STRIVING FOR EPIDEICTIC EXCELLENCE:

THE RHETORIC OF HEBREWS

Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Amos Professor of NT for Doctoral Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary

PROLEGOMENA
Long ago Origen warned us that God only knows who the author of Hebrews is,
but this has not prevented endless speculation in the last 2,000 years. Part of asking and
answering that question is asking and answering the question--why is this document
anonymous? Is it because the author is neither an eyewitness nor an apostle? This
hardly seems likely to be the cause since we have other documents in the NT attributed to
non-eyewitnesses and non-apostles such as Luke’s two volumes, or the Revelation of the
seer John of Patmos. Is it because the author is a woman? This is possible but elsewhere
women who played important ministry roles are named in Christian circles without any
reservation. It is of course possible that the author is so well known to the audience that
there was no need for such an identification here. I would suggest however, that while
that may be true, there is another primary reason for the anonymity of this document.
This document, like 1 John is a homily1, in fact D.J. Harrington has called it
“arguably the greatest Christian sermon ever written down”2 It does not partake of the
qualities of a letter except at the very end of the document (Heb. 13.22-25), and these
epistolary features are added because this sermon had to be sent to the audience rather
than delivered orally to them by the author. In fact, H. Thyen, after studying all the
evidence for early Jewish homilies, has argued that Hebrews is the only completely
preserved Jewish homily of the period, but this is overlooking 1 John, and James as well.3
Sermon manuscripts, ancient or modern, do not conform to the characteristics of
an ancient letter with addressor or addressee expected at the outset. Neither do other
rhetorical forms of speaking, and make no mistake this document involves rhetoric of
1
See rightly D.A.Hagner, Encountering the Book of Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), p. 29.
2
D.J. Harrington, What are They Saying about The Letter to the Hebrews? (N.Y.: Paulist Press, 2005), p. 1.
3
H. Thyen, Der Stil der judisch-hellenistichen Homilie, (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1955), p.
106. One should compare the more recent discussion in F. Seigert, Drei hellenistich-judische Predigten,
(Tubingen: Mohr, 1992). On Hebrews as a homily see J. Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’
to the Hebrews,” NovT 11 (1969), pp. 261-69; J.C. McCullough, “Some Recent Developments in Research
on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980), pp. 141-65.
considerable skill. Hebrews then, to use an oxymoron, an oral document, and in fact a
particular type of oral document—a homily in the form of a ‘word of exhortation’ as Heb.
13.22 puts it. It is not an accident that this is the very same phrase used to characterize
Paul’s sermon in Acts 13.15. Hebrews is not a haphazard discourse but a piece of
polished rhetoric which has been variously categorized as either epideictic or deliberative
rhetoric or some combination of the two (see below). Here the point that needs to be
made is that the document’s authority rests in its contents, not in its author’s claims to
apostolic authority and its contents are grounded in the shared values the author and
audience already embrace and affirm. To judge from the end of Heb. 13 it is assumed,
but not argued for, that this author has some authority over this audience who knows very
well who he is, and can anticipate a visit from him and Timothy before long. The oral
and homiletical character of the document cannot be stressed enough. Here is how one
professor of homiletics puts it:
Hebrews, like all good sermons, is a dialogical event in a monological format.
The Preacher does not hurl information and arguments at the readers as if they were
targets. Rather, Hebrews is written to create a conversation, to evoke participation, to
prod the faithful memories of the readers. Beginning with the first sentence, ‘us’ and ‘we’
language abounds. Also, the Preacher employs rhetorical questions to awaken the voice
of the listener (see 1.5 and 1.14 for example); raps on the pulpit a bit when the going gets
sluggish (5.11); occasionally restates the main point to insure that even the inattentive
and drowsy are on board (see 8.1); doesn’t bother to ‘footnote’ the sources the hearers
already know quite well (see the familiar preacher’s phrase in 2.6: “Someone has said
somewhere…”); and keeps making explicit verbal contact with the listeners (see 3.12 and
6.9, for example) to remind them that they are not only supposed to be listening to this
sermon, they are also, by their active hearing, to be a part of creating it. As soon as we
experience the rise and fall of the opening words of Hebrews, the reader becomes aware
that they are not simply watching a roller coaster hurtle along the rhetorical tracks; they
are in the lead car. In Hebrews, the gospel is not merely an idea submitted for intellectual
consideration; it is a life-embracing demand that summons to action.4

What we are able to say here is that since this homily is meant to be heard in the
context of worship, we should evaluate it in that light. In worship one praises God for
what he has done and is, and one draws near to Him as this letter exhorts us to do, but in
worship we also hear and learn what we must go forth and do. Hebrews then is a vehicle
for worship that leads to the right sort of service. The progression may be seen as follows

