Hebrews 2:1–4

Original Meaning

A Caution Against Drifting (2:1)

THE FIRST PHRASE of 2:1–4 (dia touto, “therefore” in NIV ) connects 2:1–4 to the string of Old Testament texts in 1:5–14. This phrase can also be rendered “for this reason” and suggests that the supremacy of the Son, as established in the previous unit, is the grounds for this word of exhortation. The author shifts to the first person plural pronoun, “we,” giving direct exhortation to the Christian community: “We must pay more careful attention.” The word “must” (dei) shows the logical necessity of following the preacher’s instructions. We must not only pay attention in the sense of acknowledging the presence of something, but should pay “more careful” (perissoteros) attention, concentrating to a greater extent than we have been. The object of our attention is “what we have heard,” that is, the word spoken via the Son (1:2). The author clarifies the content of this word, left ambiguous for the moment, in verses 3–4, where he defines it as the message of salvation.

The image of “drifting” is an especially potent one. The word used here (pararuomai) could signify objects that slip away, such as a ring that slips off the finger, or objects that go in the wrong direction, such as a piece of food that goes into the windpipe.1 Perhaps the image closer to our author’s intention in this passage is that of a ship drifting, missing a harbor it intended to enter because of strong currents or winds.2 The author does not define the “currents” with which the audience struggles, but it is clear they are in danger of moving from a spiritual vantage point where the gospel is the focus.

Bridging Contexts

IN DEALING WITH1:1–4 we noted the importance of understanding its parallel structure in contrasting the older covenant revelation with that of the newer covenant.11 In 2:1–4 this contrast again forms the backdrop, but angels have replaced the prophets as agents of revelation. Moreover, the author utilizes the contrast in a different way. In Hebrews 2 he builds on the theme of the “supremacy of the Son” (1:5–14) to execute an argument from the lesser to the greater.

Theological presuppositions. This argument presupposes several theological foundation stones that should be identified as we bridge the gap between the ancient horizon and our own. (1) As in 1:1–2, the preacher presupposes the validity of the older media of divine revelation. He offers no hint that the word of God given through angels has been invalidated. Divine revelation is progressive, moving not from false to true, but from a lesser to a greater revelation. This revelation is both complementary, in that the new covenant fulfills the old, and supplementary, in that there are dimensions in the new covenant not found in the old. The capstone of revelation is Jesus Christ and his work and word of salvation.12

(2) The present passage assumes a continuity in the character and activity of God between the old and new covenant eras. This presupposition understands God to be a just God who punishes sin. Whether holding his people accountable under the law of Sinai or holding them accountable to the word delivered through the Son, transgressions are confronted and punished.

(3) Corresponding to our previous point, the character of the older and newer recipients of God’s message of salvation has continuity. For people of both new and old covenants, the possibility of violations exist; therefore, a need to warn against drifting emerges. These last two related assertions—that God’s character is consistent when we move from the Old to the New Testament and that the moral needs and obligations of people under both covenants remains the same—form the core bases for the ethical use of the Old Testament in Hebrews and other New Testament literature. Our God is the same God, and we struggle with sin as did our Old Testament counterparts.

Therefore, in order to bring this text to our contemporary contexts with power and effectiveness, we must address, and must help those to whom we speak address, the twin issues of authority and accountability. If our listeners do not have a clear concept of God’s right to rule their lives, if they have no sense of accountability to the divine Word, then our teaching or preaching of this passage loses its rhetorical power. This text cannot “speak” to them if they rest comfortably in a self-centered authority that judges all of life in light of one’s own self-actualization rather than according to the will and ways of God. Furthermore, those of us who have preached “once-saved, always-saved” to the neglect of teachings on accountability have done a disservice to the body of Christ and her members, offering an unbalanced view of a right relationship to God. We must never maximize the grace of God to the neglect of the holiness of God and God’s desire for the holiness of his people.13

Limitations on our study. Beyond recognition of the principles underlying the preacher’s a fortioriargument, to apply this passage appropriately we must acknowledge the limitations of our research, refusing to go beyond them with our applications. At times the author speaks in more general terms rather than specific theological or ethical propositions. In such cases we are tempted to rush to applications supplied more from our theological preunderstandings than from the actual content in the passage in question.

