← Contents Hebrews 5:11–6:3 ←→

Hebrews 5:11–6:3

1WE HAVE MUCH to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6:1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.

Original Meaning

Moving on to Maturity (6:1–3)

HAVING ASSESSED THE spiritual condition of his listeners in 5:11–14, the author moves on to challenge them to correct their present course and move on to maturity. He expresses the challenge both positively (v. 1a) and negatively (vv. 1b–2), concluding with a statement of resolve (v. 3). As Bruce notes, the opening words of this unit are not quite what one would expect. The author has just used strong metaphors to describe their immaturity and consequent inability to handle advanced teaching. We might have expected him to acquiesce to their infantile appetites (e.g., “So we must begin where we are”; cf. 1 Cor. 3:2). If they needed to be taught the elementary principles of the faith again, should he not do so? Instead, the preacher pushes them toward an “adult table” fit for mature appetites. The “therefore” of verse 1 demonstrates his determination to move his readers on from their present state of immaturity. They are not responding to their circumstances as spiritual grown-ups, therefore, it is time to move from the children’s to the adults’ menu, leaving behind fundamental teachings.8

Throughout his exhortations to this community the author uses the plural pronouns “we” and “us,” thus including himself in the action that must be taken by those in the community: “Let us leave.…” The switch back and forth between the second person plural “you,” the first person “I,” and the first person plural “we” was common to the style of preaching found in the Greek-speaking Jewish synagogues of the period.9 Moreover, the verb rendered “go on” is passive. Hughes suggests it means, “Let us be carried on,” implying that it is not up to the preacher to bear the community forward, but rather God, who will move both the author and the community forward together in the process of maturation.10

This move forward, however, begins by leaving something behind. When the author suggests they “leave” the elementary truths of the faith, he does not see these Christian principles as dispensable. Indeed, they are no more dispensable than are letters of the alphabet for moving children beyond the first steps of education. Rather, the fundamental truths of the faith are presupposed in the continued trek toward maturity. The admonition of 6:1 has to do with the listeners’ indifference to weightier matters of Christ-following and their consequent need to move to a new level of commitment.

The six “foundational” tenets listed in 6:1b–2 all find parallels within Judaism and its basic practices of religion. As proposed by Hagner, “this may suggest that the readers were attempting somehow to remain within Judaism by emphasizing items held in common between Judaism and Christianity. They may have been trying to survive with a minimal Christianity in order to avoid alienating their Jewish friends or relatives.”11 Moreover, commentators have noticed that the six fall into three groups: (1) “repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God”; (2) “instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands”; and (3) “the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.” Yet, it may be best to interpret the word “instruction” as in apposition to “foundation.”12 When read in this manner, teachings “about baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment” fill out the content of the foundation of repentance and faith. If this interpretation is correct, the structure of the passage may be depicted as follows:

not laying again

the foundation of repentance and faith

=

instruction about

baptisms

laying on of hands

resurrection

eternal judgment

The “repentance from dead works” and “faith toward God” (NRSV) constitute a summing up of the initial step of Christian commitment. The former refers to the turning away from acts of immorality committed by those apart from God (cf. Rom. 6:21), and the latter the basic orientation for those who have turned to God in belief and obedience.

Although the “baptisms” has been understood by many commentators to refer to specifically Christian baptism, the plural makes this interpretation problematic. It may be that the word refers instead to the internal spiritual cleansing from sins found in the new covenant, which was associated with the outward rite of baptism. Or the author may be referring to repeated ceremonial washings as found in expressions of first-century Judaism.

The “laying on of hands” was also a practice associated with the beginning of Christian commitment, specifically having to do with the coming of the Holy Spirit or anointing for ministry.

If these two “instructions” have to do with the beginning stages of Christian commitment, “resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment” provide theological cornerstones related to the end of the age.

The author sums up the admonition to move on from these basic teachings by expressing his confidence in the move forward. “God permitting,” he writes in verse 3, “we will do so.” This statement at once expresses the author’s confidence in the hearers, which he will reiterate at 6:9–10, and his own submission to God’s will.13 Although such expressions of piety were common to rabbinic Judaism, they were also used broadly in classical Greek literature.14

Bridging Contexts

WHILE AT A local video store not long ago, I was browsing the “New Releases” section when the box of one video caught my eye. The movie, an updated version of Pinnochio, sported a catchy, 3-D cover that changed pictures as I walked past. At first the picture of Pinnochio was that of a wooden marionette held by its maker. As my angle of vision changed, however, the puppet transformed into a human boy, the actor who played the role in the movie. Both pictures were on the cover of the box, but my position determined which I saw at a given moment.

Because much preaching we hear presents the Bible in the form of propositions, we tend to look for the “point 1, point 2, point 3” instruction, which an author wishes to communicate through the text. However, some passages are of another nature, reflecting a situation of the author, or the hearers, or a third party. Such passages have inherent principles that often are of great significance for Christian living. Yet, these principles come by way of observing examples or situations—by looking at the text from a different angle. We can ask, for instance, what a particular text reflects about the author’s approach to a difficult situation or what the circumstance reflects about life in the early church.

Hebrews 5:11–6:3 is such a passage. The language, although rich in imagery and nuance, is fairly straightforward. What can we glean from this text, then, that might be applicable for modern believers seeking to live as faithful Christians in today’s world? What truths are inherent in the author’s example or his listeners’ situation?

Rhetorical impact. We must first understand that the writer crafts this passage for rhetorical impact. Some might misunderstand this break in the discourse on “Appointment” 15 to suggest an awkwardness on the part of the writer. They ask, “Why does the author start a topic and then, almost immediately, leave it for another topic, which will in turn be followed by the original topic? It does not make sense!” Others might misunderstand the break as having to do with the ignorance of the audience based on the author’s words: “It is hard to explain because you are slow to learn” (5:11). These interpreters understand the ancient preacher to be talking down his nose to his congregants.

