A TOUCH OF CONDEMNATION IN A WORD OF

EXHORTATION: APOCALYPTIC LANGUAGE AND

GRAECO-ROMAN RHETORIC IN HEBREWS 6:4-12

by

BRENT NONGBRI
New Haven

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

1. Introduction
A recent discussion of the warning passage of Hebrews 6 stated its
central inquiry as follows: “The question is how Heb. 6.4-6 must be
understood in terms of all these promises and assurances in the rest
of the New Testament. What must be done with this text . . .?”1 The
harsh language of Heb. 6:4-8 has troubled many commentators through
the centuries.2 It particularly strikes a note of discord with the post-
Reformational outlook of salvation by grace and has prompted the
majority of those who deal with it to try in many and various ways
to harmonize it doctrinally with the rest of the New Testament.3 The

1
A.H. Snyman, “Hebrews 6.4-6: From a Semiotic Discourse Perspective,” in S.E.
Porter and J.T. Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results
(SheYeld: Academic Press, 1999) 358.
2
Septuagint (hereafter LXX) citations are from the 1979 edition of Rahlfs, and New
Testament citations are from the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland. Translations of these
texts are my own. Translations of Greek and Latin authors are from the Loeb Classical
Library editions. Translations of Pseudepigraphical works are from The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985).
3
Such an undertaking no doubt has a good deal of intrinsic value, but it should
be distinguished from historical-critical exegesis.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Novum Testamentum XLV, 3

Also available online – www.brill.nl
266 brent nongbri

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

2. Reading the Text, Letting the Threat Stand

In order to set the context for our discussion, we will very brie y
review the major interpretational issues in 6:4-8 and engage with the
recent scholarly treatments of the passage. The most striking gram-
matical feature of this section is the string of participles highlighted in
the following diagram:
Ždænaton gŒr toçw ‘paj
fvtisy¡ntaw
geusam¡nouw te t°w dvrew t°w ¤pouranÛou kaÜ
metñxouw genhy¡ntaw pneæmatow gÛou kaÜ
kalòn geusam¡nouw yeoè =°ma dun‹meiw te m¡llontow aÞÇnow kaÜ
parapesñntaw
p‹lin ŽnakainÛzein eÞw met‹noian
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 267

Žnastauroèntaw ¥autoÝw tòn ußòn toè yeoè kaÜ

paradeigmatÛzontaw (vv. 4-6).

The Ž rst portion of the text consists of a series of accusative plural

participles “sandwiched” by a substantive inŽ nitive clause, “to renew . . .
is impossible.” Two more participles, which explain further the con-
dition of those who have “fallen away” (parapesñntaw), follow. They
“crucify for themselves the son of God” while “making a shameful
show.”
The Ž rst point of contention is the precise meaning of Ždænaton.
Many commentators point to meanings of Ždænaton in other literature
that indicate “diYculty” rather than “impossibility,” or they argue that
the impossibility only refers to humans and not God.4 The three other
occurrences of Ždænaton in Hebrews, however, unambiguously refer to
objective impossibilities: 6:18 Ždænaton ceæsasyai yeñn; 10:4 Ždænaton
gŒr aåma taærvn kaÜ tr‹gvn ŽfaireÝnmartÛaw; and 11:6 xvrÜw d¢ pÛstevw
Ždænaton eéarest°sai. These examples suggest that renewing to repen-
tance those who have fallen away is simply not an option.
The next major argument surrounds the identity of those who are
described by the participles. Grudem maintains that the toæw of 6:4,
which functions as the subject of the following list of participles, denotes
not those who “have salvation” but instead a group that has some-
how experienced the beneŽ ts of God without actually being full mem-
bers of the community.5 He argues that uses of fvtÛzv, geæomai, and
m¡toxow in literature outside of Hebrews suggest that the words do not
imply the people in view “have salvation.” Even if his references were
convincing, such appeals again do not take into account the clear uses

