Reading Hebrews 6:4—6 As It WasWritten:

An Exegesis of the Text in Its Canonical Context

Kevin L. Stevenson

www.kevinfannystevenson.blogspot.com

August 3, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................3

II. HEB 6:4—6 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WARNING PASSAGES......................................................5

Which Are The ‘Warning Passages’? 5

McKnight’s Synthetic Reading and ‘Four Elements’ 6

Mathewson’s ‘Fifth Element’ and The Glaring Omission in Hebrews Scholarship 9

III. HEB 6:4—8 IN ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT (5:11—6:12)......................................10

The Text’s Framework: The nōthros Inclusio 10

2

The “Elementary Doctrines of Christ” As Initiation Into The New Covenant Community11

IV. THE PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES AND THEIR OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND........................................................15

Following Bruce’s Lead 15

Mathewson’s Contributions 15

The Failure of Faithlessness17

V. THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION....................................................................................18

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................21

PAPER OUTLINE...................................................................................................................22

I. INTRODUCTION

3

The warning passages in the book of Hebrews have a history, one

nearly as long as the book is old, of being the loci of doctrinal

debate. Of these five passages,1 Heb 6:4—6 has attracted most of

the scholarly attention and remains one of the most puzzling and

enigmatic for interpreters.2

The middle of the third century saw the rise of a brilliant anti-

Pope priest, theologian and writer, Novatian (fl. 249—51).3 Novatian

was “orthodox in doctrine, but schismatic in discipline.”4 The

Decian persecutions caused many to fall away from the faith.

“Novatian opposed any readmission of these people into the church.

Because his severe denial of reconciliation was opposed to Catholic

practice, Novatian was excommunicated by a Roman synod.”5 A

1 ? See below, “Which are the warning passages?”

2 ? Gatiss, Lee, “The Function of the Warning Passages in the Structure and Argument of Hebrews” (As found at http://www.theologian.org.uk/bible/hebrews-warnings.html). Op. cit.

3 ? Kelly, D. F., “Novatian,” p. 472 in New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright eds., (Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press. 1988). 472.

4 ? Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (VIII Vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. 2006). Vol. II: 850.

5 ? Kelly, “Novatian.” 472.

4

favorite—perhaps the favorite—text of Novatian and his followers was

Heb 6:4—6.6

By the late forth century, Ambrose’s (d. 397) interpretation, which

argued that Heb 6:4—6 forbade only the rebaptism of repenters,

pacified the key trouble that the Western Church had, vis-à-vis

Novatian’s schismatic followers through the medieval period.7

Since the Reformation, with its emphasis on crux questions of

soteriological nature, the interpretive inquiries brought to the

warning passages, particularly 6:4—6, have been nuanced

accordingly. The primary questions for exegetes throughout the

modern period have been ones dealing with the assurance of the

individual believer’s salvation, especially in light of the searing

warnings found in Hebrews. Can a genuine believer fall finally and

fatally from faith in Christ? Are true Christians susceptible to

apostasy? Most agree that the problem is remarkably difficult and

6 ? John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (XXIII Vols. Trans. by Rev. John Owen; Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Public Domain) XXII: 135.

7 ? Jon C. Laansma, “Hebrews, Book of,” pp. 274—281 in Dictionary for TheologicalInterpretation of the Bible, Kevin J. Vanhoozer general ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2005). 275.

5

defies facile answers.8 Schreiner aptly summarizes the modern

dilemma.

Some have argued that apostasy is possible for genuine believers (Marshall; McKnight). Others maintain that those whom God has truly saved will persevere to the end (Grudem; Schreiner and Caneday). We should observe that both sets of interpreters believe that good works are evidence of genuine saving faith...argue that good works asa fruit of faith are necessary for eschatological salvation...that obedience is one indication that a person genuinely belongs to God...In both instances assurance is not an abstraction that is realized apart from the work of the Spirit in the lives of God’s people.9

The following will therefore attempt to speak into the modern

doctrinal dilemma. Premised largely on the recent scholarship in

Hebrews studies, the argument will be that, while those mentioned

in 6:4—8 had a genuine experience of God’s mighty workings in the

new covenant community, they, like those who lapsed under the old

covenant, did not fall from a real, genuine, and saving faith;

and thus conclude that this warning passage does not impugn the

historic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, as maturely

summarized in the Reformed confessions.10 8 ? Thomas Schreiner, “Assurance,” pp. 71—72 in DTIB. 71. Op. cit.

