4 warnings in hebrew- FOUR, plus appendices, via LAD Rosenkranz

Four

A MODERATE REFORMED VIEW

Randall C. Gleason

The interpretative history of the warnings in Hebrews has lacked consensus since the days of the early church. While Novatian used Hebrews 6:6 to deny restoration of those who had lapsed under persecution, John Chrysostom argued that it taught the impossibility of re-baptism. Calvin taught that these warnings applied to the “unforgivable sin” committed by unbelievers against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31–32). Remarkably Arminius agreed with Calvin.2 Wesley, on the other hand, applied the warnings to “willful, total apostates” who “lost their faith, hope, and love,” making it “impossible to renew them again to repentance.” Since then many have wrestled through the book of Hebrews to establish their views on the security and perseverance of believers.
Although I hold no naïve expectation that my own analysis will resolve the long-standing impasse between the major interpretive traditions, I hope my contribution will move the dialogue in new directions that will lead some to a more satisfying understanding of these difficult texts. In spite of my Reformed convictions, my own study of the warning passages in light of their Old Testament background differs significantly from other Reformed interpretations. I believe that the severe warnings in Hebrews were addressed to genuine Jewish believers facing persecution by their countrymen prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. The immediate threat of God’s judgment upon the Jewish nation was real. As the author warned his audience of this imminent danger, he reassured them of the finality and completeness of their purification and cleansing (Heb. 10:10, 14) by appealing to the new covenant promises of Jeremiah (8:12; 10:17). If they continued steadfast in their faith, they would avoid the divine judgment predicted by Jesus that would soon fall upon their Jewish persecutors (Matt. 23:37–24:28; Mark 13:1–32; Luke 21:5–36). But if they drifted from their confidence in Christ and sought, instead, cleansing through the obsolete forms of the old covenant, they would fail to experience the blessings of the new covenant and instead receive the discipline as sons, a judgment far worse than they could have imagined.

The Historical Setting of Hebrews

In order to avoid reading into these texts various interpretations shaped by our theological traditions, I feel that it is critically important to exhaust our understanding of the original context of the book. Although the identity of the author remains a mystery, the fact that he addressed a distinct Christian community (5:11–12; 6:10; 10:25) facing a particular set of circumstances (10:32–34; 12:4; 13:3, 7, 23) provides significant clues to their identity and the date and setting of his epistle. Although a few hold to a late first-century date, most find compelling evidence that the epistle was composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. First and foremost are the references to the Jewish sacrificial system that indicate the temple was still operational.6 The description of the readers as “holy brethren” (3:1), “partakers of Christ” (3:14), “beloved” (6:9), and the frequent use of “we” (e.g., 2:1–3; 4:14–16) and “us” (e.g., 4:1, 11, 16) indicates that the author considered them fellow believers. Some claim the warnings are parenthetical to the main message and are intended only for unbelievers mixed in among a Christian congregation. However, this seems unlikely since the strongest indications of a genuinely Christian audience occur within the warning passages. This is particularly true in Hebrews 10 where their “confession” is linked to their baptism when their “hearts [were] sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and [their] bodies washed with pure water” (10:22–23 NASB).8 The author warns the readers (including himself—“we”) who had “received the knowledge of the truth” (10:26) and been “enlightened” (10:32; cf. 6:4). Rather than indicate a mere superficial knowledge of Christianity, such language describes the turning point when they came to genuine faith in Christ. The author confirms the genuineness of their conversion by warning each one not to regard “as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” (10:29 NASB).10 Furthermore, the warning from Deuteronomy 32:36 that “the Lord will judge his people” (10:30) points back to the severe physical punishment promised to genuine Old Testament saints for covenant unfaithfulness.
That they were predominantly Jewish believers is indicated by the author’s emphasis upon the Jewish sacrifices and covenantal system (Heb. 7–10). His call to seek a heavenly city (Heb. 11:10; 12:22; 13:14) by going “outside the camp” where “Jesus … suffered” (13:11–13) also suggests a Jewish audience living in Palestine not far from Jerusalem.
Another important clue to the spiritual condition of the readers is found in Hebrews 5:11–14. The author realized that many of his readers would have difficulty understanding what he was about to teach concerning Melchizedek because they had “become dull of hearing” (5:11). Since “hearing” is often equated with obedience in the New Testament (e.g., Rev. 2:7), their sluggishness to hear and obey hindered their ability to understand. Though earlier they were taught sufficient truth “to be teachers,” many “again” had “come to need milk” (v. 12). They were now “unacquainted” (ἄπειρος) with “the word of righteousness” (v. 13) because of their failure to put it into practice. Rather than call them to spiritual rebirth, the author exhorts these spiritual “babes” to “press on to maturity” (6:1).

The Old Testament Background of Hebrews

Although many have discussed the author’s use of Old Testament citations in Hebrews, few have considered their relevance to the meaning and application of the warnings. I believe that the author’s rich use of Old Testament citations and allusions are vital to a proper understanding of the spiritual condition of those warned, the danger of “falling away” (3:12), the impossibility of “repentance” (6:6), and the nature of the coming judgment (6:8; 10:27–31; 12:25–29). Greg Beale observes that New Testament authors practiced a “contextual exegesis” by “quoting individual references as signposts to the broad redemptive-historical theme(s) from [their] immediate and larger OT context.”15 R. T. France demonstrates how the author of Hebrews does this “by drawing [Old Testament texts] into association with other related Old Testament ideas … to produce a richer and more satisfying diet of biblical theology than could be provided by a mere collection of proof-texts.” Hence, the theology of the Old Testament is crucial to understanding not only the author’s Old Testament citations but also his allusions to Old Testament narratives to warn his readers.

Old Testament Typology in Hebrews

Although the author uses the vocabulary of “type” only twice in Hebrews (8:5; 9:24), typology is his primary way of applying Jewish Scripture to his contemporary audience. Biblical typology is based on patterns of correspondence between historical “persons, actions, events, and institutions” within the redemptive activity of God throughout biblical history.18 It is based upon the assumption that God follows consistent patterns in dealing with his people, resulting in true historical and theological correspondences throughout redemptive history. A lack of real correspondence between an earlier type and its later antitype would result in fanciful interpretations and trivialize the narrative theology of Old Testament examples. Hence, the rhetorical success and logical connection of the typological relationship used by the New Testament author depends directly upon the genuineness of their theological correspondence.
The aspect of escalation, or heightening, is often listed as another defining characteristic of typology. This is clearly present in Hebrews, where the author often uses typology to argue from lesser to greater (e.g., 3:3; 7:15; 8:6; 9:11, 23). However, the interpreter must be cautious not to “heighten” the meaning of the later antitype in a way that obscures its genuine historical and theological correspondence to the earlier type. Most important to the warnings is the writer’s use of the Exodus generation as a type of the Christian community to which he was writing. In each warning, examples from the Exodus are used to drive home the danger of the present threat to his readers. Because of the author’s explicit reference to the rebellion of the Exodus generation in Hebrews 3–4, many have recognized the vital role of the events of Kadesh-Barnea in deciphering the meaning of the warning in Hebrews 3:12–14. However, few commentaries have recognized the allusions to the events of the Exodus in the other warning passages. This is significant because in each warning the spiritual condition, “falling away,” and judgment of the Exodus generation provides important clues to the spiritual condition, potential “falling away,” and judgment of those warned.

The Exodus Generation in Hebrews

Beginning in Hebrews 2:2–3, the author warns his readers of the “just recompense” that came upon the Exodus generation for their spiritual negligence and disobedience. In Hebrews 3–4 the author again warns them against having “an evil, unbelieving heart” (3:12) similar to the Exodus generation (3:7–11). They must “take care” lest they fall away from the living God (3:12) the same way the Israelites did when they “provoked” the Lord in the wilderness (3:8, 16). After his excursus on the superiority of the Son’s high priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek (4:14–5:10), the author returns again to the events of the Exodus in his warning in chapter 6. Echoes of the experiences of the wilderness generation in 6:4 are strong: “enlightened” = pillar of fire; “tasted of the heavenly gift” = manna; “partakers of the Holy Spirit” = the Spirit coming upon the seventy elders (Num. 11:16–30); “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (NASB) = receiving of the law of Moses confirmed by signs. References to the “tabernacle” (σκηνή) rather than the temple as the place of service for the Levitical priesthood throughout Hebrews 8 and 9 also point back to the conditions in the wilderness. In chapter 10, the allusions to the “willful sin” (v. 26) of Numbers 15:30–36, the “two or three witnesses” for a capital offense (v. 28) from Deuteronomy 17:6, and the citation (v. 30) from Deuteronomy 32:35–36 all keep the events of the Exodus in view. After including Moses and the Exodus generation among the examples of the faithful in chapter 11 (vv. 23–29), the author introduces his final warning by alluding to the Israelites’ terrifying arrival at Mount Sinai in chapter 12 (vv. 18–21). Finally in chapter 13, his exhortation to “go … outside the camp” (v. 13) compares the suffering and reproach of Christ to the sacrificed animals “burned outside the camp” of Israel in the wilderness (v. 11). By using the events of the Exodus as his primary motif throughout the epistle, the author provides an important interpretive key to the meaning and application of his warnings.

The Redeemed Status of the Exodus Generation

Because of their typological relationship to the Exodus generation, I consider those warned in Hebrews to be genuine believers in danger of forfeiting covenant blessings and of undergoing the physical discipline of God while escaping final judgment. The basis for this understanding is that despite their unbelief and rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea, the Exodus generation was a redeemed people.
The evidence for this begins with Moses and Aaron’s first report that the Lord would deliver them. Upon hearing Aaron’s report confirmed by miraculous signs, “the people believed” and “bowed low and worshiped” (Exod. 4:30–31 NASB). The significance of this initial act of faith by the people should not be overlooked for several reasons.
First, the Hiphil form of אמן, translated “believed,” became a technical term to express genuine faith in the Old Testament. Second, the six occurrences of “believe” (אמן) in Exodus 4 mark the people’s faith as a central theme of the chapter. Third, the genuineness of the people’s faith is evidenced not only by their immediate worship (4:31; 12:27), but also by their obedience. In response to the specific commands regarding the preparation of the Passover sacrifice, the author emphatically declares twice that all the sons of Israel “did just as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron” (Exod. 12:28, 50). Fourth, in response to their fear of attack by the Egyptians, the Lord promised them “salvation” (Exod. 14:13). Here יְשׁוּעַת is used only for the second time in the Old Testament to promise their deliverance. Following their rescue, the author declares that the Lord indeed “saved (וַיּוֹשַׁע) Israel that day” (Exod. 14:30).
Fifth, in response to their deliverance, the text again declares, “They believed (וַיַּאֲמִינוּ) in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Exod. 14:30–31 NASB). Here the Hiphil form of אמ ן, with the preposition “in” (ב) denotes their entrance into a relationship of trust in Yahweh as it did in Genesis 15:6, “[Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (NASB).27 Sixth, the Song of Moses that immediately follows the account of the Red Sea crossing offers an important interpretation of the event and confirms the faith response of the people. The song describes the event as their “salvation” (Exod. 15:2) by which they were “redeemed” (v. 13) and “purchased” (v. 16). Seventh, the intertextual use of their deliverance elsewhere in the Old Testament declares that, though they sinned (Ps. 106:6), forgot God’s works and kindness, and later rebelled (v. 7), the Lord “redeemed” (Pss. 78:42; 106:10; Isa. 63:9), “saved” (Ps. 106:8, 10; Isa. 63:8–9), and forgave them (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 78:38; 99:8). Eighth, the establishment of the Sinai covenant (Exod. 24:1–9) with the people of Israel also indicates their redeemed status. For the giving of the law was never intended to provide a means of salvation but presupposed faith and therefore was given to an already redeemed people.
Later in Hebrews 11 the author confirms the redeemed status of the Exodus generation. With the events of Exodus 14:30–31 clearly in mind, he commends them for their exemplary faith, declaring “By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land” (v. 29 NASB). Hence, like Noah, Abraham, and Moses, the author includes the Exodus generation among those who had “gained approval through their faith” (v. 39 NASB).

The Sin of the Exodus Generation and Hebrews 3–4

The author uses numerous terms throughout Hebrews 3–4 to describe the sin of the Israelites in the wilderness. Citing Psalm 95 (Ps. 94 LXX), the author identifies the hardening of their hearts with their “rebellion” at Meribah and “testing” at Massah (Heb. 3:8–9; cf. Exod. 17:7). He also had in view their rebellion following the return of the spies to Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 14), as evidenced by his repeated reference to God’s oath (Heb. 3:11, 18; 4:3; cf. Num. 14:21, 28) and his warning that their “bodies fell in the wilderness” (Heb. 3:17; 4:11; cf. Num. 14:29, 32–33). Therefore the sin (Heb. 3:17) of unbelief (3:12, 19; 4:2) and disobedience (3:18; 4:6, 11) warned against in Hebrews 3–4 must be understood in light of Israel’s “rebellion” (Num. 14:9; Deut. 9:23–24) and unbelief (Num. 14:11) at Kadesh-Barnea.
The warning against “an evil, unbelieving heart” and “falling away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12) is often understood as “a willful rejection of salvation” tantamount to a complete apostasy from faith in God. However, it is best to determine the meaning of ἀποστῆναι (“to fall away”) in light of Moses’ warning to the people at Kadesh-Barnea, “Do not rebel (ἀποστάται) against the Lord” (Num. 14:9 LXX). The adjective πονηρός (“evil”) is used twice to describe the “evil congregation” in Numbers 14 (vv. 27, 35 LXX) but nowhere else in the Pentateuch. The adjective ἀπιστίας (“unbelieving,” Heb. 3:12) again echoes back to the Lord’s question to Moses at Kadesh, “How long will they not believe in Me?” (Num. 14:11 NASB; cf. Deut. 1:32; 9:23; Ps. 106:24). The title “living God” (θεοῦ ζῶντος) echoes back to the time when Yahweh renewed the terms of blessing and discipline to the survivors of the Exodus in Deuteronomy (4:33; 5:26). In summary, the New Testament readers are cautioned not against a complete absence of faith in God but more specifically against the failure to believe that God would sustain their lives in the face of impending danger (cf. Exod. 14:7–9).
Also the unbelief of the people at Kadesh-Barnea must be understood in light of the equally disastrous sins of Moses and Aaron. This is most apparent in Numbers 20, where the death of Miriam (v. 1) and the death sentence on Moses and Aaron (vv. 12, 24) serve to reinforce the point that none of the adults delivered from Egypt, except Joshua and Caleb, would enter the Promised Land. Moses and Aaron received exactly the same punishment as the people because they committed the same transgression. This is indicated by the fact that the “unbelief” (“because you have not believed,” לֹא־האֱמַנְתֶּם) and “rebellion” (“because you rebelled,” מְרִיתֶם) of Moses and Aaron (Num. 20:12, 24) are the same Hebrew words used to describe the sin of the people in Numbers 14:9–11 (cf. Deut. 9:23–24).
The sins of Moses and Aaron are typically regarded as minor in comparison to the magnitude of the sin of the people. However, the words and behavior of Moses are reported as a most serious desecration of Yahweh’s holiness and reputation in Numbers 20:10–12. Moses spoke in anger to the people, “Listen now, you rebels; shall we [i.e., I and Yahweh] bring forth water for you out of this rock?” (Num. 20:10 NASB). His rhetorical question implied doubt (i.e., “unbelief”) whether God genuinely intended to provide water for the people because he deemed them unworthy to receive it. The gravity of Moses’ sin is seen not only in his use of the pronoun “we,” which equated his role with God’s, but also in his questioning God’s clear command to provide water for his people (Num. 20:8, 24). The fact that Moses and Aaron received the same punishment as the other “rebels” who died in the wilderness indicates that “exactly the same” sin was committed by all.
Also, the same place name, “Kadesh,” suggests the Old Testament author’s intention to liken the sin of the people in Numbers 14 to the sin of Moses and Aaron (Num. 13:26; 20:1). The sin of the Exodus generation was a growing lack of trust in God’s life-sustaining presence (Exod. 17:7) to provide for their needs (Num. 11:4–6; 18–23; 14:7–9). Their sin culminated in their decisive refusal to trust God to bring them into the land and overcome its inhabitants (Num. 14:8–10). Their sin was certainly grievous! But it was not a total and final rejection of faith in God, incurring eternal condemnation for the following reasons. First, the Lord “pardoned them” in response to Moses’ plea (Num. 14:20). Note that Moses requested God to pardon Israel’s “iniquity … according to the greatness of Your lovingkindness, just as You also have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now” (v. 19 NASB). When God “pardoned them according to [Moses’] word” (v. 20 NASB), he declared their forgiveness was complete as Moses had requested. Second, in response to the Lord’s oath of judgment on them, “the people mourned greatly” (v. 39). The next day they confessed, “We have indeed sinned,” and they attempted to possess the land the Lord had promised (v. 40). Though their confession and resolve to enter the land was now too late, their response is hardly representative of a people who had totally renounced belief in God. Third, their redemption (i.e., salvation) from Egypt was not forfeited because they were never allowed to return to their former bondage under Pharaoh. Instead, God “carried” them along in the wilderness “as a man carries his son” (Deut. 1:31). Finally, since their sin is identical in description and punishment to that of Moses and Aaron, it must be regarded as the same. Therefore, since no one considers the sin of Moses and Aaron as total apostasy thereby incurring eternal destruction, neither should the sins of the people be regarded as such.

The Old Testament Concept of “Rest” in Hebrews 3–4

The writer to the Hebrews appeals to the Old Testament concept of rest to warn his readers against the sin of the Exodus generation (3:7–13) that ultimately ended in their loss of physical life (vv. 14–19). The Old Testament concept of “rest” is expressed by two Hebrew words. The first is the Hebrew noun מנוְּחָה used in Psalm 95:11 to denote Yahweh’s “resting place” on Zion (Ps. 132:8, 13–14; Isa. 11:10) in the temple (1 Chron. 28:2; cf. 2 Chron. 6:41) as a synonym for his throne (Isa. 66:1). The second is the Hebrew verb Shabbat (וַיִּשְׁבֹּת, “and he rested”) signifying God’s rest following his creative work (Gen. 2:2; cf. Heb. 4:4, 10). When the author of Hebrews calls this primordial rest σαββατισμός (4:9), he refers not to the Sabbath day but rather “to the Sabbath celebration.” The emphasis was not upon the cessation of daily activities but rather upon an unhindered opportunity for Israel to celebrate God’s life-sustaining presence among them (Exod. 31:12–16; 2 Macc. 8:27). God’s rest was first experienced in the Garden of Eden, then in the tabernacle, then in the land (specifically Zion), and finally in the Solomonic temple. In each case, the celebration of Yahweh’s presence and enjoyment of covenant blessings was jeopardized by covenant unfaithfulness. For his disobedience, Adam was excluded from the place of covenant blessing in the Garden. Likewise, due to their rebellion the people, along with Moses, Miriam, and Aaron, were refused entrance into the land of blessing. Their failure to experience God’s rest in the land did not affect their deliverance and redemption as the people of God, but it did prevent them from enjoying the fullness of covenant blessings in the land.
The author of Hebrews argues that God’s “resting-place” remains available to his readers through Jesus Christ, who “sat down” at the right hand of God’s heavenly throne (1:3, 8:1; 10:12; 12:2) to serve as their “High Priest” (3:1; 4:14; 7:25–8:2; 9:11–15, 23–26; 10:19–22). If they remain faithful (3:6, 14), though the earthly temple is “ready to disappear” (8:13), the readers can still “enter his resting-place” (4:1, 3, 10–11) by drawing “near with confidence to the throne of grace” to receive “help” (4:16), “blessing” (6:7), and “reward” (10:35; 11:6), as well as to “continually offer up” sacrifices of “praise” and good works (13:15–16). However, if they refuse to trust in God’s life-sustaining presence mediated by Jesus Christ their High Priest, they could forfeit the joy of God’s presence as a “resting-place” of blessing and Sabbath celebration. Instead, God’s presence would become to them a place where sins are exposed (4:12–13), punishment is given (3:17; 10:29–31), rewards are lost (10:35–39), and discipline is received (12:4–11).

The Exodus Generation in Hebrews 6:4–5

The author used four substantival participles in Hebrews 6:4–5 to identify the spiritual condition of the readers with that of the Exodus generation. The article “the” (τούς) modifies all four participles, indicating that they are all intended to describe one group. Also, the term “once” (ἅπαξ) modifies all four participles, signifying that each occurred “once for all.”
First, they are described as “enlightened” (φωτισθέντας). The same passive verb is used in Hebrews 10:32 to refer to the beginning of the readers’ Christian experience when they had been “enlightened.” This parallels the cloud by day and fire by night that marked the beginning of Israel’s exodus out of Egypt, giving them “light, that they might travel by day and by night” (Exod. 13:21 NASB). The Old Testament later echoes the purpose of the pillar of fire to “enlighten” (φωτίζω) the Exodus generation on their way to Sinai (Neh. 9:12; Ps. 105:39 [104:19] LXX).
Second, they had “tasted of the heavenly gift” (Heb. 6:4). This corresponds to the manna from heaven eaten by the Exodus generation. Since Jesus compared himself to the manna of Moses (e.g., John 6:32–33), it is best to understand the “heavenly gift” as a reference to Christ himself.
Third, the readers, like the Israelites of the Exodus, had “been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 6:4 NASB). The word “partaker” (μετόχους) consistently refers in the New Testament to a genuine sharing or participation (e.g., Heb. 2:14) and therefore denotes a genuine experience of the Holy Spirit that accompanies spiritual enlightenment. That the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Num. 11:16–30) was also among the defining features of the Exodus experience is confirmed by its frequent mention in later Old Testament accounts of Israel’s deliverance (e.g., Neh. 9:20; Isa. 63:11, 14; Hag. 2:5).
Fourth, the readers had “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5 NASB). This again echoes the Exodus generation, who “believed … the Lord” and “bowed low and worshiped” after they had heard “the words which the Lord had spoken to Moses” and seen “the signs” he performed (Exod. 4:30–31). Likewise, the readers of Hebrews had received “the word … first spoken through the Lord” after “it was confirmed to us … by signs and wonders and various powers” (2:3–4).
In summary, the experiences of those described in Hebrews 6:4–5 indicate that those in danger of “falling away” were genuine believers like the Exodus generation. Instead of pressing “on to maturity,” the New Testament readers were in danger of retrogressing back into spiritual infancy like the Exodus generation.

Kadesh-Barnea and the Sin of Hebrews 6:6

The “falling away” that could place the readers beyond the possibility of repentance is designated in Hebrews 6:6 by the Greek participle παραπεσόντας, found only here in the New Testament. Because it lacks any modifier, its precise meaning is difficult to determine from the immediate context. Many understand “falling away” (παραπίπτω) to refer to complete apostasy from the faith. However, this view ignores the problem of slothfulness discussed earlier in Hebrews 5:11–13. The readers were not in danger of completely giving up all belief in Christ, in spite of the warning that they could “again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame” (6:6 NASB). Their immediate problem was rather a passive drifting away from the word of Christ (2:1), a persistent sluggishness to press on to maturity (5:11–6:2), and an avoidance of fellowship with other believers (10:25) for fear of persecution from the Jews (10:32–34). Rather than total rejection of Christ, they faced the danger of falling into a permanent state of immaturity through a willful “once for all” (ἅπαξ) refusal to trust God to deliver them from their present troubles. Furthermore, “falling away” (παραπίπτω) is most often used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word מַעַל meaning “to act unfaithfully” (e.g., Ezek. 14:13; 15:8; 18:24; 20:27). In summary, “falling away” does not express the idea of an absolute apostasy involving a complete turning away from all belief in God. It is not a mild term for sin; it denotes a serious act of unfaithfulness toward God. But the exact nature of the unfaithfulness must be determined from the broader context.

A Decisive Refusal to Mature

The argument of Hebrews suggests that “falling away” (παραπίπτω) denotes a general state of spiritual retrogression entered through a decisive refusal to trust and obey God. The only other sin mentioned in the near context is that the readers had “become dull (νωθρός) of hearing” (5:11), referring to their reluctance to put into practice what they had been taught (vv. 13–14). The force of the perfect verb (γεγόνατε) in Hebrews 5:11 indicates they had been slow to hear for some time. But in Hebrews 6:12, the author warns them against a general “sluggishness” (νωθρός) throughout their lives. They were still evidencing some obedience through their ongoing ministry to the saints (v. 10), but the author warned them that the time could come when their slowness to obey would settle into a general state of retrogression. Hence the sin of “falling away” (παραπίπτω) is more than merely “sluggishness of hearing”; it is coming to a decisive point when one refused “once for all” (ἅπαξ) to press on to maturity. The sin of “falling away” in Hebrews echoes the experience of the Israelites “who fell (ἔπεσεν) in the wilderness” (3:17; cf. 4:11). When the Israelites arrived at Kadesh, they paused and sent spies into the land because they did not trust God’s promise that the land was theirs to possess. When the scouts returned, the majority reported that Canaan was populated by giants living in cities with impregnable walls. In spite of the efforts of Joshua and Caleb, the people believed the worst. At that moment they decided to reject the leadership of Moses and refused to enter and possess the land (Num. 14:1–10).

The Impossibility of Renewing Them to Repentance

As the Israelites refused to obey the voice of the Lord (Num. 14:22) and act according to his promises (Exod. 23:27–31; 33:1–2), so too the New Testament readers were in danger of refusing to “press on to maturity” (Heb. 6:1). Though the Israelites changed their minds and tried to enter the land the next day (Num. 14:39–45), they were not permitted to repent of their decision to turn back to Egypt. Similarly, with the readers of Hebrews there was the question of whether God would permit them to go on to maturity (“This we shall do, if God permits,” 6:3), for once they decided to “fall away,” it would be “impossible to renew them to repentance” (6:6).
In response to God’s refusal to allow the Exodus generation at Kadesh to enter the land, “the people mourned greatly” (Num. 14:39). The following day they awoke early and declared, “We have indeed sinned, but we will go up to the place which the Lord has promised” (v. 40 NASB). Ignoring Moses’ warning, they attempted to enter the land but were crushed by its inhabitants (vv. 41–45). Their inability to repent did not mean God was unwilling to forgive them, for after Moses’ plea God declared, “I have pardoned them according to your word” (v. 20 NASB). Rather, God denied them the blessing of rest in the land in order to discipline them in the wilderness. If they had obeyed God and entered the land, the people of Israel would have experienced the physical blessings of the “land flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 33:3). On the one hand, those who do not “fall away” are like the land that “brings forth” useful vegetation and the result is they “receive a blessing” (Heb. 6:7). On the other hand, those who do “fall away” forfeit God’s blessings.
Therefore, in the context “repentance” would allow one to be renewed to a place of “blessing” and “rest.” To be unable to repent is to be denied God’s blessing. This is also illustrated by Esau, who sought “repentance … with tears,” yet was denied “the blessing” (Heb. 12:17). Therefore believers who, like the Exodus generation, “fall away,” may be denied the repentance that could renew them to a place of blessing. In summary, the author’s point is not that his readers could not be saved again, but that once they decided to persist in their immaturity and lack of faith, God would not permit them to change their mind in order to avoid divine discipline and the loss of covenant blessings.

“Crucify … the Son of God and Put Him to Open Shame” (Heb. 6:6)

The writer warned his audience not only against forfeiting their opportunity for repentance and blessing, as the Exodus generation had done, but also against the additional guilt of crucifying “to themselves the Son of God, and [putting] him to open shame” (6:6 NASB).36 Some have suggested that the two adverbial participles translated “crucify” and “put to open shame” are to be taken temporally, expressing the idea that those who have fallen away could not be renewed to repentance while they were crucifying the Son of God. Once they stopped, they could be renewed to repentance. However, this goes against the force of the term “impossible” and does not fit the parallel to the events at Kadesh-Barnea, where the children of Israel tried to repent the next day but could not. Instead, it is best to view these participles as causal,38 describing why it is impossible for believers to be renewed to repentance.
Many have understood the participle ἀνασταυροῦντας not to mean “recrucify” or “crucify again” but rather simply “crucify,” as it was commonly understood in other Greek sources. In that case the warning is not against crucifying Christ “again,” but rather against reducing Christ’s death to the level of a common criminal execution, as the Jewish leaders had originally intended. A public return to the animal sacrifices of the Levitical system would in effect empty Christ’s sacrifice of its redemptive value (cf. Heb. 7:26–27; 10:26). The author could not have expressed in stronger terms the seriousness of his readers’ failure to press on to maturity. Though they thought their quiet return to Judaism would be harmless, by showing solidarity with the temple cult they would be identifying themselves with the Jewish leaders who had originally cried out, “Crucify him!” The expression “put him to open shame” does not mean that in order to “fall away” one must publicly speak out blasphemous and irreverent things about Jesus Christ. Their quiet return to the temple sacrifices was enough to suggest to their fellow Jews that Christ’s crucifixion no longer provided purification for their sins. Though their retreat back into Judaism was meant to be private, it would bring public disgrace on Christ by diminishing the significance of his sacrificial death.

The Willful Sin (Heb. 10:26)

Many have recognized the warning against “sinning willfully” in Hebrews 10:26 as an allusion to the defiant sin of Numbers 15:30–31 and the presumptuous sin of Deuteronomy 17:12. The word willfully (ἑκουσίως) denotes the deliberate intent to disregard God’s law. This is illustrated in the context of Numbers 15 with the example of the man found picking up sticks on the Sabbath (vv. 32–36). Since his action was a clear violation of the Sabbath law, the penalty was severe: “the person shall be cut off,” that is, “put to death” (Exod. 31:14–15). In the warning of Hebrews, the author clearly has this physical penalty in mind because he mentions in the following verse the need for “two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28) to confirm a capital offense (cf. Deut. 17:6). Far from a public repudiation of belief in Christ, the sin in view denotes any deliberate act of covenant unfaithfulness, including in the Old Testament context even the seemingly harmless act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The gravity of the sin is determined by the defiant attitude with which it is committed. However, the penalty is not eternal damnation but rather physical punishment resulting in death.

