Admonition and Error in Hebrews

By Noel Weeks

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

One of the most difficult problems facing the exegete who deals with the New Testament epistles is the reconstruction of the error(s) against which the letters were written.[1] It is obvious that our concepts of the errors combated will affect our interpretation. Failure to raise this problem may lead to the overlooking of exegetical possibilities. Given that the heresies combated have some Jewish background, the New Testament writers were not forced to take issue at every point raised by the heresy. They could accept the Old Testament data as common while subjecting it to a very different interpretation. Much that strikes us as simple teaching may indeed be polemic in that it is designed to demonstrate a different interpretation from that held by the heretics.

We may well suspect that Hebrews is polemical and antithetical in its instruction. The Superiority of Christ to angels to Moses, and of his priesthood to that of Aaron, is directed against those who do not recognize that superiority.[2] We may further suggest that even in its practical admonitions the polemic is never absent. For example Hebrews 2:2, 3 accepts the gravity of the “angelic” revelation only to stress the far greater revelation that came through the Son. Chapter 3 begins with an argument for the superiority of the Son to Moses. The admonition that follows points out (3:16) that the movement led by Moses ended in rebellion and death. Not only does Moses occupy a lesser place; the deliverance led by Moses is also not to be overrated.

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

The heresy saw certain of its practices or experiences as related to the experiences and practices of Israel in the wilderness. We may suspect that this was because they saw themselves as the legitimate continuation of Israel. The definitive and foundational experience for Israel was the wilderness experience. So the heresy interpreted its own practices by reference to Israel in the wilderness. There may have been an element of forced exegesis or, perhaps, allegory in the connection that was made between wilderness Israel and the practices of the sect.

The clearest example is provided by 13:9–14. The writer warns the readers against preoccupation with dietary matters.[3] He then points out that we eat from a different altar than that available to those who serve the tabernacle. Christian “eating” is contrasted to the eating of the tabernacle priests and, it would seem, to the eating prescribed under the rejected dietary laws. For the argument to have force the heresy must have seen a connection between their dietary laws and the regulations for the tabernacle priests.

This example also shows the author’s method of answering the heresy. He does not challenge the connection between wilderness Israel and the heretics; rather he demonstrates the superiority of the new order brought by Christ over the old order. There was no need for the author to challenge the connection the heresy made between itself and wilderness Israel. Since we may presume that the heresy was Jewish, that continuity was there anyway. Furthermore, the author elsewhere sees the continuation of the Old Testament sacrificial system as evidence of its inferiority (10:1–3). It is not at all part of his purpose to argue that the wilderness was a limited and once for all experience. As its sacrificial ordinances with all their weakness continued, so its failures had not been rectified before the coming of Christ. Not only did Moses fail to lead the people into rest (3:16–19); Joshua also did not (4:8).

The superiority of the new order is emphasized in the warning passages as much as in the instruction passages. In 2:1–4 there is a contrast between disobedience to the former revelation and disobedience to the new revelation. The writer goes further in 3:7–4:11, in that he contrasts the deliverance under Moses and Joshua with that brought by the Lord. Whereas Moses and Joshua did not lead the people into rest, those who believe in the Lord do enter into the rest.

In the teaching portions there is an emphasis on the inability of the old ordinances to produce internal change. They are external ordinances (7:18, 19; 9:8–14). Corresponding to this is the mention of disobedience under the old covenant in the warnings (3:15–19). Against those who stressed their continuity with Israel it had to be pointed out that this was not a glorious lineage. Unbelief marked that heritage (cf. Matt 23:29–35; Acts 7:51–53; 28:24–27). The writer stresses the necessity of continuing with Christ lest the believers become like unbelieving Israel (3:6; cf. 10:36–39).

With this background we may turn to the difficult passage 5:11–6:12. We would expect that the author would include, in this warning passage also, the lessons to be learned from the weaknesses and failures under the old covenant. This does not seem to be the case. Rather, it seems to describe the failures of temporary believers in Christ, When we examine the passage more carefully, we are confronted with the basic exegetical problem: the description in 6:1, 2 of elements of instruction which belong with the old order rather than with distinctively Christian teaching. Whereas this would seem to point to the old covenant, the verses which follow (4, 5) seem to indicate Christian experience. Exegetes have been faced with a choice and have chosen to attempt to squeeze the items listed in 6:1, 2 into Christian instruction. If we are forced to a choice, surely the pattern of admonition in the letter would make us look for a description of experiences under the old order. In other words, we should not re-interpret the very clear list in 6:1, 2 in the light of the somewhat indefinite list in 6:4, 5. Rather we should seek an interpretation of 6:4, 5 which brings these verses into line with the indications in 6:1, 2 of a reference to the old covenant. The rest of this paper will be devoted to showing that the latter interpretation is indeed possible, if not demanded by the language, and thus brings this passage into line with the other warning passages in the epistle.

The first exegetical problem is whether we read τίνα (“what are”) or τινὰ (“something of”) in 5:12. Is the author saying that they need to have pointed out to them what are just elementary principles in order that they may progress beyond them or that they need to be taught the elementary principles all over again? The former is obviously the case, because in 6:1 the author warns against going back over the elementary points.[4] Also in favor of this alternative is that the bulk of ancient versions, authors, and accented manuscripts read τίνα.