However, this breaking off from the discourse on “Appointment,” rather than reflecting the preacher’s ineptitude or a lack in the congregation’s learning skills, provides us with another glimpse at his admirable skill in oratory. That he inserts 5:11–6:20 just after an introduction to the heart of his sermon demonstrates this exhortation’s importance. In effect, he wishes to make sure he has their attention before entering into a lengthy but vital exposition on the high priesthood and heavenly offering of Jesus. As the ancient preacher John Chrysostom suggested long ago, following this blistering, though mitigated, rebuke, the hearers’ ears would have been turned vigorously toward the speaker when he resumed his discussion of Melchizedek at 7:1.16

With 5:11–6:3 the author begins by confronting the congregation with their spiritual condition. Having used both the positive and negative examples of others,17 he now gets down to addressing their conduct. Thus, he fittingly confronts them with the chief concern on his mind—their spiritual condition—at a key point in the book. This rhetorical approach speaks more to the author’s packaging of principles than to the principles themselves.

The social situation. Let us take a step back for a moment and observe the social situation reflected in the text. What is going on here? Is the author, a spiritual leader for the congregation being addressed, acting in an authoritarian manner, emotionally bludgeoning his listeners because of their failures? Is he angry or talking down to them as a spiritual superior to mere children? His words do seem harsh at points. However, the broader context of Hebrews projects an image far from that of an irate prelate attempting to intimidate his flock into submission. Rather, he must be understood as a pastor whose confrontation in 5:11–6:3 flows from a wellspring of Christian love and concern.

This passage suggests to us that loving, well-thought-out confrontation comprises an important aspect of Christian community. Such admonition must be well-timed, must be offered with the right motives (the author obviously wants them to change for their own spiritual well-being rather than for his reputation or benefit), and must be offered both with encouragement (he will quickly turn to mitigation at 6:9) and with specific suggestions for action.

Early church life. By looking at the passage from another angle we learn something important about life among the earliest Christian congregations: education in Christian teachings was seen as vital and seems to have been carried out systematically. The author, by mentioning the “elementary truths of God’s word” in 5:12 and providing a list of those truths in 6:1–2, opens a window for us on life in ancient Christian communities. The term “elementary” (i.e., basic principles) itself indicates both a distinction between levels of instruction and a time at which those instructions were given—at the beginning of one’s Christian commitment. When the author uses the metaphor of infant feeding vis-à-vis adult diet, he again indicates an expectation that there should be a normal growth process in healthy Christian development. He also points to the “food” of which one should be partaking as a Christian—the words of God. The author indicates the outcome—discernment of the distinction between good and evil—that demonstrates growth to maturity has taken place.

The parallels with the modern church are obvious. Rather than being culture-bound, spiritual life and growth are universal needs of Christian experience. The development of believers, therefore, calls for a process by which they move from a state of immaturity to maturity, grounded in faithful teaching of God’s Word. How, then, do we accomplish that goal in our congregations? The question should prompt reflection on appropriate applications of Hebrews 5:11–6:3. The author provides us with a list of the elementary Christian teachings he has in mind: “repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms [notice the plural!], the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”

How does your church do with this list? Is the list comprehensive? Do we have to cover all the topics on the list to apply the passage or be faithful to early Christian teaching? How do we move people along the path of Christian growth? How do we equip them to move from those feeding as babies on the Word to those feeding others? How much of the process depends on the church leadership and how much of it turns on each member’s willingness to be taught? These are the kinds of questions that must be answered as we move to application.

Contemporary Significance

LOVING CONFRONTATION. SUE was a young lady in our singles group. One day she approached me—I was serving as head of the Singles’ Council at the time—and requested we talk privately for a few minutes. Being a single, young man I was thrilled at the opportunity; but our talk had nothing to do with council business or romance. Sue started by thanking me for the job I was doing in leading the group and said she deeply respected my walk with the Lord. Then she said, “I want to share with you what seems to be a weakness in your life. You are so busy and move so fast from one project or person to another you often lose eye-contact with people. By being distracted, failing to maintain eye-contact and looking away from a person, you communicate that that person and what they are saying are not important to you at that moment.”

Sue went on to give examples, showing that the problem, rather than an isolated incident, had a pattern. She also told me about a godly missionary she had known while serving overseas in a journeyman program. This man, with the weight of his vast mission responsibilities on his shoulders, had never failed to stop and listen intensely when Sue needed to talk. He had given her “the gift of his presence.”

Sue’s rebuke was painful but much needed. That encounter, which happened over a decade ago, has made a lasting impression on me. To this day if I am in conversation with a person and my attention begins to falter, Sue’s exhortation comes to mind. I challenge myself, “Focus, George. Give your full attention.” I still struggle with that focus, but that sister in Christ, who risked being misunderstood and becoming the object of my defensiveness, has by her truth-telling had an impact on the way I relate to others.

We understand that in the physical realm health sometimes comes via painful experiences. In the summer of 1980 while at a college retreat I contracted a staph infection under my right arm. I will spare you the details, but when my doctor saw the boil produced by the infection he gasped. I was immediately put in the hospital on an IV; the wound was drained and packed with gauze. When the doctor removed that gauze two days later I felt my arm was being ripped off. To say the experience was painful puts it lightly. I had to make myself vulnerable by raising my arm and allowing the doctor to work on me. The doctor had to be willing to give focused attention to the need and even inflict a bit of pain. Yet, as a result of the process, healing was able to take place.

Truth-telling confrontation has been a fairly consistent dynamic in my life. Sometimes I have been on the receiving end and sometimes on the giving. Most situations that loom in my memory involved a concerned friend addressing a problem in my life. I look back on those times when a brother or sister in Christ lovingly called a flaw to my attention as some of the most beneficial for my own development as a person. Never comfortable. Almost always profitable.

