Enter Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle and their book Erasing Hell. I had heard this book was coming out not long after reading Love Wins. Chan is somewhat of a rising star in evangelical circles. He’s about Bell’s age, and he’s written a number of books that have sold well – Crazy Love and Forgotten God. I have not read Chan prior to reading Erasing Hell, and my only experience with him was when he led our “small” group at one of the Passion conferences a few years ago (small being around 600 or 700 people). Given Chan’s ties to Passion and some of the neo-Reformed movement folks, I’m not surprised to see that he has a problem with Love Wins.

As far as the book, Chan (and Sprinkle – it’s not always clear who is actually writing) begins the introduction by stating how important it is that we get the doctrine of hell correct. He says multiple times that it’s something that we can’t get wrong. Getting it wrong puts us at risk of sending others to hell or even puts us at risk. To his credit, he also states that we can’t let tradition or our feelings dictate what is right as far as what Scripture says about hell. Personally, I find fear-based or slippery-slope framed arguments to be inherently weak. Yes, there is an element of pragmatism that guides the formulation of doctrine, but it simply doesn’t seem to me to be a fair statement that a Christian’s walk or zeal to evangelize is ultimately driven by what they think of hell. If it is, then I think there are other bigger issues that need to be flushed out.

Chapter 1 is entitled “Does Everyone Go To Heaven”. From the get-go I have issues with this chapter. First off, the simple fact that Chan boils down the Christian walk to the phrase going to heaven seem like a misstep to me. Did Jesus or the Apostle Paul ever use the term “going to heaven” as the goal of our faith? Not to my knowledge. There is a real dearth of good teaching on eschatology in Christian circles, and Chan doesn’t even attempt to talk about it all here.

Continuing in Chapter 1, Chan quotes several passages from Bell’s book. And this is perhaps my biggest complaint about the book. The way Chan interacts with Love Wins is simply dishonest. Now, I would like to give him the benefit of doubt here and think it’s not a matter of him being purposely dishonest, but nonetheless, the quotes he gives are out of context, and they don’t fully portray Bell’s thoughts. It is actually pretty easy to find paragraphs in Love Wins that make Bell sound like a universalist. The thing is that if one doesn’t read carefully or follow Bell’s train of thought to the end, they end up missing his point. For instance, Chan states, “Bell suggests that every single person will embrace Jesus – if not in this life, then certainly in the next.” Chan does add an end note on this saying that Bell says this actually isn’t what he believes (which raises the question of why Chan states it as a fact in the body of the text in the first place), but he also says in the same note that “it would be hard to say that he’s not advocating it”. Now, to me, it was clear after reading Love Wins that Bell isn’t advocating universalism, and in interviews he has repeatedly said he’s not a universalist. That is enough for me to take him at his word. Apparently Chan knows what Bell believes better than Bell!

Throughout the rest of Chapter 1, the book goes on to refute Bell’s supposed universalism. They mention some specific passages in Matthew and Revelation, and, needless to say, the interpretations offered are different than what Bell puts forth. For instance the open gates to the New Jerusalem in Revelation. Chan doesn’t really offer an answer to why they are said to be open. He just states that the fact that they’re open doesn’t mean people on the outside will have a chance to get in. Fair enough, I suppose.

Chapters 2 and 3 are Chan’s attempts to answer the question of what the typical first century Jewish belief was about hell. Apparently, Preston Sprinkle has a PhD in early Judaism, so I had high hopes for this chapter. They soon fell flat, though. In order to prove the case that hell indeed is a place of torment and torture, and may be an eternal place, several verses from the apocryphal books Maccabees and the book of Enoch are cited. The argument goes something like – Jesus used similar language when speaking of judgment as these books do, and Jesus didn’t go against what these books are saying, therefore He affirmed this views. This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, I have a hard time believing that there was one unified view among Jews of what happens to the wicked when they die in the first century. Like now there were different theological camps in Judaism, and these things were things that were debated back and forth then as they are now. Certainly knowing some context is undoubtedly important, but the way they present the context here is so simplified that it comes across as a little too convenient for their argument. Also, the one thing that Chan fails to mention here (although he touches on it in future chapters) is that Jesus did contradict many of the commonly held paradigms about judgment while He was on earth. Namely, He says that those who most at risk of judgment are those who were thought to be God’s chosen people. Jesus never lets us get to comfortable with thinking that judgment of the wicked is something we can keep at arm’s length. One thing worth noting here is that Chan does admit that the Biblical narrative isn’t entirely clear as to the duration of hell and punishment. He does leave the door open for annihilationism. This is a bit of a departure from a typical neo-Reformed view.

