ADMONITION AND ERROR IN HEBREWS NOEL WEEKS
O
NE of the most difficult problems facing the exegete who deals with the New Testament epistles is the reconstruction of the error ( s ) against against which the letters were written. 1 It is obvious that our concepts of the errors combated will affect our interpretation. Failure to raise this problem may lead to the overlooking of exegetical possibilities. Given that the heresies combated have some Jewish background, the New Testament writers were not forced to take issue at every point raised by the heresy. They could accept the Old Testament data as com mon while subjecting it to a very different interpretation. Much that strikes us as simple teaching may indeed be polemic in that it is designed de signed to demonstrate a different different interpretation from that held by the heretics. We may well suspect that Hebrews is polemical and anti thetical in its instruction. The Superiority of Christ to angels to Moses, and of his priesthood to that of Aaron, is directed against those who do not recognize that superiority. 2 We may further suggest that even in its practical admonitions the polemic is never absent. For example Hebrews 2:2,3 accepts the gravity of the "angelic" revelation only to stress the far greater revela tion that came through the Son. Chapter 3 begins with an argu1
T h e Qumr Qumram am findings find ings and and renewe renewed d interest in Jewish sects have resulted in works such as J. J. Günther, St Paul's Opponents and their Background (Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1973). While containing much useful information one cannot but wonder if we yet have the sources necessary for a full understanding of schools of thought such as "the Colossian heresy." The same applies for the error against which Hebrews is written, in spite of the value of Y. Yadin, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews" in C. C. Rabin Rabin and and Y. Yadin (eds.) (ed s.) Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (Jerusalem; Magnes
ADMONITION AND AN D ERROR I N HEBREWS
73
ment for the superiority of the Son to Moses. The admonition that that follows points points out (3:16 3: 16)) that that the move moveme ment nt led by Moses Moses ended in rebellion and death. Not only does Moses occupy a lesser place ; the deliverance led by Moses is also not to be over rated. It follows therefore that our interpretation of the difficult ad monition passages in 5:11-6:12 and 10:26-39 will reflect our understanding of the heresy involved. The practical problem is that we are forced to infer the nature of the heresy from the nature of the polemic. It is hard to prove that a certain view of the heresy is correct. The best that can be argued is that a particular view of the heresy provides a solution for various exegetical problems in the text of the epistle. In describing the heresy we have little hope of giving a full picture of its system of doctrine. Some individual characteristics are the most we can extract from the answer of the writer to the Hebrews. The heresy saw certain of its practices or experiences as re lated to the experiences and practices of Israel in the wilderness. We may suspect that this was because they saw themselves as the legitimate continuation of Israel, The definitive and founda tional experience for Israel was the wilderness experience. So the heresy interpreted its own practices by reference to Israel in the wilderness. There may have been an element of forced exegesis or, perhaps, allegory in the connection that was made between wilderness Israel and the practices of the sect. The clearest example is provided by 13:9-14. The writer warns the readers against preoccupation with dietary matters. 3 He then points out that we eat from from a differ differen entt altar altar than that that available to those who serve the tabernacle. Christian "eating" is contrasted to the eating of the tabernacle priests and, it would seem, to the eating prescribed under the rejected dietary laws. For the argument to have force the heresy must have seen a con nection between their dietary laws and the regulations for the tabernacle priests. This example also shows the author's method of answering the heresy. He does not challenge the connection between wil derness Israel and the heretics ; rather he demonstrates the su-
74
WESTMINSTER THEO THEOLO LOGI GICA CAL L JOURNAL JOUR NAL
periority of the new order brought by Christ over the old order. There was no need for the author to challenge the connection the heresy made made betwe between en itself and and wilderness Israel. Since we may presume that the heresy was Jewish, that continuity was there anyway. Furthermore, the author elsewhere sees the con tinuation tinuation of the Old Testament Testament sacrif sacrifici icial al system as evidence evidence of of its inferi inferior ority ity (1 0: 1- 3) . It is not at all all part part of his pur purpo pose se to argue that the wilderness was a limited and once for all expe rience. As its sacrificial ordinances with all their weakness con tinued, so its failures had not been rectified before the coming of Christ. Not only did Moses fail to lead the people into rest (3:16(3: 16-19) 19) ; Jo Josh shu ua also also did did not not ( 4:8) 4: 8).. The superiority of the new order is emphasized in the warning passages as much as in the instruction passages. In 2:1-4 there is a contrast between disobedience to the former revelation and disobedience to the new revelation. The writer goes further in 3:7-4:11, in that he contrasts the deliverance under Moses and Joshua with that brought by the Lord. Whereas Moses and Joshua did not lead the people into rest, those who believe in the Lord do enter into the rest. In the teaching portions there is an emphasis on the inability of the old ordinances to produce internal change. They are ex tern ternal al ordin ordinan ance cess (7:1 (7:18, 8,19 19;; 9:8 9: 8-14). Co Corr rres espo pond ndin ing g to this is the mention of disobedience under the old covenant in the warn ings (3:15 3: 15--19 19)). Against Against those those who who stresse stressed d their their conti continu nuity ity with Israel it had to be pointed out that this was not a glorious lineage. lineage. Unbe Unbelie lieff marke arked d that that herita heritage ge (cf. Mt. 23:29 23: 29-3 -35; 5; Acts 7:51-53; 28:24-27). The writer stresses the necessity of con tinuing with Christ lest the believers become like unbelieving Israel (3:6; cf. 10:36-39). With this back backgr grou ound nd we may may turn to the diff diffic icul ultt passage 5:11-6:12. We would expect that the author would include, in this warning passage also, the lessons to be learned from the weaknesses and failures under the old covenant. This does not seem to be the case. Rather, it seems to describe the failures of temporary believers in Christ. When we examine the passage more carefully, we are confronted with the basic exegetical problem: the description in 6:1 2 of elemen elements ts of instructio instruction n which which
AN D ERROR I N HEBREWS ADMONITION ADMONITION AND
75
the verses which follow (4 , 5 ) seem to indicat indicate e Christian Christian ex ex perience. Exegetes have been faced with a choice and have chosen to attempt to squeeze the items listed in 6:1, 2 into Christian instruction. If we are forced to a choice, surely the pattern of admonition in the letter would make us look for a description of experiences under the old order. In other words, we should not re-inte re-interpre rprett the very clear list in 6 : 1 , 2 in the light of the somewhat indefinite list in 6:4, 5. Rather we should seek an interpretation of 6:4, 5 which brings these verses into line with the indications in 6:1, 2 of a reference to the old cove nant. The rest of this paper will be devoted to showing that the latter interpretation is indeed possible, if not demanded by the language, and thus brings this passage into line with the other warning passages in the epistle. The first exegetical proble problem m is whether w e read τίνα ("what of" ) in 5:12. Is the aut author hor saying are") or τινά ("something of") that they need to have pointed out to them what are just elemen tary principles in order that they may progress beyond them or that they need to be taught the elementary principles all over again? The former is obviously the case, because in 6:1 the 4 author warns against going back over the elementary points. Also Al so in favor of this alternative is that the bulk of ancient ver sions, authors, and accented manuscripts read τίνα. The phrases, phrases, "elements of of the beginning of the oracles of God" (τα στοιχεία της αρχής των λογίων του Οεοΰ) and "the word of the beginnings of Christ" (τον της αρχής του χριστού λόγον), are both aimed to emphasize the absolutely elementary nature of what must be left left behind. behind. And both refer refer to the former former revela tion. This is somewhat more obvious with the first phrase than the second. "Oracles of God" is used in the New Testament 5 often, if not exclusively, of the Old Testament. The "elements" (στοιχεία) may well be a technical term in the heresy being 4
We stco st cott tt argues argues the contra contrary ry case, but his point point escapes escapes me: ". . . it could hardly be said that the Hebrews required to learn what the elements of the Faith were. They knew what they were though they did not know them" (The Epistle to the Hebrews [2nd edn., London, Macmillan, 1892], p. 133).
76
WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
combated. It seems to be a term used by the Colossian heresy (Col. 2:8,, 20). Without going into the problem of the exact form of the Colossian heresy I think it safe to say that the concern for angels and dietary laws6 points to a connection be tween the Colossian and the Hebrews heresies. The "elements" sean connected to the Old Testament in Colossians 2:20-22 and Gaíatians 4:3. Thus the writer wants to warn his readers of the the dangers of remaining attached to the basic rudiments of the Old Testament revelation.7 The second phrase is not such a clear reference to the old revelation. Yet what better way to describe the Old Testament than "the beginning beginning (first principles)-of-the-Christ Word"? Word"? It the word which contains the the first rudiments of instruction is the about the Messiah. Yet we must not stop with these rudiments. The things listed in 6:1, 2 are clearly drawn from the Old Testament. There is nothing here that is distinctive of Christian instruction and experience. The matter is practically decided by the mention of "washin "washings. gs." " As 9:10 shows shows this this is a reference to the Old Old Testam Testament ent ritu ritual al washings.8 However, progress from basic instruction to full Christian faith is not automatic. We are dependent upon the work of God (6:3). The thought here is completely in accord with the teach ing ing of Paul (2 Cor. 3:12-18), that one cannot progress beyond the Mosaic ordinances without divine intervention. To reinforce the elementary ordi the point of the gulf that exists between the nances and Christian maturity the writer deals with the sins of those who had received the Mosaic ordinances. β
Should we add sabbath observance to this list? Compare Col. 2:16 with with the the emph emphas asis is in Heb. Heb. 3,4 3,4, that that it is thro throug ugh h Chri Christ st that that one one ente enters rs the the true sabbath rest. 7 For a discussion of the milk/solid food food image in 5:12-14, see R. Will Willia iams mson on,, Philo and the Epistle Epistle to the Hebrews Hebrews (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), pp. 277ff. 8 Despite the ingenuity of commentators it is hard to explain why multiple baptisms" should be part of basic Christian instruction. It is questionable whether βαπτισμός as opposed to βάπτισμα is used of Christian baptism. Mark 7:4 is clearly a reference to ritual washings. The doubtful case is Col. 2:12, 2:12 , where the manuscripts manuscripts are divided bebetween βαπτισμφ d βαπτίσματι. The question is discussed in J. B.
