The Debate on Biblical Authority: Mohler vs. Stanley

Debates are often good. What?!? Yes, I reiterate, debates are good. Disagreements, when handled in a godly, civil fashion, can lead to a furtherance of learning and understanding. No one is perhaps better at debating than Baptists…although some Baptist debates lose their godliness and certainly their civility. In the theological world, a debate has been ensuing between Andy Stanley and Dr. R. Albert (Al) Mohler. Stanley is the son of the great Dr. Charles Stanley (pastor of First Baptist Church of Atlanta) and is senior pastor of North Point Community Church also in Atlanta. Dr. Al Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lexington, Kentucky. The debate surrounds the comments made by Stanley in his message “The Bible Told Me So” (see link below). Stanley essentially states that the Bible is not the supreme authority–Christ is. He further goes on to note that if we are to reach individuals in this post-Christian culture, we must appeal to the evidential sources of Christianity and not the Bible alone (Stanley 2016, NorthPoint.org).

Mohler responds to Stanley’s message with a warning. He claims that another individual sought to do what Stanley is supposedly doing. That person is Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern theological liberalism. Schleiermacher, says Mohler, sought to “salvage spiritual and moral value out of Christianity while jettisoning its troublesome doctrinal claims, supernatural structure, and dependence upon the Bible. He was certain that his strategy would ‘save’ Christianity from irrelevance” (Mohler 2016, albertmohler.com).[1] Who is right? Well, without trying to straddle the fence, I do believe that both individuals bring important truths to the table.[2] Mohler and Stanley are correct in at least three areas.

mohler

Mohler is right about the authority of Scripture as it relates to the Christian’s life (2 Timothy 3:16).

If there is a serious problem plaguing the modern church, it is the rise of biblical illiteracy. Biblical illiteracy is not going to be solved by avoiding the Bible. In fact, Christian leaders must engage the Bible even more in their messages and lessons. Quick anecdotes and savvy punchlines will not improve the lack of biblical knowledge in our day. It will take in-depth expository messages to turn the tide. Mohler’s high view of Scripture is justified. The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).[3] Paul was addressing the Old Testament Scriptures (also known as the Hebrew Bible). But the New Testament writings would quickly assume the same status. Paul writes to Timothy, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (1 Timothy 5:18). The first quote comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. But the second quote is especially interesting. Paul quotes directly from Jesus as recorded in Luke’s Gospel. Notice that Paul says “For the Scripture says.” Paul elevated the Gospels to the same status as the Hebrew Bible. Peter also elevates the epistles of Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 when the aged apostle quips, “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” Note here again that the New Testament writings are elevated to the status of Scripture. Thus, Mohler is right to be concerned with the lack of Scriptural exposition taking place in many modern churches. It is the Word of God that will bring a change in the lives of believers.

Mohler is right about the inspiration of Scripture as it relates to the final revelation of God (Titus 1:2).

I also share Mohler’s view of Scripture. I hold to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture. The logic makes sense. Paul reminds Titus, “for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began” (Titus 1:2). God does not lie. It is not that God chooses not to lie. God cannot lie if He is absolutely holy. With this logic in place, it stands to reason that God cannot speak falsehood. Giving that the Bible is the revelation of God, then it only stands to reason that the Bible is true and cannot be false. Thus, a believer should place a high value on the written words given by God. I still remember, and will never forget, the advice given to me when I first entered the ministry. My mentors would say, “If you keep your messages between the covers of Genesis and Revelation, you’re on solid ground. If you go beyond these covers, you’re on your own.” I agree wholeheartedly.

Mohler is right about the safeguard that comes with a high view of Scripture.

I also share Mohler’s concern with the erosion that comes when the safeguard of Scripture is removed. Schleiermacher’s well-intended liberalism, which sought to spare Christianity from the flood of doubt coming its way from the times, led to one Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann, a German theologian, sought to de-mythologize the Bible by removing all its miraculous content. Bultmann, who was undoubtedly influenced by Humean philosophy,[4] led a movement that would ultimately give rise to such groups as the Jesus Seminar and the like. Liberal theology has led to the doubts of many. Liberal theology has not led to the strengthening nor the salvation of Christianity. In contrast, it has led to many towards atheism and agnosticism. Mohler is right to be concerned with the lack of biblical exposition in modern churches.

While Mohler is right on several points, I find myself in agreement with some of what Stanley says as well. I agree with Stanley on three points.

andy-stanley

Stanley is right about the authority of the Christian tradition as it relates to the final apologetic (1 Corinthians 15:3-9).

Stanley points to the authority of the pre-New Testament traditions and sources. I am surprised that Mohler takes issue with Stanley on this point. The Bible’s authenticity is strengthened by the strong evidence relating to these traditions, creeds, and formulae found in the pages of the New Testament. Perhaps the most important of all these early traditions is that which is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Here, Paul relates to the Corinthian church what he had received a few years after Christ arose from the dead. Paul writes, “For what I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:3-7).

The Bible does not hold authority because it is the Bible. The Bible holds authority because it is the truth. The believer should not worry. Christianity is an evidential faith. Christianity has been tested and it stands on its own. Why? It is because Christ literally rose from the dead. Christ’s resurrection is not a fanciful wish or desire. Christ’s resurrection is reality.

Stanley is right about the primacy of Christ above all else (Colossians 1:15ff).

I also agree with Stanley that we must worship Christ and not the Bible. The reason the Bible is the Word of God is because of God Himself. Thus, the Bible points us to the reality of the triune God. Paul, writing to the church of Colossae, notes that Christ “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Colossians 1:15-16a). While we must place great emphasis on the Bible, we cannot allow the Bible to itself become an idol. Our worship is of the risen Christ Jesus.

Stanley is right about the need to appeal to evidence to reach the current generation.

I also find myself in agreement with Stanley in the need to provide evidence for the post-Christian generation which we are trying to reach. Most people are not going to listen to what we say about the Bible until they know that there are reasons to accept the Bible as an authentic document. Apologetics is necessary to do evangelism in modern times. William Lane Craig has noted on his podcast, Reasonable Faith, that we are amid an exciting time. An apologetic renaissance has begun. This renaissance is not something to fear. Rather, it is something that Christians, including Mohler, should embrace. This website has noted the resistance that the modern church has held against apologetics, which is quite bizarre.

So, what can one draw from this debate? I think the following conclusion can be made:

Mohler is right in his strong view of Scripture and Stanley is right in his strong view on apologetics: therefore, the appropriate view consists of a blending of both.

Let me say, I respect both Al Mohler and Andy Stanley. Both have contributed greatly to the kingdom of God. However, I think Mohler and Stanley are both guilty of accepting an “either/or” mentality when they should accept a “both/and” approach to this issue. Yes, the Christian should preach and teach the truths found in the Bible. I think Stanley is guilty of taking too low a view of Scripture. 

Yes, the Christian should engage the evidences and promote apologetics. I think Mohler has taken too high a view of Scripture, bordering on the level of fideism.[5] Quite honestly, the modern preacher should seek to find a balance between Mohler and Stanley’s view. The Christian leader would do well to wholeheartedly focus on the truths of God’s Word, discipling people in the truths of the Scripture, while also standing ready to provide evidence for the faith one holds (1 Peter 3:15). Theology and apologetics are two sides of the very same coin. Both are necessary. Both should be sought. Both should be accepted.

© October 3, 2016. Brian Chilton.

Sources Cited

McKnight, Scot. “In the Beginning: The Gospel—Al Mohler vs. Andy Stanley.” Jesus Creed (October 3, 2016). http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/10/03/in-the-beginning-the-gospel/?platform=hootsuite.

Mohler, R. Albert. “For the Bible Tells Me So: Biblical Authority Denied…Again.” AlbertMohler.com (September 26, 2016). http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/09/26/bible-tells-biblical-authority-denied/.

Stanley, Andy. “Why ‘the Bible Says So’ Is Not Enough Anymore.” Outreach Magazine (September 30, 2016). http://www.outreachmagazine.com/features/19900-the-bible-says-so.html/3.

Stanley, Andy. “The Bible Told Me So.” North Point.org (August 28, 2016). http://northpoint.org/messages/who-needs-god/the-bible-told-me-so/.

Notes

[1] For full fairness on this topic and the authors involved, the links to all the writings and resources concerning this debate are posted in the “Sources Cited” section of the article.

[2] In full disclosure, I am a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention. Even though Mohler is part of the SBC and Stanley has connections to the SBC, I seek to examine the points of view from both participants in this debate.

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001, 2007).

[4] Humean philosophy comes from the atheist philosopher David Hume who rejected the miraculous and argued that it was impossible for the miraculous to take place. Furthermore, it assumed that it was impossible to prove that a miraculous event took place in history.

[5] Fideism is the view that faith alone is necessary without any evidence whatsoever. In many ways, fideism is a blind faith and ends up committing a circular reasoning fallacy.

Review of Peter Kreeft’s “Socratic Logic”

Kreeft, Peter. Socratic Logic: A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles. 3.1 Edition. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2014. $40.00. 399 pages.

Socratic Logic

Peter Kreeft provides an introductory textbook on the argumentative logic of Socrates in his book Socratic Logic. The 16 chapters of Kreeft’s book could be divided into three main sections: the First Act of the Mind–Understanding; the Second Act of the Mind–Judgment; and the Third Act of the Mind–Reasoning. These three sections are based upon the three main functions of any argument. First, one must define the terms to see whether they are clear or ambiguous. Then, one must evaluate the premises to determine whether they are true or false. Finally, one must test the argument to see whether the argument is valid or invalid.

The first section of Kreeft’s book helps the logician define the terms being presented in an argument. In other words, the terms are defined within the argument. A helpful section on material fallacies is given in chapter 3. Chapter 3 should be given great focus. The reader will find the listing of 40 material fallacies quite helpful. Personally, I found it quite fascinating how often these fallacies are used in popular media and politics.

The second section of Kreeft’s book demonstrates how premises are tested for their accuracy. The essence of truth and contradiction is given in this section of Kreeft’s book. For a person who is interested in logic–which it is assumed that the reader of this book would–great concentration will need to be given to the universal propositions (A, E) and particular propositions (I, O) given on page 146.

The third section of Socratic Logic focuses on the third test for logical accuracy which involves testing the argument for validity. By far, the third section is the longest and most difficult of all. Kreeft provides an array of various arguments from the more basic syllogism to the more difficult enthymemes and epicheiremas. Chapter 9 is especially good as Kreeft provides four ways to test the validity of any argument: Euler’s Circles, Aristotle’s Six Rules, “Barbara Celarent,” and Venn Diagrams. Because I am a visual person, I really enjoyed Euler’s Circles. However, I think Aristotle’s Six Rules are perhaps the best test as Kreeft argues on page 263.

Kreeft gives some helpful information in the latter chapters as it pertains to reading books in a logical fashion. Chapter 15 gives excellent information on how to write logically. Chapter 16 is perhaps the capstone of the book. Kreeft shows how logic applies to every part of a person’s life from theology to modern ethics.

Socratic Logic finds strength in its layout. Kreeft emphasizes the importance in knowing the three fundamentals of an argument: clarity of the terms, truthfulness of the premises, and the validity of the argument. The book is laid out according to these three fundamentals. This provides excellent structure and imprints the fundamentals upon the reader’s mind.

Another strength is the applicability of Kreeft’s book. While mathematical logic is extremely important, Socratic logic is applicable in everyday life. It seems as if there is an instantbologna detector found in this form of logic. As this reader read through Kreeft’s book, common examples of modern fallacies entered this reader’s mind. One will even find oneself evaluating posts on social media according to the principles learned in this book…something for which I had to apologize to one friend.

The greatest weakness of Kreeft’s book is its readability. If a person is looking for an easy read, this book is not for you.Socratic Logic is a book that must be slowly digested rather than quickly consumed. If one does not care about how much they learn, then it is supposed that a person could read through the book much quicker. But if one did not care to learn the information, then why read it in the first place?

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who desires to know the truth and how to test truth claims. Relativists will not like this book because Kreeft presents truth as it truly is: objectively known. This reader agrees with Kreeft’s definition, but relativists may not. Essentially, truth is calling something what it is. Truth, and the knowledge thereof, should be of utmost importance to all people.

I give this book 5 glowing stars!!!

Copyright, May 15, 2016. Brian Chilton.

A Case for the Empty Tomb (Part 3-The Biblical and Theological Arguments)

For the previous couple of weeks, we have looked into the veritability of the empty tomb hypothesis; that is, that the tomb of Jesus was literally found empty on the first Easter Sunday morning. We have already confirmed historically that the tomb was found empty due to the burial practices of the first-century Jews and also due to the numerous times that Romans allowed clemency for the families to bury the victims of crucifixion especially during the days of Emperor Tiberius (things radically changed in this regard with Emperor Caligula). We have also noted the failure of alternate viewpoints in explaining away the empty tomb. In this article, we will conclude our research as we investigate the biblical and theological arguments for the empty tomb. The biblical argument will ask the question, “Did the early church really believe that the tomb was found empty the first Easter Sunday?” The theological argument will weigh how much Christian theology revolves around the empty tomb hypothesis. Why would the early church value these important attributes of Jesus if the tomb still held the body of Jesus?

The Biblical Argument for Accepting the Empty Tomb Hypothesis

Did the early church believe that the tomb was empty? Scholars hold that strewn throughout the pages of the New Testament are ancient traditions. These ancient traditions predate the writing of the New Testament and represent the beliefs of the earliest church. Gary Habermas notes that some of the passages considered to be ancient traditions in addition to 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 “receiving scholarly attention are 1 Corinthians 11:26…Acts, especially 2:22-36, 4:8-10, 5:29-32, 10:39-43, 13:28-31, 17:1-3, 30-31; Romans 4:25; Philippians 2:8; 1 Timothy 2:6; [and] 1 Peter 3:18.”[1] In addition to these passages, Habermas also notes that “Matthew 27:26-56; Mark 15:20-47; Luke 23:26-56; [and] John 19:16-42”[2] represent ancient traditions that date to the time of the earliest church. Licona adds Romans 6:4 to the forum.[3] Of the numerous traditions listed, the paper will evaluate only two that pertain most directly to the empty tomb: the original ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:1-8),[4] and 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Scholarly consensus along with evidence in the earliest manuscripts indicates that Mark’s Gospel ended at Mark 16:8. Whereas Mark 16:1-8 does not enjoy the consensus that some of the other traditions hold, Licona notes that there “appear to be close similarities between the four-line formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and other passages such as Mark 15:37-16:7 and Acts 13:28-31.”[5] If Licona is correct, then one can argue that Mark 16:1-7 holds nearly the same force, being an early tradition, that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 seemingly enjoys. Seeing 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 enjoys strong consensus that the text relates a tradition that dates back to the earliest church, a fact that will be addressed later in this section.

Nevertheless, Mark 16:1-7 provides evidence that Mark believed that Jesus’ tomb was found empty on the first Easter Sunday. Mark notes that the women “went to the tomb” (Mark 16:2). The women wondered who would roll away the large stone from the tomb (Mark 16:3). The women noticed that “the stone had been rolled back—it was very large” (Mark 16:4). The women “entered the tomb” (Mark 16:5). The women had an angelophany where an angel announced they sought “Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him” (Mark 16:6). The women left the tomb with great fear (Mark 16:7). Review the information provided in the text. The women came to the tomb, acknowledging that Jesus was indeed buried in a tomb. The women entered the tomb expecting to see the body of Jesus. The women had an angelophany in the tomb where it was announced that Jesus had risen, noting that the tomb was empty. The women left with great fear because the tomb was empty. Thus, Mark’s original ending demands the existence of an empty tomb. It was noted earlier that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 holds universal scholarly consensus as being an ancient tradition. Does 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 afford any insight to the existence of an empty tomb?

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a tradition that Paul received from the church “within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion and from the disciples themselves.”[6] Thus, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is of great historical value. The tradition also allows for the empty tomb hypothesis. The tradition notes that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Corinthians 15:3b-5). The structure of the tradition assumes that the tomb of Jesus was empty. Craig notes that the reference to the burial of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 makes “it very difficult to regard Jesus’ burial in the tomb as unhistorical, given the age of the tradition (AD 30-6), for there was not sufficient time for legend concerning the burial to significantly accrue.”[7] It notes that Jesus physically died. Jesus was physically buried. Jesus physically raised from death. Jesus physically appeared to the disciples, demanding that the previous place of burial was left empty. Therefore, the empty tomb holds biblical support with early church traditions demonstrating that the early church believed that Jesus’ tomb was empty. So, what theological value does this hold?

The Theological Argument for Accepting the Empty Tomb Hypothesis

Thus far, the paper has evaluated the evidence for the empty tomb hypothesis. William Lane Craig notes that the evidence for the empty tomb “is so compelling that even a number of Jewish scholars, such as Pinchas Lapide and Geza Vermes, have declared themselves convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus’ tomb was found empty.”[8] However, one must ask, what value does the empty tomb hypothesis hold for the overall scope of Christian theology?

First, the empty tomb serves to demonstrate the divine nature of Christ. The empty tomb serves as evidence for the resurrection. The resurrection serves as evidence of Jesus’ deity. Millard Erickson denotes that “to Jews of Jesus’ time, his resurrection would have signified divinity, we must ask about the evidence for it.”[9] Norman Geisler states that “while the empty tomb in and of itself is not proof of the resurrection, it is an indispensable prerequisite to the evidences (the physical appearances of Jesus).”[10]

Also, the empty tomb provides evidence that God will fulfill the teachings and promises given through Christ, especially that Christ will one day return. Perhaps Paul says it best when he notes that “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17).

Theologically, the entire basis of the Christian faith rests upon the resurrection of Christ. If Christ has been raised from the dead, then the Christian faith is verified. Furthermore, if Christ was raised from the dead, then obviously one clearly concludes that the tomb which housed his body was emptied of his physical presence.

