The Place of Paideia in Hebrews' Moral Thought (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161560033, 9783161560040, 3161560035

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

475

Phillip A. Davis, Jr.

The Place of Paideia in Hebrews’ Moral Thought

Mohr Siebeck

Phillip A. Davis, Jr., born 1985; 2006 Bachelor of Business Administration, Texas A&M University; 2009 MA in New Testament, Biola University; 2013–2014 research assistant at the University of Münster; since 2015 research associate at the University of Bonn; 2018 Dr. theol., University of Münster.

ISBN 978-3-16-156003-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-156004-0 DOI 10.1628 / 978-3-16-156004-0 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Adri

Foreword The present book is a slightly revised version of my dissertation presented to and accepted by the Protestant Theological Faculty of the University of Münster in the summer of 2016. My path from my home state of Texas to Münster was a long, complicated, and unexpected one that proved, to my great fortune, exceedingly worthwhile, due in no small part to the efforts and support of my Doktorvater, Prof. Dr. Hermut Löhr. Prof. Löhr showed great initial interest in this project at the prompting of an all too unsolicited email in 2012 and welcomed me to a liberating climate of dedicated theological concern matched with freedom of inquiry and a demand for exegetical rigor. Throughout the research, Prof. Löhr offered incisive critique, questions, and promptings for further investigation that unfailingly produced new insights. Beyond all that I learned exegetically from my akademischer Lehrer, I perhaps most appreciate that he welcomed a study that does not merely build upon his work, but that in one of its central arguments ultimately contradicts his own monograph on Hebrews. Not all students are so lucky. Perhaps out of a dedication to biblical studies for its own sake, or perhaps out of faintheartedness, I did not offer any extended theological reflection on the results of this study in the original dissertation and that remains the case here. The implications of the results appeared to speak for themselves. To my surprise, however, this struck readers in Germany as odd – the central text under consideration deals after all with the interpretation of human suffering! – and so I presently offer a few brief thoughts. Even though this book deals with Hebrews’ interpretation of suffering in 12:1–17, it focuses on the ethics of Hebrews as epitomized in that passage, and in so doing it comes into contact, though only in a roundabout way, with Hebrews’ so-called warning passages. The book argues, among other things, that reading Hebrews’ warnings in terms of being in or out fails to reckon with the underlying moral rigorism of Hebrews. The danger Hebrews addresses is not falling away versus keeping the faith, but living sinfully instead of “Christianly”. Moreover, according to Hebrews, the suffering of the believer, though not punitive in nature, serves to develop the sufferer in righteousness. This interpretation makes the hard knot of Hebrews – to borrow Luther’s words – all the more theologically and pastorally discomforting (though it appears to me that Luther understood the problem in a similar way in his

VIII

Foreword

preface to Hebrews). Yet, at the same time this insight serves strikingly to tie together oft imagined tensions in the New Testament, such as between the grace of Paul and the legalism of Matthew. Hebrews, Matthew, and indeed Paul, all share the perspective that the way one behaves can impact one’s salvation. Seen in this way – and this view of things is increasingly being recognized – it is easier to understand how, in contrast to Luther’s strategy of pushing Hebrews toward the end of the canon, those responsible for the early manuscript P46 could place Hebrews directly after Romans. Hebrews, so understood, thus helps us to read the New Testament in a new light, even if some aspects of both the individual writing and the entire collection become thereby even more hermeneutically challenging, if not objectionable. I am thankful to have had the privilege of spending years on this topic and am grateful to those who played significant roles along the way. First, Dr. Herbert W. Bateman, IV supervised and fostered the identification and initial approach of the research question. Yet perhaps more importantly he took on a pastoral role and taught me that in times of great (spiritual) despair, the pragmatics of Hebrews might in some cases have positive effects. A pair of once fellow students were also key: My good friend Dr. Charles Martin was a daily conversation partner and mutual psychological support. He and I, together with Dr. Michael McKay, also met monthly as a Hebrews think tank in order to read and discuss our projects. I was privileged also to correspond by email with Dr. N. Clayton Croy, with whose work I interact in detail. He graciously read and critiqued some of my early engagement with his book and offered clarifications of his own views. Thanks are due also to my second reader, Prof. Dr. Christina Hoegen-Rohls, for her insights and evaluation, which informed my revisions, as well as to the editor of this series, Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey, for recommending the publication of the manuscript. Finally, my wife Adrienne has had to bear equally with the various forms of stress involved with a doctoral program and she sacrificed much in the six years it took. Dedicating this book to her is embarrassingly little to offer her in love and appreciation. Bonn, June 2018

Phillip A. Davis, Jr.

Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................... VII

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................... 1 I.

Terms and Method ....................................................................................... 3

II. Recent History of the Discussion ................................................................. 8 1. 2. 3. 4.

Major 20th Century Contributions ........................................................ 9 Endurance in Suffering........................................................................ 14 Works since Endurance in Suffering ................................................... 20 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 26

III. The Way Forward ...................................................................................... 27

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought .................................................... 28 I.

Limits of the Passage ................................................................................. 28

II. Hebrews in Moral Perspective .................................................................. 31 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Hebrews 1: Purification of Sin through the Exalted Righteous Son.... 34 Excursus: Righteousness in Hebrews .................................................. 36 Hebrews 2:1–4: Devotion vs. Disobedience and Transgression ......... 40 Hebrews 2:5–3:6: Holiness and Faithfulness ...................................... 45 Hebrews 3:7–4:13: The Example of the Wilderness Generation ........ 47 a) Psalm 95: Rebellion and Testing .................................................... 47 b) Unfaithfulness as a Matter of the Heart.......................................... 48 c) On the Essence of Apostasy ........................................................... 50 d) The Deceitfulness of Sin ................................................................ 53 e) The Disobedience of the Wilderness Generation ........................... 55 f) Diligence vs. Disobedience ............................................................ 61 g) Conclusion ..................................................................................... 63

X

Contents

6. Hebrews 4:14–5:10: Obedience to the Sinless Highpriest .................. 63 7. Excursus: Obedience and Disobedience in Hebrews .......................... 68 8. Hebrews 5:11–6:20: From Dead Works to Faithfulness toward God .......................................................................................... 71 a) Maturity in Righteousness .............................................................. 72 b) Turning from Sin ............................................................................ 75 c) Falling as Transgression ................................................................. 78 d) Conclusion ..................................................................................... 81 9. Hebrews 7:1–10:18: Cult and Morality ............................................... 82 10. Excursus: Peace in Hebrews ............................................................... 86 11. Hebrews 10:19–31: Sin and the Need for Endurance.......................... 90 a) Going on in Sin .............................................................................. 91 b) Endurance in Action ....................................................................... 94 12. Hebrews 11: Expressions of Trust....................................................... 97 13. Hebrews 12:18–29: Refusal and Reverence ...................................... 100 14. Hebrews 13: The Moral Response .................................................... 103 a) Verses 1–7: The Individual Instructions ...................................... 103 b) Verses 8–16: Strange Teachings and Proper Worship ................. 107 c) Verses 17–21: Final Exhortations ................................................ 114 d) Theology in Response to Moral Crisis ......................................... 116 III. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 116

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment ................................................................................................. 119 I.

Painful Childhood Memories .................................................................. 120

II. Corporal Punishment and its Moral Fruit .............................................. 125 III. Theoretical Conceptions of Corporal Punishment .................................. 129 IV. Parents and Punishment .......................................................................... 134 V. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 139

Contents

XI

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison ....................... 142 I.

Sayings in Context ................................................................................... 143 1. Proverbs 3:1–12 ................................................................................ 146 2. Proverbs 3:11–12 and Corporal Punishment ..................................... 153 3. Proverbs 4:20–27 .............................................................................. 161

II. Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12 ................................................................ 162 1. Biblical and Second Temple Parallels ............................................... 163 a) Deuteronomy 8:5 .......................................................................... 163 b) Job 5:17 ........................................................................................ 166 c) Philo, Cong. 177 ........................................................................... 168 d) Psalms of Solomon 3:4 ................................................................. 171 e) The Dead Sea Scrolls ................................................................... 174 2. Early Christian Parallels: Rev 3:19 & 1 Clem. 56.4 .......................... 175 3. Summary of Findings ........................................................................ 177 III. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 178

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17 ..................... 180 I.

Hebrews 12:1–11 .................................................................................... 180 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Verses 1–2: Putting off Sin with Resolve.......................................... 180 Verses 3–4: Struggling against Sin “to the Death”............................ 185 Verses 5–6: Encouragement and Demand ......................................... 193 Verses 7–10: Remaining Steadfast for the Purposes of Discipline ... 195 Verse 11: The Moral Fruit of παιδεία................................................ 205 Findings in 12:1–11........................................................................... 212

II. Hebrews 12:12–17 .................................................................................. 213 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Verses 12–13: Making Straight Paths ............................................... 213 Verse 14: Pursuing Peace and Holiness ............................................ 221 Excursus: Holiness and Ethics in Hebrews ....................................... 224 Verses 15–17: Watching out for Morally Defiling Behavior ............ 229 Findings in 12:12–17......................................................................... 236

III. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 237

XII

Contents

Chapter 6: Final Conclusions ................................................................ 239 Bibliography................................................................................................... 243 Index of References........................................................................................ 277 Index of Modern Authors ............................................................................... 286 Subject Index.................................................................................................. 289

Chapter 1

Introduction Writing on the anthropological study of religion, Clifford Geertz asserts: “Whatever else religion may be, it is in part an attempt (of an implicit and directly felt rather than explicit and consciously thought-about sort) to conserve the fund of general meanings in terms of which each individual interprets his experience and organizes his conduct” (emphasis mine).1 There is perhaps no greater example of this two-fold aspect of religion in the Epistle to the Hebrews than the passage with which we primarily concern ourselves in the present study: 12:1–17. The author of the so-called epistle takes up the troubles and difficulties faced by the audience (10:32–34) and reinterprets this experience as παιδεία, discipline,2 from the divine father, God: “Endure for the purposes of discipline. God is dealing with you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline?” (12:7).3 But what is more, the author throughout interprets and explains the present existence and future hope of the audience by developing the significance of Jesus’ death and propitiatory work. All of this interpreting works together to conserve the worldview of an audience that over time has become dull in commitment (5:11–12; 6:11–12). Yet Heb 12:1–17 and indeed the entirety of Hebrews not only correspond to the interpretation aspect of Geertz’s definition, but both also display a concern with conduct. Thus, according to the passage, divine discipline, when approached with endurance (12:1–3, 7), ultimately functions to yield the peaceful fruit of righteousness (12:11), and the reinterpretation of the audience’s troubles leads to the exhortation to seek peace with all and sanctification (12:14). More pointedly, the author begins the entire chapter with the concern of putting off the encumbrance of sin and striving against it 1

Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 127. I have translated παιδεία as discipline since παιδεία and its related forms can range in meanings related to education, instruction, correction, and training. “Discipline” is sufficiently vague an English term so as not to bias the discussion from the outset concerning how it should be understood in Heb 12. BDAG, s.v. “παιδεία”, “παιδεύω”; Georg Bertram, “παιδεύω, παιδεία, κτλ,” TDNT 5:596–625. NB: I have primarily used the English TDNT instead of the German original; however, in a few cases where the translation is poor – i.e. not immediately clear – or where I suspected the nuance of particular English words might mislead as to the German, I have consulted and cited TWNT. 3 Translations mine, unless otherwise noted. 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

(12:1, 4). And just like the aspect of interpretation, the aspect of conduct also pervades the rest of Hebrews in the form of both specific moral directive and exhortation using the language of sin, obedience/disobedience, and faithfulness, among others. While from a theoretical perspective like that of Geertz the connection between conduct and interpretation of experience may be taken for granted, understanding this interplay in the case of Hebrews has proven quite difficult, particularly regarding 12:1–17. On the one hand, Hebrews generally may be viewed as grandiose theologically and pitifully weak ethically, particularly in light of its paucity of direct moral injunction. As Knut Backhaus puts it: “The theological mountain is in labor – but what is born is a moral mouse!”4 On the other hand, regarding Heb 12:1–17 specifically, there is a range of exegetical opinion on several issues that may be considered moral or ethical. For example, there has been much discussion of whether divine discipline should be understood as punishment for sin or as non-punitive training or education. There is also difficulty in deciding the import of “sin” in 12:1, specifically whether or not it refers exclusively to apostasy. Sin in 12:4 is similarly unclear: it could refer to sin itself, within the individual or among the community addressed, or it could refer to outside opposition like the sinners opposed to Jesus according to verse 3. We might also ask further, what is the “peaceful fruit of righteousness” mentioned in 12:11 as a result of divine discipline? On the question of discipline, the majority of recent publications rightly agree that divine, fatherly discipline functions not as punishment for sin and wrongdoing, as the quotation of Prov 3:11–12 might initially suggest, but rather as educative, “non-punitive” training in virtue. Under the “nonpunitive” rubric, however, it can be more difficult to account satisfactorily for the strong language of sin, righteousness, immorality, and godlessness found scattered through verses 1–17, especially in light of the development of such themes elsewhere in Hebrews. That is not to say that those taking the nonpunitive understanding of discipline neglect the moral concepts of Hebrews 12 – besides, training and education in the ancient world involved the development of virtue – but rather that the interpretation gives rise to different 4

Knut Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels: Ethics in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 149. The original German reads: “Es kreißt der theologische Berg, und er gebiert eine moralische Maus!” See Knut Backhaus, “Auf Ehre und Gewissen! Die Ethik des Hebräerbriefs,” in Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief, WUNT 240 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 215. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Christina Hoegen-Rohls for making me aware that this is an allusion to Horace’s Ars poetica 139: parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus – the mountains will be in labor and a ridiculous mouse will be born. Horace thus warns against beginning a work by promising more than can be delivered. The line itself alludes to Aesop’s fable of the mountain in labor (fable 520 in Perry’s edition).

Terms and Method

3

exegetical problems that deserve a fresh look in light of the moral thought of Hebrews as a whole. So, what is the relation between divine discipline and ethics or morality in Hebrews, especially if such parental discipline plays no punitive role? Moreover, how can we interpret the moral terms of 12:1–4 and 12:12–17 alongside the corrective-sounding tones of the quotation of Prov 3:11–12 employed in Heb 12:5–6? Finally, how do the argument and ethics of our passage relate to ethical argument elsewhere in Hebrews? In answering these questions, the present study contends that the moral thought of Hebrews is far from mouselike, but rather that a moral concern underlies the entirety of the work.5 That is, the key question of whether the audience will persevere or apostatize is addressed throughout Hebrews in terms of choosing sin or faithful righteousness. In Heb 12, the paradigm of fatherly divine discipline encourages the audience to endure by viewing their situation as a natural, though painful, feature of sonship, but at the same time this implies the need for ongoing submission to God in an educational process that ultimately develops the very virtue expected of the audience elsewhere in the book.

Terms and Method

I. Terms and Method

Before moving to the history of research, which will justify and identify the contribution of this particular treatment of Hebrews 12:1–17, a few words on terminology are in order. Ethics, morality, and ethos can be variously defined. Wayne Meeks, for example, understands ethics as “a reflective, second-order activity: it is morality rendered self conscious; it asks about the logic of moral discourse and action, about the grounds for judgment, about the anatomy of duty or the roots or structure of virtue.” Morality, according to Meeks, “names a dimension of life, a pervasive and, often, only partly conscious set of value-laden dispositions, inclinations, attitudes, and habits.” Thus for him, when a parent commands a child to behave, this is morality in so much as the behavior commanded is presupposed as proper, but if the child asks why he or she should behave, then the parent would enter the stage of ethics.6 The problem with speaking of “ethics” in relation to the NT, of course, is that the NT writings do not engage in this second-order activity of reflecting on moral discourse systematically, even if they do often offer a rationale for a

5 Backhaus in fact contributes to this in “Entertaining Angels,” though with a focus on Heb 13. 6 Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven: Yale, 1993), 3–5; cf. Leander E. Keck, “Rethinking ‘New Testament Ethics,’” JBL 115 (1996): 7.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

given exhortation.7 Ruben Zimmermann has rightly argued in several publications that “implicit and sometimes explicit reasons as well as the argumentative recourse to certain ethical maxims and norms underlie the individual paraenesis.”8 This is particularly evident in Hebrews. Although explaining the relationship of its supposed expository (or doctrinal) and exhortatory passages is a perennial problem in scholarship, in some cases the exposition clearly lays the groundwork for an exhortation.9 For example, the exposition of Jesus’ greatness over the angels in Heb 1 leads to the exhortation in 2:1–4 to give greater devotion to the message of Jesus since the consequences of neglecting it are greater than the consequences of neglecting the message delivered by angels. Based on similar observations particularly in the Pauline corpus, Zimmermann has developed a method of analyzing and making explicit the “implicit ethics” of a text. He defines implicit ethics as “precisely the ethics of the text, revealed through language, norms, and forms of ethical reflection, that is [sic] placed at the center of the analysis.”10 The method involves eight interrelated, though separable parts,11 but for Zimmermann, ethical analysis of a biblical text is “in the first instance a precise description of the ethical language and plausibility strategies of the text itself.”12 7

Keck, “Rethinking,” 7, depicts such “moral reasoning” as a mixture of ethics and morality, and like Ruben Zimmermann (see below), speaks of making such rationale explicit in the analysis of a text. 8 Ruben Zimmermann, “Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21–33 as Test Case,” in Moral Language in the New Testament, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt, WUNT II/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 22; cf. idem, “Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes,” TLZ 132 (2007): 273. 9 See, e.g., Frank Matera, “Moral Exhortation: The Relation between Moral Exhortation and Doctrinal Exposition in the Letter to the Hebrews,” TJT 10, no. 2 (1994): 196–82; James W. Thompson, “The Underlying Unity of Hebrews,” ResQ 18 (1975): 129–36. 10 Ruben Zimmermann, “How to Read Biblical Texts Ethically” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, San Diego, CA, 23 November 2014), 2–3. Zimmermann presents the method also in “Ethics in the New Testament and Language,” 19–50 and in “Jenseits,” 259–84. 11 In brief, the model asks about (1) the linguistic forms, such as imperatives and hortatory subjunctives; (2) norms, maxims, principles and values for action; (3) the traditionhistorical context of norms and moral instances; (4) the prioritization of different values (what is better or worse?); (5) ethical argumentation or structure of motives, for example the use of deontological or teleological argumentation; (6) the ethical subject, that is, the group or individuals who make ethical judgments; (7) the resulting lived ethos; and (8) the field of application for a given norm or judgment. See Zimmermann, “Ethics in the New Testament and Language,” 24–28; idem, “Jenseits,” 274–76. 12 Zimmermann, “How to Read,” 11. So also Hermut Löhr, who states: “a study of implicit New Testament ethics has to begin with a description of the moral language, the terms and categories used, the exposition of the argument, and the rhetorical techniques applied.” See Hermut Löhr, “The Exposition of Moral Rules and Principles in the Pauline

Terms and Method

5

This is the sort of task we will undertake in a significant portion of this study. Instead of morality or ethics in the senses reflected in Meeks’s defintions, we want to investigate Hebrews’ moral thought,13 which includes its norms, values, commands, rules, the should’s, and the ought-to’s,14 all understood within the argument of the text and the language used to express it.15 Since this approach seeks to make explicit the rationale as well as the norms, rules, etc., it would become tedious to distinguish constantly between such words as “ethical” or “moral”; therefore, we will treat the words ethics and morality, together with their derivatives, as interchangeable, but all under the heading of moral thought. While moral thought refers to the entire picture of “morality” in Hebrews conveyed by its argument, this study focuses much attention on the details of the language used in order to develop such moral Letters: Preliminary Observations on Moral Language in Earliest Christianity,” in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt, WUNT II/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 198. 13 Hermut Löhr has suggested the term “moral thought”, and it is a convenient way of superseding the contested usage of the terms morality and ethics. On the one hand, morality, as reflected in Meeks’ definition, can connote the mundane proper behavior of daily life. For example, the statement “he’s a good guy” gives the impression that a certain man is moral (to use the term in the colloquial fashion); that is, he is an upstanding, trustworthy individual in society, who does not lie, cheat, or steal. On the other hand, ethics, again as reflected in Meeks’ definition, can connote the academic, esoteric, and philosophical reflection about the values of individuals and society that has little relation to the concerns of the NT. The NT may contain reflection on morality as well as mundane rules of behavior, but often, and Hebrews is a good example, the NT writings are trying to convince their respective audiences to take very particular, situation-specific courses of action. “Moral thought” thus has the advantage of moving beyond the mundane, while at the same time avoiding the esoteric. See Löhr, “Exposition of Moral Rules and Principles,” 197 n. 2. On page 198, Löhr rightly points to the possible negative connotation of morals or morality as unreflective, bourgeois rules of behavior. 14 This follows van der Watt’s treatment of ethics as commands or rules, as evidenced in ‘ought to’ or ‘should’ language. Our definition is a bit broader in adding the aspect of moral reasoning. Jan G. van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel According to John,” ZNW 97 (2006): 151. 15 Most recently, Susanne Luther has employed a similar, though more wide-ranging, approach to her study of New Testament speech-ethics (Sprachethik). For Luther, Sprachethik firstly concerns NT conceptions of morally good and bad speech, but importantly, it also involves the careful observation of the discourse and language employed in communicating what kind of speech is good and bad. She writes: “Gegenstand der vorliegenden Studie sind daher Paränesen zur rechten Verwendung von Sprache im zwischenmenschlichen Kontext, die in unterschiedlichen Formen und Textgattungen des Neuen Testaments vermittelt werden, sowie deren ethisch reflektierte Begründungs- und Motivierungsstrategien” (emphasis original). Susanne Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief, WUNT II/394 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 11; cf. 1–66.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

thought. Accordingly, moral language refers more specifically to the grammatical and syntactical forms used to express the commands, rules, should’s and ought-to’s – e.g., imperatives and hortatory subjunctives – as well as to significant morally loaded terms and categories, such as sin or righteousness.16 More concretely, it is through this sort of analysis that we want to answer such questions as, what does it mean to be righteous according to Hebrews? Why is sin portrayed as the audience’s opponent? Why does the author single out sexual immorality as a particularly dangerous sin (12:16; 13:4)? What sort of moral character does παιδεία build in the audience, according to the author, and how does this character contrast with their preconversion lives? That is not to say, though, that Hebrews builds an ethical system which would guide ethical decision-making. Rather, the study asks about the coherence of claims concerning such things as sin and righteousness together with the author’s commands and exhortations. A bit more complicated for our purposes, though to some extent helpful, is the term ethos. Geertz distinguishes between worldview and ethos, defining ethos as “the tone, character, and quality of [a people’s] life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood; it is the underlying attitude toward themselves and their world that life reflects.” Reflection is key in this definition, since Geertz writes as an anthropologist and thus depends on observation in order to understand the ethos of those peoples he studies. By contrast, worldview is cognitive and existential; it is a people’s “picture of the way things in sheer actuality are, their concept of nature, of self, of society.”17 Clearly, Geertz’s anthropologically oriented definition entails a problem for the NT scholar: the people groups the NT scholar wishes to study are not available for observation. Nevertheless, NT scholarship has also picked up on an interest in ethos. The definition of Michael Wolter is a convenient example: Unter einem Ethos verstehe ich einen Kanon von institutionalisierten Handlungen, die innerhalb eines bestimmten sozialen Systems in Geltung stehen. Ihnen wird Verbindlichkeit zugeschrieben, weil allererst durch solche Handlungen eine bestimmte Gruppe als solche erkennbar und erfahrbar wird.18

16 Cf. the quotation from Löhr in note 12 above. In Zimmerman’s construal, analysis of moral language includes also the analysis of the logic of an ethical statement. This is not to be overlooked, as such consideration belongs to any good exegesis. For the purposes here, an even more basic and specific definition of moral language is expedient for referring to the author’s actual words or grammatical and syntactical forms without in each case also pointing to the argument. See Zimmerman, “Ethics in the New Testament and Language,” 28–36. 17 Geertz, Interpretation, 126–27. 18 Michael Wolter, “Identität und Ethos bei Paulus,” in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 127.

Terms and Method

7

Wolter goes on to describe the term under two aspects, a material aspect and a functional aspect. Materially, the actions under an ethos are unchangeable, clear, and repeatable, and they do not have to be reworked or re-justified. Functionally, an ethos brings the distinct identity of a particular group into view. It distinguishes the group from outsiders, and as Wolter further points out, any social entity existing under a larger society must delineate itself from outsiders and it must have ways of facilitating the coexistence of its members.19 In this sense, ethos is more specific for Wolter than for Geertz, but it is nevertheless quite a bit broader than ethics or morality as employed in this study. On the one hand, the term ethos is helpful in the functional aspect; in fact, studies by Backhaus, Dunning, and Thompson have already contributed to such interests in Hebrews in that they have sought to understand the social function of Hebrews’ moral injunctions.20 On the other hand, trying to describe the material ethos of Hebrews, whether the unchangeable, clear, and repeatable (Wolter), or the tone, character, and quality of life (Geertz), would be difficult, as one would have to look behind the text to find the behavior of the community, a community that has proven difficult to describe with much precision. Moreover, what the addressees actually do is a different thing from what the author expects or prescribes.21 Though we are interested in the condition of the audience, it is unlikely that we can uncover their habits to any great extent. Much more accessible is the way the author portrays the audience and what he expects of them. Even if we wanted to describe the ideal ethos offered by the author we would have difficulty going into much detail. Even though the author does prescribe such repeatable practices as meeting together and encouraging one another, much of what he commands appears contingent upon the particular situation that prompted him to write. Instead, for our purposes it is better to stay with the moral thought of Hebrews. Then we are on surer ground of describing what is available – the ethical rules, 19

Wolter, “Identität und Ethos,” 128, 129. Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 149–75; Benjamin Dunning, “The Intersection of Alien Status and Cultic Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 177–98; James W. Thompson, “Insider Ethics for Outsiders: Ethics for Aliens in Hebrews,” ResQ 53 (2011): 207–19. See also the discussion of “insider ethics for outsiders” in chapter 2 below. 21 As Keck notes, New Testament ethics comprises the ethics of New Testament texts. Thus, he offers the reminder that “The New Testament as canon, like its constituent pieces before they were canonized, not only expresses the faith and ethos of early Christianity but also addresses them in order to correct them.” Keck, “Rethinking,” 4–5. A further problem for trying to describe the ethos of Hebrews would be the question of whether the author is an ongoing, though presently removed, member of the community addressed, or whether his ideas would be reflective of a different group. 20

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

language, and rationale – without attempting to reconstruct the ethos of the addressees.22 Overall, Geertz’s notion of thick description offers some sense – though limited by the considerations above – to what we seek to undertake here regarding the moral thought of Hebrews and its relation to divine discipline in Heb 12. Thick description, according to Geertz, involves not simply describing what people do within a culture, but interpreting the actions intelligibly; the thick describer wants to interpret what his or her subjects are “up to” and systemize those interpretations.23 That is what we will try to do with regard to Heb 12:1–17 in its literary and cultural context. We want to describe the moral thought of Hebrews in such a way that we understand what the author is really getting at, reconstructing the inner world and rationale of Hebrews’ ethics.24 “A good interpretation of anything […] takes us into the heart of that of which it is the interpretation”, Geertz writes. “When it does not do that, but leads us instead somewhere else […] it may have its intrinsic charms; but that is something else than what the task at hand – figuring out what all that rigamarole […] is about – calls for.”25 What then is all the rigamarole about with divine discipline in Hebrews?

II. Recent History of the Discussion Recent History of the Discussion Perhaps the question given the most recent attention in Heb 12:1–17 has been the question of whether discipline is to be understood as punitive or nonpunitive, whether it serves as punishment or education. In fact, there is a long history of discussion on the topic, but the question has become a standard point of consideration especially since the publication of N. Clayton Croy’s watershed monograph, Endurance in Suffering.26 Croy has argued, generally quite successfully, that discipline in Heb 12 is educational training in virtue and should not be understood as punishment for wrongdoing. Although his entire program has not achieved consensus status, the majority of important commentaries and studies have accepted it on the whole, and most of Croy’s 22

Van der Watt’s proposed definition of ethos as habitual personal behavior would involve the same sorts of problems for this study as Wolter’s definition. Van der Watt, “Ethics and Ethos,” 151. Cf. Löhr’s comments on the historical difficulties of investigating early Christian ethos. Löhr, “Moral Rules and Principles,” 197. 23 Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, 3–30. 24 Cf. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 4. 25 Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, 18. 26 N. Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1–13 in its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context, SNTSMS 98 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Recent History of the Discussion

9

critics accept at least parts of his thesis. Croy’s thesis is founded upon several major points: first, nowhere does the author express that the audience has done something wrong to warrant punishment; second, the athletic imagery throughout the passage evokes a view of discipline as positive training; and third, the punitive tones of the Prov 3:11–12 quotation do not receive remention in the author’s exposition of the text. Despite the incisiveness of these points, a few scholars are not totally convinced. In part this is because of the focus on sin directly at the beginning of the passage in 12:1, 3–4, and in part because of the wisdom tradition of parental correction brought up by the use of Prov 3:11–12. Thus, either one may place an emphasis on sin and the immediately apparent background of the wisdom literature, or on the athletic imagery and the lack of a clear punitive construal of discipline in the text. This of course oversimplifies the various treatments, but it captures the interpretive tendencies evident not only in the research since Croy’s book was published, but also in the centuries of commentary before it. Whichever direction one may tend toward, a sufficiently systematic accounting for the moral language of the passage is still lacking. Thus, the following will primarily demonstrate the tendencies of the discussion since Croy, while also identifying the need for a more fully developed understanding of the moral language of 12:1–17 in order better to come to grips with the author’s imagined results of discipline and their purpose. Since there already exists a full history of the discussion elsewhere,27 we begin here with the studies devoted to our passage from the 20th century before turning to Croy’s monograph and its reception. 1. Major 20th Century Contributions First, Werner Jentsch’s 1951 study on early Christian educational thought offers some useful analysis of our passage.28 Jentsch reads Heb 12 from a heilsgeschichtlich perspective, and draws a sharp distinction between what he sees as the salvific concern of Heb 12 and the purpose of suffering according to the Stoics, his primary point of comparison. Jentsch gives much attention to the father-son relationship described in 12:4–11, understanding παιδεία as Züchtigung and considering such discipline to have a corrective function that specifically leads to repentance. It bears recognition, however, that the author does not specifically say that this discipline should result in repentance in chapter 12, and if anything, repentance would be excluded by Hebrews altogether (6:4–6; 10:26; especially 12:17). Interestingly, Jentsch equates the purpose of discipline, a share in God’s holiness, to salvation specifically. This 27

See the extensive history of research offered by Croy, Endurance, 4–35. Werner Jentsch, Urchristliches Erziehungsdenken: Die Paideia Kyriu im Rahmen der hellenistisch-jüdischen Umwelt (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951), 161–68. 28

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

is an interesting proposal since sin, which would lead in the opposite direction from salvation (10:26), plays such a prominent role in 12:1–4. Nevertheless, further study would have to review whether such an equation of holiness and salvation per se is really warranted. This discipline unto salvation contrasts quite markedly, according to Jentsch, with Stoic conceptions of misfortune (Unglück). Although Seneca can write, “God hardens, reviews, and disciplines those whom he approves, whom he loves”,29 the overarching purpose of suffering for the Stoics is rather to become the Idealmensch, who overcomes the self and comes to recognize providence in nature and to live in harmony with it. For Jentsch this conception is far different from the NT understanding of God and of salvation history. His salvation-historical approach as a system applied to the passage is questionable, but his concern with salvation and the father-son relationship nevertheless deserve further attention. The differences Jentsch shows between Stoic conceptions of suffering are also important, but nevertheless, the passage makes no explicit reference to repentance, except where it is excluded (12:17), and so there remains an opening for a closer relationship to Stoic thought than Jentsch allows. In his 1981 dissertation, Farai K. Gambiza offers an analysis of παιδεία and τελείωσις in Hebrews.30 He observes some differences between the treatment of Jesus’ suffering and the suffering of the audience in Hebrews. According to him, Jesus suffers unto perfection for the fulfillment of his priestly office. He argues that the audience is never said to suffer unto perfection, but rather to suffer παιδεία as instruction, correction, discipline, and punishment. Still, he does view perfection as the ultimate goal, but suffering itself specifically serves a purgative or educational role.31 Gambiza sees suffering as something which the audience must accept as a necessary part of their path. Though Gambiza’s definition of παιδεία remains loose and unclear, and his conception of the perfection of believers as different from the perfection of Jesus seems imprecise,32 he rightly draws a number of issues in Hebrews together. For example, he takes seriously the description of the audience as needing to learn the discernment of good and evil, and notes that acceptance of παιδεία is not inactivity, but rather implies good works and service to God and others.33 The coherence of such good works together with the purposes of

29

Prov. 4.7 (Basore, LCL). Farai K. Moyo Gambiza, “Teleiosis and Paidea as Interpretation of Sufferings: The Perfecting of Jesus and the Disciplining of Christians in the Letter to the Hebrews” (ThD diss., Christ Seminary - Seminex, 1981). 31 Gambiza, “Teleosis and Paideia,” 65–66. 32 That the “mature” are the ones for whom solid food is suitable in 5:14 (τελείων δέ ἐστιν ἡ στερεὰ τροφή) would seem to militate against too strong a distinction between Jesus’ perfection and that of the audience. 33 Gambiza, “Teleosis and Paideia,” 67–68. 30

Recent History of the Discussion

11

discipline, however, requires further elaboration, together with more precision on the definition of παιδεία. Stephen P. Logan’s dissertation, “The Background of ‘ΠΑΙ∆ΕΙΑ’ in Hebrews,”34 investigates both the Greco-Roman and Jewish backgrounds of παιδεία and compares them with Hebrews. Logan argues that the author of Hebrews has been influenced by a mixture of these two backgrounds. Hebrews, accordingly, shows formal parallels with developments in GrecoRoman education in that παιδεία forms an individual according to a goal. For example, showing a relationship between ἀρετή and παιδεία, Logan points out that when ἀρετή was conceived of as readiness for battle, as in Sparta, then παιδεία would take the shape of military and gymnastic training.35 Hebrews corresponds to this in that παιδεία should produce perfection.36 Regarding the Jewish backgrounds, Hebrews exhibits similarities in tying παιδεία to divine discipline and God’s loving fatherhood. The key difference Hebrews displays from the otherwise typical Jewish conception is that in Hebrews it is not a response to sin.37 Instead, παιδεία “is necessary to bring a person or group to a desired end without regard for any wrong doing.”38 Logan contributes a comprehensive survey of background passages, and he clearly and fairly delineates the differences and similarities between Hebrews and the relevant primary literature. Logan has thus made a strong and specific case for how the author of Hebrews was influenced by his cultural milieu. However, the dissertation evinces some weaknesses in considering the problems the audience faces and the use of Proverbs in the passage. First, while Logan rightly maintains that the audience is failing to move forward in obedience and toward perfection, he fails to consider the possible significance of sin in 12:1, which is singled out as something to be put off in order to run with endurance, and the need of the audience to learn to discern good from evil in 5:14.39 Logan treats obedience as simply perseverance in faith and suffering and disobedience as just shrinking back,40 but this is likely too simplistic. We must ask whether the mention of good and evil and sin have any relation to why the audience is suffering or what function suffering has.

34

Stephen P. Logan, “The Background of ‘ΠΑΙ∆ΕΙΑ’ in Hebrews” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986). 35 Logan, “Background,” 216. Two works primarily inform Logan’s discussion of backgrounds, Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. Gilbert Highet, 3 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1944–45) and H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982). 36 Logan, “Background,” 217. 37 Logan, “Background,” 219. 38 Logan, “Background,” 220. 39 Logan, “Background,” 146–52, 162–63. 40 Logan, “Background,” 184, 184 n. 224.

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

Second, Logan offers a concise interpretation of Heb 12:4–13, but gives little attention to how the author employs the Old Testament quotation or allusions (Prov 3:11–12; Isa 35:3; Prov 4:26).41 In comparing Philo and Hebrews, however, Logan asks a fascinating question: why do Hebrews and Philo (Cong. 177) both cite Prov 3:11–12 when it only appears elsewhere in the Second Temple literature in Pss. Sol. 3:4?42 He seems to recognize the importance of the quotation, but does not explain why it is important. Logan dismisses the influence of Philo on Hebrews as an explanation, citing the differences between their views of discipline. According to Logan, Philo sees discipline as preventing sin, whereas Hebrews does not.43 However, Hebrews does have a concern with sin. Even if discipline serves no punitive role, there may still be sufficient similarity between Philo and Hebrews to explain their choice of quotation, whether by means of influence or similar, yet independent, readings of the OT passage by both ancient authors. In the next study, Learning through Suffering, Charles Talbert presents both the Jewish and Greco-Roman ideas of suffering as education, which he characterizes as facilitating moral and spiritual development.44 He then compares them to Hebrews and to other parts of the NT. Talbert starts with educational suffering in Judaism, which he claims usually views educational sufferings as correction of misdeeds, but for the benefit of the sufferer and always out of God’s love. For example, according to Sir 18:13, “the mercy of a man is for his neighbor, but the mercy of the Lord is for all flesh, rebuking, training, teaching [ἐλέγχων καὶ παιδεύων καὶ διδάσκων], and turning them back, as a shepherd his flock.” Regarding Greco-Roman approaches to educational suffering, Talbert avers that struggles were “not so much correction of one’s 41

Logan, “Background,” 170. I use the term Old Testament in terms of the Protestant canon, instead of the Hebrew Bible or Jewish Scriptures. Since the author of Hebrews would have used a Greek version of these Scriptures, the term Hebrew Bible is less often appropriate in the present study. Yet, to refer always to the Septuagint would make some statements overly technical, for example when referring generally to the set of canonical books rather than to one version of them in particular. However, when specifically discussing the Hebrew or Greek, I then refer to the Hebrew Bible (HB) or Masoretic Text (MT) and Septuagint (LXX). The approach here, while reflective of my own religious tradition, is neither to overlook that this canon also constitutes the Jewish Scriptures, nor is it to overlook the anachronism of speaking of an Old Testament in the context of early Christianity before the canonization of the NT. 42 Actually Logan fails to see the allusion to Prov 3:11 in the Psalms of Solomon. He really asks why only Philo and Hebrews use the passage. Logan, “Background,” 214. 43 Logan, “Background,” 213–15. 44 Charles H. Talbert, Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the New Testament and its Milieu (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1991). Thus, he isolates one ancient interpretation of suffering out of a number of others to discuss. The others he mentions are punishment for sin and suffering for the sake of others (see pages 9–10).

Recent History of the Discussion

13

misdirection as in the mainstream of Jewish thought, but rather conditioning that builds one up for greater virtue.”45 Thus, Oedipus in Sophocles’ Oedipus coloneus says, “For I am taught by suffering to endure.”46 And Seneca, comparing God to a father in a way very close to Heb 12, writes: “Do you wonder if that God, who most dearly loves the good, who wishes them to become supremely good and virtuous, allots to them a fortune that will make them struggle?”47 For Talbert, then, Greco-Roman antiquity held to a different understanding of educative suffering and its results than Second Temple Judaism, even though Talbert does acknowledge exceptions.48 This two-fold scheme informs Talbert as he examines parts of the New Testament which deal with suffering as education. Regarding Hebrews, he believes the suffering of Jesus, because of his sinlessness (Heb 4:15), should be taken as development, similar to an athlete’s training. That is, Jesus did not learn obedience as if he learned not to disobey (5:8), but he learned obedience “in the developing character of human existence (cf. Luke 2:52) with all its shocks and physical distresses, even unto death […].”49 However, the audience suffers correction for their misdirection. Talbert draws on the very language of Prov 3:11–12 in Heb 12:5–6, where terms of reproof (ἐλέγχω) and scourging (µαστιγόω) appear in connection with the audience’s παιδεία. So, for Talbert the language of parental correction, even if it only appears in the quotation, signals that the audience is facing corrective education.50 Talbert’s work offers a clear overview of the general trends that appear in Greco-Roman and Jewish thought on suffering and applies them clearly and succinctly to the New Testament. As will be shown below, Croy demonstrates some weaknesses to Talbert’s simple delineation between GrecoRoman and Jewish approaches. Moreover, Croy argues that athletic imagery associated with so-called non-punitive approaches to suffering appears also where the author of Hebrews treats Prov 3:11–12 (Heb 12:1–4, 11–13), suggesting the author of Hebrews does not presuppose wrongdoing on the part of the audience. This would then accord with how the author presents Jesus’ suffering. Not only so, but Talbert fails to explain what the audience has done 45

Talbert, Learning, 20. Oed. col. 7 (Storr, LCL). This is the translation Talbert uses. However, lines 7–8 are better translated, “suffering has taught me to be content” (στέργειν γὰρ αἱ πάθαι µε […] διδάσκει; cf. ἐξαρκέω in line 6). This interpretation is also reflected in the newer LCL translation by Lloyd-Jones. 47 Prov. 2.6 (Basore, LCL). 48 Moreover, he argues 4 Maccabees represents a synthesis of the two backgrounds, such that this Jewish text understands suffering not as correction but as training in virtue, but still in a Jewish framework of “obedience to God and the Law.” Talbert, Learning, 16– 17, 20–21. 49 Talbert, Learning, 64, 73. 50 Talbert, Learning, 71, 73. 46

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

wrong or where they have gone astray. Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the corrective sounding language of the quotation, and we might ask why the author would include this language if he lacked any concern with some misdirection, and whether he has stated or hinted at any specific misdirection to be corrected. 2. Endurance in Suffering Having now surveyed some of the more important works before Croy’s monograph, we turn our attention to Endurance in Suffering itself. Since the book has influenced the subsequent literature so thoroughly and will be an important dialog partner of this study, the following section will also serve to outline the most important arguments for the non-punitive, or educational view of παιδεία in Hebrews. The book begins with an extensive history of research, but Croy finds no contemporary consensus in commentaries or monographs and dissertations on παιδεία. However, he does discover several trends: First, although the athletic imagery of verses 1–3 is universally recognized, the full extent of it has not been developed, nor is it often appreciated as an integrating feature of verses 1–13 […]. Secondly, since Hebrews 12.5–6 explicitly cites the book of Proverbs, the author’s understanding of suffering has primarily been interpreted via the matrix of Jewish wisdom literature. Greco-Roman interpretations of suffering, when they have entered the discussion at all, have usually been viewed in contrast to this Jewish matrix.51

Thus, the book moves forward by examining suffering as an athletic contest and suffering as divine discipline in Greco-Roman and Jewish perspectives. Then, in the final main section of the book, Croy exegetes Heb 12:1–13 and argues that the exposition of Prov 3:11–12 fits more with a non-punitive approach to divine discipline than a punitive one. We will survey each of these parts in turn, elucidating the main points and evidence presented. First, Croy begins by examining the athletic imagery in Hebrews, with special reference of course to chapter 12. He argues that while 12:1–3 may have been slightly influenced by Jewish martyrology, the dominant influence is that of the athletic contest. Indeed, athletic imagery appears especially strongly in 12:1: “Therefore, let us also, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, by setting aside every weight, even the sin which so easily entangles us, run with endurance the race [ἀγῶνα] set before us.” Here occurs a specific reference to athletic contest, or a race, with the mention of ἀγών. Altogether, the verse portrays a long distance run in the presence of many spectators, and in order to compete successfully, the athlete must remove his burdens. In 12:4 a compound of ἀγωνίζοµαι appears, where the readers are said to struggle against sin (ἀνταγωνιζόµενοι), and the com51

Croy, Endurance, 35.

Recent History of the Discussion

15

pound καταγωνίζοµαι appears in 11:33. Later, in 12:11, where the author explains his text from Proverbs, he writes that “all discipline seems at the time not to be joyful, but painful, but afterwards for those trained [γεγυµνασµένοις] by it, afterwards it yields peaceful fruit, namely righteousness.” The use of γυµνάζω here evokes the idea of training in the gymnasia, and furthers the athletic train of thought. Finally, elsewhere the audience’s sufferings are characterized by the image of struggle or contest with the term ἄθλησις (10:32).52 For Croy this supports the claim that Jesus is set up not as an exemplary martyr but as an exemplary enduring athlete.53 Moving ahead, Croy demonstrates that the use of athletic imagery in Hebrews accords with Greco-Roman moral exhortation.54 Though Croy surveys comments from many philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, a few prominent and most helpful examples come from the Cynics and Stoics. Dio Chrysostom, for instance, relates the encounter of Diogenes with a man at the Isthmian games. Diogenes claims to have come to compete, but to compete against the toughest competitors, namely hardships. Diogenes goes on to say that the noble (γενναῖος) man “holds his hardships to be his greatest antagonists”, such as hunger, cold, and thirst. He shows no weakness even though he must “endure the lash or give his body to be cut or burned.”55 Moreover, Epictetus characterizes God as a physical trainer,56 and Seneca exhorts his reader to “win the way to victory in all our struggles” like an athlete tortured in training. But the reward “is not a garland or palm […] but rather virtue, steadfastness of soul, and a peace that is won for all time [virtus et firmitas animi et pax in ceterum parta] […].”57 So, the Greco-Roman philosophers employ athletic images to depict their understandings of suffering and hardships. Yet, similar application of athletics appears in Jewish texts as well. In both Philo and 4 Maccabees, both of which exhibit strong Hellenistic influences, athletic imagery also appears. For example, Philo characterizes Moses and those under him as athletes of virtue, and the good man turning to God wins “a noble race” and proves to be “a victor in this grandest of all contests.”58 Similarly, 4 Maccabees describes the experience of the Jewish martyrs in terms of athletic contest: For truly the contest engaged in by them was divine, for then virtue, having tested them by their endurance, offered an award. The victory prize was incorruptibility in everlasting life. […] The tyrant opposed them, and the world and humanity watched on. Piety won the

52

Croy, Endurance, 41–42. Croy, Endurance, 58–70. 54 Croy, Endurance, 44. 55 Virt. (Or. 8) 15, 16 (Cahoon, LCL). 56 Diatr. 1.24.1; cf. 3.24.113. 57 Ep. 78.16 (Gummere, LCL). See Croy, Endurance, 43–53. 58 Praem. 4–5; Leg. 3.48 (Colson, LCL). 53

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

victory and crowned its own athletes. Who did not marvel at the athletes of the divine legislation? Who were not amazed? (17:11–12, 14–16).59

Here similar concepts appear as in Heb 12, and while the focus here, as well as in Philo, is on virtue, the contestants are surrounded by spectators in their test of endurance, and their reward is long-lasting life, incorruption. In the next chapter, Croy examines divine suffering as understood in the Greco-Roman and Jewish traditions. He is particularly interested in whether one can find a sharp divide between the two traditions in their treatment of suffering. Though previous studies, and Talbert’s work in particular, had typically seen divine discipline in Greco-Roman works as non-punitive (or not presupposing guilt on the part of the sufferer) and Jewish treatments as punitive (or presupposing guilt on the part of the sufferer), Croy proves this dichotomy false. In both sets of sources both types of suffering can be found. However, Croy makes the point that with regard to Jewish literature, those who exhibit non-punitive understandings of suffering also show evidence of non-Jewish influences, for example the strongly Hellenistic 4 Maccabees and of course Philo.60 Beginning with the Jewish literature, Croy reviews an extensive number of texts, analyzing them in terms of the punitive/non-punitive distinction. One of the most important examples of a punitive understanding of divine discipline is Prov 3:11–12 (LXX): “Son, do not regard lightly the discipline [παιδείας] of the Lord, and do not grow weary of his reproof. For whom the Lord loves he disciplines [παιδεύει], and he scourges every son he accepts.” The verses certainly appear to portray the image of a father correcting his son for wrongdoing, and this image is intensified in the LXX in comparison to the Hebrew with the use of µαστιγόω. According to Croy, although παιδεία appears here in connection with punitive correction, παιδεία also appears in Proverbs with the non-punitive sense of instruction, for example in 4:1 (LXX): “Listen, sons, to the instruction [παιδείαν] of a father, and pay attention that you may come to know knowledge”, where not correction, but education is in mind. Fourth Maccabees and Philo also offer instructive examples. Whereas 2 and 3 Maccabees generally understand calamities as punishment for sin (2 Macc 5:17, 6:12–16; 3 Macc 2:13–20), 4 Maccabees offers a view that could be described as training in virtue: “We, most abominable tyrant, are suffering these things for the sake of divine discipline and virtue” (διὰ παιδείαν καὶ ἀρετὴν θεοῦ; 10:10; cf. 1:8; 7:22; 9:18). Elsewhere the author treats suffering as associated with piety: “Therefore those who gave over their bodies to suf59 Gk.: Ἀληθῶς γὰρ ἦν ἀγὼν θεῖος ὁ δι’ αὐτῶν γεγενηµένος. ἠθλοθέτει γὰρ τότε ἀρετὴ δι’ ὑποµονῆς δοκιµάζουσα. τὸ νῖκος ἀφθαρσία ἐν ζωῇ πολυχρονίῳ. […] ὁ τύραννος ἀντηγωνίζετο, ὁ δὲ κόσµος καὶ ὁ τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος ἐθεώρει, θεοσέβεια δὲ ἐνίκα τοὺς ἑαυτῆς ἀθλητὰς στεφανοῦσα. τίνες οὐκ ἐθαύµασαν τοὺς τῆς θείας νοµοθεσίας ἀθλητάς; τίνες οὐκ ἐξεπλάγησαν; 60 Croy, Endurance, 132.

Recent History of the Discussion

17

ferings for the sake of piety were not only marveled at by men, but were also were deemed worthy of a divine portion” (18:3; cf. 6:22; 9:6; 13:1–18). In the case of Philo, both non-punitive and punitive treatments of discipline appear. First, Cain receives the punishment of being “for ever in a state of dying”, of experiencing “sufferings unceasing” in return for fratricide.61 In De cherubim, however, Philo characterizes sufferings as the opportunity to strengthen a person in endurance. In fact, suffering is a fact of life, and so one should endure bravely and “fortify resolution” with “patience and endurance.”62 So, while suffering comes inevitably, Philo encourages a noble reaction to it, in which the sufferer establishes his virtues of endurance and patience. In fact, he also distinguishes between the pains a boxer experiences and the punishing, painful blows imparted upon a slave or guilty free man. The boxer seeks to take pains in stride, while the guilty and the slave suffer passively (79–82). Thus, it has become clear from the foregoing that in the Jewish literature both punitive and non-punitive understandings of suffering occur. As Croy builds his case through the book, however, he sees closer parallels in Hebrews with the sense of suffering as training in virtue. While this idea appears in 4 Maccabees and in Philo, several important examples also appear in the Greco-Roman literature, especially from Seneca. To begin, however, Croy notes that sin could also serve as a source of suffering even in the Greco-Roman literature. For instance, the ghost of Darius, in Aeschylus’s Persae, claims that his men suffer and will suffer more because they plundered “the images of the gods and set fire to temples” in Greece.63 Offering a moderate view, Plato suggests that poets should only attribute punishment to God if God metes it out in justice and if those punished profit from the punishment.64 As Croy points out: “Plato thus severely restricts the punitive view of suffering. Suffering can only be construed as divinely sent chastisement if it has some beneficial effect on those punished.”65 As the chapter progresses, Croy discusses non-punitive suffering, but the discussion reaches its climax with Seneca. Seneca treats suffering in several 61

Praem. 70, 72 (Colson, LCL). Cher. 78 (Colson, LCL). 63 Pers. 809–15 (Sommerstein, LCL). 64 “But if any poets compose a ‘Sorrows of Niobe,’ the poem that contains these iambics, or a tale of the Pelopidae or of Troy, or anything else of the kind, we must either forbid them to say that these woes are the work of God, or they must devise some such interpretation as we now require, and must declare that what God did was righteous and good, and they were benefited by their chastisement.” This is an exception to 379C: “For the good we must assume no other cause than God, but the cause of evil we must look for in other things and not in God” (Plato, Resp. 379C, 380A–B [Shorey, LCL]). Cf. Philo, Congr. 179. 65 Croy, Endurance, 139. 62

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

places, but the most important is his essay De providentia. Though we cannot treat the entire document here, its significance can hardly be understated, both for understanding Heb 12 and for the development of interpretations of Heb 12, as will be seen below. Seneca devotes the work to the question of why evils happen to good people “if the world is led by Providence” (si providentia mundus ageretur; 1.1). A couple of striking arguments arise, which parallel interestingly with Hebrews and even the Jewish wisdom tradition. In 1.5, man is designated as God’s “student and imitator and true offspring, whom that eminent parent, being no mild enforcer of virtues, raises with great severity like strict fathers.”66 The parent-child relationship idea resonates obviously with Hebrews 12. This fatherly analogy comes up again in 4.11– 12, and Seneca expresses the educative, strengthening results of struggles: Do you imagine that the Lacedaemonians hate their children when they test their mettle by lashing them in public? Their own fathers call upon them to endure bravely the blows of the whip […]. Why, then, is it strange if God tries noble spirits with severity? No proof of virtue is ever mild. If we are lashed and torn by Fortune, let us bear it; it is not cruelty but a struggle, and the oftener we engage in it, the stronger we shall be (Basore, LCL).

Elsewhere Seneca describes the results of this fatherly treatment thusly, God “does not make a spoiled pet of a good man; he tests him, hardens him, and fits him for his own service” (1.6; Basore, LCL). Moreover, “God hardens, reviews, and disciplines [or excercises] those whom he approves, whom he loves” (Hos itaque dues quos probat, quos amat, indurate, recognoscit, exercet; 4.7; Basore, LCL). Based on this cursory overview of examples, it is not difficult to agree with Croy that Seneca’s approach to suffering “is clearly to be classed as formative and almost invariably non-punitive.”67 In the last main chapter of the book, Croy takes up a comprehensive exegesis of Heb 12:1–13. The very details of the exegesis will concern us later, but a few points bear mentioning for the sake of the history of research. First, Croy takes the situation of the readers as one of present sufferings and persecution. The community is struggling not with internal sin deserving punishment, but external opposition.68 Second, Croy notes that the more punitive aspects of the Prov 3:11–12 quotation go unmentioned in Hebrews’ exposi66 Lt.: discipulus eius aemulatorque et vera progenies, quam parens ille magnificus, virtutum non lenis exactor, sicut severi patres, durius educat. 67 Croy, Endurance, 150. 68 Croy, Endurance, 162–64, 199, 213. See also deSilva’s work, which emphasizes that the community is faced with shaming from the outside that seeks to pull this minority group back into the mainstream. David A. deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SBLDS 152 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). On the other side of the discussion is Schmidt, who takes the problem of Hebrews as moral lethargy. Thomas E. Schmidt, “Moral Lethargy and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” WTJ 54 (1992): 167–73.

Recent History of the Discussion

19

tion of the text. He thus emphasizes that the presence of the quotation itself offers no decisive interpretive clue for understanding παιδεία. Rather, the exegete must pay attention to what Hebrews does with the quotation.69 These two points lead up to the main argument of the chapter, that Hebrews’ exposition shows relevant and decisive parallels to the Greco-Roman non-punitive treatments of suffering. It is worth quoting Croy at length: Beyond just the language, however, the concept and images of παιδεία have much in common. In both Seneca and Hebrews, the image according to which God allows persons to suffer hardship is the father/child relationship (De Prov 1.6; 2.6; Heb. 12.9). In both, the fatherly love of God is affirmed despite the harshness of the experience of suffering (De Prov. 2.6; 4.7; Heb. 12.6, 11). In both, the intended effect of suffering is growth, maturation, and learning (De Prov. 2.2–4, 7–9; Heb. 12.1–3, 11). In both, a list of exemplars of suffering is given (De Prov 3.4–14; Heb. 11.1–12.3). In neither is there any suggestion that suffering is inflicted by deity as punishment for wrongdoing […]. Such a high amount of correspondence suggests that the author of Hebrews was in tune with the pagan philosophical currents of his day, specifically Stoic ideas.70

Despite these commonalities, Croy admits differences between Stoicism and Hebrews. While the stoic sage aimed to be “free and self-sufficient”,71 in Hebrews παιδεία aims for a share in God’s holiness, which Croy interprets primarily as eschatological.72 To summarize then, Croy has argued through a comprehensive analysis of Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, that Hebrews displays more affinity with non-punitive understandings of suffering than of punitive ones. That is to say, Hebrews does not accuse the audience of wrongdoing and then suggest that their suffering is a result or even corrective of their failings. Rather, like the heroes who went before them and even Jesus himself,73 the audience is called to accept their sufferings as God’s discipline, which trains them for a share in God’s holiness. As will be seen, Croy’s work has won a great deal of followers, and with the care he has displayed in presenting the argument, it is no wonder the book has had such an impact. However, there are a few areas for further development similar to those mentioned in the discussion of Logan. First, Croy gives little attention to sin in 12:1 and 4. Though the morality of the philosophers had to do with such virtues as endurance and goodness (as in Seneca for example), Hebrews seems to place a larger stress on sin in particular, and even in 12:14–17 the author returns to an ethical exhortation on peace and the immorality of Esau. Thus, more consideration of this specific moral language 69

Croy, Endurance, 198–99. Croy, Endurance, 205. 71 Croy, Endurance, 205. 72 Croy, Endurance, 206. 73 Croy, Endurance, 214. 70

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

is necessary in order to develop what sort of “growth, maturation, and learning”74 is envisaged in Hebrews. Related, we need to consider the struggling of the community. The author charges the audience with a failure to move forward and mature. He suggests they also need training to discern good and evil (5:11–14). Moreover, Hebrews shows a continuing concern with obedience and the problem of sin (3:13, 18; 4:6; 5:1–2; 5:8–9; 11:25). Though the audience certainly is facing a threat from the outside, the author depicts the threat more in terms of the temptation of sin (cf. Moses, 11:25) and a holding back from advancing in maturity. How might consideration of these problems apply to chapter 12? Second, Croy offers very little treatment of the actual use of the proverb in the passage. That is, he offers little analysis of how the author uses this proverb in relation to how he uses other OT scriptures. He does, however, note that the proverb is suitable to the author’s purpose of demonstrating that παιδεία implies of a loving filial relationship,75 but one could say the same of Deut 8:5, which as we shall see below, has become a point of discussion. Since the OT serves as the most significant source for the author’s argumentation, this issue requires some more developed consideration of the author’s exegesis and use of this proverb (Prov 3:11–12) and Prov 4:26 in Heb 12:13. Does the author concern himself with the context of passages he quotes explicitly? Do other themes or concepts from the contexts of his quotations occur in his exposition? If so, how might this be significant to understanding the passage? 3. Works since Endurance in Suffering Thus far we have examined a few studies which preceded Croy’s monograph and we have examined the book itself. Now we turn to the literature that has appeared since. Endurance in Suffering has generally enjoyed a welcome, positive reception in the commentaries. Specifically, the volumes by Backhaus, deSilva, Johnson, Koester, and Thompson make a point to classify divine discipline as non-punitive or formative.76 David deSilva’s Perseverance 74

Croy, Endurance, 205. Croy, Endurance, 210. 76 Knut Backhaus, Der Hebräerbrief, RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 2009), 421–22; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 446–450; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 313, 319–326; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 526–27; James W. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 251–52. Martin Karrer also leans in this direction, though less explicitly than the others. Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 2 vols., ÖTK (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008), 2:319–20. 75

Recent History of the Discussion

21

in Gratitude, for example, is the first to incorporate Croy’s research, and he reiterates several of the main arguments, including the parallels with Seneca, the athletic imagery, and the lack of punitive terminology in the exposition of Prov 3:11–12. For deSilva, Heb 12:5–11 “would have been as much at home in Seneca’s parlor as in the synagogue.”77 He develops further the purpose of this formative or educative discipline. He ties it, of course, with the need for endurance, a key virtue in the ancient world, but he also ties it to moral training, since according to 12:11 the goal is the formation of righteousness or justice: “Through these training exercises, the moral faculty of the believers is formed and strengthened, so that the believer learns how always to choose to honor God and to honor his or her obligations to fellow believers.”78 Luke Timothy Johnson likewise draws on Croy in treating discipline as nonpunitive, even translating παιδεία as education.79 Johnson also, like deSilva, draws out the moral implications of this education, seeing it as a part of moral formation in Christian discipleship: “The meaning of discipleship in Hebrews, then, is more than a matter of loyalty to the confession or the practice of virtue. It means walking in the path of transformation into true and mature children of God”,80 and this is accordingly a moral and religious transformation.81 Others nevertheless show some difference of opinion. Peter O’Brien, in his commentary, despite awareness of Croy’s work, describes discipline imprecisely, as involving “training, instruction, and firm guidance as well as reproof, correction, and punishment.”82 Later, however, he more specifically describes discipline as corrective, claiming that the notion of a παιδευτής in 12:9 “is that of a moral instructor who corrects through discipline.”83 O’Brien acknowledges parallels between Hebrews and Stoicism, but highlights the difference in goals: the Stoics sought self-sufficiency and freedom in a person, while in Hebrews the goal is a share in God’s holiness.84 Similarly, Gareth Cockerill, while taking discipline as non-punitive, argues that Croy has overdrawn some of the parallels, “giving Stoic and Greco-Roman parallels significance denied them by the context of Hebrews.” Continuing, he avers that this overdrawing of parallels is also a problem in Johnson’s transla-

77

DeSilva, Perseverance, 449. DeSilva, Perseverance, 453–54. 79 Johnson, Hebrews, 313. 80 Johnson, Hebrews, 58–59. 81 Johnson, Hebrews, 317. 82 Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 464. 83 O’Brien, Letter, 466–67. Koester, however, is sure to note that a παιδευτής was not simply a punisher. Koester, Hebrews, 529. 84 O’Brien, Letter, 468. 78

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

tion of παιδεία as education, which for Cockerill misconstrues the point.85 For him, discipline is a means by which God’s sons and daughters become “hardened and confirmed in the way of obedience.”86 While Stoicism maintained that suffering produces self-sufficiency, in Hebrews it fortifies the sufferer’s commitment; thus, the author of Hebrews has used Stoic imagery but makes a different point.87 This is a fair objection made by O’Brien and Cockerill that could be easily overlooked when reading Endurance in Suffering, but it must be noted that Croy does acknowledge the difference in goals.88 While Croy acknowledges the differences between the Stoic parallels and the result or goal of παιδεία in Hebrews, the commentaries have gone a bit further in laying out the function and goals of παιδεία for Hebrews. For instance, Cockerill contends that it works to harden the audience in obedience, as mentioned above, and the resulting righteousness means “to persevere in obedience by faith despite opposition.”89 This is perhaps the most satisfying approach, since it keeps to the language and overall argument of Hebrews. Koester comes close to this idea in contending that παιδεία includes both instruction and practice through testing in order to toughen the one being disciplined.90 However, it is notable that the idea of testing, while present elsewhere,91 does not appear in the argument of 12:1–17, though neither does obedience. We saw that deSilva treats this moral training as developing the ability to honor God and fellow believers, and he further writes that the outcome is “to be fitted to live as honorable citizens of the city that God has prepared for them.”92 But the point in Hebrews seems rather to be that one needs to undergo training in righteousness and pursue sanctification and peace in order to have a place with God, not that one needs to develop honor as such or that suffering παιδεία constitutes preparation.93 The idea that discipline makes the disciplined fitted for God seems to take too much from the famous Seneca quotation from Prov. 1.6.

85

Gareth L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 615–18, 618 n. 16. 86 Cockerill, Hebrews, 616. 87 Cockerill, Hebrews, 618. 88 Croy, Endurance, 205. 89 Cockerill, Hebrews, 628. 90 Koester, Hebrews, 527. 91 Heb 2:18; 3:8–9; 4:15; 11:17. We must bear in mind that in 3:8–9 the testing is the testing of God by the sinful wilderness generation, not the testing of the wilderness generation by God. 92 DeSilva, Perseverance, 454. 93 DeSilva states, “Their honor as sons and daughters of God depends on, and is manifested by, their experience of discipline” (Perseverance, 454). Here deSilva makes too much of his focus on honor and shame.

Recent History of the Discussion

23

Beyond the commentaries, some writers have brought other objections or studies forward that cast some doubt on the non-punitive interpretation of discipline. Cynthia Westfall finds Croy’s arguments that Heb 12:4–13 concerns non-punitive suffering unconvincing.94 She argues that the concern with sin in 12:1 and the spiritual regression of the readers suggest corrective discipline could apply to the passage. This issue of sin, as well as the corrective aspects of Prov 3:11–12, leads Ched Spellman also to doubt the purely nonpunitive interpretation and to favor rather a both/and approach, viewing punitive and non-punitive aspects of discipline as applicable.95 Related to the latter point, Westfall avers that the bifurcation of sources into punitive and non-punitive is inadvisable. She also considers it a weakness that Croy does not interact with the possible influence of the Christian oral tradition or with Paul as a part of the Christian framework related to Hebrews. Westfall and Spellman’s critiques thus encourage further study. Other early Christian traditions seem at the outset less than profitable, but it would be helpful to further investigate the relevance of sin and spiritual regression as well as other morally pregnant passages in Hebrews and how they relate to chapter 12. John Fitzgerald, who surprisingly never interacts with Croy directly, has read Hebrews 12:1–13 as consciously drawing on the tradition of corporal punishment not only in the Jewish tradition, but also in the Greco-Roman educational tradition as a point of contact with the audience’s real experience as children.96 That is, Hebrews evokes the audience’s own painful educational experiences as children in casting the argument. This approach would help explain why the painful, corrective language of Prov 3:11–12 can be employed in our passage, but at the same time it raises the question of how the author can employ painful parental-educational imagery to drive an argument that apparently casts this experience as non-punitive. Karrer actually latches onto this imagery as well and appears to find no tension between the nonpunitive approach to suffering and the image of the whip or rod. According to him, the author wants to draw his readers back to their education in the gymnasia: “In diesen Traditionen trieb sie die Peitsche zum Guten an […]. Körperliche Pein und Nötigung halfen, das Rechte zu tun.”97 But how precisely does such pain help the disciplined to do what is right? The corporal punishment tradition present in Proverbs (13:24; 22:15; 23:13–14; 29:15) and 94

Cynthia Westfall, review of N. Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering, JSNT 76 (1999): 120–21. 95 Ched E. Spellman, “When Hope Screams: Learning how to Suffer as Sons from the Book of Hebrews,” SwJT 53 (2011): 123 n. 41. 96 John T. Fitzgerald, “Proverbs 3:11–12, Hebrews 12:5–6, and the Tradition of Corporal Punishment,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay, ed. Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 291–317. 97 Karrer, Brief, 2:318.

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

in the larger Greco-Roman world require some further developed reflection. Could the painful side of education in antiquity be understood in a nonpunitive way? Or is this even a fair category to employ? Can we reconcile the seeming discrepancy between imagery and argument, or is the discrepancy only a false dichotomy unfitting of the ancient world? The question of the corporal punishment tradition of course raises the question of why the author chooses Prov 3:11–12 at all. Philo uses this text in a similar context, even drawing out the father-son relationship proven by the proverb (Congr. 177), but the lack of any corrective themes and indeed the exclusion of further repentance altogether in Hebrews makes the choice seem strange. Interestingly, this has led David M. Allen to suggest that the author rather “exegetes the quotation on the basis of Deut 8:2–5”, which is found in a wilderness context that conceives of discipline as formative.98 This would then explain how the author can interpret the text non-punitively. In fact, Allen sees Heb 12 as the closest Hebrews comes to placing the audience in the desert themselves, precisely because of the association of παιδεία and the wilderness period.99 Matthew Thiessen has taken up this thesis and developed it further, suggesting that Heb 12 in fact shows correspondence with common Jewish thinking on the wilderness period as a time of discipline and trials, as particularly evidenced in Josephus and Philo. This would accordingly further support the case that even though neither Deut 8 nor the wilderness receive explicit mention in Heb 12, the author means to place the audience in the narrative world of the wilderness for understanding their sufferings.100 On the face of it, this approach, built first of all on the argument concerning the use (or abuse?) of Prov 3:11–12 is very unlikely. The idea that the author would cite one text while applying a different, unmentioned one seems like an unwarranted grasp beyond the bounds of the text of Hebrews itself, especially when the parallel usage of the proverb in Philo functions in a similar way as in Hebrews.101 Moreover, when Hebrews does explicity draw on 98

David M. Allen, Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Representation, WUNT II/238 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 82. 99 Allen, Deuteronomy, 195. 100 Matthew Thiessen, “Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline,” NTS 55 (2009): 366–79. For his full discussion of the placing of the audience in the wilderness, see Matthew Thiessen, “Hebrews and the End of the Exodus,” NovT 49 (2007): 353–69. On the narrative world approach, or “scriptural world” approach to which Thiessen appeals, see Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Scriptural World of Hebrews,” Int 57 (2003): 237–50. 101 Georg Walser has sought to substantiate the idea that ancient authors would cite one text while exegeting quite another, but he can offer almost no justification for the claim. See Georg Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews, WUNT II/356 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) and Phillip Davis, review of Georg Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews, SNTSU.A 39 (2014): 258–60.

Recent History of the Discussion

25

the wilderness motif, it is associated with sin and rebellion (Heb 3–4). Thiessen’s arguments in support of Allen by drawing on other Jewish traditions are helpful for illuminating Heb 12 in some ways, but the appeal to an overarching narrative to Hebrews also can mask the diverse ways with which it treats a whole variety of themes.102 Heb 12:1–17 does indeed fit into the larger scheme of what the author is trying to convey, but placing 12:1–17 under the rubric of the wilderness may not be the right way to proceed, particularly starting from the rather flimsy foundation of supposed dependence on Deut 8. But more to our purposes here, none of this really explains why the author chose Prov 3:11–12. It may possibly explain how the author means to construe discipline, but the question remains why a so-called punitive text can be employed in this position, and this very phenomenon should cast some doubt upon the punitive/non-punitive heuristic. The issue, then, of the use of Prov 3:11–12, as well as the allusion to Prov 4:26 (the use of which also calls into question the associations with Deuteronomy), remains open.103 102

Not only is the host of literature on complex terminology in Hebrews, such as faith or perfection, symptomatic of the difficulty of trying to pin Hebrews down into one overarching conception of a word or idea, but even the depiction of Jesus’ death in Hebrews evinces diverse interplay between different individual interpretations of Jesus’ death. Hermut Löhr has ably demonstrated what he calls “Christus-Fabeln” in Hebrews, treating the different interpretations of Jesus’ death in Hebrews as different tellings of his death that cannot simply be subsumed into the larger theme of Jesus’ soteriological self-sacrifice. This is most evident (and convincing) in 2:10–18, which may in fact relate to ancient stories of descents into hell (cf. Harold W. Attridge, “Liberating Death’s Captives: Reconsideration of an early Christian Myth,” in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World, ed. James E. Goehring et al. [Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990], 103–15), and 12:2, where Jesus’ death serves as a sign of the obedience of the faithful leader. See Hermut Löhr, “Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung des Todes Jesu nach dem Hebräerbrief: Ein Versuch,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, 2nd ed., ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 455–76. 103 Ched Spellman has most recently drawn on Allen and Thiessen in seeking to support his dual, punitive and non-punitive reading of discipline. He basically seeks to connect Proverbs, Deuteronomy, the wilderness motif, and Hebrews. He first argues that the flexibility of the term παιδεία in Proverbs – sometimes it indicates instruction, sometimes correction, as is well known – suggests both instruction and correction could be involved in Heb 12. Next, he finds in Deuteronomy a significant concern with obedience and fatherly instruction, both of which are echoed in Proverbs. Finally, he argues the wilderness period was both corrective and educational (for the former, he must appeal beyond Deuteronomy, namely to Numbers). These various dualities suggest for him that precisely such a dual understanding may fit Heb 12. However, Spellman’s biblical-theological approach fails to convince. In following Thiessen, he greatly overemphasizes the wilderness motif, and if one takes up the punitive/non-punitive heuristic, it must be acknowledged that the two are mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, Spellman’s combining of the two sides is not completely false insofar as all παιδεία should be understood as positive and beneficial (see chapter 3 below), but this is precisely the point at which the heuristic obscures rather than

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

4. Conclusion The work produced since Endurance in Suffering offers us a few areas for further investigation. We have seen that the majority of commentators agree with Croy that discipline in Heb 12 is non-punitive; after all, discipline does not produce repentance (which is impossible for Hebrews anyway), but rather leads to a share in God’s holiness and the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Thus, παιδεία serves the Formung des Menschen, as Backhaus puts it, and more specifically, this Formung is moral formation. Yet what is the significance of such moral formation and can we make “moral formation” more specific? Why is it important for the argument of Hebrews? There has been no consensus development regarding this question. As seen above, Jentsch viewed this development as facilitating salvation. DeSilva sees it as having to do with learning to show honor in preparation for heavenly citizenship, while Cockerill views it as hardening in obedience and faithfulness. Koester likewise appeals to hardening through testing. These approaches are certainly headed in the right direction, and to some extent are different ways of saying the same thing. Yet, the diverse ways of construing the purpose and place of παιδεία in Hebrews reflect the diverse formulations of the issues within Hebrews itself. One way of advancing the discussion, of formulating and understanding “moral formation” more precisely, would be to look closer at the strikingly explicit moral language of 12:1–17, language which surprisingly has garnered little sustained attention despite its complexity and to some degree oddity. Sin language, which occurs three times in the first four verses of our passage, comes up often in Hebrews, but only in three other cases in the entire book is it used apart from cultic contexts (3:13; 10:26; 11:25). Why does the author repeat such language here? Is there any connection to sin here and its twentyone occurrences in cultic discussion? Plus, why do the terms of immorality and profanity become the language of choice at the end of the passage (12:16)? As mentioned, such language was cause for question for Westfall and Spellman; it is certainly worth investigating whether they were on to something. Furthermore, what about the awkwardly worded result of παιδεία, the peaceful fruit of righteousness (12:11)? Righteousness language in particular occurs in eight other places in Hebrews. What is its import here? Is the author speaking of one of the cardinal virtues (perhaps more along the lines of justice), or does he mean something else? And these are only a few of the important moral terms of the passage; what of peace and endurance? Moreover, are holiness and sanctification of any moral importance, or are they only cultic? If we are to speak of the moral-formative nature of παιδεία in Heclarifies. See Ched E. Spellman, “The Drama of Discipline: Toward an Intertextual Profile of PAIDEIA in Hebrews 12,” JETS 59, no. 3 (2016): 487–506.

The Way Forward

27

brews, we will have to delineate further what these terms mean for Hebrews specifically and try to stick as close as possible to how the author forms the argument within this passage before appealing to language which appears elsewhere but is missing from 12:1–17. Not only are these aspects of moral language worth investigating, but so is the employment of the painful imagery of parental education in antiquity and the employment of Proverbs (3:11–12 and 4:26). On the one hand, Croy and those taking the non-punitive view of discipline have shown that correction and repentance play no role in Heb 12, and this makes it difficult to account for the use of a punitive proverb. Yet on the other hand, 12:7–11 plays on the parental-educative scene evoked by the proverb itself. Is it possible to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the imagery and the argument? The simple observation that Hebrews does not reemploy the harsher language of whipping and rebuke from the source text is not satisfying, and the proposal that the author meant to play on some other text completely is cause for reconsideration of the problem altogether.

The Way Forward

III. The Way Forward

Beginning with the tentative assumption that divine discipline in Heb 12 should be understood as non-punitive, we want to account for the moral language of Heb 12:1–17 in the light of Hebrews’ moral thought. Thus, in chapter 2 we will delineate and justify the scope of our passage and then turn to the moral thought of Hebrews, with a view toward, but not limited to, the problematic moral terms occurring in Heb 12. With chapter 3 we turn our attention to traditions of corporal punishment and education in antiquity, while in chapter 4 we examine Prov 3–4 and its resonance with Heb 12, as well as other close parallels to Prov 3:11–12 in the OT, Second Temple literature, and early Christian literature. This latter part offers clues as to the interpretive possibilities open to the author of Hebrews. Chapter 5 will then begin to put the pieces together by examining 12:1–17 directly and in light of the foregoing investigations. The final chapter will offer the customary summary conclusions.

Chapter 2

Hebrews’ Moral Thought As expressed in chapter one, the moral terms of Heb 12 present a number of challenges for interpreters, even beyond the issue of παιδεία. The present chapter seeks to put the moral concerns of Heb 12 into context, to have a look elsewhere in Hebrews in order to shed light on its moral thought, particularly its moral argument as well as the usage of a few moral terms appearing in our main passage of Heb 12. We want to ask, how does the larger moral argumentation and exhortation of Hebrews affect a moral reading of Heb 12? We immediately encounter exhortations related to sin and endurance in chapter 12, but does the author show similar concerns elsewhere, and if so, how does he construe them or put them into detail? How does the author ultimately conceive of the problem facing the audience? To begin, we must delimit our primary passage of interest, and then we turn to the remainder of Hebrews.

I. Limits of the Passage Limits of the Passage In dealing with divine παιδεία, its purpose, and results, it seems most reasonable to treat the entire stretch of material from 12:1 through 12:17. While there is lesser debate about the beginning of the section, the larger issue concerns the end of the unit. Thus, the main question is whether to limit analysis from 12:1 through 12:11, 12:13, or 12:17.1 As to the beginning, we may consider 12:1 a new section on the basis of the strong inferential particle τοιγαροῦν and the hortatory subjunctive τρέχωµεν. This is not to overlook, however, the obvious connections to chapter 11. The first sentence in 12:1–2 logically flows from chapter 11 and we find similar themes in chapter 11 and the first several verses of chapter 12, such as perfection (11:40; 12:2), witness/witnesses (11:39; 12:1), and faith (11:39 et passim; 12:2).2 Nevertheless, 1

Some, however, view verses 14–29 as a unit. See note 4 below. Westfall adds suffering and death (11:35–38; 12:2, 4) to the connections between the two chapters, but we will argue in chapter 4 below that Heb 12 does not focus on death (12:2–3 does not mention Jesus’ death, only the shame of the cross and hostility against him) or suffering as such, but rather on the right response to the educating Father. Westfall points to an entire “semantic chain” connecting faith with death throughout chapter 11. See verses 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37. Cf. the discussion on Heb 2

Limits of the Passage

29

the text shifts in focus from the heroes of the past to the audience and to Jesus. Moreover, 12:1–4 returns to the twin themes from 10:26–39 of sin (previously mentioned in 10:26, and briefly in 11:25) and endurance (previously mentioned in 10:32–36). Finally, τρέχωµεν in 12:1 and τροχιά in 12:13 establish an inclusio, further suggesting we take 12:1 as the beginning of a new unit.3 Despite the inclusio formed between 12:1–2 and 12:13, there is good reason not to end the unit at 12:13. We should first recognize a new paragraph at 12:12. Such a break is supported on similar grounds as with 12:1, because of the inferential διό and the three imperatives that follow (ἀνορθώσατε, ποιεῖτε, διώκετε). Some propose a break at verse 14,4 but verse 14 should be included within the same subunit as verses 12 and 13, thereby forming a paragraph from verse 12 through verse 17. Under this construal, the imperative, διώκετε in verse 14, though it is not connected by any conjunction with the other two imperatives, follows from διό just like ἀνορθώσατε and ποιεῖτε. This structuring makes sense as the pursuit of peace and holiness in 14 logically follows from the exhortation in 12:4–11 just as much as the commands to straighten weak hands and knees and to make straight paths. This is because according to verses 10–11, παιδεία results in a share in God’s holiness and the peaceful fruit of righteousness.5 So, even though διώκετε is not tied with a καί or some 11 below. Cynthia Long Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of Hebrews the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning, LNTS 297 (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 256. 3 Croy, Endurance, 166; Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, SubBi 12 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 30. 4 Ellingworth says the lack of connectives in v. 14 suggests it goes with what follows rather than with what precedes. Croy, Endurance, 166, makes verses 12–13 their own paragraph, arguing that verses 14–17 leave athletic imagery behind. It is doubtful, however, that these verses convey athletic imagery (see chapter 4 below). Lane considers verses 14 through 29 as a section because of 1) the similar themes of holiness and seeing God and 2) the threat of apostasy. Yet, concerns with holiness and sin also connect 12–17 with 1– 11. Moreover, mention of the spirits of the righteous made perfect of verse 23b seems to hark back to verses 9–11, where respecting the father of spirits results in righteousness and life. This goes to show the close intertwining of the entire chapter. But, if for nothing other than practical reasons, we must limit ourselves. Ultimately the major shift in scenes in 18– 24 to Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem justifies limiting ourselves to verses 1–17 (cf. Westfall, Discourse, 273–47). See Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 661; William L. Lane, Hebrews, 2 vols., WBC 47 (Dallas: Word, 1991), 2:445; cf. Ceslas Spicq, L’Épitre aux Hébreux, 2 vols., EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953), 2:396, 398; Vanhoye, Structure, 31–32. 5 So also Westfall, Discourse, 266–67. Vanhoye avers that the command to strengthen weak hands and knees applies to the theme of endurance from the preceding section, while the command to make straight paths introduces a new theme, elaborated from verse 14 on, having to do with the moral life of the Christian. He is no doubt correct that making paths straight, with allusion to Prov 4:26, has to do with moral living (see the further discussion

30

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

other connector as are the first two imperatives, it is nonetheless possible to explain its dependence on the preceding section together with the first two imperatives, and therefore it is unnecessary to relegate it to a new paragraph. Yet, not only do the commands to seek peace and holiness themselves connect with what precedes, but the theme of holiness continues through the example of Esau, taking us up to verse 17. In verse 15, the author warns against the bitter root that would defile many, and in verse 16 Esau is described as (sexually) immoral and profane (πόρνος; βέβηλος).6 In fact, the example of Esau forms a thematic frame with 12:1–4. The depiction of Esau as immoral and profane not only contrasts with peace and holiness, but it also evokes the notion of sin, which of course arises in the first verses of the chapter as something to put off and to struggle against.7 Additionally, Esau’s behavior stands in opposite relation to Jesus’, and the description of these opposite exemplars finds expression in essentially the same syntactical structure (relative pronoun, ἀντὶ, object of the preposition, main verb, direct object). Whereas Jesus endured the cross for the sake of the joy set before him (ὃς ἀντὶ τῆς προκειµένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς ὑπέµεινεν σταυρὸν), Esau sold his birthright for the sake of one single meal (ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως µιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ). The motivations of the two examples juxtapose one another in that one looks beyond the present situation to ultimate joy, while the other gives in to temporary pleasure (cf. 11:25). Accordingly, we can view 12:1–17 as one section broken into two paragraphs and framed by two opposite exemplars. Thus, based on the foregoing considerations, we will treat 12:1–17 together. These observations suggest it is insufficient to treat the questions surrounding παιδεία only by reference to 12:1–13 as Croy does.8 Without considering the moral exhortations that arise out of the author’s construal of παιδεία, the significance of the moral terms of verses 1–11 could appear rather tangential to the passage. However, when all seventeen verses are taken together, we find further clues that bring the language of sin, holiness, peace, and righteousness into sharper relief, and this offers us more to consider about the author’s purposes.

in chapter 4 below), but he is incorrect to take this as a new topic. Rather, the importance of the moral life has already arisen as a theme in chapter 12. Not only so, but in 10:32–36 the author explains the need for endurance with reference to right action and doing the will of God. See Vanhoye, Structure, 31. 6 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 132–33. Though Guthrie understands the unit to reach from verses 3 to 17, he recognizes the holiness theme within verses 12–17. 7 We may indeed also think of the contrast between hearts made pure from an evil conscience in 10:22, and the following warning against going on in sin (10:26). 8 Croy, Endurance, 165–66.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

31

II. Hebrews in Moral Perspective Hebrews in Moral Perspective Turning to the thrust of the moral thought of Hebrews, we immediately notice, as so many others have, that the author offers very little in terms of specific moral direction for his audience.9 Yet, in the opinion of one commentator, Hebrews essentially offers the most old-fashioned of Christian directives: do not sin!10 Indeed, forms of the substantive ἁµαρτία occur twenty-five times in Hebrews, while forms of ἁµαρτάνω and ἁµαρτωλός appear twice, respectively – an astounding number of occurrences for a book dealing so lightly with concrete moral directives. And this does not include the many other terms that may be translated as “sin”.11 While it is true that many of these “sin” occurrences (fourteen total) appear in the hefty central expositional section from 7:1–10:18 where the author describes the cultic expiation of sin, the ubiquity of these terms is conspicuous for the exegete interested in ethics, and it begs the question, is Hebrews really about not sinning? Perhaps because of the paucity of direct moral commandment in the socalled epistle, few individual studies devoted specifically to the ethics of Hebrews have appeared. These studies generally agree, however, that Hebrews builds what James Thompson calls “insider ethics for outsiders.”12 Informed by sociological approaches to identity and ethics, such studies (particularly those by Thompson and Backhaus) argue that the individual mandates, for example in 10:24–25 and chapter 13 in particular, are intended to unify and hold the community together in the face of outside social pressure. As Geertz’s comments on religion discussed in chapter 1 suggest, the worldview of a community cannot be separated from its way of life.13 Thus 9

E.g., Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 149. Mark Goodacre, “NT Pod 37: What is the Purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews?” NT Pod 37, 7 June 2010, http://podacre.blogspot.de/2010/06/nt-pod-37-what-is-purpose-ofepistle-to.html. 11 For example, ἀγνόηµα, ἀδικία, ἀνοµία, νεκρὰ ἔργα, παράβασις, and παρακοή. See further Richard W. Johnson, Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 209 (London: Sheffield, 2001), 100; Hermut Löhr, Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief, BZNW 73 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 12–13. 12 Thompson, “Insider Ethics for Outsiders,” 207–219; Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 149–75; Dunning, “Intersection,” 177–98, particularly 197; Hans-Joseph Klauck, “Moving In and Moving Out: Ethics and Ethos in Hebrews,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament, ed. Jan G. Van der Watt, BZNW 141 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 417–443. Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, 5th ed., GNT 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 329; Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, ZGB (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), 632–40. 13 See Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures, 126–41. Similar to Geertz, the discussion has also been heavily influenced by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966; repr. New York: Anchor Books, 10

32

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

for a community facing apparent social pressure from a majority culture with a different worldview and way of life, Hebrews builds a symbolic universe for its audience that legitimizes a worldview, and with that, a way of life. The commands to meet together, maintain brotherly love, to show hospitality, etc., work together with the author’s worldview construction and facilitate a shared ethos, strengthening community solidarity against pressure from the majority culture’s worldview and lifestyle. Though these commands appear arbitrary, they are particularly apt for the situation, since they demand unity within the group. Even the command in 13:4 to keep the marriage bed pure has relevance for group, not just private, relationships. It is a call to live out a holy lifestyle as a holy people of God (cf. 12:15–17), lest its system of mores be endangered by those of the majority culture.14 Where some have seen the individual moral commands of Hebrews as somewhat disconnected from the rest and as merely incidental, general, or traditional,15 these recent studies have had the great benefit of bringing attention to the sociological-functional importance of Hebrews’ moral exhortations. However, closer to our present interests in the moral argumentation and language of the text, Thomas Schmidt has argued that the language of apostasy in Hebrews suggests moral lethargy may comprise the primary danger for the audience of Hebrews, in addition to outside pressure and persecution.16 That is, “the threat perceived by the author came primarily from within rather

1967). See also the religion-specific elaborations to this book in Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York, Anchor Books: 1967; repr., New York: Anchor Books, 1969) and idem, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969; repr., Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1970). Berger and Luckmann’s approach is applied to Hebrews by Iusitone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe, JSNTSup 219 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002). Cf. deSilva, Despising Shame. As an example of social approaches to ethics in Paul, see Wolter, “Identität und Ethos,” 121–69. 14 Thompson, “Insider Ethics,” 216, refers to Lev 18–19, which depicts the holy life of the group with reference to its sexual rules and love for the neighbor and stranger (cf. Heb 13:1–3). See also Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 164. 15 E.g., Ben Witherington, III, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament, 2 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 2:542–43; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 106–10. 16 Schmidt, “Moral Lethargy,” 167–173. Hermann Jacoby and Siegfried Schulz place an equal emphasis as Schmidt on the moral life and temptation in Hebrews. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 78–80 (followed by O’Brien, Letter, 12–13), likewise sees the danger of active, sinful rebellion against God as one occasion for Hebrews alongside passive weariness in pursuit of the goal and outward persecution. See Hermann Jacoby, Neutestamentliche Ethik (Königsberg: Thomas & Oppermann, 1899), 202–220; Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, 632–40.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

33

than from without the community and […] the immediate danger was primarily moral laxity or passivity rather than reversion or diversion to unorthodox belief.”17 Schmidt’s attention to the language of apostasy is helpful to a degree, but it does little to pull together the underlying argument and diverse strands of moral exhortation in Hebrews. Moreover, he pays relatively little attention to the remarkable language of sin, immorality, unfaithfulness, righteousness, and holiness, language that is employed right alongside language of apostasy (e.g., falling, drifting, or turning away). Why is this language chosen in connection with apostasy, and what does it tell us about how the author fundamentally conceives of the danger to the audience? Through our analysis of such moral language in Hebrews we can go beyond Schmidt. Schmidt suggests that for the audience moral lethargy may constitute one problem alongside others, particularly the outside pressure that may have occasioned the author’s word of exhortation (13:22). While social marginalization and some sort of associated suffering almost undoubtedly did have something to do with occasioning Hebrews (10:32–34),18 here we are concerned with looking at the fundamental problem from the way the author depicts the choice lying before the audience. That is, instead of asking what occasioned Hebrews as Schmidt does, we are asking a different question. We want to know how the occasion is interpreted and construed by the author. For example, if social pressure caused the audience of Hebrews to flag in their commitment, how does the author interpret this flagging? We shall therefore argue that, however one might reconstruct the tangible outside pressures that must have threatened the audience, the author actually depicts the audience’s choice between persevering or falling away in terms of choosing either to give into a life of sin and its pleasures or to maintain their “Christian” ethic and its demand for right behavior. In the warnings against what is normally described as apostasy, the author typically employs language relating to sin or sets the choice in a context of moral decision-making and concrete action. Thus, the focus lies not on outside threats,19 but on inside threats, both within the community (e.g., 10:25; 12:15) and within individual hearts (3:12; 4:12; 10:22). As a corollary of this argument, we must rethink 17

Schmidt, “Lethargy,” 167. See, e.g., Cockerill, Hebrews, 16–18; deSilva, Perseverance, 7–20; Craig R. Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise: Life in the Community for which Hebrews was Written,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 61 (2005): 231–51; Thompson, Hebrews, 6–10. Bryan Dyer has also now offered a good case for a situation of present – not just past – suffering as the occasion for Hebrews. He also argues the audience is facing the threat of death in their suffering, but this latter thesis is much less convincing. See Bryan R. Dyer, Suffering in the Face of Death: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Its Context of Situation, LNTS 568 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017) and cf. my forthcoming review in TLZ. 19 Rightly Ellingworth, Hebrews, 80. 18

34

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

apostasy in Hebrews. The author’s depiction lends weight to seeing apostasy not purely as turning away from God or “Christianity” but as opting for a life of dead works, sin. To put it crudely, apostasy is not the sin of Hebrews, but rather sin is the apostasy of Hebrews. In the following, we proceed through Hebrews, beginning to end, but leaving Heb 12:1–17 for detailed consideration in chapter 4 below. As we work through Hebrews, we are looking in particular for language that suggests it has moral implications for the audience, most basically, imperatives, hortatory subjunctives, shoulds and ought-tos, but also for figures who exemplify right or wrong behavior, as well as to morally loaded terms, such as sin. At the same time, however, we will observe how such language fits within the argument of each unit and how the argumentation of the discourse relates to or supports those passages traditionally understood as exhortatory. 1. Hebrews 1: Purification of Sin through the Exalted Righteous Son Hebrews’ initial chapter sets the son above the angels and alongside God; he is a more authoritative speaker than the prophets through whom God spoke beforehand. Moreover, the authority of Jesus developed by the catena of OT quotations from 1:5–13 leads to the exhortation in 2:1–4 to pay more attention to what has been spoken by the son.20 While the author’s exposition of Jesus’ superiority contributes to the persuasive power of the exhortation in 2:1–4,21 there are a few other features of the passage that have moral overtones, which, while not initially obvious come into sharper relief as Hebrews moves along. First is the mention of sin in 1:3. The author states once Jesus had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty in the heights. The author does not develop this comment here, but as we will see, the issue of sin lies at the heart of the author’s exhortations, as well as his development of the Son’s once-for-all sacrifice for sin. Second, verse 1:6 contains a third-person imperative from Deut 32:43, let all the angels of God worship him (προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ).22 Since the im20

For a complete study of the catena in light of Hillel’s rules, see Herbert W. Bateman, IV, Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13, AUSTR 193 (New York: Peter Lang, 1997). 21 Cf. Matera, “Moral Exhortation,” 171–72. 22 It is debated whether Hebrews is drawing on Deut 32:43 (or Odes 2:43) or Ps 96:7 LXX, but most likely Deut 32:43 is in view, as convincingly argued by Allen, Deuteronomy, 44–58 and Bateman, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 142–43 on the evidence of 4QDeutq 32:43. In the context of Deut 32:43, Moses commands the people to obey the laws given them by God and to enter the land (Deut 32:46–49), but the context also refers to God’s vengeance on his adversaries (32:41–42). There is thus a moral element bound with the call to worship in the original context. Traces of this are found also in Heb 1, as the author will also refer to Jesus’ righteousness (1:8–9) and to the subjection of his enemies (1:13). Cf.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

35

perative is directed toward the angels, it does not have a direct moral claim on the audience, but it does have implications. That is, if even the angels must worship the Son, then his authority is greater than theirs, and thus he must be obeyed. In 1:8–9, Hebrews quotes Ps 45 to describe the Son’s rule. The scepter of uprightness (εὐθύτης) is the scepter of his kingdom; the Son has loved righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and hated lawlessness (ἀνοµία), and so God has anointed him with the oil of gladness. Within the context of Ps 45, the king is praised for the justice of his reign, but in Hebrews it would appear the author is simply employing the psalm to argue that Jesus is exalted by God on the very basis of his noble character (διὰ τοῦτο in v. 9b).23 Jesus’ own sinlessness (4:15; 7:26),24 as well as his pious prayers to God and obedience described in 5:7–8, further support this understanding. Not only this, but the author twice compares unfaithfulness to the salvation message to transgressions against the law of Moses (2:1–4; 10:28–31; cf. 12:25), and righteousness comes up numerous times in the remainder of Hebrews. Thus, it is difficult to doubt, as Weiß does, that the moral aspects of the exalted Son relate to concerns elsewhere in Hebrews, even if the author does not further elucidate them at present.25 The author of Hebrews regularly portrays Jesus’ conduct as exemplary, and it is difficult not to see reference to his character here. In 1:13, the quotation of Ps 109:1 LXX expresses the Son’s authority in that his enemies will be made his footstool. Mention was already made of the Son’s session at the right hand of God in 1:3, there in relation to the purification of sin. Here, however, sitting at the right has to do with authority over enemies. The psalm itself expands on this idea, speaking of the judgment of the nations and the piling up of corpses (πληρώσει πτώµατα; Ps 109:6 LXX; cf. Heb 3:17). Thus, the quotation not only establishes Jesus’ greatness over the angels in his position at the right hand of God, but also intimates some rather negative elements to come, including the warning in 2:2–3 not to neGuthrie, who, with some exaggeration, states, “Therefore, this significant OT passage works, by virtue of its broader context, to demonstrate the status […] and cost of rejecting the Son of God. He is one with the God of radical judgment, who, through Moses, warned about those to cross the promised land concerning the dire consequences of such a rejection.” We would add the caveat that the judgment aspect becomes evident only later in Heb 1 by virtue of verse 13. See George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 933. 23 DeSilva, Perseverance, 99. For further on the expected moral character of monarchs and the messiah, see Herbert W. Bateman, IV, “Psalm 45:6–7 and Its Christological Contributions to Hebrews,” TJ 22 (2001): 12–15. 24 Cf. 1 John 3:4, where sin is defined as ἀνοµία. 25 Hans-Friedrich Weiß, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 166–67.