ADMONITION ADMONIT ION AND AN D ER ERROR I N HEBREWS
77
The crucial problem then becomes the interpretation of 6:4, 5. There is an apparent vagueness in the terms used. These terms seem applicable to Christian experience, especially when we note the use of "enlightened" in 10:32. Yet, once again there is noth ing distinctively Christian in these terms. They are, in fact, descriptions of the wilderness experience of Israel. Before proceeding to argue the last point the problem of the overlap of this terminology with Christian terminology must be faced. There is a very real parallel between the great Old Testament act of redemption and the New Testament salvation. 9 The people of God in both eras have had similar experiences. Herein lies the danger for the readers. They may come to see the old revelation as being on the same level as the new. The writer does not deny the reality of this comparison between wilderness experience and Christian experience. "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also" (4:2). Yet he does stress that this was not of profit to those who re ceived the former revelation: "the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard." There is anothe anotherr possibility. possibility. Are the terms used in w . 4, 5 technical terms within the heresy? Does the particular sect of Judaism involved attempt to connect its experiences and prac tices with those of wilderness Israel by means of such terms? In other words, their practices would involve "enlightenment," "tasting," etc., which are connected by a particular exegesis to Israel's "enlightenment," "tasting," etc. There is no way of proving this possibility. The structure of thought I have sug gested finds analogies in Philo and Qumran, but the heresy is not identical with the teaching of Philo or Qumran. 10 All that 9
If the thesis presented here is correct, it explains the overlap be tween the terminology used in 6:4,5 and Christian sacramental terminol ogy (cf., the thesis of Philip E. Hughes, "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy," Westminster Theological Journal 35 [1972-3], 137-155). Christian terms are drawn from the quarry of the sacramental experience of Israel. 10 Note, however however,, the com comme ment nt of Yadin, Yadin," " . . . we cann cannot ot help help feeling that the D SS (Dead Sea Sect) Sec t) organized organized itself in as exact as possible possible
78
WESTMINSTER THEO THEOLO LOGI GICA CAL L JOURNAL JOURN AL
can be said is that such a structure is suggested by 13:9-14 and is compatible with what we learn from Colossians. The terms used in w . 4, 5 have as their bac backg kgro roun und d the the mira mira cles that Israel witnessed in the wilderness. As far as an echo ing of the actual actual words words of the LXX LXX is concer concerned ned,, there is particular dependence upon the reflection by the Psalms on the wilderness sojourn. The "enlightenment" of Israel is mentioned in Psalms 43:3; 44:3; 78:14; 105.-39.11 To these allusions to the pillar of fire in the wilderness we may add references to the law such as Psalm 119:130. 119:130. A verse which which may may link together, by way of allusion, the external light that led Israel and the inner enlightenment is Psalm 36:9. 12 Israel ate of the "bread of heaven" (Ps. 78:24; 105:40). The accounts accounts of the the manna mention its taste (Ex. 16:31 ; Num. 11:8) # The Spirit Spirit wa wass given given to Bezal Bezalel el (Ex. (E x. 35:30, 31 3 1). The Spir Spirit it was given also also to the elders elders of of the peop people le (Num. (Num. 11:77ff.) 11:77ff.).. It was again against st the Spirit Spirit that the peopl peoplee rebe rebell lled ed (Ps. Ps . 10 106: 6:33 33). ). References to the receipt of the Word of God are too numerous to mention, mention, but Psalm 119:103 might might be particularl particularly y mention mentioned ed as involving also the idea of tasting. So far the writer has been willing to give great significance to the experience of Israel during the sojourn in the wilderness. Nevertheless by the phrase phrase "the powers powers of an age to come" come" he places all this in perspective. The power of God was manifested in the wilderness, but it was a power that did not properly be long to that time. It was an intrusion, a foreshad foreshadowin owing. g. The powers displayed belong more properly to the age yet to come. The dominant typological structure of Hebrews emerges here. The old era was not complete or significant in itself. What light and significance it had derived from the projection into it of the powers of the age of full revelation. This very phrase is itself strong evidence evidence that these verses do not describe describe Christi Christian an experience. Certainly there is an age to come for the Christian also. However, the stress of Hebrews is that the "age to come" 11
