Admonition and Error in Hebrews - Heb 6

7/31/2019 Admonition and Error in Hebrews - Heb 6

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/admonition-and-error-in-hebrews-heb-6 1/10

ADMONITION AND ERROR IN HEBREWS

NOEL WEEKS

O NE of the most difficult problems facing the exegete whodeals with the New Testament epistles is the reconstruction

of the error (s) against which the letters were written. 1 It isobvious that our concepts of the errors combated will affect ourinterpretation. Failure to raise this problem may lead to theoverlooking of exegetical possibilities. Given that the heresiescombated have some Jewish background, the New Testamentwriters were not forced to take issue at every point raised bythe heresy. They could accept the Old Testament data as common while subjecting it to a very different interpretation. Muchthat strikes us as simple teaching may indeed be polemic in that

it is designed to demonstrate a different interpretation from thatheld by the heretics.We may well suspect that Hebrews is polemical and anti

thetical in its instruction. The Superiority of Christ to angelsto Moses, and of his priesthood to that of Aaron, is directedagainst those who do not recognize that superiority. 2 We mayfurther suggest that even in its practical admonitions the polemicis never absent. For example Hebrews 2:2,3 accepts the gravityof the "angelic" revelation only to stress the far greater revelation that came through the Son. Chapter 3 begins with an argu-

1The Qumram findings and renewed interest in Jewish sects haveresulted in works such as J. J. Günther, St Paul's Opponents and their

Background (Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1973). While containing much usefulinformation one cannot but wonder if we yet have the sources necessaryfor a full understanding of schools of thought such as "the Colossianheresy." The same applies for the error against which Hebrews iswritten, in spite of the value of Y. Yadin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and

the Epistle to the Hebrews" in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds.) Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (Jerusalem; MagnesPress, 1958), pp. 36-55.



ADMONITION AND ERROR IN HEBREWS 7 3

ment for the superiority of the Son to Moses. The admonitionthat follows points out (3:16) that the movement led by Moses

ended in rebellion and death. Not only does Moses occupy alesser place ; the deliverance led by Moses is also not to be overrated.

It follows therefore that our interpretation of the difficult admonition passages in 5:11-6:12 and 10:26-39 will reflect ourunderstanding of the heresy involved. The practical problem isthat we are forced to infer the nature of the heresy from thenature of the polemic. It is hard to prove that a certain viewof the heresy is correct. The best that can be argued is that aparticular view of the heresy provides a solution for variousexegetical problems in the text of the epistle. In describing theheresy we have little hope of giving a full picture of its systemof doctrine. Some individual characteristics are the most we canextract from the answer of the writer to the Hebrews.

The heresy saw certain of its practices or experiences as related to the experiences and practices of Israel in the wilderness.We may suspect that this was because they saw themselves as

the legitimate continuation of Israel, The definitive and foundational experience for Israel was the wilderness experience. Sothe heresy interpreted its own practices by reference to Israelin the wilderness. There may have been an element of forcedexegesis or, perhaps, allegory in the connection that was madebetween wilderness Israel and the practices of the sect.

The clearest example is provided by 13:9-14. The writerwarns the readers against preoccupation with dietary matters. 3

He then points out that we eat from a different altar than thatavailable to those who serve the tabernacle. Christian "eating"is contrasted to the eating of the tabernacle priests and, it wouldseem, to the eating prescribed under the rejected dietary laws.For the argument to have force the heresy must have seen a connection between their dietary laws and the regulations for thetabernacle priests.

This example also shows the author's method of answeringthe heresy. He does not challenge the connection between wil

derness Israel and the heretics ; rather he demonstrates the su-



7 4 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

periority of the new order brought by Christ over the old order.There was no need for the author to challenge the connection

the heresy made between itself and wilderness Israel. Since wemay presume that the heresy was Jewish, that continuity wasthere anyway. Furthermore, the author elsewhere sees the continuation of the Old Testament sacrificial system as evidence of its inferiority (10:1-3). It is not at all part of his purpose toargue that the wilderness was a limited and once for all experience. As its sacrificial ordinances with all their weakness continued, so its failures had not been rectified before the comingof Christ. Not only did Moses fail to lead the people into rest(3:16-19) ; Joshua also did not (4:8) .

