Apocalyptic Piety: A Comparative Analysis Of The Ethics Of Revelation

By Jonathan A. Campbell

[Jonathan A. Campbell is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Burman University, Canada.]

The final book in the NT canon is known for its symbolic language and vivid description of end-time events. In this way it resembles many other apocalypses from the Second Temple period. In this study, four Second Temple apocalypses are surveyed for their ethical exhortation in order to understand better the ethics of Revelation. Specifically, the works of 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Abraham serve as comparanda that are reviewed to determine how apocalyptic writings tended to express paraenetic teaching. Some, like the “Epistle of Enoch” in 1 Enoch and much of 2 Enoch, express their ethics via imperatives directed at the reader. Others, including the “Book of the Watchers” in 1 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham, show their readers the desired ethics through the way in which protagonists and antagonists are portrayed. While they express their ethical teachings in various ways, the content of those teachings is quite similar for all four works: the righteous should worship God alone and should treat their fellow humans well. These works serve as a comparative base by which Revelation is evaluated. It is shown that Revelation distinguishes itself from other apocalypses by focusing almost exclusively on the worship of God, rather than on human interrelations. Even those passages in Revelation that condemn injustice view such injustice as being ultimately derived from false worship. This departure from typical apocalyptic tendencies helps to emphasize the book’s call for the unadulterated worship of God.

* * *

Definitions of Second Temple apocalyptic literature tend to focus on form rather than function. The Apocalypse Group working with the SBL Genres Project produced the following definition for the apocalyptic genre:

“Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative frame-work, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.[1]

This definition accurately describes the form of most apocalyptic literature from the Second Temple period, but it has little to say about the purpose of such revelations.[2] Some have suggested that the apocalypses were written to encourage the reader in difficult times, with little interest in ethical exhortation.[3] Yet most agree that the authors of these works sought to promote particular behaviors.[4] The specific behavior being urged varied based on the context and ideology of a given author, but certain commonalities persist due to their shared Judaic background.[5] This study seeks to come to a better understanding of the ethics of the biblical book of Revelation by comparing its paraenetic passages with those of other Second Temple apocalypses. By understanding the parameters of the genre, one can better see how John aligns with and departs from similar works. This in turn allows us to understand better the book’s theology. In analyzing these works, it will be useful to identify both explicit imperatives as well as implicit characterizations.[6] Both elements served authors in conveying their desired ethical teachings. Care must be taken whenever one undertakes to compare disparate ancient compositions.[7] Nevertheless, it will be shown that it was common for these apocalypses to encourage the reader both to worship God alone and to care for humanity. Revelation will prove to be an outlier, because it exhibits a greater emphasis on proper devotion to God.

I. Ethics In Apocalyptic Literature

1. First Enoch

The composite pieces of apocalyptic literature collectively known as 1 Enoch hold pride of place among Second Temple writings. Not only does the collection inform much of what is known regarding the apocalyptic genre, it was also quite influential during its own time. Multiple 1 Enoch fragments were found at Qumran, and Jude assumes the reader knew it. Its composite nature makes it an invaluable resource because it demonstrates a variety of ways the apocalyptic genre could relate to ethical exhortation.

The “Book of the Watchers” (chs. 1–36) mostly avoids direct moral or ethical exhortation. In the first five chapters, which serve as an introduction to the following apocalyptic vision, the righteous are assumed to be righteous and the wicked assumed to be wicked. Richard Bauckham notes,

In chs. 1–5 there is no exhortation to the wicked to repent or to the righteous to continue in obedience. There is simply announcement of judgment on the apostates and mercy and peace for the righteous. Presumably, there is no possibility of forgiveness for the wicked, any more than there is for the paradigm apostates, the Watchers (12:4–14:7). As for the righteous, the text simply presupposes that they are living obediently and need primarily the reassurance that justice is going to be done.[8]

Bauckham is correct that these first five chapters do not attest any direct imperatives. Yet the author does characterize the wicked and the righteous in order to give the reader a negative and positive example, respectively. The wicked are impatient and law-breakers who have spoken slanderous and harsh words against God (5:4). The righteous are wise and humble people who refrain from sin (5:8). While not directly addressing the reader, the author nonetheless describes ethical actions which the reader would be expected to emulate.

Characterization is used similarly throughout the rest of the “Book of the Watchers.” Illicit sexual unions brought the curse of sin upon the world (6:2), which led to bloodshed (7:5; 9:1) and deception (8:3). Notably, sins against both God and humanity are denounced. Injustice on the earth, presumably against humans, would be destroyed (10:16). Yet the “Book of the Watchers” also predicts that a time would come when sin would be no more: “All the children of men are to become righteous and all nations shall serve and bless me [God], and all shall worship me” (10:21; cf. 36:4).[9] Those who failed to worship God or treat humans with justice would be punished (18:15; 22:13). We will see that most Second Temple apocalypses, either explicitly through exhortation or implicitly through characterization, encourage their readers to honor God and live honorably toward one another.

In the “Similitudes of Enoch” (chs. 37–71) there continues to be a clear distinction between the righteous and the wicked.[10] Yet more information is given regarding the actual acts which place individuals into these categories. Economic and political power is a primary consideration in the “Similitudes.”[11] The wicked who “possess the earth will neither be rulers nor princes” and “shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous and holy ones” (38:4–5). “Their faces shall be filled with shame, and their countenances shall be crowned with darkness” (62:10). This is because “oppression cannot survive his judgment” (50:4). On the other hand, those who “believe in the name of the Lord of the Spirits” will be called “holy ones” (43:4; cf. 41:2; 45:1). They choose to drink from the fountain of righteousness (48:1) and hate the oppression found in the world (48:7–8). They are the ones who “seek light and find righteousness with the Lord of the Spirits” (58:4). In short, the righteous are those who abandon evil practices of oppression and seek the righteousness of God. While the author of the “Similitudes” does not directly call his audience to repentance, he provides an example that the reader would feel compelled to follow.

The “Astronomical Book” (chs. 72–82) is more concerned with cosmological reflections than ethical exhortations. Nevertheless, there are brief calls for action. One should live a moral life: “Blessed is the man who dies righteous and upright, against whom no record of oppression has been written, and who received no judgment on that day” (81:4). Furthermore, the reader is exhorted to adopt the 364-day calendar proposed by this book. Those who do are wise and blessed, while those who do not are equated with sinners (82:4–8). The “Astronomical Book” thus exhorts its readers to be righteous and wise.

In the “Dream Visions” (chs. 83–90) we see similarities with the “Book of the Watchers,” in that the people are divided between the righteous and the wicked based on their actions. Prayer to God is viewed as a righteous deed (83:8; 84:1), and God is called upon to sustain those who are righteous and upright (84:6). In the Animal Apocalypse (chs. 85–90), the wicked are those who perpetrate violence against God’s people (85:4; 86:6; 89:19) or allow their eyes to go blind (89:54; 90:7), the latter likely referring to false worship. These offenders will be destroyed because of their evil actions (90:19). Like the “Book of the Watchers,” the “Dream Visions” does not issue explicit imperatives to its readers. Rather, in telling a stylized story of Israel’s history it reminds its readers to emulate the heroes of righteousness and faith from their past.

The “Epistle of Enoch” (chs. 91–107) contains the clearest examples of ethical exhortation in 1 Enoch. Notably, the “Epistle” is also the least like a typical apocalypse.[12] Within the most apocalyptic section of the “Epistle”—the Apocalypse of Weeks (ch. 93)—the elect are chosen “from the eternal plant of righteousness,” but only after the seventh week (93:10). This allows for repentance and ethical living. Citing 1 En. 91, 94, and 99, Sappington says, “Enoch’s point here is simple: ‘Obedience leads to the blessedness I have predicted, while disobedience leads to judgment and condemnation. Therefore, obey God’s commandments so that you might escape judgment and enjoy the reward of the righteous!’”[13] This call is given not just to the Jews, because eventually “all people shall direct their sight to the path of uprightness” (91:14).[14] In chs. 94–100, the Woe Oracles warn readers about evil deeds while interspersing calls to live righteous lives. These woes generally focus on the greed and oppression characteristic of the wicked (94:6–9; 95:5–7; 96:4–8; 97:8–10; 98:13; 99:15; 100:7). Condemnation of infidelity toward God is not as prevalent in this section, but it is nonetheless present (94:8; 99:7, 14).[15] In short, the “Epistle” exhorts its readers to embrace justice and live a pious life in order to avoid the woes and receive the blessings.

First Enoch serves as an important starting point for surveying the various ways the apocalyptic genre could relate to ethical exhortation. Because of its age and widespread reputation, it likely had at least an indirect influence on Revelation.[16] Furthermore, the various sub-genres within 1 Enoch make for a useful comparison to John’s Apocalypse. Both works include epistles with ethical exhortation couched within a thoroughly apocalyptic framework. In 1 Enoch, ethical commands and implicit characterization tend to support fear of God and proper relationships with people.

2. Second Enoch

This second book attributed to Enoch illustrates the full extent to which the apocalyptic genre could be used to call its audience to righteous living. It is difficult to miss its ethical pronouncements. Indeed, “The ethical component is spread over the whole work.”[17] The righteous are the ones who

suffer every kind of tribulation in this life and who afflict their souls, and who avert their eyes from injustice, and who carry out righteous judgment, to give bread to the hungry, and to cover the naked with clothing, and to lift up the fallen, and to help the injured, who walk before the face of the Lord, and who worship him only—for them this has been prepared as an eternal inheritance (9:1).[18]

This passage shows the dual nature of righteousness. First, God’s people will not be oppressors. They carry out God’s will by clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, and giving justice to the helpless (42:6–9; 44:4–5; 50:2–6; 63:1). In a maxim akin to the Golden Rule (Lev 19:18; Matt 7:12), Enoch instructs his readers, “That which a person makes request from the Lord for his own soul, in the same manner let him behave toward every living soul” (61:2). The wicked are those who oppress others (10:5). The righteous person must live a life of social justice.

Second, 2 Enoch also calls its readers to monotheistic worship of God.[19] God requires sacrifices and the offering of the firstborn (2:2; 66:2). The Lord blesses those who bring offerings to him, not because he needs material goods, but because by such offerings people may show themselves worthy (45:1–3; 62:1). The wicked are those who do not give God his due (61:4). Blessings would come in the form of future rewards (see below) but also in temporal benefits: “But he who brings a sacrifice of clean beasts, it is healing, he heals his soul” (59:1). The righteous would prove their worth through piety, just as much as through humanitarianism.