36

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

glect the great salvation. Neglecting it will certainly not go unpunished precisely because of Jesus’ greatness over the angels. Moreover, Hebrews characterizes enemies as sinners, both in 12:4 in speaking of those sinners who showed hostility (ἀντιλογία) toward Jesus, and in 10:26–27, which warns that if one sins after gaining knowledge of the truth, only the judgment that consumes the adversaries (ὑπεναντίος) can be expected.26 Thus, the statement about enemies, together with the Son’s exaltation because of righteousness, puts the audience in a position where they must choose sides. They can devote themselves to the righteous king or count among the sinful enemies who will be judged. 2. Excursus: Righteousness in Hebrews Righteousness language in Hebrews appears in a diversity of ways and is of particular interest for the present study with a view toward Heb 12:11.27 While with regard to Jesus and Melchizedek it appears connected with ethical pre-understandings of the messiah and with Jesus’ own right living (1:9; 7:2; see the respective discussions), elsewhere it describes God’s fairness in judgment (6:10). Primarily, however, righteousness is tied to living faithfully and results in vindication. The preoccupation with righteousness comes into clearest focus and into clearest definition from 10:38 through chapter 11. After reminding the audience of their need for endurance, the author quotes Isa 26:20 and Hab 2:3b-4 (LXX): “For in just a little while, the coming one will arrive and he will not delay. But my righteous one will live out of faithfulness, and if he shrinks back, my soul will not be pleased with him” (10:37–38).28 With this the author is able to make clear a sort of initial definition of the righteous. The

26

Rightly Attridge, Hebrews, 62. Attridge also points to the defeat of the devil in 2:14 and 1 Clem 36:6. The latter, commenting also on Ps 109:1 LXX, considers as enemies those who are wicked and those who oppose his will (i.e., Jesus’ will [36:1]; τίνες οὖν οἱ ἐχθροί οἱ φαῦλοι καὶ ἀντιτασσόµενοι τῷ θελήµατι αὐτοῦ). 27 δίκαιος occurs three times (10:38; 11:4; 12:23), δικαιοσύνη six times (1:9; 5:13; 7:2; 11:7; 11:33; 12:11), ἄδικος one time (6:10), and ἀδικία one time (8:12). Cf. δικαίωµα in 9:1 and 9:10. Most interestingly, δικαιόω appears nowhere in Hebrews. Despite these occurrences and the difficulty of the phrase in 12:11, only one study treating righteousness in Hebrews has appeared, namely, Erich Gräßer, “Rechtfertigung im Hebräerbrief,” in Aufbruch und Verheißung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief, ed. Martin Evang and Otto Merk, BZNW 65 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 166–80. 28 Here I translate “out of” instead of “by” because of the awkwardness of the English “by faithfulness”. In other words, the righteous person lives in a way that accords with faithfulness to God.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

37

righteous one lives faithfully; he does not shrink back.29 That faithfulness here is the correct understanding of πίστις is confirmed in that the opposite behavior is to shrink back (v. 38b; cf. v. 39).30 Though 11:1, 3, and 6 do show that πίστις involves belief or trust as well, the examples of chapter 11 largely demonstrate this trust through actions exhibiting faithfulness to God. Moreover, for the audience facing social pressure, the focus on not falling away is particularly apt.31 Yet the author does not leave the audience with just the warning, but gives a host of examples of those who received approval because of their faithful lives. Two of these exemplars are singled out as being righteous, though on the basis of 10:38, all could conceivably characterized as such (cf. 12:23), and both exhibit their faithfulness through action. The first is Abel, who offered God a better sacrifice than Cain and was therefore attested as righteous (11:4).32 Second, Noah becomes an heir of the righteousness according to faithfulness in building the ark and saving his family, thereby expressing his trust in things not yet seen (11:7). These two examples serve to show that being considered righteous results from being faithful to God, and this faithfulness, which includes trust even in the unseen, expresses itself in action. Beyond these two righteous exemplars, the author mentions righteousness again in 11:33 in connection with other various acts of various exemplars. Accordingly, among other things, these heroes did what was righteous (εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην), or we could translate “accomplished justice.” To decide between the first translation, which would point to more general moral goodness, and the second, which would point rather to political acts, is difficult. On the one hand, the specific mention of several judges and King David in verse 11 would suggest the more political reading, since these were people charged with maintaining justice.33 Additionally, verses 33–34 describe the 29

In the LXX, however, the lines are reversed, such that it is the coming one who does not please God if he shrinks back, while in Hebrews the change of order makes the point that shrinking back stands on the opposite side of righteous faithfulness. 30 Weiß, Hebräer, 551. Cf. Erich Gräßer, Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief, Marburger Theologische Studien 2 (Marburg: Elwert, 1965), 41–42 and the discussions on Heb 3–4 and Heb 11 below. 31 Cf. Weiß, Hebräer, 551. 32 The δι᾽ ἧς could refer to either πίστει or to θυσίαν. Even though θυσίαν is the nearer antecedent, πίστει is preferable because, first, if the offering is the antecedent, then the explanatory clause concerning God’s attestation of the gifts (i.e., the participle µαρτυροῦντος is causal) would be redundant. Second, with the author’s repetitive focus on faith, δι᾽ αὐτῆς in 4c also more likely refers to faith and not the offering; as a result a parallel is formed with δι᾽ ἧς in 4b (cf. v. 7). In any case, the sense would not be significantly altered (so Weiß, Hebräer, 576 n. 17). Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 316. On Abel’s righteousness, cf. 1 John 3:12. 33 Judg 5:6–1; 2 Sam 8:15; 1 Kgs 10:9; 1 Chr 18:14. Attridge, Hebrews, 348; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 625; O’Brien, Hebrews, 441.

38

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

deeds of these various heroes not only with an orderly grammatical structure of three sets of three verbs,34 but several have suggested that the three sets also show a thematic unity: first, military and political success, second, the overcoming of physical dangers, and third, military strength.35 Thus, in the first set, accomplishing justice would go together politically with conquering kingdoms and obtaining promises.36 Yet ultimately, we must ask about the relevance of these things to the audience. For an audience oppressed or stigmatized by outsiders, the exemplification of accomplishing political justice would be of little relevance, even if political circumstances surrounding the judges or David gave rise to the author’s language and make the author’s mention of δικαιοσύνη fitting in context.37 For the audience specifically, however, the concern is with doing good and sharing with one another for the promotion of community harmony and the acceptable worship of God (10:32–36; 13:1–6, 15–16). In fact, other passages speaking of “doing” righteousness in early Christian literature show exactly this same concern with general moral behavior.38 For instance, Matt 6:1–18 34 In the first set, the verbs are transitive with direct objects alone: κατηγωνίσαντο βασιλείας, εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην, ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν. The second set likewise has transitive verbs, but the direct objects are modified by genitive nouns: ἔφραξαν στόµατα λεόντων, ἔσβεσαν δύναµιν πυρός, ἔφυγον στόµατα µαχαίρης. The third set lacks complete unity, but the first two clauses begin with passive voice verbs, while the third verb is placed at the end of its clause and is in active voice: ἐδυναµώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, ἐγενήθησαν ἰσχυροὶ ἐν πολέµῳ, παρεµβολὰς ἔκλιναν ἀλλοτρίων. Attridge, Hebrews, 348–49; Cockerill, Hebrews, 588–89. Michael Cosby highlights the repetition of sounds and chiastic structure created by the aorist augments in all but the very last verb. See Michael R. Cosby, “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11,” JBL 107 (1988): 264. 35 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 348–49; Cockerill, Hebrews, 589; Johnson, Hebrews, 306; B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan & Co., 1903), 377. 36 Understood politically, receiving the promises would refer to events such as David’s taking of Jerusalem as promised by God or other promised military victories (Judg 4:6–9; 6:16; 7:9; 2 Sam 5:19; so Attridge, Hebrews, 348; Cockerill, Hebrews, 589; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 625). Or, it could refer to the capture of the land itself (Johnson, Hebrews, 307). 37 Hebrews may have little interest at all in differentiating types of justice or righteousness. The Psalms of Solomon appear not to differentiate between the practice of righteousness and justice among different people in society, whether political and legal figures and the regular people. Pss. Sol. 17:19b-20 reads, “For there was no one among them who practiced righteousness or justice (δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίµα): From their leader to the commonest of the people, (they were) in every kind of sin: The king was a criminal, and the judge disobedient; (and) the people sinners.” At least in this case, the unrighteousness or injustice of kings and judges can be set alongside the sins of the regular people. Translation from James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 2:639–70. 38 In addition to the passages cited and discussed in what follows, see 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10; Rev 22:11; 1 Clem. 33.8; Herm. 6.9. Cf. Philo, Congr. 31; Somn. 1.198. The 1 Clement and Hermas passages are especially noteworthy because of their shared themes with He-

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

39

begins with Jesus teaching not “to do your righteousness” (τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν) in order to be seen, and he goes on to speak specifically of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, deeds similar to those called for in Hebrews.39 Moreover, in each of the other biblical examples that use the exact wording of ἐργάζοµαι δικαιοσύνην, the contextual focus is on pleasing God by right behavior.40 These parallels cannot prove the case, but they help bring into view the general moral concerns and demands of the author, and thus help us to see the relevance of this brief comment to the audience’s situation.41 Also, as mundane and unimpressive as love, good works, and worship might seem, the recurring early Christian focus on such, as we see even in the Matt 6 passage, shows that with its brief appeals to such virtuous ways of life, Hebrews fits in line with other, standard Christian moral exhortation.42 The final occurrence of righteousness language in Hebrews, 12:23b, refers to the presence of the spirits of the righteous ones who have been made perfect (πνεύµασι δικαίων τετελειωµένων) at the festal gathering in the heavenly Jerusalem, giving the audience a glimpse of the vindication of those whom God has approved. Though the scene in the heavenly Jerusalem is largely encouraging, showing that unlike the approach to Sinai, God is accessible,43 there still remains something potentially fearful. In their approach to this city of God, they have also come to the judge of all, God (κριτῇ θεῷ πάντων; v. 23b). This little phrase could be rendered, “to a judge, the God of all,” with πάντων modifying God and not judge. It seems unlikely, though, that the author would here emphasize God’s sovereignty over all when elsewhere he has emphasized judgment and particularly that every creature is subject to brews. In 1 Clem. 33, the author exhorts the audience to show diligence and not idleness, and to do good works (cf. Heb 4:11; 5:14; 6:11). Herm. 6 addresses staying on the righteous path and acting accordingly, in contrast to turning from God and engaging in further sin. This contrast between right behavior and returning to sin in the face of the problem of second repentance is exactly what we are arguing is the ultimate concern in Hebrews, though in Hermas it is admittedly more explicit. 39 Also interesting is that Matt 6:1 is immediately preceded in 5:48 with the command to be perfect (τέλειος) as the heavenly father is perfect. 40 Ps 14:2 LXX (15:2 MT); Acts 10:35; Jas 1:20 (ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐ κατεργάζεται). In the case of James, the Lutherbibel (cf. the Einheitsübersetzung and Zürcher Bibel) brings out the thrust of δικαιοσύνη most clearly: “Denn des Menschen Zorn tut nicht, was vor Gott recht ist.” Gräßer, “Rechtfertigung,” 169 n.10. 41 It could be objected that the military aspects of verses 33–34 would be likewise irrelevant to an oppressed audience. But, the theme of the battle is not totally lost. As we come to Heb 12 we find that the athletic imagery is mixed together with talk of struggle, particularly with the opponent of sin. Thus, with mention of victories past, the author exhorts the audience to faith such that they too can overcome their own opponent. See chapter 4 below. 42 See the passages listed in notes 38 and 40. 43 Lane, Hebrews, 2:489.

40

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

him in judgment (4:13; cf. 10:30–31; 12:29).44 Thus, the positioning of κριτῇ here too places the emphasis on judgment.45 However, the author takes this prospect in a positive direction.46 The presence of these righteous ones shows that they have been approved by God in judgment and live in his presence (cf. 10:38–39; 12:9),47 offering the audience a sense of spes over against the metus of Sinai, so long as they too live in righteousness.48 Our overview of righteousness in Hebrews has shown that while Jesus is to be considered a righteous, noble character, the audience too must exhibit a similar righteousness. Specifically, they are to remain faithful to God in order to be deemed righteous. In the case of Abel this was expressed in his sacrificial gifts to God. In the case of Noah, it was expressed in building the ark for the salvation of his family though he was unable to see what was coming. For still others, right moral behavior evinced their faithfulness. Though these make up just three of the examples of faithfulness, each relates to statements made elsewhere in Hebrews. The audience too is to offer pleasing offerings to God, to do good, and to share (13:15–16), and not to neglect salvation, but hold on to hope in the unseen (2:3; 11:1). In the end, living righteously results in vindication from the judge of all, God. 3. Hebrews 2:1–4: Devotion vs. Disobedience and Transgression Having established the Son’s authority and exaltation, even above the angels, in 2:1–4 the author compares neglect of the salvation announced by the Lord 44

Cf. the placement of πάντα in 9:22. Herbert Braun, An die Hebräer, HNT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 438; Weiß, Hebräer, 680 n. 37. Attridge, Hebrews, 376, seems to give slight favor to “God of all” since the author is depicting a more positive scene. Cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:442, 470 and Cockerill, Hebrews, 655–56, who take it as a judge, the God of all. W.J. Dumbrell, “The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect,” EvQ 48 (1976): 158, takes it as “the God of all as Judge”. 45 Cf. David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews”, SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 162–63. 46 Cf. Weiß, Hebräer, 681. 47 The identity of these righteous ones is difficult to ascertain, and the author seems unconcerned with such details (so Weiß, Hebräer, 680). It does, however, appear that these righteous souls have reached their final heavenly destination (11:10, 13–16, 39–49), so probably this group would comprise all the righteous saints of past and present, “believers” of the earlier era (11:39–40) and dead Christian predecessors (10:38–39; 13:7?). Cf. Braun, Hebräer, 439; Dumbrell, “Just Men Made Perfect,” 158–59; Lane, Hebrews, 2:471; Peterson, Perfection, 163–66. 48 Rightly Peterson, Perfection, 163, “However, for those who have been perfected by the sacrifice of Christ and hold fast their first confidence firm to the end (3:14), not forfeiting the grace of God (12:15), there remains the prospect of eschatological acceptance.” I have adopted the use of spes and metus from Knut Backhaus, “Zwei harte Knoten: Todesund Gerichtsangst im Hebräerbrief,” NTS 55 (2009): 198–217.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

41

(2:3) to transgressions and disobedience of the law.49 He writes: “For this reason it is necessary to devote ourselves all the more to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the word spoken through angels was valid and every transgression [παράβασις] and disobedience [παρακοή] received its just recompense, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” This suggests that neglecting the received message of salvation implies or constitutes some sort of disobedience or transgression. The two terms, παράβασις and παρακοή, should not be over-interpreted, but it is worth making a couple of notes. First, παράβασις, which occurs one other time in Hebrews, at 9:15, is often employed to describe transgressions or breakings of the Mosaic law,50 as it is here, and this in fact seems to be the case in 9:15. Most interestingly, Philo and more frequently Josephus speak of the transgression of the law often in connection with the abandonment of the entire sum of the people’s customs.51 The importance of this observation will become clearer as the study progresses. Second, παρακοή has to do with not hearing, as can be seen etymologically, or even being unwilling to hear, and thus disobedient.52 The use of παρακοή here is particularly apt to 2:1–4 where we find a particular emphasis on hearing (2:1, 3) versus neglecting (2:3). The two verbs could refer to sins of commission and omission,53 if they can be pressed into distinction.54 But, the focus of the passage lies on remaining devoted to the salvation message and not neglecting that which has been heard. In exhorting the audience to devote themselves to what was spoken, the author uses the verb προσέχω. The verb appears in Acts and 1 Timothy55 as giving heed to something spoken, and interestingly in 1 Timothy the stress lies on the possibility of going astray into false doctrine which could lead to apostasy. Whereas Heb 13:9 likewise warns of the danger of false teachings leading someone away, the overwhelming majority of the warnings and exhortations of Hebrews find expression in terms of right action rather than 49

On angels as mediators of the law, see Kenneth Schenck, “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1,” JBL 120, no. 3 (2001): 482–84. 50 Rom 2:23; 4:15; Gal 3:19; cf. Ps 100:3 LXX. See also Rom 5:14 and 1 Tim 2:14, where the term is used to describe Adam’s transgression or Eve’s transgression, respectively (so also in Barn. 12.5). In Wis 14:31, the transgressions of the unrighteous refer to an entire slew of evil deeds resulting from idolatry (cf. Barn. 20.1, where transgression stands among the deeds of the way of darkness). 2 Macc 15:10 refers to the Gentiles’ transgression of oaths. See further Johannes Schneider, “παράβασις,” TDNT 5:739–40. 51 Philo, Somn. 2.123; Spec. 2.242; Legat. 1.211; Josephus, Ant. 3.218; 5.112; 6.93; 8.129; 13.69; 17.341; 18.81, 263, 268, 340. 52 Gerhard Kittel, “παρακούω, παρακοή,” TDNT 1:223. 53 Attridge, Hebrews, 65. 54 Attridge, Hebrews, 65, rightly notes, however, that the terms can be synonymous. This is evident in Romans, where in 5:14, Adam commits a transgression and in 5:19 it is described as disobedience. 55 Acts 8:6, 10, 11; 16:14; 20:28; 1 Tim 1:4; 4:1, 13. Cf. Tit 1:14; 2 Pet 1:19.

42

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

adherence to right belief, though adherence to the confession certainly does not go unmentioned (4:14; 10:23; 13:15).56 With the language of transgression and disobedience, it seems unlikely that the author’s concern is that the audience simply lend a more studious ear to some particular content (though see 5:11–6:3),57 but rather the concern is for some expression of obedience or devotion, even if the tangible act of obedience is not clearly defined.58 This coheres in fact with other usages of προσέχω in moral exhortation. For example, Jer 7:24 and 26 employ προσέχω to describe the people’s failure to devote themselves to God’s ways, choosing rather to walk according to their own evil hearts.59 Thus far in Hebrews we do not have anything quite so explicit, but this will come more to the fore as we progress through the book. Opposite devotion to what has been heard is the action of drifting away (παραρρέω). There are two important parallels in Proverbs that use the same expression of drifting or being washed away as opposite of holding on to teaching. The LXX of Prov 3:21 and the Symmachus recension of Prov 4:21

56

It seems unlikely, however, that apostasy by means of following false teachings and apostasy by means of false action really constitute different things. Heb 13:15–16 shows that one who confesses God’s name also worships through action, and so confession and action must go together. With language similar to Heb 2:1–3, 2 Pet 1:19 exhorts its readers to devote themselves to a confirmed message (καὶ ἔχοµεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες). The author goes on to discuss not only the validity of the prophetic message, but also the danger of false teachings, which he ties specifically in chapter 2 with immoral ways of life. First Timothy is also a good example. Not only does 4:1 warn of apostasy by following the doctrines of demons, but it also warns of falling away by moral failures. The love of money, being the root of all evil, causes some to wander from the faith (4:10) and those who fail to take care of widows are worse than unbelievers and deny the faith (5:8). Elsewhere conduct and conscience are brought up in connection with concern for the truth of the faith. For example, Hymenaeus and Alexander fail to keep the faith and a good conscience, and by rejecting a good conscience, they shipwreck their faith (1:19; cf. 3:15). See also I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 411–12. 57 Here Gräßer’s point that the word (2:2) is salvation and not content about salvation is helpful, though more influenced by Bultmann’s theology of the word. Erich Gräßer, “Das Heil als Wort: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Hebr 2,1–4,” in Aufbruch und Verheißung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief, ed. Martin Evang and Otto Merk, BZNW 65 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 129–42. 58 In fact, whenever Hebrews addresses obedience, the concrete action involved always remains somewhat ambiguous and must be drawn cautiously from the context, as we will see in the sections to follow. As is well known, other NT evidence places great importance on obeying the spoken word and not merely hearing it, most famously of all, Jas 1:22, which is directly preceded by the call to put away filth and evil and to receive the word. Cf. Matt 7:16, 24, 26; Rom 2:13. 59 Cf. Isa 1:10; 55:3; Jer 6:19; 25:4.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

43

both use παραρρέω.60 Prov 3:21 says, “son, lest you be washed away (or drift away), keep my counsel and thoughts.”61 And Prov 4:21 (Symmachus), “Let them not drift from your eyes.”62 Both of these exhortations are followed by affirmations of the life-giving quality of the father’s teachings – among other benefits, particularly the security of the path for one’s feet (3:22–26; 4:22, 26) – and the entire context is filled with various pieces of moral advice (3:27–4:27). In these two chapters of Proverbs, to drift away from the father’s teachings would be to miss the benefits of life they offer. In Hebrews 2:1–4 we find a negative construal, that if someone does not devote himself to this message of salvation, then he cannot escape retribution, as with the law. These parallels are quite conspicuous because as we shall explore in chapter 4, the benefit of life from the context of Prov 3–4 finds expression in Heb 12 together with other intertextual connections. These findings from Proverbs concerning drifting, together with what we found concerning devotion to some message, speak against reading 2:1 as employing nautical imagery, as has sometimes been proposed.63 Though προσέχω can be used in certain contexts to refer to the landing of a ship or bringing a ship to port, such an employment of the verb requires the terminology of ships and destinations.64 Here such terms are lacking, and the occurence of παραρρέω does not necessarily help such an argument.65 The lan60

Braun, Hebräer, 47; Eduard Riggenbach, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 2nd-3rd ed., KNT (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922), 28 n. 72; Spicq, Hébreux, 2:25; Westcott, Hebrews, 37. 61 Gk.: υἱέ µὴ παραρρυῇς τήρησον δὲ ἐµὴν βουλὴν καὶ ἔννοιαν. 62 Gk.: µὴ παραρρυησάτωσαν ἐξ ὀφθαλῶν σοῦ. See Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, 2 vols. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), 2:318. 63 See the discussions in Attridge, Hebrews, 64; Lane, Hebrews, 1:35. 64 LSJ, s.v. προσέχω. 65 Cf. Earle Hilgert, The Ship and Related Symbols in the New Testament (Assen: Vangorcum, 1962), 133–34; Spicq, Hébreux, 1:25. παραρρέω is used in Herodotus, Hist. 2.150.3 and Strabo, Geogr. 9.2.31 for a river flowing past a location. Braun points also to Philo, Gig. 13–14 and QE 2.13, which describe those who are swept away in a current and thereby miss their ultimate goal. In Gig. the individual misses an inheritance of imperishable life with God by failing to heed wisdom and pursuing “unstable” things. In QE the undisciplined person (!) is swept away into what is unprofitable instead of reaching virtue. These parallels are helpful in grasping the imagery, and in some ways Philo’s concerns with the moral life are similar to, though not the same as, Hebrews and probably less similar than Braun suggests. NB: Attridge claims that Braun sees the imagery as “the soul overwhelmed by the flood of earthly pleasures, as found in Philo” (Mut. 107, 186, 214; QG 2.25). He goes on to say such a construal is not supported by Hebrews. While such a full construal is indeed not supported, that is also not exactly what Braun says. Braun actually says the references Attridge cites are not the same image as Hebrews’ (“freilich nicht”), but instead the Gig. and QE passages do carry the right idea, where the stream pulls the individual away from the goal. Attridge, Hebrews, 34 n. 22; Braun, Hebräer, 47–48.

44

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

guage of Heb 2:1 fits quite well with moral exhortations we found elsewhere without adding nautical imagery into it, which could actually obscure the argument by bringing in ideas of drifting on the seas, a lack of direction, or even shipwreck.66 Koester, for example, writes, “Like people on board a ship that is drifting, the listeners are depicted as being not aware of the direction in which they are moving. Therefore, by using sharply contrastive words, the author attempts to startle them into a new awareness of their situation, creating clarity where there was little clarity.”67 None of this is necessary or helpful. The author rather will later point directly to the audience’s own intentions and thoughts when he warns them against an evil, unfaithful heart (3:12; 4:12). Moreover, we shall see that the author recognizes and argues from the audience’s knowledge of the truth (6:4; 10:26). Of course, the author later appeals to a sure and reliable anchor of the soul (ἄγκυραν ἔχοµεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν; 6:19), but this does not necessitate nautical imagery in 2:1–4. In both passages the author motivates by pointing to reliability, but in 2:1–4 the author does not argue, for example, on the basis of a safe harbor of salvation over against unsafe drifting – this would imply that remaining faithful is secure while apostatizing is insecure, but this is not the argument at all. Rather, the author argues that drifting away is dangerous, not because drifting is the opposite of βέβαιος, but because the message is βέβαιος, reliable or more specifically, legally valid, in that one cannot escape its “reward”. Thus, the author is not here exhorting the audience to pay more attention as if they are ignorant, but actually to devote themselves to what they have heard in order to avoid recompense. Drifting away simply means neglecting the message and not following its demands, just as the author compares such neglect with breaking or disobeying the law. Ultimately, disobeying that which was spoken first by one greater than the angels (v. 3) receives a “reward” from which we cannot escape. And since this message comes from one greater than the angels, the corresponding “rewards” are all the more severe. We might ask, however, what does such neglect and drifting look like? How does it play itself out? As we progress we shall see that the author adds nuances along the way, so that the picture becomes ever clearer.68 66 Cf. B.J. Oropeza, Apostasy in the New Testament Communities, 3 vols. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011–12), 3:14; Weiß, Hebräer, 183–84, who argues that the idea of shipwreck “liegt auf der Hand” (cf. 1 Tim 1:19; Eph 4:4). 67 Koester, Hebrews, 266, cf. 205. 68 Already at this point Cockerill explains the drifting in 2:1–4 by appealing in part to outside persecution, and he is in the same place critical of Schmidt’s exclusive focus on moral lethargy. While he rightly sees evidence of drifting away in those who were not meeting with the group (10:25), we want to keep the focus on the author’s exact depiction in the warning. It is too hasty to begin to interpret the background without considering why the author creates the analogy with transgressions of the law. It could very well tell us

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

45

4. Hebrews 2:5–3:6: Holiness and Faithfulness Following the exhortation in 2:1–4, the author elaborates on the Son’s temporary, lower status under the angels so that he could share in humanity and become a merciful and faithful high priest. The remainder of chapter 2 includes no expressions of exhortation, but it does provide a basis for the exhortations found in 3:1–6. First, 2:14–18 deals with the defeat of the devil and the Son’s high priestly propitiation of the sins of the people. What is noticeable about this is that already in 2:11 the Son and his brothers are described as the sanctifier and those being sanctified, respectively (ὅ […] ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιαζόµενοι). Since the Son makes propitiation specifically for sin, thereby freeing the people from the devil and the fear of death, sanctification must have to do with morality, as sin precludes access to God and the holy places.69 Thus, when the author appeals in 3:1 to the audience as holy brothers (ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι), this is a statement about their condition as freed from sin.70 This point comes to a climax later in chapter 10 (also 9:11–14), where the author lays out the audience’s access to the holy places because of their pure consciences. This includes also the warning not to sin (10:26), since Jesus’ sacrifice cannot be repeated. More to the immediate context, the designation as holy is important in view of the warning against unfaithfulness, sin, and disobedience in 3:7– 4:11. Holiness involves faithfulness over against sin.71 This brings us to the second point. Chapter 2 begins the construal of Jesus as faithful, which continues through 3:1–6. In his share with humanity, Jesus, through the words of Isa 8:17,72 declares his trust in God (2:13). According to 2:17–18, Jesus is made a merciful and faithful high priest in that he suffered when he was tested. This enables him to help those who likewise undergo testing. It may be suggested, then, that faithfulness in 2:17 has more to do with Jesus’ faithfulness or trustworthiness for those he helps; that is, he is a reliable priest. However, in 3:2 the author returns to Jesus’ faithfulness to the one who made him, God (cf. 1 Sam 2:35). In light of 2:13 and 3:2, faithfulness toward God appears to be the main thrust, and the warning in the followsomething about how the author fundamentally conceives of the issue at hand. Cockerill, Hebrews, 118 n. 8. 69 See the excursus, “Holiness and Ethics in Hebrews” in chapter 4 below. 70 DeSilva, Perseverance, 133, recognizes this as well, but limits the defilement of the conscience to turning away from Jesus. 71 Cockerill, Hebrews, 158 n. 3, rightly sees here a present, moral aspect to this holiness, not just an eschatological one, contra Erich Gräßer, “Mose und Jesus: Zur Auslegung von Hebr 3:1–6,” ZNW 75 (1984): 5. 72 The wording in Isa 8:17, πεποιθὼς ἔσοµαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, which is slightly different from Hebrews (ἐγὼ ἔσοµαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ), is also found verbatim in Isa 12:2 and 2 Sam 22:3. Since Heb 2:13b cites Isa 8:18, it is most likely that the author is working from Isa 8:17 in Heb 2:13a.

46

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

ing passage would support this. Nevertheless, it is hard to shut out completely the aspect of reliability. Some have suggested both are present, even in that Jesus’ faithfulness was required in order for him to make the greater sacrifice that has sanctified believers and given them access to God.73 Ultimately, because of Jesus’ faithfulness, the author can exhort the holy brothers in 3:1 to consider Jesus (κατανοήσατε), the apostle and high priest. The imperative moves the audience’s attention to Jesus and makes him an exemplar of faithfulness (3:2),74 comparable to Moses the faithful servant (3:5–6). This becomes important as the author warns against ἀπιστία in 3:12 and 19. Beyond these two observations, 3:6 also conveys an implicit warning. Having established Jesus’ faithfulness as son over the house, the author adds, “whose house we are if we hold on to our confidence and boast of hope (τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχηµα τῆς ἐλπίδος κατάσχωµεν).” The if-clause thus implies, if we do not hold fast then we are not his house! Holding on, or holding fast, occurs repeatedly throughout Hebrews,75 and thus it is not surprising that Hebrews has been discussed so much in terms of endurance or perseverance. The boast of hope that is to be held on to, however, involves Jesus’ work as high priest in providing access to the holy places. We find this initially with παρρησία. παρρησία refers in general to the right – especially of free citizens – to speak freely or openly, or simply to boldness or confidence.76 In 4:16 and 10:19, however, it relates specifically to the saints’ access to the throne of God or to the holy places on the basis of consciences cleansed by the work of Jesus the high priest (9:14; 10:22). In fact, the association of παρρησία and purity of conscience is found also in Josephus and Philo.77 This same is true of hope, which according to 6:18–20 goes beyond the veil, where Jesus has already gone, and which is the means of drawing near to God in 7:19 (cf. the cultic context of the occurrence in 10:23). Hope is thus not the act of hoping as such, but the object hoped for, the realization of the promises 73

Attridge, Hebrews, 95; Johnson, Hebrews, 104; O’Brien, Letter, 120–21. On 2:13 Johnson, Hebrews, 99, writes: “The point here is that the Son and his brothers are not merely linked ontologically but also morally: as he responds to God with faith, so shall they – or so they should!” Cf. Klauck, “Moving In and Moving Out,” 423. 75 κατέχω: 3:6, 14; 10:23. κρατέω: 4:14; 6:18. 76 See Heinrich Schlier, “παρρησία, παρρησιάζοµαι,” TDNT 5:871–86; W.C. van Unnik, “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament,” in vol. 2 of Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik, NovTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 267–89; Stanley B. Marrow, “Parrhēsia and the New Testament,” CBQ 44 (1982): 431–46. 77 Josephus connects the right to speak freely with a clear conscience, whether before God or men (Ant. 2.52; 2.131), as does Philo (Spec. 1.203; Her. 6). Furthermore, Philo, arguing that a slave has the right to speak freely to his master only when he is unaware of having done anything against him, claims that the servant of God may speak freely with God when he is cleansed of sins (Her. 7; cf. Prov 20:9). Similarly, the righteous are those who have παρρησία before God and men according to Job, Proverbs, and the Wisdom of Solomon (Job 22:23–27; 27:10; Prov 13:5; 20:9; Wis 5:1). 74

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

47

(see 6:11–20), together with access to God in the holy places.78 In view of all this, the exhortation in 3:6 essentially calls the audience to hold fast to the cultic work accomplished for them.79 This is important to recognize because the cultic work relates specifically to the atonement and cleansing of sin. It is for this reason that the author warns and exhorts the audience repeatedly in terms of sin, which we have already seen in 2:1–4, and which comes up in following warning from 3:7–4:13. 5. Hebrews 3:7–4:13: The Example of the Wilderness Generation a) Psalm 95: Rebellion and Testing In the paramount negative example of Hebrews, the author uses strong language to describe the sin of the wilderness generation and to warn the readers against similar behavior. The author draws much of the language of the exhortation directly from the quotation of Psalm 95 (94 LXX), though it appears, as we shall see, that some of the language arises from familiarity with the narration of events at Kadesh-Barnea in Num 14. Starting with the psalm, after the exhortation not to harden the heart, we find reference to rebellion and testing God (3:8–9; cf. 3:16). Moreover, the psalm somewhat surprisingly mentions the people went astray in the heart and did not know God’s ways (3:10). According to the author’s structuring of the psalm – with the addition 78 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 212; Ernst Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief, 4th ed., FRLANT 55 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 23; O’Brien, Hebrews, 137. Löhr poses the question of the degree to which hope is oriented toward behavior and thus whether it could be considered a virtue. He notes that in 10:23 it is not hope that is held on to, but rather the confession. Similarly in 3:6 it is not hope itself which the audience should hold fast to, but the boast of hope, the boast made possible by the object hoped for. However, 6:18 does refer to holding on to the hope laid out for us, but as verse 19 shows, this hope is an object. Nevertheless, to have an object of hope would involve hoping, and this seems reflected in the passive participle of ἐλπίζω in 11:1, though even there the emphasis lies more on the objective rather than the subjective (i.e., the subjective act of hoping). See Hermut Löhr, “Ethik und Tugendlehre,” in vol. 3 of Neues Testament und Antike Kultur, ed. Jürgen Zangenberg (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005), 168 (also n. 133). Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 212, who thus rightly observes that the meanings of confession, confidence, and the boast of hope overlap considerably. 79 So, O’Brien, Letter, 137. Unnik, “Freedom of Speech,” 286–87, has argued, however, that παρρησία in 3:6 has to do with the audience’s boldness to proclaim their faith before the hostile world (cf. Wis 5). In this way the word has to do not only with confidence before God but also confidence before man. Bold proclamation of faith, however, is distant from the argument of the present passage, and while it fits better with the occurrence in 10:35, even there the author points to the reward of receiving the promise and the audience’s lasting possessions, not to speech before one’s oppressors. Cf. Gräßer, Der Glaube, 95–99, esp. 99.

48

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

of διό after τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη – because the people saw his works for 40 years and nevertheless rebelled and tested him, God swore in his wrath that the people would not enter his rest. As is well known, the progression of this logic differs from the Num 14 account and even appears to differ from Hebrews’ own logic in verses 16–19 (τίσιν δὲ προσώχθισεν τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη;), where the 40 year period, though marked by further sin (e.g., Num 20), follows as a consequence of disobeying God. A couple of these observations from the psalm bear further consideration. First, the mention of the people not knowing God’s ways and always going astray is somewhat surprising since the Numbers account, even if it acknowledges the people’s repeated testing of God (14:22–23), focuses on the disobedience in not entering the land. Taking things literally, it seems that the people indeed knew God’s “way” – it led into the promised land! – but chose not to follow it. Second, from the author’s addition of διό, the psalm depicts a situation where a lengthy period of sinful behavior preceded God’s ultimate swearing that they would not enter rest. This addition, together with the convenient (for the author of Hebrews) LXX translation of the Hebrew place names Meribah (‫ )מריבה‬and Massah (‫ ;מסה‬referring to events recounted in Num 20 and Exod 17) into παραπικρασµός and πειρασµός, generalizes the paradigmatic wilderness time rather than specifying it. Though it certainly can be argued that the LXX version actually brings attention to one event specifically, namely the Kadesh-Barnea episode, we shall argue that the author of Hebrews, even if he shows awareness of the Num 14 literary context, does not bring all of the specifics of the Kadesh-Barnea events into focus. Rather, the author places the focus on sin and rest, but not specific sins or rest as dwelling in the promised land, as in the case of the Exodus generation. We will return to these considerations momentarily. b) Unfaithfulness as a Matter of the Heart Continuing with the progression of moral language in our section, after the psalm citation the author turns in verse 12 to exhort the audience to be watching out (βλέπετε) that there be in no one an evil heart of unfaithfulness that turns away from the living God (καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος).80 Mention of the heart of course has already been made twice in 80

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 222, prefers to take ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι as epexegetical, describing the evil, unfaithful heart as one which turns away from God (cf. BDF §404; Cockerill, Hebrews, 184 n. 40), rather than as consecutive, describing turning away as the result (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 593 n. 12; Spicq, Hébreux, 2:75). Yet, as the discussion below suggests, both may be in play. On the one hand, turning away describes the unfaithful heart, but not just the actions that result from the heart are condemnable; its thoughts and intentions matter as well (4:12). Thus, Delitzsch rightly understands evil as both the root and result of unfaithfulness

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

49

the psalm quotation (3:8, 10), and the heart will come up three more times by the end of the section. Two of these occurrences (3:15; 4:7) are found in repetitions of the warning not to harden the heart, while in the final occurrence (4:12) the heart becomes the subject of judgment. There the author reminds the audience of the effectiveness, and indeed the frightfulness, of the living word of God, which can judge the reflections and thoughts of the heart. With this repeated emphasis on the heart, we see that the author treats the audience’s behavior with reference to the inner person with its desires and intentions.81 Whereas the heart here is characterized as evil and unfaithful, later in 10:22 the author explains that the audience’s hearts have been washed clean of an evil conscience (again πονηρός). Interestingly, the heart is mentioned in the twice repeated reference to Jer 31 that God will write his laws on the people’s hearts (8:10; 10:16). This stands in striking contrast to the characterization of the people not knowing God’s ways. It is quite reasonable to think that the author considered this when employing Ps 95. Even if he engages in no full discussion of not knowing God’s ways, as Johnson notes, the author does make passing reference in 5:2 to ignorance and waywardness in discussion of the mercifulness of the high priest (µετριοπαθεῖν δυνάµενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωµένοις). There is also some hint at knowledge in 6:4, where the author refers to the apparently initial enlightenment of the audience, and in 10:26 the time of receiving knowledge of the truth constitutes the point when sinning becomes ἑκούσιος.82

and unfaithfulness as making itself known in turning away from God (Franz Delitzsch, Der Hebräerbrief [Gießen: Brunnen, 1989], 121–22). Under this understanding, ἀπιστία is translated as unfaithful precisely because of the “apostasy” of abandoning God. This is substantiated further by the use of πιστός in 3:1–6, where faithfulness is at issue, not belief. Not only so, but 3:6 and 3:14 call for holding on, which further suggests faithfulness. For these reasons, throughout the next sections, I speak of “faithfulness” rather than “belief”, but see below for the full discussion. 81 Cf. Gen 20:5, 6; 1 Kgs 9:4; Ps 27:3 LXX; Prov 26:23; Job 27:6 MT; Pss. Sol. 17:25; Hos 13:6; Jer 5:23–24; 7:24. For a full discussion of the heart’s place in the “ethical realm” in the OT, see Heinz-Josef Fabry, “‫לֵ ב‬, ‫לֵ ָבב‬,” TDOT 7:425–34. Additionally, Andrej and Ivana Petrovic have demonstrated that Greek religion also gives attention to the purity of inner thoughts and intentions. The gods are capable of perceiving an individual’s thoughts, and so in order to approach the gods one must be careful to think morally right thoughts. See Andrej Petrovic and Ivana Petrovic, Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 4–8, 263–88 et passim. 82 Johnson, Hebrews, 115. These observations suggest that at the very least in the case of the quotations of Jer 31 and Ps 95 the author takes seriously the content of the quoted text, even lines that are not brought into direct, detailed discussion. The author’s apparent willingness to adjust the quoted texts (here in particular with the addition of διό and the change of τῇ γενεᾷ ἐκείνῃ to τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ in v. 10) also is evidence that not just the

50

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

c) On the Essence of Apostasy The heart is of obvious importance in the passage, but strikingly the concomitant, verbally-specific reference to apostatizing in verse 12 is the only occurrence of ἀφίστηµι in Hebrews, though the idea is certainly conveyed by other means elsewhere (e.g., 6:6; 10:39; 12:25). This is also where the idea of apostasy, or better, turning away or rebellion, is embedded most deeply among other moral terms. The verb ἀφίστηµι describes the turning from something, the removal or hindering of something, or standing aloof or at a distance. It can also be used for departures from a person or place, and thus can be carried over to depict political and religious rebellions.83 Though the verb does not appear in Ps 95, the noun ἀποστάτης is used in Joshua and Caleb’s speech in Num 14:9 of those who would rebel from God instead of entering the land (cf. Num 32:9; Deut 1:28, where it is the heart that turns away).84 Here the rebellion against God is tied to not going up and taking the land God was providing, and so we find correspondence with Hebrews in that if one rebels or turns away from God, he will be unable to enter rest.85 Yet “apostasy” is not only appropriate in this context because of its specific association with the Kadesh-Barnea episode. It is worth keeping in mind that religious rebellion (apostasy) in the OT, in Second Temple Jewish literaexposited portions of the quotation but even the quotation itself plays a role in the author’s argumentation. 83 BDAG, s.v. “ἀφίστηµι”; LSJ, s.v. “ἀφίστηµι.” It is the more basic senses that predominate, for example, in the LXX and NT: e.g., to depart (Gen 12:8; 14:4; Lev 13:58; Luke 2:37; 4:13; Acts 12:10); abstain (Exod 23:7); stand at a distance (Josh 3:16); keep away from (Acts 5:38; cf. Acts 22:29); keep from doing something (Sir 38:20); desert or withdraw from (Num 16:27; Acts 15:38; cf. Acts 19:9). 84 ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου µὴ ἀποστάται γίνεσθε […] (Num 14:9; the MT exhorts the people not to rebel, ‫)מרד‬. The verse also uses the verb, but not in any religious sense; rather, the speakers state that the season (of fruit or prosperity) has departed the inhabitants of the land (ἀφέστηκεν γὰρ ὁ καιρὸς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν), so that the Israelites could successfully move in. In a different sense, Num 14:31 employs the verb form, where God says that the children of the Exodus generation will inherit the land which they turned away from (καὶ κληρονοµήσουσιν τὴν γῆν ἣν ὑµεῖς ἀπέστητε ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς; Heb, rejected, ‫)מאס‬. 85 In the LXX, ἀφίστηµι renders several different Hebrew verbs when speaking of abandoning God or his ways, for example: to turn away (‫סור‬: 2 Sam 22:23; 2 Kgs 18:6; 22:2 [of not turning from David’s ways]), turn back (‫סוג‬: Isa 59:13; ‫שׁוב‬: Josh 22:18, 23, 29; Jer 3:14); rebel (‫מרד‬: Josh 22:19, 29; Neh 9:26; Dan 9:5; ‫פשׁע‬: Jer 40:8 [33:8 MT]; ‫מרה‬: Ezek 20:8; cf. Num 31:16: ‫ר־מ ַ ל ַבּיהוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ;)לִ ְמ ָס‬act unfaithfully (‫מעל‬: 2 Chr 26:18; 28:19, 22; 29:6; 30:7); go astray (‫שׁגה‬: Ps 118/119:118); leave, forsake (‫נטשׁ‬: Deut 32:15). In Deuteronomy especially, ἀφίστηµι is also used to express the turning of others away from God (‫סור‬: 7:4; ‫נדח‬: 13:10/11, 13/14; cf. Deut 1:28; Num 32:9). We also find reference to those who do not abandon their own ways, particularly with reference to idol worship (‫נפל‬: Judg (A) 2:19; ‫סור‬: 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22; see also 2 Kgs 1:18 LXX). Cf. Josh 1:8; Ps 17/18:23.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

51

ture, and in early Christian literature typically describes a turn away from God’s ways. In other words, to apostatize does not mean no longer to be a Jew or Christian, but rather to cease obeying God and to follow some other way of life. In the OT this is commonly tied to turning to other gods (Deut 32:15–16; Josh 22:18–23) or forsaking God’s laws (Dan 9:4–10). In fact, some supposedly accused Paul of teaching “apostasy” from the law of Moses (Acts 21:21). Already in Heb 2 we have seen neglecting the message of salvation compared to transgression of the law. Even in Jer 3:14 (υἱοὶ ἀφεστηκότες; cf. τέκνα ἀποστάται in Isa 30:1) where the verb could be functioning in a more technical sense, 86 there still remains an immediate concern with iniquity, sin, and unfaithfulness (Jer 3:11–13). Apostasy as abandoning the covenant, expressed foremost in abandoning the practice of circumcision, appears not surprisingly in 1 Macc 1:15. A bit later in 1 Macc 2:19, we find the closest expression of abandoning a religion (ἀποστῆναι [. . .] ἀπὸ λατρείας πατέρων αὐτοῦ), but even here following the king’s commands rather than God’s commands expressed in the law and covenant is at issue (2:20–22; cf. 2:15, ἀποστασία). Elsewhere in the Second Temple literature, the book of Judith expresses sin and wickedness as abandoning the ways set out for the people by God (Jdt 5:17–18). In Wis 3:10, the one who turns away from God is one who neglects what is right (ἀµελέω; cf. Heb 2:3).87 Very similar to themes found in Hebrews, 1 Enoch 5:4 binds a lack of endurance and hardheartedness together with failing to act according to God’s commands and turning away (ἀφίστηµι).88 Further, in Luke 8:13, temptation or testing (πειρασµός) is cause for some to turn away.89 Moreover, apostasy finds expression in terms of behavior in the Shepherd of Hermas: “But the ones that fell into the fire and were burned are those who completely abandoned [ἀποστάντες] the living God; and they no longer think about repenting because of their licentious desires and the wicked deeds they have performed” (15.2; Ehrman, LCL).90

86

Heinrich Schlier, “ἀφίστηµι,” TDNT 1:512. See further Tob 4:21; Sir 2:3; Bar 3:8; Pr Azar 1:6; 2 Macc 2:3; 1 Esd 1:46 (English 1:48); Pss. Sol. 4:1; 9:1. 88 For the Greek text see R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 276. 89 This parallel is especially interesting since it occurs in Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the sower, where just as in Heb 6:7–8, the question is one of fruitfulness. 90 This comes from a parable about the usefulness of certain stones for building. It is striking that one’s response to the Gospel may be treated in terms of “usefulness” (cf. Heb 6:7–8), whether the goodness of fruit or the character of the stone. Notable too from the NT is that the rebellion (ἀποστασία) discussed in 2 Thess 2:3 is occasioned by the appearance of the man of lawlessness (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνοµίας), who sets himself up over against God. 87

52

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

Finally, the evidence from Philo and Josephus is even clearer. The two writers employ ἀφίστηµι frequently (72 times for Philo and 135 for Josephus), usually without the religious sense.91 However, they also use the verb in religious contexts. For example, Philo speaks of not abandoning faithfulness to God (Somn. 1.68) and of abandoning the honor of the one true God (Virt. 34). In Virt. 182 he includes a vice list to describe those who abandon the law. This last example is noteworthy, because in the preceding context, Philo discusses the conversion (µετάνοια) of incomers (ἐπηλύται; 182) who did not formerly worship God but later welcomed the worship of one God (179). Importantly, from there Philo proceeds to explain that this conversion includes the repentance (µετανοέω) of old behaviors (180). He refers to abandoning vice (ἀπολείπω; 181) in contrast to “apostatizing” from God’s laws.92 Josephus also speaks of abandoning God’s laws and the customs of the forefathers.93 Similar to Philo, Josephus refers in Ag. Ap. 2.123 to some Greeks who adopted “our laws”. He explains, while “some have remained observant, others have failed to endure patiently and have turned back away.”94 This comment comes directly in connection with Joseph’s interest in comparing the customs of the Jews and Greeks.95 The point is, endurance and “apostasy” in this passage relate to the adherence to a way of life, even if Josephus downplays the differences between Jewish and Greek customs. These examples from Philo and Josephus offer evidence that turning to and away from God has to do with one’s way of life. This host of examples shows that apostasy should be understood not as a simple act of turning away, but rather it is expressed in behaving contrary to God’s ways.96 The English words apostasy or apostatize obscure rather than clarify this, since apostasy in English has more to do with de-conversion from one religion or conversion to a (different) religion, and can be understood as morally neutral in a pluralistic society. This is not only an ambiguity in English, but the German Abfall or Abkehr, even when defined as religious, fails also to bring out the moral expression of the concrete actions against God’s ways that actually constitute the act of turning away. So, when the problem of Hebrews is depicted as one of apostasy, the central issue of Hebrews becomes unclear.97 It is not that turning away from God is simply not morally neutral, 91

E.g., often in the sense of military rebellion in Josephus, J.W. Cf. Virt. 102–3; Meeks, Origins of Christian Morality, 29–30. 93 Ant. 1.14; 8.192, 229, 313; 13.4. 94 Gk.: καί τινες µὲν ἐνέµειναν εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἳ τὴν καρτερίαν οὐχ ὑποµείναντες πάλιν ἀπέστησαν. Translation adapted from Thackeray, LCL. 95 Gk.: τῶν Ἑλλήνων δὲ πλέον τοῖς τόποις ἢ τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύµασιν ἀφεστήκαµεν (2.123). 96 Similarly, Schlier, “ἀφίστηµι,” TDNT 1:512. 97 B.J. Oropeza, Apostasy, helpfully defines apostasy as “the phenomenon that occurs when a religious follower or group of followers turn [sic] away from or otherwise repudiate [sic] the central beliefs and practices they once embraced in a respective religious 92

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

53

it is that turning away from God by its very nature means turning from God’s ways to one’s own, or as Hebrews’ psalm puts it, going astray in the heart and not knowing God’s ways. Thus, in describing the heart that turns away from the living God as evil, the author is not expressing that only turning away from God is evil, but rather that turning away from God is concomitant with evil inclinations. Thus, in connection with this description of the heart, the dangerous hardening effect of the deceitfulness of sin (see below) leads to a general turn away from God’s ways and into a sinful lifestyle, and not simply a religious de-conversion in the modern sense. However, this will require further examination both within the present section of Hebrews and beyond. d) The Deceitfulness of Sin Moving on to verse 13, the author exhorts the audience to encourage (παρακαλεῖτε) one another daily in order that none become hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁµαρτίας). Here, unlike in 3:17, sin appears as a deceiving power (and so the passive voice: σκληρυνθῇ).98 It is quite difficult to define sin here, or at all in Hebrews, since we are given little clue as to specific actions that may be in view. Though Attridge, citing attempts by community” (1:1). Unfortunately, however, his investigation of Hebrews, while sensitive to issues of behavior – such as failing to meet together, sexual misconduct, or not obeying leaders – fails to consider the “practice” side of apostasy in connection with Hebrews’ conception of sin and faithfulness. He generally presumes sin in Hebrews is the sin of apostasy, but his very definition of apostasy should prompt the question of whether this is really the case. He claims that all the authors of the NT “seem to believe that one’s conduct could become so contrary to the central teachings of Christ, or so immoral, that such behavior constitutes a denial of Christ […]” (3:44), but his analysis of Hebrews does not draw this out (see Oropeza, Apostasy, 3:44; cf. 3:3–70 for his treatment of Hebrews). Paul W. Barnett’s article on apostasy in the DLNT falls into a different error. Barnett treats sinful actions or doctrinal aberrations as causes of apostasy rather than expressions of apostasy. For example, he notes that apostasy in Judaism was associated with rejection of God’s law, yet he surprisingly does not bring sin into the discussion of apostasy in Hebrews, instead focusing on perseverance. Barnett also portrays the occasion of apostasy in Hebrews as persecution, but it must be noted that persecution is hardly blamed for anything in Hebrews. If anything, the audience is shamed for giving less effort than Jesus (12:3–4), and even when making mention of outside social pressure, the author sets sin, not sinners, as the real opponents for the audience (12:4). See Paul W. Barnett, “Apostasy,” DLNT 73–76. As a general note on method, it would be better for studies on apostasy in the NT to start from the general definitions of ἀφίστηµι as withdrawal or rebellion and then to ask about what kind of rebellion or withdrawal each text describes, rather than treating apostasy as the result of some cause, like persecution or doctrinal aberration. That is, we might ask, what does the “apostate” turn away from and turn instead toward? The question of the occasion or impetus for apostasy is an equally important, but separate question. 98 Löhr, Umkehr, 99–100; Lane, Hebrews, 1:87.

54

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

Westcott and Bruce to understand the deception as, or in part as, false teachings or arguments,99 advises against speculating on the ways sin might deceive, we do actually find some significant, albeit brief, clues. Though ἀπάτη certainly does appear in contexts dealing with false arguments (Col 2:8; cf. 2 Thess 2:10), here it obviously has to do with behavior. The parable of the sower, as found in Matthew and Mark, offers one of the clearer uses of “deception” in the NT and provides an interesting point of parallel with Hebrews. It teaches that the deception of riches chokes out the word sown among thorns, leaving it unfruitful (Matt 13:22; Mark 4:19; cf. Heb 6:7–8). Hebrews in fact associates riches and sin in 11:25–26, where Moses is lauded for choosing affliction with the people of God rather than the temporary pleasures of sin and for considering the reproach of Christ as greater wealth than the treasuries of Egypt.100 Moses is not an irrelevant ex99

Attridge, Hebrews, 117; cf. Westcott, Hebrews, 85; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 100–1. 100 Johnson, Hebrews, 300, advocates translating ἀπόλαυσις (11:25) as advantage, understanding sin not as the vices of luxury and avarice, but as apostasy, or abandoning the people of God (cf. Pamela M. Eisenbaum, The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context, SBLDS 156 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 168; Cockerill, Hebrews, 570; deSilva, Perseverance, 408–9; Weiß, Hebräer, 604–5). Certainly the concern of these verses, as 11:24–25 confirms, is the question of which group the believer will identify with, but it is important to take the imagery of sin seriously as well. Verse 26 elaborates the point of verse 25 by paralleling ἁµαρτίας ἀπόλαυσιν with wealth and treasures. If “advantage” is the translation, the mention of Egypt’s treasures becomes superfluous, as the point is already made in verse 25. The depiction works from the connection between vice and wealth. Not only this, but that the author returns repeatedly to issues of money or possessions suggests that more is at hand than just advantage (10:34; 13:5, 16). The point is, the pleasures offered by sin constitute a temptation, an enticement to abandon the people of God, such that the option before the audience is endurance in bearing the reproach of Christ or abandoning God’s people for the sake of sinful pleasures. A few parallels help support this interpretation. For example, 1 Tim 6:9–10 warns of the love of money and the evil it produces. Just a few verses later the author exhorts the rich not to hope in their riches but in God, who provides enjoyment, and to store treasures that lead to taking hold of eternal life (vv. 16–19). Philo, in Sacr. 21–24, links the enjoyment of all human treasures with vice, including the vice of ἀπάτη (see ἀπόλαυσις and θησαυρός in Sacr. 22; see also Leg.1.103; 3.80). Moreover, in Congr. 164, Philo associates Egypt with enjoyment of the passions; the person weary in the wilderness struggle for virtue turns back to this land (παλινδροµεῖν εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τοῦ πάθους ἐγνωκότες; cf. Mos. 1.149 where virtuous Moses leaves Egypt because of its misdeeds). Josephus, in Ant. 4.42, depicts Moses leaving the enjoyment of good things in Egypt (τὴν ἐκείνων ἀπόλαυσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν) for the toil of freeing the Israelites, though in this case the good things are not pleasurable vices, but the repose of a quiet life. 2 Clem. 10.3–4 sets the present enjoyment of a sinful lifestyle over the luxury of the future promise. In the Sheperd of Hermas, luxury and deceit are treated together as two sides of the same coin. In fact, 62.1–2 explains how the angel of luxury and deceit deceives men: “He, then, is the one who wears down the souls of the vacuous slaves of God and turns

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

55

ample of moral virtue. Rather, Moses, along with the other faithful exemplars of chapter 11, models behaviors that the author specifically demands of the audience, and Moses along with the other heroes is depicted according to the situation of the audience.101 Thus, we find the exhortation to live free of the love of money (13:5; cf. 13:16) in an effort to spur the audience to maintain the attitude they previously had toward the seizure of their property (10:34). Whether money or possessions is what the author means with deception in 3:13 must remain unclear. What is clear is the ongoing argument throughout Hebrews maintains that giving up or rebelling leads to retribution, here forfeiture of the promised rest (4:1). So, at the very least sin deceives in offering pleasure or respite from reproach (11:26), but this pleasure is only temporary (11:25) and must be compared with the lasting kingdom and a future joy (11:26; 12:2, 28). e) The Disobedience of the Wilderness Generation Thus far we have seen that the description of the wilderness generation example is filled with the language of sin, hardness of heart, evil, unfaithfulness, and rebellion. As we reach 3:16–19, “disobedience” is added to the mixture (3:18), and from 3:16 onward we also find a closer focus on hearing. The author moves into this part of the argument by appealing again to Ps 95, specifically the warning not to harden the heart at the hearing of God’s voice (v. 15). Verse 16 then continues with an exposition made up largely of rhetorthem away from the truth, deceiving them with evil desires that destroy them. For they forget the commandments of the living God and proceed in vain deceits and luxuries and are destroyed by this angel – some to death and others to ruin” (Ehrman, LCL; see further 62.4; 64.4; 65; 92.3). A bit differently, Plutarch, quoting Solon, comments on the abiding nature of virtue over against wealth: “We will not exchange with them wealth for virtue, since it is what is lasting, but property is owned now by one man, later by another” (ἀλλ᾽ ἡµεῖς γ᾽ αὐτοῖς οὐ διαµειψόµεθα τῆς ἀρετῆς τὸν πλοῦτον, ἐπεὶ τὸ µὲν ἔµπεδον ἐστι, χρήµατα δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἄλλοτε ἄλλος ἔχει’; Mor. 78C; trans. mine; text from the Teubner edition). Cf. Seneca, Ep. 27.2–3; 123.4–17. Jacoby, Ethik, 206; Koester, Hebrews, 508; Sidney G. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Basel Studies of Theology 1 (Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1965), 136. 101 Carl Mosser, “Rahab Outside the Camp,” in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 388. Cf. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 (1990): 219; Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 67. Attridge discusses Moses’ faithfulness in his article, but more with a focus on Moses’ suffering and the community’s social ostracism. Yet, Moses’ refusal to give into the pleasure of sin is just as conspicuous as his suffering, because it shows the price he paid, and therefore the real draw of what the author of Hebrews considers sin.

56

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

ical questions. Though verse 16 is normally (that is, in the modern era)102 taken as the first of three sets of rhetorical questions (“For who was it that heard but nevertheless rebelled? Was it not all those who came out of Egypt by Moses?”), the verse flows quite naturally as a statement (“For some heard but nevertheless rebelled; but not all […]”), understanding the text to read τινές instead of τίνες. If the whole verse is taken as a statement, then this solves the difficulty of the adversative ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, which would otherwise have to be read as introducing a question.103 Thus, the author begins by noting that some, although they heard,104 rebelled; but not all those who came out of Egypt through Moses did so.105 Ellingworth would take this to mean that the author of Hebrews here makes room for Joshua, Caleb, and the younger generation who were not involved in the rebellion.106 This could be the case, but just as in Paul (1 Cor 10:1–10) it must remain implicit. The focus is rather on those who did wrong and received retribution for it. Here a contrast is constructed between those who rebelled and those who did not, just as in 4:1 where the author fears that some of his audience would also come short. This reading brings the situation into sharper relief. It highlights all the more that for those who sin, God’s anger follows, while at the same time there is still an opportunity to enter for those who will respond faithfully (4:1–2; “some” in 4:6).107 Thus, the rhetorical questions of verses 17 and 18 place the emphasis on those who did sin: “But with whom was he angry for forty years? Was he not angry with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, if not to those who disobeyed? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unfaithfulness.” 102

Up to the middle of the 18th century the consensus was reversed, according to Ellingworth, Hebrews, 229. 103 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 229. 104 The participle could be temporal, that is, after they had heard, but 4:2 would suggest the concessive use. 105 Although it is commonly noted that Numbers (14:2, 5, 7, 10, 22) emphasizes that all the people rebelled, Paul also uses “some” to describe the sinners of the wilderness generation (1 Cor 10:7–10). Thus Westcott’s primary argument against this reading of v. 16 is of little weight. Westcott, Hebrews, 87; cf. Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom Endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief, WUNT 11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970), 135. 106 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 230. 107 The reading offered here is not undermined by reading the text as most modern commentators do, but it seems there would be little point for the author to highlight that all of those who came out of Egypt rebelled. For Cockerill, however, a reminder about the innocence of a few is unnecessary; rather, the author is trying to impress the hearers “with the privileges and thus the great culpability of the wilderness generation.” Yet, the culpability is established in either case. Instead, the author is highlighting the “some”, just as he warns lest “some” (4:2) come up short. See Cockerill, Hebrews, 191–92; cf. Löhr, Umkehr, 106, who sees a contrast in the warning of “some” and the “all” of 3:16.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

57

We have seen already that sin is deceptive, promising temporary comforts while ultimately resulting in retribution (2:3; 6:8; 10:39; 12:29), but what can we say of the sin of these who heard and nevertheless rebelled? Whereas the Hebrew text of Ps 95 refers to events described in Ex 17 and Num 20, the LXX makes reference instead to rebellion and testing. Despite this, one could still read the LXX version of the psalm to refer specifically to the KadeshBarnea events, as Otfried Hofius and Albert Vanhoye have done in response to Ernst Käsemann’s focus on wandering.108 Hofius offers twelve points where Hebrews’ exposition of the psalm overlaps with Num 14 and other traditions discussing the Kadesh-Barnea rebellion.109 The most important of his points are the overlap not only in the terms ἁµαρτία (Num 14:34), ἀποστάτης (Num 14:9; cf. 32:9), ἀπειθέω (Num 14:43), and (οὐ) πιστεύω (14:11), among others, but also in the swearing that the people would not enter the land and the resulting death of the rebels in the wilderness. With these connections it would seem difficult not to have the Kadesh-Barnea situation in view. This would lead us to think of the people’s rebellious decision not to enter the land after receiving the rather fearful report about the people living there, despite God’s promise to deliver his people. Thus, the sin and disobedience of the people would be their refusal to enter the land, which ultimately stemmed from their lack of belief or trust in God to bring them successfully in despite the proofs of God’s power (Num 14:11). As Cockerill says of their unbelief, they “categorically denied the adequacy of God’s power and the validity of his future but imminent promise to give them the ‘rest’ for which they had left Egypt.”110 Yet, there are a few major differences between the issue in Num 14 and the issue of Heb 3–4. First, the author does not pick up the specific details of the Kadesh-Barnea episode, and so instead of focusing on the land, he focuses on sin and retribution in terms of even the response to the preaching of the good news. Second, the author does not specify the sin of the wilderness generation into a failure of disbelief, but instead warns the audience against unfaithfulness. We take these points in turn. 108

Hofius, Katapausis, 124–26; Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, passim; Albert Vanhoye, “Longue marche ou accès tout proche? Le context biblique de Hébreux 3,7 – 4,11,” Biblica 49 (1968): 9–26; cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 142–43; Peter E. Enns, “Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” WTJ 55 (1993): 255–80; Jon Laansma, “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4, WUNT II/98 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 259–64; William G. Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” JBL 97 (1978): 239–51; David R. Darnell, “Rebellion, Rest, and the Word of God: An Exegetical Study of Hebrews 3:1–4:13” (PhD diss., Duke University, 1973), esp. chapter 4 and appendix 1. 109 Hofius, Katapausis, 124–26; cf. Laansma, Rest, 262–64. 110 Cockerill, Hebrews, 183; cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 144–45.

58

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

1) For Hebrews, the failure of the people was not their failure to enter the land, but their failure to meet the good news with a faithful hearing (4:2, 6).111 It must be remembered that the land does not make an appearance here (cf. 11:8–9). Rather, the author constructs his argument to show that David could still speak of rest remaining open because Joshua did not bring the people to it. In other words, what Joshua led the people into may have been the promised land, but it was not the same rest as spoken of in the psalm. 112 Thus for Hebrews, the sin, obedience, and (un)faithfulness of the people before the land of Canaan has quite little to do with obedience to God’s promise of land, but has much more to do with their response to the gospel message. 111

The textual difficulty of 4:2 is well known. Despite the expression in the main body above, the verse (accepting the NA28 reading) should be understood literally as, “since they were not united by faithfulness with those who heard” (µὴ συγκεκερασµένους τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν). This widely attested reading (for both the problems of συγκεκερασµένους and ἀκούσασιν) is the more difficult, particularly since hearing in 4:2b implies faithful hearing, whereas in 4:2a and 3:16 hearing would appear to be neutral. That is, the preached word finds a hearing from “all” but still demands corresponding faithfulness. In 4:2b this is undone. In other words, we would expect to read something like, “since they were not united by faithfulness with those [others] who did hear [with faithfulness].” Perhaps τῇ πίστει should be taken to modify τοῖς ἀκούσασιν, so: “since they were not united with those who heard with faithfulness.” The word order speaks against this, however. Zuntz may be correct that the text was corrupted early on, but in any case, the reading taken here accounts best for the other variants. See Attridge, Hebrews, 125, n. 40; Braun, Hebräer, 104– 5; Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 157–58, n. 62; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 595; Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 16. Despite the textual difficulty, the main thought of the verse is clear: the heard word will not profit those who show no faithfulness to it. Riggenbach, Hebräer, 99, finds the identities of the (faithful) hearers problematic, since all of those who came out of Egypt were unfaithful. On the one hand, this problem is easily solved when 3:16a is not taken as a question, as suggested above. On the other hand, it remains doubtful that the author or readers would have required specific definition of the faithful ones (thus, “all” in 3:16 would comprise a sort of hyperbole, just as in Num 14 where obviously Joshua, Caleb, and Moses do not rebel). Thus, Attridge’s proposal that τοῖς ἀκούσασιν refers to the present readers is unnecessary as well, though his reference to 11:40 as a similar notion may suggest that here the present faithful ones are implied. Nevertheless, as Löhr notes, a specific reference to the contemporary addressees in 4:2b is unlikely because of the aorist. Attridge, Hebrews, 125–26; Löhr, Umkehr, 95 n. 453. 112 Hofius, Katapausis, 137–38, mentions the Joshua example as further proof that the author had Num 14 open before him since the author makes sure to say that Joshua did not in fact bring the people into this rest while Num 14:30–31, 38 note that Joshua and the children would be permitted to enter. But this argument cuts both ways; it does show the author’s awareness of the OT story, but it also shows how significantly different he understands the real issue of the Kadesh-Barnea episode.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

59

The use of the language and themes of Num 14 does not necessarily suggest the author means to equate the Kadesh-Barnea events with the problem facing the audience. As we shall see in chapters 4 and 5, the author draws deeply from the language of Prov 3–4 in not only quoting and alluding to Prov 3:11–12 and 4:26, but even in using language from the context. Nevertheless, the language has a different sense than it does in the context of Proverbs. In the case of Heb 3–4, this difference of concern suggests even more that other details of apparent parallel between Hebrews and Numbers may also be slightly different. This appears first and most obviously in the different construal of the forty-year period. As mentioned already, the author’s shaping of the psalm quotation renders the forty years as a time of seeing God’s works – presumably wonders like those of Heb 2:4 – while in 3:17 the forty years make up the time of wrath. Hofius attempts to split this into two forty-year periods on the basis of the association of the wilderness time with God’s gracious, miraculous provision (Ex 16:35; Deut 2:7; Neh 9:21).113 Thus, for him there is a forty-year period of blessing and a forty-year period of wrath as a result of the rebellion. This, however, presumes that the author must stick close to his text at hand, which for Hofius of course is Num 14.114 Yet the author always harks back to the psalm. The psalm remains the source of the exhortation. The most obvious solution to the problem of the two “chronologies” is that the author conceived of the forty years as a time of both blessing in miraculous provision and at the same time one of wrath toward the always-goingastray wilderness generation (3:10).115 Since the author makes no appeal to the specifics of the refusal to enter into the land because of the fearsome inhabitants, there is also no reason to try to fit Hebrews’ multiplex construal of the forty years into the sequence of Num 14. We might also remember that 113

Hofius, Katapausis, 130 There is some irony in the fact that Hofius must appeal to texts outside Num 14 to make the sequence stay true to Num 14. Ultimately the author is addressing the situation of his readers, not the situation of the wilderness generation. He is less concerned to build one-to-one correspondences. Rather, he reads the present situation of the readers into the situation of the wilderness generation. The wilderness generation serves as an apt example because they constitute a concrete instance of people who died for disobedience. That is, the author focuses on the fact of their sin and punishment more than the details of the sinful events at Kadesh-Barnea. 115 So also Riggenbach, Hebräer, 79–84, esp. 82–84; John Cecil McCullough, “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews,” NTS 26 (1980): 371; cf. Susan E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation, WUNT II/260 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 138, 186–87. Docherty also proposes that the author added διό in Heb 3:10 as a way of dividing the text into two citations to be treated separately (cf. Heb 2:13 and its use of Isa 8:17, 18). She argues the exposition supports this in that the author begins by focusing the exposition on the exhortation not to harden the heart and later turns to the vow that the people would never enter rest. 114

60

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

even Num 14:22 makes reference to ten occasions of testing. In fact, this has led Cockerill and Benetreu to suggest that the Kadesh-Barnea rebellion was the climax of the wilderness rebellions.116 This may even explain why the author of Hebrews has drawn so much from Num 14 and other references to Kadesh-Barnea while not actually saying much as to the specific events. However, the author does keep two things relevant to the Kadesh-Barnea rebellion close to his exhortation: sin and retribution. The exhortation from 3:15–19 builds specifically on the warning about becoming hardened by the deceitfulness of sin and the reminder that the addressees are only partners with Christ if they hold on until the end. Thus after the author returns to the psalm and the exhortation not to harden the heart as in the rebellion, it is by no means surprising that he asks with whom God was angry – those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert. The author thus brings into view the cause and effect: sin and death. Only then does he pick up for the first time the “rest” aspect of the psalm. God swore that those who disobeyed would not enter rest, and so “we see that they were unable to enter because of unfaithfulness.”117 2) With these observations in mind, what then is sin, disobedience, or unfaithfulness in the present passage? First, it appears at the very least that disobedience and unfaithfulness are here treated as the same. This becomes evident in the parallel verses of 3:19 and 4:6. In 3:19 the wilderness generation could not enter because of unfaithfulness, and in 4:6 it is repeated that those who were preached the gospel before did not enter because of disobedience. With this in mind, it would probably be safe to say that sin, particularly because of the parallels between verses 17–19, would be equivalent with disobedience and unfaithfulness.118 Thus when the author writes that the people sinned, disobeyed, and were unfaithful, the author is simply describing the same crime in three different ways. But what exactly is the crime? The reference to disobedience in 4:6 helps answer this question because it also refers to those who did not enter as those who earlier were preached the gospel (οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέντες). That is, they did not enter because they did not obey the gospel. Verse 2 puts this a bit 116

Samuel Benetreu, L’Épître aux Hébreux, 2 vols., Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible (Cherbourg: Édifac, 1989–1990), 1:162–63; Cockerill, Hebrews, 155, n. 8. 117 Hofius, Katapausis, 137, has suggested that the inability to enter refers to the people’s failed attempt to enter Canaan after recognizing their sin (Num 14:40–45). Though this coheres with Hebrews’ stance on “second repentance” (6:4–6; 12:17), such a reference seems unlikely because it reads an entire further episode into one part of one verse. Even if the author did mean to refer to that scene, he does not develop any point about second repentance from it. The point of verse 19 is to highlight the reason God swore they would not enter rest: unfaithfulness. The final phrase δι᾽ ἀπιστίαν brings the argument to a sharp climax about unfaithfulness, not about second repentance. 118 Attridge, Hebrews, 121 and n. 102.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

61

differently – though it coheres with the basic equation of unfaithfulness and disobedience – in that ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς119 did not profit them because they were not united by faithfulness with the others who heard. This raises the question of what faithfulness involves. In 4:2 and 4:6 the examples are negative examples; the wilderness generation serves as a concrete example of a people who died under retribution for disobedience. It is thus clear what the audience should not do, be unfaithful or disobedient, but what does this entail and what are they supposed to do instead? With these questions we return to earlier verses, especially 3:6, 12, and 13–14. Directly after warning about being hardened by the deceit of sin, the author explains, “for we have only become partners of Christ if we hold fast the certain beginning of our resolve until the end” (3:14). Thus the author is essentially saying, one can either be overtaken and deceived by the empty promises of sin, or one can continue in the confidence shown previously, expressed in concrete action (6:9–12; 10:32–36). It is noteworthy that the author makes reference to the certain, or sure, beginning of resolve. The thrust of the adjective βεβαίαν is usually lost in translation, as most English translations translate it as an adverb,120 and most German translations lose it altogether.121 But the adjective resonates back to the discussion in 2:1–4 of the confirmation of the preached message of salvation by those who heard it from the Lord and to which God testified by signs and wonders. Yet this is not all; the construal of being faithful or unfaithful in 3:6 and 3:12 also suggests the point that πίστις consists of holding on to confidence and hope rather than consisting of unbelief, as the specifics of the Kadesh-Barnea events might suggest. The point is, faithfulness to the preached message finds expression in ongoing resolve to finish; the other side of this is unfaithfulness understood as a rebellion against the living God and a giving in to the deceit of sin. f) Diligence vs. Disobedience The author returns to the need for ongoing resolve toward the end of our present passage, in 4:11. The author concludes with the exhortation, “let us be diligent to enter into that rest”. With the verb σπουδάζω the author expresses the need to show some effort. The audience cannot sit back, but must act. 119

The “heard word” (attributive genitive) probably refers to the preached good news mentioned in 4:2a (καὶ γάρ ἐσµεν εὐηγγελισµένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι). In this context, Attridge, Hebrews, 125, points to the frequency of descriptive genitives in Hebrews: 1:3; 3:12; 4:16. 120 E.g., “hold our resolve firm”. In English only the lack of the -ly ending belies that an adjective and not an adverb is being translated, but this is only poorly done. 121 The Zürcher Bibel is an exception, but even it translates the adjective adverbally: “sofern wir den Anfang der Grundlegung bis ans Ende fest bewahren” (emphasis mine).

62

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

Within the present context, this includes encouraging one another daily (3:13), but later the author will again exhort the audience to show σπουδή (6:11) with reference to concrete acts of love and service for the saints as marks of faithfulness (6:10, 12). Not showing diligence, however, implies certain danger. The exhortation concludes, “lest someone fall after the same example of disobedience.” Here πίπτω, to fall, refers in all likelihood to the fall of the bodies of those who sinned in the wilderness (3:17).122 Thus, the warning concerns not “falling away” but the fearful expectation of death as retribution. The author goes on then to warn of the frightfulness of the living word of God, which can judge the reflections and thoughts of the heart. All are laid bare before the word of God; all must give account. Here again we find the supposition of the heart as 122 The question is whether 4:11 has to do with falling away (as most understand παραπίπτω in 6:6, but see the discussion below) or with dying (πίπτω) as in 3:17. πίπτω can be used for dying (e.g., in battle, Josephus, Ant. 2:239) or perishing (Exod 19:21; Num 14:3, 29, 32, 43; Josh 8:25; Sir 28:18; Rev 17:10; cf. Lev 26:36; Deut 21:1), and this usage also appears in the context of dying as punishment for sins (Isa 65:12; Jer 6:15; Ezek 5:12; 6:11–12; 11:10 et passim; Hos 7:7, 16; 14:1; Luke 21:24; 1 Cor 10:8; cf. Acts 5:5). Mic 7:8–9 uses fall in the sense of experiencing calamity because of sin until God sets the person up again (cf. Isa 26:18–19). Jer 23:10–12 also describes calamity coming as God’s judgment in terms of tripping and falling on a slippery path (cf. Ps 36:22–24 LXX). The wisdom literature speaks of falling in a similar way, but more in the sense of natural consequences of poor choices or sins than in the sense of divine retribution, though the latter is not totally excluded (Prov 11:14, 28; 24:15–18; 29:16; Sir 1:30; 2:7; 23:1–3; cf. Eccl 4:10; see further the mention of the fallen among those under affliction and in need in 1 Clem. 59.4). In the NT, Jas 5:12 speaks of falling under judgment, probably illustrating condemnation rather than death (so also Wilhelm Michaelis, “πίπτω,” TDNT 6:165 n. 23; L&N 56.32; cf. Rom 14:4). In Rom 11:11, 22 it appears that the falling of the Jews refers to the results of their unbelief, illustrated initially by stumbling (11:11), and later illustrated with the cutting off of the branches (11:22). However, the cutting is difficult to square with Paul’s denial that Israel stumbled so as to fall (11:11; cf. also the falling of branches in Ezek 31:12). Falling occurs in 1 Cor 10:8 and 12, as in Hebrews, with reference to the wilderness generation and their death because of their sins (10:8). In 10:12, Paul thus warns anyone thinking he is standing to watch out lest he fall. This likely plays on the idea of standing before God in judgment (so, Michaelis, TDNT 165 n. 23; cf. Rom 14:4; Ps 129:3; Rev 6:17), particularly since the “fall” of those in the wilderness is a result of their sins (cf. 2 Clem. 2.4–7 and Barn. 12.5, where the ones who are falling are those who are perishing because of sin). In Rev 2:5, falling has to do with leaving the first love (2:4) abandoning earlier good deeds, and thus needing to repent. This brief review, along with the context of judgment in 4:12–13, speaks in favor of understanding the fall in Heb 4:11 as a punishment resulting from following after the wilderness generation’s disobedience. Falling in 4:11 should neither be equated with disobedience nor with παραπίπτω in 6:6 (contra Michaelis, TDNT 165 and Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 14th ed., KEK [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984], 196; cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 259; Westcott, Hebrews, 101).

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

63

the location of thoughts and intentions, and so for Hebrews the implication remains that the heart had better tend toward God and his ways rather than turn away from him. With this return to the heart the author shows concern with the very inner desires and inclinations of the audience and reminds them that even these seemingly hidden areas are open to judgment (4:13), thus the importance of diligence. g) Conclusion Ultimately, in the section from 3:7–4:13 the author conveys that unfaithfulness to God is a matter of behavior that stems from the heart, and such behavior is specifically tied to obedience to the message and faithfulness to God in ongoing resolve. Of course, the question of behavior stemming from one’s inner being is a question of ethics, whereby those who turn from God are viewed as evil and deceived by sin. Not only that, but as demonstrated, turning from the living God implies not simply the sin of apostasy, but it implies a turn from God’s ways. It thus involves not a sin, but sinning. As we proceed, we will see that the author develops this construal further, even to characterize more specific behaviors proper and improper to Christian existence. While disobedience is the result of an evil heart hardened by sin, obedience even comes to expression in tangible acts. 6. Hebrews 4:14–5:10: Obedience to the Sinless Highpriest On the heels of the warning concerning the word of God and its judgment of thoughts and intentions, the author turns back to the theme of the high priesthood. Yet this “exposition” includes exhortation on the one hand, and refers to Jesus’ exemplary behavior in becoming high priest on the other. In view of possible judgment, the author in 4:14 therefore (οὖν) exhorts the audience with the hortatory subjunctive to hold fast to the confession, since they have a great high priest.123 While holding fast to a confession undoubtedly involves some content – Jesus is the apostle and high priest of the confession according to 3:1 – it is important to note that ὁµολογία appears all three times in relation to the cult and Jesus’ high priesthood (3:1; 4:16; 10:23).124 We may

123

This calls Guthrie’s treatment of 4:14–16 as an expositional unit into question. Guthrie, Structure, 116–17; but see Vanhoye, Structure, 40a and Matera, “Moral Exhortation,” 173. Cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 60–61 and Peterson, Perfection, 74, who rightly recognize the artificiality of this distinction in Hebrews. 124 Cf. Günther Bornkamm, “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief,” in vol. 2 of Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze, BEvT 28 (Munich: Kaiser, 1959), 188– 89. The question of the exact content of the confession presupposed by the author is debatable and probably of little help for our purposes. However, it does appear that the author is building on a basic confession of Jesus by developing the teaching of the high priesthood.

64

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

here note the cohesion between the expressions of the boast of hope (3:6) and the confession of hope (10:23), as well as the exhortation to hold fast to confidence (3:6) and to hold fast to the confession (4:14). These motifs appear in contexts of cultic importance.125 This suggests, then, that the author is not simply exhorting the audience to continue belief or assent, even if this is involved, but that he is exhorting the audience to hold on specifically to what has been made available through the high priest. This explains why the author can build on verse 14 by explaining that the audience does not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with weakness, but who has been tested in every respect, though without sinning when he was tested. Since an evil heart and rebellion will lead to judgment, one needs a high priest who can help in time of need, that is, when being tested (2:18). As long as the audience maintains their confession of this high priest, they will find this help. Thus, verse 16 exhorts the audience – again with the hortatory subjunctive – to approach the throne of grace with παρρησία. Access and confidence have been established for them, but they must hold on to them.126 From here the author proceeds to develop features of the office of high priest, and he eventually turns to Christ’s call as high priest, with reference to his sonship in 5:5. From 5:7–9 the author describes Christ’s learning. Jesus is said to have learned obedience from those things which he suffered (ἔµαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν), and once he had been made perfect, he became the cause of eternal salvation for all those who obey him (καὶ τελειωθεὶς ἐγένετο πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου). Verses 7–9 are fraught with exegetical problems, but here we focus primarily on the followThe question of the exact liturgical setting of the confession enters the realm of speculation (see Bornkamm, “Bekenntnis” and Otto Michel, “ὁµολογία,” TDNT 5:215–16). 125 Gräßer, Der Glaube, 17 n. 31. 126 It should be noted that the present context deals with an access to God that presupposes the purification of sin and conscience, suggesting that this help (βοήθεια; 4:16) is not the provision of ongoing forgiveness for sins. Granted, grace in 10:29 (and possibly in 2:9) relates to sanctification by blood (in 2:9 the defeat of death), and the descriptor of Jesus as a merciful high priest in 2:17 directly concerns the matters of God, namely, for the purpose of atoning for sin (ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁµαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ). Yet in order to approach the throne to receive help, one must already be sanctified, and sin reverses sanctification (see below on 10:26). Moreover, Hebrews emphasizes that Jesus’ sacrifice occurs only once (7:27; 9:12; 10:10, 26). Thus, Löhr, Umkehr, 37–38 n. 139, is right to point out that the author does not describe exactly what constitutes help, especially since the author does not include in this claim the idea of ongoing atonement for sin. Indeed, Hebrews’ later arguments preclude ongoing atonement altogether. Patrick Gray surmises that the help is timely in that he aids at the time of judgment. This makes sense in light of 4:12–13, but 2:18 refers to the help of those being tested (present participle), and suggests rather some sort of help in the meantime. See Patrick Gray, Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition, AcBib 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 124.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

65

ing questions: 1) In what way was Jesus obedient? And, 2) What does obedience to Jesus involve? As to the first question, considering the essential synonymy between disobedience and unfaithfulness in Heb 3–4, it appears at first that Jesus’ obedience, even though a different term is used in Heb 5, would be akin to faithfulness. This seems justified by evidence of Jesus’ faithfulness elsewhere (3:1–6; 12:1–3),127 but the logic still requires something or someone to be faithful or obedient to.128 In 10:8–10 we find that Jesus offers his body as a sacrifice according to God’s will, and in 12:1–3 Jesus’ faithfulness comes to expression in his enduring of the cross. Jesus’ obedience in suffering (5:7) and ultimately dying (12:1–3) would then constitute obedience to God’s will. The problem with this, however, is that 12:1–3 refers neither to death nor to suffering specifically, only shame. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the author is referring to the Gethsemane episode in 5:7; in fact the idea of learning, which would suggest the need for some length of time, seems to speak against it.129 Even more notable is that these three depictions of Jesus have to do with different issues in their respective contexts. In chapter 5 the concern is with Jesus’ becoming perfected for the high priesthood; in chapter 10 the author focuses on Jesus’ final sacrifice for sins to purify the conscience; and chapter 12 focuses not on suffering as such, but on an attitude of endurance and submission to divine παιδεία. To unify the presentations of Jesus in 5:7, 127

See further Matthew C. Easter, Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews, SNTSMS 160 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 132–63; Todd D. Still, “Christos as Pistos: The Faith(fulness) of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 40–50. 128 Patrick Gray helpfully brings out the logical necessity of being obedient to something or somebody in noting the general vagueness of most commentary on 5:8–9, particularly verse 9. Patrick Gray, “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews,” JBL 12 (2003): 345. 129 Nevertheless, the author has already proven to be one who shapes the traditions he obviously knows for his paraenetic purposes. Gräßer rightly argues this concerning the historical claims about Jesus in Hebrews: “Nirgends auch lassen sich die historischen Aussagen von den kerygmatischen fein säuberlich scheiden.” Gräßer’s analysis shows that perhaps it would even be truer to express this the other way around, that the “kerygmatic” cannot be separated from what appears historical. Erich Gräßer, “Der historische Jesus im Hebräerbrief,” in Aufbruch und Verheißung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief, ed. Martin Evang and Otto Merk, BZNW 65 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 105–124. Moreover, Attridge and deSilva argue convincingly that traditions about the prayers of the pious fit Heb 5:7 better than the Gethsemane episode. See Harold Attridge, “‘Heard Because of His Reverence” (Heb 5:7),” JBL 98 (1979): 91–93; deSilva, Perseverance, 189–91. For an interesting, in-part intertextual argument for reference to Golgatha, see Christopher Richardson, “The Passion: Reconsidering Hebrews 5.7–8,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts, ed. Richard Bauckham et al., LNTS 387 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 51–67.

66

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

10:8–10, and 12:1–3 unduly, then, may not lead to a reliable answer to the question of the way in which Jesus was obedient.130 Two other explanations of Jesus’ obedience in the passage seem reasonable. First, Brian Small has shown in his recent monograph how the characterization of Jesus in Hebrews frequently depicts actions and traits expected likewise of the audience.131 With the exhortations of the audience to take advantage of access to the throne of grace (4:14–16; 10:19–22; cf. 2:18), Jesus’ own pious approach to God through prayer may serve as an aspect of exemplary obedience,132 though here there is no clear object of obedience; it is merely exemplary behavior. Second, Jesus’ own sinless under testing forms a part of his obedience, especially since we have seen sin coupled with disobedience and faithlessness already (cf. 4:15; 7:26). Obedience naturally evokes ideas of keeping rules or laws, and so it logically fits with the notion of Jesus’ sinlessness, especially in a context explaining the grounds for Jesus’ becoming high priest (4:14–5:10). Thus, with some degree of caution, we may suggest that Jesus’ obedience in chapter 5 concerns his piety on the one hand, and his sinlessness during testing on the other. Regarding the second question, concerning obedience to Jesus, we are left with even fewer clues. It is doubtful, first of all, that obedience to Jesus means faith in Jesus as object of faith, even if there is a Christological element to faith in Hebrews.133 But as Jesus is the prime positive example of 130

On the variegated presentation of Jesus’ death in Heb, see again Löhr, “Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung,” esp. 464–75. 131 Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, BibInt 128 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 312-16. 132 Here εὐλάβεια is understood as reverence or piety rather than as fear, since εὐλαβέοµαι is used of Noah’s exemplary behavior (11:7), and since the author calls the audience to worship God µετὰ εὐλαβείας (12:28). Again, we see the behavior of exemplars expressed also as specific directive. As to 5:8, I take καίπερ ὢν υἱός as qualifying what precedes in 5:7 rather than what follows in verse 8; that is, it is because of Jesus’ piety that he was heard, although he was Son (i.e., not: although he was son, he learned). God heard Jesus on the basis of his character and not simply because of who he was. It would make little sense, in the case that one takes the concessive with what follows in verse 8, to say that Jesus learned from suffering despite being a son. Heb 12 presumes that all legitimate sons suffer. Cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 192–93; Mathias Rissi, “Die Menschlichkeit Jesu nach Hebr. 5,7–8,” TZ 11 (1955): 42 n. 28, who, however, relates the concessive phrase to the distress reported in 5:7, not Jesus’ being heard. On the combination of παθεῖν and µαθεῖν, see Heinrich Dörrie, Leid und Erfahrung: Die Wort- und Sinn-Verbindung παθεῖν µαθεῖν im griechischen Denken (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1956). Interestingly, Dörrie finds the combination of learning through suffering in contexts where the sufferer is incapable of learning in any other way. Often this implies some inability to learn in “normal” ways. It also has to do with the learning of wisdom through making mistakes. Cf. further Croy, Endurance, 139–45. 133 Contra Victor Rhee, Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology, and Ethics, StBibLit 19 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001).

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

67

Hebrews – he appears in 12:1–3 as the last but climactic exemplar after the list in chapter 11 – and his actions are often those which are to be imitated, obeying Jesus may simply mean following his example of faithfulness, particularly in enduring reproach (12:1–3; 13:12–13).134 Yet, as suggested above, his piety and sinlessness also model behavior expected of the audience (10:26; 12:1, 3–4; 12:28). Indeed, Patrick Gray has shown that obedience and emulation of older brothers by younger brothers was seen to be fitting behavior in the classical world.135 While Gray himself is unable to come down on any specific interpretation of obedience or disobedience to Jesus, his findings are nevertheless suggestive. Yet, perhaps obedience would seem to be something more, especially since Jesus is the source of salvation.136 With Hebrews’ emphasis on obedience to the spoken word (2:1–5; 3:7, 15; 4:2; 12:25), we may also surmise that obedience includes the response to God’s speech through Jesus (1:2). The difficulty with this reading is that Jesus never speaks directly to the audience in Hebrews, even though the Holy Spirit and even David do speak to the audience through the quoted Scripture texts. Even the message of salvation first spoken by Jesus was relayed to the audience by others (2:3). But, with this tracing of the message back to Jesus as the final representative of God, perhaps the author sees the “Christian” message itself as the words of Jesus which are to be obeyed. Unfortunately, this lacks specificity, but none of the references in Hebrews to attending to or listening offer any more specificity than here. At the very least, each shows a concern with salvation or failing to reach it (2:1– 4; 12:25–29), a concern we find in 5:9 as well. Thus, in a section that could be labeled as exposition, the author both exhorts the audience to hold on to that which has been made available to them in Christ, and offers a further look at his exemplary obedience and piety, which forms the basis of his becoming high priest (5:9–10). Though we must exercise caution in interpreting Jesus’ obedience and the audience’s obedience to Jesus in the passage, it would seem obedience on the part of Jesus expresses itself in the form of sinlessness and piety, and obedience on the part of the audience expresses itself in imitation of Jesus. That in this very context the author exhorts the audience to hold fast to their confession (4:14), which itself points to Christ’s atoning work, suggests a close tie between the author’s message of purity from sin and the behavior he expects of his audience. 134

O’Brien, Letter, 202, appears to hint at this. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 154. Interestingly, Polycarp (Phil. 9), apparently referring to Hebrews 5:13, urges his readers to “obey the word of righteousness” and suffer martyrdom with the Lord. 135 Plutarch, Mor. 487A-B; Xenophon, Cyr. 8.7.16; cf. Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.3.3. Gray, “Brotherly Love,” 344. 136 From the point that Jesus is the source of salvation, Johnson, Hebrews, 149, goes on to argue that Jesus, because he is the Son of God, is more than a hero to be imitated, but a Lord to be obeyed. I find the specificity of this argumentation missing in Hebrews.

