Exegesis of Hebrews 12:1-3

Hebrews 12:1-3

An Exegesis of Hebrews 12:1-3

One cannot give an account of Hebrews 12:1-3 without first giving an account of the letter to the Hebrews as a whole. And that cannot be done without first considering the author of the letter. The traditional acceptance is that the ideas are Pauline if not the literary style, which is of a more elevated and flourishing nature than Paul's other Epistles. Nonetheless, the character is Pauline -- and Paul, being a Jewish convert himself, would serve as an exceptional candidate for the writing of an inspiring and encouraging letter to the Jewish Christian recipients.

Sensing the danger that the Jewish converts were facing in Palestine, the Pauline Epistle carries with it the grandeur and urgency that the circumstance would have demanded: it preaches steadfastness in the face of weakness and uses an extensive list of references from the Old Testament as a means of a reassuring the converts "in danger of relapsing into Judaism" (Frey 574) that Judaism itself points to Christ as Redeemer and Son of God. Therefore, Hebrews is a letter of consolation and persuasion, and shows how Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise of the prophets. Paul preaches, above all, perseverance. Hebrews 12:1-3 is a perfect example of the substance of the text: it illustrates the theme of the letter, the object, and the technique. This paper will give an exegesis of the passage, analyzing the document in Greek and in translation; addressing varying textual criticisms; identifying key words, meanings, and concepts; displaying the structure of the passage, grammatical issues, and the author's purpose in writing; examining the background of the author, the theological significance of the work and of the New Testament as a whole; and applying the passage to modern life.

Greek

As Louis. H. Evans says, "The twelfth chapter of Hebrews is again one of the great classic passages, this time on the Christian life" (214). It is so great, in fact, that it can be understood without any commentary whatsoever: its meaning is obvious for anyone who wants to understand. It is simple, straightforward, and straight to the heart. And yet scholars have analyzed it to no end -- in the same way they have put Shakespeare under the microscope. They turn to the ancient Greek text for answers and try to reach a new and profound depth heretofore left unplumbed. Ironically, Evans writes, "Our writer encourages those who read his exhortation to 'lay aside every weight.' The Greek word for 'weight' can mean body bulk, excess weight. For spiritual athletes that can be a case of too many irons in the fire, too many dissipating interests…[But] the word may also mean a spirit of overconfidence and arrogance" (215-6). Here, Evans uses both meanings to illustrate his interpretation of the Pauline verses.

By affecting a sense of Greek, Evans indulges the academic thirst for new and "correct" interpretation. But what does he really add? Here is a sense of it -- when he attempts to understand the Greek word euperistaton in order to comprehend a specific phrase in the English translation: "eu, 'easily'; peri, 'around, about'; staton, 'standing position.' 'Easily surrounded' -- how quickly some actions or habits become addictive" (217). Does it add to the already superlative Scriptural text?

Likewise, L.D. Hurst uses the Greek to drive a wedge between Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews (much like Luther did to drive a wedge between the text published by Erasmus and Church interpretation). Hurst goes to great length to explain how

The introduction last century of the 'Alexandrian' interpretation of Hebrews soon made it fashionable to see little if any connection between Hebrews and Paul. Menegoz began the movement when, in concert with his idea that Hebrews had been written by a convinced Philonian, he declared that 'if is no less certain that he had not been his [Paul's] disciple.' (107)

To his credit, Hurst attempts to show through the Greek that Paul's influence is apparent, if not his literary style. Of course, what this tells us about the work is that its Auctor, as Hurst puts it, remains a mystery -- but then for those who accept the fact that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, there is already a far greater element of mystery about it.

Nonetheless, the dissection of verse continues. James Moffatt attempts to get to the heart of the matter by analyzing the Greek text word for word. But the understanding he provides is no better than a common sense approach to the text as written: in fact, Moffatt adds to it only an air of scholarly fatuousness: "Let us strip for the race, says the writer. Put unmetaphorically, the thought is that no high end like is possible apart from a steady, unflinching resolve to do without certain things. What these encumbrances are the writer does not say; he implies that if people will set themselves to the course of faith in this difficult world, they will soon discover what hampers them" (194). Any intelligent reader could have come to the same conclusion without analyzing the Greek -- as Moffatt does at length -- bogging down the text with irrelevant emphasis on ancient meanings:

the article does not imply any specific sin like that of apostasy; it is in general, any sin that might lead to apostasy. The sense of? can only be inferred from the context and from the analogy of similar compounds, for it appears to have been a verbal adjective coined by the writer; at any rate no instance of its use in earlier writers or in the papyri has been as yet discovered. (194)

So then what are we left with? For all his scrutinizing, Moffatt comes up with at best a clarification of an issue that will not be pertinent in the minds of many -- even if it does bear relevance for scholars like Moffatt themselves.