The Apostles’ Creed, a concise summary of Christian teachings used especially in the Western church, says, “I believe in … the communion of the saints.”18 What does it mean for us to live in communion rather than pseudo-community? Among other important relational practices, we must learn to speak and hear the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) if we are to have true unity and growth toward maturity. That is, we must commit to lives that rightly demonstrate the transformation brought about by Christ. Right theology must work its way out in our individual lives, and when this process is thwarted by sin, the sin must be confronted. Unfortunately the easiest course often is to “keep the peace” by keeping quiet. However, as Bill Hybels notes,

When people submerge their true feelings in order to preserve harmony, they undermine the integrity of a relationship. They buy peace on the surface, but underneath there are hurt feelings, troubling questions, and hidden hostilities just waiting to erupt. It’s a costly price to pay for a cheap peace, and it inevitably leads to inauthentic relationships.19

The church must be a “dangerous” place of vulnerability, where love demands more than the guarding of personal ego and truth looms larger than peace. Yes, pain plays a part in this indispensable activity of authenticity. Yet, this pain can be remarkably productive.

As demonstrated in Hebrews 5:11–6:3, this principle of loving confrontation must be a mode of operation at times between one who proclaims the Word of God and those under his or her charge. All bodies of believers need to progress in the faith and in the advancement of the kingdom, and most people need to be challenged from time to time to get back in step with biblical principles. The word that summons believers to evaluate their lives and move on in the pursuit of holiness must be a consistent word from those who preach the Word.

In those situations where the congregation perceives the pastor as “their employee,” where the power brokers of the church place biblical principles in a secondary or tertiary position, this duty can be especially difficult. Many a pastor has been called before the church board to be told he is being too negative in his preaching; that people won’t come to the church if he continues to give them such a hard time; that maybe God is leading him someplace else. But godly confrontation grounded in biblical principles goes with the territory. We must love, educate, and encourage. In a healthy church and in authentic relationships within the church, confrontation is inevitable. The pain and awkwardness accompanying such loving confrontation are not easy for anyone to experience. But “no-talk” rules, if allowed to prevail, will lead to spiritual demise, turning a community of faith into a mere crowd held together by formalities.

What, then, are guidelines for truth-telling? Let me suggest three gleaned from our author’s example in Hebrews 5:11–6:3. (1) The confrontation must be given with the right motive (i.e., to restore those confronted to spiritual health) and in a context of love and encouragement. The one offering the rebuke must go through self-examination to see whether he or she is seeking to minister in the situation out of a broken heart and for the betterment of those being confronted. We must ask whether we seek to build up or tear down, that is, whether we want the other person(s) to walk away renewed or we are simply out to get emotional revenge for our own hurt feelings.

(2) The confrontation must be well thought out and well timed. Off-the-cuff comments offered at an ill-timed moment can be more damaging than helpful. Therefore, we do well to write out our thoughts and pray through them, reflecting on them in light of Scripture. The author’s words in 5:11–6:3 were artistically crafted and, thus, the product of much thought. That he waits until this point in the book—after laying both theological and hortatory groundwork in the first four chapters—speaks volumes. In building his sermon he waits patiently for the right moment to confront the listeners boldly with their problem.

(3) Finally, the person offering the rebuke should also offer specific suggestions for action when appropriate.

Spiritual formation and the modern church. The concept of “discipleship” has undergone a phenomenal transformation in the church over the past two decades. Until the late 1970s and early 1980s discipleship programs were unheard of in many churches. Yet today the expression is used broadly to communicate the concept of spiritual development.

Much of the form associated with the contemporary, grassroots concept of discipleship can be traced back to a California truck driver named Dawson Trotman, who in the late 1920s felt the need for growth in his own spiritual life. Trotman began to apply “spiritual disciplines” to facilitate that growth. These included daily time in the Bible, Scripture memory, regular times of prayer, and evangelism. Others noticed the spiritual growth in Trotman and asked him for help in their own spiritual lives. In 1933, Trotman founded the Navigators, the motto of which became “to know Christ and to make Him known.” The Navigators’ ministry has expanded and become diverse since the days of Trotman. Yet at its heart the ministry has continued to trumpet the need for personal devotion, Bible study, prayer, and personal evangelism. Any person who has benefited from their church’s emphasis on having a “quiet time” or “Scripture memory” is an inheritor of sorts of the Navigators’ influence on contemporary church life.

The established church has not always embraced the concept of discipleship as envisioned by Trotman. Prior to the early 1980s many leaders in established churches rejected any concept they perceived as originating in parachurch groups, including small-group Bible studies in homes and emphasis on “one-on-one” discipleship. Robert Coleman’s little book The Master Plan of Evangelism, published by Revell in 1963, became read widely in the late 1970s and early 1980s, softening church leaders to the concept of discipleship as popularly conceived in the parachurch movements. Also, young adults who had experienced the impact of parachurch ministries like the Navigators and Campus Crusade began to filter back into established churches and brought with them emphases on devotional life and personal evangelism. Thus, pastors were able to witness firsthand the positive effect discipleship ministries had had on their members.

The broad success of the evangelical presses and evangelical periodicals like Christianity Today and Moody Monthly, which included emphases on the spiritual disciplines, added to the concept’s popularization.20 Many denominations began to produce discipleship materials for their churches. By the late 1980s discipleship had become a catchword of contemporary evangelical culture. In addition, various branches of the academic world had, in the 1970s and early 1980s, begun to give serious attention to spiritual formation as well.21 Some works, such as Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline, offered what Elton Trueblood has called an “intellectual integrity” to discussions on the practice of spirituality in Evangelicalism.22

The benefits of our contemporary stress on discipleship, as popularly conceived, lie in the accentuation of personal holiness, Bible study, memorization of Scripture, personal times of prayer, and proclamation of the gospel. We as Christians are to be people of God’s Word, people of prayer, and people seeking to build the kingdom in a variety of ways through personal ministry, including evangelism. These are nonnegotiable as I read the Scriptures and perhaps have fueled the movement in the modern church toward an energetic endorsement of this modern conception of discipleship.

