Talk:Heb 6:1-5

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.

"The principles of the doctrine of Christ" (v. 1)

"[T]he principles of the doctrine of Christ" are set up in contrast to "going on unto perfection" in v. 1. Should we take this to mean that faith can mature into knowledge, and repentance can become moot if we quit sinning? Or, from an LDS perspective, should we think of the contrast between these "first principles and ordinances" (cf. Aritcle of Faith #4) with the greater ordinances administered in the temple? Is there an implicit contrast between the law of works and the law of grace (a favorite topic with Paul, but I don't see this contrast being referred to in the text here...)? --RobertC 15:38, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I lean strongly toward reading it as making a distinction between the first principles and ordinances of the gospel and the more esoteric "meat" of the temple/priesthood theology. As for grace and works, I just don't see this as being an issue for the author of Hebrews, which is one of the reasons that I doubt that it is even meant to reflect Paul's thinking. Were Paul addressing a group of Judiazers, I would expect him to thunder away about the dead law of works and the new law of grace. The author of Hebrews, however, is much more like Christ in Matthew's version of the sermon on the mount, ie Christ as the extension and perfection of the law. Just my uninformed opinion. --Nathan Oman 16:52, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, ultimately I think I agree with you. I'm going to make some comments regarding "the doctrine of Christ" that have more to do with the issue I raise below (re "laying on of hands"), so don't read them as a direct reply to you. --RobertC 18:10, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I'm at the BYU library checking out the Word Biblical Commentary (Ben S. found a relatively cheep CD version for sale). Regarding the translation of "the principles of the doctrine of Christ", the author (William Lane) renders this "the elementary teaching of Christ" but says that, if the objective genitive (as opposed to the subjective genitive) form for Christ is implied, this becomes "teaching(s) about Christ". At least one scholar has argued that the writer is advocating leaving behind Christ's original teaching and advancing toward a more mature understanding of the broader implications and significance of that teaching (volume 47a, p. 131).

William Lane also points out that there may be an important distinction between "the primary elements of the revelation of God" in Heb 5:12 and "the primary word about Christ" in Heb 6:1 (both translations are Lane's literal renditions). Heb 5:12 may refer (with negative irony) to an infufficient teaching based only on the Old Testament, whereas Heb 6:1 refers positively to a solid foundation for the Christian life. However, others have challenged this point b/c none of the six items mentioned in vv. 1-2 are Christian-specific. (See p. 140.)

W. Lane also advocates 5:11-6:12 being viewed as a literary unit (exhortation—against spiritual immaturity—as opposed to exposition in 6:13ff); the "color full word sluggish" serves as book ends in 5:11 and 6:12). (See p. 134.)

--RobertC 18:56, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

While putting the book away (unfortunately these are reference books so I can't check them out...), I got sidetracked with The Anchor Bible (Buchanan) that Steve Barton referenced. Buchanan concurs that 5:11-6:12 should be a literary unit. Buchanan continues "The things which Christ originally taught were undoubtebly important to early Christian, but not as something to consider only elementary." Regarding the phrase "let us go on", he notes that one connotation is "let us be carried along" (the passive emphasis is also advocated in the Word Biblical Commentary). --RobertC 19:19, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

"Laying on of hands" (v. 2)

Interpreting the "laying on of hands" to mean animal sacrifice would go along with an alternate reading of these verses where a retranslation of "the doctrine of Christ" in v. 1 might be "the discourse of the beginning of Christ" (see Adam Clarke commentary) referring to the ceremonies of the law of Moses (which pointed to Christ). I don't think Clarke articulates this reading very well, but it might be defensible. In support of this reading is the fact that "baptisms" is plural in v. 2. Clarke claims "baptism" actually means doctrine. Here's how Here John Gill interprets baptism so that it supports this alternate reading I'm trying to articulate (I'm not sure I understand what Gill's saying here well enough to summarize it, so I'm just pasting the relevant quote):

"[I]t is best to interpret this of the divers baptisms among the Jews, spoken of in (Heb 9:10) which had a doctrine in them, to that people; teaching them the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ, and leading them to it, to wash in for sin, and for uncleanness; but now, since this blood was shed, they were no more to teach nor learn the doctrine of cleansing by the blood of Christ this way; nor any more to be led unto it through these divers baptisms, ablutions, and purifications."

--RobertC 14:36, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that this alternate reading, where "the doctrine of Christ" mentioned in v. 1 and elaborated on in vv. 1-2 essentially refers to the law of Moses (which did point to Christ), is probably less consistent with the JST. That is, it makes less sense to say "not leaving the doctrine of Christ" when doctrine of Christ connotes the law of Moses as opposed to the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. --RobertC 15:13, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)