Since we've been talking about the warning of Hebrews, I thought I'd re-post something I wrote for De Regnis Duobus back in September of '06:Perhaps one of the sternest warnings in all the New Testament is found in Hebrews 6:4-8. I'd like to highlight the most common interpretations of this pasage, and then throw in an interesting take on it and get your thoughts.
One obvious way of tackling this passage involves biting the bullet and admitting that the people in question were once Christians, but that they lost their salvation (a view once associated almost solely with Arminianism, but which has been adopted, in a qualified form, by proponents of the Federal Vision).
.
The view that most Calvinists espouse is that the blessings mentioned (enlightenment, having tasted of the heavenly gift, having shared in the Holy Spirit, and having tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the age to come) are common, rather than saving, blessings. In other words, all these things can be said about the hypocrite who, like Judas, progressed quite far in the Christian life but who never truly exercised saving faith.
But a slightly different interpretation has been suggested by R. Fowler White. His position is that the writer was employing the rhetorical tactic of reproachful irony, and can be summarized as follows:
The writer to the Hebrews is attributing actual saving blessings to actual apostates (which is the most natural reading of the passage), blessings that were legitimately ascribed when the apostate initially believed. Although at the end of the day, if the apostate remains in his condition, these blessings would never have been his true possession, we're not at "the end of the day" but in the middle of it. The writer, therefore, was not in a position to know the apostate's heart, only his original profession and his current state. He then takes these into account and employs reproachful irony in order to bring out the danger being flirted with (Mark 2:17; Matt. 8:12).
White argues:
"On the premise that the faith of their audiences was covenantally credible, the [New Testament] writers ascribed to them all sorts of blessedness.... On the premise that the faith of their audiences was undifferentiated, the writers exhorted their audiences to perseverance (and were covenantally bound to do so), with promise of everlasting blessedness for perseverance, and warning of everlasting curse for apostasy" (The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, 213, emphasis added).
Thoughts?
Okay, so as I deeply trust Dr. White, I want to make sure I understand this:
ReplyDeleteHis position takes into account the perspective of the writer (or elder) who observes credible professions of faith, and so speaks to the congregation as if giving them the benefit of the doubt. Yet at the end of the day, the reality is that the ones who are finally apostate never did possess the blessings described.
This means his theology does not branch off into the speculative secondary ordo salutis of the FV, in which the non-regenerate church member actually does possess for a time the inner, Spirit-wrought blessings of the covenant (described in Heb. 6), minus perseverance.
This approach seems to hold together the good news (that people who truly confess Christ truly enjoy his benefits) and the reality of the tares among the wheat (i.e., elders do the best they can, but at the end of the day some will be shown to have been imposters.) I would think this perspective frees a pastor up to speak straight both the promises and the warnings, without hemming and hawing about how people can't know which camp they're in till the end, or linking salvation too closely with covenant-works.
It also calls us to rethink the idea of the "common operations of the Spirit." What do non-regenerate church members share with their regenerated brethren, by virtue of rubbing shoulders? If it's not the list of mainly inward blessings in Hebrews 6, then what is it?
Or similarly, how about Matt 5:29-30 where Jesus speaks of cutting off a hand or plucking out an eye to avoid hell. Since only believers can get into heaven, Jesus is obviously addressing believers. Does an unbeliever make it into heaven if he cuts off his hand or plucks out his eye? No; unbelievers go to hell, period. So, why would Jesus tell believers it is better to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand in order to get to Heaven? The very clear implication here is that sin in the life of the believer can get you thrown into hell and that apostacy is possible. Thus, I think it's clear we can take this Hebrews passage at face value rather than distilling some other meaning out of the text.
ReplyDeleteJJS: Thanks for mentioning this. Perhaps a term more accessible to folks than "reproachful irony" would be sarcasm. That is, the author of Hebrews brings reproach on the name of apostates by sarcastically mocking their pretensions to blessedness. Sarcasm is a fairly frequent feature of God’s words against apostates in the OT. It shows up in the prophets and in the wisdom lit, and even in the NT.
ReplyDeletePaige Britton: Your trust is humbling, to say the least. A preacher or teacher who accepts this "sarcastic" approach to Heb 6 or 10 would convey this meaning by reading or speaking with a sarcastic, mocking tone in his voice.
Dr. White,
ReplyDeleteWhen the original writers of the Epistles sent them out to the churches, didn't they often send along a person who knew what tone to adopt when reading each section? Wish that, along with punctuation and paragraph breaks, they had included some stage directions! :)
pb
Okay, so now I can pull the trigger:
ReplyDelete"When [the author of Hebrews] speaks of ‘falling away’, and of ‘crucifying God’s son all over again’, the writer seems to have in mind people who have belonged to the church, who have taken part in its common life, but who then decide it isn’t for them, abandon their membership, and join in the general public contempt for the faith. This raises an interesting question, which the writer doesn’t pursue here: is it possible first to become a genuine Christian and then to lose everything after all? To this question Paul, in Romans 5-8, gives the emphatic answer ‘No!’, and advances detailed arguments to prove the point. In the present passage the writer quickly goes on to say that he doesn’t think his readers come into the category he’s describing, but he doesn’t unpack the wider theological question. The normal way of holding what he says together with what Paul and others imply is that the people described in verses 4 and 5 are people who have become church members, and have felt the power of the gospel and the life that results from it through sharing the common life of Christian fellowship, but who have never really made it their own, deep down inside. When he says in 12.15, ‘Take care that nobody lacks God’s grace’, he seems to envisage such a category of people. But he doesn’t press the point. Nor should we press him for answers to questions he wasn’t asking.
