In a 2009 article, Matthew Thiessen identifies Israel’s wilderness wanderings as the primary motif that pervades Hebrews 12:5–13.¹Matthew Thiessen, ‘Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline’, NTS 55 (2009): 366–79 (esp. 374). While the wilderness motif is undoubtedly present, this article argues that ancient Israelite wisdom is a more prominent theme in the pericope. Indeed, by citing Proverbs 3:11–12, the author transposes not only the text of the proverb but also its genre into this paraenetic section of his epistle. Accordingly, Hebrews 12:4–13 should be read as proverbial wisdom with its associated interpretive rules, social conventions, and theological values.²For a recent discussion on whether wisdom is a genre, see the interdisciplinary methodology proposed by W. Kynes, An Obituary for “Wisdom Literature”: The Birth, Death, and Intertextual Reintegration of a Biblical Corpus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 107–46. When this pericope is read as wisdom, the author’s characterisation of human suffering as divine discipline is rightly understood not as a universal theodicy but as a circumstantial truth.

Underlying this hypothesis is the hermeneutical question regarding the extent to which an NT citation of an OT text incorporates its genre. Further, if the genre of the OT text is indeed transposed into its new literary environment, what impact does this have on the interpretation of the NT passage?

In order to identify the transposition of the wisdom genre into Hebrews 12:4–13, I combine a theory of prototypes advanced by John Frow with the literary method of Tremper Longman III.³J. Frow, Genre (Oxford: Routledge, 2006); Tremper Longman III, ‘Form Criticism, Recent Developments in Genre Theory, and the Evangelical’, WTJ 47 (1985): 46–67; Tremper Longman III, ‘Israelite Genres in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context’, in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud B. Zvi (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 177–98. According to this integrated approach, a text (‘secondary framework’) incorporates the genre of a cited text (‘generic prototype’) to the extent that it shares the literary features of the generic prototype. In this case, Proverbs 3:11–12 (LXX) constitutes the generic prototype of proverbial wisdom, and Hebrews 12:4–13 is the secondary framework into which the proverb is transposed.⁴The author of Hebrews cites Proverbs 3:11–12 from the LXX, and in this article I will give primary consideration to the LXX unless otherwise stated. The degree to which the wisdom genre of the prototype is incorporated into the secondary framework is ultimately determined by the strength of literary connection between the two texts.

In this article, I present an inductive evaluation of those literary connections and demonstrate that Hebrews 12:4–13 incorporates not only the text but also the genre of Proverbs 3:11–12. I conclude by considering the hermeneutical implications of this genre transposition, particularly with regard to the epistle’s characterisation of human suffering as divine discipline.

1. A Literary-Prototype Approach to Identifying Genre

Genre occupies a unique place in the constitution of meaning. According to Hirsch, every text has an ‘intrinsic genre’ which is ‘more than a heuristic tool; rather it is constitutive of meaning’.⁵E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 116. Instead of being yet another actor—alongside the author or editor, reader and text—genre is the common literary world that all actors inhabit with assumed definitions, values, and interpretive rules. The author employs genre in order to construct meaning on a higher level. Genre occupies the white spaces between words and constitutes ‘the implied information that we add to the words we hear’.⁶Frow, Genre, 86–87. According to Frow, it ‘produces effects of truth and authority that are specific to it, and projects a “world” that is generically specific’—a genre world—such as the world of ancient Israelite wisdom.⁷Frow, Genre, 80.

Genre is therefore similar to a camera lens which a photographer affixes to reframe an object. Depending on the particular lens chosen, the photographer recasts the one object with different visual effects. Similarly, different genres recast the same set of words through different genre worlds, each with their own ‘effects of reality and truth, authority and plausibility’.⁸Frow, Genre, 2. Longman describes genre using the following six metaphors: institution, contract, game, code, deep structure, and patterns of expression (‘Israelite Genres in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context’, 182). See also Longman, ‘Form Criticism’, 51–53. As a result, two texts with identical words but cast in different genres necessarily have different interpretive rules and consequently different meanings—they cannot be considered the same text. For example, the words, ‘there was a pale green horse’, when read as historical narrative, imply the literal existence of a coloured equine creature. However, when those same words are cast within the genre of apocalypse, the reader interprets the horse not as a literal animal but as a symbolic figure (Rev 6:8).

Just as a photographer can affix different lenses to a camera, an author can also use different genres within a single text to create what Frow terms a ‘complex genre’. Unlike simple univocal genres, complex genres are ‘multivocal: their formal logic allows or encourages the incorporation of other forms, other “voices”’.⁹Frow, Genre, 43. See also Bakhtin’s dialogical model of genre theory according to which ‘dialogues exist metaphorically within genres’ (Martin J. Buss, ‘Dialogue in and among Genres’, in Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, ed. Roland Boer [Atlanta: SBL, 2007], 15–16). The author incorporates these generic voices through a process of ‘citation’: ‘the shifting of text from one textual and generic context to another’.¹⁰Frow, Genre, 49. In this vein, Hebrews 12:4–13 constitutes a complex genre by citing Proverbs 3:11–12 and incorporating its generic voice into the epistle. In such circumstances, Bakhtin argues, the cited text carries its original genre world into the secondary framework. Regarding the incorporation of multiple genres within a novel, he writes: ‘Each of these genres possesses its own verbal and semantic forms for assimilating various aspects of reality.’¹¹M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 320–21. Contra Yuri Tynyanov who argues that a transposed text ‘enters another genre and loses its own genre’ (‘The Ode as an Oratorical Genre’, trans. A. Shukman, New Literary History 34 [2003]: 565). In other words, an author who cites a text in a secondary framework transposes aspects of the cited text’s original genre world into the new literary environment. The cited text retains the literary effects of its original genre and carries them into the secondary framework where they are redeployed for the agenda of the secondary author.