Chapter 4 is a brief discussion on what the Apostle Paul and other New Testament writers had to say about hell. Chan has to stretch a bit here, as he equates every mention of destruction or death by Paul to mean hell or post-mortem punishment. He also spends time describing what equates to a typical Calvinist view of the wrath of God – we are awaiting the wrath of God unless we repent. He makes it clear that he believes the wrath Paul is talking about is retributive, not simply corrective. Chan also think that many people in the church simply don’t like this idea, so they choose not to talk about it. That may be true of some people, I suppose, I though it does not take a long time online to find people relishing in the idea of God’s wrath. There are a lot of books and commentaries written about what the wrath of God is, how it functions, the purpose, etc., and the view that it is retributive punishment is not a universal view. For instance, a good case can be made that wrath is simply God letting people experience the outcomes of their sinful desires. It’s something that is built into the way the universe works. The case isn’t as cut and dry as Chan makes it seem.

Chapter 5 is a chapter I mentioned earlier. In the chapter, Chan tries to deal with the fact that the vast majority of instances where the New Testament speaks of judgment it is in the context of believers. In fact, Chan says of Revelation, “This isn’t an evangelistic tract written for unbelievers – the hell passages here weren’t designed to make converts and scare people into the Kingdom. They were designed to warn believers to keep the faith in the midst of adversity”. And, actually it’s hard to find a lot to disagree with in this chapter. I would say a lot of the same things. The warnings of judgment that Jesus, Paul, and the other NT authors give aren’t for unbelievers – they are to the church. I find this fact simply hard to square with what Chan says elsewhere in the book, though. Elsewhere, Chan makes a point to say that it is unbelievers who risk facing the fires of hell.

In Chapter 6, Chan attempts to offer something of a theodicy (an answer to why bad things happen or why there is evil in the world). He starts with Romans 9:

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory?

It isn’t surprising that Chan takes the Calvinist view of this passage – God creates some people to be damned and some people to be saved, and we are in no place to question Him. Now, getting in depth in this passage is more than I want to do in this review, but there are other ways to interpret this. The view that God creates some people destining them for hell is simply not a view held by all theologians. I would say that at present it’s held be a minority of them, but I suppose it depends who you ask. Again, I don’t want to get too sidetracked with this, other than to say, I think Chan is wrong here. I believe God desires all to be saved, and I believe He loves all people.

Chan continues in this chapter to cite various Old Testament passages – Job, Ezekiel, Lamentations – talking about how we cannot hope to understand God’s ways. Now obviously there is some truth in this. God is God, and we are not. God runs the universe, and we don’t. However, I think the line of reasoning that Chan is taking is flawed. The Christian view of God and his ways can be somewhat informed by these OT passages, but our primary source of revelation about the Father is Christ. Christ supersedes all our previous notion of what God is like. Christ assures us that the Father isn’t unknowable. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Jesus said that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father. We needn’t be afraid that God is erratic and arbitrary.

In closing, Chan assures his readers that although he has talked about some things that can be quite terrifying, they have no reason to fear. If we repent, we can avoid hell. Again, point taken, but it makes the point he makes in Chapter 5 a bit puzzling. One the one hand we are to fear warning, but on the other have assurance that God has mercy for us now. Now, I will agree that there is always some amount of tension between justice and mercy, but the road that Chan goes down to have these two hold hands is simply incomprehensible to me. And that’s my general perception of the book. Chan has written a book that on the surface seems to be an attempt to give reader clear answers about heaven and hell. At the root, though, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Is God truly knowable? Is my salvation really secure? These are not little questions.

Comparing Erasing Hell to Love Wins, which is sort of what we’re asked to do, I’d have to say that Love Wins is a much more compelling book. It all comes down to this – what do we believe God is like, and what is the story that we find ourselves in. Bell gives readers answers to these questions – whether you agree with him or not. He enables people to have vision of a salvation this is bigger than hell avoidance. He paints a picture of Christ who is making all things new, who isn’t abandoning His creation, and who dealt with sin once and for all on the cross. I find the story that Chan presents in Erasing Hell much harder to grab onto, and I have a hard time seeing it as inspiring or compelling.