“Trampling Under Foot the Son of God” (Heb. 10:29)

The word “trample” (καταπατέω) is used elsewhere in the New Testament to denote treating something of great value as if it were worthless (e.g., pearls before swine, Matt. 7:6) or powerless (e.g., unsavory salt, Matt. 5:13; unproductive seed, Luke 8:5). The title “Son of God” as used in Hebrews recalls the unique status of Christ as God’s final revelation (1:2), the great High Priest (4:14; 7:3) who secured permanent cleansing through his “perfect” sacrifice (5:9; 7:28). Therefore, failure to acknowledge Christ’s unique superiority over other revelations (e.g., the Mosaic law), priests (e.g., Levites), or sacrifices (e.g., of bulls and goats) was in effect to “trample under foot the Son of God.” This meaning is confirmed by the second warning against regarding “as unclean the blood of the covenant.”
The Greek term “unclean” (κοινός) could be used in the sense of “common”; thus the warning would be not to treat “the blood of the covenant” as a common sacrifice like the others offered by human priests. Or it may be understood in the Old Testament sense of “cultic impurity,” implying that Christ’s sacrifice could not provide final purification for sins. In either case, it does not suggest a total repudiation of Christ but rather treating his sacrifice as if it had no more cleansing value than other sacrifices. Since in the context of Hebrews, the Spirit is the one who “offered the blood of Christ without blemish to God” (9:14) and “bears witness” to the superiority of his revelation (2:3–4) and covenant (10:15), to degrade such things by returning to Judaism would “outrage” (ἐνυβρίζω) the Spirit, thereby incurring God’s discipline (10:29).

The Nature of the Judgment

The warnings in Hebrews become increasingly more severe, culminating in the threat of fiery judgment that “will consume the adversaries” (10:27) and bring “destruction” (10:39). Many link this judgment to the “second” coming of Christ (9:28) and therefore assume that Hebrews warns of “final judgment” resulting in “eternal damnation” (9:27). Others regard the warnings as referring to severe physical punishment leading to loss of life but not eternal judgment.42 This would explain the conspicuous absence of “damnation” terminology commonly found throughout the New Testament and contemporary Jewish literature. When speaking of final judgment, Jesus warns of the “unquenchable fire of hell” (Matt. 5:22; 18:9; Mark 9:43–48), “eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8; 25:41), and “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). Similarly, other New Testament authors speak of “eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9) and “punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). In light of the frequent use of the term “eternal” (αἰώνιος) throughout Hebrews (5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20), its absence in the warning passages is significant, particularly if the author intended to warn his readers against the finality of judgment in the life to come. Final judgment mentioned in Hebrews 9:27 occurs after death (“it is appointed for men to die once and after this [comes] judgment”) and therefore should be distinguished from the immediate threat the readers “see … drawing near” in their present circumstances (10:25).
Some understand the author’s warnings in light of the coming Roman invasion of Palestine that would soon bring an end to the temple sacrifices (8:13) and the destruction of Jerusalem (13:14). If so, he could be warning his readers of physical harm or even death if they seek refuge in Judaism and its link to Jewish nationalism.
The author of Hebrews gives subtle warnings of this coming crisis throughout his letter. In particular, his warning that the unproductive “land” (γῆ) is “close to being cursed” (6:8) is best understood as a reference to the impending destruction of the Jewish homeland. The Jewish leaders had produced “thorns and thistles” by their rejection and crucifixion of Christ, and therefore their nation was doomed to be “burned” (6:8). The author’s claim that the old covenant was “near to destruction” (8:13) likewise anticipated the annihilation of the priests, sacrifices, and temple. His prediction that Christ was coming (10:5) to “take away,” or “destroy,” all the symbols of “the first” covenant (10:9) serves as a fitting allusion to the imminent crisis coming upon Israel, for the transition from the first to the second covenant was dramatically finalized in 70 C.E. when the Romans executed the priests, burned the temple, and removed its contents from the land. These themes of an imminent judgment are strong indications that the epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Consuming Fire (Heb. 10:27)

The author clarifies the “terrifying” nature of the coming “judgment” by citing Isaiah 26:11. A close examination of the Old Testament context reveals that Isaiah’s warning corresponds well to the threats facing first-century Jews living in the land of Israel. The judgment beginning in Isaiah 24 declares that the Lord will “lay waste,” “devastate” (v. 1), and “consume” (v. 6) the land because the people of the land (i.e., the Jews) have “disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant” (v. 5 NIV).52 Furthermore, the “curse” upon the land will also “burn” its inhabitants (i.e., the Jews) because they are “held guilty” (v. 6 NASB). Hence, the wider context of Isaiah 26 indicates the consuming fire does not refer to “the fire of eternal punishment,” but rather to physical destruction coming upon the land of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. The New Testament author’s change of the verb “consume” (ἐσθίω) from future indicative (v. 11, ἔδεται) in the Septuagint to present infinitive (ἐσθίειν) may indicate that this judgment was already unfolding at the time of his writing. Rather than a future event, this fiery judgment is viewed as a present threat.
Often in the Old Testament “fire came from the Lord” to consume his people due to their covenant unfaithfulness. Examples abound in the Pentateuch, ranging from the complaining people of the Exodus (Num. 11:1–2) to Korah and his 250 companions (Num. 16:35) to Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1–2). Similarly, Moses warned the new generation of Israel coming out of the wilderness that if they were unfaithful to the covenant, Yahweh would “burn” their land and “consume” them (Deut. 32:21–22) as he did some from the previous generation. Rather than a description of eternal damnation, fire was a common method of physical judgment for covenant unfaithfulness throughout the Old Testament.

A Severer Punishment (Heb. 10:29)

In Hebrews 10:29 the author argues from the lesser to the greater to warn that a greater sin requires a greater punishment. Since the penalty for rejecting the Mosaic law was physical death (Heb. 10:28; cf. Deut. 17:6, 12), some assume that a “much severer punishment” must refer to spiritual death. However, the author leaves the nature of the punishment undefined. We are left to the Old Testament examples of fire (Num. 11:1–2; 16:35) and stoning (Num. 15:30–36) to fill in the meaning. The severity of the punishment does not require spiritual death for several reasons. First, the warning includes none of the damnation terminology (e.g., “eternal” or “torment”) commonly used elsewhere to denote the eternal destruction of the wicked. Second, the Old Testament citations and allusions consistently describe the threat of physical death. Third, rather than greater in “kind” (i.e., spiritual death rather than physical death), the severity could refer to a physical punishment greater in degree or force than that previously experienced by the Old Testament examples.
This meaning corresponds well to the historical setting of Hebrews in light of the unprecedented suffering experienced during the Jewish war as noted by Josephus. Concerning the indescribable atrocities suffered by the Jewish rebels, he writes, “To narrate their enormities in detail is impossible; but, to put it briefly, no other city ever endured such miseries” (J.W. 5.10.5 § 442). The crucifixions of Jewish captives by the Romans were so numerous “that space could not be found for the crosses nor crosses for the bodies” (J.W. 5.11.1 § 451). In the end thousands upon thousands of Jews lost their lives, and thousands more were enslaved. In the preface to his Jewish War, Josephus declares:

The war of the Jews against the Romans [was] the greatest not only of the wars of our own time, but, so far as accounts have reached us, well nigh of all that ever broke out between cities or nations.… Indeed, in my opinion, the misfortunes of all nations since the world began fall short of those of the Jews (J.W. 1.1.1, 4 §§ 1, 12).

In Hebrews, the readers are warned not to find refuge in Judaism because of the unparalleled devastation soon to be brought upon the Jewish nation by the Romans. If they failed to heed this warning, history testifies that the severity of their physical punishment would far surpass that experienced by those stoned under the Mosaic law or burned during the wilderness wanderings.

“Falling into the Hands of the Living God” (Heb. 10:31)

The warning against “falling into the hands of the living God” (τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς χεῖρας θεοῦ ζῶντος) is found only here in the New Testament. This phrase finds its closest Old Testament parallel in David’s plea to the prophet Gad in 2 Samuel 24:14 (LXX), “Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord (ἐμπεσοῦμαι δὴ ἐν χειρὶ κυρίου) for His mercies are great” (NASB). Both passages use the same aorist verb (ἐμπίπτω) and anthropomorphic reference to God’s “hand[s]” (χείρ). However, David uses the expression to appeal to God’s mercy, while the author of Hebrews warns of God’s severity. This apparent discrepancy can be explained by the broader context of David’s judgment. Rather than experiencing the mercy of God as David had hoped, his choice of a three-day plague resulted in the deaths of 70,000 Israelites (2 Sam. 24:15). David’s sin against God in numbering the people took a surprisingly severe toll. In the end, David came to understand the terror of falling into the hands of God.
Notice that the Old Testament judgment resulted not in eternal damnation but rather physical death, for how could God eternally condemn seventy thousand “innocent” Israelites for David’s sin (cf. 2 Sam. 24:17)? Yet the judgment came upon those living in the land—“from Dan to Beersheba” (v. 15). Again, the author of Hebrews uses a fitting Old Testament example to warn of the devastation coming on the land of Israel that would result in the physical deaths of many.
The Old Testament examples of physical judgment and the absence of New Testament damnation terminology in the warning passages indicate that eternal destruction is far from the author’s intended meaning. Furthermore, to limit the threat to a distant future judgment overlooks its nearness and diminishes its relevance to the first-century audience facing the immediate danger of the Jewish war and Roman invasion. The descriptions of the coming crisis throughout the epistle point immediately to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as predicted by Jesus (Matt. 23:37–24:28; Mark 13:1–32; Luke 21:5–36). The readers could avoid God’s judgment coming upon the Jewish nation by holding firm to their confession, bearing the reproach of Christ outside the camp (Heb. 13:13), and looking to the heavenly city instead of the earthly one (i.e., Jerusalem) now under the sentence of destruction (13:14).

Assurance in Hebrews

In light of the repeated exhortations to bold “confidence” (Heb. 3:14; 4:16; 10:19) and “full assurance” (Heb. 6:11; 10:22; cf. 11:1), it is surprising that few studies give attention to the theme of assurance in Hebrews. As a “word of exhortation” (13:22), the purpose of Hebrews was to strengthen, encourage, and exhort the members of a persecuted Christian community to hold firmly to their confession of Jesus Christ rather than seek security in the old rituals of Judaism. The importance of the warnings in achieving this purpose cannot be overstated. However, equally important are the author’s efforts to remind his audience of their privilege as “holy brethren” (3:1) to enter God’s presence for help (4:16). In order to reassure his readers of their privileged access before God, the author stresses the superiority of Christ over the mediators of the old covenant. As a great high priest according to the order of Melchizedek (3:1; 4:14; 5:6; 6:20), Jesus was superior to the Levitical priests because of his perfect obedience (5:8) and permanent sacrifice (7:26–28) whereby he secured “eternal redemption” (9:12). Therefore, the author assures the readers that Christ has both “sanctified” and “perfected [them] for all time” (10:10, 14), thereby securing their final entrance into God’s presence (10:19). Even God’s fatherly discipline is intended to reassure them of their genuine sonship (12:5–8). So certain is their “eternal salvation” (5:9) that they are regarded as having already arrived at “the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22) as part of the “church of the firstborn” (12:23). This guarantees them a place in the unshakeable “kingdom” (12:28) and “lasting city” that is to come (13:14). The severity of Hebrews is without question. But mixed among the stern warnings are some of the most comforting reassurances given to believers in the New Testament.
The author’s purpose to assure his readers reaches its high point in his central discourse on the supremacy and finality of Christ’s high priestly work in Hebrews 4:14–10:25. The opening (4:14–16) and closing paragraphs (10:19–25) of this section form an inclusio marked by nearly identical exhortations to “hold fast” to their “confession” (4:14; 10:23). Both focus upon “Jesus” (4:14; 10:19) as “a great priest” (4:15; 10:21) who has led the way “through the [heavenly] veil” (4:14; 10:19), thereby providing them “confidence” to “draw near” and “enter” God’s presence (4:16; 10:19). These hook words not only identify the theme of the section but also tie the unit to the author’s overall purpose of assurance throughout the book. This is particularly true of the term “confidence” (παρρησία), which occurs four times in Hebrews (3:6; 4:16; 10:19, 35). “We have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19 NASB). Here the word ascribes to the readers their objective “right” to enter God’s presence because of the purging of their conscience through the sacrifice of Christ.59 This right is not acquired through human effort but rather conferred upon them through Jesus. Elsewhere in Hebrews it has more the subjective sense of a “personal confidence arising from the God-given authorization” to “approach [his] throne” (4:16). The greater context of the book indicates that their confident access to God should translate into a willingness to serve and encourage one another publicly (10:24–25) in spite of the humiliation of persecution (10:33–34) and the “shame” (12:2–3) and “reproach” of Christ (13:12–13).
The noun πληροφορία, used twice in Hebrews, stresses the “fullness” of the readers’ assurance. This is indicated by its verb form πληροφορέω, which means in the passive voice “to be fully convinced, assured, certain” as in Romans 14:5 (“Each one should be fully convinced”) and Colossians 4:12 (“that you may stand firm … and fully assured”). Paul used the noun twice to denote absolute certainty arising out of a true knowledge of Christ (Col. 2:2) and God’s sovereign choice confirmed by the Spirit (1 Thess. 1:4–5). Similarly, in Hebrews 6:11 it signifies a “full assurance” rooted in “the unchangeableness of [God’s] purpose” to provide a “sure and steadfast” refuge through Christ (6:17–20). In Hebrews 10:22 the author grounds their “full assurance of faith” in the cleansing of their consciences. In both cases the term describes the certainty created in their hearts through the work of Christ. Yet the exhortation in Hebrews 6:11 suggests we have more than a passive role in this “full assurance.” Some translations ascribe to the readers the responsibility “to make [their] hope sure” (NIV). However, the infinitive ἐνδείκνυμι means rather “to demonstrate or show.” Hence, the exhortation is not to generate an inner assurance themselves but rather to show or demonstrate the “full assurance” they have been granted through Christ. They are to do this in the same way they had demonstrated (ἐνεδείξασθε) their love for the saints as described in the previous verse (6:10). They are to make evident their “full assurance” by continuing to help God’s people in spite of their present crisis.
Another significant term is ὑπόστασις, used three times in Hebrews (five times in the New Testament). The difficulty in determining its meaning is indicated by the variety of ways this term has been translated. All agree that in Hebrews 1:3 it denotes the objective reality or “nature” of God as reflected in Christ. However, in Hebrews 3:14 and 11:1 some render it in the subjective sense of “assurance” (NASB) or “confidence” (NIV), while others prefer the objective sense of “substance” or “real essence.”62 The linguistic evidence from the New Testament era as well as the patristic period demonstrates that ὑπόστασις“denoted tangible reality” rather that an internal sensation. Hence, in Hebrews 3:14 it is best understood to refer to the underlying reality that guarantees the object of hope. In other words, the readers are not exhorted to hold on to some subjective sense of certainty but rather to cling to the objective reality of their faithful High Priest, Jesus. Likewise, the KJV and NKJV come closest to the original when they translate Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for.” In the context the “substance” refers to Christ and his once-for-all sacrifice as the objective reality behind the shadowy symbols of the old covenant (8:5; 9:9; 10:1). In summary, the kind of faith that “pleases” God (11:6) is grounded in the certainty of Jesus and permanence of his sacrifice.

Christ’s Ability to Save Forever (Heb. 7:25)

In Hebrews 7 the author reassures his readers of their “sure and steadfast” hope (Heb. 6:19) by explaining the superiority of Jesus’ high priesthood. After first demonstrating the priority of Melchizedek over the sons of Levi (7:1–11), he then cites Psalm 110:4 to show how Jesus, like Melchizedek, was superior to Aaron and the Levitical priests. Their inability to provide “perfection” (Heb. 7:11, 19), confirmed both by their mortality (v. 23) and sinfulness (vv. 26–28), is contrasted with the “better covenant” (v. 22) guaranteed by Jesus, who “abides forever” (vv. 23–24) as “high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (v. 26 NASB). Jesus’ perpetual priesthood enables him “to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (v. 25 NASB). In this climactic conclusion, the phrase “for all time” (εἰς τὸ παντελές) emphatically declares the permanence of Jesus’ priestly work. Some have understood this expression to denote “completeness,” while others have understood it to signify “forever” or “for all time.” Although its only other occurrence in the New Testament (Luke 13:11) and single occurrence in the Septuagint (3 Macc. 7:16) allow for both senses, its use in papyri clearly supports the temporal meaning. This temporal sense is confirmed in the context of Hebrews 7:25 by its position between the two temporal phrases, “he continues forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) in the preceding verse (i.e., “he continues forever”) and “he always lives” (πάντοτε ζῶη) in the following phrase. This would indicate that since Jesus lives forever, the salvation he is able to provide will last forever. This is further validated by his appeal to the perpetual intercession of Christ as the guarantee of the permanence of their salvation.

Absolute Forgiveness of the New Covenant (Heb. 8:10–12; 10:16–18)

In Hebrews 8 the author declares that the new covenant mediated by Jesus is “better” because it includes “better promises” (8:6). He justifies this claim by appealing to Jeremiah 31, the only Old Testament text that explicitly promised a “new covenant” (Heb. 8:8; cf. 8:13). The newness of this covenant predicted by Jeremiah consists in the implanting of God’s law within the hearts of his people, resulting in a renewed intimacy between God and his people. The foundation of this new relationship was God’s further promise to “be merciful to their iniquities” and to “remember their sins no more” (8:12). Under the former covenant, forgiveness was acquired through an elaborate system of sacrifices. Yet because they could not provide “perfection” (7:11, 19), those sacrifices served as a continuous “reminder of sins year by year” (10:3). Since Christ had offered himself “once for all” as the perfect sacrifice (7:27), the new covenant now could promise internal cleansing and complete forgiveness of all sins.
In chapter 10 these aspects of the new covenant are declared again as the source of the reader’s “confidence” and “full assurance.” From the original verses quoted nearly verbatim from Jeremiah 31:31–34 in Hebrews 8, the author narrows his focus to only two. First, he cites God’s promise to implant his “laws upon their heart … and … mind” (Heb. 10:16; cf. Jer. 31:33). Then he repeats the promise of Jeremiah 31:34, “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more” (Heb. 10:17 NASB). He immediately explains their significance to his argument. Now that absolute and complete forgiveness has been granted, sacrifice is no longer needed (v. 18). The significance of this to their confidence and full assurance is made clear in Hebrews 10:22. The cleansing impact of God’s implanted word upon their hearts (Jer. 31:33) has given them each a “sincere heart … sprinkled” clean “from an evil conscience.” This recalls God’s promise in Ezekiel 36:25, “Then I will sprinkle (ῥανῶ, LXX) clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness” (NASB, my emphasis). The perfect tense of the participle “having our hearts sprinkled” (ῥεραντισμένοι) in Hebrews 10:22 stresses the present condition of the readers. They can be completely assured of access to God because Jesus their High Priest has granted them a “sincere heart” (cf. Ezek. 36:26) that has already been “sprinkled” clean “from an evil conscience.” Hebrews 10:22 confirms that this cleansing includes “all … filthiness” as promised in Ezekiel (36:25) by declaring that the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice extends to all sins “for all time” (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, Heb. 10:14). This indicates that all sins past, present, and future are included. For this reason the readers can be assured of complete cleansing for all time. In summary, the absolute forgiveness offered through the new covenant is described as their permanent possession. The permanence of this cleansing would further suggest that it is irreversible.

Complete Perfection of Believers (Heb. 10:11, 14)

Many have recognized the importance of the concept of perfection to the argument of Hebrews. The significance of the verb τελειόω (“to make perfect”) and its derivatives in the book of Hebrews is indicated by the fact that they account for over a third of all New Testament occurrences. The use of the verb in Hebrews 10:14 in the perfect tense (i.e., τετελείωκεν) is particularly significant to our study, because it suggests that the perfection of believers was completed in the past and continued on in the present. This is further confirmed by its link to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ in the immediate context (10:10–12). As the sacrifice of Christ was a “once for all” (ἐφάπαξ) event, so too was the believer’s perfection accomplished through it. In other words, the perfection of believers is viewed as a single event that took place in a moment of time. Hence, Peterson concludes that Hebrews 10:14 “clearly locates this perfecting in the past with respect to its accomplishment and in the present with respect to its enjoyment.”
Closely tied to the concept of “perfection” is the work of sanctification. The word ἁγιάζω is used five times in Hebrews to describe the sanctification of believers (2:11; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12). Its use in the present tense in Hebrews 10:14 has led some to conclude that the lifelong process of sanctification is in view. However, Peterson suggests that this is an example of a timeless present participle that is best understood as a general designation of believers as the “sanctified.” This understanding is more consistent with its use in the perfect tense earlier in Hebrews 10:10, “We have been sanctified (ἡγιασμένοι) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (NASB). The definitive sense of sanctification is clearly in view, indicating that their sanctification also occurred in the past “once-for-all.” In the context this is best understood as a reference to the permanent and absolute cleansing of the heart and conscience as promised in the new covenant (vv. 15–22). This suggests that their sanctification, like their perfection and absolute cleansing, is permanent and complete. The fact that one who deserves a “much severer punishment” due to his rebellion against Christ is still regarded as “sanctified” by the “blood of the covenant” further confirms its permanence (v. 29).

A Call to Self-Examination in Hebrews 3:6 and 3:14

Early in Hebrews the author makes two profound claims about the spiritual status of the readers, both followed by conditions: “But Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end” (3:6 NASB, italics mine); and “For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end” (3:14 NASB, italics mine). Both verses contain emphatic statements intended to encourage the readers by their privileged position and share in Christ and his high priestly work. However, some regard the conditional clauses that follow as “evidence that the writer considers apostasy to be possible.”71 I agree with others who understand the conditions as proof that the author does not promise unqualified assurance to everyone among his original audience. The placement of these conditional clauses before the main discourse on the superiority and permanence of Christ’s high priestly work is significant. For before he set out to assure them of the certainty of their absolute and complete cleansing through Christ, the author wanted his readers to examine themselves first to make sure that they were indeed “partakers of Christ.” However, these conditional clauses do not disqualify all who lack firmness of any assurance. That would violate the author’s Christocentric foundation for their confidence. His point in these conditional sentences is that wavering in confidence may indicate in some cases—but not in every case—that one is not truly a partaker of Christ. Indeed, if a lack of confidence, reluctance to obey, or spiritual lethargy automatically forfeits one’s complete cleansing promised in the new covenant (Jer. 31:33–34), then why were doubters like Gideon (Heb. 11:32), not to mention rebels like Samson (v. 32) and the Exodus generation (v. 29), included among the saints “made perfect” in the heavenly Jerusalem (v. 40)?

Conclusion

Most would agree that the meaning and application of the Hebrews warning passages is a difficult challenge for even the finest biblical scholars. However, the epistle’s urgent call to a steadfast faith in the all-surpassing greatness and sufficiency of Christ’s purifying work is a message needed in the church today. We must find a way to apply both the terrifying warnings and the reassuring hope of Hebrews in spite of our theological differences. I offer my treatment as a means to achieve a greater balance between warning and assurance by interpreting the warnings in light of the author’s primary Old Testament example—the Exodus generation.

CLASSICAL ARMINIAN RESPONSE

Grant R. Osborne

Randall Gleason states at the outset his desire that his contribution “will move the dialogue in new directions that will lead some to a more satisfying understanding of these difficult texts” (p. 336). He has certainly accomplished this in terms of a new viable direction for dialogue, and I applaud his effort. He first argues that Hebrews was written in the mid-sixties before the temple had been destroyed, as seen in the references to the sacrifi cial system and cultic practices, which assume they are still continuing. Most scholars are in agreement on this. Next, he affirms that the addressees were genuine Jewish believers—which is in keeping with the recent trend of Calvinist studies to take this approach (see my response to Buist Fanning, pp. 220–32)—but immature and in need of “pressing on to maturity” (5:11–6:1).
His primary contribution lies in his use of the Old Testament background, seeing this as the critical node in the epistle. He correctly sees typology (rather than Alexandrian allegorizing) as the author’s primary exegetical method. The author then discovers “patterns of correspondence” between the Old Testament events and the situation of the readers, and Gleason argues that these are based on a true theological connection between those events. This is especially important in terms of interpreters who see the author escalating or heightening the Old Testament imagery. Gleason argues against this and prefers a one-to-one correspondence between the Old Testament situation and that behind Hebrews (p. 342).
Primarily, Gleason sees the story of the rebellion of the wilderness generation in Hebrews 3–4 (from Ps. 95 and Num. 14) as central to the argument of Hebrews. He believes that “in each warning the spiritual condition, ‘falling away,’ and judgment of the Exodus generation provides important clues to the spiritual condition, potential ‘falling away,’ and judgment of those warned” (p. 343). He finds Exodus imagery in 2:2–3 (“salvation” = Exod. 14:13), in the descriptions of 6:4 (see below), in 10:26–31 (“willful sin” = Num. 15:30–36; “two or three witnesses” = Deut. 17:6; the Deut. 32:35–36 citation in v. 30), and in the Sinai imagery of 12:18–21. From this he extracts the true danger for the believing Jews in the book, namely, not apostasy per se but a deliberate choice to remain immature (5:11; 6:12), thus forfeiting the covenant blessings and experiencing physical discipline under the wrath of God. He argues that Israel at Kadesh-Barnea was a redeemed community who “believed” and “worshiped” in Exodus 4:30–31 and obeyed the Lord’s commands in Exodus 12:28, 50 and therefore received “salvation/deliverance” in Exodus 14:13, 30. Therefore the sin of the Exodus generation was rebellion (Heb. 3:8–9 = Exod. 17:7), rather than willful rejection or apostasy. In this sense he argues that the “falling away” of 3:12 and 6:6 is best seen in light of the Kadesh-Barnea incident as rebellion (ἀποστάτης as “rebel” in Num. 14:9 LXX, and the “unbelieving heart” of 3:12 = “not believe in me” in Num. 14:11).
In this light Gleason believes that the danger, like that in Numbers 14, was not a total absence of faith but a failure to believe that God would sustain them in their trial. As God pardoned Israel on the basis of Moses’ plea in Numbers 14:19–20, and their redemption was not forfeited (Deut. 1:31), so he would pardon the believing Jewish readers if they repented. Moreover, the concept of forfeiting the rest in Hebrews 3:7–19, as was the case in the Exodus incident, involves the loss of physical life rather than eternal damnation. Both Adam in the garden and Israel in the wilderness lost the fullness of covenant blessings but not their place as the people of God. So forfeiting the “resting-place” in Hebrews likewise means losing the joy of God’s presence and the experience of his discipline but not eternal loss.
Next, Gleason argues that the participles of Hebrews 6:4–5 link the danger of the readers with the Exodus generation (“enlightened” = pillar of fire; “tasted of the heavenly gift” = the manna; “partakers of the Holy Spirit” = the story of the seventy elders in Numbers 11:16–30; “tasting the good word and the powers of the age to come” = receiving the law with accompanying signs and wonders). In this sense the sin of Hebrews 6:6 is not a final falling away from the faith (apostasy) but rather serious unfaithfulness—a decisive refusal to trust God that becomes a falling into a permanent state of immaturity (the slothfulness of 5:11–13). This parallels Israel at Kadesh-Barnea, when Israel chose to disregard God and accepted the report of the ten spies, refusing to enter the land. In the same way, the impossibility of renewing them to repentance in Hebrews 6:4–6, as when Israel was not allowed to enter the land in Numbers 14:39–45, means God would not allow them to move on to maturity since the readers have refused to do so. So “repentance” here means the desire to once again experience the covenant blessings and find God’s “rest.” This God will not allow if they have decisively rejected them.
The phrases that describe the seriousness of the sin are also reinterpreted by Gleason. “Crucify the Son of God anew and put him to open shame” in Hebrews 6:6 is not a recrucifying but reducing his crucifixion to a mere criminal’s death, by returning to the Jewish ritual, and “open shame” is not public blasphemy but a message to other Jews that Jesus’ crucifixion was not efficacious for sin. The “willful sin” of Hebrews 10:26 is not complete apostasy but the deliberate decision to simply disregard God’s law with its penalty of physical death, and “trampling under foot the Son of God” in Hebrews 10:29 is failure to acknowledge his superior status over the Mosaic law, thereby rendering his “blood of the covenant” not “unclean” but “common” (a valid meaning of κοινός), that is, making it only a common sacrifice like other Jewish sacrifices. These do not constitute a total repudiation of Christ but rather reducing his sacrifice to the level of any other cleansing sacrifice.
Due to this understanding of the sin in Hebrews, it is understandable that Gleason also sees a different type of judgment in the book. It is not eternal damnation meted out at the parousia (he notes the absence of language like “eternal destruction” in the warning passages) but rather physical death. The unproductive “land” and its “burning” in Hebrews 6:8 refers to the impending destruction of the nation under the Romans, and the “near to destruction” comment about the old covenant in Hebrews 8:13 is the Roman “annihilation of the priests, sacrifices, and temple” (p. 362). The “consuming fire” of Hebrews 10:27 stems from Isaiah 26:11, and the Isaianic context fits its fulfillment in the fiery destruction of Palestine in 66–70 C.E., also fulfilling other Old Testament passages on fiery judgment (= physical judgment) for unfaithfulness (Num. 11:1–2; 16:35; Lev. 10:1–2; Deut. 32:21–22). The “severer punishment” of Hebrews 10:29 does not have to mean spiritual death but rather refers to a physical punishment greater in degree than those in the Old Testament, again fulfilled in the Roman atrocities. The “falling into the hands of the living God” in Hebrews 10:31 finds a parallel in 2 Samuel 24:14 and the death of 70,000 Israelites due to David’s numbering of the people against God’s will; again it is physical death that is intended.
Gleason sees his approach upheld by the theme of assurance in Hebrews. The author encourages his readers to realize that they are “holy brethren” (3:1) who can enter God’s presence and receive help (4:16) and that they have a Great High Priest superior to the Levitical priests (10:19–21), one who has “sanctified” and “perfected them forever” (10:10, 14). They are genuine sons (12:5–8), assured of their “eternal salvation” (5:9) and guaranteed an “unshakeable kingdom” (12:28). So the author assures them that they can hold fast to their confession and confidence (4:14, 16; 10:23) in the great priest (10:21) who will ensure their entering God’s presence (4:16; 10:19). The result is their “full assurance” (6:11; 10:22) or certainty that they will get through the crisis due to the “substance” or underlying reality that guarantees their hope (3:14; 11:1). All this points to Hebrews 7:25, which declares that Christ “is able to save forever” (he argues εἰς τὸ παντελές is temporal), thus meaning Jesus guarantees an eternal salvation for his followers. The forgiveness of the new covenant is absolute and eternal (8:10–12; 10:16–18); all sins, whether past, present, or future, are forgiven, and salvation is a permanent possession.
Next, Gleason turns to the concept of “perfection” (τετελείωκεν in Hebrews 10:14, which he sees as a completed act (in the perfect tense) that partakes of the once-for-all force of Christ’s sacrifice in 10:10–12. He links this with sanctification in the book, seen as permanent and complete (10:10, 29). Finally, the two conditionals of Hebrews 3:6 and 3:14 do not mean apostasy is possible but rather that all believers must examine themselves to see whether they are indeed partakers of Christ. In short, the warning and the assurance work together to enable the believer to remain secure in Christ.