Given that genre is a literary world that the author uses and incorporates to shape the meaning of a text, the task of identifying genre transposition is necessarily inductive. Instead of the deductive approach of traditional form criticism, the process of identifying genre begins when the reader encounters the first words of the secondary framework. Bakhtin describes the process accordingly:

We learn to cast our speech in generic forms and, when hearing others’ speech, we guess its genre from the very first words; we predict a certain length … and a certain compositional structure; we foresee the end; that is, from the very beginning we have a sense of the speech whole, which is only later differentiated during the speech process.¹²M. M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, trans. Vernon W. McGee (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986), 79.

This inductive approach complements Longman’s method which identifies the transposition of genre based on the strength of literary connection between the genre and the secondary framework. For Longman, ‘similarities between texts on many levels and the interrelationships between these similarities are evidence of generic identity’.¹³Longman, ‘Form Criticism’, 60. Frow describes these literary similarities as ‘generic cues’ that specify ‘how to use the text, what one can expect to happen at different stages, and what to do if these expectations are not confirmed’.¹⁴Frow, Genre, 113. See also Longman, ‘Israelite Genres in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context’, 178. These cues do not individually determine a genre; rather, they are literary markers that cumulatively indicate the genre of a text. Consistent with Bakhtin’s inductive reading process, generic cues are both external and internal to the text. The reader first encounters the external frame of the text which constitutes its outer form. It demarcates the text from its surrounding literary environment, suggests a new generic context, and confirms an appropriate reading strategy. Examples include introductory greetings and concluding benedictions, as well as ‘the structure of the text and the metrical or nonmetrical speech rhythm’.¹⁵Frow, Genre, 115. Moving past the external frame, the reader then engages the text’s internal cues—its inner form—which either corroborate or contradict the originally assumed genre. Examples include ‘nonformal aspects of the texts, the mood, setting, function, narrative voice and content’.¹⁶Longman, ‘Form Criticism’, 60. According to this method, the greater the literary connections between the cited text and the secondary framework, the stronger the case for identifying the incorporation of the cited text’s original genre.

As the reader evaluates these literary connections, the cited text functions as the generic prototype—a text which determines the characteristic features of its genre. Indeed, Frow defines genres ‘by prototypes [that] have a common core and then fade into fuzziness at the edges’.¹⁷Frow, Genre, 59. This approach is consistent with Carol A. Newsom’s method which structures genres ‘with central and peripheral members’ (‘Spying out the Land: A Report for Genology’, in Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, ed. Roland Boer [Atlanta: SBL, 2007], 24). The generic prototype defines the literary core against which the generic cues in the secondary framework are evaluated. As these cues diversify from the core, the secondary framework’s similarity with and proximity to the generic prototype weaken along with the certainty and purity of its shared genre. The task of identifying generic transposition therefore begins with defining a generic prototype. It then involves inductively comparing the generic cues of the secondary framework with the literary features of the prototype and other texts within its purported genre.

In sum, the extent to which the genre of the cited text is transposed into the secondary framework depends on the strength of literary connection between the secondary framework and the citation as the generic prototype. The stronger the literary connection, the greater the likelihood of genre transposition.

2. Generic Cues

Beginning with its external frame and progressing to its internal cues, I now inductively evaluate the extent to which Hebrews 12:4–13 as the secondary framework incorporates the wisdom genre of Proverbs 3:11–12 as the generic prototype. This inductive reading process evaluates the cumulative force of multiple generic cues and determines the transposition of genre not on the basis of any single literary connection but on the overall balance of probabilities.¹⁸Cf. Leo Perdue, ‘Liminality as a Social Setting for Wisdom Instructions’, ZAW 93 (1981): 114–26.

2.1. External Frame

As the reader first engages Hebrews 12:4–13, he or she encounters its external frame which sets their initial expectations of the genre. On balance, these three external cues—the citation of the generic prototype, structure, and speech rhythm—collectively suggest the incorporation of the wisdom genre.

2.1.1. Citation of the Generic Prototype

Following the paean of Jesus as the prime exemplar of faith, the reader confronts a new pericope commencing at Hebrews 12:4. The pending citation of Proverbs 3:11–12 as the generic prototype in verses 5–6 secures this boundary by demarcating the subsequent exegesis of the proverb (12:7–13) from the preceding exegesis of Habakkuk 2:3–4 cited in Hebrews 10:37–38 (10:39–12:3).¹⁹See Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 615; Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2015), 380.

According to Carter, an NT citation of an OT text appeals ‘beyond the citation to a larger “bundle of ideas”’ which are situated within a ‘common tradition or cultural context in which the citation’s authority and content are recognized’.²⁰Warren Carter, ‘Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7–9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15–16’, JBL 119 (2000): 505. This ‘common tradition or cultural context’ corresponds closely with Frow’s concept of a genre world. To detach the citation from that cultural context ‘ignores the audience’s knowledge of a larger common tradition’.²¹Carter, ‘Evoking Isaiah’, 506. The citation of the generic prototype therefore appears to actualise both its canonical authority and its wisdom genre, both of which the author expects his audience to recognise.