This is not to say that such study is unnecessary and unwise: insofar as it does help to arrive at a better understanding, it can be beneficial. But if it begins to drive a wedge between faith and reason -- bridged so beautifully by the medieval scholastics like Aquinas -- then the study has become an obstacle in the way of our comprehension of Scripture on simple terms: after all, one need not be a scholar to appreciate the Word of God.

Translation

Obviously, however, translation of the text is important. It is not for no reason that St. Jerome took so many penances upon himself and spent so many years in solitude, prayer, and study to produce a translation of the Bible that would serve as the official text of the Church for centuries. Modern translations are so numerous and varied, that one can hardly fail to point out the carelessness for the Word of God that goes into current translation. Yet, for all that, even in its crudest translation, Scripture still carries with it a meaning that is hard to lose (though it may be more easily corrupted). One can of course pervert any text if he so desires -- but translation must be backed by official interpretation -- which has always been a prerogative of the Church, which brought the Bible together in the first place.

Nonetheless, translated from the Latin Vulgate, Hebrews 12:1-3 (while certain words may be disputed like "cloud" for "crowd") expresses the importance of constancy in trial and temptation:

Therefore let us also, having such a cloud of witnesses over us, put away every encumbrance and the sin entangling us, and run with patience to the race [or fight] set before us; looking towards the author and finisher of faith, Jesus, who for the joy set before him, endured a cross, despising shame, and sits at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider, then, him who endured such opposition from sinners against himself, so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.

The meaning is plain: Christ's example has to be followed by everyone who proposes to be a Christian. However, the suffering everyone endures can be united to Christ's suffering -- who, though He was crucified, overcame death through His Resurrection.

The text does not shy away from the fact that to be a Christian is to fight against the world. If anything, it glorifies the fight much in the same way a promoter will glorify a match between two boxers. In Hebrews, Christ is the champion and we are all encouraged to model ourselves on Him. As Raymond Brown suggests, "The author turns from the lives of Old Testament heroes to the sufferings and achievement of the greatest example of all, the Lord Jesus Christ" (226).

Variant Textual Criticism

William Barclay makes the assertion that "in the Christian life we have a goal" (171). The goal is stressed with as much emphasis as the Pauline Epistle to the Hebrews uses to illustrate the point that, as St. Augustine would later say, life on earth is warfare: "The Christian is not an unconcerned stroller along the byways of life; he is a wayfarer on the high road" (Barclay 171). Barclay goes on to identify the Christian inspiration (Christ Himself), the handicap (the effects of Original Sin), and the means for perseverance (Barclay references the word "hupomone," which is another way of saying "the patience which masters" things) (173).

In the same manner, Donald Guthrie speaks of the text as showing a "need for discipline" (248). Guthrie observes that the discipline must be Christ-centered and Christ-focused: "Looking to Jesus (aphorontes eis)…implies a definite looking away from others and directing one's gaze towards Jesus. It suggests the impossibility of looking in two directions at once" (250).

John Brown, on the other hand, states that the text is "highly rhetorical; and its meaning will be but imperfectly understood -- its force and beauty will be utterly lost to us -- if we do not distinctly apprehend…those historical facts or ancient customs from which the inspired writer borrows his imagery" (599-600). The statement is somewhat presumptuous of the necessity of applying an academic background to the understanding of Scripture: Brown applauds too much his own technical virtuosity. Nonetheless, he makes the point that the imagery of a race has more to do with the Grecian games of ancient history than with the march of the Israelites through the desert. The Greeks held their celebrated games in which spectators "witnessed" matches of endurance and skill, fighting and running. The allusion makes sense -- and, in fact, is so obvious it barely needs pointing out. But Brown's commentary would be incomplete without it -- indeed, he would have no commentary at all if he did not go to the trouble of establishing at length all that the epistle implies. Who would?