Critique of His Paper

Although Gleason is not the first to take this approach, he has presented a more thorough study than any before. Since the Old Testament is so central to the argument of Hebrews, his theories must be taken seriously. Like Hodges and Dillow before him, the wilderness imagery is central to the warning passages of Hebrews.3 Gleason’s presentation, however, is the most developed and an exegetically rewarding study. Still, it is not without problems, and these must be noted. The major difficulty is his assumption that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the details of the wilderness failure and that in Hebrews. Since the Hebrews at Kadesh-Barnea in Numbers 14 are typologically connected to the Jewish Christian recipients of this letter, Gleason assumes that this means that both the sin and its consequences are the same. Like the wilderness people, also the true people of God, the readers are in danger of committing not apostasy but a deliberate choice to remain in permanent immaturity; and like the earlier generation the consequence will be not eternal punishment but physical death. This is a huge assumption, and it must be examined very carefully.

Lesser to Greater Argumentation in Hebrews

The major problem for Gleason’s approach is the consistent use of the qal waḥomer (lesser to greater) argument in contrasting the old covenant reality with the new covenant situation in Hebrews. In the work as a whole, the key term is greater/superior (κρείττων/κρείσσων), found twelve times for the superiority of the new order in Christ (1:4; 6:9; 7:7, 19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24). Throughout the epistle, it is clear that in every way Christ and the new covenant he has brought is “more excellent” (1:4; 8:6). The first major section of the book (1:1–10:19) centers on the “greater” value of every aspect of the Christian reality over the Jewish ways—over the old revelation (1:1–3), over the angels (1:4–2:18), over Moses and the law (3:1–4:13), over the priesthood and the high priest (4:14–7:28), and over the covenant, the sanctuary, and the sacrifices (8:1–10:19). Contrasts between the old and the new dominate the rest of the epistle as well—entrance into the Holy of Holies (10:19), the great priest (10:21), the perfection of the saints (11:39–40), Sinai versus Zion (12:18–24), the altar of God (13:10).
This pattern of escalation is especially true of the warning passages, the focus of our investigation. The qal waḥomer argument is established in the very first warning passage of Hebrews 2:1–4. Verses 2–3a say that if “the message spoken through angels” (Mosaic Law, cf. Deut. 33:2 Septuagint) required that every transgression suffer a “just punishment” (often death), then how much more so would that happen under “so great a salvation” (= “so much greater”), namely, Christianity. The Torah was confirmed by angels (shown to be less than Christ in 1:4–14), but the new covenant was confirmed by God, testifying via signs and wonders and the gifts of the Spirit (2:4). The author does not spell out what that greater penalty will be here, for he is saving the explicit statement for Hebrews 6:4–8 and 10:26–31, but it seems clear that it must be greater than the death penalty under the old covenant.
This pattern continues in Hebrews 3:1–4:13. There are two contrasts here. Jesus is “worthy of far greater honor” than Moses in the sense that he is both “builder of the house” and “the Son over the house” (3:3, 6), and Moses is greater than Israel because he was “faithful” (3:2, 5) while Israel was “unfaithful”/“unbelieving” (3:12, 19). There is also escalation in the development of the rest motif. In the Exodus account, rest was entrance into the Promised Land (Heb. 3), in Psalm 95 it was the temple (the psalm is about jubilant worship in the temple), and in the intertestamental period it came to mean first the covenant blessings experienced by God’s people and then eternal life. There is considerable debate as to whether the “rest” in Hebrews 4 refers to a present experience of God in the here and now or is apocalyptic, to be experienced only at the Eschaton. Yet this is too disjunctive, and Hurst rightly argues that “rest” in this chapter incorporates rest now via faith, rest at death, and rest at the final consummation.7 Attridge provides an excellent study of the interpretation of “rest” through the centuries and concludes that the metaphor symbolizes “the whole soteriological process,” namely, “entry into God’s presence, the heavenly homeland (11:16), the unshakeable kingdom (12:28), begun at baptism (10:22) and consummated as a whole eschatologically.”
The eschatological aspect of eternal life is especially seen in the “sabbath rest” of Hebrews 4:4–11. The connection begins with the Genesis 2:2 quote in verse 4, “On the seventh day God rested from all his work.” Clearly it is God’s own rest that is in view and is offered to his people. Moreover, he disassociates this rest from the wilderness promise in verse 8, “if Joshua had given them (this) rest, God would not have spoken later of another day,” a reference to Psalm 95:11. Thus, this rest cannot be the Promised Land. There is also a wordplay since Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Jehoshua, or Joshua, implying that Jesus is greater than Joshua in the same way that he is greater than Moses. So there is a superior “rest” available to the believer, a “Sabbath rest” that is explicated further in verses 9–11. The σαββατισμός of verse 9 connotes not just “Sabbath rest” but “Sabbath observance” and thereby praise and celebration, thus pointing to “a new Covenant Day of Atonement Sabbath in which they are cleansed from their sins,” combining the Day of Atonement imagery (Lev. 23:26–28) with the theme of Jesus “passing through the heavens” into the heavenly Most Holy Place (Heb. 4:14). Again, the question is whether this rest is present or future, with the likelihood that it is both. Bengel says that while the six days of Creation each had an evening, the seventh did not and so is open-ended. God’s rest is thereby an eternal “today” for the one who “enters” and perseveres in faith.11 In conclusion, Israel’s “unbelief” in Hebrews 3:7–19 led them to “turn away from the living God” (v. 12) and thereby to lose the promised “rest” of the Promised Land and to receive the penalty of physical death (their “bodies perished in the wilderness,” v. 17). For the readers of Hebrews, the stakes are higher. The “rest” is now a “Sabbath rest,” meaning both rest in God now and eternal life in the future.
There is no explicit escalation in Hebrews 5:11–6:20, but in 6:1–3 the readers are told to move “forward to maturity,” and the foundational list that follows is likely built on those things held in common with Judaism, though “baptisms,” for example, emphasizes the superiority of Christian baptisms over Jewish ablutions. The author wants them to recognize the superiority of the Christian reality and move on to the maturity they should have had (5:12, “by this time you ought to be teachers”). This has repercussions for the issue of the severity of their sin and danger, but that will be pursued later. A second passage is the “better things … that have to do with salvation” in Hebrews 6:9. This does not imply a contrast with the wilderness generation and refer to the land receiving God’s blessing in 6:7 as opposed to the land “cursed” and “burnt” in 6:8. The σωτηρία here cannot be relegated just to the present experience of salvation but must include final salvation as well, as opposed to eternal damnation (connoted in the “burnt” of v. 8; cf. 10:27; 12:29; Matt. 13:30, 42, 50; John 15:6). It could be said that in Hebrews salvation is more a future attainment than a present reality,14 though of course it is both.
In Hebrews 10:19–31 there is implicit escalation, which sums up the superiority of Christ and his work in Hebrews 1:1–10:18 by presenting Christ as the great Priest who has opened for us a way through the curtain into the heavenly Holy of Holies by becoming the once-for-all Sacrifice for us. So there is a superior priest, a superior sacrifice, and a superior salvation, not a one-to-one correspondence between the Jewish and Christian ways. Even more importantly, there is explicit use of the lesser-to-greater pattern in Hebrews 10:29, “How much more severely [than the ‘died without mercy’ of the Mosaic law in v. 28] do you think those deserve to be punished who have trampled the Son of God under foot?” This makes it very difficult to believe that Hebrews envisages the same punishment as experienced by the wilderness people, namely, physical death. As Lane states, “Since the blessings God has bestowed through Christ are greater than those provided through the old covenant, the rejection of those blessings entails a lot more severe punishment.” This in effect sums up all we have said thus far: the new covenant under Christ is vastly superior, and it provides a superior salvation and a superior rest, so if these Jewish Christians reject that and return to the inferior Judaism, their punishment will of necessity be far more severe than that under the old covenant. We will explore this further below.
Then in Hebrews 12:14–29 there is another explicit use of qal waḥomer in verse 25: “If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth (= Kadesh-Barnea in Num. 14), how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?” (NIV). The logic is the same as the others we have considered above. Since God has now spoken through his Son (1:1–3) and given these Jewish Christians so much greater a salvation (2:2–3), they have a correspondingly greater obligation not to “refuse” his warning now. Also, Hebrews 12:25 and 2:3 frame the warning passages with the warning that those who refuse God “will not escape” the greater wrath of God. “The voice who shook the earth” in 12:26 is a reference to Sinai, and in Exodus 19:18 it says, “The whole mountain trembled violently” (NIV). But the wrath now is from the one who “will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven” (NIV), a quote from Haggai 2:6 and the shaking of the heavens at the Day of the Lord (cf. Isa. 14:16–17; Joel 2:10; Zeph. 1:15; Jub. 1:29; 1 En. 45:1; 2 Bar. 32:1; Matt. 24:29–31; Rev. 6:12–14; 16:17–21). This is interpreted in Hebrews 12:27 as “the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things” (NIV). Lane calls this “paranetic midrash,”17 in which the authority of Haggai 2:6 is applied to the situation of the readers as a severe warning that the shaking will mean the annihilation of all of creation (cf. 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 20:11; 21:1). Clearly the warning relates to the severe wrath of God at the final judgment. The Israelites did not escape their judgment in the wilderness, namely, failure to enter the Promised Land and physical death; and a fortiori the reader who falls away will not escape a greater judgment, namely, failure to enter heaven and the “second death” of Revelation 20:6.

Other Issues

We have established that throughout Hebrews and especially in the warning passages, there is an escalation motif that makes what is at stake as well as the danger and the consequences much greater than was the case in the wilderness generation of Numbers 14 and Psalm 95. Gleason erroneously proceeds from an assumption of a one-to-one correspondence between the wilderness example and the problem of the “lazy, sluggish” (5:11; 6:12) readers.
Now let us examine some of the details in his paper. First, he is correct that Israel at Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 14 and Ps. 95:7–11 in Heb. 3:7–11) was a redeemed community that had “an evil, unbelieving heart” and fell away from God; their rebellion “tested” God so that they fell in the wilderness. But Gleason is wrong in asserting that this defines the sin in Hebrews. In every warning passage, as we have seen, the sin and the consequences are escalated for the readers.
Gleason goes on to state that Israel’s sin in Numbers 14 was not final apostasy but a refusal to trust God to sustain them in taking the land. Even there the Lord pardoned them after Moses’ plea (Num. 14:20), and they mourned for their sin (vv. 39–40). In the same sense, he argues, the danger in Hebrews is also not final apostasy but rebellion. This could be argued in Hebrews 3:7–4:13 (though it is doubtful even there—see above) but does not fit 6:4–8 or 10:26–31; in those passages the horrible penalty of eternal hellfire is quite clear.
The connection of the four participles of Hebrews 6:4–5 with the Exodus generation is interesting but tenuous. To take “enlightened” as the pillar of fire guiding the Israelites in Exodus 13:21 on the basis of Nehemiah 9:12 and Psalm 105:39 is rather improbable since in all three cases it is “lighting the way” and not spiritual enlightenment. Much better parallels are found in the use of the term for spiritual illumination (John 1:9; Eph. 1:18; 2 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:1). “Tasted the heavenly gift” is not a reference to manna and Christ himself (John 6:32–33) but to the gift of salvation experienced by the believers, along with the spiritual blessings that flow out of it (nearly all commentators). “Partakers of the Holy Spirit” does not refer to the giving of the Spirit at the Exodus (Neh. 9:20; Isa. 63:11, 14; Hag. 2:5) but to the readers sharing in the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gifts he distributed (cf. Heb. 2:4). “Tasting the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” is not a reference to the reception of the law with the accompanying signs and wonders but refers to the gospel message and accompanying miraculous signs and wonders that the readers experienced at the beginning of their community and probably still saw from time to time.
Next, Gleason reinterprets the passages on the apostasy and its penalty. The recrucifying and open shame of Hebrews 6:6 is not apostasy but removing the efficacious power of Jesus’ death by returning to Judaism, and the willful sin of Hebrews 10:26, 29 is actually deliberately disregarding God’s law, resulting in physical death (cf. Num. 15:32–36). But does this do justice to the passages? The participles of Hebrews 6:6 are causal, telling why it is “impossible to renew them to repentance.” In rejecting Christ, they are nailing him to the cross anew and keeping him there (present tense participle). Moreover, “open shame” may have double meaning, referring to both the public insult to which they are subjecting Christ and the lifelong contempt they will have for Christ. This is not merely disregarding the cross. It is almost universally agreed that the willful sin of Hebrews 10:26 is the “sin with a high hand” of Numbers 15:30–31 and equals apostasy here.
The three sins of Hebrews 10:29 (trampling the Son, treating the blood as unholy, insulting the Spirit) are part of the qal waḥomer argument noted above in verses 28–29 and mean that the sin is much more severe than the Israelites committed in the wilderness and thus mandates a more severe penalty. The absolute contempt and repudiation of such an act demands the vengeance and judgment of God (10:30). To take the “fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire” (NIV) in Hebrews 10:27 or the “consuming fire” of Hebrews 12:29 as the same type of physical destruction for covenant unfaithfulness as described in Numbers 11:1–2 and Isaiah 24:1, 5 (especially the destruction of Palestine by the Romans in 66–70 C.E.) is hardly commensurate with the context. There is no hint of the situation in Palestine in 66–70 C.E. in the epistle, and that would only be viable if this were written to Jewish Christians there during that time. There is no evidence for this, and it is commonly assumed lately that the best destination is Rome, due to “those from Italy greet you” in Hebrews 13:24. This is the most likely view, and that makes such a hypothesis as Gleason’s difficult. Moreover, the escalation pattern makes eternal punishment in the lake of fire a far more likely interpretation.
The assurance theme is certainly important in the epistle. I have already dealt with this theme in some detail in my response to Fanning (pp. 220–32), but let me consider it also from the standpoint of Gleason’s use of it. The latter is not so strong on this as Fanning is, and he does not go so far as to say that the true believer cannot commit the sin of the book. Still, there is a hint of that in the emphasis on the “complete certainty” of “full assurance” (Heb. 6:11; 10:22) and on the temporal interpretation of “able to save forever” in Hebrews 7:25. Concerning Hebrews 6:11, Ellingworth believes the idea of maturity predominates over certainty and ties together faith and hope in Hebrews. Lane translates it “realization of your hope” in 6:11 and “fullness of faith” in 10:22. Attridge says it calls for the “full maintenance of hope” in 6:11 and “abundance of faith” in 10:22. None see this as an absolute security but rather as a “fullness” of faith and hope in God. As stated in my response to Fanning (p. 226), εἰς τὸ παντελές in 7:25 is best seen as having double meaning, stressing degree (“completely”) and time (“continually”). Yet while there is a definite sense of security, it is conditional rather than unconditional because the temporal is best translated “continually” rather than “forever,” and the centrality of the warnings throughout the book lend “those who come to God” in Hebrews 7:25 a conditional aspect. The idea of “perfection” in Hebrews 10:10, 14 is not so “complete” as Gleason says. The perfect tense (in τετελείωκεν, 10:14) does not stress completeness. Porter lists the following range of forces—past, present, future, omnitemporal (gnomic), and timeless—but not completeness. BDF states that the force is “continuance of completed action” and restricts the use of the perfect for the aorist (but still not completeness in the way Gleason uses it) mainly to narrative. The sanctification of Hebrews 10:10 does come close to the idea of permanence and completeness, for the perfect periphrastic “We have been made holy” (ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν connotes the continuing results of the process, and it is seen as built on the “once-for-all” (ἐφάπαξ) sacrifice of Christ (the final time this appears after 7:27; 9:12). Yet the “once-for-all” act is not sanctification but “the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ,” and the emphasis on Hebrews 10:1–10 is not on the security of the believer but on the superior effects of Christ’s sacrifice. So there is no actual presentation of our sanctification as absolutely guaranteed, and the warning soon to come in Hebrews 10:26–31 makes such an interpretation extremely doubtful.
In conclusion, Gleason has presented a thoughtful and stimulating thesis, well versed in the Old Testament background of the book. But in the end it is not convincing, for the author of Hebrews continually escalates the situation of the wilderness people as well as their sin and the consequences, so that the Jewish believers in Rome face a much more serious situation, an active apostasy, which will render them irredeemable and subject to eternal hellfire.

CLASSICAL REFORMED RESPONSE

Buist M. Fanning

As I respond to the essay by Randall Gleason, I want to thank him for his careful work. His essay is especially valuable for his concern to situate Hebrews in its first-century setting and to read it first on those terms as best we can, rather than allow its message to be colored by twenty centuries of theological dispute and distortion. While I disagree with some of his conclusions regarding the background and how it affects interpretation, I applaud his approach.
As I say about the other two essays in this book, the reader will see that I agree with much of what Gleason says about Hebrews. Because of space constraints, this response will focus on my disagreements in two main areas, followed by brief comments on a few others. The fundamental idea of Gleason’s treatment is that the warning passages of Hebrews must be interpreted in light of the Old Testament example of the wilderness generation. In my opinion he has misread the significance of Old Testament parallels in Hebrews and has allowed them to distort the exegesis and theology of the book in two important areas.

The Nature of Apostasy in Hebrews

First, I think Gleason has misread the nature of the failure that Hebrews warns its readers against. This failure in its most severe form is described in the book as “turning away from the living God” (3:12), “falling away” (6:6), “sinning deliberately” (10:26), and “refusing and rejecting God” (12:25). Hebrews actually refers to a range of spiritual maladies or sins that the readers were either already guilty of or were on the verge of committing, and the worst of these are mentioned in the verses just cited.
In developing the sense of these expressions, Gleason pays more attention to the parallel Old Testament situation than to the context and usage of Hebrews itself. To take them in sequence, chapters 3–4 are of course crucial to his view of the warnings, since they explicitly portray the wilderness generation and its failure to enter God’s rest because of unbelief. Almost all of Gleason’s initial discussion of Hebrews 3–4 focuses on the descriptions of Israel’s experience, not the exhortations to the readers of Hebrews that are drawn from it and how they should be understood in the New Testament context. He cites the wording of Psalm 95 in regard to Israel’s hard-heartedness or stubbornness in obeying the Lord (3:8, 15; 4:7), their testing the Lord and rebelling against him (3:8–9), and their going astray in their hearts (3:10). He cites evidence from Numbers 14 to show that Israel’s unbelief and disobedience must be read in light of their rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea, in the sense that they refused to trust God to bring them into the land. He gives a long discussion of the sin and judgment of Moses and Aaron (Num. 20), as well as of God’s pardon of the nation after their rebellion (Num. 14). But he pays very little attention to the warnings against unbelief and disobedience addressed to the readers in Hebrews 3:6, 12–14; 4:1, 11. There is an extensive discussion of the spiritual and cultic dimensions of what “rest” meant in its Old Testament usage (experiencing the joy of God’s covenant blessings and the privilege of worshiping him), with a rather quick summary stating that “rest” means the same thing in its New Testament context as well.
When Gleason does take up the warning of Hebrews 3:12 against “having an evil heart of unbelief in falling away from the living God,” he argues that it does not envision “complete apostasy from faith in God,” but the type of rebellion Moses spoke of in Numbers 14:9, 11, 27, 35. What he means is that it alludes to Israel’s rebellion and unbelief regarding the specific promise of entering the land. So with very little discussion of the New Testament situation, he concludes that this is a warning to the New Testament readers “against the failure to believe that God would sustain their lives in the face of impending danger (cf. Exod. 14:7–9)” (p. 348).
What is missing here is sustained attention to the New Testament context of chapters 3–4 and how Hebrews is using the unbelief of the wilderness generation to exhort its readers regarding their faith in Christ. What does it mean to be a part of God’s house or a partner of Christ (3:6, 14), and is that in doubt for these readers? What does it mean that they also have “received good news” (4:2; cf. 2:1, 3), and is there doubt about their faith in response to this message? What evidence is there in Hebrews that the primary exhortation is to trust God for physical protection in the face of impending danger? Gleason does not consider these questions in this section of his essay. Instead, we find extensive discussion of issues in the Old Testament setting that Hebrews itself gives no attention to: that is, the redeemed status of the Exodus generation, the sin and judgment of Moses and Aaron, and God’s forgiveness of the nation after Kadesh-Barnea.5
When he comes to Hebrews 6:4–6, Gleason commits a double distortion. On the one hand, he reads the New Testament context (i.e., the problems of “sluggishness” and “refusal to go on to maturity” from Hebrews 5:11–6:3) back into the Old Testament setting and says, “The New Testament readers were in danger of retrogressing back into spiritual infancy like the Exodus generation” (p. 353). Was the problem in Numbers 14/Psalm 95 one of going back into infancy? What the Old Testament texts and Hebrews 3–4 emphasize is unbelief and disobedience, not immaturity! While there is a possible parallel between “leaving behind … let us go on to maturity” in 6:1 and “let us be diligent to enter that rest” in 4:11, nothing is said about “rest” in chapters 5–6, and nothing is said about “maturity” in chapters 3–4 or in the Old Testament passages. The true parallel is persevering in faith in order to receive the promised blessing, not immaturity.
On the other hand, when Gleason ponders the meaning of “fall away” in Hebrews 6:6a, he imposes a sense drawn from Numbers 14 (as alluded to in Heb. 3–4) and from 5:11–6:3 and minimizes the significance of the participles that immediately follow in 6:6b! He asserts that since “fall away” has no modifier in verse 6, “its precise meaning is difficult to determine from the immediate context” (p. 353–54). Next, he surveys the uses of “fall away” in the Septuagint of Ezekiel and concludes that it indicates “a serious act of unfaithfulness toward God. But the exact nature of the unfaithfulness must be determined from the broader context” (p. 354). Then he draws from his discussion of the wilderness generation and of 5:11–6:3 to say that “fall away” in 6:6a refers to “a general state of spiritual retrogression entered through a decisive refusal to trust and obey God,” “coming to a decisive point when one refuse[s] ‘once for all’ (ἅπαξ) to press on to maturity” (pp. 354, 355). As part of this discussion, Gleason says that “the only other sin mentioned in the near context” (p. 354) is being dull of hearing in 5:11! But how could he have missed seeing the relevance of the participles about “crucifying for themselves the Son of God and putting him to open shame” that immediately follow in 6:6b? Surely these have some bearing on what “fall away” means in 6:6a. He has allowed his preoccupation with Old Testament parallels to cloud his interpretation of Hebrews itself.
Earlier in his treatment of “fall away” in 6:6a, Gleason quickly rejects the view that it refers to “complete apostasy from the faith,” or “completely giving up all belief in Christ” (p. 354). But when he covers 6:6b, he acknowledges that it constitutes a warning against “reducing Christ’s death to the level of a common criminal execution, as the Jewish leaders had originally intended” and “empty[ing] Christ’s sacrifice of its redemptive value” (p. 358). It is hard to see how this stance fails to constitute “giving up all belief in Christ.”
In interpreting “sinning willfully” in Hebrews 10:26a, Gleason again majors on Old Testament contexts and neglects the evidence from Hebrews itself. He notes the allusions to Numbers 15:30–36 and Deuteronomy 17:12 and digs into the details of these passages to discover that “willful sin” would be “any deliberate act of covenant unfaithfulness, including in the Old Testament context even the seemingly harmless act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath” (p. 359). The gravity of the offense would be proportional to the level of defiance involved. Now this is certainly valuable evidence to consider, since “sin with a high hand” was a notable topic of discussion in the Old Testament as well as later Judaism. But we should not stop with the Old Testament context. The key question is whether the writer of Hebrews 10:26a means exactly the same thing as Numbers 15 or whether he is using an allusion to Old Testament parallels to reinforce the gravity of a more specific offense he fears some of his readers may commit. In view of the consequence of such an offense given immediately in 10:26b, we should surmise that the latter is true, I think. The statement that “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (NASB) in the context of Hebrews does not mean merely that such a sin cannot be forgiven. Instead, it invokes the larger argument of Hebrews that Christ’s sacrifice is God’s full and final provision for sin that the Old Testament forms were always intended to anticipate; hence the hopelessness of anyone who knowingly rejects that sacrifice. So it makes much more sense to see that the general point of 10:26 (willful sin) is filled out in detail in 10:29 (defiant rejection of the sacrifice of the Son of God). Thus the focus again is continued faith in Christ’s high priestly work versus insolent rejection of its value. But this is hard to perceive if you focus your attention on Numbers 15 instead of on Hebrews 10:26–31.

The Nature and Severity of Judgment in Hebrews

The second area in which Gleason has misread the significance of Old Testament parallels in Hebrews and has allowed them to distort his interpretation concerns the kind of judgment that will come on any who fail to heed its warnings. He takes the judgment in view to be some mixture of withdrawal of God’s blessing and temporal disciplinary punishment that could lead to physical death. No eternal, spiritual judgment or loss of spiritual salvation is threatened. He supports this on three grounds: (1) Hebrews in its original setting is an address to Jewish believers in Palestine in the years leading up to the Jewish revolt in 66–70 C.E. and the writer is “warning his readers of physical harm or even death if they seek refuge in Judaism” (p. 361) rather than trusting God’s ability to protect them; (2) the Old Testament parallels all refer to physical rather than spiritual judgment and even though the judgment these readers face may be more severe in degree, they are the same in kind compared to the Old Testament judgments; and (3) Hebrews never uses the damnation terms that are common elsewhere (e.g., “eternal,” “torment,” “hell/hades”) to describe the threatened punishment, so final judgment in the life to come is not in view. These will be discussed in sequence.
In connection with the first of these reasons, Gleason argues that small details throughout Hebrews are best interpreted as pointers to a setting in Palestine during the period of impending doom on the Jewish nation, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. References to “land” that is “close to being cursed” and destined for “burning” due to unfaithfulness (6:8), to the old covenant that is “near to destruction” (8:13), to being able to “see the day drawing near” (10:25), to the mention of the fires of judgment in various places—all of these point to the time when God in judgment would allow the Romans to destroy Jerusalem with its temple, ritual, and priesthood, and slaughter or disperse Israel from its homeland in a cruel and fiery catastrophe.
What can be said about such indicators? It strikes me as highly unlikely that this is the best interpretation of these, taken either individually or cumulatively. While Hebrews was almost certainly written before 70 C.E., nothing in these references makes it likely that it was written to people near Jerusalem, or that it has special concerns about Jerusalem or the temple, or that its readers would be under special threat because of Roman campaigns in Galilee and Judea at the time. Several of the researchers whom Gleason cites in general support of these ideas do not in fact agree with him on the points most contributory to his interpretation of the warning passages. Peter Walker, for example, argues that Hebrews anticipates the Roman attack on Jerusalem, but he believes it was written to a congregation in the Diaspora, not in Palestine, and its reference to “the day drawing near” (10:25) implies not just physical judgment but the wider eschatological consummation as well. While we may surmise that the themes and argument of Hebrews would cause reflection on contemporary temple services in Jerusalem, the book itself never explicitly refers to current priesthood, ritual, sacrifices, or temple. It consistently cites features of Israel’s worship as instituted in the Torah, carried out in the past history of the nation, and described in the Old Testament. Even Hebrews 13:9–13, sometimes thought to critique contemporary Judaism, is not primarily about the temple and Jerusalem, since it refers to “tabernacle” and “camp” in terms taken from Leviticus 16. Jerusalem does appear in the reference to Jesus’ suffering “outside the gate” (Heb. 13:12), but this is part of the broader point that no refuge can be found in the Mosaic order but must be sought in the new covenant sacrifice of Christ.
One detail cited above in support of Gleason’s view requires further comment: the use of the modifier “near” in Hebrews 8:13 with regard to the disappearance of the Mosaic covenant. In two places Gleason cites this verse as follows: “the earthly temple is ‘ready to disappear’ (8:13),” and “the coming Roman invasion of Palestine that would soon bring an end to the temple sacrifices (8:13)” (pp. 351, 361). It is important to point out that 8:13 speaks specifically about the first or Mosaic covenant as growing old and soon to disappear, not about the temple or the sacrifices that are the contemporary manifestation of the Mosaic order. Also, while this is debated, I think it is more likely that this verse takes Jeremiah’s prophecy, not late sixties C.E., as its reference point in saying that the first covenant is “near to disappearing.” The whole point of the writer’s exegesis of Jeremiah 31 is that when God promised a “new” covenant through Jeremiah, the first covenant was at that point shown to be provisional, faulty, and so in God’s plan destined to pass away. And in the imagery of Hebrews the replacement has come already in the death and exaltation of Christ as High Priest of a new order. The writer is not anticipating the imminent demise of the first covenant in some physical catastrophe in Jerusalem; it already occurred almost forty years earlier (cf. 7:18; 10:9).
The final counterpoint to raise in this connection is one I mention in my essay: how will the readers’ steadfast faith in God deliver them from the imminent physical dangers of the Roman campaign against the Jewish nation? Surely the Roman invasion and conquest in its actual occurrence was a detriment to all residents of Palestine in those years, regardless of their attitude toward the Jewish sacrificial system or their adherence to the Christian assembly or whatever. Gleason speaks to this in part by citing Eusebius’s account of the church in Jerusalem receiving divine warning and fleeing to Pella to escape Jerusalem’s destruction. What are we to make of the accuracy of this account? Did even Eusebius understand that God ensured deliverance for all faithful Christians in Jerusalem before he allowed judgment to fall on the Jewish people? Was it only the faithful ones who escaped? What about Christians in other parts of Judea, Galilee, and along the coast? And since Gleason claims that his view would hold even if the readers were in the Diaspora, would the judgment or protection extend to Syria, Alexandria, Asia Minor, and so forth? Could God ever allow his people to suffer innocently when judgment comes upon the unfaithful? Does he promise miraculous exemption to all who trust him for protection? It is possible that this is what Hebrews is promising, but how likely is it?
The next area of response, and the second reason for Gleason’s view, constitutes what I consider to be the most substantive critique of Gleason’s treatment of judgment in Hebrews. He argues repeatedly that the Old Testament passages about the wilderness generation all refer to physical rather than spiritual judgment. Even though the punishment faced by the readers of Hebrews may be more severe in degree, they are the same in kind compared to the Old Testament judgments, and so they do not involve eternal condemnation. This is the most important deduction from his argument that the warning passages of Hebrews must be interpreted in light of the example of the wilderness generation, and it is the place where his misunderstanding of how the Old Testament parallels work is most pronounced.
Gleason spends a great deal of his essay working with passages in the Old Testament, trying to establish that the Exodus generation was a redeemed people and their penalty for unbelief at Kadesh-Barnea was strictly earthly loss or punishment. In addition, other passages in the Old Testament about judgment for unfaithfulness deal with physical or earthly penalties, not eternal ones. So, according to Gleason, the references to “curse,” “burning,” or “fire” in Hebrews refer to physical destruction coming upon the land as in Deuteronomy 32 and Isaiah 24–27 or to discipline by physical suffering or death as in Numbers 11 or 16 or Leviticus 10.
The point of Gleason’s work with Old Testament parallels is to say this: Just as the Old Testament people of God suffered loss of blessing, temporal judgment, or physical curse on the land, so the New Testament people of God are liable for such penalties as well—even more severe ones, but not eternal loss of relationship with God. The problem with this simple comparison is the escalation with which Hebrews relates the old covenant to the new in its typology. Hebrews repeatedly uses lesser-to-greater comparison to show the parallel between old and new in this regard. Judgment on those who reject God’s work through Christ will be immeasurably worse than what the wilderness generation suffered in rejecting God’s work through Moses, as the writer shows by his “how much more” arguments (explicit in 2:3; 10:29; 12:25; implicit in 3:5–6). The perspective of Hebrews is consistent: “If they suffered (temporal penalties) for infidelity then, how much more severely will those be judged who now repudiate the Son of God!” Surely this greater penalty is more than temporal and physical punishment and even more than loss of privilege or reward in the Christian afterlife.
Gleason’s answer to this escalation is twofold: the escalation must not be such that it “obscures [the] genuine historical and theological correspondence” (p. 342) between type and anti-type, and the judgment is not greater in kind (i.e., physical to spiritual) but is “physical punishment greater in degree or force than that previously experienced” (p. 364). He makes other points about defining typology in general (is escalation a defining trait?) and about typology within the Old Testament itself (sometimes no escalation), but none of this is relevant to how typology works in Hebrews, as Gleason himself acknowledges.
When Hebrews’s use of typology is examined, we discover that the escalation is often profoundly intensified, yet one could hardly say that the parallelism is obscured. Examples may be found in Hebrews 1:5 (the human Davidic king as God’s “son” vs. Jesus as God’s “Son”); 1:8 (the human king in Jerusalem as “God” vs. Jesus as “God”); 3:3 (the glory of Moses vs. the glory of Jesus the exalted high priest); 7:3 (Melchizedek vs. the Son of God as “without beginning of days or end of life”); 7:16, 23–24 (a priestly succession according to physical descent and limited by physical death vs. one that continues forever by the power of an indestructible life); 9:10, 13–14 (sacrifices for physical, outward cleansing vs. one that cleanses the conscience and renews inwardly); 9:11, 23–24 (an earthly, man-made sanctuary vs. a heavenly one); 10:3–4, 10–14 (blood of animals that remind of sin each year vs. the body of Jesus Christ as the eternally effective sacrifice); 12:18–24 (assembly at Mt. Sinai vs. in the heavenly Jerusalem); 12:25–26 (one who warns from earth and shakes the earth vs. one who warns from heaven and shakes both earth and heaven). In each of these the correspondence remains clear, but the typological escalation produces a deeply profound significance regarding the person of Jesus Christ and his saving work with its effects on those who benefit from it. It makes sense that the escalation of judgment on those who repudiate Christ and his work would be equally profound (cf. 2:3; 10:29; 12:25 as cited in an earlier paragraph), heightened not just in degree but also in kind.
This last point is made more certain when we consider how often the typological escalation in Hebrews focuses on the change from earthly, temporal, physical, outward features in the Old Testament type over to heavenly, eternal, spiritual, inward ones in the New Testament counterpart. I contend that all of the examples cited above from Hebrews display this characteristic. Why would we think that all the other typology in Hebrews shows escalation in kind, but the typology about judgment is one of degree only?
This is why I have not engaged Gleason’s extensive arguments about the salvific status of the Exodus generation or the character of God’s judgment on his people in the Old Testament. These are important questions for Old Testament theology and for systematic theology in general. But for the theology of Hebrews they are beside the point, especially for assessing the nature of the judgment described in the warning passages.
The third reason for Gleason’s view of judgment is that Hebrews never uses the damnation terms that are common elsewhere in describing eternal condemnation (e.g., “eternal,” “torment,” “hell/hades”) to describe the threatened punishment in Hebrews. While this argument has a certain value, it is of limited significance, because it is asking for too much. If such words were present in Hebrews’s descriptions of judgment, it would certainly prove Gleason’s view wrong, but their absence does not prove his view right. And more broadly it is invalid to require one writer to use terminology characteristic of other writers before we accept his point. We must allow him to use his own terms and interpret them in their own right in the context in which he uses them.
As a matter of fact, the terms Gleason is looking for are not consistently used elsewhere to describe eternal condemnation. He is able to cite certain texts where these terms are present, but other texts can be cited, sometimes in the same books, where none of these words is present and yet it is clear that final judgment is in view. See for example, Matthew 13:41–42, 49–50; 2 Peter 3:7–13; Revelation 19:20; 21:8 (using “fire” as in Heb. 10:27; 12:29) and Matthew 7:13; John 17:12; Acts 8:20; Romans 9:22; Philippians 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:3; 3:7; Revelation 17:8, 11 (using “destruction” as in Heb. 10:39). In fact, of the two texts from Hebrews that Gleason says pertain to eternal condemnation, one of them contains the word “eternal” (6:2), but the other uses none of the key terms he is looking for (9:27). What must be done throughout Hebrews is what Gleason has done in 9:27, that is, evaluate the wording in light of how the author expresses himself in that passage and how he develops his argument in the wider book, not on the basis of the presence or absence of terminology from other writers.
When this sort of work is done in Hebrews, we tackle such references as not escaping if we neglect Christ’s great salvation (2:3); estrangement from the living God and coming under his wrath (3:10–12); the prospect of curse, fiery judgment, and not inheriting salvation (6:8, 12); no sacrifice availing for sin (10:26; cf. the contrast to the eternal effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice in 10:17–18); the expectation of fiery judgment and destruction (10:27, 39); not escaping if we reject God’s warning from heaven (12:25). I think the best interpretation of these in the context of Hebrews is that they refer to eternal condemnation for rejecting God’s salvation in Christ.