The accusation that the audience had ‘forgotten’ (ἐκλανθάνομαι) the proverb presumes their actual or expected familiarity with it.²²Cf. William L. Lane who favours an interrogative construction (see ESV) (Hebrews 9–13, WBC 47B [Nashville: Word, 1991], 420). In either case, whether by accusation or by question, the author presumes his audience’s prior knowledge of the proverb. The epistle’s saturation in the OT corroborates this presumption. Specifically with respect to the cited proverb, Attridge notes: ‘These traditional proverbial notions [of suffering as divine discipline] were frequently repeated in Jewish tradition and by early Christians’.²³Harold W. Attridge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 361. Such repeated use implies the audience’s familiarity not just with the proverb but also with the wisdom tradition from which it originates. Accordingly, the intended function of the quotation is to recall the wisdom of Israel’s forebears and invoke that thought-world which is shared with the audience.

The author appears to incorporate the wisdom genre of the prototype not only into the citation proper but also into the broader pericope (Heb 12:4–13). According to Lane, the citation in verses 5–6 ‘furnishes the point of departure for an exposition of the text in verses 7–11’.²⁴Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 421. This develops the work of Walters who structures Hebrews around six OT quotations, each introducing a new point of exegesis and paraenesis. The citation of Proverbs 3:11–12 frames the sixth section of the epistle (12:3–13:19) whose paraenesis is located in Hebrews 12:3–29 and 13:1–19.²⁵John R. Walters, ‘The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews’ (paper presented at the annual Christmas Conference of the John Wesley Fellows, Shakertown, 1989), quoted in William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47A (Nashville: Word, 1991), cxiv–xv. Within this proposed structure, the citation of the generic prototype in Hebrews 12:5–6 forms the scriptural basis for the exposition and exhortation that follow in verses 7–13.²⁶See also George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, JSNTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 9–10, 112–47. The cited proverb introduces not only a new section of the epistle but, as Carter observes, it also invites the reader to enter its ‘common tradition’—in this case, ancient Israelite wisdom—as they proceed to engage the broader pericope.

2.1.2. Structure

Moving beyond the citation of the generic prototype, the reader then identifies its literary structure reflected in the secondary framework. Proverbs 3:11–12 conforms to the ‘distinctive structure’ of an instructional proverb: ‘an imperative plus motivation and/or accompanying conditions’.²⁷Andreas J. Köstenberger, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2021), 243. The imperative is emphasised in verse 11 and the motivation is then supplied in verse 12, both clauses connected by an explanatory γάρ. The very same imperative-indicative progression is reflected in the structure of the secondary framework. Not only does the author of Hebrews cite the generic prototype in 12:5–6, he then applies and expands its literary structure to his subsequent exposition (12:7–11).

Hebrews 12:7 opens with the verb ὑπομένετε, which can be rendered either as an indicative or an imperative. Given the hortatory rhetoric and paraenetic purpose of the epistle—as well as the parallel imperatives of ἀναλογίσασθε(12:3) and ἐκλύου(12:5; cf. Prov 3:11)—an imperative reading of the verb is preferred.²⁸Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 421. For an indicative reading, see Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 650. Hebrews 12:7b–11 then provides the theological motivation for this imperative, mirroring the indicative component of the generic prototype (Prov 3:12). The motivation in the proverb is divine sonship and love: ‘the one whom the LORD loves he disciplines’. The parallel indicative in Hebrews 12:8–11 reflects the very same motivation: ‘what son is there whom his father does not discipline?’ (12:7). The author of Hebrews then deploys synkrisis—a lesser to greater argument—to intensify three comparative benefits of divine discipline vis-à-vis earthly discipline: life, holiness, and righteousness (Heb 12:9, 10, 11). In this way, the secondary framework in Hebrews 12:4–13 parallels the imperative-indicative structure of the generic prototype in Proverbs 3:11–12 and thus corroborates the prima facie transposition of a wisdom genre.

2.1.3. Speech Rhythm

However, on a first reading of both texts, the speech rhythms of the secondary framework and the generic prototype appear inconsistent, and this casts doubt over the extent to which the author of Hebrews incorporates the proverb’s wisdom genre. Proverbs in their basic genre are generally structured in bilinear or, occasionally, trilinear parallel. The epigrammatic nature of each proverb demands terseness ‘with the greatest concentration on the subject-matter and with a disregard of any presuppositions, attendant circumstances, etc’.²⁹Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (London: SCM, 1972), 32. Accordingly, each proverb is ordinarily disconnected from its neighbouring aphorisms, with very few conjunctions between them. In this sense, the meaning of each individual proverb can be discerned without reference to its immediate literary environment. The aphorisms in Proverbs 3:1–12, including the generic prototype, are not internally stitched together by a series of conjunctions but externally framed by an inclusio of a vocative υἱέwhich demarcates the lecture from its surrounding text (Prov 3:1, 11).³⁰Köstenberger and Patterson identify such ‘bookending’ as a structural indicator of biblical poetry (Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, 282–85).

In contrast to the clipped staccato rhythm of the generic prototype, the rhetoric of Hebrews 12:4–13 progresses logically as homiletic prose and is internally bound by a series of conjunctions. The imperative to ‘endure’ discipline is followed by an explanatory γάρwhich introduces a slanted question (12:7). The same conjunction reappears in verse 10 to expound the second benefit of divine discipline. A transitional post-positive δέconnects the pericope at verses 8 and 11, as does the coordinate εἶταat verse 9. Verses 8 and 12 are further integrated into the pericope by an inferential ἄραand διό. This series of conjunctions, together with the logical progression of ideas that develop throughout the secondary framework, are inconsistent with the terse and disjointed speech rhythm of proverbial wisdom.

This literary cue admittedly places greater distance between the secondary framework and the generic prototype and thus prima facie weighs against identifying the transposition of genre. However, it is important to give proper weight to this incongruity relative to other generic cues. According to Frow, a text’s speech rhythm is of less probative value than its rhetorical structure or ‘structure of address’ (see 3.2b).³¹Frow, Genre, 84. Accordingly, while some external synergies between the generic prototype and the secondary framework are admittedly weak, such as their speech rhythm, they are less indicative of genre transposition than the internal cues to which I now turn.