The question is irrelevant, for scholars like Daniel de Silva employ such lengthy commentaries to give weight to their own -- and without such weighty commentaries modern exegesis would hardly be what it is today. Therefore, one must note de Silva's otherwise superfluous statement that "the textual variants…are significant" (426). One may wish to argue differently, but for the purposes of this paper, we will proceed with de Silva's theory that the myriad textual variants do offer something of interest.

The textual variants of which de Silva speaks are based on a range of interpretations of different manuscripts. As de Silva says,

An impressive number of manuscripts, including P13 and P46, read 'hostility from sinners against themselves,' thus underscoring the self-defeating results of rejecting Jesus…It seems preferable to read this variant as an early scribal alteration of Hebrews, by means of which the scribe sought to introduce the philosophical conception of the self-destructiveness of attacking the just person into the text. (426)

Whether or not such a hypothesis is accurate is hardly of importance for de Silva: he has made a pronouncement concerning the historical context of the Epistle, proving the depth of his own scholarly abilities, and is therefore free to carry on with his exegesis.

Key Words and Concepts

Scot McKnight, meanwhile, begins his analysis of Hebrews by apologizing for its tone: "Few are the number of Christians who have not been at least troubled by the warning passages of Hebrews, troubled perhaps to the point of despair or even terror" (21). Such a statement borders upon the absurd -- first for making a sweeping generalized statement pertaining the number of Christians who have found the Pauline Epistle discouraging (what a grotesque aberration!); second for basing a presumptuous and ridiculous conclusion upon such an outrageous premise: that the Epistle has actually been a cause of despair in many faithful. What one senses, in McKnight's apologetic, rather, is his own lack of confidence in Christ, and this is essentially what is projected on the Hebrew recipients of the Epistle in McKnight's analysis: his paper "advocates that the audience of the letter to the Hebrews is the phenomenological-true believer and that the warnings are given to believers who can genuinely commit the sin" (24). Of course, his perspective is not earth-shattering: what it is, however, is the frightened expression of one finds the Pauline warning to be somewhat too admonitory and perhaps even a little too frightening.

Timothy Ledford, however, helps signify the reason for McKnight's lackluster analysis: "The decline of rhetorical studies [has been] caused by the limited usefulness of stylistic studies. Wuellner writes, 'With the rise of historical (= scientific or modern) criticism, rhetoric became marginalized to the point of near extinction or at least increasing irrelevance, in contrast to its fifteen hundred year-long central importance to exegesis'" (9). The downplay of the actual content and rhetoric of Scripture has resulted in the near-futile analyses of today's scholars. Key words and concepts become nothing more than matters for semantic debate.

All the same, Paul Ellingworth identifies Jesus as "the source and goal of faith" in his exegetical survey of Hebrews -- and the supreme key word and concept of Hebrews 12:1-3: "For the first time since 10:19, Jesus is mentioned by name. He is linked in several ways with the readers' faith (and by implication the writer's also): the readers are to 'look constantly' at him; he is the 'pioneer and finisher' of faith; and his perseverance in the face of crucifixion is the supreme example for believers" (639). Thus, at least one scholar identifies the most important aspect of the Pauline Epistle: Christ.

Grammatical Issues

But in a modern exegetical study, Christ may be set aside to concentrate on the grammatical issues of Hebrews 12:1-3. Frank Gaebelein takes ample time to reflect upon the tendentious nature of the grammatical issues in 12:1-3. First there is the fact that the opening word of the passage, "Therefore" (toigaroun), is found only one other time in the New Testament writings -- in 1 Thess. 4:8: "It is an inferential particle meaning 'wherefore then, so therefore'" (135). Second,

There is a difficult textual problem posed by the fact that most of the oldest authorities read the plural eis heautous, 'against themselves'. The singular 'against him' is obviously superior; in fact, a number of commentators maintain that it alone makes sense. But precisely because it makes so much better sense many argue that the plural -- the more difficult reading -- must be accepted. If it is, then the meaning is that Jesus received opposition 'from sinners against themselves'; i.e., sinners doing hurt to themselves" (135)

as opposed to "opposition from sinners against himself." Needless to say, the meaning of the passage is not lost with either interpretation -- for it can be clearly reckoned without undue scrutiny. The grammatical debate of analysts may have some importance in their field of study, but for the common layman, the debate cannot hold much interest. Even St. Augustine was in agreement when he said that meaning is more important than grammar.

