A T O U C H O F C O N D E M N A T I O N IN A W O R D O F E X H O R T A T I O N : APOCALYPTIC LANGUAGE AND GRAECO-ROMAN R H E T O R I C IN HEBREWS 6:4-12 by BRENT NONGBRI

New Haven Abstract We propose that the author of Hebrews employs threats of eternal condemnation using words and imagery familiar from apocalyptic literature, particularly 4 Ezra, to evoke a specific kind of fear in his audience. The audience members should, rather than fearing the reproach of society, have angst for falling away from the community, which in our author's eyes, is an offense for which no repentance is available. To effectively bring about such fear, these threats, contrary to the assertions of many recent commentators, must be real and must concern genuine believers. The author of Hebrews uses this severe language, however, in good rhetorical fashion, following his threats with words of consolation to encourage his audience members to stand fast in their marginalized community.

1. Introduction

A recent discussion of the warning passage of Hebrews 6 stated its central inquiry as follows: "The question is how Heb. 6.4-6 must be understood in terms of all these promises and assurances in the rest of the New Testament. What must be done with this text. . ,?"1 The harsh language of Heb. 6:4-8 has troubled many commentators through the centuries.2 It particularly strikes a note of discord with the postReformational outlook of salvation by grace and has prompted the majority of those who deal with it to try in many and various ways to harmonize it doctrinally with the rest of the New Testament. 3 The
1 A.H. Snyman, "Hebrews 6.4-6: From a Semiotic Discourse Perspective," in S.E. Porter and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999) 358. 2 Septuagint (hereafter LXX) citations are from the 1979 edition of Rahlfs, and New Testament citations are from the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland. Translations of these texts are my own. Translations of Greek and Latin authors are from the Loeb Classical Library editions. Translations of Pseudepigraphical works are from The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985). 3 Such an undertaking no doubt has a good deal of intrinsic value, but it should be distinguished from historical-critical exegesis.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Also available online - www.brill.nl

Novum Testamentum XLV, 3

266

BRENT NONGBRI

question of "what must be done" to the Heb. 6:4-8 lays in the back ground of many recent studies of the passage. Such approaches do not do justice to the letter and often obscure the role of the passage in the letter's overall purpose. To appreciate the role 6:4-8 plays in the letter, we must accept the full force of the threat and the fear to which it moved its audience. Only then can we properly grasp the author's conciliatory language in verses 9-12. We propose the author draws on the language of apoc alyptic literature where such threats are not uncommon. Within the context of the epistle, which the author describes as "a word of exhor tation" ( , 13:22), our author uses the language of condemnation in 6:4-8 to evoke fear in his audience, but then in a display of good rhetorical form, he reestablishes a good rapport with the members of his audience by praising their past deeds in 6:9-12 to make them more receptive to his message of encouragement. The author of Hebrews has thus appropriated the language of apocalyptic and snapped it into a rhetorically proper format to further his goal of exhorting his addressees to persevere in their marginalized community. In order to test this hypothesis, we will proceed by first providing a reading of 6:4-8 that deals with the major issues of disagreement in the text and shows that the best reading is one that does not mollify the author's threats but rather allows them to stand in their severity. Then, after displaying the threat's background in apocalyptic litera ture, we will trace how the author used this language in union with the encouraging words of 6:9-12 to serve his letter's purpose accord ing to the conventions of moral exhortation.

2. Reading the Text, ^ting

the Threat Stand

In order to set the context for our discussion, we will very briefly review the major interpretational issues in 6:4-8 and engage with the recent scholarly treatments of the passage. The most striking gram matical feature of this section is the string of participles highlighted in the following diagram:

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12 (. 4-6).

267

The first portion of the text consists of a series of accusative plural participles "sandwiched" by a substantive infinitive clause, "to renew. . . is impossible." Two more participles, which explain further the con dition of those who have "fallen away" (), follow. They "crucify for themselves the son of God" while "making a shameful show." The first point of contention is the precise meaning of . Many commentators point to meanings of in other literature that indicate "difficulty" rather than "impossibility," or they argue that the impossibility only refers to humans and not God. 4 The three other occurrences of in Hebrews, however, unambiguously refer to objective impossibilities: 6:18 ; 10:4 ; and 11:6 . These examples suggest that renewing to repen tance those who have fallen away is simply not an option. The next major argument surrounds the identity of those who are described by the participles. Grudem maintains that the of 6:4, which functions as the subject of the following list of participles, denotes not those who "have salvation" but instead a group that has some how experienced the benefits of God without actually being full mem bers of the community. 5 He argues that uses of , , and in literature outside of Hebrews suggest that the words do not imply the people in view "have salvation." Even if his references were convincing, such appeals again do not take into account the clear uses

