Warning Passages in Hebrews: Part Three

In the last post we noted the element of covenantal continuity in the warning passages in 3:1-4:13. With this foundation laid we can look more briefly at 5:11-6:12, noting especially in what respects this comparison with the wilderness generation is continued. Most scholars concede that this WP is the most precarious of them all. Discussions surrounding this passage usually revolve around the various lexica (ie. ‘words’) used in verses 4-6. Embedded in between the verbless clause Adu/naton ga»r (‘for it is impossible’) in verse 4 and it’s infinitival modifier pa¿lin aÓnakaini÷zein ei˙ß meta¿noian (‘to renew again unto repentance’) are a series of participial modifiers which many contend most naturally refer to a Christian, or a true believer.[1] Leaving the verdict open on this question until after we examine 10:26-29, the point to be made here is that a proper understanding of this passage, or any passage for that matter, must move beyond the semantic range of the various lexica used.[2]

A way forward is paved by paying attention to the much neglected OT background to which this passage most likely alludes. Martin Emmerich has convincingly argued that there are significant overtones from the LXX (ie. ‘Greek Translation of OT’) account of Israel’s wilderness experience/ exodus tradition in the terms used in verses 4-6.[3] If this can be demonstrated then a link would be provided with 3:1-4:13. For example, a‚pax fwtisqe÷ntaß (‘once having been enlightened’) recalls God’s provision of light, ‘that they might travel by day and by night’ (cf. Exod 13:21; Neh 9:12; Ps 105:39. ‘geusame÷nouß te thvß dwrea◊ß thvß e˙pourani÷ou’ (‘tasting of the heavenly gift’) is remnicient of God’s provision of manna ‘from heaven’ for Israel in the wilderness (cf. Exod 16:4). The common rehearsal that God daily provided Israel with manna clearly highlights the fact that bread was a divine ‘gift’. Less likely though certainly plausible is Emmerich’s contention that meto/couß genhqe÷ntaß pneu/matoß aJgi÷ou (‘having become partakers/ participants of the holy spirit’) which he notes refers to the guiding power of the Spirit, corresponds to God’s placing of “Moses’ Spirit” on the seventy elders to ‘instruct their contemporaries during the wilderness treck’ (Num 11:16-30).[4] Finally, he argues that kalo\n geusame÷nouß qeouv rJhvma (‘having tasted the good word of God’) may be an allusion to 2 verses in Joshua that refer to God’s promise of the land of Canaan (cf. Josh 21:45; 23:15).

Even further, as many have observed, the agricultural example and exhortation given in verses Hebrews 6:7-20 are the interpretive key to the preceding verses. Here however, many jump rightly, but too quickly to the parable of the sower as a gospel parallel to shed light on this passage without investigating the OT background to verses 7-8. Dave Mathewson points out that verses 6 and 7 are not a mere illustration but have an informative background in Deuteronomy 11.[5] He notes that this chapter affirms the promises of God must be kept if Israel is to inherit blessing rather than curse when they enter the Promised Land. In Deuteronomy 11:11, ‘the land that drinks the rain’ refers to the promised land. Inheriting the blessings in that land are contingent upon Israel’s obedience (vv. 13-15). Verse 26 makes clear that the choice before Israel is clear: obey and inherit blessing in the land or disobey and experience the covenant curses laid down in chapter 28. The overall context of the chapter must be kept in view. In verses 2-7 Israel is to ‘consider’ all that God had done for them as they stand on the plains of Moab about to enter the promised land. This is to provided an impetus for obedience.

Thus, almost certainly as the recipients of Hebrews read ‘the land that has drunk the rain…receives the blessing…but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is…near to being cursed”, their minds jumped immediately to the book of Deuteronomy. Taken in conjunction with what was said above regarding the lexica used in verses 4-6 it is clear that Hebrews 6:4-8 is rooted deeply in the OT. These roots provide a direct link with the typology demonstrated in 3:1-4:13. Just as the wilderness generation had been enlightened, tasted God’s good provision, participated in the guiding power of the Spirit, given the choice of life or death, blessing or curse, so had readers of Hebrews 3 and 6. It is hard to imagine that mention of blessings and curses in verses 6 and 7 did not bring to mind the bloody self-maledictory oaths so closely associated with OT covenant making.[6] As the bloody ‘pledge to death’ freshly in mind symoblized, the gravity of the covenant that the readers entered into when they professed faith in Christ was not something to be taken lightly. No wonder, it is ‘impossible to renew / restore’ to repentance such a man that has received so much blessing and yet still ‘fall away’ (cp. 3:12; 6:6).[7]

