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.