9 ? Ibid. 71, 72. Emphasis original.

10 ? E.g., Belgic Confession, XVI; Canons of Dort, Fifth Head of Doctrine; Westminster Confession of Faith, XVII. Of special note is the WCF, X: IV, which well summarizes

6

II. HEB 6:4—6 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WARNING PASSAGES

Which are the ‘Warning Passages’?

In a helpful article,11 Gatiss summarizes the work of recent

Hebrews scholars and offers a comparative chart, presenting each

scholar’s accounting of which texts are the warning passages and

what their limits are. Gatiss’ conclusions are represented here.

Figure 1

Bruce Lane Mugridge Grudem McKnight Mathewson12

2:1—4

3:7—19

5:11—14

10:26—31

--------

2:1—4

3:7—19

5:11—6:12

10:19—39

2:1—4

3:12—4:2, 11—

13 6:4—8

10:26—31

2:1—4

3:6—4:13

6:4—6

10:26—31

12:25

2:1—4

3:7—4:13

5:11—6:12

10:19—39

2:1—4

3:7—4:13

5:11—6:12

10:19—39

12:14, 29

the correct understanding of the text under consideration in simple dogmatic formula. 11 ? Lee Gatiss, “The Function of the Warning Passages in the Structure and Argument of Hebrews” (As found at http://www.theologian.org.uk/bible/hebrews-warnings.html)

12 ? Because of the influence his article has had on recent discussions of Hebrews, and because of its use in this present paper, Dave Mathewson’s identified warning passages are included in this chart by the present writer. See “Reading Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament,” pp. 209—25 in Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999). 209.

7

--- 12:14—29 12:13b—17, 25—

29

12:1—29

Gatiss notes that “There is a consensus on the broad outline of

where such ‘warnings’ may be found...but the exact limits of the

passages are disputed.”13 A few relevant observations can be

drawn from these data.

First, Bruce’s omission of 6:4—6 is odd and inconsonant with

later interpreters. It is odd, in part, because he summarizes

this passage with the dreadful phrase, “apostasy is irredeemable”

and elsewhere calls it a “warning passage.”14 So for all

practical purposes, 6:4—6 is seen as a warning passage by all of

the above scholars, Bruce included. Second, there is unanimous

agreement regarding both the inclusion and limits of 2:1—4.

Third, the close proximity of the second warning, ending with

4:13 (Mugridge, Grudem, McKnight, and Mathewson), to the third

13 ? Gatiss, “The Function of the Warning Passages.”

14 ? Bruce, F. F., The Epistle To The Hebrews, The New International Commentary onthe New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1964). 118, 123 respectively. Also see Bruce’s “Problem Texts (10): Irretrievable Apostasy,” Harvester 46.10 (October, 1987). 20. (As found at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/harvester/198710_20_bruce.pdf10_20_bruce.pdf ).

8

warning, beginning for most with 5:11 (Bruce, Lane, McKnight, and

Mathewson), is worth noting. This indicates that certain OT

influences and allusions recognizable in the former warning could

influence our interpretation of the latter passage, supplying

what may be called background “bleed over.”15 Finally, given the

co-inherent order of the book of Hebrews, and the transparent

genius of its author, there must therefore be a rationale and

structure behind the designated passages in the figure above;

there must be an interpretive grid that brings continuity to all

the warning passages.

McKnight’s Synthetic Reading and “Four Elements”

McKnight believes that he has discovered just such a grid.16

McKnight argues that each warning passage must be read in

synthesis with the others. “I...propose that a synthesis of each

component as revealed in each warning passage provides clarity on

the meaning of a given component in a single passage.”17 This is

15 ? Mathewson, “Reading.” 214. 16 ? For Scot McKnight’s fullest exposition of the warning passages see “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” pp. 21—59 in Trinity Journal 13 (1992).

17 ? Ibid. 26.

9

simply an application of the hermeneutical circle, but McKnight’s

application is nuanced by the four elements or components that he

mentions. McKnight observes: “In each warning passage, we find

(1) the subjects or audience in danger of committing the sin, (2) the

sin that leads to (3) the exhortation, which if not followed, leads

to (4) the consequences of that sin.”18 These four elements are

abstract concepts, each of which finds ample content from every

warning passage. Thus, despite the variations between each

warning, there is unity, and this unity in turn informs our

reading of the particularities of each of the other passages.