4 Most recently, see T.K. Oberholtzer, "The Thorn-Infested Ground in Hebrews 6:4-12," BSac 145 (1988) 319-28, esp. 323, and R. Gleason, "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8," BSac 155 (1998) 62-91, esp. 84. See also H. Hohenstein, "A Study of Hebrews 6:4-8," Concordia Theological Monthly 27 (1956) 536-43. F.F. Bruce vacillates considerably on the issue in the space of three sentences: "Those who have shared the covenant privileges of the people of God, and then delib erately renounce them, are the most difficult persons of all to reclaim to the faith. It is indeed impossible to reclaim them, says our author. We know, of course, that noth ing of this sort is ultimately impossible for the grace of God, but as a matter of human experience the reclamation of such people is, practically speaking, impossible" (The Epistle to the Hebrews [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990] 144). 5 W.A. Grudem, "Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews," in T.R. Schreiner and B.A. Ware (eds.), The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, Volume I (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995) 159; similarly D. Mathewson, "Reading Heb 6:4-6 in Light of the Old Testament," WTJ 61 (1999) 209-25, esp. 224.

268

BRENT NONGBRI

of the terms within the epistle. In 10:32, indicates the audi ence's initial entrance in the community; in 2:9, surely refers to the fullest possible experience of death; and in 3:1,14, and 12:8, is the very definition of those who are in the community.6 The people in 6:4-6 are thus full community members, and McKnight's "synthetic" analysis of all the warning passages in Hebrews shows con vincingly that the "falling away" () in 6:6 refers to apos tasy of full community members. 7 As we saw above, repentance from such a sin is impossible. The author of Hebrews illustrates this statement of impossibility with an agricultural metaphor:
' ' (. 7-8).

The recent treatments of this portion of the passage seek to mollify its sting by arguing that a final judgement is not in view here. Oberholtzer, who accepts the full force of and regards the people in view in 4-6 as full believers, claims that since they are full believers, the judgement of 6:7-8 simply cannot be eschatological con demnation. 8 He writes, "The judgment [of Hebrews 6:7-8] is of true believers [and] disobedience may result in divine discipline in this life and loss of future rewards in the millennium." 9 In his view, the of 6:8 is a fire of purification, and "the result for the believer is not a loss of eternal salvation but a forfeiting of inheritance-rest, reward, and position in the coming millennial kingdom." 10

6 Grudem and Mathewson also do not pay sufficient attention to Hebrews' com plex notion of "perfection," in which believers one the one hand "have been perfected" (10:14 ) but at the same time are urged to "press on to maturity" (6:1 ). 7 S. McKnight, "The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions," Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59. McKnight observes that while the term is somewhat ambiguous in 6:6, when we consider "Heb. 3:12, with its warning not to 'turn away' from the living God or to 'apostasize' [] or Heb. 10:26-29 with its warnings about 'deliberate sin,' 'trampling the Son of God' and 'regarding the blood of the covenant as common,' it becomes altogether clear that 'drifting away' is not a momentary (however real) lapse into sin from which one repents. Rather . . . the writer has a particular sin in mind: apostasy" (26). 8 Oberholtzer, "Hebrews 6:4-12," 319-28. 9 Ibid., 319. 10 Ibid, 326.

