Hebrews 6:4-6—Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry)

By Martin Emmrich

[Martin Emmrich is adjunct professor at Eastern University and Reformed Theological Seminary (Washington, DC).]

I. Introduction

The admonition of Heb 5:11–6:12 with 6:4–6 at its core has evoked a continuous flow of articles and is often considered to be the most difficult of the letter’s warning passages.[1] The question of the possibility of a second μετάνοια in connection with the meaning of ἀδύνατος (6:4a) has attracted and still attracts the attention of interpreters of various persuasions. The present study draws from previous investigations but proposes alternative conclusions. Our exegetical findings will then be elucidated and hopefully confirmed by taking a pneumatological perspective on the passage. The study suggests that the author’s references to πνεῦμα in Heb 6:4–6 can best be understood against the backdrop of second-temple retributive pneumatological traditions. At the same time, his eschatological (or christological) agenda, in particular the notion of the impossibility of a second μετάνοια, motivated him to modify received teachings about the Holy Spirit.

II. Exegesis[2]

Noel Weeks’s groundbreaking study has shown that the crucial phrases in 6:4–5 resonate with overtones from the LXX account of Israel’s wilderness experience.[3] The language of this admonition thus corresponds with that of the two previous warning passages (2:1–4; 3:7–11), which also make use of the pilgrimage imagery as a trajectory for depicting the author’s addressees as the wandering people of God. Accordingly, the term φωτί…ζειν (“to enlighten,” 6:4) constitutes an allusion to the pillar of cloud/fire, Israel’s luminous guide on the wilderness trek. LXX texts that rehearse the wilderness journeys draw attention to the pillar’s light-giving purpose by using the very same verb. Thus, in Exod 13:21 the pillar is said to have given “light (φωτί…ζειν), that they might travel by day and by night.” Nehemiah 9:12 [2 Esdr 19:12] describes the pillar as a “light dispenser” (ὡδ¾ὴγησας αὐτοὺς .. . ἐν στύλῳ πυρος̀ .. .φωτί…σαι αὐτοῖς. . .); the notion is reiterated in 9:19 [2 Esdr 19:19] (.. . ὁδηγῆσαι αὐτοὺς .. . τὸν στῦλον τοῦ πυρὸς .. .φωτί…ζειν αὐτοῖς). The same verb appears in Ps 105:39 [104:39] in reference to the pillar of fire. Φωτισθῆναι in Heb 6:4, then, is the first in a series of suggestive terms that are intended to make the connection to the exodus tradition audible.

Besides the pillar, Israel witnessed another daily reminder of God’s presence during the desert trek, namely, the provision of manna.[4] The author of Hebrews actuates this aspect of Israel’s experience in the desert by using the phrase γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουραν…ίου (“having tasted of the heavenly gift,” 6:4).[5] According to Exod 16:4, God “rained down” manna “from heaven” for the Israelites. Again, both Neh 9 and Ps 105 rehearse the daily provision of food and are keen on making explicit the bread’s quality as a divine gift (Neh 9:15 [2 Esdr 19:15]; Ps 105:40 [104:40]; cf. also Ps 78:24 [77:24]).[6] Second Baruch, penned only slightly later than Hebrews, connects the coming of the messianic age with an eschatological gift of heavenly bread corresponding to the ideal past,[7] and other texts confirm that this notion was a popular tradition among religious Jews of the first century C.E. and beyond (Sib. Or. 7:145; Qoh. Rab. 1:9), one that would have been known to both author and audience of Hebrews. After all, the writers of the Synoptic Gospels may well have had the teaching in their minds when they recorded the feeding of the four and five thousand (Matt 14:15–21; 15:32–38; Mark 8:1–9; Luke 9:12–17), not to mention John’s “bread-from-heaven” discourse (6:31ff.).

The warning continues with the clause μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγί…ου (“having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,” 6:4b). “Partakers of the Holy Spirit” are those who experience πνεῦμα as the guiding power on their earthly pilgrimage by way of Spirit-inspired utterances and Spirit-induced wisdom.[8] For the readership, μέτοχοι thus depicts more than just temporary or superficial participation in the Spirit. Participation in the Spirit bespeaks a genuine experience of God’s presence that his people have (and in fact need) on their journey of faith. Thus, when read against the background of the pilgrimage motif, the phrase “partakers of the Holy Spirit” corresponds to God’s placing of “Moses’ Spirit” on the seventy elders to instruct their contemporaries during the wilderness trek (Num 11:16–30).[9] Like Israel during the exodus journey, the addressees of the Epistle to the Hebrews have experienced the Spirit’s guiding agency in their midst.