The superiority of the new order is emphasized in the warningpassages as much as in the instruction passages. In 2:1-4 thereis a contrast between disobedience to the former revelation anddisobedience to the new revelation. The writer goes further in3:7-4:11, in that he contrasts the deliverance under Moses andJoshua with that brought by the Lord. Whereas Moses andJoshua did not lead the people into rest, those who believe in

the Lord do enter into the rest.In the teaching portions there is an emphasis on the inability

of the old ordinances to produce internal change. They are external ordinances (7:18,19; 9:8-14). Corresponding to this isthe mention of disobedience under the old covenant in the warnings (3:15-19). Against those who stressed their continuitywith Israel it had to be pointed out that this was not a gloriouslineage. Unbelief marked that heritage (cf. Mt. 23:29-35; Acts7:51-53; 28:24-27). The writer stresses the necessity of continuing with Christ lest the believers become like unbelievingIsrael (3:6; cf. 10:36-39).

With this background we may turn to the difficult passage5:11-6:12. We would expect that the author would include, inthis warning passage also, the lessons to be learned from theweaknesses and failures under the old covenant. This does notseem to be the case. Rather, it seems to describe the failures of temporary believers in Christ. When we examine the passage

more carefully, we are confronted with the basic exegeticalproblem: the description in 6:1,2 of elements of instruction which




the verses which follow (4 , 5) seem to indicate Christian experience. Exegetes have been faced with a choice and have

chosen to attempt to squeeze the items listed in 6:1, 2 intoChristian instruction. If we are forced to a choice, surely thepattern of admonition in the letter would make us look for adescription of experiences under the old order. In other words,

we should not re-interpret the very clear list in 6:1, 2 in thelight of the somewhat indefinite list in 6:4, 5. Rather we shouldseek an interpretation of 6:4, 5 which brings these verses intoline with the indications in 6:1, 2 of a reference to the old covenant. The rest of this paper will be devoted to showing that thelatter interpretation is indeed possible, if not demanded by thelanguage, and thus brings this passage into line with the other

warning passages in the epistle.The first exegetical problem is whether we read τίνα ("what

are") or τινά ("something of") in 5:12. Is the author sayingthat they need to have pointed out to them what are just elementary principles in order that they may progress beyond them orthat they need to be taught the elementary principles all over

again? The former is obviously the case, because in 6:1 theauthor warns against going back over the elementary points. 4

Also in favor of this alternative is that the bulk of ancient versions, authors, and accented manuscripts read τίνα.

The phrases, "elements of the beginning of the oracles of God"(τα στοιχεία της αρχής των λογίων του Οεοΰ) and "the word of the beginnings of Christ" (τον της αρχής του χριστού λόγον), are

both aimed to emphasize the absolutely elementary nature of what must be left behind. And both refer to the former revelation. This is somewhat more obvious with the first phrase thanthe second. "Oracles of God" is used in the New Testamentoften, if not exclusively, of the Old Testament. 5 The "elements"(στοιχεία) may well be a technical term in the heresy being

4 Westcott argues the contrary case, but his point escapes me: ". . . itcould hardly be said that the Hebrews required to learn what the elementsof the Faith were. They knew what they were though they did not

know them" (The Epistle to the Hebrews [2nd edn., London, Macmillan,1892], p. 133).5 Acts 7:38 and Rom 3:2 are clear cases I Peter 4:11 is doubtful




combated. It seems to be a term used by the Colossian heresy(Col. 2:8,, 20). Without going into the problem of the exactform of the Colossian heresy I think it safe to say that theconcern for angels and dietary laws 6 points to a connection between the Colossian and the Hebrews heresies. The "elements"sean connected to the Old Testament in Colossians 2:20-22 andGaíatians 4:3. Thus the writer wants to warn his readers of thedangers of remaining attached to the basic rudiments of theOld Testament revelation. 7

The second phrase is not such a clear reference to the oldrevelation. Yet what better way to describe the Old Testament

than "the beginning (first principles)-of-the-Christ Word"? Itis the word which contains the first rudiments of instructionabout the Messiah. Yet we must not stop with these rudiments.The things listed in 6:1, 2 are clearly drawn from the OldTestament. There is nothing here that is distinctive of Christianinstruction and experience. The matter is practically decided bythe mention of "washings." As 9:10 shows this is a reference tothe Old Testament ritual washings. 8

However, progress from basic instruction to full Christianfaith is not automatic. We are dependent upon the work of God(6:3). The thought here is completely in accord with the teaching of Paul (2 Cor. 3:12-18), that one cannot progress beyondthe Mosaic ordinances without divine intervention. To reinforcethe point of the gulf that exists between the elementary ordinances and Christian maturity the writer deals with the sins of those who had received the Mosaic ordinances.