But with the concept’s popularity we need to scrutinize our understanding of spiritual formation in light of biblical teaching and become cognizant of several potential problems with discipleship as popularly conceived. For example, the demarcation in the minds of some between “normal Christians” and “real disciples” leads to an inappropriate view of the Christian life. The term “disciple” (mathetes), which occurs 261 times in the New Testament, was used broadly to refer to all who belonged to the church.23 All Christians are disciples, not just those who have gone through spiritual growth training, and spiritual growth is an expectation of all Christ-followers. When in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20) Jesus said, “Go and make disciples,” he meant, “Go and introduce people to me through the proclamation of the gospel.” The participial clause that follows, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you,” is applicable to every convert to Christianity, not just to a spiritual elite. Hebrews does, however, make a distinction between those who are spiritually mature and those who are spiritually immature, and such a designation can be helpful.

Another caution has to do with a “disciplines” orientation that measures spirituality by the execution of certain practices. In this orientation one is considered spiritual if one has a daily quiet time, memorizes Scripture, attends Bible study or church, and witnesses to the lost at least once per week. I do not mean to negate the significance of any of these activities, but they must not be seen as the measures of true Christianity lest we produce “human doings” rather than “human beings.” The picture we get of dynamic Christianity from the New Testament is that of a balance between practices of devotion, such as those listed above, and care for others, corporate worship and ministry, and theological/biblical education.

This final point, education in biblical truth, brings us to the main concern of Hebrews 5:11–6:3. C. S. Lewis, addressing the importance of theology for Christian life and practice, has written, “We have to be continually reminded of what we believe”;24 and Dorothy Sayers adds:

In ordinary times we get along surprisingly well, on the whole, without ever discovering what our faith really is. If, now and again, this remote and academic problem is so unmannerly as to thrust its way into our minds, there are plenty of things we can do to drive the intruder away. We can get the car out or go to a party or to the cinema or read a detective story or have a row with a district council or write a letter to the papers about … Shakespeare’s use of nautical metaphor. Thus we build up a defense mechanism against self-questioning because, to tell the truth, we are very much afraid of ourselves.25

Sayers goes on to explain that pushing off theological reflection can only last so long. Life itself has a way of forcing us to deal with theology—that is, what we believe—sooner or later. The difficult experiences of life raise important questions about God and what he is up to. We especially must be focused in the deeper matters of the faith if we are to withstand the fire of persecution. Those who are shallow theologically manifest that superficiality in the face of strong challenges that oppose continued commitment to Christ.

This is not to say that one needs a graduate-school theological education in order to live the Christian life. Rather, the New Testament pattern is to educate God’s people in the tenets of the faith from the beginning of Christian experience, providing them with the basic theological nurturing they will need for this earthly trip and maturing them through ongoing feeding on God’s Word. All who are Christ-followers need systematic teaching of biblical truth, both at the beginning of our spiritual formation and along the way as we grow to maturity. I say it again: We need theology. Mark Shaw, in his creative little book Doing Theology with Huck and Jim: Parables for Understanding Doctrine, begins with the two title characters climbing aboard their raft, embarking on a life free of restraint. Having listed all the aspects of their lives they would not miss, the dialogue continues:

After a time Huck spoke up. “What’d you bring for food? I’m hungry.”

Jim unwrapped his bedroll. His worldly wealth was contained in it. Immediately it was all laid out in full view. There was a hat and some fruit, a pair of socks, a rabbit’s foot and a book. Jim tossed Huck a piece of fruit.

“What’d you bring a book for?” asked Huck with a tone of irritation.

“T’ read,” said Jim, rolling up the blanket again. “What else a book good for?”

“Didn’t think you could read,” Huck said and then wished he hadn’t.

“I can read,” Jim responded with intense seriousness, gazing into the night.

“What kinda book is it?” Huck asked.

“Book ‘bout theology,” Jim said, his voice trailing away.

“Theology! I hate theology almost as much as I hate schools and rules,” Huck said, and emphasized the point by spitting into the river. “What good is a theology book on a trip like this?”

Jim was silent for a long time before he answered. “Trip like this is long. Lotta things gonna happen. Might come in handy.”26

Might come in handy, indeed. We make decisions in life based on our thought processes. Our beliefs, therefore, affect the way we live, the relationships we keep, and the commitments we make or break. Rather than being relegated to the ivory towers of theological education, theology must be taught and “bought” in the nitty-gritty highways and byways of grassroots Christian community. If we are deep in the faith and nurtured on biblical truth, we are better prepared to make the right decisions as we walk the Christian life—decisions in line with perseverance.

The process of theological education, therefore, must not be left up to our church leaders. Leaders cannot force theology down our throats if we are determined to side with Huck in his evaluation of biblical teachings. We have to be fed willingly. The question comes, then, whether we are taking advantage of the biblical truth being afforded us and advancing in the faith by going deeper in the Word? For Hebrews this constitutes a hallmark of Christian growth and should, for all of us, be one measure of true Christian “discipleship.”

Original Meaning

The Author Confronts the Hearers (5:11–14)

THE OPENING STATEMENT, rendered “We have much to say about this” by the NIV , refers to the author’s declaration in verse 10 concerning the appointment of Christ as a “high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” Indeed, the author does say a great deal about Christ’s Melchizedekan high priesthood when he returns to this topic in chapter 7. This theme “is hard to explain,” not because the motif itself resists explication, but because those being confronted have become spiritually hard of hearing.