Structure

David Mark Heath provides a focus "on the form and function of the literary units [of Hebrews] and the relationship of these units to the overall book-level structure" (iii). As always the necessity of Heath's chiastic study is the fact that it has never been done before with regard to Hebrews -- and even Heath himself admits that "the evasive structure, outline, and argument have been difficult for exegetes to harness, but scholars also struggle to state a theme for the book with confidence" (1). One is compelled to sympathize with Heath for his and his colleagues' lack of confidence -- but it appears to be more a condition of modern scholasticism than a reality that the text is so incomprehensible. The emphasis placed on agonizing over every lose thread is representative of academia's loss of orientation. The scholastics of the middle ages had no such loss -- theirs was the age of faith. Ours today is hardly such an age -- instead, it is an age of skepticism, and Heath personifies that attitude in his approach to illustrating the structure of Hebrews.

Of course, Heath can justify the reason for the problematic nature of his study: "The biggest reason for these discrepancies [in structural analysis]…is the frequent switching of epideictic and deliberative sections (i.e., doctrinal and hortatory sections) within Hebrews" (2). Nonetheless, Heath is able to hit upon the correct approach to his exegesis: "the use of inverted parallelism of form and/or content which moves toward and away from a strategic central component" (2) -- meaning, essentially, nothing. Like much of modern scholasticism, the more one speaks, the less he actually says.

Then again, Heath may not be as far off the mark as he thinks: by emphasizing a kind of artistic chiaroscuro (loosely adapted, of course, from chiastic structural analysis), Heath is, perhaps, unintentionally alluding to the overall nature of the Epistle and the structure of the letter which is even apparent in Hebrews 12:1-3: a stark contrast between the light and the dark -- like Baglione's portrait of Sacred and Profane Love. The Pauline epistle highlights the magnificent grandeur and heroism of the Old Testament prophets and nobles, leading the way to the ultimate majesty in the Son of God. Such beauty set side by side the world cannot help but put that world to shame. The entire epistle is thus centered on the object of Christ as the Light. But, of course, to put it thus is, as Paul writes, to speak humanly -- and pails in comparison to a simple analysis of what the Epistle is about:

The Epistle describes most eloquently the eminent superiority of the new dispensation over the old. Inaugurated by the Son of God Himself, this new dispensation was God's final revelation to man. It completed the message of the prophets, and brought to perfection all that was of permanent value in the Mosaic covenant. The Incarnate Son of God was its High Priest, and His glorious sacrifice was truly efficacious before God in the forgiveness of sin. As suffering and humiliation had an important place in His victory, His followers are exhorted to forego worldly advantage, to bear their trials patiently, and to persevere heroically in the faith. (Frey 574).

What better structural analysis can be provided? Heath, of course, emphasizes his study of chiastic structure:

In light of the number of ideas and concepts expressed in a single section of literary discourse, the identification of the focal point may clarify the most important lexical and semantic parallels (opposed to an obscure or contrived parallel). In other words, if the central component of each chiastic macro-structure is compared with the central components of other constituent sections, then it may be easier to posit an overall organization for the entire discourse. (4)

One is hardly bothered to wonder why Heath should think so -- it is apparent that his study is more concerned with being concerned than with the actual text itself.

Purpose

Structure cannot be separated from purpose, which is why the simpler the idea of the structure of the Pauline Epistle to the Hebrews, the closer the purpose. The purpose of the Epistle is none other than the encouragement (despite McKnight's contention) of the Jewish Christians. Alan Mugridge gives a clear idea of the purpose behind the Epistle when he states that "Hebrews indicates that true faith will give rise to a life of gratitude and holiness. Where this is not in evidence, exhortation to repentance is necessary. Where the person's faith is genuine, repentance will follow. Thus we may say that perseverance as a Christian is the only true test of genuine faith in God and Christ" (81).

Mugridge's analysis may be considered apt, first and foremost because it emphasizes the purpose of all the books of Scripture: faith in Christ -- and it extols the readers of Scripture to persevere in the faith.

Ray Stedman gives an even better take on the purpose of Hebrews 12:1-3 -- it is to show to us all the very purpose of "life itself": "The race, of course, is life itself. Since it is God who gives us life, it is also God who starts us in this race. We are all here for a purpose, and that purpose is to live our lives in fulfillment of God's intent for us" (136). Thus, the will of God -- which is, according to the Church, that we should know Him, love Him, and serve Him, and thereby gain everlasting union with Him in Heaven -- is publicly proclaimed in Hebrews.

