Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Hebrews

  • Origen Censors Scripture Reading

    In the prologue to his commentary on the Song of Songs, Origen recommends that certain portions of scripture, in particular the Song of Songs, should not be read by people who are not sufficiently mature:

    “But solid food is for the mature” and requires such people as listeners who “have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” [Hebrews 5:14-HN] Thus, if those we have called “little ones” come to these places in Scripture, it can happen that they receive no profit at all from this book or even that they are badly inured either by reading what has been written or by examining what has been said to interpret it. . . .For this reason I give warning and advice to everyone who is not yet free of the vexations of flesh and blood and who has not withdrawn from the desire for corporeal nature that he completely abstain from reading this book and what is said about it. . . . [Source: Ancient Commentary on Christian Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, p. 79]

    Now I have frequently thought that a number of passage might be restricted, though I’m uncertain just why the first chapters of Genesis are considered that way, unless the issue is the first couple naked in the garden. I’d wonder about Judges, especially starting with chapter 13, and even more especially with chapter 17. Ezekiel 16 might be a good candidate, along with Numbers 31.

    One might not want children to get too clear a picture of what goes on in those chapters. I suspect, however, that new believers will be a different matter, and that converts will be much less likely to submit to censorship of their reading of Christian scripture.

    In addition, this provides an interesting application of Hebrews 5:14, one I had never thought of before. I have considered that certain scriptures could be (and have been) dangerous in the wrong hands, but I’d never thought of treating it as a maturity issue.

    I’ve added a poll to the right sidebar. Consider answering it, and if you have any thoughts, leave a comment.

  • Suffering and Perfection (St. John Chrysostom Again)

    Those who believe in the doctrine of Christian perfection (on which I’m a bit wobbly myself) might consider this:

    “He learned,” he saith, to obey God. Here again he shows how great is the gain of sufferings. “And having been made perfect,” he says, “He became the Author of salvation to them that obey Him.” (Cf. supra, pp. 384, 391.) But if He, being the Son, gained obedience from His sufferings, much more shall we. Dost thou see how many things he discourses about obedience, that they might be persuaded to it? For it seems to me that they would not be restrained. “From the things,” he says, “which He suffered He” continually “learned” to obey God. And being “made perfect” through sufferings. This then is perfection, and by this means must we arrive at perfection. For not only was He Himself saved, but became to others also an abundant supply of salvation. For “being made perfect He became the Author of salvation to them that obey Him.”

    From: CCEL

  • St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 4:11-13

    I think a few modern evangelicals might regard this as heretical, being contrary to the pure penal substitutionary atonement or forensic justification. But he sure does seem to have a finger on precisely what Hebrews has to say.

    [1.] Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this, but there is need of a right conversation also. So that on this account Paul also exhorts those who had already been counted worthy of the mysteries; saying, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” “Let us labor” (he says), Faith not sufficing, the life also ought to be added thereto, and our earnestness to be great; for truly there is need of much earnestness too, in order to go up into Heaven. For if they who suffered so great distress in the Wilderness, were not counted worthy of [the promised] land, and were not able to attain [that] land, because they murmured and because they committed fornication: how shall we be counted worthy of Heaven, if we live carelessly and indolently? We then have need of much earnestness.

    And observe, the punishment does not extend to this only, the not entering in (for he said not, “Let us labor to enter into the rest,” lest we fail of so great blessings), but he added what most of all arouses men. What then is this? “Lest any man fall, after the same example of unbelief.” What means this? It means that we should have our mind, our hope, our expectation, yonder, lest we should fail. For that [otherwise] we shall fail, the example shows, “lest [&c.] after the same,” he says.

    From: CCEL

  • Translation, Exposition, and Communication

    Yes! I have found another pretentious title for a relatively simple post!

    I’ve been following the discussion around the blogosphere about literary translation, which has involved any number of blogs. I’ve been too busy to write about it. I was about to start last night, and then Doug at Metacatholic said part of what I wanted to say, and I waited until this morning to put it all together a bit more.

    In working with secular literature, and even with much religious or spiritual literature, there are many ways in which a work can be transformed to reach a particular audience. One of the methods I’ve been playing around with is simply writing a very short fictional piece that tries to teach the same lesson (example here). The point here is not to produce professional fiction or for the teacher to produce a “better” story, but rather for students to study the story by changing its form. I would ask students to tell a story from their own lives or to create a fictional one to teach the lesson. In studying Bible stories I also use the technique of having students tell the story from someone else’s point of view (see the section toward the end on Ahab’s Viewpoint).

