Grow Up or Get Out: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Hebrews 6:1-8

Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion 2017

Jake Doberenz, Oklahoma Christian University

In Hebrews 6:1-8, a frightening idea appears presented: that there are some people who

begin as Christians, but leave the faith, and then have no hope of receiving salvation once more.

Contrary to the commonplace idea of a loving God who gives us freedom of choice, the author of

Hebrews describes a scenario where once a decision to reject God is made, you permanently assign

yourself to eternal damnation. However, the uncomfortable declaration in 6:4-6 is often interpreted

without understanding the surrounding text, the culture of the time, and the rhetorical aim of the

author. With these in mind, the text is shown to not be talking about apostasy. The author of

Hebrews strongly desired the audience to grow toward maturity, so the writer employs strong,

emotive rhetoric about the consequence of not acting Christ-like after conversion. What is

presented are two choices: grow up, or get out. .

Hebrews 6:1-8 makes up what traditionally is called a letter, though it probably isn’t in the

traditional sense.1 Due to the lack of the greeting at the beginning plus the unified progression of

the book, some, including myself, believe Hebrews to have originally been a sermon or oration,

reflecting eloquent Greco-Roman rhetoric.2 Ben Witherington III characterizes the whole book as

“epideictic rhetoric” which is “the effusive, emotive and often hyperbolic rhetoric of praise and

blame.”3 The goal of this type of exhortation is to “help the audience maintain beliefs and

1
See N.A. Elder, “The Oratorical and Rhetorical Function of Hebrews 6:4-12,” Conversations With The
Biblical World 34 (2014): 251.

2
See E. Dinkler, “Hebrews, Letter to the.” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 2, (New York:
Abingdon Press), 571; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New
York: Doubleday, 2001), 81; Elder, 254-260; Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A
Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 20-21.

3
Witherington, 45.

1
behaviors they have already embraced,”4 in this case, Christian teachings. David DeSivla observes

that 6:1-8 utilizes honor and shame language,5 an example of emotive reasoning common in this

rhetoric. In the text, rewards and consequences are established to edify and exhort the audience to

live a certain way.

Paramount to understanding Hebrews 6 is understanding the audience. The repeated

appeals to Jewish scriptures could suggest Hebrews is written to Jewish Christians, however Craig

R. Koester points out that Old Testament material is utilized in Paul’s letters to Gentile

congregations as well.6 Also, a epistle to an Jewish audience would often include a discussion of

important Jewish issues like circumcision and food laws in relation to the covenant under Christ,

but these are absent.7 Additionally, the fact that certain attributes in the text, like “enlightenment”

(Heb. 6:4), are traditionally references to conversion from paganism, suggest an audience

including non-Jews. 8 Due to the mixed appeals, I propose the audience is mixed Jewish and

Gentile Christians.

4
Witherington, 45.

David Arthur deSilva. “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the
5

Hebrews.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 113, no. 3 (September 1994): 440. See also Witherington, 45.

6
Koester notes that in the letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians all utilize extensive use of the
OT in the arguments. Bruce makes this point but sees no problem with viewing the text in question as meant for
Jewish Christians. See Koester, Hebrews, 47; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 12; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to
the Hebrews, Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub., 1990), 5-7.

7
Koester, Hebrews, 47.

8
Koester, Hebrews, 48.

2
 Considering the multiethnic audience, I understand the occasion for writing the piece being

two interrelated threats to the community: an external pressure and an internal struggle. 9 An

external pressure like persecution—with its resulting friction and conflict between Christians and

non-Christians10—could cause a decrease in the importance of publicly demonstrated faith or

downplaying the importance of Christ11 that wouldn’t attract as much attention or induce as much

conflict. Related is an internal struggle, a spiritual laziness12 that threatens their connection to

Christ. These threats might cause some to conform to society, as Koester notes, “in the hope of

obtaining some visible improvement in their situation, instead of holding on to their distinctive

beliefs.” 13 Notably, in 10:23-25 the audience is told to remain strong in faith and continue meeting

together, for it “is the habit of some” (10:25) to neglect meeting, illustrative of a weak faith

commitment on the part “of some” in the group. The depiction of perseverance and of faith, being

“the conviction of things not seen” (11:1), exemplifies how the commitment to the faith needed

renewing despite no obvious present reward. Hebrews 6:1-8 is a text that continues this theme,

Attridge concludes the main threats were “‘persecution’ (10:36—12:13) and a waning commitment to the
9

community’s confessed faith” based from the author’s response. Attridge, 13.

