What is the “elementary doctrine of Christ” that the writer refers to?

Explanation:

When the author exhorts his readers to move beyond the beginning word of Christ (elementary doctrine of Christ), he clarifies what he means by introducing three pairs of theological teaching (Hebrews 6:1–2), including repentance from dead works and faith in God, washings and the laying on of hands, resurrection and eternal judgment. These three pairs are best understood against the backdrop of the high priestly Christology that the author has been developing from the start of the book.⁴

For example, the call to repentance from dead works and faith in God (Hebrews 6:1) is recalled again in Hebrews 9:14. There the author explains that if the sprinkling with the blood of goats purified the defiled person, how much more so does the blood of Christ purify one’s conscience from dead works to serve God.

Further, the author also introduces teaching on βαπτισμός (ceremonial washing). Later, in Hebrews 9:9–10 the author explains that the Old Testament priestly regulations have to do with various washings that cannot perfect the conscience of believers, while the blood of Christ secures eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12).

In other words, the author is explaining the effectiveness of Christ’s work against the backdrop of Judaism, in order to help his readers understand how Christ fulfils longstanding theological notions of repentance, washings, and the eschaton.

Counterargument:

When the author explains that his audience needs to move beyond the elementary doctrines of Christ, he prefaces this in the previous chapter by stating that they need to learn the elementary principles of God’s Word (Hebrews 5:12). This implies that the author wants his audience to move beyond the basics taught by Scripture, not to reinterpret their Judaism in light of the nature of Christ.

Response to counterargument:

When the author states in Hebrews 5:12 that he wants his audience to move beyond the elementary teachings, he describes these with the phrase (the basic principles [τῶν λογίων] of the oracles of God). The noun λόγιον, though close to the noun λόγος which means word, actually means oracle. In other words, the author is referencing not necessarily Scripture but the sayings or teachings of God. In the context of Hebrews, one of the most fundamental teachings of God is that the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, became the ultimate high priest and source of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:9). This is the high Christology through which the author wants his readers to reinterpret their Jewish customs and beliefs.

Explanation:

The author uses explicitly Jewish concepts and language to characterize his previous teachings, which he identifies as the beginning word of Christ (the elementary doctrine of Christ). For example, when he mentions dead works, this correlates with the dead works of unbelief that lead to eternal loss when the Israelites wandered in the desert before reaching the land of Canaan.⁵

Further, he explains that a foundational belief is faith in God, rather than faith in Christ, in order to connect with the Hebrew audience.⁶ Also, when the author lists the second pair of theological teachings, he introduces the term βαπτισμός. As Christians we are tempted to immediately translate this term as baptism. The problem with doing this is that when the New Testament mentions the baptism of Christian believers, it normally uses the noun βάπτισμα (baptize), not βαπτισμός as we have it in Hebrews 6:2. On the other hand, the New Testament author Mark uses βαπτισμός in conjunction with ceremonial washings (Mark 7:4). Since there are no ceremonial washings in Christianity, it makes most sense that the author is referring to Jewish, not Christian practices.

Finally, the Jewish people had ideas about resurrection and eternal judgment, but these would have been at odds with Christian belief. Given the importance of the resurrection of Jesus and the judgment of God, it is not surprising that the author wants his Jewish audience to move beyond the elementary doctrine of Christ, to see how Christ’s work far surpasses the old Jewish system.

Counterargument:

While it is possible that the three pairs of theological teaching by which the author characterizes the beginning word of Christ are Jewish practices and beliefs, these could just as likely be Christian practices and beliefs. For example, repentance from sin and faith in God are rudimentary Christian practices. Further, Josephus uses the term βαπτισμός to describe the baptism of John, and the laying on of hands has several New Testament correlates including the laying on of hands for healing (Mark 1:41), blessing (Mark 10:13–16), commissioning (Acts 6:6), and imparting of the Spirit (Mark 10:13–16).⁷ Finally, resurrection and eternal judgment are fundamental to the Christian faith.

Response to counterargument:

Christianity comes out of Judaism so there is no surprise that they share common theological concerns. Still, the general themes of Hebrews are Jewish in nature, having to do with how Jesus is the great high priest who essentially fulfils the Jewish religious system. The author is contending with Jewish people and he wants them to understand how the work of Christ relates to, and transforms, their long-held theological notions.