68

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

But, before the author can further develop the message of Jesus’ high priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, he turns to offer his most famous warning, which offers several interesting clues on the moral thought of Hebrews. 7. Excursus: Obedience and Disobedience in Hebrews We have seen that disobedience in Heb 3–4 is another way of speaking of unfaithfulness, and that Jesus serves as an exemplary model of obedience for those who are supposed to obey him. But what of the rest of Hebrews? In chapter 1 we noted that “obedience” has arisen in several discussions of the function of παιδεία in Heb 12, and so developing a clearer view of what obedience and disobedience mean for Hebrews will help decide whether it is applicable to Heb 12. Several lexemes found in the epistle can be translated as obedience or disobedience and obey or disobey. For nouns we have ὑπακοή, παρακοή, which we have already come across in 2:2, and ἀπείθεια. For verbs we have ὑπακούω, ἀπειθέω (used in passive voice for disobey), and πείθω (used in passive voice for obey). Of these, the verb ἀπειθέω and the noun ἀπείθεια together occur most frequently, four times. Three of these occur in Heb 3–4 (3:18; 4:6; 4:11), and the final occurrence is found in 11:31, in the rather brief description of Rahab’s faithfulness. It is with the case of Rahab that we begin. The first noticeable feature is that Rahab is described as ἡ πόρνη, a designation which James 2:25 and 1 Clem. 12.1 likewise use of Rahab. While the designation rings true of the Rahab described in Josh 2 and 6, it is nevertheless surprising to see the clarification included in Hebrews since Heb 12:16 and 13:4 warn specifically against sexually immoral behavior. Nevertheless, Rahab counts among the positive faithful exemplars.137 Despite being a prostitute, according to verse 137

We might have expected that her profession be justly omitted here. Interestingly, ‫*א‬, as well as syh, adds επιλεγοµένη. This addition is evidenced also in 1 Clem. 12.1 in all manuscripts except the principal witness, Codex Alexandrinus (i.e., it occurs in the only other Greek MS, Codex Hierosolymitanus, and in the Latin, Syriac, and both Coptic versions). Zuntz views the inclusion of the participle in 1 Clement as original, arguing that A has instead adapted Clement to Hebrews. Thus he goes on to argue that the addition of the participle to Hebrews in ‫ *א‬was influenced by familiarity with 1 Clement. See further Zuntz, Text, 218–29. The editions by Ehrman, Holmes, Jaubert, and Lightfoot, however, do not include the participle in the text of 1 Clement; see The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Bart D. Ehrman, 2 vols., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 1:54–55; Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, updated ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 40; Annie Jaubert, Clément de Rome: Épître aux Corinthiens, SC 167 (Paris: Cerf, 1971), 118; J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part 1, 2 vols. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1973), 2:47. The addition of επιλεγοµένη (“named” or “called”; e.g., Josephus, Ant. 13.119, 120, 268, 285; cf. LSJ, s.v. “ἐπιλέγω”) may have been introduced to soften the designation of

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

69

31 she did not perish with those who disobeyed (τοῖς ἀπειθήσασιν), because she received the spies with peace. This apparent reference to her hospitality becomes then the sign, or perhaps the fruit (6:7–8) of her faithfulness (cf. Jas 2:25). In contrast, the disobedient are destroyed. In light of Heb 3–4 and the nearness of the wilderness generation to the Jericho story, the disobedient could be those of the wilderness generation who died, but the immediately preceding reference to the fall of Jericho’s walls speaks in favor of the city’s inhabitants. Perhaps Hebrews supposes they too had the gospel preached to them or received some divine message, since logically they would have had to have been disobedient to something, and Hebrews throughout demands a proper response to something spoken (2:1–5; 3:7, 15; 4:2; 12:25).138 However, a general disobedience attributed to non-group members may apply here as is sometimes the case in Paul’s letters.139 Ultimately, the contrast between Rahab’s faithfulness, shown in the concrete moral action of hospitality, contrasts the disobedience of those who perished. Whether disobedience can be equated with unfaithfulness here is questionable, since there is no indication that the people of Jericho ever began to be faithful, unlike the example of the wilderness generation or the audience of Hebrews. The main point is that disobedience results in death and stands opposite faithfulness, and faithfulness for its part finds expression in action.140 Rahab as a harlot (Zuntz calls it “whitewashing”). Or, more specifically, it may suggest a figurative understanding of Rahab as reflected in the patristic interpretation of Matt 21:31– 32, whereby Rahab exemplifies a believing Gentile saved from sin, in contrast to unbelieving Jewish leaders (so Jaubert, Clément, 118–19 n. 4; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2:47; see Origen, Hom. Jes. Nav. 3.3–4; Justin, Dial. 111.4; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.20.12). However, Josephus and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan do not refer to Rahab as a prostitute at all, but rather as an innkeeper (Josephus, Ant. 5.8 [ὄντες ἐν τῷ τῆς Ῥαάβης καταγωγίῳ]; Tg. Ps.-J., Josh 2:1, 6:17, 22, 25 [‫ ;]פנדקיתא‬cf. Adolph L. Harstad, Joshua, ConcC [Saint Louis: Concordia, 2004], 108 and Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 2:47). 138 Mosser, “Rahab,” 396, suggests Rahab and her fellow citizens had heard the reports of God’s acts and victories for his people (Num 21:21–35; Deut 29:7). It appears, however, the author has little interest in these details, especially since even the wilderness generation is understood to have received some sort of gospel message. Furthermore, it makes little sense to speak of disobeying a report of God’s works. Mosser, however, appears to be working from an understanding of disobedience as “unbelief”. Here the weakness of this approach comes once again into view. 139 Paul speaks generally of those who disobey the truth and instead obey unrighteousness (Rom 2:8), such that all are without excuse (Rom 1:20). A general reference to the disobedient is also to be found in 1 Clem 58.1. Rudolf Bultmann, “ἀπειθέω,” TDNT 6:11. 140 Mosser, “Rahab,” 384–86, is thus correct to highlight the weakness of other inquiries into the mention of Rahab that would highlight her alleged statement of faith (Josh 2:9– 10). Less convincing, however, is Mosser’s attempt to substantiate the appeal to Rahab in Heb 11 by suggesting an intertextual connection between going outside the camp in Heb 13:13 and Rahab’s own being set outside the camp of Israel (Josh 6:22–25). This goes far

70

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

Heb 11:8 offers a quite clear example of obedience. Accordingly, Abraham obeyed (ὑπήκουσεν) when he was called to enter the place he was about to receive as an inheritance. Here there is a clear obedient response evoked which is unfortunately lacking elsewhere in Hebrews. Now, the author does describe the audience as having a heavenly calling and explains that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant so that the called may take hold of the promise of the eternal inheritance. But, heaven or the inheritance appears more as a goal set before the audience (cf. 12:1–3), rather than a commanded destination as in the case of Abraham.141 The author never directly commands that the audience enter rest or the inheritance, even if he does assure the audience of the reliability of the promise. Instead, he exhorts the audience to be diligent in entering it, lest someone fall in disobedience (4:11). As developed above, it is not the entering or not entering of rest that is decisive, but whether someone is faithful (4:1–3). Entering or not entering only reflects one’s disposition (4:3). Though the author does not command entrance per se, the Abraham example is still relevant to the audience. He lived as a foreigner, and the audience also has no lasting city, but seeks the coming one (11:9–10; 13:14). Importantly, Abraham lived his life by faith (11:9), precisely as is expected of the audience. All of this implies that obedience involves faithful sojourning until reaching the homeland. The last word to examine is πείθω. It occurs four times in Hebrews (2:13; 6:9; 13:17, 18), but only in 13:17 does it carry the sense of “obey”. The author commands the audience to obey their leaders (πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουµένοις ὑµῶν), who watch over souls and will have to give account. This command comes in the midst of several other injunctions, including offering praise to God (13:15), doing good, and sharing (13:16). Directly thereafter, the author asks for prayer, expressing the conviction (πειθόµεθα) that he and his associates (?) have a good conscience and desire to act honorably in all things. What exactly the author envisions the leaders commanding is not stated, but the context suggests they have some responsibility to guide the audience in moral, honorable living (cf. vv. 1–6 together with v. 7). It is of particular interest that the author in verse 17 commands obedience of the leaders, while in verse 7 he says to imitate those who apparently went before them. Perhaps beyond Hebrews’ immediate concern with Rahab and ignores the difference between “being set” (passive) outside the camp, away from the dangers of the attack on Jericho, and the exhortation to go out willingly and bear Jesus’ reproach and suffering. See “Rahab,” 395–403. 141 Here I do not at all mean to suggest that “rest” stands, in distinction from salvation itself, for eschatological rewards that may be earned or lost depending on one’s earthly behavior. This has been proposed as a way of getting around the theological problem of Hebrews’ rigorism. See, e.g., Thomas K. Oberholtzer, “The Warning Passages in Hebrews Part 2: The Kingdom Rest in Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” BSac 145, no. 578 (1988): 185–96; David L. Allen, Hebrews, NAC (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010), 377–93.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

71

this is a further clue that obedience and imitation, as in the case of Jesus, are closely related.142 This context of moral, honorable living under the guidance of leaders is of further significance for understanding sin and disobedience in Hebrews. If the obedience and imitation of the leaders involves obeying the directives of verses 1–6 and living honorably (v. 18), then obedience and even faithfulness (v. 7) take on an added dimension. Faithfulness and obedience would then include specific and concrete positive actions (13:1–3, 15– 16) but also the avoidance of certain dangerous negative behaviors (13:4–6), all with an eye on the coming judgment.143 All in all, obedience in Hebrews tends to remain rather vague as far as what is demanded of the audience. Obedience is to be shown Jesus, the leaders, and presumably the message in general. However, unlike the specific obedience of Abraham to a clear, specific demand of God, a singular, unified will of God for the audience (cf. 10:36) is nowhere specifically laid out, beyond a rather general faithful disposition and the brief ethical directives of 13:1–7, 15–17. Ultimately, to apply the idea of obedience or disobedience to Heb 12:1–17 would be to import an idea that proves recalcitrant to precise definition. As we will see, one could speak of obedience in the sense of submitting to divine παιδεία, but that is our own language, not the language of Heb 12. 8. Hebrews 5:11–6:20: From Dead Works to Faithfulness toward God After raising the issue of Jesus’ learning through suffering, the author next criticizes the audience for their own failure to learn, though not in suffering but in the learning of content. Specifically, the author shames the audience for their dullness in hearing (ἐπεὶ νωθροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς); though they ought to be teachers (ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι) by this point in their development, they need someone to teach them the elementary matters again 142 David M. Allen draws attention to the concern with behavior expressed in these closing remarks, tying them to the leaders’ responsibility to model faithfulness for the rest of the community (13:7), while they too live also after the model of Jesus’ faithfulness and the faithful forefathers. David M. Allen, “Doing what they have been told: The epistolary function of Heb 13:17–19” (paper presented at the SBL International Meeting, Vienna, Austria, 10 July 2014). For further on the leaders in Hebrews, see Erich Gräßer, “Die Gemeindevorsteher im Hebräerbrief,” in Aufbruch und Verheißung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief, ed. Martin Evang and Otto Merk, BZNW 65 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 213–30. 143 Really, this should be of little surprise since warnings against behaviors leading to judgment appear ubiquitously in early Christian literature, including Paul. Yet, the scholarly interest in Hebrews has tended to focus on apostasy as an act instead of as something expressed by particular ways of living. Hebrews certainly lends itself to such a skewed focus, but here as elsewhere, Hebrews leaves scattered hints that the main problem is not merely apostasy but going on in sin and behavior “unbecoming of a Christian”.

72

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

(5:12).144 The author’s shaming, however, cannot be taken completely at face value, since in 6:1 he exhorts them, “let us move on to maturity, leaving the beginning matters about Christ behind.” This presupposes that the audience actually does not need to review the basics, though he does mention some again anyway.145 Nevertheless, the author would not shame and warn the audience as he does if there were no pressing danger, if they were showing no signs of stagnation: in 6:11–12 he expresses the desire that the audience show effort lest they become νωθρός.146 Thus, with a clear concern for the audience, the author undertakes to criticize the audience in educational terms, claiming that they need milk rather than solid food; in this, they are unaccustomed to the “word of righteousness” (ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης). Just as in the appeals to learning in terms of morality with Jesus’ suffering, the author’s educational metaphor here also has moral implications for the audience. a) Maturity in Righteousness The phrase “word of righteousness” has confounded attempts at exact definition. While some have denied the phrase a moral significance,147 the educational metaphor of milk and solid food would support a moral reading, particularly since higher education was typically associated with developed moral discernment.148 Xenophon, for example, makes reference to teaching children justice through training exercises (Cyr. 1.6.30–32). We also find in the LXX 144 Hebrews uses ὀφείλω in only two other instances, but more in the sense of logical necessity than in the sense of moral obligation (2:17; 5:3). 145 See deSilva, Perseverance, 210 n. 1; Backhaus, “Zwei harte Knoten,” 198–217, esp. 212–17. 146 Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991), 70, sees some exaggeration in the warning of Heb 6, arguing that the author probably would welcome any apostates back with open arms if they were to return. Yet, he rightly points out that the author’s expressed confidence in the audience is likewise exaggerated. Though the author expresses confidence in them, “it is obvious that he really fears that they might go overboard any time, and we should not be fooled, like so many commentators into thinking that he only means slackness” (emphasis original). 147 Riggenbach and Michel, for example, understand the phrase as referring to the ability of a grown up to comprehend normal, right speech. Riggenbach, Hebräer, 144; Michel, Hebräer, 236–37. See also the helpful overview in Ellingworth, Hebrews, 306–307. 148 Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.39; 3.24.9; Philo, Agr. 9; Congr. 19; Migr. 29; Somn. 2.9; Prob.160; Seneca, Ep. 88.20; Marcus Aurelius 11.10, 12.1; 1 Cor 3:1–3. Attridge, Hebrews, 160; David A. deSilva, “How Greek was the Author of ‘Hebrews’? A Study of the Author’s Location in regard to Greek ΠΑΙ∆ΕΙΑ,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. S.E. Porter and A.W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 632–633; James W. Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, CBQMS 13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), 29–30. See also chapter 3 below.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

73

of Num 14:23 that inexperienced (ἄπειρος!) youth do not know good or evil (οὐκ οἴδασιν ἀγαθὸν οὐδὲ κακόν). With this in mind, it is probably unnecessary to try to define a specific referent for this “word of righteousness”, such as the OT itself or the teaching on Melchizedek,149 but rather we should understand it more generally according to Greco-Roman educational thought. A couple of considerations further support this. First, it is sensible to understand λόγος here as reason or reasoning. Among the moral philosophers we find the thought that moral progress involves increasing regard for reason. Plutarch speaks of reason enlightening and purifying the soul, and of the unreasonable (τὸ ἄλογον) being made obedient and gentle by reason, so that one no longer wills to commit lawlessness according to the desires.150 For Seneca too, reason (ratio) decides what is good and evil, and for him young children and animals are incapable of comprehending the good.151 According to Ps.-Plutarch’s De liberis educandis,152 three things are needed to produce completely righteous dealing (δικαιοπραγία): nature (φύσις), reason (λόγος), and habit (ἔθος). While nature provides the beginnings of education, reason involves learning (µάθησις), and habit relates to practice or training (ἄσκησις).153 The author of Hebrews is working from the same general conception when he talks about the state of the mature who can discern good and evil because of their trained faculties.154 Thus the “word of righteousness” is best understood as reasoning about righteousness or perhaps righteous reason (attributive genitive).155 Second, the generality expressed in verses 13–14 is proven in that the author states that everyone who partakes of milk is unversed in reasoning about righteousness

149

DeSilva, Perseverance, 212 and Ellingworth, Hebrews, 307, argue for the OT Scriptures; Cockerill, Hebrews, 258, argues for the teaching of the priestly Christology; and Braun, Hebräer, 153 and Erich Gräßer, An die Hebräer, 3 vols., EKKNT (Zürich: Benziger 1990–1997), 1:319, argue for the “sermon” itself in its practical-ethical aspects. 150 Plutarch, Mor. 76B; 83B. 151 Seneca, Ep. 124.1, 4, 8; also Philo, Leg. 3.210. 152 While this treatise probably does not stem from Plutarch, it may have originated with one of his disciples and is perhaps not too far removed from the time of Plutarch. See Robert Flacelière, Jean Irigoin, Jean Sirinelli, and André Philippon, eds., Plutarque: Oeuvres Morales, vol. 1, part 1 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1987), 26–29; Edmund G. Berry, “The De liberis educandis of Pseudo-Plutarch,” HSCP 63 (1958): 387–99, here 387–88. 153 Plutarch, Mor. 2A; cf. 2F. 154 On ἕξις as state and not practice, see Mark Kiley, “A Note on Hebrews 5:14,” CBQ 42 (1980): 501–3; John A.L. Lee, “Hebrews 5:14 and ἝΞΙΣ: A History of Misunderstanding,” NovT 39 (1997): 151–76. 155 So also Koester, Hebrews, 302; Weiß, Hebräer, 334–35. Cf. Owen and Moffatt, who understand it as principal or norm. H.P. Owen, “The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Hebrews V.11VI.3,” NTS 3 (1957): 243–53, esp. 245; James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 71.

74

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

(πᾶς γὰρ ὁ µετέχων γάλακτος).156 The author is thus referring to the general understanding that a child is incapable of reasoning, and so unable to discern what is good and bad. So, “the word of righteousness” is not some specific teaching, but has to do with normally recognized levels of education.157 Despite the generality, however, there remains the implication that the audience still requires advancement in understanding. The author criticizes the audience on precisely this point (i.e., they should be teachers by now; 5:12), and his response ultimately culminates in moving beyond the basics (cf. 6:1– 2). But the point is, only the trained mature can discern good and bad (5:14). The audience, as a result of their dullness in hearing (5:11), however, remains at a level lacking this moral advancement. Thus, the ancient supposition that learning (particularly philosophy) enables right living applies for the argument of Hebrews as well.158 The author is appealing to the audience to listen in order that they might understand the moral weight of their situation and ultimately recognize the proper way to live in response.159 While the strategy

156 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 307. Westcott, Hebrews, 134, also argues that the anarthrous λόγος suggests a more general conception. This is perhaps an even more significant observation than Westcott lets on, since each occurrence of λόγος in Hebrews referring clearly to a specific message or teaching employs the definite article. See 2:2; 4:2; 5:11; 6:1; 7:28; 13:7, 22. Cf. 12:19 where no article is used and the idea is that no further word, or no further speech, should come. 157 λόγος with δικαιοσύνη in the genitive occurs also in Marcus Aurelius, 6.50 (both nouns articular) and 11.1 (both nouns anarthrous). In both cases it could be understood either as principle or reason of righteousness/justice (or just/right reason). The contexts have to do with acting or ruling (by law) according to such reason or principle. In Herodotus, Hist. 6.86a.4, the expression occurs with the possessive adjective, “your righteousness.” In this case it refers to talk that had circulated concerning the character of one Glaucus. Plutarch, in Mor. 12E, explains the saying not to overstep the beam of a balance (as in a scale) by saying, it is necessary to make the matter or principle of justice the greatest and not to transgress it (δεῖ τῆς δικαιοσύνης πλεῖστον ποιεῖσθαι λόγον καὶ µὴ ταύτην ὑπερβαίνειν; the LCL translation reads, “give greatest heed to justice”). “Word of righteousness” only occurs elsewhere in Pol. Phil. 9 and 1 Enoch 13.10; 14.1 (see Charles, Enoch, 289). The former case exhorts the audience to obey the word of righteousness and to practice endurance, with an apparent view toward martyrdom, while the second refers to the written words of Enoch’s vision. Enoch himself is considered a scribe of righteousness (12.4; 15.1). Beyond these parallels, there are also occasions where the words appear in the same sentence, but with δικαιοσύνης following the preposition περί. In those cases, the context suggests a discussion or speech about righteousness (Plato, Resp. 363E, 358C; Gorg. 466E; Aelius Aristides, In Defense of the Four, 598). This evidence does not point decisively in one direction for interpreting Heb 5:13, but the parallels in Marcus Aurelius, and to a lesser degree in Plutarch, appear supportive of the interpretation suggested here. 158 See chapter 3 below. 159 My interpretation differs from that of Braun and Gräßer (see n. 149) primarily in that I do not take the phrase “word of righteousness” as referring to the sermon or part of the

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

75

here concerns advancement in content, in chapter 12 the strategy will revert toward learning through the experience of divine discipline. In light of this, we should perhaps not be so astonished to find so much moral language throughout Hebrews. We have already seen that the author compares a failure to devote oneself to the message of salvation with transgressions of the law, and the wilderness generation is charged with “sin” in a variety of ways. As we move on through this section we see that the author both understands morality to be fundamental to his message, and moreover, he appeals precisely to the audience’s behavior in order to express his confidence in their faithfulness to God. b) Turning from Sin Moving into chapter 6, the author mentions some of the foundational teachings he wishes to leave behind in order to carry on toward maturity (6:1–2). The very first foundation item (θεµέλιος) is repentance from dead works and faithfulness toward God (µετανοίας ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν). These dead works could be understood as useless cultic practices of the law160 or as a reference to dead idols,161 but are better interpreted as works leading to death, namely, sin.162 The parallel phrase in 9:14 is suggestive: “how much more will the blood of Christ […] cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Admittedly, mention of the living God could support interpreting these works as idols, since turning from idols is occasionally expressed alongside turning to the living God,163 and of course idols can be spoken of as dead.164 Yet, it would be unusual for Hebrews to refer specifical-

sermon specifically. The moral function of the sermon is implied in the author’s illustration, but the author is not referring to it or one of its constituent parts specifically. 160 Lane, Hebrews, 1:140; Westcott, Hebrews, 144. It seems quite unlikely that the dead works would refer to useless cultic practices, although the parallel verse in 9:14 appears in a cultic discussion. There the point is that Jesus’ sacrifice is capable of cleansing more than the body: it is the conscience that is purified of dead works. It would make little sense to cleanse the conscience from cultic practices; they are never considered morally negative in Hebrews. Moreover, other references to the conscience in Hebrews are also concerned with consciousness of evil, sin, or the opposite, good and honorable living (10:2, 22; 13:18). 161 DeSilva, Perseverance, 216–17; Johnson, Hebrews, 158–59. 162 Attridge, Hebrews, 164; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 314–15; Koester, Hebrews, 304–5; Löhr, Umkehr, 150–51; Michel, Hebräer, 239; O’Brien, Letter, 213 n. 18. Cf. Deut 30:15; Prov 12:28; Jer 21:8; Rom 5:12; 6:23; Eph 2:5; Col 2:13; 4 Ezra 7.119; Did. 1.1; 5.1; Herm. 29.2, “And anyone who does such an evil deed [τὸ ἔργον τὸ πονηρὸν] brings death upon himself” (Ehrman, LCL). 163 Acts 14:15; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9. Koester, Hebrews, 304–5. 164 Wis 15:17 (cf. 13:10, 18) even uses similar language, referring to the making of dead things, namely idols (θνητὸς δὲ ὢν νεκρὸν ἐργάζεται χερσὶν ἀνόµοις). Notice that it is not the works carried out for idols that are dead because the idols too are dead, but it is simply that

76

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

ly to a particular evil here, since Hebrews typically speaks of sin more generally.165 What is more, Hebrews exhibits a certain preoccupation with death,166 and emphasizes in 2:14–18 that Jesus by his propitiation for sin frees his siblings from the fear of death, while elsewhere the author’s warnings point to the death or destruction of those who sin against God.167 Thus, most likely the author is referring to sin generally, which leads to death. Ultimately, repentance from sin is a foundational aspect of the Christian message into which the author wishes to go deeper. Thus, everything starts with the turn from sin, or even if the idols interpretation is accepted, the turn from an old way of life.168 Turning from sin, however, is only half of the formula. The one repenting from dead works turns to faithfulness toward God. As suggested previously, faith in Hebrews concerns how one handles himself or herself. It cannot be understood merely as having objective content, though some measure of cognitive assent applies (4:14; 11:3, 6; 13:15). Rather, as we have already suggested, the exemplary characters of Hebrews show their faithfulness in action. Thus, it is not surprising that after the warning, the author bases his confidence in the audience on their love for God’s name shown in past and present service of the saints (6:9). In fact, these works are of such value that God would be unjust (ἄδικος) to forget them (6:10)!169 And so the author idols themselves as the works of human hands are dead (cf. Wis 15:16). This is misconstrued by Koester, Hebrews, 304 and O’Brien, Letter, 213 n. 18. Cf. Ps 106:28. 165 3:13; 10:2–3; 12:1, 4; however, cf. 12:16; 13:4. 166 θάνατος: 2:9, 14–15; 5:7; 7:23; 9:15–16; 11:5; νεκρός: 6:1–2; 9:14, 17; 11:19; 11:35; 13:20. 167 3:17; 4:11; 6:8; 10:26–31, 39. 168 So also Dobschütz, “Stark treten die sittlichen Elemente hervor: das christliche Lebensideal ist noch bestimmt durch den Gegensatz zu dem heidnischen Leben; das bestimmende Motiv ist der Hinblick auf die künftige Vergeltung.” Ernst von Dobschütz, Die urchristlichen Gemeinden: Sittengeschichtliche Bilder (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1902), 142; cf. Hans Windisch, Taufe und Sünde im ältesten Christentum bis auf Origenes: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Dogmengeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1908), 295. This ethical description of what seems to be conversion should not be too surprising, particularly when viewed as a sociological phenomenon, though it has not garnered as much attention in Hebrews as in Paul (but see the brief statements on repentance in Hebrews in Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, 634). On conversion and identity, see Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality, 158–161; Meeks, Origins of Christian Morality, 18–36; Wolter, “Identität und Ethos,” 121–69. 169 Johnson, Hebrews, 165, argues that the author’s confidence in the audience’s salvation rests on two aspects: God’s fidelity to the audience and the audience’s faithfulness to God. Certainly the author works from the assumption of God’s just judgment, and this serves as a comfort, but ultimately the author is trying to push his audience in the right direction. So, the focus lies on what the audience has proven in their action (cf. 10:32–34) and in their right, fruitful response to the rain that has fallen on them (6:7–8). Further, to be somewhat picky, the language of fidelity with reference to God not being ἄδικος ob-

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

77

desires that the audience show the same diligence, σπουδή,170 as they have already shown: diligence in action in contrast to becoming lazy (νωθροὶ; 5:11; 6:12).171 After all, this diligence establishes the full assurance of hope (6:11; πρὸς τὴν πληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος). In other words, in demonstrating such faithful action, the audience can be confident in things relating to salvation, just as the author expresses confidence in them on the same basis. Further, the author even expresses in 6:12 the desire that the audience become imitators of those who through faithfulness and patience (διὰ πίστεως καὶ µακροθυµίας) inherit the promises. While God’s promise is sure, since he swears by himself (6:13–18), the audience can be sure of inheriting the promise, but like Abraham, who having been patient obtained the promise (µακροθυµήσας ἐπέτυχεν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας; 6:15), they too must first show patience. God’s oath is thus strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set out, which itself is secure (6:18–19). The demand on the audience then is faithfulness to the God they have turned to, expressed here as patience. Furthermore, the parallel verse to 6:1, namely 9:14, also suggests that turning toward God in faithfulness entails a certain moral element. The purification of the conscience from dead works according to 9:14 is for the purpose of serving (εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν) the living God. Regarding the worship and service of God according to 13:15–16, doing good is included in right worship of God. It is striking that here the sacrifices that please God involve a moral component. If we are justified in tying these texts together, then the Christian existence envisioned is one that is inherently ethical, one in which actions correlate with the expectation of being faithful to God and pleasing him. While these more distant connections are striking, the author makes the same logical connections explicit within our present passage.

scures the image of judgment evoked already in verses 7–8. The author is appealing to God’s justice because he knows what the audience has done is right in God’s eyes; he is not in this place appealing to God’s faithfulness to his people, though in the next section, verses 13–20, he does highlight the impossibility of God’s failing to keep his promises. 170 The appeal to the audience’s works is indeed fitting right after the parable of the land in verses 7–8. Michel, Hebräer, 244–45, suggests that the parable not only sheds light on what precedes, but it also offers further development of its thought (vv. 4–6). In light of verses 9–12, this suggestion appears correct: the fruit of one’s response to God reveals where the person stands. In the case of the audience, the author expresses his confidence based on their good fruits, but exhorts them to continue to show diligence. However, the author does not elaborate on what thorns and thistles might look like in everyday life, except to warn of the sin expressed by παραπίπτω (see below). Cf. Bernhard Poschmann, Paenitentia Secunda: Die kirchliche Buße im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes (Bonn: Hanstein, 1940), 41. 171 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 332.

78

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

c) Falling as Transgression With the two sides of dead works and faithfulness in mind, it is worth raising the question of what the author means by παραπίπτω in 6:6. What sort of fall does he envision: apostasy as such, or some other sort of transgression? 172 Hebrews 6:4–6 is, after all, the classic problem text for questions of apostasy and second repentance. Commentators generally hold that παραπίπτω must refer to the sin of apostasy.173 However, it is worth examining the exact usage of this verb, and the noun παράπτωµα, elsewhere. The findings show similar results as our investigation of ἀφίστηµι, where the contexts demonstrate a concern not just with one sin of apostasy but with various transgressions. Commentators often point out that παραπίπτω in the LXX can render, like ἀφίστηµι, the Hebrew ‫מעל‬, to act unfaithfully, as if to hint that παραπίπτω really just refers to the sin of apostasy.174 This is in fact the case in all but one occurrence of παραπίπτω in Ezekiel (Ezek 22:4 being the exception; see below), but the question must be, what does it mean to act unfaithfully? Our investigation will bear out that various transgressions make up unfaithfulness. Heb 6:6 is the only occurrence of παραπίπτω in the NT, but it occurs eight times in the LXX. In Esth 6:10 it means to fall to the side in the sense that something would be in vain or fail (“let not a word of those you have spoken fall to the side/fail”; µὴ παραπεσάτω σου λόγος ὧν ἐλάλησας). In each of its other occasions it relates to behavior. Wis 6:9 calls upon rulers to learn wisdom that they might not fall or trespass (µὴ παραπέσητε). The immediate context does not have to do with falling away in the sense of apostasy or some larger turning aside, but to the way rulers exert their power. Earlier the writer warns that they will be judged by whether their counsels correspond to God’s will and whether they keep the law (6:1–8). Thus, 6:10 explains that those who keep the holy matters rightly will be made holy.175 In Wis 12:2, παραπίπτω is set parallel to ἁµαρτάνω. The verse explains that the Lord re172 παραπίπτω can refer both to literal falls or the making of mistakes. See Polybius, Hist. 3.54.5 (falling down a steep, narrow path); 12.12.2 (metaphorical falling away from the truth); 8.11.8 (transgressing propriety); 18.36.6; Xenophon, Hell. 1.6.4 (making a mistake); cf. παράπτωµα in Polybius, Hist. 15.23.5; 16.20.5 (referring to faults). 173 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 322, for example: “The context virtually requires a reference to apostasy here.” 174 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 322; Cockerill, Hebrews, 273 n. 25; Michel, Hebräer, 243. 175 Wilhelm Michaelis, “παραπίπτω, παράπτωµα,” TWNT 6:171, understands the verb in Wis 6:9 to refer to the commission of a mistake, but, probably in light of the threatened judgment, sees a more serious tone placed on the word. This is probably right, though this cannot be taken to mean that the fall is the same type of single-sin apostasy typically understood of Heb 6:6. Cf. the translation of the LXX.D: “[…] damit ihr Weisheit lernt und nicht Übertretungen begeht.” See further Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2:2141.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

79

bukes those who trespass and admonishes those who sin in order that they would turn from evil and be faithful to or trust in him (ἵνα ἀπαλλαγέντες τῆς κακίας πιστεύσωσιν ἐπὶ σέ κύριε). In view of Heb 6:1, the use of πιστεύω with turning from evil and transgressing is particularly striking. The passage goes on to recount the various evils and sins of those inhabiting the land before the conquest and God’s mercy on them in punishing them little by little, giving them time to repent (Wis 12:3–11). The remainder of occurrences of the verb in the LXX are found in Ezekiel. Ezek 14:13 threatens famine if the land should sin against God by committing a trespass (παραπεσεῖν παράπτωµα; Heb.: ‫ל־מ ַ ל‬ ַ ָ ‫)לִ ְמ‬. Read alone, the verse would seem to indicate the sin of apostasy, and indeed, in the MT, the passage does raise the accusation of idolatry (14:3, 5), but the LXX refers to estrangement from God through the designs of the heart (14:3, 5) and calls the people to turn from all their impieties and iniquities (14:3, 6; cf. verse 11: ἵνα µὴ µιαίνωνται ἔτι ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς παραπτώµασιν αὐτῶν). Not one single transgression is in mind, but a complete abandonment of God and his ways. Ezek 15:8 also warns of judgment on those who have “transgressed in transgression” (παρέπεσον παραπτώµατι; Heb.: ‫) ָמ ֲ לוּ ַמ ַ ל‬. The statement comes after the discussion of the uselessness and ultimate burning of the wood of a grapevine (cf. Heb 6:7–8), and is followed in chapter 16 by an elaboration on the people as an unfaithful bride. In this case, there is no reference to particular sins, but just reference to the larger turn from God in general. Ezek 18:24 explains that even the righteous person, if he turns away from righteousness and commits all the iniquity and sins the lawless ones commit, then his righteousness will not be remembered. Rather, he will die in his trespasses and sins (ἐν τῷ παραπτώµατι αὐτοῦ ᾧ παρέπεσεν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις αὐτοῦ αἷς ἥµαρτεν; cf. 3:20; 18:21–22). Ezek 20:27 raises again the issue of idolatry, but next to this, the contexts refer also to the failure to keep God’s commandments, especially the keeping of the Sabbath, as a result of idolatry (20:16–26). And in the context of the final occurrence, 22:4 (“by their blood which you have shed, you have transgressed/fallen”), the people are said to be notoriously unclean and abundant in iniquities, including bloodshed, and to have reviled parents, treated converts (προσήλυτος) unjustly, and to have oppressed orphans and widows (22:3–6).176 Thus, although Ezekiel does use παραπίπτω to speak of a larger turn away from God in one case, the other

176

This is the only instance where the LXX.D uses abfallen for παραπίπτω in Ezekiel. In all other cases it uses vergehen. Both translations seem possible, and in either case several sins are brought together with this fall. Michaelis, TWNT 6:171, understands each occurrence in Ezekiel to concern “schuldhafte Verfehlung” or “Sündigen”.

80

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

cases each involve various sins, not just a sin of apostasy. An entire complex of sin makes up apostasy.177 While παράπτωµα is not used in Hebrews, it occurs in the LXX and NT for transgressions, and its usage in Ezekiel bears out the same results as above.178 In both the LXX and NT the plural occurs frequently, referring to sins in general, not to “apostasies.”179 In Dan 6:4/5 (Theodotion), the authorities can find no fault and no παράπτωµα with Daniel; the reason given for this is because he was faithful (ὅτι πιστὸς ἦν). Daniel follows the law of his God (6:6) and so no misstep is to be found. Wis 10:1 and Paul in Romans (5:15– 20) use the noun to refer to the transgression of Adam, which refers to a single sin, but certainly for Paul it has a stronger sense in view of 5:20 (νόµος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωµα).180 Later in Romans, Paul uses the noun to refer to the stumbling of Israel. This may be closer to the sense of apostasy given Israel’s rejection of the gospel, but Paul is careful to point out that Israel has not stumbled so as to fall (11:11–12).181 It is worth reconsidering then, whether Heb 6:6 really means to fall away in the absolute sense of apostasy. The usage of παραπίπτω seen in the LXX suggests, like our findings on ἀφίστηµι, that even if we were to translate παραπίπτω as fall instead of as transgression, the surrounding contexts include an entire web of sins; they imply the rejection of God’s ways and the failure to keep his laws faithfully. It is worth noticing as well that in no case in the LXX is the verb used of falling away from someone or something. Although it is used absolutely in Wis 6:9, and could justifiably be translated “fall” or even “fall to the side”, the context gives no indication that the person

177

παραπίπτω occurs in Philo three times, each referring to the opening of an opportunity (Mos. 1.142; Legat. 120; 201; cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.362; 16.200; LSJ, s.v. “παραπίπτω”). Josephus, Ant. 19.285 uses the verb for the loss of something, namely the rights of Jews (βούλοµαι µηδὲν διὰ τὴν Γαΐου παραφροσύνην τῶν δικαίων τῷ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνει παραπεπτωκέναι). Cf. 2 Macc 10:4, where περιπίπτω deals with falling into misfortunes because of sin: ἠξίωσαν τὸν κύριον πεσόντες ἐπὶ κοιλίαν µηκέτι περιπεσεῖν τοιούτοις κακοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἐάν ποτε καὶ ἁµάρτωσιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ µετὰ ἐπιεικείας παιδεύεσθαι καὶ µὴ βλασφήµοις καὶ βαρβάροις ἔθνεσιν παραδίδοσθαι. 178 Beyond those mentioned above, see Ezek 14:11; 18:26; 20:27. 179 For the LXX, see Ps 18:13 LXX; 21:2 LXX; Job 35:14–15; 36:9; Pss. Sol.13:5, 10 (cf. 3:7, singular); Dan 4:27/24 (Theodotion; cf. 6:5/4, 23/22, singular). Cf. Wis 3:13 concerning transgression of the marriage bed. For the NT, see Matt 6:14, 15; Mark 11:25; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 1:7; 2:1, 5; Col 2:13; cf. the singular in Gal 6:1. 180 Cf. Michaelis, TWNT 6:172. Wis 10:1 speaks of wisdom’s deliverance of Adam after his transgression. 181 In the Apostolic Fathers, see 1 Clem. 2.6; 51.1 (παραπίπτω); 51.3; 56.1; 60.1; Barn. 19.4; Did. 4.3, 14; 14.1; Herm. 34.4; 39.7. In every case individual sins are in view. Cf. Philo, Migr. 170 on moral “falls” due to ignorance and impudence. παράπτωµα does not occur in Josephus.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

81

is falling away from something, only that there was a failure to live up to God’s ways. Especially since this “fall” in Heb 6:6 is set against the renewal of repentance – and repentance involves the abandonment of dead works and faithfulness to God (cf. Wis 12:2 and Dan 6:5!) – there is good reason for understanding the verb as go astray or transgress, albeit with a stronger, more decisive force than is conveyed in English (after all, it is impossible to renew to repentance those who fall precisely because of the charge that they crucify the son of God to themselves and expose him to public shame). This is further supported in that the author finds hope in the audience’s right action thus far (6:9–10). Other contexts in Hebrews suggest a similar line of thought. For example, it is not surprising for the “fall” to come after a description of those who have been converted, since in 10:26 the author mentions sinning willfully after receiving knowledge of the truth.182 Moreover, a depiction in terms of transgression corresponds with the comparison to transgressions against the law in 2:1–4, the going astray in the heart and not knowing God’s ways in 3:10 (cf. also the designs of the heart in Ezekiel discussed above), the deceitfulness of sin in 3:13, and with the simple use of ἁµαρτάνω and ἁµαρτία in 10:26 and 12:1.183 All of this together suggests the author’s use of παραπίπτω indicates not merely apostasy, but transgressing an ethic that demands faithfulness to God in contrast to sin. d) Conclusion Our examination of 5:11–6:20 has shown the author’s concern with the moral status of his audience. Though his shaming of them (as well as his confidence in them) is exaggerated, the entire passage construes the situation in moral terms. The audience must not become lazy but must move forward to maturity through learning. Importantly, it is learning that yields the ability to discern good and evil. Moreover, the author mentions among the basic teachings the repentance from dead works and faithfulness toward God. This shows that part of the fundamental character of the message the author is developing is based on behavior. The audience has turned away from sin and to a life of faithfulness. In fact, faithfulness demonstrated in action provides the grounds of confidence in the audience’s ultimate salvation, although they must remain patient. Thus, the author’s use of παραπίπτω becomes noticeable. Like its use in connection with failures to follow God’s laws and maintain his ways in the

182

See Löhr, Umkehr, 46–49; 189–97. Löhr, Umkehr, 198 (see also the other pair of secondary references listed in his n. 323) and Michaelis, TWNT 6:171, likewise understand the verb more in the sense of sinning than falling away, also without reference to specific, individual failures. Michaelis rightly relates 10:26 to his reading of 6:6. 183

82

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

LXX, Hebrews also uses the verb not to depict the image of falling away, but the image of falling in transgression. For the modern Protestant reader the issue of apostasy could seem to be a simple question of whether one remains a Christian or turns away; that is, it is a question of believing (or having faith) or not. But the author of Hebrews addresses the issue differently. For him it is more a matter of one’s response in action. So, it is a bit amiss, for example, when Paul Ellingworth writes: “The author’s purpose is […] to prevent the community as a whole […] from renouncing the faith.”184 While it is true that apostatizing involves a sort of renunciation – the audience must hold to their confession – this formulation of the problem overlooks the ethical construal of the issue. When apostasy in Hebrews is understood as renunciation of faith, as giving in to the comforts offered by the majority culture, as a return to Judaism, or however one wishes to depict the exterior problems, one misses the actual portrayal of apostasy in Hebrews. If faith in Hebrews is primarily fidelity to God,185 then this fidelity is demonstrated not through ongoing intellectual assent, but through ongoing action in contrast to a return back to sin. 9. Hebrews 7:1–10:18: Cult and Morality After the exhortation to patience in light of the surety of God’s promise, the author returns to the theme of the Melchizedekian high priesthood and the further elaborations on the cult, covenant, and purification of the conscience. Though the section involves copious discussion of moral concepts relating to sin, it is not necessary for our purposes to investigate each one, since the section more immediately concerns detailed cultic matters. Indeed, where relevant we have referred and will refer to the argument of this central section in order to understand those sections that more clearly have moral implications. Nevertheless, there are several matters to highlight from this central section. First, in 7:1–3 the author explains who Melchizedek is. With a view toward Heb 12:1–17 (especially vv. 11, 14), the interpretation of Melchizedek’s name is particularly important. In 7:2 the author interprets the name etymologically. First, he translates Melchizedek as king of righteousness, and second he translates King of Salem as king of peace (βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης), drawing the dual names from 7:1.186 Though seemingly unimportant, since they are not elaborated more fully at present,187 the two terms do establish a typological, messianic point of contact with Jesus. Firstly, peace and righteousness characterize the reign of Messiah according to many OT and Jewish texts, 184

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 332. Attridge, Hebrews, 176. 186 Cf. Philo, Leg. 3.79; Josephus, Ant. 1.180. 187 Lane, Hebrews, 1:164, suggests they are included just for the sake of completeness. 185

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

83

with the two sometimes appearing together.188 Secondly, according to Heb 1:8–9 Jesus is anointed precisely because of his love of righteousness and hatred for lawlessness (Heb 1:8–9).189 Thus, when the author states in verse 3 that Melchizedek has been made like the son of God, he is like him not just in his lack of pedigree, which the author goes on to develop throughout chapter 7, but also in his ethical-royal character.190 Whether the peace aspect should be counted with righteousness as a moral concept is more difficult to determine. Certainly, the messianic significance of peace and righteousness aligns with a salutary understanding of peace in Heb. Foerster, who advocates this interpretation, also interprets peace here as signifying the coming of salvation through Jesus Christ.191 The messianic texts dealing with peace, however, show variegated interpretations of this messianic peace. In some cases it has to do with the end of war or hostilities;192 in others the blessing of peace is given to those who live righteously;193 and in still others peace results from the righteousness of the messiah’s rule.194 Occasionally in this messianic context peacefulness appears as a mark of those who are law abiding and obedient to God.195 Since the author does not develop peace in the present context, it would be unwise to try to draw out its significance too far. Indeed, other occurrences of peace in Hebrews suggest that it may be understood from multiple sides, both related to salvation and behavior.196 A second matter to discuss in Hebrew’s central section is its lone imperative in 7:4. Speaking of Melchizedek, he writes, θεωρεῖτε δὲ πηλίκος οὗτος. Here the author draws the audience’s attention closer to see how Melchizedek is even greater than Abraham, and thus greater than Levi and the priests of his lineage. The command does not really concern the behavior of the audience, for example like the exhortations to consider or look to Jesus in 3:1 and 12:2–

188

Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–9; 32:1, 16–18; Mic 5:2–5; Zech 9:9–10; 4 Ezra 13:37–39; T. Levi 18:2–4; Pss. Sol. 17:32; cf. Ps 72:3. DeSilva, Perseverance, 266; Gottlob Schrenk, “δίκαιος,” TDNT 2:187. 189 Koester further notes that Jesus is exalted by the God of peace (13:20; cf. 1:13). Koester, Hebrews, 348. 190 DeSilva, Perseverance, 266. 191 Werner Foerster, “ειρήνη,” TDNT 2:413. Cf. 1 En. 5:5; 12:5, where the wicked will receive no eschatological peace or forgiveness of sins, though the righteous will. 192 Mic 5:1–6; Zech 9:9–10; T. Levi 18:4; T. Jud. 22; T. Dan 6:11–13. 193 T. Dan 6:9; 1 En. 1:7–8; 5:5–10; cf. 12:4–5. Also see 4 Ezra 12:31–34 and 13:37–38, where the messiah reproves the ungodly. 194 Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–9; 32:17–18; Jer 23:5–6; 33:15–16. 195 T. Dan 5:2; 4 Ezra 13:39, 47. 196 See excursus below.

84

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

3, which point to Jesus as one to emulate. Rather, the command simply focuses the audience’s attention on the point.197 Third, later in the chapter, the author describes Jesus as ὅσιος ἄκακος ἀµίαντος, κεχωρισµένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόµενος (7:26). The context of the verse demands a focus on cultic matters, but this nevertheless entails a moral dimension. Verses 27 and 28 point to the need for high priests to sacrifice first for their own sins and then for those of the people, since the law establishes priests who have weakness. The author makes the same point about weakness in 5:2–3, that since high priests are beset by weakness, it is also necessary for them to sacrifice for their own sins as well as for those of the people. Of the three adjectives in 7:26, only ἀµίαντος occurs again in Hebrews, namely in 13:4 of keeping the marriage bed undefiled, a case referring to moral impurity because of the reference to the sexually immoral and adulterers and their judgment by God.198 Heb 12:15 does, however, use the verb µιαίνω in exhorting the audience to make sure no one becomes defiled, and this is followed by the warning not to be sexually immoral or profane (πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος).199 Though ἄκακος does not appear elsewhere, κακός occurs in 5:14 in reference to choosing good or bad in educational and moral growth.200 Reference to sinners appears also only elsewhere in Heb 12:4, concerning those sinners hostile toward Jesus. The context of the verse includes the exhortation to put off sin and reference to fighting against sin (12:1, 3). Here, considering Jesus’ exaltation above the heavens, the verse has to do with Jesus’ physical removal from sinners, but this idea includes with it the point of complete removal from defiling influences.201 According to Leviticus, entry into the sanctuary required ritual purity, and the high priest had to bathe before performing the rituals for the Day of Atonement (Lev 15:31; 16:4; cf. 197

Cf. Klauck, “Moving In and Moving Out,” 43; Gottlieb Lünemann, Kritischexegetisches Handbuch über den Hebräerbrief, 3rd ed., KEKNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1867), 233; cf. Gottlieb Lünemann, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. from the 4th German ed. by Maurice J. Evans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 560. NB: I was unable to access the fourth German edition of Lünemann’s commentary. I have therefore consulted the third edition as well as the English translation of the 4th edition. 198 Georg Gäbel makes a significant effort to argue that 13:4 has ritual impurity in view. Yet he gives up too much ground in concluding, “Wenngleich Hebr kein eigenes Interesse an solcher ritueller Reinigung erkennen lässt, lehnt er sie auch nicht ab.” Ultimately, the author’s warning specifically concerns sexual misconduct, not matters of ritual. See Georg Gäbel, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes, WUNT II/212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 401–4. 199 See the discussion on 12:14–17 in chapter 5 below. 200 The adjective occurs in the comparative in 10:29, but without any moral connotations. 201 Cf. Lünemann, Handbuch, 251.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

85

21:1–23).202 Koester notes several examples where the righteous were to keep distance between themselves and sinners,203 but these examples have little to do with the priestly concerns of the present context. In any case, Cockerill is right to point out that Jesus’ separation from sinners not only concerns his exaltation, but also his triumph over sin, as the three initial adjectives imply (cf. 1:8–9). Though purity is at issue, moral purity is in view.204 While the point is to demonstrate Jesus’ character as high priest, strikingly the description makes contact with moral exhortations in Hebrews, not unlike what we have already seen with Jesus’ exemplary character. If the audience will have access to the holies as well, they too must maintain their own purity, as the later exhortations, particularly in chapters 10 and 12 will lay out. Fourth, after chapter 7, the author moves on to emphasize that we have such a great high priest indeed, and that he is the mediator of a better covenant, which issues into the lengthy quotation of Jer 31:31–34. The quotation points out that though the people did not continue in God’s covenant, the Lord will put his laws into their minds and write them on their hearts. Ultimately, he will be merciful to their iniquities and no longer remember their sins. The last two aspects of the quotation, the application of the law to the heart and mind and the forgiveness of sins are repeated in 10:16–17, just before the author begins another exhortation. The importance of this for our purposes is clear: the quotation and its repetition demonstrate that the new covenant involves both (1) obedience to God’s ways, as well as (2) forgiveness.205 As to the first point, the author never elaborates on the signifi202 Cf. b. Yoma 2a., according to which the high priest had to separate himself from his home seven days before the Day of Atonement to prevent defilement, but here it is ritual, not moral defilement. χωρίζω occurs in the Pentateuch only in Lev 13:46, where it is used to describe the separation of a leper from the camp because of uncleanness. 203 Ps 1:1; Sir 11:9; cf. 1 Esd 7:13; Wis 4:10; Pss. Sol. 4:1, 8. Koester, Hebrews, 367. 204 Cockerill, Hebrews, 341, esp. n. 19. Attridge, Hebrews, 213, sees more of an emphasis on Jesus’ spatial separation and highlights Jesus’ separation from those sinners who oppose him. This seems less relevant to the present context, however. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 393–94, seems to favor a spatial understanding but also views ὅσιος as conceptually equivalent to separation from sinners. Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 231, appears to view Jesus’ purity and holiness as received through his exaltation. However, 1:8–9 speak against this interpretation, as does 7:28, which points out that Jesus, unlike the former weak high priests, had been made perfect – he learned obedience and did not sin under testing (4:14– 5:10). 205 It is important to note that the author recasts the quotation in 10:16–17 and thereby emphasizes these points. Specifically, the author sets the lines about the laws being in the heart and forgiveness right next to each other, while in the full quotation those two points are separated by several lines. This, together with the introduction in verse 15, “after saying”, led some scribes to include a transition at verse 17 (“later he says”, according to the most well attested v.l.), reflecting the separation of the lines about the law and forgiveness in the original. It appears, however, the author intended to divide between the declaration

86

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

cance of the placement of God’s laws in the hearts and minds, but its repetition is significant. We saw already in Heb 3 that the wilderness generation was accused of going astray and not knowing God’s ways. The opposite, knowing God’s ways, is a mark of those who are forgiven and faithful to God. As to the second point, in 10:18 the author simply notes that where there is forgiveness of sins and lawless deeds, there is no longer a sacrifice for sin. Initially, this leads to the exhortation in 19–22 to draw near with confidence. Thus, the final sacrifice for sin is reason for confidence. Yet, in 10:26 the author warns against sin, precisely on the basis that there is no longer a sacrifice for sin. So, while it does not become clear immediately, verse 18 is both positive and negative. While this is normally recognized,206 we will argue that 10:26 is not a warning against rejecting the only sacrifice available, but that it is a warning precisely against sinning, because a sacrifice for sin no longer remains available. These four points make up several important observations on moral language from 7:1–10:18. Other aspects of the section are important, but come up where relevant in the more detailed discussions elsewhere in the present chapter. We have found that Jesus’ relationship to Melchizedek further includes the matters of righteousness and peace, that Jesus’ qualities as high priest involve moral elements relevant to the audience’s own moral living, and finally we have seen how the author has put together the aspect of forgiveness in the new covenant with the aspect of knowing God’s laws. This further speaks for our thesis that the author of Hebrews is concerned to exhort the audience toward right behavior over against a life of sin rather than a concern with abandonment of Jesus as apostasy per se. 10. Excursus: Peace in Hebrews We have seen above that peace does not immediately lend itself to a moral interpretation. In fact, also in our central passage it is debated whether εἰρηνικός and εἰρήνη (Heb 12:11, 14) are to be understood morally. Foerster in particular has argued that εἰρήνη in 12:14 points to salvation; that is, the ex-

of a new covenant (16a, b) and the remainder of the quotation (vv. 16c-17) at the point where the text reads λέγει κύριος (16c; this is the position of most commentators). That is, “after saying ‘this is the covenant I will make with them after those days,’ the Lord says, […]”. Thus, the putting of the laws on the heart and the forgiveness of sins are, as Attridge states it, “essential, and mutually implicative, features of the new covenant promised in Jeremiah, as that is understood in Hebrews.” Attridge, Hebrews, 281; cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 457. Beyond this, the quotation has also changed in the details. In Heb 8:10 the laws are put on the mind and written on the heart, while here they are put on the heart and written on the mind. In 8:12 iniquities and sins are mentioned, and now it is sins and lawless deeds. 206 E.g., deSilva, Perseverance, 326; Cockerill, Hebrews, 459; Johnson, Hebrews, 261.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

87

hortation to seek peace with all is an exhortation to seek salvation, and he also interprets εἰρηνικός as salutary.207 But not all have understood the terms in this way.208 So, what does the rest of Hebrews suggest? In 11:31, Rahab welcomes the spies in peace (µετ᾽ εἰρήνης), and this faithful conduct accounts for her salvation. Considering the impending battle at Jericho (Josh 2:1–22; 6; Heb 11:30), the mention of peace is particularly apt: despite the hostility of her fellow citizens, she welcomes God’s people.209 207

Foerster, TDNT 2:413–14; Käsemann, “Hebräer 12,12–17,” in vol. 1 of Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 307–12; Lane, Hebrews, 449. 208 E.g., Koester, Hebrews, 540; deSilva, Perseverance, 457–59. See the discussion in chapter 5 below. 209 Koester, Hebrews, 510–11. The phrase µετ᾽ εἰρήνης occurs eighteen times in the LXX, seven times in Josephus, and four times in Philo. It is harder to find in Greco-Roman literature, but it occurs in the context of the leisure of peace in contrast to war in Aristotle, Pol. 1334A.27, and Diodorus uses it in discussing the trust and peace with which the Ethiopians live with other species of animals (Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 3.18.7). Aelius Aristides mentions the Athenian defeat and sending off of the Spartans with peace as a supposed victory in virtue (Aelius Aristides, Panathenaicus 277). The use of the phrase in Jewish literature also occurs in the context of seeking peaceful meetings with enemies in the face of war (Deut 20:10; Pss. Sol. 8:16–18; 1 Macc 7:28; Josephus, Ant. 14.55; cf. 1 Macc 12:4), and it also appears generally to describe the absence of or safety from hostilities (Gen 26:29; Judg 8:9 [cf. Philo, Conf. 130–32]; 1 Macc 10:66;12:52; 14:8; 3 Macc 6:27; 7:19; Josephus Ant. 8.405; 9.44; 10.16; 11.219, 281). It occurs in Acts 15:33 describing the peaceful departure of Judas and Silas after their stay in Antioch. In his interpretation of the same phrase in Gen 15:15, Philo suggests peace stands as opposite both external war and internal war against vice (Her. 275; 284–85). Concerning Rahab specifically, 1 Clem. 12.1 interprets Rahab’s actions as hospitality, and this fits with her provision of lodging and protection. Mary J. Marshall has demonstrated that hospitality served in early Judaism and Christianity as a sign of righteousness. According to Philo, Abr. 107–110, the birth of Abraham’s son came quickly as a reward for Abraham’s hospitality to the three angels in Gen 18. Josephus, Ant. 1.194–201, contrasts Abraham’s hospitality with the Sodomites’ inhospitality, which makes up a significant cause for their punishment (cf. Ezek 16:49; Wis 19:13–15). T. Ab. 1.2, 5; 3.2 in particular highlights Abraham’s righteousness because of his hospitality, and according to Vis. Paul 27, Abraham, among Lot and others, sits in the place in God’s city for those who were hospitable in the world (cf. the discussion in Andrew E. Arterbury, Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in its Mediterranean Setting, New Testament Monographs 8 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005], 59–71). For Jesus and his ministry, hospitality or inhospitality could speak to the status of the hosts (Matt 10:11–14; 25:35–40; Mark 6:6; Luke 9:4–5; 10:10–11). Zacchaeus and Levi (or Matthew) express their acceptance of Jesus through their hospitality (Matt 9:9–13; Mark 2:13–17; Luke 5:27–32; 19:1–10). Marshall even suggests that Jesus’ comment in Luke 19:9 that salvation has come to the house of Zacchaeus καθότι καὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς Ἀβραάµ ἐστιν, refers directly to his hospitality after the example of Abraham. Mary J. Marshall, “Hospitality: The Nexus between Law and Love” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 23 November 2014), 3–7; cf. Meeks, Origins of Christian Morality, 104–06. On rabbinic traditions of

88

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

This peaceful welcome, or hospitality, serves as evidence of her faithfulness, and therefore she is not destroyed with the disobedient. Even if the nature of the disobedience of those in Jericho is not given explicit definition, it is clear that Rahab’s faithfulness shown in upright moral action keeps her from destruction (cf. 10:39). Interestingly, this is the only reference to Rahab that includes mention of peace (cf. Jas 2:25; 1 Clem. 12.1), and so it is all the more conspicuous for the purposes of our investigation. Moreover, this note can probably be accounted for on the basis of the exhortation to hospitality in 13:2 and it appears suggestive that peace in 12:14 be understood as more than simply salvation. Thus, here we find that salvation from destruction and peaceful behavior go hand in hand. The next passage appears to suggest the same as well. Heb 13:20–21, which Foerster uses to prove that peace equates to salvation, is the most interesting case because it elaborates on the God of peace as one who raises Jesus from the dead by the blood of the eternal covenant and as one who equips his people to do his will and works in them that which is pleasing to him. Verse 20 begins with the God of peace as the subject. This designation of God occurs often in the closing remarks of the Pauline letters, though it does not occur in the LXX.210 On the one hand, this peaceful aspect of God finds expression in his salvific working in raising Jesus from the dead, according to the remainder of verse 20. On the other hand, this designation is fitting in light of the author’s call for community harmony (see below).211 It

Rahab’s righteousness and her righteous descendants, see Christian Rose, Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 10,23–12,3, WUNT II/60 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 299–300 and A.T. Hanson “Rahab the Harlot in Early Christian Tradition,” JSNT 1 (1978): 53–60, esp. 58–59. Rose, Wolke der Zeugen, 302, does not believe that Hebrews refers to Rahab’s hospitality as 1 Clement does, but instead views her actions as a rejection of hostility toward the Israelites. This is certainly true, but also misses that hospitality itself involves protection of one’s guests (see Arterbury, Entertaining Angels, 15–54 et passim). Rahab’s action of hospitality, as an innkeeper or otherwise, rather evinces her faithful righteousness (Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 173, also views Rahab as hospitable in 11:31). On the other side of it, we could perhaps compare the disobedient people of Jericho to those sinners who are hostile, enemies of Jesus (1:13; 10:13; 12:3). 210 Rom 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 5:23. O’Brien, Letter, 533 n. 180. It is no wonder then that Hebrews has been considered in some ways as Pauline or as a pseudepigraphon. Cf. William Wrede, Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906); Clare K. Rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews, WUNT 235 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), particularly chapter 4. Despite doubts as to the authenticity of chapter 13 or its letter ending, the approach here is to investigate Hebrews in its entirety. See the section on chapter 13 below. 211 Heb 13:1, 2, 16, 17. Attridge, Hebrews, 405; cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 715.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

89

even fits if we exclude 12:14 for the moment. In fact, the implicit moral exhortation212 of verse 21 points to this as well. The author expresses the wish in verse 21a that this God of peace would equip the audience (καταρτίσαι) by means of every good thing, first, to do God’s will. There are a couple of things to consider here before looking at verse 21b. First, the language of equipping and God’s will harks back to chapter 10, where God prepares a body for Jesus (σῶµα δὲ κατηρτίσω µοι), and with it he does God’s will (10:7). For this reason, it appears best to take the dative ἐν παντὶ ἀγαθῷ as a dative of means, even if understanding it to refer to good works is a tempting option.213 The phrase remains general, but may refer to the good things relating to salvation and the access to God accomplished through Christ.214 That is, through such provisions, the audience is enabled, through Jesus Christ (v. 21b) to do God’s will. Second, the exact way the audience is supposed to fulfill God’s will is never made explicit. Interestingly, 10:36 ties endurance with doing God’s will, but even there endurance is the prerequisite for doing God’s will (“you have need of endurance, so that [...]”). The context of verses 32–39, however, shows that endurance is expressed in certain actions and dispositions (vv. 33– 34). Within the context of chapter 13, we find also an emphasis on similar good behavior, even behavior that supports community peace and harmony. The author mentions living honorably (v. 18),215 obeying leaders (v. 17), and doing good works and sharing (v. 16). Not only this, but among the initial injunctions of the chapter, the author calls for brotherly love and hospitality.216 Thus a certain moral obligation, one particularly concerned with group harmony,217 comes together with the salvation provided by the God of peace.

212

Attridge, Hebrews, 407. The mark of the mature as those who can distinguish good and bad (5:14), the call for good works and sharing (13:16), and the hope of living well in all things (ἐν πᾶσιν καλῶς; 13:17) would, however, speak in favor of good works. 214 4:14–16; 9:11, 14; 10:1, 15–22. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 407; Cockerill, Hebrews, 717; Koester, Hebrews, 574. Westcott, Hebrews, 449 and Johnson, Hebrews, 352, 356 (though not explicitly), understand the phrase more in terms of good works, in line with the variant reading, which adds ἔργῳ (cf. 1 Thess 2:17). 215 Perhaps that the author “wills” (θέλοντες) to live honorably is a clue as to the author’s understanding of doing God’s will. In any case, living honorably is evidence of a good conscience (v. 18a; cf. 10:22). 216 Right sexual mores (13:4) may also support community solidarity, though probably more in the sense of maintaining group solidarity in distinction from outsider-ethics than in the sense of group harmony. Nevertheless, there is an intriguing parallel between talk of peace and warning against sexual immorality in 12:14–17 on the one hand and talk of community harmony and sexual ethics in 13:1–6 on the other. See Thompson, “Insider Ethics,” 214, 216; Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,” 164. 217 Cf. particularly 2 Cor 13:11. 213

90

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

This obligation is expressed further in verse 21b, which expresses God’s working in (or among) the addressees that which is pleasing to him. The adjective εὐάρεστος does not occur elsewhere in Hebrews, but the verb εὐαρεστέω occurs in verse 16 (and similarly the adverb εὐαρέστως in 12:28) and in 11:5, 6. In the former case, it expresses God’s pleasure in the sacrifices of doing good and sharing (cf. 12:28), as we have already seen above. In the latter case, God’s pleasure in Enoch is the basis for his not seeing death, and instead being taken away. This leads directly to the explanation in verse 6 that faith is necessary because those coming to God must believe that he is there and rewards those who seek him. Thus, we can see quite clearly that pleasing God involves two sides. On the one side, it involves coming to God with belief or trust in who he is and what he will do. On the other side, it involves expressing that trust in right actions, which is brought out not only in 13:16, but throughout the list of faithful exemplars of chapter 11, whose faith is expressed in a variety of ways, depending on their individual circumstances.218 This instance of peace shows that there is a concern not only with the peace provided by salvation, but it also brings to attention, particularly within the surrounding context, a corresponding moral element that includes group harmony together with faithful trust in God. This evidence and the evidence of 7:2 and 11:31 show that peace may be seen in different ways, whether as a mark of the messianic king, or perhaps as a result of his coming, as expected moral behavior, and as a descriptor of the salvation accomplished by God through Jesus Christ. Because of the different aspects of peace in Hebrews, we must be open to several possibilities in 12:11, 14, but the noted emphasis on peaceful behavior, particularly in hospitality, may lend more weight to an ethical reading of peace in chapter 12. 11. Hebrews 10:19–31: Sin and the Need for Endurance In the next exhortation, the need for right behavior comes to the fore again, this time as a specific injunction against sinning (10:26). After the author assures the audience of the once-for-all effectiveness of Christ’s sanctifying and perfecting sacrifice for sin (10:10, 14), the author turns to the corresponding demands this sacrifice places on the audience. Since Jesus’ sacrifice has 218

Cf. Gräßer, “Rechtfertigung,” 170, who understands the pleasing of God as equivalent to living righteously in the eyes of God. This is substantiated if we understand the righteous made perfect in 12:23 to include those “Old Testament saints” of chapter 11, who, as Gräßer rightly observes, are considered righteous (not made righteous), because of their right living. For example, speaking of Abel in 11:4, Gräßer writes: “Gottes Urteil ist die Folge des menschlichen Handelns und Glaubens. Anders gesagt: Abel wird von Gott nicht für gerecht erklärt […], sondern Gott ‘erkennt ihn, weil er es ist, als solchen an’” (“Rechtfertigung,” 168).

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

91

taken away sins for all time, there remains a rather fearful corollary, that where there is forgiveness there is no longer a sacrifice for sins. Before turning to the warning in verse 26, the author gives three exhortations. The audience (actually “we”) should 1) draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, since their hearts have been sprinkled from an evil conscience with pure water (10:22); 2) they are to hold fast to the confession of hope without wavering (10:23); and 3) they are to consider how to stir one another up to love and good works (10:24). Of particular interest for our purposes is this third element. Having shown that the audience’s consciences are purified, love and good works form a corresponding responsibility.219 This relates even to the quotation of Jer 31, “I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them.” Yet also notable is that the response of stirring up to love and good works is juxtaposed with giving up meeting together (10:25). Action and slipping away stand in opposite relationship to one another, much like the distinction between diligence of action and sluggishness in 6:9–12. We will see a further appeal to action below when we look at endurance. a) Going on in Sin On the opposite side of this positive, faithful action lies sinning. In view of the coming day of judgment (10:25; cf. 4:12–13), the author writes in 10:26: “For if we continue sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a zealous fire that is going to consume the adversaries.” Despite the language of sin, it is not uncommon among exegetes to understand these statements as referring directly to apostasy; that is, the willful sin is the sin of apostasy.220 There is another way to read this warning, however. Instead of interpreting “sinning willfully” as apostasy per se too quickly, it makes better sense first to ask why the author refers to sinning at all, particularly in the present tense, instead of speaking explicitly of apostasy or falling away, or even to losing or lacking faith. It would be better to take verse 26 more at face value. The author is not treating apostasy as sin as such, but he is saying that remaining in or returning to sin willfully221 despite knowledge receives a corresponding 219

Similarly Windisch, Taufe und Sünde, 299. E.g., Attridge, Hebrews, 292; Charles Edwin Carlston, “Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” JBL 78 (1959): 298; Johnson, Hebrews, 262; Lane, Hebrews, 2:292; Lindars, Theology, 69; O’Brien, Letter, 374; Weiß, Hebräer, 537. 221 With regard to ἑκουσίως, despite the regular reference in commentaries to sin committed with a high hand as compared to unintentional sin on the basis of Num 15:25–31, Löhr has thoroughly demonstrated that such a distinction between types of sins, which is found also in Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, cannot be maintained within He220

92

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

judgment, and this choice to continue in a life of sin, in contradistinction to the prior repentance from dead works (6:1), would then constitute apostasy.222 A few considerations speak in favor of this interpretation. First, chapter 10 concerns itself with sin in general more than any other chapter in Hebrews, with sin appearing no less than nine times before the occurrence in 10:26.223 In fact, we find in chapter 10 a progression from Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice for sin to the placement of God’s laws in the people’s hearts and minds (10:11–18), to the exhortation to love and good works (10:24), and to the need for encouragement among the community members (10:25). Furthermore, in 10:22 the author describes the audience as having true hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and a body washed with pure water. All of this directly establishes a context in which we should more naturally read sin in 10:26 not as apostasy per se but as implying negative behavior generally, behavior that contradicts the audience’s state of purity. The author’s repeated expression of the final, once-for-all forgiveness and removal of sins unto the cleansing of the conscience should make us hesitate before reading “sin” too flatly as apostasy itself. The point is, willfully continuing in sin contradicts sanctification (10:10, 14, 29).224 Second, we also find the concern with sins generally in 10:26b: for sins there no longer remains a sacrifice. This statement, which by its structure

brews. In fact, ἑκουσίως does not occur in the LXX for comparing intentional and unintentional sins, though in Philo it does appear in reference to such a distinction (e.g., Det. 97; Fug. 76, 78; QG 4.64; Friedrich Hauck, “ἑκουσίως,” TDNT 2:470). As Löhr points out, to understand how the word functions in 10:26, we have to ask about the point of comparison, and in our present passage there is no comparison to unwilling sin, but only reference to receiving knowledge of the truth. Thus, the idea is rather that an individual sins willingly in knowing what the truth is and nevertheless behaving in direct contradiction to it (cf. Koester, Hebrews, 451, 456). Willful sin does not represent a distinction between two types of sins, those which are forgivable and those which are not, but rather represents a deliberate persistence in sin, whatever specific behaviors that might involve, in the face of the truth. See Löhr, Umkehr, 22–68. Windisch, Taufe und Sünde, 294–312, represents an example of the opposite approach, disginguishing between types of sins throughout. Otherwise, his emphasis on living a sin-free life (but for sins of weakness, according to him) after baptism coincides with much of the argument of the present study. 222 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 532; Westcott, Hebrews, 330. Michel, Hebräer, 350, interprets in this direction as well. One side, according to him, of sinning willfully is the conscious rejection of the message of God and the other side is “Das Verharren im Sündenzustand, ohne sich zurückrufen zu lassen.” He nevertheless does distinguish between intentional and unintentional sins. 223 10:2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18. Chapter 12 is a distant second, with three occurrences (ἁµαρτία in 12:1, 4; ἁµαρτωλός in 12:3). 224 Cf. 13:18, where the author expresses his own concern that he (and those with him?) maintain a good conscience and live rightly.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

93

places the emphasis again on sin,225 presumes the necessity of a sacrifice for sin226 and is based on (a) the once-for-all-time nature of Jesus’ sacrifice (10:10, 12, 14),227 but also on (b) the forgiveness afforded through the new covenant (10:18). Whereas earlier in chapter 10 the singularity of Christ’s sacrifice appears as a source of confidence (10:18), verse 26 shows that there remains a fearful corollary to the fact.228 Going on in sin is a final action because there is no further recourse, no other possibility to cover further sins. Third, this reading would cohere with other suggestions in Hebrews that the choice before the audience is between sinning and living in faithfulness to God. We have noted that 6:1 points to the fundamental turn from sin and to God, and we can also refer to the example of Moses in 11:25–26. He chose to be mistreated with God’s people rather than to experience the temporary pleasure of sin. This is an apt example since in 10:25–26 the author develops the warning against sin right after the exhortation not to give up meeting together. A life of sin is undertaken outside the community, while faithfulness is exhibited only within it.229 Finally, the stringency of the separation of faithfulness on the one hand and a life of sin on the other finds further resonance in 13:4. There the author calls for sexual purity, reminding the audience that adulterers will be judged. If the sin of 10:26 is limited to apostasy as such, it would be hard to reconcile 10:26 with 13:4. After all, if there were no danger for the audience outside of apostasy as the sin itself, there would be no need to remind the audience of the severity of sexual sin in particular. For all of 225

Westcott points out περὶ ἁµαρτιῶν is placed separately from θυσία “so that the fact of sin stands out prominently […].” Westcott, Hebrews, 328. 226 O’Brien, Letter, 373. 227 See e.g., Carlston, “Eschatology,” 301; deSilva, Perseverance, 346; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 531, 533; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 169. However, understanding 10:26b as a conclusion based on the singularity of Christ’s sacrifice has come under some criticism (Koester, Hebrews, 320; Löhr, Umkehr, 242–49). Accordingly, the author does not appeal to Christ’s singular sacrifice when specifically discussing second repentance in 6:4–6 or 12:16–17, and it is argued that the single sacrifice does not logically necessitate the possibility of only one repentance. According to Löhr’s interpretation, those who would sin essentially shut themselves off from the normally available once-for-all sacrifice; the singularity of the sacrifice is an indicator of its full validity, but does not have to do with the possibility of second repentance. Yet, as insightful as such argumentation is, it fails to convince. The author repeatedly emphasizes the complete capability of Christ’s offering to remove any consciousness of sin in comparison to the Levitical sacrifices, and in such a context it is difficult not to see in 10:26 a play on this method of argumentation. Verse 26 thus reveals the opposite side of verse 18. While there is no need for further sacrifice because of the thorough washing of the conscience, a reversal of that cleansing through sin leaves the sinner without hope. 228 Cf. Johnson, Hebrews, 261. 229 Cf. Easter, Faith, 212. The two verses are also tied together by the echo of the verbal stems in ἐγκαταλείποντες (v. 25) and ἀπολείπεται (v. 26). Ellingworth, Hebrews, 531.

94

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

these reasons, 10:26 should be understood not to refer to apostasy as the sin par excellence, but to willful persistence in sin generally, a persistence that entails apostasy, and not the other way around.230 This is not to deny that the author has apostasy in mind at all; rather, the point is to emphasize that the author specifically speaks of going on sinning willingly and not to apostatizing as such. The analogy of rejecting the law even highlights this, especially since the quotation of Deut 17:6 (Heb 10:28) comes from a context referring to the breaking of the covenant through idolatry. One need not argue that idolatry is the specific area of temptation for the audience,231 but rather the point is that the author depicts this turn away from God as a choice for rejecting God’s claim on one’s life, rejecting the norma normans altogether.232 For this reason the author can highlight profaning the blood of the covenant as profaning that which has made one holy (10:29). Though 10:26–29 is reminiscent of 6:6, where the one who transgresses shames and crucifies the Son of God (again), in chapter 10 we have a new dimension. Here we find that the one who has been sanctified – made pure – profanes the very things that made him pure by choosing to return to sin. b) Endurance in Action Chapter 10 brings us also to the only occurrences of ὑποµονή (10:36) and ὑποµένω (10:32) outside chapter 12. After the author warns the audience in verses 26–31, he exhorts them to continue to endure as they did before. Given the place of ὑποµονή in the classical discussion of virtue, particularly as it is linked to ἀνδρεία, courage,233 and in light of its appearance together with 230

I do not find the argument convincing that the descriptors of the sinner in 10:29 – one who tramples the Son of God, considers the blood profane, and insults the Spirit of grace – make it clear that apostasy must be the sin of verse 26 (O’Brien, Letter, 374; Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” TJ 13NS [1992]: 39; cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:295). The imagery is strikingly vivid but the concrete action it is supposed to describe is actually quite vague (contra McKnight, “Warning Passages,” 39). The point of the verse is rather to describe the magnitude of the action of verse 26. Koester rightly remarks, “To make the point clear, [the author] describes the adversaries of God in terms so outrageous that virtually any listener would grant that condemnation is warranted” (Koester, Hebrews, 457). The descriptors of verse 29 elaborate on sin, depicting all-out repudiation as its implication, but it does not follow that the sin is apostasy as such. 231 For the most recent attempt, see Jason Whitlark, “The Warning against Idolatry: An Intertextual Examination of Septuagintal Warnings in Hebrews,” JSNT 34 (2012): 382– 401. 232 Cf. Löhr, Umkehr, 51; O’Brien, Letter, 376. 233 E.g., Plato, Phaed. 68D; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1104B; cf. 4 Macc 5:23; Seneca, Ep. 47.10. For Philo, ὑποµονή and καρτερία are the most powerful virtues (Cher. 37) and he considers ὑποµονή the mistress and queen of virtue (Congr. 37). See further Friedrich Hauck, “ὑποµένω, ὑποµονή,” TDNT 4:581–83.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

95

athletic imagery in Philo and 4 Maccabees, it is not surprising to find endurance linked in this context with the audience’s previous contest of suffering (10:32).234 What is noteworthy is that the endurance theme leads to discussion of specific acts performed by the audience already and further expected of them. After the author notes that the recipients were exposed to public shame and affliction (v. 33) when they endured this contest, we find that he also describes their right response. He notes that alongside their own afflictions, they became sharers with those treated likewise. Verse 34 expounds these two experiences in reverse order, forming a chiasm:235 the group showed sympathy for those in prison and accepted the plundering of their belongings with joy.236 In light of the strong warning of judgment and the possibility of falling into the hands of the living in God in verses 26–31, the author evinces some measure of confidence in the audience based on these previous actions, just as he does explicitly in 6:9–12. The author continues in verse 36, however, and says that despite this previous show of good behavior, his audience needs endurance (ὑποµονῆς γὰρ ἔχετε χρείαν). He appears afraid that they might give up their confidence (v. 35). So, they need endurance in order that they might receive the promise once they have done the will of God (ἵνα τὸ θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ ποιήσαντες κοµίσησθε τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν). It would seem that the doing of the will of God receives the emphasis here, and this is supported by its forward placement within the ἵνα clause. Endurance reaps a reward (cf. v. 35) only after one accomplishes the will of God. This reference to earlier behavior followed by a reminder of the need for its continuation parallels 6:9–12, in that the author expresses the desire to see each member of the community continue in the same diligence they had shown and were showing by serving the saints. Rightly, Lane notes that this doing of the will of God points back to Jesus’ own doing of God’s will in offering his body as a sacrifice for sin (10:5–10), and “[i]t follows from this that Christian conduct can never be divorced from the doing of the will of God.”237 The actual conduct expected, however, remains less developed, though we do have some clues. Weiß, considering Jesus’ obedience from 10:7–10 and the new path he has opened (10:19–20), understands this doing of the will of God as following Jesus in obedience and in endurance of suffering.238 But, it 234

Cf. Philo, Prob. 26–27; 4 Macc 17:7–17 et passim; Plutarch, Mor. 724E-F; Polybius, Hist. 29.17.4. 235 Lane, Hebrews, 2:299. 236 It is also interesting to note that they were able to accept these circumstances with joy because they knew they had a better and lasting possession. Here we see that the audience can act rightly on the basis of what they know. This seems also to be the idea in 11:6. 237 Lane, Hebrews, 2:302–3. 238 Weiß, Hebräer, 548.

96

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

does not seem that endurance of suffering as such is what the audience is being called to do. Rather, based on the implied praise of their response to suffering both in attitude (with joy) and in action (in sympathy with the imprisoned), it would seem that their ongoing faithfulness to their Christian duties plays some role (cf. 13:3, the command to remember those in prison and the maltreated). Indeed, Jesus’ duty was to die obediently, but the author of Hebrews does not correlate the actions of Jesus precisely to the audience in this way. Even if they are to go outside the gate to bear Jesus’ reproach (13:13; cf. 11:25–26), this plays itself out in other ways, as the author specifically follows this call with offering sacrifices both of the lips and of action in doing good and sharing and obeying the authority of the leaders (13:15–17). Having seen the conduct aspect of endurance, we need to consider the translation of ὑποµένω in verse 32. Should it be understood as “remain firm” or “bear up under”, as with an actively perseverant mindset, or should it be understood rather passively as “bear” or “suffer”?239 The common English translation, “endured”,240 leaves the issue unclear, since the verb suggests either active or passive senses. The translation of Weiß, “ihr […] einen harten Leidenskampf bestanden habt”,241 connotes more a passive undergoing of suffering. However, with the rather active impression given by ὑποµονή in verse 36, and the right actions shown by the audience in their previous ordeal, it is reasonable to understand ὑποµένω in verse 32 more in the active sense of remaining firm or bearing up under. Thus we could translate, “but remember the earlier days after you had been enlightened, when you remained firm under a great contest of suffering.”242 239

Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ὑποµένω”; L&N 25.175; 39.20; 68.17. So the ESV, NRSV, NAB, NASB, NET, and NKJV. 241 Weiß, Hebräer, 543. So also the Einheitsübersetzung. The Lutherbibel is similarly passive (“[…] erduldet habt”), while the Zürcher Bibel has a more active translation, “da ihr […] einen harten Leidenskampf durchzusetzen hattet”. 242 Friedrich Hauck, “ὑποµένω, ὑποµονή,” TDNT 4:581–82, argues that in contrast to patience, ὑποµένω has an active content, in that “there predominates in [it] the concept of the courageous endurance which manfully defies evil.” On the one hand, this can be seen, for example, in Epictetus, Diatr. 2.2.13, where one is faced with the choice of enduring challenges until death or giving up immediately. On the other hand, ὑποµένω does occur in some cases simply to describe passive undergoing of difficulty, like facing punishment (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.264; see also Philo, Her. 269; Virt. 111; Cher. 29). Further, the verb occurs in Herodotus, Hist. 6.12.3 parallel with πάσχω, without any indication of bravery, but rather the resignation to suffering. Aside from this, ὑποµένω can simply mean to wait, as in the LXX with reference to waiting patiently on God (e.g., 2 Kgs 6:33; Ps 24:3, 5, 21 LXX; Isa 40:31; Jer 14:22; cf. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.153). Nevertheless, brave endurance for the sake of a cause despite suffering or even death remains an important use of the verb. Josephus, for example, explains that the Jewish people are willing to endure tortures and death rather than break God’s laws (Ag. Ap. 1.43–44; cf. 2.123, 272; 4 Macc 17:7–17 et passim; for strong or brave endurance in the LXX without reference to God’s laws, see Job 240

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

97

All in all, we find that endurance has to do first of all with suffering, as was immediately obvious, but also that it finds expression in attitude and tangible action. Furthermore, the depiction of what the audience had already done suggests that endurance entails not simply undergoing suffering, but rather continuing in a particular attitude and manner of living despite the circumstances. This is precisely what we will find in Hebrews 12 as well. 12. Hebrews 11: Expressions of Trust In earlier analysis we have seen the relatedness between faith and righteousness in 10:37–39 and in connection with several exemplars from Hebrews 11. The limits of the present study preclude a full exegetical interaction with the entirety of Hebrews 11, but a few remarks should be added in addition to those made already. First, chapter 11 raises the question as to the structure of Hebrews, particularly as to whether the section is expository or hortatory. On the one hand, the author uses no commands or hortatory subjunctives, but on the other hand, the section clearly has to do with behavior.243 Cockerill has even commented that “[n]o part of Hebrews is more difficult to categorize as doctrinal exposition or hortatory exhortation than this chapter.”244 However, the question of whether it is doctrinal or exhortatory is probably the wrong one to ask. Similar hero lists in antiquity, particularly Jewish ones, provide examples of exemplary behavior, and as Pamela Eisenbaum has shown, they 22:21 [cf. 41:3]; Sir 22:18). Josephus also reports his own willingness to endure danger for the sake of the Galileans before the approaching enemy (Life 212). The NT reflects an active use of ὑποµένω in Matt 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13 (enduring until the end); Rom 12:11–12 (enduring affliction and not being timid in zeal); 1 Cor 13:7–8; 2 Tim 2:10; 2:12 (enduring and not denying Jesus); Jas 1:12 (enduring the test and receiving the crown of life); 5:8–11 (showing endurance under affliction); 1 Pet 2:20. In Philo, a peculiarity is his translation of Rebecca’s name as ὑποµονή. He praises her perseverant character and focuses on endurance in what is good and virtuous while not engaging in evil (Det. 30, 45, 51; Plant. 169–70; Migr. 208, 210; cf. Migr. 144). One of the interesting aspects of endurance is its relation to facing that which is dishonorable. Plato, Ap. 28C and Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1110A, reflect on the difficulty of enduring one thing for the sake of something else, as sometimes doing what is more praiseworthy involves enduring pain or dishonor (τὸ αἰσχρόν). The audience of Hebrews has faced this challenge and must continue to look to Jesus’ exemplary endurance of the cross, despising its shame (αἰσχύνη; 12:2; cf. 10:33; 13:13 [τὸν ὀνειδισµὸν αὐτοῦ φέροντες]). 243 Guthrie, Structure, 40, 144, considers it, along with everything from 10:26 to the end, as exhortation; Vanhoye, Structure, 30, 40b, categorizes it as “enthusiastic exposition, without any explicit appeal to [the] listeners.” Westfall, Discourse, 243, helpfully includes chapter 11 in a unit spanning 10:19–12:2, but seems to prefer to understand the chapter “as an insertion or intrusion into the paraenesis.” Attridge, Hebrews, 307, notes both expository and paraenetic aims: expository in that it shows the power of faith and paraenetic in that it implicitly motivates. 244 Cockerill, Hebrews, 518.

98

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

also legitimate a community and demonstrate its place in history (cf. reference to the elders in v. 2 and the explanation of their incompletion without “us” in vv. 39–40).245 Yet even legitimation has moral implications, and this is evident in the author’s own reference to the divinely approved witnesses in 12:1 as he exhorts his audience to put off sin and run with endurance. Moreover, Heb 11 ultimately functions to buttress the audience’s resolve to behave according to faith, particularly as the exhortations immediately preceding and following the chapter refer directly to πίστις (10:37–39; 12:2). The author does not even present the controversial “definition” of faith in 11:1 purely for intellectual reasons; rather, it serves as a basis for the hero list and concerns things hoped for and things not seen, matters which relate to the author’s exhortatory purposes (cf. 3:6; 4:1; 6:11–12; 10:23).246 Thus, even in its form the entire chapter works toward the goal of moving the audience toward proper behavior. Second, while we have thus far treated πίστις as faithfulness in Hebrews, and this was particularly evident in chapters 3–4, chapter 11 in part necessitates the translation “faith” or better, “trust”. We find in the chapter an intellectual quality to faith, particularly in 11:3, where the author points out that 245

Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 56–59, 81–84; Sir 44–50; Wis 10; 1 Macc 2:49–64; 4 Macc 16:16–23; CD 2–3; cf. 1 Clem. 9–12. Eisenbaum also argues that Greco-Roman lists show less concern for virtue than Jewish lists. See also Cosby, “Rhetorical Composition,” 257–73. 246 Ellingworth, Hebrews, 566, draws attention to the function of faith in the chapter in accordance with the action to which faith leads, rather than the essence of faith. See also Attridge, Hebrews, 307–8. Attridge rightly points out that the definition does not even exhaust Hebrews’ own conception of faith (e.g., the conception of faithfulness reflected earlier in the book). The difficulty of the definition lies primarily in the translation of ὑπόστασις and ἔλεγχος. Though translations often render these two in a subjective sense as certainty and conviction, scholars generally now recognize that these terms are to be understood objectively, for example, as reality and evidence, respectively. Even under the objective interpretation, however, there remain different translational options. For example, Gräßer understands ὑπόστασις as “fester Stand” in light of 3:14. This makes sense of the recurring theme of holding on, which is present even in the immediate context (10:37– 39). This interpretation is harder to square, however, with the intellectual aspects of πίστις present in chapter 11. On the other hand, understanding ὑπόστασις as “reality” poses the difficulty of understanding what it means for faith to constitute the reality of things hoped for. If the author means that faith lends reality to the things hoped for, then this makes sense and brings out its function for the heroes in the list. It is as if faith enables the heroes to view the unseen as reality (cf. 11:3, 27). It is also difficult to understand faith as the evidence of things unseen, but this could mean that those with faith make the unseen evident as it motivates them to proper behavior, or perhaps in that they prove God’s reality through evincing his approval (Cockerill). See Gräßer, Der Glaube, 46–57, 99–102; Cockerill, Hebrews, 520–22; Heinrich Dörrie, “Zu Hbr 11, 1,” ZNW 46 (1955): 196–202; Gerhard Dautzenberg, “Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief,” BZ 17 (1973): 161–77; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 564–66; Attridge, Hebrews, 308–9; O’Brien, Letter, 398–400.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

99

by faith we understand (νοέω) that the worlds were created by the word of God.247 “Faithfulness” would make little sense here. We get the same idea from verse 6, that without faith it is impossible to please God, since it is necessary for the one approaching him to trust that he is there and that he is a rewarder of those seeking him. Thus, there is certainly an intellectual element to πίστις that must be considered in Hebrews’ larger scheme. This leads to the third point, namely, that the chapter shows a marked focus on the unseen over against the visible. This comes to the fore as early as verse 1: faith is the evidence of things unseen (πραγµάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεποµένων). This idea occurs repeatedly, such as in verse 3, where the author points to creation. The author works from the apparently shared presupposition that the visible does not come from what is seen. This lends credit to the argumentation that one can trust in the unseen, as the author and audience together already hold to this idea. That is, if the author and audience can already share and perhaps operate from this understanding of the world, then the audience can continue to operate under this understanding of seen and unseen in living out their πίστις.248 The first example who acts according to the unseen is Noah, who builds the ark although the events announced were not yet seen. His actions become the basis for his righteousness (11:7). Abraham also went out to inherit the land without knowing where he was going (11:8). The Abraham example transitions the focus to the reception of the promises. The author points out that Abraham was awaiting a city having foundations whose designer and creator is God (11:10). Those seeking such a city confess (ὁµολογέω) that they are strangers and sojourners on the earth (11:13), since they are seeking a heavenly homeland (11:16). Fourth, the intellectual element of trusting God to be a rewarder and the expectation of a heavenly homeland lead to action. The intellectual aspect of faith raised in the chapter does not refer to any pure intellectual assent by which people are approved (cf. 11:2); rather their trust leads to and is expressed in actions demonstrating their trust and results in approval (11:4, 5, 39). There remains then an aspect of faithfulness in these exemplars, although the author’s focus in the chapter lies on the means by which they conducted themselves, by faith/trust (πίστει).249 This point becomes clear in the rhetori-

247

The approach of A.G. Widdess is worth considering, however. He argues that in verse 3 the dative πίστει may actually modify κατηρτίσθαι instead of the adjacent νοοῦµεν (cf. verse 8 where πίστει does not modify the adjacent participle). On the one hand, this attributes faith or trust to God, which is startling, as Widdess puts it. Yet on the other hand, it conveys the same active sense of faith expressed throughout the chapter and it connects faith more readily to the seen/unseen conception prominent in the chapter. See A.G. Widdess, “A Note on Hebrews XI. 3,” JTS 10 (1959): 327–29. 248 Cf. Gräßer, Der Glaube, 54. 249 So Attridge, Hebrews, 308.