Conclusion

The empty tomb hypothesis holds great weight historically, biblically, and theologically. Secular naturalism does not offer any appropriate alternatives. If one is to follow the evidence where it leads, one must note that the disciples encountered an empty tomb on the first Easter Sunday. While it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, it is highly probable that Jesus’ tomb was found empty on the first Easter Sunday. Yet, the empty tomb did not transform the disciples. The encounters the disciples had with the risen Jesus empowered the disciples with great courage and boldness. The empty tomb serves as a reminder that Christ has been raised from death and that each person can have an encounter with the risen Jesus by simply calling upon his name. The empty tomb also reminds humanity that Jesus came, Jesus left, and one day Jesus will return.

 Copyright, March 28, 2016. Brian Chilton.

  Notes

[1] Gary Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 39, 65n.

[2] Ibid., 39, 66n.

[3] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 222.

[4] While the ending of Mark is not listed among the early traditions, scholars generally hold to the primacy of Mark’s Gospel as it represents the earliest of the Gospels. Thus Mark represents the earliest tradition in the Gospel narratives.

[5] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 321.

[6] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 53.

[7] Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, eds. The Resurrection, 253.

[8] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 371.

[9] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 710.

[10] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011), 1512.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael, F., et. al. How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Edition. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Davis, Stephen; Daniel Kendall, SJ; and Gerald O’Collins, SJ, eds. The Resurrection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ehrman, Bart. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

_______________., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.

_______________. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 2011.

_______________., and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.

_______________. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010.

Meyers, Eric M. “Secondary Burials in Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970): 2-29. In N. T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Miller, Richard C. “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 129, 4 (2010): 759-776. Accessed November 6, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Smith, Daniel A. “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q.” Novum Testamentum 45, 2 (2003): 123-137. Accessed November 6, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

 

 

A Case for the Empty Tomb (Part 2: Historical Evidence)

The previous section examined the arguments posed against the empty tomb hypothesis. The paper demonstrated in the first article that the arguments against the empty tomb hypothesis fail greatly. This article will provide a historical argument for the empty tomb hypothesis. If the Gospels are correct in that the tomb was truly empty on the first Easter Sunday, then one would expect to find that the ancient burial practices of first-century Judaism would match the type of burial that is presented in the Christian tradition. Did people in first-century Palestine bury their dead tombs like the “new tomb…cut in the rock” (Matthew 27:60)?

The canonical Gospels’ account of Jesus’ burial indeed matches the burial practices of first-century Palestine. Elwell and Beitzel denote that “Bodies were buried in tombs, that is, natural caves or rock-hewn sepulchers, such as that belonging to Joseph of Arimathea where the body of Jesus was laid (Mt. 27:59, 60), as well as in shallow graves covered with rock heaps serving both to mark them and to prevent desecration of the body by animals.”[1] Thus, even if Jesus had been buried in a shallow grave, the practices of the time did not readily allow easy access to predators. Yet, as it was noted earlier, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent Joseph of Arimathea. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Evangelists would invent the empty tomb especially due to the use of a rock-hewn tombs at the time.

N. T. Wright notes that “the burial so carefully described in the gospels was, as we would expect in first-century Palestinian Judaism, the initial stage of a two-stage burial.”[2] Families would bury their dead in a rock-hewn tomb. The families would prepare the body with spices. Then after a year, the family would return to gather the bones of the departed and place them in a family ossuary.[3] Why did they conduct this practice? Wright, paraphrasing Eric M. Meyers work, notes that “secondary burial…reflects a belief in a continuing nephesh, [sic] enabling the bones to provide ‘at least a shadow of their strength in life’, with the mortal remains constituting ‘the very essence of that person in death.’”[4] Since the Evangelists’ description of the burial of Jesus matches the practices of first-century Palestinian Judaism, the empty tomb hypothesis again strengthens. But, would Pilate have granted the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea?

JamesOssuary-1-
This ossuary holds an inscription that it is the burial box belonging to James, the brother of Jesus–traditionally held to be the writer of the Epistle of James and early leader of the church.

History demonstrates that the Romans often granted clemency under certain circumstances. Craig Evans notes that Septimius Vegetus, governor of Egypt; Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor; and an inscription from Ephesus all demonstrate that Roman officials often provided various acts of clemency towards various condemned individuals.[5] Evans goes on to say,

 This mercy at times extended to those who had been crucified. Clemency sometimes was occasioned by a holiday, whether Roman or a local non-Roman holiday, or simply out of political expediency, whatever the motivation. We actually have evidence that Roman justice not only allowed for the executed to be buried, but it even encouraged it in some instances.[6]

Therefore, one will find that history provides ample evidence that not only did Palestinian Jews bury in accordance to the method prescribed by the Evangelists, but also that the Romans provided clemency for the body of the condemned to be given to the family to bury. If one remembers that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred during Passover when the bodies of the condemned were not to be allowed to remain on the cross (John 19:31), then the empty tomb hypothesis gains further merit.

This section has reviewed the historical data that confirms the empty tomb hypothesis. However, one must also query whether evidence exists that the early church believed that Jesus’ was placed in a tomb and that the tomb was found empty on the following Sunday. That topic will be evaluated in the forthcoming article next week.

Copyright, March 21, 2016. Brian Chilton.

 

Notes

[1] Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 386.

[2] Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 707.

[3] Ossuaries were burial boxes where the bones of several family members could be kept after their bodies had mostly decomposed.

[4] Eric M. Meyers, “Secondary Burials in Palestine,” The Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970): 15, 26, in Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 91.

[5] Craig Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right,” in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 75.

[6] Ibid., 75-76.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael, F., et. al. How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Edition. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Davis, Stephen; Daniel Kendall, SJ; and Gerald O’Collins, SJ, eds. The Resurrection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ehrman, Bart. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

_______________., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.

_______________. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 2011.

_______________., and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.

_______________. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010.

Meyers, Eric M. “Secondary Burials in Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970): 2-29. In N. T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Miller, Richard C. “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 129, 4 (2010): 759-776. Accessed November 6, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Smith, Daniel A. “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q.” Novum Testamentum 45, 2 (2003): 123-137. Accessed November 6, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

A Case for the Empty Tomb (Part 1: Arguments Against the Empty Tomb)

Surprising as it may seem, several aspects of the life, death, and apparent resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars, both evangelical and secular alike. In his book The Historical Jesus, Gary Habermas provides twelve minimal facts about Jesus that nearly all scholars agree, but that the empty tomb is “not as widely accepted, [even still] many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.”[1] Why is the empty tomb not as widely a held fact by scholars as other aspects of Jesus’ life? Seeing that scholars agree that “the disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus,”[2] would an empty tomb not be implied? It would seem so. William Lane Craig notes that “if the burial story is basically accurate, the site of Jesus’ tomb would have been known to Jew and Christian alike.”[3]

Therefore, this paper will defend the hypothesis that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was empty on the first Easter morning, demonstrating that it coincides with the notion that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead in a physical and literal body. To demonstrate such a case, the paper will first evaluate arguments offered against the empty tomb hypothesis. Next, the paper will provide historical reasons for holding that an empty tomb was possible. Then, the paper will assess the early church’s belief that the tomb was empty. Did the early church believe the tomb to be empty or was it a later legendary fabrication as some argue? Finally, the paper will evaluate the theological reasoning behind accepting the empty tomb hypothesis. The forthcoming section will first weigh the arguments provided against the empty tomb hypothesis.

Arguments Against the Empty Tomb Hypothesis

As noted in the introduction of the paper, many scholars concede that the disciples saw something on the first Easter morning, although differences exist as to what it is believed that the disciples witnessed. One would assume that an empty tomb would be implied. However, scholars do not always concede that the tomb was actually empty. Part of this skepticism comes from the apparent brief ending of Mark’s Gospel. Most scholars believe that Mark’s Gospel ended with verse 8 with the words, “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).[4] Daniel Smith argues that “Several features of Mark’s Empty Tomb narrative (Mark 16:1-8) suggest the possibility that it could have been understood as an assumption story, particularly in view of the fact that Mark describes no appearance of the risen Jesus.”[5] Even if Smith is correct, one would still have to acknowledge the words of the angel who said to the women at the tomb, “You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him” (Mark 16:6). The paper will address Mark 16 in a later section. So, how is it that skeptical scholars evade the empty tomb hypothesis? Antagonists to the empty tomb propose one of the following three arguments: the tomb was empty due to a conspiracy by the Christians, no actual burial took place, or the disciples simply traveled to the wrong tomb. While other naturalistic views exist, these three most directly affect the empty tomb hypothesis. The paper will now examine these proposals in greater depth.

Conspiracy by the Christians

The first theory against the empty tomb is the oldest. Matthew records that some of the soldiers who witnessed the resurrection came to the Jewish elders and told them what had occurred. The leaders then said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep’” (Matthew 28:13). It is difficult to fathom why the disciples would desire to steal Jesus’ body and proclaim him risen all the while claiming that they were promoting the truth. Two problems immediately emerge with the stolen body theory.

First, resurrection as one finds it in the New Testament was not anticipated in the era of Second Temple Judaism. N. T. Wright notes that “‘Resurrection’ in its literal sense belongs at one point on the much larger spectrum of Jewish beliefs about life after death; in its political, metaphorical sense it belongs on a spectrum of views about the future which YHWH was promising to Israel. The hope that YHWH would restore Israel provided the goal.”[6] Wright adds insight to Martha’s acknowledgement in that she believed that her brother Lazarus would “rise again in the resurrection on the last day” (John 11:24) when Jesus stated that her “brother will rise again” (John 11:23). Richard Miller accurately notes that “most scholars have failed to classify properly how Mark’s ‘empty tomb’ narrative would have registered in its Mediterranean milieu. Indeed, it would have been the body’s absence, not its presence, that would have signaled the provocative moment for the ancient reader.”[7] If the early Christians were not expecting a physical resurrection of Jesus during their time, then why would the disciples steal the body of Jesus in the first place? But, another reason cuts away at the foundation of the stolen body theory.

Second, conspiracies generally collapse when the conspirators are challenged. J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist homicide detective turned Christian apologist, notes that successful conspiracies share the following attributes: “A small number of conspirators…Thorough and immediate communication…A short time span…Significant relational connections…Little or no pressure.”[8] Wallace adds that the “ideal conspiracy would involve only two conspirators, and one of the conspirators would kill the other right after the crime. That’s a conspiracy that would be awfully hard to break!”[9] Since the disciples faced brutal deaths and never stopped proclaiming Jesus as risen, the empty tomb hypothesis is strengthened. In addition, Kreeft and Tacelli add that the “disciples’ character argues strongly against such a conspiracy on the part of all of them, with no dissenters.”[10] Since the stolen body theory is the oldest, it was given more attention than the remaining antagonistic theories. Nevertheless, some hold that Jesus was never buried at all.

No Burial

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman eludes the problems found with the stolen body theory by promoting the idea that Jesus was never buried in the first place. Ehrman believes that scholars must decipher the Gospels “with a critical eye to determine which stories, and which parts of stories, are historically accurate with respect to the historical Jesus, and which represent later embellishments by his devoted followers.”[11] As it pertains to the empty tomb, Ehrman is led to believe that Jesus was never buried and that “the tradition that there was a specific, known person who buried Jesus appears to have been a later one.”[12] Another variation of this argument is propagated by John Dominick Crossan and posits that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and was “dug up, and eaten by dogs.”[13] Crossan’s argument is basically rendering a variant of the theory that Ehrman proposed. Is there any evidence that Jesus was buried? Since the paper will handle historical reasons to believe that an empty tomb existed, the paper will provide such an answer in the forthcoming section of the paper.

Suffice it to say, it seems unreasonable that the disciples would invent a tomb that could be verified by the people living in the area at the time. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains early eyewitness testimony that predates the New Testament, a fact that nearly every scholar concedes. Licona denotes that “the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is quite early, very probably based on eyewitness testimony, and is multiply attested in term of a general outline of the sequence of events.”[14] How interesting it is that the tradition includes the words that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4, emphasis mine). If it is true that the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15 dates to the earliest church, then the idea that Jesus was buried cannot be a product of late legendary development.

Wrong Tomb

Another theory holds that the disciples were truly innocent in their claims, but sadly mistaken. The wrong tomb theory, as Geisler illustrates, holds that “the Roman or Jewish authorities took the body from the tomb to another place, leaving the tomb empty.”[15] This theory is simple to dismiss. If the Romans and/or Jewish authorities knew where the body of Christ lie, the authorities would simply have presented the body thus killing the Christian movement from the outset. Note that the disciples began preaching in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus had been crucified and buried, a mere fifty days after the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 2:14). In addition, Geisler and Turek note that the Gospel writers “record that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy. This is not an event they would have made up.”[16] If the early Christians had a connection with Joseph of Arimathea, then any move by the Romans and/or Jewish authorities would have been noted by Joseph of Arimathea. Therefore, this theory fails miserably.

This article has handled the various naturalist theories that dismiss the empty tomb hypothesis. The next article will provide various historical reasons to believe that the tomb was empty the first Easter.

Copyright, March 13, 2016. Brian Chilton.

Bibliography

Bird, Michael, F., et. al. How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd Edition. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Davis, Stephen; Daniel Kendall, SJ; and Gerald O’Collins, SJ, eds. The Resurrection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Ehrman, Bart. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

_______________., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.

_______________. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 2011.

_______________., and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.

_______________. The Risen Jesus & Future Hope. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010.

Meyers, Eric M. “Secondary Burials in Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist 33 (1970): 2-29. In N. T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Miller, Richard C. “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity.” Journal Of Biblical Literature 129, 4 (2010): 759-776. Accessed November 6, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Smith, Daniel A. “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q.” Novum Testamentum 45, 2 (2003): 123-137. Accessed November 6, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Volume 3. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Notes

[1] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2011), 158.

 [2] Ibid.

[3] Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, SJ, and Gerald O’Collins, SJ, eds. The Resurrection (Oxford, UK: Oxford University [4] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011).

[5] Daniel A. Smith, “Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Post-mortem Vindication of Jesus in Mark and Q,” Novum Testamentum 45, 2 (2003): 129, retrieved November 6, 2015.

[6] N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Volume 3, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 204.

[7] Richard C. Miller, “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity,” Journal Of Biblical Literature 129, 4 (2010): 767, retrieved November 6, 2015.

[8] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013), 111-112.

[9] Ibid, 111.

[10] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994), 185.

[11] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 13.

[12] Ibid., 142.

[13] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 387.

[14] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 323.

[15] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 644.

[16] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 281.

The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee (Part 3: Distinctives–Tripartite View of the Self)

The following excerpt is from the author’s academic paper “The Impact Of Watchman Nee’s Pneumatology.”

Watchman Nee held to a tripartite view of the self, also termed “trichotomy.”[1] That is to say, Nee believed that each person held three distinct aspects of being. The person possesses a soul, a spirit, and a body. Whereas the body is understood to be the person’s physical body, Nee argues that “the Bible never confuses spirit and soul as though they are the same. Not only are they different in terms; their very natures differ from one another.”[2] For Nee, the spiritual aspect of the person is the eternal part of the person. Nee notes that “The spirit is the noblest part of man and occupies the innermost area of his being.”[3] The body is obviously understood to be the person’s physical body. Nee understood the soul to act as a mediator between the spirit and body. Nee believed that before the fall, man’s soul (which consists of the mind, will, and emotions) was controlled by the spirit. After the fall, fleshly desires direct the human soul. Thus, Nee argues that the “soul is the pivot of the entire being, because man’s volition belongs to it. It is only when the soul is willing to assume a humble position that the spirit can ever manage the whole man.”[4] Are there Scriptural reasons to believe that a person is a tripartite being?

The Scripture references spirit, soul, and body in various locations. However, most trichotomists, like Nee, stress two particular Scriptures. First, the writer of Hebrews states that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Christian dualists, who hold that the soul and spirit are part of the same essence, argue that “this apparent contrast between the soul and spirit to be a figure of speech describing the power of the Word of God…it can, as it were, divide the indivisible.”[5] What of the other biblical reference often purported by trichotomists?[6]

Second, Paul’s petition for the Thessalonians is referenced where Paul prays, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). The trichotomist will claim that the spirit and soul are divided, thus they must be separate entities within the human construct. Again, Geisler offers a rebuttal claiming that the text “refers to all these dimensions as being part of one whole [sic].”[7] What does one make of Nee’s claims?

On the one hand, a person must acknowledge the differences listed in the aforementioned texts. It does not appear that the division of soul and spirit can easily be cast off as mere figures of speech. But on the other hand, many difficulties arise when the soul and spirit are separated to extreme measures. For instance, if the soul represents the mind and the spirit represents the eternal nature of the person, would the person remain conscious in the intermediate state?[8] What happened to Jesus after giving up his spirit (John 19:30)? Did the soulish part of Jesus’ existence become non-existent between the time of his death and resurrection?

This paper holds that it is best to consider the person’s immaterial being (soul/spirit) as one entity, but holding separate functions. The spirit serves to function as the immaterial portion of the person that communes with God, whereas the soul is the immaterial portion of the person that holds the mind, will, and emotions. Nee is correct to note that the mind must be transformed by the Spirit of God. However, such an admonition does not necessitate an extreme tripartite view. Perhaps Geisler in correct in noting that human beings are “three in direction: They have self-consciousness, world-consciousness, and God-consciousness.”[9] This paper agrees with Geisler’s view as the theory eliminates the problems that stem from extreme tripartism, yet still notes the distinctives of the spirit and soul within the metaphysical aspect of the person.

Copyright. January 26th, 2016. Brian Chilton.

Bibliography

 Adeney, D. “Nee, Watchman,” Who’s Who in Christian History. Edited by J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992.