For example, what does it mean to “drift away” from what we have heard (2:1) and to “ignore such a great salvation” (2:3)? A surface reading might lead one to assume the passage speaks of a non-Christian who drifts by an opportunity for salvation. Yet the author uses the pronoun “we” (v. 1), which he consistently employs to address the Christian community. Moreover, the imagery of the “message spoken by angels” that was “binding” points to those of old who were in covenant with God. This raises the likelihood that their counterparts in this passage see themselves as new covenant people (cf. 10:30).

But if the author is speaking to the Christian community in this text, what does it mean for one to drift from the message of salvation? Does it mean to fall out of fellowship with God, or, more seriously, to lose salvation? It would seem the action involves at least a moving away from the message of salvation. Notice in this passage that it is the message rather than God himself from which they are drifting. Can one drift from the message without drifting from God? From the broader context of Hebrews, the answer to this question is a resounding “no!”

This raises another set of issues: What is the nature of the “punishment” implied in verse 3? What would be “just” (v. 2) for one who is drifting? Does this mean punishment in the sense of discipline for a person who still belongs to God, or is it the punishment of excommunication, or is it punishment for an unbeliever who has never known Christ? As we consider the other warning passages in Hebrews later in this commentary, we find that the author is notoriously ambiguous in dealing with certain issues.14 My point for now, however, is to suggest that we be careful not to press our applications beyond the principles clearly revealed in the passage. In our process of application, it is tempting to say more, or less, than a given passage warrants.

The main points of the passage. What, then, are the principles clearly indicated by Hebrews 2:1–4? (1) The author calls his audience to personal commitment and responsibility. From the author’s use of the first person plural pronoun and his employment of covenant imagery, it seems certain he is addressing Christians, or at least those who consider themselves so. Therefore, the “drifting” and “ignoring of salvation” must mean that those who have professed Christ in the past are in danger of losing sight of the gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6–10).

Some of the Christians the author addresses were living on the edge of the community, slowly slipping away from a firm commitment to the message of salvation. Although he does not define the “currents” causing them to drift—perhaps there were several—it is likely, from our composite of this church,15 that persecution played a part in obscuring the gospel and distancing them from the fellowship of faith.

The author’s concern, however, could not be more clear. In the face of dangerous drifting, Hebrews 2:1–4 calls believers to personal commitment and responsibility. Two solutions to the problem, one negative and the other positive, accompany this exhortation against drifting.

(2) In verses 2–3a, the preacher motivates his listeners through threat of punishment. Rather than highlighting a specific penalty for disobedience, the author provides a generalized statement concerning older covenant punishment: “Every violation and disobedience” received a punishment appropriate to the act. Correspondingly, no definition or details accompany the punishment implied in the rhetorical question of verse 3. What can be said for certain at this point, therefore, is that those who “drift” and “ignore” are in deep trouble in relation to God. Punishment is certain and will be executed justly and according to the offense.

(3) The positive answer to the problem of drifting lies in the traditional word of salvation to which they are to “pay more careful attention” (v. 1). The author considers historical events and testimonies as validating this message as a stabilizing factor in the Christian life. That the message was “announced by the Lord,” “confirmed to us by those who heard him,” and “testified” to by God, all refer to what the author considers historical occurrences within the experience of Christ-followers, pointing to the validity of their Christian belief. He includes the experience of the Christian community (“to us”) in that history. Therefore, Christians who hold onto the message of salvation stand in historical continuity of relationship and mission with Jesus, the apostles, and even God himself.16

Contemporary Significance

A CALL TO commitment and responsibility. The American critic and author Louis Kronenberger is credited with the saying, “The trouble with our age is that it is all signpost and no destination.” From every vantage point we hear calls of the culture to turn down different roads from the one we are traveling as we cruise chaotically, bereft of specific ideas about where we should be headed. Today’s people have become more and more migratory and less and less stable in relation to extended families, home, place of residence, workplace, politics, and church.

Studies identify a disenchantment with tradition as one primary characteristic of the so-called “baby boom” generation; those of Generation X give no indication of changing the trend. We have become a society of consumers who are constantly “shopping” for everything from new material goods to new philosophies and experiences. We maintain commitment to values and institutions only as long as they fulfill our needs of the moment. Sadly, the church has not been immune to these trends. Many professed Christians float from congregation to congregation in search of the right worship service, Bible study, children’s care, or teen ministry, sometimes partaking of different programs at different churches at a given point in time. We in the Christian community too often mirror the broader society, living as spiritual consumer-drifters within the broader culture of consumer-drifters.