100

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

cal flourish from verse 32 to 38 where the author mentions faith only once (v. 33) and focuses on the actions of the various heroes.250 Finally, the chapter relates the suffering of some of the heroes, such as Moses (11:25–26) and especially the series of heroes in verses 35–37. This is significant since the author has related that the audience underwent their own contest of sufferings in 10:32–33, and the author later exhorts the audience to go outside the camp and bear the reproach of Christ in 13:13. Moreover, the treatment of painful divine discipline in Heb 12 presupposes some sort of difficult circumstance for the audience, even though its nature and extent remain unclear (the author refers only to the past in 10:32). We must be careful, however, not to overemphasize suffering in chapter 11. As Eisenbaum rightly notes, to emphasize suffering in Heb 11 would be to overemphasize only a few verses out of the whole – even the repeated references to death251 only directly relate to suffering in verses 35–37.252 Our analysis in chapter 5 below will demonstrate, moreover, that the author turns the audience’s attention in Heb 12 not to suffering as such but to their response to God, the educating father. Ultimately, the exemplars model trust and faithfulness despite even these harshest of circumstances, and important for our argument here, Moses’ choice of suffering with the people of God involves specifically forgoing the temporary enjoyment of sin. Hebrews 11, then, forms an integral part to the moral thought of Hebrews. It not only supports the exhortations toward faith in its context, but it also provides models who exemplify action by faith. At the same time, the chapter shows that faith is not only faithfulness, but also trust in the promises of God despite circumstances. In fact, the approval gained by these faithful exemplars shows that they too were looking forward despite their own difficult circumstances. As the author moves back to hortatory in 12:1–3, he will focus again on the threat of sin, just as in chapter 10. 13. Hebrews 12:18–29: Refusal and Reverence Following 12:1–17, the author offers one last substantial exhortation, both in encouragement and warning. Following upon the exhortation employing the cultic (but also moral) language of holiness, purity, and profanity (12:14–16), the author reminds the audience of their approach. They have not approached the fearful mountain, where Moses too was afraid, and even an animal would be stoned if it touched it, but they have come to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. They have access to a place others before them did not. 250

Rightly Westfall, Discourse, 256. Cf. Westfall, Discourse, 256. 252 Eisenbaum, Jewish Heroes, 180. Dyer’s recent thesis that the audience is not only suffering but also facing the threat of death appears to overlook the importance of this observation. Dyer, Suffering in the Face of Death, 100–1, 151–60. 251

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

101

And thus the author continues in warning, “watch out lest you refuse the one speaking, for if they did not escape when they refused the one instructing them on earth, how much more will it be the case for us if we turn away from the one instructing from heaven” (12:25). The warning resonates with 2:1–4 in that it warns of no escape, connects with the revelation of the law, and argues from the lesser to the greater. However, a number of English translations obscure the aspect of revelation in translating χρηµατίζω as warn instead of as instruct.253 The word can be used in revelations ahead of something dangerous, but that does not necessitate the sense of warning here.254 More likely is the simpler sense of instruct (cf. 8:5), since the context brings the events at Sinai into view,255 which involved the revelation of the law to Moses (Exod 19; Deut 5).256 Thus, the verse concerns not the refusal of a warning, but the refusal of instruction. Again, as in 2:1–4 – and explicitly in 10:28 – the author forms the warning in implicit conjunction with God’s laws.257 The author warns not only against refusing the one speaking and instructing, but also against turning away from him (ἀποστρέφω). This has obvious conceptual connections to the warning in 3:12 and 6:6, and commentators naturally take it to refer to apostasy.258 The verb occurs in the LXX frequently, but less often in conjunction with a whole network of various sins as we noted with παραπίπτω and ἀφίστηµι. It does occur, however, in conjunction with the people’s refusal to enter the land in Num 14:43, and this is picked up again in Num 32:15 in warning the later generation. It also occurs when the people have turned to false gods (Judg 2:19; 8:33; cf. Sir 46:11) and in Joshua concerning the building of an altar aside from the altar of the Lord (Josh 22:16, 18, 29). The connection with idolatry is also made in 2 Chron 7:19, and that verse also mentions turning away and forsaking God’s ordinances and commandments. In 2 Chron 29:6, King Hezekiah, in ordering the reconsecration of the temple, says that the fathers had rebelled and done evil (ἀπέστησαν οἱ πατέρες ἡµῶν καὶ ἐποίησαν τὸ πονηρὸν), and abandoned the Lord and turned away from his tabernacle. Josephus describes a false prophet turning Jeroboam away from God and from pious and righteous deeds and 253

E.g., ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV; Cockerill, Hebrews, 660; Attridge, Hebrews, 378. Heb 11:7; Matt 2:12, 22. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 11. 327–28, where the verb is used twice, first to depict revelation through a dream and then the reporting of that revelation. Bo Reicke, “χρηµατίζω,” TDNT 9:481–82, takes each of these three cases in the sense of instruct, not warn. 255 That God is the speaker is proven by v. 26. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 683. 256 On other revelations from God, see Jer (LXX) 32:30; 33:2; 36:23; 37:2; 43:2, 4; Luke 2:26 (from the Holy Spirit); Acts 10:22 (from an angel); Josephus, Ant. 3.212 (of Moses relating words from God); 5.42. 257 Cf. Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:328; Bruce, Hebrews, 362–63. 258 E.g., Ellingworth, Hebrews, 685; Löhr, Umkehr, 132; Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:329 n. 28. 254

102

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

urging him on in impious practices (Ant. 8.245).259 Thus, turning away from God as described with ἀποστρέφω may concern abandonment of God for other gods or other unlawful forms of worship, but it can also occur in connection with general abandonment of righteous deeds or God’s ordinances, though this is less frequent. Heb 12:25 most likely does not mean to warn against the transgression of the law specifically, though the law is implied by the scene. Yet, in this case, similar again to 2:1–4, Hebrews warns again in terms of attention to a message: it is not merely turning away from God but this turning away involves refusing to hear his instruction. After the warning we find again the aspect of right behavior. While heaven and earth will be shaken and no longer remain, “we” are receiving an unshakeable kingdom. This calls for giving thanks (expressed with the hortatory subjunctive; ἔχωµεν χάριν), by which “we” worship God in a pleasing way (12:28). As Gräßer rightly notes, the occurrence of εὐαρέστως points the verse in a moral direction: Enoch was taken up because he pleased God (εὐαρεστέω; 11:5–6), and the author later writes that sacrifices, doing good, and sharing please God (13:16).260 The author also expresses the wish that God would equip the audience, working in “us” that which is pleasing to him (τὸ εὐάρεστον; 13:21). This pleasing worship is to be done with an attitude of reverence (εὐλάβεια; cf. 5:7; 11:7) and awe, for God is a consuming fire. Jesus as well as Noah obeyed with reverence for God, and Jesus was heard because of it, while Noah ultimately became an heir of righteousness as a result. The response of worship is appropriate to the cultic argument of Hebrews as well. The purification of the conscience cleansed the conscience of dead works and enabled the worship of God (9:14). Now, having access to the heavenly Jerusalem, which necessitates that they seek holiness and watch out for impurity (12:14–16), the audience can properly worship, while also recognizing the danger of judgment if they turn away (cf. 10:31).261 The final exhortation of Hebrews, therefore, warns the audience of turning away from God, once more in a way that resonates with refusing his law, though in this case the theme resonates more distantly than we have seen elsewhere. We again find that the other side of such turning away involves a faithful response: pleasing and reverent worship, as developed in Heb 13. Though the audience has come to the heavenly Jerusalem, and not the fearful mountain, and have the access and ability to worship, they must nevertheless watch out, since the threat of judgment remains (v. 29).

259 Cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.391 on the possibility of the Jews turning God away by breaking the Sabbath; Philo, Mut. 254 on turning away from virtue. See further Georg Bertram, “ἀποστρέφω,” TDNT 7:719–20. 260 Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:338. 261 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 383.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

103

14. Hebrews 13: The Moral Response a) Verses 1–7: The Individual Instructions The final chapter of Hebrews brings us to the most concentrated collection of specific moral instructions the author offers his audience. Although doubts have been raised repeatedly as to the originality both of the final chapter, as well as its letter ending,262 we would appear justified in treating the final chapter as an original and material part of the work. As has already been suggested at several points in the preceding analyses and as will be discussed below, we encounter several plausible connection points between exhortations and moral concerns elsewhere in Hebrews and the instructions given here. While it is indeed conceivable that a second hand could have imitated such material from chapters 1–12, the more correspondence one can show, the more unconvincing the thesis becomes that Heb 13 is inauthentic.263 That is not to underestimate, however, the abruptness of the final chapter and its 262

Gert Steyn has recently argued that 13:22–25 was added in imitation of a Pauline letter, but the individual pieces of evidence presented are open to divergent conclusions. In any case, the originality of the last three verses is of little importance for our purposes. See Gert Steyn, “The Ending of Hebrews Reconsidered,” ZNW 103 (2012): 235–53. 263 Beyond these moral correspondences, see the correspondences in theme elucidated by Floyd V. Filson, ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13 (London: SCM, 1967), 27–81. A.J.M. Wedderburn, however, has relatively recently argued that chapter 13 was written by another author with knowledge of chapters 1–12 and for a different situation. Wedderburn thus acknowledges the overlap in various themes, but strikingly he only lists five that stand out to him. Two of his primary arguments concern the use of new vocabulary in chapter 13 that does not appear in 1–12 and the different use of certain words, but especially cultic language. Regarding the first point, Wedderburn lists forty-five new words in chapter 13. This is striking, and as he admits, the new topics account for some of it. However, this observation appears mitigated by the fact that there are 539 words which occur only once in Heb 1:1–12:29. Moreover, Vanhoye counts sixteen words only occurring in 13:1–6; yet this is comparable to 12:18–21, which has fourteen words used only once in Hebrews, and 12:14–17, which also contains fourteen words occurring only once in Hebrews. As to the different use of certain terms and cultic language, differences of language and focus occur even in the first twelve chapters. As we have seen, the author’s conception of faith has a different sense in chapter 11 than in much of the rest (however, Wedderburn lets on that he thinks chapter 11 is likewise suspect). Additionally, the author draws on Jesus’ life in different ways for different purposes (cf. the suprising reference in 2:14 to the defeat of the devil, who nowhere shows up again), and we found different, unclear usages of obedience/disobedience language within even 1– 12. It is further debatable as to whether the author means different things in 3:14 and 11:1 with ὑπόστασις. So, while a full interaction with each of Wedderburn’s points here is impossible, in sum, different uses of images or words within the book itself do not necessarily speak for different authorship of chapter 13. See A.J.M. Wedderburn, “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405; Albert Vanhoye, “La Question Littéraire de Hébreux XIII.1–6,” NTS 23 (1977): 129–30.

104

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

unprecedented (for Hebrews) command not to be carried away by various and strange teachings (though cf. the importance of the message in 2:1 and 5:11f.).264 Nevertheless, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that chapter 13 shows structural similarities in exhortation to earlier parts of the book, and its exhortations cohere with important streams of thought the author expresses elsewhere. More specifically, the chapter furthers the construal of the moral aspect of the Christian life, particularly with regard to right living, endurance, and worship through doing good. Less important, though by no means excluded from the chapter, is the danger of sinning (v. 4). The most immediately noticeable observation in the transition from 12:29 to 13:1 is the lack of any transitional words. However, Backhaus considers 12:28–29 a transitus indicating the topic of the next chapter, and Koester treats 12:28–13:21 as a peroratio, a concluding section allowing the author to review arguments already presented and to appeal to emotions.265 In view of the familiarity of themes in chapter 13 (including the first seven verses) and the inclusio formed between 12:28 and 13:16 by εὐαρέστως and εὐαρεστέω, or perhaps τὸ εὐάρεστον in 13:21, these proposals appear quite likely. This suggests 13:1–21266 describes proper worship, or more specifically the proper response to all that the author has presented (cf. 9:14).267 264 Yet even here, we notice the author’s use of ποικίλος, which he uses in 2:4 to describe the various miracles that contributed to the attestation of the sure message of salvation. 265 Backhaus, “How to Entertain Angels,”160; Koester, Hebrews, 554–56. 266 The approach here to treat chapter 13 separately is primarily a matter of convenience, particularly since questions concerning the structure of Hebrews bear a degree of superficiality due to Hebrews’ complex structure. The present section serves as evidence of that. For example, 12:28–29 logically follows from what precedes, and we find an inclusio bracketing 12:18 and 12:29 in the refrence to fire. Not only so, but 13:1 contains no conjunction linking it to what precedes (though see the discussion below). Moreover, if we take 12:28 and 13:16 as an inclusio, the question of where to end the section arises, because we find another inclusio between 13:7 and 13:17 with reference to the leaders. Furthermore, the author refers to “our” conduct (ἀναστρέφω) in verse 18, which harkens back to the conduct of the earlier leaders (ἀναστροφή) in verse 7. Finally, even the benediction in verses 20–21, with its reference to what is pleasing (τὸ εὐάρεστον), connects with the preceding exhortations (cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:506). Thus, the question of where the letter ending begins (v. 17, 18, 20, 22?) is made difficult by observing how tightly these last verses fit with what precedes. For our purposes concerning the moral thought of Hebrews, this justifies considering the entirety of the chapter in light of and proceeding from 12:28– 29. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that features of the epistolary postscript in verses 18–25, such as the request for prayer and its grounding in a pure conscience, the benediction, and the personal notes and greetings, constitute typical features of letter endings. Cf. 1 Thess 5:23–28; 2 Tim 4:19–22; 1 Pet 5:10–14; 1 Clem. 64–65; deSilva, Perseverance, 507. On conscience as grounds for prayer, see 2 Cor 4:11–12; 1 John 3:21–22; further 1 Cor 4:4 and cf. Gräßer, Hebräer, 397, who lists other less convincing examples. For the structure of the chapter, see the discussions and various approaches in Cockerill, Hebrews,

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

105

Additionally, however, the immediate turn from the comment that God is a consuming fire to the third person imperative – the only third person imperative directed toward the audience (cf. 1:6) – to let brotherly love remain is not only striking when read in connection with 12:28–29, but it is also reminiscent of other parts of the book. For example, in 6:9–10, right after the threaning image of burning in 6:8, the author expresses confidence in the audience based on their works of love and service. Further, in chapter 10, after the warning that it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God, the author commands (imperative) the audience to remember (ἀναµιµνῄσκω) their earlier days, and he thus brings their attention to their former good works and goes on (as also in chapter 6) to exhort them to continue such behavior.268 Thus, the the command to let brotherly love remain – that is, they should continue doing what they know to do269 – appears to function in a similar way to earlier references to the audience’s behavior: it comes as a response to the threat of judgment. Thus, while the sudden turn to moral directives strikes the reader as unusual – even the examples from chapters 6 and 10 use the conjunction δέ – the move from strong warning to moral exhortation is not completely unique in the book. Not only does the initial transition into 13:1 make sense in light of the inclusio and earlier structural clues in the book, the chapter also echoes earlier themes. The initial verses of the chapter deliver a quick succession of moral directives, but while they are concentrated here for the first time, each rings familiar with several other parts of the letter, some of which we have already noted before: Verse 1, brotherly love: 6:10; 10:24 Verse 2, hospitality: 11:31 Verse 3, remembering the imprisoned and mistreated: 10:34; 11:25270

673–77; Paul Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 332, 334–35; Guthrie, Structure, 134; Koester, Hebrews, 554–84; Vanhoye, Structure, 31–32, 40b; Westfall, Discourse, 283–94. 267 Thompson, Hebrews, 273; Marie E. Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” NTS 43 (1997): 272. 268 Noticeable here is the imperative in 13:3 to remember (µιµνήσκω) those imprisoned. 269 The verb µένω itself, as well as ἐπιλανθάνοµαι in verse 2, suggests this is not a new command. Wolfgang Schenk even suggests that a satisfactory translation would include “do not stop.” The author’s own confidence because of the audience’s works (6:9–10) speaks in favor of this suggestion, even if the audience is apparently starting to falter. Wolfgang Schenk, “Die Paränese Hebr 13,16 im Kontext der Hebräerbriefes – Einer Fallstudie semiotisch-orientierter Textinterpretation und Sachkritik,” ST 39 (1985): 76–77. 270 David Allen points out that Moses chose to suffer mistreatment with the people of God (συγκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ τοῦ θεοῦ), as the audience is to remember the mistreated as those also being in the body (τῶν κακουχουµένων ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὄντες ἐν σώµατι). David M.

106

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

Verse 4, sexual purity: 12:16 Verse 5, not loving money & contentment: 10:34; 11:26 Verse 7, consideration and imitation of the faithful: 6:12; 11; 12:1–3271

Thus, even this collection of “varied instruction”, which we might compare to other letter endings,272 is not so random as it may appear. Certainly the author offers quite general and common points of moral exhortation, but each has at least some point of contact with what he has mentioned elsewhere. Concerning the ἔκβασις of the leaders’ conduct, it appears most likely that ἔκβασις refers to the end of their life, i.e. death (cf. Wis 2:17), and not simply the “outcome” of their conduct (cf. Wis 8:8; 11:14). The latter interpretation might point to their entrance into heaven (12:18–24), but such a connection has to remain implicit. The end of their life makes better sense, because the author is dealing in the present context with concrete action and in the following verses reminds the audience of Jesus’ suffering, urging them to bear his reproach.273 This also fits better with the command to remember.274 Accordingly, verse 7 makes a stronger demand than it otherwise would, namely, to imitate the leaders through to the very end. Despite this, however, the author does not clearly refer to martyrdom nor suggest the audience should become imitators in martyrdom specifically. The point is rather that they died in accordance with their way of life, namely in remaining faithful. In Wis 2:17, those opposing the righteous want to test whether the righteous will die a shameful death with endurance and whether he will continue in the same manner of life despite torture (vv. 19–

Allen, “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations: The Use of Old Testament Narratives in Heb 13,1–8,” Bib 89 (2008): 404. 271 Verse 7 could belong to what precedes or what follows. The inclusio formed between verses 7 and 17 by mention of leaders would justify separating verse 6 from 7. Moreover, the point that the leaders spoke the word of God to the audience may help support the exhortation against various teachings in verse 9. However, the transition to a new topic does not become clear until verses 8 and 9. Instead, the imperative in verse 7 initially appears to continue the series of moral instructions beginning in verse 1. That verse 7 ends with the note of imitating the leaders’ faithfulness, without a focus on their teaching, speaks in favor of taking verse 7 with what precedes. In other words, verse 7 identifies which teachers the author is pointing to, with a focus on imitation, not primarily on their teaching. The main point for the present analysis, however, is simply that the exhortation to imitation is not new. Compare Cockerill, Hebrews, 676 n. 18 and Johnson, Hebrews, 337. Allen, “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations,” 403–4, 407, even suggests reading verses 1–8 together, with Jesus representing an ultimate exemplar of steady faithfulness, similar to 12:1–3 following chapter 11. This is plausible, but requires – in his argument – seeing earlier exemplars reflected in 13:1–6, which is not in all cases convincing. 272 So Filson, ‘Yesterday’, 22–25. He compares the instructions here to those in 1 Thess 5:12–22; 2 Thess 3:6–10; Gal 6:1–10; 2 Tim 4:9–18a; Phil 4:10–19; 1 Pet 5:1–10. The last three, however, are less convincing comparisons to Heb 13 as a whole, but are more comparable to Heb 13:18–25. 273 Similarly Attridge, Hebrews, 392; Backhaus, Hebräer, 466; Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:370. 274 Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 670.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

107

20). The manner of death is clearly in view, but in connection with one’s response to it.275 For the author of Hebrews, it is sufficient to refer to faithfulness until death, as he does in 11:13, without reference to the manner of death.276 The point in 11:13–14 is that the patriarchs died as faithful strangers seeking a heavenly homeland (the same is also true of those who really did suffer and die; 11:38–39). The present passage comes to a similar point, that the audience should bear Christ’s reproach since they are hoping for a city to come (13:13– 14). Despite mention of Christ’s suffering (not his death explicitly!), the call is not to die but to endure. Neither does Heb 12:1–4, which commentators naturally bring to bear on the question of martyrdom, suggest the audience should become martyrs, but that they should give every effort in endurance.277 In sum, the earlier leaders set an example of faithfulness to the very end (cf. 6:11–12), whatever that end may have looked like.278

The basis for the instruction regarding money and contentment bears comment. The author grounds the instruction that the audience’s life be free from the love of money by writing: “For he has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you,’ so that we can say with confidence, ‘the Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?’” First, the argument basically proceeds from the faithfulness of the Lord as the basis for confidence. The author will establish the same point concerning Jesus in verse 8, but the author has also earlier established grounds for confidence in one who is faithful (Jesus as faithful high priest, 2:17; 3:1–6; God as sure promissor, 6:13–20; cf. the anker in 6:19). Secondly, the construal of the Lord as helper (βοηθός) recalls 4:16 (cf. 2:18), where through Jesus the audience can have confidence to go before the throne of grace for timely help (βοήθεια). Finally, the scriptural rhetorical question, “what can man do to me?” echoes the case of Moses in 11:27: After chosing the reproach of Christ over Egyptian treasures, Moses leaves Egypt not fearing the wrath of the king. The point is simply that not only the moral instructions echo statements elsewhere in the book, but the grounding of this particular instruction follows intimations established already, even if the argumentation is fresh.279 b) Verses 8–16: Strange Teachings and Proper Worship It is at verses 8–9 that we come to statements that sound foreign to Hebrews. The sudden reference to strange teachings resonates with little else in the book, and scholars have understood the following verses as reflecting contro275

Cf. Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 670; Riggenbach, Hebräer, 433–34 n. 83. Koester, Hebrews, 559, cites Josephus, J.W., 1.271: “He died bravely, thus making his ruin fitting with his life’s deeds” (ἀνδρειότατα θνήσκει ποιησάµενος τὴν καταστροφὴν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἔργοις πρέπουσαν). 276 Riggenbach, Hebräer, 434. 277 See the detailed discussion of 12:4 in particular in chapter 5 below. 278 Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 559, 567; Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 670. 279 However, the basis for the exhortation in verse 2 is indeed new. Verse 4 also introduces a new argument, though it coheres with the understanding of sin we have proposed.

108

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

versy about Jewish food regulations or ritual meals and even the Lord’s Supper.280 Yet, despite the challenging exegetical problems, a careful reading of the text evinces that the author’s main concern lies not with the details of eating per se, but with familiar themes of not going astray, endurance, and confidence in a greater cult. Several observations bear this out. First, the author engages in exhortation in these verses. After stating Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the author returns to the imperative, do not be misled. In verse 10 the author claims that we have an altar from which those serving in the tent have no authority to eat. The introduction of “something had” followed by a hortatory subjunctive, as is the case here here, is typical of Hebrews (see excursus below). Thus, verse 13 reads, “let us therefore go out to him outside of the camp”. In verse 14 too, the author states that we have no lasting city here, but we hope for the one to come. He then employs the hortatory subjunctive in verse 15, “through him let us offer a sacrifice of praise”. Verses 16, 17, and 18 then include three more imperatives, though those in 17 and 18, to obey and submit to leaders and to pray for “us”, stand further from the flow of thought of verses 8–16. The point is the author focuses on exhortation, not polemic.281 Interestingly, the use of the hortatory subjunctive here functions quite similarly to the other instances of the hortatory subjunctive in Hebrews.282 On the one hand, the author employs it in light of something “had”. In 4:14–16 the hortatory subjunctives follow from the “having” of a great high priest and not “having” a high priest who cannot sympathize with weakness. Likewise, the hortatory subjunctives in 10:22, 23, and 24 follow from “having”

280

See Attridge, Hebrews, “Excursus: Strange Teachings and Foods,” 394–96; Helmut Koester, “‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13.9–14,” HTR 55 (1962): 304–5; cf. Iaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” 277–84; James W. Thompson, “Outside the Camp: A Study of Heb 13:9–14,” CBQ 40 (1978): 53–63. 281 The absence of polemics is emphasized by Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 54, followed by Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” 280–81. Cf. also Backhaus, Hebräer, 469, who is right to note, “Vielmehr schöpfen V. 10–14 die im Zentralteil soteriologisch grundgelegte Kultsymbolik unter ethischem und wissenssozialem Aspekt aus.” Norman Young contends, in contrast, that the present passage is indeed polemical, as is the entire book. He considers the language of Jesus’ greatness over against the old cult as derogatory. While certainly the author seeks to establish the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood, Young’s position overstates things. The author in fact can appeal to the importance of listening to the Son’s message precisely because of its analogous relationship to the valid message mediated by the angels (2:1–4; cf. 10:26–30), and of course the author recognizes that God also spoke through prophets before the Son (1:1–4). Other than this one reference to some undefined teachings, the author throughout seeks to support his audience rather than to tear down another system. Norman H. Young, “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14),” NTS 48 (2002): 243–61. 282 This is also recognized by Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 54–55 and Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” 273.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

109

confidence to enter the holy place and “having” a great high priest (vv. 19–21).283 In 12:1– 2, the having of a great cloud of witnesses leads to the hortatory subjunctive, “let us run with endurance”. On the other hand, the hortatory subjunctives lacking the “something had” aspect arise almost always in response to some other party’s behavior or some other party’s circumstances: for example, the negative behavior of the wilderness generation (4:1, 11), the positive moral advancement of the mature (6:1), and the fearful shaking of the earth at Sinai compared to the reception of an unshakable heavenly kingdom (12:28).284 Thus, the “we” of the hortatory subjunctives often sets the author and audience together over against some other situation or exemplary figure or it comes in response to a given “truth”, like the having of a great high priest.285 It is interesting to note, then, that the behavioral response exhorted comes not always on the basis of pure theological reflection, but sometimes in response to the behavior of others, whether good or bad. That is, moral language may stem from other moral language. In fact, in the case of 6:1, the ethical maxim that the mature dine on solid food and can distinguish right from wrong (5:13–14), motivates theological reflection on things that are hard to understand. Even the responses in light of “something had”, particularly the great high priest, do not stem from a theological system per se, but the “theology” actually provides a way of coping with the present circumstances, rather than being pre-formulated, only later to serve as a moral impetus. The accomplishment of Jesus in gaining access for the audience is not developed in the abstract; rather, it is formulated for the concerns with the audience’s present circumstances, for example their experience of testing and suffering (2:10, 18; 5:8). Jesus successfully completed what the audience could not, sinlessness in 283

Weiß, Hebräer, 631. Interestingly in this last case the hortatory subjunctive encourages the “having” of something, namely, gratitude: ἔχωµεν χάριν. The hortatory subjunctives in 13:13, 15 also come in response to the example of Jesus, while also building on the “something had.” Beyond this, each case includes some sort of inferential conjunction, primarily οὖν (4:1, 11, 14, 16; 10:19; 13:13 [though the textual evidence for the οὖν here is ambiguous]), but also διό (6:1; 12:28), τοίνυν (13:13), and τοιγαροῦν (12:1). Wolfgang Nauck, “Das οὖνparäneticum,” ZNW 49 (1958): 134–35, observes that early Christian paraenesis often links “systematisch-theologische Erörterung” with closing exhortations by means of οὖν. He thus argues it can be seen as a signal of a closing section (in Heb 12:1, he sees τοιγαροῦν functioning in the same way). He concludes that early Christian moral thought is “eine konsekutive Ethik”. That is, a way of life follows from the merciful acts of God. Whatever the case may be in the Pauline corpus, the observations in Hebrews speak against a konsekutive Ethik in this narrower, theologically grounded sense. Moral impetus can be given based even on other moral deliberation. Even Heb 12:1 follows from the behavior of the cloud of witnesses. 285 Though it lacks the hortatory subjunctive, 2:1 includes the author with the audience when the author speaks of the necessity of paying attention to what has been heard (δεῖ περισσοτέρως προσέχειν ἡµᾶς τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν). This is because of Jesus’ greater status than the angels. The message spoken by angels was binding and its transgressions were punishable, and now in the present situation, the gravity of Jesus’ message must be considered. So again we see the author including himself in a case where the present circumstances are compared to some other conditions. Attridge, Hebrews, 64 n. 14, says the inclusion of ἡµᾶς “serves as a captatio benevolentiae.” Certainly there is a rhetorical aspect to the hortatory subjunctives, but the observations we have made here help explain why they appear precisely where they do. 284

110

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

the face of testing and suffering. Yet this is not just theoretical or theological, but meets the precise paraenetic needs of the audience as those suffering in some way and being tempted to turn back to sin.286 It thus starts to become clear why the entire document could be considered a word of exhortation (13:22).287

Second, the expression διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις offers no specific definition of any supposed heretical teaching. The author seems purposefully to refer to such teachings only vaguely.288 The point is rather not to be led astray, a point obviously resonating with the overall thrust of the book since the the very beginning. Moreover, the author evinces a concern to establish the authority of the message he himself builds upon (cf. 5:11–6:3): In chapter 1 the author assures the audience that God has spoken through a Son; in chapter 2 the message was confirmed by those who heard and testified to by God through various miracles. Now here we read again of the leaders who spoke the word of God (presumably the same tradents as in chapter 2) and of Jesus’ remaining the same. Such statements serve to ground the audience for staying the course as the entire book has sought to do. Thus, the author shows less concern with what the various teachings may contain and more concern that the audience hold to the message he has put forth with great care. Third, and related to the second, the mention of food and eating evokes in nuce the earlier cultic argumentation. That is, rather than attacking any specific question of what to eat, the author is reestablishing his earlier case. Verse 9 bears this out in two ways. First, mention of grace harkens back to the establishment of the aid that comes through the access to God made available by Jesus. The word χάρις occurs seven times in Hebrews. Besides 13:9 and the two phrasal usages 286

So, 4:14–16. As discussed earlier, these verses include both exhortation (two hortatory subjunctives) and exposition that follows a warning against disobedience. Concerning Jesus’ exemplary behavior, we could understand these aspects of Jesus’ life with reference to the gospel accounts, but the author generalizes the details of Jesus’ suffering, for example, making them relevant to the situation beyond just the short time leading up to the cross (see also n. 129 above). As another example, the author molds his account of Moses primarily to make Moses a positive, faithful figure, not one who ultimately failed to enter the land (though perhaps the author slips in a twinge of criticism in 3:16 – thanks to Michael McKay for this thought). Such considerations speak against distinctions between exposition and exhortation in Hebrews (notice the material on Jesus’ suffering and perfection is to be found in “expositional” sections; cf. Guthrie, Structure, 117 and Vanhoye, Structure, 40a). 287 This coheres with more recent approaches to NT ethics that view “theology” and ethics as inseparable. See in particular Löhr, “Ethik und Tugendlehre,” 151–55 and the survey of approaches since Rudolf Bultmann’s “Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus,” ZNW 23 (1924): 123–40 in Zimmerman, “Jenseits,” 259–64. Matera, “Moral Exhortation,” offers some initial steps in this regard with reference to Hebrews. See also Thompson, “Underlying Unity,” 129–36, especially 129–30. 288 So Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 56.

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

111

(12:28; 13:25), it occurs three times in relation to salvation (2:9; 10:29; 12:25). Koester and Thompson have thus understood grace in 13:9 as the act of salvation and as the “benefits of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary”, respectively.289 However, the one remaining occurrence in 4:16 seems more comparable to the usage here and offers more specificity. In 4:16, grace received cannot refer to salvation, but rather has to do with help gained by means of access to “the throne of grace” through Jesus.290 Since the author is speaking of strengthening the heart (13:9), most likely the author has in mind the helping grace one may gain through Jesus and access to God. It is worth noting that 4:16 comes after a discussion in which the heart plays an important role.291 The audience should not hearden their hearts or have an evil heart, but should be diligent to enter rest since the word of God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Thus, the author is urging the audience not to be led astray precisely because of the advantage292 available to them to be strengthened by this grace during their struggle, while there is no benefit to be found outside of it, as the next part of verse 9 demonstrates. Second, the other side of this statement is that conducting oneself in accordance with foods (βρῶµα) is not beneficial. The only other occurrence of βρῶµα in Hebrews is found in 9:10. There the author makes the argument that the earlier sacrifices only related to food and drinks and washings, all of which regulated only the body (9:1). Ultimately such regulations could not perfect the conscience. But, Jesus’ entrance into the greater tent, so the argument goes, accomplished eternal redemption. This sacrifice purifies the conscience, not just the flesh, and enables worship of the living God. In 13:9, the author is succinctly pointing out what he has already established. The question of food comes to stand for the earlier cult as a whole, as the reference to those serving in the tent further substantiates (13:10).293 The author states, “we have an altar from which they have no authority to eat.” The point is, an 289

Koester, “Outside the Camp,” 307–8; Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 58. See the discussion in n. 126 above. 291 Similarly, Attridge, Hebrews, 393. 292 “Advantageous” is a better translation of καλός in this case than “good”. The author is again establishing the benefit of what has been made available. The old regulations offer no advantage (13:9b). This is why the audience should not let themselves be led astray. Thus, the German version of the Bauer lexicon: “(zum Heile) nützlich.” The translation in BDAG, s.v. “καλός,” “contributing to salvation,” conveys a different sense than “nützlich”. See also Sir 46:10 (ὅπως ἴδωσιν πάντες οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ὅτι καλὸν τὸ πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω κυρίου), the context of which discusses the accomplishments of Joshua through the help and strengthening of the Lord, and thus it is “advantageous” to go after the Lord. Cf. Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed., ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 811; Weiß, Hebräer, 719; Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:374–75. 293 Cf. Backhaus, Hebräer, 468; Isaacs, “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited,” 281; Koester, “Outside the Camp,” 305–8; Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 57–58. 290

112

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

access has been granted to us that those who operate under the earlier regulations cannot obtain. In a similar line of argument, Thompson takes the additional step of appealing to Esau and βρῶσις from 12:16. According to Thompson, Esau’s giving up his inheritance for a meal serves as another example of dependence on the earthly instead of commitment to heavenly reward (Esau is described as βέβηλος). 294 We may add to this, the example of Esau follows upon an exhortation to seek holiness and not to fall short of the grace of God (12:15). Though βρῶσις in 12:16 does not occur in the same context of earthly purity regulations as our present context or chapter 9, it is nevertheless suggestive of the uselessness (or even danger) of food over against grace. Ultimately, the point is the heart benefits from strengthening through the graceful help made available through Jesus’ priestly work, but the audience will find no benefit from the earlier, outward system. Thus, 9b explains the command in 9a. In view of the author’s paraenetic purposes in the unit, he is not concerned to deal with the particularities of whatever various teachings may have threatened the audience; rather, he is warning the audience not to be deceived into thinking they will find any greater advantage than the one they have through Jesus Christ. The author merely wants to reassert the teaching he has already developed as truly beneficial in comparison to whatever other specific claims he viewed as potentially dangerous.295 This leads to the fourth observation. The section demonstrates a concern with worship. Most immediately obvious, the author refers to those who worship in the tent (οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες).296 Further, the last hortatory subjunctive in the passage calls on the audience to offer a sacrifice of praise (ἀναφέρωµεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως) and thereafter the author explains that doing good and sharing are pleasing sacrifices to God (vv. 15–16). Thus, the inclu294

Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 57–58. For Cockerill, the present passage deals specifically with Jewish teachings that deny the obsolescence of the old cult. If the author were trying to counter false teachings, a teaching of this nature would certainly be the most likely. However, and as Cockerill admits, the author has concerned himself throughout the book primarily with the audience’s own lassitude. Moreover, even the author’s own teaching has concerned going beyond the basics (5:11–6:3) and has grounded his exhortations against sinning, rather than seeking to defeat some false teaching (Cockerill is sensitive to this, however). Ultimately these verses provide too little to suggest that Hebrews is primarily concerned with protecting the audience from false (Jewish) teachings, particularly given that the author’s “theological” argumentation has served so readily to support exhortations specifically against not sinning, as we have demonstrated. See Cockerill, Hebrews, 692–98. 296 Here we may think back to 8:5, where the author, speaking of the priests and the tent, writes, οἵτινες ὑποδείγµατι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν. Most likely those who conduct themselves according to food (13:9b) and those who serve in the tent are the same. Cf. Thompson, “Outside the Camp,” 59. 295

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

113

sio between verse 16 and 12:28, λατρεύωµεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ, becomes quite noticeable. These observations in connection with those made above together recollect the cultic argument made in particular in Heb 9. The outward regulations could not perfect the conscience of the worshipper (µὴ δυνάµεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα; 9:9–10), but the highpriestly work of Christ does cleanse the conscience, enabling the worship of the living God (τὸ αἷµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ […] καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡµῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι). Thus the author begins the exhortation to offer a sacrifice of praise in 13:15 with the prepositional phrase, διά αὐτοῦ, namely, through Jesus.297 This further validates the suggestion that the section concerns proper worship. Moreover, worship involves certain positive behavior according to verses 16 and 17. This is a significant observation because it shows that whatever scholarly curiosities the “strange and foreign teachings” may invoke, verses 8–16 develop for the purpose of exhortation, and not only the exhortation not to be misled, but also to contine to benefit from grace and to worship through action. Yet this does not exhaust the “ethics” of the passage. As a fifth observation, the author returns to the exhortation so prevalent in chapter 12, namely to endure. Since the sacrifices were burned outside the camp, Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people. Hence (τοίνυν), the audience is called to go out to him outside the camp and bear his reproach.298 Whereas previously the author has used ὑποµονή and ὑποµένω for endurance, here he uses the verb φέρω. This raises the question of whether bearing reproach simply means to experience reproach, or whether the author means here as before (see the discussion on 10:32–36 above and chapter 5 below) that the audience should hold up under reproach. The verb φέρω can convey the sense of patient endurance or tolerance (cf. 12:20),299 but in Ezek 34:29 and 36:6, where we find the only other occurrences of φέρω with the accusative ὀνειδισµόν, the context has to do only with the passive experience of reproach from Israel’s neighbors, not active endurance. 300 Moreover, unlike 12:1–3, which highlights Jesus’ faithful endurance before opposition, the author here speaks simply of Jesus’ suffering. Nevertheless, ὀνειδισµός also occurs in 10:33 in connection with patient endurance, and 12:2 does refer to Jesus’ despising the αἰσχύνη of the cross in endurance. Thus, despite the ambiguity on its own, the author is likely not simply calling on the audience to suffer, but rather to hold fast under the same reproach as Jesus (cf. 11:26) in 297

On praise as an offering/sacrifice of the lips, cf. 1QS X, 14. The participle φέροντες continues the imperatival force of the main verb ἐξερχώµεθα. See also 12:1 and the comments on that verse in chapter 5 below. 299 BDAG, LSJ, s.v. “φέρω.” 300 According to a TLG search, outside the LXX and Hebrews, the phrase only occurs elsewhere in antiquity in the patristic literature. 298

114

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

their separation from the values of the world, that is, in going to him outside the camp. The decision to endure his reproach puts them on his side – as well as with the people of God (11:25) – over against those the author elsewhere describes as sinners (12:3).301 The author explains the basis for this exhortation in verse 14, namely, that the audience has no lasing city here, but hopes for the coming one. As the author makes clear in chapter 11 and into chapter 12, difficulty marks the life of the people of God who wander as strangers in the world. By pointing the audience’s hopes toward the future, they might recognize the temporary nature of the world and look forward to a surer kingdom (cf. 12:18–29). And as the reception of an unshakable kingdom leads the author to call for worship, so the hope of a coming city leads to a call for worship yet again. From the preceding five observations it becomes clear that Hebrews 13:8– 16 develops in summary fashion significant strands of the overall argumentation of the book. A) The passage assures the audience of the stability of Jesus; B) it reassures the audience of the advantage of the message of the book itself by the exhortation not to be misled; C) in establishing this advantage it points again to the special access accomplished by Jesus over against the worship in the tent; D) it reminds the audience of their wandering life of reproach, yet also their hope; and E) it argues from these things for the right attitude toward reproach and morally active worship in view of hope. c) Verses 17–21: Final Exhortations After all of this, in verse 17 the author returns to the leaders, this time present leaders, and commands the audience to obey and submit to them.302 The basis 301 Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:386, rightly notes the separation from the world demanded by Hebrews is “nicht als radikaler Entzug von der Welt gemeint – das zeigen deutlich z.B. 13,1–6.16 – , sondern als Distanz zu jenen irdischen Gegebenheiten, die als ‘zeitlicher Sündengenuß’ (11,25) und den Glaubenslauf hindernder ‘Ballast’ […] disqualifiziert werden.” Cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 702–3. However, Cockerill understands this particular exhortation to concern specifically leaving behind the community of those living by the Old Covenant (697 n. 43; cf. Young, “Bearing his Reproach,” who reads the passage as concerning a full break with the Synagogue). Cockerill’s argument depends on the proposal that “those who worship in the tent” (v. 10) is not a generic reference to priests, but to those who are living as if Christ had not come, in contrast to “us” (v. 10). Cockerill avers that elsewhere priests are contrasted not with the audience, but only with Christ; thus the reference here is not to priests. Yet, first of all, λατρεύω is used of priests elsewhere in Hebrews, precisely those who worship in the tent (8:5; 9:9). Second, Christ’s work enables access to the holy places the earlier priests could not access (9:8), and so there is in fact a contrast between the priests and the audience elsewhere in Hebrews; the audience has access to holy places unavailable to the priests of the tent. 302 It is tempting to read verses 17 and 18 together in such a way that would suggest the author counts himself among the leaders. This is unlikely, however. The author explains

Hebrews in Moral Perspective

115

for such obedience is that the leaders look after the audience’s souls as those who must give account for the audience in judgment, and they should be able to do so with joy and not with groaning. If the leaders must do so with groaning, the author notes, “this would be unprofitable for you.”303 In other words, a negative accounting from the leaders would indicate a failure of obedience on the part of the audience. This understated warning304 arises almost as a side note in view of the focus on obedience to the leaders and their responsibilities, yet it seems as though the author cannot but remind the audience once again of the potential danger of judgment (cf. 4:13), even if in subdued fashion. In the final verses the author picks up again familiar moral themes. He appeals to his, or “our,” good conscience and desire to conduct himself nobly. It is not new for a NT writer to appeal to his conscience in order to lend merit to his case,305 but the appeal nevertheless calls for notice in view of the importance of a pure conscience for the author’s argument. Also noticeable is the reference to his conduct (ἀναστρέφω). Perhaps he is attempting in part to echo the positive behavior (ἀναστροφή) of those who went before as imitable leaders (13:7). The point is, the author views himself as fulfilling the same expectations he has of the audience. Beyond this, the benediction in verses 20–21 brings the author’s appeal to a positive end, despite the final, albeit feeble, warning in verse 17. The author expresses the prayer that God would equip the audience to do his will and to do what is pleasing to him. In view of the repetition of “pleasing” language from 12:28 onward, the expression here stands out, as does doing the will of God, which the author presents as so important in 10:36. Thus the benediction offers hope to the audience despite the severity of the author’s warnings, while at the same time intimating the importance of proper conduct.306

the imperatives in verse 17 by referring to the leaders in the third person plural (αὐτοί). Moreover, the author turns from the first person plural in verse 18 to the singular in verse 19. Thus, the plurals in verse 18 are most likely comparable to those in 5:11 and 6:9. Notably, the latter expresses conviction of something, just as 13:18 (πεπείσµεθα; πειθόµεθα). Cf. further the prayer requests for “us” in 1 Thess 5:25; 2 Cor 1:11; 2 Thess 3:1; Col 4:3. Admittedly, however, these letters obviously have a plurality of authors according to their opening greetings. See further Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:396; Filson, ‘Yesterday’, 71–72, though their considerations are more speculative. 303 The τοῦτο refers to giving account, not watching over the souls. This becomes clear with the statement about unprofitability. Only if the leaders must give account with groans is the audience in an unprofitable position. The issue is not the leaders’ psychological state in handling the audience, but the manner in which they must give account for the audience in judgment. So, Koester, Hebrews, 572; contra deSilva, Perseverance, 509–10. 304 Attridge, Hebrews, 402. 305 See n. 266 above. 306 On these verses see also pages 88–91 above.

116

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

d) Theology in Response to Moral Crisis All of the foregoing serves not simply to establish the originality of chapter 13, but rather to show a consistent depiction of the Christian life in Hebrews: it must be marked by endurance on the one hand, and right moral living in the community on the other. Not to be overlooked, though by no means the main point of the chapter, is that sin, particularly sexual sin, leaves one open to judgment (cf. v. 17). Moreover, chapter 13 helps draw the entirety of Hebrews together, since as it raises familiar moral themes, it cotemporaneously lays out the basic thrust of its “theological” argument. In this it becomes clear how the “theological” has worked throughout the book to ground moral exhortation. That is not to say the author works from indicative to imperative, but rather he responds to a moral crisis, the flagging strength of the audience, by laying out what Jesus’ highpriestly work has accomplished for them in order that they might not return to sin but rather continue in endurance and right Christian living. The theology functions as a means by which the author may motivate the audience to act as he wants them to. The nine imperatives from 13:1–17, the two hortatory subjunctives, the three implicit imperatives (vv. 4a, 5b), and the three participles with imperatival force (vv. 5b, 7b, 13b) belie the author’s real concern, not theology for its own sake, but the behavior of his community. The chapter does not primarily consist of varied teachings,307 but of a concentration of mostly familiar teachings and argumentation distilled from what has gone before.

Conclusions

III. Conclusions

Based on the foregoing analysis we may make the following concluding observations. First, and most basically, Hebrews is filled with moral language, whether in the form of commands and exhortations or in terms and categories. Not only so, but the author places models of right behavior before the audience, and the “theological” argument focuses in detail on the issue of sin, resulting in exhortation to right living and not sinning. Additionally, it is noticeable that the author’s exhortations in particular begin with an emphasis on devotion to the message, and while the message is not completely lost in later sections, sin and a certain way of life find greater emphasis from the middle onwards, especially in the climactic chapter 12 to be discussed later.308 307

Contra Filson, ‘Yesterday’, 22. This study thus confirms the same observation made by Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, 2 vols., HThKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1986– 1988), 2:248. 308

Conclusions

117

Second, for the author, the threat of falling away essentially comes down to a weighty moral decision. The moral construal of the issue finds expression as a comparison to transgression and rejection of the law (2:1–4; 10:26–30; 12:25), and also as a turning away from God and his ways. Not only so, but turning from God results from the evil intentions of the heart. As becomes clearer throughout Hebrews, the author depicts the problem of the audience as a choice of turning back to a life of sin in contradiction to repentance from sin and the purification accomplished by Jesus’ sacrifice. On the other side of going on in sin, the author expects the audience to maintain faithfulness to God and a right way of life expressed in concrete acts of love and good works. Third, the fledging audience must show not only diligence in action, but also in understanding if they are to be considered mature in righteousness. Through his word of exhortation, the author seeks to show the audience the moral weight of their situation. With understanding, the mature would show capability in recognizing good and evil. Fourth, we found that lethargy should be replaced by mutual support and diligent action in the face of the deceitfulness of sin. The author does not provide the audience with a complete, programmatic Ersatz for all of their old ways of life, but he does point to certain good deeds and works that evince righteousness and support community solidarity. Fifth, the plethora of exemplars model not only the proper faithful and trusting disposition expected of the audience, but also the right action that expresses it. For example, Jesus’ righteousness and sinlessness, while forming the basis of his exaltation and being made high priest, also models proper behavior even for the audience. It is striking that his ability to offer a greater sacrifice in part on the basis of his moral character, not only takes away sins but leads to the demand that the audience likewise not sin. Moreover, Jesus is said to have suffered, yet learned obedience through it and proved sinless in testing. The exemplars of chapter 11 likewise show faithfulness through a variety of actions, some of which become specific behaviors demanded of the audience. Several even clearly suffered, yet it is not their suffering as such that is decisive, but rather their faithful response. So too the author does not call on the audience to suffer, but rather to stand fast, continuing in proper behavioral response so that once they have done the will of God they will inherit the promise. This focus on the audience’s disposition and behavior rather than on suffering will become all the more clear in our analysis of Heb 12. It seems, then, that Schmidt was correct indeed to ponder the possibility that moral lethargy represents one problem faced by the audience of Hebrews. Yet, the moral threat stands not as one threat among several as he proposed, but rather as the threat, at least in terms of the author’s construal. The author of Hebrews recognizes the external difficulties the audience is encountering,

118

Chapter 2: Hebrews’ Moral Thought

and even points to them in the experiences of Jesus and certain heroes, but persecution and reproach do not make up the fundamental problem facing the audience. He finds the ultimate threat to the audience not in these externals, but in the internals of both the community’s cohesion and the individual heart, in the deceitfulness of the temporary pleasures of sin, from which they have already repented, and for which there is no longer any sacrifice.

Chapter 3

The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment Thus far it has been argued that Hebrews’ conception of the problem facing its audience circulates around the issue of sin. Sin as a deceptive power and dangerous opponent (3:13; 12:4) poses the ultimate danger for the audience, not in that they should fall into the sin of apostasy, but rather in that they would choose to turn back to their previous way of life, going on sinning despite knowledge of the truth. In the face of this, the author exhorts the audience in the other direction, sometimes pointing toward faithfulness, sometimes toward obedience, and also toward endurance. Often such virtues ought to find expression in concrete actions supporting the community itself, like works of love and sharing. And so the author has responded to an apparently external threat of social pressure with reference to the heart, emphasizing the maintenance of moral purity whatever the circumstance. We have begun with the presupposition that the author does not in fact see divine discipline as a response to some sin committed by the audience. Certainly some of the traditions we will examine take a different approach to divine discipline, but the previous chapter has supported this presupposition in suggesting that sin in general is the threat to the audience. In theory, punitive suffering could not apply to the audience because if they were to sin there would be no opportunity for repentance, as they would have repudiated in their sin the very person who enabled them to approach God in the first place. Not only this, but the discussion of the audience’s previous, virtuous response to suffering serves as evidence that suffering comes as a normal part of the Christian life, at least for these Christians and some of the heroes – including Jesus – who have gone before them. In 10:32–36 the author praises the audience for their response; he does not characterize that contest of suffering as any sort of discipline at all. The audience exhibited right behavior and σπουδή before and yet suffered, and so it is quite unlikely to suggest that, even if they are presently acting in ways that evince laziness (5:11), their suffering stands in cause-and-effect relationship with their behavior. It is the response to suffering that the author addresses, both in chapters 10 and 12. With this, we turn to the issue of corporal punishment raised by Hebrews’ use of Prov 3:11–12. From our observations above and mentioned in the introductory chapter, the corporal punishment tradition raises a challenge to the non-punitive reading of Heb 12. The very conception of punishment evokes

120

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

notions of guilt, and Hebrews has been sometimes understood to support this reading with its warnings against sin and exhortations to holiness. Thus, in this chapter and the next, we try to solve the problem of this uneasy relationship by considering a couple sets of questions. First, how does the corporal punishment tradition fit with the argument developed in Heb 12? Can a nonpunitive interpretation of discipline cohere with an institution naturally understood as punitive? Second, how does the author employ Prov 3:11–12 and 4:26? Does the context or the ancient interpretive tradition of these verses offer any clues on how the argument of Hebrews and the understanding of the proverbs can coherently fit together? Ultimately, however, we must hold our conclusions loosely, always asking whether the literary and social contexts of Hebrews’ world actually suggest the author does mean to speak of punitive discipline. In order to answer the questions above, the present chapter is devoted to corporal punishment in the Greco-Roman world and the following chapter to Prov 3–4 specifically. The term corporal punishment is an unfortunate one for our purposes. To use the term when dealing with an apparently non-punitive interpretation of suffering would appear to bias the discussion in the other direction. Nevertheless, the term is useful for its familiarity and its clear reference to the physical striking of a person in response to some negatively perceived behavior. Moreover, we shall see that corporal punishment in the ancient world could be used in cases where moderns may see no moral element involved at all, for example the failure of an apprentice cobbler to assemble a shoe properly. In any case, corporal punishment was widespread and played an integral role in education, such that education could hardly be conceived of without it.

I. Painful Childhood Memories Painful Childhood Memories Hebrews’ employment of the corporal punishment tradition brings forth resonances of childhood that would have been familiar to those living in the ancient world. The author focuses in his exposition of the proverb on the fatherson relationship established by παιδεία; he associates it with both pain and joy; and he views its results as beneficial, leading to a share in God’s holiness and producing righteous, peaceable fruits. In fact, the focus on these positive benefits may at first appear to undercut the harsher language of reproof (ἐλέγχω) and whipping (µαστιγόω) brought up in the quotation.1 The author’s focus has even led to the question of whether παιδεία should be understood as discipline at all, with education – certainly a more positive sounding term in contrast to whipping – being proposed as an alternative.2 Yet construing 1 2

So Croy, Endurance, 198; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 649. Johnson, Hebrews, 313.

Painful Childhood Memories

121

παιδεία in English as education (or as Erziehung in German)3 misses the reality that in the classical world, education, unlike in the modern or postmodern world, is not merely painful in the sense that it is laborious and full of toil, but it is painful physically. And this physical pain stems not just from the rigors of the ἀγών and the places of military training, but from the very hands of teachers, paedagogues, and fathers. Its wide distribution and often cruel severity demonstrate just how much Prov 3:11–12 would have resonated with the audience of Hebrews, possibly even suggesting connotations the author would have rather left untouched if his audience had experienced particularly harsh physical treatment in childhood (though one might expect adult hearers to have a different appreciation for their childhood beatings than children).4 Ultimately, however, such pain is ideally not wanton, but contributes to the moral character of the child, leading to obedience and virtue. In his magisterial A History of Education in Antiquity, H.I. Marrou writes of the brutal school experiences of children: “The characteristic figure that stayed in the memory of the men who had been educated at these little schools was not the ἀγών and its noble rivalry, but the terrible schoolmaster, stick in hand, inspiring terror.”5 This comment may initially sound exaggerated, but there remains extant no dearth of evidence of the brutality of ancient schools, teachers, and paedagogues, as well as evidence of the painful memories of ancient writers reflecting on their childhoods. 3 W.M.L. de Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2 of the 5th part, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1867), 315–16. 4 Fitzgerald argues similarly that the audience of Hebrews would have related the author’s exhortation to their own experience, but he does not draw out the further implications of this for Hebrews’ logic, nor does he develop the grounds and ultimate purposes of corporal punishment as we shall discuss below. In what follows, the focus lies on the Greco-Roman, OT, and Second Temple Jewish evidence. For the corporal punishment tradition in the ancient Near East, the focus of Fitzgerald’s study, see Fitzgerald, “Tradition,” 293–311, and for corporal punishment in Proverbs, see the discussion in chapter 4. The following secondary sources helped establish much of the groundwork for the study of corporal punishment in the Greek and Roman worlds: William Barclay, Educational Ideals in the Ancient World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974); Stanley Frederick Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); Judith Evans Grubbs and Tim Parkin, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Marrou, History of Education. 5 Marrou, History of Education, 159. Jérôme Carcopino expresses much the same, but with a much more negative outlook: “Instead of happy memories, serious and fruitful ideas, any sort of intellectual curiosity vital to later life, school children carried away the gloomy recollection of years wasted in senseless, stumbling repetitions punctuated by savage punishments.” Jérôme Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire, 2nd ed., ed. Henry T. Rowell, trans. E.O. Lorimer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 107.

122

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

Horace (65 BCE-8 BCE),6 writing on poets and poetry, recalls quite incidentally what poetry he learned under the infamous teacher Lucius Orbilius Pupillus, to whom Horace gives the sobriquet, the flogger (plagosus).7 Ovid (43 BCE-17 CE) too,8 poeticizing about the dawn of the sun every morning, mentions not only the regular waking of farmers and oxen, but the waking of boys to send them to their school masters and their savage lashes.9 Marrou’s comment takes on even clearer meaning when read in light of several lines from Ps.-Plato’s Axiochus (2nd-1st c. BCE): When [a child] reaches the age of seven, having endured many troubles, tyrannizing tutors, elementary school teachers, and physical trainers set themselves upon him; and as he grows, there are language teachers, geometry teachers, military instructors, all a great crowd of despots. When he is enrolled among the Ephebes, there comes the director, and fear of beatings [lit., fear of hands]; then the Lyceum and the Academy, superintendants of the Gymnasium and rods and excesses of ills.10

Here it is not only the military and athletic trainers who dole out punishment, but a variety of types of academic teachers as well. It is ironic from a modern perspective to relate the pain of military and athletic training to the punishments of the classroom, yet these are precisely the associations common to the ancient world. These references do not compare, however, to the later, vivid ruminations of Augustine (354–430 CE)11 on his childhood experience. He is worth quoting at length: O my God! what miseries and mockeries did I then experience, when obedience to my teachers was set before me as proper to my boyhood, that I might flourish in this world, and distinguish myself in the science of speech, which should get me honour amongst men, and deceitful riches! After that I was put to school to get learning, of which I (worthless as I was) knew not what use there was; and yet, if slow to learn, I was flogged! For this was deemed praiseworthy by our forefathers; and many before us, passing the same course, had appointed beforehand for us these troublesome ways by which we were compelled to pass, multiplying labour and sorrow upon the sons of Adam. […] For as a boy I began to pray to Thee, my “help” and my “refuge,” and in invoking Thee broke the bands of my tongue, and entreated Thee though little, with no little earnestness, that I might not be beaten at school. And when Thou heardest me not, giving me not over to folly thereby, my elders,

6

Hans Peter Syndikus, “Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus),” OCD 704. Lt.: memini quae plagosum mihi parvo Orbilium dictare (Horace, Ep. 2.1.70–71); cf. Suetonius, Gramm. 9. 8 Stephen Hinds, “Ovid,” OCD 1054. 9 Ovid, Am. 1.13.17–18. 10 Plato, Ax. 366E-367A. Translation adapted from Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus, trans. Jackson P. Hershbell, SBLTT 21 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 35; on dating see 10–21. 11 John F. Matthews, “Augustine, St (Aurelius Augustinus),” OCD 206. 7

Painful Childhood Memories

123

yea, and my own parents too, who wished me no ill, laughed at my stripes, my then great and grievous ill.12

Augustine’s memories are a clear testament to the stressful experience it must have been to go to school for a little boy, especially since the beatings seem to have occurred for things moderns would view as amoral, namely slowness to learn. In the next section of his Confessions, Augustine proceeds with the same theme, but mentions that despite receiving pain he and his companions “nevertheless sinned in writing, reading, or reflecting upon lessons less than was required of us” (et peccabamus tamen minus scribendo aut legendo aut cogitando de litteris, quam exigebatur a nobis). He continues, commenting that he and his classmates delighted in play.13 So, at least in the case of Augustine and his young colleagues, even play was accompanied by fear of beating if lessons had not been learned. These few examples already illustrate the immediate association of learning (or failing to study) with corporal punishment condoned by parents and exacted by schoolmasters. Not only were the different facets of education (academic, athletic, military) associated with physical pain, but educators frequently exacted such pain with great severity. The punishments children experienced seem to have been regularly applied to the hand. According to Ovid’s lines mentioned above, it is the hands which are subjected to the teacher’s lashes.14 Juvenal, probably writing in the second and third decades of the second century, speaks of his learning in terms of corporal punishment: “I too have pulled my hand away from the cane” (et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus),15 and Augustine mentions that if a student failed to remember a poem, the teacher would make sure he would not be able to carry anything with his hands.16 Yet things could get much worse. For major offenses, teachers may subject a student to the catomus. This was a maneuver whereby the offending child was stripped down to the loincloth and held over the back of one of his classmates, while another classmate would hold him by the ankles. The offending child would then be flogged.17 A fresco of a school in Pompeii de12

Augustine, Conf. 1.9.14 (NPNF1 1:49); cf. 1.9.15; 1.10.16; Civ. 21.14. Augustine, Conf. 1.9.15 (trans. adadpted from NPNF1 1:49). 14 Lt.: ut subeant tenerae verbera saeva manus (Am. 1.13.18). 15 Juvenal, Sat. 1.15; Marrou, History of Education, 272. However, the Latin, manum ferulae subducere, is ambiguous. It could also be taken as “to submit the hand to the cane” (so, Marrou, History of Education, 272, but see Bonner, Education, 143 and Braund, LCL). Plutarch also witnesses to educational blows on the hands (Caes. 61.3). On the dating of Juvenal’s writing, see Juvenal and Persius, ed. and trans. Susanna Morton Braund, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 19–20. 16 Augustine, Solil. 2.11.20. 17 Cf. Cicero, Fam. 7.25.1 (LCL: Letter 261): Sed heus tu, manum de tabula! magister adest citius quam putaramus. vereor ne in catomum Catoninos (Hey, get your hands off your tablet [stop writing]! The teacher is here sooner than expected. I fear it’s the 13

124

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

picts this form of punishment. It shows not just one teacher thrashing the misbehaving child, but another is shown standing further back in position to strike a blow. To the left side of the thrashing scene other school children can be seen looking ashamedly away and down toward their school slates while their teacher(s?) looks over them.18 In still other cases, children were beaten to within inches of their lives or even killed by physical discipline. Seneca (d. 65 CE)19 mentions the case of a Roman knight by the name of Tricho who beat his son to death. Yet the people of the forum could not tolerate such an act and responded by stabbing Tricho nearly to death with their writing pens.20 In a papyrus manuscript from Ptolemaic Egypt, a mother named Simale complains of the maltreatment of her son, who apparently worked under the finance minister Apollonios under Ptolemy II.21 Simale complains that she came to find her son “lying down in a hardly laughable state.” But when his overseer, Olympiochos, arrived on the scene he merely responded “that by beating him rotten he would make him [the son] – or that he had already made him – as someone who was already nearly decent [εὐπρεπής].”22 Whether Olympiochos meant εὐπρεπής sarcastically with reference to the appearance of the boy, or as reference to making the boy suitable for his work is difficult to tell. In either case, it was grounds for complaint for Simale. If the comment had to do with the usefulness of the boy at work, it would be easy to brush aside the justifying response from the overseer as a mere excuse, but other evidence suggests that education could be accepted as legitimate justification for quite injurious physical treatment of children, even free children. Like the previous example, the following from the Digesta (533 CE) of Justinian occurs in the context of working and learning a trade: A shoemaker […] struck with a last at the neck of a boy (a freeborn youngster) who was learning under him, because he had done badly what he had been teaching him with the result that the boy’s eye was knocked out. On such facts, says Julian, the action for insult

catomus for the Catonians). Translation adapted from Shackleton Bailey, LCL. See further Herodas, Mime 3.58–93, esp. 3.61. 18 Bonner, Education, 118, fig. 11. For further on the tools of punishment, see Bonner, Education, 143. 19 Leighton Durham Reynolds, M.T. Griffin, and Elaine Fantham, “Annaeus Seneca (2), Lucius,” OCD 93. 20 Seneca, Clem. 1.15.1. 21 Evans Grubbs and Parkin, Handbook, 476–77. 22 P.Col.Zen. I.6 (March 257 BCE); translation from Roger S. Bagnall and Raffaella Cribiore, Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300BC-AD 800 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 100. For text see William Linn Westermann et al., eds., Zenon Papyri: Business Papers of the Third Century B.C. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt, vols. 1–2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934–1940), 1:36–37 and the important correction to line 6 in 2:203.

Corporal Punishment and its Moral Fruit

125

does not lie because he struck him not with intent to insult, but in order to correct and teach him; he wonders whether there is an action for breach of contract for his services as a teacher, since a teacher only has the right to administer reasonable chastisement, but I have no doubt that action can be brought against him under the lex Aquilia, […] for excessive brutality on the part of a teacher is blameworthy.23

So, while the writer believes the cobbler could be held accountable, at least one held that when chastisement occurs for the purpose of education, even such a severe injury may not be against the law. Xenophon (b. ca. 430 BCE)24 offers some further light on the educational function of corporal punishment. After describing the Spartan strategy of having children steal food to provide for themselves during training, he answers the question of why, if the children are told to steal, they nevertheless receive a beating if they are caught in the act. In his answer, Xenophon appeals to common knowledge: “I reply: Because in all cases men punish a learner for not carrying out properly whatever he is taught to do. So the Spartans chastise those who get caught for stealing badly.”25 Clearly three of the examples mentioned here occasioned some dispute, whether from the general public, family, or law authorities. Nevertheless, when the most brutal forms of corporal punishment arose, the defense could be made that such brutality was for the purpose of education, or more specifically for improving the performance of certain tasks.

II. Corporal Punishment and its Moral Fruit Corporal Punishment and its Moral Fruit It is worth pausing here to make a few observations on the relation of corporal punishment to moral advancement. The preceding has shown that when Isocrates speaks of the painful, bitter roots of education (and its resulting 23 Dig. 9.2.5.3–6.1 (cf. 19.2.13.4). Translation from Alan Watson, The Digest of Justinian, 4 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 1:278–79. Despite being issued in the 6th century, the Digesta is based on works written prior to 300 CE; nevertheless, the compilers had authority to amend earlier laws. See Tony Honoré, “Justinian’s codification,” OCD 781. 24 See Xenophon, Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology, trans. E.C. Marchant and O.J. Todd, rev. Jeffrey Henderson, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013), ix–xii. 25 Xenophon, Lac. 2.8 (Marchant and Bowerstock, LCL). The centuries of idealization of Spartan education both in antiquity and up to the 20th century pose some challenges for sorting the factual from the legendary. Xenophon serves as the foremost source for the Spartans and his comment here is of use anyway because of its generality. On the problems and the idealization of Sparta see Jaeger, Paideia, 1:77–98; Marrou, History of Education, 14–25; Nigel M. Kennell, “Boys, Girls, Family, and the State at Sparta,” in Evans Grubbs and Parkin, Handbook, 381–95.

126

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

sweet fruits),26 this can be taken in a quite literal way, and not just as the toils of the mind in learning. Even learning poetry or a trade involved certain physical pain from teachers and superiors. Aphthonius offers a sample elaboration on Isocrates’s chreia, and he explains it by pointing precisely to the punishments of teachers, which ultimately result in a crown of virtue.27 As Menander (ca. 344–292 BCE)28 says, “the man who has not been flayed does not learn.”29 For moderns, such a style of teaching often appears to have nothing to do with keeping a moral standard.30 Yet such pain was a generally expected part of educational life in the classical world and went together with a concern for the entire formation of the student, whether in the learning of poetry, a trade, or virtue itself. Catherine Atherton ties these together when she says of physical punishment in education that “such treatment was applied, supposedly, to further [children’s] mastery of the skills and learning which would allow them to take their place amongst the adult élite.”31 Lucian’s (b. ca. 120 CE)32 dream of παιδεία personified serves as an excellent example of the relation between learning and its resulting ethical fruit. Despite his desire to become a sculptor, παιδεία appears to him and convinces him rather to undergo further education in order to become a rhetorician: If you follow my advice, first of all I shall show you many works of men of old, tell you their wondrous deeds and words, and make you conversant with almost all knowledge, and I shall ornament your soul, which concerns you most, with many noble adornments – temperance, justice, piety, kindliness, reasonableness, understanding, steadfastness, love of all that is beautiful [σωφροσύνῃ, δικαιοσύνῃ, εὐσεβείᾳ, πρᾳότητι, ἐπιεικείᾳ, συνέσει, καρτερίᾳ, τῷ τῶν καλῶν ἔρωτι], ardour towards all that is sublime; for these are the truly flawless jewels of the soul.33

26

The phrase, “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet”, was attributed to Isocrates (see the discussion of the example elaborations on the chreia below) as well as to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius: τῆς παιδείας ἔφη τὰς µὲν ῥίζας εἶναι πικράς, τὸν δὲ καρπὸν γλυκήν (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 5.18.1–2). 27 See discussion below. 28 Geoffrey Arnott, “Menander,” OCD 929. 29 Gk.: Ὁ µὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται (Mon. 573). Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1339A.28: µετὰ λύπης γὰρ ἡ µάθησις. 30 So, Joy Connolly, “Problems of the Past in Imperial Greek Education,” in Yun Lee Too, ed., Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 367–66. 31 Catherine Atherton, “Children, Animals, Slaves and Grammar,” in Pedagogy and Power: Rhetorics of Classical Learning, ed. Yun Lee Too and Niall Livingstone, Ideas in Context 50 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 226. 32 Walter Manoel Edwards, Robert Browning, Graham Anderson, and Ewen Bowie, “Lucian,” OCD 861. 33 Lucian, Somn. 10 (Harmon, LCL); cf. Lucian, Anach. 21–22.

Corporal Punishment and its Moral Fruit

127

Thus learning ultimately serves the soul through the development of the moral life. Interestingly, Seneca argues at length that an orator’s style results from his virtue. For him, poor style results from lapses in virtue.34 Likewise, Eumenius, in a speech given in 297 or 298 CE, reflects the view that literature underlies all virtue, and the virtues grow stronger as one performs his duties, including military service.35 Already we have observed that Augustine, though it is perhaps a special example because of the obvious influence of Christianity, labels his own failures as a student as sins and implies that to go without corporal punishment at school would have meant giving him over to folly. Yet beatings at home or school are only part of the educational experience. As the quotation from Axiochus demonstrated above, the pain of education occurred not only in the schoolroom, but also in the places of military and athletic training, which is less surprising. Yet this pain was not understood simply to strengthen the body, but also to develop virtue. In his Anacharsis, Lucian describes education through the mouth of Solon. He explains that once children are old enough to leave their mothers and nurses they are turned over to hardships (πόνος) so that not only the soul, but also the body becomes accustomed to difficulty: We have not thought it sufficient for each man to be as he was born, either in body or in soul, but we want education [παίδευσις] and disciplines [or lessons; µάθηµα] for them by which their good traits may be much improved and their bad altered for the better. We take example from the farmers, who shelter and enclose their plants while they are small and young, so that they may not be injured by the breezes: but when the stalk at last begins to thicken, they prune away the excessive growth and expose them to the winds to be shaken and tossed, in that way making them more fruitful.36

Thus even in the body the child receives a sort of “correction” so that he grows into the ideal. Yet, in the dialogue Anacharsis himself even downplays the physical side of education, placing the importance of the “soul” above it.37 Philo (b. ca. 20–10 BCE; d. ca. 50 CE)38 too describes parents as the greatest

34

Seneca, Ep. 114. Eumenius, Inst. sch. 8.1–2. See C.E.V. Nixon, Barbara Saylor Rodgers, and R.A.B. Mynors, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 160–61, 557–58. Cf. Atherton, “Children, Animals, Slaves,” 230; Alun Hudson-Williams and M. Winterbottom, “Eumenius,” OCD 548. 36 Lucian, Anach. 20 (Harmon, LCL). 37 Lucian, Anach. 21. The topic of the body in antiquity is a vast one. For a particularly helpful overview of the body and physical ideals in the ancient world, see Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). 38 Cf. Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 9–14; Jenny Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by Geza 35

128

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

benefactors of children in that they educate their children both in body and soul, the body trained by gymnastics and athletics, and the soul by elementary education and philosophy.39 As seen to some extent in chapter 1 and developed by Croy, this physical component serves as an analogy for the development of virtue by means of hardship in Seneca.40 Seneca makes a very similar point as Lucian, comparing God to a strict father in contrast to a mother: Do you not see how fathers are kind in one way, and mothers in another? The father orders his children to be aroused from sleep in order that they may start early upon their pursuits, – even on holidays he does not permit them to be idle, and he draws from them sweat and sometimes tears. But the mother fondles them in her lap, wishes to keep them out of the sun, wishes them never to be unhappy, never to cry, never to toil.41

He goes on to explain that God loves like this father who wants his children “to become supremely good and virtuous.”42 In these cases neither Seneca nor Lucian describe to what kind of hardships fathers and teachers expose their children (beyond waking them early in the morning). In the case of the Spartans – a special case indeed – this included harsh beatings. Seneca alludes to this, explaining that Spartans show love for their children when they beat them half to death, as the blows of the whip teach them strength in the virtue of endurance.43 While learning may lead to virtue, there was also a concern that those giving out punishments, whether teachers, paedagogues, or parents, exhibit the same virtues expected of children. The self-incrimination implicit in the adage, “do as I say, not as I do,” applied just as much in the classical world as today. Seneca mentions the hypocrisy of parents who are eager to give advice they cannot put into practice, just as in the schools the ethical maxims of the lesson books contradict the demeanor of the teacher.44 It is no wonder then that Ps.-Plutarch bemoans that parents spare their money on cheap paedagogues.45 Such poor decision-making on the part of fathers leads sons to caVermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, vol. 3, part 2 (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1987), 816; David T. Runia, “Philo of Alexandria,” BNP 11:55. 39 Philo, Spec. 2.229–30. 40 According to Pfitzner, with the rise of the Academy the athletic motif became really an image for the philosophic life. Thus athletic imagery began to have less to do with the games themselves and more with moral development. Victor C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature, NovTSup 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 23–35. 41 Seneca, Prov. 2.5 (trans. slightly adapted from Basore, LCL). 42 Seneca, Prov. 2.7 (Basore, LCL). 43 Seneca, Prov. 4.11–12. There is some irony that Seneca appeals to the strictness of fathers, particularly to the Spartans, since elsewhere he bemoans the harshness of corporal punishment (Clem. 1.16.1–5). 44 Seneca, Ep. 94.9. 45 Plutarch, Mor. 4B–5C.

Theoretical Conceptions of Corporal Punishment

129

rouse with shady characters and ultimately become dominated by false practices. Instead, “[t]eachers must be sought for the children who are free from scandal in their lives, who are unimpeachable in their manners, and in experience the very best that may be found.” This is ultimately because “to receive a proper education is the source and root of all goodness.”46 Yet not only teachers, but above all fathers themselves must behave becomingly, so that they may stand as good examples for their children and not lead them into the selfsame wrongdoing.47 The point is simply that education, including its concomitant beatings, involved the moral life, whether learned from the lessons in the schoolbooks, the heroes of literature, the physical training of the body, or from the ideally exemplary lives of parents and other educators.

III. Theoretical Conceptions of Corporal Punishment Theoretical Conceptions of Corporal Punishment Whatever children were learning, it is by now clear that physical punishments always accompanied it. But why? The rationale for corporal punishment in childhood education derives, at least in part, from the conception that children are like animals, and thus “irresponsible, wayward, foolish and rebellious.”48 The comparison of corporal punishment to the treatment of animals 46

Plutarch, Mor. 4C (Babbitt, LCL). Plutarch, Mor. 14A. Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 1.2.4–8. 48 Fletcher H. Swift, Education in Ancient Israel: From Earliest Times to 70 A.D (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1919), 52. Cf. Atherton, “Children, Animals, Slaves,” 225–26; Fitzgerald, “Corporal Punishment,” 314. John Pilch makes much the same observation in his consideration of Sirach and Proverbs. He considers parenting styles involving corporal punishment as “distrustful and directive” styles. That is, the child cannot be trusted and has a will of his own. This coheres with what we find in some of the ancient sources, but Pilch’s analysis leaves little room for moderate approaches to corporal punishment or for an approach like that of Ps.-Plutarch (see below), who compares children to animals yet argues against corporal punishment. Moreover, he appears to bias the discussion by presuming that the distrustful parenting style must necessarily result in unsatisfying relationships and risked emotional development. The ancient ideal in corporal punishment generally was to find some medium between leniency and severity for the very moral dangers seen both in indulging children and in hardening them by abuse. Pilch rather assumes that a trusting, cooperative parenting style results in happiness and emotional maturity. This appears to me to overlook the benefits understood by ancient people to result from physical discipline. Not only that, but Pilch depends too heavily in his sociological analysis on empirical research on contemporary Mediterranean culture, including Bedouin groups, leading him to understand the ancient texts by means of the practices found today. This is anachronistic since the ideals of Bedouins, for example, must not necessarily correspond to the ideals of even Sirach or Proverbs, not to mention the GrecoRoman writers on education. John J. Pilch, “‘Beat His Ribs While He is Young’ (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World,” BTB 23 (1993): 101–13. 47

130

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

occurs a couple of times in Jewish wisdom. For example, according to Prov 26:3, the whip is for the horse, the bridle for the donkey, and the rod for fools. Sir 30:8 warns: “An unbroken horse proves stubborn, and an unrestrained son proves rash.” In 30:13, Sirach also advises the placement of a heavy yoke on a son, lest his shameless deeds become the parent’s embarrassment. Yet this comparison was current in the Greco-Roman literature as well. First of all, Plato (ca. 429–347 BCE)49 advocates treating children as freeborn on the one hand, but as slaves or animals on the other: And, of all wild creatures, the child is the most intractable; for in so far as it, above all others, possesses a fount of reason that is as yet uncurbed, it is a treacherous, sly and most insolent creature. Wherefore the child must be strapped up, as it were, with many bridles – first, when he leaves the care of nurse and mother, with tutors, to guide his childish ignorance, and after that with teachers of all sorts of subjects and lessons, treating him as becomes a freeborn child. On the other hand, he must be treated as a slave; and any free man that meets him shall punish both the child himself and his tutor or teacher, if any of them does wrong.50

So for Plato the child can be the most difficult because of his semi-rationality. The child remains yet undeveloped and so must in part be treated as an animal or slave, while he must also receive lessons to correct his ignorance and resulting bad behavior. Xenophon attributes the same comparison to Socrates, emphasizing the moral impact of παιδεία: [T]horoughbreds by their spirit and mettle develop into serviceable and splendid creatures, if they are broken in as colts, but if unbroken, prove intractable and sorry nags; and highbred puppies, keen workers and good tacklers of game make first-rate hounds and useful dogs, if well trained, but if untrained, turn out stupid, crazy, and utterly disobedient. It is the same with human beings. The most highly gifted, the youths of ardent soul, capable of doing whatever they attempt, if educated and taught their duty grow into excellent and useful men; for manifold and great are their good deeds [πλεῖστα γὰρ καὶ µέγιστα ἀγαθὰ ἐργάζεσθαι]. But untrained [ἀπαιδεύτους] and untaught, they turn out utterly evil and destructive; for without knowledge to discern their duty, they often put their hand to vile deeds, and through the very grandeur and vehemence of their nature they are uncontrollable and intractable; therefore manifold and great are their evil deeds [δι᾽ ὃ πλεῖστα καὶ µέγιστα κακὰ ἐργάζεσθαι].51

We see here that education is necessary in order to develop a child away from his intractability and into a useful, obedient person who engages in good rather than evil deeds. Left to their own devices, even gifted children become uncontrollable and useless. Despite the applicability of the animal comparison to corporal punishment, the comparison could still be made even by one like Ps.-Plutarch who argues against the employment of corporal punishment 49

Julia Annas, “Plato,” OCD 1155. Plato, Leg. 808D–E (Bury, LCL). 51 Xenophon, Mem. 4.1.3–4 (Marchant, LCL). 50

Theoretical Conceptions of Corporal Punishment

131

but appeals to the taming of wild animals as an argument for education.52 Seneca too urges the mitigation, but not total abandonment, of corporal punishment by pointing out that a trainer may break the spirit of an animal by constant abuse, and so even if man is the most difficult creature to temper, he should be shown mercy, even more mercy than is shown animals.53 Elsewhere, however, Seneca makes the analogy with animals precisely in justifying the occasional use of corporal punishment in order to teach children not to commit some wrong.54 Either way it is taken, thinkers on both sides of the corporal punishment question could argue for their brand of education by appeal to the need to tame the animal side of little children. Despite the reality of painful, educational discipline and the common comparison of children to animals, there were at the same time a number of stances among theorists as to the beneficence of such methods. Philo, for example, allegorizes the rod (ῥάβδος) of Lev 27:32 as the symbol of παιδεία, “for there is no way of taking to heart warning and correction, unless, for some offences one is chastised and brought to a sense of shame.”55 As another example, Dionysius (1st c. BCE)56 speaks largely in favor of the strict powers given to Roman fathers over their families by the patria potestas laws, for instance, the power of fathers to imprison, scourge, or put to death even their adult sons.57 Certainly the fatherly powers implied in such laws go beyond the education of children, but ultimately Dionysius welcomes the severity of the Roman law because he perceives the mild punishments allowed in his native Greece to be insufficient for reigning in the stubborn ways of youth and making children obedient. It must be noted, however, that in practice parents appear to have been less severe, and “not insensitive to the claims of natural affection.”58 Often the complaint raised against parents actually concerned

52

Plutarch, Mor. 2F. Seneca, Clem. 1.16.5–17.1. 54 Seneca, Constant. 12.3. In Ira 2.21, Seneca argues for a balance between indulging the child and humiliating the child and making him servile. Richard P. Saller, Patriarch, Property and Death in the Roman Family, Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 142–43. 55 Philo, Post. 97 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL); cf. Mut. 135. Here παιδεία probably refers to the chastising side of education, as Philo only refers to corrective activity and as we have seen, education is intimately bound together with corporal punishment. However, in Fug. 150, Philo interprets the rod as straight and steadfast παιδεία, upon which one can profitably lean, where παιδεία is not associated with correction, and thus seems to be education or more specifically the resulting state of being instructed. Cf. Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria, HUCM 7 (Cincinnati: Ktav, 1982), 1, 88 n. 3. 56 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, trans. Earnest Cary, vol. 1, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937), vii-xi. 57 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.26. See further Bonner, Education, 5–6. 58 Bonner, Education, 6. 53

132

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

their leniency toward their children.59 Richard Saller has shown that in general it was disgraceful for a Roman citizen to be beaten, especially publicly, and that severe beatings were much more directed toward slaves. To beat a son severely, however, was considered savagery and impius. In fact, patresfamilia subjected slaves to the epithet puer, “boy,” and slaves could never outgrow such a name, while freeborn “children were thought to outgrow physical punishment […].”60 Ausonius (4th century CE),61 writing to his grandson, expresses the difficulty he had as a teacher of reigning in the headstrong with only mild methods of correction: And not without skill do I, thy grandfather, counsel thee thus, but from the experience gained in training a thousand minds. Many from their infant years have I myself brought up, and, cherishing them in my bosom and hushing their complaints, have stolen their tender years from their fond nurses. Presently, as boys, with mild warnings and gentle threats I lured them to seek through sourness for ripe success and pluck sweet fruit sprung from a bitter root. I, too, when they assumed manhood’s garb and reached their vigorous prime, led them on toward good living and sound learning and forceful speaking, even though they refused to bear the yoke of command upon their necks and submitted not their mouths to the jagged bits thrust upon them. Hard the control, rough the experience, scanty the result when viewed after long practice, to govern the headstrong youth with mild correction!62

Ausonius’ words here are interesting for several reasons,63 but the point is simply that milder forms of coercion seem to have had mixed results for his own practice. He shows awareness of harsh methods (though one must wonder what harshness would have entailed exactly) when he refers earlier to the several fearful tools of administering corporal punishment:

59

Tacitus, Dial. 29; Plutarch, Mor. 12B; Quintilian, Inst. 1.2.6–8. Saller, Patriarch, 150. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 20.13) complains of the reach of the Roman censors to even matters within the home, including ensuring that parents were neither too harsh nor too lenient in training children. 60 Saller, Patriarch, 147. The entire chapter, pages 133–53, elaborates on the Roman literary topos of the beating of slaves. Saller argues that the beating of children was neither a literary topos in Roman literature nor a moral problem for the Romans. We shall return to this below. On the similar social status of slaves and children in Athens, see Mark Golden, “Pais, ‘Child’ and ‘Slave,’” L’Antiquité Classique 54 (1985): 91–104. 61 R.P.H. Green, “Ausonius, Decimus Magnus,” OCD 213. 62 Ausonius, Ep. 22.66–79 (White, LCL). Green’s OCT edition does not include this work with the epistles, but rather under VIII. Protrepticus ad nepotem. See R.P.H. Green, ed., Decimi Magni Ausonii Opera, OCT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 15–27, here 26–27. 63 It is interesting to see that he appeals here to the bitter roots and sweet fruits of education in a context of correction and discipline. Moreover, the educational context implies both the moral life and learning of content. As for Ausonius’s grandson, all of this is for the benefit of making the child a proper citizen, and hopefully a successful one.

Theoretical Conceptions of Corporal Punishment

133

You also be not afraid, though the school resound with many a stroke and the old master wear a lowering face: ‘fear proves a spirit degenerate.’ But to yourself be true, mocking at fear, and let no outcry, nor sound of stripes, nor dread, make you quake as the morning hours come on. That he brandishes the cane for scepter, that he has a full outfit of birches, that he has a tawse [i.e., whip or lash; scutica] artfully hidden in innocent washleather, that scared confusion sets your benches abuzz, is but the outward show of the place and painted scenery to cause idle fears.64

Despite the fear his grandson experiences in the face of such tools, he encourages his grandson not to fear, but to look to the joy of achievement in life that it could afford him and to remember that his father and mother (!) underwent the same challenges.65 In referring to his own experience and mild methods, Ausonius appears to express understanding of the reasons for the fearful ways of his grandson’s teacher. He does not protest against severity nor does he oppose the institution of corporal punishment altogether, despite its apparent deficiencies in the case of stubborn youth, but rather he seems to recognize the ultimate benefits, both for morality and learning, offered by training under the fear of the schoolmaster.66 Ps.-Plutarch and Quintilian (b. ca. 35 CE),67 however, take quite a different stance, opposing corporal punishment altogether, primarily because they view corporal punishment as disgraceful and fitting rather for slaves. Ps.-Plutarch writes: This also I assert, that children ought to be led to honourable practices by encouragement and reasoning, and most certainly not by blows or ill-treatment, for it surely is agreed that these are fitting rather for slaves than for the free-born; for so they grow numb and shudder at their tasks, partly from the pain of the blows, partly from the degradation. Praise and reproof are more helpful for the free-born than any sort of ill-usage, since praise incites them toward what is honorable, and reproof keeps them from what is disgraceful.68

Quintilian makes a similar argument.69 He first acknowledges that it is a common practice and that Chrysippus does not oppose it, but Quintilian goes 64

Ausonius, Ep. 22.26–32 (White, LCL; Green’s OCT edition, p. 25). Ausonius, Ep. 22.33–37 (Green’s OCT edition, p. 25). 66 Atherton, quite in passing, comments that Ausonius “implicitly justifies his severity as moderate, well-intentioned and ultimately beneficial.” But it seems that her perspective on severity comes rather from the perspective of modern eyes. With Ausonius’s appeal to his own experience, it seems rather that he is implying that there is some value in a harsher method of discipline, since it benefitted his own children and since he found mildness insufficient (a line which Atherton does not quote in her analysis). Bonner also takes Asonius’s comment about mildness at face value. Atherton, “Children, Animals, Slaves, 227; Bonner, Education, 144. 67 Roland Gregory Austin and M. Winterbottom, “Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus),” OCD 1251. 68 Plutarch, Mor. 8F–9A (Babbitt, LCL). 69 Quintilian, Inst. 1.3.14–17. 65

134

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

on to argue strongly against it. For him the punishment is disgraceful and right only for slaves. It hardens the punished, and instead of encouraging right action only punishes wrong action. He goes on to lament the failure of parents to choose worthy paedagogues, writing, “I blush to mention the shameful purposes for which evil men abuse their right to flog [isto caedendi iure], and what opportunities the terror felt by these poor children sometimes gives to other persons also.”70

IV. Parents and Punishment Parents and Punishment Thus, attitudes toward corporal punishment obviously varied, and as Dionysius suggests with reference to his Greek homeland, attitudes probably also varied according to geographical location. Nevertheless, corporal punishment was widespread and appears to have varied in intensity. Most of the evidence we have examined thus far, however, has concerned punishment at the hands of various educators outside the home. This raises the question, then, of the extent to which parents, particularly fathers, engaged in the physical discipline of their children. Richard Saller has argued that in the Roman literature the quite severe beating of slaves proves to be a common literary topos, but outside of Augustine’s advocating for corporal punishment in order that children avoid sinning,71 he finds a similar topos regarding the beating of children by parents (in contrast to schoolmasters) to be missing. After all, it is slaves, not freeborn children who should be beaten.72 The observation is a strong one, but protest against severity, such as Seneca’s extreme example of Tricho beating his son to death mentioned above, and his advocacy of moderation would suggest that parents too, at least sometimes, used the whip against their children. Seneca even attests to its occasional necessity in Clem. 1.14.1, and Seneca the Elder also relates the opinion that a grandfather may strike his grandson.73 Cicero (106–43 BCE) too, and Saller does recognize these pieces of evidence, points to the practice of mothers and teachers correcting children nec verbis solum, sed etiam verberibus when a child misbehaves.74

70

Quintilian, Inst. 1.3.17 (Russell, LCL). Cf. Euripides, Fr. 952, “Whatever father proves harsh toward his children makes a grievous old age his end” (ὅστις πατὴρ πρὸς παῖδας ἐκβαίνει πικρός, τὸ γῆρας οὗτος τερµατίζεται βαρύ; trans. adapted from Collard and Cropp, LCL). 71 Augustine, Civ. 19.16. Cf. Did. 4.9 par. Barn. 19.5. 72 Saller, Patriarch, 142–53. 73 Contr. 9.5.7. 74 Cicero, Tusc. 3.27.64.

Parents and Punishment

135

Although in Roman literature it seems the beating of children by parents was less a topic of discussion than the beating of slaves and the beatings given children by teachers, it appears nevertheless that parents did occasionally physically punish, or educate, their children. Still, it may be that in some cases the fatherly affection held stronger influence over the impulse to correct a child physically. We have already seen that Latin writers often bemoaned the leniency of parents, but additionally Quintilian, for example, urges that teachers of rhetoric should consider themselves as representing the parents, taking on the same sympathies for the children as the parents would. Quintilian mentions this directly after commenting that a paedagogue must not only exemplify strict morality, but also regulate the conduct of his student by severe discipline.75 Thus, parental affection could either result in leniency on the one hand, or could motivate moderation in the face of a tendency toward severity on the other. Other sources, however, suggest that fathers punished quite severely indeed. Xenophon reports that Spartan fathers, again a peculiar case, would punish their sons at home even after they had already been punished in public for some disobedience. That is, if another adult had to punish the child, it would be dishonorable for the father not to offer his own contribution to discipline later once the child returned home.76 That is a quite old example, but even later material expresses that fathers were stricter than teachers and paedagogues. This comes out clearly in Libanius’s and Aphthonius’s (both 4th century CE)77 example elaborations on the chreia about the painful roots of education, which they both attribute to Isocrates. Aphthonius writes: “Fathers are harsher than paedagogues, carefully examining the boy’s ways, enjoining him to make progress, and being suspicious of the market place. And if there is need to punish, fathers ignore their natural feelings. But by these things, the boy, when he has entered manhood is enwreathed in virtue.”78 Likewise, Libanius: These actions and others like them are characteristic of the teacher, but the pedagogue, by Heracles, is harsher than his masters, always standing over them, almost even attached to them, continually rousing, constantly chastising, driving them away from laziness, ordering them to pay attention to their tasks, and praising none of their achievements, but punishing them excessively for the small things, following them around in arms, as one might say, 75

Quintilian, Inst. 2.2.3–8. Also cf. Bonner, Education, 38. Xenophon, Lac. 6.1–2. Cf. Kennell, “Sparta,” 392. 77 Craig A. Gibson, Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric, SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World 27 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), xvii; George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 89. 78 Aphthonius, Progym. 3.24 (p. 5 in Rabe’s edition). Translation mine. Cf. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 98. 76

136

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

exhibiting a staff or a whip in his right hand. “But parents are tender-hearted toward young men.” In fact, they are no more gentle than those just named, but are much harsher.79

There may be some exaggeration in these texts, but they demonstrate that it was not unknown for fathers to be just as strict, if not stricter in educating their children, than their professional counterparts. Additionally, several Second Temple Jewish and early Christian texts either advocate or presuppose corporal punishment from parents, often as correction for bad behavior in general, without reference to schooling. Sirach famously elaborates on the topic (30:1–13), and presupposes that “beatings and discipline are at all times wisdom” (22:6).80 The discussion in chapter 30 highlights in particular the benefits of corporal punishment for the father. While it leads to obedience in the child since it corrects his errors, the resulting behavior brings honor instead of shame to the father: He who loves his son will regularly beat him (ἐνδελεχήσει µάστιγας αὐτῷ) that he may rejoice at how he turns out. He who disciplines (ὁ παιδεύων) his son will benefit by him and will boast of him among his acquaintances. He who teaches (ὁ διδάσκων) his son will provoke the jealousy of his enemy and will rejoice in him in the company of his friends. […] Do not give him authority in his youth. Bruise his ribs while he is young, lest he become stubborn and disobey you (30:1–3, 11–12).

For Sirach, then, the relationship between father and son naturally includes beatings, both for the improvement of behavior and for the resulting honor brought upon the educating father. Philo, in discussing the benefits parents bestow on their children in educating them, brings up the concomitant authority parents may wield over their children: “And therefore fathers have the right to upbraid their children and admonish them severely and if they do not submit to threats conveyed in words to beat and degrade them and put them in bonds.”81 This brings Philo to Deut 21:18–21, which allows the elders of a city to have a child stoned if he does not obey his parents despite discipline at home. Philo thus comments: “And further if in the face of this they continue to rebel, and carried away by their incorrigible depravity refuse the yoke, the law permits the parents to extend the punishment to death […].”82 As with Libanius and Aphthonius, one might question the degree to which Philo reflects the practices in his native Alexandria since he alludes not to contemporary law, but to biblical law. Nevertheless, his reference to severity in corporal punishment can probably be read at face value. For, in another context, he considers corporal pun-

79 Libanius, Progym., Chreia 3.8–9 (Foerster’s edition, pages 82–97, here 85–86). Translation adapted from Gibson, Libanius’s Progymnasmata, 67. 80 Gk.: µάστιγες δὲ καὶ παιδεία ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ σοφίας. 81 Philo, Spec. 2.232 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). 82 Philo, Spec. 2.232 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL); cf. Mut. 206.

Parents and Punishment

137

ishment from parents and teachers as beneficial, since it facilitates improvement: He who does not gladly receive improving advice must to be consistent censure parents and guardians and teachers and all persons in charge, because they reprimand and sometimes even beat their children or orphan-wards or pupils, though really it is against all morality to call such treatment evil-speaking or outrage instead of friendliness and benevolence.83

So, even if we must show care in looking at Philo’s conception of corporal punishment and the extent of its severity, his writings at least show evidence that parents too, not just teachers and guardians, beat their children, and as always, out of benevolence, for the improvement of character. The early Christian literature also exhibits several echoes of the corporal punishment of children by fathers. Beyond references to Prov 3:11–12 (see chapter 4 below), in 1 Cor 4:14, 21 Paul describes his admonition of the Corinthians in terms of fatherly correction. He writes in 4:14: “I am not writing these things to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children.” Similar to Ps.-Plutarch’s concern that teachers, including fathers, stand as worthy role models for children, Paul likewise, as the father of this community, exhorts the Corinthians to imitate him (4:15–16). In Paul’s absence, however, some of the Corinthians have become puffed up, but Paul promises to return, Lord willing, and to find out if these people really have power or just words (4:18–20). And so he asks: “What do you want? Should I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness” (4:21). Though Prov 3:11–12 and parallel traditions associate parental beatings with love, Paul splits the two here as he emphasizes his authority; nevertheless, he clearly expresses his loving concern for the community (v. 14). This instance could be informed just as much by the corporal punishment of schooling as by parental education, but with the preceding reference to Paul’s role as father of the community, it makes sense to understand his reference to the rod here as a reflection of the practices of an ancient father.84 Three of the Christian household codes may refer to familial corporal punishment, though it is by no means clear. First, Eph 6:4 commands fathers not to provoke children to anger (παροργίζω), but to raise them in the instruction (παιδεία) and admonition (νουθεσία) of the Lord. In light of the arguments of opponents of corporal punishment, the first part of the verse may be taken to argue against corporal punishment or simply against harsh treatment in general. It is unclear whether the author would consider mild corporal punishment harsh. In 6:9 the author directs masters to dispense with threats against slaves, and so both verses may, by implication, speak against corporal punishments altogether (if threats are ruled

83

Philo, Ios. 74 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL); cf. Congr. 179. Cf. the full discussion in Robert S. Dutch, The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians: Education and Community Conflict in Greco-Roman Context, JSNTSup 271 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 261–78. 84

138

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

out, acting on a threat would be as well). Dispensing with threats against slaves would have been quite countercultural for many, as Saller discusses,85 while Ephesians would stand in good company with Ps.-Plutarch and Quintilian on the treatment of children. Col 3:22 makes the same point as Eph 6:4, exhorting fathers not to embitter their children in order that they do not lose heart. Here too, however, it is unclear if this speaks against corporal punishment specifically. Lastly, Did. 4.9 instructs parents, literally, not to remove their hand from their son or daughter, but to teach them the fear of God.86 This could mean either parents should not neglect their responsibilities toward their children, namely in educating their children in the fear of God, 87 or that they should not neglect to punish their children as a part of educating them in the fear of God.88 Normally when the Didache speaks of the hand it does so in the context of giving to those in need, including in the immediate context.89 This probably speaks against understanding the hand here as a reference to corporal punishment. Even if we exclude Did. 4.9, Ephesians and Colossians deal with over exertion of fatherly authority, possibly including corporal punishment. Though they argue against harshness, they may serve as further evidence of the punishing activity of fathers at home, although the evidence is not unambiguous.

