Christ Grown into Perfection (1) Hebrews 9,11 from a Christological Point of View Heb 9,11, together with the following verse, Heb 9,12, has always been regarded as one of the pivotal sentences of Hebrews, by some as the most pivotal one (2). The present paper focuses on the participial construction in Heb 9,11b (see the arrangement of the verse below) with relation to its intended predicate; that is, the focus is placed on the content, syntax and semantics. As a by-product, the reading offered in this paper also provides some insight into the well known text-critical problem of the verse. Since the focus of this paper falls on the content, the arguments offered are related to the text-immanent or ‘inner criteria’. The yardstick of the correctness of an interpretation is, as always, not the categories of true and false, but of meaningful and less meaningful, and the category of meaning is derived from the standard of coherence. In other words, the interpretation that offers the greatest insight into the interpretation of the whole writing can demand greater approval. The truth to be searched for and hopefully found can therefore, however, never be treated as an objective truth but rather as an intersubjective exegetical truth. My approach is based on the observation that a ‘soteriological reading’ of Heb 9,11 is neither necessary nor particularly meaningful. The participium coniunctum paragenomeno" ajrciereu;" twn genomenwn agaqwn should rather be read as a v ' v j ' strictly christological statement, meaning thus: ‘(Christ), arrived as the high priest whose good qualities (virtues) have come into being’. As an arrangement of some modern and one older translations of verse 11 reveals at a first glance (3), there has to date been no agreement regarding the text critical problem, as to whether the ajgaqav of verse 11b have already (1) Paper read at a Seminar on Hebrews at the University of Pretoria and at the Colloquium of the North-West University, Potchefstroom. I wish to thank all participants for comments, criticisms and proposals. Errors remaining are solely mine. (2) A strong exponent of this assumption is A. Vanhoye, prominently in his La structure litteraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux (Paris 1963) 60-64; see also the article by him, “Literarische Struktur und theologische Botschaft des Hebräerbriefes (Teil 1)” SNTU 4 (1979) 119-147, esp. 135, or Structure and message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia Biblica 12; Roma 1989) 36-44, see esp. 40a.b. Although Vanhoye’s observations of ‘perfect symmetry’ have been doubted, cf. B.C. JOSLIN, “Can Hebrews be Structured? An Assessment of Eight Approaches”, CBR 6 (2007) 99-129, 111-112, virtually every attempt to structure the text will arrive at the conclusion that Heb 9,11-12 is located in the centre and part of the main argumentative paragraph. (3) New Revised Standard Version: “But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come”; King James Version: “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come”; Revised Luther Version: “Christus aber ist gekommen als ein Hoherpriester der zukünftigen Güter”; Münchener New Testament: “Christos aber, gekommen als Hochpriester der (Wirklichkeit) gewordenen Güter”; Nouvelle Edition Geneve: “Mais Christ est venu comme souverain sacrificateur des biens à venir”; Latin Vulgate: “Christus autem adsistens pontifex futurorum bonorum”.