Other Issues

Two other matters raised by Gleason’s essay require brief responses. The first is his treatment of the descriptions of those who are warned. He insists that the warnings are not addressed to unbelievers mixed in among the larger group of genuine Christians. One of his arguments for this conclusion is that “the strongest indications of a genuinely Christian audience occur within the warning passages” (p. 338). Yet he fails to discuss the fact that the most severe warnings are phrased almost entirely in third person in marked contrast to the first and second person references to the writer and the wider congregation in the surrounding passages (Heb. 6:4–8; 10:26–29).
Later, in covering one of these passages (6:4–6), Gleason illustrates a methodological shortcoming that I critique in my response to Osborne: the failure to read the entire description all the way through before deciding its theological sense. Gleason discusses the four substantival aorist participles of Hebrews 6:4–5 completely separately from the aorist substantival participle of 6:6a and the present adverbial participles of 6:6b. He makes much of the unity of the four participles of 6:4–5 and how they are linked by the single Greek article that governs them. He says, “They are all intended to describe one group” (p. 352), and they “identify the spiritual condition of the readers with that of the Exodus generation” (p. 352), but he never acknowledges that the participle in 6:6b is actually the fifth one in the unit and should be taken along with the others. His treatment of the two participles of 6:6b comes a couple of sections later in his essay and, as I discuss in the first section of this response, is not well integrated with what he says on the first part of the passage. Perhaps his conclusion would still be the same, but it is not good exegesis to decide on the theological sense of the whole sentence after studying only the first two-thirds of it.
The second matter to take up here is how Gleason handles the conditional sentences of Hebrews 3:6 and 3:14. I agree with his statements that the placement of these sentences early in Hebrews makes them significant for understanding the theology of the book. But his discussion of these can be faulted on three points: it is not well integrated into his overall argument, it is inconsistent in itself, and it is not clear about the sense of the conditions in general. The point about integration with the rest of his discussion was mentioned a few paragraphs ago: Gleason argues early in his essay against the view that the audience may be a mixed company of genuine believers and unbelievers. Then he closes by saying about 3:6 and 3:14, “the author does not promise unqualified assurance to everyone among his original audience.… [He] wanted his readers to examine themselves first to make sure that they were indeed ‘partakers of Christ’ ” (p. 376). I believe he is on the right track in his later comments, but he does not connect this insight into his larger treatment.
Second, it is inconsistent in itself. Gleason begins his paragraph on Hebrews 3:6 and 3:14 by stating, “The author makes two profound claims about the spiritual status of the readers, both followed by conditions” (p. 375). Later he says, “The author wanted his readers to examine themselves first to make sure that they were indeed ‘partakers of Christ’ ” (p. 376). Finally, he adds, “However, these conditional clauses do not disqualify all who lack firmness of any assurance.… His point in these conditional sentences is that wavering in confidence may indicate in some cases—but not in every case—that one is not truly a partaker of Christ” (p. 376, italics original). Now either these verses are about conditions for their spiritual status or they are not. Do they raise questions about the genuineness of the readers’ status or only about their assurance of that status? Do the “if” clauses raise questions about their faith in Christ or only about their “assurance of salvation”? The statements need to be clarified to avoid inconsistency.
Finally, it is not clear how Gleason understands the logic of the conditional statements in these verses. Are they cause-to-effect conditions? He implies this when he speaks of “a lack of confidence, reluctance to obey, or spiritual lethargy automatically forfeit[ing] one’s complete cleansing promised in the new covenant” (p. 376). On the other hand, he says, “Wavering in confidence may indicate in some cases … that one is not truly a partaker of Christ” (p. 376, italics original) and cites Guthrie’s treatment, which reflects an evidence-to-inference connection. I cannot help but think that if he had come to a clearer understanding of the sense of these conditional statements, he may have taken a different view of the warning passages entirely.

WESLEYAN ARMINIAN RESPONSE

Gareth Lee Cockerill

Are the warning passages a “covenantal discipline”? It is important to interact thoroughly with Gleason’s proposal in light of its potential pastoral implications. If Gleason is correct, then Hebrews gives comfort to professed believers living a lifestyle of “unbelief,” “disobedience,” and “rebellion” by assuring them that their loss will be temporal but not eternal. It would be tragic to give such comfort if false. Furthermore, despite Gleason’s title, it is doubtful if his position can be called “A Moderate Reformed View.” In my understanding the Reformed faith affirms that the perseverance of believers will be marked not by rebellion but by their progressive sanctifiscation.
Gleason describes his position clearly in the second paragraph of his essay. Hebrews is addressed to Christian believers from a Jewish background living in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem. They are being persecuted and pressured by other Jews in order to bring them back to the Jewish sacrificial system.2 The author of Hebrews warns them that if they turn from Christ and instead conform to Judaism by seeking “cleansing through the obsolete forms of the old covenant” (p. 337), they will share in the coming judgment on the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem. This terrible judgment will be for them their “discipline as sons,” and they will lose “the blessings of the new covenant,” although they will not lose their final salvation.
The fundamental error in Gleason’s argument is readily apparent from this summary of his position: he would put asunder what God has joined together in the text of Hebrews—the all-sufficient work of Christ and the believer’s eternal inheritance. This leads him to assume that turning away from Christ to find “cleansing through the obsolete forms of the Old covenant” (i.e., the Jewish sacrifices) could be less than apostasy. This position ignores the clear contextual constraints of Hebrews. If Hebrews teaches anything, it is that the high priesthood and sacrifice of Christ are the one and only sufficient provision for entrance into God’s eternal presence. Thus the consequences of turning away from Christ to anything can be nothing less than eternal loss. This truth is stated succinctly in Hebrews 10:26: “If we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”
A second and closely related error is his artificial division between the “blessings of the new covenant” and final salvation. In Hebrews the grand provision of Christ, described in Hebrews 7:1–10:18, is not only the means of final salvation but also the means of the cleansing and inner transformation that are the “present blessings of the new covenant.” The readers are urged to avail themselves of these blessings in order to persevere unto final salvation (see esp. 2:18; 4:16; 10:22). Thus, how can one lose the present grace necessary for perseverance and still persevere until entrance into the eternal homeland?
Two methodological flaws prevent Gleason from arriving at a correct understanding. First, he falls into the trap of trying to establish an original context for Hebrews before interpreting the text. Second, he repeatedly forces Hebrews to conform to his own selection from and reconstruction of Old Testament events. While agreeing that Hebrews uses the Old Testament responsibly and that there are true correspondences between the Old Testament events and what Hebrews says, I believe it is essential to let the text of Hebrews indicate the direction of those correspondences. These two improper approaches prevent Gleason from allowing Hebrews to speak for itself.

The Historical Situation of Hebrews

Beginning on page 337 Gleason seeks to determine the historical setting of Hebrews. His opening sentence is instructive: “In order to avoid reading into these texts various interpretations shaped by our theological traditions, I feel that it is critically important to exhaust our understanding of the original context of the book.” However, since the text of Hebrews is virtually our only source for determining its background, it is perilous to establish that background independently from a thorough interpretation of the text. Such a procedure only invites an interpretation determined by the interpreter’s presuppositions.
Argument for Gleason’s reconstruction of the historical background of Hebrews is also found in the articles cited in footnotes 4 and 12 of his chapter (pp. 337, 340, respectively). Although the total construct is very tenuous, its individual elements must be evaluated separately. We begin with those that have the most support and progress to those that have the least support.
Few, for instance, would deny that the recipients of Hebrews were Christian believers. Focus on the Mosaic covenant and sacrificial system suggests that these believers were of Jewish background. However, other New Testament books demonstrate the familiarity of all Christians with the Old Testament Scriptures. A number of interpreters would agree that Hebrews was probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Gleason references the normal arguments for this position: Hebrews uses the present tense when describing the temple sacrificial ritual and makes no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Certainly, it is argued, the writer would have used the destruction of the temple as evidence for the ineffectiveness of the old covenant sacrificial system. These facts, however, can be explained with equal cogency on other grounds. First, mention of the temple’s destruction might actually have detracted from the author’s contention that it was the work of Christ that showed the temporary nature of the old covenant. Second, Hebrews describes the ritual of the tabernacle as presented in the Pentateuch and makes no mention of the temple. Thus Hebrews may well be following the present tense used in the Scripture being interpreted. Gleason admits that Josephus and Clement of Rome, who lived after the destruction of Jerusalem, used the present tense to describe the tabernacle sacrificial ritual as recorded in the Pentateuch; thus, he feels it necessary to buttress his argument for a pre-destruction date by reference to the “strong polemic against returning to the sacrificial system” (p. 338n. 6). However, he gives no evidence for this polemic except to cite without comment Hebrews 7:26–27 and 10:26 (see 415n. 2). While some statements in Hebrews might accord with the danger of such a return, nothing in Hebrews clearly demands such an interpretation.
Gleason seems to realize the tenuousness of his affirmation that the recipients of Hebrews lived in Palestine. References to seeking a “heavenly city” (11:10; 12:22; 13:14) and to going “outside the camp” (13:11–13) demonstrate nothing in a book that compares the heavenly and eternal to the transitory shadow described in the Old Testament. And while it is true that hellenized Jews lived in Palestine, the rhetorical sophistication of the shape and language of Hebrews fit best in the wider Hellenistic world.
Any interpretation based on such a tenuous understanding of the situation of Hebrews can be no stronger than the shaky foundation upon which it stands. The cumulative effect of doubtful arguments is a result even more dubious. The main point of Gleason’s entire hypothesis about the situation of Hebrews is that the threatened judgment for turning from Christ was the physical suffering to be endured by the Jews at the fall of Jerusalem. We will give attention to the specifics of Gleason’s arguments when discussing Hebrews 10:26–31 below. However, this position must be rejected not merely because of the weakness of those supporting arguments but also because of the overwhelming strength of the counterargument. Gleason ignores the contextual constraints of Hebrews. As noted above, Hebrews clearly teaches that the sacrifice of Christ is the only sufficient means of eternal salvation. Thus, how can one who turns from this unique provision suffer mere temporal loss?

The Exodus Wilderness Generation (Heb. 3:7–4:11)

Much of Gleason’s argument depends on his understanding of the “Exodus generation.” Since Hebrews’s focus is on the word of God at Sinai, the Sinai covenant/sacrificial system, and the wilderness experience of these people, it would be more accurate to call them the “wilderness generation.” He sees their experience as fundamental to the warning passages of Hebrews and argues that they are a type of true Christian believers (pp. 344–45).
In my judgment Gleason overrates the role of the wilderness generation in Hebrews by failing to balance them with the examples in chapter 11’s roll call of faith. However, in my chapter of this volume, I have argued even more strongly than Gleason for continuity between the wilderness generation and the Christian recipients of Hebrews. I agree that they were true believers. Only then could their sin and its consequences function as a warning for the recipients of Hebrews. Thus I concur with Gleason that we must understand the sin against which the readers are warned in Hebrews 3–4 and its consequences in the light of Israel’s “rebellion” and unbelief at Kadesh-Barnea. Nevertheless, I would reserve the word type for those persons, institutions, and events in the Old Testament through which God effects salvation. It seems more accurate to refer to the responses of Old Testament people to God as examples for Christians to follow or avoid.
Gleason, however, errs when he contends that the loss of the wilderness generation was temporal, not eternal. His arguments for this position are three: (1) The wilderness generation did not abandon all faith in God but merely in his power to sustain their lives and give them the Promised Land (pp. 347–48); (2) they are listed in the roll call of faith in Hebrews 11 (p. 346); and (3) their sin was the same as the sin of Moses and Aaron when they struck the rock (pp. 348–50), and since Moses and Aaron did not suffer eternal loss, neither did the wilderness generation.
We will analyze these arguments in reverse order. Gleason’s argument that the nature and consequences of the people’s and Moses’ sins were “exactly” the same is a classic example of the methodological error mentioned above. He constructs a certain understanding of the relevant Old Testament passages and then forces Hebrews into his reconstruction. It is obvious that the writer of Hebrews does not consider Moses to be parallel to the wilderness generation. In Hebrews 3:1–6 one of his main points is that Moses was “faithful” as a steward in God’s “house.” In fact, these verses make a favorable comparison between the faithfulness of Christ as Son over God’s house and Moses’ faithfulness. Moses’ faithfulness is expanded in Hebrews 11:23–28. In Hebrews 3:7–19, however, the Moses-led wilderness generation is the epitome of unfaithfulness.
Furthermore, while the use of the same word for the sins of Moses and the people suggests some similarity, it certainly does not mean that they were “exactly” the same. The differences within the Old Testament context were striking. At Kadesh-Barnea Israel’s sin was the climax of much disobedience, and their persistence in attempting to enter Canaan after God forbade them was the beginning of the continued rebellion that characterized the wilderness wanderings. Moses did not have a history of past sinning, he did not persist in disobedience even after judgment as Israel did, and his body did not “fall in the wilderness.” Thus the one who viewed the Promised Land from Pisgah’s height and was buried by God certainly did not suffer “the same” punishment because he had committed “exactly the same” sin (pp. 348–49).
There is nothing in the text of Hebrews that mollifies the severity of the wilderness generation’s sin, which is described as “disobedience” (3:18), “unbelief” (3:19), “rebellion” (3:15–16), and, by implication, as falling “away from the living God” (3:12). Gleason again attempts to reduce what Hebrews has clearly affirmed by selective reference to the Old Testament. He argues that this rebellion could not have been apostasy because God “forgave” them and because they did not return to Egypt (pp. 349–50). Within the Old Testament context, the forgiveness of God preserved them from immediate death. Nevertheless, they continued to live in rebellion. Apostasy does not return one to a preconversion state. The “falling” of their bodies in the wilderness was a far worse fate than a return to Egypt. Indeed, it was to avoid such “falling” that they desired return to Egypt (Num. 14:3).
It is certainly special pleading to argue on the basis of Hebrews 11:29 that the wilderness generation was among the faithful who enter the eternal homeland. The writer does not even name his subject. He merely switches from the singular “he” referring to Moses in verse 28 to the plural “they”—“by faith they crossed the Red Sea as if on dry land.” How could the writer omit the crossing of the Red Sea from the great acts of faith? Indeed, the wilderness generation is conspicuous for its absence from this chapter, for the very next example of faith is the destruction of the walls of Jericho. In the examples associated with Abraham (11:8–22) and Moses (11:23–28) the writer has just described a faith that perseveres—the exact opposite of the wilderness generation’s response.
Finally, Gleason’s identification of apostasy with abandoning “all faith” in God is ambiguous, artificial, and noncontextual. In Hebrews the failure to obtain the eternal homeland is not theoretical abandonment of faith in God. The faithful in Hebrews 11 enter that heavenly homeland because they live as those who believe God fulfills his promises of future blessing and sustains his people in the present (11:1, 3, 6). This is exactly the kind of faith the wilderness generation did not have. They refused to live as if God’s power was adequate to fulfill his promise.
I have no quarrel with Gleason’s argument that the “rest” of Hebrews 3–4 is a Sabbath celebration of “God’s life-sustaining presence among them,” as experienced in the Garden of Eden, the tabernacle, and the temple (pp. 350–51). What could be a better description of that life in God’s presence, which is the eternal inheritance of believers anticipated by their present experience in Christ (12:22–24)? I have demonstrated in my chapter that the “rest” of Hebrews 3–4 must be the same as the eternal homeland that the faithful of Hebrews 11 enter. Thus there is no reason to identify the rest as “Sabbath celebration” with present blessing to the exclusion of eternal fulfillment. Gleason can give no reason for such a separation except to again reiterate that Moses, Aaron, and Miriam did not enter the Promised Land.

Hebrews 6:4–6

Gleason would reduce the “falling away” of Hebrews 6:6 from apostasy incurring eternal loss to “a decisive refusal to mature” and the loss of present blessing (pp. 353–55). He argues correctly that we must determine the meaning of “falling away” by the context since in and of itself the Greek term here used (παραπεσόντας) does not necessarily mean apostasy. (Has anyone ever said it did?) He then argues that Hebrews 6:4–6 is a description of the wilderness generation already presented in Hebrews 3:7–4:11. Thus the sin of “falling away” must be the same as their sin. Since their sin was not apostasy, the “falling away” of 6:6 must not have been apostasy.
The faults in this argument are two. First, Gleason’s contention that this passage is meant to be a description of the wilderness generation is forced. Is the statement that the readers had been “enlightened” (6:4) really an allusion to the pillar of fire? Is their tasting the heavenly gift a true parallel to Israel’s eating “manna”? More dubious yet is the likening of their being “partakers of the Holy Spirit” to the coming of the Spirit upon the seventy elders in Numbers 11:16–30. Nor does their tasting the “good word of God” seem much like Israel’s receiving the Mosaic law confirmed by signs (pp. 352–53). This forced parallel leads Gleason to avoid the constraints of the immediate context. Second, even if the writer of Hebrews were thinking of the wilderness generation, I have shown the apostasy inherent in that generation’s refusal to live as if God’s promises were true and his power was real.
Gleason makes the reductionist error of explaining “crucifying again the Son of God” and “holding him up to contempt” in Hebrews 6:6 by the failure to “go on to maturity (perfection)” in 6:1. Furthermore, he has not given sufficient contextual consideration to what this maturity is. Almost all commentators are agreed that this exhortation extending from Hebrews 5:11 to 6:20 is given to prepare the readers to grasp the writer’s exposition of Christ’s definitive high priestly work in Hebrews 7:1–10:18. For this and other reasons, “maturity” is to be identified with living in the fullness of his high priestly provision, which is the only way for anyone (past or present, cf. Heb. 11:39–40) to enter the heavenly homeland.
According to Gleason, the recipients of Hebrews are in danger of failing to go on to maturity by returning to the animal sacrifices of the Levitical system. This return would be a “crucifying of the Son of God” and a holding him up to “contempt” (pp. 357–58). If, indeed, such a return is what the writer of Hebrews has in mind, how could it be less than apostasy? Gleason refers to it being done privately. How does one participate privately in what was essentially a corporate affair, the sacrificial worship of the temple? Moreover, no matter how private, such a return would be a repudiation of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, which Hebrews is at pains to show is the one and only effective way of salvation. While I would question the identification of the problem as a literal return to the sacrificial system (see above), Gleason’s own argument at this point is self-destructive of his position.

Hebrews 10:26–31

Gleason next turns to the warning passage found in Hebrews 10:26–31, which is part of the author’s application of the sufficiency of Christ’s high priesthood and sacrifice as presented in Hebrews 7:1–10:18. He argues that the punishment for the willful sin (10:26), here described as a spurning of the Son of God, a profaning of the blood of the covenant established by the Son, and an outraging of the Spirit (10:29), is temporal discipline rather than eternal loss. His extensive argument may be reduced to two points: First, the Old Testament allusions used to describe punishment in this passage refer, in their Old Testament context, to physical punishment. Second, the author of Hebrews does not use the language common in the rest of the New Testament to describe eternal damnation (pp. 358–60). For all practical purposes Gleason ignores the significance of the immediate contextual relationship of this passage to Hebrews 7:1–10:18.
It is easy to expose the methodological flaws in these two arguments. The language of Hebrews is unique when compared to the rest of the New Testament. This is not merely a matter of hapax legomena but of the linguistic world that Hebrews creates and the way in which this book presents the high priestly and sacrificial work of Christ. It is only logical that Hebrews would use language to describe judgment native to its own conceptual framework. Furthermore, the fact that the biblical allusions here cited refer to physical punishment within the Old Testament proves nothing. The Old Testament seldom refers clearly to eternal punishment. As an aside, since most of these allusions refer to physical death they can hardly be thought of as remedial “discipline.”
These Old Testament allusions now describe eternal loss since the “better” sacrifice of Christ, explained in Hebrews 7:1–10:18, has come and has, according to Hebrews 10:19–25, provided the one and only way into God’s heavenly presence. Thus the consequences of neglecting the warnings against rejecting Christ’s provision can be nothing less than eternal exclusion from that Divine presence. It is within this context that we must understand the less-to-greater argument of 10:28–29. Since Christ’s sacrifice is now the only way into God’s presence, what else could it mean but eternal damnation when the writer says that if we sin deliberately “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (10:26)? The one and only sacrifice that provides entrance into God’s presence is no longer available to such a sinner!
Finally, Gleason’s argument that the anticipated judgment was the much more severe suffering of the Jews at the coming destruction of the temple is totally unconvincing. First of all, descriptions of the severity of that suffering in Josephus are purely gratuitous in the absence of other evidence. Reference to the cursing and burning of the land (Heb. 6:8) is hardly sufficient to indicate an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem (p. 362). The anticipated disappearance of the old covenant in Hebrews 8:13 most assuredly does not refer to the destruction of the temple (p. 362). In that verse the writer is arguing from the point of view of Jeremiah’s new covenant promise as given in the Old Testament. By the very giving of such a promise, God indicated that the old covenant would pass away. Such passing occurred when the promise was fulfilled in Christ. In all of this we must never lose sight of the fact that Gleason avoids the obvious contextual requirement that this punishment be understood as eternal loss because the offenders have rejected the only sacrifice that brings eternal gain.

Assurance in Hebrews

Gleason concludes with a section on “Assurance in Hebrews” (pp. 367–77). Most of what I would say in critique of this section has already been said in my response to Fanning. Here it is enough to reiterate that the full sufficiency of Christ’s work in Hebrews is God’s provision for, and not a guarantee of, perseverance. When we see that the threatened eternal loss is the natural result of rejecting God’s only adequate provision for salvation, then the warning passages and the assertions of Christ’s sufficiency fit together perfectly, and they do so on the author of Hebrews’s own terms, not ours.
Gleason’s use of Hebrews 10:17–18 and 7:25 calls for brief comment. There is nothing in the context of 10:17–18 that would indicate that these verses proclaim a forgiveness that is effective for a person’s past, present, and future sins regardless of perseverance in faith. In fact, the warning passages prevent us from understanding this forgiveness in such a carte blanche fashion.
Gleason interprets Hebrews 7:25 in the temporal sense as a proof of the believer’s eternal security—Christ is able “to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (NASB). The inclusive qualitative interpretation, “to save completely,” is more in line with 7:1–28, which bases the sufficiency of Christ on his eternal Sonship (see 7:3, 8, and especially “the power of an indestructible life” in 7:16). In addition, Gleason conveniently ignores the phrase “those who come to God through him.” The Son saves completely and forever those who continue (present tense) to come to God through him to receive the grace necessary for perseverance (4:16; 10:22).

Conclusion

In conclusion I must reiterate that Gleason’s interpretation is not convincing because he has put asunder what God has joined together in the text of Hebrews—Christ’s once-for-all sufficient sacrifice and entrance into the heavenly homeland. Gleason would have us believe that we can turn away from that sacrifice and still receive the eternal inheritance into which it alone provides access. He would also have us think that we can enter the heavenly homeland although we do not have the present blessing of persevering grace. He reconstructs a historical situation for Hebrews that, aside from its own inherent weaknesses, contradicts this fundamental unity between Christ’s sacrifice as means and the heavenly homeland as end. He distorts Hebrews’s use of the Old Testament by forcing it to fit into his own selective reconstruction of Old Testament events. When faced with the winds of careful analysis his position cannot be correct because it is based on the sand of tenuous historical reconstruction and selective Old Testament use rather than on the solid rock of Hebrews’s own contextual indicators. Moreover, the false comfort it gives may lead to the eternal downfall of professed believers by condoning their lives of disobedience rather than urging the necessity of a godly life established on the firm foundation of Christ’s provision.

CONCLUSION

George H. Guthrie

It is with a great sense of gratitude that I offer final reflections on a dialogue that is both gracious and sharpening, collegial and appropriately intense. Having come to the work so late in the day, like the vineyard workers of Jesus’ parable, I am especially grateful to Herbert Bateman, the discussants (all of whom I consider friends), and Jim Weaver of Kregel, for allowing me the opportunity to think through these issues once again and learn. The essays, including the introduction by Herb, and the responses are of good quality, thorough, and detailed, setting out clearly the primary issues needing attention. They also represent fairly well particular expressions of Calvinism and Arminianism, the main camps in this discussion, and through Randall Gleason’s contributions offer another perspective more off the beaten path. An overview of the ground to be covered has been spread clearly before us via the introduction, arguments have been set on the table in order, and responses from various perspectives have been served. So what is left for me to do?
My understanding is that I am not here as a referee, although some of my personal concerns inevitably will come through. To those who have done a close reading of this book, it already is clear that my own position on the warnings of Hebrews, detailed especially in my NIV Application Commentary on the book, comes closest to that of Buist Fanning. Thus, without restraints, or encouragement toward the higher road of the book’s greater purpose—that is, to help our brothers and sisters in Christ to think through these important matters and how such matters should be discussed—I might simply declare Buist the “winner” and you could spend the next fifteen minutes arguing about apostasy with your opponent of choice over a latte at Starbucks. What I have been asked to do, rather, is more panoramic in scope, attempting to cast light on the broader canvas, along the way raising a number of open-ended questions for further reflection and study, and this I am glad to do.