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

of the terms within the epistle. In 10:32, fvtÛzv indicates the audi-
ence’s initial entrance in the community; in 2:9, geæomai surely refers
to the fullest possible experience of death; and in 3:1,14, and 12:8,
m¡toxow is the very deŽ nition of those who are in the community.6 The
people in 6:4-6 are thus full community members, and McKnight’s
“synthetic” analysis of all the warning passages in Hebrews shows con-
vincingly that the “falling away” (parapesñntaw) in 6:6 refers to apos-
tasy of full community members.7
As we saw above, repentance from such a sin is impossible. The
author of Hebrews illustrates this statement of impossibility with an
agricultural metaphor:
g° gŒr ² pioèsa tòn ¤pƒ aét°w ¤rxñmenon poll‹kiw êetòn kaÜ tÛktousa bot‹nhn
eëyeton ¤keÛnoiw diƒ oîw kaÜ gevrgeÝtai metalamb‹nei eélogÛaw Žpò toè yeoè ¤kf¡-
rousa d¢ Žk‹nyaw kaÜ tribñlouw Ždñkimow kaÜ kat‹raw ¤ggçw ¸w tò t¡low eÞw kaèsin
(vv. 7-8).

The recent treatments of this portion of the passage seek to mollify

its sting by arguing that a Ž nal judgement is not in view here.
Oberholtzer, who accepts the full force of Ždænaton and regards the
people in view in 4-6 as full believers, claims that since they are full
believers, the judgement of 6:7-8 simply cannot be eschatological con-
demnation.8 He writes, “The judgment [of Hebrews 6:7-8] is of true
believers [and] disobedience may result in divine discipline in this life
and loss of future rewards in the millennium.”9 In his view, the kaèsiw
of 6:8 is a Ž re of puriŽ cation, and “the result for the believer is not
a loss of eternal salvation but a forfeiting of inheritance-rest, reward,
and position in the coming millennial kingdom.”10

6
Grudem and Mathewson also do not pay suYcient attention to Hebrews’ com-
plex notion of “perfection,” in which believers one the one hand “have been perfected”
(10:14 teteleÛvken) but at the same time are urged to “press on to maturity” (6:1
teleiñthta ferÅmeya).
7
S. McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and
Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59. McKnight observes that while
the term parapesñntaw is somewhat ambiguous in 6:6, when we consider “Heb. 3:12,
with its warning not to ‘turn away’ from the living God or to ‘apostasize’ [Žpost°nai]
or Heb. 10:26-29 with its warnings about ‘deliberate sin,’ ‘trampling the Son of God’
and ‘regarding the blood of the covenant as common,’ it becomes altogether clear that
‘drifting away’ is not a momentary (however real) lapse into sin from which one repents.
Rather . . . the writer has a particular sin in mind: apostasy” (26).
8
Oberholtzer, “Hebrews 6:4-12,” 319-28.
9
Ibid., 319.
10
Ibid., 326.
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 269

Oberholtzer’s reading is problematic for at least two major reasons.

The Ž rst is that he reads Hebrews through a lens of the “faith versus
works” dichotomy common in some strands of the Reformation, which
skews his interpretation of salvation in the epistle. He maintains “that
perseverance is essential for inheriting the promises. This inheritance
of promises should not be equated with eternal salvation. The inher-
itance cannot be soteriological for eternal salvation is by grace through
faith.” 11 This assertion runs contrary to one of the main points of the
epistle, namely that perseverance through faith is the requirement for
inheriting the promises, which the author explicitly states in 6:12 ( ána . . .
g¡nhsye mimhtaÜ . . . tÇn diŒ pÛstevw kaÜ makroyumÛaw klhronomoæntvn tŒw
¤paggelÛaw).12 Oberholtzer’s perceived opposition between faith and
action in Hebrews also relates to the second major diYculty with his
proposal. Oberholtzer’s a priori exclusion of the possibility that the
author of Hebrews links his audience’s salvation to their actions forces
him to impose on 6:4-8 a dispensationalist eschatology that is foreign
to Hebrews. Oberholtzer’s diVerentiation between presence in “salva-
tion” and “rewards and positions” therein Ž nds no support in Hebrews.13
The kaèsiw of 6:9 is rather a Ž nal burning that is a real threat for
members of the community who fall away.
deSilva has attempted to understand this threat by integrating it
into his broader reading of the whole epistle as a re ection on the
assumptions of the patron-client relationship. 14 While the patron-client
model is appropriate to some aspects of Hebrews, deSilva’s treatment
of the warning passages is strained. His application of the patron-client
pattern to 6:4-8 does not account for the severity of our author.
Violation of patron-client bonds by clients resulted in shame and dis-
honor, not in the eternal condemnation and Ž ery ending that Hebrews
envisions. 15