10
Koester presents his analysis of the audience through stages. The initial conversion gives way to
persecution (10:32), which later becomes a third stage involving tension between Christians and non-Christians
leftover from the former days. Craig R. Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise: Life in the Community for
Which Hebrews Was Written,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 61, no. 1/2 (2005): 243-6. See also
Witherington, 26-29.

11
That is, a practice that may recognize Christ as Messiah, but looks Jewish rather than distinctively
Christian. Dahms specifically views the audience as being in “danger of becoming a sect for which Christ is
important but for which his death has no soteriological significance” (370). John V. Dahms, “First Readers of
Hebrews,” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 4 (1977): 370-75. See also Attridge, 11;
Witherington, 55. For passages suggesting a pressure to conform to Jewish regulations, though in my opinion not
necessarily to full Judaism, cf. Heb. 7:11-19; 9:9-10; 13:9.

12
Cf. Heb. 5:11-14.

13
See Koester, “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise,” 245; Witherington, 55-56. Cf. Heb. 13:14.

3
preaching the need for a committed faith, a faith that matures and does not waiver from the path

to “the city that is to come” (13:14).

Specifically, Hebrews 6:1-8 is a part of an important aside (5:11-6:12), an instructive

paraenesis,14 during an argument about Jesus’ superiority and role as the high priest.15 The aside

is not a simple break from the exposition; instead, this instructive exhortation and warning is served

by the exposition.16 The author, in 5:11, moves from theological arguments because it is “hard to

explain” due to the readers being “dull of understanding” (5:12).17 While the Christ-followers

should have been teachers at the time, they are not as mature as the author desires. Because of the

state of the readers, being “dull of understanding” and by implication spiritually lazy, 18 the author

develops further a call to maturity in the rest of this section.

Hebrews 6:1 starts out with an appeal to go on toward “perfection” (NRSV, KJV) or, in

other translations, “maturity.”19 The maturity the writer requests leaves “behind the basic teaching

14
Attridge, 18.

15
See Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 138.

16
Witherington, 49-51.

17
The audience probably had more understanding and skill than the author gives them credit for, as the
author of Hebrews does move on expecting them to understand the argument in the rest of the book. Witherington
notes the rhetorical device of “shaming students into pursuing a higher level of understanding by calling them
children.” See Witherington, 204.

18
Gleason writes, “This expression is based on the Greek word νωθρός, ‘lazy, sluggish.’ Their problem
was not a faulty message or ineffective teaching, but their own defective hearing. In the New Testament ‘hearing’ is
often equated with obedience (e.g., Rev. 2:7).” McKnight further overviews the prevalence of this theme throughout
the whole book and suggests the “spiritual lethargy” outgrew from the threat of persecution and inability to
understand the person of Christ. Randall Gleason, “The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-
8,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 617th ser., 155 (1998): 74; Scott McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal
Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13, no. 1 (1992): 41.

To me, “maturity” seems a better fit than “perfection,” purely because “perfection” carries with it
19

hamartiological connotations (“free of all sin”) to modern readers that aren’t present in the text. New American
Standard Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979); Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2011); Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001).

4
about Christ,” which the grammar suggests include the subsequent six attributes20 as “elementary.”

Since the word for “basic” comes from the Greek αρχή which literally means “beginning,” the six

attributes could describe the first things learned as a Christian 21—what 5:12 calls the “the basic

elements of the oracles of God”22—or the first things done as a Christian. The author then repeats

the same appeal in a different way: the audience should not be “laying again the foundation.” This

presumes the audience had once laid these “foundations” of Christian teaching.