The remaining terms in 6:4–5 are “having tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” The close relation of these two ideas communicated by the particle τε and their being conditioned by one and the same verb γεύεσθαι (“to taste”) is not accidental, and is meant to indicate that word and works of power went hand in hand in the experience of the readers.[10] Together they signal the intrusion of the “age to come.”[11]

“Tasting of the goodness of the word of God” (or “the good word of God”) above all refers to the hearing of the preached word as the announcement of God’s will.[12] As Grässer points out,[13] the phrase of Heb 6:5a may actually be a derivative of two statements in the book of Joshua that make reference to the divine promise of the land of Canaan. Joshua 21:45 draws attention to the fulfillment of the covenantal (land) promise in terms of πάντων τῶν ῥήματων τῶν καλῶν ὧν ἐλάλησεν κύριος τοῖς υἱοῖς ’Ισραήλ (“all the good words which the Lord spoke to the children of Israel”). Again, 23:15 reiterates this idea by using the same phrase (πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τά καλα).

Joshua’s assertions about the “good word of God” (i.e., the fulfillment of the land promise) most likely provides the scriptural background for the “good word” in Heb 6:5.[14] But its close alliance with the final descriptive phrase,[15] which is also governed by γεύεσθαι (6:5b), could afford another clue that allows us to see the readers’ experience as a replica of Israel’s formative period. Exodus 4:28–30 introduces a paradigm that informs virtually the entire record of the exodus, namely, that word and sign (miracle) form a certain unity, similar to the roles of Moses and Aaron: “.. . Moses announced to Aaron all the words of the Lord. .. and all the signs.. .. Moses and Aaron went and Aaron spoke all these words. .. and Moses performed the signs before the people.” Word and sign together also confront Pharaoh (Exod 3:18–20), and throughout the record of the subsequent desert trek the presence of the divine word accompanied by miracles characterizes Israel’s experience (Neh 9:10–17; Ps 78:10–11, 32; 105:27–28; 106:7–12, 21–25). This powerful intrusion of the celestial realm based upon the correlation of word and sign, so typical of the exodus tradition and unparalleled in the LXX, has now become the hallmark of the pilgrims’ experience in the messianic eschaton. Hebrews 2:1–4, a passage that is also replete with allusions to the exodus, already evinces this motif. But the same is true for the second warning in Hebrews (3:7ff.). Here the exhortation is modeled after the appeal found in Ps 95:7–11, which commences with the words, “today, if you hear his voice.” “Hearing his voice” refers to the entire letter as God’s word to the pilgrims (cf. 13:22). The unfaithfulness of ancient Israel in the wilderness then becomes the paradigm that the addressees must seek to avoid conforming to.[16] It is symptomatic that Moses’ generation (and, by way of analogy, the readers of Hebrews) not only failed to hear God’s voice and thus were oblivious of his ways (3:10b), but also that they are said to have had ample exposure to τὰ ἔργα θεοῦ (“works of God”) throughout their forty-year journey (3:9b–10a).[17] For Israel, as for the readership of the epistle, word and sign went hand in hand. This correlation characterized the exodus under Moses’ leadership, and it characterizes the readers’ eschatological exodus.

The five descriptive phrases that lead up to the ominous παραπεσόντας (“falling away,” 6:6) are best understood as evoking the context of Israel’s wilderness journeys.[18] Eventually, we are in a position to appreciate fully the force of παραπί…πτειν. The lessons drawn from Israel’s rebellion in 3:7ff. were still in the mind of the author when he wrote the third warning (6:4–6). Just as Israel failed to enter the promised land despite the many tokens of God’s care for them, the readers of Hebrews are in danger of forfeiting the promise, although their experience had clearly marked them as an eschatological community. Using the analogy of the pilgrimage motif, then, we may say that παραπ…ίπτειν describes the notion of retiring from the wandering people. Again, the events of Kadesh-Barnea come to mind. Israel’s rejection by God was sealed when they decided to outdo their constant murmuring (cf. Exod 15:24–16:3; 17:3) by actually returning to Egypt, i.e., they terminated the pilgrimage prematurely (cf. Num 14:1ff.). By doing so, they irrevocably relinquished Yahweh’s promise as being inferior to whatever Egypt had to offer. Israel had returned to Egypt, and, in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews, this entailed “throwing away their confidence” (10:35). By the same token, the addressees of Hebrews are warned that they will forfeit the reward if they recapitulate Israel’s story by not staying the course to the promised rest. Hebrews 3:7ff., which is most obviously built on the paradigm of the exodus, uses three parallel expressions to convey Israel’s apostasy as the pattern of rebellion that the addressees of Hebrews must shun: παραπικραί…νειν (“to rebel,” 3:16), ἁμαρτάνειν (“to sin,” 3:17), ἀπειθεί…ν (“to disobey,” 3:18). These terms are further explicated by the phrase “because of unbelief “ (3:19). Israel relinquished belief in the divine promise of entering the κατάπαυσις (“rest”) and thus refused to continue the pilgrimage.[19] It is this notion that lies at the very heart of the first three of the warning passages in Hebrews.