Reflections on How the Dialogue Has Been Conducted

First, the manner in which this scholarly dialogue has been conducted in these pages represents well an irenic, evangelical Christianity that at once aspires to the clarification of truth and the fostering of Christian community—two goals too often treated as unrelated. Especially in some corners of American Christianity, secondary and tertiary issues of doctrine, important to be sure, have become excuses for clearing the floor for a fight, or at least for a relational passivity that withholds fellowship from “the other side.” Too often such fights go public, building reputations of the combatants, while doling out black eyes to the bride for whom the fighters supposedly have entered the ring. Where the secondary and tertiary are moved to the position of primary, we are in danger not only of hurting one another by skewing a dialogue that might move all of us closer to the truth but also of hurting the larger body, both in terms of reputation and community, by a spirit of divisiveness that closes down conversation and communicates a poor image to the broader world.
On the other hand, in other streams of Christianity, both American and global, an appeal to the fostering of community can at times eclipse any real seriousness about theological issues, and the point becomes, “Let’s just get along at all costs.” Here too we are in danger of hurting one another and the church by the erosion of theological foundations that cannot be compromised, appealing rather to belief in nothing in particular beyond tolerance of politically correct positions. This too is a way that in the end must be marked as tacitly wrongheaded.
In contrast to both a fundamentalist type of rigidity and a more liberal passivity about theological specificity, the dialogue in these pages has been balanced, confrontational at points—these essayists care about truth—yet carried out in a true spirit of Christian graciousness, given to neither sentimentality nor ad hominem attacks. As Bateman notes in the introduction, professional academic contexts, at their best, can foster such dialogue to the good of the church.
Second, a “four views” approach of necessity spends a great deal of time highlighting points of difference among the various positions. Yet the discussants themselves have constantly pointed to areas of agreement that should not be missed. For instance, all would agree that the warnings of Hebrews call hearers to take seriously the spiritual danger represented by apostasy. For example, whether one favors Fanning’s Calvinistic perspective or the classical Arminian and Wesleyan positions of Osborne and Cockerill, at the end of the day the apostate’s status before God and eternal destiny have been called into question. A soul hangs in the balance, even as it brazenly stands over against the cross, joining those who denigrate Jesus and the significance of his death. This is deadly serious business, whether one is manifesting the lack of salvation, or turning away from a salvation in which one truly has partaken. Thus, highlighting points of agreement in such discussions is entirely appropriate and helpful. It shows us where we stand together and our common beliefs and values, placing us in a long tradition of the church that has been at once generally unified around certain key points of doctrine and decidedly variegated on a host of other matters.
That having been said, the dialogue has been approached with an apt seriousness and concern for its implications in the church. These scholars have not bantered about platitudes in hope of winning an ivory tower debate. No, they clearly hold the conviction that how a person interprets the warnings in Hebrews really matters, reflecting aspects of one’s understanding of God, salvation, the church, and the Christian life.
In turn, the way we think about these central topics of the Christian faith inevitably affects how we minister both inside and outside the church, how we talk about issues of assurance or the danger of apostasy. Whether one agrees with Osborne and Cockerill that real Christians can lose salvation, or holds the position of Fanning that those who have seemed to be believers may manifest a lack of salvation, or sides with Gleason that the warnings of Hebrews concern a loss of rewards and temporal punishment makes a great deal of difference in the day-to-day thinking processes of real people on the street.
The way, for instance, that thinking about eternal security has developed in my own denomination (Southern Baptist), which in its most popular expressions is a blend of Calvinistic and Arminian perspectives, has at points had disastrous effects on orthopraxy and ministry. With the catchphrase “once saved, always saved” on their rebellious lips, people too often, I’m afraid, have been given a spiritual assurance they should not have. We have placed so much emphasis on the point of conversion, the entrance into grace, that we have missed the many exhortations of the New Testament to examine ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. It may be that inadvertently and with cruel irony, in the name of the gospel, we have sent some on their way to an eternity apart from Christ. Yet, if while holding to what I would consider a true form of eternal security (“once saved, always saved—if saved”), we encourage those who are drifting to take their spiritual danger seriously, it would change the way we minister to those in such crises.
On the other hand, our emphasis on the point of conversion to the exclusion of other aspects of salvation (both present and in the future), such as the ongoing, transformative work of the Spirit in the believer’s life, in some cases may foster spiritual doubt on the part of those who should be resting in confidence and God’s amazing grace. They witness a seeming lack of God’s work in their lives, so they question whether he is involved in their lives at all. It could be they simply have been spiritually underfed and ill taught about the Christian life robustly lived. People live out the way they think, and the way we have taught them to think theologically (or the way we have failed to teach them) has very practical ramifications.
Thus, theological study, and discussions such as the one in this book, should be encouraged and supported as vitally important enterprises for the church. We also should work harder at taking the next step and making the connections between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For instance, perhaps we need more discussion on the problem of apostasy in the church, as an outgrowth of the debate in this book. After all, in North America alone, thousands upon thousands leave the church every year. Our percentages of retention, when our teenagers go off to college, are dismal. Large blocks of the next generations are turning their backs on the church forever. How can we work better, in more theologically informed manners, to mitigate this situation? How do we respond appropriately, with the individuals in our communities, when people leave our churches? What perspectives do different Christian traditions bring to this issue? How can we learn from one another? Theology has wonderfully (or horribly) practical ramifications, and, therefore, we must give it much greater attention, lest they “drift away.”

Further Reflections on Hermeneutics and the Practice of Theology

Given the importance of fostering theological dialogue, let me now raise (or emphasize) several specific issues that might further the dialogue of these pages. In some cases these issues have been introduced already in the course of the book, but it might help to lift them out of the fray, highlighting them in bold relief.
First, it seems to me that more work is needed on the nature of the hortatory materials in Hebrews. Another look at this issue, for instance, might help us in delimiting the warnings themselves, their exact boundaries being somewhat pliable in this discussion. What passages are true warnings, over against other subgenre in the hortatory materials of the book (e.g., promises, mitigation, positive examples, or encouragement, to name a few)? How is the discussion affected by looking at the distinct role of various subgenre, both in Hebrews and other ancient literature? In this regard, help might be found from various approaches to the text, including perhaps rhetorical criticism as in the work of David deSilva, and speech act theory as used by scholars such as Anthony Thiselton and Kevin Vanhoozer. Each of these approaches in its own way addresses how the text functions to elicit response from the hearers. In other words, the author of Hebrews sought to accomplish something in those who first were addressed by its stirring message, and we should think carefully about his agenda.
For instance, it is doubtful that the author primarily was teaching theology when he wrote what we have as Hebrews 6:4–8. The passage certainly comes to the hearer with theological presuppositions, or an assumed theological framework, but we should be careful about using hortatory passages as foundation stones for building a particular theological system by which we in turn interpret the theological presuppositions behind hortatory passages! I am not suggesting the warnings of Hebrews should play no role in the development of our theological understanding—I have already suggested that the theological discussion carried on in this book is important to the life of the church. I merely am asking that we think very carefully about the exact nature of the role they play in our theological discussions. To put it in terms used by our discussants, what exactly is the “pastoral strategy” of the author at these points in the book of Hebrews, and how should his pastoral strategy relate to ours? The warnings of Hebrews are not less than “theological”—certainly not a-theological!—but they are more, and it seems to me, therefore, that they should be more to us as well.
Second, a good deal of work in New Testament studies has begun on allusive echoes (e.g., Richard Hayes, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul), and this work, in any semblance of a systematic analysis, is just beginning to get underway on Hebrews itself (e.g., Guthrie, Commentary on the Old Testament in the New Testament: Hebrews). For instance, the authors of our dialogue discuss briefly the proposed allusions found in Hebrews 6:4–8 to the wilderness wandering episodes of the Old Testament. At this stage of the discussion on the existence of these possible echoes, we are at a “yes, I see them” and “no, I don’t” impasse. What guidelines do we need in determining when we have real data in hand? What are the rules of the game for distinguishing true allusion from an accidental parallel in topic?
Randall Gleason’s essay raises the issue not only of how one detects allusive material, but also of how one understands the interplay of allusive materials with the original Old Testament context and with the text of Hebrews itself. What exactly is the nature of the intertextuality that is at play? That is, how and to what end is the author appropriating the Old Testament text at this or any point in the book? For example, if we discern echoes at 6:4–8, are these faint allusions to the wilderness wandering materials meant simply to provide illustration or some other form of analogy? Or are they typological in some way? If analogy, then analogy with what group? To what end? What are the intentions and limits of the analogy? If there is a typological relationship with the Christian community, is it the Christian community contemporary to the writing of Hebrews or to Christians of all ages? What is the nature of the typological relationship?
Moreover, how do we interpret the allusions in terms of their relative weight, as they exist alongside more overt elements in the text, in helping us understand the author’s intentions? My point is that we need to do more work on guidelines for detecting allusions or echoes in Hebrews’s warnings and on using possible echoes in interpretation once they have been detected. Work on echoes is an area underdeveloped in Hebrews research at this point.
Third, it seems to me that more attention needs to be paid to the question of the author’s perspective as he attempted to minister to the original hearers of Hebrews. In Is There a Meaning in This Text? Kevin Vanhoozer has called for a respect for the author as an aspect of our hermeneutic endeavors. I want to suggest that we are an extension of the author’s interpretive community, a community born of the Holy Spirit, continuing a life as the church started two millennia ago. We, of all people, should respect this author as a fellow believer.
I am not speaking of attempting psychological archaeology here but rather of developing a heightened sensitivity to the fact that the author was not omniscient in dealing with his congregation(s), a fact to which the author hints in the text of Hebrews. The discussants have alluded briefly to this question, but it needs more attention. Too often in debates about apostasy, we treat the text as if the author thinks of those to whom he writes, or of those of whom he speaks, as “believers” or “unbelievers.”
Yet, real ministry situations, of course, are not so cut and dried. Any group of people gathered in the name of Christ will manifest a spectrum of spiritual conditions. That this was the experience of the early church seems to me to have a great deal of New Testament evidence in its favor. The author of Hebrews, others in the early church, you and I, are limited in our knowledge of the spiritual condition of any other person and, as pointed out by Jesus, as well as other New Testament authors, are dependent on outward manifestations in discerning the spiritual conditions of others (cf. Matt. 7:15–23; James 2:14–26).
In Hebrews 4:1 the author calls for an appropriate “fear” with regard to the promised rest, lest it “seem” that any of them have come up short of it. In contrast to the harsh warning of 6:4–8, the author is “persuaded” of better things concerning those to whom he writes, things that accompany salvation; and his persuasion stems, apparently, from their faithfulness (6:9). The hearers themselves bolster their own hope by their diligence in Christ-following (6:11). These hints at the finiteness of human perspective when it comes to one’s spiritual condition seem to me to correspond to other New Testament texts, including 2 Corinthians 13:5a, the familiar, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves” (This and succeeding quotations are from NIV). Similarly, 1 John offers, “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands” (2:3); “This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did” (2:5–6); “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence” (3:18–19). Spiritual condition manifests itself in the life of the individual.
So Hebrews, as a “ministry” document, seems to assume that those in the target audience cannot confidently be labeled “believers” over against “unbelievers.” Rather, there is a murky, in-between condition in which the spiritual condition of some “members” of the group has been called into question. How, then, as an aspect of our interpretive framework, does this change the discussion on apostasy, and, once again, how does it change how we address the issue of apostasy in the church?
Finally, and closely related to the previous point, we need to take seriously the tensions that exist in the practice of theology, and these tensions are never more prominent than when we are dealing with the issue of God’s work of salvation in humanity. I had planned to address the matter of theological tensions before reading Grant Osborne’s response to Gareth Cockerill, in which he calls for living in such tensions so as to balance biblical truths concerning security and warning. As one who comes at the question of Hebrews’s warnings from more of a Reformed perspective, let me join Grant in this emphasis.
It must be admitted, first of all, that the crux theologorum (“why some, not others?” a cross carried by theologians), for instance, is largely a Protestant cross, and at points we have opened ourselves to charges by Catholic theologians and New Testament scholars such as Tom Wright of individualistic navel gazing, thus missing the grand themes of corporate solidarity and being called as a people rather than as individual persons. Yet, while we at points have lost important emphases on our being a people of God, I would suggest that the issue of an individual’s salvation and personal response to the gospel are important emphases in the New Testament as well. The book of Hebrews itself seems to make distinctions between different groups and individuals within the community to which it speaks. We are to watch out lest any of our number fall away from God, to encourage one another lest any of us are hardened by sin’s deceitfulness (3:12–13). Yet we also should not miss the corporate dimensions of salvation and perseverance. When members of the community are not faithful to the covenant, a root of bitterness springs up, and this defiles many (Heb. 12:15). In other words, the issue of apostasy is not merely about the health, or the lack of it, of individuals, but also concerns the health or lack of health of the church.
Second, Hebrews manifests certain tensions in its theological framework. For instance, there are the temporal tensions of inaugurated eschatology—the “now and not yet”—in the book. At 2:5–9 the author treats an apparent “contradiction” between Psalm 8:6 (“you … put everything under his feet”) and Psalm 110:1 (“until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”), the latter quoted at 1:13. Hebrews’s solution? Psalm 8:6 means that indeed all things, in reality, have been subjected to Christ’s rule (Heb. 2:8a). Psalm 110:1, on the other hand, means that we do not yet see all things subjected to him (Heb. 2:8b). In other words, there are certain spiritual realities that have already been established that will be consummated at the end of the age. We live in a time of theological tension between the triumph of the exaltation and the ultimate triumph of the parousia.
There also are spatial tensions in Hebrews. We are a wandering people on the earth, who are to emulate those of faith who sought a lasting city (11:9–10, 13–14), and we are called to draw near to God (4:16; 10:22). Yet in the new covenant, the author tells us, we have already come to the city of the living God, indeed to God himself (12:22–24). Thus, we are those who both have arrived and are arriving somewhere.
Further, if we are dealing with the living God, a God who is eternal yet works in our temporal existence, and thus is not just some human, religious construct, would we not expect that there would be aspects of God’s dealings that we would have a hard time understanding? In this regard, is it not true that God’s work on the human soul can be seen with “20/20” clarity only from God’s perspective? Yes, God has revealed truths with regard to salvation—we are not left in the dark as to the salvation God offers in Christ, the need for our response to the gospel, and how God will respond to us when we have responded to him. Yet, even if one assumes some form of an ordo salutis (an ordered list of the aspects of God’s work of salvation), who but God could claim to have perfect perspective on exactly how God accomplishes the various aspects of his glorious work in the human heart? Like preschoolers attempting to understand physics, perhaps we will have to grow up to our glorified selves before we will be able to see into greater mysteries than we can grasp now. We are forced to a posture of humility.
What then are we to do with questions like those posed by Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews? Should we fight the theological tensions we encounter as enemies, attempting to eradicate them altogether? I think not. Rather, we should, first, study hard to see as clearly as possible what is revealed in Scripture, seeking to understand more of the ways of God. We should have long and intense dialogue with others in the body of Christ, such as the dialogue embodied in this book, in hope of drawing nearer to the truth that God has revealed in his Word, and in the process helping others in their drawing near as well. Finally, though, perhaps we will have to embrace a certain amount of theological tension between various aspects of God’s revealed truth and, at the same time, embrace our brothers and sisters who see those truths from a different perspective. This will demand a mix of theological discipline, commitment to community, and personal humility that we greatly need in the evangelicalism of our day.
While in Cambridge, England, in the spring of 2005, I was introduced to the ministry and person of Charles Simeon, a scholar-pastor who represents well an appropriate humility when dealing with our tension-filled topic of this book. Simeon was Calvinistic in his theology, yet he wanted to be known as resolutely biblical, not going beyond what is clearly revealed in Scripture and not forcing texts inappropriately into systematic molds. He stated, “My endeavor is to bring out of Scripture what is there, and not to thrust in what I think might be there. I have a great jealousy on this head; never to speak more or less than I believe to be the mind of the Spirit in the passage I am expounding.” His goal was “to endeavor to give to every portion of the Word of God its full and proper force, without considering what scheme it favours, or whose system it is likely to advance.”4
Moreover, Simeon thought it a “great evil,” when in the name of theological systems, “doctrines [of grace] are made a ground of separation one from another.” He stated that “in reference to truths which are involved in so much obscurity as those which relate to the sovereignty of God, mutual kindness and concession are far better than vehement argumentation and uncharitable discussion.”
In a memorable encounter between Simeon and the then elderly John Wesley, Simeon recalls the following conversation.

SIMEON. Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

WESLEY. Yes, I do indeed.

SIMEON. And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

WESLEY. Yes, solely through Christ.

SIMEON. But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterward by your own works?

WESLEY. No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

SIMEON. Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

WESLEY. No.

SIMEON. What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

WESLEY. Yes, altogether.

SIMEON. And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

WESLEY. Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

SIMEON. Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

It seems to me that the dialogue between Simeon and Wesley serves as a fitting conclusion to Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, itself a dialogue between the theological heirs of Simeon and Wesley. Hopefully, the book has shed light on particular passages in Hebrews, stimulated a great deal of theological reflection, study, and conversation, challenged us in aspects of ministry praxis, and moved us all toward a deeper grappling with various aspects of God’s revealed truth. Yet, hopefully too we have grown in a resolute commitment to Christian community, simply by joining in such an important conversation.

AUTHOR INDEX

Abegg, Martin, 30n. 12
Adams, J. C., 110n. 66
Allen, Ronald B., 253n. 7
Andriessen, Paul, 108n. 59
Arminius, Jacob, 86, 306, 336n. 2
Ashby, Stephen M., 158n. 1, 208n. 79
Ashley, Timothy R., 349n. 31
Attridge, Harold W., 38n. 23, 60n. 44, 69n. 52, 99n. 33, 100n. 34, 102n. 40, 103, 105n. 47, 106n. 51, 107, 110n. 65, 111, 113nn. 74–75, 114n. 76, 115, 116n. 81, 117n. 84, 120n. 89, 121n. 92, 123n. 99, 151n. 5, 173n. 3, 185n. 27, 186n. 31, 226, 260n. 6, 268n. 26, 278n. 51, 281n. 60, 294, 311n. 3, 328n. 7, 386, 392n. 20, 393, 405n. 10

Bachmann, Michael, 343n. 22
Baker, David L., 341n. 18
Barker, Margaret, 166n. 15
Bateman, Herbert W., IV, 9, 11, 23, 30n. 13, 70n. 55, 91n. 12, 430, 432
Baumgartner, Walter, 350n. 32
Beale, G. K., 341
Beeke, Joel, 248n. 2
Bénétreau, S., 279
Berkhof, L., 172, 173n. 2, 303
Borchert, Gerald L., 91n. 16, 116n. 81, 193n. 48, 195, 197, 222, 223, 367n. 56, 388n. 14
Bornkamm, Günther, 339n. 8
Bowker, John, 29n. 10
Boyer, James L., 209n. 83
Briant, Pierre, 39n. 25
Brown, Francis, 16, 354n. 35
Brown, Raymond E., 158n. 2
Bruce, F. F., 32n. 14, 100n. 34, 107n. 56, 110n. 65, 111, 113n. 75, 114n. 76, 115, 138n. 13, 158n. 2, 161n. 9, 185n. 28, 193n. 47, 198n. 56, 207, 224n. 6, 311n. 4, 317n. 13, 332n. 8, 333n. 9, 357n. 38, 357n. 39, 364n. 54, 370n. 61, 393n. 22
Buchanan, G. W., 159n. 4, 338n. 5, 340n. 12, 393n. 21
Buck, Daniel E., 25n. 4, 84n. 66
Burns, Lanier, 182n. 20

Calvin, John, 20, 137n. 10, 240n. 5, 306, 336
Caneday, Ardel B., 128n. 110, 203, 208
Carlston, Charles Edwin, 175n. 8
Carson, D. A., 92n. 17, 128n. 110, 135n. 7, 137n. 11, 138n. 13, 139n. 15, 142n. 20, 204, 207, 208, 213n. 88, 223, 224nn. 5–6, 232, 247n. 1, 317n. 13
Carter, Charles W., 323n. 1
Cockerill, Gareth L., 8, 11–12, 26, 39, 41n. 27, 57, 61, 63n. 46, 80, 130, 131n. 2, 134n. 4, 135, 140, 144, 198n. 56, 200n. 62, 233, 257, 265, 265n. 17, 293–310, 314–25, 326n. 5, 327, 329–33, 335, 399n. 5, 413n. 16, 415, 432, 433, 440
Colijn, Brenda B., 208n. 80
Compton, R. Bruce, 179n. 13
Cook, Edward, 30n. 12

Davies, W. D., 270n. 29
Decker, Rodney J., 215n. 95
Delitzsch, F., 159n. 4
De Silva, David A., 24n. 3, 25n. 4, 27n. 5, 34n. 18, 44n. 28, 53n. 37, 88, 91, 97n. 29, 98n. 29, 105n. 46, 109n. 64, 114n. 77, 120n. 89, 121, 122n. 95, 145, 151n. 5, 182n. 19, 189n. 38, 200n. 60, 258n. 3, 261n. 7, 263n. 12, 264n. 14, 266n. 20, 267n. 21, 271n. 31, 272n. 35, 274n. 38, 275n. 39, 276n. 46, 277nn. 49–50, 278n. 51, 278n. 53, 285n. 71, 286n. 73, 290, 295, 308, 311n. 5, 323n. 3, 386n. 6, 392n. 20, 436
De Young, J., 270n. 30
Di Lella, Alexander A., 75n. 57
Dillow, Joseph C., 127n. 106, 178n. 11, 188nn. 35–36, 206n. 74, 345n. 25, 360n. 42, 383, 407n. 11
Dods, Marcus, 357n. 38, 361n. 44, 404n. 9
Donaldson, Amy M., 30n. 11

Eaton, Michael A., 255n. 10, 344n. 25, 360n. 42
Ellingworth, Paul, 38n. 23, 60n. 43, 63n. 46, 87, 88n. 3, 90n. 10, 92n. 17, 95, 97n. 27, 99n. 33, 100, 103, 105n. 46, 106n. 51, 109n. 62, 110n. 65, 118n. 85, 120n. 90, 122n. 96, 123n. 99, 124n. 101, 125n. 102, 160n. 8, 220, 221n. 3, 229, 243n. 8, 244n. 9, 260n. 6, 264n. 15, 265n. 16, 274n. 37, 276nn. 43–45, 278n. 53, 280n. 58, 281n. 60, 282n. 65, 308, 317, 318n. 14, 339n. 9, 360n. 40, 386n. 6, 388n. 13, 391n. 19, 392n. 20, 393
Elliot, Ernest, 332n. 8
Elliott, J. Keith, 115n. 79, 185n. 29
Emmrich, Martin, 189n. 37, 192n. 45, 216n. 96, 244, 289, 344n. 24
Enns, Peter E., 105n. 47, 267n. 23, 272n. 33, 385n. 5

Fanning, Buist M., 8, 12, 26, 36n. 21, 40, 49, 54, 61, 80, 82, 129, 155, 172, 182n. 20, 213n. 88, 220–225, 228, 230–232, 233n. 1, 234–48, 250, 253, 255, 256, 264n. 15, 290n. 78, 295, 307, 317n. 11, 324, 347n. 28, 360n. 41, 378, 393, 394n. 26, 428, 431, 432, 433
Fee, Gordon D., 251n. 4
Feinberg, John S., 164n. 12
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T., 166n. 14, 167n. 19
France, R. T., 341

Garland, David E., 251n. 6, 255n. 9
Geisler, Norman L., 255n. 10, 344n. 25
Gheorghita, Radu, 162n. 11
Gleason, Randall C., 8, 12–13, 26, 40, 54, 57, 61, 80, 82, 105n. 47, 145, 150, 157, 178n. 11, 179n. 14, 183, 184n. 25, 187n. 34, 188n. 36, 189n. 39, 220, 246, 266n. 19, 267n. 20, 269n. 27, 272n. 35, 274n. 36, 277n. 47, 295, 296, 308n. 1, 322, 336, 337n. 4, 340n. 12, 345n. 26, 362n. 45, 378–84, 390, 392–94, 396–413, 415nn. 1–2, 416–30, 433, 437
Goodman, M., 161n. 10
Goppelt, Leonhard, 341n. 18, 342n. 19
Grässer, Erich, 93n. 20, 101n. 37, 106n. 51, 111, 117n. 84, 120n. 89, 151n. 5
Gray, Barbara C., 254n. 8
Grogan, G. W., 263n. 10
Gromacki, Robert, 345n. 25
Grudem, Wayne, 112n. 72, 133n. 3, 138n. 13, 142n. 20, 179n. 13, 180n. 15, 193nn. 46–47, 200n. 62, 203n. 70, 207, 209n. 81, 217n. 98, 221n. 3, 317n. 13, 339n. 10
Guthrie, George H., 8, 13, 24n. 2, 27, 27n. 6, 36n. 21, 84n. 66, 91n. 11, 100n. 34, 105n. 47, 106n. 51, 107n. 54, 109n. 62, 110n. 65, 111, 115, 116n. 81, 120n. 87, 124n. 100, 138n. 13, 139n. 14, 141n. 18, 207n. 77, 217n. 97, 227, 231n. 15, 232, 248, 317n. 13, 368n. 57, 376n. 72, 387n. 10, 388n. 14, 392n. 20, 393n. 22, 414, 430, 437n. 2

Hagner, Donald A., 109n. 62, 328n. 7
Harris, Dana, 96n. 24
Hayes, Richard, 437n. 1
Hengel, Martin, 159n. 5
Hodges, Zane, 127n. 106, 142n. 19, 172n. 1, 177n. 10, 188nn. 35–36, 206n. 74, 383
Hofius, Otfried, 105n. 46, 162n. 11
Holwerda, David E., 269n. 28, 270n. 29
Houwelingen, P. H. R. van, 254n. 8, 367n. 55
Hughes, Philip E., 23, 24n. 1, 97n. 26, 99n. 33, 100n. 34, 103n. 41, 105n. 48, 110n. 65, 111n. 68, 112n. 73, 114n. 76, 159n. 4, 160n. 8, 220, 229, 230, 231n. 14, 232, 279n. 57, 286n. 74, 338n. 5, 360n. 41, 387nn. 11–12, 392n. 20, 393n. 21
Hurst, Lincoln D., 102, 166n. 14, 173, 386

Jeremais, Joachim, 39n. 25
Jewett, Robert, 122n. 97

Katz, P., 123n. 98
Kendall, R. T., 255n. 10, 345n. 25, 360n. 42
Kistemaker, Simon, 95n. 22
Klein, William W., 174
Koehler, Ludwig, 350n. 32
Koester, Craig R., 35n. 19, 66n. 51, 88n. 5, 91n. 15, 101nn. 37–38, 106n. 51, 109n. 63, 110n. 65, 111, 113n. 74, 114, 115, 118n. 85, 120n. 89, 122n. 96, 151n. 5, 193n. 48, 239n. 4, 254n. 8, 257n. 2, 258n. 3, 387n. 12, 392n. 20
Kurianal, James, 64n. 49

Laansma, Jon, 52n. 36, 53n. 37, 58n. 40, 96n. 25, 100n. 35, 102n. 40, 106n. 49, 351n. 33, 387n. 10
Lane, William L., 35n. 19, 49n. 34, 60n. 43, 66n. 51, 87, 91n. 14, 92n. 18, 94n. 21, 95, 100nn. 33–34, 101n. 37, 104, 106n. 51, 109nn. 61–62, 110n. 65, 114n. 76, 115, 118n. 85, 120n. 88, 121n. 93, 123nn. 98–99, 124n. 101, 138, 158n. 2, 178n. 11, 198, 220, 221n. 3, 226, 227n. 9, 229, 231, 232, 239n. 3, 257n. 2, 263n. 11, 275nn. 40–41, 277n. 50, 278n. 51, 279n. 54, 279nn. 56–57, 281n. 63, 284n. 68, 285n. 70, 285n. 72, 287nn. 75–76, 311n. 4, 354n. 34, 369nn. 59–60, 370nn. 62–63, 388n. 13, 389, 390, 391n. 18, 393
Lang, G. H., 188n. 35, 333n. 10, 342n. 21
Lee, John A. L., 110n. 65
Lincoln, Andrew T., 328n. 7
Lindars, Barnabas, 185n. 27, 338n. 5

Mackie, J. L., 213n. 89
MacLeod, David J., 182n. 20
MacRae, George W., 167n. 20
Madvig, Donald H., 341n. 18
Margaliot, M., 348n. 30
Marshall, I. Howard, 92n. 18, 112n. 72, 116n. 81, 141n. 19, 142n. 20, 175n. 7, 178nn. 11–12, 182n. 19, 185n. 27, 203, 208n. 79, 316n. 10, 324n. 4, 388n. 14
Mathewson, Dave, 175n. 8, 176n. 9, 179n. 14, 189n. 39, 344n. 24
McKay, K. L., 139n. 15, 215n. 95
McKnight, Scott, 28n. 8, 29, 36n. 21, 84, 89, 112n. 72, 116n. 81, 127n. 109, 135, 175n. 8, 176, 178nn. 11–12, 189n. 39, 190n. 42, 200n. 60, 200n. 62, 201, 208, 215n. 95, 216n. 96, 220, 244, 258n. 4, 267n. 21, 273n. 36, 274n. 38, 282n. 65, 295, 296, 297n. 2, 308, 360n. 41, 384n. 4, 388n. 14, 397n. 1
Meyer, Ben F., 166n. 16
Michaelis, Wilhelm, 98n. 30, 117n. 83
Michel, Otto, 100n. 34, 103n. 43, 108n. 58, 121n. 93
Moffatt, J., 338n. 6
Montefiore, Hugh, 92n. 17, 100n. 34
Moo, Douglas J., 141n. 18
Morris, Leon, 339n. 9
Mosser, Carl, 159n. 4
Moule, Handley, 443n. 3, 445n. 6

Nicole, Roger, 112n. 72, 127n. 107, 179n. 13, 217n. 98, 221n. 3, 274n. 38
Nutting, H. C., 139n. 16, 209, 318n. 15

Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem, 345n. 25, 360n. 42
Oropeza, B. J., 306
Osborne, Grant R., 8, 13, 26, 40, 53, 61, 67, 80, 83, 86, 88n. 4, 129–30, 135, 136n. 8, 137–43, 144–56, 157–58, 162–65, 168–70, 177n. 11, 178n. 12, 200n. 60, 200n. 62, 202, 203, 208n. 79, 220, 293, 295, 307, 317n. 11, 376n. 71, 378, 411, 422n. 5, 432–33, 440
Outler, Albert C., 323n. 2
Owen, John, 20, 112n. 72, 179n. 13

Parsons, Mikeal C., 182n. 20
Patai, Raphael, 166n. 15
Pentecost, J. Dwight, 172n. 1, 183n. 22, 187n. 34, 340n. 14, 343n. 21, 344n. 24, 345n. 25, 361n. 44
Peterson, David, 108n. 59, 109n. 64, 299n. 3, 311n. 4, 313n. 7, 338n. 7, 360n. 41, 368n. 57, 374n. 66, 375
Pfitzner, Victor C., 29n. 10, 32n. 14
Piper, John, 205n. 73, 443n. 5
Porter, Stanley E., 104n. 44, 209n. 83, 213n. 88, 214nn. 91–92, 215n. 95, 338n. 6, 394

Rhee, Victor, 20, 84n. 65, 124n. 100, 136n. 8, 402n. 7, 413n. 15
Rice, George E., 84n. 67
Riley, Mark, 110n. 65
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell, 172n. 1, 184n. 26

Sabourin, L., 263n. 10
Schmidt, T. E., 258n. 4
Scholer, John M., 118, 125
Schreiner, Thomas R., 112n. 72, 178n. 11, 218n. 99, 304
Scott, Jack B., 345n. 26
Scott, Julius J., 254
Shank, Robert, 115n. 79, 184n. 26
Skehan, Patrick W., 76n. 57
Smith, Robert E., 217n. 98
Spicq, Ceslas, 18, 32n. 14, 92n. 17, 99n. 32, 100n. 34, 108n. 58, 159n. 4, 184n. 26, 284n. 68, 338n. 5, 340n. 12, 370n. 62
Sproul, John A., 180n. 16
Stanley, Steven K., 405n. 10
Swetnam, J., 107n. 52, 121n. 94

Tanner, J. Paul, 189n. 37
Theissen, Gerd, 105n. 47
Thompson, James W., 116n. 82, 122, 126n. 104, 388n. 15
Toussaint, Stanley D., 190n. 42, 360n. 41
Tov, Emanuel, 159n. 6
Trotter, Andrew H., 115n. 80, 338n. 5
Turner, Laurence A., 334
Turner, Nigel, 111n. 69

Vanhoozer, Kevin, 438
Vanhoye, Albert, 90n. 9, 106n. 51, 118n. 85
Verbrugge, Verlyn D., 127, 274n. 38
Volf, Judith M. Gundry, 141n. 18, 170n. 23, 305, 306
VonKamecke, Fred, 112n. 71

Walker, Peter W. L., 268n. 26, 269n. 28, 361n. 44, 363n. 50, 403, 404n. 9
Wallace, Daniel B., 209, 215n. 95
Watts, J. D. W., 363n. 51
Weeks, N., 110n. 66, 179n. 14, 344n. 24
Weiss, Herold F., 105n. 46, 106n. 50, 244n. 9
Wesley, John, 257n. 1, 323, 336, 443–45
Westcott, Brooke Foss, 32n. 14, 99n. 32, 103n. 42, 115n. 79, 159n. 4, 169, 184n. 26, 328n. 7, 332n. 8, 333n. 9
Wikgren, A., 374n. 68
Wise, Michael, 30n. 12
Wright, N. T., 166n. 13, 440

Yamauchi, Edwin, 254n. 8
Young, E. J., 363n. 53
Young, Richard A., 209n. 83

GREEK WORD INDEX

ἁγιάζω, 25, 339n. 10, 375
ἁγιασμός, 25, 285n. 72
ἁγιότης, 25
ἀδόκιμος, 170
ἀδύνατος, 79n. 60
ἀξιωθήσεται, 282n. 65
ἀθετήσας, 282n. 64
αἰώνιος, 361, 361n. 43
ἀκούετε, 29n. 9
ἀκούσατε, 29n. 9
ἀκούσητε, 45
ἀκουσθεῖσιν, 31–32
ἀκούω, 29n. 9
ἁμαρτανόντων, 281n. 62
ἀμελέω, 33–34n. 17, 93
ἀναιρέω, 362n. 48
ἀνακαινίζειν, 177n. 10
ἀνακαινίζω, 79–80n. 61
ἀνασταυροῦντας, 115, 150–51, 357–58
ἀνασταυρόω, 276n. 44
ἀντικαθίστημι, 35n. 19
ἅπαξ, 113n. 74, 126, 352
ἀπεδοκιμάσθη, 169–70
ἄπειρος, 77n. 58
ἀπιστία, 97–98n. 29
ἀπιστίας, 347
ἀποστῆναι, 162, 389
ἀποστρεφόμενοι, 125–26
ἀπώλεια, 70n. 55
ἀρχηγός, 263n. 10
ἀφανισμός, 362n. 47
ἀφίστημι, 47, 47–48n. 32

βέβαιος, 33n. 15, 49n. 34, 92, 94
βέβηλος, 285n. 72, 332–33
βλέπετε, 47, 51, 97, 97n. 27, 160

γενηθέντας, 274n. 36
γευσαμένους, 273–74n. 36
γυμνός, 60n. 44

διαθήκη, 172, 339n. 11
δικαιοσύνη, 109
δοκέω, 103, 103n. 41, 103n. 43
δύναμαι, 79n. 60
δύναμις, 79n. 60

ἑαυτοῦ, 99n. 32
ἐγγίζουσαν, 160
ἐγκαινίζω, 63n. 47, 118
εἰμί, 211n. 85
εἰσερχόμεθα, 227
ἐκδοχή, 120n. 90
ἑκουσίως, 65n. 50, 153, 281n. 61, 358
ἐκπίπτω, 275n. 41
ἐκφεύγω, 294
ἐνδείκνυμι, 370
ἐνυβρίζω, 121
ἐνυβρίσας, 283n. 67
ἕξιν, 109–10, 110n. 65
ἐπαγγελία, 103
ἐπίγνωσις, 120, 281n. 60
ἐπιθυμέω, 82, 82n. 63
ἐπισυναγωγή, 119
εὐλογέω, 333
ἔχωμεν χάριν, 126n. 105

ζῆλος, 120

θεατρίζω, 68–69n. 52
θέατρον, 69n. 52
θεράπων, 263, 263n. 11

κατανοέω, 95
καταπατέω, 359
καταπατήσας, 252, 283n. 67
κατάπαυσις, 52n. 36, 53n. 37
καταπαύω, 106
κατέχω, 64n. 48, 119, 191, 248
κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος, 283n. 67
κοινός, 121, 252, 359–60, 381
κοίνωνος, 69n. 53
κρατέω, 191, 248
κρείσσων, 384
κρείττων, 116, 384
κρίσις, 331
κῶλον, 101

μάχαιραν, 60n. 43
μέλλω, 121
μετάνοια, 123
μέτοχοι, 274n. 36
μέτοχος, 48–49n. 34, 100
μετόχους, 274n. 36, 353
μιμητής, 117
μισθαποδοσία, 70n. 54

νωθρός, 75n. 57, 82n. 64, 108, 117, 221

ὁμολογία, 119
ὄνομα, 30n. 12

παντελές, 226
πάντοτε, 226
παραδειγματίζοντας, 115, 150–51
παραδειγματίζω, 275n. 41
παραιτέομαι, 38n. 23
παρακαλεῖτε, 51
παρακαλέω, 99
παρακλῆσις, 35–36n. 20
παραπεσόντας, 114, 275, 353–54, 424
παραπικραίνω, 50n. 35, 98n. 30, 275n. 41
παραπικρασμός, 50n. 35, 275n. 41
παραπίπτω, 78, 78n. 59, 353, 354, 354n. 34
παράπτωμα, 275n. 41
παραρρέω, 32, 32n. 14, 275n. 41
παραρυῶ, 92, 275n. 41
παραφέρω, 275n. 41
παρειμένας, 275n. 41
παροξυσμός, 119
παρρησία, 63n. 46, 118, 369
πείθω, 116
περιποίμοις, 70
περισσοτέρως, 91
πιστεύω, 104
πληροφορία, 119, 369–70
πόρνος, 285nn. 71–72
προσερχώμεθα, 118
προσέχω, 91
πρωτοτόκια, 333n. 10

σαββατισμός, 53n. 37, 58n. 40, 106, 351, 386–87
σήμερον, 56n. 38
σκληρύνω, 46n. 31, 97n. 28
σπουδάζω, 59n. 42, 106
σπουδή, 117, 227
στοιχεῖα, 109n. 60
σῴζω, 226
σωτηρία, 116, 388

τελειότητα, 279, 299
τελειόω, 25n. 4, 279, 374
τελειωοις, 25n. 4
τετελείωκεν, 229
τετραχηλισμένα, 60n. 44
τομώτερος, 60n. 43

ὑπεναντίος, 121
ὑπόστασις, 100, 370–71

φοβερός, 66n. 51
φοβηθῶμεν, 52
φωτισθέντας, 273n. 36, 352

SCRIPTURE INDEX

Old Testament

Genesis
2:2 56, 73, 101, 105, 106, 148, 267, 350, 386
3:17–18 115
6:8 171
6:18 171
9:16 363n. 52
14 267n. 23
15:6 171, 346
15:9–21 171
22:6 60n. 43
22:10 60n. 43
22:16–17 194
25–31 334
25:29–34 333
26:34 123
27:34–38 170, 333
27:39–40 333
27:41 160
33:4 169n. 21, 334
33:12 334
33:15 334
36:6 334
36:31–43 334
40:19 101, 422
49:3–4 334n. 11
Genesis 332

Exodus
4 345
4:30–31 345, 353, 379
4:31 164, 345
7:3 97n. 28
7:13–14 97n. 28
11:9–10 343n. 22
12:27 345
12:28 345, 379
12:50 345, 379
13:15 46n. 31
13:21 352, 391
14:7–9 348, 398
14:13 164, 343n. 22, 345, 379
14:15–18 343n. 22
14:30 164, 345, 379
14:30–31 346
14:31 164
15:1–17 164
15:2 346
15:13 346
15:16 346
17 98
17:1–7 46n. 30, 46n. 31, 47, 98
17:7 347, 349, 379
19:1–20:21 79n. 59
19:3–20:21 33n. 15
19:12 124
19:16 124
19:16–19 40, 124
19:18 389
19:19 124
20:1 33n. 16
20:8–10 57n. 40
20:15 82n. 63
20:17 82n. 63
20:18 124
23:14–19 45
23:27–31 355
24:1–9 346
26:31 166
31:12–16 351
31:13–17 57n. 40
31:14–15 358
32:1–6 348n. 29
32:9 46n. 31, 97n. 28
32:21–25 348n. 29
32:32 124
32:35 348n. 29
33:1–2 355
33:3 356
33:5 46n. 31
34:9 46n. 31
35:1–3 57n. 40
36:2 65
36:35 166
Exodus 287

Leviticus
6:1–7 151n. 5
10 406
10:1–2 364, 382
13:23 212
13:28 212
13:37 212
13:42 212
13:51 212
13:57 212
16 404
19:7 211
23:26–28 106, 387
23:32 106
24:8 363n. 52

Numbers
11 406
11:1–2 364, 382, 392
11:4–6 349
11:16–30 343, 353, 380, 424
11:18–23 349
11:21–23 348n. 29
12 263, 294
12:7 165, 206n. 74, 243, 263, 263n. 13
13–14 263, 264
13:1–14:45 48n. 32
13:26 349
13:32–14:4 48n. 33
13:33 96
14 47, 53n. 36, 95, 96, 96n. 24, 98, 98n. 29, 99, 149, 162, 294, 295, 347, 349, 379, 380, 383, 389, 390, 397, 398, 399, 400
14:1–10 355
14:3 422
14:4 263n. 10
14:7–9 349
14:8–10 349
14:9 48n. 32, 398
14:9–11 162, 348
14:11 98n. 29, 347–48, 380, 398
14:11–12 99, 295
14:11–12a 50
14:13–19 295
14:19 326, 349
14:19–20 326n. 5, 380
14:20 266n. 19, 326, 349, 356, 391
14:20–23 163
14:21 347
14:22 50, 98n. 29, 151n. 6, 355
14:22–23 268n. 24
14:23 50, 99
14:24 399
14:27 398
14:28 347
14:29 50, 347
14:30 399
14:32 99
14:32–33 347
14:32–35 326
14:33 285n. 71
14:35 398
14:38 399
14:39 325, 356
14:39–40 391
14:39–45 50, 163, 266, 355, 381
14:40 325, 356
14:41–45 356
14:43 99
14:43–45 60n. 43
15 401, 402
15:29–31 299
15:30–31 120, 358, 392
15:30–36 66, 163, 344, 364, 379, 401
15:32–36 358, 392
16 406
16:35 281n. 63, 364, 382
20 348, 402
20:1 348, 349
20:1–13 46n. 30, 46n. 31
20:2–13 98
20:8 349
20:10 349
20:10–12 348
20:12 165, 252, 348
20:24 165, 348, 349
26:10 281n. 63
32:9 48n. 32, 48n. 33
32:13–15 51
Numbers 263n. 11

Deuteronomy
1:31 326, 326n. 6, 350, 380
1:32 348
1:43 325
4:11–13 40
4:12 124
4:23–24 41n. 27
4:24 126, 230
4:24b 43
4:33 348
4:34 343n. 22
5:17 82n. 63
5:21 82n. 63
5:26 348
6:15 41
6:16 46n. 30
8:5 36n. 20, 76n. 57, 334
9:3 41
9:6 46n. 31
9:13 46n. 31
9:19 287
9:20–21 348
9:22 46n. 30
9:23 348
9:23–24 347, 348
11:26–28 277n. 50, 330
11:26–29 79n. 59
12:9 53n. 36
12:9–10 56
13:8 282
14:26 82n. 63
17:6 73, 344, 359, 364, 379
17:12 358, 364, 401
21:17 333n. 10
26:8 343n. 22
28–30 188
28:1–6 330
28:1–29:28 330
28:26 101, 422n. 5
28:58–68 79n. 59
29:15–20 285, 285n. 70
29:17 285n. 70
29:18 123
29:23 330
31:14 160
31:27 46n. 31, 50n. 35
32 300, 406
32:21–22 364, 382
32:35 121
32:35–36 73, 283, 300, 344, 379
32:36 121, 339
32:51 252
33:1–2 33n. 16
33:2 92n. 19, 385
33:8 46n. 30

Joshua
21:43–45 57n. 39
21:44 56
22:9 48n. 32
23 57n. 39

Judges
2:19 46n. 31
3:16 60n. 43
3:21–22 60n. 43

1 Samuel
6:9 214n. 92
15:18–19 303
15:24–26 303

2 Samuel
7:14 30n. 12
22:43 121
24:14 366, 382
24:15 163, 366
24:17 366

1 Kings
2:1 160
8:27–53 53n. 36
8:33–34 167n. 18
9:1–9 53n. 36
11:4 303
14:11 101, 422n. 5

2 Kings
17:14 46n. 31

1 Chronicles
11:17 82n. 63
28:2 350
28:9 303

2 Chronicles
6:41 53n. 36, 350
20:20 346n. 27
30:8 46n. 31
36:13 46n. 31, 97n. 28

Ezra
6:8–12 39n. 25
7:12–26 39n. 25

Nehemiah
9:9–21 164
9:12 352, 391
9:13–21 326
9:16–17 46n. 31
9:17 346
9:20 348, 391
9:26 46n. 31
13:15–22 57n. 40

Job
1:6 30n. 12
2:1 30n. 12
21:6 211
38:7 30n. 12

Psalms
2:2 30n. 12
2:6–7 30n. 12
2:7 56n. 38
5:10 [11] 50n. 35
8:6 441
19:10 113
29:8 40
34 [33] 36n. 22
34:8 113
34 [33]:1–10 36n. 22
34 [33]:11–22 37n. 22
34 [33]:15 [14] 36, 37n. 22
47 [46]:2 [3] 66n. 51
54 [53]:6 [8] 66
68:7–8 40
69:28 124
78 342
78:12–33 28n. 7
78 [77]:17 50n. 35
78:38 346
78 [77]:40 50n. 35
78:42 346
78 [77]:56 50n. 35
78:69 167n. 18
81:10–12 28n. 7
89:32–35 302
94 [93]:10 36n. 20
95 [94] 45, 46, 46n. 31, 56n. 38, 57n. 39, 96, 96n. 24, 97, 99, 104, 105, 107, 149, 266n. 18, 267n. 23, 347, 379, 385, 390, 397, 399
95:1–7a 45n. 29, 47
95:7 231
95 [94]:7a 56
95:7–8 265
95:7b–8 73
95 [94]:7–11 46n. 31, 52n. 36, 95, 96, 101, 106, 264, 390
95 [94]:7b–11 45, 45n. 29, 46, 73
95 [94]:8 46n. 31, 50n. 35
95:8–9 98
95:8–11 28n. 7
95:9 98n. 29
95 [94]:11 44n. 28, 52n. 36, 56n. 38, 73, 267, 350, 386
96 [95]:4 66n. 51
99:8 163, 326, 346
102 168
102 [103]:5 80n. 61
102:13–14 168
102:25–27 40
102:26–27 168
104:2 167n. 18
104 [103]:30 80n. 61
105 [104]:39 [19] 352, 391
106:6 346
106:6–12 164
106:6–33 342
106:7 346
106:8 346
106:10 346
106:24 348
106:24–27 28n. 7
107 [106]:11 50n. 35
110:1 90, 302, 441
110:4 198, 267n. 23, 371, 427n. 8
119 [118]:63 49n. 34
119:103 113
132 53n. 36
132:8 350
132:13–14 350
132:14 53n. 36

Proverbs
3:1–20 32n. 14
3:11–12 36n. 20
3:12 334
3:21 32n. 14, 92n. 17
4:21 32n. 14
4:26 122
22:29 76n. 57
28:14 46n. 31
29:1 46n. 31

Isaiah
2:8 82n. 63
4:4 189
5:1–7 115, 277n. 50
11:10 53n. 36, 350
13:10 126
14:16–17 389
24 363
24–27 406
24:1 363, 392
24:2 363n. 52
24:5 363, 392
24:6 363
24:21 160
26 363
26:9 82n. 63
26:11 120, 363, 382
32:18 53n. 36
33:14 126, 230
34:4 126
35:3–8 122
40:10 70n. 54
40:22 167n. 18
48:4 46n. 31
49:2 60n. 43
56:2 58n. 40
56:7 58n. 40
57:20–21 82n. 63
58:13 57n. 40
60:5 39n. 25
62:11 70n. 54
63:7–14 342n. 20
63:8–9 164, 346
63:9 346
63:11 353, 391
63:14 353
63:18 121
65:17–18 167n. 18
66:1 53n. 36, 350
66:24 101, 422

Jeremiah
2:5 48n. 32
7:1–15 53n. 36
7:26 46n. 31
12:11 362n. 47
17:5 48n. 32
17:19–27 58n. 40
17:23 46n. 31, 305
19:8 362n. 47
19:15 46n. 31
31 229, 310n. 2, 313, 372–73, 404–5
31:3 302
31:31–34 228, 238, 373
31:32 93
31:33 204, 223, 312, 373
31:33–34 376
31:34 198, 204, 312, 373
31:34d 223, 239
32:29 50n. 35
39:29 50n. 35
44:3 50n. 35
44:8 50n. 35
51:3 50n. 35
51:8 50n. 35

Lamentations
5:21 80n. 61

Ezekiel
2:4 46n. 31
3:1–3 113
3:7 46n. 31
6:14 362n. 47
7:7 160
13:9 125
14:9 212
14:13 79n. 59, 354
15:8 354
18:24 303, 354
18:26 303
20:4–8 51
20:8 48n. 32
20:10–22 28n. 7
20:27 354
20:38 48n. 32, 52
22:4 79n. 59
26:20 361n. 43
33:9 211n. 86
33:13 303
33:18 303
36:25 373, 374
36:26 374
36:26–27 204, 224
Ezekiel 400

Daniel
7:10 125
7:11 127, 230
9:5 48n. 32
9:9 48n. 32
9:26 362n. 47
10:13 30n. 12
12:1 125
12:2 303, 361n. 43

Joel
1:15 160
2:3 126–27, 230
2:10 389
2:10–11 126
3:10 79n. 60

Amos
5:21–27 28n. 7

Jonah
3:5 346n. 27

Micah
7:10 121
7:13 362n. 47

Habakkuk
2:3–4 283

Zephaniah
1:14–18 160
1:15 389
1:18 73

Haggai
1:1–11 39n. 24
2:1–5 39n. 25
2:1–9 39n. 24, 39n. 25
2:5 353, 391
2:6 39, 40n. 26, 43, 126, 389, 390
2:6–7 39n. 25
2:6–9 39n. 25, 167
2:7 40n. 26
2:6 39–40, 39n. 25
2:15–19 39n. 24
Haggai 39n. 24

Zechariah
12:10 121

New Testament

Matthew
2:16 362n. 48
5:13 359
5:18 33n. 15
5:22 361
5:28 82n. 63
7:6 359
7:13 70n. 55, 410
7:15–23 439
7:23 298, 304
12:31–32 336
13:30 115, 388
13:41–42 410
13:42 115, 388
13:49–50 410
13:50 115, 388
16:27 108
18:8 361
18:9 361
19:26 79n. 60
20:19 334
22:5 33n. 17, 34n. 17, 93
23:30 69n. 53
23:37–24:28 161, 337, 367
24:2 167n. 19
24:4–5 304
24:11 304
24:13 304
24:24 303
24:29–31 389
24:35 167
24:36 160
25:1–13 304
25:12 304
25:14–30 304
25:30 304
25:34 303
25:41 127, 361
25:46 361

Mark
1:14–15 113
3:5 97n. 28
3:28–30 114
6:52 97n. 28
8:17 97n. 28
9:43–48 361
10:27 79n. 60, 114
10:34 335
13:1–32 337, 367
13:2 97, 167n. 19
13:5 97
13:9 97
13:23 97
13:24–25 126
13:31 167
13:33 97
14:43 60n. 43
14:48 60n. 43

Luke
1:1–4 62n. 45
1:32–33 30n. 12
1:35 30n. 12
3:38 30n. 12
5:7 49n. 34
5:10 69n. 53
6:33–34 212n. 87
8:5 359
10:20 125
11:20 113
12:42–46 303
12:46 303
13:11 372
15:16 82n. 63
15:20 334
16:21 82n. 63
18:27 79n. 60
18:33 335
21:5–36 337, 367
21:6 167n. 19
21:33 167
21:36 294
22:2 362n. 48
22:15 82n. 63
22:17–20 171n. 24
22:38 60n. 43
23:32 362n. 48

John
1:9 273n. 36, 391
1:25 214n. 92
2:11 171n. 24
2:15 212n. 87
3:3 113
3:15–16 297
3:36 297
5:24 297, 303
5:31 212
6:32–33 352, 391
6:37–40 303
6:47 297
8:31 212
8:47 29
8:51 304
8:54 212n. 87
9:27 29
10:27–29 303
12:20 159
12:38 29
13:8 214n. 93
13:17 212n. 87
15:1–6 304
15:6 115, 388
15:14 210, 212n. 87
17 303
17:12 70n. 55, 303, 410
19:1 335
19:12 211
20:31 297

Acts
2:5–11 161n. 10
2:22 94
2:23 362
5:33 362
6:1–6 159
6:9 159
7:38 92n. 19, 260n. 6
7:38–42 28n. 7
7:53 33n. 16, 92n. 19, 260n. 6
8:20 410
9:1 159
9:23 362
12:1–2 159
12:1–4 66n. 51
12:18–19 66n. 51
13:18 326, 326n. 6
13:48 302
18:2 158n. 2
20:33 82n. 63
26:28 232

Romans
2:3 294
2:6 108
2:25 212
3:20 93
4:13–15 93
4:16 33n. 15
5:15 275n. 41
5:17–18 275n. 41
5:20 275n. 41
7:2 211
7:3 211n. 86
7:7 82n. 63
8 112, 146, 149–50, 302
8:1–6 302
8:3 79n. 60
8:7–10 302
8:9 95, 140, 141n. 18
8:9–11 113
8:11–13 303
8:12–14 304
8:14–17 113, 303
8:17 95, 140, 141n. 18
8:18–25 303
8:26–27 303
8:28–30 303
8:29 87, 125
8:31–39 303
9 302
9:20–21 302
9:22 410
11:11–12 275n. 41
11:16 214n. 92
11:20–22 303
11:22 95, 140, 141n. 18
11:29 303
12:4–8 94
13:9 82n. 63
14:5 369
14:8 212n. 87
14:15 304
14:23 212
15:19 94

1 Corinthians
2:8 251
3:12–15 108
3:13 127
3:14–15 187n. 33
3:15 127, 255, 255n. 10, 298
4:5 187n. 33
4:9 69n. 52
5:5 331
7:39 212
7:40 212n. 87
9:24–27 305
9:27 170
10:1–11 28n. 7
10:12 305
10:17 251, 251n. 5
10:18 69n. 52
10:20 69n. 52
11:2 64n. 48
11:25–30 251
11:27 251, 252
11:29 251n. 5
11:30 222, 254, 331
11:32 255
12:7–11 94
13:1 212
13:2 212n. 87
14:14 211n. 86
15:1–2 64n. 48
15:6 94
15:13 214n. 92

2 Corinthians
1:7 33n. 15, 69n. 53
5:10 255
6:14 49n. 34
8:23 69n. 53
12:12 94
13:5 95, 140, 141n. 18, 247n. 1
13:5a 439

Galatians
2:10 59n. 42
2:16 93
3:19 92n. 19, 260n. 6
3:19–4:7 93
4:7 214n. 92
5:4 275n. 41
6:1 100
6:2 100

Ephesians
1:3 113, 124
1:4–5 302
1:13–14 303
1:18 273n. 36, 391
1:20 113, 124
2:6 124
2:6–7 113
2:8–9 87
2:19 125
3:10 113, 124
4:30 303
5:23 303
5:27 303
6:12 113, 124
6:17 60n. 43
Ephesians 102n. 40

Philippians
1:6 303
1:28 70n. 55, 410
2:13 303
3:19 70n. 55, 410
3:20 125
4:3 125

Colossians
1:15 125
1:18 125
1:21–23 304
1:23 95, 140, 141n. 18
2:2 369
2:8 109n. 60
2:20 109n. 60
3:3 303
4:12 369