We should, rather, let him pose his sharp and uncomfortable question directly to us. Are we — or are some within our Christian fellowship — in danger of turning our backs on the faith, and joining in the general tendency to sneer at the gospel and the church? Are we lining up with those who hold firm to their original faith and hope, or with those who, like Peter by the charcoal fire, are ready to deny that they have anything to do with Jesus?"
— Wright, Hebrews for Everyone, pp. 59–60
He's so boringly traditional here. What's up with that?
Sounds like R.F. White is scraping at the air for anything to avoid the plain meaning of the text which, unfortunately for him, does not square well with his theology.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't collapse the doctrine of election with the doctrine of the Church, then ther is no problem with taking the text plainly. More precisely, if you don't collapse election into sainthood. All the elect are saints, but not all saints are elect. Yet, all saints partake of the spirit at some point and can be truly called Christian, but through sin may ultimately fall from the spirit, which is the essence of apostacy. If apostacy was not essentially this, then there would be no justification for God in condemning apostates more severly than the heathen.
Jared,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of letting the text speak (and this would apply to Dr. White as well), what are we to make of v. 9, which says that "We are confident of better things concerning you, things that accompany salvation, even though I am speaking in this way"?
He then continues with "for God is not unjust to forget your work and love...."
Could it be that the blessings described in vv. 4-5 are in fact common, but what "accompanies salvation" is the stuff described in vv. 10-12?
Jared B: have you read the essay to which JJS refers? I agree with you that we should not "collapse the doctrine of election with the doctrine of the church."
ReplyDeleteJJS: My answer to your question is this: In 6.9-10, the author makes clear his confidence that the recipients are not among the apostates described in 6.4-6. In 6.11-12, he exhorts the recipients out of their present sluggishness (5.11; 6.12) to perseverance. Yes, I would agree with you that the blessings in 6.4-5 could be common (not special; or a mix of common and special) and that 6.10-12 describe what accompanies salvation. I am just not persuaded that all of the blessings attributed to apostates in 6.4-5 are common.
Chris D: I agree with much of what is said in the citation you provide. Where I quibble is with the claim that the questions we're asking aren't questions asked by the author and his audience.
Paige: if you get a chance to read the essay, you'll see that the biblical authors who employ sarcasm actually do provide the equivalent of "stage directions" in their texts.
ReplyDeleteThe writer, therefore, was not in a position to know the apostate's heart, only his original profession and his current state
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the same as "judgment of charity"?
Also, would this apply also to the obviously hell-bound false teachers who deny the Master who "bought" them? (air-quotes is perhaps another good modern way to describe this "reproachful irony" concept)
RR,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think Fowler references that text as an example of irony, but it has been a number of years since I read the essay.
I'm also wondering if a legitimate line can be drawn from Heb. 6's statement that "the things that DO accompany salvation are works done in love" to both Gal. 6's "when it comes to justification, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, bt faith working by love," and to Jas. 2's "faith without works is dead." These last two texts both cite the "loving your neighbor fulfills the law" passage, which I find interesting.
ReplyDeleteRubeRad: yes, JJS's summary (The writer, therefore, was not in ... his current state) is the judgment of charity. I take it that a sarcastic reading of Heb 6 is a variation on the judgment of charity. Jason's memory of my thoughts about 2 Peter is good: I would propose that we see 2 Pet 2.1 in the same vein. By apostasy in the past (note Peter's reference to the false prophets of old), Israel subjected Moses the servant of God to ridicule and the name of God to blasphemy among the Gentiles, casting doubt on His oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. By their defection now, apostates trample Jesus the Son of God under foot, subjecting Him again to the shame of crucifixion and profaning His covenant blood by casting aspersions on its efficacy to save sinners from the bondage of their sins. Apostates after Jesus will incur a punishment even more severe than the wrath meted out to the apostates of Israel. In keeping with the retributive principle established in Genesis 3:15, it will not be Christ who suffers reproach in the end. Rather, as apostates bring reproach on Christ’s name, so in avenging measure He will bring reproach on theirs. No wonder Peter can say, “the last state has become worse for them than the first” (2 Pet. 2:20).
ReplyDeleteJJS: I would agree with you that the things that DO accompany salvation in Heb 6.9 include works done in love (interestingly, described, in part, in Heb 6.10), which works are the "fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith" (WCF 16.2).
To all,
ReplyDeleteThen Pope Benedict's statement from His Wednesday audience Nov 19, 2008 is correct, "Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love."
Dr. White --
ReplyDeleteThanks, I look forward to reading the article! (I am putting 2+2 together: does this mean you know my friend Chris Hutchinson? His is the only chapter I've ever read out of the colloquium collection.)
I'm wondering about Dr. White's claim that such ascribing is the most "natural" way to read the text. What does it mean for a reading to be "natural?" The first thing that pops into my head is that the author uses the word "taste" twice because he did not want us to think of these blessings received as being the same as those that are really internalized by the true believer. But how is Dr. White's reading more "natural" than mine?