Erling, Bernhard. “Story of Watchman Nee.” Lutheran Quarterly 28, 2 (May 1976): 140-155. Accessed November 20, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will. Third Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010.

_______________. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

Hui, Archie. “The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee: a New Testament Perspective.” The Evangelical Quarterly 76, 1 (January 2004): 3-29. Accessed November 20, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Lee, Joseph Tse-Hei. “Watchman Nee and the Little Flock movement in Maoist China.” Church History 74, 1 (March 2005): 68-96. Accessed November 20, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Nee, Watchman. Sit, Walk, Stand. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 1977.

_____________. The Normal Christian Life. Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980.

_____________. The Spiritual Man: In Three Volumes. New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1968.

Tennent, Timothy C. Theology in the Context of World Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Endnotes 

[1] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 727.

 

[2] Nee, The Spiritual Man, Vol. 1, 21.

 

[3] Ibid., 27.

 

[4] Ibid., 28.

 

[5] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 735.

 

[6] Tripartism and trichotomy are used interchangeably in this portion of the paper.

 

[7] Ibid.

 

[8] Here, the intermediate state refers to the period of time between death and the resurrection.

 

[9] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 740.

 

The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee (Part 2-Distinctives: Sanctification)

The following is an excerpt from the academic paper “The Impact of Watchman Nee’s Pneumatology.”

The most distinctive trait of Watchman Nee’s theology is his unique pneumatology. Yet, it must be considered whether Nee’s pneumatology is truly unique. Perhaps, the perceived uniqueness of Nee’s pneumatology is the focus he places upon the Holy Spirit. Western theologians often place a great deal of focus on the Father and the Son while neglecting the Third Person of the Godhead. For many Western systematic theologians, the Father and Son are given entire chapters and units, whereas the Holy Spirit is lucky to have a footnote referencing his personal work. If Norman Geisler is correct in that the “Father is the Planner, the Son is the Accomplisher, and the Holy Spirit is the Applier of salvation to believers,”[1]—which this paper holds that Geisler is correct in his assessment—then the theologian is obliged to give ample attention to the Holy Spirit. In this regard, Nee’s focus may be better balanced than the Western theologian who neglects the Spirit entirely. Nevertheless, Nee’s pneumatology is marked by three distinct hallmarks: sanctification, the tripartite view of the self, and his focus on spiritual empowerment. How does Nee understand sanctification?

 Sanctification

Norman Geisler defines “sanctification” as the “present and continuous process of believers becoming Christlike, accomplished by the Holy Spirit’s power and presence.”[2] For Nee, sanctification requires an act from God and participation by the believer. First, sanctification requires the working of God, which in turn requires faith for the believer. Nee compares the act of sanctification to that of sitting, meaning that “The Christian life from start to finish is based upon this principle of utter dependence upon the Lord Jesus…‘Sitting’ is an attitude of rest. Something has been finished, work stops, and we sit.”[3] Thus, Nee notes that a person’s transformation occurs when one finds rest in the work of God. From this, one will acknowledge the substantial role that Nee gives to the Holy Spirit in personal transformation, thereby discrediting any accusation of a works-based salvation towards Nee’s soteriological discourse. For Nee, sanctification is a work of God. Nee notes that “the sinner believes in the Lord Jesus he is born anew. God grants him His uncreated life that the sinner’s spirit may be made alive”[4] While sanctification is a work of God, Nee holds that the believer plays a role in spiritual development.

Second, Watchman Nee believed that the Christian played an important role in staying close to the Spirit of God for the development of one’s spirit. Hui notes that Nee held a difference between the “external work of the Spirit which results in the believer’s empowerment for ministry…and the internal work of the Spirit which results in the believer’s spiritual renewal.”[5] Later, Nee’s idea of spiritual empowerment will be addressed. However, for now, one must note the role that the believer plays in their spiritual development according to Nee’s pneumatology. Nee held that “Authentic life can be seen only in the abandonment of self. If the nature, life and activities of the created one are not denied, the life of God has no way to express itself…Salvation, then, is to deliver man from his created, natural, animal, fleshly, and self-emanating will.”[6] Thus, the role of the believer in sanctification is to turn one’s will over unto God, while walking in the Holy Spirit. But, if a person’s will is depraved, how can they continuously turn to God? For Nee, this was possible because “God imparts new life in order for us to abandon our will to Him.”[7] God gave the believer the ability to walk in accordance with his will. Nee notes that “Sitting describes our position with Christ in the heavenlies. Walking is the practical outworking of that heavenly position here on earth.”[8] So, the human effort purported by Nee is not that human beings can save themselves. Rather, Nee follows in the holiness tradition in that a person plays a role in their sanctification. It is this area of Nee’s theology that is given the most scrutiny. Does Nee hold any ground in this area of his pneumatology?

Those in the Calvinist camp will hold the greatest problems with Nee’s theology. Nee enters into the debate surrounding God’s sovereignty and human freedom. In full disclosure, this paper does not hold to either an extreme Calvinist position or an extreme Wesleyan position. Rather, this paper holds to the balanced approach given by Norman Geisler called the “classical view because it was held by classical theologians like Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.”[9] It holds that God’s sovereignty and human freedom coexists and works in cooperation to the ultimate end. Nevertheless, Scripture seems to indicate that the believer does work alongside the Spirit to a degree. Paul says that the Corinthians are “being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:2).[10] And again Paul writes to the Philippians that they were to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). In the end, Nee desired that believers would hold fast to the Spirit of God and strive to life out their lives in such a way that would please God. Ultimately, Nee noted that “Living in the Spirit means that I trust the Holy Spirit to do in me what I cannot do myself.”[11] In addition to Nee’s distinctive beliefs in Christian sanctification, Nee also held a tripartite view of the self.

Next week, we will examine another distinctive of Watchman Nee’s pneumatology–the tripartite view of the self.

 

Copyright January 15th, 2016. Brian Chilton.

Endnotes

[1] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011) 549.

 

[2] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 806.

 

[3] Watchman Nee, Sit, Walk, Stand (Carol Stream; Fort Washington, PA: Tyndale House; Christian Literature Crusade, 1957), 3.

 

[4] Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man, Vol. 2 (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1968), 9.

 

[5] Hui, “The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee,” The Evangelical Quarterly, 9.

 

[6] Nee, The Spiritual Man, Vol. 3, 82.

 

[7] Ibid.

 

[8] Nee, Sit, Walk, Stand, 16.

 

[9] Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd ed (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010), 145.

 

[10] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

 

[11] Nee, The Normal Christian Life, 119.

 

The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee (Part 1–Introduction and Biography)

The following excerpt is from an academic paper by Brian Chilton titled “The Impact of Watchman Nee’s Pneumatology.”

Watchman Nee was a profound individual. Western theologians have often had a profound impact on the history and theology of the Christian church rather than Majority World Christians. However, as Archie Hui notes, Watchman Nee “has the rare distinction that his influence is felt not only among the Chinese, but also in the world at large.”[1] What is it that makes Nee so influential? What has Nee contributed to the global church? The answer to both questions resides in Watchman Nee’s pneumatology. Pneumatology refers to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Watchman Nee’s pneumatology left an indelible impression upon the global church. What were the distinctives of Nee’s pneumatology? How did Nee transform the church of his day? What can modern Western Christians learn from Nee’s example? These questions will be addressed in this paper.

Thus, this paper will demonstrate that Nee’s pneumatology provided great impact for the House Church Movement in China. To demonstrate the impact of Nee’s pneumatology, the paper will first provide a brief biography of Watchman Nee. Then, the paper will examine the distinctives of Nee’s pneumatology. Next, the paper will observe how Nee’s theology influenced the Chinese House Church movement. Finally, the paper will seek to address how Nee’s pneumatology can help Western Christians as they face a culture that is becoming more and more anti-Christian in its outlook. Before engaging with Nee’s theology, one must first understand Watchman Nee.

Biography of Watchman Nee

Watchman Nee’s real name was “Nee Tao Shu.”[2] Erling notes that Nee was born “November 4, 1903 in Swatow, Kwantung Province.”[3] Both Nee’s father, Ni Weng-hsiu, and mother, Huo-ping, were Christians. Nee would accept Christ as a teenager. During his educational career, Nee, as Erling denotes, was “educated both in the Chinese classics and the Bible.”[4] During Nee’s Christian education, he “was greatly influenced by Margaret Barber, an English missionary who introduced him to the writings of Jessie Penn-Lewis, D. M. Panton, and J. N. Darby.”[5] Barber was an Anglican missionary and had a great impact on Nee’s life. John Darby, also an Anglican, is known for his work in the dispensational movement. Nee’s association with the London Brethren would lead him into a strong complementarian stance on women in leadership. As Erling notes, Nee placed “restrictions on women in his group. They were to wear headgear in church… [and] he argued that women should not engage in public preaching, except to other women.”[6] Other ecclesiastical issues also troubled Nee.

Nee was troubled by the secularism and great compromising nature of the churches of his time. Nee writes that “It is a historic fact that in Christ my old man was crucified, and it is a present fact that I am blessed…but if I do not live in the Spirit, then my life may be quite a contradiction of the fact that I am in Christ, for what is true of me in Him is not expressed in me.”[7] Thus, Nee called for a spiritual reform of sorts. He called for a life that was focused and centered upon living a life directed by the Holy Spirit. The details of Nee’s pneumatology will be listed in the forthcoming section. Before one can understand the impact that Nee has made upon the persecuted church, one must first understand the persecution that Nee endured.

When Nee returned to China, he began a pharmaceutical company. A few years after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the government pressured Nee and his congregants to join the “government-led Three Self Reform Movement (self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating).”[8] Nee, as well as his wife Charity, were falsely charged and imprisoned by the Communist Chinese government. In part, Lee notes that the “proliferation of the Little Flock congregations and their religious activism revealed the failure of the Maoist state to exercise absolute control in the religious sphere.”[9] Nee suffered greatly during his time in prison. Erling notes that in the “Cultural Revolution of 1966 Red Guards broke into the Shanghai prison, and there is evidence that in this episode Nee was violently molested and suffered a fractured arm.”[10] Despite his sufferings, Nee remained steadfast in his dependence upon the Holy Spirit.

Part of the reason that the Communist Chinese government sought to imprison Nee was because of Nee and his congregants’ ecclesiastical viewpoints, which derived from Nee’s strong pneumatology. Their ecclesiology did not imbibe in political infrastructures, but was rather focused primarily on the kingdom of God. Joseph Tse-Hei Lee explains,

Because the Little Flock was Chinese in origin and a truly Three-Self Christian movement, Watchman Nee and his followers refused to be subject to the control of the Maoist state. They strongly believed that they were called out of this world to follow and serve Jesus Christ and that they could exist outside of politics yet coexist with the Communist government in the post-1949 era.[11]

While Nee and the Little Flock were involved in political activism, perhaps it was the views held by Nee and the Little Flock that challenged the power that the communist government sought to enforce. Unfortunately, Nee was never released from prison. Not much is known about Nee’s death outside of the fact that Nee died while still imprisoned. Erling notes that Nee “appears to have been moved from the Shanghai prison to a rural work camp. A letter written in April 1972 refers to his chronic heart condition, from which he does not expect to recover, but also to his continuing joy.”[12] Whatever one makes of Nee’s theology, one must acknowledge the great faith that Nee maintained while suffering for Christ. What were the core distinctives of Watchman Nee’s pneumatological belief structure? The forthcoming section will investigate Nee’s pneumatology.

Next week, we will examine the distinctives of Watchman Nee’s pneumatology.

© January 7, 2016. Brian Chilton.

Bibliography

Adeney, D. “Nee, Watchman,” Who’s Who in Christian History. Edited by J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992.

Erling, Bernhard. “Story of Watchman Nee.” Lutheran Quarterly 28, 2 (May 1976): 140-155. Accessed November 20, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will. Third Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010.

_______________. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

Hui, Archie. “The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee: a New Testament Perspective.” The Evangelical Quarterly 76, 1 (January 2004): 3-29. Accessed November 20, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Lee, Joseph Tse-Hei. “Watchman Nee and the Little Flock movement in Maoist China.” Church History 74, 1 (March 2005): 68-96. Accessed November 20, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Nee, Watchman. Sit, Walk, Stand. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 1977.

_____________. The Normal Christian Life. Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980.

_____________. The Spiritual Man: In Three Volumes. New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1968.

Tennent, Timothy C. Theology in the Context of World Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

 

 Endnotes

[1] Archie Hui, “The Pneumatology of Watchman Nee: a New Testament Perspective,” The Evangelical Quarterly 76, 1 (January 2004): 3, retrieved November 20, 2015.

 

[2] D. Adeney, “Nee, Watchman,” Who’s Who in Christian History, J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort, eds (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992), 501.

 

[3] Bernhard Erling, “Story of Watchman Nee,” Lutheran Quarterly 28, 2 (May 1976): 141, retrieved November 20, 2015.

 

[4] Ibid.

 

[5] Adeney, “Nee, Watchman, Who’s Who in Christian History, 501.

 

[6] Erling, “Story of Watchman Nee,” Lutheran Quarterly, 143.

 

[7] Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life (Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1957), 119.

[8] Erling, “Story of Watchman Nee,” Lutheran Quarterly, 146.

 

[9] Joseph Tse-Hei Lee, “Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China,” Church History 74, 1 (March 2005): 93, retrieved November 20, 2015.

 

[10] Erling, “Story of Watchman Nee,” Lutheran Quarterly, 147.

 

[11] Lee, “Watchman Nee and the Little Flock Movement in Maoist China,” Church History, 68-69.

 

[12] Erling, “Story of Watchman Nee,” Lutheran Quarterly, 148.

 

The Pastor-Scholar: Contemplations on the Possibility

Almost anyone who has been convicted of the great theological problems influencing the modern American church would confess that now, perhaps more than in the past century, the church needs trained Christian leaders to diagnose and confront current issues. I have been under the persuasion that the church needs pastor-scholars—pastors who are scholarly in their endeavors. However, recently my perception of that notion was challenged by a piece written by Andrew Wilson in Christianity Today. Wilson argues that while it is possible that a few may become pastor-scholars, most who try to combine the endeavors will do neither. Wilson approaches the term “scholar” as one who is highly trained in one specific area.

At first, I highly disagreed with Wilson. However, the more I have read his article, the more I have felt that there is a need to revise the term “pastor-scholar.” I would like to argue that we need highly trained pastors to engage the church and the community around them, that it is possible to have pastor-scholars. However, I would like to suggest that we qualify the term towards another direction. First, let us look at the challenges facing one who pursues the tag “pastor-scholar.”

The Challenges of a Pastor-Scholar.

Wilson writes,

“But how feasible is it to be both a scholar and a pastor? I suspect many of us know individuals who, by aiming to be both a pastor and a scholar, have ended up being neither. More commonly, some aspire to be both equally, but indicate by their speech and actions—let alone by their weekly timetables—that they major in one and minor in the other” (Wilson 2015, CT.com).

I understand fully where Wilson is coming from. I am currently a pastor of a small, rural church and a full-time seminary student.[1] Luckily, our church only has one service on Sunday and a Wednesday night Bible study each week. I say luckily because I normally spend a minimum of 6 hours in preparation for each service. With the incredible workload from school as well as the pastoral responsibilities of visitation and the like, in addition to caring for my family; my time is stretched. Thus, there are specific challenges if one seeks the term “pastor-scholar.”

Time. As noted earlier, scholarship and pastoral leadership both require an exorbitant amount of time. While there are some who can manage the task (i.e. N.T. Wright, John Piper, etc.), most will find this to become a taxing challenge.

Generalist-Specialist. Scholars are deemed specialists in one particular field. Wilson understands scholarship to be “about mastering an area of research in a way that advances human knowledge…For scholars, praxis is the tail, research is the dog, and the former is not meant to wag the latter” (Wilson 2015, CT.com). Pastors, in contrast, must become generalists, concentrating on broad topics and being studied in several areas. As you may even note about this website, we deal with a variety of topics. Such is a generalist approach.

University-Church. In addition, as noted by Wilson, the scholar will need to spend a great deal of time at the university in research. The pastor will need to spend a great deal of time with the congregation. Thus, one may find oneself stretched when accomplishing both.

Despite the difficulties, the modern church screams forth, “We need pastors who are equipped to face the challenges from theological and political liberalism, secularism, and the like.” So why should one even consider being an academic pastor?

The Need for Scholarly Pastors.

There are at least two reasons that trained, scholarly pastors are needed in the modern climate. Think of these reasons like the two-sided squads of a football team. A football team needs a good offensive squad and a good defensive squad. Likewise, trained pastors are essential to offer the same.

Theological Offense.

A good, grounded theology offers a great offense for modern Christians. The Christian needs to know what it is that Christianity purports. Bob Dill, a member of our congregation, said just this week, “Our great failure in the church is the lack of training that we offer new Christians” (Bob Dill, conversation). It seems as if the modern church accepts new converts and then allows them to fly off on their own without the least bit of help before pushing them out of the nest. This demonstrates the great need for theology in the church. Bruce Riley Ashford and Keith Whitefield provide two observations pertaining to theology,

“First, Scripture anticipates theology because it reveals truth about God and furthermore provides the true story of the whole world…Second, Scripture anticipates theology because it invites humanity into the drama of redemption by provoking change in the people of God and calling them to know and love him” (Ashford and Whitfield 2014, 4-5).

Does it not seem like an integral responsibility to provide a solid theological foundation for the church? Jesus himself when meeting with the two men on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection took time to explain the theological reasons behind his own life, death, and resurrection. Luke records that Jesus “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).[2] In order to provide theological training, the pastor will need to be trained himself.

Apologetic Defense.