The exhortations in 2 Enoch serve a dual purpose. First, like most other apocalyptic works, there are admonitions to remain faithful through difficult times.[20] Assaults, tribulations, and suffering would come upon God’s people, but they would be blessed if they patiently endured (50:2–6; 62:1; 66:6).[21] In addition to this common apocalyptic refrain, 2 Enoch directly ties one’s actions to one’s eschatological fate. “A blessed afterlife is strictly a reward for right ethical behavior.”[22] There are divine scales in which a person’s actions would be weighed (44:5; 49:2–3; 52:15). The beatific place is prepared for those who do righteous acts (9:1). This is in stark contrast with 1 Enoch, which assumes some concept of election. God’s reward is even called “compensation,” as the rightful earnings for those who worship him (45:1). For this apocalyptic work the illocutionary force is clear: live a righteous life so that God will reward you with blessings in the life to come. It defines righteousness both as right relations with other people and as proper worship of God.

3. 4 Ezra

The apocalyptic book of 4 Ezra was written near the end of the first century AD to account for the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. When Jews looked back on the Babylonian captivity, they could point to their own idolatry as the reason God would allow such a calamity to befall them. The same could not be said of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, because, as is evident in the early chapters of 4 Ezra, Israel on a whole was assumed to be righteous.[23] This nationalistic outlook permeates the work. Ezra asks Uriel, his heavenly guide, whether the righteousness of other nations could compare with that of Israel (3:31–32), who were chosen by God (5:23–27) and who faithfully believed in the covenants (5:29). In part Ezra is correct. Only Israel had responded favorably toward the law, while the rest of the world rejected it (7:22–24). Yet simply being a part of Israel was not enough to receive mercy from God. Uriel explains to Ezra that only a small portion of Israel—a remnant—would keep the law faithfully (6:25; 7:28; 9:7–8). Ezra learns that “only the righteous few within Israel will be saved” because of the widespread unfaithfulness toward the law.[24] Similarly, only a very few Gentiles would be saved (3:36).

For 4 Ezra, what would distinguish the remnant from the majority of Israel who would fall short? In other words, what should the audience of 4 Ezra do to make sure they are blessed? Although it is expressed in a variety of ways throughout the work, in one sense the answer is simple: keep the law.[25] Those who keep the law would store up treasures of works with God, resulting in their salvation (6:5; 7:77; 8:33). Given the importance of keeping the law, it may be surprising that 4 Ezra does not expound more upon what specifically must be done.[26] While the connection between righteous living and salvation is perhaps stronger here than anywhere else in Second Temple apocalypses, little time is devoted to defining clearly what it means to keep the law. Through characterization we learn that the wicked would “scorn the law” and hate “those who fear God” (7:78), trampling over them (8:57). Furthermore, they sin against God by saying “in their hearts there is no God” (8:58). The righteous would be willing to face danger in order to keep the law (7:18, 89). They are told to be humble (8:49) and to “rule over your minds and discipline your hearts” so that they could obtain mercy (14:34). As with the previous works, 4 Ezra expects its readers to fear God and live honorably toward humanity as a means by which they might keep the law and obtain its rewards.

4. Apocalypse Of Abraham

Like 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse of Abraham was composed after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. It likely should be dated between the end of the first and beginning of the second century, due to an apparent reference to the work in the second-century Recognitiones.[27] The apocalypse tells the story of how Abraham disavows his father’s idols and instead choses to worship the true God by giving a sacrifice. Once he proves his piety toward God, an angel is sent to show him the mysteries of the cosmos. Abraham is brought up to heaven, where he sees visions of heaven and hell. He is shown the evil of the world, the destruction of the temple, and finally the judgment upon the righteous and the wicked. The work begins by satirically showing the ineptness of man-made idols, and ends by showing the overwhelming power of God’s justice.

The Apocalypse of Abraham demonstrates ethical teaching in two ways. First, Abraham himself serves as an example of righteousness that the audience should naturally want to emulate. In the first portion of the story, Abraham shows his wisdom by questioning the efficacy of man-made idols (3:8; 6:2).[28] He is willing to endure hardship for the sake of purity: “And I said, ‘It is only proper to endure evil that I may throw my mind to purity and I will expose my thoughts clearly to him’” (6:4). He is considered righteous because he sought the true God in lieu of false idols (8:3). His seeking pays off; God calls him “chosen” (14:2; 20:6), and he is rewarded with apocalyptic visions.[29] Because of this characterization, readers could hope for a similar acceptance into God’s chosen people if they too abandoned idols for true worship.[30]

The second way in which the Apocalypse of Abraham exhorts its readers is through juxtaposing the fate of the wicked with that of the righteous. In a vision Abraham is shown the evils of the world. Murder (24:5), fornication (24:6), jealousy (25:1), and child sacrifice (25:2) are given as examples of the wickedness of creation. These will provoke God to bring judgment, revenge, and perdition (22:4; 27:7). Yet these evils are not inevitable.[31] There will be those who walk the path of the righteous. Those who “strive in the glory of my name toward the place prepared beforehand for them” would be protected (29:17). While the wicked would be burned up and devoured by worms, “those who do justice, who have chosen my will and clearly kept my commandments” would “rejoice with merrymaking” (31:3–4). Throughout the Apocalypse, the emphasis continues to be true worship versus idol worship. Yet the delineation goes beyond worship. Evils like murder and jealousy are also condemned, indicating the importance of intra-human harmony. The Apocalypse of Abraham expects its audience, like Abraham, to strive to worship the true God and live a righteous life because of the coming judgment.

This survey of four Second Temple apocalypses has attempted to illustrate how works in this genre urged their readers to remain faithful to God and to live righteously in their actions toward one another. They did so by exhorting the reader and by characterizing the righteous and the wicked. Some, like the “Epistle of Enoch” and 2 Enoch, used imperatives and direct exhortation to make their ethical teachings explicit. Others, like the Apocalypse of Abraham and much of 1 Enoch, rely more on characterization. Through their narratives they paint a picture such that the reader will feel compelled to emulate the righteous characters and to avoid the actions of the wicked. These two vehicles for ethical teaching will be demonstrated once again in the NT book of Revelation.

II. Ethics In Revelation

Based on the typical rubric for Second Temple apocalypses, we would expect John to describe the wicked as those who forsake God and oppress God’s people. We would also look for discussions about perseverance under the pressures of persecution. Indeed, some have suggested that Revelation’s main purpose is to provide hope in the midst of persecution.[32] It is undoubtedly true that some of John’s audience were experiencing persecution and needed comfort and a call to perseverance.[33] Yet Bauckham is correct that encouragement “was only one of the needs of the seven churches.”[34] As we shall see, Revelation was written to address a wider range of issues. The readers are told several times that they will be judged based on their actions (2:23; 20:12–13; 22:11–12), so they should expect to be informed on which actions will place them among the holy. I will first discuss those passages that encourage piety toward God before examining possible calls to humanitarian ethics.

1. Piety And Proper Worship

Through commands and characterization John encourages his readers to serve and worship God. This is one of the primary themes of the book.[35] God appointed his people as priests to serve him (1:6) continuing into the time of the new earth (22:3), and the 144,000 serve God day and night (7:15).[36] Characters with positive traits, such as the angels, the twenty-four elders, and the blessed martyrs, are regularly shown worshiping God/Jesus, especially through song (4:8–11; 5:7–14; 7:9–12; 11:16–18; 14:3, 7; 15:3–4; 19:4–8, 10; 22:9).[37] By putting worship into the mouths of his protagonists, John demonstrates to the reader that they too should be in the practice of worshiping God. The saints also testify about Jesus (1:2, 9; 6:9; 12:11, 17; 17:6; 20:4) and are victorious over God’s enemies (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 15:2; 21:7). By waging a spiritual war against the forces of evil, the reader is able to emulate the angels in heaven (12:7–8). Those who choose to follow God will ultimately receive his seal (7:3–5; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4). Revelation thus places great emphasis on serving and worshiping God. As Stefanović says, “Revelation makes clear that the test will not be denial of worship, but rather who is worshiped.”[38]

John expects that many of his readers will experience persecution. Perseverance is therefore a crucial corollary to faithful piety. “Endurance” (ὑπομονή) is a “key ethical term in the Apocalypse.”[39] The letters to the seven churches include frequent direct calls to endure despite persecution (2:2–3, 10, 13, 24; 3:8, 10), and martyrs are positively characterized throughout the rest of the book (6:9; 7:14; 12:11; 13:10, 15; 14:12; 20:4). The righteous would remain faithful to Jesus, no matter what tribulations they faced.[40] Persecution may come from the “Jews” (2:9; 3:9),[41] the image of the beast (13:15), or the prostitute riding on the beast (17:6). These antagonists are all reckoned as enemies of God and persecutors of God’s people.

Related to faithfulness is Revelation’s special interest in purity. This is symbolized in the frequent description of “white” (λευκός) clothing and the regular calls to keep clean (3:4–5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 14; 14:4; 15:6; 19:8, 14; 21:27; 22:14). Cleanliness and purity were considered essential elements for being in the presence of a holy God.[42] The blessing upon those who remain clothed likely has a similar connotation of purity (16:15). Several of the churches are instructed to remain theologically pure as well. False apostles (2:2) and Nicolaitan practices (2:6, 15) were to be rejected.[43] A false prophet, given the unenviable name Jezebel, also threatened to contaminate the Christian community (2:20, 24).[44] While her specific teachings are unclear, she meets the OT definition of a false prophet, who “turns you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk” (Deut 13:5; cf. Deut 13:6–8; Jer 23:13, 32).[45] God’s people would avoid these deceptions, as well as any other polluting factors.