2.2. Internal Cues

While the external frame of Hebrews 12:4–13 places the secondary framework in moderate generic proximity with Proverbs 3:11–12, the reader must consider its internal cues to confirm the extent to which it incorporates the prototype’s wisdom genre. These internal cues include the secondary framework’s thematic content, rhetorical structure, setting and function, as well as any allusions to the broader wisdom corpus in Proverbs.

2.2.1 Thematic Content: Human Suffering

According to Frow, the thematic content of a text is ‘the shaped human experience that a genre invests with significance and interest’.³²Frow, Genre, 83. That is, particular genres are concerned with corresponding leitmotifs. The theme of human suffering is common to the core wisdom corpus of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes, and it is also the particular concern of Proverbs 3:11–12. Job considers wisdom in the context of unexplained human suffering, while Ecclesiastes complements the prima facie optimism of Proverbs by lamenting the moral disorder of creation. Proverbs itself does not evade the problem of human suffering, variously attributing it to the consequences of folly, the oppression of the wicked, the vicissitudes of fortune, and the discipline of the Lord (Prov 3:11–12). More specifically, divine discipline is one of eight OT theodicies identified by Sanders, and it features prominently in Eliphaz’s and Elihu’s unwise characterisations of Job’s sufferings (Job 5:17; 33:14–30).³³James A. Sanders describes human suffering in the OT as (1) retributive; (2) disciplinary; (3) revelational; (4) probational; (5) illusory (or transitory); (6) mysterious (only God has Wisdom); (7) eschatological; or (8) meaningless (Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-Biblical Judaism [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017], 1). See also Nicholas Moore, ‘Deferring to Dad’s Discipline: Family Life in Hebrews 12’, in Marriage, Family and Relationships: Biblical, Doctrinal and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Thomas A. Noble, Sarah K. Whittle, and Philip S. Johnston (London: Apollos, 2017), 124; Attridge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 361.

The sapiential theme of human suffering is introduced to the reader not only in Hebrews 12:4, it is actually the historical occasion for the paraenesis of the broader pericope (10:32–12:3).³⁴Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, 329. The author refers to his audience’s ‘hard struggle with sufferings’, which include their public exposure to ‘taunts and afflictions’ and ‘the confiscation of [their] possessions’ (10:32–34). He then catalogues models of endurance through persecution as ‘witnesses’ to his suffering audience (11:32–38; 12:1). This encomium climaxes in Christ as the exemplar of perseverance par excellence, whom the audience is exhorted to consider in their present ‘struggle against sin’ (12:1–3). Indeed, the extant suffering of God’s people is the literary frame for the encomium of persevering faith (10:32–39 → 11:1–12:3 ← 12:4–13). It is precisely because of his audience’s present suffering that the author draws on the Israelite wisdom tradition by incorporating its genre as a means of motivating their endurance. By characterising human suffering as divine discipline, the author signals to his audience his integration and use of the ancient Israelite wisdom genre.

2.2.2. Rhetorical Structure: Paternal Voice

The ‘rhetorical structure’ of a text refers to ‘the way textual relations between the senders and receivers of messages are organised in a structured situation of address.’³⁵Frow, Genre, 82. It includes the credibility, authority, emotional tone, and degree of formality between the author and reader. For Frow, this is the generic cue with greatest probative value, and in the case of the secondary framework it is strongly indicative of an incorporated wisdom genre.

The author of Proverbs adopts the narrative voice of a father imparting wisdom to his son—a rhetorical convention of ancient Israelite wisdom.³⁶Glenn D. Pemberton, ‘The Rhetoric of the Father in Proverbs 1–9’, JSOT 30 (2005): 69. In the lecture of Proverbs 3:1–12 and the generic prototype more specifically (3:11–12), the author refers to his audience as υἱέ, adopting a paternal persona to more effectively and affectively impart wisdom. Fox highlights the following five effects of the paternal voice in Proverbs 1–9: (1) Authority: the father’s status brings credibility of character and authority of ethos; (2) Promise and warning: only the father can rightfully reward the obedience or punish the disobedience of a child; (3) Intimacy: the paternal tone is not merely imperative but persuasive; (4) Vividness: the father warns against folly by personifying it as an adulteress; and (5) Irony: the father mocks the fool as the harbinger of his own destruction.³⁷Michael V. Fox, ‘Ideas of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9’, JBL 116.4 (1997): 621–24. The paternal voice therefore characterises the rhetorical structure of proverbial wisdom.

As the reader continues to evaluate the generic cues within Hebrews 12:4–13, the author’s use of the sapiential paternal voice can be distinctly discerned. While the author of Hebrews does not himself adopt the persona of a father, he confers it on God. Indeed, by first addressing the citation to his audience ‘as sons’ (Heb 12:5) and then clarifying the divine nature of their sonship (12:7), the author places the proverb in the mouth of God.³⁸See Amy L. B. Peeler, ‘You Are My Son’: The Family of God in the Epistle to the Hebrews, LNTS 486 (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 148; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 526. In this sense, the paternal persona is ascribed not to the author but to God himself. By portraying God as the ‘Father of spirits’ (12:9), the author imports Fox’s rhetorical effects of authority, promise, and intimacy to motivate his audience toward endurance. Paternal authority is implied in the audience’s expected ‘respect’ for and ‘submission’ to discipline (12:9). Paternal intimacy underlies the legitimacy of the audience’s sonship (12:7). Paternal promise is expressed in the future reward for filial obedience: ‘the peaceful fruit of righteousness’ (12:11). Peeler notes that ‘the author’s sole appeal to wisdom literature serves as the culmination of his portrayal of God’s identity as a Father in relationship to the audience’.³⁹Peeler, ‘You Are My Son’, 146. This maintains and, in fact, intensifies the paternal persona that defines the rhetoric of proverbial wisdom and the narrative voice of the generic prototype.