11
Ibid., 328.
12
The author elsewhere exhorts believers to persevere (12:7) just as Jesus persevered
(12:2-3).
13
Cf. D. deSilva’s valid criticism of Oberholtzer in Perseverance in Gratitude: a Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 233-4 n. 56.
14
D. deSilva, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron-Client
Relationships,” JBL 115 (1996) 91-116; and Perseverance in Gratitude, 219-49.
15
Seneca writes that clients’ failure to show proper gratitude to a benefactor is “a
disgrace” (On BeneŽts 3.1.1), a fate somewhat less severe than a curse and burning. The
imagery of God’s Ž ery judgement reappears at 12:29 and was familiar from the prophets
(e.g. Jer. 29:22 and 34:22). The eschatological orientation of such Ž ery judgement that
we see in Hebrews was common in Ž rst-century apocalyptic literature, cf. 2 Esdr. 16:78
and Rev. 20:14-15, and for other examples of the apocalyptic background to Heb. 6:4-8,
see the next section in this paper.
270 brent nongbri

The picture that has emerged is one of a stern and Ž nal judgement
for those members of the community who fall away.16 At this point,
rather than attempting to homogenize the passage into a synthesized
“New Testament” soteriology, we shall instead examine what role this
kind of particularly severe threat might play in the letter. To answer
this question we must inquire into the background of such sobering
language.

3. The Background and Purpose of the Language of Hebrews 6:4-8

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

16
A. Mugridge reaches a similar conclusion in his survey of all the warning pas-
sages in Hebrews (“Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews: An Exegetical and
Theological Study,” Reformed Theological Review 46 [1987] 74-82). Such a rigid stance is
not unique in Ž rst-century Jewish and Christian communities. G.W. Buchanan reviews
several examples: To the Hebrews (New York: Double Day, 1972) 107-8. We should also
take heed of Donald Guthrie’s warning against seeing 6:4-8 as purely hypothetical:
“The writer appears to be re ecting on a hypothetical case, although in the nature of
the whole argument, it must be supposed that it [apostasy] was a real possibility” (The
Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary [Leicester: Inter-varsity Press; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 145).
17
Gleason, “Hebrews 6:4-8,” 62-91; and Mathewson, “Reading Heb 6:4-6,” 209-25.
18
Mathewson, “Reading Heb 6:4-6,” 224, his emphasis.
19
Gleason, “Hebrews 6:4-8,” 90. Gleason’s study in particular is fraught with
diYculties. He envisions the author as writing to “a Hebrew audience” (63) “in or near
Palestine” before the destruction of the temple (67). This setting, for which he pro-
vides little evidence outside of “the emphasis on the Levitical priests and sacriŽ ces”
(67), in uences much of his study. On the problems of assuming such an exact char-
acter, date, and location of the audience, see H.W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews:
A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989) 6-13.
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 271

of Hebrews skillfully used scripture, he was not a modern biblical

exegete seeking to retrieve the “original context” of a scriptural pas-
sage and apply it to his community. He was part of a tradition of
interpretation in Ž rst-century Judaism20 within which he felt free to
“tweak” the received interpretations. 21 The wholesale importation of
the original circumstances of a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures to
understand the purpose of a passage in Hebrews is thus inadvisable.
A more productive method of investigation would be to look for how
literature and movements more contemporary with Hebrews used the
material from the Hebrew Scriptures to which Hebrews refers.
To some extent, we can carry out such an investigation with regard
to Deuteronomy. Several authors have pointed to the blessings and
curses of Deuteronomy as the background of Heb. 6:4-8. 22 The ver-
bal and conceptual connections are quite clear, as the following excerpt
from Deut. 11:26-28 displays:
Behold, I give before you today (s®meron) the blessing and the curse (t¯n eélogÛan
kaÜ t¯n kat‹ran ); the blessing if you should hear (¤Œn Žkoæshte) the command-
ments of the Lord your God, which I command you today and the curse if you
should not hear the commandments of the Lord your God, as many as I com-
mand you today and [if ] you should wander (planhy°te) from the way (Žpò t°w
õdoè) that I commanded you, going to serve other gods whom you do not know
(oék oàdate).23