4
T. Long, Hebrews, (Louisville: J. Knox Press, 1997), p. 6.
– “since we have” (indicative)... “let us draw near” (imperative based on indicative)... “so
we may hold fast “(possibility created by the first two steps). What the believer already
has, provides the basis for and enables his response. The point is that now believers are
better equipped to respond, since the final work of God through Christ has already come
to pass. The work of God has affected what believers are, and therefore has enabled them
to do what they must do. A.T. Lincoln suggests that our author believes the OT provides
the following for the Christian: 1) it provides aspirations which only Christ can fulfill; 2)
it offer a vision of our telos and perfection i.e. we are to have dominion over the cosmos,
and already have it in Christ; 3) it offers a dream of the day when we cease from our
labors and enter into God's rest; 4) it offers a desire to be free of sin's stain, and a
recognition that sin against God and fellow humans is the essential human problem; 5) it
offers a longing for free access into the divine presence; 6) it provides picture language--
shadows and copies to prepare for the coming of Christ and God's final word; 7) in
Melchizedek it provides a partial anticipation of the eternal priest and new covenant. To
this we may add that it offers paraenesis, which our author sees as often just as applicable
to his own audience as to the OT ones.5
One more crucial thing, and it provides a clear and crucial key to the sort of
rhetoric we have here. The use of inartificial proofs to reinforce and aid in the
maintenance of existing values, values already embraced by the audience, was
characteristic of epideictic rhetoric. If we ask how the OT quotations are consistently
used, and to what end, the answer is to the end of reinforcing pre-existing patterns of
praise and/or blame, already embraced patterns of belief and behavior. Epideictic
rhetoric was indeed the rhetoric of sermons, just as praise was the language of worship,
and in this discourse called ‘to the Hebrews’ we find an eloquent and harmonious
convergence of these various factors to serve epideictic ends, as we shall see.

THE ISSUES OF STYLE AND FORM

Detailed attention to the Greek style of Hebrews has been given by a variety of
scholars, not only to demonstrate that the author has a rather different style than we find

5
I was fortunate enough to have A.T. Lincoln as my instructor in the exegesis of Hebrews in seminary,
and at various junctures this commentary is indebted to his many insights, most of which have sadly never
been published.
in the undisputed Paulines, but also because this author knows how to use prose rhythm
effectively as well as a whole host of rhetorical devices ranging from alliteration to
anaphora to assonance to asyndeton to hyperbole to rhetorical comparisons to a greater
degree than any other NT writer.6 These points deserve to be illustrated each in turn.
We may note at this juncture that there are some 4,942 words in Hebrews and
1,038 different words, and there are some very elegant Greek periods in this work,
suggesting we are dealing with a rather well educated man with a considerable
vocabulary and facility with Greek and a considerable knowledge and understanding of
the OT. There are some 169 hapax legomenae, words not found elsewhere in the NT,
including the use of various philosophical terms that speak to the educational background
and sophistication of our writer.7 We may also note the some 90 words which are found
in only one other NT document, as well as some ten words never found in Greek
literature from before the time of Hebrews.8 There is a general consensus that we have
the finest Greek in the NT if we are talking about Greek style which even goes beyond
the Pauline standard both in vocabulary and sentence building.9
We should add as well that our author is deeply indebted to the vivid visual
imagery one finds in earlier Jewish sapiential and prophetic literature, so he speaks of a
ship missing a harbor (2.1) or a double edged sword that penetrates to the innermost parts
of a human being (4.12), or an anchor gripping the sea bottom (6.19), or fields watered by
rain and producing either harvestable crops or weeds (6.7-8), or best of all, the vivid use
of Sinai theophany imagery at the end of Heb. 12 to bring his peroration to a conclusion.
It needs to be stressed at this point, since this is a document which was meant to be heard,
that no one listening to this discourse would have thought this was a letter because the
few epistolary elements we have do not come until the end of the document, much too
late to signal what sort of document Hebrews’ audience was meant to think it was.
Lincoln puts it this way: “Actually, once it is granted that the writer knows his addressees
and is prevent by absence from delivering his homily in person, the epistolary conclusion
6
See the discussion in C. Koester, Hebrews, (N.Y.: Doubleday, 2001), pp.92-96.
7
The most expansive list of rhetorical and literary devices and features can be found in C. Spicq, L’Epitre
aux Hebreux Vol. 1 (Paris” Librairie Lecoffre, 1952-53), pp. 351-78.
8
See L.T. Johnson, Hebrews (Louisville: Westminster/J. Knox, 2006), p. 8.
9
N. Turner, “The Style of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in MHT Vol. 4. (Edinburgh: T+T Clark, 1976) pp.
145-53. Cf. B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (London: MacMillan, 1909), pp. xliv-xlvi; or C.
Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, Vol. 1 (Paris: Librarie Lecoffre, 1952-53), pp. 365-66.
makes good sense.”10 It was a necessary expedient since this discourse had to be written
when the author was at a distance from the audience.
Here we may point out that the making visual and vivid use of the rhetoric was
especially characteristic of epideictic rhetoric so well known for its mesmerizing and
grandiloquent amplification techniques. What is especially interesting is that despite the
imagery often used, it is clear our author is addressing city dwellers who have to be
reminded they do not have a permanent earthly city to rely on (13.14), reminded as well
to practice hospitality with those who come their way, visit and identify with those in
prison, avoid inappropriate social interaction of a sexual nature, not give way to greed
and crass materialistic patterns of living (all in Heb. 13).
As William Lane says, these sorts of reminders at the end of the discourse bear
witness to the urban setting of the audience, and, we might add, at least in some cases the
social status and affluence of at least some of the audience. The poor do not need to be
warned against hoarding wealth and crass materialism.11 The educational sophistication
of at least some of the audience is also presumed in light of the complexity of the rhetoric
and its far from simple usage of the OT. “They have an easy familiarity with the stories
of the Bible, to which the writer can refer without elaboration (cf. 12.17, “for you
know…” with reference to the story of Esau, who was deprived of Isaac’s blessing). The
writer is confident that he can win a hearing for what he wished to say by employing
vocabulary sanctioned by the Greek Scriptures.”12
In regard to the prose style and rhythm of the work, we are indebted to the careful
study of James Moffatt and shall share some of his insights at this juncture13, bearing in
mind that this document was intended to be read aloud, indeed probably even performed
as a sermon: 1) as I have previously noted was the case with that epideictic homily
Ephesians,14 there are numerous long carefully constructed sentences in Hebrews (1.1-4;
2.2-4; 2.14-15; 3.12-15; 4.12-13; 5.1-3; 5.7-10; 6.4-6; 6.16-20; 7.1-3; 8.4-6; 9.2-5; 9.6-
10; 9.24-26; 10.11-13; 10.19-25; 11.24-26; 12.1-2; 12.18-24), yet there are also a goodly