The paternal voice of wisdom also alerts the reader to the fear of the Lord which theologically connects the secondary framework with the wisdom genre. While the noun ‘fear’ (יראה) has a broad semantic range, its various meanings ‘centre on respecting God as God and treating him as he deserves’.⁴⁰Lindsay Wilson, Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 17 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2017), 22; Longman, The Fear of the Lord Is Wisdom, 12–13. For a fuller study, see Miles V. Van Pelt and Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., ‘יראה’, in NIDOTTE 2:527–33. Fearing the Lord therefore involves a relationship of trust and dependence from creature to creator. Proverbs 3:11–12 recasts this creature-creator relationship in filial terms: God is the father who disciplines his son, and the reader is the son who fears the Lord as his trustworthy father. By conferring the paternal persona on God, the author of Hebrews appropriates the filial relationship of the generic prototype as the theological foundation of the secondary framework. Just as the Lord is the trustworthy father who disciplines his son in Proverbs 3:11–12, God is the trustworthy father who disciplines his sons in Hebrews 12:7. The author of Hebrews intentionally contrasts God’s infallible paternal discipline with the fallible judgment of earthly fathers (12:10). In doing so, he confirms to the reader that his exhortation to endure suffering is theologically grounded in the foundation of ancient Israelite wisdom: the fear of the Lord.

2.2.3. Function: Moral Formation

The function of Israelite wisdom is the moral formation of the reader. To reach the goal of wisdom and righteousness, Lyu observes, ‘the learner is expected to go through the reshaping of his inner person. His desires, hopes, and disposition must be reconditioned to reflect the ideal’.⁴¹Sun Myung Lyu, Righteousness in the Book of Proverbs, FAT 2/55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 64. This is the core sense of ‘discipline’ (παιδεία) in Proverbs 3:11.⁴²N. Clayton Croy, Endurance in Suffering: Hebrews 12:1–13 in Its Rhetorical, Religious, and Philosophical Context, SNTSMS 98 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 217–18; cf. Ched Spellman, ‘The Drama of Discipline: Toward an Intertextual Profile of Paideia in Hebrews 12’, JETS 59 (2016): 487–506. The admonition to ‘not think lightly of the Lord’s discipline’ is motivated by the reward of divine love. Elsewhere in Proverbs, the goal of παιδείαis ‘righteousness, justice, and integrity’, ‘life’, and ‘wisdom’ (1:3; 6:23; 19:20). The function of the generic prototype and proverbial wisdom is, more generally, moral formation. Longman aptly summarises, ‘Proverbs wants to make a person good as well as successful.’⁴³Tremper Longman III,* The Fear of the Lord Is Wisdom: A Theological Introduction to Wisdom in Israel* (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 10.

If the secondary framework does indeed incorporate the genre of proverbial wisdom, the reader of Hebrews 12:4–13 should expect to identify the same paraenetic purpose. This expectation is borne out as moral formation defines the three indicatives which support the primary imperative of the pericope, ‘Endure for the sake of discipline’ (Heb 12:7). The basis for the author’s exhortation to endure is the formative benefits of divine discipline vis-à-vis those of earthly discipline: life, holiness, and righteousness (12:9, 10, 11). The first and third of these benefits explicitly accord with the goals of παιδείαin proverbial wisdom: ‘life’ (ζωή, cf. Prov 6:23) and ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη, cf. Prov 1:3). However, where proverbial wisdom focuses on the formation of character, Hebrews 12:4–13 spiritually transforms these moral benefits. Once again through synkrisis, the author makes a cosmological comparison between ‘the fathers of our flesh’ and ‘the Father of spirits’ ( 12:9). This, together with the substantive sense in which we ‘share’ (μεταλαμβάνω) the holiness of Christ (12:10), redefine the object of formation from our moral character to our spirit. This spiritual formation is not incidental to the experience of suffering but it is divinely intended to be ‘for our benefit’ (12:10). The sanctifying function of divine discipline is depicted in the athletic metaphor of Hebrews 12:1–3, and it is revived in verses 11–13. Suffering is described as training (γυμνάζω), which is rewarded with what Hughes describes as ‘the rest and relaxation enjoyed by the victorious contestant once the conflict is over’,⁴⁴Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 533. in this case ‘the peaceful fruit of righteousness’ (12:11). Hebrews 12:4–13 therefore shares the formative function of the generic prototype, further strengthening the case for genre transposition. It not only adopts the formative purpose of proverbial wisdom but transforms its object from the moral to the spiritual.

2.2.4. Setting: Liminality

This function of moral formation in Proverbs is not without a social setting. Perdue argues that proverbial wisdom is particularly directed toward those in a position of social liminality. The liminal stage is one of ‘betwixt and between’ in which persons are ‘temporarily (on occasion permanently) detached from their previous social structure and have not yet begun to reincorporate’.⁴⁵Perdue, ‘Liminality as a Social Setting for Wisdom Instructions’, 116. While proverbial wisdom applies to both the ‘simple’ and the ‘wise’, there is a clear focus on ‘the inexperienced’ and the ‘young man’ in need of ‘shrewdness’, ‘knowledge and discretion’ (Prov 1:1–5). Fox presents ‘an adolescent about to enter the world’ who ‘may be married or about to be’ (cf. 31:1–31).⁴⁶Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 62. Indeed, Proverbs 3:11–12 is part of a wisdom lecture intended to prepare a son for ‘many days, a full life’ (3:2). The admonition to ‘not think lightly of the Lord’s discipline’ is addressed to a young man in a position of social liminality.