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12

269

Oberholtzer's reading is problematic for at least two major reasons. The first is that he reads Hebrews through a lens of the "faith versus works" dichotomy common in some strands of the Reformation, which skews his interpretation of salvation in the epistle. He maintains "that perseverance is essential for inheriting the promises. This inheritance of promises should not be equated with eternal salvation. The inher itance cannot be soteriological for eternal salvation is by grace through faith."11 This assertion runs contrary to one of the main points of the epistle, namely that perseverance through faith is the requirement for inheriting the promises, which the author explicidy states in 6:12 (... . . . ).12 Oberholtzer's perceived opposition between faith and action in Hebrews also relates to the second major difficulty with his proposal. Oberholtzer's a priori exclusion of the possibility that the author of Hebrews links his audience's salvation to their actions forces him to impose on 6:4-8 a dispensationalist eschatology that is foreign to Hebrews. Oberholtzer's differentiation between presence in "salva tion" and "rewards and positions" therein finds no support in Hebrews.13 The of 6:9 is rather a final burning that is a real threat for members of the community who fall away. deSilva has attempted to understand this threat by integrating it into his broader reading of the whole epistle as a reflection on the assumptions of the patron-client relationship.14 While the patron-client model is appropriate to some aspects of Hebrews, deSilva's treatment of the warning passages is strained. His application of the patron-client pattern to 6:4-8 does not account for the severity of our author. Violation of patron-client bonds by clients resulted in shame and dis honor, not in the eternal condemnation and fiery ending that Hebrews 15 envisions.
Ibid., 328. The author elsewhere exhorts believers to persevere (12:7) just as Jesus persevered (12:2-3). 13 Cf. D. deSilva's valid criticism of Oberholtzer in Perseverance in Gratitude: a SocioRhetorcal Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 233-4 n. 56. 14 D. deSilva, "Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client Relationships," JBL 115 (1996) 91-116; and Perseverance in Gratitude, 219-49. 15 Seneca writes that clients' failure to show proper gratitude to a benefactor is "a disgrace" (On Benefits 3.1.1), a fate somewhat less severe than a curse and burning. The imagery of God's fiery judgement reappears at 12:29 and was familiar from the prophets (e.g. Jer. 29:22 and 34:22). The eschatological orientation of such fiery judgement that we see in Hebrews was common in first-century apocalyptic literature, cf. 2 Esdr. 16:78 and Rev. 20:14-15, and for other examples of the apocalyptic background to Heb. 6:4-8, see the next section in this paper.
12 11

270

BRENT NONGBRI

The picture that has emerged is one of a stern and final judgement for those members of the community who fall away.16 At this point, rather than attempting to homogenize the passage into a synthesized "New Testament" soteriology, we shall instead examine what role this kind of particularly severe threat might play in the letter. To answer this question we must inquire into the background of such sobering language.
3. The Background and Purpose of the Language of Hebrews 6:4-8

Two authors have recently suggested that the Hebrew Scriptures provide the best background for interpreting Heb. 6:4-8. They point, in particular, to the disobedience of the wilderness generation at Kadeshbarnea in Numbers 14.17 While both authors are correct in seeing the wilderness generation as an important piece of the background of 6:4-6, they both too quickly apply a direct typology of the wilderness generation to the audience of Hebrews. Mathewson argues that because the wilderness generation did not enter the promised land, they were not "true believers," and "in analogy to the old covenant community the people depicted in 6:4-6 are not genuine believers or true members of the new covenant community." 18 Gleason claims that since the wilderness generation suffered physical hardship and physical death, the curse and burning of Heb. 6:8 must then be a physical and not eschatological punishment.19 While it is beyond question that the author

A. Mugridge reaches a similar conclusion in his survey of all the warning passages in Hebrews ("Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews: An Exegetical and Theological Study," Reformed Theological Review 46 [1987] 74-82). Such a rigid stance is not unique in first-century Jewish and Christian communities. G.W. Buchanan reviews several examples: To the Hebrews (New York: Double Day, 1972) 107-8. We should also take heed of Donald Guthrie's warning against seeing 6:4-8 as purely hypothetical: "The writer appears to be reflecting on a hypothetical case, although in the nature of the whole argument, it must be supposed that it [apostasy] was a real possibility" (The ^ter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary [Leicester: Inter-varsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 145). 17 Gleason, "Hebrews 6:4-8," 62-91; and Mathewson, "Reading Heb 6:4-6," 209-25. 18 Mathewson, "Reading Heb 6:4-6," 224, his emphasis. 19 Gleason, "Hebrews 6:4-8," 90. Gleason's study in particular is fraught with difficulties. He envisions the author as writing to "a Hebrew audience" (63) "in or near Palestine" before the destruction of the temple (67). This setting, for which he provides little evidence outside of "the emphasis on the Levitical priests and sacrifices" (67), influences much of his study. On the problems of assuming such an exact character, date, and location of the audience, see H.W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989) 6-13.