10
A. T. Lincoln, Hebrews. A Guide, (London: T+T Clark, 2006), p. 14.
11
W. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, (Waco: Word, 1991), p. liii.
12
Lane, p. liv.
13
J. Moffatt, Hebrews, (Edinburgh: T+T Clark, 1924), pp. lvi-lxiv.
14
On which see Witherington and D. Hyatt, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007).
number of pithy and very effective short sentences (cf. 2.18; 4.3; 10.18), and even one
example of diatribe style (3.16-18) which was appropriate in popular preaching. 2) our
author is a master at plays on words involving assonance (cf. parakaleite…kaleitai in
3.13; or emathen… epathen in 5.8; or kalou te kai kakou in 5.14; or menousan..
mellousan in 13.14). 3) “From first to last he is addicted to the gentle practice of
alliteration”15 beginning from the very first words of the discourse polumeros kai
polutropos palai…tois patrasin en tois prophetais” 3) care is taken with the cadences
of prose rhythm which reflects a knowledge of the rhetorical rules about iambus, anapests
and the like (see Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.8.6-7);16 4) like Paul (and perhaps a sign of
indebtedness to Paul) our author has a fondness for compound verbs with the syn prefix;
5) he is equally fond of rhetorical questions, and indeed other sorts of questions as well,
even double and triple dramatic questions in a row (cf. 2.3-4; 7.11; 9.13-14; 10.29;
11.32; 12.9 for single questions; 1.5; 1.13-14; 12.5-7 for double questions, and for the
triple question 3.16-18). 6) our author is given to using explanatory asides, sometimes
weighty ones (cf. 2.16; 3.7-11; 5.13-14; 7.12,19; 8.5; 10.4; 11.13-16; 11.38; 13.14) and
often these are used to explain an OT phrase according to our author’s hermeneutic (4.10;
6.13; 7.2,7; 10.8); On the other hand the author carefully avoids hiatus (i.e. the ending of
one word with a vowel which begins the next word); and unlike Paul he also avoid
anacoluthon--breaks in grammatical sequence. We find anaphora (a series of lines
beginning with the same word) in Heb 11 in fact 18 sentences in a row begin with the
word pistei by faith. 7) the author also seems to reflect not only a knowledge of koine but
also of classical Greek, for only in this document do we find such classical phrases as Ei
men in 6.14; or the use of pou in 2.6,4.4, or the use of pros ton Theon in 2.17. Notice
that we also have oratorical imperatives like “take heed” 3.12; “consider” 3.1,7.4; “call to
remembrance” 10.32 which reflect the oral character and rhetorical orientation of the
author. 8) The author also reflects a knowledge of both Jewish Wisdom literature and
philosophical Hellenistic writings (on the latter compare his use of the term “will” in a
manner like the Stoics, or “the final goal” in fashion like Epictetus). Occasionally our
author uses words and phrases in a way similar to Philo (such as moral faculty,

15
Moffatt, p. lx.
16
See Moffatt, pp.lvi-lvii.
Demiurge, moderate ones feelings towards, bring to perfection, nemesis, model). Thus,
one can say our author not only has a considerable vocabulary, he also seems to have
read rather widely (which is certainly possible if he lived for a time near the greatest
library in the then known world in Alexandria). Moffatt concludes that he knew not only
the LXX but Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the various Maccabees books, and perhaps
even Philo.17 Moffatt ends by noting that our author has the style of a trained orator, “he
has an art of words, which is more than an unconscious sense of rhythm”, and he operates
as a preacher whose first duty is to be faithful but his second duty is to be eloquent.18 D.
Aune is even more emphatic: “The author obviously enjoyed the benefits of a Hellenistic
rhetorical education through the tertiary level”.19 This provides a natural segue to our
discussion of the rhetoric of Hebrews.

THE RHETORICAL DISCUSSION PROPER

We are now well served in regard to the rhetorical discussion of Hebrews and the
consensus of opinion is not only that this document reflects macro-rhetoric (the various
divisions of a rhetorical speech) as well as micro-rhetoric but that its species is either
deliberative or epideictic or some combination of the two. In other words, there is
agreement that it is definitely not judicial or forensic rhetoric20, and also that the
recognition of individual rhetorical devices, which certainly are plentiful in Hebrews,
does not take the full measure of the way our author uses rhetoric.
There are rather clear clues in the document itself as to what sort of rhetoric it is.
Bearing in mind that paraenesis or exhortation could be found in both deliberative and
epideictic rhetoric, we must consider what the author is trying to accomplish by this
rhetorical masterpiece. Consider the following statements in the discourse: 1) 2.1—“we
must pay more careful attention therefore to what we have [already] heard, so that we do