Conclusions: Section 2

At this point the most important element of continuity for the argument of these posts, demonstrated implicitly above (ie. ch 3, 6-see ‘part deux’ from 4-12 ), can now be made explicit. The covenant community of the wilderness/ Israelite generation, upon which the author is drawing his comparison was composed of both believers and nonbelievers. In fact, the majority of those who had entered into covenant with God failed to enter the Promised Land. They had been redeemed out of Egypt, set apart as His covenant people, pledged their obedience, experienced God’s guidance and provision, as described above in section 2. Yet, in spite of all of these blessings, they failed to enter the promised land because of unbelief. Similarly, the author’s present readers had entered into the New Covenant, so richly and elaborately explained in the letter. They believed in God, pledged their obedience, experienced his guidance and provision, but were now in danger of ‘falling away’ as Israel fell in the wilderness (3:16-18). And it is exactly this element of continuity that I believe the writer wishes to emphasize to his present readers. The initial question asked in 3:16, “For who were those who heard and yet rebelled”, has been answered by typological argumentation and carried over from 3:1-4:13 to 6:1-8. The author is stressing continuity with reference to the ‘make-up’ of the Covenant community in the Old and New Testaments that to explain the phenomena of how a person can experience substantial covenantal blessings, and yet fall away.

In the next post we will examine 10:26-29 and then try to pull all of this together, bringing our conclusions to bear on ‘what kind of person’ is in view in these ‘warning passages’.

---

[1] Cf. Schreiner, 592-594. It would be superfluous to multiply further citations.

[2] Cf. Wayne Gruden, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 794-801. Wayne Grudem has cogently demonstrated that the semantic range of the terms used evidences that the terms do not necessarily denote a Christian. For a much more in depth and extended argument see Grudem’s chapter in Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware, eds. Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 133-182.

[3] Martin Emmrich, “ Hebrews 6:4-6 Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry)” WTJ Vol.65, (2003): 83-95.

[4] Emmrich, 85.

[5] Dave Matheson, “Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament” WTJ Vol 61, (1999): 221-222.

[6] This will provide further connection with 10:26-29 and its bases in the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24.

[7] The precise sense of parapi÷ptw (6:6) and aÓfi÷sthmi (3:12) will be assessed after all 3 passages are examined since it is the sin that is in view in all 3 passages. This ‘sense’ will inform how we are to interpret the specific language of Hebrews 6, which is left purposefully vague at this point.

Warning Passages in Hebrews: Part Deux

Warning: This is a large post. They will not all be this long! (note: WP= 'warning passage')

It is a presupposition of these posts that a major key in understanding the meaning of the warning passages in Hebrews and 10:26-29 in particular hinges on the element of continuity between the Old Covenant covenant community and the New Covenant covenant community. The section below will seek to validate this presupposition. It is from the angle continuitythat we will examine WP in chapters 3, 6, and 10. To those even vaguely familiar with the debates surrounding these passages, however, such a statement may sound quite naïve. I, therefore, wish to clearly express from the onset that I am not writing under the delusion that understandingthis element of continuity will solve all of the ‘problems’ surrounding these passages. By all accounts these are clearly difficult passages within a difficult book. With that said, it is the present writer’s opinion that certain aspects of the OT background that highlights thiscontinuity and are crucial to proper interpretation of the WP have either gone unnoticed, downplayed, or have been misinterpreted. This is crucial in a book that consists in large part of a series of a fortiori (ie. ‘from the lesser to the greater’)arguments for the superiority of Christ and his covenant and that grounds the protases (ie. first part of an ‘if’-‘then’ conditional clause) for such arguments firmly on OT foundations. As is well known these a fortiori arguments largely highlight the element ofdiscontinuity between the New Covenant and the Old. The writer goes to great pains to demonstrate the supremacy of Christ and the covenant that he inaugurates to every covenant that has preceded (cf. chs. 7-10)

This emphasis on superiority and discontinuity serves several pastoral functions in the writer’s exhortation. For example, many scholars believe that the pressures of social ostracism were tempting some to revert to certain Jewish practices that were now obsolete under the New Covenant.[1] Further, the confidence and assurance offered through the message of this New Covenant for both approaching God and enduring immanent temptation and persecution far surpassed that which was offered under the Old Covenant. What is more, the author continually warns that the great privilege of receiving such a message also comes with great responsibility. To neglect such a message is a far greater infraction than rejecting the Old Covenant revelation (2:1-4; 10:28-31).