The phrases, “elements of the beginning of the oracles of God” (τὰ στοικεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ) and “the word of the beginnings of Christ” (τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ χριστοῦ λόγον), are both aimed to emphasize the absolutely elementary nature of what must be left behind. And both refer to the former revelation. This is somewhat more obvious with the first phrase than the second. “Oracles of God” is used in the New Testament often, if not exclusively, of the Old Testament.[5] The “elements” (στοιχεῖα) may well be a technical term in the heresy being combated. It seems to be a term used by the Colossian heresy (Col 2:8, 20). Without going into the problem of the exact form of the Colossian heresy I think it safe to say that the concern for angels and dietary laws[6] points to a connection between the Colossian and the Hebrews heresies. The “elements” seem connected to the Old Testament in Colossians 2:20–22 and Galatians 4:3. Thus the writer wants to warn his readers of the dangers of remaining attached to the basic rudiments of the Old Testament revelation.[7]

The second phrase is not such a clear reference to the old revelation. Yet what better way to describe the Old Testament than “the beginning (first principles)-of-the-Christ Word”? It is the word which contains the first rudiments of instruction about the Messiah. Yet we must not stop with these rudiments. The things listed in 6:1, 2 are clearly drawn from the Old Testament. There is nothing here that is distinctive of Christian instruction and experience. The matter is practically decided by the mention of “washings.” As 9:10 shows this is a reference to the Old Testament ritual washings.[8]

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

The crucial problem then becomes the interpretation of 6:4, 5. There is an apparent vagueness in the terms used. These terms seem applicable to Christian experience, especially when we note the use of “enlightened” in 10:32. Yet, once again there is nothing distinctively Christian in these terms. They are, in fact, descriptions of the wilderness experience of Israel.

Before proceeding to argue the last point the problem of the overlap of this terminology with Christian terminology must be faced. There is a very real parallel between the great Old Testament act of redemption and the New Testament salvation.[9] The people of God in both eras have had similar experiences. Herein lies the danger for the readers. They may come to see the old revelation as being on the same level as the new. The writer does not deny the reality of this comparison between wilderness experience and Christian experience. “For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also” (4:2). Yet he does stress that this was not of profit to those who received the former revelation: “the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.”

There is another possibility. Are the terms used in vv. 4, 5 technical terms within the heresy? Does the particular sect of Judaism involved attempt to connect its experiences and practices with those of wilderness Israel by means of such terms? In other words, their practices would involve “enlightenment,” “tasting,” etc., which are connected by a particular exegesis to Israel’s “enlightenment,” “tasting,” etc. There is no way of proving this possibility. The structure of thought I have suggested finds analogies in Philo and Qumran, but the heresy is not identical with the teaching of Philo or Qumran.[10] All that can be said is that such a structure is suggested by 13:9–14 and is compatible with what we learn from Colossians.

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

Israel ate of the “bread of heaven” (Ps 78:24; 105:40). The accounts of the manna mention its taste (Exod 16:31; Num 11:8). The Spirit was given to Bezalel (Exod 35:30, 31). The Spirit was given also to the elders of the people (Num 11:77ff). It was against the Spirit that the people rebelled (Ps 106:33). References to the receipt of the Word of God are too numerous to mention, but Psalm 119:103 might be particularly mentioned as involving also the idea of tasting.

So far the writer has been willing to give great significance to the experience of Israel during the sojourn in the wilderness, Nevertheless by the phrase “the powers of an age to come” he places all this in perspective. The power of God was manifested in the wilderness, but it was a power that did not properly belong to that time. It was an intrusion, a foreshadowing. The powers displayed belong more properly to the age yet to come. The dominant typological structure of Hebrews emerges here. The old era was not complete or significant in itself. What light and significance it had derived from the projection into it of the powers of the age of full revelation. This very phrase is itself strong evidence that these verses do not describe Christian experience. Certainly there is an age to come for the Christian also. However, the stress of Hebrews is that the “age to come” has already come with the coming of the Lord. The future age is not set over against the New Testament age. The “future age” begins with the New Testament age. However, from the standpoint of Israel in the wilderness that age was definitely in the future.