17
Moffatt, p. lxi.
18
Moffatt, p. lxiv.
19
D Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), p.
212.
20
Ironically enough the first major treatment of the rhetoric of this document in the twentieth century by
H.F. von Soden was in terms of forensic rhetoric. See his Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte: Die Schriften
des Neuen Testaments, (Berlin: Dunker, 1905), pp. 127-28. More influential was his conclusion that
Hebrews follows the pattern of a rhetorical speech with 1.1-4 being the exordium, 1.5-4.16 being the
proposition or thematic statement, 5.1- the end of 6 being a statement of the plausibility of the case, Heb.
7.1-10.18 being the proof or proofs, and Heb. 10.19-13.25 being the peroration.
not drift away”; 2) 3.1—“therefore holy brothers and sisters who share in the heavenly
calling fix your thoughts on Jesus”; 3) 3.12--- “see to it, brothers and sisters, that none
of you…turns away from the living and true God”; 4) 4.1--- “Therefore, since the
promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to
have fallen short of it” ; 5) 4.14 ‘therefore… let us hold firmly to the faith we profess…”
6) 6.1, 11 “therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to
maturity… we want each of you to show this same diligence to the end…we do not want
you to become lazy but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has
been promised ” 7) 10.22-23, 35 “let us draw near to God with a sincere heart…. Let us
hold unswervingly to the hope we profess…. Do not throw away your confidence…” 8)
10.39—“we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed” 9) 12.1—“let us throw
off everything that hinders.. and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us”
10) 12.14-15-- “let us make every effort to live in peace…see to it that no one misses the
grace of God”; 11) 13.1-- “keep on loving each other as brothers and sisters”; 12) the
discourse as a whole is called a word of exhortation in a brief (!) letter – 13.22. As G. H.
Guthrie has rightly pointed out, the alternating back and forth between exposition and
exhortation with the latter being the punch line, makes evidence that this discourse exists
for the sake of the exhortation which directly addresses the issue of concern. Thus one
must stress that “the expositional material serves the hortatory purpose of the whole
work.”21
If we look at all of this carefully it seems very clear that this discourse is not
about urging a change in direction, or a new policy, nor is the author correcting obvious
new problems in belief or behavior. Further, the author is not trying to produce concord
or reconciliation in the audience, he is rather trying to shore up their faith in the face of
pressure, suffering, and the temptation to defect. He is trying to confirm the audience in
a faith and practice they already have, urging them to stand firm against the dangers of
apostasy and wandering away, and stay the course with perseverance continuing to run in
the direction they are already going, and have been going since they first believed, thus
going on to perfection and exhibiting their faith and perseverance. This sort of act of

21
G. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews. A Text-Linguistic Analysis, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 143.
persuasion is surely epideictic in character, appealing to the values and virtues the
audience has already embraced in the past.22
The focus of the rhetoric in this document is furthermore, clearly in the present.
Our author focuses on what Christ is now doing as the heavenly high priest, what the
audience is and ought to continue to be doing in the present, and there is the appeal to
continue to imitate the forbears in the faith and Christ himself. The appeal to imitation
can be found in either deliberative or epideictic rhetoric, in the latter case it is an appeal
to continue to imitate the models they already know of and have looked to. When we
couple all this with the doxological beginning of the discourse in Heb. 1, and the worship
climax in 12.18-27, it seems clear that this discourse maintains an epideictic flavor
throughout. Most rhetorically adept homilies in any case fell into the category of
epideictic rhetoric.
Also comporting with this conclusion is that we do not have formal arguments in
this discourse, but rather one long act of persuasion that involves comparisons,
enthymemes, repetition, amplification, use of catchwords, and a toggling between
exposition of texts (that provide the inartificial proofs or witnesses to the truths the
audience is being reminded of) and application or paraenesis. Furthermore, after the
exordium in 1.1-4 it was not necessary to have a ‘narratio’ or ‘propositio’ since in effect
there is only one long argument or act of persuasion in various parts throughout the
discourse. The encomium of faith in Heb. 11 does not stand out from its context as if it
were some sort of digression or different type of rhetoric, or a rhetorical anomaly in the
midst of a non-rhetorical document.23 Also comporting with the conclusion that this is
epideictic rhetoric is the enormous amount of honor and shame language used in this
discourse to make sure that the audience will continue to be faithful in their beliefs and