For these Christ-followers, the following elements are listed as the basic teachings and their

foundation: “repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying

on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” (6:1b-2). While the list appears to

have little that is unique to Christianity,23 suggestive to some scholars that these are distinctly

Jewish rituals practiced by the readers,24 certainly, as Harold Attridge notes, the list is easily

“paralleled in accounts of early Christian proclamation,”25 logically following from “the basic

20
Victor Rhee, “Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20,” Journal Of The Evangelical
Theological Society 43, no. 1 (2000): 85.

21
George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment, and Conclusions (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1972), 103.

22
On the meaning of στοιχεῖα in 5:12, “the basic elements,” Rhee describes them as “‘fundamental
principles’ or ‘letters of the alphabet’ (i.e. ABC’s).” This seems to be the same general idea expressed in the verse
here. Rhee, 84. See also Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub., 1977), 190-1.

23
These attributes can equally be viewed in Jewish terms or purely Christian ones, as Christianity of course
came from Judaism and borrowed many of its rituals and beliefs. See Attridge, 164; Witherington, 209-210.

See Alan Mugridge. “Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews: an exegetical and theological study,” The
24

Reformed Theological Review 46, no. 3 (1987): 76; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 139.

25
Attridge, 163. See also Witherington, 209-210.

5
teachings about Christ” in verse one.26 This catalogue of teachings apparently need no further

explanation from the author, because the believing recipients clearly knew them well.27

The six elements, while perhaps not explicitly about Christianity, present a strong link to

the entrance into the faith. To the early church, repentance, faith, baptism, and likely even the

laying on of hands accompanied conversion.28 In 9:14, repentance from dead works is associated

with the purification of Christ’s sacrifice,29 likely the connotation here as well. Complete

repentance from a former way of living is a “fixed part” of the early church’s message. 30 “Faith

toward God” is likely linked to the “confession” of faith the author mentions in 3:1; 4:14 and

10:23,31 and is often tied together with repentance in the New Testament. 32 Faith is no doubt an

integral part of following Christ, especially in Hebrews.33

26
Witherington views parallels here between Jesus’ life and teachings, and with these particular doctrines.
Witherington, 210.

27
Kempson notes that the “mere mention of the matters he will not explain provides a strong reminder for
the readers.” Wayne R. Kempson. “Hebrews 6:1-8,” Review & Expositor 91, no. 4 (1994): 569. See also F.F. Bruce.
“The structure and argument of Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal Of Theology 28, no. 1 (September 1985): 8.

28
Kempson, 569.

29
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 139; Buchanan, 103.

30
Attridge, 164. See also Buchanan, 103.

31
Koester, “Conversion, persecution, and malaise,” 237.

32
Cf. Acts 20:21.

33
Buchanan, 103. Cf. Hebrews 11:6.

6
 Baptism34 is a purification ritual to cleanse sin from a person35 so the “instructions”

regarding it, maybe distinguishing John’s baptism from Christian baptism,36 were important.

Moreover, Koester notes that baptism “marked the boundary between the Christian community

and non-Christian community”37 making it a challenge to the social order which could incur

persecution. Less clear is the meaning of “the laying on of hands,” due to its varied definitions,

but the context seems to allow it to have a conversion quality.38 Furthermore, the last two elements

present a simple understanding of Christian theology. The resurrection of the dead, probably a

reference to the future eschatological resurrection,39 and the judgement of mankind,40 are key

components of the Gospel, which prompts the need for the proceeding rituals.

34
Bruce outright denies Christian baptism is meant here in the text, citing the use of βαπτισμός in other
texts referring to ritual washings. Hughes suggests that while baptism isn’t implicitly described in this passage, he
concludes that “whichever way one approaches the question [of this phrases’ meaning], it seems impossible, and
rightly so, to remove Christian baptism from the center of the picture.” Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 141;
Hughes, 199-202.

35
See Koester, Hebrews, 311; Koester, “Conversion, persecution, and malaise,” 236.

36
Witherington suggests the author of Hebrews is Apollos. Acts 18:24-28 depicts Apollos, who at first only
knew of John’s baptism, learning from Priscilla and Aquila “the Way of God” more accurately—presumably the
baptism taught after Christ’s death. It’s suggested that the knowledge of John and Christian baptism explains
baptisms in the plural form here in 6:2. Witherington, 59 and 210.