With a view toward Hebrews, there remains one final text to bring into discussion related to fathers. In his De beneficiis, Seneca at one point argues that despite the great benefits given a son by a father, particularly in giving the son life, it is nevertheless of great virtue for the son to seek to outdo his father in rendering benefits in return. Toward the end of this discussion, Seneca comments: No power of words, no wealth of genius can express how great, how laudable, how sure of living in the memory of men will be the achievement of being able to say: “I obeyed my parents, I gave way to their authority, whether it was just or unjust and harsh, I showed myself humble and submissive; in only one thing I was stubborn – the resolve not to be outdone by them in benefits.”90

85

Though cf. Seneca, Ep. 47; Ira 3.24.1–2; 3.32.1. Gk.: Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγατρός σου ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ. 87 So, Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache, KAV 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 141–42. 88 This is suggested by one of the possible translations offered by Ehrmann, LCL. 89 Did. 1.6; 4.5, 6. 90 Seneca, Ben. 3.38.2. This parallel with Hebrews incidentally brings up the issue of benefaction in Hebrews. I am not convinced that patron-client relationships offer the most helpful framework for understanding Hebrews’ ethic, as advocated by David A. deSilva in his various works (particularly throughout his commentary, but initiated with his Despising Shame, and given specific application in “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client Relationships,” JBL [1996]: 91–116). There may be traces of this prominent aspect of the first-century social world in Hebrews, but the ethical rationale comes primarily from the influence of the OT. The motivation to obey God in Hebrews connects closely to God’s justice in punishing those who disobey his laws; moreover, obedience or disobedience to God’s ways and laws forms the point of comparison to living faithfully or unfaithfully to Jesus throughout Hebrews, as seen in chapter 2 above. On 86

Conclusions

139

Seneca recognizes the authority of the parents and the possibility that they may act unjustly, but he essentially praises the son who obeys and submits himself to his parents despite harshness and injustice. The author of Hebrews argues from a similar stance when he recognizes that earthly parents disciplined as they knew best, while God disciplines for his children’s benefit. Hebrews recognizes the painful realities of the educational aspect of the parent-child relationship and calls on the audience to endure God’s παιδεία because it is better, and just like human education, it results in virtue. Not only that, but this quotation from Seneca also helps us put together the aspect of submission. We saw in chapter 2 that obedience is demanded of the audience, and in Heb 12 the author exhorts the audience against sin and to submission to God as the disciplining father. The pain associated with corporal punishment must be endured obediently when one stands in right relationship to the disciplining parent. The child submits himself to the parent’s painful education and thereby becomes the type of person the parent-educator desires him to be.

Conclusions

V. Conclusions

“Disciplinary punishment has the function of reducing gaps. It must therefore be essentially corrective”, writes Foucault. “Disciplinary punishment is, in the main, isomorphic with obligation itself; it is not so much the vengeance of an outraged law as its repetition, its reduplicated insistence. […] [I]t is obtained directly through the mechanics of a training. To punish is to exercise.”91 Foucault’s analysis of the disciplinary systems developed in the 17th and 18th centuries applies strikingly well to ancient conventions of childhood education. We have seen that the education of children was closely – inseparably so – associated with severe corporal punishment, correcting moral behavior, correcting poor performance, correcting academic failures, and correcting the body itself, all with a view to the final moral standing of the child.92 We may today separate between moral correction, which may fit Croy’s punitive category, and correction that has little to do with morality, patron-client relationships and the dimension of brokerage, see further Jerome H. Neyrey, “Jesus the Broker in Hebrews: Insights from the Social Sciences,” in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 145–70. 91 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 197–98, emphasis original. 92 And so rightly, de Wette, translating παιδεύω as züchtigen and arguing against the translation of erziehen, makes the point that, “nach der Erziehungsweise des Alterthums, besonders des biblischen […], ist der Satz [i.e., ‘what son is there whom his father does not discipline’] allgemein gültig.” De Wette, Handbuch, 315–16.

140

Chapter 3: The Educational Tradition of Corporal Punishment

like the failure to perform a task correctly, but the ancients, even if they recognized the differences between the causes for punishment, associated all of this punishment together as, we may say, educative. In Labanius’s and Aphthonius’s elaborations on Isocrates’s chreia, punishment comes primarily in response to failures in the learning of content, not failures in learning to behave. This raises a distinct problem for the punitive/non-punitive distinction that has been perpetuated in the literature on Heb 12. This distinction, though useful to some degree, obscures the issue when it comes to the corporal punishment aspect of the passage. In fact, no separation of even educative discipline into moral or amoral can be found in the literature, and even to ask whether discipline is educative (“non-punitive”) or “punitive” misses the point that discipline, including its corrective, “punitive” aspects, is by its very nature educative. All education and its corresponding pain, whether in learning a trade, poetry, athletics, military drill, or proper behavior, contributes to the development of virtue in the child and the excising of the intractability and stubbornness the ancients saw inherent in children. Since the παιδεία of children cannot be separated from corporal punishment,93 translating παιδεία in Heb 12 as education, as Johnson does,94 or characterizing it as formative education and not corrective education, as deSilva does,95 obscures the reality faced by ancient children, since education for us today is so far removed from corporal punishment. Koester makes the same mistake when he points out that a παιδευτής, which describes the fathers in Heb 12, is not simply a corrector, but also an instructor,96 or when Croy argues that παιδευτής “seldom has a punitive nuance.”97 These observations, 93

Marrou in fact comments it is only natural that the LXX translators so often used παιδεία for the Hebrew ‫מוסר‬, so inseparable corporal punishment and instruction were. Marrou, History of Education, 159. Like παιδεία, ‫ מוסר‬also can refer either to instruction (e.g., Deut 11:2; Prov 1:1, 2; 4:1, 13; 8:10) or chastisement (e.g., Prov 3:11; 13:24; Is 26:16; Hos 5:2) depending on contextual clues. But, to Marrou’s point, education is so tightly bound with corporal punishment that it can be difficult to decide which translation should apply. For example in Prov 22:15 the rod is described as the rod of ‘discipline’ (‫מוּסר‬ ָ ‫) ֵשׁ ֶבט‬. Does this mean the rod is a rod of chastisement or a rod of instruction? Probably the rod should be understood as the tool of instruction and not just a tool of chastisement, since Proverbs, especially chapters 1–9, emphasizes the importance of both instruction and chastisement (cf. n. 55 above on similar problem with the word παιδεία in Philo). 94 Johnson, Hebrews, 313. 95 DeSilva, Perseverance, 450–51. Or just the opposite, Vanhoye concludes παιδεύω must mean “correct” in Heb 12 because of µαστιγόω. Albert Vanhoye, “A Different Priest”: The Letter to the Hebrews, trans. Leo Arnold, Rhetorica Semitica (Miami: Convivium, 2011), 370. 96 Koester, Hebrews, 528–29. O’Brien makes the opposite mistake by putting the emphasis on the role of correcting through discipline. A construal more faithful to ancient thinking would be “educating through punishment.” O’Brien, Letter, 466–67. 97 Croy, Endurance, 202

Conclusions

141

though valid to a point (see chapter 5 below), nevertheless miss the natural associations of education and corporal punishment. It is presupposed by the writers of ancient literature that a teacher instructs and punishes since education implies both, and with the quotation of Prov 3:11–12, Hebrews brings forth the painful side of education, not the side associated with the task of learning. As we shall see in chapter 5, Hebrews focuses on the pain and on the results without making anything of the process in between. This makes perfect sense because the rationale for the use of corporal punishment in a given case was less a question than the simple fact of its use for the ultimate goal of attaining virtue. The presupposition was that a child is unformed and uneducated, and in order to become a virtuous person, the child must be educated, including by means of punishment because of his natural recalcitrance. So also the presupposition of Hebrews, even if it rigorously demands the maintenance of a pure conscience, is too that the audience is not yet fully formed, or at the very least it can rhetorically draw on a common understanding of education in order to exhort the audience to persevere. The example of Jesus’ learning through suffering is therefore instructive. Jesus was sinless, yet had to learn. So too the audience must learn while also maintaining their pure status accomplished for them by Jesus. The author of Hebrews does not presuppose that the need for learning implies sin on the part of anyone, Jesus or the audience, but nevertheless, he can argue that such learning brings the learner to virtue.

Chapter 4

Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison Having examined corporal punishment, we now move to Proverbs. This chapter examines Prov 3:1–12 and 4:20–27 in light of their literary context, showing that throughout Prov 3–4, terms relevant to Heb 12 occur, like righteousness, holiness, peace, life, and healing. This suggests the author of Hebrews may have had this context in mind when shaping his own argument, though he fills such language with meaning more germane to his own context. Not only so, but other ancient texts appealing to Prov 3:11–12 evoke some of the same notions as Hebrews, including the concern with right morals and the establishment of a father-son relationship between God and those undergoing παιδεία. Considering the OT text, its literary context, and its later use, Hebrews proves to sit comfortably in a network of conceptual and linguistic associations that explain the features of the author’s appeal to Prov 3 and 4. The investigation so far has shown that an appeal to childhood παιδεία would have naturally evoked the image of pain and the beneficial result of moral development, and both of these aspects fit generally with the social pressure experienced by the audience and the author’s call for moral living. But, why this text from Proverbs? In answering this question we face two primary challenges. First, as discussed in chapter 1, Croy and those following him, particularly Allen, have treated Prov 3:11–12 as a punitive text. That is, talk of reproof and the whip supposes from the outset some wrongdoing. This raises the question of why the author would employ such a proverb when he exposits the text non-punitively. Our investigation above has suggested, however, that such a distinction may not apply so well to παιδεία. The second challenge is a bit less direct. In trying to explain the use of Prov 3:11–12 in Hebrews, it seems quite reasonable to examine the literary context from which the proverb comes. In fact, this has become a growing trend not only in NT studies of intertextuality generally, but more specifically in Hebrews itself. Yet, proverbial sayings are amenable to practically any context or situation where they might be used to “manipulate the behavior or attitude of other people” by reference to a shared assumption or norm.1 This seems to have precluded others from investigating the context of Prov 3 or 4 in detail. 1 Arland D. Jacobson, “Proverbs and Social Control: A New Paradigm for Wisdom Studies,” in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World, ed. James E. Goehring, Charles W.

Sayings in Context

143

In order to address these two challenges, we begin with the text and context of Prov 3–4, highlighting especially its points of contact with Hebrews. We want to investigate how Prov 3:11–12 functions in its context, and to what extent the author of Hebrews seems to have been aware of that context. Following this analysis, we will investigate those passages from Second Temple and early Christian literature that also cite or allude to Prov 3:11–12. This will give some guide as to the interpretive possibilities of Prov 3:11–12, providing points of comparison that will enlighten Hebrews’ own employment of the text and the question of “punitivity”.

Sayings in Context

I. Sayings in Context

The proverbial saying found in Heb 12:5–6 not to despise God’s discipline appears from the outset to function quite apart from any literary context, as one may assume about proverbial sayings in general. That is, it would seem capable of living a life of its own depending on the context in which it is employed. This is evidenced particularly in the related sayings found in Deut 8:5 and Job 5:17. These two other contexts express a quite similar sentiment as Prov 3:11–12, but the idea is applied to different situations, where the truth and value of the sayings can be presumed without supposing any sort of literary connections at all. Yet, Hebrews does not quote the forms of the saying found in Job or Deuteronomy. The quotation comes clearly from Prov 3.2 The saying is introduced and quoted, being set apart from the author’s own words, unlike, for example, the allusion to Prov 4:26 in Heb 12:13.3 This quotation Hedrick, Jack T. Sanders, and Hans Dieter Betz (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), 75–88, here 81. 2 The only difference is the addition of µου after the vocative υἱέ in Heb 12:5b (Prov 3:11). 3 Of course defining quotations, allusions, and echoes entails debated and often precarious criteria. Here I follow Guthrie’s useful definition of quotation as reference to a text including an introductory formula, and of allusion as “an overt weaving of at least a phrase from the antecedent text into the author’s own language, without a formal marking of that language as set apart from the author’s own words […].” This method is adopted also by Allen, Deuteronomy, 16–17. For our purposes in Heb 12:1–17 this is quite useful as we have a clear introductory formula in 12:5b and we also have phrasing in 12:12–13 that comes from antecedent texts. However, these definitions do not make every case clear. For example, Heb 10:37–38 may be considered a quotation since there is clearly a different speaker than in the surrounding text, but there is no introductory formula. Dietrich-Alex Koch has devised several helpful criteria in cases like this (for Heb 10:37–38 see his criteria B and C). Koch’s definition of allusion, however, differs from Guthrie’s in that an allusion presumes that the audience is familiar with the associations of the allusion in order to make the author’s statements comprehensible (Genette’s definition of allusion also includes this criterion; cf. the approach of Paulien to allusions in Revelation). Such a

144

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

enables us to see clearly where the phrase comes from and ask concerning its original context. The question of the respect which the author of Hebrews, not to mention the other NT authors and Jewish exegetes generally, paid to the literary context of OT quotations has gained more and more attention in research. C.H. Dodd famously suggested that OT passages, not just proof texts, formed the substructure of New Testament theology.4 Richard Hays’ approach to echoes criterion, however, while helpful in some cases (e.g., 2 Cor 3:3, to which Koch points), could rule out some very clear references to the OT as being allusions because it is not clear that the audience would have needed to recognize the reference. This is the case in Heb 12:13. It may not have been necessary for the audience to recognize that the author is using Prov 4:26 for the author’s expression to be understood, but the language clearly follows the antecedent text and appears from the same context as the quotation from Prov 3, such that there is no doubt as to the author’s reference (cf. Porter’s suggestion that allusion refer to “the nonformal invocation by an author of a text […] that the author could reasonably have been expected to know […].”). If we do not call this an allusion, we are left with only weaker relationships, like echoes or, in Koch’s system, the “use of scriptural language” (“Verwendung der Sprache der Schrift”). The latter category may follow the style or syntax of a certain antecedent text, but could also refer to the usage of only individual words or concepts. These last two categories are too weak to describe Prov 4:26 in Heb 12:13 adequately. Thus, it appears to me beneficial to use the allusion category even without the necessity that the audience recognize its associations. I will argue that the contexts of the author’s allusions in 12:12–13 give us evidence as to his meaning, but whether the audience would have needed to know the reference to Prov 4 in order to understand the expression remains questionable, despite 12:5a (“[…] you have forgotten the exhortation”; cf. Kistemaker, who points to the usage of Prov 3 [not 4!] in other early Christian writings and suggests the passage was widely used and known). Ultimately the author’s use of the OT in 12:1–17 tells more about the author than the audience. See George H. Guthrie, “‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CurBR 1 (2003): 273; Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 11–20; Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 2; Jon Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation,” BR 33 (1988): 37–53; Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 79–96, here 95; Simon J. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest, 1961), 51. On the introductory formula in Hebrews, see the thorough study of Michael Theobald, “Vom Text zum ‘lebendigen Wort’ (Hebr 4,12): Beobachtungen zur Schrifthermeneutik des Hebräerbriefs,” in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, ed. Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein, and Hermann Lichtenberger, BZNW 86 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 751–90. 4 C.H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London: Fontana Books, 1952). Steve Moyise claims that since Dodd’s work, “it has

Sayings in Context

145

in Paul, which he has now applied to the Gospels, likewise sparked further interest in the context of Scriptural quotations. Regarding Hebrews, the thesis of the author’s sensitivity to the context of his quotations has played a significant role in the studies of Docherty, Gheorghita, and Whitlark. Moreover, Thomas Blackstone has argued that the non-cited contexts of OT quotations often have influenced the author’s interpretation, and David Allen has sought to show a thoroughgoing influence of Deuteronomy on Hebrews. George Guthrie has also suggested that more study of the OT contexts relevant to Hebrews may lend a better understanding of Hebrews’ use of the OT and bring to light previously unrecognized dependence on the OT context. As one example, he cites the use of ὄνοµα in Heb 1:4 and its appearance in the context of 2 Sam 7:14 (quoted in Heb 1:5).5 It is worth asking, then, what does the context of Prov 3:11–12 contain? Does it have anything to contribute to

almost been axiomatic that a quotation is a pointer to its wider context”, but the thesis has in fact not gone unchallenged. See, Steve Moyise, “Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament,” in Reading the Bible Intertextually, ed. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 31; Barnabas Lindars, “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena,” Richard T. Mead, “A Dissenting Opinion about Respect for Context in Old Testament Quotations,” and Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., “Response Against C.H. Dodd’s View: On Testimonies,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 137–45, 153–63, 182–94; cf. Martin Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, Studien zum Neuen Testament 1 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969), 221– 23; idem, “Intertextualität: Ein Beispiel für Sinn und Unsinn ‘neuer’ Methoden,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett, BETL 131 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 431–39. 5 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016); Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, esp. 150–51 et passim; Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II/160 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 57–58; Whitlark, “The Warning against Idolatry,” 382–401; Thomas Ladd Blackstone, “The Hermeneutics of Recontextualization in the Epistle to the Hebrews” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1995); Allen, Deuteronomy; Guthrie, “Use of the Old Testament,” 273–74. Cf. also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 40–42. David Instone Brewer has argued that Jewish “scribal” exegesis before 70 CE took seriously Scriptural contexts and avoided the supposedly more isolated readings that developed in later Rabbinic exegesis. His contribution, however, has not gone unquestioned, no less than because of the difficulties in interpreting and dating the texts he draws upon for his argument. Nevertheless, others have made similar contributions arguing for sensitivity to and respect for the text itself in Jewish exegesis. David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE, TSAJ 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); George J. Brooke, “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible, ed. George J. Brooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 67–90.

146

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

answering the question of why the author specifically uses this quotation and not a form of it from Deuteronomy or Job? Others, in fact, have asked the question of why the author uses Prov 3:11– 12. As mentioned in chapter 1, Logan asks why the proverb is chosen, but no good reason is evident to him.6 Croy likewise asks about the usage, and rightly points out that the proverb fits the author’s concern to encourage the audience with reference to the filial love shown in God’s παιδεία.7 Thomas Blackstone has raised the question of the literary context of the proverb, but he suggests the context had little influence and that the weight of the proverb is found in its tradition in the common memory of the community (i.e., Heb 12:5: “you have forgotten the exhortation”).8 As also mentioned in chapter 1, David Allen, because of the difficulty of the apparent punitivity of the proverb, suggests that the author actually had Deut 8:5 and its context in mind. His thesis, while appealing to some degree, skips the necessary first step of investigating Proverbs itself, especially since the author also alludes to Prov 4:26 a few verses later. So, what does the literary context surrounding Prov 3:11–12 and 4:26 show? 1. Proverbs 3:1–12 Prov 3–4 is found in the larger unit of Prov 1–9, which contains not isolated sayings, but lectures or discourses given by a father to his son(s) on different wisdom themes. Scholars have divided the structure of Prov 1–9 and its lectures in different ways, but it is largely agreed that 3:1–12 and 4:20–27 form the limits of the lectures which provide the most immediate contexts for the verses which concern us here, 3:11–12 and 4:26.9 The lecture from 3:1–12 generally establishes, both in the LXX and MT, though with some differences, that obedience to the father’s teaching and trust in and faithfulness to God result in certain benefits, such as longevity, peace, straight paths, heal6

Logan, “Background,” 213–15. Croy, Endurance, 210. 8 Blackstone, “Recontextualization,” 247–49. Unfortunately neither Schröger nor Steyn address this question in their treatments of the use of Proverbs in Hebrews. Friedrich Schröger, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger, BU 4 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), 188–89; Gert Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews, FRLANT 235 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 333–42. However, Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 985–87, discusses the context of the proverb but does not ask what influence it may have had on Heb 12. 9 Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 44–47; Tremper Longman, III, “Proverbs 1: Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman, III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove Ill.: IVP, 2008), 548; Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 10–13, 236, 293–94; Guthrie, “Hebrews,” 986; Karrer and Kraus, Erläuterungen und Kommentare, 2:1953. 7

Sayings in Context

147

ing, and ultimately, prosperity.10 On the heels of this forecast of prosperity, verses 11–12 form a caveat to the entire picture.11 The writer is not unaware of the reality that wealth does not always follow faithfulness. On the one hand, the son who keeps his father’s teaching, maintains trust in God, and honors God, will experience prosperity and plenty; yet on the other hand, the writer acknowledges that God also metes out discipline. Nevertheless, this discipline is an expression of God’s love and evidence not that God has rejected the suffering one, but has rather accepted (LXX) or been pleased in him (MT). As Fox puts it, “[s]uffering as well as good fortune can flow from God’s love.”12 With this general outlook in mind, we turn to several specific points of contact between the LXX of Proverbs and Hebrews. Prov 3:1–12 LXX 1

υἱέ ἐµῶν νοµίµων µὴ ἐπιλανθάνου τὰ δὲ ῥήµατά µου τηρείτω σὴ καρδία

7 µὴ ἴσθι φρόνιµος παρὰ σεαυτῷ φοβοῦ δὲ τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἔκκλινε ἀπὸ παντὸς κακοῦ

2

µῆκος γὰρ βίου καὶ ἔτη ζωῆς καὶ εἰρήνην προσθήσουσίν σοι

8

3

ἐλεηµοσύναι καὶ πίστεις µὴ ἐκλιπέτωσάν σε ἄφαψαι δὲ αὐτὰς ἐπὶ σῷ τραχήλῳ καὶ εὑρήσεις χάριν

9

4

καὶ προνοοῦ καλὰ ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ἀνθρώπων

10

5

ἴσθι πεποιθὼς ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ ἐπὶ θεῷ ἐπὶ δὲ σῇ σοφίᾳ µὴ ἐπαίρου

11

6

12

ἐν πάσαις ὁδοῖς σου γνώριζε αὐτήν ἵνα ὀρθοτοµῇ τὰς ὁδούς σου [ὁ δὲ πούς σου οὐ µὴ προσκόπτῃ]

τότε ἴασις ἔσται τῷ σώµατί σου καὶ ἐπιµέλεια τοῖς ὀστέοις σου τίµα τὸν κύριον ἀπὸ σῶν δικαίων πόνων καὶ ἀπάρχου αὐτῷ ἀπὸ σῶν καρπῶν δικαιοσύνης ἵνα πίµπληται τὰ ταµίειά σου πλησµονῆς σίτου οἴνῳ δὲ αἱ ληνοί σου ἐκβλύζωσιν υἱέ µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος

ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

Two parallels appear even in Prov 3:1. First, the father exhorts the son not to forget his laws and to let the heart keep his words. The exhortation not to forget resonates with Heb 12:5a, “and you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons.” The verb in each passage derives from the same stem,

10

Cf. Waltke, Proverbs, 238–40. Cf. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 152–53; R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 47; R.N. Whybray, Proverbs, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 58. 12 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 153. 11

148

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

ἐπιλανθάνοµαι in Prov 3:1 and ἐκλανθάνοµαι in Heb 12:5a.13 The idea of remembering appears frequently in Hebrews, even in connection with moral exhortation, as also in Prov 3:1–12.14 The second parallel does not resonate with Heb 12 directly, but does parallel the repeated mention of the heart in Hebrews more generally. As seen already, Heb 3–4 warns against the hardening of the heart, going astray in the heart, and an evil heart (3:8, 10, 12, 15; 4:7; cf. 4:12), while Heb 8:10 and 10:16 repeat God’s covenant to put his laws (cf. νόµιµος in Prov 3:1a) in the people’s heart, and 10:22 exhorts the audience to draw near with a true heart and a heart sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (see also Heb 13:9). Related to the results of παιδεία in Heb 12 is the prediction in verse 2 of the length of life and peace that result from obeying the father’s teaching. Heb 12:9 assumes, on the one hand, that life results from the discipline of earthly fathers, and on the other hand, that life will all the more, according to the lesser-to-greater argument, result from God’s discipline. Proverbs supposes the same life-preserving quality of parental discipline/instruction and wisdom elsewhere,15 and frequently in chapters 3 and 4.16 Keeping to wisdom and to a father’s teachings leads to life, while neglecting either leads to death.17 As we shall see in the next chapter, Hebrews turns the primarily thisworldly understanding of life in Proverbs into forward-looking, eschatological life. Peace is bound up with this goodness of life in Prov 3. Within 3:1–12 it appears to have to do with not only respect earned before God and man (3:4 MT) but also with prosperity (3:10).18 Prov 3:16–17 likewise associates wis13

Amy Peeler’s recent study, which came available to me late in my research, brought this parallel to my attention. See Amy Peeler, You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 144 n. 8. She mentions several other parallels, including some discussed below. Others she mentions occur in later parts of Prov 3 and parallel other sections of Hebrews: drawing near to wisdom and to God (ἐγγίζω; Prov 3:12; Heb 7:19); the steadfastness of wisdom and the sure anchor of hope (ἀσφαλής; Prov 3:18; Heb 6:19); the inheriting of glory for the wise and the inheriting of salvation (κληρονοµέω; Prov 3:35; Heb 1:14; 6:12; 12:17). 14 ἐπιλανθάνοµαι: 6:10, of God not forgetting the addressees’ former works; 13:2, of not failing to show hospitality to strangers; 13:16 of not forgetting to do good and share. µνηµονεύω: 11:15, of recollecting the land from which early heroes came (they did not keep it in mind, otherwise they may have returned); 11:22, of Joseph recalling the Exodus and giving instructions about his bones; 13:7, of remembering leaders and imitating their faithfulness. ἀναµιµνῄσκω: 10:32 of remembering earlier sufferings and the positive response to them. 15 Christine Roy Yoder, Proverbs, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), 41; see n. 51 below. 16 Cf. 3:16, 22; 4:4, 10, 13, 22. 17 Cf. 23:14, and see the discussion on corporal punishment in Proverbs below. 18 So, F.J. Stendebach, “‫שׁ לוֹם‬,” ָ TDOT 15:42; cf. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 143.

Sayings in Context

149

dom with not only long life and riches but also pleasant paths (MT; good paths LXX) and peace, or as Whybray puts it, a state free of anxiety.19 As we will see below, 4:27 LXX also promises that God will establish peace and straight paths for the one turning from evil. For Hebrews, of course, a life of prosperity and peace with others stands far from the experience of the audience. It is quite the opposite. Peace, like life, in Heb 12:11 seems to refer primarily to the future, but is nevertheless included as something to seek in the present (12:14). Verse 3 brings up a few ideas familiar in Hebrews but which do not necessarily resonate in Heb 12. First, the father exhorts the son not to let ἐλεηµοσύναι and πίστεις forsake him.20 Though ἐλεηµοσύνη, which often translates ‫ צדקה‬in the LXX, can refer to the mercy of God extended toward his people,21 it can also refer to acts of mercy or almsgiving, which is commonly the case in the NT.22 In Proverbs, however, it does not always clearly refer to almsgiving, though at least “Barmherzigkeit gegen Armen” seems to be in view in 19:22, which deals specifically with rich and poor, and this may also be reflected in 21:26.23 Without any clear indication that almsgiving specifically is always intended in Proverbs, it is probably best to translate it here as acts of mercy, thereby leaving open the possibility of different expressions of mercy, though likely toward the poor, if 19:22 and 21:26 are any indication.24 In Judaism, almsgiving formed an important part of piety, as is particularly evident in Tobit 12:8–9 (cf. Sir 3:30; Did. 4.6).25 In fact, as Michael Dick has pointed out, the parallelism between Tobit 4:10 and 12:9 (ἐλεηµοσύνη ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται; cf. Dan 4:27/24) with Prov 10:2 (δικαιοσύνη δὲ ῥύσεται ἐκ θανάτου) suggests that even δικαιοσύνη “can already indicate the

19

Whybray, Proverbs, 60. The MT is ambiguous as to whether ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמת‬refer to qualities of God exercised toward people or qualities exercised among people. The LXX has taken these as qualities the son should hold onto (Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 377), rather than, as allowed by the MT, as qualities of God shown the son, which the son should avoid losing. 21 Deut 6:25; Ps (LXX) 23:5; 32:5, 102:6; Isa 1:27; 59:16. 22 Matt 6:2–4; Luke 11:41; 12:33; Acts 3:3; 10:2; cf. Did. 1.6. 23 Cf. H. Bolkestein, “Almosen,” RAC 1:301. Bolkestein more confidently asserts, “Die Bedeutungsverengerung ἔλεος, ἐλεηµοσύνη von ‘Mitleid’ zu ‘Barmherzigkeit gegen Armen’, ‘Armengabe’ hat sich im griechischsprechenden Orient vollzogen, in der Literature zuerst in LXX (Prov. 21,26 […]; ferner Dan. 4, [27] 24 […]); aber auch anderswo (PsPhocyl 23 […]; Or. Sib. 2, 80. 81. 82).” Several times in Proverbs the word translates, together with πίστις, ‫ חסד‬and ‫אמת‬, just as here in 3:3. Prov 14:22; 15:27 (16:6 MT); cf. 20:28. 24 So also the NETS. 25 Cf. R. Bultmann, “ἐλεηµοσύνη” TDNT 2:485–87. 20

150

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

concrete activity of almsgiving”.26 As we saw in chapter 2, Hebrews demands of its audience also good works and righteous deeds.27 Of course, for Hebrews these sorts of works seem primarily limited to care for other saints in the community (6:10), but the point is, in contrast to a life of sin, Hebrews, like Proverbs 3, expects good works. The two essentially agree that the saints, in the words of Prov 3:4, should “think of what is noble in the sight of the Lord and of people” (NETS; cf. Heb 5:14). Now, with regard to πίστις in Prov 3:3, the connection to Hebrews is obvious. However, in Prov 3 this πίστις has rather to do with one’s dealing with other people, even if, as verse 4 suggests, God might be pleased with such behavior. This is born out elsewhere in Proverbs, where, for example, πίστις relates to telling the truth,28 and to be faithful means to be trustworthy or dependable.29 In the present context, it is clearly a virtue30 leading to favor (χάρις; 3:3b).31 In Hebrews, however, the virtue of faith or faithfulness directs itself toward God rather than to people and one must be careful not to come short of the favor God has for the faithful (12:15). The next several verses exhibit further, though looser, parallels with the moral thought of Hebrews. First, verse 5 commands the hearer to put trust in God (ἴσθι πεποιθὼς ἐν ὅλῃ καρδίᾳ ἐπὶ θεῷ) and not to be exalted in one’s own wisdom.32 Heb 2:13 puts Isa 8:17b into the mouth of Jesus: “I will put my trust in him” (ἐγὼ ἔσοµαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ). Confidence in God appears as a theme elsewhere in Hebrews as well, for example, 6:17–18 and 11:6. Second, verse 6 says to make wisdom known, so that she might make one’s ways straight.33 The author of Hebrews also brings up straight paths in 12:13, but takes it from Prov 4:26, which is more fitting because it commands the son not to make wisdom known, but simply to make straight paths for the feet. Third, verse 7 exhorts the hearer not to be wise in his own opinion, but rather to fear God and turn away from evil. Hebrews appeals to the fear of God and 26 Michael B. Dick, “The Ethics of the Old Greek Book of Proverbs,” SPhiloA 2 (1990): 25 n. 20. Cf. Gottlob Schrenk, “δικαιοσύνη” TDNT 2:196, who therefore concludes there can be no doubt that Prov 10:2 refers to almsgiving. 27 Heb 6:10; 11:33; 13:16; cf. Matt 6:1–4; Acts 9:36, which connects good works to acts of mercy. 28 12:17, 22; cf. 14:5. 29 20:6; 25:13. 30 Cf. Prov 14:5 and 15:28, which link faithfulness to righteousness. 31 According to Prov 12:22, the one who acts faithfully is acceptable to the Lord. 32 Cf. Jer 9:22a. The MT, by contrast, instructs not to lean on one’s understanding (‫וְ ֶאל־‬ ‫ל־תּ ָשּׁ ֵ ן‬ ִ ‫ ַא‬%‫) ִבּינָ ְת‬. Fox suggests this change “allows the translator to avoid the implication that one should not rely on one’s wisdom. After all, relying on one’s wisdom is what the book is all about.” Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 377. 33 In the Hebrew, God is the object of the first clause and the subject of the second: ‫ְבּ ָכל־‬ %‫ ָד ֵ הוּ וְ הוּא יְ ַי ֵשּׁר א ְֹרח ֶֹתי‬%‫ ְדּ ָר ֶכי‬.

Sayings in Context

151

his judgment several times in exhorting the audience to perseverance.34 It does not explicitly relate the fear of God with turning from evil per se,35 but the fear of God does inspire endurance, while failure to endure is portrayed as a turn to sin.36 These several thematic parallels with Hebrews bear less on Hebrews 12, but the conceptual similarities are nevertheless striking, especially when approaching Proverbs with the question of why the author would draw on Prov 3:11–12 and not some other text. Yet these parallels do not complete the picture. In fact, the next two parallels resonate directly with Heb 12. Prov 3:8 follows up the command to fear God and turn from evil and explains that this will result in healing (ἴασις) for the body and care to the bones. The father also explains not much later that his own teachings result in healing for the son who heeds them (3:21–22; 4:20–22). Sirach passes on traditions along the same lines as Prov 3:8, where the fear of God results in peace and healing (1:18; cf. 34:16–17), while lawlessness causes wounds that cannot be healed (21:3). Such wisdom traditions appear, together with Prov 4:26, to underlie Heb 12:13, “make straight paths for your feet, so that that the lame might not be turned aside, but rather healed (ἰαθῇ).” This line of Hebrews carries several exegetical challenges (see chapter 5 below), including the question of what sort of healing the author envisions. Most likely the author’s concern lies less with a certain quality of life,37 since he typically redefines the results of wisdom we find in Proverbs. The point is simply that we find evidence here of the author’s awareness of the traditional association of healing with the right attitude toward God (or to the father’s wisdom) – in the case of Heb 12, the right attitude toward God’s disciplinary action – and strikingly this association comes from the immediate literary context of his quotation and allusion to Proverbs. Moving to Prov 3:9, we see another close point of contact between Prov 3 and Heb 12. According to the saying, the son should honor the Lord out of righteous labor and give of the first fruits of righteousness. This saying is interesting because it is significantly different from the MT, which commands the cultic honor of the LORD with wealth and the first fruits of produce. Scholars have recognized this change in line with the moralizing tendency of

34

Heb 4:1; 10:27; 10:31; 12:21. Hebrews only uses κακός in this sense in 5:14. 36 Cf. Prov 15:27, where the LXX includes the line, “by the fear of the Lord [τῷ δὲ φόβῳ κυρίου], everyone turns away from evil” (NETS; emphasis mine). Here the fear of the Lord explicitly motivates the avoidance of evil. Cf. Did. 4.9–11; 5.1, where fear of God, among other things, marks the path of life, while the failure to fear God marks the path of death. 37 Cf. Jas 5:16. 35

152

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

the Greek of proverbs,38 and while the first line, concerning righteous/just labor, could be taken as specifying the offering only of wages fairly earned,39 Ronald Giese has shown that both lines of the verse should be understood to refer to the performance of righteous deeds (cf. Wis 5:1; 8:7). He demonstrates that the Greek translators of Proverbs otherwise always translate the Hebrew noun ‫( הון‬as in 3:9 MT) with terms referring to wealth, while πόνος, which here translates ‫הון‬, is used more often in the LXX with the literal sense of “labor” or “toil” instead of the more figurative “wages”.40 He thus proposes that that the translator may have felt uncomfortable with the implication that money could buy God’s favor (3:10), and so shifted the focus to the rewards of righteousness as such.41 While in Prov 3:9–10 righteousness results in material, namely agricultural, wealth, in Heb 12:11 the καρπός δικαιοσύνης results from rightly undergoing God’s fatherly discipline. Righteousness is the effect, not the cause, in Hebrews. Nevertheless, the proximity of 3:9 to Hebrews’ main quoted text, not to mention the several points of contact established with Prov 3:1–12, suggests Gräßer is right to propose that the phrase ἀπὸ σῶν καρπῶν δικαιοσύνης of Prov 3:9 inspired the phrase καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν […] δικαιοσύνης in Heb 12:11.42 Even if the author of Hebrews has not employed the idea of fruits of righteousness in the same way, the language and moral concern remain similar in both texts. These observations suggest the author of Hebrews was indeed familiar with the context of the quotation from Prov 3:11–12. The terms of life, peace, fruit of righteousness, and healing constitute direct points of contact between Heb 12 and Prov 3 outside of the quoted text. In addition, we find a shared concern with faithfulness and doing good, though these ideas go beyond the primary points of Heb 12 (though cf. 12:2) and resonate with Hebrews’ larger moral exhortation. We must note, however, that thus far the shared terminology does not necessarily result in a shared meaning. Hebrews may employ similar terms as Prov 3:1–10, but Hebrews uses them mostly in a different way. Having examined 3:1–10, we next turn to 3:11–12. 38

Dick, “Ethics,” 23; Ronald L. Giese, Jr., “Qualifying Wealth in the Septuagint of Proverbs,” JBL 111 (1992): 415–16; see further Karrer and Kraus, Erläuterungen und Kommentare, 2:1958. 39 So Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 378. 40 ‫ הון‬translated with terms for wealth or possessions: Prov 1:13; 6:31; 8:18; 10:15; 12:27; 13:7; 13:11; 18:11; 19:4, 14; 24:4; 28:8, 22; 29:3 (in 30:13, 16 ‫ הון‬means ‘enough’ or ‘sufficient’). πόνος used for labor or toil instead of wages: Prov 6:8; 16:26; 24:2; 31:7 (5:10 would be the exception in Prov). 41 Giese, “Wealth,” 416. Additionally, in the other two instances of “fruit(s) of righteousness” in Prov (11:30; 13:2), the phrase is used in contrasting the long life of the good person and the short life of the transgressor. 42 Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:274.

153

Sayings in Context

2. Proverbs 3:11–12 and Corporal Punishment MT ‫ל־תּ ְמ ָאס‬ ִ ‫מוּסר ְיהוָ ה ְבּנִ י ַא‬ ַ ‫תוֹכ ְחתּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ל־תּקֹץ ְבּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ַא‬ /‫יוֹכ ַי‬ ִ ‫ִכּי ֶאת ֲא ֶשׁר ֶי ֱא ַהב ְיהוָ ה‬ ‫ת־בּן ִי ְר ֶצה‬ ֵ ‫וּכ ָאב ֶא‬ ְ

LXX

Hebrews

υἱέ µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

υἱέ µου, µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

After the promise of material blessing for righteous deeds verses 11–12 exhort the hearer to have the proper attitude toward God’s discipline. In looking closer at the function of these verses, we must begin by examining one major difference between the LXX and MT, namely the difference in 3:12b. The MT reads “like a father”, omitting the verb in the last clause and thereby implying /‫יוֹכ ַי‬ ִ again in verse 12b. The LXX reads, however, “and he scourges” (µαστιγοῖ). The LXX translator may have read ‫ וְ ַי ְכ ִאב‬or ‫ ְי ֵכ ֵאב‬for the MT’s ‫וּכ ָאב‬, ְ but the possibility remains that the translator was simply bringing to expression what was left implicit in the Vorlage.43 Taken at face value, then, the MT does not necessarily point to physical suffering, since ‫ יכח‬may indicate nothing more than verbal reproof when specific reference to some physical pain is lacking.44 In the parallel of Job 5:17–18 we have both reference to rebuke and infliction of pain. Eliphaz declares the blessing of the man whom God reproves (‫)יכח‬, for God inflicts pain (Hiphil of ‫)כאב‬, but he also heals.45 43 Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über die poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, vols. 2–3 (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1864–1873), 3:72; Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs, WBC 22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 20. Like William McKane, Fox also cautions that the reading of the LXX does not clearly necessitate one reading over another in the Vorlage. He points to Midr. Ps 94:2: “R. Eliezer ben Jacob taught: Behold, Scripture says, For whom the Lord loves He chastens, even as a father (kě’aḇ) the son in whom he delights (Prov. 3:12). Read not kě’aḇ, but kě’eḇ.” See Salomon Buber, Midrasch Tehillim (Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder, 1891), 417–18; trans. adapted from William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2, YJS 8 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 132. See William McKane, Proverbs, OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 294; Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 379. 44 E.g, Prov 9:7–8; 15:12; 19:25; 24:25; 25:12; 28:23. Reproof from God does not necessarily come in the form of physical reproof according to Job 33:14–15. There Elihu mentions that God might speak words of correction through dreams, while in 33:19 he says a man might be rebuked through pain. 45 On the basis of this parallel and the LXX rendering, Toy recommends understanding Prov 3:12b as “and he afflicts”. Crawford H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899), 64–65. Cf. Hans F. Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, FB 95 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2001), 76, who argues against any reference to beating. Achim Müller argues that without any allusion to Job 5, the language of 3:11–12 would not necessarily connote suffering. He never-

154

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

Though the present context does not refer to any sort of physical pain specifically,46 the foregoing promises of blessing, health, and prosperity suggest that 3:11–12 means to address the opposite, some sort of suffering, whether physical or material. In any case, the LXX does make clear that some sort of painful suffering is involved in this reproof with its reference to beating. However, with this reading, the LXX lacks the explicit comparison to a father that is present in the MT, though certainly it is not completely missing, since the relationship is implied by reference to the accepted son. As we shall see, the father-son relationship was not lost on Philo or the author of Hebrews, both of whom worked from the LXX.47 We have already examined the larger Greek and Roman worlds on corporal punishment, but looking now at the book of Proverbs specifically, we find a significant number of sayings concerning corporal punishment, several of which deal specifically with parents and children.48 Most enlightening for Prov 3:11–12 is the well-known Prov 13:24: “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but whoever loves him disciplines (παιδεύει) him attentively” (LXX). The rod of chastisement then is an expression of concern for a child. On the one hand, it gives wisdom: “Blows and reproofs give wisdom, but a wandering child brings shame to his parents” (29:15 LXX; cf. 29:17). On the other hand, it saves from death: “Do not abstain from disciplining (παιδεύειν) a child, for if you beat him with a rod he will not die. For you will beat him with a rod and rescue his soul from death [Heb: ‫( ”]שׁאול‬23:13–14 LXX).49 theless sees connotations of suffering or punishment in Prov 3:11–12 as likely in view of other verses where God chastises like a father. See Achim Müller, Proverbien 1–9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, BZAW 291 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 167–68; cf. Holger Delkurt, Ethische Einsichten in der alttestamentlichen Spruchweisheit, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 21 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993), 38–41. 46 Cf. Georg Freuling, “Wer eine Grube gräbt...”: Der Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang und sein Wandel in der altestamentlichen Weisheitsliteratur, WMANT 102 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2004), 92–93. 47 Their quotations of Prov 3:11–12 differ in some regards, but not in the use of µαστιγόω: Philo, Cong. 177

Hebrews 12:5b-6

παιδείας θεοῦ, υἱέ, µὴ ὀλιγώρει καὶ µὴ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος ἐλέγχει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

υἱέ µου, µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

48

Prov 10:13; 13:24; 19:25, 29; 20:30; 22:15; 23:13–14; 26:3; 29:15. Cf. Papyrus Insinger 9.9, “A son does not die from being punished by his father.” Translation from Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–80), 3:192. So also The Words of Ahiqar VI.81–82, “Withhold not thy son from the rod, else thou wilt not be able to save [him from wickedness]. If I smite thee, my son, thou wilt not die, but if I leave thee to thine own heart [thou 49

Sayings in Context

155

These lines likely encourage corporal punishment by arguing that a beating is not actually life-threatening, while not beating a child will indeed lead to death.50 Others have argued, however, that both verses 13 and 14 mean the same thing, following the common thought of Proverbs that discipline/instruction (παιδεία/‫ )מוסר‬and wisdom lead to life, honor, and abundance.51 The latter interpretation, however, undervalues the irony and misses the Steigerung (Plöger) between the two lines. The main point nevertheless remains the same: beating a child keeps him from the path of folly that leads to death.52 After all, left to his own devices, the child tends toward foolishness: “Folly clings to the heart of a youth, and a rod and discipline (παιδεία) are far from him” (22:15 LXX; cf. v. 15b MT: ‫מוּסר ַי ְר ִח ֶיקנָּ ה ִמ ֶמּנּוּ‬ ָ ‫) ֵשׁ ֶבט‬.53 While there is obvious benefit from accepting corporal punishment from a father, rejecting instruction/discipline and reproof, which Prov 3:11 obviously advises against, results in poverty and shame (13:18), and “a man who reproves is better than a stiffnecked man, for when he is suddenly set on fire, there is no healing [ἴασις]” (29:1 LXX). Ultimately, the one who hates reproof will die (15:10b) since he has not learned.54 These sayings evince similar thought on corporal punishment as we have already seen in the Greek and Roman worlds. Fathers concerned for their children employ physical discipline in order to foster wisdom and learning, resulting in a good life. Prov 3:11–12 thus fits naturally into this outlook of the positive benefits of fatherly education, including the aspect of physical discipline. When verse 11 exhorts the son then not to despise discipline and reproof from God, these are already viewed as positive and beneficial. Nevertheless, the experience is painful, as particularly brought out in the LXX. Thus, verse 12 explains (‫כי‬/γάρ) that the experience comes from God as an expression of his love and is evidence of his acceptance of or pleasure in the sufferer. And so the verse wilt not live]. Translation from James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. with supplement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 428. 50 Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar, 3:370; Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), BKAT 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 273; James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 166–67. 51 Cf. 1:8–12; 2:16–19; 3:1–10; 4:20–27; 9:6; 10:17; 13:14–18; 15:10; 29:1. Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31, AB 18B (New York: Doubleday, 2009), 733–34; McKane, Proverbs, 386; Toy, Proverbs, 433. 52 The saying in 19:18 (MT) – “discipline your son while there is hope, and do not set your soul on his death” – should thus be understood along the lines of 23:14 and not as a statement against over-exuberance in beating the child. 53 Interestingly, in other sayings where no reference to childhood is present, physical reproof is reserved for the foolish, whereas the wise require only verbal reproof. Cf. 10:13; 19:25, 29; 21:11. However, 9:7–9 suggests it is useless to rebuke the foolish. 54 Cf. Papyrus Insinger 8.24: “No instruction can succeed if there is dislike [or, resentment].” Lichtheim, Literature, 3:192, 214 n. 28.

156

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

fosters the right understanding of pain; it is not a sign of rejection by God, as perhaps absence of the promised benefits of right living might suggest. Whereas in Prov 16:7 (MT) peace with one’s enemies is evidence of God’s pleasure (‫ )רצה‬with the ways of a man (cf. 15:28 LXX), here God’s pleasure is evidenced by discipline. The one suffering is thus enabled to take whatever comes his way from God, knowing that it is both beneficial and prompted by love and acceptance. So, these two verses serve as a caveat to the general picture of blessing for the righteous person who keeps the teachings of the father and pleases God. In fact, Fox, with the support of other scholars, has suggested that these verses, particularly in the way they function in the context, are paradigmatic of the overall tension the sages felt in dealing with righteousness and wickedness and wealth and poverty.55 This contradicts in part the approach initiated by Klaus Koch, according to which Proverbs reflects a strict Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang. This understanding explains good outcomes for the righteous and bad outcomes for the wicked as “you reap what you sow”; that is, consequences are built into each action and are not a result of divine retribution or judgment based on some established norm.56 While the Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang has proven useful for understanding Proverbs and beyond – even becoming axiomatic in German scholarship – it has undergone significant nuancing,57 and scholars like Van Leeuwen and Murphy, in addition to 55

Fox writes: “The author of Prov 3:11–12, unlike Elihu, is not rationalizing suffering; he is inculcating the right attitude toward it. One must accept suffering as an act of divine love, not repudiate it and rebel against one’s condition.” With reference to verse 11, however, Fox does not exclude that such suffering may function as a “gracious warning to spare you greater punishments.” Fox, Proverbs, 153, 152. 56 E.g., Prov 1:18, 19; 4:17, 18; 11:5, 18, 30; 26:27; 28:10. Klaus Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?,” in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw, IRT 4 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 57–87. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Weisheit in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970), 165–81; Berend Gemser, Sprüche Salomos, 2nd ed., HAT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963), 7. In some cases, for Koch, God may act as a conduit, setting into motion or completing the connection between action and consequence, but God does not impose “something which is not congruent with a person’s nature” (62). E.g., Prov 10:29; 11:1, 20; 12:2; 18:10; 25:22. Cf. Klaus Koch and Jürgen Roloff. “Tat-Ergehen-Zusammenhang,” in Reclams Bibellexikon, 5th ed., ed. Klaus Koch et al. (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1992), 493–95. 57 Of particular question has been how the Zusammenhang functions. What role does society, one’s overall character, or God play in effecting consequences? (Many have not been satisfied with Koch’s understanding of God’s role.) To what degree did the sages envision a world order in play? See, e.g., Carl-A. Keller, “Zum sogenannten Vergeltungsglauben im Proverbienbuch,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart, and Rudolf Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1977), 223–38; Lennart Boström, The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs, ConBOT 29 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990), 90–140; Bernd Janowski, “Die Tat kehrt zum Täter zurück:

Sayings in Context

157

Fox, have rightly shown that Proverbs recognizes that the righteous do indeed suffer, while the wicked prosper. Prov 3:11–12, then, fits into this recognition and seeks to establish a right attitude toward it.58 Of course, to speak of reproof and corporal punishment would suggest wrongdoing on the part of the son, or at least some tendency toward wrongdoing, as our survey of corporal punishment traditions has shown. As an educational method, physical discipline by its very nature corrects in one way or another. But the question remains, does Prov 3:11–12 mean to include this thought, or is it simply drawing on the positive aspects of education without meaning to suggest the son addressed by 3:1–12 has indeed committed some transgression? Scholars have taken up this issue in a couple of ways. The main stream of thought is that Prov 3:11–12 fits into the understanding of suffering according to which suffering does not constitute punishment for sin in the sense of one-to-one retribution, but rather it constitutes educative chastening. This type of suffering might prompt the sufferer to turn from some, often unknown, sin in order that he might avoid real punishment later with those rejected by God, or it might function to humble and instruct or test the sufferer.59 For example, concerning the wilderness generation, Wis 11:10 says: “For you tested them like an admonishing father, but the ungodly [cf. v. 9] you examined like a stern, condemning king.” In 2 Sam 7:14–15, God speaks through Nathan to David concerning his offspring, saying, “I will be a father to him, he will be a son to me, and if his unrighteousness comes, then I will reprove him with a rod of men and with strokes of the sons of men, but I will Offene Frage im Umkreis des ‘Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs,’” ZTK 91 (1994): 247–71; Freuling, “Wer eine Grube gräbt”. The idea has been recently picked up again by Samuel L. Adams, Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 58 E.g., Prov 11:16; 15:16–17; 16:8, 19; 30:14. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs,” HS 33 (1992): 25–36; Murphy, Proverbs, 260–69; Fox, Proverbs, 152–53; Boström, God of the Sages, 223–24; cf. Michael V. Fox, “World Order and Maʿat: A Crooked Parallel,” JANES 23 (1995): 47–48. Freuling suggests that 3:11–12 modifies the Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang insofar as those negative experiences that would have been expected to result from bad behavior may now be accepted as positive since they are interpreted as divine education or correction. See Freuling, “Wer eine Grube gräbt”, 93. 59 Toy, Proverbs, 65; Fox, Proverbs, 152–53; Gemser, Sprüche, 28–29; Von Rad, Weisheit, 258–60; Fredrik Lindström, Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms, ConBOT 37 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994), 137– 43; H. Wheeler Robinson, Suffering Human and Divine (New York: Macmillan, 1939), 36–39; J.A. Sanders, Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-Biblical Judaism (Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1955), 1, 3–5, 117–19; Wolfgang Wichmann, Die Leidenstheologie: Eine Form der Leidensdeutung im Spätjudentum, BWANT 53 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 5–6.

158

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

not remove my mercy from him as I removed it from those [MT: “Saul”] whom I removed from before me” (LXX).60 Job’s friend Elihu propounds this view, as do the Psalms of Solomon, books that both employ similar sayings as Prov 3:11–12.61 This disciplinary or educative understanding of suffering thus does not mean that the sufferer is perfectly innocent or complete, but neither does it presume that the sufferer receives the full brunt of punishment due him or her.62 As prominent as this interpretation of suffering is in the OT and in Second Temple Judaism, Prov 3:1–12 never specifies the suffering beyond comparing it to discipline and reproof. It never, unlike several parallel texts (see below), accuses the son of failure to keep certain norms in order that he might repent, and it never specifies what is to be learned from this experience (like, e.g., Deut 8:2–5). The degree to which we should read other explanations of suffering into Prov 3:1–12 is open to question; the most we can say is that it is explained with reference to beneficial fatherly education as something to be welcomed because it comes from God’s love. In this sense Whybray has proposed that Prov 3:11–12, along with other references to corporal punishment, like Prov 19:18 and 23:13, does not presuppose wrongdoing on the part of the child; rather, discipline simply forms “a necessary feature of the educational process which helps to form the

60

Cf. Mal 3:17. The 2 Sam 7:14 text has itself been subject to intertextual investigation for Hebrews, as the first half of the verse (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me”), appears in Heb 1:5. As mentioned above, Guthrie sees the context of 2 Sam 7, Nathan’s prophecy to David about his offspring and the building of a house for God, as important for understanding the “name” in Heb 1:4, and he sees it as important for understanding the “house” in Heb 3:1–6. Additionally, Docherty has argued from the mention of reproving the son in 2 Sam 7:14b that Heb 1:5 comes from 2 Sam and not 1 Chron 17:13, which includes the exact same words quoted in Heb 1:5 and found in 2 Sam 7:14a, but which lacks the lines about fatherly reproof found in 2 Sam 7:14b. I agree with Docherty’s conclusion, but I do not consider 2 Sam 7:14b significant for Hebrews’ approach to fatherly discipline, since in 2 Sam 7 reproof comes in response to iniquity. Guthrie, “Use of the Old Testament,” 273–74; Docherty, Use of the Old Testament, 155. 61 See also Ps 6:2; 94:12–14; 119:67, 71, 75; Jer 38:18–20 (LXX); Hos 10:9–10; 2 Macc 6:12–16; Sir 4:11–19; 22:27–23:6; Wis 3; 12; 16:5–6; Jdt 8:25–27; Josephus, Ant. 3.311; 1 Cor 11:27–32. Cf. Talbert, Learning, 11–17; Theresia Mende, “‘Wen der Herr liebhat, den züchtigt er’ (Hebr 12,6) – Der alttestamentliche Hintergrund von Hebr 12,1–11; 1–4; 2, 6– 10,” TTZ 100 (1991): 23–33; idem, Durch Leiden zur Vollendung: Die Elihureden im Buch Ijob (Ijob 32–37), TThSt 49 (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1990), 406–27. 62 Lindström and Wichmann emphasize this point. Lindström, Suffering, 139–40; Wichmann, Leidenstheologie, 6. NB: Croy quotes from Lindström in defining his own view of educative, non-punitive discipline, but leaves out the line in which Lindström notes that the sufferer in such cases is not necessarily perfect. Croy, of course, is trying to set up a heuristic model by which suffering can also be classified as not having to do with sin, and it appears part of Lindström’s approach was useful in developing this model. It is, however, misleading as to Lindström’s own view. Croy, Endurance, 82.

Sayings in Context

159

child’s character, and so is a sign of the father’s love.”63 The presumed necessity of discipline in education resonates with our findings on Greco-Roman corporal punishment traditions, and certainly Proverbs generally considers reproof and corporal punishment as fundamental to education. Whybray interprets 3:11–12, therefore, more along the lines of the Egyptian saying in Papyrus Insinger 20.13: “What comes (or, has come) of hardship, leave yourself in the hand of the god in it.”64 The son should give himself over to God’s mysterious ways of education, trusting in God and not leaning on his own understanding (3:5).65 On the one hand, Whybray is correct to appeal to the normalcy of such methods of education; that is, the author could appeal to education as a paradigm without necessarily implying that correction of wrongdoing was the point. Thus, the sage could essentially build upon the presupposition of Prov 13:2466 – that only a father who hates his son would not discipline him, while the loving father disciplines diligently – without necessarily implying that suffering must result from some wrongdoing, even if in day-to-day life education is by nature corrective. Proverbs presupposes that left to his own devices, the child would run amok, such that the rod and reproof are necessary tools without which education could not lead to benefit.67 The Greek of Prov 10:17 expresses a similar thought on the necessity of reproof in παιδεία, presumably reproof backed with corporal punishment: “παιδεία guards the righteous paths of life, but παιδεία without chastening leads astray.”68 The necessity of some form of reproof for the development of the child and the fact that corporal punishment in education demonstrates fatherly affection and acceptance are therefore key reasons why the father can tell his son not to reject God’s reproof. On the other hand, and this is quite similar to the problem the verses pose for Hebrews, Whybray’s dismissal of any corrective aspect misses the very nature of reproof, and Whybray’s appeal to two individual proverbs does not necessarily suggest that a child had not committed some childhood misdeed. 63

Whybray, Proverbs, 64. Whybray, Proverbs, 65. Translation from Lichtheim, Literature, 3:201. 65 Similarly, Fox, Proverbs, 153; Delkurt, Ethische Einsichten, 41. 66 So, Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, vol. 1, ZBK (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), 64

77.

67

Cf. Papyrus Anastasi III 3.13: “A boy’s ear is upon his back, he harkens to his beater.” Translation from Nili Shupak, “The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Book of Proverbs in the Light of a Comparison of Biblical and Egyptian Wisdom Literature,” RB 94 (1987): 110. Further, Papyrus Lansing 11.1–2: “You beat my back; your teaching entered my ear.” Lichtheim, Literature, 2:172. 68 The Hebrew has a similar idea in the first line (though missing the “righteous” aspect), but the second line is different, forming instead an antithetical parallelism: the one abandoning reproof goes astray (‫תּוֹכ ַחת ַמ ְת ֶ ה‬ ַ ‫מוּסר וְ עוֹזֵ ב‬ ָ ‫שׁוֹמר‬ ֵ ‫)א ַֹרח לְ ַחיִּ ים‬.

160

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

That is, a “sin” need not be mentioned in order to be implied. This is precisely the point of Waltke, who responds directly to Whybray. Waltke emphasizes that the “strophe presupposes that the son has not kept his obligations [outlined in 3:1–10] and that the LORD has meted out punishment instead of blessing.”69 Waltke appeals to the corrective nature of reproof and suggests that it would make little sense for a child to be reproved for no wrongdoing at all.70 However, Waltke’s approach reads into the saying a logic that is neither expressed nor apparent. Following his analysis, the verses would function more as a warning, but warning is far from the concern here. The father is encouraging the son not to reject God’s discipline precisely because it is a sign of love and acceptance, and not primarily an indicator of the need for repentance. This is similar to what we find in the parallel in Deut 8:5. Though its context does command obedience to God’s laws (8:1, 6), Deut 8:5 treats affliction not as caused by some sin, but as instructional and probative, fostering the understanding that one does not live on bread alone.71 So too with Proverbs there is nothing in the immediate context that would suggest that the son had sinned or that he should expect retribution, but rather the author grounds the expectation of blessing with the caveat that the faithful person may nevertheless suffer. In view of all of this, it seems that despite the weaknesses in Whybray’s own argument as brought out by Waltke, Whybray seems nevertheless to be on the right track. The discourse does not warn of the dangers of not following the father’s instructions; rather, it exhorts the hearer to right action and a right attitude even when blessing does not follow righteous living. Thus, the author can essentially build upon the presupposition of Prov 13:24, that only a father who hates his son would not apply painful physical discipline, without necessarily implying that suffering must result from some wrongdoing, even if in day-to-day life education is essentially corrective. Certainly, other texts make use of the same idea and at the same time point to some sort of guilt on the part of the sufferer. Yet, what is of significant interest for our comparison between Prov 3:1–12 and Heb 12 is that neither passage accuses the hearer of any sort of wrongdoing, unlike Job, the Psalms of Solomon, and even Philo (on these see below). Rather, Hebrews, in quoting the full length of Prov 3:11–12 (while other texts use only half or part of the full saying), can, like Proverbs, call the hearer to submit to God and to recognize that pain stems from God’s love and acceptance by means of a common understanding 69

Waltke, Proverbs, 248–49. Waltke, Proverbs, 249. 71 See below. Fuhs also makes the comparison to Deut 8:5 and suggests that Proverbs likewise means to point to testing and learning to know God, as in Deut 8:1–6. Thus for him, Prov 3:11–12 does not concern punishment. Fuhs, Sprichwörter, 75–76; cf. Delkurt, Ethische Einsichten, 38–41. 70

161

Sayings in Context

of education and without necessarily indicating that such treatment by God results from sin. 3. Proverbs 4:20–27 Having examined the parallels of thought and language in Prov 3:1–12 with Hebrews, we turn finally to Prov 4:20–27. The allusion to Prov 4:26 in Heb 12:13 seems rather insignificant in Hebrews, since only the first half of 4:26 appears and it is spliced with an allusion to Isa 35:3. However, we find that similar correspondences in language from 3:1–10 also occur in the lecture of 4:20–27, primarily righteousness, but also peace and healing. These points of contact between Hebrews and the context of Proverbs suggest that the author of Hebrews was aware of more than just the quotation and allusion in isolation, and we will have to ask whether this context should affect our interpretation of Hebrews, particularly with reference to the possible moral quality of “straight paths” in Heb 12. Prov 4:26 MT % ֶ‫ַפּ לֵּ ס ַמ ְ גַּ ל ַרגְ ל‬ ‫ ִיכֹּנוּ‬%‫ל־דּ ָר ֶכי‬ ְ ‫וְ ָכ‬

Prov 4:26 LXX

Hebrews 12:13a

ὀρθὰς τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσὶν καὶ τὰς ὁδούς σου κατεύθυνε

καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑµῶν

In the lecture, the father exhorts the son to put away “a deceitful mouth” (v. 24) and to keep his eyes straight ahead, not turning to the right or left, but away from evil (vv. 25 and 27). Verse 26 describes this forward-looking orientation as a path that must be guarded. In the MT, the imperative, to make level, has the idea of creating a smooth surface, and this results in stability. 72 The LXX, however, contains two imperatives, to make straight, and to set right. Based on the context, we can take this as moral straightness. Different from the MT, righteousness and unrighteousness arise in 4:20–27 in the LXX. In verse 24, the MT says to put away devious speech or lips (‫)וּלְ זוּת ְשׂ ָפ ַתיִם‬, whereas the LXX uses unrighteous lips (ἄδικα χείλη). Again, in verse 25, the MT says to “let your gaze be straight in front of you”, but the LXX quite markedly says to let your eyes assent to righteousness (τὰ δὲ βλέφαρά σου νευέτω δίκαια).73 The LXX also expands on the MT translation of verse 27 and attempts to restate verse 27 with a more dualistic ethic and with a clearer role for God.74 Accordingly, 27a explains what is to the left and the right: God’s way to the

72

Fox interprets this leveling work as removing barriers to moral progress. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 188. 73 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 387. 74 Cf. Dick, “Ethics,” 21–28.

162

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

right and evil on the left.75 Also interesting for this study is the statement in 27b that God will make the paths straight and lead one’s ways in peace, which resonates with Heb 12:11, 14. Finally, as mentioned before, healing (cf. Heb 12:13) also arises in Proverbs 4:22, here as a result of keeping the father’s teachings, “for they are life to those who find them, and a healing (ἴασις) for all flesh.”76 Prov 4:27 MT

Prov 4:27 LXX

‫ ֵמ ָרע‬% ְ‫וּשׂמֹאול ָה ֵסר ַרגְ ל‬ ְ ‫ל־תּט־יָ ִמין‬ ֵ ‫ַא‬

µὴ ἐκκλίνῃς εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ µηδὲ εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά ἀπόστρεψον δὲ σὸν πόδα ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ κακῆς [a] ὁδοὺς γὰρ τὰς ἐκ δεξιῶν οἶδεν ὁ θεός διεστραµµέναι δέ εἰσιν αἱ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν [b] αὐτὸς δὲ ὀρθὰς ποιήσει τὰς τροχιάς σου τὰς δὲ πορείας σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ προάξει

The resonances in Prov 4:20–27 are thus largely similar to those found in Prov 3:1–10. However, the path motif receives closer attention in this context, depicting a straight path as the path of righteousness, while divergences constitute a turn to evil. This sounds familiar to the sort of dualism between righteous living and sin we found in Hebrews, and thus it raises the question of whether Hebrews’ own call in 12:13 to make straight paths for the feet also means to remain on the righteous path, a question we will seek to answer in detail in chapter 5.

II. Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12 Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12 Prov 3:11–12

Deut 8:5

Job 5:17

υἱέ µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

καὶ γνώσῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὡς εἴ τις παιδεύσαι ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ οὕτως κύριος ὁ θεός σου παιδεύσει σε

µακάριος δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὃν ἤλεγξεν ὁ κύριος νουθέτηµα δὲ παντοκράτορος µὴ ἀπαναίνου

‫ל־תּ ְמ ָאס‬ ִ ‫מוּסר ְיהוָ ה ְבּנִ י ַא‬ ַ ‫תוֹכ ְחתּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ל־תּקֹץ ְבּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ַא‬ /‫יוֹכ ַי‬ ִ ‫ִכּי ֶאת ֲא ֶשׁר ֶי ֱא ַהב ְיהוָ ה‬ ‫ת־בּן ִי ְר ֶצה‬ ֵ ‫וּכ ָאב ֶא‬ ְ

%‫וְ יָ ַד ְ ָתּ ִ ם־לְ ָב ֶב‬ ‫ת־בּנוֹ‬ ְ ‫ִכּי ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ְי ַי ֵסּר ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ָ‫ ְמ ַי ְסּ ֶרךּ‬%‫הי‬9 ֶ ‫ְיהוָ ה ֱא‬

‫יוֹכ ֶחנּוּ‬ ִ ‫לוֹ; ִה נֵּ ה ַא ְשׁ ֵר י ֱאנוֹשׁ‬ ַ ‫ֱא‬ ‫ל־תּ ְמ ָאס‬ ִ ‫וּמוּסר ַשׁ ַדּ י ַא‬ ַ

75

This first addition in the LXX may be an attempt to correct the original verse 27, so that turning to the right would be good and turning to the left, evil. See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 388. 76

Gk.: ζωὴ γάρ ἐστιν τοῖς εὑρίσκουσιν αὐτὰς καὶ πάσῃ σαρκὶ ἴασις.

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

163

Having examined the points of contact between Hebrews and Prov 3–4, we look now at several parallels and usages of Prov 3:11–12. The goal here is not to investigate Jewish and early Christian approaches to suffering generally, but rather to investigate those instances that exhibit verbal and thematic parallels to Prov 3:11–12 or directly quote it. This investigation will offer us an outlook at the interpretive possibilities of Prov 3:11–12. We find two biblical parallels, Deut 8:5 and Job 5:17,77 and two Second Temple as well as two early Christian usages of Prov 3:11–12. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no witness to Prov 3:11–12, but they do contain a parallel to Deut 8:5. 1. Biblical and Second Temple Parallels a) Deuteronomy 8:5 Our first parallel is Deut 8:5: “And you shall know in your heart, that as any man should discipline his son, so will the Lord your God discipline you” (LXX).78 This is an interesting parallel because it associates affliction79 with 77 The dating of these three books and their literary strata remains difficult to pinpoint. In general however, Prov 1–9 is viewed by most scholars as later than the so-called sentence literature of the book and may be dated anywhere from the late Persian period, e.g. 450 BCE, up to the 2nd century BCE. As to Job, besides the basic agreement that the Elihu segment (32–37) was added later, we can say the book developed likely between the 5th and 2nd centuries BCE, perhaps with beginnings in pre-exilic times. More controversial is Deuteronomy, but it is typically dated either to the late Assyrian period (7th century BCE) or the Exile (6th century BCE), with further deuteronomistic redaction occurring either in the exilic or early post-exilic period. Braulik (167) implies an exilic or early post-exilic dating of Deut 8. This leaves open the possibility thoroughly argued by Weinfeld that Deuteronomy was influenced by Proverbs and the wisdom literature. Prov 3:11–12 counts among his evidence for the thesis. However, whether any of the three biblical texts influenced another lies beyond the scope of our question concerning the interpretive possibilities open to the author of Hebrews. See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 48–49; Müller, Proverbien 1– 9, 311–12; David J.A. Clines, Job 1–20, WBC 17 (Dallas: Word, 1989), lvii; Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Das Buch Ijob,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 9th ed., ed. Christian Frevel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 427; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 16–17; idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 296–97, 303, 316–17, 363; Georg Braulik, “Das Buch Deuteronomium,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 9th ed., ed. Christian Frevel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 163–68; Karin Finsterbusch, Deuteronomium: Eine Einführung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 17–38; Konrad Schmid, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 104–5, 138–39, 152–53, 180–83. 78 The phrase, ὡς εἴ τις παιδεύσαι ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ οὕτως κύριος ὁ θεός σου παιδεύσει σε, is difficult. The future in Greek here raises the question of whether this is a prediction of some sort of chastisement because of a failure to keep God’s ways as commanded in the following verse. Yet, the context, drawing heavily on the pain of the wilderness years (which is expressed quite vividly by the Greek κακόω), creates a point of com-

164

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

the chastening of a father to the end of obeying God’s commands, without necessitating the thought that the afflictions arose due to sin. Even though according to Num 14 the wilderness wanderings ultimately functioned to punish those who failed to enter at Kadesh-Barnea, here Deuteronomy explains the time in the wilderness as (1) testing whether the people would obey God, and (2) as a way of making them know that they live not on bread alone but by everything coming out of the mouth of God (8:2–3; cf. 8:16).80 This probative and educational παιδεία functions with a view toward the good (8:16), for the obedience of the people to God’s commands. The call to obey God is repeated twice in the immediate context, in verses 1 and 6. Ultimately, the chapter shows concern that when the people enter the land with its fruitfulness and prosperity, they might forget God and cease to keep his commands in their comfort (8:7–20). Thus, previous suffering as fatherly παιδεία works for the people’s good, teaching dependence on God81 and prompting Israel “to remain obedient to its divine Instructor.”82 Some have treated the discipline of God in this verse as implying sin.83 On the one hand, one might reasonably understand the language of Deut 8:5 to indicate some wrongdoing and thus the resulting suffering, as the Hebrew ‫יסר‬ can indicate chastisement or rebuke. However, it can also refer to instruction or teaching.84 The LXX’s παιδεύω is similarly ambiguous in this regard, since

parison between God’s dealing with Israel in the wilderness and the painful παιδεία of a father. This suggests the future functions gnomically, describing what God always does at any time. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 571. 79 LXX: κακόω (8:2, 3, 16; cf. 26:6). In each of these verses κακόω translates the Piel of ‫ ענה‬II. 80 Cf. Robert L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies, AARSR 23 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 15–16. 81 Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 907. 82 Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (London: SCM, 1966), 72. Cf. S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 106, 108; Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher Mose’s, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1862), 432. 83 Sanders, Suffering, 83, for example, illustrates Deut 8:5 with reference to Deut 4:30, where Moses speaks of repentance after the people are destroyed and cast from the land in punishment for transgressing God’s commands. For him any suffering of the nation should lead to repentance. Cf. R.D. Branson, “‫ ָי ַסר‬,” TDOT 6:130, 133. Bertram (“παιδεύω,” TDNT 5:607 n. 61) emphasizes the “non-punitive” learning of the wilderness generation, but still sees correction or chastisement present. Cf. Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Paedagogia Dei als theologischer Geschichtsbegriff,” EvT 8 (1949): 520–21. 84 For instruction see e.g., Deut 4:36; Prov 31:1; Ps 16:7; Isa 28:26. For chastise or rebuke, see e.g., Lev 26:18, 23, 28; Deut 21:18; 22:18; 1 Kgs 12:11, 14; Ps 6:2. Not every case is clearly one or the other. Cf. Branson, TDOT 6:129–31; HALOT, s.v. “‫יסר‬.”

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

165

it does not necessarily refer to correction.85 The learning indicated in 8:3 could also support an interpretation of both the Greek and Hebrew more in the direction of instruction, but nevertheless, the association with painful affliction would imply the type of physical correction that could come with chastisement or reproof. On the other hand, Deut 8 itself appears to distinguish between the wilderness experience as formative, which makes sense of the educational analogy, and the punishment of death that comes upon those who fail to obey God’s laws. The thrust of the chapter is that Israel should not forget God in their comfort: “And it will be that, if in forgetfulness you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify to you today, that you will die in destruction” (8:19 LXX). Deut 11:2 also portrays the wilderness period as a time of παιδεία (cf. 32:10) and not a time of punishment, a time where God worked mighty acts for the people (including the destruction, not the παιδεία, of sinners like Dathan and Abiram [11:6]). Here too such acts form a basis for obeying God’s commands (11:1, 8). Thus, despite the pain involved in divine discipline in Deut 8:2–5, the short passage does not specifically point to some wrongdoing, but rather the harsh experience is primarily understood in terms of the beneficial (leading to future obedience), yet painful experience of fatherly education. The importance of this parallel lies in the fact that it demonstrates that the image of fatherly education as painful can be employed to make a point as to the beneficence of such pain, even for the cause of ultimate obedience, without explicitly tying such suffering to some sin on the part of the proverbial child. So, even if wrongdoing may be implied by the language of Deut 8:5, that certainly is not the focus; the focus lies rather on the positive understanding of affliction as fatherly education. Commentary treatments, in fact, often do not even touch on the question of whether sin led to such discipline. Rather, they focus, rightly, on the beneficial effects of painful parental discipline, though some describe this in terms of punishment, chastisement, or correction.86 For Allen and Croy, however, Deut 8:2–5 exemplifies a non-punitive approach to suffering, which they further characterize more specifically as positive, formative suffering.87 According to Allen, such formative discipline 85

Even in Deuteronomy παιδεύω can refer simply to instruction (4:36; cf. 32:10). Cf. Prov 1:2, 7, 8; 4:1, 13. Deuteronomy does also employ παιδεύω for fatherly correction of concrete wrongdoing (21:18) and as human punishment of a lawbreaker (22:18). 86 See Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 186; Driver, Deuteronomy, 108; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996), 93; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 390, 396. 87 Allen, Deuteronomy, 81, 81 n. 212; Croy, Endurance, 94–95; cf. also Thiessen, “Wilderness Period,” 369–70.

166

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

contributes to change or improvement in behavior. Construing it as formative in this way is more helpful than construing it as non-punitive, since formation implies that something is lacking in the sufferer and that the sufferer must learn something, in this case obedience. Certainly, in a sense, the passage is non-punitive in that the suffering does not arise from sin, but the non-punitive label obscures the fact that it ultimately has to do with behavior. We have to be careful not to associate formative and non-punitive suffering so closely as to miss the fact that in education the function of corporal punishment is in fact to form the student, even when the student has committed a “sin”. It functions positively in either case! Thus, the issues of whether suffering is formative or punitive are actually two different questions, though both are important to ask. Croy and Allen appear rather to lump formative together with non-punitive, but this obscures rather than clarifies.88 Ultimately, Allen’s argument that Deut 8:5 and its context form the basis of Hebrews’ exposition of Prov 3:11–12 is meritorious considering the positive benefits of παιδεία laid out in the passage. But Allen’s suggestion fails to convince on three counts. First and foremost, the author actually quotes from Prov 3. Second, the context of Prov 3–4 appears well suited to the author’s concerns in Hebrews, as we have already begun to see. And third, Prov 3:11– 12 does not necessarily point to punitive suffering any more than does Deut 8:5, especially when Prov 3:11–12 is read as part of 3:1–10. b) Job 5:17 The next biblical parallel is Job 5:17: “But blessed is the man whom the Lord has reproved, and do not reject the admonition of the almighty” (LXX). This parallel occurs in the speech of Eliphaz, who begins his approach to Job’s problems with the presupposition that the innocent do not perish (4:7). In other words, he begins from the stance that an early death (cf. 5:26) is a sign of an individual’s sinfulness. As stringent as this sounds, Eliphaz means it as some comfort to Job, who in Eliphaz’s view, can have confidence in his integrity and fear of God (4:6).89 Additionally, Eliphaz tells of the revelation he received that man, by his very nature, cannot be pure or righteous before God (4:17–18; 15:14–16), and so trouble comes not from the earth, but is brought out by man himself; it is an inevitable result of imperfect humanity (5:6–7).90 88

Cf. Lindström, Suffering, 138, who states, “pedagogy is understood, even when it has robust features, as something basically desirable. Whoever is an object of an action with pedagogical effect, according to the ideal picture of the wise, should react positively to such an activity.” 89 See particularly Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 125–26, cf. 118–23. 90 Not all agree on this interpretation of 5:7a, however. The MT reads “man is born to trouble”, with the passive ‫יוּלָּ ד‬. The LXX also has the passive γεννᾶται. A significant num-

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

167

With 5:17 a new dimension enters the discussion. Now Eliphaz includes in his interpretation of suffering the deliberate, beneficent action of the almighty. The man who is reproved is blessed and should not reject God’s reproof. The remainder of the chapter insinuates that God will deliver and heal the one who accepts his reproof, and give peace and long life to the sufferer (5:18–26).91 Unlike Deuteronomy and Proverbs, the Job verse does not compare God to a father, but the positive sentiment of the statement remains the same. Scholars have often understood Eliphaz’s speech in terms of the later speech of Elihu,92 who explicates the need for repentance in light of God’s chastisements (33:14–30). For Elihu, God makes a man hear by sending physical chastisements and dreams (33:15), so that the man may be turned away from death (33:30). Eliphaz, however, never explicitly calls for Job’s repentance; his focus lies on accepting his inevitable human circumstance. Eliphaz’s talk of reproof may imply that repentance is necessary, but he does not actually express the thought explicitly. His main point is rather that Job should humbly turn to God (cf. 5:8) and accept his plight as a blessing, while the inevitability of reproof is probably to be understood as a result of human fallibility. It is important to see that even though Eliphaz propounds a view of suffering related to human imperfection, he nevertheless recognizes that it functions as a positive work of God (cf. 5:18–27). Thus, whatever the cause of God’s reproof, it should be accepted and viewed as ultimately good. Of

ber of commentators suggest reading the verb as a hiphil, ‫יוֹלד‬, ִ leading to the rendering, “man begets trouble” (cf. Isa 59:4). This interpretation is advantageous as it coheres with Eliphaz’s sentiments of the erring ways of man and his resulting death (4:17–21) and absolves the apparent redundancy between 5:6 and 5:7. In any case, Gordis notes the MT could still indicate something like, “‘man is born (to produce) evil’” and Driver rightly suggests that “if pressed, Eliphaz would have said that man did not merely fall into misfortune, but brought misfortune upon himself by following the impulses of his evil nature” on the basis of 4:17–21. Ultimately, Eliphaz’s main point is that man’s condition is inevitable and the wise man accepts it rightly (5:1–5, 17). See, Robert Gordis, The Book of Job (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 54–55; S.R. Driver and G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Job, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 48–52; Clines, Job 1–20, 141–42; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 116, 118–19. Compare, Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar, 2:64–65; Marvin Pope, Job, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 42; Habel, Job, 131–32; Friedrich Horst, Hiob, BKAT 16.1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 80– 81. 91 Cf. Clines, Job 1–20, 148; cf. Von Rad, Weisheit, 274. 92 E.g., Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 152; Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Geschichte als Erziehung: Biblisch-theologische Perspektiven” in Probleme Biblischer Theologie, ed. Hans Walter Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 268; Von Rad, Weisheit, 258–60; Toy, Proverbs, 65.

168

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

course, as consolatory as this may seem in Eliphaz’s view, it can be of little comfort to Job, who knows himself to be innocent. c) Philo, Cong. 177 Prov 3:11–12

Philo, Cong. 177

υἱέ µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

παιδείας θεοῦ, υἱέ, µὴ ὀλιγώρει, καὶ µὴ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος ἐλέγχει, µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

In De congressu eruditionis gratia, Philo offers an extended allegory of Genesis 16:1–6, which equates Sarai with virtue or wisdom and Hagar with lower instruction such as grammar, music, and rhetoric (Cong. 11–19).93 Abraham’s intercourse with Hagar shows, according to Philo, that one must first engage in lower instruction before being prepared for philosophy. However, one must not neglect the “the mistress to whom the lordship really belongs, to whom is due the firm foundation of their studies” (151).94 This statement leads to the final section of the treatise where Philo discusses admonition and chastisement, and where he quotes Prov 3:11–12, introducing it as the words of Solomon. Abraham is said to have put Hagar into the hands of Sarai, and Sarai “afflicted her.” Philo then proceeds to explain the value of affliction as admonition and correction (158). As Philo begins, he notes the usefulness of a sharp goad for those used to security and rest. In fact, he compares them to untamable horses who prove difficult to control even with the whip (158). The effect of such repose is ultimately moral. Laziness leads to great evil, impiety, and ungodliness. And thus affliction is of the perfect good (159–60). To illustrate these points, Philo turns to the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings. Speaking of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs, he argues that the greatest blessings are attained by struggle (ἄθλησις) and labor (161–62). Struggle leads to perfection, as the individual learns to constrain the appetite and unlearn (ἀποµανθάνω) the indulgence of the passions (162). Moreover, the wilderness trials for Philo are a test that reveals who will fall in weakness or become 93

All of this proceeds from the idea that basic schooling, or encyclia, served to prepare a student for philosophy, of which ethics is the most important part for Philo (Mut. 73; Agr. 12–16). Mendelson finds seven encyclical studies mentioned by Philo throughout his writings: grammar, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy. See Mendelson, Secular Education, 1–24; the introduction to De congressu in Philo, trans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, 10 vols., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962), 4:452; F.H. Colson, “Philo on Education,” JTS 18 (1917): 151–62; Schenck, A Brief Guide, 113; Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” 838 n. 98, 886–88. 94 All the following translations of Philo are from Colson and Whitaker, LCL.

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

169

tired and return to the enjoyment of the passions in Egypt (παλινδροµεῖν εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν τοῦ πάθους; 164). Those who love what is honorable (φιλία τοῦ καλοῦ), however, pass through the contest of life with strength and endurance (165–66). Affliction, then, should not be rejected, but be understood as an advantage, “for the soul that is admonished is fed by the lessons of instruction’s (παιδεία) doctrine” (167). Philo eventually turns to Deut 8:2–3. He points out that God tested and afflicted the wilderness generation with famine, but he also fed them with manna. This affliction was not – allegorically speaking, so as to keep God from appearing unjust – a lack of food, but a lack of pleasure and everything associated with vice and the passions. In fact, that God fed the people with manna shows that he provided food for their benefit. Thus, their affliction was profitable; indeed, Philo then says of God that he is “the author of thriving and prosperity and secure and ordered living” (173).95 After that, Philo brings up the example of Esau. Citing Gen 27:40, Philo notes that Isaac prayed for the affliction of his son Esau, that he might be given over to his brother Jacob for profitable affliction. Isaac judged “it most profitable for him who chooses war instead of peace, who by reason of his inward tumult and rebellion is armed as it were with the weapons of war, that he should become a subject and a slave and obey all the orders that the lover of self-control may impose” (176). In this context of the father-son relationship Philo quotes Prov 3:11–12. Not unlike Hebrews, Philo draws out the positive, father-son dimension from the quotation and the experience of reproof. He states: “So we see that reproaching and admonition are counted so excellent a thing, that they turn our acknowledgement of God into kinship with Him” (177).96 In light of our 95 In Mos. 1.196–205, Philo describes the provision of manna in the midst of hunger as an instance of God teaching (παιδεύω) the people to endure patiently and to expect coming blessings even when things are not going their way (1.199). 96 For Spicq, this is evidence of Philo’s influence on the author of Hebrews. Williamson, however, has argued the similarities are not so remarkable; nothing suggests to him that the author of Hebrews employed the proverb because of an encounter with Philo. (Additionally, their texts are slightly different.) Our investigation is showing that the theme of beneficial fatherly/divine discipline is common and so it is not surprising for both authors to have drawn upon this text. Besides, Prov 3:11–12 brings out more than any other biblical parallel the fatherly love and acceptance involved in suffering discipline, so the saying speaks for itself; the author of Hebrews would not have needed Philo’s influence. Whether Philo actually did influence Hebrews in regard to this passage is another, probably insolvable, question altogether. See Spicq, Hébreux, 1:56; Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 574–75. Sowers, Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews, surprisingly does not address the use of Prov 3:11–12 by the two authors. On the larger topics of discussion on the relationship between Philo and Hebrews, particularly on eschatology and Platonism, see the discussions of Lincoln D. Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, SNTSMS 65 (Cambridge: Cambridge

170

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

survey of corporal punishment in the ancient world, this thought makes much sense. It presumes that fathers have the good in mind for their children when they afflict them or reprove them, and such pain or struggle serves as evidence of fatherly affection. In the allegory Philo ultimately concerns himself with the benefits of affliction as discipline (παιδεία), admonishment, and chastisement.97 At the end of 157, he mentions affliction is good and profitable as a correction of error. He is concerned, moreover, that any affliction be rooted in virtue and wisdom (179). In fact, Philo distinguishes between two types of affliction: “When it is the work of justice (δικαιοσύνης) and the power of the law (νοµοθετικῆς) which chastens by reproof I am filled with admiration. When it is the work of folly and vice and therefore harmful, I turn away from it and call it by the evil names that are its due” (179). Transgression of what is lawful and just receives its due chastisement by reproof, but when affliction serves no positive function it is evil. Croy concludes that suffering in this passage from Philo is probative and formative, not punitive.98 However, it is difficult to miss that affliction for Philo in this passage functions to correct tendencies toward laziness, which result in impiety, and in the case of Esau, to correct rebelliousness. Later in his book, Croy acknowledges that the case of Esau could be educative or punitive (212).99 Perhaps the way Philo depicts the moral development of the person under affliction contributes to the confusion. Different from the Psalms of Solomon, for example, Philo never talks about sin or the need for repentance or purity. This confusion further calls the punitive/non-punitive distinction into question, especially since even educative discipline includes an element of correction, though Croy generally avoids linking correction with non-punitive suffering. For Philo affliction from God must ultimately function to move the sufferer toward virtue and away from the passions and impiety. Similar to other writers of antiquity, Philo compares the need for affliction with the difficulty University Press, 1990), 7–42, who denies a Philonic background to Hebrews, and Kenneth Schenck, “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study after Thirty Years,” SPhiloA 14 (2002): 112–35, who takes a more moderate approach. See further Stefan Noordgaard Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews, WUNT II/269 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Svendsen argues Hebrews was influenced by Philonic allegorical exegesis, but applied it within an apocalyptic worldview. Unfortunately Svendsen does not compare Philo and Hebrews’ usages of Prov 3:11–12, though he does discuss Heb 12:1–17. 97 Williamson, Philo, 573. Commenting on God’s affliction of the people in the wilderness in Deut 8:2–3, Philo writes, τὸ µὲν ‘ἐκάκωσε’ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ ἐπαίδευσε καὶ ἐνουθέτησε καὶ ἐσωφρόνισε (172). 98 Croy, Endurance, 114. 99 Croy, Endurance, 212.

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

171

of taming a wild animal. In this case, Philo considers the individual as prone to laziness and thus to evil. A contest of affliction and toil therefore becomes a necessary aspect of an ultimately educational process of παιδεία.100 Yet again we find that the process of learning virtue is filled with pain, but the pain functions positively and compares to the relationship between father and son. d) Psalms of Solomon 3:4 Prov 3:11

Pss. Sol. 3:4

υἱέ µὴ ὀλιγώρει παιδείας κυρίου µηδὲ ἐκλύου ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλεγχόµενος

οὐκ ὀλιγωρήσει δίκαιος παιδευόµενος ὑπὸ κυρίου ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἔναντι κυρίου

Another use of Prov 3:11–12 in Second Temple literature occurs in the Psalms of Solomon. Though the allusion is brief, the collection of eighteen psalms displays fascinating points of comparison with Hebrews on the treatment of discipline and righteousness. The collection represents responses of pious Jews to the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 BCE.101 In light of this catastrophe, the Jews behind the collection sought to explain why they suffered at the hands of Gentiles despite their own righteousness.102 The concept of discipline, which is pervasive throughout the collection, seeks to account for the suffering of this group of Jews who considered themselves righteous,103 albeit sinful to a degree.104 This group interpreted their suffering 100

Thiessen, “Wilderness Period,” 371–72, focuses particularly on the athletic training and testing of the passage, but misses the recurring themes of correction of bad behavior (or at least bad tendencies) unto good behavior. 101 Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 1; Kenneth Atkinson, “Theodicy in the Psalms of Solomon,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 553; Stefan Schreiber, “Can Wisdom be Prayer? Form and Function of the Psalms of Solomon,” in Literature or Liturgy? Early Christian Hymns and Prayers in their Literary and Liturgical Context in Antiquity, ed. Clemens Leonard and Hermut Löhr, WUNT II/363 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 89. 102 For more on the social and historical background of the group, see Kenneth Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting (Leiden: Brill, 2004), and compare the modifications of Stefan Schreiber, “Can Wisdom be Prayer?,” 90–104. 103 Atkinson, “Theodicy,” 562. 104 Mikael Winninge uses the term “the sinfully righteous” to refer to the community behind the collection. See Mikael Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters, ConBNT 26 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 131.

172

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

as God’s discipline, which had several functions: 1) to make the person conscious of unintentional sin; 2) to atone for sin; 3) to prevent further sin; and 4) as a concomitant result, to prove who were truly righteous and still in the covenant relationship with God.105 The allusion to Proverbs appears in Pss. Sol. 3:4. The allusion only touches the first part of Prov 3:11, but the verbal similarities in Greek, despite the likelihood that the work was originally written in Hebrew,106 make the reference unmistakable. The author writes: “The righteous does not lightly esteem discipline from the Lord; his desire is (to be) always in the Lord’s presence.”107 The author goes on to say that sin does not visit the house of the righteous because the righteous atone for sins of ignorance by fasting and humility (3:6–8). In fact, their own unintentional sin proves that the Lord is just in his discipline (3:5). Sinners, on the other hand, build sin upon sin and will experience destruction forever (3:10–11). The difference between sinners and righteous, though, is that the righteous seek to remove their unintentional sins (3:7).108 Pss. Sol. 13 brings this idea out further: “the discipline of the righteous (for things done) in ignorance is not the same as the destruction of sinners” (13:7); in fact, God has mercy on the righteous and wipes their mistakes away with discipline (13:10, 12). As mentioned above, several functions or results of discipline appear in the Psalms of Solomon. First, discipline points out to the individual (or household; 9:5) unintentional sin.109 Ps. Sol. 13:7 introduces a distinction between the discipline of the “righteous in ignorance” and the destruction of sinners (ὅτι οὐχ ὁµοία ἡ παιδεία τῶν δικαίων ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ καὶ ἡ καταστροφὴ τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν). It has also already become evident in 3:5 that God’s discipline is proven just on account of the sin of the righteous person. The righteous then always searches his house, to remove unrighteousness in his trespass (ἐξᾶραι ἀδικίαν ἐν παραπτώµατι αὐτου; 3:7), and this should “divert the perceptive person from unintentional sins” (18:4).110 Second, discipline atones for sins. According to 13:10, the Lord will “wipe away their mistakes with discipline” 105 Atkinson only lists two functions, atonement and prevention of future sin, but further nuance describes the idea more clearly. Atkinson, “Theodicy,” 563. 106 The only surviving manuscripts are in Greek and Syriac, but Semitisms in the Greek translation suggest a Hebrew original. See Robert B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 640. 107 Translations of the Psalms of Solomon are from Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon”; the Greek text is from Wright, A Critical Edition. 108 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 39. 109 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 139–40. 110 Atkinson translates the phrase ἀπὸ ἀµαθίας ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ in 18:4 as “from ignorant stupidity,” but the idea of sins of ignorance certainly applies. Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 206.