While the importance ofdiscontinuity for the writer’s exhortation has rightly received much attention, certain equally important elements ofcontinuity have not received due consideration in many circles. In the midst of the rich theological argumentation it is easy to lose the proverbial forest for the trees. As Lane observes in his introduction, the rich theological ‘argumentation’ of the letter ‘serves exhortation’.[2] This means that the rich theology, therefore, serves the purpose of the WP, not vice versa. Further, underlying these WP is a current of continuity.Expressed a bit differently and perhaps more cumbersome than above, the element of continuity is this : the ‘make-up’ of the Old covenant wilderness/ exodus ‘community’ and their failure to enter the earthly promised land is cast as a type of the ‘make-up’ of the New covenant ‘community and their potential failure to enter the heavenly promised land. Though clumsy, this way of putting things includes the elements ofcontinuity that these posts wishe to highlight. The different elements in this definition will be fleshed out below. It is the contention of the present writer that by paying close attention to how the wilderness/exodus generation is being used by the author that considerable light will be shed on the ‘kind of person’ in view in the WP. It isthat generation’s disbelief andthat generation’s disobedience that the author passionately pleas with his fellow brethren not to imitate. We see this clearly in 3:1-4:11.

In 3:1-6a the author made a contrast between Jesus and Moses. This contrast segways into a comparison of their follower’s responses.There has been much debate as to what kind of conditional statement 6b is. Fanning, however, convincingly argues that 3:14 sheds light on how we should understand the relationship between the protasis (ie. ‘if’) and apodosis of 6b (ie. ‘then’). This relationship is one of evidence-to-inference rather than cause-to-effect.[3]That is, the evidence of perseverance in the lives of these believers leads to theinference that their faith is genuine. Agreeing with this interpretation, Carson points out that the perfect tense ofgego/namen (‘we have become’)in verse 14 is best understood having past tense reference. Thus, taking 6b in isolation of 3:14 may convey the idea that one becomes a member of God’s household byperseverance. While there is an element of truth to this and perseverance is mandated “perseverence is also the evidence of what has taken place in the past” (Emphasis mine).[4] Thus the author is both encouraging the present faith of his readers and exhorting them to future faith. They are presently God’s people, and by exercise of truth faith, they will demonstrate that they truly are God’s people.

Sandwiched in between 6b and verse 14 is a quote from Psalm 95 that provides the basis for the exhortation in verses 12-19.[5] This quotation recalls Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 14:21-35. In both instances the entire congregation complained and tested God. The original context of both passages stresses the fact that ‘all of the congregation’ is in view.[6] It was all of those who had been redeemed out of Egypt and had entered into a covenant with God at Sinai, pledging to obey all of his commands (Exodus 24:3-8).[7] In 3:16-19 the author wishes to stress this fact by asking a series of rhetorical questions that read very much like OT wisdom literature and which are meant to have the same rhetorical effect.[8] That is, the series of questions are to be pondered carefully as to their true significance and are subsequently to be acted upon accordingly. In 16a he asks, ‘Who were those who heard and rebelled?’. His response is: ‘Was it not most certainly all of those who came out of Egypt by Moses? (emphasis mine) ’.[9] He wants his readers to ponder exactly who it was who rebelled and failed to enter the promised land because the author is making a comparison between that generation and his readers. As will be demonstrated, it is this generation that the writer hearkens his readers back to in each successive warning passage. The significance of this question, therefore, for understanding the warning passages and particularly 10:26-29, cannot be underestimated. This question is answered by the quotation from Psalm 95 mentioned above, being applied directly to his readers by means of the strong inferential conjuction ‘therefore’ (dio) in verse 7. He stresses the continuity between his readers and the wilderness generation by the typological argumentation from Psalm 95:7-11. The house church (es) in Rome are the antitype of the wilderness generation of Numbers 14 and more specifically, the house church (es) in Rome are being cast as the “New Israel who’s entering the promised land is contingent upon their faithfulness to God”.[10]