The audience of Hebrews 12:4–13 is addressed in a not dissimilar social setting, though in this text that setting is eschatologically intensified. The future-orientation of the spiritually formative benefits of discipline places the audience in a state of not only social liminality but also eschatological liminality. The promise that the audience will ‘live’ if they submit to the Father of spirits is presented in the future tense (ζήσομεν, 12:9). While the aorist infinitive μεταλαβεῖνin verse 10 may otherwise indicate the permanent possession of holiness, it is more likely default in aspect and should be understood as a future benefit when read in parallel with ζήσομεν.⁴⁷Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 425; cf. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 654. Both these benefits indicate an inaugurated eschatology, where the spiritual benefits of divine discipline are presently enjoyed in part but await future consummation. The audience therefore occupies a liminal position of ‘betwixt and between’: between ‘the moment’ in which all discipline seems painful and the ‘later’ time in which it will yield the peaceful fruit of righteousness (12:11). Just as the goal of proverbial wisdom is the moral formation of social liminals, the goal of Hebrews 12:4–13 is also the spiritual formation of eschatological liminals.

There is also a sense in which the audience occupies a position of covenantal liminality. On the one hand, Jesus has already inaugurated the ‘better covenant’ prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. Heb 8:6–13; 10:15–18). The repetition of the ἅπαξword group emphasises the eschatologically realised aspects of the new covenant (9:12, 26; cf. 10:12). Nevertheless, there are hints that the old covenant is still in force and its earthly temple is still standing at the time of writing (8:3–5; 9:6–7; 10:1–3; 13:10–11).⁴⁸Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 302; T. Hewitt, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 138. Koester thus describes the tension between covenants: ‘The shift from the old to the new covenant (8:6) has begun, but is not complete since a change has occurred, but the promises have not been fully realized.’⁴⁹Koester, Hebrews, 392. Whatever date we attribute to the authorship of the epistle, the audience lives at a point of covenantal transition, and the exhortation of Hebrews 12:4–13 is intended to prepare them for suffering in the new covenant age. In a novel thesis, Hooker dates the epistle post-70 CE and frames its message not as ‘Do not fall back into Judaism’ but as ‘It is time to move on, and to leave behind your former understanding of Judaism.’⁵⁰Morna D. Hooker, ‘Christ, the “End” of the Cult’, in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart and Nathan MacDonald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 197 (emphasis in original). If Hooker’s thesis is correct, it strengthens the case for both the audience’s liminal context and also the secondary framework’s spiritually formative function as it seeks to prepare Jewish Christians for life in the new covenant. There is therefore a dual sense of eschatological and covenantal liminality in the audience’s setting that accords with the social liminality presumed by proverbial wisdom.

For the reader of Hebrews, the cumulative force of the internal cues presents a compelling case to identify the transposition of the wisdom genre into the secondary framework. The author of Hebrews writes to an audience in traditional wisdom settings of suffering and liminality, he adopts the traditional wisdom persona of a father, and he appropriates and spiritually transforms the traditional wisdom function of moral formation as the goal of his paraenesis.

2.2.5. Allusions to Proverbs

Finally, I note a number of allusions throughout the secondary framework to the generic prototype, the wisdom lecture of Proverbs 3:1–12 as its immediate context, and the broader wisdom tradition, the first two sets of which have not been hitherto considered by the literature. To the reader familiar with ancient Israelite wisdom, these allusions may be indicative of a wisdom genre.

In Hebrews 12:5, the author accuses the audience of having ‘forgotten’ (ἐκλανθάνομαι) the proverb and summons them to remember it as the basis for their endurance. This echoes the exhortation which opens the wisdom lecture in Proverbs 3:1, ‘do not forget (ἐπιλανθάνομαι) my teaching’. Notwithstanding the differing prefix, both verbs share the same root λανθάνωand the sense of forgetting. The lexical synergy between these two verses suggests that the author of Hebrews is intentionally alluding to the wisdom lecture within which the generic prototype is located (Prov 3:1–12). Indeed, he appears to accuse the audience of committing the very mistake against which they were warned. In fact, the use of ἐκλανθάνομαι(Heb 12:5) instead of ἐπιλανθάνομαι(Prov 3:1) intensifies their actions from ordinary forgetfulness to ‘forget (altogether)’.⁵¹“ἐκλανθάνομαι,” in BDAG 305.

A second set of allusions to the wisdom lecture of Proverbs 3:1–12 can be identified. In Hebrews 12:9, those who submit to the discipline of the Lord will ‘live’ (ζήσομεν). Eschatological eternal life is the benefit of divine discipline. This alludes to and intensifies the corresponding benefit in Proverbs 3:1–2 of heeding the warning to ‘not forget my teaching’: namely, ‘years of life’ (ἔτη ζωῆς). Even though ζωήappears 38 times throughout Proverbs LXX, it is used in the same manner in both Proverbs 3:2 and Hebrews 12:9—as the indicative underlying an imperative. Similarly, the promise of the ‘peaceful fruit (καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν) of righteousness’ (Heb 12:11) alludes to the promise of peace (εἰρήνην) in Proverbs 3:2, both as promises corresponding to commands. The same case can be made for ‘healing’ (ἰαθῇ) in Hebrews 12:13 as an echo of ‘healing to your body’ (ἴασις ἔσται τῷ σώματί σου) in Proverbs 3:8.