Because much of Revelation’s positive characterization involves serving and worshiping God, it should come as no surprise that John uses negative characterization for those who worship false gods. The churches are first warned to avoid food that had been offered to idols (2:14, 20). This warning foreshadows the idol worship (9:20; 21:8; 22:15) and beast worship (13:4, 8, 14; 14:9, 11; 19:10) that would be the downfall of the wicked. They would receive the mark of the beast because of their idolatrous worship (13:16–17; 16:2; 19:20). Failure to cease these spiritually adulterous practices would result in judgment from God (14:11; 21:8; 22:15).[46] Nevertheless, those who worship false gods are called to repentance (14:6–7). “Everywhere that εὐαγγέλιον is found in the NT, it implies the gracious offer of salvation.”[47] By worshiping created images the denizens of the earth were at risk of judgment, but they could be saved by instead worshiping the Creator.[48]

Those who do not turn from their idolatrous worship would be brought into direct animosity with God. This begins with the beast, whose blasphemous name leads to slanderous words against God, heaven, and those who live in heaven (13:1, 5–6; cf. 17:3). Those who follow the beast curse God’s name when disasters befall them (16:9, 11, 21). Blasphemies and curses turn into outright war as kings, the beast, and Satan all raise up armies to attack God and his people (17:14; 19:19; 20:8–9). This is the ultimate negative characterization. From a pious perspective, it is unthinkable to war openly against God. Additionally, the fate of those who wage such a war is put in no uncertain terms: “and fire came down from heaven and devoured them” (20:9). The reader would be strongly encouraged toward piety in order to avoid such a fate.

To this point Revelation is ethically similar to the other Jewish apocalypses surveyed above. There is an emphasis on piety, with idolatry discouraged. Through both characterization and direct exhortation the readers are told to persevere despite persecution. The special stress on cleanliness and purity sets Revelation apart from many apocalypses, although even this emphasis is not unique.[49]

2. Justice Toward Humanity

Like the apocalypses surveyed above, Revelation’s ethics extend to intra-human relations, although this category of ethics is not as clear or developed. From a positive perspective, the reader is told that the saints of God are those who “keep the commandments” (12:17; 14:12). John does not expound upon which commandments are meant, similar to the calls to keep the law in 4 Ezra.[50] The readers are also called to be wise (13:18; 17:9) and to remain clothed (16:15). The latter concern, along with the characterization of the 144,000 as virgins (14:4), could be seen to relate to the need for purity. If this were the case, it belongs with the other calls to piety. On the other hand, nakedness was a social shame that would impact the way in which a person was viewed by the community. Keeping the commandments, obtaining wisdom, and remaining clothed and sexually pure are all ambiguous with regard to whether they are calls to piety or righteous human relations.

More can be said with regard to Revelation’s negative characterization to encourage humanitarian behavior. In 11:2 the nations “trample the holy city for forty-two months.” This could be seen as an affront to God himself, who established the “holy city,” but it also speaks of oppression toward God’s people. This latter emphasis is highlighted a few verses later, when God’s prophets are attacked, killed, and their bodies publicly shamed (11:7–10). The people of the earth are judged for shedding the blood of the prophets and saints (16:6), as is the great prostitute (17:6; 18:24; 19:2). Persecution and oppression are therefore condemned.

Several vices are condemned in Revelation, with sexual immorality receiving the most attention. Three vice lists appear in the book.[51] In 9:21 the wicked are condemned for murder, magical practices, sexual immorality, and theft. The longest list comes in 21:8, which speaks of people who are cowardly, unbelieving, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, magical practitioners, idolaters, and liars. Finally, 22:15 says that those outside the great city will be dogs, magical practitioners, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and lovers of falsehood. Murder, magic, and sexual immorality are the three vices condemned in all three lists. Of these three, sexual immorality and adultery are of the gravest concern for John, as they are mentioned in numerous other passages (2:14, 20, 22; 14:8; 17:2, 4–5; 18:3, 9; 19:2). Several of these passages connect sexual immorality to food sacrificed to idols (2:14, 20) or idolatrous worship (14:8–9), leaving open the possibility that spiritual unfaithfulness is in view.[52] Sexual immorality was often incorporated into idol worship, making the practice doubly abhorrent to God.[53] There is likely an intentional ambiguity regarding the concept of sexual immorality in Revelation—the wicked are unfaithful to God and humanity. With its vice lists, Revelation relies on a traditional Jewish concept of wickedness, with a focus on sexual immorality.

Finally, John negatively characterizes wealth and power. The Laodicean church is reprimanded because they have allowed wealth and comfort to bring them to a lukewarm state (3:17).[54] Twice the author portrays rulers and generals as powerless against the judgments of God (6:15; 19:18). Revelation 18 gives a lengthy condemnation of rulers and merchants. It should first be noted that the sins of these wealthy individuals derive from their sexual immorality with Babylon. Aune astutely observes that solely blaming the woman (Babylon) for sexual immorality makes little sense.[55] While he attributes this leap in logic to a patriarchal culture, it makes more sense to understand sexual immorality as referring to idolatry. Babylon is blamed for the immorality of the nations because she is the one who led them to worship idols.[56] Furthermore, we have already been told that commercial enterprise was contingent upon receiving the mark of the beast (13:17). As Beale says, “Economic security would be removed from Babylon’s subjects if they did not cooperate with her idolatry.”[57] Luxury is condemned first and foremost because it came in exchange for worshiping created things in lieu of the Creator.[58] This does not mean that subsequent sins are in any way pardoned.[59] The rulers and merchants are not only condemned for their relationship with Babylon, but also on account of their devotion to the luxuries they had acquired (18:3, 7, 9, 11–17, 19). This love of luxury led some merchants to profit even from slavery (18:13).[60] In Revelation, wealth leads to complacency and is often ill-gotten.

Whereas piety was encouraged with both positive exhortation and negative characterization, humanitarian ethics are almost exclusively taught via negative characterization. The few instances of positive exhortation discussed above are ambiguous regarding whether they encourage love for God or love for man. This suggests that the primary thrust of the ethical teaching in Revelation relates to piety and religious purity.

III. Summary

The final chapter of Revelation twice encourages the reader to “keep” (τηρέω) its words (22:7, 9). Fanning points out that the use of τηρέω here “is a reminder of the hortatory content of this entire book. Its intent is not simply to convey information about the future but to communicate moral demands to be obeyed in the present.”[61] When it comes to ethical teaching, Revelation puts a great deal of emphasis on religious purity and, compared with the other works, is less interested in human relationships. This focused perspective becomes more evident when we observe the way in which other Second Temple apocalyptic literature relates to ethics. First Enoch emphasizes the downfall of oppressive power, greed, and violence. Second Enoch is even stronger in its call to the reader to serve others. It is difficult to define the call to keep the Torah in 4 Ezra, but the book seems to be equally concerned with divine-human and human-human interactions. Apocalypse of Abraham shares Revelation’s concern about idolatry, but it also makes a point to condemn unrighteousness toward others. Revelation mentions atrocities humans commit against one another, but always in the context of idolatrous worship. For Revelation, proper living flows from proper worship. Only the Creator is worthy of worship, and only those who worship him will inherit the promised blessings. This conclusion bears implications for our understanding of the occasion for Revelation’s composition. The author was concerned about his readers turning to idolatry, whether because of outright persecution or cultural and social pressure. The promises of Revelation are not only to provide hope through difficult times, but also to assert that it is God who will ultimately conquer the world, not the idols of Rome.