ReplyDeleteMy take on this passage is that however we might understand the sharing and the tasting and so on, there is no conclusive evidence here to suggest that tasting, sharing, etc must be something internalized and permanent.
Tom R - Faith alone as we understand it is not opposed to love and charity, but we still have our differences, no?
Andrew --
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the judgment about what is the most "natural" reading isn't Jason's summary of Dr. White's interpretation? (I haven't got the article in front of me yet, so I don't know if that was an indirect quote or just Jason's take. He can tell us when he wakes up.)
I like your observation about "taste." But do you think that the analogy that follows in v.7-8, about "land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it," might color the interpretation of the blessings described in v.4-5? That is, both the fruitful land and the thorn-bearing land receive the same blessings -- i.e., they both have "tasted" and "drunk" (or internalized!) what has been given. I wonder if this image might indicate that we're to consider the spiritual blessings listed as either common blessings, or special blessings which here are ironically attributed to apostates (if Dr. White has read the stage directions correctly).
Paige
ReplyDelete"I like your observation about "taste." But do you think that the analogy that follows in v.7-8, about "land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it," might color the interpretation of the blessings described in v.4-5?"
Is it possible that v.7-8 are a contrast from v. 4-6? If nature "drinks in" the blessing of the rain and uses it to produce thorns and briers, then how much more true would it be for an individual who only tastes the heavenly gifts to be cut off.
Paige B: Yes, I enjoyed the time with Chris H at the colloquium. I hope to see him next week at the Twin Lakes fellowship meeting.
ReplyDeleteAndrew M: The words are Jason's, but they faithfully represent my thoughts. As you may know, we shouldn't define the "most natural" reading of "taste," for example, by referring to "the first thing that pops into my head." What we should do is seek to identify the context(s) in which the author has made his specific statements. For instance, many students of Hebrews would say that the author is drawing on comparisons between the experiences of the church now (between the advents of Christ) and the experiences of Israel between the exodus from Egypt and the entry into Canaan. So they point to correlations such as the following: “have once been enlightened,” 6:4a // Neh 9:19; Ps 105:39; “have tasted of the heavenly gift,” 6:4b // Neh 9:15; Exod 16:4; Ps 78:24; 105:40; “have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,” 6:4c // Neh 9:20; Isa 63:11; “have tasted the good word of God,” 6:5a // Josh 23:14; Neh 9:13; “[have tasted] the powers of the age to come,” 6:5b // Num 14:11, 22-23; Exod 7:3; Psa 78:4, 26, 43; 106:8. In any case, after we've identified the general context, then we go to the particulars to see what questions are relevant. All this is discussed in one degree or other in the essay or in the sources cited.
Dean,
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that v.7-8 are a contrast from v. 4-6? If nature "drinks in" the blessing of the rain and uses it to produce thorns and briers, then how much more true would it be for an individual who only tastes the heavenly gifts to be cut off.
Hmmm...I find it more "natural" to read this section as an elaboration of the author's point, where the contrast is between what is supposed to happen to those who profess faith and who come under the "rain" of blessings in the church (bear fruit), and what actually does happen when the profession is untrue (bears thorns and ends up burned), despite proximity with true believers.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteHere's Calvin's response to Benedict:
“When [the Papists] attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that ‘which worketh by love,’ then faith alone does not justify. I answer... it is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification.... We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration [which for Calvin would have included sanctification]; but when the question comes to be in what manner we are justified, we then set aside all works.... When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle [‘alone’]” (commentary on Galatians 5:6).
Some thoughts:
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn’t make too much of “taste” versus “drink,” since the writer uses the same Greek work in ch. 2 when he says that Jesus “tasted death.” Obviously Jesus did more than lightly sample death, but he drank the cup to its dregs.
Also, the analogy in vv. 7-8 seems to be intended to illustrate the preceding point, and not be a contrast (hence the use of gar [“for”] at the beginning of the verse).
Dr. White correctly points out that the writer is in the habit of drawing analogies from the OT, showing a parallel between their experience and that of the Hebrews.
I’m surprised that no one has highlighted the fact that the early church used “enlightenment” to refer to baptism (and “tasting the heavenly gift” certainly sounds like Communion to me).
On the one hand I think I’m on to something with my connection between the “labor of love that does accompany salvation” and Paul’s “faith working through love” in Gal. 6 and James’s “I’ll show you my faith by my works” in Jas. 2 (both cite the same passage about love fulfilling the law), but the problem with this connection is that both James and Paul are specifically addressing justification. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Ooh, good catch about "taste" in ch. 2.
ReplyDeleteRe. the James & Paul connection -- where do you see "justification" in the Galatians verses? Gal. 5:6 and 6:15 are similar, and you might have them scrambled. Neither one appears to be necessarily about what [forensic]justification is like; both seem to be talking about what the life of faith (i.e., already-been-justified, already-in-Christ) is like. And James doesn't use "justify" in a forensic sense there, does he?
Paige,
ReplyDeleteRe. the James & Paul connection -- where do you see "justification" in the Galatians verses?
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
And James doesn't use "justify" in a forensic sense there, does he?
There is definitely a demonstrative sense to dikaioo which BDAG highlights, but in any case, James is certainly using the word in a soteriological sense, since he says, "Can faith save him?"
I'm just trying to figure out the connection these verses may have to Heb. 6.