Mathewson’s reading of Heb 6:4–6 in light of Israel’s exodus from Egypt leads him to conclude:

[T]he people depicted in 6:4–6 are not genuine believers or true members of the new covenant community. Like their OT counterparts, they have experienced all these blessings (vv. 4–5), but like the wilderness generation they are hardhearted, rebellious (3:8) and possess an “evil heart of unbelief “ (3:12, 19).. .. The falling away (v. 6) is not a falling from salvation, but a failure to exercise saving faith.. . .[20]

Mathewson draws a distinction between the addressees of the exhortation who are in danger of falling away[21] and the apostates described in 6:4–6. As for the latter, he argues that they had never had a “genuine saving experience” but had become acquainted with certain blessings as corporate members of the community.[22] So the readers are exhorted not to walk the fatal path of the apostates, a path that corresponds typologically with Israel’s exodus and the disaster at Kadesh. But, having introduced the above distinction, Mathewson (perhaps unintentionally) seems to imply that among the epistle’s readership there were those who had had a “genuine saving experience” (to use his own choice of language, though I do not at all endorse it).[23] Are we to regard them as less than potential apostates? And if so, why? Once we raise the issue of whether the persons depicted in 6:4–6 had experienced salvation (and Mathewson says as much), these irksome questions are inescapable.

What then are we to make of this conundrum? While we may not have all the answers to the vexing problems surrounding the exegesis of our text, we can avoid asking the wrong questions. Certainly, the warning passages in Hebrews were never designed to investigate the “can-true-believers-fall-away?” kind of inquiry. Our use of predications such as “true/genuine” or “false” is itself obstinately wrong and incurs suspicion of importing alien concepts into our text. Based on the predominant analogy with Israel’s experience in the wilderness, we can be quite sure that the author did not at all think in what for him would have been artificial categories of “true/false believers.” The Israelites were God’s people possessing the divine promise so long as they would persevere in their quest for Canaan. From the vantage point of the pilgrims there was only the generation that did enter the land and the generation that gave up on the pilgrimage. But for Moses’ contemporaries to call them “true/false Israelites” would have been as gratuitous as it is to discriminate between true and false believers among the readers of Hebrews. To be sure, we are not saying that this distinction found no admittance into NT documents. Quite to the contrary (cf. 1 John 2:19; Rom 9:6–8)! But what we are saying is that the application of this idea would fail to take account of the letter’s unique make-up. The audience relives,” as it were, Israel’s pilgrimage, and, by definition, the community of pilgrims is recruited from those who set out and are on the way.[24] Thus, the members of the congregation qualify as believers because (or as long as) they are pilgrims. No further distinction is intended until they decide to separate themselves from the wandering people of God. But for the pilgrims, there can be no such turning back without also loosing the promise of consummation.[25]

At this point I wish to emphasize that our findings so far do not at all impinge upon the doctrines of “irresistible grace” or “sovereign election.” The Epistle to the Hebrews—unlike other documents or portions of the NT—does not assume a divine perspective regarding the believers’ status quo. While some texts afford windows into the very mind and eternal purposes of God for the believer (cf. Phil 1:6; Rom 8:29–30; etc.), our letter is content with assuming a human or rather pastoral perspective. Accordingly, the author does not pretend to be able to know the hearts of his addressees so as to distinguish their ultimate spiritual condition. He does know, however, that some of them are ready to throw in the towel and disown Christ. The author refuses to break these “bruised reeds” and extends to his brothers and sisters the benefit of a doubt, but they must be confronted with the looming danger of losing the blessings (and so the promise) pertaining to the eschatological community should they apostatize after Israel’s ὑπόδειγμα ἀπειθεί…ας (“pattern of disobedience,” 4:11). The very last thing he wants to do is to sing songs of “eternal security” to these faltering pilgrims as though their decision for or against Christ could have no eternal consequences. No, they must be warned against the horrific corollary of exposing the Son to ridicule.[26] For instead of bearing his reproach (cf. 13:13), they would thus join hands with those who put him to shame (cf. 12:2).