Adopting Thiessen’s thesis, Hays observes that ‘the call to make “straight paths” (Heb 12:13) probably evokes the promise of the end of exile found in Isa. 40’.⁵²Richard B. Hays, ‘“Here We Have No Lasting City”: New Covenantalism in Hebrews’, in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, Daniel R. Driver, Trevor A. Hart and Nathan MacDonald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 164. This Isaianic connection is consistent with the parallel allusion identified by Guthrie: Hebrews 12:12, ‘strengthen tired hands and weakened knees’ (τὰς παρειμένας χεῖρας καὶ τὰ παραλελυμένα γόνατα ἀνορθώσατε), and Isaiah 35:3–4, ‘Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees’ (ἰσχύσατε, χεῖρες ἀνειμέναι καὶ γόνατα παραλελυμένα,παρακαλέσατε).⁵³George H. Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 987. It also supports Thiessen’s thesis that identifies a wilderness motif in Hebrews 12:5–13. However, given the explicit citation of Proverbs 3:11–12 in Hebrews 12:5–6, which appeals to ancient Israelite wisdom, it makes more sense to connect the ‘straight paths’ (τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν) of Hebrews 12:13 with Proverbs 4:26a, also identified by Guthrie: ‘Make straight paths for your feet and direct your paths’ (ὀρθὰς τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσὶν καὶ τὰς ὁδούς σου κατεύθυνε).⁵⁴Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, 988. This allusion does not contradict Thiessen’s wilderness thesis but subordinates it as a secondary theme under a primary wisdom motif. In contrast to the clear embedding of proverbial wisdom in Hebrews 12:5–6, there is no explicit reference anywhere in the secondary framework to Israel’s wilderness wanderings. Indeed, Thiessen concedes that ‘neither the wilderness wanderings nor Deuteronomy 8 are specifically mentioned’.⁵⁵Thiessen, ‘Hebrews 12.5–13’, 374. In considering the primary conceptual background of a text, Guthrie wisely advises:

The tracking of echoes might best begin with a consideration of the broader contexts of the book’s citations.… When one is stepping out on uncertain ground, it is better to step first on the firmer parts of a path rather than the softer spots of a wide-open field, and the contexts of the quotations are, at least, an appropriate place to begin our search.⁵⁶Guthrie, ‘Hebrews’, 920.

In this vein, the quotation of Proverbs 3:11–12 is the ‘firmer part’ of Hebrews 12:4–13 and it—not Deuteronomy 8—should be our first step. From there, we are able to more confidently presume the provenance of allusions and echoes, giving preference to those within the original ‘context of the quotation’—in this case, the wisdom of Proverbs.

Accordingly, there is greater warrant to draw a primary thematic connection with the wisdom tradition rather than wilderness tradition. In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to synthesise both traditions in the secondary framework. Not only is he inviting his audience to ‘re-envision their lives so as to place themselves in the wilderness,’⁵⁷Thiessen, ‘Hebrews 12:5–13’, 379 (emphasis added). as Thiessen argues, he is also invoking the wisdom of Proverbs to motivate them to endure through the wilderness. Thiessen’s identification of the wilderness motif is therefore complemented by the wisdom tradition, which adds paraenetic force to the audience’s self-awareness of their wilderness experience.

2.3. Summary

Identifying the transposition of genre requires the reader to make a cumulative judgment of the external and internal literary synergies between the generic prototype and the secondary framework. While there are some weaknesses of literary connection—in particular, speech rhythm—there is nevertheless strong literary convergence that favours identifying the incorporation of the wisdom genre into Hebrews 12:4–13.
Generic Cues in Proverbs 3:11–12 and Hebrews 12:4–13

	Generic prototype (Prov 3:11–12)	Secondary framework (Heb 12:4–13)
External frame
Citation	Original text	Transposed text	✔
Structure	Imperative → Indicative	Imperative → Indicative	✔
Speech rhythm	Epigrammatic	Homiletic	✗
Internal cues
Thematic content	Suffering as divine discipline	Suffering as divine discipline	✔
Rhetorical structure	Earthly paternal voice	Heavenly paternal voice	★
Function	Moral formation	Spiritual formation	★
Setting	Social liminality	Eschatological liminality Covenantal liminality	★
Allusion to Proverbs	ἐπιλανθάνομαι (3:1) ἔτη ζωῆς (3:2) εἰρήνην (3:2) ἴασις ἔσται τῷ σώματί σου (3:8) ὀρθὰς τροχιὰς ποίει σοῖς ποσὶν (4:26a)	ἐκλανθάνομαι (12:5) ζήσομεν (12:9) καρπὸν εἰρηνικὸν (12:11) ἰαθῇ (12:13) τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιεῖτε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν (12:13)	✔
✔ Convergence    ★ Intensification    ✗ Divergence

 

3. Hermeneutical Implications

The transposition of the wisdom genre into Hebrews 12:4–13 has a significant impact on our interpretation of the text and, in particular, its characterisation of human suffering as divine discipline. Each genre world, Frow argues, creates ‘reality effects specific to it: some worlds claim a high reality status, others announce themselves as fictional or hypothetical’.⁵⁸Frow, Genre, 93. The reality status claimed by wisdom—in particular, proverbial wisdom—is highly circumstantial. The aphorisms of Proverbs are predominantly structured in couplets as parallelisms. According to Waltke, these individual proverbs, as a result of their epigrammatic rhythm, ‘concentrate or distill truth and so by their nature cannot express the whole truth about a topic’.⁵⁹Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 38; Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?’, AUSS 34 (1996): 325. A sapiential proverb therefore does not intend to make a universal truth claim. ‘Rather, it is a single component of truth that must be fit together with other elements of truth in order to approximate the more comprehensive, confused pattern of life.’⁶⁰Waltke, Proverbs, 38. Indeed, some sets of proverbs make claims that are prima facie contradictory, both of which are true but circumstantially relevant (e.g. Prov 26:4–5). The applicability of either proverb depends not just on the particular circumstances but on the proper exercise of wisdom (26:7). The key hermeneutical danger of interpreting wisdom is genre misidentification: ‘to read a proverb as if it were always true in every circumstance’.⁶¹Tremper Longman III, How to Read Proverbs (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 48.