Notes

1. John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 9.
2. David Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” Semeia 36 (1986): 27, proposed to rectify this lack with the following emendation to Collins’s definition: “intended for a group in crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation by means of divine authority.”
3. George Eldon Ladd, “Why Not Prophetic-Apocalyptic?,” JBL 76.3 (1957): 198, speaks of “ethical passivity” in Second Temple apocalyptic literature. Others argue for a predetermined worldview evident in these works, such that there is little readers could do to change their eternal fate. Cf. Greg Carey, Apocalyptic Literature in the New Testament, Core Biblical Studies (Nashville: Abingdon, 2016), 16; Paolo Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History, JSPSup 20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 111.
4. Richard A. Horsley, Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 3, has argued specifically that apocalyptic works were written as resistance to imperial powers. John J. Collins, “Apocalypse and Empire,” SEÅ 76 (2011): 1–19, gives a fair overview of why apocalyptic literature generally involves more than simply anti-imperial rhetoric. For general arguments for the ethical nature of apocalyptic genre, see R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:ix–x; D. S. Russell, Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 111–12; Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 11; John Barton, “Ethics in Apocalyptic,” in Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland, ed. John Ashton, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 88 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 38, 49; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 337. For the view that economic oppression is a major theme in the genre of apocalyptic literature, see Samuel L. Adams, Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 204; Dale C. Allison, “Apocalyptic Ethics and Behavior,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. John J. Collins (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 300; John J. Collins, “Social Ethics in Apocalyptic Perspective: The Case of the Epistle of Enoch,” BR 64 (2019): 40.
5. Thomas J. Sappington, “The Factor of Function in Defining Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” JSP 12 (1994): 105–11. Lou H. Silberman, “The Human Deed in a Time of Despair: The Ethics of Apocalyptic,” in Essays in Old Testament Ethics, ed. James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis (New York: Ktav, 1974), 195, rightly points out that an understanding of the historical context of a given piece of apocalyptic literature will go far in explaining how and why an author uses paraenetic exhortation.
6. On the use of characterization and narrative for rhetorical effect, see David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 285–312; Alexander Stewart, Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John, Gorgias Biblical Studies 61 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015), 148–75, 194–205.
7. For the seminal work cautioning against an overuse of ancient comparanda, see Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81.1 (1962): 1–13. More recently, John S. Kloppenborg, “Disciplined Exaggeration: The Heuristics of Comparison in Biblical Studies,” NovT 59 (2017): 390–414, has argued against a one-sided approach that only selects sources that bolster one’s theological or academic presuppositions. In this article, I have attempted to avoid such self-fulfilling analyses by choosing for comparison four works that differ from one another in both form and date of composition. I thus attempt to gain a broad view of the genre.
8. Richard Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter Thomas O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 144.
9. Because of this passage, Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 149, claims that “contrary to some caricatures of apocalyptic literature, the Enochic tradition retains the prophetic hope for the time when all the nations will acknowledge and worship the God of Israel.”
10. In discussing the sections of 1 Enoch, I follow the order as it appears in the Ethiopic version, understanding that this is likely not the order in which the various books were composed.
11. Ephraim Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:9.
12. Collins, “Social Ethics in Apocalyptic Perspective,” 40, argues that while the form of the “Epistle” does not meet the criteria of the apocalyptic genre, it still clearly demonstrates an apocalyptic worldview.
13. Sappington, “Factor of Function,” 106.
14. Cf. Sappington, “Factor of Function,” 117.
15. Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment, EJL 8 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 209, suggests that the first woes are more focused on “social” evils and the last on “religious” sins. This is not entirely accurate. As discussed above, both social and religious sins are mentioned throughout the woes, with social sins receiving most of the attention.
16. Mark D. Mathews, Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful: Perspectives on Wealth in the Second Temple Period and the Apocalypse of John, SNTSMS 154 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 139.
17. Francis I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:91.
18. All quotations from 2 Enoch are taken from the shorter recension. Both the shorter and longer recensions show signs of editing, so it is unclear which is the more ancient. Nevertheless, the content in the shorter recension is nearly always included, if not expanded on, in the longer recension. By taking a minimalist approach I am citing places where both recensions agree.
19. Grant Macaskill, “Personal Salvation and Rigorous Obedience: The Soteriology of 2 Enoch,” in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, LSTS 74 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 134.
20. Contra Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 151, who claims the notion of “encouragement and consolation for the faithful is largely missing” in 2 Enoch.
21. On the notion of non-retaliation in the face of violence in 2 Enoch, see Gordon M. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts, JSPSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 161–64.
22. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:96; cf. Macaskill, “Soteriology of 2 Enoch,” 135–36.
23. Jonathan Moo, “The Few Who Obtain Mercy: Soteriology in 4 Ezra,” in This World and the World to Come, 102.
24. Bauckham, “Apocalypses,” 166; cf. John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 307.
25. Moo, “Soteriology in 4 Ezra,” 113.
26. Christoph Münchow, Ethik und Eschatologie: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 92–94.
27. Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” in OTP 1:683.
28. Daniel C. Harlow, “Idolatry and Alterity: Israel and the Nations in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 306, shows the importance of this questioning by demonstrating how the first eight chapters form a chiasm, with satirical portrayals of idolatry interspersed with Abraham’s reflections.
29. In seeing a connection between seeking God and being chosen by God, I disagree somewhat with John C. Poirier, “On a Wing and a Prayer: The Soteriology of the Apocalypse of Abraham,” in This World and the World to Come, 93. Poirier emphasizes the election of Abraham, which then applies to Abraham’s seed. The first eight chapters of the work seem to be demonstrating Abraham’s righteousness as the basis for his election, with the implication that others could similarly seek and find God.
30. Given this apocalypse’s preoccupation with idols, Harlow, “Idolatry and Alterity,” 330, may be correct that the work was produced in a place where Jews were being pressured to make or worship idols. While a newly Hellenized Palestine makes for a compelling idea, the dearth of evidence renders any such hypothesis speculative.
31. Rubinkiewicz, “Apocalypse of Abraham,” in OTP 1:684.
32. Jürgen Kerner, Die Ethik der Johannes-Apokalypse im Vergleich mit der des 4. Esra: Ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Apokalyptik und Ethik, BZNW 94 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 161: “Somit stellt sich die Ethik der Apokalypse im wesentlichen als eine von der Verfolgungssituation.”
33. Kerner, Der Ethik der Johannes-Apokalypse, 39–40, rightly points to the churches of Ephesus, Thyatira, and Philadelphia, who are praised for their ὑπομονή (“endurance”) in persecution. In using evidence from the letters to the seven churches, Kerner assumes that Revelation is a literary whole, composed by a single author—an assumption shared by this article. For arguments from a source-critical perspective against the compositional unity of Revelation, see David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52a (Dallas: Word, 1997), cv–cxxxiv.
34. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 15.
35. M. Eugene Boring, “The Theology of Revelation: ‘The Lord Our God the Almighty Reigns,’” Int 40 (1986): 269, says the call to worship God is “a representative summary of John’s theology.” Cf. John Paul Heil, The Book of Revelation: Worship for Life in the Spirit of Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 14.
36. Discussion continues with regard to the referent of the 144,000. For an extended argument that views the 144,000 symbolically, as representing the totality of all God’s people, see Beale, Book of Revelation, 416–23. For two different approaches to a more literal interpretation, see John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 141–43; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 475–78.
37. Worship of God and worship of the Lamb are used nearly interchangeably in Revelation. See Bauckham, Theology of the Book of Revelation, 60. Using Revelation 5 as an example, he shows that “worship of the Lamb (5:8–12) leads to the worship of God and the Lamb together (5:13).”
38. Ranko Stefanović, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 455.
39. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 543.
40. Regarding the definition of the saints in Rev 14:12, the genitive in the phrase τὴν πίστιν Ἰησοῦ is most likely an objective genitive. So David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 838; Osborne, Revelation, 544; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 275; contra Beale, Book of Revelation, 766, who prefers a genitive of source.
41. There has been much debate over the identity of the “Synagogue of Satan” in Rev 2:9. For a helpful overview, see Paul B. Duff, “The ‘Synagogue of Satan’: Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of John,” in The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation, ed. David L. Barr, SBL Symposium Series 39 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 151–55. For the more traditional view, which sees the “Synagogue” as Jews at odds with the Christian community, see Eduard Lohse, “Synagogue of Satan and Church of God: Jews and Christians in the Book of Revelation,” SEÅ 58 (1993): 105–23; Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem: Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes,” ZRGG 46 (1994): 143–62; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 163; Jan Lambrecht, “Jewish Slander: A Note on Revelation 2, 9–10, ” ETL 75 (1999): 421–29. Scholars who argue that the “Synagogue” refers to members within the church community include Heinrich Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16a (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), 60–61; Wolfgang Schrage, “Meditation zu Offenbarung 2:8–11, ” EvT 48 (1988): 390–91; David Frankfurter, “Jews or Not? Reconstructing the ‘Other’ in Rev 2:9 and 3:9, ” HTR 94 (2001): 403–25; John W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 10 (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001), 124–34. Although I take the traditional view, the other option would not significantly alter my argument.
42. For overviews on Jewish views of purity, see David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 241–77; Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 16–31. On the purity ethic of Revelation, see Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Christians, Jews, and Pagans in the Book of Revelation: Persecution, Perseverance, and Purity in the Shadow of the Last Judgment,” in Jesus, Paul, and the Early Church: Missionary Realities in Historical Contexts: Collected Essays, WUNT 406 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 373–75; and especially Frankfurter, “Jews or Not?,” 414–22, who argues that, in the eyes of John, purity is the key marker of God’s people. He goes too far, however, in claiming that John is specifically arguing against Christians who are not strict enough in obeying the Torah’s purity constraints. There is simply not enough specificity in the calls for purity to make such a claim of Revelation.
43. Little can be said definitively about the Nicolaitans. For a good overview of what is known, see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 148–49.
44. Osborne, Revelation, 155, connects this prophetess with the Nicolaitans because of their similar tendency toward syncretism.
45. Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 150.
46. On Revelation’s use of threats as a feature of Graeco-Roman rhetoric, see Alexander E. Stewart, “Argumentum ad baculum in the Apocalypse of John: Toward an Evaluation of John’s Use of Threats,” in New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins, BETL 291 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 466–71.
47. Osborne, Revelation, 535; cf. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 827, who points out that in the OT, it is God’s faithful people who are described as “fearing God.” This would indicate a call to genuine conversion. Contra Beale, Book of Revelation, 751–53, who cites LXX Dan 4 to suggest that the command is not for conversion, but for a forced acknowledgment of God’s supremacy.
48. Cf. Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible 38a (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 612.
49. The connection between purity and apocalypse is most evident among the Dead Sea Scrolls. For an overview of the apocalyptic worldview of these documents, see John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997); Albert L. A. Hogeterp, Expectations of the End: A Comparative Traditio-Historical Study of Eschatological, Apocalyptic, and Messianic Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, STDJ 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). On the similarities and possible connections between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Revelation, see H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 307–25; O. Böcher, “Die Johannes-Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran,” in ANRW 25.5: 3894–98; Torleif Elgvin, “Priests on Earth as in Heaven: Jewish Light on the Book of Revelation,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Peter W. Flint, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, STDJ 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 257–78; Benjamin G. Wold, “Revelation’s Plague Septets: New Exodus and Exile,” in Echoes from the Caves, 279–98.
50. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 711–12, argues in the context of Rev 12:17 that “the commandments of God” refers to the “second table of the Decalogue plus the love command.” Later, he appears to apply the same conclusion to 14:12, although he is unclear (p. 837). The contexts of chs. 12 and 14 have to do with a war between Satan and Michael and the choice between worshiping God and the beast, respectively. This inclines me to think that the emphasis should be put on the first table of the Decalogue, rather than the second.
51. For an overview of the vice list genre in the NT epistles, see Eduard Schweizer, “Traditional Ethical Patterns in the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and Their Development (Lists of Vices and House-Tables),” in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, ed. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 195–210. For an overview of the genre outside of Paul, see René A. López, “Vice Lists in Non-Pauline Sources,” BSac 168 (2011): 178–95.
52. Beale, Book of Revelation, 739, connects the concept of virginity with OT passages that describe Israel as a virgin bride (2 Kgs 19:21; Isa 37:22; Jer 14:17; 18:13; Lam 1:15; 2:13; Amos 5:2; and especially Jer 31:4–21). Cf. Fanning, Revelation, 140.
53. Mounce, Book of Revelation, 87, argues that if idolatry is taken in a literal sense, so too should sexual immorality: “Pagan feasts often led to sexual promiscuity.”
54. Mathews, Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful, 161–63, suggests that the lukewarmness of the Laodicean church comes from the fact that they confess Christ (good) but are rich (bad), breaking the dichotomy between righteous poor and wicked rich.
55. David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, WBC 52C (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 987–88.
56. For the identification of sexual immorality with idolatry in ch. 18, see Aune, Revelation 17–22, 988; Beale, Book of Revelation, 895; Fanning, Revelation, 458; Osborne, Revelation, 637.
57. Beale, Book of Revelation, 896.
58. Pierre Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean, 3rd ed., CNT 14 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000), 389.
59. In this sense Iain Provan, “Foul Spirits, Fornication, and Finance: Revelation 17 from an Old Testament Perspective,” JSNT 64 (1996): 88, overstates the point when he says, “Economic sins are only ever a function of idolatry, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, and it is on the idolatry that the emphasis falls, rather than upon the economics.” See the discussion in Fanning, Revelation, 458.
60. Murray Vasser, “Bodies and Souls: The Case for Reading Revelation 18.13 as a Critique of the Slave Trade,” NTS 64 (2018): 397–409, is likely correct that the peculiar phrase σωμάτων καὶ ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων was used to give a negative characterization to the practice of profiting off slavery.
61. Fanning, Revelation, 558; cf. Koester, Revelation, 839.

The Circularity Of Grace In The Warning Passages Of Hebrews

By Jonathan A. Campbell

[Jonathan A. Campbell is pastor of Shoreline and Lynnwood SDA Churches, Washington Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.]