The author articulates the slowness of learning of his readers with the words nothroi … tais akoais. In the ancient world the first of these words (nothros) could mean “sluggish, dull, dimwit, negligent, lazy.” It was used in extrabiblical literature, for example, of a slave with ears “stopped up” by laziness, who was thus not obedient instantly to the call of his master. In the sphere of athletics, the word could designate a competitor who was out of shape, lazy, and sluggish. In a Christian inscription from Eumeneia a man who had used his own resources to build a tomb for his sisters calls his older brother, Amianos, “negligent,” since it was he who had the responsibility to carry out the task and failed to do so. In other words, nothros connotes culpable negligence or sluggishness in some aspect of life. Moreover, that the recipients of this letter are lazy “in hearing” (akoais) points to their inattention to the public proclamation of biblical teachings. This passage, therefore, calls to mind the author’s previous exhortation in 2:1 to “pay more careful attention … to what we have heard.”

However, our preacher finds the hearers’ condition especially egregious in light of their long-term involvement in the church. By now they “ought to be teachers,” but instead need someone else to teach them. The content of the needed instruction is described as “the elementary truths [stoicheia] of God’s word.” The phrase in Greek may be translated woodenly as “the basic principles of the beginning of the words of God.” Stoicheia, as used in the broader literature of the era, sometimes had strongly metaphysical overtones, referring to spiritual beings of the universe. Here, however, it refers clearly to the elementary teachings of the Christian faith. Thus, this word’s use in 5:12 is more in line with those places in ancient literature where it refers to the elements of the alphabet or the most basic aspects of education.2 In line with this interpretation the NEB translates this phrase “the ABC of God’s oracles.”

Two other parts of verse 12 suggest that the author has in mind basic teachings, perhaps offered at the beginning of one’s Christian commitment. (1) He states that the hearers need these basic lessons “again” (palin), a word that in context points to a time in the past in which they all did receive the instruction. The author seems to assume that they were all exposed at one time to such teaching. (2) The woodenly translated phrase (see previous paragraph) contains the word “beginning” (arche). This word adds emphasis to the rudimentary nature of these teachings.

This delineation of different levels in the educational process and the use of “milk” and “solid food” as metaphors for basic over against advanced teachings were common in the ancient world and apparently were brought over into the pedagogical language of the early church (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:1–2; 1 Peter 2:2).3 So when the author exclaims, “You need milk, not solid food” (Heb. 5:12), he is describing in no uncertain terms a level of immaturity among his readers. Spiritually they are acting like babies still suckling at a mother’s breast, unconcerned with the rich, hearty foods of the adults’ table.

Consequently, the addressees of Hebrews are “not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness” (5:13). What the author has in mind by “teaching about righteousness” has been interpreted variously by scholars as “right speech,” “moral teachings,” “general teachings of Christianity,” or “the theological instructions on Christ as the believer’s righteousness.”4 The “teaching about righteousness,” however, may refer to advanced theological instruction that stresses the cost and responsibilities of discipleship. Lane points to uses of this phrase in the second century that place it in the context of Christian suffering under persecution. Polycarp taught, for example, that to obey fully the word of righteousness one must be willing to endure the severest mistreatment.5 Lane comments:

If this is the proper linguistic context for interpreting v 13, it suggests that what was involved in the regression of the community was a failure in moral character rather than in keen theological insight. The expression … acknowledges a basic moral weakness aggravated by the fear of violent death (cf. 2:14–15). If the community had begun to avoid contact with outsiders because they were unprepared for martyrdom, a social setting is established for the rebuke of v 12, for the reference to the sharpening of one’s faculties in the arena of moral decision in v 14, and for the prospect of crucifying the Son of God again and exposing him to public shame in 6:6.6

Because of the context and the author’s emphases here, the moral failure in the face of persecution must be understood as stemming from a lack of response to theological instruction (cf. 2:1–4). These milk drinkers are in a perilous situation because they have neither an understanding nor an inclination toward deeper matters of the faith by which one understands the importance and means of perseverance. The writer’s statement that they need again to be taught the basics shows how far they have regressed in the way of right Christian response to theological truth.

“The mature” (v. 14), on the other hand, are able to handle “solid food” (i.e., the advanced teachings of the faith), such as the author’s exposition on Christ’s priesthood, which will follow in chapters 7–10. Their adeptness at digesting such instructions stems from a spiritual condition consisting of certain spiritual abilities. The word translated incorrectly as “constant use” (hexis) by the NIV has been widely misinterpreted to mean “practice” or “exercise.” The word, rather, connotes a “state” or “condition.”7 The mature are those who, because of a mature spiritual condition, possess trained faculties that enable discernment of good and evil. In other words, they know how to make the right choices when confronted with critical decisions. The author wishes to challenge his hearers with this image of maturity that they might wade with him into the deeper waters of the following chapters. His hope is that they will repent of their spiritual immaturity, grasp hold of the deeper matters of the faith, and, ultimately, endure in the face of persecution.

Bridging Contexts

WHILE AT A local video store not long ago, I was browsing the “New Releases” section when the box of one video caught my eye. The movie, an updated version of Pinnochio, sported a catchy, 3-D cover that changed pictures as I walked past. At first the picture of Pinnochio was that of a wooden marionette held by its maker. As my angle of vision changed, however, the puppet transformed into a human boy, the actor who played the role in the movie. Both pictures were on the cover of the box, but my position determined which I saw at a given moment.

Because much preaching we hear presents the Bible in the form of propositions, we tend to look for the “point 1, point 2, point 3” instruction, which an author wishes to communicate through the text. However, some passages are of another nature, reflecting a situation of the author, or the hearers, or a third party. Such passages have inherent principles that often are of great significance for Christian living. Yet, these principles come by way of observing examples or situations—by looking at the text from a different angle. We can ask, for instance, what a particular text reflects about the author’s approach to a difficult situation or what the circumstance reflects about life in the early church.