Most especially is this overarching by heaven heard to be the case with respect to the lack of parity in the Gospel message between heaven and hell. While scriptural references to heaven and earth tell of a creation in which earth is under heaven, even more so they tell of a redemption in which hell is rendered powerless before the keys of the coming basileia of heaven (Mt. 16.18-19). Contrary to any idea that heaven and hell are equally optional alternative states of affairs that can be actualized somehow by our decisions, it is precisely when beclouded by the direst forebodings and fear of the powers of heaven being shaken that hearers of the Gospel are told, in the words of Jesus, to lift up their heads because ‘redemption is drawing near’ (Lk. 21.28). (The Difference Heaven Makes 36)

With so much conversation in the blog world about hell, maybe inserting a little conversation around the idea of heaven would be beneficial. Although, to be sure, merely talking about heaven won’t make much difference. Bringing the reality of heaven to broken people, wherever they are, will. Heaven makes a difference when heaven is brought to bear on this world–and I believe that Christians have a vital role to play here in this regard.

Seriously, what progress are we making in world missions with all of the conversation about heaven and hell and who is and who is not saved? Do I really need Seven Reasons not to believe in Hell in order to be a good decent Christian? And if not, do I need to know another person’s reasons? What progress are we making for the Kingdom of God by continually engaging in conversations seemingly only meant to prove one side is right or that the other side is wrong? Are most of the conversations even necessary? Would these conversations even be happening if the blogosphere didn’t exist? For example, does contending for a ‘biblical’ view of gender (a term traditionally applied to nouns) have much to do with contending for the faith? Do conversations about whether or not we (as Christians) should or should not watch Harry Potter films or read the books help feed a starving child in our neighborhood? (I know, it’s an illogical, false comparison.)

How are we supposed to have any idea what we are to believe? How are we supposed to have any idea what to say to others who ask us about our faith (1 Peter)? How are we to contend for the faith that has been delivered (Jude 3) when there are so many ideas floating around? It is some sort of Cornucopia Christianity and everything must change. How can there be one body, one faith, when there are so many clinging tenaciously to things other than Jesus (Ephesians 4:3-6)–like opinions, ideas, politics, and so on and so forth.

(I’m guilty too since I cling tenaciously to the idea that Scripture is not as vague as some think it is. But I do wonder, seriously, about the effects these conversations have on people who are not part of our tribe. That is, many of these internal conversations that end up external seem to me to raise more doubts than they do faith. They do this among the church too. Frankly, there are days when I simply have no idea who is telling the truth, who to believe, or who is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing.)

Maybe when I go out I can tell people about God’s love. Maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe I can mention hell, maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe I should speak of a creation made by God in six days–as a foundational element of Gospel proclamation, maybe if I do I will be laughed at or ridiculed by other Christians. Maybe I can make my arguments from Scripture, maybe I should not (see in particular comments 14-17 in the comment thread). Maybe I should talk about Jesus, maybe I should talk about other Christians who talk about Jesus. Maybe holiness matters, maybe the journey does, maybe both.

Maybe the problem is that we have set up too many dichotomies in our conversations.

I’m not saying any of these conversations are necessarily wrong. What I am doing is asking a question: Are they helpful? Are they vital to the cause of Christ or are they culturally mandated and distracting and beside the point? Are they producing fruit in keeping with repentance or are they educated (or uneducated, as the case may be), lengthy ways of asking ‘Did God Really Say?’ Are they keeping our eyes off of the greater purpose for our existence which is, it seems to me, to know God and love him? Or are they helping us forward as we slouch closer and closer to Gomorrah?

I fully realize that what I am writing here will not be enjoyed by all because it will seem I am missing the point of the conversations, stereotyping others, that I am hopelessly naive, or that I am playing a significant role in helping perpetuate the very dichotomies I am so opposed to. I’m OK with that as long as someone in the world helps me get to the bottom of this problem. Accuse away! But please, help me understand what point we are trying to make and if we are saying things that, in whatever ‘end’ we may conceive, God will say, “Well said good and faithful blogger. Enter into the joy of Technorati Authority ratings.”

Maybe it is seriously time for Christians to stop fruitless conversation (1 Timothy 1:5-6) an ask the following questions: Is this conversation helpful? Am I helping the cause of Christ? Is my work advancing the Kingdom of God in a thoughtful, forward direction?

Or am I just trying to be right and out-shout the other person for whom Jesus died?

What do you think?

Chris’ Credo

One) I am vehemently agnostic* as it pertains to Creation.