In football, it is said that a good offense wins games, but a good defense wins championships. Likewise, the pastor will need to be able to defend the truths of Scripture to be able to make a great impact on the faith of those to whom he has been assigned. Again, this may require a generalized approach. The scholarly pastor will need to have the means to defend the faith historically, scientifically, and/or philosophically. Hopefully, one will note the great reason for a pastor to be at least “scholarly” in his approach. Despite all of this, one can still appreciate the challenges to be considered a “pastor-scholar.” Perhaps the entire difficulty is originated semantically. Could there not be a reason to establish a new category?

The Need for a New Category—“The Pastor Theologian?”

Michael Kruger offered in his piece “Should You Be a Pastor or a Professor? Thinking Through the Options” six categories of the pastor-scholar which are,

“1. The Pastor…the average…pastor who is theologically-trained…but not engaged in any meaningful study/research”…2. The Pastor-Scholar…individual [who] has an interest in theological and scholarly issues that goes beyond the average pastor mentioned above…3. The Pastor-Scholar who is active in the scholarly world…4. The Scholar-Pastor who is active in the church…a full-time professor/academic with a Ph.D., but still very much engaged with the local church and with pastoral ministry…5. The Scholar Pastor…a full-time professor and has a real heart for the church and for pastoral ministry, but is not as actively engaged in it himself…6. The Scholar…a pure scholar [who has] secondary interest in how it might impact or be used in the church” (Kruger 2015, MichaelJKruger.com).

I feel that Kruger offers a better assessment than does Wilson in this regard. Seeing as how Wilson’s primary issue was with the term scholar and what that entails, perhaps a better term for the “pastor-scholar” is the “pastor-theologian.” The “pastor-theologian” would fit in the second category of Kruger’s paradigm. However, I think it needs to be said that being a pastor-scholar is not as impossible as Wilson purports.

Conclusion

Andrew Wilson provides a great article on the issue of what is called the “pastor-scholar.” While being a pastor and a scholar is a great challenge, there are many individuals who fill the qualifications. For instance, I could name numerous scholars at Liberty University who engage in top-notch scholarship while also being involved in local pastoral ministry. Other pastors-scholars from other universities would also fit the bill such as Phil Fernandes. Others throughout history fit the bill as well, such as John Calvin, John Wesley, for a time B. B. Warfield, Martin Luther, and many others. Thus, while it may be a challenge to be a pastor-scholar, it is not an impossibility.

Perhaps for those of us who are striving to become scholars and are also engaged in pastoral ministry we would be better served by the title “pastor-theologian” since we are involved in academic work, but not yet qualified in one specific area (such as those who hold a Ph.D.). Perhaps the greatest problem with Wilson’s assessment is in his assumption that specialists cannot speak on generalist terms. It may well be said that scholars are even better to evaluate general areas of interest due to their training. Also, if one acknowledges the New Testament setup, the pastor is among many others in the church who do the task of ministry. Part of the problem may also be found in ministries that expect the pastor to be pastor, preacher, counselor, electrician, plumber, gardener, carpenter, financial guru, and so on (see Acts 6:2).

Regardless of which category a pastor finds oneself, may the pastor be found to continually deepen his knowledge through the study of Scripture and theological pursuits. As Paul writes, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

Sources Cited

Ashford, Bruce Riley, and Keith Whitfield. “Theological Method: An Introduction to the Task of Theology.” A Theology for the Church. Revised Edition. Edited by Daniel L. Akin. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2014.

Dill, Bob. Conversation with author. September 30, 2015.

Kruger, Michael J. “Should You Be a Pastor or a Professor? Thinking Through the Options.” MichaelJKruger.com (July 6, 2015). Accessed October 3, 2015. http://michaeljkruger.com/should-you-be-a-pastor-or-a-professor-thinking-through-the-options/.

Wilson, Andrew. “Why Being a Pastor-Scholar is Nearly Impossible.” ChristianityToday.com (September 25, 2015). Accessed October 3, 2015. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/september-web-only/why-being-pastor-scholar-is-nearly-impossible.html?share=ZUx%2fdfTCxLFQYLDKaovhOwQN%2fyjvIjmX.

 [1] God-willing, I hope to graduate December 2015.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

A Theology of Missions

When the term “missions” is used, great missionaries such as Lottie Moon, Annie Armstrong, and/or William Carey come to mind. For others, missions may bring the thought of a Christian sitting amongst tribal peoples in a jungle. Yet, the term “missions” is understood to be, as Moreau and his colleagues describe it, the “specific work of the church and agencies in the task of reaching people for Christ by crossing cultural boundaries.”[1] Yet, one must inquire, what theological foundation exists for one to engage in missions? This paper will argue that missions is built upon biblical and systematic theological understandings about God. The paper will first examine two Old and New Testament texts that support missions. Next, the paper will examine the nature of God as he relates to missions work. In addition, the paper will examine two theological attributes of God and how they relate to missions endeavors. Then, two motifs pertaining to mission theology will be evaluated. Finally, the paper will demonstrate that missions should be part of the lives of missionaries, clergy, and the laity alike. In the first section, the paper will provide two Old and New Testament texts that support the field of missions.

Old and New Testament Texts that Support Missions

Strewn throughout the Bible, one will find evidence that God has been involved in missions endeavors since the fall of humanity. The first evidence of God’s mission work is found in Genesis 3:15. Moreau and his fellow authors call Genesis 3:15 the “protoevangelium…the promise that Jesus will come for all people.”[2]

In the so-called protoevangelium, God makes the promise to Adam and Eve, as well as to Satan—the instigator of the fall—that God would “put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15, brackets mine).[3] Thus, the passage ensures that God would save humanity from the fall and the separation that exists between God and humanity. This solution would materialize in the Messiah who “takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Yet, within the Old Testament there exists another example of God’s mission mindset.

In Genesis 12:1-3, God calls Abraham, then known as Abram, to leave his homeland. God promises Abram that he would “make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing…and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3). While God concerned himself with the so-called chosen people, known as the Israelites, God’s mission mindset was demonstrated as he sought to use the Israelites to reach other nations for his glory. As the psalmist recalled, “All of the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you” (Psalm 22:27). Whereas the mission-mindedness of God is acknowledged in the Old Testament, the mission-minded nature of God is clearly demonstrated in the New Testament.

Sometime after the resurrection, Jesus meets eleven disciples in Galilee (Matthew 28:16). Jesus tells them that they are to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20). Particular individuals who hold to extreme forms of cessationalism view the commands of Christ as applicable to only the eleven apostles at the time. Yet, William Carey, the patriarch of the modern missions movement, argued that “if the command of Christ to teach all nations be restricted to the apostles…, then that of baptizing should be so, too…then ordinary ministers who have endeavored to carry the Gospel to the heathens, have acted without warrant…[and] the promise of the divine presence in this work must so be limited.”[4] That is to say, if Christ’s command to evangelize all nations was only given to the apostles, then the promises offered by Christ were only given to the apostles. In addition, one must ponder the following: if the commands of Christ given in the Great Commission only applied to the apostles, then why was Matthew compelled to document Christ’s teaching in the first place?

Before the ascension of Christ, Jesus provides a model by which the apostles were to perform their missions work. Jesus instructed the apostles that they would “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). From the instructions given by Jesus, the apostles were to begin where they were located—“in Jerusalem” (Acts 1:8). From there, the apostles were to reach outlying areas—“Judea and Samaria” (Acts 1:8). In the end, the apostles were to reach the world with the gospel message—“to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Jesus’ command not only provides an example for the great emphasis that God places on missions, he also provides a model by which mission work can be accomplished.

The Nature of God and Missions

God’s attributes are so complex that not even the most brilliant of scholars could traverse the width and breadth of the canyon of his being. Notwithstanding, God has revealed to humanity certain elements of his nature and character. This paper affirms John S. Feinberg’s notion that the “simplest division of the attributes distinguishes those that reflect moral qualities of God and those that refer to non-moral qualities.”[5] The non-moral aspects of God’s character are far more complicated than the moral aspects, as the moral aspects are related to God’s dealings with humanity. Of the moral attributes as it relates to missions, God’s omnibenevolence stands supreme. Omnibenevolence refers to God’s all-loving nature. Geisler denotes that John refers love to God in such a way in 1 John 4:16 as if “applying the term to His essence.”[6] Thus, God’s essence is that of love. It is important to note that God’s love coexists with God’s holiness, thereby discrediting any universalistic methodological interpretations to salvation. Nevertheless, as it pertains to missions, God’s love is central. God does not desire that “any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, one would expect a loving God to be involved in missions activities. One must also query; do the non-moral attributes of God anticipate God’s involvement in missions?

How Mission Relates to God’s Aseity and God’s Omniscience

Two non-moral attributes of God, among many others, relate to God’s involvement in missions. The first attribute may sound bizarre to some readers; nevertheless it is the so-called “aseity of God.” J. I. Packer states that “The word aseity, meaning that he has life in himself and draws his unending energy from himself (a se in Latin means “from himself”), was coined by theologians to express this truth.”[7] Isaiah demonstrates this truth in proclaiming that “The LORD is an everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not grow faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable” (Isaiah 40:28). God’s aseity also includes the acknowledgement that “there are not properties independent of God upon which he depends in order to have the constitutional attributes he possesses”[8] as well as acknowledging that God is “totally immune to external influences so that nothing that happens in our world fazes him.”[9] So how does God’s aseity relate to missions?

God’s aseity impacts missions when one understands the concept that God’s salvific emphasis did not stem from something that God was forced to do. No higher authority pressed upon God the necessity to save souls because there is no higher authority than God. Rather, God chose to offer salvation to individuals not for the need or desire that God had in and of himself, but rather due to God’s good pleasure and loving nature. This demonstrates John Pipers’ point vividly in that “Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man.”[10] Therefore, missions is performed for the good of humanity not because of some deficiency in God. Missions work brings people to a saving relationship with the God of aseity. Due to this, one should consider it an honor that God would choose not only to save anyone, but to also use his people to do missions work. God relies upon nothing; therefore God does not need human help to reach others, but chooses to allow people the opportunity to reach others as part of his kingdom work.

Another missional aspect of God’s character is God’s omniscience. Timothy George defines God’s omniscience as God’s “comprehensive knowledge of all that was, is, and ever shall be.”[11] George also notes that God’s omniscience is a “corollary of his eternity.”[12] God’s omniscience indicates that God knows all events in the past, present, and future. God knows all contingencies. Therefore, God knows what a person would do, would not do, and would do under certain circumstances.[13] In correlation with God’s omniscience, God is also omnisapient. Geisler defines omnisapience as God’s “unerring ability choose the best means to accomplish the best ends.”[14] Since God is all-knowledgeable and all-wise, then God knows who would be saved, who would not be saved, and what it would take to reach those who would be saved. In combination with God’s power and love, one can clearly note that God’s plan to reach others will always be effective one way or another. God’s choice to use those in missions is an example of the person’s worth to God. Therefore, missions is a high calling for anyone and should never be taken lightly.

Two Key Motifs of Mission Theology: Jesus and the Holy Spirit

Scott Moreau and his colleagues provide six motifs that are fundamental to mission theology—“1) the kingdom of God, 2) Jesus, 3) the Holy Spirit, 4) the church, 5) shalom, 6) the return of Jesus.”[15] While all six motifs are important, two are critical for mission theology.

First, Jesus (i.e. Christology) is essential for missions. Moreau notes that “Jesus is central not only to the Christian faith, but also to the mission that is integrated into the faith.”[16] Jesus is the means by which individuals are saved. Peter and John made it clear before the Jewish council that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Without Jesus, no mission work would be necessary. All would be lost and there would be no plan of salvation. However, because Jesus came, salvation is available to all who would receive the salvation afforded to them by the invitation and revelation of the Holy Spirit. Piper states that “A new day has come with Jesus Christ. The people of God are being rebuilt in such a way that they will no longer fail in the task of reaching the nations.”[17] Jesus is the reason that mission work is possible. Therefore, a proper understanding of the person and work of Christ is of utmost importance as it relates to missions.

In addition, the Holy Spirit is essential for missions to work in the first place. It is impossible for anyone to come to faith without the leading and direction of the Holy Spirit of God. Speaking of the Holy Spirit, Jesus noted that “when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). It is impossible to convince someone to come to faith unless the Holy Spirit is drawing that person. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the lifeblood to missions. Without the Holy Spirit, there can be no success in any mission effort.

How Missions Relates to the Church

The previous sections have discussed the nature and attributes of God as God relates to missions. Yet, a person may inquire how mission work applies to the individual Christian. The universal church consists of all regenerate believers across the world and is comprised of various individuals in heaven and on earth. The universal church also consists of congregations which themselves contain individual believers. Without the work of each person, missions work would not be accomplished. Geisler is correct in noting that “whereas the universal church contains the whole body of Christ, the local church has only part of it. Christ, the Head of the church, is visible to members of the universal church who are in heaven, but He is the invisible Head of the local churches on earth.”[18] Thus, under the leadership of Christ, church leaders cast the vision for missions to the laity. The laity, responding to the leadership of the Holy Spirit, provides means for local and global mission work. Missionaries, who are called by the leadership of Christ, use the means afforded to them to spread the gospel message to particular areas. Great things can be accomplished when Christians heed and respond to the leadership of Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated that the concept of missions is rooted in a proper biblical and theological understanding of God. It is clear that both the Old and New Testaments demonstrate that God has a global purpose to his salvific plan. God’s loving nature demonstrates his desire for people to join him for eternity, while God’s aseity and omniscience provides exemplifies the free choice God made to save the lost. The work of the incarnate Savior provided the means to salvation, thus allowing for missions; while the Holy Spirit is the imparter of grace. Thus, God is the agent who saves and illuminates, yet God chose to use his children to partake of the blessings of the kingdom. Missions is a critical aspect of Christian ministry. When one fails to understand one’s role in missions, one fails to understand the God who made missions possible.

The preceding consists of the academic work of its author. This paper has been scanned and submitted through SafeAssign. Any efforts to plagiarize the content of this paper will be detected by one’s institution of learning.

Bibliography

Carey, William. An Enquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Fourth Edition. Edited by Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology: In One Volume. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

George, Timothy. “The Nature of God: Being, Attributes, and Acts.” In A Theology for the Church. Edited by Daniel L. Akin. Nashville: B&H, 2014.

Moreau, A. Scott, et. al. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1993. Logos Bible Software.

Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad: the Supremacy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Kindle Edition.

Copyright July 20th, 2015. Brian Chilton

—–Footnotes—————————-

[1] A. Scott Moreau, et. al., Introduction World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 17.

[2] Ibid., 30.

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture used in this paper comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

[4] William Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, 4th ed, Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, eds (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009), 314

[5] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 237.

[6] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: All in One (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011), 585.

[7] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), Logos Bible Software.

[8] Feinberg, No One Like Him, 240.

[9] Ibid., 241.

[10] John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad: the Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), Kindle Edition.

[11] Timothy George, “The Nature of God: Being, Attributes, and Acts,” in A Theology for the Church. Daniel L. Akin, ed (Nashville: B&H, 2014), 197.

[12] Ibid.

[13] This is also known as Scientia Media, or Middle Knowledge, as popularized by Luis de Molina and philosopher William Lane Craig, a concept that this writer accepts.

[14] Geisler, Systematic Theology: All in One, 515.

[15] Moreau, et. al., Introducing World Missions, 80.

[16] Ibid., 81.

[17] Piper, Let the Nations be Glad, Kindle Edition.

[18] Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume, 1146.

The Theological Liberalism that Divided Spurgeon from the Baptist Union in the 1800s

When individuals consider great modern preachers, evangelists such as Billy Graham and pastors such as Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, Greg Laurie, and the late Jerry Falwell may come to mind. However, if one were to consider who was among the greatest of preachers in the late nineteenth century, one would be amiss if Charles Haddon Spurgeon were not added to such a list. According to John Piper, Spurgeon preached “over six hundred times before he turned twenty years old. His sermons sold about 20,000 copies a week and were translated into twenty languages.”[1] Spurgeon preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. John Pitts writes of Spurgeon that his “theology was moderately Calvinistic, his sermons warmly evangelistic, and his presentation of the gospel so fresh and refreshing that within a few months of entering upon his London ministry, at nineteen years of age, the crowds flocked to hear him and continued to do so for thirty-eight years.”[2] Yet despite the great fame of the London preacher, in a bizarre twist, Spurgeon formally withdrew from the Baptist Union which was an association of Baptist churches of the time. The severance from the Baptist Union took a toll on Spurgeon. Pitts denoted that Spurgeon “died in 1892, his end probably hastened by the unhappy Downgrade Controversy in which he was involved.”[3] Thus, one must inquire—what was the conflict that led Spurgeon to abandon the Baptist Union? This paper will argue that it was the intrusion of theological liberalism within the Baptist Union that influenced Charles Haddon Spurgeon to abandon his association with the Baptist Union in the so-called “Downgrade Controversy.” This paper will demonstrate the influence of theological liberalism upon the Baptist Union, at least as it was perceived by Spurgeon, in four ways. First, the paper will investigate the influence of theological liberalism upon the Baptist Union’s soteriology. Then, the paper will demonstrate the influence of theological liberalism upon the Baptist Union’s spirituality. In addition, the paper will examine the influence of theological liberalism upon Baptist Union’s morality. Finally, the paper will observe the influence of theological liberalism upon the level of authority given to the Word of God. The paper will begin this investigation by observing the influence of theological liberalism upon the Baptist Union’s soteriology.

The Influence of Theological Liberalism upon Soteriology

Soteriology is the study of salvation—emanating from the Greek terms soter meaning “savior” and logos defined as “study of” or “word.” Salvation is defined by Kenneth Keathley as “the work of God that delivers us from sin and its penalty, restores us to a right relationship with him, and imparts to us eternal life.[4] Soteriology is central to the message of Christianity. Therefore, it is a serious challenge when one’s soteriological understanding is compromised. Spurgeon had issues with the influence of Arminianism promoted through the lens of liberal theology which led to Socinianism, a form of Universalism.