Hebrews 5:11–6:3 is such a passage. The language, although rich in imagery and nuance, is fairly straightforward. What can we glean from this text, then, that might be applicable for modern believers seeking to live as faithful Christians in today’s world? What truths are inherent in the author’s example or his listeners’ situation?

Rhetorical impact. We must first understand that the writer crafts this passage for rhetorical impact. Some might misunderstand this break in the discourse on “Appointment” 15 to suggest an awkwardness on the part of the writer. They ask, “Why does the author start a topic and then, almost immediately, leave it for another topic, which will in turn be followed by the original topic? It does not make sense!” Others might misunderstand the break as having to do with the ignorance of the audience based on the author’s words: “It is hard to explain because you are slow to learn” (5:11). These interpreters understand the ancient preacher to be talking down his nose to his congregants.

However, this breaking off from the discourse on “Appointment,” rather than reflecting the preacher’s ineptitude or a lack in the congregation’s learning skills, provides us with another glimpse at his admirable skill in oratory. That he inserts 5:11–6:20 just after an introduction to the heart of his sermon demonstrates this exhortation’s importance. In effect, he wishes to make sure he has their attention before entering into a lengthy but vital exposition on the high priesthood and heavenly offering of Jesus. As the ancient preacher John Chrysostom suggested long ago, following this blistering, though mitigated, rebuke, the hearers’ ears would have been turned vigorously toward the speaker when he resumed his discussion of Melchizedek at 7:1.16

With 5:11–6:3 the author begins by confronting the congregation with their spiritual condition. Having used both the positive and negative examples of others,17 he now gets down to addressing their conduct. Thus, he fittingly confronts them with the chief concern on his mind—their spiritual condition—at a key point in the book. This rhetorical approach speaks more to the author’s packaging of principles than to the principles themselves.

The social situation. Let us take a step back for a moment and observe the social situation reflected in the text. What is going on here? Is the author, a spiritual leader for the congregation being addressed, acting in an authoritarian manner, emotionally bludgeoning his listeners because of their failures? Is he angry or talking down to them as a spiritual superior to mere children? His words do seem harsh at points. However, the broader context of Hebrews projects an image far from that of an irate prelate attempting to intimidate his flock into submission. Rather, he must be understood as a pastor whose confrontation in 5:11–6:3 flows from a wellspring of Christian love and concern.

This passage suggests to us that loving, well-thought-out confrontation comprises an important aspect of Christian community. Such admonition must be well-timed, must be offered with the right motives (the author obviously wants them to change for their own spiritual well-being rather than for his reputation or benefit), and must be offered both with encouragement (he will quickly turn to mitigation at 6:9) and with specific suggestions for action.

Early church life. By looking at the passage from another angle we learn something important about life among the earliest Christian congregations: education in Christian teachings was seen as vital and seems to have been carried out systematically. The author, by mentioning the “elementary truths of God’s word” in 5:12 and providing a list of those truths in 6:1–2, opens a window for us on life in ancient Christian communities. The term “elementary” (i.e., basic principles) itself indicates both a distinction between levels of instruction and a time at which those instructions were given—at the beginning of one’s Christian commitment. When the author uses the metaphor of infant feeding vis-à-vis adult diet, he again indicates an expectation that there should be a normal growth process in healthy Christian development. He also points to the “food” of which one should be partaking as a Christian—the words of God. The author indicates the outcome—discernment of the distinction between good and evil—that demonstrates growth to maturity has taken place.

The parallels with the modern church are obvious. Rather than being culture-bound, spiritual life and growth are universal needs of Christian experience. The development of believers, therefore, calls for a process by which they move from a state of immaturity to maturity, grounded in faithful teaching of God’s Word. How, then, do we accomplish that goal in our congregations? The question should prompt reflection on appropriate applications of Hebrews 5:11–6:3. The author provides us with a list of the elementary Christian teachings he has in mind: “repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms [notice the plural!], the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”

How does your church do with this list? Is the list comprehensive? Do we have to cover all the topics on the list to apply the passage or be faithful to early Christian teaching? How do we move people along the path of Christian growth? How do we equip them to move from those feeding as babies on the Word to those feeding others? How much of the process depends on the church leadership and how much of it turns on each member’s willingness to be taught? These are the kinds of questions that must be answered as we move to application.

Contemporary Significance

LOVING CONFRONTATION. SUE was a young lady in our singles group. One day she approached me—I was serving as head of the Singles’ Council at the time—and requested we talk privately for a few minutes. Being a single, young man I was thrilled at the opportunity; but our talk had nothing to do with council business or romance. Sue started by thanking me for the job I was doing in leading the group and said she deeply respected my walk with the Lord. Then she said, “I want to share with you what seems to be a weakness in your life. You are so busy and move so fast from one project or person to another you often lose eye-contact with people. By being distracted, failing to maintain eye-contact and looking away from a person, you communicate that that person and what they are saying are not important to you at that moment.”

Sue went on to give examples, showing that the problem, rather than an isolated incident, had a pattern. She also told me about a godly missionary she had known while serving overseas in a journeyman program. This man, with the weight of his vast mission responsibilities on his shoulders, had never failed to stop and listen intensely when Sue needed to talk. He had given her “the gift of his presence.”

Sue’s rebuke was painful but much needed. That encounter, which happened over a decade ago, has made a lasting impression on me. To this day if I am in conversation with a person and my attention begins to falter, Sue’s exhortation comes to mind. I challenge myself, “Focus, George. Give your full attention.” I still struggle with that focus, but that sister in Christ, who risked being misunderstood and becoming the object of my defensiveness, has by her truth-telling had an impact on the way I relate to others.

We understand that in the physical realm health sometimes comes via painful experiences. In the summer of 1980 while at a college retreat I contracted a staph infection under my right arm. I will spare you the details, but when my doctor saw the boil produced by the infection he gasped. I was immediately put in the hospital on an IV; the wound was drained and packed with gauze. When the doctor removed that gauze two days later I felt my arm was being ripped off. To say the experience was painful puts it lightly. I had to make myself vulnerable by raising my arm and allowing the doctor to work on me. The doctor had to be willing to give focused attention to the need and even inflict a bit of pain. Yet, as a result of the process, healing was able to take place.