The momentum of the first three warning passages (especially 6:4–6) revolves around the realized blessings of the eschaton already enjoyed by the community. Knowing what they knew and having experienced what they experienced as followers of Christ, whose advent signaled God’s final “word” of redemption, entails tremendous responsibility.[27] The epitome of the blessings is that God, based upon the Son’s atoning sacrifice, is in the midst of his wandering people (cf. Exod 29:45–46). The divine presence is most eminently shown through the word of the gospel and signs of various kinds. But God is also active among his people through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Now, if our conclusion is correct, then all of the blessings enumerated in Heb 6:4–6—including the gift of the Spirit—can be forfeited under the conditions discussed so far. The gift of πνεῦμα, therefore, does not appear to be final. Redemption in Hebrews is presented as a to-be-maintained dialogue,[28] and there is no such thing here as “eternal security” apart from the believer’s cooperation in cultivating the divine means of grace (cf. 10:36, 39). Consequently, if a (former) member of the community has apostatized and thus treated the Spirit of grace with contempt (10:29), there is no more ground for any continuing salvific work of the Spirit, as there is no more sacrifice for sin left to atone for the individual: since Christ’s self-offering is definitive, all the graces that flow from it are unrepeatable (cf. 7:27; 9:26; 10:26).[29] Judgment is the apostate’s expectation (10:27, 30).

In the second part of our study we shall probe relevant Jewish literature (intertestamental, Rabbinic) to determine the extent to which (or if at all) the author of Hebrews operated within the framework of then current, commonly held convictions about the presence or possession of the Holy Spirit.

III. Relevant Pneumatological Concepts

The above conclusions may appear rather grim and hard to reconcile with the Pauline notion of the Spirit as ἀρραβών (“deposit,” 2 Cor 1:22). But when judged against the writer’s theological background and environment, the conditionality of the Spirit’s “possession” should no longer take us by surprise. It must first be understood that nowhere in the literature of the intertestamental period and beyond can the idea be found that reception of the Spirit denotes an irrevocable transaction. Jewish pneumatology of the said time is very consistent in exhibiting nuances of retribution theology. In other words, the possession or presence of the divine Spirit was viewed as being contingent on obedience. Before specific corresponding texts are cited, we should remember that this notion is firmly embedded in the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, the charismatic Spirit once bestowed upon Saul departed when the king turned away from Yahweh (1 Sam 16:14). Samson too “lost” the Spirit on account of his unfaithfulness (Judg 16:20). In the golden calf apostasy God also intended to remove his presence in the Spirit (Exod 32–33), although the threat did not materialize.[30] There is therefore a scriptural precedent for the concept.

Texts from the Hellenistic period demonstrate how widely this concept of “retributive pneumatology” was held. To begin with, Philo was convinced that the Holy Spirit was awarded only to “worthy” individuals.[31] De virtutibus 216–19 praises the outstanding virtues of Abraham in terms of εὐγενέστατον εἶναι τῆς πρὸς θεὸν συγγενείας ὀρεχθέντα καὶ σπουδάσαντα μηχανῆ πάαη γνώριμον αὐτῷ γενέσθαι (“.. . being of a noble race, he panted after fellowship with God. . .”). This relentless seeking after divine fellowship was answered through τοῦ θεί…ου πνεύματος ὅπερ ἄνωθεν καταπνευσθὲν εἰσῳκισάτο τῆ ψυχη (“the divine Spirit breathed. .. to dwell in his soul”). Moreover, in Gig. 17–19 Philo discusses (among other matters) the “divine, the excellent Spirit” as the dispenser of the highest form of knowledge (ἡ ἀκήρατος ἐπιστήμη, “pure knowledge”) granted only to the wise man. He adamantly denies the notion that the Spirit of God ever dwells with those who are given to carnal pleasures. Although sometimes the Spirit can operate in the “senseless” who has wandered “from the life of law and justice” to give him a faint vision of a more excellent way, “among such as these it is impossible that the Spirit of God should dwell.. . .” Perhaps even more to the point, Rer. Div. Her. 259 maintains that “the wicked may never be the interpreter of God, with the result that no worthless person is ‘God-inspired’ in the proper sense (ὥστε κυρ…ίως μοχθηρὸς οὐδεὶς ἐνθουσια).” The “interpreter of God,” as the context indicates, refers to the prophet, for which reason the verb ἐνθουσιᾶν describes the inspiration of the Spirit characteristic of every prophet.

More witnesses can be cited. Wisdom of Solomon 1:4–5 programmatically states that the Holy Spirit does not “enter a malicious soul,” “will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness enters” (.. . φεύξεται δόλον, καὶ ἀπαναστήσεται ἀπὸ λογισμῶν ἀσυνέτων, καὶ ἐλεγχθήσεται ἐπελθούσης ἀδικίας).Wisdom of Solomon 7:7–10, in recalling the author’s own experience, declares that prerequisite to receiving the “Spirit of wisdom” is one’s preferring “her before scepters and thrones” (cf. also 8:7–8).

In a very similar way, Sir 39:1–6 teaches that the divine Spirit is awarded to him who studies and keeps the law of God (cf. also 4 Ezra 14:22, where Ezra the scribe, setting his heart to seek God, requests that he be endowed with the spiritum sanctum).