20
We can see the author at work with such traditions elsewhere in the epistle. To
name but two of the most obvious examples: He is aware of the messianic twist that
Ž rst-century Christian circles gave to Ps. 110 (LXX 109), and his use of the priestly
king Melchizedek, upon whom Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls community also spec-
ulated, suggests he was aware of a tradition of interpretation of that Ž gure.
21
For example, the standard Ž rst-century Christian uses of LXX Ps. 109 concen-
trate on the messianic exaltation motif at the beginning of the Psalm (e.g. Mark 12:36,
14:62; 1 Cor. 15:25). The author of Hebrews incorporates that aspect (1:3; 8:1; 10:12)
but also expands his exposition to include Melchizedek, who appears at a later point
in the Psalm (Heb. 5:6 and all of chapter 7).
22
Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 173 n. 90; deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 231-
4; F. Craddock, “The Letter to the Hebrews,” in NIB (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1994) 76.
23
The whole of LXX Deut. 11 presents vocabulary similar to Hebrews: the repe-
tition of “today” (s®meron, 11:2,4,13, etc.), the “discipline of the Lord” (paideÛan kurÛou,
11:2), God’s gift of “rain” (êetñn, 11:11,14), and warnings against “disobedience” (para-
b°te, 11:16). That Deut. 11:26-28 stands in the background of Heb. 6:4-8 becomes
all the more clear when we recognize its resonances with LXX Ps. 94:9-11, which
plays a central part in the early chapters of Hebrews and which the author quotes at
length in 3:7-11: “Today (s®meron) if you should hear his voice (¤Œn t°w fvn°w aétoè
Žkoæshte ), do not harden your heart as in the rebellion, in the day of testing in the
wilderness, where your fathers tested with scrutiny and saw my works for forty years;
therefore I was angry with this generation and I said, ‘Always they are wandering
(planÇntai) in the heart, and they did not know my ways (oék ¦gnvsan tŒw õdoæw mou).’”
272 brent nongbri

To the comments of the scholars mentioned above, I would add

the observation that apocalyptic authors also adopted the same lan-
guage of the Deuteronomic curse. In the prayer of Dan. 9:11, Daniel
laments that “all Israel has transgressed (par¡bhsan) your law and they
have refused to hear your voice (Žkoèsai t°w fvn°w sou)24 and the curse
(kat‹ra) has come upon us, and the oath (÷rkow) that was written in
the law of Moses the servant of God.” By as early as the second cen-
tury BCE, the Deuteronomic curse language had a setting in apoca-
lyptic discourses re ecting on the eschaton.25
This cursing language is not the only similarity we Ž nd between
Heb. 6:4-12 and apocalyptic literature. Ideas similar to those in Heb.
6:4-8 come together in a more sustained form in 4 Ezra, as we see
in 9:10-12:
For as many as did not acknowledge me in their lifetime, though they received
my beneŽ ts, and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom, and
did not understand but despised it while an opportunity of repentance was still
open to them, these must in torment acknowledge it after death. (NRSV)

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

24
On the connection between failure to hear and transgression, cf. Heb. 2:1-3.
25
Cf. 4 Ezra 5:12, which plays variations on the same theme in the Ž rst century
of the Common Era. The author states that in the last days, “people shall hope but
not obtain; they shall labor but their ways shall not prosper” (NRSV), a fairly clear
allusion to the curse of Deut. 28:29, which in the LXX reads, “and you will be grop-
ing about at noon, as the blind grope in the darkness, and you will not prosper in
your ways” (oék eéodÅsei tŒw õdoæw sou). See M. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on
the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 114.
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 273