β Should we add sabbath observance to this list? Compare Col. 2:16 with the emphasis in Heb. 3,4, that it is through Christ that one entersthe true sabbath rest.

7 For a discussion of the milk/solid food image in 5:12-14, see R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: E. J. Brill,1970), pp. 277ff.

8 Despite the ingenuity of commentators it is hard to explain why multiple baptisms" should be part of basic Christian instruction. It isquestionable whether βαπτισμός as opposed to βάπτισμα is used of Christian baptism. Mark 7:4 is clearly a reference to ritual washings.The doubtful case is Col. 2:12, where the manuscripts are divided be-tween βαπτισμφ and βαπτίσματι. The question is discussed in J. B.



ADMONITION AND ERROR IN HEBREWS 77

The crucial problem then becomes the interpretation of 6:4, 5.There is an apparent vagueness in the terms used. These terms

seem applicable to Christian experience, especially when we notethe use of "enlightened" in 10:32. Yet, once again there is nothing distinctively Christian in these terms. They are, in fact,descriptions of the wilderness experience of Israel.

Before proceeding to argue the last point the problem of theoverlap of this terminology with Christian terminology must befaced. There is a very real parallel between the great OldTestament act of redemption and the New Testament salvation. 9

The people of God in both eras have had similar experiences.Herein lies the danger for the readers. They may come to seethe old revelation as being on the same level as the new. Thewriter does not deny the reality of this comparison betweenwilderness experience and Christian experience. "For indeedwe have had good news preached to us, just as they also" (4:2).Yet he does stress that this was not of profit to those who received the former revelation: "the word of hearing did notprofit them, because it was not united by faith in those who

heard."There is another possibility. Are the terms used in w . 4, 5

technical terms within the heresy? Does the particular sect of Judaism involved attempt to connect its experiences and practices with those of wilderness Israel by means of such terms?In other words, their practices would involve "enlightenment,""tasting," etc., which are connected by a particular exegesis toIsrael's "enlightenment," "tasting," etc. There is no way of proving this possibility. The structure of thought I have suggested finds analogies in Philo and Qumran, but the heresy isnot identical with the teaching of Philo or Qumran. 10 All that

9 If the thesis presented here is correct, it explains the overlap between the terminology used in 6:4,5 and Christian sacramental terminology (cf., the thesis of Philip E. Hughes, "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Perilof Apostasy," Westminster Theological Journal 35 [1972-3], 137-155).Christian terms are drawn from the quarry of the sacramental experienceof Israel.

10

Note, however, the comment of Yadin," . . . we cannot help feelingthat the DSS (Dead Sea Sect) organized itself in as exact as possiblea replica of the life of the tribes of Israel in the wilderness " (op cit




can be said is that such a structure is suggested by 13:9-14 andis compatible with what we learn from Colossians.

The terms used in w. 4, 5 have as their background the miracles that Israel witnessed in the wilderness. As far as an echoing of the actual words of the LXX is concerned, there isparticular dependence upon the reflection by the Psalms on thewilderness sojourn. The "enlightenment" of Israel is mentionedin Psalms 43:3; 44:3; 78:14; 105.-39. 11 To these allusions tothe pillar of fire in the wilderness we may add references to thelaw such as Psalm 119:130. A verse which may link together,by way of allusion, the external light that led Israel and theinner enlightenment is Psalm 36:9. 12

Israel ate of the "bread of heaven" (Ps. 78:24; 105:40). Theaccounts of the manna mention its taste (Ex. 16:31 ; Num. 11:8) #

The Spirit was given to Bezalel (Ex. 35:30, 31). The Spiritwas given also to the elders of the people (Num. 11:77ff.). Itwas against the Spirit that the people rebelled (Ps. 106:33).References to the receipt of the Word of God are too numerousto mention, but Psalm 119:103 might be particularly mentionedas involving also the idea of tasting.

So far the writer has been willing to give great significance tothe experience of Israel during the sojourn in the wilderness.Nevertheless by the phrase "the powers of an age to come" heplaces all this in perspective. The power of God was manifestedin the wilderness, but it was a power that did not properly belong to that time. It was an intrusion, a foreshadowing. Thepowers displayed belong more properly to the age yet to come.The dominant typological structure of Hebrews emerges here.