37
Koester, “Conversion, persecution, and malaise,” 237.

38
Kempson sees the laying on of hands as bestowing the Holy Spirit and thus as a part of conversion. The
meaning of laying on of hands isn’t clear, for Irwin notes that similar terminology in Greek is used often. It’s used
11 times in the New Testament to mean an act of healing, four times as bestowing the Holy Spirit, and three times as
a blessing. Certainly, the context seems to suggest the laying on of hands is involved in conversion, but it’s exact
role is difficult to discern. In Note 10, Irwin comments on the difficulty of interpreting “the laying on of hands” in
Heb. 6:2. Kempson, 569; Brian P. Irwin. “The laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 5:22: a new proposal.” Bulletin For
Biblical Research 18, no. 1 (2008): 124; Hughes, 203. Cf. Acts 6:6; 8:17; 9:12, 17; 19:6.

39
See Koester, Hebrews, 311; Attridge, 165; Hughes, 204.

40
See Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 143. Cf. Matt. 24:3, 25:14-46.

7
 The audience, as fully initiated Christ-followers shown by their participation in conversion

rituals,41 had an issue with maturing from this starting point. The readers may have avoided any

further indicators of their faith after conversation, perhaps due to fear of persecution42 or, as David

DeSilva believes, because they desired honor and status in society. 43 The reason for immaturity

could also be a lack of zeal for training44 or studying in the practices laid down by Christ and the

apostles.45 Regardless of the reasons, Philip Hughes explains that the recipients of this text “are in

danger of stopping at the starting-post and even of stultifying their claim to be contestants in the

Christian race.”46 Essentially, they are now not acting as followers of Christ, even after submitting

loyalty to Christ through initial conversation.

What is possibly the most debated portion in Hebrews, and unquestionably the most

controversial in our pericope in question, is 6:4-6. The declaration “it is impossible to restore again

to repentance those who have once been enlightened” (6:4) must be viewed in light of the context,

being directly dependent on the preceding verses’ discussion of going “on toward perfection.”

What is “impossible” is not the repentance itself, but the restoration of the fallen to repentance.47

The author assumes the audience followed through with doing and believing “the basic teachings.” This,
41

combined with the connotations of being “enlightened” suggest they were converted. See McKnight, 44-45.

42
While the Romans tolerated the Jewish religious because of its ancient roots, the Christian religion
lacked ancient authority and was viewed as superstitious, mischievous, and dishonoring toward Greco-Roman
customs. Koester, “Conversion, persecution, and malaise,” 243; Witherington, 56.

43
deSilva. “Despising Shame,” 440. See also Mugridge, 76. Cf. Heb. 10:25.

44
See Hughes, 192-3. Cf. Heb. 5:14.

45
This appears to be the idea Hughes is getting at about why the audience might not move on toward
maturity, but his view on this isn’t explicit. Hughes, 195.

46
Hughes here is picking up on the athletic metaphor the author started in 5:14 and will later use again in
12:1. Hughes, 195-6.

47
See Witherington, 212.

8
Thus it seems the pericope isn’t about a person’s inability to repent, but about how another relates

to that person. Repentance, though often including certain religious connotations, literally refers

to “changing one’s mind.”48 If “repentance” here in 6:6 is referencing the same term in 6:1, then

it likely has the connotation of “turning away from sin”49 or from a former way of living.50

N.A. Elder and Witherington, who both view Hebrews as originally a spoken sermon, see

the forceful use of “impossible” as a rhetorically emotive appeal “meant to influence the audience

in order that they might make some sort of decision.”51 That the hyperbolic “impossible”

declaration is a rhetorical strategy rather than a doctrinal statement is further supported by the

location of the text in the application portion,52 not in the theological section. Rather than

formulating a theological stance on divine election, postbaptismal sin, or if a person can lose their

salvation—this text intends to encourage the audience toward devotion to Christ.53 The word

choice here is undoubtedly rhetorical in nature.54 The full, weighty connotation to the phrase,

“impossible to restore again to repentance” hyperbolizes the depravity of the fallen away state to

warn against being in such a position.55

48
Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers, III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 527.