22
See the conclusion of Lane, Hebrews 1-8, p. c: “The purpose of Hebrews is to strengthen, encourage, and
exhort the tired and weary members of a house church to respond with courage and vitality to the prospect
of renewed suffering in view of the gifts and resources God has lavished upon them. The writer’s intention
is to address the sagging faith of men and women within the group and to remind them of their
responsibility to live actively in response to God’s absolute claim upon their lives through the Gospel.”
See also C. Koester, “Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity,” CBQ 64 (2002), pp. 103-23.
23
On Hebrews 11 as an encomium see G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical
Criticism, (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1984), p. 156. cf. M. R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and
Function of Hebrews 11, (Macon: Mercer, 1988).
behavior and life trajectory, not slipping back into pre-Christian forms of religion, in this
case non-Christian Jewish ones.24
Most ancient commentators who were rhetorically attuned saw Hebrews as
epideictic in character, and of modern commentators, Lane, Attridge, and Olbricht have
all opted for seeing Hebrews as basically epideictic in character, with Olbricht
concluding it most resembles a funeral encomium.25 Koester and L. Thuren see the
document as a mixture of deliberative and epideictic rhetoric as do Luke Timothy
Johnson and A. T. Lincoln,26 while W.G. Ubelacker urges that we have deliberative
rhetoric here,27 a conclusion Lindars also reached.28 Lindars provides no justification
for this conclusion at all, and Ubelacker’s analysis suffers, as Thuren has pointed out,
from the fact that he tries to find a ‘narratio’ and a ‘propositio’ where there is not one.
Heb. 1.5-2.18 is no ‘narratio’ (a narration of relevant past facts) any more than it is an
‘exordium’—the latter is limited to 1.1-4. In the case of Johnson and Lincoln, they are
certainly right that the expositions lead to the exhortations and serve the latter, but
exhortations are as common a feature of epideictic as deliberative rhetoric. It is the
nature or character of the exhortation that decides the issue here, and a careful analysis
of all the paraenesis in this documents shows that it is aiming to help the audience
maintain beliefs and behaviors they have already embraced. In other words, the
exhortations are epideictic in character, as are the expositions.
We also have no ‘propositio’ in this discourse which should have been a dead
giveaway that we are dealing with epideictic rhetoric, the effusive, emotive, and often
hyperbolic rhetoric of praise and blame The author is not trying to prove a thesis but
rather praise some important things—Christ and faith for instance. To the contrary, at
Heb. 1.5 we dive right into the first part of the discourse itself which entails an exposition
of Scripture involving a negation that God ever spoke of or to the angels in the way he

24
See the detailed study of D. de Silva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) and now L.T. Johnson, Hebrews, Louisville:
Westminster/J. Knox, 2006) who is much indebted to de Silva on this front.
25
See especially T.H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” in Rhetoric in the New Testament, eds. S.
Porter and Olbricht, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 42-58.
26
For L. Thuren see “The General New Testament Writings” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, pp.589-
92. See Johnson, Hebrews, pp. 12-15, and also Lincoln, Hebrews. A Guide, (London: T+T Clark, 2006),
pp. 14-22.
27
W.G. Ubelacker, Der Hebraerbrief als Appell, (Lund: Almquist and Wiksell, 1989) pp. 185-92.
28
B. Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” NTS 35 (1989), pp.382-406.
spoke of Christ. This is followed by the exhortation in 2.1-4 that builds upon it. While
Thuren is right that 1.5ff. amplifies the exordium, it certainly ought not to be seen as
simply part of the exordium.29
After seeing 1.1-2.4 as the exordium, Koester suggests that 2.5-9 is the
‘propositio’ of the whole discourse30, but this simply does not work. Heb. 2.5-9 is not a
thesis statement that is then demonstrated in all the subsequent arguments. Far too much
of what follows is not about Christ’s superior position, condition, and nature, especially
from Heb. 11.1 on to the close of the discourse, but we could also point to much of Heb.
4 and 6 as well. The issue is both Christology and paraenesis or the imitation of Christ
and Christ-likeness as the author does not want the audience to commit either intellectual
or moral apostasy. It comes down ultimately to whether they will continue to admire,
emulate and worship Jesus Koester is however right that the peroration begins in Heb.
12, though not at 12.28. It is best to see that in terms of macro-rhetoric we have a simple
structure here:
1) exordium--- 1.1-4. Notice how the beginning of the discourse is linked to this
exordium through using hook words, preparing for the comparison with angels
who are introduced in 1.4.31
2) the epideictic discourse composed of one long unfolding act of persuasion or
sermon in many parts--- 1.5-12.17. This part can of course be profitably divided
up into some subsections. For example. Morna Hooker suggests a chiastic
structure as follows:
3.1-4.13 Imagery of Pilgrimage, Including first warning
4.14-5.10 Introduction of idea of Jesus as High Priest
5.11-6.12 First severe warning
6.13.-10.18 Jesus our High Priest
10.19-32 Second severe warning
10.32.-11.40 The Importance of Faith

29
L. Vaganay, “Le plan de l’Epitre aux Hebreux,” in Memorial Lagrange (Paris: Gabalda Press, 1940),
pp. 269-277 rightly argues that only Heb. 1.1-4 should be seen as the exordium.
30
Koester, Hebrews, pp. 84-85.
31
See now the detailed study on the rhetorical technique of using hook words to link sections of a
discourse together. By Bruce Longenecker, Rhetoric at the Boundaries, (Waco: Baylor U. Press, 2005).
 12.1-29 Imagery of Pilgrimage, Including final warning.32 On this showing the
theme of Christ as the heavenly high priest is central to the whole discourse. This
makes excellent sense, and one could even talk about the imagery of placing
visually Christ in the inner sanctum of the heavenly sanctuary just as he is placed
at the center of the discourse verbally.

3) ‘peroration’ with concluding benediction—12.18-29--- the emotional climax

of the argument comes here with the pilgrims assembled at the holy mountain and
exhorted finally to worship God acceptably.33 This is followed, as is typical of all
the expository sections, with
4) a final paraenesis in 13.1-21 which sums up some of the major exhortations of
the discourse-- behave responsibly, persevere steadfastly, and pray fervently, be
prepared to ‘go outside the camp’ as Jesus did. Thus interestingly the peroration
is the emotional climax of the theological rhetoric whereas 13.1-21 is the emotive
exhortation climaxing the ethical rhetoric.34 This is the same sort of thing we
find in Ephesians, another example of epideictic rhetoric, where the discourse
does not stop at the peroration but offers up some concluding exhortations that
sum some things up.
5) Because this sermon is written down, there are some concluding epistolary
elements---13.22-25 (such as the explanation of the reason for writing, personalia,
concluding greetings and a concluding grace wish). We will unpack this structure
much more fully in a moment.
The function of an exordium was to establish rapport with the audience and make
them favorably disposed to hear what follows. One way to accomplish this is to use