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

173

(13:10). Moreover, in 10:1 the man “whom the Lord remembers with rebuking” is happy because the Lord “protects [the man] from the evil way with a whip (that he may) be cleansed from sin that it may not increase.” Further, “the one who prepares (his) back for the whip 111 shall be purified, for the Lord is good to those who endure discipline” (10:2). These verses offer a different approach to atonement than in 3:8, where fasting and humility provide atonement.112 Third, as the verses just cited show, discipline should prevent future sins. Not only are they atoned for, but unintentional sins are brought to the fore so that they might not be committed again (18:4). Again, 10:1 shows that God’s whip cleanses from sin that it might not increase. The fourth function of discipline is more of a concomitant result rather than a foundational purpose for discipline. Discipline demonstrates who truly loves the Lord. As mentioned in 14:1, “the Lord is faithful to those who truly love him, to those who endure his discipline.” Those who endure the test of discipline receive mercy from the Lord (16:14–15). Furthermore, as with other traditions examined so far, God’s discipline is like fatherly discipline of a son: “For he will admonish the righteous as a beloved son and his discipline [παιδεία] is as for a firstborn” (13:9). Discipline is reserved for a special group, the group that remains devout and committed to the Lord’s commandments and who endure discipline faithfully (14:1–5; 16:14–15). The Psalms display some nuance on this point, however. Whereas suffering is different for the righteous than for sinners, the Psalms, as Wright points out, never consider discipline a sign of election.113 Rather, in demonstrating who truly loves the Lord, discipline proves who it is that remains in the covenant,114 for some Jews (or sons of the covenant; 17:15) have become lawless and have abandoned the covenant relationship with God by surpassing the Gentile invaders in the measure of their sin (17:15–18).115 One might even consider this type of discipline as probative, as suggested in 16:14–15. There, the Lord tests the righteous to see if he will endure. If he does, then he receives mercy. So, as a final result, discipline shows not who is elect, but who has remained faithful to the covenant.116 Discipline, then, contributes to the

111 Whipping appears also in 7:9, and the rod in 18:7. Pss. Sol. 16:4 evokes the image of the goading of a horse, which keeps the individual awake and aware, that he may keep from evil (16:1–5). 112 However, Atkinson sees fasting, humility, and discipline all working to atone for sin. Atkinson, “Theodicy,” 574. 113 Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” 644. 114 Atkinson, “Theodicy,” 572. 115 Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 125–27. 116 For more on the covenant in the Psalms of Solomon, see Atkinson, “Theodicy,” 554– 62.

174

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

maintenance of righteousness (cf. 16:11), and thereby maintenance of covenantal status (10:4).117 Yet there is a final outcome for the righteous in the Psalms of Solomon that should be mentioned: eternal life. According to the Psalms, “those who fear the Lord shall rise up to eternal life” (3:12). Now, this result may not be the direct outcome of discipline itself, but it is the final result for those who have proven themselves righteous through discipline and who have proven God just by accepting God’s discipline for their own sins. The Psalms regularly compare the ends for the righteous and the sinners. For example, “the life of the righteous (goes on) forever, but sinners shall be taken away to destruction” (13:11). Again, the sinners’ “inheritance is Hades, and darkness and destruction […]. But the devout of the Lord will inherit life in happiness” (14:9–10; cf. 2:31–36; 4:23–25; 15:12–13).118 In the Psalms of Solomon discipline undoubtedly has to do with sin. It makes the righteous person aware of his own sin, it atones for sin, it prevents future sin, and it ultimately demonstrates who the righteous really are. In the case of this last result of discipline, the cause of suffering is sin, but if the suffering is accepted as discipline, the suffering can be probative to show who is faithful to the covenant. Finally, the preceding analysis has shown that those who prove truly righteous will ultimately inherit eternal life, while sinners will experience eternal destruction. e) The Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q504 1–2 recto III, 5b-7a119

Deut 8:5 MT %‫וְ יָ ַד ְ ָתּ ִ ם־לְ ָב ֶב‬ ‫ת־בּנוֹ‬ ְ ‫ִכּי ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ְי ַי ֵסּר ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ָ‫ ְמ ַי ְסּ ֶרךּ‬%‫הי‬9 ֶ ‫ְיהוָ ה ֱא‬

‫כיא קרתה ]לי[שראל בני בכורי‬ ‫ותיסרנו כיסר איש את בנו‬

Though no text among the Dead Sea Scrolls draws on Prov 3:11–12, an allusion to Deut 8:5 is found in 4Q504 1–2 recto III.120 Like Deut 8:5, the text twice uses ‫ יסר‬in comparing God to a father who chastens his son. Here, the context makes clear that ‫ יסר‬should be understood as chastise rather than as instruct, since it refers to God pouring out his anger and wrath in the form of 117

Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous, 139. Of course, eternal life is depicted as inheritance in Hebrews as well (1:14; 6:12; 9:15; 11:8; cf. 12:17). 119 For the text, see Maurice Baillet, Qumrȃn Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520), DJD VII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 141. 120 Baillet dates the text to around 150 BCE. Additionally, 4Q504 VI, 15 appears to contain the same parallel, but the text is fragmentary, containing only ‫כיסר איש‬, to which the editor has added ‫ את בנו‬for the subsequent lacuna. See Baillet, Qumrȃn Grotte 4.III, 137, 158. 118

175

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

various calamities (lines 8–11). Nevertheless, the passage maintains a positive tone as the writer emphasizes Israel’s unique status among the nations (lines 4–5). Israel is “my son, my firstborn.” Thus, the chastisement Israel has received reflects its special status as the firstborn of God: “For you have chosen us [to be your people out of all] the earth; therefore you have poured out your anger on us” (lines 9b-10).121 Different from Deut 8, the context leaves little doubt that such chastisement has resulted from sins (cf. V, 15–21). In this regard, the text compares more closely with the view of discipline developed in the Psalms of Solomon. In any case, we find that chastisement is understood as an inevitable aspect of sonship. 2. Early Christian Parallels: Rev 3:19 & 1 Clem. 56.4 Prov 3:12

Rev 3:19

1 Clem. 56.4

ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω ζήλευε οὖν καὶ µετανόησον

ὃν γὰρ ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει µαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν παραδέχεται

In early Christian literature outside of Hebrews, only one other quotation and one likely allusion to Prov 3:12 occur. First, in the letter to the church at Laodicea, Rev 3:19 alludes to Prov 3:12: “All those whom I love I reprove and discipline, so be earnest and repent.” The allusion here is interesting in that, as in 1 Clem. 56.4 below, it does not deal with suffering but rather with verbal reproof. Jesus’ message to the church at Laodicea concerns the church’s tepidity; they are neither hot nor cold in their works (οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα ὅτι οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός; 3:15–16) and have apparently become complacent in their good fortune (3:17).122 Yet, their riches are false and 121

Heb.: […] ‫כיא אותנו בחרתה לכה ]לעם מכול [הארץ עלכן שפכתה אלינו את חמתכה‬. Cf. the discussion in Croy, Endurance, 122. 122 It is not completely clear what hot and cold should mean here. Commonly it is thought that the reference is to the lukewarm water supply in Laodicea compared to the cold water available in nearby Colossae and the hot springs of Hierapolis. While hot or cold water is useful, lukewarm water is not, and this would suggest the Laodicean Christians were failing to produce useful Christian works (cf. Heb 6:7–12, where the author also calls for earnestness along with good works, against a tendency toward complacency!). Bousset equates coldness with complete apostasy (“völliger Abfall”), and suggests it is better to be completely cold and truthful about where one stands than to be “ein laues lügnerisches Scheinwesen.” Bousset then interprets the spitting out as an image of the fate of the church in judgment. Yet one then wonders about the special focus on being lukewarm, since the cold would also be spit out. Aune suggests the language of hot and cold relates to the imagery of the wisdom literature, whereby hot refers to someone without self-control, while cold refers to someone who is restrained (Prov 15:18; 17:27). He goes on to suggest that the charge that they are neither hot nor cold indicates vacillation, being

176

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

dangerous insofar as riches are associated with Babylon, which will be judged (18:1–10), and thus the letter calls the congregation to recognize their actual nakedness and poorness and take up true riches (3:17–18; cf. 17:16).123 As always with the citations of Prov 3:12, Rev 3:19 portrays the rebuke from Jesus as positive; he rebukes those whom he loves. Ultimately, according to 3:21, the one who overcomes will sit with Jesus on his throne, instead of being vomited out of his mouth (3:16). Second, 1 Clem. 56.4 quotes Prov 3:12 as part of a rather lengthy mixed quotation, including quotations of Ps 117:18 LXX,124 Ps 14:5 LXX, and Job 5:17–26. The quotation of Prov 3:12 reads in the same form as in Hebrews. For Clement, the string of quotations supports the need to rebuke fellow members of the community involved in sin and schism (56.1; cf. 1–3; 54). Thus, appeal to these passages on God’s discipline does not, as in their original literary contexts, have to do with understanding and coping with the nature of suffering, but rather they are used to justify church discipline. On the one hand, Clement appeals to the church to pray for those in sin and he portrays discipline, by means of the quotations, as God’s work (cf. 56.16). Yet on the other hand, Clement views this discipline as working through the church members: “Therefore, you who laid the foundation of the faction, subject yourselves to the presbyters and be disciplined unto repentance [παιδεύθητε εἰς µετάνοιαν]” (57.1).125 This leading to repentance is, in fact, a positive element of discipline. Clement praises it as “good and highly profitable” since it “joins us to the will of God” (56.2). “For since he is a good father, he disciplines us so that we may receive mercy through his holy discipline” (56.16).126 In sum, Prov 3:12 functions for Clement, together with the of two minds, and refers to the sayings in Matthew of the impossibility of serving two masters or that whoever is not for Jesus is against him (Matt 6:24; 12:30). Yet, the state of lukewarmness constitutes a third direction that does not fit with the bidirectional nature of Aune’s proposed parallels. David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52 (Dallas: Word, 1997), 257–58; Wilhelm Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 6th ed., KEKNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906), 231; Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC (London: Continuum, 2006), 76. 123 Boxall, Revelation, 76–78. 124 Notably, Ps 117:19–20 is quoted in 1 Clem. 48.2–3, and 117:6 is quoted in Heb 13:6. 125 The translations of 1 Clem. here are adapted from Ehrman, LCL. 126 Donald Hagner appeals to the use of Prov 3:12 as evidence for Clement’s dependence on Hebrews 12. While Hagner provides extensive evidence for his case as a whole, with regard to the use of Prov 3, it seems highly likely that Clement could have developed his view of discipline quite independently of Hebrews. The selection of OT texts is broader than in Hebrews, and the conclusions in 56.16 come directly from the quotations (protection for those disciplined: Job 5:17–26; God as father: Prov 3:12; mercy: Ps 140:5), while the exhortation in 56.2 to receive discipline could simply reflect the unquoted Prov 3:11. In light of our examination of Prov 3:11–12 and its other parallels, Clement’s presentation is not surprising, beyond the fact that Clement is not concerned with suffering as such. See

Parallels to Proverbs 3:11–12

177

other OT quotations, as providing a basis for church discipline, which is carried out by the church but ultimately comes from God. The benefit of this fatherly discipline is that it leads to repentance and mercy. 3. Summary of Findings Our findings may be summarized as follows. As to the biblical and Second Temple Temple parallels, each suggests the beneficial nature of divine discipline and each involves some moral component. Reference to a father-son relationship does not always occur. In Job it is missing, while the Psalms of Solomon include the comparison to the discipline of children, but not in the context of the parallel to Proverbs. The relation of sin to discipline is also diverse. In Deut 8 the sin of the people of the wilderness remains implicit at most, while the focus lies on learning and testing. Yet the use of Deut 8:5 in 4Q504 makes a connection with sin explicit, while chastisement also makes up a natural aspect of the father-son relationship. For Eliphaz in Job 5, man is naturally corrupt, but the main point is that man should accept his situation with the right attitude; Eliphaz does not elaborate on the need for turning from sin as Elihu does later. The Psalms of Solomon run more along the lines of Elihu’s speech in Job and of the approach to suffering found in many other places in the OT and Second Temple Judaism, whereby discipline benefits those God accepts by turning them away from (hidden) sins so that they do not receive the full measure of punishment later. For Philo, “sin” is not so much the concern as is noble character and learning to abandon lazy tendencies that lead to evil character. In the case of Esau, affliction corrects his rebellious, warlike, and foolish ways. The most significant finding for the concerns of this study is that Deut 8 and Job 5 appear, like Prov 3:11–12 within its own context, primarily to facilitate a right attitude toward (Job) or understanding of (Deut) God’s infliction of painful circumstances. Philo and the Psalms of Solomon, though both go into detail with the function of correction, also ultimately seek to explain the function of God’s corrective work as beneficial and just. And 4Q504 even considers God’s anger as an aspect of sonship. Broadly, all explain pain as functioning for the good of the sufferer, but with Deut 8 and Job 5 we see the focus on right acceptance of God’s ways without a stress on some need for repentance of sin. Though there are differences between these two instances and Prov 3:1–12, this finding not only coheres with our reading of Prov 3, but is also highly suggestive for understanding Heb 12.

Donald A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, NovTSup 34 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 189. For an overview of the issues regarding the relationship between 1 Clement and Hebrews, see Horacio E. Lona, Der erste Clemensbrief, KAV 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 52–55.

178

Chapter 4: Proverbs 3–4: Context and Comparison

The two early Christian uses of Prov 3:12 beyond Hebrews interpret in a different direction than the OT and Second Temple literature in that God’s, or Jesus’, loving rebuke comes in the form of spoken chastisement; it does not deal with an experience of pain or suffering. In both of these cases, too, the writers point out wrong behavior and explicitly call for repentance. In this regard these cases ring similar to the frequent appropriation of educational discipline in Jewish writings in order mercifully to highlight sin and keep the sufferer away from greater punishment. At this point it appears that the use of Prov 3:11–12 in Hebrews deals with suffering (cf. 12:1–4) and not internal church discipline. Certainly with respect to moral thought, Hebrews shows points of contact with both 1 Clement (peace and righteousness among the congregation; cf. 1 Clem. 3.2–4) and Revelation (complacency vs. earnestness in action), but as we shall see in the next chapter, in Hebrews Prov 3:11– 12 does not motivate right Christian living by depicting suffering as chastisement, even if the author chastises the audience elsewhere. Rather, the verses motivate by cultivating a positive understanding of the basis for and benefits of suffering. Ultimately, Heb 12 appears to utilize Prov 3:11–12 in a way that follows most closely the function of the lines in their original context in comparison to their function in any other biblical, Second Temple, or early Christian context.

Conclusions

III. Conclusions

Victor Pfitzner has called the author of Hebrews a teacher of wisdom. 127 Though Hebrews does not employ the term σοφία, the preceding analysis has demonstrated that Hebrews does indeed evince familiarity and dependence on wisdom traditions, and not just in that he both quotes and alludes to Proverbs.128 These parallels suggest that the author of Hebrews had more in view when referring to Proverbs 3:11–12 and 4:26. We have noted that the moral language of the context resonates with Hebrews, as does Proverbs’ predicted results of right living, namely peace, life, and healing, even if Hebrews places these results in the eschatological future instead of in the present life. We began this chapter on Proverbs with two challenges in mind: the challenge of the supposed punitivity of Prov 3:11–12 and the challenge of the saying’s context. The first challenge falls aside in consideration of the nature of ancient education and corporal punishment. As concerns the Proverb itself, several scholars have assumed, and they have in fact focused on this point, that the mention of reproof in the saying necessitates the presumption of 127

Victor C. Pfitzner, Hebrews, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 27, 175–77. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 648, notes some evidence for familiarity with the context of Prov 3–4, but not to the degree demonstrated here. 128

Conclusions

179

some guilt on the part of the reproved. This assumption is quite natural, as not only in the twenty-first-century world but also in the ancient worlds (whether Greco-Roman or ancient Near Eastern), corporal punishment maintained a corrective, though constructive, function. Nevertheless, first, the literary context of Prov 3:1–12 supports a reading of 3:11–12 where the focus, and indeed the point, lies on accepting divinely ordained pain as an expression of God’s love and acceptance. The discourse suggests no warning to look out for unintentional sin, but rather reminds the youth to trust in God and not in human wisdom. The saying in its context thus encourages a right attitude toward God as one who, like a loving father, causes pain with a view toward ultimate good. The analogy need not imply guilt, just as the chastening from the divine father in Deut 8:5 implies no guilt on the part of the sufferer, while in both cases some type of moral development may be involved. Second, our study of Greco-Roman education, not unlike the wisdom literature, shows that corporal punishment could hardly be separated from education itself. Learning of all types involved physical pain, not just in military or athletic exercises, but also in the classroom or the apprentice’s workshop. Students experienced the intense pains of blows even for “offenses” that may appear to us as amoral, and yet even these punishments were viewed as fostering virtue in the beaten. To speak of punitive versus non-punitive παιδεία as it relates to the education of children, then, introduces a false dichotomy. As to the second challenge, the observations just noted suggest that the presumed “non-contextual” use of Prov 3:11–12 in Hebrews does not square with the evidence. The idea that Hebrews does not regard the literary context of Proverbs has run its course as an unsubstantiated assumption. We have shown that the language of Heb 12:5–14 is influenced by the context of Prov 3–4 in more ways than one, and even looser, thematic parallels with the moral thought of Hebrews as a whole can be demonstrated. These points of contact satisfyingly answer the question of why the author chose this saying in this form from this context. Thus, whether we investigate Prov 3:11–12 from the perspective of a Hellenstic writer like the author of Hebrews, or from the perspective of the wisdom literature, we see that punitivity is not always the point. Correction could be assumed by all who engaged in the education of children. The point is that this educational mindset, where pains are viewed as beneficial and are suffered by youth at the hands of people who love and accept them could become an ideal image for coping with – though not always fully explaining – the fact that the righteous suffer.

Chapter 5

The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17 Turning now to the primary passage of interest, we seek to answer several of the questions raised initially in chapter 1 as to the moral significance of divine discipline. We began tentatively with the supposition that suffering in Heb 12 is non-punitive, and while our findings in chapter 2 buttressed that supposition, we now must look at the passage itself and ask how its moral language relates to corporal punishment. If corporal punishment forms the learner unto virtue, how and to what degree does the author conceive of this functioning in the lives of the audience (is this a wilderness testing, a learning of obedience, a hardening in endurance, preparation for heavenly citizenship [see chapter 1])? We must also examine the importance of the intertextual connections discovered between Heb 12 and Prov 3–4. What significance or influence should they have on our reading of Heb 12? Not unlike the larger moral scheme laid out in chapter 2, Heb 12:1–17 encourages the audience in the maintenance of a “Christian” way of life over against a return to sin. At the same time, however, it demonstrates that the very difficulty they experience under God’s fatherly παιδεία is precisely the process that leads to the righteousness that pleases God. The author, however, never explicates how discipline leads to these results, but is apparently satisfied simply to encourage trusting submission to the divine father. Heb 12:1–17 exhibits a number of interesting features of moral language. Though one might proceed by examining imperatives, then hortatory subjunctives, and so forth, here we will examine the passage verse by verse. This will afford us the opportunity to examine important exegetical issues in the process, thereby providing a coherent reading of the material as we progress.

Hebrews 12:1–11

I. Hebrews 12:1–11

1. Verses 1–2: Putting off Sin with Resolve The first verse of the chapter opens with the hortatory subjunctive, “let us run (τρέχωµεν) the contest set before us with endurance”. Dependent on this verb, however, are three participles, ἔχοντες, ἀποθέµενοι (both in v. 1), and ἀφορῶντες (v. 2). The first explains the grounds for the exhortation, “since we have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us”, while the other two

Hebrews 12:1–11

181

may take on the imperatival function of the main verb, “let us lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily besets” and “fix our gaze upon Jesus”.1 While Klauck understands both ἀποθέµενοι and ἀφορῶντες to take on imperatival force, most translations understand ἀφορῶντες as describing the means by which one is to run, namely by looking to Jesus.2 This makes good sense of the present tense, which would then indicate the ongoing nature of the action while one runs.3 However, a hortatory sense may not be ruled out completely, since the next imperative commands consideration of Jesus’ endurance (v. 3). In the case of 12:1, the hortatory subjunctive sets the author and audience against the situation of the cloud of witnesses of chapter 11. While all of these (καὶ οὗτοι πάντες) were approved, they never received the promises, as they could not be made perfect without “us” (11:39–40). And thus the author turns to the focus inward, “we”, καὶ ἡµεῖς. Having laid out the cloud of witnesses who lived by faith, the author calls for running the contest with endurance, putting off every weight, including the sin that so easily besets (ὄγκον ἀποθέµενοι πάντα καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁµαρτίαν; 12:1). The imagery is most likely athletic, since the running involves setting aside a weight and running with endurance;4 that is, one must remove hindrances in order to finish the 1 So, Klauck, “Moving In and Moving Out,” 433; cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:398, who only takes ἀποθέµενοι as having imperatival force. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 644, 650, categorizes ἀποθέµενοι as attendant circumstance, but he sees it functioning semantically as an imperative, taking on the mood of the main verb. He thus distinguishes this from the rare, independent participle used as an imperative (e.g., Rom 12:9; see further A.P. Salom, “The Imperatival Use of the Participle,” ABR 11 [1963]: 41–49). The aorist tense could be understood as temporal, describing what one must do before running, but according to verse 4, the struggle against sin is ongoing. 2 So the ESV, NASB, NET, and NRSV. Several German translations, however, translate the final participle also as a finite verb (Luther; Züricher; Einheitsübersetzung), although Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:226 and Weiß, Hebräer, 631, translate it as means (“indem”). 3 So Lane, Hebrews, 2:399. 4 See especially the discussion in Croy, Endurance, 58–70. The agonistic imagery present is not easy to pin down to specifics. One might in fact ask if the language actually consists of military imagery. An ἀγών itself can be used for a variety of types of struggles, not just athletic, but even military (see LSJ, “ἀγών”). Moreover, ἀρχηγός appears in the LXX not infrequently for military leaders (Judg 9:44; 11:5, 11; 1 Chr 12:21; 26:26; 2 Chr 23:14; Jdt 14:2; 1 Macc 10:47). Lane, Hebrews, 1:56–57, 2:411, advocates translating ἀρχηγός as “champion”, but neither he nor Richardson discusses the possibility of military imagery. See Christopher A. Richardson, Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews, WUNT II/338 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 97–99. The use of τρέχω with ἀγών as its direct object appears in several places, most of which are in military contexts or concern the struggle for one’s life, but the image appears to be a carryover from the athletic realm and not a description of specific military maneuvers. In Herodotus’ Histories 8.102.3, Xerxes is advised that simply by maintaining his dynasty the

182

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

contest successfully (cf. 10:32). Though one might be tempted to speculate on what the burden described by ὄγκος might be,5 the author lets the precise referent remain open with the use of πάντα; anything that would hinder must be put aside.6 However, the author then draws specific attention to sin, to which he refers again in verses 3 and 4. This repetition makes sin the primary focus rather than such difficulties as outside social pressure.7 Thus, it is better to understand the καί in καὶ τὴν εὐπερίστατον ἁµαρτίαν as epexegetical, thereby narrowing the field of view down to sin.8 But to what does this sin refer? Hellenes will have to “run many contests many times over” for the sake of their lives. The idea is that the Greeks will have to continue to struggle against the Persians. In the face of a bloody struggle to seize a certain four-horse chariot, Hercules boldly states that this would not be his first “contest to run” (Euripides, Alcestis 489). See further Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis 1455 (of running dangerous contests); Electra 883–84 (of not running a useless contest but of successfully killing an enemy); Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers 7.5.2 (of a contest for one’s own salvation); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.48.3 (running a contest for one’s life); Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 8.2 (of a court trial that should have been seen as a contest for one’s life). γυµνάζω also occurs for military training: Josephus, Ant. 6.185; 16.400; J.W. 3.73; 6.2; Ag. Ap. 1.79. Even endurance by itself need not require the idea of a long distance race (as Heb 12:1 is often interpreted; e.g., Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:234; Lane, Hebrews 2:409). Philo, Prob. 26, describes a contest of combat where one fighter defeats the other by means of his endurance. Nevertheless, running and putting off every weight speaks more in favor of a race than a battle against an opponent. However, soldiers also had to be considerate of their own physical condition and armor (Plutarch, Mor. 192D; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 14.8.1; Josephus, Ant. 6.184; cf. Croy, Endurance, 62–63), but Heb 12:1 mentions no militant opponent. Sin as the opposing force is the common thread between verses 1 and 4, but the images are different. The use of running a contest in life-or-death struggles at least shows that the imagery of Heb 12:1 fits even in the context of Jesus’ experience of the cross, for which the imagery initially seems ill-suited. The contest before the audience of Hebrews involves different “disciplines”. 5 For an overview of interpretations, see Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:231–32. 6 Heinrich Seesemann, “ὄγκος,” TDNT 5:41. On the tradition of sin as a weight, see Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 15–26; Günter Röhser, Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde: Antike Sündenvorstellungen und paulinische Hamartia, WUNT II/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 29–39; cf. Löhr, Umkehr, 21 n. 68. See further Michael Wolter, “Die Rede von der Sünde im Neuen Testament,” in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 471–99. 7 Cf. Löhr, “Moral Rules and Principles,” 201, “One of the simplest rhetorical means for emphasizing a statement is to repeat it. This becomes even more effective when the repetition does not occur only once and in the immediate context, but repeatedly and at different points in the argumentation.” We have seen already in chapter 2, how sin-language comes up repeatedly in earlier warnings in Hebrews (esp. 2:2; 3:13; 6:6; 10:26). 8 So Braun, Hebräer, 403; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 638; Weiß, Hebräer, 633; cf. BDAG, s.v. “καί,” 1c.

Hebrews 12:1–11

183

Apostasy as such has been proposed, most notably by Käsemann,9 but this is too simplistic and not demanded by the context.10 Similar to our comments on 10:26, it would seem that here too the description of sin conveys the idea of works leading to apostasy, even though, as Käsemann argues, sin stands as the opposite of endurance. Nevertheless, this need not indicate that the sin is the commission of apostasy. Sin is described as easily besetting.11 It offers deceptive, temporary pleasures, and so poses a real threat to endurance (3:13; 11:25),12 and as Delitzsch puts it, sin stands “ever ready to induce a fall.”13 The particular stress placed by the author on sexual immorality, which garners specific mention later in the chapter (12:16)14 as well as in 13:4 in connection with judgment, lends merit to this interpretation. It is, however, unwarranted to limit sin here specifically to sexual immorality, yet the example shows that sin itself can incur judgment, not just apostasy in particular. Thus, it seems most reasonable to understand 12:1 to refer to any sin, those associated with the audience’s former way of life (6:1).15 In fact, Löhr has pointed out that ἀποτίθηµι is used elsewhere in early Christian moral exhortation particularly to call Christians to put off the old way of life and its desires and wicked ways.16 Notably in Eph 4:22–25 the call to put off the old self is par9

Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, 25. Montefiore (followed by Croy) suggests apostasy cannot be the referent since to apostatize would disqualify the runner from the race altogether. This argument over-interprets the imagery; no analogy offers perfect oneto-one correspondence. Hugh W. Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 214; Croy, Endurance, 173. Just the opposite of Käsemann, Windisch, Taufe und Sünde, 308, believes 12:1 refers to sins of weakness, of which the audience must still rid themselves, but which are in themselves not dangerous to salvation, though they can become so. 10 Similarly Peterson, Perfection, 169. 11 Unfortunately εὐπερίστατος is tied up with difficulties. Most take the verbal adjective as deriving from περιίστηµι, such that the adjective would denote something that readily surrounds, that is, something that besets or ensnares. This fits well the imagery of casting aside every burden. The variant found in P46 and 1739, εὐπερίσπαστος, easily distracting, would fit as the opposite of looking to Jesus (v. 2), but as Löhr, Umkehr, 21 (and his n. 67) points out, the guiding participle is ἀποθέµενοι. Moreover, the quite weak external evidence for the variant speaks against it, and the harder εὐπερίστατος better explains the appearance of the easier εὐπερίσπαστος than the other way around. Cf., however, Zuntz, Text, 25–19 and Frank W. Beare, “The Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in P46,” JBL 63 (1944): 390– 91. See also the discussions in Ellingworth, Hebrews, 638–39; Attridge, Hebrews, 355; Moffatt, Hebrews, 194–95; TLNT, s.v. “εὐπερίστατος.” 12 Cf. Braun, Hebräer, 403. 13 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols., trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1874), 2:302; cf. Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 604. 14 Moffatt, Hebrews, 194. 15 Cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 431. 16 Rom 13:12; Eph 4:22, 25; Col 3:8; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1; 1 Clem. 13.1; 57.2. Löhr, Umkehr, 20 n. 64.

184

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

alleled by putting on the new self, created in the likeness of God in righteousness and holiness of truth, precisely the goals of divine discipline laid out in Heb 12:10–11. Sin in general constitutes a weight that would keep the audience from enduring, while positive values like righteousness and holiness mark the Christian life, as we will see below.17 Jesus’ conduct exemplifies the opposite side of being beset by sin, namely showing endurance. The author in verse 1 calls the audience to run with endurance, and in verse 2 he calls for consideration of Jesus’ endurance. Further, verse 3 mentions Jesus’ endurance of hostility from sinners, and finally, endurance comes up once more in verse 7 as a response to the experience of discipline. Jesus thus serves as an apt example of precisely what the author demands of his audience. The question is to be raised, as it was concerning 10:32–39, of what sort of endurance the author means. Is it passive undergoing of suffering or active standing up under it? As we argued concerning the passage in Heb 10, so here too endurance should be understood in the more active sense of moving forward in the contest and not giving up despite hostility (v. 3).18 Jesus’ endurance of the cross is thus not the suffering of the cross passively, but going on despite the opposition of sinners, while for the audience endurance involves continuing to struggle against the opponent of sin.19 It is worth further pointing out that in verse 2 the author works with a sort of implicit teleological argument in calling the audience to run with endurance. In referring to Jesus, he notes that Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him (ἀντὶ τῆς προκειµένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς), namely his sitting down at the right hand of God’s throne. The phrase is the subject of controversy, since

17 Svendsen, Allegory Transformed, 224, also takes sin in 12:1 as sin in general, and he follows up with an excellent question: why would the author refer to sins generally in 12:1 when elsewhere he warns specifically against what Svendsen considers the sin of apostasy (which Svendsen views as submitting to the Torah after the inauguration of the new covenant)? He proposes the author does it to “induce his audience to visualize submission to the Torah as part of a larger ensemble of activities that everyone, including the readers themselves, would identify with as sinful. That way, any choice on their behalf to follow the Torah would implicitly turn out as a choice to accept what is generally recognized as being opposed to God’s wishes” (emphasis original). Svendsen has picked up the precise point we are trying to make. Besides his submission-to-Torah understanding of apostasy, he, as most other scholars, presumes wrongly that the author of Hebrews is elsewhere specifically speaking of the sin of apostasy. Having brought this premise into question, it now becomes clear that the author is not simply warning against a single sin, but that he is trying to persuade the audience against sin in general, turning away to any other lifestyle that would be “opposed to God’s wishes.” Thus, rather than an outlier, 12:1 should cause us to question the way we understand apostasy and sin elsewhere in Hebrews. 18 So Hauck, TDNT 4:582–81. 19 Contra Lane, Hebrews, 2:414.

Hebrews 12:1–11

185

it could also be translated as “instead of the joy”.20 The immediate context supports the former rendering, however, first because the parallel in verse 16 concerning Esau must be rendered “for a single meal”. Second, in verse 11 the author acknowledges that discipline is not joyful in the moment, but he points to later positive benefits that should motivate the audience to keep going. This implies that the future benefits of discipline are not only peaceable but also joyful. Elsewhere we also find right behavior supported by the promise of future reward (10:35; 11:26).21 The point is, the author motivates the audience in this instance not by reference to the inherent value of the contest or of suffering itself, but rather by reference to the reward endurance receives. Thus far, the author has exhorted the audience in view of positive exemplars to endure in the contest. While sin constitutes a besetting weight, Jesus exemplifies an attitude of disregard for shame as he looks toward the future joy afforded the victor. Endurance thus entails an element of resolve, and so the author does not advocate the undergoing of pain for its own sake, but rather he advocates having the right demeanor in encountering the challenges that come as a natural condition of sonship (see below). 2. Verses 3–4: Struggling against Sin “to the Death” The first true imperative does not occur until 12:3. Here, the author carries on much the same thought as expressed in 12:2, commanding the audience to consider the one who endured such hostility from sinners. The purpose of this consideration is that the audience might not grow weary and so faint in their souls.22 Seeing how Jesus endured should motivate the audience to imitate his endurance despite opposition.23 20

For a full discussion see Croy, Endurance, 182–85. Lane, Hebrews, 2:413, argues just the opposite, that Jesus’ action demonstrates the moral choice to forego joy and undergo obedient suffering. His argument that πρόκειµαι in Heb always refers to something present, something directly at hand (6:18; 12:1) is not convincing. First, with the athletic imagery of the verses, one would expect some reward to be set out as a goal (which indeed is a specific use of the word; see LSJ, s.v. “πρόκειµαι” and Croy, Endurance, 66–67). Second, in 6:18, it is hope that is “set before”; by its very nature hope refers to something future, in that context the hope of the fulfillment of God’s promise. Even accepting Lane’s understanding, the author shows that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God, and so an implicit teleological motivation would still apply in the example of Jesus. 22 It can be asked which verb in the phrase, µὴ κάµητε ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑµῶν ἐκλυόµενοι, is independent. If it is any indication, verse 4 follows a similar structure in its latter half (cf. v. 5c): finite verb, prepositional phrase (whereas verse 3 only has the dative), and participle following at the end (ἀντικατέστητε πρὸς τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἀνταγωνιζόµενοι). In verse 4, the prepositional phrase goes together with the participle, and so this may suggest the dative of verse 3 also applies to the participle (similarly, Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 610). The verb 21

186

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

Two observations are to be made concerning this verse. First, it is significant that Jesus’ opponents are characterized as sinners. The author only uses ἁµαρτωλός elsewhere in 7:26. There the discussion also has to do with Jesus, namely his holiness and purity, his exaltation above the heavens, and his separation from sinners. Though that context concerns Jesus as a high priest, in the present context we also find Jesus set against sinners and even placed in an exalted position, at the right hand of God’s throne (v. 2). Holiness as a quality of Jesus is missing, but of course, the audience’s own sharing of God’s holiness comes up shortly later as a result of divine discipline (v. 10). The hostility24 of sinners evokes earlier references to the enemies (ἐχθρός) of Jesus who will become his footstool according to 1:13 and 10:13 (Ps 110:1)25 and the adversaries (ὑπεναντίος) who sin willingly and thus can expect judgment and fire (10:26–27). The point is, those who oppose Jesus are sinners, while he himself is sinless and separated from them. The implication for the audience is that if someone turns back to sin, he too becomes an opponent of Jesus (cf. 6:6). Thus, not only does Jesus function as a positive exemplar, but the sinners against him serve as negative exemplars. Sin constitutes opposition to Jesus. Related to this point is the textual issue in verse 3. While recent editions like the NA27, 28 and the USB4rev prefer the reading εἰς ἑαυτόν,26 against himself, the plural reading εἰς αὐτούς (or εἰς ἑαυτούς in ‫ *א‬and D*), against themselves, has strong, early manuscript support.27 The main arguments against the plural reading are 1) that it fits difficultly in the

ἐκλύω likewise appears in connection with ψυχή in Diodorus Siculus, Bib. 20.1.4 (with accusative); Polybius, Hist. 20.4.7 (with dative); 29.17.4 (with dative). This latter reference compares Perseus to a poorly trained athlete because he gives up in his soul in the face of the Macedonian phalanx, and it also states Perseus did not endure (ὑποµένω) in the soul. Probably a decision makes little difference (so Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:246 n. 58), but if the dative is taken with the participle, then we may be more apt to understanding the action of the participle as resulting from growing weary, a progression from one state to an even worse one, one that involves the very soul. Cf. Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 372, who takes the participle as denoting manner. However, for the verse to depict the manner in which one becomes weary seems odd. The importance of watching out for the soul in Hebrews (6:19; 10:39; 13:17; cf. Rose, Wolke der Zeugen, 344) suggests something more than just becoming weary, but ultimately falling as a result. 23 Philo also uses κάµνω in connection with perseverance despite difficulty in Migr. 220: ἐπίµενε µὴ κάµνων. 24 Though ἀντιλογία can mean simply contradiction or dispute, the shame and violence of the cross (and mention of blood in verse 4) evokes more an opposition marked by hostility or defiance. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἀντιλογία”; L&N 33.445, 456; 39.35; Lane, Hebrews, 2:415–16. 25 Cf. Rose, Wolke der Zeugen, 344 n. 47. 26 The USB4rev gives the reading a C rating. 27 13, 46 P , ‫א‬2, Ψc, 33, 81, 1739*, lat, syp, bo.

Hebrews 12:1–11

187

context, and 2) it makes little sense for the author to speak of the sinners’ hostility against themselves, since the verse would then no longer express the object of Jesus’ endurance.28 One would have to take the phrase εἰς ἑαυτὸν as being completely independent of ἀντιλογίαν and only connecting with ἁµαρτωλῶν for the sentence to make sense.29 This possibility is questionable, however. Nevertheless, the idea of the self-destructive effects of sin as implied by the variant is not unique.30 Two biblical parallels often brought into the discussion are Num 17:2–3 LXX (English 16:38; 16:37 in the Göttingen edition) and Prov 8:36. The first deals with the fiery death of the followers of Korah offering incense to God. The verses say literally, they (presumably those who died) have sanctified the censors of these sinners by their own souls (or at the cost of their own lives; ὅτι ἡγίασαν τὰ πυρεῖα τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν τούτων ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν).31 The second parallel could be significant given the use of Proverbs in the context. It states, “those who sin against me sin against (or, act impiously against) their own souls” (οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐµὲ ἁµαρτάνοντες ἀσεβοῦσιν τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς).32 These parallels elucidate the thought of the variant in Hebrews, but it is difficult to say they had any special intertextual influence on Heb 12:3. More important than these parallels – this is Lane’s main argument – even Heb 6:6 explains that those who

28

So, Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:245–46. Croy, Endurance, 189, characterizes the plural reading as not just more difficult, but near impossible. Cf. Riggenbach, Hebräer, 392 and Zuntz, Text, 120 (and his n. 3), who considers the reading an early corruption. 29 Cf. Riggenbach, Hebräer, 392 n. 39. This point does not appear to have been significantly appreciated by those accepting the variant (see the references in note 31 below). One wonders, however, why the singular εἰς ἑαυτὸν would even be necessary for the author to include, since it is already clear without it that the hostility is directed to Jesus. 30 Rom 2:5 (further Rom 13:2); Marcus Aurelius, 9.4; Aristotle, Mag. mor. 1196A (though the author proceeds to refute the possibility of wronging oneself); Xenophon, Hell. 1.7.19 (καὶ ὅθεν µάλιστα τἀληθῆ πεύσεσθε καὶ οὐ µετανοήσαντες ὕστερον εὑρήσετε σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἡµαρτηκότας τὰ µέγιστα εἰς θεούς τε καὶ ὑµᾶς αὐτούς); Philo, Det. 16. 31 Buchanan, Montefiore, Ellingworth, and Westcott all argue from this parallel. See George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, AB 36 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), 210, Montefiore, Hebrews, 216, Ellingworth, Hebrews, 643–44, and Westcott, Hebrews, 399. Ellingworth goes on to argue that the sinners of Heb 12:3 may refer then not only to those responsible for the crucifixion, but also those who have participated in a wider opposition against the pre-incarnate Christ (cf. the use of ἀντιλογία in Jude 11 on Korah’s rebellion and in Ps 105:32 LXX on the Meribah incident). He offers the following extended translation of 12:3, “Compare, then, your situation with that of Christ, who throughout our people’s history endured opposition similar to what you endure; notably when ‘the sinners,’ led astray by Korah and his friends, brought about their own destruction.” The argument for the significance of the parallel does not depend on this fuller interpretation, but surely the intertextual reading brings in too much on the basis of one variant word to be convincing. Not only that, but the OT verse is by no means clear, either in terms of its content or as a syntactical parallel to Heb 12:3. Are we to understand ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν as “in their own souls” or “by their own souls”? Plus, who is the subject of the verb ἡγίασαν? The “sinners” are the most obvious choice, but it is certainly strange for the subject to be clarified by the description of the object (τὰ πυρεῖα τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν τούτων). Cf. Karrer and Kraus, Erläuterungen und Kommentare, 1:472. 32 Cf. Pfitzner, Hebrews, 174; Lane, Hebrews 2:416.

188

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

turn away crucify Jesus to their own disadvantage (ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ).33 It appears, on the one hand, possible to offer a meaningful interpretation of the more difficult reading.34 To call it impossible or meaningless (Croy; Riggenbach) must be considered an exaggeration. But on the other hand, the problem remains that the emphasis of the present section is that Jesus endured despite hostility. Reference to the effects of sin on sinners appears out of place when the point concerns going on despite opposition.35 If the plural reading is accepted, the text would emphasize all the more the destructive nature of sin as it sets the sinner in opposition to Jesus. However, the aspect of the sinner standing in opposition to Jesus is made clear by the text in either case, such that the main point does not depend upon the variant. The variant would only serve to highlight the resulting judgment of sinners.

The second observation concerns the use of ἐκλύω. The verb appears not only in verse 3, but it comes up again in the quotation of Prov 3:11 in verse 5, where the text commands the audience not to give up under the Lord’s reproof. Whether the author’s language influenced the choice of OT quotation or whether the quotation influenced the author’s language is impossible to tell, but this helps us to see another fitting aspect of the Proverb to Heb 12 (in addition to those discussed in the previous chapter). The proverb thus fits the exhortation to endurance, which is repeated before and after the quotation, even where endurance is expressed in negative terms of not fainting. This brings us to verse 4, where the author tells the audience that they have not yet resisted to the point of blood in struggling against sin. The verse is more challenging than it may at first appear. The question is whether the author means to state that the audience has yet to suffer or die like Jesus and others at the hands of sinners (11:35–37), or if he is speaking metaphorically, expressing the criticism that they have yet to give their utmost against sin itself.36 Several observations speak in favor of the latter. 33

Lane, Hebrews, 2:416. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 605. 35 So, deSilva, Perseverance, 426 n. 111. While he rejects the variant, deSilva adds that if the variant were accepted, the implication would be that “society’s hostility harms not the Christian but the persecutor, while the very hardships inflicted become a source of benefit to the Christian as the endurance of divine training (12:4–13).” However, the author’s concern is the audience, not outsiders, and the author does not refer to persecutors as opponents of the audience. The variant serves more as a reminder of the dangers of moving to the other side than a statement against the persecutors. Cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:417. 36 The first option could then be taken as implying either that the audience needs to be ready to die as martyrs (Westcott, Hebrews, 400), or that they are taking steps to avoid the violence of their trials (Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 611). Among more recent Englishspeaking commentators, a mixed interpretation dominates, whereby the verse refers to literal blood yet functions not necessarily to encourage martyrdom, but primarily to shame the audience for losing heart despite not having faced trials as difficult as Jesus’ or those of the martyrs in chapter 11. See Cockerill, Hebrews, 618–19; Croy, Endurance, 194; deSilva, Perseverance, 446; Koester, Hebrews, 537; Lane, Hebrews, 2:419; Peterson, Perfec34

Hebrews 12:1–11

189

First, blood demonstrates effort, whether in athletic combat or military battle. Lünemann contends that even if in German “bis aufs Blut” can connote giving one’s all, a similar expression is lacking in the Greek literature.37 The fact is, however, we have evidence that blood and endurance to the point of death showed true fighting spirit and devotion. Seneca’s 13th epistle is often cited in this regard. He writes that a person with true spirit is one who has been beaten and seen his own blood, and yet nevertheless rises again to the fight undaunted, not surrendering, but standing his ground even more zealously (13.2–3). Likewise, according to one inscription, a certain Dorokleidas of Thera became victorious in games of combat precisely in shedding his own blood.38 More importantly, usages of µέχρις αἵµατος or µέχρι θανάτου, though they could be taken to support a literal understanding of the phrase, show that even in contexts where individuals demonstrate the willingness to die, whether as a combatant or martyr, the concern is not with dying as such but with commiting oneself to a cause and standing one’s ground. For example, in 2 Macc 13:14 Judas exhorts his fighters to fight nobly to the death (γενναίως ἀγωνίσασθαι µέχρι θανάτου) for the laws, the temple, etc. Obviously in this case literal death constitutes a real likelihood for the combatants, but the point is that the soldiers are to be willing to fight to the death. They may in fact not die, but they should remain unwilling to retreat or give in. In 4 Maccabees, where µέχρι θανάτου appears frequently, suffering until death describes the lengths the martyrs are willing to go for the sake of the law and piety. This case also refers to literal death, but again, the point is that the martyrs intend to endure until the very end, not giving in to their oppressors.39 Heb 11:35b reflects this idea as well, in that those who were tortured were unwilling to accept release from their torment, so that they would ultimately receive a greater release from death, resurrection. Epictetus offers a very helpful metaphorical example. He urges those going to court to choose whether they will concern themselves more with their tion, 170. As the arguments to follow demonstrate, the verse certainly criticizes the audience, but it seems unlikely that the author really concerns himself with actual death or actual blood. 37 Lünemann, Hand-Book, 704; cf. Westcott, Hebrews, 400. 38 IG XII.3.390. The reference is to his own blood, since the inscription describes that he remained strong despite it. Cf. TLNT, 1:129 n. 5. Combat sport naturally involved the shedding of blood, ideally that of the opponent. See, Homer, Iliad 23.664–99; Virgil, Aeneid 5.469–70; Apollonius of Rhodes, Argon. 2.59; Koester, Hebrews, 525. 39 See 4 Macc 5:37; 6:21; 7:8 [blood also mentioned], 16; 13:1, 27; 15:10; 16:1; 17:7, 10. While these heroes fought or endured to the death for God’s laws, Jesus also obeyed even to the point of death according to Phil 2:8. In 3 Macc 7:16 and Phil 2:30 the phrase is used of those who are still living but who were willing to die. By contrast, Herodian, Hist. 2.6.14, uses µέχρις αἵµατος in terms of greed leading to the point of murder.

190

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

external freedom, that which is outside their control, or their internal, moral freedom, that which is in their control. He exhorts them not to vacillate between the two but to devote themselves to one side or the other, to choose either freedom or slavery, to choose to be educated or uneducated. He writes, “endure until you die when being beaten, or give up immediately. Far be it from you to receive many blows and yet at the last give up!”40 The point is not about being beaten and dying but about commitment. This resolved intention to endure is the point for the audience of Hebrews. Hebrews nowhere clearly exhorts the audience to seek actual death (13:7 does not clearly point to martyrdom), but rather clearly and repeatedly exhorts the audience to stand their ground and show effort. The bloody imagery with which the author conveys this call for resolve thus simply continues the imagery of the ἀγών begun in verse 1, as several of the parallels above suggest. The verb ἀνταγωνίζοµαι in 12:4 is used in 4 Macc 17:14 with reference to the tyrant opposing the seven brothers, a context where agonistic language plays a major role.41 Of course, ἀνταγωνίζοµαι does not in itself necessarily point to an athletic competition per se, as it can also be used in political, judicial, and military struggles.42 Nevertheless, the immediate context weighs in favor of athletic imagery.43 In this connection, it is probably incorrect to ask whether the mention of blood in verse 4 relates more to Jesus’ death or to bloodshed in sport.44 The two are intimately con40

Gk.: ἢ ὑπόµενε τυπτόµενος, µέχρις ἂν ἀποθάνῃς, ἢ ἀπαγόρευσον εὐθύς. µή σοι γένοιτο πληγὰς πολλὰς λαβεῖν καὶ ὕστερον ἀπαγορεῦσαι. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.2.13 (trans. adapted from Oldfather, LCL). Backhaus, Hebräer, 420, refers to Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.51–52 and 3.25.1–4. 41 See 4 Macc 11:20 (ὁ δὲ βασανιζόµενος ὦ ἱεροπρεποῦς ἀγῶνος ἔλεγεν ἐφ᾽ ὃν διὰ τὴν εὐσέβειαν εἰς γυµνασίαν πόνων [cf. Heb 10:32] ἀδελφοὶ τοσοῦτοι κληθέντες οὐκ ἐνικήθηµεν); 13:15; 15:29; 16:16; 17:11. The noun ἀνταγωνιστής is used in 4 Macc 3:5 to describe reason as the antagonist of the passions. Several times Philo also uses the substantive in the context of games, namely contests of virtue: Leg. 3.190; Agr. 112; Pot. 29. 42 This is probably a reflection of the varied use of ἀγών, which does not necessarily refer to athletics, but can refer to different types of struggles, including military struggles (as particularly in 2 Macc). Josephus, J.W. 1.574 (where ἀγών is also used in a political and military context); Herodotus, Hist. 5.109.2; Demosthenes, Macart. 81 (speech 43.81); Thucydides, 3.38.6; Andocides, Alcibiades 2 (speech 4.2). Cf. also the examples of varied use of the noun ἀνταγωνιστής shown by Löhr, Umkehr, 22 n.71. 43 See the discussion in n. 4 above. Cf. Johannes Behm, “αἷµα,” TDNT 1:173, who sees military imagery in the reference to blood in verse 4. 44 Contra Croy, Endurance, 193–94, who suggests that neither ἀντικαθίστηµι nor ἀνταγωνίζοµαι has a strong athletic nuance (followed by O’Brien, Letter, 462). It seems hardly credible that the agonistic motif has disappeared here, especially considering the root of ἀνταγωνίζοµαι. The first verb, ἀντικαθίστηµι, is used in Josephus as a participle for military and political enemies (Ant. 17.289; 18.8; J.W. 4.393); cf. Thucydides, 1.62.5; 1.71.1. The term can be used in judicial contexts (cf. Deut 31:21), but I see no judicial nuances in the present context, contra TLNT 1:129.

Hebrews 12:1–11

191

nected in that Jesus’ experience of the cross in this context has more to do with his endurance, not his death as such. The author does not even mention death in 12:2, but rather highlights the shame of the cross,45 and Jesus endures this shame for the sake of something greater, the joy of taking his seat next to God’s throne. The point is, Jesus displays endurance, and the audience must show the same mindset, being unwilling to give up but to give their utmost in the metaphorical struggle against sin.46 This brings us to the second consideration for the metaphorical interpretation of blood. In both 12:1 and 4 sin constitutes the opposing force, whether as a weight or as a personified opponent in the ἀγών. It is significant that the author speaks about sin and not about personal opponents, in contrast to the depiction of Jesus. The matter for the audience is their moral decision whether to turn back to sin. As we saw before, Hebrews depicts the choice before the audience less in terms of their social circumstances, and more in terms of sinning and abandoning God for the old way of life. Here we have the same thing. The author’s concern is less with suffering itself and more with the response to it. That is to say, whereas the real circumstances had indeed involved some sort of suffering (10:32–34) and this seems to have continued (based on 12:5–11), the call for endurance (12:1–3) and obedient submission to God (12:7–11) in the immediate context suggests the emphasis lies with effort against sin rather than effort against sinners who would murder the believers. Nevertheless, commentators frequently take sin in verse 4 as a periphrasis for sinners who oppose the audience, like those sinners opposing Jesus in verse 3.47 This approach, however, looks too quickly to the social situation before asking about the significance of the exact language used, and such an odd periphrasis is only necessary if one reads the verse as being indicative of the degree to which the audience has or has not already suffered. Moreover, equating sin in verse 4 with the characterization of Jesus’ opponents in verse 3 overlooks the difference between Jesus and the audience in two regards. First, Jesus was without sin (4:15). For the audience, however, it is yet undecided whether they will remain holy, innocent, undefiled, and separated from sinners as Jesus is (7:26). Their ongoing conduct, in their pursuit of holiness as the rest of the passage suggests (12:10, 14), will determine that. In the meantime, they indeed continue to struggle against what ultimately amounts

45

Rightly Attridge, Hebrews, 360. So also (and for the points below) Backhaus, Hebräer, 419–20; Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:253–54; Weiß, Hebräer, 646–47. 47 E.g., Cockerill, Hebrews, 619; Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 611; Lane, Hebrews, 2:419; Westcott, Hebrews, 398; cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 446–47. 46

192

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

to the inner tendencies of the heart (3:12–13).48 Croy asks rhetorically what sense it would make to speak of fighting against inner sinful desires to the point of blood,49 but this question misses the imagery developed above. It also misses the repeated language in Hebrews about the heart and not becoming hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.50 Second – and perhaps more importantly for the immediate context – while hostility to Jesus came from sinners (v. 3), he did not struggle against sinners (cf. v. 4). It is thus important not to equate the example of Jesus in every detail with the situation of the audience.51 The real danger for the audience is not the degree to which they suffer or even die but whether they fail really to fight against sin and so join the side of those sinners opposed to Jesus, exposing him to shame (12:2; 6:6).52 Finally, the statement that the audience has not struggled to the point of blood makes good sense as a criticism of the audience that fits the context. This interpretation coheres with findings elsewhere in Hebrews and explains the connection between verses 4 and 5. Hebrews has already exhorted the audience to show earnestness (4:11; 6:11) and not to be lazy (5:11; 6:12). In fact, the author’s earlier remarks about becoming lazy in hearing and needing to be taught all over again (5:11–12) find echo in the comment in verse 5: “you have forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons.” Not only this, but in 2:1–4, the author notes the importance of devoting oneself more to the message and goes on to compare neglect of this message to transgression against the earlier message mediated by the angels. In both of these earlier 48

So also Lünemann, Hand-Book, 704; de Wette, Handbuch, 314. Hans Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief, 2nd ed., HNT 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931), 110, argues that the sin is not sin within the individual heart, since it was to be put off before the struggle (temporal participle in v. 1). This takes the imagery too literally. Others too have rejected the interpretation of sin as having to do with inner desires, even if sin in verse 1 may refer to inward struggles against sin (so, Lane, Hebrews, 2:418–19; Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 603–4, 610–11), but this position seems hardly sustainable in view of the thoroughgoing exhortations against sinning and concern that the heart might go astray (see n. 53 below). 49 Croy, Endurance, 194. 50 The heart is where one goes astray and which may be hardened; as the seat of the intentions, it tends toward evil and unfaithfulness instead of truth: 3:8, 10, 12 (cf. 13), 15; 4:7, 12; 10:22. It is also where God writes his laws: 8:10; 10:16. 51 Cf. Peterson, Perfection, 176. This is precisely the mistake Lane makes (Hebrews, 2:417–18). Certainly the audience has already experienced and is called to go on to accept reproach like Jesus (10:33; 13:13; cf. 11:26), but as the repetition shows in the present context, the main idea here is with sin and whether one fights against it or joins the side of sinners, those opposed to Jesus. 52 Thompson, Beginnings, 29 n. 47, argues that 12:4 “is to be read as an account of the relationship between the church and public authorities.” This goes beyond what the text allows. There is only one unambiguous reference to anyone outside the church in the context, and that reference (namely 12:3) is construed in such a way that it emphasizes the sinful essence of the opposition against Jesus, not any mandated opposition by authorities.

Hebrews 12:1–11

193

cases paying attention and moving beyond first principles supports the audience against sin, and the same applies to 12:4–5. This explains the καί in verse 5; namely, it connects verse 4 to verse 5 as the continuation of the author’s criticism of the audience (see further on v. 5 below). It is more difficult to understand the logical connection between verses 4 and 5 if we take verse 4 as a statement of facts.53 The author is thus making two claims: the audience has shown insufficient effort and has forgotten message of the proverb.54 In view of these considerations, it is best to take verse 4 not as a reference to literal bloodshed, but as a critical statement of the audience’s apparent failure to exert the needed effort to win the struggle against sin.55 The audience must rather show effort against their opponent and not give up early. The following verses provide both a rationale and challenge to exert just such effort. 3. Verses 5–6: Encouragement and Demand In connection with the criticism of verse 4, verse 5 continues the criticism of the audience (καὶ ἐκλέλησθε) for their absolute forgetfulness56 of the exhortation found in Prov 3:11–12.57 Though this is the only occurrence of ἐκλανθάνω in Hebrews (and in the NT), remembering and (not) forgetting

53

Moreover, verse 5 would make no sense if verse 4 referred to literal death, since if some had died, they would not have been in a position to forget (or remember!) the exhortation. Löhr, Umkehr, 22 n. 73. 54 Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:254 and Otto Kuss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 2nd ed., RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1966), 186, both argue on the basis of verse 5 for a metaphorical understanding of verse 4. So, Kuss, “Wahrscheinlicher ist aber eine Deutung, welche den V. 4 nach dem V. 5 erklärt; dort wird den Lesern ein Vorwurf gemacht, und so dürfte es sich auch in V. 4 nicht um eine einfache Feststellung, sondern eher um einen Tadeln handeln: ‘Ihr habt noch nicht das Äußerste getan, ihr könnt noch mehr aus euch herausholen!’” 55 Weiß, Hebräer, 646, describes this verse as “eine durchaus kritische Bemerkung des Autors im Blick auf den gegenwärtigen, ein Defizit hinsichtlich der Bewährung des Glaubens anzeigenden Stand der Adressaten.” 56 According to LSJ, s.v. “ἐκλανθάνω,” the verb in the middle voice means to forget utterly. 57 Omitting “and” in translation reflects the viewpoint that there is no close connection between verses 4 and 5, and this then leads to the possibility of understanding verse 5 as a question (see Ellingworth and Nida, Handbook, 293). However, the καί must be accounted for. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 646, mentions the possibility that the καί introduces a new topic, though he sees it as less likely, and refers to 11:32 as a parallel. However, 11:32a is much more clearly a transition than 12:5. Ellingworth goes on to suggest that verse 5 describes the effect of verse 4. The clearest way of explaining the conjunction, however, is to see it as continuing the accusation or critique of the audience from verse 4. Cf. Westfall, Discourse, 265; Michel, Hebräer, 438, and Windisch, Hebräerbrief, 110, whose translation combines the verses into one sentence.

194

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

occur frequently in Hebrews, particularly with reference to moral action.58 Here the danger is that the audience would forget the exhortation and thus continue down the path of flagging commitment instead of showing the utmost endurance (v. 4). The critique, however, contains a warm tone in view of the “son” language. The scriptural exhortation engages the audience as sons, and the vocative υἱέ µου brings the father-son relationship into expression.59 As is well known, Bornkamm in particular has emphasized the sonship aspect of the quotation, which he views as God’s own Zuspruch (consolation/encouragement).60 Yet, we also must recognize that the lines from the Proverb and the verses immediately following them include also certain demands (Anspruch).61 The scriptural exhortation contains two negative imperatives, µὴ ὀλιγώρει and µηδὲ ἐκλύου. The first fosters a proper attitude toward the discipline of the Lord, and the second fosters proper action under God’s reproof. We might see in this a parallel to the attitude of disregard Jesus had for the shame of the cross while actively enduring it (v. 2). The basis for these commands is twofold according to verse 6: whomever the Lord loves, he disciplines, and he scourges every son he accepts.62 In other words, the audience must accept their painful circumstances as not only coming from God but as expressing God’s love and acceptance of them. We might ask here, what exactly are the painful circumstances the audience is facing? The problem is the author does not clearly answer this question. On the one hand, we find the recurring theme of reproach (6:6; 10:33; 11:26; 12:2; 13:13), which seems to be an ongoing issue, since the author

58

See chapter 4, page 148 n. 14. The µου included in Hebrews (omitted, however, by D*) is not present in the LXX, though the possessive is present in the MT. Prov 3:1, 4:20, and 5:1 LXX do include a possessive. 60 Günther Bornkamm, “Sohnschaft und Leiden,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), 196. Most recently, Peeler has taken up and emphasized the familial theme present in the passage. See Peeler, You Are My Son, 144–68. 61 Bornkamm, however, does not read verse 7 as an imperative but as an indicative (“Sohnschaft,” 189 n. 3; see discussion below). For a general treatment of problems with distinguishing Zuspruch and Anspruch, see Löhr, “Ethik und Tugendlehre,” 152. 62 µαστιγόω appears only here in Hebrews, but µάστιξ is used in 11:36, which speaks of those who experienced mocking and flogging. It is interesting that the author draws on this language to speak of the pain (cf. 12:11) of their experience, when, if we were to take 12:4 as a statement of the audience’s physical experience, it would indicate that they had not undergone that sort of pain in reality (cf. 10:32–34). Perhaps this further speaks for the metaphorical understanding of 12:4, but primarily it goes to show that the larger point is the right understanding of “pain” as a loving sign of the Lord in order to drive the audience toward more effort (cf. 12:12–13). 59

Hebrews 12:1–11

195

exhorts the audience to bear it in 13:13.63 On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that exactly the same reproach, imprisonment, or seizure of property that occurred before remains ongoing (10:32–34; but cf. 13:4). It would be quite difficult to explain this entire passage at all if there were no form of suffering confronting the community, but it is very interesting that the author offers no clear mention of what the present sufferings entail. The reference to reproach in verse 2 and the opposition from sinners are the most we have,64 but these hints remain quite vague and the author does not carry these experiences of Jesus over to the audience specifically. The carry-over may be implied, but the author only explicitly makes sin the opposing force, not sinful people. This is a significant observation with relation to the function of the proverb. While the context depends on the recognition of real outside difficulties, the exhortation preceding the proverb and contained within it focuses on the audience’s behavior, not their conception of suffering as a theological problem. In fact, the author never even mentions suffering as such in chapter 12 as he does in 5:8 and 10:32–33; the closest expressions are µαστιγόω in 12:6 and λύπη in 12:11. The author of course does offer a conceptual, theological framework by which to exhort the audience, but as we will see in verses 7– 11, the theological interpretation of the audience’s difficulties ultimately serves to encourage a right response. The author focuses neither on a theological defense of God for the sake of theological explanation in and of itself, nor does he at present address the specifics of the occasion. The audience must engage in the contest with endurance and put off sin; the audience must give everything in fighting against sin; and the audience must endure for the sake of discipline, which requires submission to God as a greater father (v. 9). We see hints of the realities lying behind the book, but the author casts the situation not as a struggle “against flesh and blood” (Eph 6:12) but as a struggle in which the decisive point is one’s response to sin and to God as disciplining father. 4. Verses 7–10: Remaining Steadfast for the Purposes of Discipline The next imperative of the passage comes up in verse 7, where the author begins to exposit the proverb. The author commands the audience to endure for the sake of or unto παιδεία. In actuality of course, ὑποµένετε is ambiguous and could be indicative or imperative. However, in view of the exhortation to run with endurance in 12:1, the clear intention that the audience avoid fainting early (12:3, 5), and the earlier statement of the audience’s need for endur63

Notably, in all but one of the cases listed (10:33) the reproach is that of Christ. 12:4 cannot reliably serve as evidence that any have or have not died; in fact, it would be strange for the author to refer to blood even metaphorically if some had actually died. 64

196

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

ance (10:36), the weight of the evidence favors the imperative, urging active steadfastness. It is important to notice here that the occasionally cited parallels in Rom 5:3–4 and Jas 1:3–4, where affliction (Romans; θλῖψις) or testing (James; τὸ δοκίµιον) produces perseverance,65 do not precisely correspond to the logic of Heb 12:7–11. Hebrews requires endurance of the audience; endurance does not result from παιδεία or from testing. For Hebrews, endurance is the prerequisite for doing the will of God and earning the reward (10:36). Related to this, the lack of testing language in Heb 12 is also significant, as some scholars employ such language in connection with Heb 12, despite its absence.66 Thiessen, and Allen bring up testing in connection with Deut 8:1–5, which they understand to relate to Heb 12.67 Thiessen in particular traces the association of παιδεία with the wilderness generation in Second Temple literature, and he often highlights the language of testing.68 Yet, in seeking to demonstrate an implicit connection to the theme of wilderness discipline in Heb 12, Thiessen and Allen overlook the function of the wilderness generation in Hebrews as a negative example and as a group of people who were not tested by God but who rather tested God, eliciting forty years of anger. Whereas Deut 8:2 construes wilderness testing as positive, Hebrews 3:8–9 depicts it as negative and sinful. Hebrews does, however, point out that Jesus and Abraham were tested (2:18; 4:15; 11:17; cf. the v.l. in 11:37), and the author implies the testing or temptation (πειράζω) of the audience in 2:18 and 4:15. Testing can also be associated with fatherly παιδεία in general (e.g, Deut 8:2; Wis 11:10; Seneca, Prov. 1.6). Yet, the author does not construe the audience’s παιδεία as such, and so to consider this divine παιδεία as testing goes beyond what the author makes of it.

Another problem in verse 7 is the prepositional phrase εἰς παιδείαν. It initially appears difficult to understand the εἰς, especially since the variant εἰ would make verses 7 and 8 together quite straightforward: “if you are enduring discipline, God is treating you as sons, but if you are without discipline, you are not sons.” Though de Wette suggests the εἰς is senseless,69 the variant εἰ is too weakly attested to accept,70 and generally the harder reading should be accepted, especially when it can be explained. Thus, it is best to understand εἰς παιδείαν as an expression of the purpose of enduring.71 A close parallel is 2

65

Croy, Endurance, 221; deSilva, Perseverance, 480. E.g., Koester, Hebrews, 527; Croy, Endurance, 214; Backhaus, Hebräer, 425 with reference to 2 Clem. 20.2 (πεῖρα); Peeler, You Are My Son, 153–56, 161. 67 Thiessen, “Wilderness Period,” 369; Allen, Deuteronomy, 82; cf. further Spellman, “The Drama of Discipline.” 68 Thiessen, “Wilderness Period,” 369–73. 69 De Wette, Handbuch, 315. Cf. Lünemann, Hand-Book, 705; Bornkamm, “Sohnschaft,” 189 n. 3; Bertram, TDNT 5:622. 70 Ψ*, 104, 326, 365, 630, 945. Jentsch, Erziehungsdenken, 163, rightly comments that the variant (stemming from the 10th century) “sieht zu sehr nach Erleichterung aus.” 71 If the variant εἰ is accepted, the active sense of endurance would be impossible. See, e.g., Lünemann, Hand-Book, 705. Rightly Michel, Hebräer, 441 and Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 615, who note that the variant would suggest a weakened understanding of endurance in comparison to its use elsewhere in Hebrews. The same is true when taking the verb as 66

Hebrews 12:1–11

197

Macc 6:12, which encourages the reader not to be depressed by the misfortunes recounted in the book, but to consider that the purpose of God’s punishment of the nation was not for destruction but for the purpose of discipline (πρὸς παιδείαν; cf. 1 Tim 3:16).72 Further supporting the purpose interpretation is that the author of Hebrews frequently uses εἰς to express purpose.73 And so, we may understand the phrase in this way: “remain steadfast for the purposes of discipline.”74 Thus, endurance is not merely an end unto itself, but the author provides the audience a paradigm to give purpose to endurance, namely the process of parental παιδεία.75 This fosters a proper attitude toward their experiences, somewhat like Seneca’s steadfast man, who considindicative. That verse 7b expresses a statement does not speak against (or for) the imperative (contra Backhaus, Hebräer, 422). 72 Cf. Windisch, Hebräerbrief, 111; Weiß, Hebräer, 649 n. 17. In Pss. Sol. 10:2 and 14:1 παιδεία follows ὑποµένω as accusative object (χρηστὸς γὰρ ὁ κύριος τοῖς ὑποµένουσιν παιδείαν [10:2b]; πιστὸς κύριος τοῖς ἀγαπῶσίν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ τοῖς ὑποµένουσιν παιδείαν αὐτοῦ [14:1]). The verses do not express purpose, but like Hebrews, they point to the virtue of enduring steadfastly, not just passively. In the Psalms of Solomon, the righteous respond rightly to discipline by ridding themselves of sin and preparing their back for the whip (3:3–7; 10:2a). Cf. Robert B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 644; Michel, Hebräer, 441. 73 See 1:14; 3:5; 4:16; 6:16; 9:15. Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 614. Cf. Jentsch, Erziehungsdenken, 163; Michel, Hebräer, 441; deSilva, Perseverance, 450; Westcott, Hebrews, 402. However, J.R. Mantey has argued the preposition could be understood as causal, “It is because of discipline that you are enduring” (emphasis original). Clearly this interpretation requires taking the verb as indicative, and would seem also to require understanding endurance in a more passive sense. Neither of these are possibilities in this context. See J.R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of EIS in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1951): 47. Lane, Hebrews, 2:401, also mentions, and rightly rejects, the possibility that the phrase could mean “wait patiently for”, as in Ps 129:5 (LXX) and Jer 14:19. The context presupposes παιδεία is taking place in the present and not as something that may be coming in the future, especially since the author says all have become sharers in it (v. 8). 74 Adding “suffering” or “trials” in translation as the object to be endured (see Ellingworth and Nida, Handbook, 295; NRSV, NAB, NET [see also the NET’s note 7 on this verse]) would connote (even if unintended) a more passive understanding of endurance that is foreign to the context. It also is misleading as to the author’s focus on the response, not the suffering itself. 75 Johnson, Hebrews, 320 (cf. 58; followed by Peeler, You Are My Son, 156–57), misunderstands this interpretation when he contends that imperative translations of the verse “do not actually make sense: it is the instruction that makes endurance necessary; one would not endure in order to bring about discipline.” The imperative translation by no means makes it necessary to understand endurance as bringing about discipline. In fact, the critique cuts both ways: if εἰς expresses purpose in terms of “bringing about”, then it makes just as little sense to state in the indicative, “you are enduring in order to bring about discipline.” Johnson’s translation in the indicative also expresses purpose (“for the sake of”), but he does not apply this same critique to his own translation; the problem is that Johnson has unnecessarily carried “to bring about” into the expression of purpose.

198

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

ers all his troubles as training (Prov. 2.2): “not what you endure, but how you endure makes the difference” (Prov. 2.4).76 This little command in verse 7 implies the acceptance of several significant aspects of παιδεία which the author proceeds to lay out in the verses which follow: namely, (1) the fact that God is treating the audience as sons; (2) the inevitability of παιδεία for legitimate sons; (3) the requirement to submit to a father’s παιδεία; and (4) the beneficence, particularly in terms of virtue, of painful παιδεία. The author begins with the ideas that God is treating the audience as sons77 and that no legitimate son is without παιδεία.78 The rhetorical question in 7b (“what son is there whom a father does not discipline?”) shows that it can be assumed that fathers do indeed give παιδεία to their sons, particularly through painful measures. Interestingly, the author says that all have become partakers of this παιδεία. It is not immediately obvious, however, who the πάντες are in verse 8. On the one hand, the first and last clauses of the verse (both of which use the second person, ἐστε) suggest the audience is in view. On the other hand, it could refer to all sons in general (cf. v. 7b).79 76 Lt.: Omnia adversa exercitationes putat. […] non quid sed quemadmodum feras interest (Seneca, Prov. 2.2; 2.4). 77 Bornkamm, “Sohnschaft,” 197, is correct to note that the parallel use of ὡς υἱοῖς in verses 5 and 7 suggests that verse 7 does not mean “God is treating you like sons” but “God is treating you as sons”. The added µου at the beginning of the quotation in verse 5 further supports this understanding. 78 On the responsibility of fathers to provide an education for their children inside and outside the home, see in particular Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 102–23. Fathers of means would hire teachers and paedogogues for their children and even send them off to “university”, but it was also common for fathers to instruct their sons in primary education, especially to make up for school deficiencies. Moreover, fathers were supposed to stand as imitable moral figures. Offering primary education, however, was not always feasible as fathers were absent for various reasons, whether because of their employment in state business, military service, or simply death (cf. Plutarch, Aem. 6.8–10). This would leave other family members responsible for the education of children (see Bonner, Education, 10–19). This raises the question of the economic status of the audience of Hebrews and the extent to which they received education from their fathers. The answer to these questions is probably of little consequence for our exegetical purposes, however, since the present context depends on the assumption that fathers functioned as teachers particularly in meting out discipline. And, as we saw in chapter 3, fatherly discipline often complemented discipline at school anyway. Furthermore, like the traditional ideal, the OT wisdom literature (especially Prov 1–9) presupposes that fathers educate their children (though this was not the exclusive means of education even in ancient Israel; see Crenshaw, Education, 85–113). It would appear that Heb 12:5–11 means primarily to draw on shared traditional values rather than on the specific academic experiences of the audience, excepting the presupposed experience of receiving corporal punishment from fathers. 79 This understanding is reflected in the NET and NRSV: “But if you do not experience discipline, something all sons have shared in, then you are illegitimate and are not sons”

Hebrews 12:1–11

199

This, however, would simply repeat the same idea as verse 7b. It seems more likely, then, that the author is assuring the audience that they have indeed been treated as sons by pointing out that all of them have come under the παιδεία implied by their circumstances.80 Thus, the audience’s experience of παιδεία is natural, just as it was the inevitable experience of all legitimate children in the ancient world.81 Since this is understood as a normal experience, there is little reason to develop a theodicy that explains the present situation as loving chastisement for sin, as so much other Jewish and Christian literature does (see chapter 4 above).82 This παιδεία is a regular process of life as a child of God, and this point greatly facilitates the exhortation toward endurance in faithfulness as it associates the experience of παιδεία with love and beneficence.83 In light of this, the conditional in verse 8 not only functions to assure the audience that their situation means they are accepted by God, but it also implies some degree of warning. If one is without discipline, then he is an illegitimate child.84 That is, on the one hand, you have received discipline and so (NET). “If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children” (NRSV). Cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:398. 80 Lane, Hebrews, 2:402, suggests the perfect γεγόνασιν emphasizes the general truth of the observation. It would thus be an intensive or resultative perfect (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 574–75). Cockerill and others, however, have suggested πάντες refers to all those of the house of Christ (or of God; 3:6) who undergo God’s παιδεία. Jesus’ learning obedience through suffering and the suffering of some within the cloud of witnesses would support this. Yet, the author’s focus here is on the audience specifically, as evidenced in the second person plural verbs in verse 8. The author concerns himself with establishing father-son relationships, not fraternal relationships (though cf. 2:11–14). See Cockerill, Hebrews, 623; O’Brien, Letter, 466; Peeler, You Are My Son, 153–56; Johnson, Hebrews, 56–60, 321; cf. Lünemann, Hand-Book, 705. 81 Thus, see our interpretation of 5:7–8 in chapter 2, page 66 n. 132. On νόθος and the “rights” of illegitimate children, see Spicq, Hébreux, 2:393–94. 82 Rightly Bornkamm, “Sohnschaft,” 195, 198; contra Mende, “‘Wen der Herr liebhat,’” 23–38. Bornkamm, however, considers theodicy an obvious issue behind Prov 3:11–12 itself, but this is not so obvious, as demonstrated in chapter 4. The point both in Hebrews and in Prov 3 is the proper acceptance of God’s discipline since it signifies loving sonship. Theodicy as an attempt to justify God’s actions (as Bornkamm defines it) is as far from Prov 3:11–12 as it is from Heb 12. 83 Thus, the NA28 rightly offers Prov 13:24 as a parallel to verse 7b. So also Gert Steyn, who states, “Trying times, difficulties or suffering, are thus perceived to be normal within the parent-child relationship where instruction, guidance and discipline takes [sic] place.” See Gert Steyn, “Some Possible Intertextual Influences from the Jewish Scriptures on the (Moral) Language of Hebrews,” in Moral Language in the New Testament, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt, WUNT II/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 316. 84 Cockerill, Hebrews, 623, takes the conditional as sharpening the “keen edge of [the author’s] warning.” Strictly speaking, this is not a warning, but it does logically imply one.

200

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

are legitimate children, but on the other hand, if you remove yourself from this discipline, you are illegitimate. The description of Moses as choosing illtreatment with the people of God and consideration of reproach as better than sin or riches expresses a similar sentiment. Thus, though the author encourages the audience with a common-experience-approach, his encouragement includes a warning of illegitimacy if they remove themselves from God’s discipline,85 which naturally puts them outside of sonship, and alongside hostile sinners. Verses 9 and 10 develop the thought further in two ways. First, verse 9 begins with the assumption that a child must respect a natural father, implying the audience should behave in a certain way toward God, the father of spirits, and second, both verses argue for the greater benefit of God’s discipline than even the well-intended discipline of human fathers. In verse 9, the author highlights the presumption that fathers of the flesh functioned as παιδευταί and makes the point – which could be taken as obvious86 – that as sons “we” rightly respected them.87 Lane, following Vanhoye,88 argues that respect for fathers results from discipline, thus seeing ἐνετρεπόµεθα as parallel to ζήσοµεν, the result of submission to the father of spirits. Logically this may follow, but the thought really does not develop in the way described by Lane and Vanhoye. The point is rather that we behaved in a certain, respectful way toward our earthly fathers (who, as verse 10 develops, were imperfect in their discipline), and it follows that we should behave all the more in that way toward God. From verse 5 with the quotation from Proverbs, the author has set forth the need for a right attitude toward discipline, and so it seems better to take the lesser to greater argument as arguing from an earlier behavior to

85

Cf. deSilva, Perseverance, 455. This could be presumed from Jewish or non-Jewish perspectives. Steyn, “Intertextual Influences,” 316–17, even suggests the influence of the fifth commandment in Heb 12: “To be tested as God’s children presupposes moral behavior of honour and obedience within the context of the fifth commandment.” Cf. Seneca, Ben. 3.38.2, discussed in chapter 3; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.10.7; Plutarch, Mor. 7E; Philo, Decal. 106–20. For fathers as lords, see Philo, Spec. 2.24; Sobr. 54; and further SB 3.6262.1, 24 (3rd cent.), where the student Thonis addresses his father in a letter as lord and father. 87 The passive of ἐντρέπω could mean to be put to/feel shame/fear when used absolutely (cf. 2 Thess 3:14; Tit 2:8), and while the sense of respect or regard for was classically used with the genitive object, the same meaning could be conveyed with the accusative object (e.g., Mark 12:6; see LSJ, s.v. “ἐντρέπω”; Lünemann, Hand-Book, 706). Being put to shame or fear is not wholly foreign to the corporal punishment context, but as Heb 12 facilitates a right attitude toward discipline, the sense of respect for fathers is more appropriate. Accordingly we may take the accusative τοὺς […] πατέρας […] παιδευτὰς as related to both verbs, ἔχω and ἐντρέπω. 88 Lane, Hebrews, 2:402, 423; Albert Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de L’Épitre aux Hébreux, StudNeot 1 (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963), 201–2. 86

Hebrews 12:1–11

201

an ongoing behavior89 toward a more perfect father. Respect is demanded of the sons, not the result of discipline. Indeed, they could even choose to quake underneath it. Thus, McCown is probably right to see some hortatory force to the rhetorical question of verse 9, “how much more shall we be subject to the father of spirits and live?”90 The benefit of life gives the reader (or hearer) the first hint of the greater benefits of God’s fatherly παιδεία, but the thrust of the verse spurs the audience on in submission to God. The description in verse 9 of fathers as παιδευταί raises the issue of whether to understand παιδευταί as teachers or correctors in Heb 12. Indeed, a παιδευτής is most often simply a teacher.91 In fact, often παιδευτής is set parallel with διδάσκαλος92 and can also be distinguished from a παιδαγωγός.93 In Plato’s Leges, the guardian of the law is himself a παιδευτής and has διδάσκαλοι under him.94 Elsewhere in Plato, παιδευταί and sophists are lumped together for critique, and it is said that when their words are not convincing, they resort to punishing by several means, including death.95 This example is certainly not the same thing as exacting corporal punishment for the normal cases of bad behavior or poor learning, but may be seen as an extreme, and probably hyperbolic, use of a teacher’s regular punitive powers. Only Hos 5:2 and Pss. Sol. 8:29 demand the rendering “corrector.” The former occurs in a context of judgment and reproof for forsaking the Lord (5:1, 9), and the latter likewise comes in a context of judgment for sin and defilement. As chapter 3 showed, teachers and paedagogues typically educated by means of physical punishments for a variety of “sins” or inadequacies, such that viewing παιδεία in Hebrews as strictly education or formation fails to account for the reality that παιδεία in most cases involved a fair dosage of beating. So too it is inadvisable to try to divide strictly between a teaching role and a correcting role for a παιδευτής, unless the context demands emphasis on correction. The point made by Croy that the term παιδευτής seldom occurs in punitive contexts fails to capture the entire educational picture of antiquity.96 Even where the word can be understood to refer to a chastiser, it gains this nuance from its association with the typical methods of educators. However, those advocating for the non-punitive approach rightly show that correction of sin does not apply to Heb 12, such that LSJ’s suggested translation of corrector or chastiser for Heb 12:9 is not advisable, despite the corporal punishment context.97 Those op89

Cf. 6:9–12; 10:32–39. Wayne G. McCown, “Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ: The Nature and Function of the Hortatory Sections in the Epistles to the Hebrews” (ThD diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1970), 205–6. He finds such force in other similar cases: 2:2–3; 10:28–29; 9:13– 14; 12:25. 91 Plutarch, Alex. 7.2; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.12, 18, 19; 4 Macc 5:34 (of the law); 9:6; Sir 37:19; Philo, Prob. 143 (of poets and parents as instructors in wisdom). In Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.59.5, it is used of Pythagoras as a παιδευτὴς σοφίας, and in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.7.17, it is used of the philosopher Zeno. 92 Plutarch, Cam. 10.4; Polybius, Hist. 31.31.1; Rom 2:20. 93 Plutarch, Mor. 4; cf. Philo, Legat. 53. 94 Plato, Leg. 811D. 95 Plato, Resp. 492D. 96 Croy, Endurance, 202. 97 LSJ, s.v. “παιδευτής.” 90

202

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

tions suggest a punitivity that is neither present nor relevant at all to Heb 12. A preferable translation is “disciplinarian”, which maintains the dual conceptions of physical pain and educational order, while avoiding the misleading implications of corrector or chastiser.98

Concerning the benefit of life, we must ask in what sense this is to be understood. Does the author mean to speak more in terms of the fullness of life as we saw in Proverbs, or more in terms of future eschatological bliss? The future tense does not necessarily speak for or against either interpretation, but in light of the parallel in 10:38, “my righteous one will live out of faith”, it is difficult not to see an eschatological reference in chapter 12. That is to say, since 10:36–39 speaks of not falling short into destruction but rather of enduring until the preservation of the soul, a reference to future life in 12:9 most likely has also to do with life after a favorable judgment from God (cf. 12:23). It may appear that this eschatological aspect of παιδεία moves quite beyond the earthly παιδεία of fathers that leads to virtues profitable for living a good life at present, that it goes so far beyond the normal understanding of the function of discipline that it no longer serves as a useful analogy. Yet, while the author’s goals for the audience reach beyond the inherent good of virtuous living now, the author does not completely abandon the aspect of present virtue in his conception of παιδεία. The author emphasizes the greater benefit of the discipline of God. He is the father of spirits rather than just a father of the flesh, and he disciplines for what is beneficial (ἐπὶ τὸ συµφέρον), while earthly fathers discipline only for a short time according to their discretion (πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡµέρας κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς). The juxtaposition in 12:10 of ἐπὶ τὸ συµφέρον and κατὰ τὸ δοκοῦν is particularly interesting, since earthly fathers certainly raised children unto what was beneficial.99 With this statement the author minimizes the capabilities of earthly fathers and maximizes the importance and value of God’s disciplinary procedures. It is the father of spirits who can truly raise his children unto what is profitable. Moreover, with its eschatological outlook, especially its frequent references to future judgment, the benefit of future life is quite an important benefit indeed. The author looks beyond the present life, where the audience has no lasting city, and looks forward to the unshakable kingdom. With this reality in mind, the author brings even his use of παιδεία into the grander scheme, 98

So also Gray’s translation of the passage in Patrick Gray, “Hebrews among Greeks and Romans,” in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 20–21. 99 E.g., Plutarch, Mor. 13D; Dio Cassius, History of Rome 41.27.3, where Caesar responds to mutiny by comparing himself to a father who wishes his children to prosper, and so by admonishing and correcting error, he seeks for his men to judge the profitable not on the basis of immediate pleasure but on the basis of lasting benefit (ἂν µήτε πρὸς τὸ αὐτίκα ἡδὺ τὸ συµφέρον κρίνητε µᾶλλον ἢ πρὸς τὸ ἀεὶ ὠφέλιµον).

Hebrews 12:1–11

203

such that virtue in the present life (see the discussion below) becomes all the more important. Not only does life result, but according to verse 10, God’s discipline offers the further benefit of sharing in his holiness (εἰς τὸ µεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐτοῦ). The term ἁγιότης occurs only here in Hebrews, and only elsewhere in the NT in a variant reading of 2 Cor 1:12. The problem is whether the term points to eschatological holiness or moral holiness. The earliest evidence for the word exhibits two noteworthy sides. On the one hand, the word is used in moral connections, and on the other, it can be used of holiness as separation. For example, according to the variant reading of 2 Cor 1:12, Paul speaks of his and his co-workers’ boast in the witness of their conscience, namely that they conducted themselves in the world and toward the Corinthians with the holiness and sincerity of God (ἐν ἁγιότητι καὶ εἰλικρινείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ).100 Here ἁγιότης would represent a standard of behavior, one that either comes from God or accords with God’s own nature (i.e., divine holiness and sincerity). In 2 Macc 15:2 the word is used with reference to the Sabbath, which God has distinguished with holiness (τῇ προτετιµηµένῃ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος µεθ᾽ ἁγιότητος ἡµέρᾳ). Several translations emphasize the holiness of this day in contrast to others, adding “above (all) other days”.101 Or, we could translate, “which God has distinguished as holy.” That is, the difference between this day and others is that it is holy. Herm. 15.3 describes those who have been baptized but who turn away to fulfill their wicked desires when they recall the purity of the truth (or the purity demanded by the truth; ἡ ἁγνότης τῆς ἀληθείας). The Latin Vulgate (L1) version appears to have read ἁγιότης instead of ἁγνότης.102 In this context holiness would be understood in the moral sense, not far from the sense in 2 Cor 1:12, though in Hermas there is no connection to God’s holiness. In Origen’s Hexapla, the sixth Greek column (S´) for Psalm 28:2 (29:2 MT) reads, ἐν ὑπερηρµένῃ ἁγιότητι, in (his) exalted holiness, where the LXX has ἐν αὐλῇ ἁγίᾳ αὐτοῦ.103 Here the idea has more to do with the exalted place where God dwells rather than an obviously moral quality. T. Levi 3.4 describes the third heaven as the dwelling place of the Great Glory in the Holy of Holies, above all holiness (ὑπεράνω πάσης ἁγιότητος).104 With him are the archangels who present sacrifices for the sins of ignorance committed by the righteous. Similar to the sense in the variant version of Ps 28:2 above, ἁγιότης in this case concerns the place of God above other things. 100

The variant has strong external support (P46 ‫ *א‬A B C K P), but seems slightly less fitting to the context than ἁπλότης, since Paul is primarily concerned with his relationship to the Corinthians. However, since he also speaks of his behavior in the world, ἁγιότης could also be appropriate (cf. Weiß, Hebräer, 656 n. 46). See further Metzger, Textual Commentary, 507; Otto Procksch, “ἁγιότης,” TDNT 1:114. 101 NAB, NRSV; cf. LXX.D, “vor (allen anderen)”. 102 Molly Whittaker, ed., Der Hirt des Hermas, vol. 1 of Die Apostolischen Väter, 2nd ed., GCS 48 (Berlin: Akademie, 1967), 14. 103 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 2:129. 104 See Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, PVTG (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 27.

204

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

Based on the limited evidence near the time of Hebrews, it would be difficult to suggest that ἁγιότης should denote some particular nuance of holiness more than another, whether exclusively as an attribute of God’s being or as a descriptor of his morality. The immediate context in Heb 12 suggests the two sides may not actually be so easily separated. First, with the specific comparison to earthly fathers in 12:9–10 the author may have chosen the term to highlight the differences in ends of earthly and divine παιδεία. Since a major educational role of fathers in the ancient world was to live as fitting examples of proper behavior for their children,105 so also God’s discipline would lead to the sharing in his own holy character.106 Moreover, the command to seek after ἁγιασµός in verse 14, the righteous results of discipline in verse 11, and the moral purposes of παιδεία in general supports a moral reading of God’s holiness in verse 10. Eschatological life and perfection may constitute the larger goals,107 yet as in the case of the variant reading of 2 Cor 1:12, which combines moral and divine aspects of ἁγιότης, the context here too suggests that we should not attempt to divide holiness as a mark of God’s exaltation from the moral aspect of his character.108 Thus, Procksch’s pointer to 1 Pet 1:16 (cf. Lev 11:44; 19:2) – “you shall be holy, for I am Holy” – is appropriate.109 105

Plutarch, Mor. 14A; Seneca, Prov. 1.5 (man as God’s disciple, imitator, and offspring); 1 Cor 4:14–16; see further Cribiore, Gymnastics, 106. 106 Cf. Philo, Decal. 100–1, where Philo explains that the commandment to keep the Sabbath essentially means to follow God always, imitating his pattern of praxis and contemplation. 107 So Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:272–73. Johnson, Hebrews, 322, also advocates for an eschatological interpretation, rightly noting the contrast between God’s discipline and the temporary (πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡµέρας) discipline of human fathers. Unlikely, however, is his simplification of ἁγιότης as the presence of God, or “the holiness that Jesus himself has entered […].” Hebrews explains that Jesus entered the ἅγια, not the ἁγιότης (8:1–2; 9:12; cf. 9:24), and the saints already have access to the ἅγια (10:19–22), since they can approach the throne for “timely help” (4:16). 108 Rightly also Croy, Endurance, 205–6. Spicq, Hébreux, 2:395, also mixes the eschatological and moral (cf. 2:396 on righteousness) and explains that ἁγιότης is well chosen since the Christians are saints (3:1) devoted to God. Thus for him, παιδεία involves a radical separation from the world of sin (cf. 12:1, 3, 4; 7:26) and facilitates exclusive union with God (cf. 2 Pet 1:4b: ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως ἀποφυγόντες τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ ἐν ἐπιθυµίᾳ φθορᾶς). So also Ragnar Asting, Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum, FRLANT 46 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930), 253. 109 Procksch, TDNT 1:114. Michel, Hebräer, 444 n. 5, points out that if Lev 19:2 underlies 1 Pet 1:15, then the cultic character of the holiness law is also suggested. He cites Otto Procksch, “ἅγιος” TWNT 1:91 in support, but as Procksch also points out and the context of Lev 19 shows, there is a great moral aspect to this holiness. How one behaves in obedience to God’s laws is an aspect of holiness, and it is precisely the behavioral aspect that appears in 1 Pet 1:14–17 (v. 15: αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε). Cf. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, 3 vols., AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001), 2:1714–15. On holiness in 1 Peter, see Eckart David Schmidt, “Kult und Ethik: Leben ‘heiliger’ Gemeinden. Der Hei-

Hebrews 12:1–11

205

Ultimately παιδεία results in eschatological life, but this does not exclude a moral element.110 As the following verses show, conduct and holiness go hand in hand (12:14–16; 13:4). Thus, the benefit of God’s discipline brings the disciplined to a higher level than human discipline could achieve. It brings eschatological life and leads to a level of virtue that surpasses humanity and enters the sphere of God’s own character. 5. Verse 11: The Moral Fruit of παιδεία With verse 11 the author brings the argument for the acceptance of divine discipline to a climactic close. Corresponding with our findings in chapter 3, the author states that all παιδεία seems for the time (πρὸς τὸ πορόν) not joyful but painful.111 Yet, later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. As we have seen, παιδεία was viewed as inherently painful for a variety of reasons and causes, but ultimately, as with the oft-cited words of Aristotle or Isocrates, the roots are bitter but the fruits are sweet.112 The point is, despite the painful circumstances now, the process has sense to it and ultimately works for the good of the sufferer, here particularly in the sense of the sufferer’s moral good, with a view to the enjoyment of peace. There are two primary issues to handle in this verse. The first is whether the genitive in καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης is a genitive of apposition or a genitive of source; that is, is righteousness itself the fruit or does peaceful fruit come forth from righteousness? The second issue concerns whether the peaceful fruit of righteousness refers to eschatological salvific results of παιδεία or to moral fruit in the present. Regarding the genitive, the phrase καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης does not appear frequently, but it does appear often enough in other contexts to offer some ideas. In the following cases it occurs as either a genitive of source or of apposition, though in several cases both are possible. To begin, we have seen the phrase in Prov 3:9, where the fruits of righteousness are righteous behaviors offered to the Lord, resulting in blessing. That is, the fruits originate from righteous character (source). According to Prov 11:30, a tree of life springs up out of fruit of righteousness (ἐκ καρποῦ δικαιοσύνης φύεται δένδρον ζωῆς), while the souls of the unlawful are cut off before their time. Here a positive benefit, namely life, comes from righteousness (apposition) or perhaps the acts stemming from righteousness (source).

ligkeitsbegriff in ethischen Begründungszusammenhängen im 1. Petrusbrief,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 313 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 225–55, esp. 242–45. 110 Cf. Weiß, Hebräer, 655–56. 111 That is, the genitives (χαρᾶς εἶναι ἀλλὰ λύπης) are attributive, describing παιδεία. 112 Cf. the quotation of Deut 29:17 in 12:15: µή τις ῥίζα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς µιανθῶσιν πολλοι. In this case, however, the bitter root does not lead to anything good but only to defilement.