Two) As such, I believe that the only item of primary importance in the Creation story is in Gen 1:1 – “God created”.

Three) I believe that Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC), Intelligent Design (ID), Theistic Evolutionism (TE) and multiple permutations thereof are all possible views of Creation – and that no matter which you choose, it is of secondary importance.**

Four) I believe that elevating ones view of Creation – apart from Gen 1:1 – to primary importance is legalism. At opposite ends of the scale, YEC’s do this when they claim that other parts of the Bible (or all of Scripture) are untrustworthy if their view is not correct, and TE’s do this when they claim YEC/OEC/etc’s are backward, unserious, stupid, anti-science, etc.

Five) I believe that basing systematic theologies on the Creation account is arrogant and counterproductive, and is really a subset of #4.

Six) I believe that holding someone’s view of theistic Creation as a test of faith (or seriousness of faith) is arrogant and counterproductive.

Seven) If someone at the “conservative” end of the scale starts building truth claims based on their view of creation, I will argue that the opposite end of the scale is just as reasonable as theirs. If someone at the “liberal” end of the scale starts degrading the opposite end of the scale as anti-science and unserious, I will argue that science and religion are not mutually exclusive and that we cannot prove w/ science how the world was (or was not) created. (i.e. I use a religious argument to counter a religious argument and a scientific argument to counter a scientific argument.)

I could be wrong, but I think my position is probably the safest one, particularly since it does not seem to be made an item of first importance to the early Christian church.

* – somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood

** – if forced to choose at gunpoint, I would say that the earth (as a planet) and the universe is probably billions of years old, but mankind is only 6K-10K years old, that Adam was the first man “made in the image of God” (whatever that actually means, though, is up for debate), and that I have no clue as to whether God completed the “days” of Creation in literal 24-hour days or figurative ones. And even so, I am very possibly wrong on all counts.

“There’s a common misconception that the choice between Christ and false gods is the choice between desiring to go to hell and desiring to go to heaven. I’ve heard preachers say the narrow way is the way of Christianity that people choose when they want to go to heaven, and the broad way is the way people choose who are content to go to hell. But they are misinformed or confused. It is not a contrast between godliness and Christianity on the one hand and irreligious, lewd, lascivious pagan masses headed merrily for hell on the other. It is a contrast between two kinds of religions, both roads marked ‘This way to Heaven.’ Satan doesn’t put up a sign that says, ‘Hell–Exit Here.’ That’s not his style. People on the broad road think that road goes to heaven.”–John MacArthur, Hard to Believe, 78

I have the suspicion that men today believe in God more than at any other time in human history. Men know the gospel, the teaching of the Church, and God’s creation better than at any other time. They have a profound consciousness of His existence. Their atheism is not a real disbelief. It is rather an aversion toward somebody we know very well but whom we hate with all our heart, exactly as the demons do.

We hate God, that is why we ignore Him, overlooking Him as if we did not see Him, and pretending to be atheists. In reality we consider Him our enemy par excellence. Our negation is our vengeance, our atheism is our revenge.

But why do men hate God? They hate Him not only because their deeds are dark while God is light, but also because they consider Him as a menace, as an imminent and eternal danger, as an adversary in court, as an opponent at law, as a public prosecutor and an eternal persecutor. To them, God is no more the almighty physician who came to save them from illness and death, but rather a cruel judge and a vengeful inquisitor.

You see, the devil managed to make men believe that God does not really love us, that He really only loves Himself, and that He accepts us only if we behave as He wants us to behave; that He hates us if we do not behave as He ordered us to behave, and is offended by our insubordination to such a degree that we must pay for it by eternal tortures, created by Him for that purpose.

Who can love a torturer? Even those who try hard to save themselves from the wrath of God cannot really love Him. They love only themselves, trying to escape God’s vengeance and to achieve eternal bliss by managing to please this fearsome and extremely dangerous Creator.

Do you perceive the devil’s slander of our all loving, all kind, and absolutely good God? That is why in Greek the devil was given the name DIABOLOS, “the slanderer”.

Alexander Kalomiros, from The River of Fire

“It is an ordinary saying that if there is a hell, Rome is built upon it. It is an abyss from whence all sins proceed.”–Spurgeon, from Scala Santa (I just like the hint of doubt.)

GROUND RULES

I’m going to concede a lot of ground to the critics.  In some cases, I agree with some of these points anyway, but I can make my argument even if I disagree with some of these points.