Truth-telling confrontation has been a fairly consistent dynamic in my life. Sometimes I have been on the receiving end and sometimes on the giving. Most situations that loom in my memory involved a concerned friend addressing a problem in my life. I look back on those times when a brother or sister in Christ lovingly called a flaw to my attention as some of the most beneficial for my own development as a person. Never comfortable. Almost always profitable.

The Apostles’ Creed, a concise summary of Christian teachings used especially in the Western church, says, “I believe in … the communion of the saints.”18 What does it mean for us to live in communion rather than pseudo-community? Among other important relational practices, we must learn to speak and hear the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) if we are to have true unity and growth toward maturity. That is, we must commit to lives that rightly demonstrate the transformation brought about by Christ. Right theology must work its way out in our individual lives, and when this process is thwarted by sin, the sin must be confronted. Unfortunately the easiest course often is to “keep the peace” by keeping quiet. However, as Bill Hybels notes,

When people submerge their true feelings in order to preserve harmony, they undermine the integrity of a relationship. They buy peace on the surface, but underneath there are hurt feelings, troubling questions, and hidden hostilities just waiting to erupt. It’s a costly price to pay for a cheap peace, and it inevitably leads to inauthentic relationships.19

The church must be a “dangerous” place of vulnerability, where love demands more than the guarding of personal ego and truth looms larger than peace. Yes, pain plays a part in this indispensable activity of authenticity. Yet, this pain can be remarkably productive.

As demonstrated in Hebrews 5:11–6:3, this principle of loving confrontation must be a mode of operation at times between one who proclaims the Word of God and those under his or her charge. All bodies of believers need to progress in the faith and in the advancement of the kingdom, and most people need to be challenged from time to time to get back in step with biblical principles. The word that summons believers to evaluate their lives and move on in the pursuit of holiness must be a consistent word from those who preach the Word.

In those situations where the congregation perceives the pastor as “their employee,” where the power brokers of the church place biblical principles in a secondary or tertiary position, this duty can be especially difficult. Many a pastor has been called before the church board to be told he is being too negative in his preaching; that people won’t come to the church if he continues to give them such a hard time; that maybe God is leading him someplace else. But godly confrontation grounded in biblical principles goes with the territory. We must love, educate, and encourage. In a healthy church and in authentic relationships within the church, confrontation is inevitable. The pain and awkwardness accompanying such loving confrontation are not easy for anyone to experience. But “no-talk” rules, if allowed to prevail, will lead to spiritual demise, turning a community of faith into a mere crowd held together by formalities.

What, then, are guidelines for truth-telling? Let me suggest three gleaned from our author’s example in Hebrews 5:11–6:3. (1) The confrontation must be given with the right motive (i.e., to restore those confronted to spiritual health) and in a context of love and encouragement. The one offering the rebuke must go through self-examination to see whether he or she is seeking to minister in the situation out of a broken heart and for the betterment of those being confronted. We must ask whether we seek to build up or tear down, that is, whether we want the other person(s) to walk away renewed or we are simply out to get emotional revenge for our own hurt feelings.

(2) The confrontation must be well thought out and well timed. Off-the-cuff comments offered at an ill-timed moment can be more damaging than helpful. Therefore, we do well to write out our thoughts and pray through them, reflecting on them in light of Scripture. The author’s words in 5:11–6:3 were artistically crafted and, thus, the product of much thought. That he waits until this point in the book—after laying both theological and hortatory groundwork in the first four chapters—speaks volumes. In building his sermon he waits patiently for the right moment to confront the listeners boldly with their problem.

(3) Finally, the person offering the rebuke should also offer specific suggestions for action when appropriate.

Spiritual formation and the modern church. The concept of “discipleship” has undergone a phenomenal transformation in the church over the past two decades. Until the late 1970s and early 1980s discipleship programs were unheard of in many churches. Yet today the expression is used broadly to communicate the concept of spiritual development.

Much of the form associated with the contemporary, grassroots concept of discipleship can be traced back to a California truck driver named Dawson Trotman, who in the late 1920s felt the need for growth in his own spiritual life. Trotman began to apply “spiritual disciplines” to facilitate that growth. These included daily time in the Bible, Scripture memory, regular times of prayer, and evangelism. Others noticed the spiritual growth in Trotman and asked him for help in their own spiritual lives. In 1933, Trotman founded the Navigators, the motto of which became “to know Christ and to make Him known.” The Navigators’ ministry has expanded and become diverse since the days of Trotman. Yet at its heart the ministry has continued to trumpet the need for personal devotion, Bible study, prayer, and personal evangelism. Any person who has benefited from their church’s emphasis on having a “quiet time” or “Scripture memory” is an inheritor of sorts of the Navigators’ influence on contemporary church life.

The established church has not always embraced the concept of discipleship as envisioned by Trotman. Prior to the early 1980s many leaders in established churches rejected any concept they perceived as originating in parachurch groups, including small-group Bible studies in homes and emphasis on “one-on-one” discipleship. Robert Coleman’s little book The Master Plan of Evangelism, published by Revell in 1963, became read widely in the late 1970s and early 1980s, softening church leaders to the concept of discipleship as popularly conceived in the parachurch movements. Also, young adults who had experienced the impact of parachurch ministries like the Navigators and Campus Crusade began to filter back into established churches and brought with them emphases on devotional life and personal evangelism. Thus, pastors were able to witness firsthand the positive effect discipleship ministries had had on their members.