16

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12

271

of Hebrews skillfully used scripture, he was not a modern biblical exegete seeking to retrieve the "original context" of a scriptural pas sage and apply it to his community. He was part of a tradition of 20 interpretation in first-century Judaism within which he felt free to 21 "tweak" the received interpretations. The wholesale importation of the original circumstances of a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures to understand the purpose of a passage in Hebrews is thus inadvisable. A more productive method of investigation would be to look for how literature and movements more contemporary with Hebrews used the material from the Hebrew Scriptures to which Hebrews refers. To some extent, we can carry out such an investigation with regard to Deuteronomy. Several authors have pointed to the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy as the background of Heb. 6:4-8.22 The ver bal and conceptual connections are quite clear, as the following excerpt from Deut. 11:26-28 displays:
Behold, I give before you today () the blessing and the curse ( ); the blessing if you should hear ( ) the command ments of the Lord your God, which I command you today and the curse if you should not hear the commandments of the Lord your God, as many as I com mand you today and [if] you should wander () from the way ( ) that I commanded you, going to serve other gods whom you do not know ( ). 23

We can see the author at work with such traditions elsewhere in the epistle. To name but two of the most obvious examples: He is aware of the messianic twist that first-century Christian circles gave to Ps. 110 (LXX 109), and his use of the priestly king Melchizedek, upon whom Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls community also spec ulated, suggests he was aware of a tradition of interpretation of that figure. 21 For example, the standard first-century Christian uses of LXX Ps. 109 concen trate on the messianic exaltation motif at the beginning of the Psalm (e.g. Mark 12:36, 14:62; 1 Cor. 15:25). The author of Hebrews incorporates that aspect (1:3; 8:1; 10:12) but also expands his exposition to include Melchizedek, who appears at a later point in the Psalm (Heb. 5:6 and all of chapter 7). 22 Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 173 n. 90; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 2314; F. Craddock, "The Letter to the Hebrews," in NIB (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994) 76. 23 The whole of LXX Deut. 11 presents vocabulary similar to Hebrews: the repe tition of "today" (, 11:2,4,13, etc.), the "discipline of the Lord" ( , 11:2), God's gift of "rain" (, 11:11,14), and warnings against "disobedience" (, 11:16). That Deut. 11:26-28 stands in the background of Heb. 6:4-8 becomes all the more clear when we recognize its resonances with LXX Ps. 94:9-11, which plays a central part in the early chapters of Hebrews and which the author quotes at length in 3:7-11: "Today () if you should hear his voice ( ), do not harden your heart as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers tested with scrutiny and saw my works for forty years; therefore I was angry with this generation and I said, 'Always they are wandering () in the heart, and they did not know my ways ( ).'"

20

272

BRENT NONGBRI

To the comments of the scholars mentioned above, I would add the observation that apocalyptic authors also adopted the same lan guage of the Deuteronomic curse. In the prayer of Dan. 9:11, Daniel laments that "all Israel has transgressed () your law and they 24 have refused to hear your voice ( ) and the curse () has come upon us, and the oath () that was written in the law of Moses the servant of God." By as early as the second cen tury BCE, the Deuteronomic curse language had a setting in apoca lyptic discourses reflecting on the eschaton. 25 This cursing language is not the only similarity we find between Heb. 6:4-12 and apocalyptic literature. Ideas similar to those in Heb. 6:4-8 come together in a more sustained form in 4 Ezra, as we see in 9:10-12:
For as many as did not acknowledge me in their lifetime, though they received my benefits, and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom, and did not understand but despised it while an opportunity of repentance was still open to them, these must in torment acknowledge it after death. (NRSV)

Torment awaits those who experienced God's benefits but still scorned the law, and an opportunity of repentance will be unavailable to them. The words are similar to those of Hebrews 6: the impossibility of "renewing unto repentance" for those who have tasted God's good word. While it is clear that in 4 Ezra the "opportunity of repentance" is life, and the time when that opportunity ceases to exist is death, for our purposes, we need only note the similarity of the language and the fear it evokes. Another passage important in this respect is 4 Ezra 9:29-36, which merits quotation at length:
O Lord, you showed yourself among us, to our ancestors in the wilderness when they came out from Egypt and when they came into the untrodden and unfruit ful wilderness; and you said, 'Hear me O Israel, and give heed to my words, O descendants of Jacob. For I sow my law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and you shall be glorified through it forever.' But though our ancestors received the law, they did not keep it, and did not observe the statutes; yet the fruit of the law did not perishfor it could not because it was yours. Yet those who received it perished because they did not keep what was sown in them. Now