206

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

This verse parallels the idea in Hebrews that the righteous will live (10:38; 12:9).113 According to Prov 13:2, the good person will eat from the fruits of righteousness (ἀπὸ καρπῶν δικαιοσύνης φάγεται ἀγαθός), and the lawless perish early. The parallel in 11:30 and the perishing of the lawless suggest that life is the implied fruit here. If that is true, then the fruit results from righteousness, making it a genitive of source. We cannot rule out the genitive of apposition in this case either, however.114 In Amos 6:12, the prophet accuses the people of turning judgment into wrath115 and the fruit of righteousness into bitterness (καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης εἰς πικρίαν). Here we have a genitive of apposition, since the fruit itself becomes bitter or a source of bitterness. For Amos the people have failed to administer justice (cf. 5:23–24) and so where justice should have been beneficial to the community,116 it has become cause for God’s wrath (6:1–7). In Hos 10:12 the exact phrase does not occur, but the parallel is close: “Sow for yourselves unto righteousness; reap unto the fruit of life; illuminate yourselves with the light of knowledge; seek the Lord until the harvest of righteousness comes to you.”117 The immediate context concerns God’s disciplining of Israel for injustice (10:10), in particular idolatry (10:1). Verse 12 thus calls the people to repent. The relevant genitive, γενήµατα δικαιοσύνης, appears to be a genitive of source because of the first two commands of the verse. That is, if the people do righteousness, then they will live. The harvest of righteousness then refers to the positive results of no longer engaging in injustice but turning to righteousness. The Letter of Aristeas (232–33) treats the fruits of righteousness as those positive benefits of leading a righteous life, namely freedom from sorrow (λύπη). During the banquet with the translators, the king asks one of the guests how an individual may become free from sorrow, and the guest answers: “If he harms no one but helps everyone, following after righteousness. For its [i.e., righteousness] fruits establish freedom from pain. And one must pray to God, that the things arising contrary to our good intentions might not do harm – truly I mean such things as death, disease, sorrow, and the like. But as your piety has been established, none of these things would come upon you.”118 Like Hebrews, 113

Cf. Hos 10:12. Cf. Prov 12:12 MT; Isa 3:10. 115 Or poison (θυµός). The NETS translates θυµός as wrath (cf. Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint [Leuven: Peeters, 2009], s.v. “θυµός”), while the LXX.D translates it as poison (cf. Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003], s.v. “θυµός”). The MT reads ‫ראש‬, poison. In the parallel in Deut 29:17, which is quoted slightly differently in Heb 12:15, the LXX has χολή for ‫ראש‬. The clearest uses of θυµός as poison occur with poisonous animals (cf. Job 20:16; Deut 32:33), and so it is probably better to take θυµός here with its more basic meaning, wrath, despite the MT. Like the parallel in Deut 29:17 the concern is with improper behavior that leads to divine punishment. 116 Cf. Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos, BKAT 14/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), 331. 117 Gk.: σπείρατε ἑαυτοῖς εἰς δικαιοσύνην τρυγήσατε εἰς καρπὸν ζωῆς φωτίσατε ἑαυτοῖς φῶς γνώσεως ἐκζητήσατε τὸν κύριον ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν γενήµατα δικαιοσύνης ὑµῖν. 118 Gk.: Εἰ µεδένα βλάπτοι, πάντας δὲ ὠφελοῖ, τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ κατακολουθῶν· τοὺς γάρ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς καρποὺς ἀλυπίαν κατασκευάζειν. Ἱκετεύειν δὲ [δεῖ] τὸν θεόν, ἵνα µὴ τὰ παρὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν ἡµῶν ἀνακύπτοντα βλάπτῃ, λέγω δὴ οῖον θάνατοί τε καὶ νόσοι καὶ λῦπαι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Εὐσεβεῖ δὲ σοὶ καθεστῶτι τούτων οὐδὲν ἄν προσέλθοι. See André Pelletier, Lettre 114

Hebrews 12:1–11

207

Aristeas sees a relationship between pain and righteousness. Of course there is a major difference between the two. For Hebrews, pain is the means of reaching the fruit of righteousness, while in Aristeas righteousness is the means of avoiding pain altogether. There are two NT occurrences of the phrase outside of Hebrews, namely Phil 1:11 and Jas 3:18.119 In Phil 1:11, the fruit of righteousness is probably righteousness itself, which comes through Jesus, thus a genitive of apposition (καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστου; cf. Rom 1:17; 3:22).120 In Jas 3:18, the fruit of righteousness comes as the result of sowing peace: “And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” The idea here is that those who foster peace will reap for themselves righteousness; that is, the fruit itself is righteousness (genitive of apposition). In the immediate context the author argues that jealousy and selfishness lead to disorder and every bad deed, while wisdom from above is peaceable (εἰρηνικός) and full of good fruit. With 3:18 then, the author motivates the audience toward peace with one another instead of strife (cf. 4:1). A final occurrence of the phrase is found in Herm. 96.2 in the interpretation of the parable of the mountains. Accordingly, the barren mountain represents hypocrites and teachers of evil, those lacking the fruit of righteousness (µὴ ἔχοντες καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης). Their mountain is fruitless; there is no fruit of truth among them.121 Instead, they teach the passions of sinful men (96.3). In keeping with the image of the barren mountain, fruit here is probably not acts coming from righteousness, but rather represents righteousness itself (genitive of apposition).122

The tradition-historical evidence does not point decisively in one direction or another as to the interpretation of the genitive, though it is noteworthy that none of the evidence points to eschatological righteousness, but rather always to proper behavior or proper enacting of justice. Heb 12:11 itself points most D’Aristée a Philocrate: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes, Index Complet des Mots Grecs, SC 89 (Paris: Cerf, 1962), 206. 119 Cf. 2 Cor 9:10, τὰ γενήµατα τῆς δικαιοσύνης ὑµῶν. Here the harvest of righteousness is the righteousness produced by giving cheerfully (2 Cor 9:1–11, esp. v. 9). 120 Cf. Markus Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, BNTC (London: Continuum, 1997), 69. The immediate context also exhorts the audience to increase in love and knowledge for discernment in order to be pure and blameless for the day of Christ (1:9– 10). This suggests the significance not just of a state of righteousness but the maintenance of that state through proper behavior. 121 Gk.: µὴ ἔχοντες καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης ὡς γὰρ τὸ ὄρος αὐτῶν ἄκαρπον οὕτω καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ τοιοῦτοι ὄνοµα µὲν ἔχουσιν ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς πίστεως κενοί εἰσι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐν αὐτοῖς καρπὸς ἀληθείας. 122 In the Acts of Paul and Thecla (3.4; 4.7 in Lipsius and Bonnet’s edition), the fruit of righteousness is evidence – in this case the lack of evidence – of righteousness on the part of Paul’s companions. In Prot. Jas. 6.3, the baby Mary born to Anna is the fruit of God’s righteousness. See Richard Adelbert Lipsius and Maximillian Bonnet, eds., Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 3 vols. (Hildesheim: Olms, 1959), 1:238; cf. Jeremy W. Barrier, The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary, WUNT II/270 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 76–78; Émile de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques: Recherches sur le Papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée, Subsidia Hagiographica 33 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1961), 94.

208

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

likely to the genitive of apposition. The verse says that to those trained by it, παιδεία yields the fruit of righteousness. This suggests that since παιδεία produces the fruit, righteousness is the fruit. This is similar to Jas 3:18 and Phil 1:11, each of which name a producer (sowing peace or Jesus, respectively), giving weight to the appositional interpretation.123 Understanding righteousness as the source of the peaceful fruit convolutes the phrase. The verse would then have to mean, “to those trained by παιδεία, παιδεία produces the peaceful fruit which comes from righteousness.” Yet if παιδεία yields the fruit, it does not make sense then to say that the fruit originates from righteousness.124 The structure of the sentence suggests instead two things. First, εἰρηνικός is placed closer to the transition from temporary pain to the later yield of fruit. It stands in contrast to the trouble of the training. Second, δικαιοσύνη occurs at the very end, directly after the verb ἀποδίδωµι. This suggests the author is highlighting exactly the type of fruit the παιδεία yields. On the one hand, this fruit contrasts to pain in that it is peaceful. On the other hand, that fruit is righteousness itself.125 Having seen that the fruit resulting from παιδεία consists in righteousness and is peaceful in contrast to the pain of the process,126 we turn to our second question: are these results enjoyed in the future, in a salutary sense, or do they describe the present enjoyment of right moral living? The evidence suggests these two interpretations cannot be easily separated from one another. We have seen already how the author goes beyond “fleshly” παιδεία, in that its results of life and holiness extend into the eschatological future, while the educational work of earthly fathers lasts only for a short time. We saw in chapter 2 above that righteousness and peace go hand in hand, often eschatologically, with peace serving as a reward for those who live righteously or resulting from the just rule of the messiah. For example, according to Isa 32:17, “the works of righteousness will be peace and righteousness will seize hold of rest (ἀνάπαυσιν) and be confident forever.”127 The messianic associa123

So, de Wette, Handbuch, 317; Lünemann, Hand-Book, 707–8; Riggenbach, Hebräer 399 n.70. 124 Contra Cockerill, Hebrews, 628; similarly Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 3rd ed. (Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1854), 508. 125 Cockerill, Hebrews, 627–28, also highlights the placement of δικαιοσύνης at the end, but argues that the placement suggests righteousness is the source of the fruit not its nature. Cockerill is quite right to point out that while some (he cites Lane, Hebrews, 2:425; see also O’Brien, Letter, 469) take “peaceful” and “righteousness” as functioning basically the same way, one must pay attention to the actual structure of the sentence and its grammatical forms. 126 Similarly, Lane, Hebrews, 2:425. He sees peace as the harvest as well as righteousness, but this overlooks the structure (cf. n. 125 above). 127 Gk.: καὶ ἔσται τὰ ἔργα τῆς δικαιοσύνης εἰρήνη καὶ κρατήσει ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ πεποιθότες ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος. See also Ps 72:1–4 and the evidence presented in chapter 2,

Hebrews 12:1–11

209

tion occurs in Hebrews with the paradigm of Melchizedek as the king of righteousness and peace (7:2; cf. 1:8–9).128 In the same vein, the reference to an apparent lack of joy in παιδεία and the juxtaposition of peace should make us think back to Jesus, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, and only thereafter sat down at the right hand of God’s throne. This construal of Jesus’ experience and the forward-looking lifestyle of the heroes of chapter 11 suggest that the believers will not find peaceful circumstances in this life.129 Thus, the temporal expressions in verse 11, πρὸς τὸ πορόν and ὕστερον, could indicate the eschatological reaping of fruit; that is, the present time is a time of suffering, while the future will be a time of peaceful righteousness in contrast to the present affliction.130 This eschatological view, however, undervalues the general nature of 12:11; the author is not speaking of divine παιδεία in particular, but of all παιδεία (πᾶσα δὲ παιδεία).131 We examined in chapter 3 how Aphthonius applied Isocrates’s comment on the sweet fruits of παιδεία to the virtues won by undergoing painful corporal punishment in education. Indeed, the entire course of education, even in learning content, but particularly through corporal punishment, was understood to form a child out of an intractable state and to a state of virtue and maturity. The author refers to this process when, in the only other use of γυµνάζω in Hebrews, he explains that those familiar with the matter of righteousness are able to recognize good and evil because of their condition as possessing trained faculties of discernment (5:13–14).132 page 83. Cf. Gottfried Quell, “δίκη” TWNT 2:179: “Aus ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬als Norm für den vollendeten ‫שׁ לוֹם‬-Zustand ָ erwächst ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬als Aktion, als das jenen Zustand herbeiführende, erneuernde und ihn sichernde Verhalten.” 128 See chapter 2, page 83 and further Isa 48:18; 54:13–14; 60:17; Ps 85:8–14; Rom 14:17–19. For a detailed discussion, see Egon Brandenburger, Frieden im Neuen Testament: Grundlinien urchristlichen Friedensverständnisses (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973), 17–47, 51–60. 129 Cf. Franz Joseph Schierse, Verheißung und Heilsvollendung: Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebräerbriefes, Münchener theologische Studien (Munich: Karl Zink, 1955), 120. Contra Lane, Hebrews, 2:425–26, who suggests peace and righteousness are gifts of eschatological salvation, but which the audience already possesses in the present. 130 So Michel, Hebräer, 445, who speaks even of two aeons, and Gräßer, Der Glaube, 158, who appeals to 10:34–39 and the eschatological phrase, ἔτι γὰρ µικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον. For Michel and Gräßer, the eschatological associations of peace and righteousness seen above also speak for an eschatological interpretation of 12:11 (see further Michel, Hebräer, 446 and Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:274). Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 656; Backhaus, Hebräer, 424. 131 Rightly Ellingworth, Hebrews, 655, who notes that nothing in 12:11 applies exclusively to divine discipline. 132 It is not uncommon to find γυµνάζω and its cognates in the same contexts as παιδεύω and its cognates. Gymnastics counted among types of education, with παιδεία forming the larger category (e.g., Plutarch, Mor. 7D; Herodian, Hist. 5.7.5; cf. Philostratus, Gymn. 46; see Croy, Endurance, 158 n. 203). The athletic image, together with παιδεία was often

210

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

The author has not been hesitant to go beyond traditional conceptions of παιδεία in attributing special qualities and eschatological results to παιδεία from God, but he has not quite left the mundane categories to the side.133 The main idea is that the time is painful now, but in the end there will be peace from that pain and the sufferer will have been developed in righteousness. By pointing to this end result, the author encourages the audience that their present difficulties serve to form them into exactly the type of people God expects them to be. While in Hebrews God as judge attributes righteousness to his faithful ones (10:38; 11:4, 7; cf. 12:23), we have seen before that this judgment depends on certain behavior that brings faithfulness to actual expression (cf. 6:9–12). In order to be considered righteous, one must first act righteously (cf. 10:36–39). According to 1:9, God anoints Jesus because of his love of righteousness and hate of lawlessness.134 This righteousness is precisely what παιδεία facilitates. In speaking of training in 12:11 the author thus refers to a process of development that results ultimately in righteousness, but that process takes place in the present. It fosters the ability to lead a life of noble conduct in contradistinction to a life of sin (vv. 1, 4), defilement, profanity, and immorality (vv. 15–16).135 It is worth noting here that in the context of the proverbs used in Heb 12 we also found a relationship between upright behavior and peace.136 There, wisdom and keeping the father’s teachings leads to peaceful well-being (Prov

carried over into the training of virtue and the soul (Isocrates, Ad. Nic. 11; Plutarch, Mor. 2C-3B; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.18.27; 3.12.7), including the capability of facing hardships (Epictetus, Diatr. 1.29.33–35; 3.26.31; Lucian, Tim. 36). Yet the two word groups also appear together in educational contexts where training has no athletic referent (Isocrates, Hel. enc. 5; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 619; Philo, Congr. 17; 180; cf. Plutarch, Aem. 6.8–10, which mentions studies and training with no reference to physical training but a whole course of studies including academics, arts, and hunting, and the handling of horses). γυµνάζω can also mean harass or distress, which, while perhaps not totally foreign to the context, carries a rather negative connotation unfitting the positive outlook of the passage (e.g., Philo, Abr. 96–97 [with τιµωρία]; 2 Macc 10:15). Cf. Croy, Endurance, 158–59. 133 Rightly Schierse, Verheißung, 120 n. 159 (cf. 203), who sees the eschatological dimension to the results of παιδεία, but notes that the “Weltbetrachtung” that the author draws from Prov 3:11–12 corresponds more to conventional philosophical wisdom than the apocalyptic view of history. 134 Gräßer, “Rechtfertigung,” 172, rightly recognizes that the behavior of the Messiah corresponds to the behavior God expects of his people. 135 Cf. Johnson, Hebrews, 323. Thus Schierse, Verheißung, 203, can rightly say, “Die göttliche Leidensschule (12,5–11) dient wohl in erster Linie der sittlichen Ertüchtigung [moral fitness; emphasis mine] […].” Others too see a present moral dimension to this verse: Peterson, Perfection, 174; Cockerill, Hebrews, 627; Weiß, Hebräer, 655–58; Croy, Endurance, 206. Cf. Windisch, Hebräerbrief, 111, who sees exclusively “die [...] gewonnene gottwohlgefällige sittliche Tüchtigkeit.” 136 See chapter 4, pages 146–52, 161–62.

Hebrews 12:1–11

211

3:2, 17, 23), and according to Prov 4:27b, in the context of the morally right path versus the evil path, God makes a person’s paths straight and guides one’s steps in peace.137 The author was likely influenced by this connection, since it is fitting not only with righteous living, but also because of the wellbeing it entails in contrast to pain. Prov 3:24–25 is a good example of this. Following the assurance that keeping the father’s counsel will lead to peace (Prov 3:22–23), the text continues: “For if you sit, you will be without fear, and if you sleep, you will go to sleep content, and you will not fear trouble when it comes, nor the coming attacks of the ungodly.”138 Philo likewise associates παιδεία, righteousness, and peace in connection with Prov 3. When he describes Esau before quoting Prov 3:11–12 in Congr. 177, he characterizes Esau as a man of war and not peace, of rebellion and tumult in the soul. Then Philo introduces the proverb saying: “And hence, it seems to me, one of Moses’ students, whose name is the peaceful one (εἰρηνικός), who is in the native language called Solomon, says […]” (177; translation mine). It is not by accident, then, that Philo makes the connection with peace here. The point is that discipline is useful for those who do not strive for peaceful conditions. Philo develops a similar, moral understanding of peace with the example of Noah, whose name he understands to mean either “rest” or “the righteous one” (ἀνάπαυσις ἢ δίκαιος; Abr. 27), both of which he finds suitable. This is because for Philo, righteousness, on the one hand, is the chief virtue and rest, on the other, is the opposite of the war and tumult pursued by the wicked. Those who honor noble conduct (οἱ καλοκἀγαθίαν τετιµηκότες), however, pursue a peaceful life (εἰρηνικὸν βίον).139 Even though peace in Heb 12:11 must ultimately point to an eschatological time of peace beyond the pain of the present existence, the author’s use of εἰρηνικός/εἰρήνη, rather than the more loaded κατάπαυσις (4:1, 3, 5, 10, 11), for example, suggests he is staying for the moment with the categories of daily life offered by the wisdom tradition and ancient educational conceptions.140 Proverbs has offered him a way of understanding trouble, but it also provides a way – in connection with typical ways of thinking about education – to understand the end results of παιδεία. The point is not eschatological per se, even if it leads there. The author simply appeals to a shared understanding

137 Cf. Prov 16:8: “The one who seeks the Lord will find knowledge with righteousness, and those seeking him rightly will find peace” (ὁ ζητῶν τὸν κύριον εὑρήσει γνῶσιν µετὰ δικαιοσύνης οἱ δὲ ὀρθῶς ζητοῦντες αὐτὸν εὑρήσουσιν εἰρήνην). 138 Gk.: ἐὰν γὰρ κάθῃ, ἄφοβος ἔσῃ, ἐὰν δὲ καθεύδῃς, ἡδέως ὑπνώσεις, καὶ οὐ φοβηθήσῃ πτόησιν ἐπελθοῦσαν οὐδὲ ὁρµὰς ἀσεβῶν ἐπερχοµένας. 139 Moffatt, Hebrews, 205. 140 Cf., however, the use of ἀνάπαυσις in Philo, Abr. 27 and Isa 32:17 above.

212

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

of education to motivate the audience to continue through the normal course of all παιδεία that all children undergo. The peacefulness of righteousness in 12:11, therefore, can hardly be separated from the concrete moral action necessary in a life of faithfulness to God. The author’s appeal points to an ongoing process in the present for God’s sons, but it also motivates by means of the simple truth that all παιδεία is painful for a while, but later the one undergoing παιδεία experiences peace and becomes righteous through it. The author does not lose sight of the present moral life, and develops several aspects of it in the verses which follow, namely from 14 to 17.141 6. Findings in 12:1–11 The present study began with Geertz’s observation that religion includes the dual sides of the interpretation of experience and the organization of conduct. Heb 12:1–17 provides an apt example of this, as the first eleven verses of the section have demonstrated. Though scholars largely consider the present passage an exhortation, the preceding analysis shows that we cannot speak simply of exhortation versus exposition or Zuspruch versus Anspruch. The author interprets as he both comforts and places a moral demand on the audience. After the author criticizes the audience for their forgetfulness of the scriptural exhortation and their failure to give their all in the struggle against sin itself, the author turns to Proverbs. The exhortation encourages the audience as it addresses them as sons, and it enables the author to develop a scheme whereby God functions as the loving father who inflicts pain for the good of those he loves. Yet, the quotation itself includes not only this consolation, but it begins precisely with the demand to accept such pain from God and not to fall out underneath it. The author thus follows the quotation with a demand of his own, the repeated command to endure. As the exhortation develops, it becomes clear that the author can presume, together with the larger corporal punishment tradition, that no matter how painful the circumstances may be, they surely indicate the concern fathers have for the good of their children, and with the father of spirits these benefits exceed the benefits of earthly παιδεία. It also becomes clear that the author draws upon the context of his quotation, employing the terminology of life, peace, and the fruit of righteousness, while reinterpreting these concepts for the immediate concerns of endurance. So, the author points not just to virtue and peace now, but also to future life and holiness. The quotation and its context serve to develop the shared understanding of earthly fatherly discipline in terms of the eschatological and spiritual. Yet the passage does not only have to do with benefits. Just as the author presumes that children re141

Attridge, Hebrews, 364 n. 89, points also to 13:1–5, 17.

Hebrews 12:12–17

213

spect their parents in obedience, he gently pushes the audience to submit to God in accordance with the proverb. The correspondence of submission to disciplining fathers of the flesh carries over to the father of spirits. Finally, the author points to the peaceful fruit of righteousness. These fruits not only result from training in παιδεία, but they also stand in contrast to the very beginning of the section and its repeated references to sin as an opposing force. Just as in traditional conceptions of education, virtue becomes the goal, specifically the type of virtue pleasing to God and demonstrated by Jesus and others. Peaceful righteousness ultimately extends to the heavenly reception by God the judge (12:23), but it implies, particularly with the thought of training, proper behavior now. With the question of behavior comes also the question of punitivity. Treatments of this passage have given significant attention to this question since Croy’s work, and while such a question is of great significance, particularly for modern readers in places where the corporal punishment of children has fewer supporters,142 there appears some value in moving beyond the punitive/non-punitive distinction. Viewing the passage from an understanding of the ubiquity of corporal punishment in antiquity, but also with a grasp of its supposed benefits for virtue, makes it clearer how the author of Hebrews could draw on this biblical and cultural tradition to spur the audience on in trust and submission to God without implying guilt or wrongdoing. The paradigm becomes an apt illustration of love without losing sight of the demand placed on the audience to live righteously. Though the author does not reveal his conception of the inner workings of such painful, parental training, that it develops righteousness surely must provide some comfort for the audience who must undergo difficulty while maintaining the Christian way of life. Having developed this scheme by which to foster understanding and a right response from the audience, the author next turns to further exhortation and several concrete aspects of conduct.

Hebrews 12:12–17

II. Hebrews 12:12–17

1. Verses 12–13: Making Straight Paths With verses 12 and 13 we come to the beginning of an elaboration on the preceding exhortations to endurance. On the basis of the foregoing exposition 142

In the United States, corporal punishment in the home is legal, and as of September 2014, nineteen states allow corporal punishment in schools. See NBC News, “Corporal Punishment: Legal and Common,” 16 September 2014, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline /nfl-controversy/corporal-punishment-legal-common-n204416.

214

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

of the OT text, the author gives two imperatives, re-straighten (ἀνορθώσατε)143 weakened hands and disabled knees144 and make (ποιεῖτε) straight paths for the feet. In view of the great benefits conveyed by God’s παιδεία, the author exhorts the audience with these two imperatives to keep going. We may see here some parallel to the imperative in verse 7 to endure, but the author turns away from the grounding of endurance as such and focuses more specifically on what kind of endurance the audience must undertake. Not unlike our findings in verses 7–11, the author’s discussion entails both eschatological and moral nuances evinced by the combination of allusions to Isa 35:3 in verse 12 and Prov 4:26 in verse 13. The imperatives of verses 12 and 13 derive from the OT, just as the first imperatives of the chapter derived from the OT. While one can find parallels 143 It is important to point out that while most English translations reflect the act of “strengthening” hands and knees, the author deliberately chooses ἀνορθόω. The verb derives from ὀρθόω, which means to set straight, and so ἀνορθόω may mean to set up or to set straight again.143 This establishes an obvious connection with the straight paths of verse 13 (ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε). Moreover, it coheres well with the image of healing. For comparison, in Luke 13:13 Jesus heals a crippled woman and she is finally made able to stand up straight again (καὶ παραχρῆµα ἀνωρθώθη).143 Beyond these observations, there are two interesting intertextual links worth noting. First, Ps 17:36b LXX also employs ἀνορθόω in speaking of God’s παιδεία (the line is not present in the MT): “Your παιδεία has set me straight to the end and your παιδεία itself will teach me” (καὶ ἡ παιδεία σου ἀνώρθωσέν µε εἰς τέλος καὶ ἡ παιδεία σου αὐτή µε διδάξει). The context speaks of God’s deliverance of the king from enemies. The basis of this deliverance is the king’s righteousness and his keeping of God’s ways (17:21–25). This evinces the commonality of thought that God’s παιδεία supports (here probably even in a more punitive sense) those who please him (cf. 17:20). Hebrews does not develop παιδεία as a support mechanism as a way of overcoming enemies in the way the psalm does (17:33– 40), but instead motivates the audience to endurance because παιδεία shows God’s pleasure. Thus, the connection of thought is quite similar, but the conceptions of παιδεία function in almost opposite ways. Second, and perhaps related to the first, ἀνορθόω is used in connection with the establishment of David’s throne forever in 2 Sam 7:13, 16 and 1 Chr 17:12, 14, 24; 22:10 (cf. Acts 15:16). We have already discussed the citation of 2 Sam 7:14 in Heb 1:5 and the use of παιδεία. It is thus interesting to note the appearance of this verb in the same context, even though it is used of David’s kingdom, because παιδεία functions in that context as supporting the king and his kingdom through God’s correction (7:14–16). Perhaps it is this connection that explains Ps 17:36 LXX, and it is not beyond reason to think that the same connections influenced Hebrews’ word choice in 12:12 together with the wording of Prov 4:26/Heb 12:13 144 The condition of the hands and knees is described by perfect passive participles (τὰς παρειµένας χεῖρας καὶ τὰ παραλελυµένα γόνατα). The language is traditional (not just stylistic: Croy, Endurance, 209 n. 192), as the same forms are used in Isa 35:3 (χεῖρες ἀνειµέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυµένα), Sir 25:23 (χεῖρες παρειµέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυµένα), and Sir 2:12 (χερσὶν παρειµέναις). By contrast, the parallel in Job 4:4 uses a present participle (γόνασίν τε ἀδυνατοῦσιν θάρσος περιέθηκας). Cf. Deut 32:36; Zeph 3:16.

Hebrews 12:12–17

215

to verse 12 in Sir 2:12, 25:23, Job 4:3–4, and Isa 35:3, only Isa 35:3 includes an imperative (ἰσχύσατε). Nevertheless, the contexts of almost all of them (excepting Sir 25:23, which has to do with a troublesome wife) include motifs similar to Heb 12. It would be amiss to read each of those contexts into Hebrews, but the correlations help illuminate the point the author of Hebrews wants to make. The points of contact between the contexts of the parallels and Hebrews help explain why the author of Hebrews would speak of hands and knees and straight paths in connection with divine discipline on the one hand, and morality and holiness on the other. First, Sir 2:12 pronounces woe upon those who have cowardly hearts and weak hands, and on the sinner who sets foot on two paths (οὐαὶ καρδίαις δειλαῖς καὶ χερσὶν παρειµέναις καὶ ἁµαρτωλῷ ἐπιβαίνοντι ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους). This statement appears in the context of an exhortation to accept whatever afflictions God may send; in fact, Sirach presumes that those who serve the Lord will inevitably face trials (2:1). But, one must remain faithful and not turn away from God (µὴ ἀποστῇς; v. 3), but rather show patience (καρτέρησον; v. 2). The passage, like our findings in Prov 3–4, says God will make one’s paths straight and bring prosperity to the one who maintains hope and faithfulness (2:6; cf. 2:3). These faithful ones are those who obey God, fear him, seek to please him, and are filled with his law (2:15–17). Those who sin and have lost their endurance (οὐαὶ ὑµῖν τοῖς ἀπολωλεκόσιν τὴν ὑποµονήν), however, have no shelter at the Lord’s visitation (2:13–14). It is striking that Sirach treats many of the same themes as Hebrews, beyond even those immediately present in Heb 12. Like Hebrews, faithfulness to God involves obedience and keeping his commands, while turning away shows a failure of endurance and means one has not remained on God’s path. Different from Hebrews, Sirach treats distress as a test, like the testing of gold. Like gold, he says, those who are acceptable are proven acceptable in times of humiliation (ὅτι ἐν πυρὶ δοκιµάζεται χρυσὸς καὶ ἄνθρωποι δεκτοὶ ἐν καµίνῳ ταπεινώσεως). This idea may be implied by Hebrews in that only those who persevere in faithfulness are righteous (10:38–39), but Hebrews never explicitly draws on this imagery to account for the audience’s circumstances. Second, in Job 4:3–4, Eliphaz begins his speech by pointing out that Job himself even exhorted many, comforted those with weak hands (χεῖρας ἀσθενοῦς παρεκάλεσας),145 and encouraged those with weak knees (γόνασίν τε ἀδυνατοῦσιν θάρσος περιέθηκας), but now he is troubled in his own experience of pain (4:5). We have already looked at Eliphaz’s speech in detail, and given the speech’s connection with παιδεία, it is interesting that the same speech also contains mention of weak hands and knees, especially in terms of encouragement in light of pain, as in Hebrews. This further establishes a tradi145 Literally, “you have exhorted weak hands.” I take “weak hands” here as a synecdoche for the entire person.

216

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

tional connection between one’s hands and knees and one’s attitude toward difficult circumstances. Third, Isa 35:3, also in a context of encouragement in light of salvation and a return to Zion, reads ἰσχύσατε χεῖρες ἀνειµέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυµένα, be strong, you weak hands and exhausted knees. The text then commands the faint-hearted to encourage one another (παρακαλέσατε; v. 4). After all, God will come and save, the blind will see and the deaf hear (v. 5), and most importantly for the present discussion, the lame will leap like a deer (ἁλεῖται ὡς ἔλαφος ὁ χωλός; v. 6). Further, these redeemed have come to Zion with gladness (ἥξουσιν εἰς Σιων µετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης; cf. Heb 12:22), and sorrow (λύπη) has fled them (v.10). The path the exiles will walk is pure and holy (ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁδὸς καθαρὰ καὶ ὁδὸς ἁγία κληθήσεται), and no unclean person will pass by it, nor will there be an unclean path (v. 8). Moreover, no lion will be there and no evil beast will go up on it (v. 9). These features of Isa 35 have obvious connections with Heb 12, with the encouragement in light of sorrow, the mention of weak hands and knees and the healing of the lame, the holiness of the path, and the march toward Zion.146 Thus, examining the contexts of these parallels to Heb 12:12 demonstrates how well the imperatives fit the present context. Each of these parallels appears in a context dealing with some sort of difficulty and all of them give some sort of encouragement to their audiences. Even though Sir 2:12 warns against weak hands and knees, the thrust of the context encourages perseverance. Also important are the straight paths motif from Sir 2 and the lame in Isa 35.147 Beyond the eschatological tones of Isa 35 in connection with Heb 12:18–29, it is also important to notice the language of holiness and evil mentioned in that same passage. It seems hardly coincidental that Isaiah and Hebrews share these motifs. Though the context of Sir 2 does not speak in the same terms, the moral language there is of such similarity to our other findings in Hebrews, that we begin to see that the movement from παιδεία, to straightness of body and path, to the ideas of peace, holiness, and immorality start to make sense from a tradition-historical perspective. Just as the people 146

J.C. McCullough argues that the author of Hebrews “had the wider context of Isaiah 35 in mind when making his allusion”, but does not elaborate on the specifics. He also suggests, with reference to Matt 11:5 and Luke 7:22, that the Isaiah passage “had an important influence on early Christian thinking and so would have been known to his listeners.” See John Cecil McCullough, “Isaiah in Hebrews,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 172. 147 So also Pss. Sol. 8:5–6: συνετρίβη ἡ ὀσφύς µου ἀπὸ ἀκοῆς παρελύθη γόνατά µου ἐφοβήθη ἡ καρδία µου ἐταράχθη τὰ ὀστᾶ µου ὡς λίνον εἶπα κατευθυνοῦσιν ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Here the context relates to the attack upon Jerusalem as God’s discipline for the people’s sin (8:29). In verse 6 the author expresses the thought that the people were righteous, but discipline shows they had committed sins in secret (cf. Robert B. Wright, “The Psalms of Solomon,” 659 n. d). See the discussion in chapter 4, pages 171–74.

Hebrews 12:12–17

217

of the dispersion in Isa 35 walk a holy path back to Zion, so too the audience of Hebrews should seek and maintain holiness and right moral behavior in their faithful endurance. Faithfulness to God involves corresponding faithfulness to God’s ways – separation from the world of sin. When we take verse 13 into view, we see almost the identical command as in Prov 4:26a, the main difference being the shift from second person singular to plural.148 As we saw in the previous chapter, straight paths for Prov 4 are not only paths made smooth by a life of wisdom, but the LXX in particular brings out that a straight path is the path of righteousness and of God’s ways in contrast to the evil path (4:24–25, 27). The present context does not make the exact same interpretation of straight paths explicit, but as developed above and evident in verses 14–17, the author exhorts the audience to seek the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord and to lay aside sin.149 Moreover, the adjective ὀρθός frequently means, figuratively, right or upright in a moral sense or in the sense of correctness. In the present context it is hardly convincing that straightness refers only to a direct eschatological path.150 Prov 15:14 even compares the upright (straight) with the undisciplined: “The upright heart (καρδία ὀρθὴ) seeks discernment (αἴσθησιν; cf. Heb 5:14!), but the mouth of the undisciplined (ἀπαιδεύτων) will know only evil.” In light of the intertextual connections with Isa 35 and Prov 4, together with the moral and eschatological elements of the context in Heb 12, the straight paths of verse 13 probably include both the dimensions of right moral living as well as the eschatological approach to Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22).151 The purpose of making paths straight is that the lame not turn away but be healed. In Prov 3–4, healing concerns physical well-being in a life lived according to wisdom and the father’s teaching. In Hebrews, with peace in the 148

Heb 12:13: καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑµῶν. Prov 4:26a: ὀρθὰς τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσὶν. 149 Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 530–31. 150 E.g., Lane, Hebrews, 2:427–28; Croy, Endurance, 209; Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:281. Rightly, Koester, Hebrews, 530–31; similarly Ellingworth, Hebrews, 659. See Jer 38:9 for a straight path in the eschatological, redemptive sense. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 7.14, with the literal sense of not leaving the straight path; Pindar, Pyth. 3.96, on a straight heart in the face of suffering. For ὀρθός in the sense of right or just: Prov 8:6, 8–9; 11:6; 12:6, 15; 14:12; 16:13, 25; 21:8 (God’s ways as upright and pure in contrast to the crooked); 23:6; 31:5; Mic 2:3, 7; 3:9; Herm. 35.2–4; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.11.13, 19 (cf. ὀρθῶς in 1.11.5; 2.15.6); Josephus, Ant. 15.348; Philo, Fug. 131, 152 (on proper παιδεία, the good, and πίστις over against ἀπαιδευσία, the bad, and ἀπιστία; cf. Fug. 150 and Congr. 111); Virt. 39, 127; cf. Pss. Sol. 8:6. 151 Cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 630. See also Petrovic and Petrovic’s discussion of the Theognidea. They show that according to the Theognidea, a morally straight mind is prerequisite “for direct engagement with divinities.” Petrovic and Petrovic, Inner Purity and Pollution, 115–123, here 120.

218

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

immediate context (vv. 11, 14), the idea could also have to do with wholeness or well-being, like in the proverbs, yet with eschatological overtones and a view toward the strength of the community to continue in endurance. For example, when Isa 35 speaks of the lame, the sense is that ultimately those suffering will gain relief from sorrow. Yet, healing and peace also occur together in terms of the restoration of the people from the consequences of sin in Isa 53:5 (with παιδεία) and 57:19 (cf. Jer 6:14).152 Hebrews lacks the idea of restoration from sin in this sense, but there are some important parallels to consider that suggest healing may in fact refer to moral health, especially since we are dealing with a morally straight path. Abraham Malherbe has demonstrated that in philosophical discourse, medical imagery was employed to describe how education and reason contribute to moral health and wellness, while the uneducated suffer the disease of immorality. Thus the philosopher may see himself as a doctor for the suffering “sick”. Dio Chrysostom, for example, explains that ills and calamaties are caused by men and their wickedness, and the cure for such is found only in παιδεία and λόγος, which lead to health and happiness.153 Philo too speaks of healing in this moral sense.154 There may then be some eschatological overtones in verse 13 relating to the ultimate well-being of the community, but in view of these important philosophical parallels and considering that the audience’s eschatological goal includes a gathering of the righteous (12:23), we can safely suggest the morally straight path leads to moral “health”, all under the auspices of divine παιδεία. This coheres with the moral results of παιδεία discussed in 12:11. The lame of verse 13, probably influenced by Isa 35:6, does not refer to some in the community who are struggling in particular, as many suggest,155 152 McCullough, “Isaiah,” 168–69, argues that the author may allude to Isa 53:11–12 in Heb 9:28, based on the usage of ἀναφέρω with ἁµαρτία in the accusative (cf. Isa 53:12: καὶ αὐτὸς ἁµαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν; Heb 9:28: εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁµαρτίας). This particular combination is found in the LXX only in Isa 53:11 and 12 (elsewhere in the NT only in 1 Pet 2:24). The two words are actually used together elsewhere, but with ἁµαρτία following a preposition (ἀπό: Lev 4:26; περί: Lev 9:10; 16:25; 2 Chr 29:21; Bar 1:10; ὑπέρ in Heb 7:27]). 153 Alex. (Or. 32) 15–16. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles” in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 121–36. 154 Leg. 1.70; 3.118, 124; Det. 146 (healing by reproof of sins); Virt. 26. Thus, Albrecht Oepke, “ἰάοµαι, ἴασις, κτλ,” TWNT 3:215, understands Heb 12:13 as “an exhortation to decidedly Christian conduct” (“eine Mahnung zu entschieden christlicher Haltung”). 155 Delitzsch’s interpretation remains ubiquitous (Hebrews, 2:327–28; cf. Hebräerbrief, 627). Accordingly, when the community makes straight paths for its feet, those who are lame, i.e., the weaker members (with reference to Heb 7:7 and Rev 3:2), are helped and “saved the danger of stumbling through the roughness of the road, and of getting off the right way altogether […].” He continues, “it may even be hoped that, lured by the smoothness of the path opened for them, they may be induced to walk steadfastly along it, and so

Hebrews 12:12–17

219

but rather generally describes the audience’s condition and implies a criticism of the audience’s response thus far (cf. Sir 2:12 above).156 This image is appropriate for the context. It fits not only with the themes of healing and peace from the context of Proverbs, but also with the ability to walk the straight paths and with the straightening of weak hands and disabled knees. In Luke 13:11–13, a woman who could not stand fully erect because of a “spirit of weakness” is healed by being made straight (ἀνωρθώθη), though she is not described as lame per se. In Acts 14:8, Paul heals a lame man by commanding him to stand up straight on his feet (ἀνάστηθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου ὀρθός). The healing of lameness thus relates to the call to strengthen weak hands and knees in the face of difficulty, yet also points to ultimate eschatological wellbeing.157 A significant number of commentators has understood the passive of the verb ἐκτρέπω in verse 13 in the medical sense as “be dislocated”.158 Together with healing this is seen as fitting medical imagery. However, unless perhaps

at length be quite cured of their lameness.” Considering the parallels to Heb 12:12–13, it reads too much into the two verses to view the lame as a reference to those in greater danger of falling away. Perhaps τις, which occurs three times in the admonition in verses 15–16, would speak in favor of Delitzsch’s interpretation, but while the author here and elsewhere warns against problems cropping up among some, he applies the exhortation to everyone (ὑµῶν in v. 13; cf. v. 14). There is nothing that suggests a strong distinction between members, and the fact that παραλύω in the passive (v. 12) can refer to paralysis may speak further against such a distinction (Luke 5:18, 24; Acts 8:7 [παραλελυµένοι καὶ χωλοὶ ἐθεραπεύθησαν]; 9:33; Hippocrates, Epid. 1.26.313–314 [Case 13 in the LCL edition; p. 1:213 in the Kühlewein edition]). Furthermore, the image of a lame person becoming healed because of a straight path makes little sense logically. Granted, the image of the lame being healed due to a certain path is difficult to make sense of in any interpretation, but recognizing the parallel in Isa 35 helps view it as exemplifying weakness in general rather than referring to the relatively weaker members of the community (note that the adjective is neuter in Heb, masculine in Isa 35). Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 530. 156 Backhaus, Hebräer, 428. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 365; Otto Kuss, “Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Seelsorger,” in vol. 1 of Auslegung und Verkündigung (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 332. 157 Koester, Hebrews, 531, suggests healing occurs when faith is restored (with reference to Isa 6:10; Matt 13:15; John 12:40; Acts 28:27), while complete healing occurs only at the end of the race. That complete healing occurs at the end of the “race” is certainly correct, but healing as restoration to faith does not fit Hebrews. If some in the audience had given up their faithfulness already, then it would already be too late (cf. 12:16–17). Moreover, in the references cited by Koester, God heals those who turn or return to him. It is restoration, but not the restoration of faith itself; it is something given by God after someone responds rightly to him. In Hebrews, healing comes as a result of maintaining a straight path despite the weakness induced by suffering. It is not the restoration of faith itself. 158 Hippocrates, Off. 14.

220

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

the author is evoking a double entendre,159 it would be strange, even redundant, to speak of a crippled limb becoming dislocated.160 Better is the proposal of Käsemann, who understands the verb in the sense of its usage in 1 and 2 Timothy, where, used as a passive with a middle sense,161 it describes those who turn away from the values and teachings of the community for Satan and false teachings.162 Hebrews most likely conveys something similar in that turning away has to do with turning away from the correct path and not with an already crippled limb becoming dislocated.163 The idea is that the community, made weak by suffering, would turn aside, rather than making a straight path, and find themselves without the opportunity for repentance, as in the example of Esau (vv. 16–17). In verses 12 and 13, then, the author encourages the audience to respond rightly to their experience of divine παιδεία in a way that fits with traditional associations between suffering and παιδεία. The commands to re-straighten hands and knees and to make straight paths fit the context both in that they respond to the weakness of the community in the face of their lethargy and in that they involve the exhortation to respond in the right way morally. As we have already seen with the author’s treatment of παιδεία, the exhortations involve both moral and eschatological elements. Certainly, the audience must endure in order to reach their goal and find ultimate healing, but to put the eschatological over the moral as some do either undervalues or overlooks the moral demand placed on the audience.164 The material that follows and the earlier exhortation to put off sin in order to run the race with endurance shows that this eschatological path involves right living in the present as a condition for running the contest and reaching the goal.165 Thus to make a path straight is not only to endure, but it is to stay on the only path that leads 159

So also deSilva, Perseverance, 456. Rightly Delitzsch, Hebräerbrief, 627. 161 Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 659. 162 1 Tim 1:6; 5:15; 2 Tim 4:4; cf. 1 Tim 6:20. Käsemann, “Hebräer 12,12–17,” 312. 163 See the following for the use of ἐκτρέπω for turning away from a path: Josephus, Ant. 6.34; Justin, Dial. 8.2 (turning from the straight path; τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ); Aristotle, Mir. ausc. 137.5; Lucian, Dial. d. 24(25).2. Cf. Xenophon, Anab. 4.5.15 (absolute usage), of soldiers turning aside from marching because of extreme conditions. 164 Cf. Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:282; Backhaus, Hebräer, 427–28; Lane, Hebrews, 2:427; Herbert Preisker, “ὀρθός,” TDNT 5:449–50. 165 Backhaus, Hebräer, 428, suggests the athletic imagery of 12:1–3 is continued with the path motif and that the “Bildsprache ist weniger ethisch als eschatologisch geprägt […].” In light of the examination above, I do not see athletic imagery as such continued in verses 12–13, but certainly the path motif fits the image of running the contest with endurance. Nevertheless, it is important to see that endurance in the contest or on the path still involves important moral elements that should not be overlooked and must be maintained in order to reach the eschatological. Obtaining the promise involves first doing the will of God (10:36). 160

Hebrews 12:12–17

221

to attaining the promises, the path involving righteousness, peace, and holiness. 2. Verse 14:Pursuing Peace and Holiness It is no accident then that the author in the next verse commands the audience to seek peace with all and sanctification. With this imperative, the author begins to describe what making a straight path – and healing – involves. As suggested by Ellingworth,166 the imperative εἰρήνην διώκετε may be an allusion to Ps 33:15 LXX, ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ ποίησον ἀγαθόν ζήτησον εἰρήνην καὶ δίωξον αὐτήν. 1 Pet 3:11 quotes the same line, but since Hebrews only draws on two words from the psalm, it is difficult to say whether the author meant to allude the psalm specifically. The context of the psalm affirms God’s care for and rescue of the righteous who undergo many afflictions (vv. 16–20). Affliction and righteousness are not foreign to Hebrews, nor is doing good, which also appears in the psalm (33:14). Such points of contact may speak in favor of the allusion, since the author demonstrates awareness of the contexts of the OT texts he employs.167 If it is an allusion to the psalm, then this is the fifth imperative in Heb 12 taken over from an OT text (cf. 12:5 [2x], 12, 13).168 The primary issue with verse 14, however, is whether peace and holiness, or sanctification, are to be understood as exclusively salutary and eschatological or as primarily, or perhaps exclusively, moral. Foerster, Gräßer, Käsemann, and Lane in particular argue that the context demands an eschatological, salutary understanding. Indeed, the author does write with the concern that some might put themselves in a position where they have no further place for repentance. Not only so, but peace appears in contexts of salvation, where peace contrasts with enmity with God, or where God bestows peace onto those who please him.169 Finally, we have seen that peace in 12:11 contrasts with the present pain of παιδεία. These considerations, together with the larger eschatological outlook of the chapter, speak in favor of the future interpre166

Ellingworth, Hebrews, 662. Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:284–85 (and 284 n. 4), argues that the eudaimonistic ethic of Ps 33/34 speaks against the allusion. He suggests that the promise that the bones of the righteous will not be broken in 33:21 stands in stark contrast to Heb 12:12. This overlooks, first of all, that the passage recognizes the righteous face many afflictions (v. 20). Second, an allusion does not necessitate that the author pick up the ideas of the alluded text’s context in exactly the same way. No one would dispute that Heb 12:13 alludes to Prov 4:26, but the author quite clearly develops themes from Prov 3–4 in different ways than they appear in the original context. 168 Cockerill, Hebrews, 633; deSilva, Perseverance, 457; and Jon Laansma, “Peace,” DLNT 895 are more confident of the allusion. 169 Foerster, TDNT 2:413–14; Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:285; Käsemann, “Hebräer 12,12–17,” 310–11; Lane, Hebrews, 2:449. 167

222

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

tation. However, several observations suggest that peace, while ultimately reached at the end of present pain, should be characteristic of the community in the present, particularly in harmony together before the threat of troubling, bitter roots. First, the seeking of peace occurs frequently in NT paraenesis.170 Since the present time of training works toward the goal of righteousness, the pursuit of peace could be an expression of the audience’s righteousness,171 which would cohere with the moral connections between peace and righteousness already discussed (and further supported by Ps 33:15f.). The faithful Rahab exemplifies this in her welcoming of the spies in peace, and it is worth noting that though 11:31 does not specifically call her righteous, so much is implied by 10:38 (cf. 13:2). Some connect this exhortation even with the moral instructions in 13:1–7, arguing that they further develop the idea of unity and peace among the believers.172 There certainly exists a connection to the instructions in chapter 13, but the question is whether they have any direct bearing on the understanding of peace developed in the present context. In any case, the development toward righteousness and the moral context begins to suggest that peace here also concerns the present peaceful behavior of the audience. 2 Tim 2:22b reflects the coherence of similar themes: “pursue righteousness, faithfulness, love, and peace together with those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart” (cf. Heb 10:22).173 The second observation supporting peace in a moral sense is the last part of verse 14, which says without sanctification no one will see the Lord. No doubt this is eschatological as it looks to the future. However, the statement presents a precondition for seeing the Lord. Grammatically, the masculine relative pronoun οὗ refers to the masculine ἁγιασµός, not to εἰρήνη. Strictly speaking, then, peace is not required to see the Lord, while sanctification – in keeping with the cultic argument of Hebrews – is. Nevertheless, peace and holiness lie at the same structural level of the sentence, with peace placed very first, perhaps for emphasis.174 This suggests that if sanctification is a prerequisite for seeing the Lord, that peace, while not a prerequisite per se, is likewise to be sought not just as an end goal, but as a present aspect of the believers’ lives.175

170

So, Löhr, Umkehr, 117 n. 576. See Rom 12:18; 14:19; 2 Cor 13:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 1 Pet 3:11; 2 Pet 3:14; Eph 4:3; cf. 1 Thess 5:15; Rom 16:17–19. Cf. the discussion of select examples of Pauline peace-paraenesis in Brandenburger, Frieden, 61–65. 171 So Johnson, Hebrews, 323. 172 Attridge, Hebrews, 367; Laansma, “Peace,” 895. 173 Gk.: δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην πίστιν ἀγάπην εἰρήνην µετὰ τῶν ἐπικαλουµένων τὸν κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας. 174 Cockerill, Hebrews, 634. 175 DeSilva, Perseverance, 459.

Hebrews 12:12–17

223

This brings us to the third observation, which relates to the nature of the pursuit of peace. The author continues the command to pursue peace and holiness in verse 15 with the participle ἐπισκοποῦντες. The group should seek peace and sanctification by watching over each other. They must make sure no one falls short of the grace of God, that no bitter root should cause trouble and defile, and that no one should become evil or profane. As expressed by the verb ἐνοχλέω, those who would fall short and ultimately give up their birthright would cause trouble for the entire group. The author has argued so far for endurance and strength so that no one would turn away but rather be healed. The behavior he warns about here would disturb the larger community from fulfilling those exhortations. Hebrews requires community unity over against the threat of turning away from God and toward evil; this is the maintenance of peace with all.176 Following from this understanding of peace, the phrase µετὰ πάντων refers not to all people, but rather to all in the community. The author focuses not on peace or unity with those outside the community, but on mutual support within the community (3:12–13; 10:25).177 Moreover, the prepositional phrase relates not to the noun peace, but to the verb, pursue (“pursue with all”). The author is not exhorting the audience to peaceful relationships between individuals – there is no indication of strife per se178 – but comprehensive peaceful unity which all seek together, watching out for trouble.179 To simplify Heb 12:14 as speaking merely of eschatology and salvation over against apostasy overlooks the author’s present moral concerns. Peace stands as the opposite side of pain in 12:11, but in 12:14 it has to do with the behavior of the believers watching out for one another in unity. The question

176 Moffatt, Hebrews, 209. Käseman, “Hebräer 12,12–17,” 311, rightly recognizes peace here as solidarity. 177 DeSilva, Perseverance, 458–59, admits an emphasis on the group but suggests that to exclude the possibility that the phrase could also include peace with outsiders “would unduly limit the injunction to be a people promoting peace on God’s terms with all people.” Of course nothing can rule out this broader interpretation completely, but the context offers no clues as to promoting peace with all other people. It has to do with promoting peace within a group quite troubled by their circumstances. DeSilva must look to other contexts (namely those surrounding Rom 12:18 and 1 Pet 3:11) to develop this claim. 2 Tim 2:22b cited earlier provides a more likely parallel. 178 Rightly, Laansma, “Peace,” 895. 179 So, Cockerill, Hebrews, 633–34. The use of µετά, however, does not necessitate this conclusion as Foerster, TDNT 2:413–14, argues. He suggests πρός would have been necessary, had the author wanted to refer to “concord with others” (as in Rom 5:1), but Ellingworth and deSilva have pointed out that Rom 12:18 (µετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες) and 1 Kgs 22:45 (καὶ εἰρήνευσεν Ιωσαφατ µετὰ βασιλέως Ισραηλ) show that µετά can also suggest concord with others. See Ellingworth, Hebrews, 662; deSilva, Prerseverance, 457– 58.

224

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

of whether holiness also has to do with the present moral life of the group requires special attention. 3. Excursus: Holiness and Ethics in Hebrews The present context brings the question of the relation of Hebrews’ moral thought and cultic thought to the fore. Does the idea of sanctification developed earlier in the book suggest any connection to behavior in the present context, or does the author only concern himself here with the maintenance of holiness as a state of salvation over against profanity as a fallen state? Käsemann’s approach provides a good example of the latter thought. For Käsemann, 1) holiness is a gift in Hebrews; 2) its opposite is profanity expressed in Esau’s giving it up; 3) pursuing it means to hold on to it; and 4) failing to hold on to it shuts the apostate out from seeing God.180 This interpretation unifies 12:14–17, but it fails to appreciate the moral dimensions included in the accomplishment and maintenance of holiness. Käsemann is correct to see holiness as a gift: Jesus is the sanctifier, the believers the sanctified (2:11); Jesus procures eternal redemption through his blood (9:12; 13:12; 10:29); and he has perfected for all time those who have been sanctified (ἡγιασµένοι ἐσµὲν; 10:10) and are being sanctified (τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζοµένους; 10:14). So, the author refers to believers as holy ones, saints (3:1; 6:10; 13:24). Moreover, the author describes in detail the workings of the cult and Jesus’ entry into the holy places. In fact, of the twenty-six occurrences of the ἁγι-stem, ten of these refer to the holy place or places (8:2; 9:1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11). Jesus’ own entry into the holy place to accomplish redemption enables the audience to enter into the holy place with confidence (10:19–22; cf. 4:14). This accomplishment includes an eschatological aspect: Jesus enters once and for all; his sacrifice is the last (9:26), and without sanctification no one will see the Lord (12:14). What – if at all – does all of this cultic language have to do with Hebrews’ moral thought? Jonathan Klawans’s distinction between ritual and moral purity, which he traces from the Hebrew Bible, through Second Temple Judaism and into the NT, provides some help here. He demonstrates that in the HB, while ritual impurity results from natural processes and requires cleansing, such impurity is not itself sinful. However, sin, particularly sexual sin, the shedding of blood, and idolatry, also causes impurity, which affects the individual, the land, and the temple. Whereas ritual impurity is morally neutral,181 moral impurity results in punishment, including exile.182 While the HB 180

Käsemann, “Hebräer 12,12–17,” 310–11. Ritual impurity can, however, lead to moral impurity, for example, in the case that someone consciously refuses to make purification after being defiled by a corpse (Num 19:13, 20). That person will be cut off from the people. Also, if someone enters the sanctu181

Hebrews 12:12–17

225

cannot be taken simply as a handbook for understanding NT conceptions of purity or holiness,183 Klawans finds the distinction to appear in various formulations in the Second Temple and NT writings, though he insufficiently develops the distinction in Hebrews. He considers the cultic rituals described in Heb 9 as analogous to the moral purification accomplished by Jesus. The lesser-to-greater argument in 9:13–14 illustrates this, where the author notes that if the blood of goats and bulls and ashes sanctify for the purification of the flesh, the blood of Christ will much more purify the conscience of dead works.184 This observation only scratches the surface, however.185

ary or approaches the sancta while impure, this also leads to being cut off from the people (Lev 7:20–21; 15:31; 22:3–9). See Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 25; cf. Jay Sklar, “Sin and Impurity: Atoned or Purified? Yes!,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible, ed. Baruch J. Schwartz et al., LHBOTS 474 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 26–27. 182 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21–60. Klawans builds in part on the work of Jacob Milgrom, who also distinguishes between the defiling force of sin and the defiling force of ritual impurity. Milgrom argues that varying degrees of impurity, whether ritual or moral (such as inadvertent offenses or impurity on the part of individuals or the community and wonton, unrepented sins), pollute the sanctuary at different levels, ultimately resulting in God’s departure from the sanctuary if the necessary purifications are not made. Klawans’s work is helpful in going beyond the scope of Milgrom’s contributions, which focus mostly on Leviticus (though some of Klawans’s conclusions are also reflected in the later, second volume of Milgrom’s Leviticus commentary). See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:42–51, 254–61; 2:1397–1405; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’” RB 83 (1976): 390–99. 183 See Jacob Neusner and Bruce D. Chilton, “Uncleanness: A Moral or an Ontological Category in the Early Centuries A.D.?,” BBR 1 (1991): 63–88, esp. 63–64. 184 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 155. As Stegemann and Stegemann rightly remark, “the ‘bad conscience’ remains as an indication of the non-remission of sins.” Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on some Basic Problems,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 21. See further Gary S. Selby, “The Meaning and Function of Συνείδησις in Hebrews 9 and 10,” ResQ 28 (1985): 145–54, esp. 147–48. 185 It is also to be noted that a relationship between moral behavior and impurity is not only a phenomenon of Jewish and Christian tradition, but is also evident in other traditions, for example in Greek religion. See, e.g., Plutarch, Mor. 82C, 85E-F (where purity and impurity are compared metaphorically with moral virtue) and Xenophon, Anab. 5.7.13–35 (where bad behavior and indiscipline lead not only to punishment of the guilty parties but also to a purification ritual). See the discussions in Röhser, Metaphorik, 39–48, esp. 42, and Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), 18–31, 281–307, 322–27. Parker’s book does not focus on the relationship between morality and impurity as such, but the convergence of the two does appear in several parts of the book. Petrovic and Petrovic have gone further than Parker and demonstrated that in Greek religion as early as Hesiod, inner, moral purity is “part and parcel of

226

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

According to Klawans, in the HB, no purification rites are associated with moral impurity (though cf. Lev 16:30); only atonement or punishment can remove the moral “contagion.” He even points out, for example, that the test for adultery performed with the priest before God according to Num 5:11–31 could not take place in the sanctuary if moral impurity were ritually defiling.186 However, he demonstrates that in parts of the Qumran literature, moral and ritual impurity are combined, such that sin ritually defiles and ritual defilement is sinful. Moreover, not just idolatry, sexual sin, and murder are morally defiling sins, but sins in general – all types of sins – are morally defiling and require both purification and atonement on behalf of the sinner.187 The Qumran evidence is significant for Hebrews beyond the few verses Klawans takes up; that is, Hebrews also seems to conflate, or at least not to make any great distinction between, the notions of ritual and moral impurity.188 In Hebrews, sin in general defiles and the author speaks both of its atonement and purification (e.g., 1:3; 2:17; 9:13–14, 22–23; 10:2). And of course, the holy places are inaccessible to those who are (morally) impure according to Hebrews. While the author does make passing reference to bodily purifications (6:2; 10:22c), he seems less interested on the whole with physical purifications on the part of his audience than the purification of their consciences, as the emphasis lies consistently with the problem of sin. 189 the purity system” and not simply a parallel to physical purity. Petrovic and Petrovic, Inner Purity and Pollution, here 21. 186 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 27. 187 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 67–91. See, e.g., 1QS III, 4–9; IV, 10–11, 20–22; V, 13– 14, 19–20; VII, 17–19; VIII, 17–18; 1QM XIII, 4–5; 1QH XIX (XI), 10–13; CD VI, 15; IX, 16–23. 188 David Moffitt makes this observation in passing. See David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 265; cf. Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 385–92. 189 Moffit insists the purification of the body as reflected in 10:22c is important to Hebrews (see Atonement, 26, 211). Yet, the exact relationship of the purification of the conscience and the washing of the body is not clear in 10:22 and bodily purification receives no further elaboration. Moreover, if 10:22 refers to baptism, as it is often understood (e.g., Windisch, Taufe und Sünde, 298–99), Hebrews remains unclear as to the practice of baptism. Here the baptism would seem to be a one-time washing, but 6:2 and 9:10 refer to plural washings (9:10 also refers to baptisms, among other things, as δικαιώµατα σαρκὸς µέχρι καιροῦ διορθώσεως ἐπικείµενα). Moreover, the verse may reflect familiarity with Ezek 36:25 (καὶ ῥανῶ ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς ὕδωρ καθαρόν καὶ καθαρισθήσεσθε ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν ἀκαθαρσιῶν ὑµῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν εἰδώλων ὑµῶν καὶ καθαριῶ ὑµᾶς). If so, the washing with pure water could simply be symbolic. Klawans views the Ezekiel passage as a figurative use of ritual impurity since according to verse 17 the people’s ways are compared to menstrual impurity: ‫ ; ְכּ ֻט ְמ ַאת ַה נִּ ָדּה‬κατὰ τὴν ἀκαθαρσίαν τῆς ἀποκαθηµένης. (Cf. Cockerill, Hebrews, 473–75; O’Brien, Letter, 367–68). Gäbel argues that baptism facilitates the cleansing of the heart, pointing to the connection of baptism and conscience in 1 Pet 3:21 and more

Hebrews 12:12–17

227

Klawans’s approach thus helps bring to light the relevance of ethics to the cultic matters related in Hebrews, even if his own observations on Hebrews are limited. We now turn to more of the specifics. A look at sin-language in Hebrews shows that of twenty-nine occurrences of the ἁµαρτ-stem, seventeen occur in connection with the cultic expiation or cleansing of sin or the bringing of offerings for sin.190 Clearly the author is concerned to demonstrate that while earlier sacrifices could never completely take away sin, but only served as a reminder of it (10:3–4), Jesus’ sacrifice has the effect of cleansing believers from their moral offenses. Jesus’ work thereby enables access to God.191 We must also consider Hebrews’ use of ἁγιασµός, which derives from the verb ἁγιάζω.192 Because of this derivation, the noun has been taken in Heb 12:14 as including an active quality over against the state of God’s holiness expressed in ἁγιότητος.193 Although the noun has a relation to the verb, we cannot simply carry over the active sense to the noun. Even though ἁγιασµός appears frequently in early Christian texts and reflects a moral element or even a process,194 it also describes things consecrated as holy without reference to an ongoing process.195 That is to say, the term in itself does not necesimportantly to the ritual cleansing of sin prophesied in connection with covenant renewal in 1QS IV, 20–22 (cf. Heb 10:16–17; Ezek 36:25–27). However, 1QS IV, 20–22 may itself be interpreted metaphorically, since it compares the cleansing spirit with purifying water (Gäbel indeed understands it metaphorically). In any case, certainly it is the purification of the heart from sin that stands at the focal point in Heb 10. See Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 30–31, 79; Gäbel, Kulttheologie, 387–92, esp. 390–31. 190 1:3; 2:17; 5:1, 3; 7:27; 9:26; 9:28 (2x); 10:2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11,12, 18; 13:11. 191 Cf. Ps 15, where the one who may dwell in God’s tent walks blamelessly, does righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart (cf. Heb 10:22!); Ps 24:3–4; Matt 5:8. Asting, Heiligkeit, 253. Christian Eberhart also points out that an encounter with God normally has fatal consequences (Gen 32:31; Exod 19:21–24; 33:20; cf. Heb 12:18–21), unless one is first made holy (thus the consecration rituals of Exod 29 and Lev 8). See Christian A. Eberhart, “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 41–42. Philo also reflects the view that those who are impure from wrongdoing may not enter the temple (Deus 8–9; Fug. 79–80; Spec. 3.88–89). Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 65, 187 n. 17. 192 Otto Procksch, “ἁγιασµός,” TDNT 1:113. 193 Wayne G. McCown, “Holiness in Hebrews,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 16, no. 2 (1981): 58–59; Procksch, TDNT 1:113. 194 ἁγιασµός stands in juxtaposition to sexual immorality in 1 Thess 4:3–7. It also occurs in connection with a life of righteousness as opposed to sin (Rom 6:19–22; 1 Cor 1:30; cf. 2 Thess 2:12–13; Rev 22:11, ὁ δίκαιος δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἁγιασθήτω ἔτι) and in the context of obedience to Jesus (1 Pet 1:2; cf. also 1 Tim 2:15). Cf. Procksch, TDNT 1:113; Ernst Gaugler, “Die Heiligung in der Ethik des Apostels Paulus,” IKZ 15 (1925): 100–20, esp. 112–14. 195 Judg 17:3; 2 Macc 2:17; 14:36; 3 Macc 2:18; Sir 7:31; Amos 2:11; Ezek 45:4.

228

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

sarily carry an ethical nuance, and in Hebrews the verb ἁγιάζω occurs in a cultic sense in cultic contexts.196 Yet the use of the verb occurs in contexts where the clear objective is the purification of sin. For example, it occurs in 9:13 to speak of the purification of the body, just before the author makes the comparison to Jesus’ blood purifying the conscience in 9:14. The occurrences in 10:10 and 10:14 likewise appear in a context where the author lays out the one-time nature of Jesus’ sacrifice for sins over against the repeated offerings that can never take sin away (cf. 10:6, 8, 10, 17; see also 13:11–12). Making believers holy, therefore, has to do directly with overcoming the impurity of sin.197 So, when the author writes, “pursue sanctification”, he is speaking of the maintenance of a state of moral purity. Not only is the command itself to pursue sanctification moral in nature,198 but it suggests moral living, since for Hebrews it is precisely sin which defiles.199 The emphasis on the cleansing of moral impurity – not ritual impurity – becomes conspicuous in consideration of the moral language of Hebrews which we have developed already. As demonstrated, the author exhorts the audience in terms of sin and transgression when encouraging them to maintain their confession. Moreover, in chapter 12 we have seen that endurance requires putting off and struggling against the force of sin. The author exhorts the audience against the very force that had put them in a state of impurity. Thus, the one-time sacrifice includes by nature a demand for right living (so 10:26). While holiness may be a gift that one can give up and enables cultic access to God, the gift accomplished the purification of sin specifically. Thus, to pursue holiness, as Käsemann suggests,200 does indeed mean to hold on to the purification accomplished – though this interpretive translation misses the sense of urgency found in the imperative διώκετε. Yet, holding on to that state includes the avoidance of what makes people incapable of accessing God in

196

Heb 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12. Asting, Heiligkeit, 252; Löhr, “Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung,” 471 n. 53; cf. Wolfgang Weiß, “‘Heilig’ in ethischen Kontexten neutestamentlicher Schriften,” in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110, ed. Dieter Sänger, BTHSt 55 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 64. 197 Rightly also McCown, “Holiness,” 59–61. 198 Asting rightly recognizes the requirement of effort expressed in 12:14, but wrongly considers this sanctification as different from the sanctification accomplished by Jesus. He reads too much of the Pauline use of ἁγιασµός into Hebrews here. Asting, Heiligkeit, 252– 53. 199 Hebrews speaks of the purification of sin in 1:3, 9:14, 22, and 10:2, and Jesus’ holiness and purity (ἀµίαντος) is mentioned alongside his separation from sinners. ἀµίαντος is only elsewhere used in connection with sexual immorality and adultery in 13:4. 200 Also Lane, Hebrews, 2:450.

Hebrews 12:12–17

229

the first place, sin.201 So it makes sense for the author to include sexual immorality when he exhorts the audience to look out for defiling influences. The idea of impurity or profanity stands in contrast with holiness, but holiness must be understood as a concept tied to the moral purity of those being sanctified. To consider holiness in Hebrews as separated from the moral sphere, as only cultic or eschatological, falsely divides the concerns of Hebrews and fails to recognize the cohesion between the purification of the conscience from sin and the exhortations not to sin.202 4. Verses 15–17: Watching out for Morally Defiling Behavior Verses 15 and 16 develop the pursuit of peace and holiness in the face of certain behaviors. First, the audience must watch out lest someone fail to obtain the grace of God (µή τις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεου). This expression does not in and of itself denote active rebellion or active drawing away, as is sometimes suggested; rather, it has more the sense of ultimately being excluded from something.203 Still, the author’s elaborations in the fol201 Cockerill, Hebrews, 634 n. 13, describes ἁγιασµός as “living in the cleansing from sin and the resulting access to God […].” 202 Cf. 1 Thess 5:23 (“Now may the God of peace sanctify [ἁγιάσαι] you completely and your whole spirit, soul, and body be protected blamelessly [ἀµέµπτως] at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”) and 2 Pet 3:14 (“Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found spotless [ἄσπιλοι] and blameless [ἀµώµητοι] by him in peace.”). These two verses also tie peace with moral purity in view of the eschaton. On moral purity in early Christianity generally, see Herbert Preisker, Das Ethos des Urchristentums (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968), 123–29, though he only hesitantly cites texts from Hebrews because of its cultic focus. 203 Lane, Hebrews, 2:452, following BDAG, s.v. “ὑστερέω”; cf. Weiß, Hebräer, 663 n. 10. Weiß argues that ὑστερέω plus ἀπό and the genitive suggests separation from something and then concludes that it involves “abkommen von etwas” (this follows the earlier construal in Bauer, Wörterbuch, 1691; BDAG says “be excluded from something”). Not only does this not follow, but his evidence, Eccl 6:2 and Josephus, Ant. 6.235, does not support it. In the first case, the rich man lacks nothing he desires (οὐκ ἔστιν ὑστερῶν τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν ἐπιθυµήσει). The idea is not that the rich man does not depart from all that he desires. In the Josephus example (ἡσύχασεν ὑπονοήσας οὐ καθαρεύσαντα αὐτὸν ἀπὸ συνουσίας ὑστερεῖν), the verb describes David’s presumed lateness to or absence from the meal because of the need to purify himself after a supposed sexual encounter (cf. 1 Sam 20:26). Dan 4:33/30 includes the same construction to express that none of the things prophesied of Nebuchadnezzar would fail to take place (οὐχ ὑστερήσει ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων οὐθέν). Riggenbach, Hebräer, 403 (also Lünemann, Hand-Book, 710), appeals to Sir 7:34 as a parallel for an active sense (µὴ ὑστέρει ἀπὸ κλαιόντων καὶ µετὰ πενθούντων πένθησον), but the idea here is not unambiguously conscious, malicious neglect. Nevertheless, Riggenbach (403 n. 79) is right to point out that ἀπό does not determine the meaning, as different senses are expressed with it (cf. Job 36:17). In light of this, I see no significant difference between the use the use of ὑστερέω in 4:1 and 12:15 (as do Lane and Riggenbach). In both cases the point is that the audience may miss something, the promise or the

230

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

lowing statements show that certainly one who misses the grace of God does in fact actively behave contrary to God. Such behavior puts defectors in a position where they no longer find repentance (v. 17). Second, the audience must watch out for defectors who would defile the community. The author describes the behavior of defectors under the influence of the LXX in alluding to Deut 29:17 LXX. Deut 29:17 and its context, as David Allen has shown, fit quite well the thrust of Heb even beyond the present context. It uses the µή τις construction twice, to which Heb adds a third; it deals with a type of apostasy, namely the turning away from God (ἀπὸ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑµῶν; cf. ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεου) to foreign idols (29:16–17); it considers such an apostasy an error of the heart (29:18, ἐν τῇ ἀποπλανήσει τῆς καρδίας; cf. Heb 3:10, 12); and God’s judgment on such a defector is expressed in terms of fire and zeal (29:19, ἐκκαυθήσεται ὀργὴ κυρίου καὶ ὁ ζῆλος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ; cf. Heb 10:27 and Deut 29:22; Heb 6:7–8). Beyond this, the individual defector poses a threat to the entire community (29:18, µὴ συναπολέσῃ ὁ ἁµαρτωλὸς τὸν ἀναµάρτητον; cf. Heb 12:15), and thus God will not be merciful on the one who turns away (29:19; cf. Heb 15:17).204 Once again we find the scriptural reference fitting and coherent in its original context with both the immediate and more distant contexts of Hebrews. Of further interest beyond the intertextual points of contact is the language the author uses to describe such a person who would miss God’s grace. In accord with Deut 29:17, the person is a shoot (ῥίζα)205 of bitterness206 that causes trouble (ἐνοχλέω)207 and by which many become defiled. Interestingly, the word for bitterness, πικρία, occurs elsewhere both in connection with idolatry208 and with the immoral behavior of those opposed to God’s ways. 209 Such evidence suggests that while bitterness may conceptually contrast to peace, it also points to a type of behavior, namely behavior that defiles many

grace of God. Nevertheless, while the verb itself does not have an active sense, both contexts warn against active sin in some way (3:12, 13, 17, 18; 4:11) and both exhort the audience to show some positive effort with one another (3:12–13; 4:11). See also Ellingworth, Hebrews, 663 and Ulrich Wilckens, “ὑστερέω,” TDNT 8:596, who argues for “the basic sense ‘to come too late,’ ‘to be absent’” in Heb 4:1 and 12:15 (cf. Rom 3:23). 204 Allen, Deuteronomy, 87–88. 205 That is, instead of a “root”, since it grows upward (ἄνω). Braun, Hebräer, 425. 206 Allen, Deuteronomy, 86, rightly interprets the genitive as objective, a shoot that leads to bitterness, as it has a negative effect on the community. It is not just a bitter shoot, but a shoot that has a particular, negative impact. Cf. 1QH XII, 14. 207 On the text critical issues in 12:15 see Allen, Deuteronomy, 83–85. 208 Deut 32:32; Jer 2:21; cf. 1QH 1XII, 14–15. 209 Ps 9:28 (LXX); 13:3 (LXX); Amos 6:12; Rom 3:14; Acts 8:23; Herm. 34.4, 8; 36.4– 5. Associated with immorality generally: Philo, Ebr. 223; Prob. 90. As a vice: Eph 4:31; Did. 4.10; Barn. 19.7.

Hebrews 12:12–17

231

in that it leads others to turn away from God.210 The context of Deut 29 could suggest more of an association of bitterness with idolatry. Yet, the author does not actually highlight idolatry specifically. The passage rather develops to paint a picture of immorality in general, a general lifestyle opposed to God’s ways, and the exchange of God’s gift for temporary pleasure. The statement that many would be defiled by this shoot211 substantiates the idea of bitterness involving a moral element. Though µιαίνω can be employed for ritual defilement,212 the case here is moral defilement, as suggested further by πόρνος in verse 16.213 Defilement occurs in connection with sexual immorality elsewhere,214 but the author, in avoiding specificity, appears to mean general moral defilement, as in Herm. 29.9: “Not only,” he continued, “is it adultery if a person defiles (µιάνῃ) his flesh [i.e., literal adultery]; but also, whoever behaves like the gentiles commits adultery. And so, if anyone continues doing such deeds and does not repent, you should avoid him and not allow him to live in your midst. Otherwise you also share in his sin.”215

Here we are close to the idea in Heb 12. We have a concern with moral purity (cf. Herm. 29.1) expressed in terms of sin and righteousness (cf. Herm. 29.3), and a concern to keep the entire group from defiling behavior.216 This general picture of immorality develops further in the next verse. Finally, according to verse 16, the audience must watch out lest someone become πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος. The adjective πόρνος is difficult to define carefully beyond “sexually immoral”, since πορνεία can refer to a variety of types of sexual misconduct. In the NT it often appears quite generally with few clear clues beyond the general impression of fornication, which even in English

210

So Lane, Hebrews, 2:454, though he limits the defiling behavior to apostasy itself. Cf. παραπικρασµός in 3:8; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 664. Further, Braun, Hebräer, 425. 211 Grammatically, the antecedent of δι᾽ αὐτῆς could be ῥίζα or πικρία, but the sense is the same. 212 See especially Lev 13 passim; Num 19:13, 20; further Friedrich Hauck, “µιαίνω,” TDNT 4:644–45. 213 Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:291; similarly Weiß, Hebräer, 665. 214 Heb 13:4; Jdt 13:16; Jude 8; 2 Pet 2:10; Philo, Spec. 1.281; Herm. 60.2 (βλέπε µήποτέ σου ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν ἀναβῇ τὴν σάρκα σου ταύτην φθαρτὴν εἶναι καὶ παραχρήσῃ αὐτῇ ἐν µιασµῷ τινι ἐὰν µιάνῃς τὴν σάρκα σου µιανεῖς καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον κἂν µιάνῃς τὴν σάρκα σου οὐ ζήσῃ). Weiß, Hebräer, 665 n. 21. 215 Translation adapted from Ehrman, LCL. 216 Cf. Philo, Mos. 1.304, where after a man is caught engaging in idolatry and sleeping with a prostitute (1.302–3), thousands of other such sinners are slain with this man in order to get rid of the common defilement (συναναιρεθέντος εὐθὺς τοῦ κοινοῦ µιάσµατος). Further, Ign. Eph. 10.3: ἵνα µὴ τοῦ διαβόλου βοτάνη τις εὑρεθῇ ἐν ὑµῖν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ καὶ σωφροσύνῃ µένητε ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ σαρκικῶς καὶ πνευµατικῶς.

232

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

can be broadly understood.217 Heb 13:4 allows only a general interpretation of πόρνος as referring to a fornicator. The comment on honoring marriage and keeping the “bed” pure allows for no sure interpretation of what kind of fornication is meant. But, the mention of an adulterer (µοιχός) may suggest a distinction is in view, whereby fornication refers to the broader realm of sex with the unmarried or with prostitutes, while adultery would refer to sex with someone already married.218 In any case, it is important also to notice that in the NT, πορνεία is attributed particularly to outsiders and Christians’ old way of life. Further, this image of outsiders is often associated with the charge of idolatry.219 Additionally, πορνεία can function as a metaphor for idolatry or the abandonment of the true God in the LXX and NT.220 The two are frequently found in relation to one another, whereby sexual immorality leads to idolatry and away from God,221 or where idolatry leads to sexual immorality.222 Together with the apostasy-related context of Deut 29:17, sexual immorality could thus be taken metaphorically to refer to apostasy as such. This seems unlikely, however. There is a notable difference between the normal use of the metaphor and Heb 12:16. Except for Num 14:33, the metaphorical use of fornication works by establishing God as the spouse against foreign idols (cf. also Rev 21:9). In Hebrews, however, we find no establishment of this larger metaphor. It seems rather that Hebrews mentions sexual immorality in a general way to point to behavior typical of outsiders.223 217 E.g., Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; Gal 5:19; 1 Thess 4:3 (though perhaps here fornication with another man’s wife is meant; cf. 4:6); 2 Cor 12:21; 1 Tim 1:10. See further the discussion in Bruce Malina, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?,” NovT 14 (1972): 10–17 and the significant correctives made by Joseph Jensen, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina,” NovT 20 (1978): 161–84. Cf. Löhr, Umkehr, 121 n. 595. 218 See Löhr, Umkehr, 130–31, esp. 131 n. 672; Aline Rousselle, Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity, trans. Felicia Pheasant (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 78–92. 219 Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom 1:23–27; 1 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:19–20; Eph 5:5; Col 3:5; Rev 2:14; 9:20–21; 22:15. Cf. Wolter, “Identität,” 162. 220 Attridge, Hebrews, 369, cites a number of examples of the metaphorical use of “fornication”: Deut 31:16; Num 14:33; Judg 2:17; Hos 1:2 et passim; Jer 2:20; 3:6–9, 20; Ezek 16:15, 23; Herm. 29.9 (as shown above, this text does use adultery in a metaphorical sense, but not in relation to idols). Lane adds also Exod 35:15–17. In Revelation, particularly chapter 17, fornication with Rome constitutes abandonment of God. Cf. Lane, Hebrews, 2:455; see further Hauck, TDNT, 6:587, 594. Cf. Philo, Mig. 69; Fug. 114; Mut. 205. 221 Num 25:1–2; T. Sim. 5.2–3, where after a command to make paths straight, it says fornication leads to wicked deeds and away from God; T. Reu. 4.6. 222 Wis 14:12, 24–27. 223 Interestingly, Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 21–42 (particularly 26–31), has shown that when the OT speaks of moral defilement, it concerns three main types of sins: sexual immorality, idolatry, and bloodshed (Lev 18; Num 35:33–34; Ps 106:34–41; Jer 2:7, 23; 3:1; Ezek 36:16–18, 22–25). Though Hebrews lacks reference to sinful bloodshed, the other two, insofar as they are mentioned explicitly or alluded to through Deut 29:17, co-

Hebrews 12:12–17

233

The same is most likely also true of the use of βέβηλος, profane. The term appears frequently to describe what is ritually common or unclean versus what is holy or clean,224 but it can be carried over into several other senses as well.225 For example, in 3 Maccabees it describes sinful, idolatrous outsiders who violate the holy places.226 The Psalms of Solomon employ the adjective in speaking of unclean outsiders, the failure to maintain ritual purity, sexual immorality, and engagement in other sins.227 In 1 Tim 1:9–10 it describes sinners and unholy people, who commit sexual immorality, among other things. Elsewhere in the Pastorals, it is used of false teachings, which in fact lead to more ungodliness (1 Tim 4:7; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16). Together with sexual immorality, then, βέβηλος probably offers a general depiction of a sinful outsider as opposed to those insiders marked by peace, holiness, and righteousness. Generally, such an understanding of these terms in Heb 12:15–16 corresponds with the larger scheme sketched in chapter 2, whereby the believer may either persevere in maintaining a Christian lifestyle or decide to turn back to earlier ways of life. The rhetoric is quite negative and serves in and of itself to paint an unsavory picture of a would-be defector, such that the audience might even by the very language be repulsed from turning away.228 This generalized picture of an outsider finds expression in Esau. It can be questioned whether both πόρνος and βέβηλος relate to Esau or only βέβηλος, but the two adjectives are on the same structural level, and so it would seem strange for the latter to be isolated from the former.229 Besides that, Löhr has demonstrated in an extensive review of Esau traditions that both descriptors apply to Esau quite well.230 Generally, Esau came to be viewed as not only

here with the author’s concern that many would become defiled. They therefore constitute fitting antitheses to holiness. 224 Lev 10:10; Ezek 21:30; 22:26; 44:23; cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.181; 12.38, 320; J.W. 2.128; 4.182; 5.18; 6.271. See further Friederich Hauck, “βέβηλος,” TDNT 1:604. 225 Cf. Löhr, Umkehr, 122. 226 3 Macc 2:2, 13; 4:16; 7:15; cf. 2 Macc 5:16. 227 Pss. Sol. 2:13; 4:1; 8:12; 17:45. 228 Koester, Hebrews, 541, considers such language epideictic, “since it reinforces existing values.” On the use of sexual ethics particularly in Christian polemic against outsiders, see Jennifer Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity (New York 2006), particularly 63–64 and 160–163. As she notes, the use of ethics in polemics almost necessitates that the writer and his own community maintain the standards they set for themselves, even if their rhetoric may exaggerate the lifestyle of those outside the group. 229 Attridge, Hebrews, 368–69; Löhr, Umkehr, 121. Cf. Philo, Spec. 1.102: πόρνῃ […] καὶ βεβήλῳ. The two stems occur together additionally in Lev 19:29; 21:7, 9, 14; Num 25:1; Philo, Fug. 114. 230 Löhr, Umkehr, 123–29.

234

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

evil231 but also as sexually immoral, initially because of his taking of Hittite wives (Gen 26:34).232 Additionally, Philo’s treatment of Esau in QG 4.231– 33 offers some striking parallels with the themes of Heb 12. Philo ties the loss of blessing to Esau’s character. He depicts Esau as one who lives according to untamed and undisciplined character. Esau knows better and is capable of making virtuous decisions but acts in the opposite way. Philo even says that one may pardon a blind man who stumbles, but one must condemn a person who can see and yet chooses slippery and untrodden paths. The way Philo paints Esau as undisciplined (or as needing discipline in Congr.) suggests that the author of Hebrews made the same association. The two writers both highlight the moral development παιδεία achieves, both appeal to the image of a path, and both consider Esau immoral. Hebrews does not elaborate upon Esau in terms of sexual immorality or wicked deeds, but turns to Esau’s giving up of his birthright. Nevertheless, his moral character does not lose its importance.233 According to verse 16, Esau sold his birthright for a single meal (ἀντὶ βρώσεως µιᾶς). The structure parallels 12:2, where Jesus endures the cross for the sake of the joy laid before him (ἀντὶ τῆς προκειµένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς). Whereas Jesus endured pain and was faithful, Esau gave up long-term benefit for only temporary pleasure or relief. The fact that it was his birthright, his inheritance, that he gave up is to be noted, as Jesus is the firstborn and inheritor of all things (1:2, 6).234 The two exemplars could not be more opposed. The implied image of sonship, though most closely comparable to Jesus, also reflects the sonship of the audience, proven by their undergoing of παιδεία. They too should imitate those who inherit the promises through faithfulness (6:12) as they near the assembly of the firstborn (12:23). The audience should see their situation reflected in the case of Esau as well. They must choose

231

E.g., Philo, Leg. 3.2 Sacr. 4, 81; LAB, 32.5 (Et dilexit Deus Iacob, Esau autem odio habuit propter opera eius). See Daniel J. Harrington, ed., Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques, 2 vols. SC 229 (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 1:246. 232 Jub. 25:1, 7–8; 26:34; 35:13–14; Philo, Virt. 208–10; QG 4.201; Leg. 3.2; cf. Gen. Rab. 63.12; 65.1; 78.10; cf. 67. Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 532; Attridge, Hebrews, 369; Sowers, Philo and Hebrews, 130. 233 Cockerill, Hebrews, 638–39, argues that Hebrews rarely draws on later traditions in illuminating its exemplars in chapter 11 and goes on to argue that the author uses πόρνος because Esau “was controlled by bodily desire and because he ‘sold’ [in the sense of prostitution] the eternal for a pittance of the temporal.” Yet this claim concerning the tradition history begs the question. Further, while πόρνος certainly can relate to prostitution – even in connection with βέβηλος (see n. 229 above) – the moral language present throughout chapter 12 speaks more in favor of a literal reading, and the evidence from tradition history, which depicts Esau as basically immoral, is of such significant weight, that we cannot so easily brush it aside. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 665. 234 Käsemann, “Hebräer 12,12–17,” 309.

Hebrews 12:12–17

235

whom they will imitate: those who went before them, including the sinless Jesus, or Esau the profane and immoral. Though the author focuses on the birthright episode specifically, it is important to recognize that selling the birthright is an expression of Esau’s immoral character (µή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς …).235 This is not unlike the way turning from God is an expression of an evil heart (3:12), or the way idolatry (turning from God) and sexual immorality go together hand-inhand or proceed from one another, as mentioned above. He gave up something greater for one single meal, in contrast, for example, to Moses who chose against the temporary pleasures of sin (11:25). In view of the conception of παιδεία as leading to righteousness and the exhortation toward straight paths and sanctification, the trading-in of the birthright becomes a representative example of immoral behavior that defiles. While verse 16 shows Esau’s character and action, the rhetoric comes to a climax in verse 17.236 The audience knows that later when Esau wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected. He found no place for repentance, even though he sought it with tears.237 The author’s statement that the audience knows these circumstances contains a slight tone of warning, leading to the

235

Gräßer, Hebräer, 3:294 (cf. 3:296), suggests the author moves away from the themes of defilement, fornication, and profanity in his treatment of Esau. This skips over the question of the purpose of the preceding moral language, especially considering the weight of the author’s concern with righteousness and holiness. Gräßer comments that the search for repentance in verse 17 does not relate to Esau’s moral standing described in verse 16. This supposedly proves that the impossibility of second repentance is the main point. Yet Gräßer’s argument is circular; it is unnecessary to divide the impossibility of repentance from Esau’s moral character. The two are related, even if the exchange of the birthright receives the focus. Cf. Koester, Hebrews, 533, who argues that repentance fits the moral depiction of Esau logically. See also Löhr, Umkehr, 160. Löhr says, “Dieser Verkauf ist also nicht einfach ein Indiz für den schlechten Charakter des Isaaksohnes; vielmehr ist in ihm der mutwillige Verlust des Heils, der Abfall vom lebendigen Gott, vorgebildet.” Indeed, the missing of God’s grace (v. 15) is the ultimate concern, but Hebrews does not allow for a strong division between the so-called moral and religious – “das Sittliche” and “das Religiöse” as sometimes found in traditional German scholarship. However, Löhr appears to see these two aspects, the giving up of the birthright and Esau’s immorality, as intertwined on his page 159. 236 Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 369. 237 The pronoun αὐτήν is ambiguous, as it could refer to either µετάνοια or εὐλογία. The nearer antecedent is repentance. The difficulty with repentance being the antecedent is that the direct object of εὗρεν is τόπος; that is, we would expect the object of ἐκζητήσας to be masculine for τόπος and not feminine (Koester, Hebrews, 533). Nevertheless, the author speaks of finding a place of repentance and then of seeking “it”. This coherence between seeking and finding something, together with the nearness of the antecedent µετάνοια, weighs in favor of repentance as the object. So, Attridge, Hebrews, 370.

236

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

main point.238 Accordingly, Esau’s example primarily demonstrates that once he gave up the birthright, he could never get it back, thus the importance of seeking peace and holiness. It is significant that Esau is rejected despite his tears (καίπερ […] δακρύων). The Genesis account speaks of Esau’s weeping (Gen 27:34, 38), as do the later traditions,239 but the significance of this comment is found rather in the contrast with Jesus in 5:7. While Jesus’ loud cries and tears have nothing to do with repentance, his approach to the one capable of saving him is heard because of his reverence (ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας). Moreover, in light of the threat of judgment the author exhorts the audience to be thankful in receiving an unshakable kingdom and to serve God in a pleasing way with reverence and awe (µετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους; 12:28–29). A contrast thus becomes clear between those who would please God in their reverence and those who would find no repentance, those who act from a disposition that is generally immoral and opposed to God. That is to say, while Esau’s repentance has first to do with the inability to receive back his birthright, the author associates giving up the birthright with his sinful lifestyle. Thus, we observe that the author does not write, “do not sell your birthright”, but rather “take care lest someone be sexually immoral and profane.”240 5. Findings in 12:12–17 With imperatives drawn again from the LXX, the author seeks to move the audience forward with a right understanding of divine παιδεία and its associated requirements for God’s children. The exhortations to straighten weak hands and knees and to make straight paths for the feet fit the context of pain or sorrow and reflect the audience’s state of weakness. While παιδεία results 238

Cf. Löhr, Umkehr, 158 n. 128. See Heb 10:30, where the author introduces a scriptural warning of judgment with οἴδαµεν γὰρ τὸν εἰπόντα. The form, ἴστε, could be imperative, but the presence of γάρ points in favor of the indicative. Compare Eph 5:5 vs. Jas 1:19. Attridge, Hebrews, 370 n. 56. 239 Jub. 26.29, 33; Josephus, Ant. 1.275; Philo, QG 4.233. See further, Löhr, Umkehr, 161 n. 140. 240 Rightly O’Brien, Letter, 477, “The application for the listeners is plain: let no member of the congregation be immoral or godless like Esau (v. 16). The earlier warning that after apostasy no second repentance is possible (see 4:1) is reinforced by his negative example.” Cockerill, Hebrews, 631, entitles 12:14–17, “Don’t Sell your Birthright, as Esau Did”. For Cockerill, Esau is the “ultimate example of apostasy” (ibid., 633), but his summary title and construal are only half correct. The charge against Esau is not primarily the selling of the birthright; the birthright example serves to show that what he gave up he could never get back. The charge against him is that he was immoral, and that immorality finds expression in his opting for temporary pleasure over long-term gain. Cockerill rightly recognizes this last part (ibid., 639), even if he puts the cart before the horse in treating apostasy.

Conclusions

237

in holiness and peaceful fruits, the author exhorts the audience to action, to seek after peace and holiness. This involves specifically looking after one another in unity. The audience must maintain their state of sanctification, a state of purity from a conscience of dead works, and this involves watching out for anyone who would miss the grace of God, that is, any bitter root that would defile, any immoral or profane person. These descriptors point to the general immorality of outsiders, sinners, those like Esau. If an individual becomes immoral or profane, the person irrevocably trades in the birthright for temporary pleasure. Instead of imitating Jesus’ piety and endurance while looking for ultimate joy, such an individual turns away, failing to resist sin fully and receive healing.

