israel’s Scriptures in Hebrews,” in Israel’s Scriptures in Early Christian Writings: The Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Matthias Henze and David Lincicum [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2023], 470–72).

[8] See Gary Edward Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Guide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021), 471; see also the “Davidic covenant” network he summarizes later on (p. 879).

[9] Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament, 471.

[10] Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament, 472; also 879.

[11] Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament, 259; see also 878.

[12] See also Genesis 2:2 in Hebrews 4:4, 10; and Exodus 25:40 and 24:8 in Hebrews 8:5 and 9:20.

[13] So, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Fragments),” in Commentaries on Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, and Hebrews, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, trans. David R. Maxwell, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 115.

[14] Thus, if Hebrews insists on humanity’s present inferiority to angels in Hebrews 2:2, the claim by itself does not allow us to say anything about humanity’s original status. The law’s authority (“binding”), owing to its angelic mediation, might, in other words, support any of the readings we have sketched for βραχύ τι above. Something similar could be said about Hebrews 1:14. There Hebrews says, “angels … serve those who will inherit salvation.” This text could imply that (1) humanity’s—at least redeemed humanity’s (“those who will inherit salvation”)—temporary inferiority has ended, perhaps, in light of Hebrews 2:2, with the advent of the new-covenant era (cf. Heb 2:2 with 1:1–2) or (2) humanity’s inferiority, temporary or not, has not changed—after all, angels might serve humans but they are “sent” by God (cf. Heb 1:6).

[15] See, e.g., ἔτι in Hebrews 7:10, 11; 8:12 [10:17]; 9:8; 10:2, 37; 11:4, 32.

[16] See οὔπω in Hebrews 12:4.

[17] On the connection between these two texts, see Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 40–41.

[18] Dominion, of course, has been given to Jesus uniquely, but it is this evident link with Genesis 1:28 that once more cautions against an exclusively Christological referent, not least as an explanation for why the author has left off Psalm 8:6a (for this alternative, see Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989], 71). This is one reason, therefore, that I cannot go along with Maston’s otherwise stimulating proposal (“What Is Man?,” 102–3; see, similarly, Amy L. B. Peeler, “The Eschatological Son: Christological Anthropology in Hebrews,” in Anthropology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jason S. Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds, LNTS 529 [London: T&T Clark, 2018], 162–63; for an even more plausible alternative, see R. B. Jamieson, The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Studies in Christian Doctrine and Scripture [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021], 132–33).

[19] It is the audience’s situation that explains the examples selected in Hebrews 11, each of which highlights either social alienation or death (see Chris Bruno, Jared Compton, and Kevin McFadden, Biblical Theology According to the Apostles: How the Earliest Christians Told the Story of Israel, NSBT 52 [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020], 164–79).

[20] On the eschatological potential of the Greek text of Psalm 8, see Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 47–48.

[21] For a discussion of 4 Ezra, esp. in light of Hebrews 2:5–9, see Felix H. Cortez, “4 Ezra and Hebrews 2:1–9: Suffering and God’s Faithfulness to His Promises,” in Reading Hebrews in Context: The Sermon and Second Temple Judaism, ed. Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), 32–38.

[22] Both the first and second arguments of Hebrews—Hebrews 1–4 and Hebrews 5–10—raise problems from the Old Testament that only a crucified messiah can solve. Thus, in Hebrews 5–10, the author raises the “problem” of Jeremiah 31:31–34: how could humans experience the unrealized promises of Jeremiah’s anticipated new covenant (see “better promises,” Heb 8:6b), if the covenant could be inaugurated only by an extraordinary sacrifice (see “for [ὅτι],” 8:12, citing Jer 38:34 LXX)? The author answers the implied question by pointing to Jesus’s necessary death. Jesus, he claims, “entered the Most Holy Place … by his own blood” because “it was necessary [ἀνάγκη] … for … the heavenly things themselves [to be purified] with better sacrifices” (Heb 9:12, 23). In other words, the sacrifice needed to inaugurate the new covenant—here symbolized by the necessary consecration of the covenant’s sacred space—was precisely the sacrifice Jesus offered (“his own blood”). The author, as I have argued above, does something similar in his first argument. In Hebrews 1–4, the author raises the “problem” of Psalm 8, appealing to the incongruence between the psalm’s descriptions and the audience’s present experience (Heb 2:8c), before going on to say that Jesus—here mentioned for the first time in Hebrews—secured the psalm’s promises only “because he suffered death” (2:9). Once again, Jesus’s death—messiah’s death—is necessary for solving a problem created by an OT promise. Thus, take away the promise of Psalm 8 or Jeremiah 31, and we miss the author’s apologetic for Jesus’s necessary death and, thus, misunderstand his argument.