    In secular literature we can have a book re-presented as a condensed book, a movie, a play, a children’s edition, illustrated edition, modernized (for an older work), and so forth. In each presentation, there are many choices made in terms of what of the original work will be presented again and what will be left out. Any time one changes the presentation, one loses something, and one may also gain something. The person who alters the form may well instill some additional meaning into the work that was not there before.

    But in Bible translation it seems to me that we tend to operate in fear of doing it the wrong way. Now don’t get me wrong here. I have very strong preferences in terms of Bible translation. I’m an advocate of dynamic equivalence, and of using ordinary, natural expressions in the target language. That is what I want most in a translation. If you think about it, and then realize that the most common thing I’m doing with a Bible translation is using it in a teaching context, you will realize that my preference of translation and my purpose tend to line up. One must add that I do not pretend to teach my classes Greek or Hebrew (unless that’s the subject!) and thus I am uninterested in a presentation of the forms of the source language.

    Nonetheless, as I talk about translations, I tend very strongly to speak in terms of lines of division. There are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, and never shall the twain meet. Now I actually believe there is a continuum (illustrated here), but that continuum easily gets lost in discussion.

    Let’s take [tag]The Message[/tag] for example. The key question people ask me, and the one I’m likely to bring up if they don’t, is whether this version is really a translation or not, and whether it is “good to use.” I can then analyze the language, and how close it is to the source, and in general I must admit that The Message doesn’t seem to me to reflect the original very accurately in many cases.

    But let’s shift context. Would I say the same thing about [tag]Eugene Peterson[/tag]’s teaching or his exposition in other material that he has written? There’s a bright line there that we may not always acknowledge. If he’s expounding, it’s OK. If he’s translating, well, not so much. What we are generally looking for is a solid line that divides working with the original languages from translation, and then working with a translation from someone’s exposition.

    But is such a line realistic? Let’s compare my reading of Hebrew, for example, to that of a Rabbi who has spent his entire life working strictly with the Hebrew text. Alternatively we could compare my reading to someone who has spent his entire life studying comparative ancient near eastern languages, which is closer to my own study. Since I went from that study at the MA level to teaching Bible at the popular level, I have spent a great deal less time in the details. I would expect there to be points that either of those experts would see in the text that I would easily miss. When I read their expositions, I see this in action.

    Let me belabor the point a bit before I build on it. I had read Leviticus through in Hebrew several times on my own, and done so in connection with Nahum Sarna’s JPS commentary, for example, but then I picked up Leviticus with Jacob Milgrom’s three volume Anchor Bible set. I claim to study from the original languages, and I do–in a sense. But not like that!

    On the other hand I regularly encounter preachers who say that they prepare their sermons from the original languages, and yet can barely work through the material word by word. Now don’t take this as criticism. I congratulate them for using all the tools at their disposal, but their specialty and their calling doesn’t allow them to become experts in everything.

    Hopefully that portrayal will do to show three levels of reading of the source texts–the expert in the texts, the person with facility in the language yet who does not professionally research on linguistic issues, and the pastor/teacher who knows some of the language. Anyone with experience could fill in the blanks either direction.

    We could similarly work our way through a continuum of levels of study with various English translations, based on how accurately the text conveys the maximum possible content of the source text. Somewhere in there we should fit someone who studies from multiple English versions.

    Finally, if we keep looking, we’ll find those persons who really don’t learn directly from the text or a translation at all, but rather learn the Bible in their community through exposition. There is a contempt in conservative Christianity for such people, but there are many who do know their Bibles quite well simply because they are regularly in the church when the scriptures are read and expounded, or they get similar knowledge from reading. This kind of thing makes folks like me nervous, because there are plenty of written materials that I believe distort the meaning.

    Now note that the continuum I have presented is based solely on comprehending the intended message of the text. If I were to abandon that particular question, I might ask instead what methods of study and exposition result in the greater absorption of the spirit of the text by the students. That would result in quite a different list.

