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.
Thanks BL, this was quite helpful.
ReplyDelete