The old era was not complete or significant in itself. Whatlight and significance it had derived from the projection into itof the powers of the age of full revelation. This very phrase isitself strong evidence that these verses do not describe Christianexperience. Certainly there is an age to come for the Christianalso. However, the stress of Hebrews is that the "age to come"

11 To save multiple references, all passages are cited according to thepsalm and verse divisions of the English translation, rather than the LXXor Massoretic text.

12 If the heresy was trying to connect their own inner experience and




has already come with the coming of the Lord. The future ageis not set over against the New Testament age. The "future age"

begins with the New Testament age. However, from the standpoint of Israel in the wilderness that age was definitely in thefuture.

The crowning proof of the insufficiency of that former revelation is the fact that it was those who received it who put theSon of God to death. In 6:6 we meet a clear example of the way that interpretation influences translation, and translation in turnhas a strong influence on interpretation, άναστανρουντας is generally translated "crucify again." Translators are being influenced by the belief that the passage deals with apostateChristians. Yet, in extra-biblical Greek it always means simply "crucify" with the άνα prefix having the sense of "up" ratherthan "again." 13 What is referred to here is not a figurative re-crucifixion by apostate Christians; rather, it is the originalcrucifixion of the Lord by those who were recipients of all the

blessings which came to Israel through Moses. The teaching of this passage is thus another point of overlap between Stephen's

speech (specifically Acts 7:52, S3) and this epistle.14

What then is the force of these verses? What is declared to be "impossible"? What is impossible is the revivification of Judaism. 15 The community which had received all of the blessings of the Mosaic economy and yet was without faith willreceive the judgment that comes upon the unfruitful field (6:8).This passage is thus a continuation of the thought of the gospels(Mt. 3:9, 10; 21:42-44; 23:37-39). It goes against the senseof the passage and the author's intent to delve into the questionof the fate of individuals. His readers were in danger becausethey failed to see the inadequacies of contemporary Judaism.Under the pressure of persecution they might be tempted to

1 8 W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of theNew Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: Uni

versity of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 60b.ι* Compare also Acts 7:39 with Heb 3:16; Acts 7:38 with Heb. 5:12;

Acts 7:44 with Heb. 8:5.1 5 The teaching of Rom. ll:25ff. on this point is discussed in H.




join a sect of Judaism which appeared to offer similar teachingand experiences. The readers must be made to realize that the

ship of Judaism was sinking. It could not be refloated. Salvationlay with the church. The Christian community must follow itsLord in a religious separation from those whose share was inthe tabernacle ( 13:10-14).

The author makes it clear in 6:9, 10 that he does not classthe recipients of the letter with the unbelievers described earlier.They have shown by their actions that they have taken the sideof the Christian community. They need resolution to perseverein that decision. The same point is made in 10:32-39.

The only point that remains for consideration is 10:26-31.Once again we find the reference to sin under the Mosaic law.There is a clear reference to the death of Christ in v.29. Theinsult done to the Spirit of God may once again be compared tothe accusation which Stephen made (Acts 7:51). The problemrather lies with "and has considered as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified." The first part of thephrase is no problem, since it aptly describes what happened atthe trial and crucifixion of Jesus (Mt. 27:25). The real problemis with the clause "in which he was sanctified." There is anambiguity here. Who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant,the murderers of Jesus or Jesus himself? I believe that the latteris the case. It must be remembered that αγιάςω ("sanctify")does not necessarily imply the existence of sin. Thus Jesus wasthe one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world"(Jn. 10:26). Further the whole point of the author has been toemphasize that Jesus has fulfilled the requirements of a high

priest. There is an analogy between the Aaronic ordinances andthe sacrifice of Christ. So it is reasonable to suggest that as

Aaron was consecrated by the blood of the sacrifice (Ex. 29)so Jesus was consecrated as high priest through the offering of his own blood. 16 Hence we find in this passage another referenceto the heinous transgression of those who had received the law and all the blessings granted to Israel.

University of Sydney, N.S.W., Australia

1 6 Are we meant to connect the blood and water which comes from the



^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Admonition and Error in Hebrews - Heb 6

Documents

Transcript of Admonition and Error in Hebrews - Heb 6