• Let us assume that the criticized person is 100% in error theologically.
• Let us assume that the critics are 100% accurate theologically.
• Let us assume that everyone who does not disagree completely with the criticized person are sheeple who are totally lacking in discernment, will consume and espouse everything that the criticized person says, and desperately need the critics to straighten out this problem.
• Let us assume that the error being disseminated by the criticized person is so grave that the critics have carte blanche to use any methodology they choose to confront it, without even the remotest possibility that they will err in their methodology or that their methods will turn off any of the aforementioned sheeple.
• Let us assume that the method that Jesus gave in Matthew 18:15ff is totally inapplicable.

SIDEBAR

I find it interesting that the Matthew 18 passage gets batted down so quickly.  While I understand that Jesus was particularly referring to more “private”, one-on-one sins, I have searched several translations and have yet to find one with a verse where Jesus says “unless it’s a public sin, then all bets are off”.  The ludicrous speed* with which the applicability of the passage is dismissed speaks not so much of someone who wants to move on as it does of someone who is so loathe to try one-on-one confrontation, that any loophole is seized desperately as a lifeline.

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY-SCHEDULED POST

But let’s play nice.  As I said, let’s assume that Jesus’ command is inapplicable in this situation.  Does inapplicability automatically mean that we are commanded not to use this method sometimes?

Let me put it another way — the way that (sadly) seems to be the de rigueur method for how this is played out.

SCENARIO #1

1. The criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates error. In his efforts, he manages to reach and convince 1000 sheeple. **
2. The critics recognize the error and scramble to publicly disseminate the truth in response. ***  In their efforts, they manage to rescue 995 of those sheeple from the error. ( Highly improbable that the critics will turn around that high of a percentage, but hey, let’s be generous. )
3. Two years later, the criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates more error. Because of some past success, in his efforts, he manages to reach and convince 2000 sheeple.
4. The critics recognize the error and scramble to publicly disseminate the truth in response. Their astronomical success rate remains steady so that, in their efforts, they manage to rescue 1990 of those sheeple from the error.
5. Two years later, the criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates more error. Because of some past success, in his efforts, he manages to reach and convince 3000 sheeple.
6. The critics recognize the error and scramble to publicly disseminate the truth in response. Their astronomical success rate remains steady so that, in their efforts, they manage to rescue 2985 of those sheeple from the error.
7. Two years later, the criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates more error. Because of some past success, in his efforts, he manages to reach and convince 4000 sheeple.
8. The critics recognize the error and scramble to publicly disseminate the truth in response. Their astronomical success rate remains steady so that, in their efforts, they manage to rescue 3980 of those sheeple from the error.
9. Ad infinitum (or would that be ad nauseum ?)

So, at the end of six years (all but that last bullet), you now have 50 people who have bought into the errors disseminated by the criticized person.

This scenario is particularly self-damning for the critic who chooses to do a series of blog posts detailing the errors of the criticized person over the years. ****

But what happens if we change it up a bit?

SCENARIO #2

1. The criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates error. In his efforts, he manages to reach and convince 1000 sheeple.
2. The critics recognize the error. One critic approaches the criticized person and convinces him of his error.  The criticized person then disseminates a mea culpa, and manages to rescue the same 995 people that the critics rescued in the first scenario.
3. Two years later, the criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates truth in some manner.
4. The critics only needed response is to praise God and send the criticized person notes of encouragement.
5. Two years later, the criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates truth in some manner.
6. The critics only needed response is to praise God and send the criticized person notes of encouragement.
7. Two years later, the criticized person espouses and publicly disseminates truth in some manner.
8. The critics only needed response is to praise God and send the criticized person notes of encouragement.

Some other things that might happen if this second scenario occurred:

• Because of the dissemination of truth by the criticized person (in steps #2, 3, 5, and 7), God is glorified and people are brought closer to the truth.  Hard to believe otherwise.
• The criticized person and the critic (who originally approached the former) cultivate a strong friendship from which both benefit spiritually.  Hard to believe otherwise.
• Let’s dream really big and assume that in six years, the critics and the criticized person are able to convince the original 5 (who they didn’t rescue originally) of the truth.

BOTTOM LINE

So, when a critic chooses to go with Scenario #1, he’s treating the symptom while the disease goes on unabated.  So what is he really trying to accomplish?  Is he really rescuing the sheeple *****, or is he just showing off his mad Bible skillz?  Is he really trying to “gain his brother”, or is he merely auditioning for some spiritual MMA league?