On this way of reading the author’s argument, see Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, esp. 165–71; Bruno, Compton, and McFadden, Biblical Theology According to the Apostles, 151–59; and Jared Compton, “Can a Christian Fall Away? How to Hear the Warnings in Hebrews,” Desiring God, 14 May 2022, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/can-a-christian-fall-away; cf. also R. B. Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews, SNTMS 172 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 104–9.

It is this link, moreover, between the promise of Psalm 8:6b and Jesus’s necessary death that suggests the paragraph cannot be about the incongruity between the claims of Psalm 110:1 and of Psalm 8:6b only, as, e.g., in George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Carson and G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 947; see, similarly, George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews, Letter to The,” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew D. Naselli (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023), 295.

[23] Cf. e.g., Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 124; and William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47A (Dallas: Word, 1991), 30, who see a reference to angels in Hebrews 1:9

[24] Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 45; see, e.g., Gareth Cockerill’s different conclusion (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012], 133).

[25] On the relationship between ἐστεφανωμένον and δία in Hebrews 2:9, see Dana M. Harris, Hebrews, EGGNT (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019), 49–50.

[26] For this reading, see Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 128–32; see also Jared Compton, “Where There’s Not a Will: The Covenant Theology of Hebrews 9,” Desiring God, 20 June 2023, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/where-theres-not-a-will.

[27] This runs contrary, therefore, to those who think Hebrews fails to make the connection explicit, even while I recognize the connection here is less than straightforward. Moreover, if Genesis 3 is in the background of Psalm 8, then perhaps the (contested) connection between sin and death in Hebrews 9:16–17 simply brings to the surface what was already implied in 2:5–18 (see the slightly different take in Peeler, “The Eschatological Son:,” 165–66.).

[28] NB: Like Israel’s covenants, Psalm 8’s promises include access to God (cf. Heb 2:18 with 4:14–16).

[29] For Christian precedent, see, e.g., 1 Timothy 2:13–14; 2 Corinthians 11:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45; Romans 5:12–21. For Jewish precedent, see 4Q422; cf. also 1QS IV, 23; CD-A III, 20; 2 Enoch 30.10–12; 32.1; 4 Ezra 6.54, 59; 7.9; cf. 3–8, 12–15. For a discussion, see Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 46–47.

[30] On the relationship between sin and the devil, see, e.g., G. K. Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation and New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023), 227–28.

[31] On the association of “the devil” (or Satan; διάβολος translates הַשָּׂטָן in, e.g., Job 2:1; cf. BDAG, “διάβολος”) with the serpent in early Judaism, see, e.g., b. Soṭa 9a and b. Sanh. 29a (cf. e.g., Chad T. Pierce, “Satan and Related Figures,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 1200). For the connection in early Christianity, see Revelation 12:9. The “fear of death,” in Hebrews 2:14 also recalls Genesis 3 (see, e.g., v. 19, esp. in light of 2:17; 3:3, 4). For a similar line of argument (and one rightly pointing to the “objective soteriological significance [of] the death of Christ”), see Jamieson, Jesus’ Death and Heavenly Offering in Hebrews, 102; also 98.

[32] See Augustine, City of God 22.30.3.