In conjunction with the direction gained through reading the

warnings synthetically, these four elements or categories are

helpful for identifying common threads between the passages,

leading to greater insight into the meaning of each particular

text, as well as how the warnings operate in the thought

structure of the book as a whole. Though helpful, this is not

necessarily an infallible means of objective analysis. Applying

this synthetic reading through the four elements, McKnight

concludes from the warnings the following content. (1) The subjects

18 ? Scot McKnight, “Apostasy.” Pp. 58—60 in DTIB. 59. Emphasis original.

10

appear to be believers. (2) The sin is apostasy, understood as

deliberate and public refusal to submit to God and his will for

persons in Jesus Christ. (3) The exhortation is to repent and to

follow faithfully and obediently. And (4) the consequences for

the apostasy is eternal punishment.19

As Schreiner’s remark in the introduction indicated, and as

McKnight’s concluding analysis above shows, McKnight deduces that

these warning passages assume that a genuine believer can fall

finally and fatally into irredeemable apostasy. Such an

inference leads McKnight to the opaque statement that, “If the

‘elect’ repudiate God’s sovereign claim on life, that election is

shown to be compatible with apostasy.”20 There are at least

three flaws with McKnight’s theological conclusion.

First, if the warning of 6:4—6 (any of the five for that matter)

is teaching that genuine believers can commit apostasy, then this

warning stands perfectly contrary to other clearer passages that

teach that such a catastrophe is impossible.21 Second, McKnight’s19 ? Ibid. Emphasis mine. Op. cit.

20 ? Ibid. Emphasis original.

21 ? E.g., Jn 6:37—40; 10:27—29; 17; Rom 8, etc. See also Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. 1932). 182—204.

11

first element intends to identify the subjects or audience.

McKnight’s glib designation is not compatible with the complexity

of 6:4—6 and its context.22 In the first layer of the passage

(5:11—6:3), the author uses first and second person plural

pronouns. The same terms of address are used in the exhortation

following the warning (6:9—12). The author shifts, however, in

the warning proper (6:4—6) to the third person plural.

Therefore, 6:4—6 defies fitting into McKnight’s generalizing

category of “subjects or audience,” since the first and third

layers of the passage are directed to the audience, while the

middle layer, the warning proper, is referring to another group

entirely, namely the subjects.23 Therefore, the utility of McKnight’s

four elements is promising but limited. The first element must

be breeched in order to fully account for the data of the third

warning passage, and violated to concluded, as McKnight does,

that 6:4—6 refers to genuine believers. The third flaw with

22 ? The broader context will be analyzed below; and, these comments are insmall measure dependant on the validity of those later observations.

23 ? To this objection could be added the fact that all four the descriptive phrases of the 6:4—6 are aorist participles.

12

McKnight’s four elements is the glaring omission of a fifth

element.

Mathewson’s “Fifth Element” and the Glaring Omission in Hebrews

Scholarship

It is commonplace for scholars to recognize the OT examples, by

way of direct citation, in the first, second, fourth, and fifth

warning passages.24 Mathewson’s article steps forward from

McKnight’s and proposes “reading Heb 6:4—6 in light of OT

background. In fact, [he] would contend that much

misunderstanding of this section of Hebrews stems from a failure

to appreciate its OT matrix.”25 Therefore, Mathewson would add to

McKnight’s four elements “a fifth component: OT example.”26

To sum up: Heb 6:4—8 has had a long history of use and abuse.

The modern dilemma respecting this text asks questions that are

soteriological in nature, whereas earlier ones were more

ecclesiological. There are five clear warning passages in

Hebrews recognized by scholars. McKnight’s observations help to 24 ? I.e., 2:2, disobedience to the Mosaic law; 3:16—19, the failure at Kadesh-barnea; 10:28, disobedience to the Mosaic law; 12:16—17, the failure ofEsau, 25—26, failure to listen to God’s voice at Sinai.

25 Mathewson, “Reading.” 210. 26 ? Ibid. 211. Emphasis original.

13

bring unity to these passages, through the generalizing grid of

the four elements of subjects, sin, exhortation, and consequence.