Among one of the more hostile topics of theology surrounds that of John Calvin’s view of salvation in contrast to that of Jacob Arminius’ view. While Spurgeon was a noted Calvinist, his flavor of Calvinism would be found in the moderate framework. Norman Geisler provides an excellent model for understanding extreme or hyper-Calvinism as opposed to moderate Calvinism as he denotes that the “extreme Sovereignty view is held by extreme Calvinists. The extreme free will view is embraced by extreme Arminians (also termed Open Theism). The balanced (or middle) view is maintained by moderate Calvinists and moderate Arminians.”[5] Calvin’s soteriology would be considered moderate Calvinism according to Geisler’s model. Estep denotes that Spurgeon’s “theology was basically the Calvinism that characterized much of the English Nonconformity of his time…On his first visit to Geneva he wore Calvin’s robe and preached in the Geneva Reformer’s pulpit in St. Pierre. And yet he was not a hyper-Calvinist.”[6] To demonstrate that Spurgeon was not an extreme or hyper-Calvinist, Estep quotes Spurgeon as saying, “I fear that I am not a very good Calvinist because I pray that the Lord will save all of the elect and then elect some more.”[7] Yet it would appear that Spurgeon was a better Calvinist than he may have imagined. Duncan Ferguson denoted that many of “Calvin’s heirs were not as balanced in their views. The sense of liberty in interpreting the text was replaced by dogmatic tradition and an airtight doctrinal system.”[8] Craig Skinner, writing of Spurgeon’s soteriology, denotes that Spurgeon’s strength “lay in the balance with which he espoused them and not in the ideas as they stood alone…He preached the atonement as potential for all and the gospel as an authentic free offer of grace. Yet he also insisted that, from an eternal perspective, the atonement was actually effective only for the elect who responded freely to God’s call of grace.”[9]

This theological excursus is merely to define Spurgeon’s involvement in this theological debate. Spurgeon’s issues were not as much with the Arminianism construct (although Spurgeon certainly disagreed with Arminians) as much as it was the extreme version of Arminianism which liberal theologians used to demerit God’s involvement in the salvific process. Liberal theologians began to introduce Socinian ideologies into the Baptist Union. Socinian beliefs held that Christ began to exist at the Virgin Birth and also held that God did not know every future contingent truth.[10] Alan Cairns denotes that Socinus, from whom Socinianism is named, “denied that Christ offered any atonement or satisfaction to God for sinners, advocating the example theory of the atonement. He held that sinners are pardoned and accepted by God, through divine mercy, on the ground of their own repentance and reformation.”[11] Such teachings were unacceptable to Spurgeon. Spurgeon denotes that “We too often measure God after a human standard, and hence make mistakes. Remember that God has such an abundance of mercy, and grace and power, that he never has to calculate how much will be necessary for the accomplishment of his purpose.”[12] Spurgeon inquired, “Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faith?”[13] Spurgeon appreciated the differences between orthodox believers so long as such believers remained orthodox. Spurgeon denoted that “Although upon the doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines.”[14] Thus, Spurgeon was not out to create divisions due to minor theological variances, rather Spurgeon discredited any attempt to deprive the exclusivity of the Christian faith—something that some in the Baptist Union were attempting to assert.

Spurgeon’s stand for the biblical understanding of soteriology is important and one that should be promoted among Christians in modern times. Theologians and sociologists alike have labeled the present period of thought as post-modernism. While this paper does not have space enough to describe the details of post-modernism, suffice it to say, post-modern thinkers are more susceptible to the acceptance of alternative soteriological constructs. Whereas it was important that Spurgeon took his stand for the biblical case for soteriology, it is just as, if not more, important that modern Christians do the same.

This section has noted Spurgeon’s issues with the ultra-Arminianism did not stem from a particular problem with orthodox believers who adhered to a differing viewpoint. Spurgeon was not one who sought trouble where none existed. Rather, Spurgeon had issues with particular theories which evolved into systems which would be found beyond the umbrella of Christian orthodoxy, a system that elevated humanity over divinity which is a hallmark of liberalism. Spurgeon had another issue with the liberal theology growing in the Baptist Union—the lack of trust in biblical authority.

The Influence of Theological Liberalism upon Authority

Whereas Jesus is the foundation upon which Christianity rests, nonetheless the truths of Christianity—those truths presented about Jesus—are presented in the Bible. The Old Testament provides the foundation upon which the Messiah and the early church would emerge. The New Testament provides the foundational doctrines pertaining to the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus and the early church. If a person begins to deny the authority and/or reliability of the Bible, then the foundation of one’s faith begin to crumble. Walter Elwell describes the importance of biblical authority as being so “vital to understand that this doctrine, far from playing a minor role on the fringes of Christian belief, brings us face to face with the authority of God himself. What is at stake in the authority of Holy Scripture is the authority of its divine author.”[15] Thus, biblical authority is critical if one is to accept the core teachings of Christianity. Liberal theologians throughout the history of the church have a reputation for dismissing the authority of Scriptures.[16] Spurgeon was one who remained steadfast upon the conviction that the Bible is inspired and infallible. Ferguson denotes of Spurgeon that at “the foundation of his approach to Scripture was his deep Christian faith and belief in the truth of the Biblical testimony. Faith in the redemptive acts of God as recorded in Scripture is the ground of Spurgeon’s hermeneutical system.”[17] Therefore, it is not surprising that part of Spurgeon’s problem with the infiltration of liberal ideologies into the Baptist Union was the liberal theologians’ denial of the Bible’s authority in their convictions. Spurgeon denoted that “The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith…A gracious woman bemoaned in my presence that a precious promise in Isaiah which had comforted her had been declared by her minister to be uninspired.”[18] One can appreciate Spurgeon’s sentiments. For a minister to discredit the Bible would be comparable to an electrician discrediting Ohm’s law. Such a one loses the foundation upon which they stand. Spurgeon thought that an acceptance of biblical authority was an example of the grace of God in one’s life. Spurgeon denoted that “A still surer evidence of grace is the mind’s perception of revealed truth and its obedience to it.[19] In contrast, if one were to deny the Scriptures, then where was the grace of God? With the apparent dismissal of biblical truth by some liberal adherents and the refusal of the Baptist Union to address the intrusion, one can understand why Spurgeon decided to withdraw from the Union.

Modern Christians can learn much from Spurgeon’s stand. While Baptists hold a bad reputation for divisions, certain times present themselves where such a division is permissible. If the authority of the Bible is denigrated, then what is left for those proclaiming its truths or those hearing them? Jesus himself stated that “if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand” (Mark 3:25).[20] If the authority of a denomination, a church, a pastor, or a layperson is not standing upon the authority of Scripture, then such a one is divided against itself. Suffice it to say, Spurgeon was justified in his concerns in the denigration of biblical authority within the Union. Yet, Spurgeon would hold another issue with the influx of liberal theology upon the Baptist Union, one that is the outflow of one’s dismissal of biblical authority—the lack of spiritual integrity.

The Influence of Theological Liberalism upon Spirituality

To Spurgeon, spiritual integrity was essential. Spurgeon writes that “When man confides in God, there is a point of union between them, and that union guarantees blessing. Faith saves us because it makes us cling to God, and so it brings us into connection with him.”[21] Due to the emphasis on prayer and spiritual integrity, one would not be surprised when one discovers that Spurgeon’s complaints pertaining to the Baptist Union, surrounded, as McBeth denotes, “the decline of prayer meetings among Baptist churches, the worldliness of ministers…and doctrinal decay.”[22] Some might claim that Spurgeon was intruding into affairs that did not concern him. However, such a one would not understand the emphasis that Spurgeon placed upon prayer. To Spurgeon, prayer and a strong relationship with Christ was essential for ministry. Peter J. Morden denotes that “The corporate prayer meeting, as well as being critical to his ministry, was a means of personally experiencing close communion with God. Such times were certainly vital to his prayer life; they were vital too, to his overall spirituality—the way he related to God.”[23] Thus, for Spurgeon, if one did not possess a strong relationship with God, then one would become susceptible to heterodoxy and heresy. In contrast, if one were to remain faithful to God in their spiritual lives, then one would be kept safe in the confines of orthodox beliefs and practices. Spurgeon denoted that “if thou canst trust God in thy trial, thou wilt prove and enjoy the power of prayer. The man that has never needed to pray cannot tell whether there is anything in prayer or not.”[24] Since liberal theology had invaded other areas, the lack of spiritual fervor resulting from such liberal tendencies added further reasons for Spurgeon to leave the Union. If one did not believe in the authority of the Scripture, then why would one desire to live by what the Scriptures claimed?

For modern Christians, the spiritual decline among leadership must also be combated. Dave Earley denoted that recent surveys demonstrated that “only 16 percent of Protestant ministers across the country are very satisfied with their personal prayer life.”[25] Like Spurgeon, the modern church needs to place a high value upon spiritual health—for the pastors and the laity alike. The natural progression of spiritual decline begins with humanistic soteriology and a low integral value for Scripture. It then progresses to decay one’s spiritual life with God before eroding one’s moral integrity. The forthcoming section of the paper will evaluate theological liberalism’s influence upon the moral integrity of the ministers of the Baptist Union in the late nineteenth century.

The Influence of Theological Liberalism upon Morality

Theological liberalism had brought forth moral depravity among those who were supposedly redeemed in the Baptist Union in the late 1800s. Spurgeon called one of the evils penetrating his time the “growth of wickedness in the land, especially in two forms, which we ought not to overlook. One is, the growing worldliness among professing Christians. They are indulging in extravagance in many ways; in luxurious habits, dress equipages, feastings, and so on, and wasting the substance of which they are stewards.”[26]  David Nelson Duke denoted that “Spurgeon’s social concern was grounded in his devotion to God in Christ.”[27] For Spurgeon, living a sinful life was essentially rejecting the authority and even the existence of God. Spurgeon denoted that “There are some, whose lives have proved how sinful their nature was, for their sin has taken the form of open and gross vice…Opposition to divine sovereignty is essentially atheism. Men who have no objection to a god who is really no god; I mean, by this, a god who shall be the subject of their caprice, who shall be the lackey to their will, who shall be under their control.”[28] According to Spurgeon, many among the Baptist Union, both clergy and laity, had engaged in immoral and rebellious acts which demonstrated a lack of commitment and a lack of belief in the sovereign God.

The modern Christian should benefit greatly by Spurgeon’s example, standing against immorality in the Baptist Union. Immorality is the end result of liberal theology. If one does not hold to the authority of Scripture and does not place a high value of the grace of God, then one will be less inclined to maintain a strong spiritual walk with God. If one does not maintain a strong spiritual walk with God, then one will collapse into a worldly lifestyle. According to Spurgeon, such a collapse was transpiring in the Baptist Union in the late nineteenth century. Since Spurgeon had no backing by the leadership of the Baptist Union, the only recourse left for Spurgeon was to resign his association from the Baptist Union.

Conclusion 

This paper has evaluated the influence of theological liberalism upon the Baptist Union and in the decision of Charles Haddon Spurgeon and the Metropolitan Tabernacle leaving the Baptist Union. The paper has demonstrated that, according to Spurgeon, theological liberalism had led many ministers to minimize the influence of God in salvation, even leading many to Unitarian beliefs. In addition, the paper evaluated Spurgeon’s claims that theological liberalism had lessened the authority that many had placed upon Scripture. Due to these influences, theological liberalism was shown to influence the spiritual and moral lives of the clergy, ultimately influencing the laity, also. The downside to such a paper as this is that only one side of the equation is offered. For those who were accused of liberalism, those individuals may have claimed that Spurgeon was reaching beyond the boundaries, becoming greatly involved in the lives of others. Nonetheless, history tends to reveal the truth. While Spurgeon’s withdrawal did not hold a huge impact upon the Baptist Union at the time, eventually it would. The Baptist Union remained in steady decline throughout the twentieth century. Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies was the remarkable impact the controversy factored into the famed preacher’s health.

While certain aspects of Spurgeon’s ministry are not accepted by this paper—perhaps mostly the disdain that Spurgeon held for apologetics seen so clearly in some of his messages; this paper commends Spurgeon for the convictions he held pertaining to the authority of Scripture, proper theology, and the impact that a relational walk holds in the life of the believer. Modern Christians would do well to share these convictions even if they do not agree with Spurgeon on all fronts.

 The previous paper represents the academic work of Brian Chilton. The work has been submitted and thus any attempt to plagiarize this work in future academic works will be noted by one’s academic institution. As always, be sure to offer proper citations for any work used in this piece.

Copyright July 2, 2015. Brian Chilton

Bibliography

Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002.

Duke, David Nelson. “Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Social Concern Exceeding an Individualistic, Self-help Ideology.” Baptist History and Heritage 22, 4 (October 1, 1987): 47-56. Accessed May 28, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Earley, Dave. Prayer: The Timeless Secret of High-Impact Leaders. Chattanooga, TN: Living Ink Books, 2008.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996.

Estep, William Roscoe. “The Making of a Prophet: An Introduction to Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Baptist History and Heritage 19, 4 (October 1, 1984): 3-15. Accessed May 28, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Ferguson, Duncan S. “The Bible and Protestant Orthodoxy : The Hermeneutics of Charles Spurgeon.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25, 4 (December 1, 1982): 455-466. Accessed May 28, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010.

Keathley, Kenneth. “The Work of God: Salvation.” A Theology for the Church. Edited by Daniel L. Akin. Nashville: B&H, 2014.

McBeth, H. Leon. Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville: B&H Academic, 1987.

Morden, Peter J. “C. H. Spurgeon and Prayer.” Evangelical Quarterly 84, 5 (October 1, 2012): 323-344. Accessed May 28, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Piper, John. Charles Spurgeon: Preaching Through Adversity. Minneapolis: Desiring God, 2015.

Pitts, John. “British and American Preaching Since 1900.” Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology. Edited by Ralph G. Turnbull. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967.

Skinner, Craig. “The Preaching of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.” Baptist History and Heritage 19, 4 (October 1, 1984): 16-26. Accessed May 28, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. All of Grace. n.g.: CountedFaithful.org, 2012. Kindle Electronic Edition.

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. “The Child of Light Walking in Darkness.” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons. Volume 33. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1887.

______________________. “A Sermon for the Time Present.” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons. Volume 33. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1887.

______________________. “General Yet Particular.” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons. Volume 10. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1864.

______________________. “It Pleased God.” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons. Volume 56. London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1910.

______________________. An All-Round Ministry. Edinburgh, UK; Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.

______________________. The Downgrade Controversy. Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008.

[1] John Piper, Charles Spurgeon: Preaching Through Adversity (Minneapolis: Desiring God, 2015), 1.

[2] John Pitts, “British and American Preaching Since 1900,” Baker’s Dictionary of Practical Theology, Ralph G. Turnbull, ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), 14.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kenneth Keathley, “The Work of God: Salvation,” A Theology for the Church, Daniel L. Akin, ed (Nashville: B&H, 2014), 543.

[5] Norman L. Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010), 19.

[6] William Roscoe Estep, “The Making of a Prophet: An Introduction to Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” Baptist History and Heritage 19, 4 (October 1, 1984): 6, retrieved May 28, 2015.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Duncan S. Ferguson,”The Bible and Protestant Orthodoxy: The Hermeneutics of Charles Spurgeon,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25, 4 (December 1, 1982): 455, retrieved May 28, 2015.

[9] Craig Skinner, “The Preaching of Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” Baptist History and Heritage 19, 4 (October 1, 1984): 22, retrieved May 28, 2015.

[10] The realm of God’s knowledge of future contingents resembles that of modern Open Theism.

[11] Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 420–421.

[12] C. H. Spurgeon, “General Yet Particular,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Volume 10 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1864), 238.

[13] C. H. Spurgeon, “Progressive Theology,” Sword and Trowel (April 1888), in C. H. Spurgeon, Down-grade Controversy (Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008), 88.

[14] C. H. Spurgeon, “Notes,” Sword and Trowel (1891), in Charles H. Spurgeon, The Down-grade Controversy (Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008), 148.

[15] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 154.

[16] Two examples of this are found in the demythologization of the Bible presented by Rudolf Bultmann and the ideas of Paul Tillich.

[17] Ferguson, “The Bible and Protestant Orthodoxy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 458-459.

[18] C. H. Spurgeon, “Another Word Concerning the Down-grade,” Sword and Trowel (August 1887), in The Down-Grade Controversy (Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008), 36.

[19] C. H. Spurgeon, “The Child of Light Walking in Darkness,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Volume 33 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1887), 557.

[20] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

[21] C. H. Spurgeon, All of Grace (n.g.: CountedFaithful.org, 2012), Kindle Electronic Edition, 591.

[22] C. H. Spurgeon, The “Down-Grade Controversy: Collected Materials Which Reveal the Viewpoint of the Late Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publishing, n.d.), 513-514, in H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1987), 303.

[23] Peter J. Morden, “C. H. Spurgeon and Prayer,” Evangelical Quarterly 84, 5 (October 1, 2012): 325, retrieved May 28, 2015.

[24] Spurgeon, “The Child of Night Walking in Darkness,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle, 550.

[25] Dave Earley, Prayer: The Timeless Secret of High-Impact Leaders (Chattanooga, TN: Living Ink Books, 2008), 1.

[26] C. H. Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry (Edinburgh, UK; Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), 102.

[27] David Nelson Duke, “Charles Haddon Spurgeon: Social Concern Exceeding an Individualistic, Self-help Ideology,” Baptist History and Heritage 22, 4 (October 1, 1987): 47, retrieved May 28, 2015.

[28] C. H. Spurgeon, “It Pleased God,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, Volume 56 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1910), 292-293.