Pseudo-Philo (first century C.E.[32] also implies that possession of the Spirit is contingent on conformity with God’s will. When the seer Balaam “saw part of the people [of Israel], the Spirit of God did not abide in him” (Bib. Ant. 18:10). The explanation for this rather curious language comes out of the mouth of the prophet himself: “I am restrained in my speech and cannot see with my eyes, because there is little left of the Holy Spirit that abides in me. For I know that, because I have been persuaded by Balak, I have lessened the time of my life.. . .” In other words, Balaam’s rebellious arrangement with Balak against God’s people caused the departure of the Spirit of God.

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah denotes another pseudepigraphical composition (with early Christian additions)[33] which evinces the notion of “retributive pneumatology.” Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 3:21–31 predicts the church’s apostasy of “the latter days” and the corruption that will result in consequences that are analogous to Israel’s plight as interpreted by the Rabbis (see below): “the Holy Spirit will depart from many” (3:26).[34]

The Qumran library consistently emphasizes the Spirit’s bestowal as a sovereign act of God (cf. 1QS 3:18–4:26). The individual’s merit in receiving the Spirit thus does only indirectly bear on the community’s pneumatology. However, 1QS 11:5–6 and CD 3:12–16 claim that wisdom is unattainable for outsiders, since divine illumination is reserved for the members of the community. Wisdom, in turn, is attributed to reception of the Holy Spirit (1QS 9:4; 1QH 14:12–13), and the Spirit is granted upon entrance into the sect.[35] Given the severely excruciating terms for induction,[36] the bestowal of the Holy Spirit can be construed as a reward.

The tenor of the above-cited texts warrants the conclusion that religious Jews of (roughly speaking) the first century virtually “grew up” with the notion that the Holy Spirit is acquired as a reward by anyone who is determined to excel in holy conduct. But the reverse of this teaching is equally well attested: sin causes the removal of God’s presence.

This concept is even more fully developed in the writings of the Rabbis. Thus, in turning to the Rabbinic literature[37] we find:

The Holy Spirit may be acquired by any one provided he orders his life in conformity with the highest and the best. It is not vouchsafed by Heaven miraculously, i.e., without any sufficiently evident pre-existing cause. .. but its existence in any individual at any one epoch of time is the effect of a clear cause.. .. In Yalkut on Psalm xvii we are told, “He who studies [Torah] with the object of practising it will merit the gift of the Holy Spirit.”[38]

The bestowal/presence of the Holy Spirit based on meritorious conduct is also taught in the catalogue of virtues enumerated in m. Sota 9:15: “Rabbi Pinchas ben Jair says, ‘Diligence[39] leads to cleanness,[40] cleanness leads to purity,[41] purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to humility, humility leads to the fear of sin, the fear of sin leads to saintliness, saintliness leads to the Holy Spirit (וחםידות מביאה לידי רוח הקדשׁ), the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of the dead leads to Elijah whose memory is for the good, Amen.’” “Saintliness” in context denotes (more or less) blameless conformity with sound instruction and as such merits the gift of the Holy Spirit.

As may be expected, the introduction of the concept of merit in regards to pneumatology cuts both ways. Song of Songs Rabbah 8:13–14, in commenting on the respective canonical verses,[42] relates how even a lack of devotion in reciting the shema will cause God’s presence to depart from Israel. In fact, the רוח himself counsels God to flee from the community when thus weakened by corruption (רוח הקדשׁ צווחת ואומרת ברח דודי), and to content himself with the worship of heavenly creatures. The Rabbis also explain the cessation of prophetic activity and the departure of the Holy Spirit in terms of Israel’s sin, in particular the rejection of the prophets as Yahweh’s messengers (cf. 2 Chr 36:15–20).[43] Similarly, Yal. Prov. 19:15 attributes the removal of the Spirit to Israel’s “slothful agenda” (נפשׁ רמיה): Yahweh “caused them to hunger from/for the Holy Spirit” (הרעיבן רוח הקדשׁ).[44] But this pneumatological concept applies to individual sin too, as David’s example shows: “For six months David was smitten with leprosy, the Sanhedrin removed from him, and the Shekinah departed from him, as it is written: ‘Let those who fear you return to me, and those who know your testimonies,’ and it is also written: ‘Restore to me the joy of your salvation’ “ (t. Yoma 22b). The שׁכינה (“Shekinah”) here appears as a synonym for רוח הקדשׁ (“Holy Spirit”), and the quotation of Ps 51:14 makes clear that the removal of the Holy Spirit (which David seeks to avert through prayer, 51:13–14) was considered to have materialized as God’s response to the king’s sin. Another telling example is found in Gen. Rab. 60:3, where the high priest Phinehas is punished for refusing to render his professional services after Jephthah’s foolish vow had turned against the judge. Consequently, “Phinehas was deprived of the divine presence.”