JJS: re: the early church used “enlightenment” to refer to baptism
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to notice that, when referring to Israel's baptism into Moses in 1 Cor 10.1-2 Paul says that all were "under the cloud" and baptized "in the cloud," apparently alluding to the presence of the pillar of [the glory] cloud (e.g., Ex 14.21). Israel's baptism was associated with Israel's "enlightenment" by its accompaniment by the glory cloud.
JJS -
ReplyDeleteRe. Galatians: oh, yep, thanks for making me read the whole passage. Missed that bit in v.4. But in any case, is Paul addressing initial justification at all? Isn't the error rather that the Galatians are confused about how one goes on in faith? Isn't the context that having been set free (justified) by Christ alone thru faith alone, one shouldn't then go on trying to be justified by the law?
Thus the idea of "faith expressing itself in love" has nothing to do with getting in, but everything to do with what it looks like to live "in Christ" once you are in. So there's the parallel with what you saw in Hebrews: love being the fruit of faith. Think so?
Well, if Paul isn't addressing "initial justification," then what kind is he addressing? To quote Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men, "Is there any other kind?"
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Paul's point seems to be that the Galatians were trying to be justified by circumcision, when what they really need [for justification] is "faith working through love."
So what do you make of the connection between Gal. and Jas.? Do you think it's significant that they both cite the passage about love fulfilling the law?
Paul isn't addressing initial J because the Galatians had already been justified (by Christ thru faith alone). He was addressing their mistaken idea that they kept needing to worry about it and work on it. (Notice he only uses "justify" to talk about what they SHOULDN'T be pursuing.)
ReplyDeleteRe. Gal. & Jas.: Well, it's not really a surprise that both should bring that up: remember Rom 8. Those who are living the life of living faith fulfill the law through love of God and neighbor. It's really a wonderful thing to notice this thread of thought through three authors -- Hebrews, Paul, and James. I like it when you can see that a theme is really God's theme, and not just the peculiar idiom of a particular writer.
A preacher or teacher who accepts this "sarcastic" approach to Heb 6 or 10 would convey this meaning by reading or speaking with a sarcastic, mocking tone in his voice.
ReplyDeleteReading Scripture with a sarcastic, mocking tone: Now that is what I call confidence in Reformed theology!
I like it when you can see that a theme is really God's theme, and not just the peculiar idiom of a particular writer.
ReplyDeleteOops, that was a sloppy way of saying what I meant. I really do believe in inspiration all across the board...
Andrew Preslar: hmmm ... you wouldn't be writing sarcastically, now would you?
ReplyDeleteWe need to include stage directions when we blog. Not enough literary cues.
ReplyDeletePaige: touche!
ReplyDeletemany students of Hebrews would say that the author is drawing on comparisons between the experiences of the church now (between the advents of Christ) and the experiences of Israel between the exodus from Egypt and the entry into Canaan.
ReplyDeleteDr. White,
It seems to me that the passage in Hebrews we are discussing is inconclusive as to whether these are saving blessings or not. And so above you have referred me to discussions of blessings on the OT covenant people, and I'm not sure how any of this supports your position. I'm still left with the understanding that the kind of tasting and partaking is general rather than salvific. If anything Hebrews is more clear but it is still not definitive as to whether the writer is speaking of those things that flow out of a justified state. the whole point is that we should take the possibility of apostasy seriously and not sit on our hands and say "I've arrived."
I don't have the references cited.
We need to include stage directions when we blog. Not enough literary cues.
ReplyDeleteThe bit I quoted above is a stage direction, a very risque rubric.
Dr. White,
ReplyDeleteActually, my comment was more like amazement, compressed into as short a claim as I could muster, at so bold a punt to theology. I mean, Hebrews 6 is not much like Elijah's admonitions to the prophets of Baal. I cannot detect any literary features suggesting sarcasm in Hebrews 6.
Your suggestion that, if one thinks that the author is being sarcastic, then the reader should inject sarcasm into his voice is reasonable, on one level, but deeply problematic on a different level, much like the suggestion that, if one thinks the thing moving in the bushes is not human, then one should fire away.
To get the full effect of a misplaced "sarcasm" rubric, just try reading a passage that you think probably is the sober truth (say, Ephesians 2.8-10), but read it in sarcasm mode. This kind of thing, if it is bad exegesis, is not simply the usual sort of bad exegesis.
Rule of thumb on reading the Bible in a mocking tone of voice: Don't pull the trigger unless you are sure.
Andrew: I regret it if I have been unclear. I agree with you that the passage in Hebrews 6 is inconclusive, and I was not attempting to address your question about "taste" directly. As I stated above, what I was attempting to do was to identify the general context(s) in which we would then interpret the particulars like tasting. In other words, I was offering an alternative to an attempt to identify the most natural reading of the text by referring to the first thing that pops into our heads. As you'd appreciate, we have to admit that the first thing that pops into our heads is not necessarily the context(s) in which we're to understand what is meant by tasting and the rest of the items listed.