On the connection between failure to hear and transgression, cf. Heb. 2:1-3. Cf. 4 Ezra 5:12, which plays variations on the same theme in the first century of the Common Era. The author states that in the last days, "people shall hope but not obtain; they shall labor but their ways shall not prosper" (NRSV), a fairly clear allusion to the curse of Deut. 28:29, which in the LXX reads, "and you will be grop ing about at noon, as the blind grope in the darkness, and you will not prosper in your ways" ( ). See . Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 114.
25

24

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12

273

this is the general rule, that when the ground has received seed, or the sea a ship, or any dish food or drink, and when it comes about that what was sown or what was launched or what was put in is destroyed, they are destroyed but the things that held them remain; yet with us it has not been so. For we who have received the law and sinned will perish, as well as our hearts that received it; the law however, does not perish, but survives in its glory. (NRSV)

There are several items to note in this passage. Like Hebrews, the author of 4 Ezra again singles out for destruction especially those who have rejected God's gift (in this case the law) after having experienced its benefits. 4 Ezra then employs an agricultural metaphor very similar to that of Heb. 6:7-8.26 In 4 Ezra, that in which God sows the seed (implicitly, the ground), is destroyed if it rejects the seed (God's gift of the law). As was the case in 4 Ezra 9:10-12, the point of this passage is quite different from the point of Heb. 6:4-8 in spite of the similar imagery. The central problem here is one of theodicy, and the author's main assertion is that Torah and God's will endure even if only a select few of God's people happen to be able to properly keep the law. Again, however, the main point we must note is that the language threatens the audience and evokes fear.27 Indeed one of the primary purposes of apocalyptic language is to instill fear in the audience.28 Such is the purpose of the author of Heb.
26 A survey of the recent commentaries on Hebrews reveals a relatively small emphasis on these apocalyptic passages as instructive for understanding Heb. 6:4-8, though both James Moffatt (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924] 212-3) and Herbert Braun (An die Hebrer [Tbingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1984] 170-1) mention 4 Ezra and apocalyptic motifs in passing in their discussions of Heb. 6:4-8. The most frequently cited parallels for this agricultural metaphor are the unfruitful vineyard of Isa. 5:1-7 (see especially V. Verbrugge, "Towards a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6," Calvin Theological Journal 15 [1980] 61-73) and Philo's Who is the Heir 204. Both passages are rather imprecise parallels. In Isaiah, the "thorns and thistles" are the punishment, not the warrant for punishment as in Hebrews, and in Philo, the rain is not neutral; it nourishes the good ground and destroys the bad ground. 27 Similarly harsh language plays the same role in Jubilees. The author mentions eternal damnation in connection with several sins. One who profanes the Sabbath "will surely die and anyone who will do any work therein, let him surely die forever" (2:27), if a man's daughter or sister marries a gentile both the man and woman are to be killed and "there is no atonement forever" (33:13-16), and for failure to circumcise there is "no forgiveness or pardon so that they might be pardoned and forgiven from all the sins of this eternal error" (15:34). This particular group of sins and punishment points to the importance of fear as a means of preserving the integrity of the community. If community members sin in ways that compromise the integrity of the community, then the community rejects them eternally. 28 Concerning the Apocalypse of John, Adela Yarbro Collins observes that "the fear of the hearers is not denied or minimized. On the contrary, it is intensified" (Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984] 152).

274

BRENT NONGBRI

in 6:4-8, but he wants to encourage a particular kind of fear.29 Elsewhere in the epistle, the author suggests that his audience ought to fear nei ther death (2:16) nor the persecution of human, worldly authorities (11:23; 11:27; 13:6). Rather, they should engage the world and fear instead "falling short" ( . . . in 4:1) and "falling away" ( in 6:6) from the heavenly into God's wrath (10:31). The audience no longer has reason to fear worldly tri als since Jesus, "having himself been tested in what he suffered is able to help those being put to the test" (2:18 ).30 The severe language of 6:4-8 is part of this program of encouraging the individuals in the audience to reevaluate what they fear. Exactly what our author is up to as he instills this particular kind of fear will be the topic of our next section.