McKnight must ignore certain data, however, and violate the first

component in order to draw the theological conclusion that 6:4—6

teaches that genuine believers can apostatize. Mathewson offers

the fifth element of OT background, which has never received due

attention in Hebrews studies, although OT background is

recognized by all in the other four warnings. Understanding the

third warning in terms of its OT matrix, promises Mathewson, will

illuminate our understanding of the warning.

III. HEB 6:4—8 IN ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT (5:11—6:12)

Although there is consensus as to the inclusion of 6:4—6 as a

warning proper, the limits of the warning’s context is

disputed.27 Lane, McKnight, and Mathewson are all in agreement

that the concentration of this warning runs uninterrupted from

5:11 through 6:12. Literarily speaking, this is for good reason.

If so, then this context must inform our reading of the warning

proper.

The Text’s Framework: The nōthros Inclusio

27 ? See Figure 1 above. Also, fn. 13.

14

The ancients used a number of literary devises, of which the

inclusio was a dominate one. “An inclusio is a pattern in which a

paragraph or longer portion ends in much the same way in which it

began.”28 An author may be employing phraseology, conceptual

parallels, OT citations, and terminology to mark the boundaries

of the text. Heb 5:11—6:12 uses the latter.29

The term of the author’s choice is nōthros, a loaded term, “full

of meaning.”30 Barclay maintains that lexically the term means

slow-moving in mind, torpid in understanding, dull of hearing,

witlessly forgetful.31 Noting the forcefulness of the term, he

bluntly states, “It can be used of a person who has the

imperceptive nature of a stone.”32 Nōthros appears only twice in

the NT,33 in Heb 5:11 and 6:12. This hook word, therefore, marks28 ? Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs: Cook Communication Ministries. 1991). 140.

29 ? Gatiss, “The Function of the Warning Passages.”

30 ? William Barclay, The Letter to the Hebrews, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1976). 49.

31 ? Ibid. Op. cit.

32 ? Ibid.

33 ? For earlier uses of the term see: Prov 22:29 LXX, “...he will not stand before obscure men [but kings]”; Sir 4:29, “Do not be reckless in your speech, or sluggish and remiss in your deeds.”; 11:12, “There is another who is slow and needs help...” See also, Plato, Theaetetus, 144. b., “...whereas [unlikeyoung Theaetitus] the steadier sort are somewhat dull when they come to face

15

off this section of the author’s argument for a purpose. What,

though, is that purpose?

The purpose of this inclusio is to mark off a digression from the

author’s positive argument for ‘Jesus’ priesthood after the order

of Melchizedek,’ which was proleptically mentioned in 2:17 and

more fully fleshed out in 4:14—7:28. Using the language of

apostasy, the author expresses his palpable concern over his

readers’ susceptibility to “drift away” (pararrhueō, 2:1), to “fall

away” (aphistēmi, 3:12), and to “fall” (piptō, 4:11), as did those

before them, under the older covenant.34 According to the third

warning, the contributing cause of their risk of apostasy is

their nōthros (5:11) and their need to avoid it (6:12)! Their

nōthros is that which is preventing them from penetrating into the

meaning of Jesus heavenly session and his Melchizedekian-like

High Priesthood on behalf of the church in the heavenly Temple.

Therefore, one’s understanding of the warning’s immediate

context, cloistered by the nōthros inclusio, will in part

determine his or her interpretation of the warning in 6:4—6.study, and they forget everything.”

34 ? For the OT background of the second warning passage, 3:7—4:13, see Num13 – 14, with Ps 95, the Kadesh-barnea incident, as argued by Mathewson, “Reading.” 212—13. See below also.

16

The “Elementary Doctrines of Christ” as Initiation into the New

Covenant Community

The doctrines, “Christ’s doctrines,”35 that are mentioned in 6:1—

2 are not isolated concepts. Rather, these fall naturally into

three pairs.36 For Bruce, though, it is remarkable how little in

the list is distinctively Christian, for practically every item

could have its place in a fairly orthodox Jewish community...the

impression we get is that existing Jewish beliefs and practices

were used as a foundation on which to build Christian truth.37

Gatiss, citing Peterson and Brown, agrees with Bruce, stating that

our author was “urging [his readers] to leave behind elementary

doctrines which were not distinctively Christian.”38 Bruce’s

35 ? Lit. “The beginning of the word of Christ.” The genitive, Christou, is ambiguous. A. T. Robertson takes it as objective, and so meaning, “...the word about Christ” (see WPNT, ad loc.). However, of the four other genitives in Hebrews, three are in the subjective (9:14; 10:10; 11:26) and only one is in the objective (3:14). Moreover, 6:1 likely parallels 5:12, “the first principles of God’s word,” which is subjective. Therefore, Christou here in 6:1is best understood as a subjective genitive. 36

? F. F. Bruce, The Epistle To The Hebrews. 112. The present writer thinks that these three pairs comport well with modern categories of the systematicians: e.g., soteriology – “repentance” and “faith in God” (v 1); ecclesiology – “ablutions” and “the laying on of hands” (v 2a); and, eschatology – “resurrection of the dead” and “...age to come.”