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

There are several items to note in this passage. Like Hebrews, the
author of 4 Ezra again singles out for destruction especially those who
have rejected God’s gift (in this case the law) after having experienced
its beneŽ ts. 4 Ezra then employs an agricultural metaphor very simi-
lar to that of Heb. 6:7-8. 26 In 4 Ezra, that in which God sows the
seed (implicitly, the ground), is destroyed if it rejects the seed (God’s
gift of the law). As was the case in 4 Ezra 9:10-12, the point of this
passage is quite diVerent from the point of Heb. 6:4-8 in spite of the
similar imagery. The central problem here is one of theodicy, and the
author’s main assertion is that Torah and God’s will endure even if
only a select few of God’s people happen to be able to properly keep
the law. Again, however, the main point we must note is that the lan-
guage threatens the audience and evokes fear.27
Indeed one of the primary purposes of apocalyptic language is to
instill fear in the audience.28 Such is the purpose of the author of Heb.

26
A survey of the recent commentaries on Hebrews reveals a relatively small empha-
sis on these apocalyptic passages as instructive for understanding Heb. 6:4-8, though
both James MoVatt (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924] 212-3) and Herbert Braun (An die Hebräer [Tübingen:
Mohr (Siebeck), 1984] 170-1) mention 4 Ezra and apocalyptic motifs in passing in
their discussions of Heb. 6:4-8. The most frequently cited parallels for this agricultural
metaphor are the unfruitful vineyard of Isa. 5:1-7 (see especially V. Verbrugge, “Towards
a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6,” Calvin Theological Journal 15 [1980] 61-73) and
Philo’s Who is the Heir 204. Both passages are rather imprecise parallels. In Isaiah, the
“thorns and thistles” are the punishment, not the warrant for punishment as in Hebrews,
and in Philo, the rain is not neutral; it nourishes the good ground and destroys the
bad ground.
27
Similarly harsh language plays the same role in Jubilees. The author mentions
eternal damnation in connection with several sins. One who profanes the Sabbath “will
surely die and anyone who will do any work therein, let him surely die forever” (2:27), if
a man’s daughter or sister marries a gentile both the man and woman are to be killed
and “there is no atonement forever” (33:13-16), and for failure to circumcise there is
“no forgiveness or pardon so that they might be pardoned and forgiven from all the
sins of this eternal error” (15:34). This particular group of sins and punishment points to
the importance of fear as a means of preserving the integrity of the community. If
community members sin in ways that compromise the integrity of the community, then
the community rejects them eternally.
28
Concerning the Apocalypse of John, Adela Yarbro Collins observes that “the fear
of the hearers is not denied or minimized. On the contrary, it is intensiŽ ed” (Crisis and
Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984] 152).
274 brent nongbri

in 6:4-8, but he wants to encourage a particular kind of fear.29 Elsewhere

in the epistle, the author suggests that his audience ought to fear nei-
ther death (2:16) nor the persecution of human, worldly authorities
(11:23; 11:27; 13:6). Rather, they should engage the world and fear
instead “falling short” (fobhyÇmen . . . êsterhk¡nai in 4:1) and “falling
away” (parapesñntaw in 6:6) from the heavenly kat‹pausiw into God’s
wrath (10:31). The audience no longer has reason to fear worldly tri-
als since Jesus, “having himself been tested in what he suVered is able
to help those being put to the test” (2:18 ¤n Ú gŒr p¡ponyen aétòw
peirasyeÜw dænatai toÝw peirazom¡noiw bohy°sai).30 The severe language
of 6:4-8 is part of this program of encouraging the individuals in the
audience to reevaluate what they fear. Exactly what our author is up
to as he instills this particular kind of fear will be the topic of our
next section.

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

While the method of exhortation outlined above is fairly common,
Aristotle provides an apt example of the particular concept of fear
with which Hebrews is working. He discusses fear in Rhetoric II.V.1:
Let fear be deŽ ned as a painful or troubled feeling caused by the impression of
an imminent evil that causes destruction or pain; for men do not fear all evils,
for instance, becoming unjust or slow-witted (bradæw), but only such as involve
great pain or destruction (fyartikoè µ luphroè).