1 Thessalonians
1:4–5 170, 369
2:14–15 159
5:3 294

2 Thessalonians
1:9 361
2:3 70n. 55, 304, 410

1 Timothy
1:12 126n. 105
1:18–20 303
1:20 331
2:4 120
3:1 82n. 63
4:1 304
4:14 33n. 17
4:16 304

2 Timothy
1:3 126n. 105
1:10 391
1:12 303
2:13 302
2:19 303
2:25 120
4:4 126
4:9 59n. 42

Titus
1:1 120
1:14 126

Philemon
14 65n. 50
17 69n. 53

Hebrews
1 32n. 14, 93, 158n. 2
1–2 91
1:1 29, 33, 260, 260n. 6
1:1–2a 42, 92
1:1–3 384, 389
1:1–4 62n. 45, 90, 259, 260, 262, 310
1:1–14 24, 29–30, 29n. 9, 32, 42, 49, 64, 90, 92
1:1–2:4 34n. 18
1:1–10:18 388
1:1–10:19 384
1:2 36, 38, 91, 160, 274n. 36, 359
1:2a 30, 32, 32n. 14, 33, 90
1:2a–2:3–4 93
1:2b 40
1:2b–3 30, 93–94
1:2b–4 32, 32n. 14
1:3 90, 91, 261, 323, 325, 351, 370
1:4 30, 30n. 12, 116, 384
1:4–14 43, 91, 385
1:4–2:18 384
1:5 56n. 38, 190n. 41, 408
1:5–13 32, 32n. 14, 63n. 46, 91
1:5–14 30, 90n. 9, 260n. 6
1:5–2:4 80n. 61
1:5–2:18 90
1:8 40, 41, 190n. 41, 408
1:8–9 63n. 46
1:9 48n. 34, 69n. 53
1:10 343n. 22
1:10–12 40, 118, 124, 168
1:13 90, 91, 441
1:14 25, 40, 122, 323
2 29n. 9, 71, 195
2:1 25, 29n. 9, 32, 32n. 14, 43, 89, 93, 119, 123, 131, 178, 181, 181n. 17, 191, 250, 259, 261, 266, 275n. 41, 298, 354, 399
2:1a 32
2:1–2 91, 121, 162
2:1–3 338
2:1–4 27, 27n. 6, 28, 29–34, 36, 39, 42–43, 44, 74, 84, 89, 90, 90–94, 90n. 9, 109, 125, 145, 146–47, 148, 150, 151, 155, 173, 177, 194, 236, 236n. 2, 259–62, 282, 284, 288, 293, 301, 302, 385, 397n. 2
2:2 26, 33n. 15, 43, 70n. 54, 92, 93, 94, 260n. 6, 261
2:2a 33
2:2b 33, 260
2:2–3 43, 92, 214n. 92, 256, 343, 379, 389
2:2–3a 385
2:2–4 29n. 10, 38, 62n. 45, 260
2:3 25, 33–34n. 17, 43, 70n. 54, 76n. 57, 93, 131, 133, 178, 181, 187, 187n. 32, 189, 222, 241, 250, 261, 262, 273, 280, 281, 281n. 59, 288, 294, 389, 399, 407, 408, 410
2:3–4 34, 43, 90, 113, 353, 360
2:3b–4 128, 155, 259
2:4 42, 88, 113, 274n. 37, 323, 385
2:5 53n. 37
2:5–9 31, 441
2:5–18 90n. 9, 236, 243, 262, 270
2:8 116n. 82
2:8a 441
2:8b 441
2:9 49n. 34, 112
2:10 25, 36n. 20, 164, 195, 206n. 74, 262, 263, 263n. 10, 279, 299
2:10–18 31
2:11 24, 25, 49n. 34, 90, 325, 339n. 10, 375
2:11–12 31, 49n. 34, 206n. 74
2:12 90
2:13 49n. 34, 206n. 74
2:14 264n. 14, 353
2:14–15 24
12:14–29 28, 44
2:15 282
2:16 264n. 14
2:17 24, 31, 90, 118n. 85, 195, 195n. 52, 223, 325
2:17–18 164, 169, 182, 195, 197, 206n. 76, 222, 225, 312n. 6, 320
2:18 323, 417
3 44, 97, 215, 319, 343n. 23, 385
3–4 52n. 36, 131, 163–65, 183, 184, 295, 316, 327–29, 342, 343, 347–50, 350–52, 379, 397, 398, 399, 400, 420, 423
3:1 24, 36, 49n. 34, 63n. 46, 69n. 53, 89–90, 95, 100n. 34, 113, 128, 131, 155, 157, 164, 178, 243, 264nn. 14–15, 274n. 36, 278n. 52, 313–14, 316n. 11, 329, 338, 339n. 8, 367, 368, 382
3:1–6 43, 44, 72, 95, 236, 263, 272n. 34, 421
3:1–4:13 195n. 52, 214, 214n. 94, 384, 385
3:2 95, 195, 206n. 74, 226, 385
3:2–5 164
3:2–6 195n. 53
3:3 165, 342, 385, 408
3:5 95, 165, 206n. 74, 243n. 8, 263, 282, 385
3:5b 263
3:5–6 189, 195, 226, 407
3:6 63, 63n. 46, 64n. 48, 100, 100n. 35, 116n. 82, 119, 128, 128n. 110, 131, 134, 135, 137, 138, 138n. 13, 139, 140, 142, 155, 178, 181, 191, 195n. 53, 196, 201, 202n. 64, 206, 206n. 74, 207, 207nn. 77–78, 208, 208n. 79, 210, 211, 211n. 85, 213n. 88, 214, 215, 216, 218, 218n. 99, 224, 231, 234, 235, 241n. 6, 242–44, 245, 247, 249, 255, 264, 264n. 15, 265n. 16, 271, 294, 303, 315n. 9, 316–21, 324–25, 351, 369, 375–77, 383, 385, 388n. 15, 398, 412, 413
3:6a 63n. 46
3:6b 95, 96
3:6–4:11 256
3:6–4:13 173, 188, 206, 236n. 2
3:7 56n. 38, 95, 97, 231, 262
3:7ff 95
3:7b–8a 98
3:7–11 45, 96, 264, 343, 390
3:7–13 350
3:7–19 44, 45–51, 96–101, 102, 147, 148, 236, 263n. 10, 264, 296, 380, 387, 421
3:7–4:11 56n. 38, 94–108, 106n. 51, 147–49, 147n. 2, 150, 247, 257n. 1, 259, 260, 262, 268, 269, 270, 276n. 45, 420–24
3:7–4:13 27, 28, 44–61, 52n. 36, 66, 70, 71–73, 74, 84, 90, 109, 125, 155, 164, 195, 262–72, 294, 391, 420n. 4
3:8 28n. 7, 48, 48nn. 32–33, 50n. 35, 97, 187, 275n. 41, 343, 397
3:8–9 347, 379, 397
3:10 397
3:10a 99
3:10b 98
3:10–11 343n. 23, 412n. 14
3:10–12 187, 190, 410
3:11 53n. 37, 267, 320, 347
3:11b 99
3:11–4:13 297
3:12 24, 25, 26, 47–48n. 32, 71, 72, 87, 90, 97, 100, 104, 107, 127, 131, 157, 162, 181, 191, 195, 250, 258, 265, 265, 265n. 16, 275, 276, 320, 341, 343, 347, 379, 380, 385, 387, 397, 398
3:12a 47, 72
3:12b 47, 50n. 35
3:12–13 51, 82n. 63, 133, 181n. 17, 320, 441
3:12–14 264, 265, 265n. 16, 342, 398
3:12–15 62n. 45
3:12–19 46–47, 96, 101, 265n. 16
3:13 48n. 33, 56n. 38, 71, 72, 116n. 82, 127, 181, 265, 265–66, 320
3:13a 48
3:13b 48
3:13–14 99, 154
3:13–15 48
3:14 33n. 15, 49n. 34, 64n. 48, 69n. 53, 79n. 59, 89, 95, 113, 119, 128n. 110, 131, 134, 135, 137, 138n. 13, 139, 139n. 15, 142, 177, 178, 181, 191, 196, 201, 202n. 64, 206, 206n. 75, 207, 207n. 78, 208, 208n. 79, 210, 211, 211n. 85, 213n. 88, 214, 215, 215n. 95, 216, 218, 218n. 99, 224, 231, 234, 235, 241n. 6, 242–44, 244n. 9, 245, 247, 249, 255, 264, 264n. 15, 265n. 16, 271, 274n. 36, 278n. 52, 294, 303, 315n. 9, 316–21, 324–25, 338, 351, 367, 370, 370n. 61, 371, 375–77, 382, 383, 398, 412, 413
3:14a 48
3:14b 49
3:14–19 350
3:15 48, 48nn. 32–33, 50n. 35, 56n. 38, 101n. 37, 214n. 93, 231, 262, 265, 275n. 41, 397
3:15–16 98, 266, 313, 422
3:15–19 101
3:16 50, 50n. 35, 71, 72, 165, 275n. 41, 343, 399n. 4
3:16–17 187
3:16–18 26, 72
3:16–19 25, 50, 56n. 38, 71, 265, 266, 343n. 23, 412n. 14
3:17 28n. 7, 50, 99, 101, 347, 352, 355, 387
3:17–18 127
3:18 50, 53n. 37, 72, 99, 181, 266, 267, 347, 422
3:18–19 44n. 28, 71, 244
3:18b–19 99
3:18–4:11 187
3:19 40, 51, 97, 100, 104, 181, 191, 195, 265n. 16, 266, 347, 385, 422
3:19–4:11 107n. 51
4 343n. 23
4:1 25, 26, 44n. 28, 53n. 37, 58n. 41, 71, 73, 82n. 63, 89, 101, 102, 116n. 82, 123, 127, 131, 133, 149, 165, 178, 181, 181n. 17, 338, 351, 388n. 15, 398, 439
4:1a 52, 56n. 38, 71
4:1b 52
4:1–5 51–52, 55, 101
4:1–10 44, 51–58
4:1–11 53n. 37, 96, 101–6, 107n. 51, 148, 264, 267, 282n. 66
4:2 54, 56n. 38, 101, 104, 131, 195, 262, 343n. 23, 347, 399, 412n. 14
4:2a 71, 72, 104
4:2b 71, 72, 104, 271n. 32
4:2–3 191, 195, 222, 226
4:2b–3 271
4:2–5 54
4:3 40, 44n. 28, 53nn. 36–37, 54, 90, 101, 104, 127, 131, 178, 195, 200, 227, 267, 328, 347, 351
4:4 53n. 36, 56n. 38, 350, 386
4:4–5 54, 101, 105, 148
4:4–11 386
4:5 53n. 37
4:5–6 44n. 28
4:6 56, 72, 181, 266n. 20, 267, 271n. 32, 343n. 23, 347, 412n. 14
4:6a 56n. 38, 101, 102, 104, 181
4:6b 101, 104
4:6–10 51, 55–56, 58
4:6–11 101, 107n. 51
4:7 48n. 33, 56n. 38, 214n. 93, 262, 328, 397
4:7a 56
4:7b 57
4:7c 57
4:7–8 57n. 39, 71, 98, 101, 104, 105, 267
4:8 56n. 38, 57, 95, 209n. 83, 267n. 22, 386
4:9 53n. 37, 73, 328, 351, 386
4:9–10 57, 222
4:9–11 101, 105, 106, 267, 386
4:10 350
4:10–11 44n. 28, 53n. 37, 73, 127, 351
4:11 25, 26, 58n. 41, 59n. 42, 71, 82n. 63, 89, 106, 133, 181, 181n. 17, 191, 227, 250, 271n. 32, 338, 347, 355, 398, 399
4:11a 71
4:11b 59, 72
4:11–13 44, 45, 58–61, 71
4:12 60n. 43
4:12–13 54, 59, 62n. 45, 71, 73, 96, 27n. 6, 106–8, 106n. 51, 113, 147n. 2, 148, 352
4:12–14 96
4:13 60n. 44
4:14 71, 96, 106, 167, 191, 248, 249, 339n. 8, 351, 359, 368, 369, 382, 387
4:14–15 24, 329
4:14–16 63, 75n. 56, 89, 149, 182, 240, 241n. 6, 248, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 296, 312n. 6, 320, 338, 368
4:14–5:10 75, 75n. 56, 108, 195n. 52, 343
4:14–7:28 384
4:14–10:18 152, 280
4:14–10:25 248, 368
4:15 164, 368
4:16 24, 63nn. 46–47, 71, 118, 169, 240, 241, 261, 287n. 76, 323, 328, 338, 351, 367, 369, 382, 417, 428, 441
5–6 399
5:1–3 62n. 45
5:1–5 61
5:1–5a 75n. 56
5:1–10 83, 272
5:5 30n. 12, 56n. 38
5:5–6 64
5:5–10 24
5:5b–10 75n. 56
5:6 368
5:7 24
5:7–10 62n. 45
5:8 368
5:8–9 36n. 20
5:9 116, 118n. 85, 279, 299, 314, 323, 323n. 3, 359, 361, 368, 382
5:9–10 40, 310
5:10 108, 110, 150, 273, 320
5:11 75–76n. 57, 82n. 64, 89, 100, 108nn. 58–59, 110, 117, 126, 181, 221, 278, 340, 354, 355, 379, 390, 400, 425
5:11–12 75, 337
5:11–13 162, 354, 380
5:11–14 82n. 64, 273, 277, 340
5:11–6:1 250, 378
5:11–6:2 183, 354
5:11–6:3 74–77, 108–11, 108nn. 57–58, 116, 146, 150, 151, 178, 192, 399, 400, 411n. 13
5:11–6:8 108n. 58, 236, 236n. 2, 259, 261, 266, 272–80, 297
5:11–6:12 27, 28, 74–83, 84, 90, 108–18, 108n. 58, 117, 149, 150
5:11–6:20 173, 176, 176n. 9, 192, 214n. 94, 387
5:11–10:39 321
5:12 89, 109, 110, 340, 387
5:12–14 76–77n. 58
5:13 77, 109, 278, 340
5:13–14 76, 110, 355
5:14 77, 77n. 58, 109, 110
6 173, 192, 221, 296, 343, 343n. 23, 400
6:1 89, 110, 115, 131, 178, 261, 277, 278, 299, 329, 340, 355, 399, 425
6:1a 77
6:1b–2 110, 278n. 53
6:1–3 82n. 64, 110
6:1b–3 77
6:1–8 147, 273, 280, 281
6:2 361, 410
6:3 110, 214, 356
6:4 49n. 34, 68, 69n. 53, 79n. 60, 100n. 34, 128, 155, 157, 225, 291, 339, 343, 343n. 23, 352, 379, 424
6:4–5 78, 123, 135, 136, 137n. 10, 153, 163, 185, 201, 217, 220, 256, 298, 323, 352–53, 357n. 36, 380, 391, 411, 412n. 14
6:4b–5 177, 178, 193n. 46
6:4–6 26, 79, 80, 87, 90, 98n. 29, 111–12, 115n. 80, 123, 123n. 99, 136, 176, 178, 179, 181, 184, 186, 224, 225, 277, 277n. 48, 344n. 24, 381, 399, 411, 411n. 13, 424–25
6:4–6a 180n. 16
6:4–8 27n. 6, 74, 77–81, 82n. 64, 83, 108n. 57, 110, 111–15, 116, 120, 120n. 88, 132, 134, 136, 146, 149–52, 155, 188, 192, 218, 243, 247, 273, 286, 385, 391, 411, 437, 439
6:4–9 179n. 14
6:4–12 108n. 58
6:5 135, 169, 353
6:6 79n. 59, 80, 98, 115, 115n. 80, 121, 163, 183n. 22, 185, 199, 220, 222, 250, 251, 275, 275n. 41, 276, 281, 298, 310, 314, 327, 353–54, 356, 357n. 36, 357–58, 379, 380, 381, 392, 397, 424, 425
6:6a 136, 180, 181, 184, 250, 400, 411
6:6b 136, 136n. 8, 182, 183, 184, 250, 400, 401, 411, 412
6:7 80, 82n. 62, 116, 227, 277, 330, 351, 356, 388
6:7–8 115, 186, 187–88n. 34, 193, 276, 276n. 45, 277, 277n. 48, 277n. 50, 329–31
6:8 80, 108n. 58, 115, 116, 160, 187n. 34, 188, 190, 193n. 46, 222, 253, 277, 297, 330, 341, 362, 381, 388, 403, 410, 427
6:9 81–82, 108n. 58, 117, 131, 178, 181n. 17, 186, 190, 193, 193n. 46, 227, 249, 276, 277, 323, 323n. 3, 329, 338, 384, 388, 439
6:9a 110
6:9–10 82, 134, 200, 202n. 65, 204, 245, 249, 314, 315
6:9–12 74, 81–83, 82n. 64, 108n. 57, 110, 111, 115n. 80, 116–18, 126, 192, 196n. 54, 216, 218, 273, 297, 411n. 13
6:9–20 108n. 58, 132, 192, 218, 222, 227, 229, 236n. 2, 314n. 8
6:10 35, 82n. 63, 110, 131, 193, 249, 337, 355, 370
6:11 82, 82n. 63, 116n. 82, 117, 119, 122, 141, 191, 227, 249, 250, 367, 369, 370, 382, 388n. 15, 393, 439
6:12 75n. 57, 89, 100, 103, 108n. 58, 116n. 82, 117, 122, 126, 181, 186, 190, 191, 221, 250, 278, 297, 355, 379, 388n. 15, 390, 410
6:12a 82
6:12b 82, 193
6:12–13 122
6:12–20 222, 236
6:13 103, 193
6:13ff 193n. 48
6:13–16 278
6:13–18 79n. 60, 194
6:13–20 108n. 58, 228, 273, 311n. 5
6:13–7:28 83
6:14 194, 277n. 50
6:15 103, 116n. 82, 191, 193, 388n. 15
6:17 103, 116n. 82, 122, 193, 194, 199, 201, 228, 388n. 15
6:17–18 329
6:17–20 249, 370
6:18 35n. 20, 79n. 60, 116n. 82, 191, 193, 194, 201, 228, 388n. 15
6:19 33n. 15, 167, 228, 371
6:19–20 62, 194, 329
6:20 63n. 47, 164, 194, 368, 425
6:20–7:1 64
7 371
7–10 159, 339
7:1 77
7:1–11 371
7:1–28 24, 428
7:1–10:18 150, 152, 240, 261, 262, 273, 274, 278, 279, 281, 283, 416, 425, 426
7:1–10:25 269, 270, 296
7:3 173, 190n. 41, 226, 310, 359, 408, 428
7:6 103, 116n. 82, 388n. 15
7:7 384
7:8 428
7:11 371, 373
7:11–13 427n. 8
7:11–24 310
7:11–28 64
7:12 33n. 15
7:14 343n. 22
7:15 342
7:15–16 225
7:16 197–98, 223, 310, 408, 428
7:18 33n. 15, 282n. 64, 405
7:19 116, 116n. 82, 310, 371, 373, 384, 388n. 15
7:20–22 198, 238
7:20–25 218
7:22 116, 310, 314, 371, 374n. 67, 384
7:23 371
7:23–24 198, 371, 408
7:23–25 238
7:24 310
7:24–25 303
7:25 118, 134, 140, 198, 199, 200n. 62, 206n. 76, 207, 223, 226, 241, 241n. 6, 249, 310, 313, 323, 323n. 3, 371–72, 382, 393, 394, 428
7:25–8:2 351
7:26 329, 371
7:26–27 358, 415n. 2, 419
7:26–28 368, 371
7:27 329, 373, 394
7:28 24, 279, 299, 359
8 310n. 2, 344, 372
8–10 166
8:1 91, 271, 329, 351
8:1–10:18 236
8:1–10:19 384
8:2 83
8:3 186n. 31
8:5 167, 341, 341n. 17, 371
8:6 103, 116, 116n. 82, 198, 310, 342, 372, 374n. 67, 384, 388n. 15
8:6–12 238
8:6–13 72
8:8 343n. 22, 372
8:9 33–34n. 17, 93
8:9–10 313
8:10 228, 238, 312
8:10b 204, 223
8:10–11 218
8:10–12 372–74, 383, 394n. 26
8:12 199, 204, 206n. 76, 207, 228, 310, 323, 337, 373
8:12b 198, 223, 238, 239
8:13 33n. 15, 160, 269n. 27, 300, 351, 361, 362, 362n. 47, 372, 374n. 67, 381, 403, 404, 427
8:13–9:1 160
9 344
9:1–10 72
9:1–14 282
9:8 97
9:9 116n. 82, 229, 279, 371
9:10 408
9:11 116n. 82, 168, 273, 342, 408
9:11–12 62
9:11–14 218
9:11–15 351
9:11–18 24
9:12 228–29, 291, 329, 361, 368, 394
9:13 209n. 83
9:13–14 204, 214n. 92, 29n. 10, 408
9:13–15 313
9:14 149, 199n. 59, 257n. 1, 274, 323, 360
9:14b 313
9:14–15 134, 140, 207, 361
9:15 104, 116n. 82, 122, 199, 201, 206n. 76, 223, 228, 303, 313, 314, 388n. 15
9:15–28 72
9:17 33n. 15
9:18 63n. 47
9:20–28 121
9:23 116, 167, 342, 384
9:23–24 408
9:23–26 351
9:23–28 120
9:24 168, 341, 341n. 17
9:24–28 62, 63n. 47
9:26 291
9:27 281, 331, 360, 361, 410
9:28 40, 116, 160, 161, 323, 324, 328, 331, 360
10 61, 173, 178, 192, 296, 310n. 2, 338, 344, 373
10:1 116n. 82, 118, 229, 279, 299, 371
10:1b 343n. 22
10:1–4 61
10:1–10 394
10:1–18 61, 63n. 47, 299
10:3 373
10:3–4 408
10:4 79n. 60
10:5 362
10:5–10 61
10:9 160, 269n. 27, 362, 405
10:10 25, 249, 291, 310, 323, 329, 337, 339n. 10, 368, 375, 382, 383, 394
10:10–12 374, 383
10:10–14 120, 408
10:11 374–75
10:11–14 61
10:11–18 218, 313
10:12 91, 310, 351
10:14 25, 118n. 85, 140, 198–99, 200, 201, 204, 206n. 76, 207, 223, 228, 229, 238, 241n. 6, 279, 299, 303, 310, 312, 313, 323, 329, 337, 339n. 10, 368, 374–75, 382, 383, 394
10:14–18 274
10:15 97, 360
10:15–18 61, 149
10:15–22 375
10:16 204, 223, 238, 257n. 1, 312, 343n. 22, 373
10:16–17 238, 323
10:16–18 372–74, 383, 394n. 26
10:17 198, 199, 204, 223, 228, 229, 238, 239, 312, 337, 373
10:17–18 190, 274, 310, 410, 428
10:18 373
10:19 24, 61, 63nn. 46–47, 64, 70, 90, 118, 131, 167, 178, 280n. 58, 281, 367, 368, 369, 382, 384
10:19–20 63, 71
10:19–21 149, 185, 196, 223, 382
10:19–21a 63
10:19–22 351
10:19–23 248
10:19–25 61, 62–64, 62n. 45, 65, 66n. 51, 118, 119, 132, 152, 192, 196, 236n. 2, 240, 241n. 6, 242, 262, 269, 270, 271, 274, 280, 283, 296, 299, 299n. 4, 368, 426
10:19–26 89
10:19–31 152–53, 281, 388
10:19–39 27, 28, 44, 61, 61–70, 71–73, 74, 84, 90, 118–22, 173, 192, 196, 236, 280, 299
10:20 63n. 47, 118
10:21 63, 63n. 46, 368, 382, 384
10:22 24, 63, 63n. 47, 71, 90, 117, 157, 191, 261, 274, 313, 324, 328, 367, 370, 373, 374, 382, 386, 393, 417, 428, 441
10:22–23 126, 338–39
10:22–25 118, 122
10:23 64, 64n. 48, 71, 103, 104, 116n. 82, 117, 119, 131, 160, 178, 191, 196, 248, 249, 339n. 8, 368, 382, 388n. 15
10:23–25 26
10:24 71, 322
10:24–25 64, 119, 154, 163, 369
10:25 82n. 63, 99–100, 160, 162, 181n. 17, 252, 266, 332, 337, 354, 361, 403
10:25b 299
10:26 65–66n. 50, 68, 71, 72, 73, 120, 128, 131, 132, 136, 136n. 8, 137n. 10, 153, 155, 157, 162, 163, 178, 181, 185, 190, 222, 250–51, 256, 258, 299, 323, 339, 344, 358–59, 381, 392, 397, 402, 410, 415n. 2, 416, 419, 426, 427
10:26a 280, 281nn. 60–61, 401
10:26b 401
10:26–27 26, 65, 66, 123, 153, 183
10:26b–27 281
10:26–28 71, 72
10:26–29 123, 135, 136, 218, 411
10:26–31 27n. 6, 61, 64–67, 66n. 51, 70, 87, 98n. 29, 114, 118, 120, 121, 147, 152, 187, 192, 196, 225, 230, 236n. 2, 242, 259, 261, 261, 262, 280–83, 283, 286, 299, 299n. 4, 300, 379, 385, 391, 394, 402, 419, 425–27
10:27 26, 66n. 51, 71, 72, 73, 115, 120, 121, 188, 190, 222, 253, 277n. 49, 331, 360, 363–64, 382, 388, 392, 410
10:27–28 72
10:27–29 251
10:27–31 132, 162–63, 331–32, 341
10:28 66, 71, 72, 73, 256, 344, 359, 364, 388
10:28b 329
10:28–29 29n. 10, 188, 282, 392, 427
10:29 25, 66, 71, 72, 73, 90, 103, 121, 132, 134, 136, 136n. 8, 153, 156, 178, 182, 185, 187n. 32, 189, 199, 217, 222, 224, 239, 242n. 7, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 282, 310, 314, 339, 359–60, 364–65, 375, 381, 382, 383, 388, 392, 402, 407, 408, 426
10:29–31 352
10:30 66, 120, 131, 283, 300, 339, 344, 392
10:30–31 26, 67, 73, 121
10:31 66n. 51, 121, 163, 283, 300, 365–67, 382
10:32 71, 90, 177, 339, 352
10:32a 68
10:32b–33a 68
10:32–34 88, 90, 131, 134, 158n. 2, 159, 196, 204, 218, 223, 230, 245, 249, 338, 354
10:32–39 61, 67–70, 118, 132, 192, 196, 222, 229, 236n. 2, 280, 283, 299, 299n. 4
10:33 68–69nn. 52–53
10:33–34 369
10:33b–34 69
10:33–34a 88
10:34 116, 196, 223, 384
10:34b 69, 88
10:35 61, 63n. 46, 70, 70n. 54, 71, 72, 73, 181, 351, 369
10:35a 69
10:35b 69–70
10:35–39 352
10:36 70, 73, 104, 116n. 82, 181, 191, 230, 388n. 15
10:37 70, 73
10:38 191, 279n. 54
10:38–39 73, 181
10:38–11:40 279
10:39 40, 70n. 55, 71, 126, 134, 190, 196–97, 202n. 65, 216, 218, 230, 283, 360, 410
11 104, 117, 148, 244, 251, 265, 295, 301, 344, 346, 420, 421, 423, 423n. 6
11:1 191, 324, 329, 367, 370, 370n. 61, 371, 382, 423
11:1–6 244
11:1–13 239
11:1–39 191
11:1–40 127, 258n. 4, 260, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 278, 279n. 54, 280, 284, 296
11:1–12:13 122, 280
11:1–12:29 283, 300
11:3 274n. 36, 423
11:4 279n. 54
11:6 79n. 60, 118, 265, 285, 295, 351, 371, 423
11:7 122, 171n. 24, 279n. 54
11:8 122, 171n. 24
11:8–22 423
11:9 104, 116n. 82, 388n. 15
11:9–10 286, 441
11:10 53n. 37, 124, 126, 161, 268, 268n. 25, 295, 339, 419
11:13 104, 116n. 82, 388n. 15
11:13–14 441
11:13–16 286
11:15 268, 295
11:16 53n. 37, 116, 124, 384, 386
11:17 104, 116n. 82, 388n. 15
11:20 169, 333
11:23–28 252, 421, 423
11:23–29 165, 344
11:24–26 286
11:24–28 165
11:26 70n. 54
11:28 422
11:29 164, 326, 346, 377, 422
11:32 326, 376, 423n. 6
11:32–38 423n. 6
11:33 104, 279n. 54
11:34 60n. 43
11:35 116, 265n. 17, 384
11:35–38 258
11:37 60n. 43
11:39 104, 116n. 82, 326, 346, 388n. 15
11:39–40 149, 272n. 33, 384, 425
11:40 116, 131, 279, 299, 377, 384
12 29n. 9, 34–35, 36n. 21, 71, 165–68, 301, 334, 344
12:1 261
12:1b–3 35n. 19
12:2 24, 32n. 14, 165, 191, 197, 230, 329, 351, 374n. 67
12:1–2 181
12:1–2a 122
12:1–3 89, 191, 270, 284
12:1b–3 35n. 19
12:1–4 35
12:1–6 36n. 20
12:1–11 124n. 100, 230, 258n. 4
12:1–13 35, 124n. 100, 236n. 2, 285n. 69
12:1–29 36n. 21, 173, 197
12:2 24, 32n. 14, 165, 191, 197, 230, 329, 351, 374n. 67
12:2–3 369
12:3–4 258
12:4 35n. 19, 338
12:4–11 54, 352, 416n. 3
12:4–13 284
12:5 35n. 20, 131
12:5–7 197
12:5–8 368, 382
12:5–10 169
12:5–11 332
12:5–13 35
12:6 255, 334
12:6–10 122
12:7 36n. 20, 131
12:7–13 36n. 20
12:8 69n. 53, 210, 214, 230
12:9 29n. 10
12:10 25, 169, 197
12:10–11 203, 223
12:10–13 103
12:10–14 205n. 73
12:12 275n. 41
12:12–13 123, 124n. 100, 163, 181
12:12–17 122, 124n. 100
12:14 25, 36, 37n. 22, 42, 203, 205n. 73, 216, 223
12:14–17 122, 124, 124n. 100, 153, 169, 265n. 17, 266, 276n. 45, 285, 285n. 69, 286
12:14–24 36
12:14–27 260
12:14–29 27, 28, 34–41, 42–43, 84, 90, 122–27, 124n. 100, 153–54, 187, 236n. 2, 261, 283–88, 284n. 68, 299n. 4, 300, 301, 389
12:15 42, 82n. 63, 169, 181, 285n. 70, 441
12:15a 43
12:15b 43
12:15–16 133
12:15–17 114
12:16 42, 43, 251, 285n. 71, 332, 333n. 10
12:16–17 185, 332, 357n. 37
12:17 169, 275, 277n. 50, 285n. 72, 286, 333, 356
12:18 118
12:18–20 43
12:18–21 37, 38, 40, 153, 286, 344, 379
12:18–24 123, 197, 384, 408
12:18–25 256
12:18–29 124n. 100, 270n. 30, 285n. 69
12:19 38n. 23, 125
12:20 28n. 7
12:21 66n. 51, 287
12:22 41n. 27, 53n. 37, 118, 124, 125, 161, 201, 270, 288, 329, 339, 368, 368n. 57, 419
12:22–23 165
12:22–24 37, 58n. 40, 128, 131, 153, 155, 201, 262, 272n. 33, 274, 286, 287, 423, 441
12:23 102, 125, 279, 279n. 54, 287, 299, 368
12:24 36, 38, 116, 125, 125, 287, 288, 384
12:24–29 259
12:25 26, 28n. 7, 29nn. 9–10, 38, 42, 43, 126, 128, 131, 133, 155, 178, 181, 187n. 32, 189, 251, 254, 288, 294, 389, 397, 402n. 8, 407, 408, 410
12:25a 38, 43
12:25b 43
12:25c 43
12:25–26 408
12:25b–26a 38
12:25–27 125, 166, 222
12:25–28 197, 222, 223
12:25–29 27n. 6, 28, 36, 36n. 21, 37, 39, 41, 42, 74, 89, 124, 153, 154, 165, 188, 230, 239, 261, 262, 268, 269, 270, 277n. 49, 282, 287, 288, 296, 302, 341
12:26 116n. 82, 154, 167, 168, 288, 388n. 15, 389
12:26b 39–40
12:27 126, 167–68, 168, 390
12:28 25, 40, 41, 42, 53n. 37, 126, 128, 134, 155, 201, 230, 288, 368, 382, 386
12:28a 329
12:28b 40–41
12:28–29 126
12:29 26, 115, 188, 253, 288, 300, 388, 392
13 344
13:1–17 35
13:2 97
13:3 89, 338
13:5 97
13:6 343n. 22
13:7 88, 117, 191, 338
13:8 56n. 38
13:9 97, 169, 275n. 41, 313
13:9–13 404
13:10 384
13:11 159, 168, 344
13:11–13 340, 419
13:12 159, 339n. 10, 375, 404
13:12–13 369
13:13 159, 168, 253–54, 344, 367
13:14 53n. 37, 102, 126, 161, 168, 169, 339, 361, 367, 368, 419
13:15 252
13:15–16 351
13:15–17 163
13:16 252
13:20 252, 343n. 22, 361
13:22 24, 90, 131, 173, 178, 180, 182, 293, 367
13:23 97, 214n. 93, 338
13:24 158, 393
13:33 97

James
1:13–15 305
1:17–18 302
2:14–26 439
2:17 210, 212n. 87
5:19–20 87, 114n. 78, 305

1 Peter
1:4 303
1:4–5 229
1:5 86, 106, 303
1:17 108
2:2–3 113
2:3 112
5:1 69n. 53
5:2 65n. 50
1 Peter 221

2 Peter
1:4 69n. 53
1:8–11 304
1:10 33n. 15
1:19 33n. 15
2 303
2:3 70n. 55, 410
2:20–21 305
3:7 70n. 55, 126, 410
3:7–13 410
3:10 126, 390
3:16 70n. 55
3:17 275n. 41
3:17–18 304

1 John
1:7 214n. 93
1:8 211n. 86
1:8–10 228
1:9 211n. 86
1:10 79n. 60, 211n. 86
2:3 439
2:5–6 439
2:15 211
2:23–25 304
3:18–19 439
4:20 211n. 86
5:10 79n. 60
5:14–17 114n. 77
5:16 331
5:16–17 305

Jude
7 361
9 30n. 12
Jude 303

Revelation
1:5 125
2:5 305
2:7 340
2:23 108
3:5 125
4:1–11 58n. 40
6:12–14 126, 389
10:9–10 113
11:18 108
14:13 108
16:17–21 389
16:18–21 126
17:8 70n. 55, 410
17:11 70n. 55, 410
18:1 391
19:15 60n. 43
19:20 127, 410
20:6 390
20:10 127
20:11 390
20:12 125
20:12–13 108
20:14–15 127
21 124, 270
21:1 126, 390
21:8 305, 410
22:12 108, 125
22:19 305
Revelation 221

Apocryphal Works

Additions to Esther
15:5–6 66n. 51

Baruch
3:8 48n. 32
6:28 79n. 60
6:53–54 79n. 60

Judith
4:12 362n. 47
8:27 36n. 20

Epistle of Jeremiah
6:27 79n. 60

1 Maccabees
2:19 48n. 32
2:49 160
3:12 60n. 43
4:17 82n. 63
13:42 63n. 46

2 Maccabees
3:3 39n. 25
3:38 214
4:14 34n. 17
8:27 58n. 40, 351
14:3 65n. 50
14:10 79n. 60

3 Maccabees
4:18 79n. 60
7:16 372

4 Maccabees
4 Maccabees 361n. 43
10:15 361n. 43
12:12 361n. 43

Sirach/Ecclesiasticus
1:8 66n. 51
1:26 82n. 63
2:8 70n. 54
4:11 36n. 20
4:17–19 36n. 20
4:29 76n. 57
10:12 48n. 32
11:12 76n. 57
11:22 70n. 54
22:27–23:6 36n. 20
26:28 211n. 86
30:12 48n. 33
47:23–24 48n. 32
48:15 48n. 32

Wisdom of Solomon
3:10 34n. 17, 48n. 32
5:15 70n. 54
6:11 82n. 63
18:15–16 60n. 43

Greek and Roman Sources

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dion. Hal.)