The Correlation of God’s Response and the Theodicy Problem of Job

The book of Job is, for most, the quintessential source for dealing with the problem of righteous suffering.[1] Why do the righteous suffer? This is a question that countless individuals have posited throughout the ages. The psalmist asked God “Why do you hide your face and forget our misery and oppression” (Psalm 44:24)?[2] The majority of Job’s text is an exchange between Job and four friends: “Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite…Zophar the Naamathite” (Job 2:11)[3] along with the later friend “Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram” (32:2). However, the climax of the book comes when God “answered Job out of the whirlwind” (38:1, NASB).[4] This paper will argue that God’s response provides distinctive theological aspects which in turn offer insights to the overall message of Job. To defend this thesis, the paper will evaluate two distinct theological perspectives stemming from God’s response to Job. Then, the paper will evaluate how two implicit aspects of God’s response relates to the overall message found in Job.

The Theological Aspects of God’s Response

 The best way to learn about God is through the direct revelation of God. Chapters 38 through 42 provide God’s direct revelation to Job. Up until this point, Job had been conversing with four so-called friends. These friends did not offer much support as it relates to Job’s suffering. Now, Job finds himself confronted with God in the midst of a whirlwind and begins to converse with God, although Job does more listening than speaking at this stage. James E. Smith denotes that “Instead of answering questions from Job, God fired the questions—over seventy—at him! God was not on the witness stand. Job was, and he was subjected to intensive cross examination.”[5] In God’s cross-examination of Job, God provides four distinct theological attributes. Robert Alden denotes that “of the attributes of God, the ones that stand out in the Book of Job are sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, and justice.”[6] God’s omniscience and omnipotence stand as two major theological themes, whereas divine sovereignty and divine justice are two more implicit attributes found within God’s response. Omniscience and omnipotence will be examined in this section, whereas God’s implicit attributes are tied with the overall themes of the book and, thus, will be evaluated in the forthcoming section.

The Aspect of God’s Omniscience

Concerning omniscience, Norman Geisler writes, “Historically, the omniscience of God was a straightforward doctrine: God knows everything—past, present, and future; He knows the actual and the possible; only the impossible (contradictory) is outside the knowledge of God.”[7] Yahweh provides two addresses to Job. Yahweh’s first address, found in 38:1-42:6, demonstrates the great omniscience that he possesses and, as Barker and Kohlenberger denote, that “neither the counselors nor Job possessed complete knowledge…[showing] how very limited human knowledge is.”[8] Yahweh begins his prosecution of Job with the words “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge” (38:2)? Yahweh did not provide a response to Job’s queries, but instead pointed Job back to the acknowledgement that he had been accusing the One who had limitless knowledge. Yahweh provides two limitations upon Job’s knowledge in demonstrating the omniscience of his own.

First, Yahweh acknowledges his omniscience as it relates to time. Yahweh directly asks Job, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation” (38:4)? Alden denotes that “Unlike personified Wisdom, who was present at the creation (Prov 8:22–31), Job was a creature of time. When God “laid the earth’s foundation,” Job simply was not yet born…Job could not answer because he was not there and could not know.”[9] One finds a connection between the Logos of John 1:1, the Wisdom denoted in Proverbs 8:22-31, and Yahweh’s message to Job in 38:4. While Job did not understand the circumstances, Yahweh reminded Job that he did. Yahweh also addresses not only the limitation of time pertaining to Job’s knowledge and the superiority of his own knowledge, but Yahweh also addresses another limitation of human knowledge.

In addition, Yahweh introduces Job’s limitation of knowledge as it relates to creation. Yahweh demonstrates Job’s finite understanding of the working of geology in 38:4-18, cosmology in 38:19-38, and biology in 38:39-39:30. While Yahweh distinguishes the nature of particular animals (e.g. the ostrich in 39:13-18) and the structure of particular constellations (e.g. Pleiades and Orion in 38:31-32); the core essential doctrine provided is discovered in Yahweh’s question to Job in saying “Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it” (38:5)? Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas indicate that verses 4-6 of chapter 38 view the cosmos in the “terms of a temple, and the temple was understood to represent a microcosmos. Here the most important elements in building the temple are referred to in God’s setting up the cosmos.”[10] Yahweh intended to demonstrate the limited knowledge of humanity compared to his limitless knowledge. While modern individuals have access to greater understandings as to the workings of nature around them, humans are still vastly limited in their knowledge. Scientific discoveries and theories are constructed only to be constantly uprooted. As Harry Hunt denotes, “The human mind cannot control all knowledge or understand all situations.”[11] God in his infinite knowledge poses no theories or hypotheses as it relates to creation; rather, God has limitless knowledge of how things exist and will exist. While Job did not understand the workings of the tragedies around him, God did. Yahweh demonstrates another personal attribute: that of power.

The Aspect of God’s Omnipotence

Norman Geisler defines omnipotence as meaning that “God has unlimited power (omni=all; potent=powerful)…Theologically, omnipotent means that God can do whatever is possible to do. Or, God can do what is not impossible to do.”[12] Millard Erickson adds that omnipotence means “that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power.”[13]In Yahweh’s[14] response to Job, one finds clear evidence of the divine attribute of omnipotence. This section of the paper will evaluate two examples of divine omnipotence through Yahweh’s address to Job.

First, the theophanic presentation through the whirlwind demonstrates the omnipotence of God. Job possesses multiple references to the whirlwind. The NIV translates 38:1 as “the storm.” However, the NASB more accurately translates the verse as “the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind” (38:1, NASB). The whirlwind, or storm, finds itself in several passages within the text of Job. Job’s children were killed when “a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house” (1:19). The term “wind” is used in 6:26; 8:2; 9:17; 15:2; 21:18; 27:21; 28:25; 30:15, 22; 37:9, 17, 21; and 38:24. The term “storm” is used in 9:17; 30:22; 36:33; 40:6; and with “whirlwind” (NASB) in 38:1. It is intriguing that Yahweh appeared to Job in a storm. Job’s family and wealth were destroyed by elements from a storm. Job even indicates that God would “crush me with a storm and multiply my wounds for no reason” (9:17). Alex Luc, describing Job’s use of the storm in describing his pain, notes that “The fearful and destructive power of the storm makes it the most powerful vehicle to describe Job’s pain.”[15] Yet, here Yahweh arrives shrouded in a storm. Through this imagery, one finds God’s great omnipotent strength. The storm motif will be noted again in the paper. Omnipotence is demonstrated in another means.

In the second discourse given to Job, Yahweh notes his great power over creation. Barker and Kohlenberger denote that the “purpose goes beyond showing Job that God is creator and sustainer of the natural world. It is to convince Job that God is Lord also of the moral order.”[16] Throughout the second discourse, Yahweh demonstrates his omnipotence through the examples of the Leviathan and the Behemoth. The identities of the Leviathan (41:1) and the Behemoth (40:15) have been the center of a great deal of speculation and debate. Considering the identity of the Behemoth, Alden postulates that the “hippopotamus has been the most popular identification for the ‘behemoth,’ with the elephant a distant second.”[17] Some interpreters have even posited a dinosaur of sorts. However, Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas denote that “Early intertestamental interpretation favors a mythical/supernatural identification.”[18] Comparably, the Leviathan is, according to Carson, “thought to be a dolphin, a tunny fish or a whale, but the general view is that it is a crocodile.”[19] If Barker and Kohlenberger present a tantalizing view that due to the placement of the beastly duo after the “assertions of the Lord’s justice and maintenance of moral order, lends weight to the contention that they are symbolic, though their features are drawn from animals.”[20] Barker and Kohlenberger are correct, then the Leviathan and Behemoth represent “evil political powers”[21]

Whether Yahweh indicates evil political forces, ferocious animals found in the here and now, dinosaurs that coexisted with humanity, or mythological beings known to Job and the people of his time with the Leviathan and Behemoth; the underlying belief is that God had the power to subdue Leviathan and Behemoth, whereas humanity remained incapable of doing the same. Therefore, Yahweh is merited trust due to his overwhelming power. Whereas the current section has evaluated the two underlying theological attributes presented in Yahweh’s address to Job, the forthcoming section will consider the two fundamental correlations as it pertains to the overall theme of Job.

 The Correlation of God’s Response, Attributes, and the Overall Message of Suffering

 What is the central message of Job? Many hold that the problem of theodicy is the primary theme. However, Andrew E. Steinmann argues that the central message is not about theodicy at all. Steinmann postulates that the following:

 We can only conclude that Job’s main message revolves around the subject of faith and integrity, not the theodicy of suffering. In the view of the author of Job, trust in God precludes questions of theodicy. Indeed, they are irrelevant. All that is relevant is trust that God can sustain a righteous person’s integrity and faith throughout the most severe crises.[22]

Whereas it is conceded that Steinmann is correct in assuming that the book of Job demonstrates the sustenance of one’s faith within periods of suffering and misery, one finds it difficult to bypass the countless scholars who have confirmed the presence of theodicy as a theme in the book of Job. Brooks and Neal denote,

 The book of Job deals directly with the subject of theodicy. The Israelites believed a doctrine known as retributional theology, in which sin resulted in punishment…The subsequent narrative of Job and his interactions with friends presents the classic problem of theodicy: How can a good, all-knowing God allow evil to happen to someone as upright as Job?[23]

By the response of Yahweh, one can rightly demonstrate two theses promoted throughout the entirety of Job. However, it could be argued that Yahweh provides a working answer to the problem of theodicy. The previous section noted two major theological points made in Yahweh’s discourse. While the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence are the general themes of the discourse, one will find moral and non-moral attributes of God illuminated in chapters 38 through 42. Through the moral and non-moral attributes of God, one will find an answer to the problem of theodicy in that God may allow suffering for particular purposes known to God. This section will evaluate how the moral and non-moral attributes of God tie into the aspect that suffering has purpose.

Purpose of Trials through God’s Moral Attributes

Throughout the conversations with Job’s so-called friends, Job had accused God of wrongdoing. After being insulted by his friends, Job accused God in saying “If indeed you vaunt yourselves against me and prove my disgrace to me, know then that God has wronged me and has closed his net around me” (19:5-6, NASB). Had Yahweh truly entrapped Job for no reason? Yahweh’s response demonstrates a major thesis postulated throughout the text in that a purpose exists to human suffering. While Steinmann holds that the major theme of Job is that of human faith, Steinmann concedes that the first of Job’s “two-pronged approach to theodicy…was a rationalist’s explanation of God’s actions.”[24] While Steinmann holds that explicit answers are not provided in Job, in which this writer would concede, it must be noted that Yahweh indirectly provides generalized responses to the theodicy problem. Yahweh demonstrates that a purpose tends to exist in trials. Yahweh inquires of Job, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me” (38:2-3, NASB)! Smith denotes that the “word ‘counsel’ suggests that the Lord has a plan or meaning in Job’s afflictions.”[25] How is this hypothesis developed? Whereby Yahweh does not demonstrate specifics behind Job’s suffering, Yahweh does demonstrate that trials may have a purpose due to two moral attributes that Yahweh possesses.[26]

First, trials may have purpose if Yahweh is a just God. In many ways, Job felt slighted by God. Job had lost everything. Job inquires “how often is the lamp of the wicked snuffed out? How often does calamity come upon them, the fate God allots in his anger” (21:17). Luc denotes that Job’s “complaint implies that he is treated more oppressively than the wicked: that which rarely happens to the wicked is happening to him.”[27]Yahweh responds by noting that Job should “look on everyone who is proud, and humble him, and tread down the wicked where they stand” (40:12-13, NASB). Here, Yahweh implies his just nature in summoning, as Alden states, “Job to look for ‘every proud man’ and appropriately ‘humble him.’”[28] That is to say, Job did not have the capacity to see all the evil in the world nor did he have the capacity to judge accordingly. Therefore, Job’s trials were not for naught. Rather, Yahweh was not unjust for allowing such an event to transpire. But why? The text does not state the purpose for Job’s suffering, but that Job should trust Yahweh’s just nature. Yahweh could see all things whereas Job could not. Yahweh demonstrated that there are purposes for one’s trials and sufferings by another moral attribute of God, as well.

Along with God’s just nature, Yahweh demonstrates that suffering holds purpose due to God’s goodness. Yahweh’s response demonstrates the great concern and compassion that Yahweh has for all creatures. Yahweh inquires of Job, “Who prepares for the raven its nourishment when its young cry to God and wander about without food” (38:41, NASB)? One may note a parallel with Jesus’ teaching in that one should “look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they” (Matthew 6:26, NASB)? Yahweh demonstrates his concern for Job and all creatures. Therefore, suffering and trials must have a purpose if such are permitted by a good God.

Through the two moral attributes provided by Yahweh in the preceding section, one may note that suffering can hold a purpose if God is morally just and good. However, God may be good and just; but if God did not possess particular non-moral attributes, then God would become powerless to deliver a particular end.

Purpose of Trials through God’s Non-moral Attributes

Yahweh also demonstrated the purpose of trials through his non-moral attributes. Non-moral attributes describe the abilities of God. John S. Feinberg defines God’s non-moral attributes as “natural attributes belong to God’s very constitutional nature apart from his actions.”[29] God possesses many non-moral attributes. God’s omniscience and omnipotence, which were addressed primarily in God’s response, are considered to be two of God’s non-moral attributes. Nevertheless, Yahweh’s application of his non-moral attributes provides two features pertaining to the purpose of a person’s suffering.

The first non-moral attribute of God is exhibited in Yahweh’s response which demonstrates that suffering can have a purpose; that attribute is wisdom. Wisdom is slightly different than knowledge. Wisdom is defined as “practical skills associated with understanding and living a successful life.”[30] Termed another way: wisdom is knowing how to use information to bring about good ends, or applied knowledge. If God is wise, then God knows how to bring about good through even the worst of times. Alex Luc denotes that in Job 28 there exists “a wisdom poem at the end of the dialogs between Job and his three friends. While storm stands for Job’s unbearable experience, here God sees wisdom in it.”[31] In Yahweh’s response, the wisdom motif is revisited. Yahweh raises several inquiries to Job implying that Job has little to no knowledge pertaining to the workings of creation. Yahweh inquires “From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone…” (38:30)? Many other examples could be provided. Nevertheless, Yahweh demonstrates his wisdom, wisdom that would later be described in Proverbs 9 and personified in the Logos of John 1. Job could trust that his suffering held purpose because of the wisdom of God, but Job would have another reason to trust God in the midst of his suffering.

Throughout the message of Yahweh, particularly in the second discourse, Yahweh demonstrates his sovereignty, or complete control, over all creation. Herein is the crux in finding purpose in the sufferings of life: if God is morally good and just, as well as sovereign, then God can be trusted with the events of life. Through the descriptions of the Behemoth and Leviathan, Yahweh denotes his sovereign control. For with the Leviathan, while humanity could not “capture it by the eyes, or trap it and pierce its nose” (40:24), Yahweh could. Yahweh has power that humanity does not possess. Also with the Behemoth, while humanity could not “strip off its outer coat” (41:13), Yahweh could. In addition, one finds descriptions of God’s sovereignty in the whirlwind theophany.

Yahweh appeared to Job with a whirlwind (38:1). As noted earlier in the paper, the storm motif appears throughout the book of Job. Job’s family and livestock were destroyed by a storm in the earlier chapters of the text. Job states “are they as straw before the wind, and like chaff which the storm carries away” (21:18, NASB). Job offers a defense in noting about God that he had snatched “me up and drive me before the wind; you toss me about in the storm” (30:22). Job had encountered the storm initially and compared his plight to a storm. Then Yahweh appears to Job in the midst of a storm (40:6). The storm motif denotes the sovereign power of God. Alex Luc offers a compelling and powerful lesson in that “The reader who cries, ‘Where is God while the storm lingers?’ may find an answer, ‘God is in the storm’. When the storms of life tarry and God seems to retreat into total silence, the book of Job will continue to bring hope.”[32] The suffering of Job had purpose because of the sovereign power of Yahweh.

Conclusion

 This paper has evaluated the response that Yahweh delivered to Job’s accusations pertaining to Job’s sufferings. The paper has defended the thesis in that the response of God demonstrates particular divine attributes which address the overall theme of Job. The paper reviewed the two major theological attributes of God’s omniscience and omnipotence given in Yahweh’s message. The paper also evaluated how the moral and non-moral attributes of God contribute to the general framework of the theodicy theme of Job. Perhaps the most pressing issue that the paper has revealed is that God is not separate from the storms of life. The storms of life are at the discretion of a good, wise, powerful, and sovereign God. Paul sums up Job’s theme well with his statement to the Romans in that “we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28, NASB).

The content of this article represents the academic work of the author. Be advised the paper represented in this article has been scanned through SafeAssign. Any efforts of plagiarism will be detected.

 Bibliography

Alden, Robert L. Job. Volume 11. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.

Barker, Kenneth L., and John R. Kohlenberger, III. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament. Abridged Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Brooks, Page, and D. A. Neal. “Theodicy.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry, et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.

Carson, D. A., et al., eds. New Bible Commentary. 4th Edition. Leicester, UK; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011.

Hunt, Harry. “Job, Book Of.” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Chad Brand, et. al. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Luc, Alex. “Storm and the Message of Job.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 87 (March 1, 2000): 111-123. Accessed April 9, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Shields, Martin A. “Wisdom.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry et. al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.

Smith, James E. The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Structure and Message of the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum 46, 1 (January 1, 1996): 85-100. Accessed April 9, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

 Walton, John H., et. al. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.

———————————Footnotes——————————–

[1] Otherwise, this issue is termed the problem of theodicy.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Biblica, 2011).

[3] The remainder of the paper will only use chapter and verse addresses for texts found within the book of Job.

[4] All Scripture noted as NASB comes from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra: Lockman Foundation, 1995).

[5] James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), Job 38–42, Logos Bible Software.

[6] Robert L. Alden, Job, vol. 11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 1993), 38.

[7] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2011), 496.

[8] Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Abridged ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 783.