To save multiple references, all passages are cited according to the psalm and verse divisions of the English translation, rather than the LXX or Massoretic text. 12 If the heresy was trying to connect their own inner experience and
AN D ERROR I N HEBREWS ADMONITION ADMONITION AND
79
has already come with the coming of the Lord. The future age is not set over against the New Testament age. The "future age" begins with the N ew Testament age. However How ever,, from the stand stand point of Israel in the wilderness that age was definitely in the future. The Th e crowning proof of the insuf insuffic ficien iency cy of that forme formerr revela revela tion is the fact that it was those who received it who put the Son of God to death. In 6:6 we meet a clear example of the way that interpretation influences translation, and translation in turn has a strong influence on interpretation, άναστανρουντας is gen erally translated translated "crucify "crucify again." Translators are being influ influ enced by the belief that the passage deals with apostate Christians. Yet, in extra-biblical Greek it always means simply "crucify" "crucify" with the άνα prefix prefix having the sense of "up" rathe ratherr 13 than "again." What is referred referred to here is not a figurative recrucifixion by apostate Christians; rather, it is the original crucifixion of the Lord by those who were recipients of all the blessings blessi ngs which came to t o Israel through Moses. The teaching of this passage is thus another point of overlap between Stephen's 14 speech (specifically Acts 7:52, S3) and this epistle. What then is the force of these thes e verses? vers es? What is declared declared to be "impossib "imp ossible"? le"? What is impossible is the revivification revivification of 15 Judaism. The community which had received all of the bless ings of the Mosaic economy and yet was without faith will receive the judgment that comes upon the unfruitful field (6:8). This passage is thus a continuation of the thought of the gospels (Mt. 3:9, 10; 21:42-44; 23:37-39). It goes against the sense of the passage and the author's intent to delve into the question fate of of individuals. H i s readers were in danger because of the fate they failed to see the inadequacies of contemporary Judaism. Under the pressure of persecution they might be tempted to
18
W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: Uni versity of Chicag Chicago o Press, 1957), p. 60b. ι* Compare also Acts 7:39 with Heb 3:16; Acts 7:38 with Heb. 5:12; Acts 7:44 with Heb. 8:5. 15
80
WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
join a sect of Judaism which appeared to offer similar teaching and experiences. The readers must be made to realize that the ship of Judaism was sinking. It could not be refloated. Salvation lay with the church. The Christian community must follow its Lord in a religious separation from those whose share was in the tabernacle ( 13:10-14). The author makes it clear in 6:9, 10 that he does not class the recipients of the letter with the unbelievers described earlier. They have shown by their actions that they have taken the side of the Christian community. They need resolution to persevere in that decision. The same point is made in 10:32-39. The only point that remains for consideration is 10:26-31. Once again we find the reference to sin under the Mosaic law. There is a clear reference to the death of Christ in v.29. The insult done to the Spirit of God may once again be compared to the accusat accusation ion which Stephen made (Act (A ctss 7:51). The problem rather lies with "and has considered as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified." The first part of the phrase is no problem, since it aptly describes what happened at the trial and crucifixion of Jesus (Mt. 27:25). The real problem is with the clause "in which he was sanctified." There is an ambiguity here. Who was sanctif sanctified ied by the th e blood of the covenant, the murderer murdererss of Jesus Jesu s or Jesus himself? I believe that the latter latter is the case. It must be remembered that αγιάςω ("sanctify") does not necessarily imply the existence of sin. Thus Jesus was the one "whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world" (Jn. 10:26). Further the whole point of the author has been to emphasize that Jesus has fulfi fulfille lled d the requirements of a high priest. There is an analogy between the Aaronic ordinances and the sacrifice of Christ. So it is reasonable to suggest that as Aaron was consecrated by the blood of the sacrific sacrifice e ( E x . 29 29) Jes us was consecrated as high priest through the offering offering of so Jesus 16 his own blood. Hence we find in this passage another reference to the heinous transgression of those who had received the law and all the blessings granted to Israel. University of Sydney, N.S.W., Australia 16
Are we meant to connect the blood and water which comes from the
^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals journa ls reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.