49
In 6:1, the sin was probably a focus on works as a means for salvation, as Koester believes. Or the
repentance could be from obsolete rituals. See Koester, Hebrews, 310.

50
Buchanan, 103.

51
Elder, 258 (quotation); Witherington, 211-14, 18. While they don’t view the text as a sermon, deSilva
and Attridge note this as well. DeSilva, “Exchanging favor for wrath,” 116; Attridge, 167.

52
Attridge, 18.

53
Witherington, 218.

54
Attridge, 167; Elder, 258-60; deSilva, “Exchanging favor for wrath,” 116; Witherington, 211-15.

55
See Witherington, 218.

9
 As done in verses two and three, the author catalogues additional descriptions of his term.

The “enlightened” are expounded on as those who “have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared

in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to

come” (6:4b-5). The word “tasted,”56 cited twice in these verses, is used figuratively to mean “learn

from experience.”57 Randall Gleason observes “the word ‘taste’ means more specifically to

experience something fully.”58 Thus, those who “have tasted the heavenly gift” have experienced

that gift in the fullest; those who “have tasted the goodness of the word of God” have experienced

the goodness in the fullest. Additionally, the grammar would suggest the Christ-following group

had also tasted “the powers of the age to come.”59 Having “shared in” or “partaken of” (NASB)

the Spirit, the readers both have this sign of conversation and they have the benefits of the Holy

Spirit. The list of enlightened traits reveal the type of person discussed in this passage experienced

the fullness of the faith.

If a person rejects being “enlightened,” then they have “fallen away” (6:6) into a life of sin.

In context, it appears the hypothetical person has departed from the whole “enlightened”

experience, believing only in the “basic teachings” (6:1). The term “falling away” appears to

suggest willful sinful tendencies on the part of the believer, and does not necessarily signify

apostasy and complete rejection of the faith. In the Septuagint, a related form to the word translated

56
Gk. γευσαμένους.

57
See Gleason, 75; Rogers, Jr. and Rogers, III, 527; J. Behm, “γεύομαι” in Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1964), 675-77.

58
Gleason, 75.

Matthew McAffee. “Covenant and the Warnings of Hebrews: The Blessing and the Curse.” Journal Of
59

The Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 3 (2014): 543.

10
“fallen away”60 is used to translate a Hebrew word meaning “act treacherously, be unfaithful.”61

The author may have in mind something similar to his statement in chapter 3 where he equates

having an “evil, unbelieving heart that turns away62 from the living God” (3:12), with being

“hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3:13).63 Hebrews 6:6 can also can be viewed in conjunction

with 10:26. “For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth,

there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” “Falling away” doesn’t mean leaving the whole faith,

but it does mean missing the mark of what a mature Christian should act like. That is, “it is

impossible” for us to “restore” to their former state and into a position of “repentance” those who

have a life willfully sinning while they claim to follow Christ.

The author is using clear shame tactics in this warning. The phrase translated “on their

own”64 has a connotation of disadvantage65 reflected clearing in the NIV’s translation “to their

own loss.” Falling away means an immature Christian puts themselves “as enemies of Christ”66

by their lifestyle. Both “crucify again” and “hold up to contempt” are in the present tense, perhaps

signifying a continuous contention with Christ,67 in line with the earlier discussion of “falling

60
Gk. παραπεσόντας.

61
Mulgridge likewise suggests this term implies being treacherous to the very covenant they set up with
God during their conversion experience. Mulgridge, 77. See also Witherington, 214.

Gk. ἀποστῆναι. This word, however, is different from the compound used in our text, which is
62

παραπεσόντας.

63
See Hughes, 145.

64
ἑαυτοῖς

65
Koester, Hebrews, 315.

66
Attridge, 172.

67
Attridge, 172.

11
away.” Also, even worse, by “holding him up to contempt” the apostate publicly shames Christ 68

in the act of falling away.