    I could again shift views and try to build a continuum based on what produces a community sense of worship in reading scripture. This is a tremendously neglected area in many protestant churches. The information content is the sole criterion. The notion of the scripture reading as a vehicle for community worship is rarely considered. I can evoke cries of dismay when I suggest that respect for the scriptures might well be enhanced by reading all four lectionary texts on a Sunday. There seems to be a sense that if we don’t talk about it, if there is no sermon that builds directly on all those texts, there is no point in reading them. That comes from the idea that only knowledge is important.

    When reading scripture for worship, the literary quality of the text becomes more important, and especially the sound of the text when read aloud. Out of modern versions I like the sound of the [tag]New Jerusalem Bible[/tag] or the [tag]Revised English Bible[/tag] in public reading, but I know a number of people who would still go for the [tag]KJV[/tag] solely for its literary beauty. Now I don’t happen to like the KJV all that well myself, but I believe that literary taste has only a small objective portion and a very large subjective portion (a few notes on this here).

    If I were to work solely from my own tastes, I would suggest trying to match the literary quality of the original in translation. If so, [tag]Hebrews[/tag] should be harder to read, even when you know all the vocabulary words, than is [tag]1 John[/tag]. But of course it should not merely be harder to read; that’s just a product of someone not steeped in the language and rhetorical techniques reading a rather sophisticated text. The translation would need to be a literary masterpiece in English. My question would be this: Can you do that without reorganizing the material? In order to present the message of Hebrews as perhaps a masterful short theological essay, would we not need to take liberties with the structure of the book? After all, few English readers even notice the various literary features.

    What I’m suggesting here is that none of these issues are binary issues, and that there are very few absolutely right and wrong answers. I use the slogan “the best Bible version is one your read.” My point is that different people will be comfortable reading, and will understand different Bible versions. There will always be a compromise on what is conveyed and what is filtered out by the translation choices. That is simply a feature of translating, transforming, or expounding a message.

    One last note for those working on single translations into languages that are likely to have only one. There I can think of no better goal than “clear, accurate, and natural.” It’s very easy to set goals that are out of range of human thinking. In English, where so much effort is expended, we have the luxury of using multiple version and thousands of books of exposition to get the message across. In languages much less privileged–or abused–that doesn’t exist. There I would have to say that having something clear, accurate, and natural would come before anything else.

    I sense that understanding in Peter Kirk’s post “Literary Translation” and Obfuscation, which I think brings up a number of points. Look at that post from the perspective of a Bible translator who is not adding yet another English translation to the literature.

    Let me note the following from John Hobbins: Is Literary Translation Possible and If a text is literary, its dynamic equivalent in translation must also be literary From the second I take the following:

    But that means that dynamic equivalent translations like the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version are improperly done. For vast swathes of the Old Testament, the translation they offer is not literary enough.

    My point would simply be that I don’t accept the phrase “improperly done.” They are done according to the goals of their translators. The proposed “literary” translation would not accomplish that goal. Let me belabor the point some more. I love reading the [tag]REB[/tag]. It sits open on the reading stand by my computer because I love to consult it. I love to read it aloud. But I cannot use it in teaching, because I end up with too little understanding of the text. What to me is literary beauty obscures the meaning for them.

    For my goals in teaching, the REB is “improperly done.” But for my goals in reading and study, it is quite “properly done.”

  • Rightly Dividing or Slicing and Dicing – Jeremiah 4:23

    In debates on creation and evolution I have occasionally encountered the ruin and restoration theory. This view allows an old earth, but does so in a different way. Genesis 1:1 is viewed as an original creation, and then the word in 1:2 normally translated “was” is instead translated “became.” I discuss the details in the article above.

    But what I find even more interesting, and certainly more relevant to this Bible study blog, is the slicing and dicing that must be done on verses elsewhere in scripture in order to make them fit with this theory. In fact, one of my major complaints about dispensationalism is that it tends to make it next to impossible to read contextually. The context is created by the dispensations, but clearly not recognized by the writers of the text.

    An example of this tendency is Jeremiah 4:23. This is summarized in a note in [tag]Scofield[/tag]’s Reference Bible: “Cf. Gen. i.2. “Without form and void” describes the condition of the earth as the result of the judgment (vs. 24-26; Isa. xxiv. 1) which overthrew the primal order of Genesis i.1.”