ReplyDeleteBut on tasting in particular, I agree with JJS above: "the writer uses the same Greek work in ch. 2 when he says that Jesus 'tasted death.' Obviously Jesus did more than lightly sample death, but he drank the cup to its dregs." The non-salvific trait of the verb’s meaning may be said to derive from an implied contrast between the metaphors of “to sample or take a taste of” (=“to experience inadequately”) and something like “to partake or dine on” (=“to experience adequately”). Unfortunately, the lexical evidence fails to substantiate this distinction. As JJS has pointed out, in the only other instance of its usage in Hebrews (2:9), the author applies the verb to Jesus’ experience of death with no indication that his suffering was in some way only a superficial experience (i.e., a sampling) of death. Elsewhere in the Bible, the metaphor of “tasting” implies no diminution or inadequacy in the taster’s experience (e.g., Ps 34:8, Matt 16:28). Certainly, it may be preferable to see in Heb 6:4f. an emphasis on the initial stage vis-Ã -vis the culminative stage in the experience of salvation’s blessings (cf. 1 Pet 2:3). Be that as it may, my point is that the author’s metaphorical usage of "taste" gives us every reason to believe that “to taste (of)” these various blessings means simply “to experience” them with no hint of diminution or inadequacy.
Leaving this detail aside, I couldn't agree more with you that we should take the possibility of apostasy seriously and not sit on our hands and say "I've arrived." I address that very point at some length in the essay JJS cited.
Andrew: On the concern about risk, I agree. Since in the present case of the letter to the Hebrews we are concerned with an author and not a speaker, it is helpful to observe that the author who employs sarcasm lacks the speaker’s advantage of voice inflection with which to inform his readers of his countermeaning. Consequently, an author who uses sarcasm must depend to a greater extent than a speaker upon his audience’s knowledge of his actual intent. In fact, in view of this greater dependence on the audience, it might well be said that an author’s recourse to sarcasm is a literary risk, albeit calculated to compliment his readers’ discernment while capitalizing on their acquaintance with him. But to say that an author who uses sarcasm takes a literary risk is not to say that he risks failing to alert his readers to his intended meaning. It is only to say that, while a speaker may provide his clues directly through inflection, an author must provide his clues indirectly through context. Significantly, one of those indirect contextual clues that an author who uses sarcasm can provide is the contradiction in his argument that results if sarcasm is not recognized.
ReplyDeleteAndrew: I appreciate your concerns. To see that and how I have anticipated them, it would be good for you to read the whole essay as it was presented. I'd like to think that it would demonstrate to you that I am not as naive as your comments suggest.
ReplyDeleteDr. White,
ReplyDeleteI think just the first comment addressed to "Andrew" is for me, and the other two were for Andrew P.
My "pops into my head" comment was I thought somewhat equivalent to your/Jason's "natural" comment, but apparently not. I'm always been a little skeptical when people start talking about what a "natural reading" is.
Anyway, in the end your analysis would seem to indicate that the writer of Hebrews is speaking of more than just a superficial experience. And I agree with that. But somebody who has not been justified can still have a profound experience as he interacts with the covenant community. So just what the nature of this experience amounts to is the question at hand I think. Our Catholic friends want to push this to a vital and saving relationship to preserve the systematic concerns of Rome's soteriology. But this creates all sorts of problems with other texts which (unlike Hebrews 6) are not inconclusive as to the referrant and say unequivocally that those in Christ will never perish. The Federal Vision guys start down this same road and then to varying degrees of success try to pull up before they are confronted with the Reformed systematic concerns that hit them pretty quickly. So most of us Reformed point out that what Hebrews is saying here is not conclusive as to the salvific state of the subjects being addressed. Now you seem to have attempted a via media by positing that the object of discussion could be someone who is truly saved and then resolve the obvious difficulties. Well if the inconclusive passage in Hebrews was made conclusive by other texts then I suppose we would need to deal with these difficulties. To me it seems like Hebrews is still not clear (as you concede). The thrust of the passage is that apostasy really happens to those who think they are safe, and we ought to take note. I don't think the passage was ever meant to be analyzed in terms of whether the people being addressed are justified or not.
- Andrew M
Whoops - No, that's wrong. You did not concede what I said you conceded above. Scratch the "concede" comment.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify my understanding of Fowler's main point: Invoking the use of reproachful irony saves us from having to explain away the seemingly-saving nature of the writer's language in vv. 4-6. "Participating in the powers of the age to come?" "Partaking of the Holy Spirit"? Sounds pretty saving, right? Well, the same is true of Jesus' description of the Jews as "children of the kingdom," but he clearly told them in that same verse that they would be cast out.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern is v. 9, which implies that the things listed in vv. 3-4 do not "belong to salvation."
I can't escape the feeling that Jas. 2 must be brought in to clarify, only I am worried about the implications.
JJS -
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern is v. 9, which implies that the things listed in vv. 3-4 do not "belong to salvation."
Couldn't the author have been referring to the immediately preceding image of the worthless ground, "near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned"? This is the closest reference to something that, though figurative, does not "belong to salvation." And if the author is dismissing everything that has been said till this point (v.9), he'd be dismissing the obviously positive image of the fruitful ground, too.
Thus we'd read v.9 like this: "Though we speak in this way [about the fate of the worthless ground], yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things -- things that belong to salvation."
This leaves us free to see at least some things belonging to salvation in the preceding verses, esp. 3-4.