The above texts reveal that the Rabbis viewed the Holy Spirit as a “reward” (שׂכר) for both corporate as well as individual piety.[45] By the same token, disobedience was believed to result in the forfeiture of the Spirit’s presence.[46]

IV. Conclusion

If our conclusion regarding the pneumatological implications of Heb 6:4–6 is correct, then a comparison with contemporaneous sources shows that the author of the epistle operated within a widely attested theological supposition. The common denominator here is that possession/retention of the Spirit is contingent on obedience.[47] Perhaps it is not accidental that the author of Acts, who also evinces a closer affinity with traditional Jewish concepts of the Spirit,[48] seems to be conscious of this notion, when, in Peter’s speech, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is qualified as ὃ ἔδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτω (“[he] whom God gives to those who obey him,” Acts 5:32).[49] Translated into the jargon of Hebrews, this means that the pilgrims must persevere on their journey for the Spirit to remain with them. If they refuse to stay the course, the gift of the Spirit will be irrevocably lost, along with all the other blessings both realized as well as reserved for the wandering people of God. In fact, it is this blending of current concepts of the Spirit with the pilgrimage motif that marks the author’s pneumatology in the first three warning passages. The Spirit is the guide of the eschatological exodus. Wherever and whenever the pilgrimage is terminated the work of the Spirit ceases. The author of Hebrews has thus introduced a notable innovation to the above retributive concepts. Jewish texts that deal with the possession/retention of the Spirit do not suggest that the departure of the Spirit is definitive. After all, the gift of πνεῦμα hinges on Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice; without this atoning foundation the salvific work of the Spirit cannot continue for the apostate. And because Christ’s sacrifice has been positively rejected (which sacrifice is unrepeatable), and the Christian pilgrimage has been terminated, there is no ground for the Spirit ever to resume his work in the apostate, so as to re-institute him as one of the wandering people of the eschatological exodus.

Again, provided that our conclusion(s) is (are) correct, the author’s pneumatological convictions differ from those known from the Pauline epistles, where there is no hint of retributive nuances, let alone the irrevocable forfeiture of the Spirit’s presence. This is all the more conspicuous, since the author seems to have belonged to the closer circle of the apostle’s acquaintances (cf. Heb 13:23).