37 ? Ibid. Op. cit.38

? Lee Gatiss, “The Function of the Warning Passages.”

17

primary objection to the ‘elementary doctrines of Christ’ as

distinctively Christian teaching rests on the plural “ablutions” or

better “baptisms” (baptismōn). Of the plural Bruce complains, “how

unnatural are the attempts to explain this plural as referring to

Christian Baptism.”39 What may be said to Bruce’s objection?

First, Bruce must side-step the issue of the genitive, Christou, in

6:1. If Christou is understood to be a subjective genitive (i.e.,

“Christ’s doctrines,” see fn. 35 above), then the doctrines are

de facto distinctly Christian, as they are then Christ’s doctrines,

not Judaism’s doctrines.

Second, Bruce sets up the objection to his own view’s advantage,

and operates on an assumed and loaded question: How could

baptisms, which is plural, be referring to Christian baptism, which

is singular and once for all? Intertextual study will not let us

off so easy. 1stly, in Acts 18:24, Luke introduces readers to

Apollos, an Alexandrian, who was eloquent, well versed in the

scriptures, “instructed in the way of the Lord,” and a mighty

defender of that Way (vv 24—26). Nevertheless, “he knew only the

39 ? Bruce, The Epistle To The Hebrews. 113.

18

baptism of John” (v 25). 2ndly, and directly, Apollos is in

Corinth (19:1), and Luke begins the next pericope with Paul in

Ephesus, where he meets twelve “disciples” (vv 1, 7). Like

Apollos, and no doubt many others, this small band of

transitional disciples also experienced confusion, regarding the

crucial issue of baptism(s). Having enjoyed John’s baptism of

repentance, they were then re-baptized by Paul into the name of

Jesus (v 5).40 3rdly, immediately following their new baptism,

“Paul had laid his hands upon them” (v 6, epithentos autois tou Paulou

cheiras. Compare with Heb 6:1, “the laying on of hands,”

epitheseōs cheirōn). From these observations, then, we find the

primitive Church in need of a doctrine concerning “baptisms,” one

which dogmatized and catechized each into its proper sphere of

redemptive history. Further, in this same context of Acts, we

find the controversy of two baptisms couched with “repentance” in

connection with John’s baptism (19:4), as well as the “laying on

of hands” (v 6). 4thly, and finally, Bruce’s objection rests on

the faulty and overly simplistic supposition that, because two

40 ? Concerning that Apollos was also baptized again, but why Luke excludesthe fact, see I. Howard Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentary. LeonMorris general ed. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press. 1980). 302f.

19

things are similar, it follows that they are the same.41 This

narrative is, therefore, a living picture of the apostolic

application (even formulation) of the “elementary doctrines of

Christ” spoken of in Heb 6:1—2. Bruce’s objection to the

“doctrine of baptisms” (KJV) as being a distinctly Christian

doctrine cannot stand. Although multiple baptisms is not

distinctly Christian—in fact, not Christian at all—the doctrine

about them mentioned in Heb 6:1—2 most certainly is.

Many scholars have identified the foundational doctrines of 6:1—2

as components of an early Christian catechesis, which set apart

the fledgling Messianic community from other Judaic sects, and

similar to or perhaps incorporating parts of the Epistle of Barnabas

and the Didachē.42 Wright’s summary is well stated:

[T]eaching about baptisms and laying on of hands. Thisdouble action was, from the earliest times, was

41 ? Consider an analogous argument. This rock is round, hard, and smooth; my head is round, hard, and smooth (almost), therefore, there is nothing distinctively organic (or human, or what have you) about my head; therefore, my head and the rock are the same kind of thing. While it may be true that this writer is hard-headed, this argument for that fact is fallacious, as is Bruce’s for the Judaic nature of “Christ’s doctrines.” 42 ? E.g., Calvin, vol. XXII. 131f; William Barclay, The Letter to the Hebrews, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1976). 53—4, 56. Strangely, even Bruce acknowledges the probability,see The Epistle To The Hebrews. 113.