29
Suggesting that the author of Hebrews used language similar to that found in
apocalyptic literature does not imply that he accepted the cosmology (or, more prop-
erly, range of cosmologies) of apocalypses, only that the apocalyptic realm was yet
another strand of tradition that the author incorporated and appropriated.
30
A passage from Aristotle further highlights how the author of Hebrews connects
these ideas of fear, being tested by worldly matters, and the help that is Jesus. In his
discussion of fear, Aristotle writes in Rhetoric II.V.18 that people are conŽ dent (yarral¡oi)
or without fear (ŽpayeÝw) “in two ways, either because they have never been tested or
have means of help (µ tÒ m¯ pepeirsyai µ tÒ bohyeÛaw ¦xein).” Hebrews’ audience Ž ts
quite well in the second category. From Heb. 2:18, we know the audience is being
put to the test but has an able helper. At 4:16, we Ž nd that the help is particularly
appropriate (eëkairon). Finally, in 13:6, it becomes clear that the type of fear the
helper eliminates is that brought about by humans, as the author and audience boldly
quote LXX Ps. 117:6, “The Lord is my helper, and I shall not fear; what will any
human do to me?” (kæriow ¤moÜ bohyòw [kaÜ] oé fobhy®somai tÛ poi®sei moi nyrvpow).
The factors that socially marginalize the community need not be feared, but it is “a
fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God” (10:31 foberòn tò ¤mpeseÝn eÞw
xeÝraw yeoè zÇntow). With 6:4-8, the author seeks to drive home that distinction.
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 275

Aristotle is concerned that people do not realize they should fear

becoming slow or sluggish31 since they do not connect that state with
“great pain or destruction.” 32 Heb. 6:4-8 forces the audience to fear
“falling away” because it leads to such destruction. That at least some
members of the community had become nvyroÛ, or sluggish (5:11),
should be a fearful prospect for the audience since such a condition
could lead to apostasy. Our author makes this point explicit in 6:12
as he exhorts them lest they become sluggish (ána m¯ nvyroÜ g¡nhsye).
Since the audience apparently does not appreciate the consequences
of their sluggishness, the author uses the severe language of apoca-
lyptic to illustrate exactly what the community should fear: the eter-
nal wrath of God. The threat is real, and the author directs it to real
believers. It is for this reason that the recent scholarly attempts to mol-
lify the implications of the language are misguided.
Our author intentionally uses this language with full awareness of
its severity, 33 and he immediately follows the warning of 6:4-8 with
words of encouragement. He has appropriated some vocabulary and
themes of apocalyptic literature and Ž t them into proper rhetorical
form. In 4 Ezra, the language of eternal damnation stood without any
mitigation. We move directly from Ezra’s lament in 9:29-36 into the
vision of the weeping woman, and it is not until 10:55 that the author
of 4 Ezra sounds a note of encouragement. Language of condemna-
tion and language of comfort are both present, but a considerable
amount of text separates the two.
Such is not the case in Hebrews. In 6:4-12, the author immediately
follows his language of condemnation with language of praise and
exhortation. SpeciŽ cally, our author expresses conŽ dence in the audi-
ence on the basis of their past actions. While Attridge is correct in point-
ing out that the use of such expressions of conŽ dence is a rhetorical

31
For this meaning of bradæw, see Plato’s Phaedrus 239a and Aristophanes’ Clouds
129.
32
deSilva’s socio-rhetorical commentary on Hebrews makes proliŽ c use of Aristotle
and of this passage in particular to suggest that at several points in the letter, the
author seeks to arouse fear (Persevering in Gratitude, 107, 240, 346, and 353). Such is
deŽ nitely an aim of the author, but Hebrews’ approach to the concept of fear has
even more to do with Rhetoric II.V.1 than deSilva notes. Hebrews is not just stirring
up fear with talk of eternal destruction. He is calling for a speciŽ c reevaluation of what
the audience should fear. Those who are in danger of falling away, not attending the
assembly (10:25), need to fear the wrath of God rather than public scorn.
33
The author’s brief interjection, “even if we speak in this way” (eÞ kaÜ oðtvw
laloèmen), indicates his recognition that the threat would evoke negative feelings.
276 brent nongbri