Notes

1. To name just a few of the more recent contributions relating to this passage: Thomas K. Oberholtzer, “The Thorn-Infested Ground in Hebrews 6:4–12, ” BSac 145 (1988): 319-28; Thomas E. Schmidt, “Moral Lethargy and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” WTJ 54 (1992): 167-73; Wayne R. Kempson, “Hebrews 6:1–8, ” RevExp 91 (1994): 567-73; Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will (ed. T. R. Schreiner and B. Ware; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 133–82; David A. Silva, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client Relationships,” JBL 115 (1996): 91-116; Randall C. Gleason, “The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8, ” BSac 155 (1998): 62-91; Dave Mathewson, “Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” WTJ 61 (1999): 209-25.
2. The exegetical analysis here will hardly satisfy the reader who is looking for an exhaustive treatment of the issues involved. I have taken the liberty of limiting my comments to a few key issues. A full-fledged discussion is found in Martin Emmrich, “Pneumatological Concepts in Hebrews,” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2001).
3. Cf. Noel Weeks, “Admonition and Error in Hebrews,” WTJ 39 (1976): 72-80. Both Randall C. Gleason (“The Old Testament Background,” 62–91) and particularly Dave Mathewson (“Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” 209–25) develop strikingly similar theses and (like Weeks) conclude that Israel’s rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea provides the typological backdrop for the warning in Heb 6:4–6. Neither of these scholars acknowledges Weeks’s article.
4. The pillar and the heavenly bread (along with the supply of water) constituted the “standard inventory” of Yahweh’s grace during the forty-year journey as recorded in the Pentateuch. Perhaps this accounts for the close connection (τε, 6:4) between the first two phrases of the list of blessings in 6:4–5. At any rate, in the canonical Jewish texts that reflect on the exodus the provision of manna is regularly placed side by side with the mentioning of the guiding cloud (cf. Neh 9:19–20; Ps 105:39–40; 78:14–25), and the author would have been familiar with these traditions. His contemporary Paul evidently shared the same view as expressed in 1 Cor 10:1–4. Rabbinic sources too evince the conviction that these gifts were forming a certain unity. Thus, R. Jehuda says in t. Sota 11:10: “Three good providers rose up for Israel, Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and for their sakes three good gifts were given, the well, the pillar of cloud and the manna.”
5. On this point see also George H. Lang, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Paternoster, 1951), 99–100.
6. Cf. also Wis 16:20: “.. . he freely sent ‘prepared’ (ἔτοιμον) bread from heaven for them.”
7. Cf. Rudolf Meyer, “Μάννα,” TDNT 4.463-65.
8. Without referring to the pilgrimage motif Spicq comes to a similar conclusion: “On peut penser aussi à ses manifestations charismatiques. .., aux révélations et aux expériences pratiques de la présence de l’Esprit qui remplissaient d’enthousiasme les communaute´s primitives” (L’E´pître aux Hébreux, 2:151). Of course, Spicq views the “manifestations charismatiques” as including virtually all of the pneumatological aspects listed in 1 Cor 12:4–11 (i.e., works of power, healings, etc.). Whether or not the author of Hebrews subsumed these activities under the sphere of the Spirit is open to question.
9. Cf. Gleason, “The Old Testament Background,” 77.
10. Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer [Hebr 1–6 ] (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 352.
11. This is not to say that the other assertions in 6:4–5 bear no eschatological weight. The whole concept of the wandering people of God so prevalent in the warning passages (cf. 3:7–11) is built on the idea of an eschatological exodus. Outside of the NT literature the expectation of an eschatological exodus is well documented, cf. 2 Macc 2:4–8; 2 Bar. 6:6–9; 29:8. The Qumran covenanters, in following Isa 40:3, emphasized their going into the wilderness to “prepare the way for the Lord.” There is little doubt that the community’s move into the desert was to hark back to the days of Israel’s “infancy,” cf. 1QS 8:13–14.
12. Cf. Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 344–45; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 321.
13. Cf. Grässer, An die Hebräer [Hebr 1–6 ], 352–53.
14. The “good word of God” understood against the backdrop of the land promise for Israel also connects nicely with 3:7ff., where the land promise becomes the trajectory for the author’s discourse on the eschatological κατάπαυσις (“rest”). If this conclusion is correct, then the disaster of Kadesh-Barnea as the matrix of the warning contained in 3:7ff. was probably still in the mind of the author when penning 6:4–6. On this point see Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1970), 116ff.
15. I would argue that παραπεσόντας (“falling away”) is not descriptive insofar as the community had not yet crossed the line to the irreversible consequence laid out in 6:6 (cf. 6:9).
16. Cf. Paul’s discourse in 1 Cor 10:1–11.
17. Τὰ ἔργα μου denotes Yahweh’s miraculous interventions, cf. Hofius, Katapausis, 127–31.
18. The allusions to the exodus tradition do actually extend to 6:7–8. After drawing attention to how the language of 6:7 echoes Deut 11:11 (LXX), Mathewson argues: “Moreover, the broader context of Deuteronomy 11 suggests the appropriateness of an allusion to 11:11 in Heb 6:7–8. The covenantal blessing and cursing on the land is placed within the context of the Exodus from Egypt and the subsequent trek through the wilderness. In Deut 11:2–7, the generation which stands on the verge of entry into the promised land is, in solidarity with their ancestors, enjoined to remember the events they experienced surrounding the Exodus out of Egypt (vv. 2–4), as well as what God did for them in the wilderness (v. 5), as a basis for obedience and subsequent blessing on the land. Therefore, the allusion to Deut 11:11 in Heb 6:7–8 continues the wilderness generation motif developed in this section” (“Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” 221).
19. Deut 9:23 also sees unbelief and disobedience as the failure of Isreal in specifically referring to the disaster of Kadesh.
20. Mathewson, “Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” 224. Mathewson enlists Philip Hughes’s commentary for support (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 217).
21. This conclusion is certainly sound. 3:13 indicates that the audience had not yet crossed the line to a fatal hardening of heart, although they were walking dangerously close to it. In other words, the comparison with Israel’s rebellion and failure to inherit the promise is complete only in the event that the community too would turn its back on the Savior. But this scenario had not yet materialized.