Abstract

Barclay proposed that Paul considered grace to be circular, such that expectations are placed on those who have received it. In this work, the warning passages of Hebrews (2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) are analyzed to determine whether they attest to this concept of the circularity of grace. It is shown that all five passages assume the audience to be Christian, assert necessary actions, and warn of the consequences should these actions not be taken. It is concluded that Barclay’s understanding of grace in Pauline theology could also be used to describe the theology of Hebrews.

Introduction

Since its publication in 2017, John M. G. Barclay’s Paul and the Gift has elicited a flood of scholarly debate.[1] The book has been influential for two reasons. First, it introduces a new paradigm into biblical scholarship by which theologians and exegetes can discuss differing views of grace. Barclay helpfully defines six ways in which God’s gift of grace may be said to be “perfected” in a given work:

Superabundance—“size, significance, or permanence”

Singularity—“sole and exclusive mode of operation”

Priority—“always prior to the initiative of the recipient”

Incongruity—“without regard to worth of the recipient”

Efficacy—“fully achieves what it was designed to do”

Non-circularity—“escapes reciprocity”[2]

Barclay notes that the perfection of one aspect of gift-giving “does not imply the perfection of any or all of the others.”[3] For example, one may insist that God’s gift comes before any decision or action on the part of the recipient (priority) without saying anything about the gift being God’s only mode of operation (singularity).

Barclay’s second contribution to biblical scholarship is in his conclusion. He asserts that while Paul emphasizes the incongruity of grace, he does not posit its noncircularity. He argues Paul viewed grace as unmerited, yet not without obligations.

Barclay was not the first to explore the concept of circular gift-giving within ancient societies. In his seminal work “Essai sur le don,” Mauss surveys ancient cultures to determine the roles gifts played in society.[4] He argues that gifts and favors form relational bonds within a culture by means of assumed reciprocity.[5] Relationships were formed through the mutual obligations created by giving and receiving gifts. To suggest that the giving of a gift would not entail an expected return would threaten the very fabric of society. Building on and critiquing Mauss’s work, Sahlin finds an inexactitude in the giving practices of ancient cultures. The extent to which a gift could or could not be repaid would define the power dynamics of that relationship.[6] Many more have responded to and interacted with Mauss’s concept of gift-giving, but most agree that in the ancient world, gifts brought expectations.[7]

In the first two sections of his book, Barclay surveys gift-giving in Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures in the Second Temple period. Like Mauss, he finds within these cultures “a presumption . . . that gifts operate in reciprocal relations, and entail the expectation and obligation of return, whether the parties are equal or unequal in status.”[8] Because this was the widespread view at the time, it could be assumed that those using gift language in the first century AD believed in the circularity of a gift, unless they specified otherwise. In other words, if Paul did not believe that God’s grace expected some form of obligation, he would have needed to state this explicitly to counter the assumptions of his time. Reviewing the two letters that most reveal Paul’s concept of grace—Romans and Galatians—Barclay detects an unequal reciprocity in Paul’s theology. He writes, “Practice arising from and aligned to the truth of the good news is integral to what Paul means by ‘faith.’”[9] Paul did not push back against cultural assumptions of reciprocity when discussing the gift of grace, Barclay argues. On the contrary, Paul affirmed them, exhorting Christians regarding their obligation toward God, their beneficent benefactor.

This study attempts to apply Barclay’s rubric to the warning passages of Hebrews, in order to determine whether the concept of grace evidenced there is consistent with Barclay’s view of Paul. The reasoning behind this project is twofold. First, warning passages are relatively rare in the Pauline corpus,[10] while the five warning passages of Hebrews make up an important structure for the work as a whole. This study will show that the warning genre lends itself to Barclay’s characterization of grace. Second, this study will demonstrate that the concept of God’s gift in Hebrews is consistent with that of Paul. While some emphasize the differing theologies between Hebrews and Pauline literature,[11] it will be shown that both portray God’s gift as asymmetrically reciprocal.[12]

Recipients Of Divine Grace

First, it is important to note that the author of Hebrews views his audience as made up of Christians who have received the divine gift. In the first warning passage (2:1–4), the audience had already heard the gospel message (v. 1). Moreover, God’s salvation had been confirmed to them (v. 3), and testified by the giving of the Holy Spirit (v. 4). Koester points out the two actions warned against—παραρυῶμεν (v. 1) and ἀμελήσαντες (v. 3)—both suggest “a gradual, unthinking movement away from the faith.”[13] One cannot “drift away from” (παραρρέω) a place one has not already been; one cannot “neglect” (ἀμελέω) what one has never possessed. The choice of words lends credence to the notion that the audience were believers who had experienced God’s grace.

The second warning passage in Hebrews (3:7–4:13) uses the story of past failure to enter the land of Canaan (Num 14; Ps 95) to call the audience to enter into God’s rest. Again, it is assumed that the audience was within the community of faith and that they “have become partakers of Christ” (3:14). In his discussion of this verse, Ellingworth suggests the use of ἐάνπερ, rather than the more typical ἐάν, may emphasize the conditionality of what follows (“if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance”).[14] However, it is more appropriate to view this conditional clause as showing evidence and inference: continued faithfulness proves past and present participation with Christ.[15] The perfect tense γεγόναμεν assumed the gift had, at least partially, already been given to God’s people.[16] This state is affirmed by 4:3, which indicates the letter’s recipients “are entering that rest.”[17] They had received, and were continuing to receive, the gift of God’s grace.

The third warning passage of Hebrews (5:11–6:12) contains one of the most controversial statements in the book, if not in the whole New Testament. It is key to note once again that those addressed were assumed to be believing Christians who had received God’s grace. It was expected they would be teachers (5:12) and mature (v. 14). Later, the author states his conviction that the audience were destined for better things pertaining to salvation (6:9), and he commends them for their works of love (v. 10).

There is a shift in subject at 6:4 from the audience to hypothetical believers. In the series of participles in verses 4–6, the first four describe the benefits a believer receives from God.[18] These participles describe actions which would have already taken place, as demonstrated by the combination of ἅπαξ (“once”) and the aorist tense.[19] This is especially noteworthy with regard to “tasting [γευσαμένους] the heavenly gift” (v. 4). The gift had already been received, at least partially. The metaphor of the land (vv. 7–8) is likewise significant, because it is described as already having received rain, a possible parallel to divine grace. Yet many argue against the notion that these hypothetical people are portrayed as having been genuine Christians. Grudem finds that the descriptors in verses 4–6 do not match the way in which saved Christians are described elsewhere in Hebrews, and Fanning shows how assuming these were true Christians conflicts with the overarching theme of Christ’s fidelity.[20] These verses do not directly address the audience, but rather propose hypothetical people. As such, the way in which these verses are interpreted does not affect the claim that the author assumes his audience to be Christian. The discussion of apparent Christians falling away from the faith is used to encourage genuine Christians to action.

After an extended discussion about the high priesthood of Christ (6:13–10:18), the author returns to exhortation (10:19–39). Much of the paraenesis covers commands already discussed in previous warning passages, but with the further justification of Christ as high priest who offered himself once-for-all as an enduring sacrifice. Because of Christ the high priest, the audience had “confidence to enter the holy places” (10:19).[21] Even those who might fall away had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant (10:29). Guthrie prefers to interpret ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη as “by which one is sanctified,” thus separating the one sanctified from the one who “tramples under foot the son of God.”[22] However, if this were the intended meaning, the indefinite pronoun τις might be expected (cf. John 3:3; 1 Cor 11:16).[23] Without such a pronoun, the subject of ἡγιάσθη is most likely the same as that of ἀξιωθήσεται. While the reference in 10:29 may be debatable, the author returned to the recipients themselves when he described them as having already “received the light” and endured suffering and persecution because of the gospel (vv. 32–34). Up until the time of the writing, the audience had been living a Christian life.

The final warning passage of the book (12:14–29) uses the encounter with God at Sinai to call readers not to flee from God but to gratefully serve him.[24] The author reiterates that they are considered beneficiaries of God’s grace. They had come to Mount Zion, to thousands of angels, to the church of the firstborn, to God, to Jesus, and to Jesus’s blood (vv. 22–24). The use of προσεληλύθατε (v. 22) in the perfect tense indicates an action that had already taken place.[25] While not asserting they had ascended to heaven to be with God, this nonetheless implied the audience had begun to experience the benefits of God’s grace.

In sum, the warning passages in Hebrews appear to have been predominately directed toward Christians. Although some may disagree about certain passages, most notably 6:4–6, the audience of Hebrews were most likely true believers. Speaking specifically of 3:12–13, Hodges boldly claims, “Neither here nor anywhere else in his letter did the writer betray the slightest suspicion that his audience might contain people who were not real Christians.”[26] This is a crucial observation when applying Barclay’s paradigm of gift-giving. Because the audience is already considered to be Christian, the warning passages have no implications for the incongruity or priority of grace, as these involve the way in which salvation is received. Rather, they focus on the expected response of those who have already been given God’s gift.

Obligatory Perseverance

Broadly speaking, every warning passage in Hebrews called on the audience to remain faithful to God. In the first passage, the call to perseverance is introduced by δεῖ (2:1), showing what the audience “should/must” do as a result of hearing the salvation proclaimed by Christ himself.[27] They must “pay utmost attention to what has been heard.”[28] The verb προσέχειν is similar to later exhortations to “hold fast” (κατέχειν) to their faith (3:6, 14; 10:23).[29] This was necessary because “the default mode of existence is one of unfaithfulness.”[30] The verb was used in popular letters to speak of giving one’s undivided attention.[31] The author was concerned that the audience was not adequately heeding God or the gospel. Speaking from a framework of God as benefactor to the church, deSilva observes, “It is not that the hearers have been thinking ‘wrong’ things about Jesus—it is, rather, that some of them are not thinking enough of Jesus, the benefactions he has brought, and the promises that have been made regarding benefits yet to come.”[32] The call to perseverance in this passage is brief but clear.