20

associated with admission into the Christian community. Jesus’movement began with John’s baptism, and from the earliest days of the church new converts received baptism, followed by the laying on of hands, as a sign andmeans of their sharing in the new common life of the Christian family.43

Therefore, from the foregoing, we can conclude that the

interpretation that claims the “elementary doctrines of Christ”

were some form of proto-Christian foundation of Judaism cannot be

maintained by the objection from the author’s use of “baptisms.”

Rather, as Calvin correctly remarked, “He [the author] here

refers to a catechism commonly used.”44 Of course, multiple

baptisms is not a Christian distinctive; on the contrary, the

early Church had a doctrinal distinctive that laid the

“foundation” for a “doctrine of baptisms” (6:1—2). Hence, these

doctrines made up the initiatory understanding of basic

Christianity taught to new converts. Therefore, if the author

was to move his “sluggish” congregation forward into the meaty

Melchizedekian priesthood motif, they would have to be weaned

from the milk bowl of the catechetical basics (Heb 5:12—14).

IV. THE PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES AND THEIR OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

43 ? N. T. Wright, Hebrews for Everyone (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. 2004). 58. Emphasis mine.

44 Calvin, vol. XXII. 131.

21

Following Bruce’s Lead

Since its publishing, no reputable scholar on Hebrews can write

or speak on the Epistle without being conversant with Bruce’s

work in the NICNT series. In an obscure footnote, he harkens the

reader back to his comments concerning the OT background of the

second warning passage in Heb 3:7ff. Bruce then cites Lang’s

insights, regarding 6:4—6, saying, “It may be that the wilderness

narrative is still in our author’s mind. The Israelites who

failed to enter Canaan failed in spite of the fact that they had

been baptized in the Red Sea and had their camp illuminated by

heavenly light, in spite of the provision of bread from heaven

and water from the rock, and God’s ‘good Spirit to instruct them’

(cf. Neh. 9:20), in spite of their hearing the oracles of God and

seeing His mighty works in their midst.”45

Lang’s words aptly summarize the warning passage of Heb 6:4—6,

but in reality they speak instead of the old covenant community;

and because this confusion may be made, Mathewson is convinced

that in the seeds of truth in this footnote are the key to

rightly reading the third warning.46

45 ? Bruce, The Epistle To The Hebrews. 120, fn. 38. 46 ? Mathewson, “Reading.” 211.

22

Mathewson’s Contributions

Mathewson takes serious Bruce’s notion that the OT background of

the second warning (3:7—4:13) is still in the mind of the author

in 6:4—6. Accordingly, he unpacks the text of 3:7—4:13, finding

that back of the citation of Ps 95 is of course Num 13 – 14, the

incident of Kadesh-barnea. Throughout this warning, the author

repeatedly recalls this event (3:15; 4:3, 5, 7) as his grounds

for the hortatory portions that follow, stressing that his

audience avoid becoming “hardened.” Most relevant to the present

thesis is Mathewson’s conclusion from the second warning,

describing the OT background “bleed over” mentioned above.47

That the wilderness generation plays a crucial role beyond 3:7—

4:13 can be deduced from the fact that the tabernacle, rather

than the temple, provides the predominant model for the author of

Hebrews (8:5; 9:1—10), and exodus typology is confirmed more

broadly with the emphasis on the incident at Sinai (12:18—21, 25,

29) and the comparison between Moses and Christ (3:1—6).48

47

? See fn. 15.48

? Ibid. 213. Op. cit.

23

What is important to draw from these observations is the pattern

of correspondence49 between the readers of Hebrews and the OT

people of a particular epoch of old covenant history. The author

of Hebrews keeps this time in Israel’s history before the reader

in every other warning by explicit citation.50 Therefore, one

should expect the same in the third warning. “[T]he author’s

language in 6:4—6 is colored by OT references by means of

allusion and echo,” though, “apart from direct citation.”51 The

description in 6:4—6, then, is not just of an isolated Christian

experience, rather, it is to be understood against the background

of Israel’s wilderness experience as members of the covenant

community.52 Mathewson concludes: “In light of this, it is

possible that the descriptions in vv 4—5 are not to be pinned

down to precise references as most commentators attempt to do,

but all refer more generally to the experience of the people

49

? In fact, “an exact correspondence between the successive generations of the people of God...Israel and Christians exhibit a certain symmetrical relationship, as it were, designed by God.” Ceslas Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris: Gabalda. 1953). 71—72, as cited in Mathewson, “Reading.” 212. 50

? See fn. 24 above. 51 ? Mathewson, “Reading.” 214. 52

? Ibid. 223.

