concept of to\ pre/pon is concerned with both what is appropriate for the speaker and the audience. Therefore by using this concept one is able to analyze the appropriateness of God perfecting his Son as well as the appropriateness of the act for the needs of the audience.61 He notes that propriety in Greek rhetoric involves the proper use of ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade one’s audience.62
The use of pre/pein in Heb 2:10 follows a pattern in classical Greek.63 Mitchell identifies God as the persuasive speaker in Christ. He is described throughout the epistle as one who seeks to bring men into salvation, despite the hardened response of previous generations. His steadfast communication to his people is a reflection of his character. “And so what makes God’s part in Jesus’ suffering both fitting and persuasive is how it discloses the character of God (h1qoj) and appeals to human emotions (pa/qoj) when highlighting the continual divine initiative.”64 Mitchell also surveys other passages describing how the author highlights God’s ethos in order to appeal to the pathos of the audience. He concludes by stating that this rhetorical concept of propriety illumines God’s constant effort to communicate to human beings, culminating in the suffering and death of Jesus. This is important in helping the author win back those who were questioning the value of Jesus’ death.65
In another study, David Worley assumes the author of Hebrews was influenced by rhetorical training in human litigant oaths. Most commentators have understood the two immutable things in Heb 6:12-20 as God’s oath and God’s promises. He argues that the author was in fact thinking of God’s oath-taking and oath-witness. Worley compares the rhetoric of Greek orators, who “colored and maximized”66 oaths sworn by litigants in the courtroom with the rhetoric of Heb 6:12-20. In the Greek court system one litigant could challenge his opponent to take an oath or swear to his god that his words were true. If the other agreed and made an oath, then the matter was settled. Yet more often the case, someone offered to voluntarily take an oath to validate his own claims. This was commonly described as “fleeing to the oath.”67
In the process of giving oaths, lawyers were trained to color the oath either as fraudulent (minimize) or credible (maximize). They would minimize the oath by arguing that the person issuing the oath was a liar or a man of ill-reputation. In order to maximize an oath the lawyer would describe the man’s integrity and character.68 Worley then notes the similarities between the oath language in Hebrews and the rhetoric of the Greek courtroom. “God swore by no one greater. . . . For men swear by a greater and the oath brings a final settlement to every human dispute. . . . He became a witness to the oath . . . it is impossible for God to lie we who have fled [to God’s oath] . . . .”69 The author’s familiarity with the litigant oath seems to be in the background of this language. Worley points out that the author maximizes the oath given by God in a way a Greek lawyer might for his client. Yet there is certainly an adaptation of the rhetoric considering God is the one making the oath.70
One would expect the author to continue to discuss the character of God as trustworthy, but rather he highlights the willingness of God to act as oath-witness. This is how Worley translates the phrase e0mesi/teusen o3rkw, “God acts as a mesi/thj, i.e., as a witness who thereby guarantees [the oath].”71 The language of “God not being able to lie” also maximizes the oath (6:18). Thus Worley argues that the two immutable things the author has in mind are God’s dependability in keeping his promissory oath and his unwavering testimony to his own oath taking.72 The author’s choice of words describing those “who have fled” refers to those who flee to God’s oath for assurance and encouragement. Unlike in litigant cases, where the person flees to his own oath, the readers of this epistle have a better hope in fleeing to God’s oath.73
Michael Cosby examines the rhetorical techniques used in Hebrews 11 to persuade the readers to a certain action. He puts a great deal of emphasis on how the text was heard by the audience.74 Cosby begins by noting that Greek writing was typically written to be heard. So that even for individual use, texts were read aloud.75 He then discusses the form of Hebrews 11 surveying several different opinions by various scholars. After his own examination of several ancient example lists, he concludes that it is still debatable whether the author used a particular literary form or a Jewish source in composing chapter 11.76
Cosby continues his examination of Hebrews 11 by pointing out the anaphoric77 use of pi/stei in 11:3-31. He argues that the reason why the author chose this technique was to communicate that many more examples could be used if space and time permitted. This is accomplished by creating a sort of rhythm of expression.78 He adds that faith is presented as the motivation for the great deeds of the saints in the past.79
The author of Hebrews uses asyndeton80 to highlight the idea that time is limited (11:32-34). The lists that are employed refrain from using conjunctions, which speed up the movement of the text and demonstrate vigor or passion.81 Cosby points out that there is a staccato pattern that is very effective in penetrating one’s mind with so many (it seems) examples of people who have exercised this kind of faith.82 The list as it is read affects the emotions of the hearer and attempts to bring about bravery and courage in the times of suffering.83
Another technique in these lists is that of antithesis, in which two contradictory statements or options are placed side by side. The intent is to compare the hero’s action with the potential action of the contemporary reader. Thus Moses despised the pleasures of Egypt to suffer with his people Israel.84 This is a very powerful technique to encourage certain actions. Cosby also notes the minor uses of hyperbole, paronomasia, and circumlocution, which enhance and strengthen the other more important techniques.85
Following Cosby’s general argument that there is probably not one “example list” literary form, Gareth Lee Cockerill focuses more on how the author arranged his example list in Hebrews 11 to serve his own rhetorical purpose.86 He argues that v. 35 is key to the examples of faith contained in vv. 32-38, which he identifies as the climactic passage of the chapter.87 Cockerill identifies the list of examples in vv. 33-35a as describing those who have triumphed in faith. This is balanced by the list in 35b-38, which describes those who have suffered. Verse 35 is the turning point “where those who were raised from the dead are compared to those who braved death by the power of faith in the ‘better resurrection.’”