The broad success of the evangelical presses and evangelical periodicals like Christianity Today and Moody Monthly, which included emphases on the spiritual disciplines, added to the concept’s popularization.20 Many denominations began to produce discipleship materials for their churches. By the late 1980s discipleship had become a catchword of contemporary evangelical culture. In addition, various branches of the academic world had, in the 1970s and early 1980s, begun to give serious attention to spiritual formation as well.21 Some works, such as Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline, offered what Elton Trueblood has called an “intellectual integrity” to discussions on the practice of spirituality in Evangelicalism.22

The benefits of our contemporary stress on discipleship, as popularly conceived, lie in the accentuation of personal holiness, Bible study, memorization of Scripture, personal times of prayer, and proclamation of the gospel. We as Christians are to be people of God’s Word, people of prayer, and people seeking to build the kingdom in a variety of ways through personal ministry, including evangelism. These are nonnegotiable as I read the Scriptures and perhaps have fueled the movement in the modern church toward an energetic endorsement of this modern conception of discipleship.

But with the concept’s popularity we need to scrutinize our understanding of spiritual formation in light of biblical teaching and become cognizant of several potential problems with discipleship as popularly conceived. For example, the demarcation in the minds of some between “normal Christians” and “real disciples” leads to an inappropriate view of the Christian life. The term “disciple” (mathetes), which occurs 261 times in the New Testament, was used broadly to refer to all who belonged to the church.23 All Christians are disciples, not just those who have gone through spiritual growth training, and spiritual growth is an expectation of all Christ-followers. When in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20) Jesus said, “Go and make disciples,” he meant, “Go and introduce people to me through the proclamation of the gospel.” The participial clause that follows, “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you,” is applicable to every convert to Christianity, not just to a spiritual elite. Hebrews does, however, make a distinction between those who are spiritually mature and those who are spiritually immature, and such a designation can be helpful.

Another caution has to do with a “disciplines” orientation that measures spirituality by the execution of certain practices. In this orientation one is considered spiritual if one has a daily quiet time, memorizes Scripture, attends Bible study or church, and witnesses to the lost at least once per week. I do not mean to negate the significance of any of these activities, but they must not be seen as the measures of true Christianity lest we produce “human doings” rather than “human beings.” The picture we get of dynamic Christianity from the New Testament is that of a balance between practices of devotion, such as those listed above, and care for others, corporate worship and ministry, and theological/biblical education.

This final point, education in biblical truth, brings us to the main concern of Hebrews 5:11–6:3. C. S. Lewis, addressing the importance of theology for Christian life and practice, has written, “We have to be continually reminded of what we believe”;24 and Dorothy Sayers adds:

In ordinary times we get along surprisingly well, on the whole, without ever discovering what our faith really is. If, now and again, this remote and academic problem is so unmannerly as to thrust its way into our minds, there are plenty of things we can do to drive the intruder away. We can get the car out or go to a party or to the cinema or read a detective story or have a row with a district council or write a letter to the papers about … Shakespeare’s use of nautical metaphor. Thus we build up a defense mechanism against self-questioning because, to tell the truth, we are very much afraid of ourselves.25

Sayers goes on to explain that pushing off theological reflection can only last so long. Life itself has a way of forcing us to deal with theology—that is, what we believe—sooner or later. The difficult experiences of life raise important questions about God and what he is up to. We especially must be focused in the deeper matters of the faith if we are to withstand the fire of persecution. Those who are shallow theologically manifest that superficiality in the face of strong challenges that oppose continued commitment to Christ.

This is not to say that one needs a graduate-school theological education in order to live the Christian life. Rather, the New Testament pattern is to educate God’s people in the tenets of the faith from the beginning of Christian experience, providing them with the basic theological nurturing they will need for this earthly trip and maturing them through ongoing feeding on God’s Word. All who are Christ-followers need systematic teaching of biblical truth, both at the beginning of our spiritual formation and along the way as we grow to maturity. I say it again: We need theology. Mark Shaw, in his creative little book Doing Theology with Huck and Jim: Parables for Understanding Doctrine, begins with the two title characters climbing aboard their raft, embarking on a life free of restraint. Having listed all the aspects of their lives they would not miss, the dialogue continues:

After a time Huck spoke up. “What’d you bring for food? I’m hungry.”

Jim unwrapped his bedroll. His worldly wealth was contained in it. Immediately it was all laid out in full view. There was a hat and some fruit, a pair of socks, a rabbit’s foot and a book. Jim tossed Huck a piece of fruit.

“What’d you bring a book for?” asked Huck with a tone of irritation.

“T’ read,” said Jim, rolling up the blanket again. “What else a book good for?”

“Didn’t think you could read,” Huck said and then wished he hadn’t.

“I can read,” Jim responded with intense seriousness, gazing into the night.

“What kinda book is it?” Huck asked.

“Book ‘bout theology,” Jim said, his voice trailing away.

“Theology! I hate theology almost as much as I hate schools and rules,” Huck said, and emphasized the point by spitting into the river. “What good is a theology book on a trip like this?”

Jim was silent for a long time before he answered. “Trip like this is long. Lotta things gonna happen. Might come in handy.”26

Might come in handy, indeed. We make decisions in life based on our thought processes. Our beliefs, therefore, affect the way we live, the relationships we keep, and the commitments we make or break. Rather than being relegated to the ivory towers of theological education, theology must be taught and “bought” in the nitty-gritty highways and byways of grassroots Christian community. If we are deep in the faith and nurtured on biblical truth, we are better prepared to make the right decisions as we walk the Christian life—decisions in line with perseverance.

The process of theological education, therefore, must not be left up to our church leaders. Leaders cannot force theology down our throats if we are determined to side with Huck in his evaluation of biblical teachings. We have to be fed willingly. The question comes, then, whether we are taking advantage of the biblical truth being afforded us and advancing in the faith by going deeper in the Word? For Hebrews this constitutes a hallmark of Christian growth and should, for all of us, be one measure of true Christian “discipleship.”