Hebrews 12:18-29 (II); Have No Fear, But be Warned (II)

As we look to the text of these verses, it breaks down naturally into two sections, with the first section divided further into two subsections. First we have 12:18-24, where the author contrasts the Israelite coming to Sinai (12:18-21) with the Christian coming to Zion (12:22-24). The second section (12:25-29) provides another contrast, between the world which was shaken once, and will be shaken again, with the unshakable kingdom to be inherited by those of faith. Whereas metaphor was one arrow in our author's rhetorical quiver, so contrast is another. Contrasts suffuse this passage.

I have one more thing to say about the literary effect of contrast before expositing the flow of the argument. Authors and speakers often use the device of contrast. The old is gone; the new has come. The past is over and done; the future is that to which we aspire or which beckons to us. The value of speaking in contrasts is that it inspires to action or to new resolve. If, indeed, the past is over and done, then why not just embrace the new? Why not sign up for some new treatment or new elixir that will melt the pounds off of us or bring new life when we want to get beyond the old? The weakness of speaking in contrasts, however, is that it can contribute to an "us v. them" or a kind of Manichean dualism with respect to the world which really is neither accurate nor helpful. "They are bad, but we are good," "They are godless, while we honor God, etc." You can multiply examples of this kind of thinking. Thus, we treat the contrasting language in Hebrews 12 with some caution. We may be in quite a different situation from our Israelite (spiritual) ancestors, but then again, the contrast may not be as great as the author would like us to believe.

With this awareness of the literary possibility of Heb 12:18ff, let's look at each section briefly.

I. Hebrews 12:18-24 Contrasting Our Mountains

In this first section of the passage, our author wants us to reflect on how much better our situation was than that ouf our Israelite forebears. They, who showed up at Mount Sinai, were surrounded by fear; the God who called out of the mountain was inaccessible and distant; the danger was even felt by Moses, who said, "I tremble with fear" (cf. Deut. 9:19). The fire could break loose at any moment and consume the animals that were milling around. The hearers begged not to have any more commands laid on them because of their terror.

The author not only speaks of the terror felt by the people but he illustrates it through his choice of language. He combines images from Ex. 19 and 20 and from Deut. 4 and 5, to emphasize the rumblings and terrified reactions. As mentioned in the previous essay, he adds a few words to the biblical accounts. The "gloom" of v. 19 (zuphos) was not mentioned specifically in these OT passages; the author "supplements." Indeed, when he says that Moses was afraid, he both quotes Deut 9:19 and then adds the word "trembling" (entromos--v. 21). Thus, the Old Covenant, the one coming through Sinai (and the structure of the argument here is similar to Paul's argument in Gal 4:21ff), was filled with fear-inducing experiences.

But this isn't the case with the new covenant. Here, in contrast, we have come to Mount Zion (v. 22) and innumerable other things that make our way easier. The images tumble over each other, all derived from the Bible, but none taken from the same passage. For example, the City of God, Zion, is spoken of in Ps. 2:6 or Is. 8:18; the heavenly Jerusalem is mentioned in Heb. 11:10 or Rev. 22:1); the myriads of angels are referred to in Deut. 33:2 or Ps. 68:17-18 or Rev. 5:11. Those who have been perfected have entered into God's registry, which is another familiar biblical concept (Dan. 12:1; Rve. 13:18, 17:8). Biblical references could be multiplied for almost every phrase in vv. 22-24. What is the point? The author is trying to load up the "good images" from the Scripture to emphasize the contrast between the fear-based religion of the Israelite ancestors and the "better" or "more gracious" (v. 24) regime under Christ. That Christ's blood speaks more strongly or better than the blood of Abel suggests to me that the vengeance which Abel's blood called for (Gen. 4:10), which is part and parcel of the fear-based religion of Sinai, is now replaced by the blood of Jesus, a more gracious and appealing offering.

Do you "buy" the contrast? One of the difficulties I have with the Apostle Paul, for example (and I don't believe that he wrote Hebrews) is that his contrast between grace and law makes it seem that the Jews are operating not only in the darkness intellectually but also spiritually. This approach made it easy for Christians throughout history to treat Jews less than respectfully; indeed, at times to try to exterminate them. I am not suggesting that Paul's theology or the theology of Hebrews leads us there; I am arguing that the "contrast-laden" language of Heb. 12 can encourage us to see absolute contrast where, in fact, this contrast may not have fully existed. Or, to say it differently, it encourages us to see light vs. darkness when, in fatct, both sides had their share of light and darkness.

II. The Contrast of the Shaking of the Earth and Heavens

The passage concludes with a contrast between a former and future shaking of the earth and heavens. The upshot of the passage will be that we, though recipients of the better covenant in Christ, still have to keep vigilant in the presence of God, the consuming fire. Thus, the passage closes with a warning--that God is a consuming fire.

"See to it," the passage begins, "that you do not deny the one who speaks." Why? "For if those couldn't flee who refused the warning on earth, how much less will we escape if we turn away from the one warning from heaven?" Notice the nature of the argument that the author is making. It is technically called an "a fortiori" argument in rhetoric. Literally meaning "From the stronger," an "a fortiori" argument argues from something little to something big. "If he bought her a car, he certainly will buy her the keys to go with it.." The author has already used this kind of argument in in 10:28-29:

"Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy ‘on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?"

The purpose of this kind of argument is to convince the hearers to remain faithful, and if they don't remain faithful (in spite of all the good things God has done for them), a further judgment remains. So, it is a sort of argument to fidelity, but with a club or warning thrown in. Thus, it is a kind of "mixed" argument, in my book. It encourages to faithfulness, but it also says that if you aren't faithful, God, the consuming fire, will deal with you.

Conclusion

These essays have attempted to understand the content, and structure, of the argument in 12:18-29. There are many things about it that I love, especially the use of metaphor to make an argument. We should try to live our lives in metaphor. But I would caution against using a strongly contrasting mode of argument. It may "work" in some contexts, but it also can tend to be the occasion for negative and unhelpful arguments, as I have argued above. The exhortation to faithfulness is always welcome, however. May it be so for you.

2828