In the next warning passage the audience is commanded to watch out for unbelief (3:12). Fanning affirms the efficacy of God’s faithfulness in keeping Christians true to their salvation, before noting that Christians “must continue in faith and obedience. To shrink back from Christ now would be a willful repudiation of the only way of salvation, and severe judgment would be certain for those who did so.”[33] They were also to encourage one another (v. 13). The commands in verses 12–13, being in the present tense, should be seen as “general precepts” that should be a continued element of the Christian life.[34] Furthermore, the Christians would hold their conviction firmly (v. 14), fear falling short (4:1), and strive to enter God’s rest (v. 11). These commands can all be read as a proper response for those who have received God’s gifts. Compared with the first warning passage, the added dimension is that of community responsibility. Social practice is required of Christians, both in Hebrews and for Paul.[35] God offers rest to his people, but his people in turn owe him trust and obedience, which should be encouraged within the community.[36]

In chapter 6, the readers were expected to move beyond simple teachings (v. 1) and, once again, be diligent to the end (v. 11). While there is strong debate regarding whether the people mentioned in verses 4–6 began as true Christians, their falling away (v. 6) should be avoided. As Guthrie states, “True relationship with God results in a lifestyle of obedience to God.”[37] They could do this by imitating those who were faithful and patient (v. 12). Just as they showed love (v. 10), they were also encouraged to show zeal toward their future hope (v. 11).[38] Kleinig notes, “There is no place for complacency. No matter what they now have or how good that may be, there are still better things in store for them.”[39] As with the previous warning passage, the author exhorts the audience to hold onto the grace God had given them.

The exhortation in the fourth warning passage begins with a series of cohortative verbs, beginning with the call to “draw near” (προσερχώμεθα, 10:22). The object of this drawing near goes unsaid, but in Hebrews this verb is used of approaching God (4:16; 7:25; 10:1; 11:6; 12:22). This drawing near was made possible by the “full assurance of faith” and the cleansing the believers had experienced.[40] The act of drawing near should lead to perseverance in “the confession of hope” (τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος, 10:23). By referencing hope, the author indicated the confession would involve continued belief in God’s future inheritance.[41] A natural result of drawing near to God and remaining constant in hope was the provoking of love and good works in one another (v. 24). Koester rightly points out, “Good works of love are the opposite of the ‘dead works’ of sin (6:1; 9:14).”[42] However, it was impossible to encourage one another if community were abandoned (10:25).[43] Lane writes, “The reason the meetings of the assembly are not to be neglected is that they provide a communal setting where mutual encouragement and admonition may occur.”[44] Furthermore, both the notions of confession and meeting together represented public affirmations of one’s allegiance to and belief in Christ.[45] Believers have a responsibility to themselves, their community, and to God to stay firm in their faith. Further commands involve remembering the early days of belief (v. 32) and another call to perseverance (v. 36). Taken together, this passage continues the theme of the necessity of remaining faithful to Jesus, with an added element of showing one’s faith publicly.

Finally, in the fifth warning passage the author calls for Christians to “pursue peace with all and holiness” (Εἰρήνην διώκετε μετὰ πάντων καὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν, 12:14).[46] Lane views this peace, in conjunction with holiness, as an objective reality, a “gift of eschatological salvation,” rather than a subjective, relational state.[47] Yet he fails to consider that holiness is also relational. As Mackie writes, “Holiness represents consecration, i.e. belonging to God, as his children.”[48] Christians are to pursue right relationships with humans (peace) and with God (holiness). The latter characteristic—holiness—was required for those who “will see the Lord” (ὄψεται τὸν κύριον). Bruce states that sanctification is “no optional extra in the Christian life but something which belongs to its essence. . . . Those who are called to be partakers of God’s holiness must be holy themselves.”[49] According to Hebrews, it involves an enduring faith in Christ the high priest (cf. 4:14–15). Assuming the act of “seeing the Lord” should be taken in an eschatological sense, eternal reward and Christian response are shown to be related.[50]

At the conclusion of this final warning passage, the author invites the audience to “show gratitude” (ἔχωμεν χάριν) to God because of the promised unshakeable kingdom (12:28).[51] The grace received should be repaid, albeit in a much lesser way. Seneca speaks of showing gratitude in the face of difficulties:

No one can be grateful unless he or she has learned to scorn the things which drive the common herd to distraction; if you wish to make a return for a favour, you must be willing to go into exile, or to pour forth your blood, or to undergo poverty, or, . . . even to let your very innocence be stained and exposed to shameful slanders.[52]

As the beneficiaries of eternally magnificent gifts, Christians owed God, their patron, public recognition.[53] This gratitude should be lived out in one’s perseverance, ethics, and worship.[54] Because they were pursuing holiness, persevering through hard times, and maintaining faith in their God, they could offer acceptable worship (λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως, 12:28).[55] This worship should be carried out with “reverence and awe” (εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους), the appropriate attitude toward such an exalted God.[56]

As discussed in the previous section, the audience of Hebrews is assumed to be Christian. This means that the commands listed above cannot be considered prerequisites for being saved or receiving God’s grace. Instead, the exhortations answer the question of what Christians should do once they have received the divine gift. In examining the ways in which Christians are described in Hebrews, Grudem finds that, by definition, Christians obey God and persevere in the faith.[57] It is in this way that God’s grace is circular. The return does not have to be equal to the original favor. Christians are to remain faithful to God, fully understanding that the grace received (salvation) is infinitely greater than the grace returned (obedience and perseverance).

Consequences Of Failing To Persevere

By including warnings with his exhortations, the author of Hebrews was able to emphasize the importance of persevering in obedience toward God. There are a number of ways to view the warnings in Hebrews. Some suggest salvation can be lost if Christians do not heed the warnings.[58] Others propose that the warnings have to do with temporal punishments, rather than loss of eternal life.[59] Finally, others propose that the warnings are merely hypothetical, used as a means to prompt the audience to action.[60] It is not the goal of this section to come to a conclusion about the debate, but to demonstrate that the warnings emphasize the exhortation such that the circularity of grace is clearly an element of the theology of Hebrews. This conclusion can be reached no matter which interpretation one takes regarding the nature of the warnings themselves.

Beginning a pattern he would continue in the rest of the work, the author followed the exhortation of 2:1 with a warning: those who did not hold fast would drift away. After 2:1, the remainder of the warning in verses 2–4 consists of one conditional statement. The logic of this construction is clear: “If disregard for the Mosaic law was appropriately punished, unconcern for the gospel must inevitably be catastrophic.”[61] This qal wahomer argument, in which the lesser message—the law brought by angels—is compared with the greater message of Christ and his salvation, emphasizes the greatness of God’s grace and the danger of neglecting this gift.[62] When the author asked how one could escape if such a salvation is neglected (v. 3), a negative answer was expected: escape would be impossible.[63] By appealing to the punishment incurred by transgressing the Mosaic law, the author conveyed the seriousness of the call to pay great attention to what they had heard.

The dangers became more specific in the second warning passage. The children of Israel lost the opportunity to enter into God’s rest (3:8–11), and so too would Christians who developed an “evil heart of unbelief” (ἀπιστίας, v. 12). When the Hebrews turned away from Canaan at Kadesh-Barnea, it was an intentional act of defiance based on a lack of trust in God (cf. v. 19). Thus, an “evil heart of unbelief” involved both a failure to trust God and disobedience that came from such a failure.[64] This unfaithfulness would lead to “departing from the living God (v. 12b).”[65] As Hofius has argued, abandoning God’s promises would lead to God’s judgment and the loss of salvation (“Denn die Preisgabe der Verheißung zieht . . . unweigerlich das Strafgericht Gottes und den Verlust des dargebotenen Heils nach sich”).[66] The barrier for entering God’s rest was disobedience (ἀπειθέω, v. 18) and unbelief (ἀπιστία, v. 19), two words that appear to be nearly synonymous in this passage. Attridge comments, “The move from ‘disobedience’ to ‘faithlessness’ is not argued, but the close association of the two terms was traditional and hardly needed demonstration.”[67] In 4:6 the author reiterates that those who failed to enter God’s rest did so “because of disobedience” (δι᾿ ἀπείθειαν). Disobedience, for Jews and for Christians, would lead to divine judgment, while striving would lead to eschatological rest. This again demonstrates the understood circularity of grace in Hebrews. Obedience and faithfulness were the proper responses to God’s grace.

However the warning of 6:4–8 is interpreted, its illocutionary force is clear: Christians were expected to remain faithful to God.

After describing hypothetical people who had experienced God’s gifts, the author makes the shocking statement that it would be impossible for them to be brought to repentance if they fell away (παραπεσόντας, v. 6). The term παραπίπτω was used in the LXX to described faithlessness to the covenant.[68] Johnson states, “Hebrews . . . has a strong sense of sin as refusal and rejection of both the gift and the one who gives it.”[69] For those who committed such a sin, it would be “impossible . . . to renew them again to repentance.” Christ’s sacrifice provided the only means by which a person could be saved. Without him, “there is nowhere else to turn.”[70]

The author illustrates this stern warning with an agricultural scene.[71] Useful plants were cared for, while worthless plants were cursed and burned (7:7–8). Just as a farmer expects his labors to produce useful crops, it is right “for God to expect faithful obedience in response to his grace.”[72] The brief illustration further drives home the urgency with which the author warned the audience: members of the community of faith should not grow complacent. This shows the expected circularity of the divine gift. The author gave a dire warning for rhetorical effect: he wanted to push his audience to action.[73] In comparison with the salvation offered through Christ’s sacrifice, the circularity of grace appears almost insignificant. Yet there exists a minimal expectation: avoiding apostasy.[74] As Barclay has argued regarding Paul’s theology, there are “strings attached” to the gift of God, even if those strings are as simple as continued belief in and obedience toward God.[75] This has nothing to do with earning salvation or “paying God back.” Rather, the circularity of grace suggests that Christians should respond appropriately to the gift and the giver.

The warning in chapter 10 is as stern as that of 6:4–6: there no longer remained a sacrifice for those who deliberately sinned (10:26). Such “willful” sinning was unacceptable for those who had received the “knowledge of truth,” and it was the natural result of failing to meet with one another.[76] As with the discussion in chapter 6, the inability of an apostate to find a sacrifice for sins came from the uniqueness and finality of Christ’s sacrifice.[77] Because he is the perfect high priest, Christ is singularly qualified to assist Christians when they are tempted (2:17–18; 4:15–16; 5:2).[78] According to the logic of Hebrews, continuing to live as though Christ’s sacrifice were meaningless would eventually result in the loss of the benefits of that sacrifice. Using another qal wahomer argument, the author argued that the punishment for transgressing the law of Moses would be dwarfed by that for turning one’s back on Christ’s sacrifice (10:28–31).