    But if you look at Jeremiah 4, you find that the topic has nothing to do with any original creation, nor with a primal judgment but rather with a judgment on Judah for its sins. The prophet goes on to depict the destruction that will come on the land. There is no literary division between verse 22, clearly about Judah, and verse 23, which Scofield is claiming refers to another time and place.

    The argument is that “without form and void” refers back to Genesis 1:2, as surely it does. But for what purpose does it make this reference? It intends to compare the judgment to a removal of all the blessings of creation and to evoke that primal emptiness as a hyperbolic description of the destruction to come to Judah. Is there justification for calling it hyperbole? Absolutely. First, I would accept this as hyperbole based on the context alone. The context clearly indicates the destruction of Judah by Babylon, and “without form and void” is hyperbole in connection with that destruction. But further, in verse 27, after providing this description of absolute destruction, we find this: “. . . yet will I not make a full end.” “Without form and void” is pretty complete. This is all allowable in poetic language.

    To understand this as referring to another time and place is to take it completely out of the context of Jeremiah. Such an interpretation would mean that Jeremiah suddenly, in the middle of a comparatively coherent discussion of one topic, changes subjects for several lines without any indication that the subject has changed, and then switches back. Verse 28, for example, again speaks of this destruction as future.

    If one can do that, then one can take any phrase or clause of scripture and force it to mean anything one desires.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 6

    This past week seems to have been a good week for me reading St. John Chrysostom. It started from my reading of the book Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, and then looking up further contents for the selections. This is the second selection from the same author I’m quoting.

    I have written previously on Hebrews 6 and the possibility for those who have fallen away to repent and be restored. I want to quote Chrysostom, who takes a somewhat different angle, especially with the increased emphasis on baptism. In general, however, I found this very good reading. You can find the whole book on Christian Classics Ethereal Library, a wonderful resource page which I encourage you to visit.

    [8.] What then (you say)? Is there no repentance? There is repentance, but there is no second baptism: but repentance there is, and it has great force, and is able to set free from the burden of his sins, if he will, even him that hath been baptized much in sins, and to establish in safety him who is in danger, even though he should have come unto the very depth of wickedness. And this is evident from many places. “For,” says one, “doth not he that falleth rise again? or he that turneth away, doth not he turn back to [God]?” (Jer. viii. 4.) It is possible, if we will, that Christ should be formed in us again: for hear Paul saying, “My little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. iv. 19.) Only let us lay hold on repentance.

    For behold the love of God to man! We ought on every ground to have been punished at the first; in that having received the natural law, and enjoyed innumerable blessings, we have not acknowledged our Master, and have lived an unclean life. Yet He not only has not punished is, but has even made us partakers of countless blessings, just as if we had accomplished great things.

    Again we fell away, and not even so does He punish us, but has given medicine of repentance, which is sufficient to put away and blot out all our sins; only if we knew the nature of the medicine, and how we ought to apply it.

    What then is the medicine of Repentance and how is it made up? First, of the condemnation of our own sins; “For” (it is said) “mine iniquity have I not hid” (Ps. xxxii. 5); and again, “I will confess against myself my lawlessness unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart.” And “Declare thou at the first thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa. xliii. 26.) And, “The righteous man is an accuser of himself at the first speaking.” (Prov. xviii. 17.)

    Secondly, of great humbleness of mind: For it is like a golden chain; if one have hold of the beginning, all will follow. Because if thou confess thy sin as one ought to confess, the soul is humbled. For conscience turning it on itself causeth it to be subdued.

    Other things too must be added to humbleness of mind if it be such as the blessed David knew, when he said, “A broken and a contrite heart God will not despise.” (Ps. li. 17.) For that which is broken does not rise up, does not strike, but is ready to be ill-treated and itself riseth not up. Such is contrition of heart: though it be insulted, though it be evil entreated, it is quiet, and is not eager for vengeance.

    And after humbleness of mind, there is need of intense prayers, of many tears, tears by day, and tears by night: for, he says, “every night, will I wash my bed, I will water my couch with my tears. I am weary with my groaning.” (Ps. vi. 6.) And again, “For I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.” (Ps. cii. 9.)

    And after prayer thus intense, there is need of much almsgiving: for this it is which especially gives strength to the medicine of repentance. And as there is a medicine among the physicians’ helps which receives many herbs, but one is the essential, so also in case of repentance this is the essential herb, yea, it may be everything. For hear what the Divine Scripture says, “Give alms, and all things shall be clean.” (Luke xi. 41.) And again, “By alms-giving and acts of faithfulness sins are purged away.” (Prov. xvi. 6.) And, “Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms will do away with great sins.” (Ecclus. iii. 30.)