Those of us involved in church leadership should step back and search the faces in our congregation. This may be difficult if you minister in a large church. What faces present a year ago are missing from the crowd? Where have they gone? Why have they gone? What can be done to close the back door? These questions constitute one of the greatest practical areas of concern in modern church life.

It is likely that few Americans pass through our back doors because of overt persecution from the society around them. Persecution is much more a fact of life in the underground church in China or the world’s Muslim countries, such as Malaysia. Some drift from the church because of disillusionment with church leaders or other institutional dynamics. However, many drift because they lack a solid grasp on commitment and personal responsibility. This problem is exacerbated in Western culture by the concurrent, contradictory longings for both autonomy and status as victim. J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh write:

If the modern autonomous self sought to dominate the world (and other human beings) in the name of what we now recognize to be a fictitious and ideological ideal (universal, rational human progress), the postmodern (or hypermodern) self fluctuates between the quest for a new form of autonomy and the experience of victimization. Compulsively seeking personal advancement (ungrounded in a grandiose ideal) via aggressive control of one’s situation and refashioning of one’s image, fueled all the while by an insatiable desire for unlimited experience of the carnivalesque smorgasbord of life, the postmodern/hypermodern self is nevertheless overcome by a sense of meaninglessness, powerlessness, rootlessness, homelessness, and fragmentation, where the self is incapacitated before its infinite possibilities, reduced to an effect of its plural contexts and consequently haunted by a deep-rooted sense of anomie. The “I want it all” attitude is easily transmuted into “I’m paralyzed in the face of it all.” The postmodern self thus exists in a perpetual state of dialectical self-contradiction.17

The drive for autonomous living—to control my own life and destiny—runs counter to Christian commitment. For the autonomous self the premier question is not “What do I owe to God or this community?” but “What can this God and community do to help me in my pursuit of self-actualization?” In other words, as long as God and the community are useful in helping me “get and keep it all together,” I will participate. When that ceases to happen or my autonomy is threatened by these relationships, I will drift elsewhere.

As victims we refuse to take personal responsibility for ourselves or our actions. If we kill or hurt someone, it is due to the society, our parents, our bosses, or some other aspect of our circumstances. In the context of church, if we drift away, it must be due to the church, the pastor, the Sunday school teacher, the music minister, or difficulties at home or work. Surely, we reason, it cannot be our fault. We only see ourselves dysfunctional by birth, upbringing, or current relationships, but never by our own actions. Phyllis McGinley writes, “[Sin] has been made not only ugly but passé. People are no longer sinful, they are only immature or underprivileged or frightened or, more particularly, sick.”18 To be sure, many true victims exist, languishing under a myriad of difficult circumstances, and the church must minister to them. Yet, when we inappropriately embrace the “victim mentality” of the culture, we step away from taking personal responsibility to which we are called as Christians.

Consequently, we must regain a “sense of sin,” taking our personal, moral accountability before God seriously. The only way this can be accomplished is by paying more careful attention to the word of salvation delivered through God’s Son. It is wonderfully good news, but presupposes the bad news of sin’s devastating power and dominion. If we skew the bad news, neglecting the concept of personal sinfulness, the good news ceases to be wonderfully “good,” for there is nothing from which we need to be delivered.

The place of punishment in Christian teaching. This brings us to a second area of application. As recognized by Stanley Grenz, the Star Trek television series and movies provide interesting mirrors to our culture’s belief systems.19 In Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Spock’s brother, a renegade Vulcan very much in touch with his inner feelings (and determined to help everyone else get in touch with their inner feelings) hijacks the Enterprise and leads the crew in a search for the ultimate frontier—the place where God lives. Passing through the great barrier that stands between known space and “heaven,” the searchers find the world for which they have been seeking; and they find “god.” This god manifests himself as “one god, many faces” (he is the god of the Klingons, the Vulcans, humans, etc.), and then, being doubted by Captain Kirk, proceeds to zap everyone in sight. One of the last standing, crusty old “Bones,” the ship’s doctor, is confronted by the deity: “Do you doubt me too?” Bones replies, “I don’t believe in any god who inflicts pain for his pleasure.”