4. Fear and Comfort: Following the Graeco-Roman Rhetorcal Guidelines

While the method of exhortation outlined above is fairly common, Aristotle provides an apt example of the particular concept of fear with which Hebrews is working. He discusses fear in Rhetonc II.V.l:
Let fear be defined as a painful or troubled feeling caused by the impression of an imminent evil that causes destruction or pain; for men do not fear all evils, for instance, becoming unjust or slow-witted (), but only such as involve great pain or destruction ( ).

Suggesting that the author of Hebrews used language similar to that found in apocalyptic literature does not imply that he accepted the cosmology (or, more prop erly, range of cosmologies) of apocalypses, only that the apocalyptic realm was yet another strand of tradition that the author incorporated and appropriated. 30 A passage from Aristotle further highlights how the author of Hebrews connects these ideas of fear, being tested by worldly matters, and the help that is Jesus. In his discussion of fear, Aristode writes in Rhetoric U.V. 18 that people are confident () or without fear () "in two ways, either because they have never been tested or have means of help ( )." Hebrews' audience fits quite well in the second category. From Heb. 2:18, we know the audience is being put to the test but has an able helper. At 4:16, we find that the help is particularly appropriate (). Finally, in 13:6, it becomes clear that the type of fear the helper eliminates is that brought about by humans, as the author and audience boldly quote LXX Ps. 117:6, "The Lord is my helper, and I shall not fear; what will any human do to me?" ( [] ). The factors that socially marginalize the community need not be feared, but it is "a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God" (10:31 ). With 6:4-8, the author seeks to drive home that distinction.

29

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12

275

Aristotle is concerned that people do not realize they should fear 31 becoming slow or sluggish since they do not connect that state with 32 "great pain or destruction." Heb. 6:4-8 forces the audience to fear "falling away" because it leads to such destruction. That at least some members of the community had become , or sluggish (5:11), should be a fearful prospect for the audience since such a condition could lead to apostasy. Our author makes this point explicit in 6:12 as he exhorts them lest they become sluggish ( ). Since the audience apparently does not appreciate the consequences of their sluggishness, the author uses the severe language of apoca lyptic to illustrate exactly what the community should fear: the eter nal wrath of God. The threat is real, and the author directs it to real believers. It is for this reason that the recent scholarly attempts to mol lify the implications of the language are misguided. Our author intentionally uses this language with full awareness of its severity,33 and he immediately follows the warning of 6:4-8 with words of encouragement. He has appropriated some vocabulary and themes of apocalyptic literature and fit them into proper rhetorical form. In 4 Ezra, the language of eternal damnation stood without any mitigation. We move directly from Ezra's lament in 9:29-36 into the vision of the weeping woman, and it is not until 10:55 that the author of 4 Ezra sounds a note of encouragement. Language of condemna tion and language of comfort are both present, but a considerable amount of text separates the two. Such is not the case in Hebrews. In 6:4-12, the author immediately follows his language of condemnation with language of praise and exhortation. Specifically, our author expresses confidence in the audi ence on the basis of their past actions. While Attridge is correct in point ing out that the use of such expressions of confidence is a rhetorical

31

For this meaning of , see Plato's Phaedrus 239a and Aristophanes' Clouds

129.
32 deSilva's socio-rhetorical commentary on Hebrews makes prolific use of Aristotle and of this passage in particular to suggest that at several points in the letter, the author seeks to arouse fear (Persevering in Gratitude, 107, 240, 346, and 353). Such is definitely an aim of the author, but Hebrews' approach to the concept of fear has even more to do with Rhetoric U.V. 1 than deSilva notes. Hebrews is not just stirring up fear with talk of eternal destruction. He is calling for a specific rvaluation of what the audience should fear. Those who are in danger of falling away, not attending the assembly (10:25), need to fear the wrath of God rather than public scorn. 33 The author's brief interjection, "even if we speak in this way" ( ), indicates his recognition that the threat would evoke negative feelings.