[9] Alden, Job, NAC, 370.

[10] John H. Walton, et. al. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000), 509.

[11] Harry Hunt, “Job, Book Of,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Chad Brand, et. al., eds (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 927.

[12] Geisler, Systematic Theology, 487.

[13] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 302.

[14] YHWH, or Yahweh, (often translated LORD) is the personal covenant name for God used in the Old Testament. The paper will use either the generic term God when referring to divinity in a general sense and Yahweh when referring to divine communication with Job.

[15] Alex Luc, “Storm and the Message of Job,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 87 (March 1, 2000): 115, Retrieved April 9, 2015.

[16] Barker and Kohlenberger, Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament, 783.

[17] Alden, Job, NAC, 395.

[18] Walton, et. al., The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, 510.

[19] D. A. Carson et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 481.

[20] Barker and Kohlenberger, Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament, 786.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Structure and Message of the Book of Job,” Vetus Testamentum 46, 1 (January 1, 1996): 100, retrieved April 9, 2015.

 [23] Page Brooks and D. A. Neal, “Theodicy,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry et. al., eds (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), Logos Bible Software.

[24] Steinmann, “The Structure and the Message of the Book of Job,” Vetus Testamentum, 100.

[25] Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Logos Bible Software.

[26] By moral attributes, the paper indicates the traits of God’s personal character.

[27] Luc, “The Storm and the Message of Job,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 114.

[28] Alden, Job, NAC, 394.

[29] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 236.

[30] Martin A. Shields, “Wisdom,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, John D. Barry et. al., eds (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), Logos Bible Software.

[31] Luc, “Storm and the Message of Job,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 116.

[32] Luc, Storm and the Message of Job,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 123.

Copyright May 2015. Brian Chilton.

The Problem with Pharaoh’s Hardened Heart

The book of Exodus provides one of the greatest stories of redemption found in the Old Testament. God redeems the children of Israel from the oppressive hand of Pharaoh by calling a human agent, Moses, to lead the people out of slavery and to freedom. Most bizarre in this scenario is God’s promise to “harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 7:3).[1] How does one solve the so-called problem of God’s sovereignty as it relates to human responsibility? This paper will propose that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart did not impede upon Pharaoh’s free will, but rather that Pharaoh’s response fit within the sovereign plan of God. In order to accomplish this task, the paper will first examine the involvement of God in Pharaoh’s hardened heart. Then, the paper will examine the involvement of Pharaoh in the hardening process. Finally, the paper will offer a proposed theological solution to the problem.

The Problem of God’s Involvement in the Hardening Process

 One particular issue concerning Pharaoh’s hardened heart surrounds the involvement of God in the process. Some would prefer to claim that God had no influence upon the hardening process of Pharaoh’s heart. However, God is clearly seen to be a player in the process, if not even the moving force. God speaks to Moses and provides an interesting promise. God says to Moses, “You are to say everything I command you…But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you” (Exodus 7:2-3).[2] To compound the problem, Exodus reiterates that it is Yahweh who is moving Pharaoh to this condition (e.g. 11:10). In fact, Douglas Stuart rightly denotes that the story served a purpose as “Moses was writing this story not merely to help his fellow Israelites trust Yahweh as things happened but to help them learn to trust that Yahweh is the one who makes things happen in the first place, as part of a great redemptive plan for the benefit of his people.”[3] God brings these things about for a particular reason. Such language addresses the theological notion of divine sovereignty. What is sovereignty and what do other passages of Scripture claim concerning God’s sovereignty?

Sovereignty is defined, according to John S. Feinberg, as “God’s power of absolute self-determination…God does his own actions, and that they are in accord with his choices.”[4] That is to say, God is in complete control over events. The apostle Paul denoted God’s sovereignty in such a fashion as he translated Pharaoh’s hardened heart as demonstrative that “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:17). Divine sovereignty thus means, as Feinberg denotes, that “God is the ultimate, final, and complete authority over everything and everyone. Whatever happens stems from his decisions and control.”[5] When God called Jeremiah, God said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). God had chosen Jeremiah before Jeremiah had a chance to respond. God’s choice is related to the Pharaoh as well. God had purposes for Pharaoh. For God said to Pharaoh that his purpose would be “that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (9:16). However, one must ask; does God not allow people to freely come to Him (e.g. Romans 10:13)? Does God condemn a person who would choose to repent? To understand this aspect of the equation, one must examine the role of human free will especially as it relates to the Egyptian Pharaoh of Exodus.

The Problem of Pharaoh’s Involvement in the Hardening Process

 Pharaoh played a major role in this heart hardening process. Pharaoh freely responded to God in a rebellious fashion, as planned by God. Exodus states that “when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said” (8:15). God did not force Pharaoh to sin. Rather, Pharaoh repeatedly rebelled against the grace of God. Again, Exodus states that “When the Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts” (9:34). It was evident that Pharaoh played a major role in his own rebellion; so much that Philistine priests said to their leaders, “Don’t be stubborn and rebellious as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were. By the time God was finished with them, they were eager to let Israel go” (1 Samuel 6:6, NLT).[6] God’s power was clearly demonstrated to other nations; however, the freely chosen rebellion of Pharaoh was also apparent. Moses clearly noted the choices of Pharaoh in the matter as Moses became frustrated at Pharaoh’s rebellion and “burning with anger” (11:8, NLT). Dorian Coover Cox would concede as much by claiming that “Whatever the reason, since Moses knew about the hardening, his anger, to be rational, must build on the belief that Pharaoh was still accountable for his attitudes and actions.”[7] But why was Pharaoh so rebellious? Perhaps it stemmed from pride. McGinnis makes the case that “Egyptians prized the ability to appear strong, firm, resolute, and unmoved by events.”[8] Pharaoh had rather rule his way to hell than submit his way to heaven. How does one solve this theological conundrum between divine sovereignty and human freedom?

 Proposed Solution to the Theological Issue

 If one seeks to hold a balanced theological perspective, one must accept both the sovereignty of God as well as human responsibility. Throughout Christian history, theologians have sought to solve this issue and have come to differing conclusions. McGinnis denotes that Origen felt that “God does not intend to harden…; although God’s purpose may be merciful, a person’s ‘inherent wickedness’ may result in hardening. In this way God is said to harden the one who is hardened.”[9] Juxtaposed to Origen’s thought, Augustine solved this problem by asserting that “God’s mercy or hardening spring ‘from deeply hidden merits.’”[10] But, how would Exodus present an answer?

Barker and Kohlenberger note concerning Exodus 11:9-10 that the writer of Exodus “as a recapitulation of all Moses’ negotiations beginning in 7:8, we are reminded that all had taken place as God had predicted it. No amount of evidence had persuaded Pharaoh’s heart, and Israel was still enslaved.”[11] God had a purpose in His workings, as “The Lord announced repeatedly that He was acting so that various parties would acknowledge Him.”[12] God would say to Pharaoh, “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (9:16). The terms used within the text seem to indicate the role that both God and Pharaoh played in the process. Geisler notes that four words are used pertaining to Pharaoh’s hardened heart, “Qashah, meaning “stubbornness”…Kabed, meaning “heavy” or “insensitive”…Chazaq, meaning “strength” or “encouragement”…When Pharaoh is the agent of hardening kabed is used. When God is the agent, chazaq is used.”[13] Termed another way, Geisler denotes that “the Hebrew word hardened (chazaq) can and often does mean ‘to strengthen’…or even ‘to encourage.’”[14] That is to say, God placed Pharaoh in the circumstances to freely react to the predetermined plan of God. A congruist theological approach can best systematize this kind of working.

Congruism is a theological system that is described by Millard J. Erickson as a “theology [that] can be characterized as a mild Calvinism (congruism) that gives primary place to God’s sovereignty, while seeking to relate it in a positive way to human freedom and individuality.”[15] Aquinas, believing in both the sovereignty of God and the freedom of humanity, denoted that “God gives grace to a person, and pre-ordains that He will give it, because He knows beforehand that He will make good use of that grace, as if a king were to give a horse to a soldier because he knows he will make good use of it…there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination.”[16] Thus, a congruist, or compatibilist, interpretation evaluates human freedom as finding a home within the sovereign plan of God, a solution to the Pharaoh predicament.

Conclusion

 This paper has evaluated the theological problem of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. The first section noted the clear Scriptural evidence that addresses God’s involvement in the hardening process, noting particularly the importance of divine sovereignty. The second section noted the clear Scriptural evidence that supports Pharaoh’s own responsibility in the hardening process. The final section offered a proposal found in the congruist theological model, evaluating human freedom as taking place within the sovereign plan of God. One can find great comfort in acknowledging God’s sovereignty amidst human responsibility. At times, the world seems chaotic. Evil grows at a rapid pace. The marvelous news is that God is still in control. Human freedom is playing to the beat of God’s sovereign drum, ultimately culminating to God’s grand redemption of His people.

Copyright 2015. Brian Chilton.

The preceding article represents the academic work of the author. Note that the contents have been scanned and submitted. Therefore, any attempt of plagiarism will be discovered by one’s respective school of learning. As always, be sure to use cite any references used for one’s work.

The article’s theme picture is that of Yul Brynner playing the part of Pharaoh in the motion picture “The Ten Commandments.” Paramount Pictures (October 5, 1956).

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologicae. In Summa of the Summa. Translated by the Fathers of the Dominican Province. Edited and Annotated by Peter Kreeft. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990.

Barker, Kenneth L., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Abrided Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Cox, Dorian Coover. “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in its Literary and Cultural Context.” Bibliotheca Sacra 163, 651 (July 1, 2006): 292-311. February 27, 2015. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton: Crossway, 2001.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

_______________. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010.

McGinnis, Claire Mathews. “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Christian and Jewish Interpretation.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 6, 1 (March 1, 2012): 43-64. Accessed February 27, 2015.  ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.

Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus, The New American Commentary, Volume 2. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006.

  [Footnotes]

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Biblica, 2011).

[2] Henceforth, passages in Exodus will be referenced by only the chapter and verse.

[3] Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary, Volume 2 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 262.

[4] John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), 294.

[5] Ibid., 294.

[6] Scripture marked NLT comes from the New Living Translation (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2013).

[7] Dorian Coover Cox, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in its Literary and Cultural Context,” Bibliotheca Sacra 163, 651 (July 1, 2006): 300, accessed February 27, 2015.

[8] Cox, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in its Literary and Cultural Context,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 306.

[9] Claire Mathews McGinnis, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Christian and Jewish Interpretation.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 6, 1 (March 1, 2012): 47, accessed February 27, 2015.

[10] Ibid., 52.

[11] Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament, abridged ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 84.

[12] Cox, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in its Literary and Cultural Context,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 296.

 [13] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 592.

[14] Norman L. Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, 3rd ed (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010), 97.

[15] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 448.

[16] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae I.23.5, in Summa of the Summa, the Fathers of the Dominican Province, trans., Peter Kreeft, ed (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 177.

An Enduring Call for Christian Maturity: An Exegesis of Hebrews 6:1-8

A summary statement of Hebrews 6:1-8 could be stated as the following: in Hebrews 6:1-8, the writer of Hebrews described the importance of maturity in the believer’s life and the curses of one that joined the ministry of the church, but apostatized. Perhaps no other passage of Scripture has been enveloped by so much controversy as Hebrews 6:1-8. Recently, this writer had a former congregant to contact him concerning the text of Hebrews 6. The woman had been involved in a debate with a person who claimed that Hebrews 6 demonstrates that one could lose his or her salvation. This woman, as well as this writer, comes from the Baptist heritage which accepts the doctrine termed perseverance of the saints, otherwise known as eternal security. The woman wanted to know if the text implied that salvation could be lost. This paper will offer an exegesis of Hebrews 6:1-8. First, the historical and cultural context of Hebrews will be evaluated. Then, the paper will examine the exegetical content of Hebrews 6:1-8. It will be demonstrated that the passage of Hebrews 6:1-8 can be broken into three categories: the maturity of doctrine, the maturity of devotion, and the maturity of deeds. Finally, an application will be given at the end of this paper. Does the text imply that a believer can lose one’s salvation or does it address the maturity of a true believer? The forthcoming section of the paper will evaluate the historical and cultural elements of the book of Hebrews.

 Historical-Cultural Context

As difficult as Hebrews 6:1-8 is to understand, it is eclipsed in its difficulty by the authorship of the book. David Allen rightfully notes that “Many have conjectured, some have conjured, but very few have been convinced in the search for the author of Hebrews.”[1] The trouble behind this enigma is that neither the internal nor external evidence of Hebrews leads to any convincing indication of who the author could be. Many hold that Paul is the writer of the text. Barker and Kohlenberger note that the “earliest reference to authorship is a statement of Clement of Alexandria that Paul wrote this work in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. When it was accepted as part of the NT, this was partly because contemporaries held Paul to be the author.”[2] Thomas D. Lea notes that “Eastern Christianity viewed Paul as the author, even though those who supported Pauline authorship knew that the language did not resemble Paul’s other letters. Western Christianity did not accept Pauline authorship until the fourth century.”[3] One thing that is certain, as Charles Ray notes, the author of Hebrews was “well educated, skillful in the use of language, and methods of argumentation…[and] had a passion for people.”[4] One of the better candidates for Hebrews authorship is none other than Luke, the associate of Paul. David Allen notes that “When one considers the lexical, stylistic, and theological similarities between Luke-Acts and Hebrews coupled with the way in which a theory of Lukan authorship can be historically reconstructed from the texts themselves, there is impressive evidence that points to the Lukan authorship of Hebrews.”[5] While this writer concedes that the best evidence supports Lukan authorship, it is best to accept that the authorship of Hebrews is an enigma that will not be conclusively solved on this side of eternity.

Who were the recipients of the book of Hebrews? The writer provides a clue towards the end of the text, as he denotes that the recipients were to “Greet all your leaders and all the Lord’s people. Those from Italy send their greetings” (Hebrews 13:24). Either the recipients were being addressed from Italy or the recipients were those in Italy, particularly Rome. Ray notes that the latter option is preferable as “the earliest quotations from and references to the book of Hebrews are found in the Letter of 1 Clement, which was written from Rome near the end of the first century.”[6] If this is the case, then the author of the text clearly was writing to a group of Christians that faced intense persecution. Others have suggested locations that include Jerusalem or even Antioch.[7] Regardless, the writer of Hebrews notes that the recipients of the book had endured being “publically exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated” (Hebrews 10:33). That the recipients suffered some degree of persecution is evidenced in the call that the recipients would “persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised” (Hebrews 10:36). The previous section evaluated the historical and cultural aspects of Hebrews; the forthcoming section will examine the text of Hebrews 6:1-8.

 Exegetical Content

Hebrews 6:1-8 is part of a larger discourse that begins in Hebrews 5:11 and extends through Hebrews 6:12. Prior to the text at hand, the writer of Hebrews notes the difference between the one that “lives on milk, being still an infant” (Hebrews 5:13)[8] and the mature who “consume solid food” (5:14). It will be of particular interest to this paper that the writer of Hebrews notes the promises of God concerning salvation immediately after the text in question. The writer denotes that “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help him” (6:10) and that “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure” (6:19). Thus, the flow of the text denotes the idea of authentic faith that leads toward maturity compared to the inauthentic believer that withers and eventually apostatizes. The first section of Hebrews 6:1-8 is found in the first three verses as the writer addresses spiritual maturity as it pertains to doctrine.

 Maturity of Doctrine (vs. 1-3)

 The writer of Hebrews addresses the issue of doctrinal maturity in a couple of ways. First, the writer notes that this maturity is initiated by moving “beyond the elementary teachings about Christ” (6:1). Then, the writer of Hebrews denotes six essential doctrines that relate to mature Christianity as identified in verses 1 through 4. First, one must consider the initiation, or ignition, that leads one towards maturity.

Doctrinal Maturity Initiated (v. 1a)

 The writer of Hebrews uses two particularly important terms in the first portion of verse 1. The writer notes that the recipients were to move past the “ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον.”[9] The term ἀρχῆς is translated as elementary and is defined as “elementary and preliminary aspects defining the nature of something—‘elementary aspect, simple truth.’”[10] The recipients of the letter are instructed to move past the introductory aspects of the faith. David Allen notes that “To ‘leave’ connotes the idea of leaving something behind in order to pass on to something else.”[11] Thus, the writer of Hebrews does not indicate that the recipients were to neglect or forsake the essentials of the faith. Rather, the writer is suggesting that the recipients were to move past the introductory essentials of the faith, those things that infants need (5:13), and move towards the more advanced aspects of the faith, the “solid food” of 5:14.

The author notes that the recipients were to move “ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα.”[12] Louw and Nida define τελειότητα as “maturity in thought and behavior.”[13] One would imagine that either the recipients were behaving in an immature fashion or the recipients were struggling over particular doctrines. A third option exists in that some may have struggled in both avenues, a view that this paper supports. Since the author spells out the essentials of the faith, one might be compelled to think that the primary problem was theologically motivated which influenced the behavior of the recipients. The initial move towards maturity not only involves one’s entrance into the family of God, but it also involves growth past the fundamental doctrines of the faith. But what were the foundational doctrines that the writer considered to be essential?

Doctrinal Maturity Identified (vs. 1b-3)

The writer of Hebrews identifies six main essentials of the faith. The six essentials are grouped together in three couplets. The first couplet consists of “repentance from acts that lead to death and of faith in God” (6:1b). The recipients were to leave their life of sin while placing faith in God. Both are essential aspects of the Christian walk. Perhaps notions of the Old Testament prophets were brought to mind as they called for repentance. Messianic Jew David Stern, pertaining to repentance and faith, rightly denotes that “Both aspects are necessary: claiming to trust God without leaving one’s sins behind is hypocrisy, because God is holy. Attempting to turn from sin without trusting God either fails, leads to pride in self-accomplishment, or both.”[14] Stern’s thinking is verified in the New Testament. The apostle John denotes that “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them” (1 John 5:18). John implies, as does the writer of Hebrews, that a believer will live a life of repentance and possess a faith in God. Whereas faith and repentance mark the first couplet, the second couplet involves baptism and laying on of hands. The NIV translates the following couplet as “instruction about cleansing rites” (6:2) and “the laying on of hands” (6:2). The former has been the center of great discussion and a hotbed of dispute among translators. The NLT differs from the NIV in its translation of verse 2. The NLT uses the term “baptisms” (6:2, NLT).[15] But which translation is correct? Or, do both have a semblance of truth?