This theologically loaded statement, made in context with regard to an evil, alien being, reflects a common misconception of the God of the Bible. For God to be a God of punishment, the thought goes, must mean that he gets joy from administering pain. Contemporary cultural wisdom suggests that we must do away with any conception of divine punishment. Speaking at a gay rights demonstration in the mid-1980s, a New York bishop stated triumphantly that the conception of a god who punishes for such “so-called sins” as homosexuality stems from “primitive, barbaric passages of the Old Testament.”20 Thus, the concept of punishment, in the minds of some, must be written off as outdated.

Yet, the theme of just punishment for disobedience to God’s will looms large in both Testaments of the Bible. Under the old covenant, punishment was meted out for sins such as murder (Gen. 9:5–6; Num. 35:16–21), adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24), incest (Lev. 20:11–14), bestiality (Ex. 22:19), sodomy (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and perjury (Zech. 5:4). A person received from God according to his or her deeds (Job 34:11; Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Ezek. 7:3, 27), and as in Hebrews 2:1–4, there was no escape for those who turned away from God (Job 11:20; Prov. 1:24–31; Jer. 11:11).

Jesus likewise emphasized the reality of judgment (Matt. 5:22; 16:27; 23:14; 25:41–46), as do the writers of the New Testament (Rom. 2:3; Col. 3:25; Rev. 14:10–11). Thus the author of Hebrews fits well within the traditional teaching of earliest Christianity (Heb. 6:2; 10:28–31), holding up the reality of punishment as a motivation for those who would drift carelessly away from God. The foundation for God’s punishment resides in his holy character and his divine love, for the Scriptures depict sin as a power that moves people away from the holiness of God and warps their existence as God’s creations.

In addition to my teaching and administrative duties at the university, I serve as one of several copastors in a local church. This church might be described as “seeker sensitive,” a phrase that has come to be associated with various approaches to church growth. Although the intentions and methodology of some seeker-sensitive churches have been misunderstood at times, they try to address the problem of communicating the gospel in our culture. Without compromising doctrine, we should seek to build bridges of communication with seekers under the sound of our preaching. It is valid to analyze the cultural trappings (e.g., pews, style of music, art, etc.) of our contexts that stand in the way of moderns really hearing our message.

However, we must be careful to keep a sharp demarcation between the mode and context of communication and the message itself. If we are lax in this regard, we can easily begin to adapt not only the mode of communication but also the message to the comfort level of both seekers and believers. To preach the Scriptures faithfully means that we address all the topics Scripture addresses, including the topic of punishment. That topic, although uncomfortable to communicate and hear, is nonnegotiable for those who would preach biblically. For believers it needs to form an aspect of motivation to obedience and perseverance in the Christian life.

The word of salvation and historicity of the faith. Thankfully, we have more than a word of punishment to motivate us; we have the positive, emancipating word of salvation. It is important to recognize that the author of Hebrews points to this word as a stabilizing factor for Christian discipleship. The message of salvation as traditionally preached by Jesus and the first eyewitnesses, that gospel to which God bore witness through mighty acts, provides an authoritative point of reference from which to assess relationship to God and the world. It affords a perspective higher than ourselves and our circumstances, embodying the essence of God’s will for humankind as revealed in Christ.

It is significant that the author of Hebrews points us specifically to the salvation of which he speaks, connecting it to the history of early Christianity. Many modern biblical critics and theologians suggest faith has nothing to do with “real” events in history. On a recent PBS special Harold Kushner, a popular Jewish author and theologian, was asked whether Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real persons. He responded that it does not make any difference. The impact of their stories on us is real; they have molded our histories, and that is all that matters.