22. Mathewson, “Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,” 224, n. 53.
23. We may be sure that the author did not see himself as writing to a congregation that consisted entirely of unconverted individuals. 10:32–39 makes clear that he was willing to level with his readership as Christians (cf. also 6:9–12). It would also be awkward for the author persistently to urge his readers on to perseverance when he did not regard them as Christians. In that case, what was it that they were to persevere in/for?
24. Cf. William G. Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” JBL 97 (1978): 239-51, 244–46.
25. See above on the question of a second μετάνοια. I may add to this that a very similar emphasis on perseverance is found in Jesus’ teachings (cf. Matt 24:13).
26. A number of scholars have noted that the word παραδειγματί…ζειν (“to expose to ridicule”) occurs in Num 25:4, where the leaders of the Baal-peor apostasy were hung on trees “in the sun before Yahweh.” Whether or not the author thought of this text when using this word is open to discussion. At any rate, even without an allusion to the book of Numbers, the meaning of the word harmonizes well with the imagery of the shameful death of crucifixion. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 149; R. McLellan Wilson, Hebrews (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 112; Grässer, An die Hebräer [Hebr 1–6 ], 357.
27. In this sense the “realized blessings” are also provisional: σωτηρί…α (“salvation”) is yet to be gained, with the result that the blessings are not final. Hence, the author’s notion of realized eschatology is unfolding against the background of the “not yet” of the eschatological rest.
28. Robert Jewett, Letter to Pilgrims (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981), 101.
29. On this point see Jacques Bonsirven, Saint Paul. Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: Verbum Salutis, 1943), 97. Cf. also Charles E. Carlston, “Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 78 (1959): 299-300.
30. Ezekiel’s prophesy, however, does relate the departure of the glory cloud (שׁכינה) from the temple in Jerusalem, cf. Ezek 10:18ff.
31. This (special) gift of the Holy Spirit must be distinguished from the Spirit as the rational aspect of the human soul (i.e., πνεῦμα θεῖον, which was given irrespective of conduct or achievements, cf. Spec. Leg. 4.123). For a discussion on this subject see Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991).
32. Cf. D. J. Harrington in OTP 2:299.
33. Cf. M. A. Knibb in OTP 2:143.
34. Although this section has a Christian provenance, the author’s language betrays a Jewish background. Not only will the Spirit depart from the apostate church as he did from Israel, but the removal of the Spirit also inaugurates a period when “there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable [i.e., Spirit-inspired] words” (3:27).
35. Cf. Hans W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 131–32.
36. Cf. Charles K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 228.
37. I am well aware of the fact that the valuation of Rabbinic material for biblical studies varies among scholars. Nevertheless, while Rabbinic teachings took on a literary format during the first five centuries of the common era (and are in this sense for the most part much later than the NT documents), there can be no doubt that the “contents of this material may at times reflect ideas, practices and even statements handed down from earlier phases of Jewish development, most particularly the days of the second Jewish commonwealth, which commenced with the return to Zion. .. and concluded with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 C.E.).. .. Rabbinic literature thus frequently serves as a conduit for the transmission of ideas and statements whose genesis preceded the Rabbinic era by decades or even hundreds of years” (Isaiah M. Gafni, “Historical Background: Defining the Rabbinic Period,” in The Literature of the Sages, Part 1 [ed. S. Safrai and P. J. Tomson; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987], 2). Rabbinic literature must be handled with great caution where there is no comparative data from early non-Rabbinic Jewish (including Christian) documents. On the other hand, the antiquity of Rabbinic material is fairly certain in the presence of such witnesses. So far as Rabbinic writings are cited in this work, they have only corroborating significance, that is, none of the arguments presented in this study rest on Rabbinic sources alone. The documentation of relevant pneumatological concepts in earlier non-Rabbinic material shows that the Rabbinic traditions referred to go back to (at least) the first century C.E.
38. John Abelson, “The Immanence of God” in Rabbinic Literature (New York: Hermon Press, 1969), 208. Lev. Rab. 35:7 features the same saying, here credited to Rabbi Aha.
39. “Diligence” (זריזות), of course, refers to the keeping of the Torah.
40. נקיות will have to mean bodily cleanness.
41. The difference between this word and the previous term is rather difficult to determine. At any rate, טחרה seems to have more pronounced cultic (ceremonial) overtones than נקיות.
42. Cf. also Num. Rab. 11:2.
43. For an impressive list of corresponding Rabbinic teachings see Peter Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der Rabbinischen Literatur (München: Kösel Verlag, 1972), 106–11.
44. Sin also accounts for the withdrawal of the Spirit of prophecy from the Gentiles. Num. Rab. 20:1 cites Balaam’s misuse of prophecy (in service of Balak) as follows: “The reason why the section dealing with Balaam was recorded is to make known why the Holy One, blessed be he, removed the Holy Spirit from the idolaters, for this man rose from their midst, and see what he did!” See also above on Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 18:10.
45. Cf. Schäfer, Die Vorstellung, 148.
46. The Targumim do not directly refer to this concept of retribution. However, (very likely) based on the notion that even unhappiness/sadness can cause the removal of the Spirit (cf. b. Pesiq. R. 117a), Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 45:27 make Jacob’s joyful reception of the good news about his son Joseph concurrent with the return of the Spirit upon the patriarch.
47. It should be noted that the author of Hebrews does not raise the notion of merit involved in “deserving” the Spirit.
48. Cf. Martin Emmrich, “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy,” WTJ 62 (2000): 67-79.
49. I take the present substantive participle as communicating a “timeless” characteristic. Accordingly, it is those who are characterized by obeying God’s word that have been given the Spirit. Luke’s report of the “Gentile Pentecost” in Cornelius’s house (Acts 10:44–47) illustrates this principle, for the recurring refrain of Acts 10 is that the centurion was accepted by God on account of fearing him and doing what is right (10:35; cf. also 10:4, 7, 22). As a God-fearer he received the gift of the Holy Spirit.