No, really.

* yes, that was a Spaceballs reference

** I recognize that these numbers are probably too small.

*** How they do this is irrelevant.  We’ve already established carte blanche in the ground rules.

**** OK, that one was, admittedly, about the Rob Bell situation.  But I’m not giving any Google juice to the critic, so if you don’t know specifically what I’m talking about, c’est la vie.

***** which, it is to be noted, quickly becomes Sisyphean

Contemporary Christians often feel Hebrews to be a strange and difficult book. There are, I think, two reasons for this. First, it seems to ramble about and discuss a lot of themes which have never made it into the ‘top ten’ of Christians discussion tops. It begins with a complex discussion of angels; continues with a treatment of what Psalm 95 really meant in talking about ‘entering God’s rest’; moves on to Melchizedek; lists the furniture in the Tabernacle; and ends with an exhortation to ‘go outside the camp’. Well, you see what I mean; were I a betting man, I would lay good odds that none of my readers have found themselves discussing these things over the breakfast table within the last month or two. Small wonder that most people don’t get very far with Hebrews, or let it get very far with them.—NT Wright, Following Jesus, 4

I think he’s probably correct in his assessment. There is a lot going on in the book of Hebrews—and most of the stuff going on is terribly complicated to understand. The arguments are complicated, the exegesis is tricky, and the logic is sometimes a maze of confusion. I’m not suggesting for a minute that I have it figured out entirely. Not at all. That is not to say, on the other hand, that I am completely wordless or thoughtless about this magnificent book.

Exegesis, Patterns, and the Big Idea

What I like to look for when I am reading is patterns: patterns of thought, recurring phrases, foreshadows, double-backs—you know, all those things we were taught to pay attention to when we were learning to interpret writing back in junior high. Reading through the book of Hebrews has given me an opportunity to notice a pattern repeated without fail over and over again in the book at least 14 times in the book. It’s a simple pattern and really helps us understand what the book is about or, at minimum, what small sections of the book are covering.

I add one small caveat: the book does, I believe, have an overarching point. I again agree with Wright who is very careful to write that

The book of Hebrews offers us, quite simply, Jesus. It offers us the Jesus who is there to help because he’s one of us, and has trodden the path before us. It offers us the Jesus who has inaugurated the new covenant, bringing to its fulfillment the age-old plan of God. And it offers us, above all, Jesus the final sacrifice; the one who has done for us what we could not do for ourselves, who has lived our life and died our death, and now ever lives to make intercession for us. (Following Jesus, 10)

Jesus is the Big Idea in Hebrews, without doubt. What I would like to demonstrate is a pattern for how we understand what the smaller arguments in the book of Hebrews and thus how they all tie together to help us understand the bigger argument of Hebrews, viz., that Jesus is enough.

I think if we break up Hebrews into small chunks and see how the author ends each argument then we will begin to understand the greater point he is making within each argument. That is, each argument he makes leads naturally to breaks and conclusions which are set off by key words or phrases. Then all of these smaller arguments, when clumped together, give us a grand picture of Jesus. Throughout the book, leading up to this grand climax, the author has taught us how to live—not leaving theology without a point because all good theology has, ultimately, the point of teaching us how to live because of Jesus. So we learn how to live because of Jesus or what Jesus has said or what Jesus has done and when the book is done, we can say, “Yes, I will join him outside the camp.”

Conformity to Jesus

Barth noted that “Christian speech must be tested by its conformity to Christ.” Unless ‘speech’ is a metaphor for an entire life, then I would expand upon his thought and say that Christian life must also be tested by its conformity to Christ. We have concocted all sorts of ways to judge one another (how often do we go to church, how much money do we give, how much do we serve, etc.), none of them without some merit and some with more demerit, but it seems to me that the best way to examine ourselves, the Bible way, is to judge ourselves and see if we, I, in fact conform to Christ. I’m fairly certain the apostle Paul wrote something to this effect at some point in Romans or Ephesians or both. And this only makes sense given that Paul did definitely write that we are being transformed into the image of Jesus, renewed in the image of our Creator who is Christ Jesus.