276

BRENT NONGBRI

commonplace,34 our author in this case appears to be employing a quite specific rhetorical move. The most effective means of moral exhortation allowed for extremely harsh language, but such language ought not be the last word; if that was the case, the harshness would alienate the audience and render the entire exhortation useless. deSilva has pointed out an illuminating passage from Pseudo-Cicero's Ad Herennium IV.37.49 that demonstrates this principle:
If Frank Speech of this sort seems too pungent, there will be many means of palliation, for one may immediately thereafter add something of this sort: "I here appeal to your virtue, I call on your wisdom, I bespeak your old habit," so that praise may quiet the feelings aroused by the frankness. As a result, the praise frees the hearer from wrath and annoyance, and the frankness deters him from error. This precaution in speaking, as in friendship, if taken at the right place, is especially effective in keeping the hearers from error and in presenting us, the speakers, as friendly, both to the hearers and to the truth.35

34 Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 174. In his study of Pauline expressions of confidence, Stanley N. Olson distinguishes between Paul's expressions of confidence that his audience will comply with his wishes and expressions of "confidence about the addressees," such as 1 Thess. 2:19-20, 2 Tim. 1:5, and Heb. 6:9 ("Pauline Expressions of Confidence in His Addressees," CBQ 47 [1985] 282). Hebrews 6:9 actually defies, or at least significantly blurs, this distinction. When read in light of the preceding warning, this expression of confidence expects and assumes compliance to the warning. Cf. also 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Gal. 5:16-25. 35 deSilva correctly points to this passage as key for understanding 6:4-12, though he frames the discussion in terms of the patron-client relationship (Perseverance in Gratitude, 244-5). He argues that in Seneca's presentation of the patron-client system, different rules apply to the patrons and the benefactors. The clients are to act on the presumption that they will be punished for disloyalty, but the patrons are to act "with an emphasis on generosity and magnanimity" (242). deSilva thus argues that in the end, God, as the benefactor, has the option of renewing fallen believers to repentance in Hebrews (240-4). While deSilva's perceptive comments about the dynamic nature of the patron-client relationship are extremely helpful in understanding the subtleties of the system itself, they are of questionable relevance for reading Heb. 6. The punishments for disloyal clients are not analogous to Hebrews' recommendations for those who fall away (see n. 15 above). In the examples that deSilva provides, Seneca writes that ingratitude on the part of clients toward benefactors results in "public hate" of the guilty party, who is disgraced in the eyes of the world (On Benefits 3.17.1-2, 3.1.1), and Dio Chrysostom asserts that "those who insult their benefactors will by nobody be esteemed to deserve a favour" (Discourse 31.65, both cited in Perseverance in Gratitude, 226). In both cases, the punishment is not the wrath of the patron, but that of social ostracism by the general public. The author of Hebrews, however, argues that worldly persecution ought not be a motivating factor for the audience (see n. 32 above). In fact, scorn in the eyes of the world is exactly what the members of the audience should expect if they follow the author's advice (10:32-35). deSilva makes a related point in chapter 4 of his Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), and such disregard for public shame would seem to undermine the application of the model of the disloyal client to Heb. 6.

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12

277

The placement of encouraging words directly after the language of condemnation is precisely the move that the author of Hebrews makes beginning in 6:9. He praises the past action of the audience, whom he addresses here (and only here) as "beloved" (). He moves into the first person plural to express confidence () that they will not fall away. This confidence, says our author, is grounded in the past accomplishments of the audience, their "work and love" that God will not forget and their past service to the saints, which still con tinues ( , . 10). He has thus employed the rhetorical protocol for using harsh speech persuasively by consciously following his threats with praise in order to make the audience receptive to his warning. 36 As we observe how the author of Hebrews uses this rhetorical tech nique, we should note that the type of apocalyptic language that Hebrews uses is clearly not the typical Graeco-Roman "frank speech" ( or licentia).37 In this rhetorical scheme, however, it is not the words themselves that are crucial but rather what effect the words bring about. We can see this concept in Plutarch's discussion of how to most successfully exhort someone in How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend 74:
Since, then, as has been said, frankness from its very nature, is oftentimes painful () to the person to whom it is applied, there is a need to follow the exam ple of the physicians; for they, in a surgical operation, do not leave the part that has been operated upon in its suffering and pain, but treat it with soothing lotions and fomentations; nor do persons that use admonition with skill simply apply its bitterness and sting ( ), and then run away; but by further con verse and gende words they mollify and assuage, even as stone-cutters smooth and polish the portions of statues that have been previously hammered and chiselled.

