Customer Reviews

Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book thoroughly updates any reader interested in understanding what God has said through the warnings in Hebrews. The Arminian and Calvinistic views come closer to a purely Biblical theology on the platform this book has provided. Although space constraints forced the responses to each view to be critical, each author graciously and honestly declares the immense common ground found among them all. The very nature of a "four-views" book is somewhat combatant, but as several of the authors mentioned, a healthy debate is the most helpful as opposed to agreeing to believe basically nothing.

Osborne's defense of the Arminian view of the warnings in Hebrews was excellent. His work was pleasently surprising as he presented no straw men, but in a very detailed exegetical manner defended what might well be considered to be a literal/historical/gramatical interpretation of the warnings. No reader will be able to dismiss his work but will be required to sincerely struggle with what he presented. He has a healthy view and use of the OT in his interpretation which is a breath of fresh air as most scholarship seems to have their thoughts stolen by an "immediate-context-only" hermeneutic, i.e., they are unwilling or too cautious to step out into the broader context (especially since Hebrews is THE Old Testament user). He very generously spends time discussing the implications of all the encouragement/assurance passages in Hebrews as well. He concludes that the language is too strongly in favor of the Arminian view that he must lean in that direction. I can't imagine any reader being unaffected by his exposition of the warnings.

Fanning's classic reformed view was just as well presented. Fanning's style of presentation is a rebuke to us all for the way we treat each other in our own theological debates. His words are rarely if ever overstated, and he also is quite careful to remove all straw men. His defense is powerful as well because his control of grammar exeeds all others, and hence his attention to linguistic detail is unsurpassed. It is difficult to argue with a textual/grammatical argument as opposed to a general theological statement (and he rightly exposes this tendency in the other authors' works). He appears to hinge a significant portion of his argument based on the conditional statements in 3:6 and 3:14, arguing for a change in interpretation from a cause-to-effect to an evidence-to-inference paradigm. His argument is unarguably plausible. Fanning also argues for the presence of absolute eternal security found in Hebrews based on the person and work of Christ our High Priest. He concludes that the warnings are given to a mixed community which consists of believers and unbelievers, and that if a member falls away, that person gives evidence that the normal evidences of belief were not genuine.

Cockerill defends what is called the Wesleyand Arminian view. It takes a real student to tease out the difference between that and the classic Arminian view presented by Osborne. Cockerill's part was much broader in argumentation and seemed less helpful since he did not confront imminent and specific issues, but merely outlined Hebrews and weaved his view within it. Osborne, in his response, merely points out that he would have liked to see more specificity. Both presentations are so similar they do not seem to gain any new ground by Cockerill's.

Finally, Gleason's defense of the view that Zane Hodges (and Dillow) have defended concludes the views. Actually, just as Osborne comments, Gleason has done a very impressive job in defending this position (that the warnings are against believers who lapse into imaturity and suffer temporal punishment and loss of rewards), being very exegetical and thorough. Although this position is not held by many (and seems to be becoming even less common), Gleason's view must be considered. In fact, it seems that his attention to the Old Testament (though maybe misdirected - see Cockerill's critique) is well placed, given the immense attention that the author of Hebrew's himself places on it. As Guthrie and Osborne comment, this route must be more thoroughly explored in understanding the warnings (Cockerill's critique is a bit overzealous).

Osborne's responses to all of the authors were gracious and attentive. His summaries of each view are impressive (along with his attention to details). His critique of Fanning's defense of the encouragement/assurance passages in Hebrews is probably well placed, and oddly enough his critique of Gleason's view is much less negative (possibly because it was less damaging to Osborne's own view?).

Fanning's responses are much like his chapter - technical, precise and forceful. He as well should be applauded for his 'irenic' (as they all put it) spirit. He does seem quite fair and level headed, willing to converse with all sides with an open heart. Fanning was most forceful with Cockerill's presentation for reasons already mentioned, and his comments seem well placed.

Cockerill's responses are much the same as Osborne's and Fanning's except for his critique of Gleason. There he was much less gracious. Perhaps his comments were rigthly elicited, but he could have been more irenic.

Gleason's comments were also kind and thoughtful. His entrance into the debate seems to come from a very different direction making his comments all the more interesting (or as Guthrie states, "Gleason's contributions offer another perspective more off the beaten path" p.430).