32
Morna Hooker, “Christ the ‘End’ of the Cult”
33
See rightly Lincoln, Hebrews. A Guide, p. 17.
34
On the entire rhetorical structure I am in basic agreement with Lincoln, Hebrews. A Guide, pp. 24-25.
The argument that Heb. 13 was not originally part of this document has no textual basis, and has been
refuted at length in terms of the issues of style and content by a variety of scholars. See F. Filson,
‘Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in Light of Chapter 13, (Naperville: Allenson, 1967), and the summary
by Lane, Hebrews 1-8, p.lxviii. From what we can tell about the Jewish homily in the Diaspora, it
normally concluded with a final exhortation anyway. See Witherington, Letters and Homilies of the NT,
Vol. 1 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), pp. 20-25 and Thyen, Stil, pp. 87-96, 106-110. See also
W.R. Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New
Testament, ed. D.E. Aune (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 51-69
highly elevated and eloquent language at the outset which will immediately get the
audience’s attention. We certainly have this in Heb. 1.1-4 where our author unloads a
variety of rhetorical devices including a great deal of alliteration, impressive sounding
phrases (‘radiance of his glory’). It was important for the style to suit the subject matter.
Thus Koester is right to note that the “elevated style of Hebrews’ exordium suits the
grandeur of its subject matter: the exalted Son of God.”35 We see the same sort of exalted
style in Heb. 11.1-12.3 where the other main thing that is praised in this discourse, faith,
is discoursed on at length. As Aristotle stressed, such elevated prose can impress and
help gain the favor of the audience, appeal to their imaginations, and make clear that an
important subject is going to be dealt with here (see Rhetoric, 3.6.1-7). It was a rhetorical
must that weighty matters not be treated in an offhand matter, nor trifling things be
invested with too much dignity (Rhetoric, 3.7.1-2). “When our audience finds [a speech]
a pleasure to listen to, their attention and their readiness to believe what they hear are
both increased” (Instit. Or. 8.3.5). In an oral culture, how something sounded had
everything to do with whether it would be listened to, much less believed. It is hard to
over-estimate the importance of the oral dimensions of the text in helping to persuade the
audience of the content of the discourse.
As Olbricht has pointed out, in a rhetorical encomium there are standing aspects
of a person’s life which will be praised—his noble birth, illustrious ancestors, education,
fame, offices held and titles, wealth, his physical virtues (e.g. strength), his moral virtues,
and his death. Without question many of these topics surface in the praise of Jesus in this
sermon.36 We may also point out that the comparisons (synkrisis)37 we have in this
discourse, for example between Jesus and the angels, or Jesus and Melchizedek, or Jesus
and Moses, or the believer’s current life compared to what will be the case if they commit
apostasy or go in a retrograde motion into a form of religion that will not save them
follows the conventions of epideictic rhetoric in regard to such comparisons. The
function of such comparisons in an epideictic discourse is to demonstrate the superiority
35
Koester, Hebrews , p. 93.
36
See Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” p. 278. One of the reasons it does not work to say that we
have both deliberative and epideictic in this discourse is that we do not have discreet arguments, but rather
one long continuous one. There are, for instance, no deliberative digressions in this discourse, rather we
have a series of topics which are praised (e.g. Christ, faith) as well as negative behavior which is ‘blamed’
or warned against.
37
On this rhetorical device see at length Letters and Homilies of the NT Vol. 1, pp.138-43.
of that one person or thing which is being praised (see Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.9.38-39;
Rhet. Alex. 1441a27-28). Andrew T. Lincoln ably sums up how ‘comparison’ functions
in Hebrews:
Synkrisis, [is] a rhetorical form that compares representatives of a type in
order to determine the superiority of one over another. It functions as a means of
praise or blame by comparison and makes the comparison in terms of family,
natural endowments, education, achievements and death. In Hebrews various
earlier figures or types of Christ are seen as lesser by comparison with him and
family relations (Christ as divine Son) education (learning perfection through
suffering) and death (the achievement of Christ’s sacrificial death) all feature in
the comparison. This sort of argument structures the discourse because, as in an
encomium, a discourse in praise of someone, the synkrisis is used for the purpose
of moral exhortation. So in Hebrews, the comparison of angels and the Son, of
Moses and Christ, of Aaron and Christ, of the levitical priesthood and Christ, of
the old covenant and the new covenant, is in each case followed by paraenesis.38