To not give honor to your benefactor, when this is the proper response, is disgraceful.69

Despising shame—and by virtue, seeking honor and a good reputation in society—are prominent

social values throughout Greco-Roman culture70 and even in post-exilic Jewish society.71 DeSilva

sees Hebrews 6:4-6 as a patron-client relationship, supposing the author viewed Christ-follower

clients as beneficiaries of the patron Christ.72 He comments, “The one who does not persevere in

trust,” that is, the one who falls willing from the faith, “enacts contempt for the gifts gained at such

cost to the patron and shows a striking lack of gratitude, spurning the benefactors, after which there

is no restoration.”73 If an enlightened person accurately recognized the significance of Christ’s

sacrifice, he or she would show favor where favor is due, instead of disrespecting the generous gift

of salvation by turning away. The writer describes a faith traitor as essentially “standing and

ridiculing and deriding [Christ] as he dies on the cross,”74 Witherington claims, which few

believers would desire. The shame will move them “on toward perfection” rather than sinful living.

68
Mulgridge, 77; Attridge, 170; Witherington, 214. See also Peter S. Perry, “Making fear personal:
Hebrews 5.11-6.12 and the argument from shame.” Journal For The Study Of The New Testament 32, no. 1 (2009):
99-125.

69
Perry, 117; David A. deSilva. “Exchanging favor for wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and patron-client
relationships.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 115, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 112.

70
DeSilva, “Despising Shame,” 440-443.

71
DeSilva, “Despising Shame,” 443-445.

72
DeSilva, “Exchanging favor for wrath,” 94-103.

73
DeSilva, “Exchanging favor for wrath,” 112.

74
Witherington, 215.

12
The severity of shaming Christ means for the sinner a punishment, brought on by his or her own

actions: that the blessings are revoked.

In verse seven and eight, the author introduces a metaphor regarding two paths, one that

leads to blessings and one that leads to a curse. In verse seven, the positive path is described.

“Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and that produces a crop useful to those

for whom it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.” This is likely a reference to the

“enlightened” (6:4) and specifically to those moving “on to perfection” (6:1).75 Already in 6:4-5

the author described many of the benefits of this position. Now, the author is doing the same with

an agricultural metaphor. The falling of the rain onto the earth produces a crop that is “useful.”76

By implication, the audience is exhorted to be good “ground” themselves, “producing” a “useful”

yield—a reference to maturity—to gain “a blessing from God.”

With the same benefit of rain, the crop could turn out different, however. Verse 8 reads,

“But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and on the verge of being cursed; its end is

to be burned over” (6:8). The consequence when “ground that drinks up the rain” (6:7) produces a

bad crop is destruction.77 Metaphorically, those “that have once been enlightened” (6:4) and

received the plentiful gifts of this position, then did not act on these gifts, are the ground that

75
McKnight, 35.
76
Buchanan sees parallels to language from Genesis in verses seven through eight. Regarding the positive
depiction in seven, in Genesis 1:12 God was pleased at the ground producing vegetation, since the result was good.
Buchanan connects this concept with the metaphor present here in the text regarding God being pleased with the
result. Buchanan, 110.

77
Buchanan connects this verse to Genesis 3:18, where God curses the ground, resulting in thorns and
thistles. While the presence of “thorns and thistles” seems a likely example of intertextuality, in Genesis, the curse
results in the production of thorns and thistles; in the Hebrews text, the ground is cursed because of the production
of thorns and thistles. Buchanan, 110.

13
produced thorns and thistles.78 The person who fell away is characterized as not bringing the

expected results of the sort of the faith the author requires79 even with the same advantages. 80

Rhetorically, the author is again moving the audience to realize the great disadvantages of

breaking fellowship with Christ and his commandments. The audience could have the “basic

teachings” and the “foundations” plus the resulting blessings (6:4-5, 7), but if they don’t “move

on” from these toward a more mature faith, they risk shaming Christ and receiving the wrath of

God. There is left some hope in verse eight, nonetheless. While the bad crop “is worthless” it is

only “on the verge of being cursed”—it is not cursed quite yet. By analogy, if the weak Christian

on the verge of being an outright apostate becomes no longer “worthless” by maturing and acting

in a way that glorifies God, they may yet be able to avoid the shame, the curses, and the

disadvantages of lowering the status of Christ Jesus in their lives.