24

hearing the Gospel and experiencing the blessings of the new

covenant within the context of the new covenant community.”53

Therefore, dragging forward Israel’s wilderness experience, and

thus creating a semantic and conceptual grid for understanding

the present historical experience of the readers, the

prepositional phrases of 6:4—6 describe “people who are not yet

Christians but who have simply heard the gospel and had

experienced several of the blessings of the Holy Spirit’s work in

the Christian community.”54 The falling away (v 6) is not

falling from salvation, but a failure to exercise saving faith in

light of the blessings to which the readers have been exposed

through close association with the Christian community.55

The Failure of Faithlessness

The inferences that may be drawn from the preceding section are:

(1) the second warning (3:7—4:13) and its explicit OT background

‘bleeds over’ into the third warning, which (2) has been

demonstrated by Mathewson to be founded on OT allusions and 53

? Ibid. 224

54 ? Grudem, as cited by Mathewson, “Reading.” 224—25. 55

? Ibid. 225. Op. cit.

25

echoes apart from explicit citation; (3) the author of Hebrews is

drawing a one-to-one typological correspondence between the old

and new covenant communities in his warnings and exhortations.

From these conclusions, we may draw one more observation of

significant proportion. In the second warning, after a series of

rhetorical questions and answers (3:16—19), our author concludes

with the exhortation to enter the eschatological rest promised in

the gospel they have heard (4:1). The ground56 for these comes

in v 2: “For we have been evangelized, just as they had; but no

benefit to them was the word of their hearing, not having been

efficaciously conjoined with faith in the hearers.”57

Over and again, our author evokes the wilderness generation as

the quintessential example of apostasy and warns his reader not

to “fall” by “following the same example of disobedience” (4:11

NAS; note, “same example” is emphatic in the Greek text). This

56 ? The conjunction “For” here is gar, providing the reason for the preceding conclusion. 57

? This author’s translation. The first clause follows Bruce, The Epistle To The Hebrews, 72, fn. 16; the awkwardly early occurrence of the negations in the third and fourth clauses (i.e., “but no benefit...not having...”) reflects their hyperbatonic place in the Greek syntax; and “efficaciously” is interpretively supplied based on the NT’s only other occurrence of “conjoined” (sugkerannumi)in 1 Cor 12:24, where the action of the verb is transparently divine (and froma Reformed, monergistic perspective on soteriology).

26

correspondence between the old and new covenantal communities is

so strong that, some have called it an “exact” or “one-to-one

correspondence.”58 Hence, just as those “whose bodies fell in

the wilderness” (4:17), so also those who committed the apostasy

of 6:6 did through a like faithlessness.

We know that “without faith it is impossible to please [God]”

(11:6), how much more so, then, is it impossible to experience

genuine salvation without faith? Therefore, just as the

wilderness generation was evangelized with the gospel (4:2, 6)

and apostatized for want of apprehending the benefits thereof

through faith, so also the group envisioned in 6:4—6—they too

enjoyed the hearing of the Word and the overflow of Christ’s

presence with his people by the operations of the Holy Spirit,

yet they fell, not having faith. We may safely conclude,

therefore, with Wright, “the people described in verses 4 and 5

are people who have become church members, and have felt the

power of the gospel and the life that results from it through

sharing the common life of Christian fellowship, but have never

really made it their own, down deep inside.”59

58 ? Spicq, see fn. 49. 59 ? Wright, Hebrews. 59—60.

27

V. THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSION

We can see, therefore, that the modern doctrinal debate over Heb

6:4—6 depends on a deeper theological presupposition. Those who

argue that 6:4—6 envisions the apostates as once genuinely

“saved” persons assume that members of the invisible church are

in mind. If the foregoing is correct, however, the apostates of

both the old and the new covenant communities were members of the

visible church only.