The culmination of this warning passage and the transition into the discourse on faith in chapter 11 comes in the pithy statement, “but we are not of the turning back for destruction, but of the faithful for the obtaining of [our] soul” (10:39).[79] Using key terms in the previously cited Habakkuk 2:4, the author makes a clear distinction, with no room for “neutral space.”[80] This distinction is highlighted by juxtaposition: “turning back” as opposed to “drawing near” (Heb 10:22),[81] faith as opposed to apostasy (v. 26), and destruction as opposed to preservation. As with Mark 8:35, irony is present in that those who “turn back” for self-preservation would ultimately be the ones destroyed.[82] Those who remained faithful to Christ, however, would inherit the promise of eternal life. These stark contrasts served to inspire the audience to stay faithful.

In the final warning passage, failure to be holy and give thanks to God would result in falling short of the grace of God (12:15). One could construe this reference to grace as nullifying the incongruity of God’s gift, if it meant one must be holy in order to receive grace. However, it is more appropriate to see this as a reference to reciprocity. Like Esau, the audience had already received their gift (cf. vv. 16–17), and they were being told to live in a manner befitting it. The author warned against becoming “a bitter root” (ῥίζα πικρίας, v. 15). He quoted from Deuteronomy 29, which “describes a person who deliberately flaunts the curses of the covenant against disobedience and goes his own way.”[83] This attitude could have a corrupting influence on the whole community and must be prevented. Additionally, they should not become sexually immoral or profane like Esau, who lost his blessing.[84] Just as no other repentance (6:4–6) or sacrifice (10:18) was present for those who abandoned God’s grace, neither was repentance accessible to Esau (12:17). That which had been given to Esau, he gave away (ἀπέδετο). The audience should strive to keep one another from making such a mistake.

Similar to the qal wahomer argument of 2:2–3, the readers are warned that compared with the children of Israel, the danger is much worse for Christians “who turn away from him who warns from heaven” (12:25).[85] The God who speaks must not be refused.[86] However, this warning was more dire than that of chapter 2, because rather than rejecting God’s message, the risk now involved rejecting God himself.[87] Believers who have benefited from God’s grace owe him their allegiance. As with the previous warning passages, this warning was given to compel the audience to action. By using warnings in this way, the author indicated that his commands were not optional.

The implications of the warning passages in Hebrews are similar to those of Romans 11:20–22. Both there and in Hebrews it was assumed that the audience had received the divine gift, at least partially. Just as Hebrews warned against drifting away, Romans warned that Gentiles must remain connected to the root. Barclay writes, “If its very existence derives from God’s grace (the root), failure to ‘remain’ in the goodness of God (11:22) constitutes a loss of connection to the source of life.”[88] The author of Hebrews reasoned in the same way. Both authors warned their audience to faithfully participate in the life made possible in Christ, lest they lose the gift God had given them.[89] In Pauline imagery, believers were likened to slaves (Rom 6:16–23). In the time of the New Testament, slave terminology was often used of “one who is solely committed to another,” often to a deity.[90] Sole commitment to God is the appropriate response to receiving God’s gifts. Through his use of warnings, the author of Hebrews indicated that this commitment was not optional. It was the least Christians could do for a faithful high priest who had made them “holy through his blood” (13:12). Understanding that the return is infinitely less than the gift itself, Hebrews evidences an understanding of grace that is asymmetrically circular.

Conclusion

In the above analysis, three elements were shown to be common to all five warning passages in Hebrews. In each passage, the author assumed the audience to be Christian, having received God’s grace and counted themselves among the believers. Every passage had a command these Christians needed to follow, often involving fidelity toward God and endurance in the faith. Finally, as their name implies, every warning passage contained a warning of the dire consequences that would befall the Christian audience if they failed to follow the commands. Each of these passages could be further scrutinized and debated. The nature of the apostasy warned against and the way in which human choice can be said to interact with divine providence continue to be fruitful subjects of inquiry in the study of Hebrews. The goals of this present work are simpler. When surveying each warning passage in turn, it becomes evident that expectations were placed on Christians. These expectations could be as simple as avoiding apostasy. Nonetheless, it is clear that within Hebrews, God’s grace is not completely non-circular.

The same is true in Hebrews as in Paul’s writings, that “the gift carries expectations of obedience.”[91] Unlike Paul, the author of Hebrews used warning passages to emphasize the necessity of that obedience: those who failed to endure would risk losing the gift. For the evangelical who believes in the consistency of Scripture, it should come as no surprise that Hebrews and Paul agree on this point. If Barclay is correct, and Paul truly believed in some amount of reciprocity between God and humanity, then it would be expected that other New Testament books would share this belief. This reciprocation in no way invalidates other perfections of God’s gift, such as its incongruity, priority, and superabundance. Jesus himself said that those who would be his disciple must “take up their cross” and follow him (Matt 16:24). Obedience is the natural and expected response for those who have received God’s grace.