    Next not being angry with any one, not bearing malice; the forgiving all their trespasses. For, it is said, “Man retaineth wrath against man, and yet seeketh healing from the Lord.” (Ecclus. xxviii. 3.) “Forgive that ye may be forgiven.” (Mark xi. 25.)

    Also, the converting our brethren from their wandering. For, it is said, “Go thou, and convert thy brethren, that thy sins may be forgiven thee.” And from one’s being in close relations with the priests, “and if,” it is said, “a man hath committed sins it shall be forgiven him.” (Jas. v. 15.) To stand forward in defense of those who are wronged. Not to retain anger: to bear all things meekly.

    There are a couple of key points that I know would seem odd to my United Methodist congregation, though they aren’t contrary to Wesleyan theology.

    First, as I already mentioned, the strong emphasis on baptism and its character. One can repent, but cannot be rebaptized. Many modern church members see baptism as nothing more than a celebration of a life experience, rather than the deep spiritual reality reflected here and elsewhere in patristic literature.

    Second, the description of the nature of repentance and the activities and attitudes that go with it will be foreign to many modern Christians. Repentance often means to us that we say “I’m sorry” and express determination not to continue, with a level of determination that will keep us on the straight and narrow until nightfall.

    I might think some of the intensity reflected in this passage is perhaps slightly overdone, but then again, perhaps it is a necessary expression. Are we not more likely to treat our sin more lightly than it deserves than we are to treat it too harshly?

  • Chrysostom Quote on Suffering

    Sufferings are a perfecting and a cause of salvation. Do you see that to suffer affliction is not the fate of those who are utterly forsaken, if indeed it was by leading him through sufferings that God first honored his Son? And truly his taking flesh to suffer what he suffered is a far greater thing than creating the world out of things that are not. This is indeed a token of his lovingkindness, but the other far more. — On the Epistle to the Hebrews 4-4, quoted from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews.

    This quote in my reading today relates wonderfully to the post I wrote for my wife’s devotional list.

  • Book: Hebrews

    Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. 437 pages.

    This is the second of two commentaries I have been spending a great deal of time with. The library managed to get both of them to me on the same day, loaned from different libraries–a shocking event!–and thus I worked with them in parallel.

    This is Harold W. Attridge’s volume in the Hermeneia series. I can say almost the same thing as I said about the last commentary, though the author is much less known. But Attridge has produced a commentary that goes right along with the standards expected of the Hermeneia series.

    Most criticisms of Biblical commentaries come from someone buying/borrowing the commentary with the wrong expectations. For example, the New International Commentary on the New Testament can expect material suitable to a serious Bible student or pastor. It is an extremely valuable series for the expository preacher. Hermeneia, on the other hand, is aimed at the scholar, and you should expect to have some trouble following it if you are not acquainted with major critical disciplines.

    This volume is no exception. It’s discussions of major critical issues are extremely strong, but you will find very little that can be imported directly into your sermons or Bible lessons. That shouldn’t be a complaint–that’s not the purpose of the volume. You will find many things that you can apply if you take the time to think about them and figure out the applications for yourself.

    I would recommend this to any scholar or serious Bible student with some background in critical disciplines. Some Greek will also be useful.

  • Book: The Book of Hebrews

    Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990. 426 pages.

    I’ve been reading and using F. F. Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews for the last few weeks, and it has to go back to the library tonight as I’ve exhausted my renewals, so I thought I’d write a few notes. For those acquainted with F. F. Bruce or the New International Commentary on the New Testament little comment is necessary. Essentially it’s what you would expect from that author in that series.

    For those who are not acquainted with author and series, this commentary manages an excellent compromise between scholarly depth and value for the pastoral library. If you ignore the footnotes you will find a great deal to incorporate into your expository teaching. The footnotes tend to bring in a great deal of technical detail that will be of interest only to those who know Greek or the various disciplines of Biblical criticism.

    This is an evangelical commentary which comes through especially in the application. It does not shy away from critical issues, however. Note that this is one of the older volumes, and so is based not on the NIV, but rather on the RSV and NEB. I do not, however, consider it too far out of date to be extremely useful.