In the case of Proverbs 3:11–12, most commentators acknowledge its circumstantial character but none of them explicitly appeal to the genre of the proverb to support their claim. Longman entertains the possibility that the proverb is not universally applicable: ‘The difficulty is knowing when suffering is to teach us (divine discipline) and when there is some other reason behind it.’⁶²Tremper Longman III, Proverbs, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 135 (emphasis added). Fox speculates that Proverbs 3:12 ‘may well be a quoted maxim or turn of phrase’ and notes in passing that ‘sometimes suffering is divine discipline’.⁶³Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 152–53 (emphasis added). Lucas also describes the proverb as ‘one biblical perspective on the problem of suffering’.⁶⁴Ernest C. Lucas, Proverbs, THOTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 63 (emphasis added). Indeed, Waltke’s earlier observation regarding the epigrammatic style of proverbial wisdom is made with specific reference to the claims of Proverbs 3:1–12 which include the generic prototype. He argues that these optimistic proverbs ‘must be read holistically, within the total collection’—a collection that includes proverbs which ‘recognize the failure of justice’.⁶⁵Waltke, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?’, 326. With respect to Proverbs 3:11–12, therefore, divine discipline is but one account of human suffering. Proverbs frequently acknowledges various other causes of human suffering, which include unjust oppression and violence (1:11; 21:7), economic injustice (13:23; 14:31; 21:6, 13; 22:22), and slander (10:18; 12:17). The presence of ‘better-than’ proverbs presupposes the unjust suffering of the righteous, humble, loving, and upright (11:1; 15:16; 16:8, 19; 19:22b). While these proverbs do not explicitly provide an explanation for suffering, they acknowledge ‘the vicissitudes of fortune’⁶⁶Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 153. and the reality of living in an imperfectly ordered world. Longman rejects a simplistic retribution theology and clarifies that, according to ancient Israelite wisdom, ‘while sin can lead to suffering, that is not the only explanation for pain in the world’.⁶⁷Longman, The Fear of the Lord Is Wisdom, 189.

When the genre lens of wisdom is applied to Hebrews 12:4–13, it creates a similar if not intensified reality effect and cautions us against universalising divine discipline as an absolute theodicy. Appreciating the homiletic character of the epistle, Hebrews 12:4–13 is the author’s wise application of the proverb to a particular set of circumstances faced by his audience. Building an all-encompassing theodicy of divine discipline on the basis of this text would violate the reality effect of its wisdom genre. Indeed, the epistle elsewhere provides accounts of human suffering that do not involve divine discipline. The author most notably attributes suffering and death to divine judgment for sin and unbelief (Heb 2:2; 3:16–19; 10:26–27; 12:25). He also identifies the following potential causes of human suffering: the world which is not yet ‘in subjection to [Christ]’ (2:8), the flesh which is afflicted by ‘weaknesses’ and is vulnerable to temptation (4:15), and the devil ‘who has the power of death’ (2:14). Even though the audience’s suffering appears to be occasioned by the ‘sin’ of Hebrews 12:4, there is no guarantee that this is personal sin deserving retributive wrath. Rather, in view of the broader pericope beginning with the recounting of persecution in Hebrews 10:32–39, it is better understood as oppression by the wicked akin to the ‘sinners’ from whom Christ endured hostility (12:3).⁶⁸Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 418–19; Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 619.

Identifying the secondary framework as wisdom cautions us against applying a simplistic retribution theology, and it invites us to adopt a nuanced wisdom approach to understanding human suffering. The reality effect of wisdom requires us to interpret Hebrews 12:4–13 not as universally applicable but as a circumstantial truth.

4. Conclusion

While the literary synergies between the secondary framework and the generic prototype are not perfect, they cumulatively indicate the transposition of the wisdom genre into Hebrews 12:4–13. The generic cues within the secondary framework invite us to identify the wisdom tradition and incorporate the values and assumptions of its genre world. When read as wisdom, Hebrews 12:4–13 presents divine discipline as one account of human suffering among many and warns us against simplistically applying it beyond its original context.

It can be tempting for Christians to offer simplistic solutions to the problem of suffering. We may generalise that suffering is either God’s judgment on the world or discipline of his people, or suggest that all suffering has our spiritual formation as its principal purpose à la Hebrews 12:4–13. Whatever element of truth these claims may have, they share a fatal flaw: both claims turn circumstantial truths into universal laws. While we can make general systematic claims about divine sovereignty, it is biblically unwarranted and pastorally damaging to consider all suffering divine discipline. As I have argued, Hebrews 12:4–13 should not be read as propositional theology, a philosophical apologetic, or an exegetical basis for a universal theodicy. Instead, it is the careful application of proverbial wisdom to the particular circumstances of its original audience. The author of Hebrews does not cite Proverbs 3:11–12 in order to provide a theological account of human suffering. Rather, he applies its wisdom so that, whatever the reason, we might endure suffering as submissive sons of a loving Father—so that we might fear the Lord.

---