Notes

1. For a sample of reviews and interactions, see F. Gerald Downing, “Incongruous Conciliation: A Constructive Critique of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41 (2019): 384–402; Graham W. P. McFarlane, “Derrida, the Gift and John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift,” Evangelical Quarterly 89 (2018): 329–38; Margaret M. Mitchell, “Gift Histories,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 (2017): 304–23; Douglas J. Moo, “John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift and the New Perspective on Paul,” Themelios 41 (2016): 279–288; Thomas R. Schreiner, “Paul and the Gift: A Review Article,” Themelios 41 (2016): 52–58.
2. John M. G Barclay, Paul and the Gift (2015; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 70–75.
3. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 75.
4. M. Mauss, “Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dan les sociétés archaïques,” L’Année sociologique 1 (1925): 30–186; English translation found in M. Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. W. D. Halls (London: Routledge, 1990).
5. Mauss, The Gift, 16–17.
6. Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2004), 194–95, 206–8.
7. For a summary of the scholarly interaction with Mauss’s thesis, see L. Sigaud, “The Vicissitudes of The Gift,” Social Anthropology 10 (2002): 335–58.
8. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 63; cf. 314.
9. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 446.
10. An important exception is found in Romans 11:20–22. Barclay’s comments on this passage will be noted below.
11. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 2, 204–5; William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 47A (Dallas: Word, 1991), cxlviii–cxlix; Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 109.
12. This terminology comes from John Peckham, The Love of God: A Canonical Model (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 219–34, who, from a systematic perspective, has come to a similar conclusion as Barclay about expected reciprocity.
13. Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 206. For παραρρέω, cf. Proverbs 3:21, where it is contrasted with τηρέω (“to keep”). See also Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1322–23; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 770. In the LXX ἀμελέω has the notion of neglecting that which one has or used to have (Jer 4:17; 38[31]:32; 2 Macc 4:14). The same is certainly true in 1 Timothy 4:14, and likely Matthew 22:5.
14. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 227.
15. See discussion in Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 206–15; and especially Andrew J. Wilson, “Hebrews 3:6B and 3:14 Revisited,” Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011): 258–62. For examples of evidence-inference conditional statements in the New Testament, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 683.
16. Wallace categorizes this as an intensive, or resultative, perfect (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 576). While rejecting the notion of an intensive perfect, Porter nonetheless concludes the perfect tense “grammaticalizes the state or condition of the grammatical subject as conceived by the speaker” (Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek 1 [New York: Peter Lang, 1989], 259).
17. On the idea that those who believe are currently entering this rest, see Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 205; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “To the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 153–56; contra Ellingworth, Hebrews, 246, and Koester, Hebrews, 270, who view the present tense as futuristic, emphasizing the surety of the promise. If the present continuous aspect is taken, this does not imply completion. There is a future element even for those who see verse 3 as attesting a current process. “In light of this future dimension Hebrews exhorts its readers to ensure that they not be found wanting,” according to Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNT Supplement 73 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 58–59.
18. For two scholars who argue it is overly simplistic to speak of these individuals as being “saved,” because Hebrews tends to view salvation as a future event, see Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992): 58; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 221. Others see these gifts bequeathed at baptism due to the mention of being enlightened. See Ernst Käsemann, The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Roy A. Harrisville and Irving L. Sandberg (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 188–89; Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe, JSNT Supplement 219 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 274; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 67–68n63; John W. Kleinig, Hebrews, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2017), 293–94. However, the earliest reference to baptism as enlightenment is found in Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 61.12; cf. Dial. 39.2; 122.1–2.6. See Cockerill, Hebrews, 269; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 141.
19. Wallace argues for taking all five participles adjectivally, such that they qualify the hypothetical group (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 633).
20. Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from the Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 162–71; Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” 217.
21. The logic of the statement requires a causal interpretation of the participle ἔχοντες (“because we have”). The author assumed the audience, like himself, had access to holy places. On the plural form of ἅγιος, see Carl P. Cosaert, “The Use of Ἅγιος for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004): 102–3.
22. George H. Guthrie, Hebrews, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 230.
23. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Robert W. Funk, trans. and rev. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 72. They say that an implied indefinite subject, such as Guthrie argues for, is uncommon and typically plural. In the few exceptions they list (Rom 10:10; 1 Cor 15:42–44), the indefiniteness is clear due to the absence of an obvious subject in the clause. Fanning, arguing primarily against the saved state of those described in 6:4–6, admits 10:29 presents “a more difficult reference for me” (“A Classical Reformed View,” 217).
24. Some include 12:12–13 in this warning section (cf. Bruce, Hebrews, 346; Koester, Hebrews, 539). However, Attridge is correct that these verses “clearly conclude the athletic metaphors begun at 12:1” (Hebrews, 366n6). Cf. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 444.
25. While it is possible for a perfect tense verb to have a futuristic sense, this typically occurs in generic sayings, where the subject is nonpersonal (for examples see Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 177). Likewise A. T. Robertson points out the close affinity between the gnomic and futuristic perfect (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 2nd ed. [New York: George H. Doran, 1915], 898).
26. Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures: New Testament Edition, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 787.
27. Bauer defines the term as pointing to either what is necessary or what is fitting (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 214). Cf. also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 135; and Kleinig, Hebrews, 95.
28. On the comparative περισσοτέρως used as an intensifier, see Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 806; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 35. Cockerill argues that “the things heard” involves the theological teachings found throughout the book of Hebrews (Hebrews, 117).
29. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 37.
30. Matthew C. Easter, Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph 160 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 54.
31. E.g., P Oxy 531.11: “τοῖςβιβλίοιςσουαὐτὸμόνονπρόσεχ[ε] φιλολογῶν” (“give your undivided attention to your books, devoting yourself to learning”), cited in George Milligan and James Hope Moulton, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 548.
32. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 107–8.
33. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” 216.
34. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 721.
35. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 439. Commenting on Romans 12:6, he writes, “Each is apportioned a measured role of community responsibility” (510).
36. See deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 169.
37. Guthrie, Hebrews, 229.
38. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 165–66.
39. Kleinig, Hebrews, 287. David M. Allen compares this with the blessings and curses found in Deuteronomy 11:11–28 (Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-Presentation, WUNT 2. Reihe 238 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 127–34).
40. On the nature of this faith, Victor (Sung-Yul) Rhee, argues for “faith in Jesus” (“Christology, Chiasm, and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 10:19–39, ” Filología Neotestamentaria 16 [2003]: 33–48). Easter, however, prefers the “faithfulness of Jesus” (Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, 190–93). The present work shows that in Hebrews—at least in the warning passages—faith tends to involve belief in and obedience toward God, Christ, and their promises.
41. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 525; Kleinig, Hebrews, 505; Koester, Hebrews, 450; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 288.
42. Koester, Hebrews, 445; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 290; Cockerill, Hebrews, 478–79. Lane sees a cause and effect relationship between “love” and “good works” (Hebrews 9–13, 289). Cf. Johnson, Hebrews, 259–60; Kleinig, Hebrews, 506.
43. Cockerill, Hebrews, 479. On ἐγκαταλείποντες as active abandonment, rather than passive neglect, see Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 273; Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 470.
44. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 290; cf. Bruce, Hebrews, 256–57.
45. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 342.
46. Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 121; Cockerill, Hebrews, 634; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 438. These scholars are correct that πρός would be the expected preposition to indicate a shared peace and that μετά would normally mean “together with.” See examples in Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 490. However, deSilva finds instances of μετὰ used in 3 Kingdoms 22:45 (LXX) and Romans 12:18 to mean “peace toward” someone (Perseverance in Gratitude, 457–58). Cf. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 287.
47. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 449.
48. Scott D. Mackie, “Early Christian Eschatological Experience in the Warnings and Exhortations of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Tyndale Bulletin 63 (2012): 111. Attridge states, “The two terms [peace and holiness] serve to specify one another” (Hebrews, 367).
49. Bruce, Hebrews, 348; cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 662.
50. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 459. On the beatific vision as eschatological fulfillment, see Attridge, Hebrews, 367; Cockerill, Hebrews, 635.
51. On ἔχωχάριν as an idiom for showing gratitude, see Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1080. Attridge sees, along with gratitude, an element of receiving grace (Hebrews, 382n69; contra Kleinig, Hebrews, 664). C. Spicq favors “let us receive grace,” suggesting that the lack of a recipient points away from the meaning of gratitude (L’Épître aux Hébreux, 3rd ed., Études bibliques [Paris: Lecoffre, 1952], 2.413). This is unlikely, given the entire book has assumed the audience to have already received God’s grace.
52. Seneca, Ep. 81.27. See discussion in deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 473–76; cf. Koester, Hebrews, 562; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 486. Based on a negative view of anthropology, Jason A. Whitlark critiques deSilva’s method of applying rules of benefaction to the argument of Hebrews, such that Christians could not be capable of offering anything to God in the way of reciprocity (Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of Reciprocity Systems in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Paternoster Biblical Monographs [Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008], 163–66). While it is correct that cultural categories should not be placed upon biblical theology unreservedly, the very fact that the author is calling his audience to fidelity and perseverance seems to undermine Whitlark’s point.
53. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 475; Kleinig, Hebrews, 664–65.
54. Lukas Stolz, Der Höhepunkt des Hebräerbriefs: Hebräer 12, 18–29 und seine Bedeutung für die Struktur und die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs, WUNT 2. Reihe 463 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 345–47.
55. On the ethical nature of Christian worship, see Joshua C. Hutchens, “Christian Worship in Hebrews 12:28 as Ethical and Exclusive,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59 (2016): 515–18.
56. Philo has a similar description regarding the proper attitude toward masters (Her. 22–28). See Christopher Richardson, “The Passion: Reconsidering Hebrews 5.7–8, ” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 62–64.
57. Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints,” 167.
58. The most influential defense of this position remains McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews.” See also Grant R. Osborne, “A Classical Arminian View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 86–128; Gareth Lee Cockerill, “A Wesleyan Arminian View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, 257–92.
59. On this approach see R. C. Gleason, “The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 62–91; Hodges, “Hebrews,” 783, 795, 806–7.
60. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” 218–19; Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints,” 182; Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 199–203.
61. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 37.
62. Attridge, Hebrews, 65; contra Easter, who does not see a contrast or “much more” sense in 2:1–4 (Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, 50). Bruce identifies 7:21–22; 9:14; and 10:28–29 as other examples of the author using lesser-to-greater arguments to discuss law and gospel (Hebrews, 68).
63. Contra Kleinig, who suggests “there is some doubt about the hearer’s response to it” (Hebrews, 97). On the conditional nature of the participle ἀμελήσαντες, see Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1022–23; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 633; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 66; Koester, Hebrews, 209; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 34.
64. Cockerill, Hebrews, 183n38; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 144.
65. Blass and Debrunner seem to take ἀποστῆναι as a content or epexegetical infinitive (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, 208). This interpretation is followed by Cockerill, Hebrews, 184; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 222; Johnson, Hebrews, 117; Koester, Hebrews, 258. However, Wallace is more likely correct that this should be seen as a rare use of an ἐντῷ + infinitive construction with resultative force (Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 593). On ἐντῷ + infinitive in the New Testament, see Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1072–73.
66. Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief, WUNT 11 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1970), 143.
67. Attridge, Hebrews, 236. He cites Deuteronomy 9:23; 32:20; Psalms 106:25; Romans 2:3, 8; 11:20, 23; 11:30, 32; John 3:36; and Hebrews 11:31 (Hebrews, 121). Ellingworth adds John 3:36. Cf. also Bruce, Hebrews, 102n74; Easter, Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, 56; Käsemann, The Wandering People of God, 38. On the other hand, Cockerill separates the two notions, seeing disobedience as only a “penultimate designation” and “unbelief” the deciding offense (Hebrews, 193–94).
68. See Ezekiel 14:13; 15:8; 18:24; 20:27; 22:4; 2 Chronicles 20:18; 28:19; 29:6; 30:7; Wisdom 6:9; 12:2; Wilhelm Michaelis, “Παραπίπτω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 170–71; Johnson, Hebrews, 161; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 142.
69. Johnson, Hebrews, 163; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 169; Cockerill, Hebrews, 275. For similarities between this notion in Hebrews and the Torah, see Isaacs, Sacred Space, 93–94; Matthew McAffee, “Covenant and the Warnings of Hebrews: The Blessing and the Curse,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57 (2014): 544–48. For a similar comparison between Hebrews and Jewish apocalyptic, see Brent Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12, ” Novum Testamentum 45 (2003): 270–74.
70. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 323; cf. Bruce, Hebrews, 148; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 69–70.
71. For Old Testament uses of agricultural imagery, see Isaiah 5:1–7; 28:23–29; Ezekiel 19:10–14. This imagery was especially common in the early Christian tradition, possibly tracing back to Jesus’s parable of the soils. E.g., Matt 7:16–20; 12:33; 13:3–9; 21:19; Luke 3:9; 13:6–9, 18–19; John 15:1–8; Rom 7:4–5; Gal 5:22; Col 1:6, 10; Jude 12. For more examples of agricultural imagery in biblical and extrabiblical literature, see Attridge, Hebrews, 172n69–72; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 143.
72. Cockerill, Hebrews, 277.
73. Attridge, Hebrews, 167; Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews, 134; Koester, Hebrews, 321; Nongbri, “A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation,” 274.
74. McKnight says, “The sin he is concerned about is very specific: it is apostasy” (“The Warning Passages of Hebrews,” 54). Hermut Löhr speaks of apostasy as the primary sin against which the whole of Hebrews is arguing (Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief, BZNW 73 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994], 134–35).
75. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 558.
76. “Willfully” here is in an emphatic position at the beginning of the clause. On the distinction between willful sins and involuntary sins, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 531–32; Koester, Hebrews, 451. Regarding the connection between the command to meet with one another and willful sinning, see deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 344; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 291.
77. Lane points out the main difference between here and chapter 6 is the cultic language of sacrifice (Hebrews 9–13, 291).
78. Bruce, Hebrews, 261.
79. Bauer states the εἰς prepositions here likely indicate result (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 290).
80. Koester, Hebrews, 468.
81. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 339.
82. Kleinig, Hebrews, 534.
83. Cockerill, Hebrews, 636; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 368; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 452–53.
84. Cockerill interprets πόρνος here as general immorality, arguing that no further comment is made about sexual sin (Hebrews, 639). Others see the term as a synecdoche referring to all forms of idolatry. See deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 461; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 665; Johnson, Hebrews, 324; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 454–55. It seems more likely, however, that Esau’s sexual sins serve as an example of his preferring temporary pleasure to eternal rewards. Bruce points out 13:4 is the only other place the term appears in the book, where it clearly means “fornication” (Hebrews, 351). Cf. Kleinig, Hebrews, 627. On the Second-Temple view that Esau was a fornicator, see Koester, Hebrews, 532; Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief, 123–30.
85. Lane argues for a conditional participle here: “if we turn away” rather than “we who turn away” (Hebrews 9–13, 478). The latter is more likely, however, due to the second attributive position of the participle. Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 552; Gene Smillie, “‘The One Who Is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25, ” Tyndale Bulletin 55 (2004): 288–89; Stolz, Der Höhepunkt des Hebräerbriefs, 285.
86. The notion that “the one speaking” refers to the reader of the letter is novel, but ultimately unpersuasive (Koester, Hebrews, 552; Smillie, “ ‘The One Who Is Speaking’ in Hebrews 12:25, ” 292–93). The previous discussion of God speaking at Sinai seems to preclude this argument. See Attridge, Hebrews, 379; Johnson, Hebrews, 334; Stolz, Der Höhepunkt des Hebräerbriefs, 269. On the possibility that “the one who is speaking” refers to God’s words through Scripture, see Felix H. Cortez, “‘See That You Do Not Refuse the One Who Is Speaking’: Hearing God Preach and Obedience in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 19 (2008): 101–4.
87. Stolz, Der Höhepunkt des Hebräerbriefs, 284.
88. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 552.
89. See Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 553.
90. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 260.
91. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 569.