It is on this basis that the solemn warning of verse 12 comes. Playing off of key lexica used in the quotation the author urges his readers against a ‘unbelieving heart’ which would lead them to ‘fall away’ (aÓposthvnai) from the living God in the same manner that the wilderness generation did.[11] Put in the language of verse 14, only holding to their present confidence will they prove that they truly do ‘participate’ (me÷tocoß) in Christ. And the ‘rest’ in view is eschatological, not merely physical and temporal. As typological of the OT ‘rest’, the idea conveyed in 4:6-13 is best understood in the well-known NT ‘already-not yet’ language. The already aspect of rest, consistent with the sense of the conditional clauses of 3:6 and 14 just mentioned, is seen by the emphasis on ‘today’ (v. 7). Because the recipients presentfaith is waning they must strive or they are in danger of proving in the future that their faith was not genuine. The eschatological ‘not-yet’ aspect is also implied in these statements. As Lane notes, commenting on verse 11, ‘The consummation- rest, in which everything that God intended for humanity by his own Sabbath rest will be realized, remains future. It can be forfeited through a careless and hardened disposition”.[12]Further, the grounds given in verses 12-13 for striving against such a disposition also demonstrates that the eschaton is in view. The same word which at present was good news (v.2) will, at the final judgment, witness against them when they will not be able to hide even a shred of unbelief or disobedience from God, before whom the readers ‘must give account’ (v. 13).

Thus, the writer is basing the warning against failure to enter God’s rest typologically on the wilderness generations’ failure to enter the promised land. 3:1-4:13 is theparadigmatic warning text, laying down the typological relationship between the wilderness / exodus generation which he will use in the subsequent warning passages.

Next time we will see how this idea of 'continuity' also forms the background for the warning passage in chapter 6. At that point we will 'take stock' and note the significance of this idea of 'continuity' for both of the passages that we have looked at so far.

---

[1] Schreiner notes that though this point is disputed it is the majority opinion among scholars. Schreiner, 585.

[2] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47: Hebrews 1-8 (Dallas: Word books, 1991), c.

[3] Bateman, 207-215.

[4] Carson, 85.

[5] G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 953; The MT and the LXX of Psalm 95 evidence different emphases. In the former the writer points more directly to the incident in Meribah and Massah in Exodus 17:1-7, but clearly alludes to Numbers 20 and therefore Numbers 14 (Kadesh). It was at Kadesh that God swore that the wilderness generation would not enter the promised land. The latter (LXX) focuses more directly on Numbers 14 and interestingly turns the names ‘Meribah’ and ‘Massah’ into their meaning in Greek, ‘revolt’ and ‘trial’ respectively; Lane, liii. Lane notes that the recipients of the letter was almost certainly a house church or several small house churches.

[6] The LXX of Exodus 17:1 says that it was ‘all’ (pasa) of the congregation. In Numbers 14 paß is used 9 times and oloßonce to refer to the congregation who sinned. This is deliberately juxtaposed with the three times it is said that ‘none’ of them shall enter the promised land.

[7] A more detailed discussion of the covenant ratification ceremony in Exodus 24 will be discussed in connection with 10: 26-29.

[8] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 250.

[9] Fredrick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 44:3.Here, the conjuction ‘but’ (aÓlla) is not translated in many English translations. This conjunction is best understood as relaying ‘strong asservation’ having the sense of ‘surely’; The writer is emphatically drawing attention to the fact that it was not just any community but God’s redeemed communitywho had ‘heard’ His warnings, experienced the majestic redemption of the Exodus event and yet in spite of such privileges rebelled.

[10] Osborne, 340. Osborne goes on to say, “ Hermeneutical principles in Hebrews must begin with typology. In one sense this permeates the whole book”.

[11] Bateman, 336-377. Gleason and others argue that too close of a comparison between the fate of the readers and the wilderness generation leads to the view that ‘rewards’ and not ‘eternal life’ is in view. This view fails to acknowledge that the writer goes on to make a typological comparison between the OT physical rest and NT eschatological rest.

[12] Lane, 102.