    Generally I commend this commentary to the library of pastors or teachers who have a fair amount of background in Biblical studies. Biblical languages are optional, but will allow you to make more use of footnotes and some of the more advanced material. Pastors can expect to find useful material for sermons quickly and easily.

  • The Difficult Message of Hebrews

    Hebrews 5:11-14 describes the message of the book as difficult, chides the readers/listeners for not being ready for a meaty message, and then goes on to the more difficult message nonetheless. So what is basic, what is difficult, and what is it that makes the difficult message difficult? (OK, I take the 1,000 point deduction for using the word “difficult” too many times in one sentence.)

    Since I believe that the first 14 verses of Hebrews 6 are the heart of the message of the book. Once a person has been enlightened and set off on the Christian journey, can they turn back? Once they have turned back, can they repent yet again? This is a complex way of stating the more basic point: Endurance is required for the walk of faith. (For some previous thoughts on this topic, see Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?.)

    The author outlines these basic foundation items in 6:1–repentance, faith, baptism, laying on hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment. All of these elements are, of course, in the early stages of the proclamation of the good news. I’ve been reviewing material in the gospel of Mark, and one can find all of these elements, though the very specific “laying on of hands” is only fully developed in the early church. Nonetheless Jesus identifies people, empowers them and sends them out (Mark 6:6-13). These basic elements identify the key points of coming to repentance believing in Jesus and in turn going out to make disciples.

    To many of us in the church today, I’m sure this sounds like it’s not so basic. One of the biggest struggles I encounter in churches is getting members past the point of just being there and on to the point of making disciples. I wonder if the audience didn’t have a similar reaction to this letter when they first heard it.

    I can hear the chatter out in the congregation now. “What does he mean, ‘basic.’ That’s a serious message he’s preaching there. What more do you need if you’ve gone from repentance to being sent out again.”

    But again my study of Mark reminded me of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-9). It’s interesting that the author of Hebrews brings in plants as well (verses 7-8), though in a somewhat different context. I don’t want to suggest interpreting Hebrews 6 according to the parable of the sower, but there are some similar points. I do, however, think that the seed metaphor can be used to help understand the point in the Christian experience described by Hebrews 6. It’s not just the seeds that never sprout at all that fail in the parable. Out of the four categories of seed, three sprout. Only one fails completely (the birds eat the seed), while one succeeds completely (grows and produces fruit). The other two raise some of the same questions we have here. Can you fail after you receive the word? If you do fail, can you return? The parable of the sower makes no attempt to answer the second one.

    Two categories of seed start to grow but don’t finish, and both fail because of the hardships of the journey. It seems to me that this illustrates that the advanced material has to do with advancing on the Christian walk. The entire book of Hebrews bristles with the challenge not to give up, turn back, go off track, or fail to enter God’s rest. Most of us have experienced this sort of thing. We hear the gospel message and are excited, but we then encounter the actual church, warts and all and we become a little less enthusiastic. All too often, the cares of this world, or even the cares of Christian ministry choke us off, and there is no fruit.

    This is a hard saying. We can get into some terrible debates over the perseverance of the saints, or the perseverance of Christ on behalf of the saints. I discussed this once with a Calvinist student. We were discussing a person who had left the church after having been an enthusiastic Christian. I was interested in our vocabulary. We both agreed that this person had once publicly confessed Jesus Christ as savior. We both agreed he had set out on the path of discipleship. We both agreed that his love had grown cold and that he had forcefully rejected the life that he once knew. Where we differed was on vocabulary. I used the vocabulary of accepting Christ (being saved) and falling away. He stated that the man had apparently accepted Christ, but as it turned out it must not have been for real, as demonstrated by his falling away.

    It seems to me that those two positions are separated by vocabulary and not by practical reality. What apparently happens is the same. How we describe it is different. The author of Hebrews seems to me to describe this much more as a present danger to every believer. “Keep on going toward maturity (or perfection),” he says. “Don’t fall back!”

    Good advice, but advanced advice. It’s much easier to start a race than to finish it. The author of Hebrews knew that, and thus challenged Christians to run the race to completion (Hebrews 12:1-3).

    [This post deals with the answer to question #6, Lesson 7, Page 41 of my study guide to Hebrews]