All five warning passages are interdependent, having such a

continuity of form and function that a synthetic analysis alone

can produce accurate inferences. Not only are these passages

continuous with one another, but they also depend heavily on OT

background for their linguistic and conceptual meaning, not least

6:4—6, as Mathewson so persuasively argued.

Beyond this canonical context, the author made his digression

into this warning clear by means of an inclusio, marked by the

original readers’ retarding perceptual sloth (nōthros). This

captured the immediate context of his argument. From this

context, we discovered that the “elementary doctrines of Christ”

are just that, Christ’s doctrines and thus Christian doctrine.

28

As “unnatural” as Bruce felt this conclusion was, it is true

nonetheless. The doctrine concerning “baptisms” was both needed

and distinctly Christian, as were the other five mentioned. Heb

6:1—2 is an early example of Christian basics, a foundational

teaching of Christian doctrinal distinctives, a catechesis. The

author’s antidote to the risk of apostasy was to at once move his

readers from the milk bowl of catechesis to the meat of the

typological teaching of Jesus’ Melchizedekian priesthood.

Because the OT background of the second warning bleeds over into

the third, and the third is rife with OT allusion and echo in its

own right, there is therefore great correspondence between the

old covenant community and the new, with respect to warning and

falling. This correspondence is one-to-one concerning the

transgenerational apostates themselves, be they of the Kadesh-

barnea event or those who are mentioned in 6:4—6. Both groups

were participants in the overflowing blessing and benefit of God

amidst his people; they were members of the visible, not the

invisible, church. This we know because the requisite faith of

salvation was not a grace that the apostates enjoyed; and without

29

it, membership in the invisible church is as impossible as the

apostate’s renewal to repentance.

Therefore, it is not genuine believers that our text speaks of,

as argued by Marshall, McKnight, and many others today. The

historic confessions of the Reformation exemplify the correct

reading of Heb 6:4—6, stating, “Others not elect, although they

may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some

common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to

Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.”60 The correct biblical-

theological conclusion from the warning of Heb 6:4—6, therefore,

affirms the doctrine of the Reformation, not the Remonstrance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barclay, William, The Letter to the Hebrews. In The Daily Study Bible Series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976.

Bruce, F. F., “Problem Texts (10): Irretrievable Apostasy,” Harvester 46.10 (October, 1987). 20. As found at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/harvester/1987-

60 ? WCF. X: IV.

30

10_20_bruce.pdf 10_20_bruce.pdf , Retrieved on July 1, 2010

Bruce, F. F., The Epistle To The Hebrews. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries, XXIII Vols. Trans. by Rev. John Owen; Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Public Domain.

Ferguson, Sinclair B., David F. Wright eds. New Dictionary of Theology.

Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 1988.

Gatiss, Lee, “The Function of the Warning Passages in the Structure and Argument of Hebrews.” As found at http://www.theologian.org.uk/bible/hebrews- warnings.html , Retrieved on July 2, 2010.

MacLeod David J., “The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews,” pp. 185—97 in Bibliotheca Sacra 146 (April 1989: Dallas Theological Seminary).

Mathewson, Dave, “Reading Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament,” pp. 209—25 in Westminster Theological Journal 61, 1999.

Martin, Ralph P., Peter H. Davids eds., Dictionary of the Latter New Testament and Its Developments. Downer Groves, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

McKnight, Scot, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” pp. 21—59 in Trinity Journal 13, 1992.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament (E-Sword Bible Software).

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, VIII Vols. Peabody, Mass:Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.

31

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. general ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation ofthe Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Wright, N. T., Hebrews for Everyone. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are taken from the Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press, 1973.

Reading Hebrews 6:4—6 As It Was Written:An Exegesis of the Text in Its Canonical Context

I. Introduction

A. Modern theological questions, conundrums, and implicationsB. Thesis

II. Heb 6:4—8 in the context of the “Warning Passages”

A. Which are the “Warning Passages”?B. McKnight’s synthetic reading and “Four elements”C. Mathewson’s “Fifth element” and the glaring omission in Hebrews scholarship

III. Heb 6:4—8 in its immediate context (5:11—6:12)

A. The text’s framework: the nōthros inclusio B. The “Elementary doctrines of Christ” as initiation into the New Covenant community

32

IV. The prepositional phases and their Old Testament background (vv. 4—6)

A. Following Bruce’s lead B. Mathewson’s contributions C. The failure of faithlessness

VI. Theological conclusion

33