Background

In all, thirteen epistles are attributed to St. Paul, the Apostle -- if not written by his hand then at least under his direction. His conversion from a Jewish persecutor of Christians to Christian Apostle is one of the most dramatic conversion stories in all of history. Such drama, too, is infused in his writings, in his works, and in his travels. A missionary who traveled widely to spread the news of Christ, Paul brought with him his own passionate style and zeal and applied it in several different ways, always striving to reach a particular audience in the way it needed to be reached. Therefore, it is no surprise to find that Hebrews contains so many references to the Old Testament -- for the Old Testament is the Book that points to Christ, and it is the Book that the Jewish Christians could count on for support.

Likewise, Paul was one who spoke from experience and could readily preach perseverance because he himself had suffered much, as he describes: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?" (2 Cor. 11:29). His zeal for souls is apparent throughout his epistles and in none more than in Hebrews. Therefore, to know Hebrews well is to know Paul, and to know Paul is to know, through him, Christ, for whom the Apostle had a most passionate love and devotion.

Andrew Trotter, however, states that "to know the author of an epistle, when it was written, its geographical destination, and something about its readership helps modern day readers to relate the teaching of that epistle more clearly and more consistently to their own concerns" (27). What Trotter is able to at least tell us about the background of the audience of Hebrews is that it was very likely heterogeneous: "The weight of evidence tends toward a congregation of mixed background. The very fact that the Jewish references could be understood by Gentiles and the gentile references could be understood by Jews is an initial, though not strong, indicator in this direction" (30). Can it, therefore, be assumed that Hebrews was intended strictly for a Jewish audience? Not at all -- like all the books of Scripture it is contained therein for a reason and that reason is that it can illuminate and guide readers of all different backgrounds. If it is addressed to the Hebrews of a particular locale, such does not mean that it contains no significance for other readers elsewhere. On the contrary, Hebrews contains a vast theological significance that may serve as a guide for the sanctification of all Christians everywhere.

Theological Significance

The theological significance is, as Stedman states, found in the line: "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus'…[which] is the central theme of Hebrews" (136). The entire theology of the Church is essentially summed up in this one line: for Christ is the Word Incarnate, the focal point of all history -- the life upon whose birth we date our calendars. Christ, through His life and sacrifice has reopened the gates of Heaven for all who choose to follow him. If there is any greater theological significance it can scarcely be stated but through Christ to Heaven. Stedman repeats, paraphrasing the Pauline Epistle:

Listen to the testimony of those who have gone before you for they can help you know what to lay aside; but, above all else, fix your attention on Jesus, for he can do what no one else can -- he can impart faith to you, and he can bring it to perfection at the end. He awaits you when you reach the goal, but he is also with you to strengthen your endeavor and guard your steps along the way. (136)

Christ is the summation of the New Testament and the fulfillment of the Old -- and such is stated throughout the whole of Hebrews, and implied no less in 12:1-3.

However, such a theological significance may be of some difficulty to modern day people who have dispensed of religion in the same way they have dispensed of all the traditions and values and codifications that belonged to an older age. The modern spirit insists on defining things anew and recreating all things in its own image. The point of Hebrews is, however, contrary to such a view: the Pauline Epistle exhorts us (and the Hebrews) to recreate ourselves in Christ -- to put on Christ, as Paul says elsewhere. The reflection of ourselves in the mirror can do nothing to save our souls. But Christ, however, can do everything to save us from ourselves.

The liberation theology of today is, no less, a distinct departure from the theology manifest in Hebrews. Liberation Theology conceives, or re-interprets, the very theology in the prayer of Jesus Christ Himself -- the famous Lord's Prayer, which, according to Leonardo Boff (a liberation theologian) should now be read in this manner: "Liberate us from the evil one…embodied in an elitist, exclusivist social system that has no solidarity with the great multitudes of the poor. He has a name; he is the Capitalism of private property and the Capitalism of the state" (Sigmund 85). The liberation theology of today has no more to do with the theology of Christ than Marxism (upon which liberation theology plants its roots): it may be described as "a freeing from political oppression, economic want, and misery here on earth. More specifically still, it [is] a freeing from political domination by the capitalism of the United States" (Martin 309).