The weak or low-attachment faith that could potentially describe some of the recipients of

Hebrews has dangerous consequences. For one, the sinful lifestyle of those weak in faith prevents

them from gaining repentance. Secondly, they will in fact shame Jesus Christ for their actions

(6:6), bringing shame onto themselves. God provided the foundation (6:1) and blessings (6:7), but

if a person doesn’t invest in these, and instead lives a life that assigns less focus to following God,

they risk a great deal. If a Christian does not grow beyond the fundamentals, the action of drifting

from God makes Christ’s sacrifice look meaningless. What honors God is a person’s life that has

grown beyond his or her conversion experience—they “produces a crop useful to those for whom

it is cultivated” (6:7). To change back to the former commitment before the sinful lifestyle is

78
McKnight, 35.

79
Mulgridge, 77.

80
Witherington, 218.

14
problematic, but they may yet be able to mature while the curse is still “on the verge” (6:8)—if

God permits (6:3). The exhortation, overall, tries to move the Christian readers to a point of

maturity, marked with a strong, fruitful, distinctively Christian faith, by presenting them the

horrible outcomes of not doing so. The true subject of the text is not the person who did fall away

or someone who never was a “true believe”—the text is talking directly to the reader, asking a

question pertinent to all of us even today: “Are you actually acting like a Christian?”

15
 Bibliography

Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Behm, J. “γεύομαι.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and
Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1964. 675-77.

Blackman, E. C. “Faith, Faithfulness.” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. New
York: Abingdon Press. 222-34.

Bruce, F. F. “The structure and argument of Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal Of Theology 28, no.
1 (September 1985): 6-12.

—, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1990.

Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment, and Conclusions. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1972.

Dahms, John V. “First Readers of Hebrews.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 20,
no. 4 (1977): 365-75.

deSilva, David A. “Exchanging favor for wrath: Apostasy in Hebrews and patron-client
relationships.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 115, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 91-116.

—, David A. “Despising Shame: A Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the

Hebrews.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 113, no. 3 (September 1994): 439-461.

Dinkler, E. “Hebrews, Letter to the.” The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. New York:
Abingdon Press. 571-75.

Elder, N.A. “The Oratorical and Rhetorical Function of Hebrews 6:4-12.” Conversations With The
Biblical World 34 (2014): 250-68.

Gleason, Randall. “The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-
8.” Bibliotheca Sacra, 617th ser., 155 (1998): 62-91.

Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001.

Holy Bible: King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.

Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.

16
Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Harper Bibles, 2007.

Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub., 1977.

Kempson, Wayne R. 1994. “Hebrews 6:1-8.” Review & Expositor 91, no. 4: 567-573.

Koester, Craig R. “Conversion, Persecution, and Malaise: Life in the Community for Which
Hebrews Was Written.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 61, no. 1/2 (2005):
231-51.

—, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 36. The
Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Landgraf, Peter. “The Structure of Hebrews: A Word of Exhortation in Light of the Day of
Atonement.” In A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts,
edited by Richard Bauckham, 19-27. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

McAffee, Matthew. "Covenant and the Warnings of Hebrews: The Blessing and the
Curse." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 3 (2014): 537-53.

McKnight, Scott. “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological
Conclusions.” Trinity Journal 13, no. 1 (1992): 29-59.

Mugridge, Alan. “Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews: an exegetical and theological
study.” The Reformed Theological Review 46, no. 3 (1987): 74-82.

New American Standard Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979.

Perry, Peter S. “Making fear personal: Hebrews 5.11-6.12 and the argument from shame.” Journal
For The Study Of The New Testament 32, no. 1 (2009): 99-125.

Rhee, Victor. “Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20.” Journal Of The
Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 1 (2000): 83-96.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr., and Cleon L. Rogers, III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the
Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Witherington III, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-rhetorical
Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

17