Andrew M: It looks to me that we're talking passed each other. I'll have to ask that, if you want to understand the full argument, read the essay. But here's one last thought. Maybe if I cut to the chase it would help. I originally wrote the paper as a Calvinist responding to Arminians. I rewrote the core of the paper and applied it to the FV debate. The payoff for your concerns, which I share, is that, by recognizing the author's use of sarcasm, we are able to discern that, in the author's eyes, apostates were never actually savingly blessed. In this way, Hebrews 6 becomes one of many passages in the OT and NT showing us that, in administering His covenant, part of God’s rhetoric of reproach and rebuke is to bring reproach on the name of apostates by mocking their pretensions to blessedness with sarcasm. So JJS is on track with his summary of my main point.
ReplyDeleteJJS: I do feel the force of your observation about 6.9: it might be taken to imply that the things mentioned in 6.4-5 do not belong with the "better" things that belong to salvation in 6.9. To my understanding, this observation, made by Gill and others, has to assume that the “better things” in 6.9 must include things better than, not only the deeds of apostates in 6.6 and the curse on apostates in 6.8, but also the experiences attributed to apostates in 6.4-5. As Paige has already suggested, the assumption is not necessary: it is sufficient to see the contrast between the “things of apostasy” in 6.6, 8 and the “things of perseverance” in 6.10-12.
In this light, we might summarize 6.9 in the context of 5.11-6.12, as follows.
There is cause for concern about you (5.11-14): instead of going on to adulthood, some are going back again to childhood. So heed my call to go on to adulthood (6.1-3). “And this we will do if God permits.” But why heed the call? Heed the call because (gar) God will not permit those who fail to persevere in faith to be renewed again to repentance (6.4-6); He will curse them (6.7-8). Though we speak this way of apostates -- that is, though we describe what God cannot permit in the case of apostates in 6.4-8 -- we speak of better things, even things that accompany salvation, in your case. You are in a better state than apostates: there are reasons (gar) to take courage and have hope in your case (6.9-12). The first cause for courage and hope in your case is that God is just: He remembers your past ministry (6.9-12). The second cause for courage and hope in your case is that God is faithful: He keeps His promise and oath to His trusting, patient heirs, 6:13-20.
Dr. White,
ReplyDeleteSignificantly, one of those indirect contextual clues that an author who uses sarcasm can provide is the contradiction in his argument that results if sarcasm is not recognized.
Apart from any other objective feature indicating sarcasm, positing sarcasm as a harmonizing technique is bound to come across as pretty thin, because of the risk and ambiguity which you mention, which lends, especially in the case at hand, a certain ad hocishness to the rubric.
I appreciate your concerns. To see that and how I have anticipated them, it would be good for you to read the whole essay as it was presented. I'd like to think that it would demonstrate to you that I am not as naive as your comments suggest.
No, I have not read the article, and of course I assume that your argument there is sophisticated. But you do end up by imposing the sarcasm rubric on 6.4-5, right?
Undoubtedly, it is possible to use sarcasm in a sophisticated and / or otherwise hard to detect manner. You note the risks, and corresponding counter-measures, taken by an author thus employing "reproachful irony." So the question is, what measures can be discerned, in the text at hand, by which the author indicates to his readers that, in essence, those who commit apostasy actually have not "been enlightened ... tasted the heavenly gift ... become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and ... tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come"?
The only such indicator that you have hinted at (in this thread) would be that a sober truth reading of this bit would result in a contradiction within the author's argument. Where?
Just to clarify my understanding of Fowler's main point: Invoking the use of reproachful irony saves us from having to explain away the seemingly-saving nature of the writer's language in vv. 4-6. "Participating in the powers of the age to come?" "Partaking of the Holy Spirit"? Sounds pretty saving, right? Well, the same is true of Jesus' description of the Jews as "children of the kingdom," but he clearly told them in that same verse that they would be cast out.
ReplyDeleteJason,
Dr. White does not seem to think we are communicating so maybe I could ask you something.
First I agree with your point above. There are all sorts of experiencing of God's power and tasting/experiencing of God's glory in OT and NT. So where's the dilemma that we need to solve here?
But my question concerns whether or not the justified/redeemed status of the hearers is a matter that the text ever considers. We are being warned about apostasy and the writer is saying to us that no matter what someone might have experienced or what power of God they have witnessed (take for instance those unbelievers at Sinai who did more than just taste of the heavenly power of that which is to come) they could still apostatize. The proof of our being in Christ is that we continue in Christ and we can never sit back and take it easy. This is the message, sod why would we then need to ask the question at all concerning whether or not those addressed here are in the kingdom of God? Both believer and unbeliever can taste of the glory of God. The point in Hebrews is that none of us can ever take God's love for granted based on such evidence. Yes? No?
Andrew P: With all due respect, I am not at liberty to coopt someone else's blog to reproduce the full text of my argument. I have told you, and Jason has told you, where to find what I have written.
ReplyDeleteAnd ... close conversation.
ReplyDeletePaige/Fowler:
ReplyDeleteYes, what you've said is helpful (that what is contrasted with "things that accompany salvation" is not the blessings mentioned in vv. 4-6 but the cursing mentioned in v. 8). I'll have to think more on that.
Andrew M:
So if we needn't identify to whom exactly this warning is intended, how are we to read/preach it?
Andrew P:
I don't know what you're trying to say with that comment, but you're giving the impression that you're pouting because you've been told to read the essay under discussion since it addresses objections that you seem to think Dr. White hasn't considered. If I got you wrong, I'm sorry.
I am acknowledging that Dr. White does not intend to answer my questions, since he seems to presume that to do so would require recapitulating his entire essay, thus coopting this blog.