So all throughout Hebrews, the author will give frequent pauses, after short or lengthy expositions of Old Testament Scripture, and say something like, “OK, here’s a conclusion. I just said this and that, therefore, here’s how to check yourselves against what I just wrote.” Or, “OK, I just said this and this about Jesus, now, therefore, here’s the way you ought to be conducting yourselves.” He does this over and over again; I count at least 14 times where this pattern is used. The key, if you are reading in English, is to find the word ‘therefore’. In our English translations, this word will signify the need for the reader to pause and consider what has just been read. It’s a good exercise in exegesis that when you see the word ‘therefore’ to ask what it is there for.

Two final thoughts. First, this is not an artificial pattern I have laid across the book of Hebrews based upon English words usage. There are in the Greek at least five ways of expressing ‘therefore’ in the book of Hebrews—and the author uses them to mix it up for us and keep us on our toes, but I think the point is always the same, that is, to get us thinking about how to apply theology to living for and conforming to Jesus. They are: dia touto; othen; oun; dio; and two inferential particles: toinun and toigaroun. In most cases where these words appear in Greek, the English word supplied is ‘therefore’—so the translators have seen the pattern too and been consistent. (I will note which Greek word is used in the text in the sections below.)

Second, there are many instances where these words appear and they are connected not with us, but with God or Jesus. I am only noting the references that speak to us, although at some point it might be helpful to see how these words also relate to God or Jesus. I found, however, that when they are used with reference to Jesus or God they are often translated as ‘and so’ or ‘then’ or something along those lines.

Since this could be a rather long process, and I don’t want to gloss over any of the references, I will only mention just one in this first post and then, in follow up posts later on, I will supply the balance. I think the pattern will be evident to you and you will probably find the pattern even before I have finished writing this series of posts.

Therefore, Pay Attention

I noted in a previous post on the book of Hebrews that a key feature of the book is that God speaks. The opening verses of Hebrews clearly tell us, “…God spoke…in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” We are left with no misunderstanding: from the get-go God is interested in communicating with his people. Not only does God want us to hear, but he wants us to understand. He has condescended to us, taken up our language, and communicated to us in ways that we can understand.

In these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son. This Son—well, he is overwhelming, no? He is the radiance of God’s glory, the exact character of God. He sustains all things by his rema, his Word. He provided purification for sins. He sat down at the right hand of God (another very important theme traced through Hebrews (see 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). This Jesus is superior to angels. This Jesus is worshiped. It is the throne of Jesus that will last. This Jesus is amazing beyond all our imaginations in what He accomplished, in who He is, in what He is doing, and how he has saved us.

And God spoke to us in Jesus.

Therefore (dia touto) we must (dei) pay attention to what we have heard so that we do not drift away (2:1). Therefore actually stands first in the sentence. It is key: we pay attention because of who this Jesus who spoke is, and because of what he did, and because of what he has done. This is not a random conjunction: therefore is there for a reason. So God spoke. God has spoken. God has spoken in Jesus. God has spoken in Jesus finally. God has spoken in Jesus finally and Jesus is the Son of God…and therefore we must pay attention. We pay attention so we do not drift away, so that we do not miss the salvation offered—the salvation testified to by God’s Holy Spirit, announced to us by Jesus, and witnessed by his people. We must pay attention. The author is not really giving us room to wiggle around and decide if we want to pay attention. If we are the church and we have ears to hear, we must (dei) pay attention. It’s not optional.

Now the author of Hebrews will wrap this up later too (see 12:25; 13:7) and demonstrate how those who speak the Word of God are following closely in the footsteps of Jesus and continuing the long line of prophets who did the same (see 3:5; 11:4; 12:24 among others). God’s message, culminating finally in Jesus, has been consistent from the beginning. So how important is this? On the one hand, we are to pay attention to what we have heard (from Jesus? From God? From prophets? From preachers?) If we do, we will prevent ourselves from drifting away. How important is it, then, to pay attention to the Word of God? I like a similar passage from Ephesians:

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-15)

The whole point of ‘paying attention’ is in order for Christ to created or imaged in us. When we drift from the word, we become less like Him. When we pay attention to what God has said, we are moving in a direction God has planned for us all along: the maturity and fullness of Jesus—the people of God, the image of God in humanity, true humanity, true Israel. This is the goal of the Word of God. It teaches us how to be like Jesus, why we should be like Jesus, how God makes us like Jesus, and how this has been his goal from before the foundations of the world (see Ephesians 1, 2, and 5; Philippians 2; Colossians). If we miss what God is saying to us, who else will tell us? If we neglect what God is saying to us, who else will save us or what salvation will be left for us? “Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (3:7, 15; 4:7).