The weakness of this view is that when the author reveals that the elementary doctrine of Christ has to do with repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment, these could just as likely be Christian or Jewish practices and beliefs, without loss of meaning to the text. In other words, the point of Hebrews is to show that Jesus is the supreme high priest who is able to reconcile us to God because he is both God and man. His work is far superior to the old Jewish customs, which can never clear the conscience of the worshipper (Hebrews 9:9). Whether the author desires his audience to move beyond the basic beliefs and practices of Christianity, or Judaism, his point is that they grow in their knowledge of salvation through Christ. We are right to think that the original audience understood the content of the elementary doctrines of Christ, but in the end, there is enough ambiguity that there is no way for us to know with certainty.⁸

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews calls his readers to leave behind the beginning word of/about Christ. At first glance, it is not clear what the author of Hebrews means. This is partly because of Christ could be taken in the sense of “the beginning word about Christ” or “the beginning word of Christ.” In other words, is the author referring to the words that Christ taught or is he referring to the words about Christ as taught by the church and the apostles?

The phrase would remain ambiguous if it were not for Hebrews 6:1–2, which reveals that the author has Christian belief and practice in mind. In Hebrews 6:1b the author explains what he means by the beginning word of Christ when he offers three sets of phrases to clarify the statement. First, the beginning word of Christ is the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God. The first component of spiritual formation is repentance (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19), followed up by placing one’s faith in Christ.¹⁴ Next there is instruction about the beginning stages of Christian practice related to baptism, which might refer to ceremonial washing and the laying on of hands.¹⁵ Finally, he mentions the theological cornerstones of resurrection and the judgment at the end of the age.¹⁶

When taken together, we see that the author is using the phrase the beginning of the word of Christ to include the basics of conversion, Christian practice, and theological knowledge. Thus, the phrase could be paraphrased to mean something like the elementary doctrines of Christian faith and practice.

Counterargument:

When the author explains that he wants to move beyond the beginning of the word of Christ, he does clarify what he means with three pairs of statements. Still, these statements do not necessarily refer to Christian beliefs and practices but could just as likely refer to Jewish beliefs and practices (see Interpretation 1). For example, repentance from dead works is a standard covenantal concept that is located throughout the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 4:30; Deuteronomy 30:2; Isaiah 6:10),¹⁷ along with faith in God (Hab 2:4). Further, the author uses the plural form of βαπτισμός (baptism/ceremonial washing), which could just as likely refer to baptism as Jewish ceremonial washings.¹⁸ In fact, the plural nudges both the NIV and the ESV to translate βαπτισμός (baptism/ceremonial washing) as ceremonial washings. Further, there were definite Jewish beliefs concerning the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.¹⁹

All of this is to say that it is entirely possible that the author of Hebrews is referring to the teachings of Jesus as they relate to Jewish practices, as he is the more comprehensive notion of Christian belief and practice. In other words, the author could be reminding his Jewish audience that they already know what Jesus taught when it comes to Jewish notions of repentance from dead works, faith in God, baptisms, and so on. Now they need to consider Jesus’ teachings in terms of deeper matters.

Response to counterargument:

Based on the context, it is hard to see how the three pairs of theological teachings could refer to Jewish beliefs and practices rather than Christian beliefs and practices. Hebrews 6:1 begins with the conjunction διο (therefore) which indicates a connection, or concluding thought, to what was written previously. The author has been highlighting the Son’s divinity, and when we look back on Hebrews 5:5–10, he highlights his humanity through his obedience. This obedience makes the Son the perfect high priest. The author then exhorts the reader for not yet reaching maturity in their understanding of the word of God (Hebrews 5:11–14). Now we reach the conjunction διὸ (therefore), and the author’s call to go beyond the beginning word of Christ. All throughout, the author has been emphasizing Christ and the efficacy of his work as a high priest. These are explicitly Christian notions, so when the author pushes his readers to develop beyond the beginning word of Christ, there is no surprise that he now refers to Christian belief and practice.

The weakness of this view is similar to the weakness of Interpretation 1. The author is ambiguous, and there are so many correlations between Judaism and Christianity that it is impossible to know for certain whether Hebrews 6:1–2 describes Christian belief and practice or Jewish belief and practice. This weakness is compounded even further for interpretation 2 because there is a strong tradition that Hebrews was written specifically to Hebrew Christians.^20,21 If this is the case, the author is motivated to explain the difference between Christianity and Judaism, so there is no surprise that the elementary doctrine of Christ has to do with understanding aspects of Judaism in light of Christ’s work.