ReplyDeleteThat would obviously be a drag, but it is a strange presumption, since the questions I asked (What are the textual indicators that Paul is employing sarcasm? Where does the contradiction occur if we read 6.4-5 as the sober truth?) don't seem to require cutting and pasting an entire article in response.
I have no idea what objections Dr. White has or has not considered (apart from what he has divulged in his brief and lucid comments, above (!)), and make no assumptions in that regard. But it is strange that you would cite a bit of his article, ask for "Thoughts?" and then respond to (some of) those thoughts with: "You've been told to read the article."
Is "strange" the right word?
Anyway, the point of my interaction is not to fathom Dr. White's article, per se, but to figure out what are the reasons (as in, textual indicators) for the conclusion that Hebrews 6 is a case of "reproachful irony." You see, I am assuming that even if Dr. White's article is the last word on that line of inquiry, that last word is not trapped in the article, nor isomorphically identical to the text, such that the argument or bits of the argument in the article cannot be disclosed, say, in this combox, in pithy form. Isn't that the sort of thing you were doing in the original post?
So, at some risk of incurring another injunction (which is, of course, a false dilemma) along the lines of "read the article or be suspected of pouting," I ask again (anyone?):
What are the textual indicators that Paul is employing sarcasm in Hebrews 6?
Where does the contradiction, in the the author's argument, occur if we read 6.4-5 as the sober truth?
I don't have any answer to these questions (thus they are not rhetorical), and I have read the more fundamental document in question (the Epistle to the Hebrews) many times. Jason, you seem to have read Hebrews and R. F. White's article, so maybe you have some idea how to answer these questions. Plus, you brought it up (heh). Any thoughts?
So if we needn't identify to whom exactly this warning is intended, how are we to read/preach it?
ReplyDeleteYou preach it to everyone in the congregation, all those who have professed faith. I would hope and pray not, but some of those in your congregation may apostatize one day and you want to warn against the complacency that sometimes occurs in the minds of professing Christians. It seems to me that the Scripture warns against falling away to all of those in churches that profess apostolic faith.
So at this point we could try to analyze the statements of Hebrews to determine whether the writer is consciously addressing those who have been truly justified by Christ, but I am thinking that we are not supposed to do that. The warning goes to all. Some may fall away but (Lord willing) most will not.
Hi, Andrew P.,
ReplyDeleteIf I may, I think I can give a simple summary of Dr. White's insight into the use of "reproachful irony" (or sarcasm) in the Hebrews verses. (His readable article is unfortunately not available online, as far as I can tell, but I've just gotten ahold of a copy and will do my best to distill this point. To do it full justice would take a few more paragraphs, and I think Dr. White is generally reluctant to soapbox on blogs. Get him started on the state of education among Christians, though, and he can go for a while. ;)
Here's a sketch: When sarcasm is employed in the Scriptures, two things are apparent: (1) in the text, obviously contradictory things are said, one half of which is meant sarcastically; and (2) this strategy is employed by the writer or speaker to convey rebuke or reproach. Dr. White gives examples from the OT (e.g., Job 12:2; 38:5; Deut. 32:37 -- in which the Lord attributes the abilities to protect and help to idols) and the NT (e.g., Mt. 8:12; Mk. 2:17 -- "In context we know that Jesus hardly regards the scribes and Pharisees as kingdom heirs or righteous" [216]) as illustrations.
Turning to Hebrews 6 & 10 and 2 Peter 1&2, Dr. White notes that a major ostensible contradiction exists in the passages on apostasy: Those who are described as apostate and lost have also been designated (in the wider context of the books) as among those who have received eternal blessings. (For the sake of argument, he takes the view that the blessings listed in Heb. 6 reflect special graces.)
Without elaborating on each verse, here are those that support each side of the contradiction:
Attributing eternal benefits: Heb. 5:9; 6:4-6; 10:10, 14, 17; 2 Peter 1:9; 2:1, 20, 21
Attributing eternal punishment: Heb. 6:8; 10:27-31; 2 Peter 2:1-9.
And just a bit from the para on 2 Peter:
"Peter appears to contradict himself in that he implicitly assigns God's calling and election to apostates while explicitly consigning them to perdition...Peter is employing that figure of speech that was in use in the rhetoric of reproach and rebuke from the OT era into the NT period. He is, in a reproachfully ironic way, a sarcastic way, attributing saving blessings to apostates. Consequently, we are able to discern that, in Peter's eyes, as in the eyes of his covenantal forebears, apostates were never actually savingly blessed." (217)
I hope that fills in some blanks for you about Dr. White's thinking in this area!
pax,
pb
Andrew P,
ReplyDeleteWhat are the textual indicators that Paul is employing sarcasm in Hebrews 6?
Where does the contradiction, in the the author's argument, occur if we read 6.4-5 as the sober truth?
Speaking for myself and not Dr. White, I am not completely convinced that such indicators exist in the first place. For me, the whole thing hinges on whether the blessings of vv. 4-6 are saving or common. If they are saving, then I would conclude that the author is either employing sarcasm (which Paul and Jesus both do in similar contexts), or that he is teaching that we can lose our salvation. Because I reject that idea for other exegetical/theological reasons, I would opt for the sarcasm option (if indeed those blessings are saving). But it wouldn't be due to specific textual indicators of sarcasm. I hope that makes sense?