In this discourse it is Christ’s superiority and the superiority of faith in Christ and
following his example which is being praised, and this is contrasted with falling away,
defecting, avoiding shame or suffering. Christ is the model of despising shame and
maintaining one’s course in life faithfully to the end, and indeed of being ‘perfected’
through death—sent directly into the realm of the perfect.39 While the emphasis in this
discourse is mainly on that which is praiseworthy, our author does not hesitate to
illustrate blameworthy behavior, for example the unfaith and apostasy of the wilderness
wandering generation is pointed out (Heb. 3.7-19). In fact rhetorical comparison can be
said to be the major structuring device for the whole discourse right to its climax in the
peroration at the end of Heb. 12 as our author exalts the better mediator, the better
sacrifice, the better covenant, the better example of faith, and the better theophany, all by
means of rhetorical synkrisis not with something that is bad, but rather only with
something that is less glorious or adequate or able to save people.40
One more thing can be stressed at this point. Epideictic rhetoric characteristically
would use a lot of picture language, visual rhetoric so that “you seem to see what you
describe and bring it vividly before the eyes of your audience” and thus “attention is
drawn from the reasoning to the enthralling effect of the imagination” (Longinus, On the
38
Lincoln, Hebrews. A Guide, p. 19.
39
See D. De Silva, Perseverance in Gratitude. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 34-35.
40
As is so clearly demonstrated by C.F. Evans, The Theology of Rhetoric. The Epistle to the Hebrews,
(London: Williams Trust, 1988).
Sublime, 15.1,11). Epideictic rhetoric persuades as much by moving the audience with
such images, and so enthralling them, catching them up in love, wonder and praise. The
appeal to the emotions is prominent in such rhetoric, stirred up by the visual images.
Consider for example the beginning of the peroration in Heb. 12.22 where we
have the last harangue, the final appeal to the deeper emotions of these Diaspora Jewish
Christians who have been pressured and persecuted and in many cases may have never
had the joy of making the pilgrimage to Mt. Zion—“But you have come to Mt. Zion, to
the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon
thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the first born, whose names are
written in heaven. You have come to God… to Jesus the mediator.” These are Christians
who, like the author have likely never seen or heard Jesus in person. But now before their
eyes is portrayed the climax of their faith pilgrimage, the same sort of climax that Jesus
reached when he died, rose and then ascended into heaven. And the discourse ends with
worshipping God with reverence and awe, a clearly epideictic topic meant to create
pathos. Our author knows very well what he is doing in this epideictic discourse, and he
does it eloquently and brilliantly from start to finish. He has made Jesus and true faith so
attractive that it would be shameful to turn back now, shameful to defect, and stirring to
carry on with the beliefs and behaviors they have already embraced.

AND SO?
One of the consequences of recognizing and analyzing the rhetorical species of
Hebrews is that it becomes impossible to see the exhortations or paraenetic portions of
the discourse as mere interruptions, digressions, after thoughts, appendages while the
Christological discussion is seen as of the essence of the discourse. To the contrary, the
author chooses his OT texts carefully, gives his exposition, then offers his exhortations
based on the exposition as all part of an attempt to deal with the rhetorical exigence,
namely the need to stand firm and not to fall back or backslide, the need to continue on
the pilgrimage already begun towards perfection, the need to continue to believe and
behave in ways that comport with such commitments.
But is there some rhetorical logic to the alternations between exposition and
exhortation in this homily? The answer is yes, and has been rightly discerned by T.W.
Seid. What he points out is that the expositions are part of a larger effort to draw
comparisons principally between Christ and others. Thus, he sees the structure here as
follows: comparison of Son and angels (1.1-14) and parenesis (2.1-18), comparison of
Moses and Christ (3.1-6) and parenesis (3.7-4.16), comparison of Aaron and Christ (5.1-
10) and parenesis (5.11-6.20), comparison of Melchizedek/Christ and the Levitical
priesthood (7.1-25) and parenesis (7.26-8.3), comparison of the first covenant and new
covenant (8.4-10.18) and parenesis (10.19-12.29), and epistolary appendix (13.1-25).
This synkrisis/paraenesis alternation encourages the audience to progress in moral
conduct by remaining faithful to the greater revelation in Jesus Christ and emulating the
models of its scripture, as well as warns the audience of the greater judgment to befall
those unfaithful to the greater revelation.41
What is praised and what is blamed in this discourse is not part of some abstruse
exercise in exegesis for its own sake. It is part of a pastoral effort to deal with the
struggles the Jewish Christians are having in Rome to remain true and faithful to the
things they have already committed themselves to embrace. To this end, our author’s
rhetorical strategy in picking the texts that he does is not because of his intellectual
curiosity about messianism or a Christological reading of the OT. Rather Pss. 8, 95,110
(and perhaps 40), Jer. 31, Hab. 2 and Prov. 3 are texts which are picked and dealt with
because they help make the case that the inadequacy or ineffectiveness or ‘partial and
piecemeal’ character of previous revelation and covenants is self-attested in the OT.42
But that is only the negative side of the persuasion going on in this rhetorical masterpiece
with carefully selected inartificial proofs from the OT. Other texts are brought in as well
to support the positive side of the argument, which is that the good things said in the OT
to be yet to come are now realized only in Christ, and faithfulness is required if these
eschatological promises are to be also realized in the lives of those who follow Christ.
Thus it can be said that in Hebrews, “theology is the handmaiden of paraenesis in this

41
See T.W. Seid “The Rhetorical Form of the Melchizedek/Christ Comparison in Hebrews
7” (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1996).
42
G.B. Caird, “The Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Canadian Journal of Theology 5
(1959), pp. 44-51.
‘word of exhortation’, as the author himself describes it”.43 With these comments in
mind it will be helpful to give a more expanded outline of the argument of this discourse
showing the relationship of the elements in the discourse.