The Greek term employed is baptismwn. The question revolves around whether the term only indicates the Christian baptism ceremony or a series of ceremonial washings which could include baptism. The plural usage of the term, as Guthrie notes, “shows that not simply one act, but several ritual cleansings are in mind…It is not impossible that the writer used the plural to suggest a comparison of the Christian practice of baptism with the Jewish idea of washings, as the word is used elsewhere in the general sense of cultic washings (Heb. 9:10).”[16] Some tend to think that the plural version of the term references something other than Christian baptism altogether, as the term is “usually used of purification ceremonies other than Christian baptism (9:10; Mk 7:4).”[17] However, it must be noted that these washings could include baptism, as the Didache (c. A.D. 100) lists “different forms of baptism [that] were practiced in the early church, but with evident preference given to immersion.”[18] Thus, one could claim that the various forms of baptisms could have been included in the writer’s view of washings, especially since this practice was listed among some of the more important issues of the day. Keener would seemingly concur as the term “probably refers to the various kinds of ceremonial washings in Judaism, of which the most relevant to Christianity was proselyte baptism as an act of conversion washing away the former impurity of a pagan life.”[19] It would appear that the NIV is justified in its use of “cleansing rites” (6:2). Suffice it to say, such rites were important among the recipients of the book of Hebrews and one could rightfully claim that baptism was part of the ceremonial washings addressed in this particular passage. But what of the “laying on of hands” (6:2); what does one make of this practice? The practice of laying one’s hands upon a convert, or one being commissioned for the cause of Christ, is not nearly as problematic as its’ coupled counterpart. In Acts 8:17, one finds that the apostles laid their hands upon new believers following baptism. While the text indicates that the “Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, for they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16, NLT), it appears that the practice was continued at the time that Hebrews was written. The text continues with the third couplet.

The third couplet involves doctrines of eschatological importance, mainly the “resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment” (6:2). The resurrection of the dead addresses the end time judgment. Parallels can be found in Jesus’ messages, particularly in John 5:25. Paul placed a great deal of emphasis on the resurrection of Christ and the final resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Thus, it is not surprising that the writer of Hebrews stressed the vast importance of the final resurrection to the recipients of the letter. In addition, the writer stressed the final judgment. Paul also stressed the importance of judgment in his writings by teaching on the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) and the individual accountability of each person on the final day of judgment (Romans 14:14). Eschatology played an important role to early Christians and it should not be surprising that one finds such an emphasis on eschatological doctrines in Hebrews. So how do these couplets fit in the overall scheme of maturity?

The writer of Hebrews emphasized that the mature believer would adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, one reason why this paper holds that baptism is referenced at least in part in verse 2. It is not that these rituals and activities save a person. Rather, it is as John writes that “this is the love of God: to keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). Orthodoxy influences orthopraxy, orthopraxy is indicative of genuine Christianity, and genuine Christians grow towards maturity. Christian devotion is addressed in the forthcoming section.

 Maturity of Devotion (vs. 4-6)

 In verses 4-6, the writer of Hebrews discusses the importance of enduring devotion in the believer’s life. These verses are among some of the most hotly contested in the entire Bible. Traditionally, Arminian believers and Calvinist believers have taken very different interpretations pertaining to this passage. Yet, David Allen rightly notes that “biblical theology must precede systematic theology.”[20] Thus, this paper will seek to evaluate the text within the context of the passage and offer a proposed interpretation of the passage.

Devotion’s Impossibility (v. 4)

 In the Greek text, one sentence comprises what English translations segment into verses 4 through 6. Thus, before engaging the more controversial aspect of this section, one must first evaluate the verb and the adjective that set up the sentence. However, it must be noted that the sentence itself is very complicated as the “subject of the sentence actually does not appear in the text until v. 6 with the infinitive translated “to be brought back.”[21] Nonetheless, the verb “enlightened” is the term photosthentos which is defined as “to cause light to shine upon some object, in the sense of illuminating it—‘to illuminate, to shine upon.’”[22] Thus, the writer identifies the individuals in question as those who have “shared in the Holy Spirit” (6:4) since the Holy Spirit is the one who illuminates the heart and mind (e.g. Matthew 16:17ff; John 14:17ff). The verb is offset by the adjective adunaton, which is translated as “impossible” (6:4). This term is indicative of something that is “pertaining to being impossible, presumably because of a lack of power to alter or control circumstances—‘impossible.’”[23] The term is also used later in the chapter where it is stated that it is “impossible for God to lie” (6:18). Whereas the writer uses absolute certainty in the positive sense in verse 18 as it relates to the character of God, absolute certainty is used in the negative sense as it relates to the impossibility of one being “brought back to repentance” (6:6). What is it that is impossible? This will be examined in the next subsection.

Devotion’s Antithesis (vs. 5-6)

One must accurately interpret the bookends of this elongated sentence, remembering that the subject of the sentence is found in verse 6, “repentance” (6:6), coupled with the verb parapipto translated “fallen away” (6:6), while also connecting the terms photisthentos and adunatos from verse 4. The term translated “repentance” (6:6) is no stranger for one knowledgeable in theology; it is the term metanoia. The word was used, as described by Louw and Nida, to specify “the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act.”[24] Whatever state from which the person has fallen, connecting metanoia to adunatos demonstrates the hopeless impossibility of one in such a state being transformed. But what state does the writer address? The aforementioned question is central to the text.

To understand the state of the person who finds oneself in the state in which it is impossible to find repentance, one must first evaluate the phrases found between the two bookends of the elongated sentence. Then, one must evaluate the term parapipto in verse 6. Considering the phrases found between the two bookends, the key question is whether these phrases describe one who has experienced salvation or one who is disillusioned concerning one’s salvation. The phrase “tasted the heavenly gift…shared in the Holy Spirit…tasted the goodness of the word of God” (6:4-5) seem to imply that the person in question has in fact experienced salvation. John Calvin, however, would disagree. Calvin, due to his strong belief in election, writes “That God indeed favours none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image.”[25] Thus, Calvin suggests that only the elect could be saved genuinely saved. Some find contradictions to Calvin’s viewpoint within other statements of Scripture, particularly Paul’s statement in that “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). David Allen argues for another position.

David Allen writes that “There is a growing consensus crossing the Calvinist/Arminian divide that the language of Heb 6:4–6 describes genuine believers.”[26] But if these are genuine believers, does this not necessarily mean that one can lose salvation? The writer of Hebrews seems to counteract such a notion by saying that “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help him” (6:10). Some have suggested, since it appears that believers are addressed, that the writer is addressing the loss of rewards. Allen notes that “The Loss of Rewards view best explains the immediate context of failure to press on to spiritual maturity…and the broader context of the other four warning passages in Hebrews, all of which warn genuine believers of the same danger.”[27] Yet, one must ask, is the so-called Loss of Rewards view completely honest with the term parapipto? To answer this question, one must offer a definition of the term.

Louw and Nida define parapiptw as “to abandon a former relationship or association, or to dissociate (a type of reversal of beginning to associate).”[28] This is problematic for the so-called Loss of Rewards view as parapiptw references one who has abandoned someone or something. Relating this abandonment back to the orthodoxy, and perhaps orthopraxy, that we referenced in the first portion of the text, one must consider the fact that the writer is in fact addressing one who donned the title “follower of Christ” only to fall back into the old life. As previously noted, some would claim that this falling denotes that salvation can be lost. Yet, does such a view not relate salvation back to a result of works instead of grace? Such finds difficulty with Paul’s clear teaching that salvation is a matter of grace given by God (e.g. Ephesians 2:8). So how should this be settled?

Calvin’s view is much more tenable than one might expect, even for one who is not a hyper-Calvinist.[29] Derek Cooper explains Calvin’s overall viewpoint was that “God saved the elect but God allowed the reprobate to slip and fall in the mud of apostasy. All sins that the elect committed were pardonable; they could not ‘lose’ their salvation, in other words, because they had not participated in it any way. God saved them. The reprobates, by contrast, necessarily lost their ‘salvation.’”[30] This fits within the overall context of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews stresses Christian endurance while, at the same time, noting the enduring promise of God. In verse 9, the writer of Hebrews notes that “though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation” (6:9). Thus, the contrast would seem to indicate that the loss of salvation is not the issue in verses 1-8. In addition, the writer notes the character of God in that it is “impossible (adunaton) for God to lie” (6:18). That is to say, the promises of God are irrevocable because God cannot go back on God’s word. Also, an interesting parallel can be found in Jesus’ Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-23). In the parable, Jesus notes that various seeds, representing the gospel message, are received in various ways. Jesus noted that there would be many who would receive the message, but not necessarily receive him. He noted that the “seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown” (Matthew 13:23). Therefore, the teachings found in Hebrews 6:4-6 finds a home in the Parable of the Sower. One must wonder if the writer of Hebrews had this particular parable in mind when writing the text. In the end, the writer may be stressing that not everyone who claims to be in the body of Christ truly holds a relationship with the risen Christ.

The true Christian will desire to mature through endurance. Their salvation will be demonstrated by their fruits and their growth towards maturity. While a loss of rewards may be referenced as it relates to the lack of maturity, the essence of the Hebrews 6:4-6 message is actually contrary to the view that one could lose salvation. If one tasted the benefits of the work of God and did not maintain one’s status in the church, then there is no hope that such a person would ever be saved. Did one who lacks endurance think that he or she was saved? Assuredly, such a person would. However, Jesus reminds individuals in a haunting fashion in Matthew 7 that not everyone who claims him as Lord is a true believer, and in the end, Jesus will say to such a one, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers” (Matthew 7:23)! The writer of Hebrews denotes yet another way in which maturity is evaluated, and in turn, false believers are identified through their fruit. Thus, one’s transformed heart will lead towards transformed deeds.

 Maturity of Deeds (vs. 7-8)

 The writer of Hebrews provides an agrarian parable that denotes the blessings found by the one who faithfully endures and matures in the faith which lead to good deeds, in contrast to the one who is unfaithful and has one’s deeds burned.

 Deeds that are Blessed (v. 7)

 As noted earlier in the paper, the writer of Hebrews references, at least implicitly, the Parable of the Sower as found in Matthew 13. In the parable, Jesus refers to seeds that fall on bad soil and seeds that find rest in good soil. The good soil represents those who receive the gospel message and “who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown” (Matthew 13:23). The writer of Hebrews alludes to the production of the blessed one and that such a one will produce fruit “useful to those for whom it was farmed” (6:7). Concerning the text’s reference to the blessing of God, Allen denotes that “Because of what Christ has done in his atoning work, the new covenant is eternal (Heb 10:18). He is a priest forever. An eternal inheritance is every Christian’s promised blessing.”[31] Therefore, instead of promoting the lack of eternal security, the writer provides assurance to the one in Christ, the one who endures and is growing towards maturity. But the same cannot be said for the one who lives in rebellion.

 Deeds that are Burned (v. 8)

Verse 8 demonstrates the end result of a person who does not grow towards maturity, or endures in the faith. Again, the writer references the Parable of the Sower. Jesus notes that the seed “falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful” (Matthew 13:23). The writer likewise compares the unfruitful person to one who “produces thorns and thistles is worthless and in danger of being cursed” (6:8). Clear parallels exist between the two passages. Has such a one truly received the salvation of God, or are they simply playing church? Barker and Kohlenberger evaluate the teaching as one of “warning to professing Christians whose lives produce only the equivalent of weeds.”[32] This paper agrees with Allen that “Were it possible for a Christian to remove himself from the covenant of salvation by apostasy, then Christ’s death is not eternally saving.”[33] The key is found in Hebrews 10 where the writer notes that “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left” (10:26). Such are those who have received the tenets of the Christian life intellectually, but have failed to receive Christ relationally. So, how might one apply these truths?

 Application

Three principles can be extracted from the text. The primary principle in Hebrews 6:1-8 is that the true Christian should strive to mature in the faith. Christians cannot remain stagnant. Stagnancy results in one simply “going through the motions” of church. The Christian life is to be a vibrant, relational walk with the risen Lord Jesus. Also, endurance is critical for the true Christian. Like the recipients of Hebrews, modern Christians find themselves among a growing antagonism towards Christianity. The true Christian will remain standing regardless of what may come, whereas the one falsely claiming to be of Christ will fall from one’s faith and will leave the church. Finally, the true Christian will produce fruit. Fruitfulness is an extension of relational obedience. Often, modern Christians are bombarded with unfruitful mentalities such as easy believism and the health and wellness gospel. True Christianity does not promise flashy objects, but rather produces fruitful obedience which leads to the transformation of the Christian, and service to others for the glory of God.

 Conclusion

This paper has provided an exegesis for Hebrews 6:1-8. Throughout the paper, it has been noted that the writer of Hebrews has demonstrated a strong need for Christian maturity. The historical-cultural section of the paper noted that while Luke could strongly be attested to be the author of Hebrews, the evidence does not provide a concrete answer to the author’s identity. It was also revealed that the recipients of the letter were Christians who had faced some form of persecution. The paper provided an examination of the text, providing the focus of the writer upon a believer’s maturity in doctrine (6:1-3); that is, the intellectual assent of the core fundamentals of the faith as evidenced by three couplets of six beliefs and/or practices. Also, the paper evaluated the author’s focus on Christian maturity as it relates to a Christian’s devotion (6:4-6). It was demonstrated that while several viewpoints envelop this controversial passage, no should not think that the writer had claimed that one could lose one’s salvation, nor does the evidence suggest that the writer is only addressing the rewards of a believer. Rather, the text suggests that many, who claim to be Christian, are Christians in name only. That is to say, such individuals have accepted intellectually the claims of Christianity, but have not truly encountered the risen Jesus relationally. Finally, the paper evaluated the writer’s focus on how maturity will provide fruit. In relation to Jesus’ Parable of the Sower, the writer addressed that the faithful will produce fruit and will be blessed, whereas the false believer will not produce fruit and will be found to be cursed. Many other issues should be evaluated as it pertains to Hebrews 6:1-8. Lukan authorship deserves further evaluation. If Luke is the author of Hebrews, could this explain the connection of Hebrews to the apostle Paul? In addition, could Paul have played a role in the information that was provided? Finally, the connection between the Parable of the Sower and Hebrews 6:1-8 deserves further attention. The most powerful truth extracted from the text is that not everyone who claims identity with Christ is a genuine believer. True Christianity is found in dedication to Christ, which lends towards growth, which in turn provides endurance for the believer. One who knows the truth of Christ and rejects his grace is one whose heart has become severely hardened, perhaps beyond repair.

The contents of this article represent the academic work of Brian Chilton. Any use of this content without proper documentation can lead to charges of plagiarism.

Copyright 2015. Brian Chilton.

 

Bibliography

 Allen, David L. Hebrews, The New American Commentary. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010.

Barker, Kenneth L., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: New Testament, Abridged Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Calvin, John, and John Owen. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Cooper, Derek. “Reformation Responses to Novatianism: 16th-Century Interpretations of Hebrews 6:4-6.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3, 2 (September 1, 2009): 261-279. ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost (Accessed January 31, 2015).

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester; Grand Rapids: InterVarsity; Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Harris, W. Hall, III. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993.

Lea, Thomas D. Hebrews, James, Holman New Testament Commentary, Volume 10. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Ray, Charles A. “Hebrews, Letter to the.” In Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition. Edited by Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1998.

Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996.

[1] David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 29.

[2] Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: New Testament, Abridged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 941.

[3] Thomas D. Lea, Hebrews, James, vol. 10, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 1.

[4] Charles A. Ray, “Hebrews, Letter to the,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition, Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1998), 737.

[5] Allen, Hebrews, NAC, 61.

[6] Ray, “Hebrews, Letter to the,” HIBD, 737.

[7] David Allen offers a compelling case that Hebrews was written by Luke, from Rome, to converted priests who were abiding in Antioch. See Allen, Hebrews, NAC, 70.

[8] Henceforth, quotations from Hebrews will be identified only by the numerical address.

[9] W. Hall Harris III, The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), Hebrews 6:1.

[10] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 587.

[11] Allen, Hebrews, NAC, 339.

[12] Harris III, The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, Hebrews 6:1.

[13] Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 753.

[14] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Hebrews 6:1.

[15] Scripture noted by NLT comes from the New Living Translation (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2013).

[16] Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press; Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 139.

[17] Barker and Kohlenberger, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 963.

[18] Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 537.

[19] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 660.

[20] Allen, Hebrews, NAC, 344.

[21] Ibid., 345–346.

[22] Louw and Nida, Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 172.

[23] Ibid., 668.

[24] Ibid., 509.

[25] John Calvin and John Owen, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 138.

[26] Allen, Hebrews, NAC 353.

[27] Allen, Hebrews, NAC 393.

[28] Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 448.

[29] This writer holds to the view coined “congruism” as presented by Millard J. Erickson. That is to say, human response and/or free will fit within the foreknown plan of God. See Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 448.

[30] Derek Cooper, “Reformation Responses to Novatianism: 16th-Century Interpretations of Hebrews 6:4-6,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3, 2 (September 1, 2009): 277.

[31] Allen, Hebrews, NAC, 392.

[32] Barker and Kohlenberger, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 965.

[33] Allen, Hebrews, NAC, 392.