But is that really the case? Most modern New Testament scholars are still strongly influenced by Rudolph Bultmann, who made a sharp distinction between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith.” They reason that the early Christian documents are so overwhelmed with the theological perspective of the early church that they cannot be trusted to report the real historical facts. What does it matter, they reason, whether Jesus did or said anything recorded in the New Testament; we can experience Christianity by taking a “leap of faith.” Yet, the early Christians themselves pointed time and again to what they considered real events in history that validated the gospel message (e.g., Luke 1:1–4; 1 Cor. 15:1–6). They also assumed that the gospel would not be valid if the key event—the Resurrection—had not taken place. As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:14–15, 17

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.… And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

So too the author of Hebrews looks to the confirmation of the gospel by the first witnesses and by God himself as significant. Faith in the message is not a “leap in the dark” but a decision to commit oneself to God through Christ, based on reliable testimony of the apostles. The apostolic tradition helps Christians stay true to the salvation preached by Jesus. Toward the end of the second century, Irenaeus, in his work Against All Heresies, had this to say about those who deny the apostolic tradition in favor of their own philosophies:

When [the heretics] are refuted out of the Scriptures, they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right or did not possess authority, because the Scriptures contain a variety of statements, and because it is not possible for those who do not know the tradition to find the truth in them. For this has not been handed down by means of writings, but by the “living voice.” … Yet, when we appeal once more to that tradition which is from the apostles, safeguarded in the churches by successions of presbyters, we provoke them into becoming the enemies of traditions, claiming to be wiser than those presbyters, and even the apostles themselves, and to have discovered the undefiled truth.… Thus they end up agreeing with neither the Scriptures nor with tradition.… Everyone who wishes to perceive the truth should consider the apostolic tradition, which has been made known in every church in the entire world.…

Therefore, as there are so many demonstrations of this fact, there is no need to look anywhere else for the truth which we can easily obtain from the church. The apostles have, as it were, deposited this truth in all its fullness in this depository, so that whoever wants to may draw from this water of life. This is the gate of life; all others are thieves and robbers.21

To this the church father Tertullian adds:

What they preached—that is, what Christ revealed to them—ought, by this ruling, to be established only by those churches which those apostles founded by their preaching and, as they say, by the living voice, and subsequently through their letters. If this is true, all doctrine which is in agreement with those apostolic churches, the sources and originals of the faith, must be accounted as the truth, since it indubitably preserves what the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God.…22

Thus, the traditional teaching of orthodox doctrine, including the word of salvation, was seen as vital to Christian life and thought in the earliest centuries of the church—and it should be seen as such for us as well, for we and those around us need God’s supernatural deliverance. Ultimately, we do not need a human solution to the sin-instigated dilemmas, in which we find ourselves incarcerated. We need salvation, as revealed by Jesus, confirmed by the first witnesses, and borne witness to by God himself. To drift away from this message, to treat it carelessly, invites spiritual ruin. On the other hand, to pay close attention to the word of salvation provides stability in our trek as followers of Christ, for that word of deliverance constitutes a foundation stone in one’s relationship to God.

Original Meaning

Motivation for Heeding This Admonition (2:2–3a)

IN VERSES 2–3A the author utilizes a tool from rabbinic homiletics—an “argument from lesser to greater”—to motivate the congregation to action.3 Punishment received for rejecting what God spoke through angels under the old covenant constitutes the “lesser” situation in this case.4 The idea of the angels as mediators of the divine revelation on Mount Sinai had gained special attraction to Judaism in the Greek-speaking synagogues of the Mediterranean world.5 Josephus wrote, “And for ourselves, we have learned from God the most excellent of our teachings, and the most holy part of our law by angels.”6

The author appeals to his listeners’ understanding of the Torah, reminding them that the older covenant message delivered through angels was “binding”; to neglect that word brought about sure, severe punishment. Dealing with sin was never taken lightly by God, but “every” violation received a just punishment. The words translated in the NIV as “violation” and “disobedience” speak of a conscious rejection of God’s will. In 2:1–4 and more broadly in Hebrews, the author often associates disobedience with an unwillingness to listen to God’s voice (e.g., 2:1; 3:7–19; 12:25).

The preacher continues by presenting the “greater” situation in the form of a rhetorical question, focusing on rejection of the word of salvation given through the Lord. This rhetorical question expects a negative answer if the condition is met: We will have no escape “if we neglect such a great salvation.” That one finds scriptural precedent in God’s punishment of the disobedient in the lesser situation provides a basis for the assumption that even more severe punishment will be forthcoming in the greater.

Amelesantes, the word rendered “ignore,” is a participle appropriately translated with conditional force in the NIV . It means to neglect through apathy or not to care enough about something (1 Tim. 4:14). The word could be used of a doctor or government official who, having made a public commitment, defaulted on that commitment.7 Thus, those who care so little about the word of salvation that they neglect it will find no escape from the punishment they deserve.