EXORDIUM--- 1.1-4 Partial revelation in the past, full revelation in the Son

SECTION THEME OT TEXT

PARENESIS
PROBATIO- PART ONE (1.5-14) CHRIST’S SUPERIORITY catena (1.5-13)
2.1-4
PART TWO (2.5-18) ‘YOU CROWNED HIM’ Ps. 8 (2.6-8)
PART THREE (3.1-4.13) ‘TODAY’ Ps. 95 (3.7-11) 3.12-
4.13
PART FOUR (4.14-7.28) ‘PRIEST FOREVER’ Ps. 110 (5.6) 4.14-
16; 5.11-
6.12
PART FIVE (8.1-10.31) ‘NEW COVENANT’ Jer. 31 (8.8-12)
10.19-29
PART SIX (10.32-12.3) ‘BY FAITH’ Hab. 2(10.37-38)
10.32-36;

12.1-2
PART SEVEN (12.3-17) ‘DON’T LOSE HEART’ Prov. 3 (12.5-6)
12.3-16

PERORATIO-- 12.18-29 PILGRIM’S END Theophany at Sinai texts (Ex. 19;

Deut. 4,9, 31; Hag. 2.6)
FINAL SUMMARY PARAENESIS--- 13.1-2144

43
J. Walters, “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” ATJ 51 (1996), pp. 59-70, here p. 63. Here I
have been following and am indebted to Walters compelling argument.
Notice that Spicq, Les Epitre, Vol. 1, p. 38 also recognizes that 1.1-4 should be seen as the exordium and
12. 18-39 as the peroration with the major acts of persuasion in between.
 EPISTOLARY CLOSING-- 13.22-2545
Several concluding remarks are in order. It is clear enough that all of these
sections with the exception of Part Two have paraenesis, in some cases the OT citation
has preceding and following paraenesis in order to turn the exposition into exhortation or
application. The paraenesis is not relegated to the end of the discourse but is rather
sprinkled liberally throughout the discourse. It takes up a good deal of the verbage of the
discourse and could hardly be called a series of appendages. The problem all along has
been that many scholars find the expositions more interesting and challenging than the
exhortations, and therefore have tended to feature or privilege them in the ways they have
thought about this discourse.
Secondly, the focus is clearly on the here and now, and what is already true hence
the emphasis on ‘today’, on the new covenant which is already extant and in force, on not
losing heart but rather continuing to have faith and be faithful, persevering in the present,
and on what Christ has accomplished and is even now doing in heaven on behalf of the
believer. The focus is on the here and now both theologically and ethically which is
appropriate in epideictic discourse.46
Thirdly, our author almost exclusively sticks to texts from the Pentateuch, the
Psalms, and the latter prophets. There is nothing really from the historical books, which is
all the more striking since he is making a salvation historical kind of argument, and since
in Heb. 11 he recounts some of the adventures and misadventures of the period
chronicled in 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles.
Fourthly, one part of this discourse leads naturally to the next as an unfolding
message develops involving both theology and ethics. Particularly striking is how the
final section of the argument leads so smoothly into the peroration with the imagery of
running a race to a final destination introduced in 12.1-3, and then the pilgrim arrives at
the goal as described in the peroration beginning at 12.18. There is overlap, repetition,
amplification, reinforcement in the argument but this is precisely what one would expect

I am indebted to Walters, p. 66 who provides part of the basis for this outline, though strangely he does not
count the first section based on the catena as one of the sections.
For a survey of the first twenty or so years of rhetorical analysis of Hebrews in the modern era see D.
Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles Since 1978.” CR:BS 5 (1997): 175-207
in an epideictic discourse, as I have shown in detail elsewhere with the case of 1 John.47
One of the interesting differences between these two sermons is that 1 John is topically
driven, but not textually driven, and so is less of an expository sermon in that sense,
whereas Hebrews is certainly textually oriented and is far more expository in character.
We begin to see the remarkable range of the Christian rhetoric of praise and blame in 1
John and Hebrews, and in both cases the sermons are directed in the main, if not almost
exclusively, to Jewish Christians in two different major cities in the Empire (Ephesos and
Rome) which were seedbeds for the early Christian movement.
We need to keep steadily in view that the function of praise and blame of any
topic was to motivate the audience to continue to remember and embrace their core
values (involving both ideology and praxis) and avoid slipping into blameworthy beliefs
and behaviors (see Aristotle,Rhetoric, 1.9.36; Quintilian, Inst. Or. 3.7.28; Rhet. Ad Herrn.
3. 8, para. 15). In other words, even when using complex concepts and ideas the ultimate
aim of the rhetoric is practical and ethical in character.48 We should not be beguiled by
the eloquence of the rhetoric of Hebrews into drawing false conclusions about its ends
and aims and real focus, rather, we must be guided by that rhetoric if we are to make
sense of this endlessly interesting ‘brief exhortation’ that has stirred up the juices of the
best minds in Christendom for low these many years. Let us hear with two good
rhetorically attuned ears what the Preacher says to his Jewish Christian audience.

47
On which see Letters and Homilies of the NT Vol. 1, pp. 325-40 .
48
Here I would part company with Koester, Hebrews p. 82, following de Silva, Despising Shame, p. 35
and others who wants to suggest that Hebrews would function as epideictic for those continuing to hold the
core values but deliberative for those tending to drift away. This is forgetting that praising someone for
standing and exhorting them to continue to do so, as well as identifying blameworthy behavior and beliefs
to be avoided are all part of epideictic rhetoric. There is no evidence in Hebrews that the author assumes
that any real segment of the audience he is directly addressing has already defected, or else, in light of his
theology in Heb. 6, exhortation would be pointless since they have passed the point of no return. Nor is he
asking anyone to change direction or adopt a new course of action. He simply warns the audience against
being tempted under pressure to do so, since they were already ‘running well’ and do not need to change
course.