[33] While it is true that Hebrews everywhere insists on the escalation, not simply restoration, of first-covenant realities (i.e., better cult [incl. priest, sacred space, and sacrifice] and covenant), this kind of escalation need not be demanded for pre-first covenant realities (i.e., for humanity’s original, pre–fall state). Further, while it is possible that Hebrews, in one or two places, implies a necessary escalation for even pre-fall humanity (e.g., entering God’s “rest,” in, e.g., Heb 4:4, or the unshakeable, not-of-this-creation “kingdom,” in, e.g., 12:27–28; on the relationship between this unshakeable kingdom and the believer’s resurrected bodies [11:35; cf. 7:16], see Bruno, Compton, and McFadden, Biblical Theology According to the Apostles, 174–75), even in these an argument could be made that such experiences merely confirm pre-fall human experiences. Had Adam and Eve obeyed, such experiences would have been granted permanence, with any possibility of loss forever removed. As Augustine puts it, Adam was created able not to die, sinned and became not able not to die, and, when restored, becomes not only able not to die, as Adam was originally, but actually not able to die (see Augustine, City of God 22.30.3). There is real escalation, but such escalation involves a confirmation rather than a change of humanity’s original status. Cf. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), whose list of “heightened” (p. 916) or “escalated” (p. 917) blessings emphasize escalation by confirmation more than by new experiences (i.e., continued superiority to angels vis-à-vis exaltation above angels for the first time): “1. no more threats from evil; 2. eternal and incorruptible physical and spiritual life; 3. an unending and absolute kingship; 4. unending physical and spiritual rest; 5. living in the context of an incorruptible creation [i.e., incorruptible because of humanity’s eternal and incorruptible physical and spiritual life; see p. 41]; 6. he, his progeny, and the cosmos in their consummated state reflecting more greatly the glory of God” (pp. 916–17, emphasis added; see also pp. 29–46).

[34] I think this is why Jesus’s name is withheld until its dramatic revelation in Hebrews 2:9: Jesus, the one Christians claimed to be messiah, is the one who fulfills the expectations of Psalm 8 (Heb 2:8c), precisely through the surprising means of a cross (2:9)!

[35] See Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, esp. 16–17.

[36] See Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 49–51. For a similar (if not identical) early Christian angelology, see Gerald Hiestand’s analysis of Irenaeus, in “‘Passing beyond the Angels’: The Interconnection between Irenaeus’ Account of the Devil and His Doctrine of Creation” (PhD diss., University of Reading, 2017), and Jonathan King’s illuminating case against angels as divine image-bearers, in “Are Angels Created in the Image of God?” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the ETS, Denver, 15 November 2022).

[37] Cf. Romans 8:3: Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh [ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸςἁμαρτίας].” On the reception of this text in the Christian tradition, see Steven J. Duby, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 302–6.

[38] See Compton, Psalm 110 and the Logic of Hebrews, 70–75; also Jared Compton, “The Function of Divine Christology in Hebrews: Critical Reflections on a Recent Proposal,” Themelios 48.2 (2023): 361–62.

[39] See προσαγορευθείς, in Hebrews 5:10.

[40] Cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 3:311: “Jesus assumed a weak human nature and in that respect differed from Adam.”

[41] See Compton, “Function of Divine Christology,” 361, including n. 53, following Duby’s discussion of Christ’s defectus poenae. “But, under the decision to take up a human nature in which he would suffer for our sin and lead us to glory, the Son had to take up a nature with these defects. While the Son did not have in himself any cause of incurring such defects [defectus culpae], since he came ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3) he still took up weaknesses consequent to the human race’s fall into sin (Jesus and the God of Classical Theism, 282, incl. n131; emphasis added). See also Brandon Crowe, who similarly notes, “This [i.e., Christ’s human nature] was different from Adam before the fall, in that Adam was created without a nature weakened by sin. However, this does not mean that Christ had a fallen human nature. It is instead to say he came into a world, as a real man, that had been affected by sin” (The Lord Jesus Christ: The Biblical Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ, We Believe 3 [Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2023], 229; emphasis added).

[42] See, similarly, John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. William H. Goold, The Works of John Owen 21 (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1854), 4:511–12.