The crowning proof of the insufficiency of that former revelation is the fact that it was those who received it who put the Son of God to death. In 6:6 we meet a clear example of the way that interpretation influences translation, and translation in turn has a strong influence on interpretation. ἀναστανροῦντας is generally translated “crucify again.” Translators are being influenced by the belief that the passage deals with apostate Christians. Yet, in extra-biblical Greek it always means simply “crucify” with the ἀνα prefix having the sense of “up” rather than “again.”[13] What is referred to here is not a figurative recrucifixion by apostate Christians; rather, it is the original crucifixion of the Lord by those who were recipients of all the blessings which came to Israel through Moses. The teaching of this passage is thus another point of overlap between Stephen’s speech (specifically Acts 7:52, 53) and this epistle.[14]

What then is the force of these verses? What is declared to be “impossible”? What is impossible is the revivification of Judaism.[15] The community which had received all of the blessings of the Mosaic economy and yet was without faith will receive the judgment that comes upon the unfruitful field (6:8). This passage is thus a continuation of the thought of the gospels (Matt 3:9, 10; 21:42–44; 23:37–39). It goes against the sense of the passage and the author’s intent to delve into the question of the fate of individuals. His readers were in danger because they failed to see the inadequacies of contemporary Judaism. Under the pressure of persecution they might be tempted to join a sect of Judaism which appeared to offer similar teaching and experiences. The readers must be made to realize that the ship of Judaism was sinking. It could not be refloated. Salvation lay with the church. The Christian community must follow its Lord in a religious separation from those whose share was in the tabernacle (13:10–14).

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

The only point that remains for consideration is 10:26–31. Once again we find the reference to sin under the Mosaic law. There is a clear reference to the death of Christ in v. 29. The insult done to the Spirit of God may once again be compared to the accusation which Stephen made (Acts 7:51). The problem rather lies with “and has considered as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” The first part of the phrase is no problem, since it aptly describes what happened at the trial and crucifixion of Jesus (Matt 27:25). The real problem is with the clause “in which he was sanctified.” There is an ambiguity here. Who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant, the murderers of Jesus or Jesus himself? I believe that the latter is the case. It must be remembered that ἁγιάξω (“sanctify”) does not necessarily imply the existence of sin. Thus Jesus was the one “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (John 10:26). Further the whole point of the author has been to emphasize that Jesus has fulfilled the requirements of a high priest. There is an analogy between the Aaronic ordinances and the sacrifice of Christ. So it is reasonable to suggest that as Aaron was consecrated by the blood of the sacrifice (Exod 29) so Jesus was consecrated as high priest through the offering of his own blood.[16] Hence we find in this passage another reference to the heinous transgression of those who had received the law and all the blessings granted to Israel.

Notes

1. The Qumram findings and renewed interest in Jewish sects have resulted in works such as J. J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and their Background (Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1973). While containing much useful information one cannot but wonder if we yet have the sources necessary for a full understanding of schools of thought such as “the Colossian heresy.” The same applies for the error against which Hebrews is written, in spite of the value of Y. Yadin, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews” in C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (eds.) Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (Jerusalem; Magnes Press, 1958), pp. 36-55.
2. Yadin (ibid.) compares Qumran and the beliefs of the addressees of the letter on these points.
3. We meet here one of the points of contact between the “Hebrews heresy” and the “Colossian heresy” (cf. Col 2:20–22).
4. Westcott argues the contrary case, but his point escapes me: it could hardly be said that the Hebrews required to learn what the elements of the Faith were. They knew what they were though they did not know them” (The Epistle to the Hebrews [2nd edn., London, Macmillan, 1892], p. 133).
5. Acts 7:38 and Rom 3:2 are clear cases. 1 Peter 4:11 is doubtful, but a reference to the O.T. Scriptures would not be out of place in the context.
6. Should we add sabbath observance to this list? Compare Col 2:16 with the emphasis in Heb 3, 4 {Heb 4}, that it is through Christ that one enters the true sabbath rest.
7. For a discussion of the milk/solid food image in 5:12–14 {Heb 5}, see R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), pp. 277ff.
8. Despite the ingenuity of commentators it is hard to explain why multiple “baptisms” should be part of basic Christian instruction. It is questionable whether baptismov” as opposed to bavptisma is used of Christian baptism. Mark 7:4 is clearly a reference to ritual washings. The doubtful case is Col 2:12, where the manuscripts are divided between baptismw’/ and baptivsmati. The question is discussed in J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (2nd edn., London: Macmillan, 1876), ad loc.
9. If the thesis presented here is correct, it explains the overlap between the terminology used in 6:4 {Heb 6:4}, and Christian sacramental terminology (cf., the thesis of Philip E. Hughes, “Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Peril of Apostasy,” Westminster Theological Journal 35 [1972-3], 137–155). Christian terms are drawn from the quarry of the sacramental experience of Israel.
10. Note, however, the comment of Yadin, “…we cannot help feeling that the DSS (Dead Sea Sect) organized itself in as exact as possible a replica of the life of the tribes of Israel in the wilderness…” (op. cit., p. 55). Was Qumran unique in this? Are there overlaps between Qumran and certain aspects of Diaspora Judaism?
11. To save multiple references, all passages are cited according to the psalm and verse divisions of the English translation, rather than the LXX or Massoretic text.
12. If the heresy was trying to connect their own inner experience and Israel’s external experience, they should have turned to such a passage for a precedent.
13. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 60b.
14. Compare also Acts 7:39 with Heb 3:16; Acts 7:38 with Heb 5:12; Acts 7:44 with Heb 8:5.
15. The teaching of Rom 11:25ff on this point is discussed in H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 358ff.
16. Are we meant to connect the blood and water which comes from the side of Jesus (John 19:34) with the pouring of the blood of the sacrifice at the foot of the altar (Exod 39:12)?