Conclusions

III. Conclusions

Our analysis of Heb 12:1–17 has yielded results in three interrelated areas of consideration: moral thought, the use of the OT, and the use of the corporal punishment tradition. First, the entire passage depicts the audience’s circumstances in moral terms. The author begins by exhorting the audience to active endurance with reference to the positive example of Jesus and ends with the starkly opposite negative example, Esau. The author repeatedly depicts the audience’s situation with the language of sin, immorality, and profanity, over against holiness, righteousness, and peace. The author focuses so much on the response of the audience to their situation in terms of morality that it becomes quite conspicuous that he only vaguely refers to pain and not at all to persecution against the audience. Sin makes up the opposing force, and the response to pain is a response to the educating Father, not to outside persecutors. The audience has a life of devotion to God to maintain, and even in developing the audience’s relationship to God in familial terms, the author puts a demand on the audience to respond to God just as they would their own fathers, with submission. This mixture of “theological” paradigm together with moral exhortation demonstrates further that the distinctions between exhortation and exposition in Hebrews are not always helpful categories. Our passage includes exposition right alongside moral exhortation; it provides both encouragement and moral demand. Second, the author develops the moral argument of the passage with heavy reliance on the OT. Of seven imperative verbs in the passage, only two clearly do not derive from an OT text (though 12:14 is questionable). The discussion of παιδεία and submission to fathers resonates with the exhortations found in Prov 3–4, and the results of life, peace, and healing likewise derive from that context. The author has employed the same wisdom thinking but has moved it in some regards more in an eschatological direction. Though the author shares presuppositions with the larger Greco-Roman world on corporal

238

Chapter 5: The Moral Thought of Hebrews 12:1–17

punishment, he develops his specific application of the paradigm with reference to the context of his quotation. Moreover, we found that the exhortations to straighten hands, knees, and paths fit traditionally with the themes of listlessness in the face of troubles, παιδεία, and even sin, though Hebrews develops these themes differently than in other traditions. The OT thus makes a significant contribution to the shaping of Hebrews’ moral thought. 241 Third, the author’s development of παιδεία evinces the presuppositions about the painful side of education that we developed in chapter 3. Since all fathers educate by means of pain, the author stands on good footing to encourage and exhort the audience by means of this paradigm. Most interestingly, the author even argues that this painful process develops the audience in virtues demanded by Hebrews as a whole; it leads to a share in holiness and yields righteousness. The very pain that threatens to prompt a turn back to a life of sin is what trains the audience in the moral purity they must uphold. One of our initial questions concerned how the author conceives of παιδεία actually fostering righteousness and holiness in the audience. If παιδεία were viewed punitively, then the function would become immediately obvious: it would correct bad behavior or lead to repentance so that the audience would turn back to good behavior. Yet the author does not develop anything like this, and in fact excludes the possibility of correction by his rejection of “second repentance”. Non-punitive readings of the passage have often referred to athletic training, which is a common paradigm in the Greco-Roman world for understanding suffering, or to the wilderness testing or learning obedience. While testing occurs elsewhere in Hebrews, it does not occur in Heb 12, and while the passage begins with athletic imagery, the passage never elaborates on training in the athletic sense of strength as one finds so easily in Seneca or Ps.-Plutarch. The closest comparison we get is the training of the moral faculties, but the passage does not elucidate this process either. Rather, as with so much of the material we found on corporal punishment in the ancient world, the author focuses on the end results: παιδεία trains the child unto virtue. A concern with how this process works, particularly in being carried over to the divine father and to the presumably adult audience, goes beyond the point of the passage. The author reinterprets the circumstances and motivates action by reference to all παιδεία. The inner workings of that process are of little consequence.

241 Similar findings in Paul and 1 Peter have been demonstrated by Hays and Green, respectively. See Richard B. Hays, “The Role of Scripture in Paul’s Ethics,” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 143–62; Gene L. Green, “The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter,” TynBul 41 (1990): 276–89.

Chapter 6

Final Conclusions Our study began by considering the non-punitive paradigm for understanding divine discipline in Heb 12 and several observations that have called it into question. Most importantly, we focused on the language of sin, righteousness, and holiness in the chapter as well as on the use of Prov 3:11–12. If the author did not intend to convey a punitive sense to his understanding of divine discipline, what does this language have to do with it? Moreover, Prov 3:11– 12 concerns corporal punishment, so how could the author quote lines concerning whipping and reproof without conveying to the audience overtones of punishment for wrongdoing? Further, if we accept the non-punitive interpretation and understand παιδεία as educative, how exactly does this function, how does it produce the peaceful fruit of righteousness if it does not correct sin? And what is the peaceful fruit of righteousness and its importance for the audience? We sought to answer these questions first by examining the larger moral thought of Hebrews. The investigation found that while the author of Hebrews makes reference to the audience’s difficult circumstances, he depicts the choice lying before the audience as one of turning back to a life of sin or continuing in the “Christian” way of life. We discovered a trend in the author’s warnings, whereby he depicts “apostasy” in terms of sin and unfaithfulness, even comparing neglect of the message to transgression of the law. Moreover, we saw that the language of “apostatizing” (3:12) was traditionally associated not just with turning away from God, but turning away from his ways and his laws. Ultimately, the sin of Hebrews is not apostasy; rather, to apostatize is to return willingly to sin. Opposite returning to sin is living faithfully. The author does not provide the audience with a complete guide to moral living, but nevertheless finds positive evidence of their earlier faithfulness precisely through their positive moral action, and he exhorts them to continue in it. It is faithfulness demonstrated in concrete action that results in recognition by God. Second, we examined the evidence for corporal punishment in the GrecoRoman world. While today parents and educators more often eschew physical measures of correction, beatings were a regular feature of school life for children, and the stress and pain of such experiences remained etched in the memories of ancient writers into adulthood. While the institution had its de-

240

Chapter 6: Final Conclusions

tractors, and there was a general ideal that punishments should be moderate, even brutal punishments could be justified so long as the intent to educate remained in view. Punishment could come even for actions which today we might consider morally neutral, such as failing to perform a task properly or incorrectly memorizing a poem. Yet even in this, the ideal focus remained on raising children to become virtuous, discerning adults, rather than recalcitrant, unreasoning creatures. Education in antiquity was painful, and not because it involved labor and toil, but because it involved beatings. This point has largely been missed by interpreters of Heb 12. Construing παιδεία in Hebrews as educative (in modern terms) obscures the relation between the scourging described by the proverb and the virtue resulting from the process. Third, we examined Prov 3:1–12 and 4:20–27. The investigation showed numerous points of contact between Hebrews and those two passages. As to Heb 12 specifically, we found shared concepts such as peace, the fruit of righteousness, life, and healing. This evidence, along with the allusion to Prov 4:26 in Heb 12:13, suggests the author wrote with an awareness of the context of those lines he explicitly quotes. Furthermore, the train of thought in Prov 3:1–10 suggests that the focus in 3:11–12 is not on punishment for wrongdoing as often assumed, but rather the lines serve as a caveat to the picture of blessing and prosperity depicted by verses 1–10. Thus, even if the son addressed by the discourse were not to enjoy blessing, pain exacted on him by God would nevertheless demonstrate love and acceptance. Prov 3:11– 12 thus proves fitting for the argument of Heb 12:1–17. We also traced other biblical, Second Temple, and early Christian parallels to Prov 3:11–12. In some cases the idea of God as a disciplining father could serve to explain suffering as divine punishment for wrongdoing, whereby “mild” correction might turn God’s elect from their sin. For Philo, such discipline has a less explicit concern with “sin”, but it nevertheless plays a role in correcting tendencies toward laziness and vice. Indeed, each of the texts examined showed concern with morality to one degree or another. Yet, the cases of Job 5:17 and especially Deut 8:5 demonstrated that writers could appeal to the benefits of divine παιδεία without necessarily implying the aspect of correction or punishment for sin. This not only supports our reading of Prov 3:11–12, but it is also suggestive for Heb 12. That does not mean, however, that Hebrews meant to interpret Deut 8:5, as his close awareness of the passages in Prov 3 and 4 proves. Finally, in our study of Heb 12:1–17 itself we found a similar argumentation against sin and exhortation toward proper behavior as found elsewhere in Hebrews. The author exhorts the audience to put off sin and to endure. He even criticizes them for not giving sufficient effort in the struggle against sin and for forgetting the exhortation provided by the proverb. Moreover, in view of the comfort provided by the proverb, he calls on the audience to pursue peace and holiness. Strikingly, even though the argument presupposes some

Final Conclusions

241

underlying painful circumstance, the author focuses on a proper response to God. He even specifically focuses on sin in appealing to the audience, even though his depiction of Jesus’ ordeal opens the opportunity to speak of sinful opponents and persecution. Instead of honing in on outside circumstances, he turns to the audience themselves and depicts them as sons of God who must show steadfastness. Their pain is to be understood as nothing other than the loving acceptance shown them by a father looking out for their best interest. While this provides comfort, it comes with the corresponding demand to submit to the divine father. Ultimately, submission to his educational methods leads to a share in God’s holiness and it produces righteousness, a quality that characterizes those faithful ones of whom God approves. The author does not elaborate on the workings of this process but simply appeals to it as a commonly presupposed aspect of the educational and moral life. Overall, the non-punitive understanding of Hebrews has been helpful for pointing out that Hebrews does not construe sufferings as punishment or correction for wrongdoing. Yet at the same time, it has obscured several aspects of the passage. By looking at Hebrews’ moral thought and its use of Proverbs and the corporal punishment tradition, we have been able to understand the moral demands of Heb 12:1–17 as an integrated part of Hebrews’ rigorous ethic. Appeal to corporal punishment does not necessarily connote wrongdoing, but demonstrates fatherly love by its effect of developing desired virtues in sons undergoing the pain of παιδεία. Yet at the same time, fathers must be obeyed, or more to Hebrews’ language, sons are to submit to their fathers. Thus Heb 12:1–17 becomes a reflection of the larger contours of the book, in that turning away to a life of sin contradicts the goals of divine παιδεία.

Bibliography Primary Sources and Translations Primary Sources and Translations Biblical Texts Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. –. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. –. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005. Ellinger, Karl, Wilhelm Rudolf, and Adrian Schenker, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Electronic edition, with corrections and emendations made in June 2014. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. 2nd rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Rahlfs, Alfred, et al., eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 16 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931–2015. Waard, Jan de, ed. Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Proverbs. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009.

Early Jewish Literature Baillet, Maurice. Qumrȃn Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520). DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Braude, William G. The Midrash on Psalms. Vol. 2. YJS 8. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Buber, Salomon. Midrasch Tehillim. Vilna: Wittwe & Gebrüder, 1891. Charles, R.H. The Book of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. –. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.

244

Bibliography

De Jonge, Marinus. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. PVTG. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Freedman, Harry, and Maurice Simon. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. London: Soncino, 1983. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Harrington, Daniel J., ed. Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques. 2 vols. SC 229. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Harrington, Daniel J., and Anthony J. Saldarini. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. ArBib 10. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987. Jung, Leo. Yoma. The Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: Soncino, 1938. Kisch, Guido. Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame, 1949. Neusner, Jacob. Yoma Chapters 1 and 2. Vol. 5a of The Talmud of Babylonia. BJS 294. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Pelletier, André. Lettre D’Aristée a Philocrate: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes, Index Complet des Mots Grecs. SC 89. Paris: Cerf, 1962. Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Vol. 2 of The Bible in Aramaic. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. New York: Penguin, 2004. Wright, Robert B. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.

Other Early Christian Literature The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Bart D. Ehrman. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Cameron, Ron, ed. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1982. Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Updated ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Jaubert, Annie, ed. Clément de Rome: Épître aux Corinthiens. SC 167. Paris: Cerf, 1971. Lightfoot, J.B. The Apostolic Fathers. Part 1, 2 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1973. Lipsius, Richard Adelbert, and Maximillian Bonnet, eds. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha. 3 vols. Hildesheim: Olms, 1959. Strycker, Émile de. La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques: Recherches sur le Papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée. Subsidia Hagiographica 33. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1961. Whittaker, Molly ed. Der Hirt des Hermas. Vol. 1 of Die apostolischen Väter. 2nd ed. GCS 48. Berlin: Akademie, 1967.

Papyri and Other Ancient Texts Bagnall, Roger S., and Raffaella Cribiore. Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300BCAD 800. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Hiller von Gaertringen, Friedrich, ed. Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum: Inscriptiones Symes Teutlussae Teli Nisyri Astypalaeae Anaphes Therae et The-

Primary Sources and Translations

245

rasiae Pholegandri Meli Cimoli. Vol. 12.3 of Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin: Reimer, 1898. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–80. Preisigke, Friedrich, and Friedrich Bilabel, eds. Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Vol. 3, part 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Westermann, William Linn, et al., eds. Zenon Papyri: Business Papers of the Third Century B.C. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt. Vols. 1–2. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934–1940.

Individual Ancient Authors1 Aelius Aristides Behr, Charles A. P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1986. P. Aelii Aristidis Opera quae exstant omnia. Edited by F.W. Lenz and C.A. Behr. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1976.

Aeschylus Aeschyli Tragoediae. Edited by Martin L. West. Leipzig: Teubner, 1990. Aeschylus. Edited and translated by Alan H. Sommerstein. Vol. 1. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Aesop Perry, Ben Edwin. Aesopica. Vol. 1. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1952.

Andocides Andocide: Discours. Edited by Georges Dalmeyda. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1960. Minor Attic Orators: Antiphon, Andocides. Translated by K.J. Maidment. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941.

Aphthonius Aphthonius: Progymnasmata. Edited by Hugo Rabe. Leipzig: Teubner, 1926. Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica. Edited by Hermann Fränkel. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. 1

This subsection provides in most cases both original language critical editions and translations. The LCL volumes, when listed, represent the translations consulted, unless no other source is listed, in which case they also provided the original language text.

246

Bibliography

Argonautica. Translated by R.C. Seaton. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912.

Aristotle Aristotelis Ethica nicomachea. Edited by Franz Susemihl and Otto Apelt. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. Aristotelis quae feruntur De plantis, De mirabilibus auscultationibus, Mechanica, De lineis insecabilibus, Ventorum situs et nomina, De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia. Edited by Otto Apelt. Leipzig: Teubner, 1888. Aristotelis quae feruntur Magna moralia. Edited by Franz Susemihl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1883. Metaphysics X-XIV, Oeconomica, Magna Moralia. Translated by Hugh Tredennick and G. Cyril Armstrong. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935. Minor Works. Translated by W.S. Hett. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934. Politica. Edited by W.D. Ross. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944.

Augustine The City of God. In vol. 2 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. In vol. 1 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886. Sancti Augustini Confessionum libri XIII. Edited by Lucas Verheijen. CCSL 27. Turnhout: Brepols, 1981. Sancti Aurelii Augustini De civitate Dei libri XI-XXII. Edited by B. Dombart and A. Kalb. CCSL 48. Turnhout: Brepols, 1955. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Opera. Vol. 1, part 4. Edited by Wolfgang Hörmann. Corpus Scripturum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 89. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1986. Two Books of Soliloquies. In vol. 7 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1888.

Ausonius Ausonius. Translated by Hugh G. Evelyn White. Vol. 2. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921. Decimi Magni Ausonii Opera. Edited by R.P.H. Green. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.

Cicero Letters to Friends. Edited and translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Letters to Quintus and Brutus, Letter Fragments, Letter to Octavian, Invectives, Handbook of Electioneering. Edited and translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Primary Sources and Translations

247

M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae ad familiares libri I-XVI. Edited by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1988. M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem, epistulae ad M. Brutum. Edited by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1988. M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum disputationum. Edited by H. Drexler. Milan: Mondadori, 1964. Tusculan Disputations. Translated by J.E. King. Rev. ed. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945.

Demosthenes Demosthenis Orationes. Edited by M.R. Dilts. Vol. 4. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Orations. Translated by A.T. Murray. Vol. 5. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Dio Cassius Dio’s Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. Vol. 4. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916. Historie Romaine, Livres 41 & 42. Edited by Marie-Laure Freyburger-Galland. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002.

Dio Chrysostom Dio Chrysostom. Translated by J.W. Cahoon and H. Lamar Crosby. Vols. 1, 3. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932–1940. Dionis Chrysostomi Orationes. Edited by Guy de Budé. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1916.

Diodorus of Sicily Bibliothèque Historique. Edited and translated by Bibiane Bommelaer. Vol. 3. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989. The Library of History. Translated by Russel M. Geer. Vol. 10. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954.

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R.D. Hicks. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Vitae philosophorum. Edited by M. Marcovich. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1999.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Translated by Earnest Cary. 7 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937–1963.

Epictetus Entretiens. Edited and translated by Joseph Souilhé and Amand Jagu. 4 vols. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1948–1965.

248

Bibliography

Epictetus. Translated by W.A. Oldfather. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925–1928.

Eumenius2 Nixon, C.E.V., Barbara Saylor Rodgers, and R.A.B. Mynors. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.

Eunapius Eunapii Vitae sophistarum. Edited by Guiseppe Giangrande. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1956. Philostratus and Eunapius: Lives of the Sophists. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. LCL. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922.

Euripides Euripides. Edited and translated by David Kovacs. Rev. ed. (vol. 1). 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995–2002. Euripidis Fabulae. Edited by J. Diggle. OCT. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981–1994. Fragments. Edited and translated by Christopher Collard and Martin Cropp. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Edited by Richard Kannicht. Vol. 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.

Libanius Gibson, Craig A. Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World 27. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Libanii Opera. Edited by Richard Foerster. Vol. 8. Leipzig: 1915.

Herodas Herodas: Mimiambi. Edited by I.C. Cunningham. Leipzig: Saur, 2004. Theophrastus Characters, Herodas Mimes, Sophron and Other Mime Fragments. Edited and translated by Jeffrey Rusten and I.C. Cunningham. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Herodian Herodianus: Regnum post Marcum. Edited by Carlo M. Lucarini. Leipzig: Saur, 2005. History of the Empire. Translated by C.R. Whittaker. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969–1970.

2 This volume includes the critical edition (including apparatus) of R.A.B. Mynors, XII Panegyrici Latini, OCT (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964).

Primary Sources and Translations

249

Herodotus Herodoti Historiae. Edited by Haiim B. Rosén. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1987–1997. Herodotus. Translated by A.D. Godley. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921–1926.

Hippocrates Hippocrates. Translated by W.H.S. Jones and E.T. Withington. Vols. 1, 3. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923–1928. Hippocratis Opera quae feruntur omnia. Edited by Hugo Kühlewein. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1894–1902.

Homer Homeri Ilias. Edited by Martin L. West. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Saur, 2000. The Iliad. Translated by A.T. Murray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924.

Horace Q. Horatius Flaccus: Opera. Edited by D.R. Shackleton Bailey. 4th ed. Leipzig: Saur, 2001. Satires, Epistles, The Art of Poetry. Translated by H.R. Fairclough. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.

Irenaeus Against Heresies. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Irénée de Lyon: Contre les Hérésies. Edited by Adelin Rousseau. Vol. 2. SC 100. Paris: Cerf, 1965.

Isocrates Isocrates. Translated by George Norlin and Larue Van Hook. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928–1945. Isocrates: Opera omnia. Edited by Basil G. Mandilaras. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Saur, 2003.

Josephus Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965.

Justin Martyr Dialogue of Justin. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

250

Bibliography

Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. PTS 47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.

Justinian Mommsen, Theodor, Paul Krueger, and Alan Watson, eds. The Digest of Justinian. 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Watson, Alan. The Digest of Justinian. 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998.

Juvenal A. Persi Flacci et D. Juni Juvenalis Saturae. Edited by W.V. Clausen. Rev. ed. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Juvenal and Persius. Edited and translated by Susanna Morton Braund. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Lucian Lucian. Translated by A.M. Harmon and M.D. MacLeod. Vols. 2–4, 7. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915–1961. Luciani Opera. Edited by M.D. Macleod. 4 vols. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972–1987.

Marcus Aurelius Marci Aurelii Antonini ad se ipsum libri XII. Edited by Joachim Dalfen. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1987. Marcus Aurelius. Translated and edited by C.R. Haines. LCL Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

Menander Menandri Sententiae: Comparatio Menandri et Philistionis. Edited by Siegfried Jäkel. Leipzig: Teubner, 1964.

Origen Homilies on Joshua. Translated by Barbara J. Bruce. Edited by Cynthia White. FC. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002. Origène: Homélies sur Josué. Edited by Annie Jaubert. SC 71. Paris: Cerf, 1960.

Ovid Heroides, Amores. Translated by Grant Showerman. 2nd ed. Revised by G.P. Goold. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977. P. Ovidi Nasonis Amores, Medicamina faciei femineae, Ars amatoria, Remedia amoris. Edited by E.J. Kenney. 2nd ed. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

Primary Sources and Translations

251

Philo Philo. Translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Philo Supplement. Translated by Ralph Marcus. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Philostratus Heroicus, Gymnasticus, Discourses 1 and 2. Edited and Translated by Jeffrey Rusten and Jason König. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Edited and translated by Christopher P. Jones. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Philostratus and Eunapius: Lives of the Sophists. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. LCL. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922.

Pindar Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Edited and translated by William H. Race. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Pindari Carmina cum fragmenta. Edited by H. Maehler. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1980.

Plato Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Translated by Harold North Fowler. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914. Laws. Translated by R.G. Bury. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. Platonis Opera. Edited by E.A. Duke, W.F. Hicken, W.S.M. Nicoll, D.B. Robinson, and J.C.G. Strachen. Vol. 1. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Platonis Opera. Edited by John Burnet. Vols. 3, 5. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903–1907. Platonis Rempublicam. Edited by S.R. Slings. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Pseudo-Plato: Axiochus. Translated by Jackson P. Hershbell. SBLTT 21. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. The Republic. Translated by Paul Shorey. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982–1987.

Plutarch3 Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914–1926. Moralia. Translated by Frank C. Babbitt et al. 15 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927–1969. Plutarchi Moralia. Edited by C. Hubert, H. Gärtner, et al. Vols. 1, 4. Leipzig: Teubner, 1971–1993.

3

For the Greek text of Plutarch, I consulted the volumes published by Teubner, but for two texts, Regnam et imperatorum (citation of Mor. 192D) and De fraterno amore (citation of Mor. 487A-B), I had to refer to volumes 3 and 7 of Plutarque: Oevres Morales, respectively.

252

Bibliography

Plutarchus: Vitae Parallelae. Edited by Konrat Ziegler and Hans Gärtner. Vols. 1–2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1993–2000. Plutarque: Oevres Morales. Edited by Robert Flacelière, François Fuhrmann, Jean Dumortier, et al. Vols. 1.1, 3, 7.1. Paris: Le Belles Lettres, 1975–1988.

Polybius Histories. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010–2012.

Quintilian M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim. Edited by M. Winterbottom. Vol. 1. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. The Orator’s Education. Edited and translated by Donald A. Russell. Vol. 1. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University, Press, 2001.

Seneca (the Younger) Epistles. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917–1925. L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium epistulae morales. Edited by L.D. Reynolds. 2 vols. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. L. Annaei Senecae De clementia libri duo. Edited by Ermanno Malaspina. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2000. L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum libri duodecim. Edited by L.D. Reynolds. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Moral Essays. Translated by John W. Basore. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928–1935. Sénèque: Des Bienfaits. Edited by François Préchac. Vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1926.

Seneca the Elder Declamations. Translated by Michael Winterbottom. Vol. 2. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. L. Annaeus Seneca Maior: Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae, divisions, colores. Edited by Lennart Håkanson. Leipzig: Teubner, 1989.

Sophocles Sophocles. Edited and translated by F. Storr and Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Vols. 1–2. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968–1998. Sophoclis Fabulae. Edited by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

Strabo The Geography of Strabo. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Vol. 4. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927.

Primary Sources and Translations

253

Stefan Radt, ed. Strabons Geographika, Band 3: Buch IX-XIII: Text und Übersetzung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.

Suetonius C. Suetoni Tranquilli Praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Edited by Giorgio Brugnoli. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1963. Suetonius. Translated by J.C. Rolfe. Rev. ed. Vol. 2. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Tacitus Agricola, Germania, Dialogus. Edited and translated by William Peterson and Maurice Hutton. Revised by R.M. Ogilvie, E.H. Warmington and M. Winterbottom. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970. Cornelii Taciti Opera minora. Edited by M. Winterbottom and R.M. Ogilvie. OCT. Oxford: Clarendon: 1975.

Thucydides Thucydides. Translated by Charles Forster Smith. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921–1930. Thucydidis Historiae. Edited by Giovanni Baptista Alberti. Vols. 1–2. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1972–1992.

Virgil Eclogues, Georgics, Aenid I-VI. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. Revised by G.P. Goold. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis. Edited by Gian Biagio Conte. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

Xenophon Anabasis. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson. Rev. ed. Revised by John Dillery. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Cyropaedia. Translated by Walter Miller. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914. Hellenica, Anabasis, Symposium, Apology. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson and O.J. Todd. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918–1922. Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology. Translated by E.C. Marchant and O.J. Todd. Revised by Jeffrey Henderson. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013. Scripta Minora. Translated by E.C. Marchant and G.W. Bowersock. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Xénophon: Mémorables. Edited by Michele Bandini and Louis-André Dorion. Vol. 2, part 2. Les Belles Lettres, 2011. Xenophontis Expeditio Cyri. Edited by C. Hude and J. Peters. Leipzig: Teubner, 1972. Xenophontis Historia Graeca. Edited by C. Hude. Leipzig: Teubner, 1934. Xenophontis Institutio Cyri. Edited by G. Gemoll. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912. Xenophontis Scripta minora. Edited by L. Dindort and F. Ruehl. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912.

254

Secondary Sources

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

Abegg, Martin G. Jr. “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law.’” Pages 203–16 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Adams, J. Clifford. “Exegesis of Hebrews VI. 1f.” NTS 13 (1966–67): 378–85. Adams, Samuel L. Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Allen, David L. Hebrews. NAC. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010. Allen, David M. “Doing what they have been told: The epistolary function of Heb 13:17– 19.” Paper presented at the SBL International Meeting. Vienna, Austria, 10 July 2014. –. “Constructing ‘Janus-Faced’ Exhortations: The Use of Old Testament Narratives in Heb 13,1–8.” Bib 89 (2008): 401–9. –. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews: A Study in Narrative Re-presentation. WUNT II/238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Anderson, Gary A. Sin: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Andriessen, Paul. “La communauté des ‘Hébreux’: Était-elle tombée dans le relâchement?” NRTh 96 (1974): 1054–66. Annas, Julia. “Plato.” Pages 1155–58 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Arnott, Geoffrey. “Menander.” Pages 929–30 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Arterbury, Andrew E. Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in its Mediterranean Setting. New Testament Monographs 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Asting, Ragnar. Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum. FRLANT 46. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1930. Atherton, Catherine. “Children, Animals, Slaves and Grammar.” Pages 214–44 in Pedagogy and Power: Rhetorics of Classical Learning. Edited by Yun Lee Too and Niall Livingstone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Atkinson, Kenneth. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. Leiden: Brill, 2004. –. “Theodicy in the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 546–75 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Attridge, Harold W. “Liberating Death’s Captives: Reconsideration of an early Christian Myth.” Pages 103–15 in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World. Edited by James E. Goehring, Charles W. Hedrick, Jack T. Sanders, and Hans Dieter Betz. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990. –. “Paraenesis in a Homily (λόγος παρακλήσεως): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews.’” Semeia 50 (1990): 211–26. –. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. –. “‘Let us Strive to Enter that Rest’: The Logic of Hebrews 4:1–11.” HTR 73 (1980): 279–88. –. “‘Heard Because of His Reverence’ (Heb 5:7).” JBL 98 (1979): 90–93. Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52. Dallas: Word, 1997.

Secondary Sources

255

Austin, Roland Gregory, and M. Winterbottom. “Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus).” Pages 1251–52 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Backhaus, Knut. “Auf Ehre und Gewissen! Die Ethik des Hebräerbriefs.” Pages 215–37 in Der sprechende Gott: Gesammelte Studien zum Hebräerbrief. WUNT 240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. Der Hebräerbrief. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 2009. –. “Zwei harte Knoten: Todes- und Gerichtsangst im Hebräerbrief.” NTS 55 (2009): 198– 217. –. “How to Entertain Angels: Ethics in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 149–75 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Baker, William R. “Endurance, Perseverance.” Pages 326–30 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Barclay, William. Educational Ideals in the Ancient World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974. Barnett, Paul W. “Apostasy.” Pages 73–76 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Barrett, C.K. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 363–93 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. Edited by W.D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Barrier, Jeremy W. The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary. WUNT II/270. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Barth, Markus. “The Old Testament in Hebrew: An Essay in Biblical Hermeneutics.” Pages 53–78 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation. Edited by William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder. New York: Harper, 1962. Bateman, Herbert W. IV. Charts on the Book of Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012. –. “Psalm 45:6–7 and Its Christological Contributions to Hebrews.” TJ 22 (2001): 3–21. –. Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5–13. AUSTR 193. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. –. “Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5–13 and 4QFlor 1.1–19.” JETS 38 (1995): 11–27. –, ed. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beare, Frank W. “The Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in P46.” JBL 63 (1944): 349–96. Benetreau, Samuel. L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Commentaire Évangélique de la Bible. Cherbourg: Édifac, 1989–1990. Berger, Peter L. A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969. Repr., Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1970. –. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York, Anchor Books: 1967. Repr., New York: Anchor Books, 1969.

256

Bibliography

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckman. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Repr., New York: Anchor Books, 1967. Berry, Edmund G. “The De liberis educandis of Pseudo-Plutarch.” HSCP 63 (1958): 387– 99. Bertram, Georg. “Der Begriff der Erziehung in der griechischen Bibel.” Pages 33–51 in Imago Dei: Beiträge zur theologischen Anthropologie. Edited by Heinrich Bornkamm. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1932. Blackstone, Thomas Ladd. “The Hermeneutics of Recontextualization in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” PhD diss., Emory University, 1995. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1997. Bolkestein, H. “Almosen.” RAC 1:301–7. Bonner, Stanley Frederick. Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Bornkamm, Günther. “Sohnschaft und Leiden.” Pages 188–98 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by Walther Eltester. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964. –. “Das Bekenntnis im Hebräerbrief.” Pages 188–203 in vol. 2 of Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze. BEvT 28. Munich: Kaiser, 1959. Boström, Lennart. The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs. ConBOT 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–2006. Bousset, Wilhelm. Die Offenbarung Johannis. 6th ed. KEKNT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. Boxall, Ian. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC. London: Continuum, 2006. Brandenburger, Egon. Frieden im Neuen Testament: Grundlinien urchristlichen Friedensverständnisses. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973. Braulik, Georg. “Das Buch Deuteronomium.” Pages 152–82 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 9th ed. Edited by Christian Frevel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. HNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Brooke, George J. “Reading the Plain Meaning of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 67–90 in Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Edited by George J. Brooke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Buchanan, George W. To the Hebrews. AB 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–1955. Repr., Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. –. “Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus.” ZNW 23 (1924): 123–40. Caird, G.B. “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” CJT 5 (1959): 44–51.

Secondary Sources

257

Carcopino, Jérôme. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire. 2nd ed. Edited by Henry T. Rowell. Translated by E.O. Lorimer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Carlston, Charles Edwin. “Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JBL 78 (1959): 296–302. Clements, Ronald E. “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.” SwJT 28 (1985): 36–45. Clifford, Richard J. The Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Clines, David J.A. Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word, 1989. Cockerill, Gareth L. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Cohn, Robert L. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. AARSR 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Colson, F.H. “Philo on Education.” JTS 18 (1917): 151–62. Connolly, Joy. “Problems of the Past in Imperial Greek Education.” Pages 339–72 in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Edited by Yun Lee Too. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Cosby, Michael R. “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11.” JBL 107 (1988): 257– 73. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1998. –. “The Wisdom Literature.” Pages 369–407 in The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Croy, N. Clayton. Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1–13 in its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context. SNTSMS 98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. D’Angelo, Mary Rose. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBLDS 42. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Darnell, David R. “Rebellion, Rest, and the Word of God: An Exegetical Study of Hebrews 3:1–4:13.” PhD diss., Duke University, 1973. Dautzenberg, Gerhard. “Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief.” BZ 17 (1973): 161–77. Davis, Phillip. Review of Georg Walser, Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. SNTSU.A 39 (2014): 258–60. Delitzsch, Franz. Der Hebräerbrief. Gießen: Brunnen, 1989. –. Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Translated by M.G. Easton. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. –. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1874. –. Biblischer Commentar über die poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Vols. 2–3. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1864–1873. Delkurt, Holger. Ethische Einsichten in der alttestamentlichen Spruchweisheit. BiblischTheologische Studien 21. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993. deSilva, David A. “How Greek was the Author of ‘Hebrews’? A Study of the Author’s Location in regard to Greek ΠΑΙ∆ΕΙΑ.” Pages 629–49 in Christian Origins and GrecoRoman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

258

Bibliography

–. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. –. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. “Repentance, Second Repentance.” Pages 1011–15 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. –. “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client Relationships.” JBL (1996): 91–116. –. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SBLDS 152. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Dick, Michael B. “The Ethics of the Old Greek Book of Proverbs.” SPhiloA 2 (1990): 20– 50. Dobschütz, Ernst von. Die urchristlichen Gemeinden: Sittengeschichtliche Bilder. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902. Docherty, Susan E. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation. WUNT II/260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Dodd, C.H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Fontana Books, 1952. Dörrie, Heinrich. Leid und Erfahrung: Die Wort- und Sinn-Verbindung παθεῖν - µαθεῖν im griechischen Denken. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1956. –. “Zu Hbr 11, 1.” ZNW 46 (1955): 196–202. Driver, S.R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Driver, S.R., and G.B. Gray. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Job. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Dumbrell, W.J. “The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect.” EvQ 48 (1976): 154–59. Dunning, Benjamin. “The Intersection of Alien Status and Cultic Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 177–98 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Dutch, Robert S. The Educated Elite in 1 Corinthians: Education and Community Conflict in Greco-Roman Context. JSNTSup 271. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Dyer, Bryan R. Suffering in the Face of Death: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Its Context of Situation. LNTS 568. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Easter, Matthew C. Faith and the Faithfulness of Jesus in Hebrews. SNTSMS 160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Eberhart, Christian A. “Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews.” Pages 37–64 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Edwards, Walter Manoel, Robert Browning, Graham Anderson, and Ewen Bowie. “Lucian.” Page 861 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J.A. Baker. Vol. 1. OTL. London: SCM, 1961. Eisenbaum, Pamela M. “Locating Hebrews within the Literary Landscape of Christian Origins.” Pages 213–37 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

Secondary Sources

259

–. “The Virtue of Suffering, the Necessity of Discipline, and the Pursuit of Perfection in Hebrews.” Pages 331–53 in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush. New York: Routledge, 1999. –. “Heroes and History in Hebrews 11.” Pages 380–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. –. The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context. SBLDS 156. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellingworth, Paul, and Eugene A. Nida. A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Enns, Peter E. “Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1– 4:13.” WTJ 55 (1993): 255–80. Evans Grubbs, Judith, and Tim Parkin, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Feld, Helmut. Der Hebräerbrief. EdF 228. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985. Ferguson, John. Moral Values in the Ancient World. London: Methuen, 1958. Filson, Floyd V. ‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. London: SCM, 1967. Finsterbusch, Karin. Deuteronomium: Eine Einführung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Fitzgerald, John T. “Proverbs 3:11–12, Hebrews 12:5–6, and the Tradition of Corporal Punishment.” Pages 291–317 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Edited by Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New York: Doubleday, 2009. –. Proverbs 1–9. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. “World Order and Maʿat: A Crooked Parallel.” JANES 23 (1995): 37–48. France, R.T. “The Writer of Hebrews as a Biblical Expositor.” TynBul 47 (1996): 183–94. Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Freuling, Georg. “Wer eine Grube gräbt...”: Der Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang und sein Wandel in der alttestamentlichen Weisheitsliteratur. WMANT 102. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004. Fuhrmann, Sebastian. Vergeben und Vergessen: Christologie und Neuer Bund im Hebräerbrief. WMANT 113. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007. Fuhs, Hans F. Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar. FB 95. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2001. Gäbel, Georg. Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes. WUNT II/212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Gambiza, Farai K. Moyo. “Teleiosis and Paidea as Interpretation of Sufferings: The Perfecting of Jesus and the Disciplining of Christians in the Letter to the Hebrews.” ThD diss., Christ Seminary - Seminex, 1981. Garrett, Susan R. “Paul’s Thorn and Cultural Modes of Affliction.” Pages 82–99 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995.

260

Bibliography

Gaugler, Ernst. “Die Heiligung in der Ethik des Apostels Paulus.” IKZ 15 (1925): 100–20. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Repr., 2000. Gelardini, Gabriella. “Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha Be-Av: Its Function, Its Basis, Its Theological Interpretation. Pages 107–27 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Gemser, Berend. Sprüche Salomos. 2nd ed. HAT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Gera, Deborah Levine. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by Herbert Donner. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 2013. Gheorghita, Radu. The Role of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT II/160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Giese, Ronald L. Jr. “Qualifying Wealth in the Septuagint of Proverbs.” JBL 111 (1992): 409–425. Gleason, Randall C. “The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7–4:11.” BibSac 157 (2000): 281–303. Gnilka, Joachim. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. HthKNT, Supplementband 5. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Golden, Mark. “Pais, ‘Child’ and ‘Slave.’” L’Antiquité Classique 54 (1985): 91–104. Goodacre, Mark. “NT Pod 37: What is the Purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews?” NT Pod 37. 7 June 2010. http://podacre.blogspot.de/2010/06/nt-pod-37-what-is-purpose-ofepistle-to.html. Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament. Edited by Jürgen Roloff. Translated by John Alsup. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–1982. Gordis, Robert. The Book of Job. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978. Gräßer, Erich. An die Hebräer. 3 vols. EKKNT. Zürich: Benziger, 1990–1997. –. Aufbruch und Verheißung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hebräerbrief. Edited by Martin Evang and Otto Merk. BZNW 65. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. –. “Mose und Jesus: Zur Auslegung von Hebr 3:1–6.” ZNW 75 (1984): 2–23. –. Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief. Marburger Theologische Studien 2. Marburg: Elwert, 1965. Gray, Patrick. “Hebrews among Greeks and Romans.” Pages 13–29 in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. –. “Brotherly Love and the High Priest Christology of Hebrews.” JBL 12 (2003): 335–51. –. Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition. AcBib 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Green, Gene L. “The Use of the Old Testament for Christian Ethics in 1 Peter.” TynBul 41 (1990): 276–89. Green, R.P.H. “Ausonius, Decimus Magnus.” Page 213 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Greenlee, J. Harold. An Exegetical Summary of Hebrews. 2nd ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008.

Secondary Sources

261

Grogan, G.W. “The Old Testament Concept of Solidarity in Hebrews.” TynBul 49, no. 1 (1998): 159–73. Gupta, Nijay K. “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters.” JSNT 34 (2012): 361– 81. Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews.” Pages 919–95 in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. –. “‘Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” CurBR 1 (2003): 271–94. –. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Hadas, Moses. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees. New York: Harper, 1953. Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990. –. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. NovTSup 34. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Hamm, Dennis. “Praying ‘Regularly’ (not ‘Constantly’): A Note on the Cultic Background of dia pantos at Luke 24:53, Acts 10:2 and Hebrews 9:6, 13:15.” ExpTim 116 (2004): 50–52. Hanson, A.T. “Rahab the Harlot in Early Christian Tradition.” JSNT 1 (1978): 53–60. Hare, R.M. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961 Harris, Murray J. “The Translation and Significance of ̔Ο ΘΕΟΣ in Hebrews 1:8–9.” TynBul 36 (1985): 129–62. Harstad, Adolph L. Joshua. ConcC. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2004. Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. –. “Mapping the Field: Approaches to New Testament Ethics.” Pages 3–19 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. Van der Watt. BZNW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. –. “The Role of Scripture in Paul’s Ethics.” Pages 143–62 in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. –. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: HarperOne, 1996. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Heil, John Paul. Worship in the Letter to the Hebrews. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011. Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by A.W. Heathcote and P.J. Allcock. London: Epworth Press, 1970. Hilgert, Earle. The Ship and Related Symbols in the New Testament. Assen: Vangorcum, 1962. Hinds, Stephen “Ovid.” Pages 1054–57 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hofius, Otfried. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom Endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief. WUNT 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970. Honoré, Tony. “Justinian’s codification.” Pages 780–81 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

262

Bibliography

Horrell, David G. “Particular Identity and Common Ethics: Reflections on the Foundations and Content of Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 5.” Pages 197–212 in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Horst, Friedrich. Hiob. BKAT 16.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968. Hudson-Williams, Alun, and M. Winterbottom. “Eumenius.” Page 548 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hughes, Graham. Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation. SNTSMS 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. –. “Hebrews 6:4–6 and the Peril of Apostasy.” WTJ 35 (1973): 137–55. Hurst, Lincoln D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. SNTSMS 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. –. “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2.” Pages 151–64 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L.D. Hurst and N.T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Instone Brewer, David. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. TSAJ 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Isaacs, Marie E. Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. –. “Hebrews 13.9–16 Revisited.” NTS 43 (1997): 268–84. –. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Jacobson, Arland D. “Proverbs and Social Control: A New Paradigm for Wisdom Studies.” Pages 75–88 in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World. Edited by James E. Goehring, Charles W. Hedrick, Jack T. Sanders, and Hans Dieter Betz. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990. Jacoby, Hermann. Neutestamentliche Ethik. Königsberg: Thomas & Oppermann, 1899. Jaeger, Werner. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. –. “Paideia Christi.” ZNW 50 (1959): 1–14. –. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Translated by Gilbert Highet. 3 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1944–45. Janowski, Bernd. “Die Tat kehrt zum Täter zurück: Offene Frage im Umkreis des ‘TunErgehen-Zusammenhangs.’” ZTK 91 (1994): 247–71. Jensen, Joseph. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina.” NovT 20 (1978): 161–84. Jentsch, Werner. Urchristliches Erziehungsdenken: Die Paideia Kyriu im Rahmen der hellenistisch-jüdischen Umwelt. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. –. “The Scriptural World of Hebrews.” Interpretation 57 (2003): 237–50. Johnson, Richard W. Going Outside the Camp: The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 209. London: Sheffield, 2001. Johnsson, William G. “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews.” JBL 97 (1978): 239–51. Jones, Peter Rhea. “A Superior Life: Hebrews 12:3–13:25. RevExp 82 (1985): 391–405.

Secondary Sources

263

Käsemann, Ernst. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Translated by R.A. Harrisville and I.L. Sundberg. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. –. “Hebräer 12,12–17.” Pages 307–12 in vol. 1 of Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. –. Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief. 4th ed. FRLANT 55. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Karrer, Martin. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 2 vols. ÖTK. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002–2008. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Keck, Leander E. “Rethinking ‘New Testament Ethics.’” JBL 115 (1996): 3–16. –. “On the Ethos of Early Christians.” JAAR 42 (1974): 435–52. Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher Mose’s. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1862. Keller, Carl-A. “Zum sogenannten Vergeltungsglauben im Proverbienbuch.” Pages 223–38 in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart, and Rudolf Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1977. Kennell, Nigel M. “Boys, Girls, Family, and the State at Sparta.” Pages 381–95 in The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World. Edited by Judith Evans Grubbs and Tim Parkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Kiley, Mark. “A Note on Hebrews 5:14.” CBQ 42 (1980): 501–3. Kilpatrick, G.D. “διαλέγεσθαι and διαλογίζεσθαι in the New Testament.” JTS 11 (1960): 338–40. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. –. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: Wed. G. Van Soest, 1961. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. –. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 11 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–1979. Klauck, Hans-Joseph. “Moving In and Moving Out: Ethics and Ethos in Hebrews.” Pages 417–43 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. Van der Watt. BZNW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. –. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Knust, Jennifer Wright. Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koch, Klaus. “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” Pages 57–87 in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. IRT 4. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

264

Bibliography

Koch, Klaus, and Jürgen Roloff. “Tat-Ergehen-Zusammenhang.” Pages 493–95 in Reclams Bibellexikon. 5th ed. Edited by Klaus Koch, Eckart Otto, Jürgen Roloff, and Hans Schmoldt. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1992. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by Mervyn E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Koester, Craig R. “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise: Life in the Community for which Hebrews was Written.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 61 (2005): 231–51. –. Hebrews. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Koester, Helmut. “‘Outside the Camp’: Hebrews 13.9–14.” HTR 55 (1962): 299–315. Kowalski, Beate. “Die Rezeption alttestamentlicher Theologie im Hebräerbrief.” Pages 35–62 in Ausharren in der Verheißung: Studien zum Hebräerbrief. Edited by Rainer Kampling. SBS 204. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. “Geschichte als Erziehung: Biblisch-theologische Perspektiven.” Pages 258–74 in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. –. “Paedagogia Dei als theologischer Geschichtsbegriff.” EvT 8 (1949): 515–27. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kuss, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 2nd ed. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1966. –. “Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Seelsorger.” Pages 329–358 in vol. 1 of Auslegung und Verkündigung. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963. Laansma, Jon. “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4. WUNT II/98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. –. “Peace.” Pages 893–900 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 47A-B. Dallas: Word, 1991. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Lee, John A.L. “Hebrews 5:14 and ἝΞΙΣ: A History of Misunderstanding.” NovT 39 (1997): 151–76. Lehne, Susanne. The New Covenant in Hebrews. JSNTSup 44. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lindars, Barnabas. “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testament Theology: Prolegomena.” Pages 137–45 in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by G.K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. –. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991. Lindsay, Dennis R. “Pistis and ’Emunah: The Nature of Faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 158–69 in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. LNTS 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

Secondary Sources

265

Lindström, Fredrik. Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms. ConBOT 37. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Löhr, Hermut. “Ἔργον as an Element of Moral Language in John.” Pages 230–49 in Rethinking the Ethics of John. Edited by Jan G. Van der Watt and Ruben Zimmerman. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung des Todes Jesu nach dem Hebräerbrief: Ein Versuch.” Pages 455–76 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2nd ed. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “The Exposition of Moral Rules and Principles in the Pauline Letters: Preliminary Observations on Moral Language in Earliest Christianity.” Pages 197–211 in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Elemente eudämonistischer Ethik im Neuen Testament?” Pages 39–55 in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009 –. “Gottesdienst im Alltag dieser Welt: Ein Beitrag zu einer künftigen ‘Ethik des Neuen Testaments.’” BTZ 24 (2007): 241–61. –. “Ethik und Tugendlehre.” Pages 151–80 in vol. 3 of Neues Testament und Antike Kultur. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. –. “Reflections of Rhetorical Terminology in Hebrews.” Pages 199–210 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. –. “‘Heute, wenn ihr seine Stimme hört…’: Zur Kunst der Schriftanwendung im Hebräerbrief und in 1 Kor 10.” Pages 226–48 in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum. Edited by Martin Hengel and Hermut Löhr. WUNT 74. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1994. –. Umkehr und Sünde im Hebräerbrief. BZNW 73. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. –. “Thronversammlung und preisender Tempel: Beobachtungen am himmlischen Heiligtum im Hebräerbrief und in den Sabbatopferliedern aus Qumran.” Pages 185–205 in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt. Edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Logan, Stephen P. “The Background of ‘ΠΑΙ∆ΕΙΑ’ in Hebrews.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986. Lona, Horacio E. Der erste Clemensbrief. KAV 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Longman, Tremper, III. “Proverbs 1: Book of.” Pages 539–52 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman, III and Peter Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Lünemann, Gottlieb. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated from the 4th German ed. by Maurice J. Evans. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885. –. Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den Hebräerbrief. 3rd ed. KEKNT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1867.

266

Bibliography

Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Luther, Susanne. Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT II/394. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Mackie, Scott D. “Early Christian Eschatological Experience in the Warnings and Exhortations of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” TynBul 63 (2012): 93–114. –. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT II/223. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament.” ANRW 26.1: 268– 333. Part 2, Principat, 26.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. –. “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 121–36 in Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Malina, Bruce. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?” NovT 14 (1972): 10–17. Manson, William. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951. Mantey, J.R. “The Causal Use of EIS in the New Testament.” JBL 70 (1951): 45–48. Marrou, H.I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Marrow, Stanley B. “Parrhēsia and the New Testament.” CBQ 44 (1982): 431–46. Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Marshall, Mary J. “Hospitality: The Nexus between Law and Love.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA, 23 November 2014. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Marxsen, Willi. “Christliche” und christliche Ethik im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1989. Mason, Eric F., and Kevin B. McCruden, eds. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Matera, Frank. “Moral Exhortation: The Relation between Moral Exhortation and Doctrinal Exposition in the Letter to the Hebrews.” TJT 10, no. 2 (1994): 196–82. Mathewson, Dave. “Reading Hebrews 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament.” WTJ 61 (1999): 209–25. Matthews, John F. “Augustine, St (Aurelius Augustinus).” Pages 206–7 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. McCown, Wayne G. “Holiness in Hebrews.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 16, no. 2 (1981): 58–78. –. “Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΣΕΩΣ: The Nature and Function of the Hortatory Sections in the Epistles to the Hebrews.” ThD diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1970. McCullough, John Cecil. “Isaiah in Hebrews.” Pages 159–73 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. –. “The Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews.” NTS 26 (1980): 363–79. McKane, William. Proverbs. OTL. London: SCM, 1970. McKnight, Scot. “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions.” TJ 13NS (1992): 21–59. Mead, Richard T. “A Dissenting Opinion about Respect for Context in Old Testament Quotations.” Pages 153–63 in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by G.K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Secondary Sources

267

Meeks. Wayne A. The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries. New Haven: Yale, 1993. –. The Moral World of the First Christians. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986. –. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale, 1983. Meinhold, Arndt. Die Sprüche. Vol. 1. ZBK. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991. –. “Gott und Mensch in Proverbien 3.” VT 37 (1987): 467–77. Mende, Theresia. “‘Wen der Herr liebhat, den züchtigt er’ (Hebr 12,6) – Der alttestamentliche Hintergrund von Hebr 12,1–11; 1–4; 2, 6–10.” TTZ 100 (1991): 23–38. –. Durch Leiden zur Vollendung: Die Elihureden im Buch Ijob (Ijob 32–37). TThSt 49. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1990. Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. HUCM 7. Cincinnati: Ktav, 1982. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 14th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. 3 vols. AB 3. New York: Doubleday: 1991–2001. –. “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray.’” RB 83 (1976): 390–99. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press: 2007. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. Moffitt, David M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. NovTSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Montefiore, Hugh W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Moor, Johannes C. de. Joshua. Vol. 1 of A Bilingual Concordance to the Targum of the Prophets. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Morris, Jenny. “The Jewish Philosopher Philo.” Pages 809–89 in vol. 3, part 2 of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). Revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1987. Mosser, Carl. “Rahab Outside the Camp.” Pages 381–404 in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Moyise Steve. “Intertextuality and Historical Approaches to the Use of Scripture in the New Testament.” Pages 23–32 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Müller, Achim. Proverbien 1–9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider. BZAW 291. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Murphy, Roland E. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. Nauck, Wolfgang. “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes.” Pages 199–206 in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Edited by Walther Eltester. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964. –. “Das οὖν-paräneticum.” ZNW 49 (1958): 134–35.

268

Bibliography

NBC News. “Corporal Punishment: Legal and Common.” 16 September 2014. http://www. nbcnews.com/storyline/nfl-controversy/corporal-punishment-legal-common-n204416. Neusner, Jacob, and Bruce D. Chilton. “Uncleanness: A Moral or an Ontological Category in the Early Centuries A.D.?” BBR 1 (1991): 63–88. Neyrey, Jerome H. “Jesus the Broker in Hebrews: Insights from the Social Sciences.” Pages 145–70 in Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students. Edited by Eric F. Mason and Kevin B. McCruden. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Niederwimmer, Kurt. Die Didache. KAV 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Nitschke, Horst. “Das Ethos des wandernden Gottesvolkes: Erwägungen zu Hebr. 13 und zu den Möglichkeiten evangelischer Ethik.” MPTh 46 (1957): 179–83. Oberholtzer, Thomas K. “The Warning Passages in Hebrews Part 5: The Failure to Heed His Speaking in Hebrews 12:25–29. BSac 146, no. 581 (1989): 67–75. –. “The Warning Passages in Hebrews Part 4: The Danger of Willful Sin in Hebrews 10:26–39.” BSac 145, no. 580 (1988): 410–19. –. “The Warning Passages in Hebrews Part 3: The Thorn-Infested Ground in Hebrews 6:4–12.” BSac 145, no. 579 (1988): 319–28. –. “The Warning Passages in Hebrews Part 2: The Kingdom Rest in Hebrews 3:1–4:13.” BSac 145, no. 578 (1988): 185–96. –. “The Warning Passages in Hebrews Part 1: The Eschatological Salvation of Hebrews 1:5–2:5.” BSac 145, no. 577 (1988): 83–97. O’Brien, Peter T. “God as the Speaking God: ‘Theology’ in the Letter to the Hebrews.” Pages 196–216 in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century. Essays in Honor of D.A. Carson on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert Yarbrough. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011. –. The Letter to the Hebrews. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Oropeza, B.J. Apostasy in the New Testament Communities. 3 vols. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011–12. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2012. Owen, H.P. “The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Hebrews V.11-VI.3.” NTS 3 (1957): 243–53. Parker, Robert. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in early Greek Religion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. Paulien, Jon. “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in Revelation.” BR 33 (1988): 37–53. Peake, A.S. “Job: The Problem of the Book.” Pages 100–8 in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. IRT 4. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Peeler, Amy. You Are My Son: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews. LNTS 486. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014. –. “The Ethos of God.” PRSt 37 (2010): 37–51. Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews.” SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Peterson, Robert A. “Apostasy in the Hebrews Warning Passages.” Presb 34 (2008): 27– 44. Petrovic, Andrej, and Ivana Petrovic. Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pfitzner, Victor C. Hebrews. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.

Secondary Sources

269

–. Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature. NovTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Pierce, Claude A. Conscience in the New Testament. SBT 15. London: SCM, 1955. Pilch, John J. “‘Beat His Ribs While He is Young’ (Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World.” BTB 23 (1993): 101–13. Plöger, Otto. Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia). BKAT 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984. Pola, Thomas. “Heiligkeit im Alten Testament: Ethische Relevanz und Wendepunkte der Traditionsgeschichte.” Pages 27–43 in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110. Edited by Dieter Sänger. BTHSt 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Pope, Marvin. Job. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Porter, Stanley E. “Sin, Wickedness.” Pages 1095–98 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. –. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Poschmann, Bernhard. Paenitentia Secunda: Die kirchliche Buße im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes. Bonn: Hanstein, 1940. Preisker, Herbert. Das Ethos des Urchristentums. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. Rad, Gerhard von. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970. –. Deuteronomy. Translated by Dorothea Barton. OTL. London: SCM, 1966. Rese, Martin. “Intertextualität: Ein Beispiel für Sinn und Unsinn ‘neuer’ Methoden.” Pages 431–39 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. –. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. Studien zum Neuen Testament 1. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1969. Reynolds, Leighton Durham, M.T. Griffin, and Elaine Fantham. “Annaeus Seneca (2), Lucius.” Pages 92–95 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Rhee, Victor (Sung-Yul). Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology, and Ethics. StBibLit 19. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Richardson, Christopher. Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews. WUNT II/338. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “The Passion: Reconsidering Hebrews 5.7–8.” Pages 51–67 in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. LNTS 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Riggenbach, Eduard. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 2nd-3rd ed. KNT. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922. Rissi, Mathias. Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs. WUNT 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. –. “Die Menschlichkeit Jesu nach Hebr. 5,7–8.” TZ 11 (1955): 28–45. Robinson, H. Wheeler. Suffering Human and Divine. New York: Macmillan, 1939.

270

Bibliography

Röhser, Günter. Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde: Antike Sündenvorstellungen und paulinische Hamartia. WUNT II/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Rose, Christian. Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 10,23–12,3. WUNT II/60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Rose, Martin. 5. Mose. 2 vols. ZBK. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994. Rothschild, Clare K. Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews. WUNT 235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Runia, David T. “Philo of Alexandria.” BNP 11:55–61. Rousselle, Aline. Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity. Translated by Felicia Pheasant. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Salevao, Iusitone. Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe. JSNTSup 219. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Saller, Richard P. Patriarch, Property and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Salom, A.P. “The Imperatival Use of the Participle.” ABR 11 (1963): 41–49. Sanders, J.A. Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-Biblical Judaism. Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1955. Sanders, Jack T. Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Schenck, Kenneth. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice. SNTSMS 143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. –. A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. –. Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. –. “Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews: Ronald Williamson’s Study after Thirty Years.” SPhiloA 14 (2002): 112–35. –. “A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1.” JBL 120, no. 3 (2001): 469–85. –. “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronment in Hebrews.” JSNT 66 (1997): 91–117. Schenk, Wolfgang. “Die Paränese Hebr 13,16 im Kontext der Hebräerbriefes – Einer Fallstudie semiotisch-orientierter Textinterpretation und Sachkritik.” ST 39 (1985): 73– 106. Schierse, Franz Joseph. Verheißung und Heilsvollendung: Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebräerbriefes. Münchener theologische Studien. Munich: Karl Zink, 1955. Schlatter, Adolf. The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology. Translated by Andreas J. Köstenberger. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Schmid, Konrad. Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Schmidt, Eckart David. “Kult und Ethik: Leben ‘heiliger’ Gemeinden. Der Heiligkeitsbegriff in ethischen Begründungszusammenhängen im 1. Petrusbrief.” Pages 225–55 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schmidt, Thomas E. “Moral Lethargy and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” WTJ 54 (1992): 167–73.

Secondary Sources

271

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. HThKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1986–1988. Schnelle, Udo. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Schrage, Wolfgang. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. 5th ed. GNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. –. The Ethics of the New Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Schreiber, Stefan. “Can Wisdom be Prayer? Form and Function of the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 89–106 in Literature or Liturgy? Early Christian Hymns and Prayers in their Literary and Liturgical Context in Antiquity. Edited by Clemens Leonard and Hermut Löhr. WUNT II/363. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Schröger, Friedrich. Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger. BU 4. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Schulz, Siegfried. Neutestamentliche Ethik. ZGB. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. “Das Buch Ijob.” Pages 417–30 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 9th ed. Edited by Christian Frevel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Scott, R.B.Y. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Seifrid, Mark A. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” Pages 415–442 in vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT II/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001 Selby, Gary S. “The Meaning and Function of Συνείδησις in Hebrews 9 and 10.” ResQ 28 (1985): 145–54. Shupak, Nili. “The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Book of Proverbs in the Light of a Comparison of Biblical and Egyptian Wisdom Literature.” RB 94 (1987): 98–119. Silva, Moisés. “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews.” WTJ 39 (1976): 60–71. Sklar, Jay. “Sin and Impurity: Atoned or Purified? Yes!” Pages 18–31 in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible. Edited by Baruch J. Schwartz, David P. Wright, Jeffrey Stackert, and Naphtali S. Meshel. LHBOTS 474. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Small, Brian C. The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews. BibInt 128. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Smillie, Gene R. “‘The Other ΛΟΓΟΣ’ at the End of Heb. 4:13.” NovT 47 (2005): 19–25. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. –. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Sowers, Sidney G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews: A Comparison of the Interpretation of the Old Testament in Philo Judaeus and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Basel Studies of Theology 1. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1965. Spellman, Ched E. “The Drama of Discipline: Toward an Intertextual Profile of PAIDEIA in Hebrews 12.” JETS 59, no. 3 (2016): 487–506. –. “When Hope Screams: Learning how to Suffer as Sons from the Book of Hebrews.” SwJT 53 (2011): 112–34. Spicq, Ceslas. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and edited by James D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. –. L’Épitre aux Hébreux. 2nd ed. 2 vols. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953.

272

Bibliography

Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. “Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on some Basic Problems.” Pages 13–23 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods – New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Stevenson-Moessner, Jeanne. “The Road to Perfection: An Interpretation of Suffering in Hebrews.” Int 57 (2003): 280–90. Steyn, Gert. “The Ending of Hebrews Reconsidered.” ZNW 103 (2012): 235–53. –. A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews. FRLANT 235. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. –. “Some Possible Intertextual Influences from the Jewish Scriptures on the (Moral) Language of Hebrews.” Pages 311–29 in Moral Language in the New Testament. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Still, Todd D. “Christos as Pistos: The Faith(fulness) of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 40–50 in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in its Ancient Contexts. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald. LNTS 387. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Strecker, Georg, and Udo Schnelle. Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus. Vol. II/2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Stuart, Moses. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 3rd ed. Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1854. Sundberg, Albert C. Jr. “Response Against C.H. Dodd’s View: On Testimonies.” Pages 182–94 in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by G.K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Svendsen, Stefan Noordgaard. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews. WUNT II/269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Swift, Fletcher H. Education in Ancient Israel: From Earliest Times to 70 A.D. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1919. Syndikus, Hans Peter. “Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus).” Pages 704–7 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Talbert, Charles H. Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the New Testament and Its Milieu. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Theobald, Michael. “Vom Text zum ‘lebendigen Wort’ (Hebr 4,12): Beobachtungen zur Schrifthermeneutik des Hebräerbriefs.” Pages 751–90 in Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Edited by Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein, and Hermann Lichtenberger. BZNW 86. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Thiessen, Matthew. “Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline.” NTS 55 (2009): 366–79. –. “Hebrews and the End of the Exodus.” NovT 49 (2007): 353–69. Thomas, Kenneth J. “Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” NTS 11 (1964–65): 303–25. Thompson, James W. “Insider Ethics for Outsiders: Ethics for Aliens in Hebrews.” Restoration Quarterly 53 (2011): 207–19. –. Hebrews. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Secondary Sources

273

–. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. CBQMS 13. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982. –. “Outside the Camp: A Study of Heb 13:9–14.” CBQ 40 (1978): 53–63. –. “The Underlying Unity of Hebrews.” ResQ 18 (1975): 129–36. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996. Tongue, D.H. “The Concept of Apostasy in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” TynBul 5–6 (1960): 19–27. Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. –. “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs.” Pages 43–56 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. New York: University Press of America, 1990. Toy, Crawford H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899. Unnik, W.C. van. “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament.” Pages 267– 89 in vol. 2 of Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Van der Watt, Jan G. “Ethics of/and the Opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel.” Pages 175– 91 in Rethinking the Ethics of John. Edited by Jan G. Van der Watt and Ruben Zimmerman. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John.” Pages 139–67 in Moral Language in the New Testament. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Ethics Alive in Imagery.” Pages 421–48 in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jan G. Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmerman. WUNT 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. –. “Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel According to John.” ZNW 97 (2006): 147–76. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs.” HS 33 (1992): 25–36. Vanhoye, Albert. “A Different Priest”: The Letter to the Hebrews. Translated by Leo Arnold. Rhetorica Semitica. Miami: Convivium, 2011. –. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. SubBi 12. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989. –. “La Question Littéraire de Hébreux XIII.1–6.” NTS 23 (1977): 121–39. –. “Longue marche ou accès tout proche? Le context biblique de Hébreux 3,7 – 4,11.” Bib 49 (1968): 9–26. –. La Structure Littéraire de L’Épitre aux Hébreux. StudNeot 1. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963. Verbrugge, Verlyn D. “Toward a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–6.” CTJ 15 (1980): 61–73. Verhey, Allen D. “Ethics.” Pages 347–53 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Villiers, Etienne de. “Defining Morality in Christian Ethics and the Study of New Testament Ethics.” Pages 51–66 in Moral Language in the New Testament. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

274

Bibliography

Wall, Robert W. “The Intertextuality of Scripture: The Example of Rahab (James 2:25).” Pages 217–36 in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Walser, Georg. Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. WUNT II/356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wedderburn, A.J.M. “The ‘Letter’ to the Hebrews and Its Thirteenth Chapter.” NTS 50 (2004): 390–405. Weeks, Noel. “Admonition and Error in Hebrews.” WTJ 39 (1976): 72–80. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. –. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Weiß, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Weiß, Wolfgang. “‘Heilig’ in ethischen Kontexten neutestamentlicher Schriften.” Pages 44–64 in Heiligkeit und Herrschaft: Intertextuelle Studien zu Heiligkeitsvorstellungen und zu Psalm 110. Edited by Dieter Sänger. BTHSt 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan & Co., 1903. Westfall, Cynthia Long. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning. LNTS 297. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. –. Review of N. Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering. JSNT 76 (1999): 120–21. Wette, W.M.L. de. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Part 5, vol. 2. 3rd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1867. Whitfield, Bryan J. Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4. BZNW 194. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Whitlark, Jason. “The Warning against Idolatry: An Intertextual Examination of Septuagintal Warnings in Hebrews.” JSNT 34 (2012): 382–401. –. Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. Whybray, R.N. Proverbs. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Wichmann, Wolfgang. Die Leidenstheologie: Eine Form der Leidensdeutung im Spätjudentum. BWANT 53. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930. Widdess, A.G. “A Note on Hebrews XI. 3.” JTS 10 (1959): 327–29. Williams, Clarence Russell. “A Word-Study of Hebrews 13.” JBL 30 (1911): 129–36. Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Windisch, Hans. Der Hebräerbrief. 2nd ed. HNT 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1931. –. Taufe und Sünde im ältesten Christentum bis auf Origenes: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Dogmengeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1908. Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. ConBNT 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. Witherington, Ben, III. The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament. 2 vols. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 2: Joel und Amos. BKAT 14/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969.

Secondary Sources

275

Wolter, Michael. “Die Rede von der Sünde im Neuen Testament.” Pages 471–99 in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “Identität und Ethos bei Paulus.” Pages 121–69 in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Wrede, William. Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. Wright, Robert B. “The Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 639–70 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James Charlesworth. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Yoder, Christine Roy. Proverbs. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. Young, Norman H. “‘Bearing His Reproach’ (Heb 13.9–14).” NTS 48 (2002): 243–61. Zimmermann, Ruben. “How to Read Biblical Texts Ethically.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL. San Diego, CA, 23 November 2014. –. “Is There Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus.” Pages 44–80 in Rethinking the Ethics of John. Edited by Jan G. Van der Watt and Ruben Zimmerman. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21–33 as Test Case.” Pages 19–50 in Moral Language in the New Testament. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes.” TLZ 132 (2007): 259–84. Zuntz, Günther. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. London: Oxford University Press, 1953.

Index of References Old Testament Exodus 17

48, 57

Leviticus 11:44 13:46 15:31 16:4 19:2 21:1–23

204 85 n. 202 84 84 204 84–85

Numbers 5:11–31 14 14:9 14:23 14:33 17:2–3 (LXX) 20 Deuteronomy 4:30 8:2–5 8:3 8:5 8:7–20 8:16 8:19 11:2 17:6 21:18 22:18 29:17 32:43

226 48, 56 n. 105, 57– 61, 164 50 72–73 232 187 48, 57

164 n. 83 24–25 165 143, 146, 160, 162, 163–66, 174–75 164 164 165 165 94 165 n. 85 165 n. 85 205 n. 112, 206 n. 115, 230 34

2 Samuel 7:13, 16 7:14–15

214 n. 143 157–58

Esther 6:10

78

Job 4:3–4 4:6 4:7 4:17–18 5:6–7 5:17–18 5:17 5:18–26 5:26 15:14–16 33:14–30 33:14–15 33:15 33:19 33:30

215–16 166 166 166 166 153 143, 162, 166–68 167 166 166 167 153 n. 44 167 153 n. 44 167

Psalms 17:36 (LXX) 28:2 (LXX) 35:15 (LXX) 45 95 96:7 (LXX) 109:1, 6 (LXX)

214 n. 143 203 221 35 47–49, 50, 57 34 n. 22 35

Proverbs 3:1–10 3:1 3:2

146–52 147–48 148–49

278 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9–10 3:9 3:11–12

3:11 3:12 3:16–17 3:21–22 3:21 3:24–25 4:20–27 4:20–22 4:21 4:24 4:26

4:27 8:36 9:7–9 10:2 10:17 11:30 13:2 13:18 13:24 15:10 16:7 19:18 19:22 21:26 22:15 23:13–14

Index of References 149–50 150 150, 159 150 150 151 151–52 205 2–3, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24– 25, 27, 143, 147, 153–61, 162, 168– 69, 178–79, 193– 95, 240 172 175–76 148–49 151 42–43 211 146, 161–62 151 42–43 161 12, 20, 25, 27, 143– 146, 151, 161, 178– 79, 214, 217, 240 161–62, 211 187 155 n. 53 149 159 152 n. 41, 205–6 152 n. 41, 206 155 154, 159–60 155 156 155 n. 52, 158 149 149 155 154–55, 158

26:3 29:1 29:15

130 155 154

Ecclesiastes 6:2

229 n. 203

Isaiah 8:17 35:3 35:6 53:5 53:19

45, 150 12, 214, 215–17 218 218 218

Jeremiah 3:14 7:24, 26 23:10–12 31 31:31–24

51 42 62 n. 122 49 85

Ezekiel 14:13 15:8 18:24 20:27 22:4 34:29 36:6 36:25

79 79 79 79 79 113 113 226 n. 189

Daniel 6:4/5 (Theodotian) 80 Hosea 5:2 10:12

201 206

Amos 6:12

206

Micah 7:8–9

62 n. 122

279

Index of References

Deuterocanonical Books 21:3 22:6 25:23 30:1–13 30:8 30:13

151 136 215 136 130 130

Wisdom of Solomon 2:17 106 3:10 51 6:9 78, 80 10:1 80 11:10 157 12:2 78 15:17 75–76 n. 164

1 Maccabees 1:15 2:19

51 51

2 Maccabees 6:12 13:14 15:2

196–97 189 203

Sirach 1:18 2:12 7:34 18:13

4 Maccabees 10:10 17:11–12, 14–16 17:14 18:3

16 15–16 190 16–17

Tobit 4:10 12:8–9

149 149

Judith 5:17–18

51

151 215–216 229 n. 203 12

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 5:4

51

Letter of Aristeas 232–33

206

Psalms of Solomon 3:4 3:5–11 3:12 8:5–6 8:29 10:1–2 10:2

12, 171–74 172 174 216 n. 147 201 173 197 n. 72

10:4 13 13:9 13:11 14:1–5 14:1 14:9–10 16:14–15 17:15–18 17:19–20 18:4

174 172–73 173 174 173 197 n. 72 174 173 173 38 n. 37 172

Testament of Levi 3.4

203

Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q504 1–2 recto III 5b–7a 174–75

280

Index of References

New Testament Matthew 6:1–18 13:22

38–39 54

Mark 4:19

54

Luke 8:13 13:11–13 13:13

51 219 214 n. 143

Acts 14:8

219

Romans 5:3–4 5:15–20 11:11–12 11:11, 22

196 80 80 62 n. 122

1 Corinthians 4:14, 21 10:1–10 10:7–10 10:8, 12

137 56 56 n. 105 62 n. 122

2 Corinthians 1:12

203

Ephesians 4:22–25 6:4 6:9

183–84 137–38 137–38

Philippians 1:11

207

Colossians 3:22

138

2 Thessalonians 2:3

51 n. 90

1 Timothy 6:9–10

54 n. 100

2 Timothy 1:19 2:22 4–5 Hebrews 1 1:8–9 1:9 2:1–4 2:1 2:5–3:6 2:13 2:18 3:6 3:7–4:13 3:8–15 3:8–9 3:12 3:13 3:13–14 3:16–19 4:1 4:2 4:6 4:7 4:11–13 4:11 4:14–5:10 4:14–16 4:15 4:16 5:2–3 5:7–10 5:7 5:8–9 5:8 5:9 5:11–6:20 5:11–14 5:11 5:12 5:13–6:1 5:13–14 5:13

42 n. 56 222 42 n. 56

4, 34–36 83 210 4, 40–44, 101 109 n. 285 45–47 150 196 47 n. 78, 47 n. 79, 61 47–63 148 22 n. 91, 196 48–53, 61 53–55 61 55–61 56, 109 58, 60–61 58, 60 148 61–63 61 n. 122, 109 63–68 63–64, 108 13, 196 46, 111 84 64–68 65–66, 236 141 13, 66 n. 132, 195 67 71–82 20 71, 77 71–72 109 209 72–75

Index of References 5:14 6:1–2 6:1 6:2 6:4–6 6:4 6:6 6:7–8 6:9–10 6:10 6:11–12 6:13–20 6:17–18 6:18–20 6:18 6:19 7:1–10:18 7:1–3 7:4 7:19 7:26 8:5 8:10 8:12 9:9–10 9:10 9:13–14 9:14 10:3–4 10:7 10:8–10 10:10, 14 10:11–18 10:16–17 10:16 10:18 10:19–31 10:19–24 10:19–22 10:19 10:22 10:23–25 10:23 10:24–26 10:26 10:29 10:32–36

10 n. 32, 11, 74 75–77 72, 93, 109 226 n. 189 9 49 62 n. 122, 78–81, 187–88 51 n. 89, 51 n. 90, 54, 76–77 n. 169 76, 81 150 72, 77 76–77 n. 169, 77 150 46 47 n. 78, 185 n. 21 44 82–86 82–83 83–84 46 84 112 n. 296 86–87 n. 205, 148 86–87 n. 205 113 111, 226 n. 189 225, 228 75, 77 227 89 65–66 228 92 85 148 86, 93 90–97 108–9 86 46 49, 226 n. 189 91–92 47 n. 78 31 9–10, 86, 90–94 94 n. 230 94–97, 119

10:32–34 10:32 10:35 10:36 10:37–39 10:37–38 10:38 11 11:1 11:3 11:4 11:5–6 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:8 11:10 11:13 11:16 11:25–26 11:25 11:31 11:32–38 11:33–34 11:33 11:35–37 11:36 11:38–39 11:39–40 11:39 12:1–17 12:1–13 12:1–4 12:1–3 12:1–2 12:1 12:2 12:3–4 12:4 12:4–13 12:4–11 12:5–14 12:5–11 12:5–6 12:5 12:7–10 12:7

281 76–77 n. 169, 195 15 47 n. 79 89 97–98 36–37 202 36–37, 97–100 47 n. 78, 98–99 98–99 37, 90 n. 218, 99 90, 102 99 95 n. 236, 150 37, 66 n. 132, 99 70, 99 99 99 99, 102 54, 93, 100 54–55 n. 100 68–69, 87–88 100 37–38 15 100, 188 194 n. 62 107 181 99 1–3, 8–9, 26–27, 28–30 14, 18 13 14, 65–66 109, 180–85 9, 14, 19, 23 96–97 n. 242, 234 9, 185–93 14, 19, 84 12 9 179 21 13, 154 n. 47, 193– 95 147–48 195–205 195–99

282 12:8 12:9–10 12:9 12:11–13 12:11 12:12–13 12:13 12:14–17 12:14 12:15–17 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:18–29 12:23 12:25 12:28 12:28–29 13 13:1–7 13:2 13:4 13:5 13:7 13:8–16 13:8–9 13:9 13:13–18

Index of References 199–200 200–5 21, 148 13 15, 90, 149, 152, 162, 195, 205–12 213–21 20, 150, 151, 161– 62 19 88, 90, 162, 221–24 229–36 84, 223 112 9–10 100–2 39–40 101 66 n. 132, 102 104 103–116 70–71, 103–7 88 32, 84, 89 n. 216, 93, 232 107 106–7, 190 107–14 107–12 41 108

13:13–14 13:13 13:15–16 13:16–18 13:16 13:17–21 13:17–18 13:17 13:18 13:20–21 13:21 13:22–25 13:22

107, 113–14 69 n. 140, 96, 96– 97 n. 242 42 n. 56, 70–71, 77 89–90 104, 113 114–15 114–15 n. 302 70–71, 113 92 n. 224 88–90 104 103 n. 262 110

James 1:3–4 1:22 2:25 3:18 5:12

196 42 n. 58 68 207 62 n. 122

1 Peter 1:16

204

2 Peter 1:19

42 n. 56

Revelation 2:5 3:19

62 n. 122 175–76

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 19.5

134 n. 71

1 Clement 33 12.1 56.4

38–39 n. 38 68, 87 n. 209 176–77

2 Clement 10.3–4

54 n. 100

Didache 4.9

134 n. 71, 138

Polycarp, To the Philippians 9 67 n. 134 Shepherd of Hermas 6 38–39 n. 38 15.2 51 15.3 203 29.9 231 62.1–2 54–55 n. 100 96.2 207

283

Index of References

Ancient Authors Aeschylus Pers. 809–15

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 17

Ant. rom. 2.26 20.13

131 132 n. 59

Apthonius Progym. 3.24

Epictetus 135

1.24.1 2.2.13

Augustine Civ. 19.16

134

Conf. 1.9.14 1.9.15

122–23 123

Solil. 2.11.20

123

Ausonius Ep. 22.26–32 22.33–37 22.66–79

Diatr. 15 189–90

Eumenius Inst. sch. 8.1–2

127

Euripides Fr. 952

134 n. 70

Herodas 133 133 132

Cicero

Mime 3.58–93

123–24 n. 17

Horace Ars 139

2 122

Fam. 7.25.1

123

Ep. 2.1.70–71

Tusc. 3.27.64

134

Josephus

15

Ant. 4.42 5.8 6.235

54 n. 100 68–69 n. 137 229 n. 203

Ag. Ap. 2.123

52

Dio Chrysostom Virt. (Or. 8) 15, 16 Diogenes Laertius Lives 5.18.1–2

126 n. 26

284

Index of References

Justinian Dig. 9.2.5.3–6.1

124–25

Juvenal Sat. 1.15

123

Libanius Progym. Chreia 3.8–9

135–36

Lucian Anach. 20–21

127

Somn. 10

126

Menander Mon. 573

126

Ovid Am. 1.13.17–18 1.13.18

122 123

Philo Abr. 27 Cher. 78–82 Congr. 11–19 151 157 158–67 164 173 176 177

179 212

137 n. 83, 170 170

Fug. 150

131 n. 55

Gig. 13–14

43 n. 65

Ios. 74

137

Leg. 3.48

15

Mos. 1.196–205

169 n. 95

Mut. 135 206

131 n. 55 136 n. 82

Post. 97

131

Praem. 4–5 70, 72

15 17

QE 2.13

43 n. 65

QG 4.231–33

234

Sacr. 21–24

54 n. 100

Spec. 2.229–30 2.232

127–28 136

Virt. 182

52

211

17

168 168 170 168–69 54 n. 100 169 169 12, 24, 154 n. 47, 168–71, 211

Plato Ax. 366E–367A

122

285

Index of References Leg. 808D–E 811D

130 201

Resp. 379C, 380A–B 492D

17 201

Plutarch Caes. 61.3

123 n. 15

Mor. 2F 4B–5C 4C 8F–9A 12B 14A 78C

130–31 128 129 133 132 n. 59 129 54–54 n. 100

15 128 127

Ira. 2.21

131 n. 54

Prov. 1.1–6 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 4.7–12 4.7 4.11–12

18 22 198 198 128 13 128 18 10 128

Seneca the Elder Contr. 9.5.7

Quintilian Inst. 1.2.4–8 1.2.6–8 1.3.14–17 1.3.17 2.2.3–8

78.16 94.9 114

129 n. 47 132 n. 59 133 134 135

Seneca (the Younger) Ben. 3.38.2

138

Clem. 1.16.1–5 1.16.5–17.1

128 n. 43 131

134

Sophocles Oed. col. 7

13

Tacitus Dial. 29

132 n. 59

Xenophon Cyr. 1.6.30–32

72

125 135

130

Constant. 12.3

131

Lac. 2.8 6.1–2

Ep. 13.2–3

189

Mem. 4.1.3–4

Index of Modern Authors Allen, David M. 24–25, 71 n. 142, 105 n. 270, 106 n. 271, 145, 146, 165– 66, 196, 230 Asting, Ragnar 228 n. 198 Atherton, Catherine 126, 133 n. 66 Attridge, Harold W. 36 n. 26, 43 n. 65, 53, 55 n. 101, 58 n. 111, 65 n. 129, 85 n. 204, 98 n. 246, 109 n. 285 Aune, David E. 175–76 n. 122 Backhaus, Knut 2, 7, 20, 31–32, 104, 108 n. 281, 220 n. 165 Barnett, Paul W. 52–53 n. 97 Bateman, Herbert W. IV 34 n. 20, 34 n. 22, 35 n. 23 Benetreu, Samuel 60 Blackstone, Thomas Ladd 145, 146 Bolkestein, H. 149 n. 23 Bornkamm, Günther 194, 198 n. 77, 199 n. 82 Bousset, Wilhelm 175–76 n. 122 Braun, Herbert 43 n. 65, 74–75 n. 159 Bruce, F.F. 54 Carcopino, Jérôme 121 n. 5 Cockerill, Gareth L. 21–22, 44–45 n. 68, 45 n. 71, 56 n. 107, 57, 60, 85, 97, 112 n. 295, 114 n. 301, 199 n. 80, 199 n. 84, 208 n. 125, 234 n. 233, 236 n. 240 Croy, N. Clayton 8–9, 13, 14–20, 26– 27, 29 n. 4, 30, 140, 146, 158 n. 62, 165, 170, 187–88, 190 n. 44, 192, 201 Delitzsch, Franz 48–49 n. 80, 196 n. 71, 218–19 n. 155

deSilva, David A. 18 n. 68, 20–22, 45 n. 70, 65 n. 129, 138 n. 90, 140, 188 n. 35, 223 n. 177, 223 n. 179 Dick, Michael B. 149–50 Dobschütz, Ernst von 76 n. 168 Docherty, Susan 59 n. 115, 145, 158 n. 60 Dodd, C.H. 144 Dörrie, Heinrich 66 n. 132 Dunning, Benjamin 7 Dyer, Bryan R. 33 n. 18, 100 n. 252 Eisenbaum, Pamela 97–98, 100 Ellingworth, Paul 29 n. 4, 32 n. 16, 48 n. 80, 56, 78 n. 173, 82, 85 n. 204, 98 n. 246, 178 n. 128, 187 n. 31, 193 n. 57, 221, 223 n. 179 Filson, Floyd V. 103 n. 263, 106 n. 272 Fitzgerald, John T. 23 Foerster, Werner 83, 86, 88, 221, 223 n. 179 Foucault, Michel 139 Fox, Michael V. 147, 150 n. 32, 153 n. 43, 156–57 Gäbel, Georg 84 n. 198, 85 n. 204, 226–27 n. 189 Gambiza, Farai K. 10–11 Geertz, Clifford 1–2, 6–8, 212 Gheorghita, Radu 145 Giese, Ronald L. 152 Gräßer, Erich 36 n. 27, 42 n. 57, 45 n. 71, 65 n. 129, 74–75 n. 159, 90 n. 218, 98 n. 246, 102, 114 n. 301, 152, 209 n. 130, 221, 235 n. 235 Gray, Patrick 64 n. 126, 65 n. 128, 67

Index of Modern Authors Guthrie, George H. 30 n. 6, 34–35 n. 22, 63 n. 123, 145, 146 n. 8, 158 n. 60 Hagner, Donald 176 n. 126 Hauck, Friedrich 96 n. 242 Hays, Richard B. 144–45 Hofius, Otfried 57, 58 n. 112, 59, 60 n. 117

287

Michaelis, Wilhelm 78 n. 175, 79 n. 176, 81 n. 183 Michel, Otto 77 n. 170, 92 n. 222, 196 n. 71, 204 n. 109, 209 n. 130 Milgrom, Jacob 225 n. 182 Moffitt, David M. 226 n. 189 Montefiore, Hugh W. 183 n. 9 Mosser, Carl 69 n. 138, 69–70 n. 140 Moyise, Steve 144 n. 4 Murphy, Roland E. 156–57

Instone Brewer, David 145 n. 5 Nauck, Wolfgang 109 n. 284 Jacoby, Hermann 32 n. 16 Jentsch, Werner 9–10, 196 n. 70 Johnson, Luke Timothy 20–21, 46 n. 74, 54 n. 100, 67 n. 136, 76–77 n. 169, 140, 197 n. 75, 204 n. 107 Käsemann, Ernst 57, 183, 220, 221, 228 Keck, Leander E. 7 n. 21 Klauck, Hans-Joseph 181 Klawans, Jonathan 224–27, 232 n. 223 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 143 n. 3 Koch, Klaus 156 Koester, Craig R. 20, 21 n. 83, 22, 44, 85, 94 n. 230, 104, 111, 140 Kuss, Otto 193 n. 54 Lane, William L. 29 n. 4, 82 n. 187, 185 n. 21, 192 n. 51, 197 n. 73, 199 n. 80, 200, 221 Lindars, Barnabas 72 n. 146 Lindström, Fredrik 158 n. 62 Löhr, Hermut 5 n. 13, 8 n. 22, 25 n. 102, 47 n. 78, 58 n. 111, 64 n. 126, 81 n. 183, 91–92 n. 221, 93 n. 227, 182 n. 7, 183, 235 n. 235 Logan, Stephen P. 11–12, 146 Luther, Susanne 5 n. 15 Malherbe, Abraham 218 Mantey, J.R. 197 n. 73 Marrou, H.I. 121 McCown, Wayne G. 201 McCullough, J.C. 216 n. 146, 218 n. 152 McKane, William 153 n. 43 Meeks, Wayne A. 3

O’Brien, Peter T. 21–22, 140 n. 96 Oropeza, B.J. 52–53 n. 97 Parker, Robert 225 n. 185 Peeler, Amy 148 n. 13, 194 n. 60 Petrovic, Andrej and Ivana 49 n. 81, 217 n. 151, 225–26 n. 185 Pfitzner, Victor C. 178 Pilch, John J. 129 n. 48 Procksch, Otto 204 Riggenbach, Eduard 58 n. 111, 187–88, 229 n. 203 Rissi, Matthias 66 n. 132 Rose, Christian 87–88 n. 209 Saller, Richard P. 132, 134 Sanders, J.A. 164 n. 83 Schenk, Wolfgang 105 n. 269 Schierse, Franz Joseph 210 n. 133, 210 n. 135 Schmidt, Thomas E. 18 n. 68, 32–33, 117 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 116 n. 308 Schröger, Friedrich 146 n. 8 Schulz, Siegfried 32 n. 16 Small, Brian C. 66 Spellman, Ched E. 23, 25 n. 103 Spicq, Ceslas 29 n. 4, 169 n. 96, 204 n. 108 Steyn, Gert 103 n. 262, 146 n. 8, 199 n. 83, 200 n. 86 Svendsen, Stefan Noordgaard 184 n. 17 Talbert, Charles H. 12–14 Thiessen, Matthew 24–25, 196

288

Index of Modern Authors

Thompson, James W. 7, 31–32, 111, 112, 192 n. 52 Toy, Crawford H. 153 n. 45 Unnik, W.C. van 47 n. 79 Van der Watt, Jan G. 5 n. 14, 8 n. 22 Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. 156–57 Vanhoye, Albert 29 n. 5, 57, 200 Wallace, Daniel 181 n. 1 Walser, Georg 24 n. 101 Waltke, Bruce K. 160 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 103 n. 263 Weiß, Hans-Friedrich 35, 95, 193 n. 55, 229 n. 203

Westcott, B.F. 54, 56 n. 105, 74 n. 156, 93 n. 225 Westfall, Cynthia Long 23, 28 n. 2 Wette, W.M.L. de 139 n. 92, 196 Whitlark, Jason 145 Whybray, R.N. 158–61 Widdess, A.G. 99 n. 247 Williamson, Ronald 169 n. 96 Windisch, Hans 91–92 n. 221, 183 n. 9, 192 n. 48, 210 n. 135 Wolter, Michael 6–7 Young, Norman H. 108 n. 281 Zimmermann, Ruben 4 Zuntz, Günther 58 n. 111, 68–67 n. 137

Subject Index Abel 37, 40, 90 n. 210 Abraham 70–71, 77, 83, 87 n. 209, 99, 168, 196 Apostasy 2, 32–34, 41–42, 42 n. 56, 50–53, 63, 71 n. 143, 78–82, 86, 91– 94, 101, 119, 183, 184 n. 17, 223, 230–32, 236 n. 240, 239 Athletic imagery 9, 13, 14–16, 21, 29 n. 4, 39 n. 41, 95, 128 n. 40, 181, 185 n. 21, 190, 209 n. 132, 220 n. 165 Authenticity of Hebrews’ 13th chapter 88 n. 210, 103–7 Conscience 30 n. 7, 42 n. 56, 45, 46, 49, 64 n. 126, 70, 75 and n. 160, 77, 89 n. 215, 91–92, 102, 104 n. 266, 111, 113, 115, 148, 203, 225–29, 237 Corporal punishment – conception of children 129–32 – educational function 124–25 – opposition to 133–34 – role of parents 134–39, 153–54, 198 n. 78 – severity 120–25, 131–33, 135–36 Correction, see Punitivity Dead works 75–76 Defilement, see Holiness Devotion, see Diligence Diligence 38–39 n. 38, 41–43, 61–63, 77, 91, 95 Discipline, see Corporal Punishment and Punitivity Education, see also Corporal punishment – moral aspects 72–74, 125–29, 205

Endurance 15–16, 17, 29 n. 5, 46, 51– 52, 89, 94–97, 106–7, 113, 128, 169, 180–85, 195–98 Enemies 35–36, 91, 94 n. 230, 186 Esau 19, 30, 112, 169–70, 177, 185, 211, 220, 224, 233–37 Ethics 1–8, 31–34 Ethos 3, 6–8, 32 Exemplars – in Hebrews 19, 30, 35, 37, 46, 54– 55, 63, 66–68 and n. 132, 70–71, 97– 100, 106, 117, 185–86, 234–35 – parents and paedagogues 128–29, 137, 198 n. 78 Exposition vs. exhortation 4, 63, 97– 98, 108–10, 116, 193–95, 237 Faithfulness 3, 35, 36–40, 44, 45–46, 48–49, 51–52, 56–61, 65, 68–71, 76–77, 78–81, 98–100, 106–7, 150 Good works 38–39, 76–77, 89, 91–92, 105, 149–50, 175 n. 122 Healing 142, 151–55, 161–62, 167, 178, 214 n. 143, 216–21, 237 Heart 30 n. 7, 33, 42, 44, 47, 48–49, 51, 53, 62–63, 79, 85–86, 91–92, 111, 147–48, 192, 226–27 n. 189, 230, 235 Holiness 9–10, 19, 29–30, 45–47, 82– 85, 92–94, 100, 102, 112, 186, 203– 5, 216–17, 221–36 Hospitality 32, 69, 87–88 and n. 209, 89, 90, 105 Household codes 137–38 Imitation, see Exemplars

290

Subject Index

Job 166–68, 215 Judgment 36, 39–40, 49, 62–63 and n. 122, 71, 76–77 n. 169, 78, 91, 93, 95, 102, 105, 115, 116, 156, 183, 186, 188, 202, 210, 236 Law (Torah) 184 n. 17, 13 n. 48, 34 n. 22, 35, 40–41, 44, 49, 51–52, 75, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85–86, 92, 94, 101–2, 117, 148, 160, 165, 189, 204 n. 109 Life – result of discipline 43, 142, 148–49, 152, 155, 159, 162, 167, 174, 178, 200–5 Martyrdom 11–15, 67 n. 134, 74 n. 157, 106–7, 188 n. 36, 189–90 Medical imagery 218–20 Military imagery 181–82 n. 4, 189–90 Military training 121–23, 127, 140, 179 Money, see Wealth Moral language 4, 6, 9, 19–20, 26–27, 32–34, 109, 116–17, 178, 180 Moral lethargy 32–34, 44 n. 68, 117–18 Moral thought 2–3, 5–8, 27 Morality 3–8 Moses 15, 20, 46, 54–55, 56, 58 n. 111, 93, 100, 105 n. 270, 107, 110 n. 286, 200, 235 Nautical imagery 43–44 Noah 37, 40, 66 n. 132, 99, 102, 211 Obedience/disobedience 11, 13, 20, 22, 35, 40–44, 48, 55–61, 61–63, 64–67, 68–71, 95–96, 114–15, 121, 122, 135, 136, 138–39, 146, 164–65, 212–13, 215 Old Testament, use of – function of quoted text 49 n. 82, 85– 86 n. 205 – role of original context 142–46, 177–79 – role in Hebrews’ moral language 34–35, 36, 45, 47–48, 85–86, 193–94, 200 n. 86, 213–17, 221, 230, 237–38 – terminology 143–44 n. 3

Paedagogues 121, 128–29, 134, 135– 36, 201 Paths 29, 43, 148–49, 150–51, 155, 159, 161–62, 213–21, 234 Peace 1–2, 15, 19, 26, 29–30, 82–83, 86–90, 142, 148–49, 161–62, 167, 169, 178, 205–12, 216–19, 221–24 Piety, see Reverence Possesssions, see Wealth Punitivity 2, 14–27, 119–20, 139–41, 157–61, 163–79, 201–2, 213 Rahab 68–69, 87–88, 222 Reproach 54–55, 67, 96, 100, 106–7, 113–14, 194–95 Reverence 35, 65 n. 129, 66 and n. 32, 102, 236 Righteousness 1–3, 26, 35–36, 36–40, 67 n. 134, 72–75, 79, 82–83, 87 n. 209, 151–52, 156, 161–62, 171– 74, 205–12, 222 Sexual immorality 6, 89 n. 216, 183, 227 n. 194, 228 n. 199, 229, 231–35 Sin, see also Apostasy – intentional vs. unintentional 91–92 n. 221, 157–58, 172 – removal of 34–35, 45–47, 64 n. 126, 82–86, 90–93, 172–73, 226–29 – terms for 31 Sinners 2, 36, 84–85, 172, 174, 184, 185–88, 191–92 Social situation of Hebrews 31–34, 44 n. 68, 52–53 n. 97, 71–72, 95–97 117–18, 142, 182, 191–93, 194–95, 237 Solidarity 31–32, 89 and n. 216, 91, 93, 105, 117, 223 Sonship 3, 136, 154, 168–71, 174–75, 185, 194, 198–200, 234 Submission to parents 138–39, 194–95, 200–1 Suffering, see Punitivity and Reproach Testing 15, 22, 45, 47–48, 51, 57, 64, 66, 109–10, 160 n. 71, 164, 169, 196, 238

Subject Index Theodicy 199 Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang 156–57 Wealth 54–55, 95, 106–7, 147, 151–52, 156, 175–76, 200

291

Wilderness generation 22 n. 91, 24–25, 47–48, 55–63, 69, 109, 157, 164, 165, 168–69, 196 Worship 34–35, 38–39, 42 n. 56, 52, 66 n. 132, 77, 102, 104, 107–14