As far as the contradiction in the author's argument if we regard the blessings as saving, well, he says over and over again that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation, and this very chapter ends with about as assuring a conclusion as one could desire. The covenant God made with Abraham depends on God's faithfulness to his promise and oath (Gen. 15), and results in "strong consolation" and "hope as an anchor of the soul." None of that would result if God could adopt me and then turn me back in because it turned out I wasn't good enough.
Thanks, PB and Jason.
ReplyDeleteSo, I take it that if there were a (generally) plausible account of how one could enter into eternal, saving blessings, and then fall away from those blessings, then there would be little motivation for placing the sarcasm rubric here (and in Hebrews 10).
As you know, several such accounts are commonly held to exist, and the warnings in Hebrews 6 and 10, taken as the sober truth, are usually held as (specific) grounds for the thesis that one can enjoy, but subsequently fall away from, eternal, saving blessings. Thus, the "sarcasm solution" appears to be ad hoc, a mere punt to (Reformed) theology.
Certainly, sarcasm is used as a rhetorical device in Scripture. However, this fact alone does not justify me in interpreting, say, Romans 9 as a sarcastic disavowal of (particular) reprobation, simply on the basis that I have biblical/theological grounds (Romans 10) for affirming a universal mission of the Gospel.
My basic contention is this: A biblical exegesis that is sufficiently susceptible to the text, and a theology that is based upon that exegesis (rather than vice versa), cannot allow for imposing sarcasm rubrics (or any other device that overthrows the sober truth sense of the text) on the text, not when there are other plausible ways of resolving the perceived contradiction within the author's argument. This is true even if taking up one of those other ways involves significant restructuring of one's theological paradigm.
Of course, you both probably agree with that last bit, in principle.
Andrew P: Could you tell us where anyone here has made or defended the claim that "this fact alone" -- the fact that sarcasm is used as a rhetorical device in Scripture -- justifies interpreting any text as sarcastic disavowal? Also, could you tell us how one knows that sarcasm overthrows the sober truth sense of the text without having made a prior determination of what the sober truth sense of Heb 6 is?
ReplyDeleteRF White,
ReplyDelete(1) Nowhere. (2) By "sober truth" I mean an instance in which what a writer affirms is what he actually thinks is true, whereas when writing sarcastically, an author often affirms something that he does not believe to be true.
Thus far, the two bits of evidence adduced in favor of imposing the sarcasm rubric upon the text are:
A. Sometimes the sacred writers employee sarcasm.
B. If we don't assume that sarcasm is being used in Hebrews 6 and 10 (assuming that eternal, saving benefits are in view), then a contradiction ensues in the author's argument.
And my point is that if the only "indicator" of sarcasm is B, then, given the existence of other plausible means of harmonization, the fact of A is not sufficient grounds for denying what the sacred writer actually affirms.
In the other instances of "reproachful irony" cited to establish A, the sarcasm sort of shines through the narrative. Hebrews 6 and 10 are not like that. Hence, the suspicion of an ad hoc, theologically motivated, imposition of the rubric (which turns the sober truth of the text upside down).
Like I said before, if you are going to do that, best be darn sure before pulling the trigger.
Sarcasm
Please ignore the last word in the above comment. Must have been leftover, certainly not left there on purpose (maybe was a sort of Freudian self-reproach?).
ReplyDeleteAndrew P. --
ReplyDeleteOr was it a stage direction???
I don't think that the fact that the sacred writers employed sarcasm is adduced by Dr. White as a reason to read Heb. 6 & 10 via this rubric: though its prior use establishes a precedent, so that it is not a "novum," his intent in bringing up those other Scriptural examples was to explore the shape of reproachful irony when it is employed in the text. Having learned to recognize its tracks, so to speak, Dr. White then pointed out that the conceptual structure around the apostasy passages in Hebrews and 2 Peter demonstrated the same features of ostensible contradiction.
Now, in your view Dr. White has found hoofprints and declared a zebra where there was only a horse: maybe you could articulate what you feel is the best of the other plausible means of harmonization, and we can all compare notes. (I'm guessing that it's a little hard, either way, for any of us to offer harmonization here without seeming to speak only from our particular theological perspective; one of the strengths, I think, of Dr. White's approach is how "text-immanent" it is.)
Hey Paige,
ReplyDeleteI think its more like declaring a hyena where there was only an elephant.
As for harmonization, we need first to establish the contradiction in, as Jason has it: (1) Folks enjoying saving blessings and subsequently falling away, and (2)"The covenant God made with Abraham depend[ing] on God's faithfulness to his promise and oath (Gen. 15), and result[ing] in 'strong consolation' and 'hope as an anchor of the soul.'"
Obviously, if these things are not contradictory, then there is no need for harmonization.
So far as I can tell, these things are not contradictory.
Ha.
ReplyDeleteWell, right, if there is no contradiction then there's not much similarity between species. But this means that the discussion is really much larger than just the texts at hand: it's really about theological systems first.
This warning as all the book of Hebrews is addressed to a mixed multitude as are all the epistles. He is warning Hebrew professors of Christianity who were being tempted to reject the new covenant and return to the old covenant, and if they did so there would be no other sacrifice or atonemnt for them as the NC is the only way. He is not saying Christians could apostasize, as those who have real faith have the things which accompany salvation.
ReplyDelete