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.
No comments:
Post a Comment