Antiquitates romanae (Ant. rom.)
6.11 35n. 19
Panarion (Pan.)
29.7.8 254
Papyri
BGU
I 168.11 35n. 19
PGiss
1.68.17 76n. 58
POxy
1.95:34 79n. 59
1.97:9 35n. 19
8.1133:12 78n. 59
40.2894:ii.14 78n. 59
40.2894:iii.14 78n. 59
42.3015:24 78n. 59

Plato
Philebus (Pl Phlb)
32c 66n. 51

Plutarch
Cato Minor (Cat. Min.)
1.6 76n. 57
Moralia (Mor.)
754a 32n. 14

Polybius
Historicus (Plb Hist)
3.91.10 69n. 52
4.8.5 76n. 57
18.36.6 79n. 59

Tacitus
Annales
15.44 69n. 52

Thucydides (Th)
4.93 35n. 19

Pseudepigrapha
2 Baruch (2 Bar.) 62
32:1 126, 389
44:15 360–61n. 43
45:1 389
51:6 361n. 43
54:14 361n. 43
1 Enoch (1 En.)
20:1–8 30n. 12
45:1 389
4 Ezra
7:36 360n. 43
7:38 360n. 43
Jubilees (Jub.) 169
1:27 33n. 16, 92n. 19
1:29 33n. 16, 389
2:1 33n. 16, 92n. 19
2:21–22 58n. 40
35:14 169n. 21
38:2 169n. 21
50:8–11 58n. 40
50:10 58n. 40
Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris.)
184 38n. 23
Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol.)
15:4 127
Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or.)
3.675 126
Testament of Benjamin (TBenj.)
9:2 80n. 61
Testament of Levi (T. Levi)
17:10 80n. 61

Josephus

Against Apion (Ag. Ap.)
1.1 § 3 65n. 50
1.8 § 43 69n. 52
2.15 § 156 33n. 15
Jewish Antiquities (Ant.)
1.11.2 § 198 79n. 60
3.6.4 § 123 166n. 17
3.7.7§ 179–81 166n. 17
3.9.3 § 230 79n. 60
3.14.2 § 304 79n. 60
4.4.3. § 67 34n. 17
4.7.23 § 251 65n. 50
4.6.1–8.2 §§ 102–87 338n. 6
5.1.26 § 109 79n. 60
7.8.2 § 167 38n. 23
7.8.4 § 185 65n. 50
7.14.1 § 336 76n. 58
9.8.2 § 161 80n. 61
12.2.5 § 45 66n. 51
12.3.3 § 133 65n. 50
13.2.3 § 57 80n. 61
14.11.5 § 286 66n. 51
15.5.3 § 136 33n. 16, 92n. 19
17.2.4 § 33 66n. 51
17.10.5 § 272 66n. 51
17.10.9 § 289 35n. 19
17.14.1 § 336 76n. 58
18.1.1 § 8 35n. 19
18.7.5 §§ 310–13 161n. 10
19.5.2 § 285 78n. 59
19.8.2 § 334 66n. 51
Jewish War (J.W.)
1 § 1.1.1, 4 §§ 1 365
1 § 1.1.1, 4 §§ 12 365
1.32.3 § 631 66n. 51
2 §§ 457–66 161
2 §§ 477–79 161
2 §§ 494–98 161
2.16.4 § 394 65n. 50
3.4.7 § 103 66n. 51
3.7.1 §§ 132–34 330, 362n. 46
4.7.5 § 435 65n. 50
4.7.1 § 393 35n. 19
4.8.1 § 488 330, 362n. 46
4.9.4 § 510 66n. 51
4.9.10 §558 66n. 51
5.6.1 § 212 166n. 17
5.6.2 § 213 166n. 17
5.6.3 § 217 166n. 17
5.10.5 §§ 442 365
5.11.1 § 451 365
6.4.5 §§ 249–53 362n. 49
6.4.6–7 §§ 257–66 362n. 49
6.5.1 § 275 330, 362n. 46
6.5.3 § 291 76n. 58
6.6.1 §§ 321–22 362n. 49
6.9.3 § 425 161n. 10
7 §§ 37–38 161
7 §§ 46–62 161
7.1.1 §§ 1–4 362n. 49
7.5.5 § 145 362n. 46
7.5.7 §§ 160–62 362n. 49

Philo, Judaeus

Philo 33n. 15, 60n. 44, 64n. 48, 76n. 57, 166
De Abrahamo (Abr.)
40 66n. 50
266 76n. 57
De agricultura (Agr.)
160 76n. 58
De cherubim (Cher.)
78 60n. 44
De congressu eruditionis gratia (Congra.)
177 36n. 20
De decalogo (Decal.)
118 33n. 17
142 65n. 50
Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat (Det.)
26 § 97 65n. 50
38 38n. 23
140 66n. 51
155 79n. 60
Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Deus)
63 76n. 57
129 76n. 58
In Flaccum (Flacc.)
43 34n. 17
84 69n. 52
De fuga et inventione (Fug.)
199–200 64n. 48
De gigantibus (Gig.)
2 76n. 58
Quis rerum divinarum heres (Her.)
23–24 66n. 51
Hypothetica (Hypoth.)
6.8–9 33n. 15
De Iosepho (Ios.)
225 76n. 58
Legum allegoriae I, II, III (Leg.)
3.4 79n. 60
3.136 46n. 31
De vita Mosis I, II (Mos.)
1.174 79n. 60
2.14 33n. 15
De mutatione nominum (Mut.)
81 60n. 44
173 66n. 51
De opificio mundi (Opif.)
171 76n. 58
De plantatione (Plant.)
144 76n. 58
De posteritate Caini (Post.)
161 76n. 57
De praemiis et poenis (Praem.)
29 60n. 44
49 80
54 65n. 50
Quod omnis probus liber sit (Prob.)
52 76n. 58
87 34n. 17
159 60n. 44
De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.)
32 76n. 57
De somniis I, II (Somn.)
1.52 34n. 17
1.237 76n. 57
De specialibus legibus I, II, III, IV (Spec.)
1.69 161n. 10
2.108 34n. 17
4.41 34n. 17
4.157 65n. 50
De virtutibus (Virt.)
202 33n. 17

Qumran

Qumran 30n. 12, 46n. 31, 53n. 37, 159, 361n. 43
CD
1:3 79n. 59
1QHa
14:29–33 60n. 43
1QpHab 95n. 22
8:11 48n. 32
8:16 48n. 32
1QM
5:11–14 60n. 43
6:2–6 60n. 43
1QS 361
4:12–13 361n. 43
5:5 46n. 31
5:26 46n. 31
4Q174
2:18–3:13 53n. 36
4Q246
1:9 30n. 12
2:1 30n. 12
4Q266
2i:8 79n. 59
4Q372
f2:6 82n. 63
4QMMT 159n. 7
B:29–30 340n. 12
B:60 340n. 12
4Q403 58n. 40
4Q504
4 53n. 36
frag 4:7 46n. 31
11QTa
2:8 82n. 63

SUBJECT INDEX

Aaron, 188n. 36, 272, 345, 351, 371, 397n. 2, 424; sins of, 348–50, 399, 421
Abihu, 364
Abraham, 103, 171n. 24, 193n. 48, 273, 346, 423, 423n. 6
Adam, 275n. 41, 380
Alexandria, 161
angels, 33n. 16, 30n. 12, 33, 33n. 16, 34n. 18, 43, 92n. 19; and Christian worship, 125; as lesser than Jesus, 91
apostasy, 47–48n. 32, 67, 78–79n. 59, 89, 108–11, 116, 150, 273, 422, 424; as abandonment of faith, 423; antidotes/deterrents to, 99, 154; cause of, 156; consequences of, 118–22, 152–53, 222;—, severity of, 120–21; danger of, 111–15, 304–5; definition of, 120, 162–63, 221, 297–98; nature of, 250–53, 396–402; “passive”/“active” distinction of, 151–52; as repudiation of Christ, 135, 150, 156, 181–82, 183, 297–298; willfulness of, 282, 282–83n. 67, 289, 299, 358–59. See also apostates
apostates, 132, 137n. 10, 422n. 5; repentance of, 322–23
Arminianism, 86–87, 118, 157–59, 257n. 1, 430; and Paul, 306
Asia Minor, 406
assurance, 141–42, 226, 228–31, 249–50, 323–24, 367–71, 382–83, 411n. 12, 428; and the absolute forgiveness of the new covenant, 372–74; and Christ’s ability to save forever, 371–72; and the completed perfection of believers, 364–75; detailed promises of from Haggai’s oracle, 39n. 25; theological foundations for, 313–14

baptism, 338–39, 339n. 8, 387; superiority of to Jewish ablutions, 110–11
birthright, 333n. 10. See also Esau, sale of his birthright as expression of complete unbelief

Caleb, 104, 355, 399n. 4
Calvinism, 86, 117–18, 220–21, 232, 430; doctrine of election, 127–28, 154; and Paul, 305–6
Calvinists, 257
Canaan, 50
Christianity, 110n. 67, 133–34, 278n. 53, 432; evangelical (irenic), 431; “foundation” issues of, 110–11. See also faith, as evidence of genuine Christianity
Christians, 134, 174, 233–34n. 1, 240n. 5, 339n. 10; and Christian community, 99–100, 133, 258, 295, 332, 367n. 55, 431–32; persecution of, 68–69n. 52, 69n. 53, 88; privileges of, 114; protection of, 405–6; “quasi-Christians,” 157, 298. See also Jews
confidence, 63n. 46, 100
“contamination” metaphor, 123
conversion, 179, 434; completeness of, 112–13; phenomena of, 136–37, 137n. 10, 217
Corinth, 254–55; Paul’s warnings to, 251, 305
Corinthians. See Corinth
covenant, 30n. 11, 339n. 11; blood of, 252–53, 427; and genuine faith, 171n. 24; Mosaic, 363n. 52, 404, 418; the new covenant, 93–94, 103–4, 124, 137, 204–5, 205n. 73;—, absolute forgiveness of, 372–74;—, blessings of, 312–13, 416–17;—, Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning, 405; Noahic, 363n. 52; the old covenant, 124, 153, 205n. 73, 427

David, 366, 407n. 11
“day, the,” 160–61
Day of Atonement, 387; Sabbath imagery in, 106
desire, 82n. 63
destruction, 70n. 55
diligence, 59–61, 59n. 42, 117
disobedience, 101
divine will, mystery of, 316n. 10

Eden. See Garden of Eden
Esau, 123, 153, 168–70, 185–86, 275, 285n. 70; covenant discipline of, 334–35; description of in Hebrews, 332–33; in Jewish tradition, 168–69n. 21; “repentance” of, 286, 286n. 74, 357n. 37; sale of his birthright as expression of complete unbelief, 285–86, 333
eschatology, 116n. 82, 166, 301; chronology of the “eschatological age,” 125n. 102; eschatological aspect of eternal life, 93n. 20, 202, 386–87. See also temple, the: as an eschatological image of God’s blessedness
Eschaton, 386
eternal security, 433–34
Eusebius, 254, 369n. 59, 405
evil, mystery of, 316n. 11
exhortation. See warning passages, exhortations in
Exodus generation, 55, 56, 96–101, 150, 179, 256, 271n. 32, 420–23; depiction of in Hebrews, 343–45, 352–53, 397n. 2; difficulty of renewing them to repentance, 355–57; disobedience of, 148, 151–52; and the “evil heart of unbelief,” 294–95; God’s condemnation of, 188–89, 266–67, 266n. 19, 266–67n. 20, 268n. 24; as God’s people, 264n. 14; hortatory value of, 272, 272n. 33; pardon of, 325–26, 326n. 5, 399n. 5; redeemed status of, 344–46, 379; revelation and warning to, 262–72; rhetorical function of, 272n. 35; sin of, 265–66, 271n. 32, 300, 325–27, 347–50, 390–91, 421–22;—, willfulness of, 358–59, 392, 401–2; temporal versus eternal loss suffered by, 165, 254–55, 420–21, 426–27, 428; turning away, 48n. 32. See also Kadesh-Barnea rebellion; Massah; Meribah

faith, 104–5, 111, 117, 117n. 84, 244, 276, 295, 421–23; as evidence of genuine Christianity, 138, 138–39n. 14, 218, 218n. 99; and God’s covenants, 171n. 24
“falling away,” 180–86, 181n. 17, 251–52, 353–54, 400–401, 424; apostasy as, 150, 275–76, 275n. 41; of a community rather than an individual, 127; consequences of, 186–90, 222; in the light of the Kadesh-Barnea rebellion, 380
fear, 52, 71
fearfulness, 66n. 51
Flaccus, 69n. 52

Garden of Eden, 351, 423
gezērah šāwāh, 105–6, 148
Gideon, 377, 423n. 6
God, 30, 30n. 11, 114, 205n. 73, 262, 348, 441–42; access to, 118; as benefactor/patron, 114n. 77; confidence in, 205n. 73; covenant obligation of, 97–98n. 29; dwelling in his presence, 269–70; faithfulness of, 205n. 73, 314–15; holiness of, 253; promises of, 228–31; sovereignty of, 86–87, 316n. 10; transforming work of, 142. See also “God’s rest”; “God’s Sabbath”; judgment: of God; parable of Israel as God’s vineyard
“God’s rest,” 51–58, 148–49, 155, 165, 267–71, 267n. 21, 295–96; danger of losing it, 94–96;—, the past model, 96–101;—, and the power of the word, 106–8;—, and the present promise, 101–6, 102n. 40, 105nn. 46–47; David’s proclamation of, 267, 267n. 22; incompleteness of, during the Exodus generation, 57n. 39; meaning of, 327–29; Old Testament concept of, 350–52; and the Sabbath, 53n. 37, 386, 387; two “parallel” communities, 52–53n. 36
“God’s Sabbath,” 53n. 37, 57–58n. 40, 58, 106, 351
grace, 169

Haggai, book of, 39nn. 24–25; “shaking” metaphors in, 40n. 26
hapax legomena, 426
hardening of one’s heart, 46, 46n. 31, 48nn. 32–33, 97, 97n. 28
“heavenly homeland.” See “God’s rest”
Hebrews, book of: addressees of, 130–37, 131n. 2, 146, 155, 157, 158–61, 158n. 2, 159n. 4, 176–80, 411; balance between assurance and warning in, 299–300, 299n. 4;—, central Christological themes of, 309–15; Christology of, 259, 269, 309; conditional clauses of, 138–39, 231, 231n. 15, 248–50, 304, 306, 316–21, 324–25, 412–14; covenantal language of, 170–71; dating of by tense, 338, 338n. 6; encouragement to believers in, 126; enigmatic character of, 173; eschatological perspective of, 116n. 82; and the Graeco-Roman patron/client relationship informing, 145, 290–91; historical setting of, 337–40, 417–19; importance of “hearing” and “obeying” in, 294; importance of the word house in, 195n. 53, 206–7, 206n. 74, 264; lesser to greater (escalation) argumentation in, 71, 189–90, 189n. 39, 253, 300, 384–90, 393, 394–95, 407–9 (see also qal waḥomer); as a “ministry” document, 439–40; Old Testament background of, 340–60 passim; Old Testament typology in, 341–42, 342n. 20; oratory method of, 27, 27n. 5; Roman origin of, 158–59, 158n. 3; social setting of, 88–89, 145–46, 187–88n. 34; soteriology of, 134–35, 134n. 4, 137–41, 164, 259, 315, 320; tensions in, 135;—, already/not yet, 116n. 82;—, artificiality of, 234–35;—, spatial, 441;—, theological, 441, 442–43; theme of, 182, 259; use of “today” in, 56n. 38, 105, 106; use of “we” in, 82nn. 62–63, 131, 132–33. See also warning passages
hermeneutics: of humility, 306; and the practice of theology, 435–45
Hillel, 29n. 10
holiness, 25, 285. See also God: holiness of
Holy Spirit, 86, 97n. 26, 113, 172; blasphemy of, 114. See also sin(s): the unpardonable sin
humiliation, 68, 68–69n. 52

ignorance, 33–34n. 17
imitation, 117
impossibilities, 79n. 60, 114, 150
inexperience, 76–77n. 58
interpretation, 129
interpretive paradigm, 206, 247–50, 255–56; and the cause-to-effect (C/E) relationship between protasis and apodosis, 207–15, 324–25; defense of, 207–18 passim; and evidenceto-inference (E/I) conditional considerations, 210–15, 214nn. 91–92, 231, 318–20; suggested paradigm of, 206–7
Isaac, 169, 333
Isaiah, 363

Jacob, 169, 170, 286, 333, 334
Jerusalem, 124, 159n. 5, 159n. 7, 340, 340n. 12, 403; Christian community in, 367n. 55; destruction of, 158, 161, 166n. 13, 168, 277n. 47, 362n. 47, 403, 415n. 1, 418; importance of to the Jews of the Diaspora, 161, 161n. 10; relationship of, to the temple, 270n. 29
Jesus, 181–82; complete adequacy of salvation in, 235–37, 238, 308–16, 311n. 5; contrast of to Moses, 164–65, 294, 385; crucifixion of, 182, 183, 251, 357–58, 381, 425; enthronement of, 90–91, 90n. 10; as the “faithful son,” 226–27; magnitude of his blessings, 290–91; as mediator, 30, 42, 71, 125; as the Son of God, 359–60; superiority of, to the angels, 91; superiority of, to the Levitical priests, 368, 371; superiority of, to Moses and Joshua, 95, 164–65, 386; the “Word” of, 93n. 20. See also assurance: and Christ’s ability to save forever; Jesus as high priest; Jesus, sufficiency of
Jesus as high priest, 108, 182–83, 195, 197–199, 223, 273, 312n. 6; Aaronic/Levitical priesthood as a “type” of Christ’s priesthood, 272n. 33; adequacy of, 235–37, 238, 308–16; character of, 310–12; eternal quality of his work as, 310–11n. 3; fidelity of, 195n. 52; high-priestly mission of, 225–26, 312n. 6; as king-priest, 24, 30, 75–87, 75n. 56; nature of his work as, 216–17; “open” access to God, 63, 63n. 47, 118, 118n. 85; perpetual nature of, 372; power of, 225–26; privileges/benefits made available to us by Jesus as high priest, 152, 274–75, 280, 287, 298, 312–13
Jesus, sufficiency of, 235, 236, 416; and guarantee of perseverance, 237–40; and provision for perseverance, 240–41; and the urgency of perseverance, 241–42
Jewish Christians, 254, 269n. 27, 277n. 47, 389, 393; expulsion of, from Rome, 158n. 2. See also Jews
Jews, 166n. 13, 339–40, 402, 415–16, 415n. 1, 419; First and Second Jewish Temple communities, 47–48n. 32; population of, in Rome, 88. See also Rome: persecution of Jewish rebels by
Joshua, 39n. 25, 57n. 39, 95, 104, 355, 399n. 4
Judaism, 110n. 67, 278n. 53, 365, 392, 401, 402; “foundation” issues of, 110–11
Judea, 254
judgment: of God, 99, 120–21, 154, 329–32, 381–82, 409–10; facing of, 66, 122–27; future “penalty,” 25–26; as the reason for listening to God, 41, 41n. 27; as the result of disobedience, 71. See also destruction
judgment: nature of, 253–55, 360–63, 381–82, 402–10, 427; and consuming fire, 41, 361n. 43, 363–64, 393; and “falling into the hands of the Living God,” 366–67; physical punishment, 407–8, 407n. 11; severity of the punishment, 187, 187n. 32, 266–67n. 20, 364–65, 382

Kadesh-Barnea rebellion, 40, 46–47, 46n. 30, 71, 96–101, 156, 162–63, 265–66, 266n. 18; and choosing “another” Moses, 263n. 10; in light of the sins of Moses and Aaron, 348–50; not to be repeated, 50–51, 59; reasons for, 96, 265n. 17; as the rejection of God’s revelation, 263–64. See also “falling away”
Korah, 364

“laid bare” metaphor, 60n. 44, 107n. 56
law: Old Testament, 33n. 15, 93, 391; Mosaic law, 282, 282n. 66, 300, 364, 381, 424
learning, 77

Massah, 46nn. 30–31, 98, 266n. 18
maturity, 67, 109, 110, 279–80, 299, 425
Melchizedek, 103, 225–26, 340, 343; priority of over the sons of Levi, 371
Meribah, 46nn. 30–31, 98, 266n. 18
Miriam, 351, 424
Mosaic. See law: Old Testament
Moses, 71, 95, 345, 346, 364, 397n. 2; compares/contrasts Son with, 263–64, 263nn. 10–11; contrast of, to Christ, 164–65, 294, 385; contrast of, to Israel, 294; faithfulness of, 344, 421–23, 423n. 6; as an honored servant, 263n. 11; intervention of, on behalf of the rebellious Israelites, 295–96; mediator of previous era, 42; questioning of God’s commands, 348–49n. 30; refused entrance into Promised Land, 188n. 36, 351, 424; sins of, 252, 348–50, 399, 421; warning of, to Israel regarding idolatry, 126. See also law: Mosaic law
Mount Sinai, 286–87, 287nn. 75–76
Mount Zion. See Zion

Nadab, 364
Nahal Hever, 159
name, 30n. 12
Nero, 69n. 52
Noah, 171n. 24, 346

obedience, 97

Palestine, 159, 187–88n. 34, 254, 277n. 47, 402, 403, 415n. 1; destruction of, 382, 392
pancratium, 35, 35n. 19
parable of Israel as God’s vineyard, 115, 115n. 80
parable of the wedding banquet, 34n. 17 “paranetic midrash,” 390
“partakers”: of Christ, 206n. 76, 249, 316–21, 325, 376, 413; of the Holy Spirit, 353; as true believers, 273–74n. 36
participles (five participle passages in Hebrews), 177–80, 180n. 16, 273–78, 273–74n. 36, 411–12, 411n. 13, 412n. 14; as causal, 185n. 30, 392; connection of, in Hebrews with the Exodus generation, 352–53, 380–81, 391; strength of, 298; as temporal, 185
“partnership,” 48–49, 48–49n. 34, 100, 100n. 34; and partners/sharers, 69n. 53;—, of salvation, 78
patronage, 97–98n. 29
Paul, 59n. 42, 251, 305–6; on believers, 64n. 48; as a disciple of Arminius, 306; as a disciple of Calvin, 305–6; on the Torah, 93; warnings of, to the Corinthians, 251, 305
Pelagian heresy, 87
Pella, 367n. 55
perfection. See maturity
perseverance, 207n. 78, 208, 244, 244n. 9, 245; in Christian development, 202, 202n. 65; Reformed understanding of, 141, 172–73; until the end, 128, 128n. 110
Peter, 185
promise, 103–4
“Protestant purgatory,” 255
punishment: divine. See judgment: of God

qal waḥomer, 29, 92, 121, 384, 385, 389–90; explanation of, 29n. 10; and the three sins mentioned in Hebrews, 392–93

Qumran, 30n. 12, 46n. 31, 159

rebellion, 50n. 35
renewal, 79–80n. 61
repentance, 179, 220–21; and a believer’s inability to repent, 79n. 60, 80–81, 114; foundation of, 111; secular repentance, 123
resistance, 35n. 19
resolve, 63n. 46
rest. See “God’s rest”
restoration, 79–80n. 61
Reuben, 334n. 11
revelation(s), 92–93, 359; to the Exodus generation, 262–72; “greater” revelation, 93. See also Kadesh-Barnea rebellion: as the rejection of God’s revelation; warning passages: grounding of, in revelation and redemption
reward, 70n. 54
rhetoric, 145, 258n. 4. See also Exodus generation: rhetorical function of; Hebrews, book of: lesser to greater (escalation) argumentation in
righteousness, 109
Roman Empire. See Rome
Rome, 161; campaigns of, in Galilee and Judea, 403, 405; persecution of Jewish rebels by, 68–69n. 52, 161, 221, 362n. 46, 365;—, Vespasian’s policy concerning, 330

Sabbath. See “God’s Sabbath”
salvation, 25, 94, 113, 116–18, 164, 179, 301, 311n. 5, 315–16, 343n. 22, 433; the “better things” of, 82n. 62, 193n. 46; and the blessings of the new covenant, 310, 416–17; as both present and future, 116n. 81; contingency of in the book of Hebrews, 137–41; faithfulness of God to accomplish, 314–15; “falling short” of, 123; as future-oriented, 200–202; “great salvation,” 147, 259, 262–64, 280–82, 284–85, 288; New Testament conditional statements regarding, 95, 140–41, 304; and perseverance, 202n. 65; possibility of losing, 289–90; superiority of, 310. See also Jesus: complete adequacy of salvation in
Samson, 377, 423n. 6
sanctification, 25, 179, 394
Saul, 407n. 11
Septuagint, 159
“shaking of earth and heaven” metaphor, 39–40, 165–68, 166nn. 13–14; historical/political interpretation of, 40n. 26
sin(s), 250–51; the unpardonable, 114, 114n. 77, 114–15n. 78, 163, 298–299. See also apostasy; Exodus generation: sin of; willful sin
Sinai, 40; contrast of, to Zion, 301–2
Sinai wilderness community, 33, 38, 38n. 23, 42, 45–46, 71, 84. See also Exodus generation
“slip away” metaphor, 32, 32n. 14, 90–94, 92nn. 17–18
Solomon, 167n. 18
sonship, 30n. 12; and suffering, 36n. 20
soteriology. See Hebrews, book of: soteriology of
Stoics, 166n. 13
syllogism, 34n. 18
Syria, 405

temple, the, 270n. 29, 403, 404; destruction of, 167–68, 167n. 19, 363n. 49, 403; as an eschatological image of God’s blessedness, 270n. 30; as God’s resting place, 52–53n. 36; as microcosm of the Jewish cosmos, 166–67, 166nn. 13–14; restoration of, 79–80n. 61; temple symbolism in the Old Testament, 167, 167n. 18
Timothy, 59n. 42
Titus, 161
Torah, the, 93, 404
typology, 341–43, 378–79, 407–9; “heightening” in, 189n. 39, 342, 342n. 20; negative, 98; three stages of typological relationship, 96n. 24. See also Hebrews, book of: lesser to greater (escalation) argumentation in

unbelief, 97–98, 97–98n. 29
unpardonable sin, the. See sin(s): the unpardonable

vigilance, 97, 122–23

warning passages, 58n. 41, 85–87, 90, 173, 218–19, 242–44, 280–86, 285n. 70, 289–92; against “sluggishness” and “immaturity,” 75–76n. 57, 82n. 64, 150, 151, 277–79, 354–55, 390; Calvinist position concerning, 302–3; contradictions within, 224–25, 233–36; and encouragement to the readers concerning God’s faithfulness, 192–205, 193n. 47, 222–23, 227–31; five central elements or themes of, 176–205 passim, 176n. 9;—, combining of, 205; in the form of a chiasmus, 28, 84; grounding of, in revelation and redemption, 259–62, 260nn. 5–6; the harsh warning, 74–83; identifying them, 27–28; issues surrounding, 24–26; nautical metaphor in, 91–92, 92nn. 17–18; Old Testament background of, 163–65; response to, 190–91, 291–92; structure of, 27–28, 28–29n. 8, 42–43; synthetic approach to, 175–76, 175n. 8, 246; warnings to hear, 28–41 passim; warnings to trust and obey, 44–71 passim; wrestling metaphor in, 107n. 56. See also “falling away”; interpretive paradigm; judgment: nature of; warning passages, exhortations in
warning passages, exhortations in, 35–38, 36–37n. 22, 47–48, 48n. 33, 63–64, 99–100, 118, 190–91, 192; definition of, 35–36n. 20; and the three “speakings” of God, 288
Wesleyans, 257, 257n. 1
wilderness community. See Exodus generation
willful sin, 64–67, 65–66n. 50, 136, 136n. 8, 151n. 5, 153, 162–63, 281n. 61; difference of, from inadvertent sin, 114–15n. 78. See also apostasy: willfulness of
willfulness. See willful sin
Word of God, 60n. 43, 79n. 60; goodness of, 113; power of, 106–8
worship, 70, 118–19

Zerubbabel, 39n. 25
Zion, 124–25, 270, 270n. 30, 287, 288. See also Sinai: contrast of, to Zion

BIBLE VERSION PERMISSIONS

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®. Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)

Scripture quotations marked NET are from the NET Bible® copyright © 1996–2005 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://www.bible.org/. Scripture quoted by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked REB are from the Revised English Bible, copyright © 1989 Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are from the Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1946–1952, 1971, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. The Apocrypha Section, copyright © 1957. The Third and Fourth Books of the Maccabees and Psalm 151, copyright © 1977. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked TNIV are from the Holy Bible, Today’s New International VersionTM TNIV®. Copyright © 2001, 2005 by International Bible Society®. All rights reserved worldwide.

Gleason, R. C. (2007). A Moderate Reformed View. In H. W. Bateman IV (Hrsg.), Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (S. 336–480). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional.

Published: May 5, 2018, 07:58 | Comments
Category: Archbishop Dr. Uwe AE.Rosenkranz, bible, Bible teaching

Spirit

Categories

Archiv

Archiv + Cloud

RSS feed

FB

PL