commonplace,34 our author in this case appears to be employing a

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

34
Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 174. In his study of Pauline expressions of
conŽ dence, Stanley N. Olson distinguishes between Paul’s expressions of conŽ dence
that his audience will comply with his wishes and expressions of “conŽ dence about the
addressees,” such as 1 Thess. 2:19-20, 2 Tim. 1:5, and Heb. 6:9 (“Pauline Expressions
of ConŽ dence in His Addressees,” CBQ 47 [1985] 282). Hebrews 6:9 actually deŽ es,
or at least signiŽ cantly blurs, this distinction. When read in light of the preceding warn-
ing, this expression of conŽ dence expects and assumes compliance to the warning. Cf.
also 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Gal. 5:16-25.
35
deSilva correctly points to this passage as key for understanding 6:4-12, though
he frames the discussion in terms of the patron-client relationship (Perseverance in Gratitude,
244-5). He argues that in Seneca’s presentation of the patron-client system, diVerent
rules apply to the patrons and the benefactors. The clients are to act on the pre-
sumption that they will be punished for disloyalty, but the patrons are to act “with
an emphasis on generosity and magnanimity” (242). deSilva thus argues that in the
end, God, as the benefactor, has the option of renewing fallen believers to repentance
in Hebrews (240-4). While deSilva’s perceptive comments about the dynamic nature
of the patron-client relationship are extremely helpful in understanding the subtleties
of the system itself, they are of questionable relevance for reading Heb. 6. The pun-
ishments for disloyal clients are not analogous to Hebrews’ recommendations for those
who fall away (see n. 15 above). In the examples that deSilva provides, Seneca writes
that ingratitude on the part of clients toward benefactors results in “public hate” of
the guilty party, who is disgraced in the eyes of the world (On BeneŽts 3.17.1-2, 3.1.1),
and Dio Chrysostom asserts that “those who insult their benefactors will by nobody
be esteemed to deserve a favour” (Discourse 31.65, both cited in Perseverance in Gratitude,
226). In both cases, the punishment is not the wrath of the patron, but that of social
ostracism by the general public. The author of Hebrews, however, argues that worldly
persecution ought not be a motivating factor for the audience (see n. 32 above). In
fact, scorn in the eyes of the world is exactly what the members of the audience should
expect if they follow the author’s advice (10:32-35). deSilva makes a related point in
chapter 4 of his Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle
to the Hebrews (SBLDS 152; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), and such disregard for pub-
lic shame would seem to undermine the application of the model of the disloyal client
to Heb. 6.
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 277

The placement of encouraging words directly after the language of

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

Those who “advise elegantly” (nouyetoèntew ŽsteÛvw) use language that

causes pain, but they append more conciliatory words after speech that

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

evokes negative emotions in the audience, lest the criticisms or threats,

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

The author of Hebrews makes no such hurried exit. His carefully

crafted exhortation clearly expresses his sincere desire for the audi-
ence’s well-being. He continues his use of the Ž rst person plural
(¤piyumoèmen) to express a “deep desire” that each member of the com-
munity (§kaston êmÇn) show zeal, avoid sluggishness, and “imitate those
who through faith and endurance inherit the promises” (vv. 11-12). In
6:9-12, our author provides an ideal application of Graeco-Roman
rhetorical conventions to increase the audience’s receptivity to the stern
warning of 6:4-8.

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

38
Such a relationship was necessary for the author’s exhortation to work eVectively.
Cicero writes, “Nothing in oratory . . . is more important than to win for the orator
the favour of his hearer, and to have the latter so aVected as to be swayed by some-
thing resembling a mental impulse or emotion” (De Oratore XLII.178).
 condemnation and consolation in heb. 6:4-12 279

that harsh speech should be presented “with pungency, which if too

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

39
Ad Herennium IV.37.50.
40
That such is the function of 6:4-12 and the other warning passages coheres with
H.W. Attridge’s statement that the primary purpose of Hebrews is to “reinforce the
identity of a social sub-group in such a way as not to isolate it from its environment”
(“Paraenesis in a Homily (lñgow parakl®sevw): The Possible Location of, and Socialization
in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 [1990] 211-26, 223).