I think also this explains the importance of faithful, biblical, expository preaching. Remember, if we are to listen to Jesus in chapters 1 and 2, the author is not shy to tie it up later in chapters 12 and 13 by telling us to pay attention to our leaders who preach and teach. He warns us not to ‘be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching’ (13:9). There will be a lot of efforts made by the enemy to distract us and tear our attention away from what matters to God: that we hear him speak, that we hear his word, that we pay attention to what he says, and that in hearing and paying attention, we become like Jesus in all ways—even so far, says the author of Hebrews, that ‘we go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore’ (13:13).

William Willimon wrote:

Faithful preaching thus inevitably involves the preacher’s resistance against the tendency of the church to want to contain and stabilize God. Church furniture tends to be heavier than it needs to be, large, bolted to the floor. Church buildings tend to be build mot substantially than is necessary. Perhaps this comes from the church’s inchoate knowledge that it is the nature of this God’s word to cause oaks to whirl, to shake the foundations, ripping doors of their hinges (Psalm 29; Acts 2). Therefore, preaching is a perfect medium for the communication of this God because of its fragility, it orality, its lack of stability, and its resistance to duplication and definition. (Conversations with Barth on Preaching, 175)

Yeah, just imagine if this God and this God’s word actually got a hold of us in a Sunday sermon!

But I don’t think many want to hear such things in the church today. As one who has been on both sides of the pulpit, I can faithfully testify that preachers cannot preach this because they won’t soon have jobs if they do. That sounds harsh, but I submit that if we truly paid attention to what Scripture is saying about Jesus, about life, about our destiny in Christ, our churches would be a lot emptier than they are. That’s not the goal, but I think it’s the truth (see John 5, 6).

Finally

Therefore pay attention: So that you will not drift away.

Therefore pay attention: How shall we escape if we ignore it (2:2; 12:25)? And if this is God’s last word to us, his eschatological word in these last days, what else can we expect?

Therefore pay attention: This salvation was announced by the Lord; confirmed by those who heard him; and testified to by God through gifts of the Holy Spirit.

He tells us to pay attention because the result of not paying attention is drifting. Drifting has the idea of slowly moving away, gradually moving away from that which tethers us to truth—in this case, Jesus. This, I submit, is what those who are mentioned throughout this book were commended for: Moses, Melchizedek, Abel, Abraham, and all the rest. The essence of faith is paying attention to Jesus, keeping our eyes fixed upon the One who spoke, the one who died, and the one who finished the work God gave him to finish (‘sat down’ carries the idea of completion of work). Those who do will have no problem joining him outside the camp and bearing his disgrace.

And, to make matters worse, the book of Hebrews is written to the church. Why would the author of Hebrews have to write to the church and say to them, “Therefore, pay attention”? Do you think it is because the church is always in danger of not listening, not paying attention? Do you think it is because the church is always in danger of drifting?

Strange, that.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Matthew 5:17-18

Have you ever looked up the meaning of your name?  Names are important to God.  For instance the Bible tells us that God changed Abram’s name to Abraham (Genesis 17:5), Sarai’s name to Sarah (Genesis 17:15), Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 32:28), and Simon’s name to Peter (Matthew 16:18) to signify important events or roles that each of these individuals would play in God’s plan for humanity. The Bible also tells us that God has new names awaiting those who belong to Him.  Revelations 2:17 promises “To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna.  I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.”

Recently a friend told me to check into the Hebrew meaning of the names in the lineage of Adam to Noah (Genesis 5).  In the Hebrew language the number ten symbolizes absolute completeness.  For instance God gave man Ten Commandments, ten plagues were inflicted on Egypt, ten adults are the required quorum for a prayer service in Judaism, and there are ten generations between Adam and Noah.  So what do these ten Hebrew names mean?

According to Chuck Missler (1):

Adam means “man,”

Seth means “appointed,”

Enosh means “mortal,”

Kenan means “sorrow,”

Mahalalel means “blessed God,”

Jared means “shall come down,”

Enoch means “teaching,”

Methuselah means “His death shall bring,”

Lamech means “despairing,”

Noah means “to bring relief or comfort.”

If you put these meanings together you get: man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.  Amazing.  The plan of salvation in names that I have read over multiple times without much of a thought….

Dear Lord thank you for giving us everything that we need in your Holy Word.  I stand in awe of your wisdom and mercy.  May your will be done now and forever.

(1) www. khouse.org/articles/2000/284/