Those who "advise elegantly" ( ) use language that causes pain, but they append more conciliatory words after speech that

36 6:4-12 is not the only example of our author's use of this technique. In 10:2631, he issues a scathing warning that those who "willfully sin after receiving the knowl edge of the truth" can look forward only to "a fearful expectation of judgement and a fiery zeal coming to consume" them. In 10:32-32, however, the author immediately recalls and praises the community's performance in dealing with past struggles. Though the audience was exposed to "insults and afflictions," it "endured a great contest of sufferings." Having thusly praised the audience, the author makes a similar exhorta tion to that of 6:11 : The community ought not throw away its boldness, for it still has need of endurance. 37 For Hebrews' specific conception of , see A.C. Mitchell, S J., "Holding on to Confidence: in Hebrews," in J.T. Fitzgerald (ed.), Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies in Friendship in the New Testament World (New York: Brill, 1996) 203-26.

278

BRENT NONGBRI

evokes negative emotions in the audience, lest the criticisms or threats, by virtue of their harshness, fall upon deaf ears. Having used apoca lyptic language of eternal damnation in 6:4-8, the author of Heb. in 9-12 seeks to reestablish and reinforce a mutual positive estimation between the audience and himself.38 Simply leaving the harsh speech without any helpful, encouraging words (as did the author of 4 Ezra) is poor rhetorical strategy. Dio Ghrysostom expresses very similar sen timents. In section 11 of Discourse 32, he indicates that one should not let harsh speech be the last word:
But there are only a few who have displayed frankness in your presence, and that but sparingly, not in such a way as to fill your ears therewith nor for any length of time; nay, they merely utter a phrase or two, and then, after berating rather than enlightening you, they make a hurried exit.

The author of Hebrews makes no such hurried exit. His carefully crafted exhortation clearly expresses his sincere desire for the audi ence's well-being. He continues his use of the first person plural () to express a "deep desire" that each member of the com munity ( ) show zeal, avoid sluggishness, and "imitate those who through faith and endurance inherit the promises" (w. 11-12). In 6:9-12, our author provides an ideal application of Graeco-Roman rhetorical conventions to increase the audience's receptivity to the stern warning of 6:4-8.
5. Conclusion

Heb. 6:4-12 represents the union of the language of Jewish apoca lyptic with the conventions of Graeco-Roman moral exhortation. In 6:4-6, the author draws on the language of the Hebrew Scriptures through the filter of apocalyptic interpretation. While our author does not ascribe to an outlook of full-blown apocalyptic, he uses language and concepts similar to those found in apocalyptic literature, where they are meant to evoke fear in the audience. Our author uses this threatening language for the same purpose, but he molds and frames his words according to the protocols of Graeco-Roman rhetorical stan dards, following a rule much like that of Pseudo-Cicero, who states

38 Such a relationship was necessary for the author's exhortation to work effectively. Cicero writes, "Nothing in oratory . . . is more important than to win for the orator the favour of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by some thing resembling a mental impulse or emotion" (De Oratore XLII.178).

CONDEMNATION AND CONSOLATION IN HEB. 6:4-12

279

that harsh speech should be presented "with pungency, which if too 39 severe, will be mitigated by praise." The warning and exhortation of 6:9-12 work together to encourage the community to fear not the tri als of this world, through which they should persevere, but rather the 40 real threat of falling away into apostasy from which there is no return. For this reason, any reduction of the force of the author's warning obscures his purpose. To fully appreciate the author's work, we must let stand the threat of eternal damnation for community members who apostasize, even if doing so causes some theological discomfort. If, however, we still feel the need to systematize this passage with other New Testament concepts of soteriology, perhaps, rather than attempting to see "what we must do" to Heb. 6:4-8 to make it fit the rest of the New Testament, the more fruitful and stimulating exercise would be to ask instead how we can make the rest of the New Testament conform to the outlook of Heb. 6:4-8.

Ad Herennium IV.37.50. That such is the function of 6:4-12 and the other warning passages coheres with H.W. Attridge's statement that the primary purpose of Hebrews is to "reinforce the identity of a social sub-group in such a way as not to isolate it from its environment" ("Paraenesis in a Homily ( ): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the 'Epistle to the Hebrews,'" Semeia 50 [1990] 211-26, 223).
40

39

^ 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 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 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.