Guthrie concludes the book in a wonderful fashion, summarizing well the outcome and encouraging further study. His two main points are very helpful: 1) more work on Old Testament usage needs to be done (as well as Pauline echoes) and it's influence on the warnings, and 2) more attention must be paid to Tom Wright's critique of American Christianity - we must see beyond the individualism to a corporate view of the church as well. With these comments, Guthrie ends.

I teach a course in the exegesis of Hebrews every other year and I used this the past semester. I think it was a little bit challenging reading for college students, but would be not hard at all for seminary students. Overall, it is a really excellent collection. The interaction between the viewpoints is very substantive. In my opinion, it advances the discussion of the warning passages and will be a standard reference on this topic for years to come.

Here are a few of my thoughts:
1. There was not much difference between Osborne and Cockerill. I'm not sure why both of them were included.
2. Gleason's defense of the Moderate Reformed view was a bit idiosyncratic. He holds that the judgment threatened in the warning passages refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. While I am all for interpreting texts in their historical contexts, Gleason really has to stretch the very slender evidence to position Hebrews in that specific of a context. The editors would have done better to select someone who is more representative of the loss-of-rewards view than Gleason. Most of those who think Hebrews is threating temporal judgment (suffering, death) or loss of rewards (either in the millennium or heaven) do not think the destruction of Jerusalem is in view.
3. The font in the book is ridiculously large. Reduce it, and the book would be half the number of pages!
4. I would have like to see some discussion in Bateman's introduction of Schreiner and Caneday's view in The Race Set Before Us. It is a very nuanced Calvinist view. It would also have been helpful if he could have summarized the rising Federal Vision perspective on these passages, which provides a real alternative to the other views.
5. Don't skip the response chapters. It is when the various viewpoints come under criticism that the strengths and weaknesses are really exposed.

First off, I really appreciated this book. It was extremely thought provoking and helped my exploring of the challening texts in question. I appreciate the mostly respectful spirit of the debaters.

All of the writers agree that the Hebrews warning passages all address one danger. However, they disagree WIDELY about what that danger is. I have found the same thing to be true in other literature I have read on the subject.

No one seems to have concluded that Hebrews addresses a complex of various dangers, perhaps including all of the dangers focused on by the authors of this book. If you know of an author that has reached the same conclusion I have, please make a comment to this review.

Here are my observations about the warning texts after reading this book:

2:1-4
The danger here is drifting away through ignoring the great salvation found in Christ. If the drifting away occurs, the person will not escape punishment (the nature of the punishment is unspecified, so it probably includes discipline AND even damnation). I believe this passage serves as a general encompassing introduction to the theme which is expanded so powerfully and more specifically as the book continues.

3:7-4:13
The danger here is to have a sinful, unbelieving heart (3:12) that turns away prior to the new birth. Warning signs that this danger is present are heart-hardening through sin's deceitfulness, loss of confidence, and lack of effort (4:11). The passage warns of the possibility of apparent, self-identified, non-genuine "brothers" being shown to have fallen short of truth faith. This often happens when the "coming-to-faith" experience is faulty or incomplete and corresponds to the rootless plants sown on rocky soil in Christ's Parable of the Sower. The purpose of the warning is to encourage the completion of the person's coming to faith. The pivotal verse may be 3:14, perhaps questioning the genuineness of belief which will be shown, if it exists, through the believer's perseverance (also, elsewhere, through fruitfulness, love, etc.). The "showing" is to the people themselves and secondarily to the brothers, since God has known the heart all along (4:12-13).

5:11-6:12
The heart of the passage, 6:4-8, describes ultimate apostasizing of true believers turning away from faith. If the turning away is final and ultimate, cursing and eternal destruction will be the result. Elsewhere in Hebrews less ultimate turning away is in view, either through false conversion as in 3:14, or in cases of discipline as in 12:7-11.
The Greek word translated "impossible" in 6:4 doesn't mean all we think of in the word "impossible". "Adunatos" is also in the New Testament translated "impotent" or "weak" (Romans 15:1). Literally, it means "not able" or "not strong". It does NOT mean "not permitted".
"Fall away" in 6:6 doesn't mean "fall into sin" or "be entangled in sin" (as in 12:1 and in Galatians 6:1), but to turning away from faith (which may LOOK much the same--sin may RESULT FROM such a turning, the case here, or sin may RESULT IN such a turning).
The big question is, does 6:4-6 refer to saved or unsaved people? Troubling this issue of the "saved" apostasizers, note that we do apparently see apparently apostate Christians repent (which was Wesley's observation during revival in England). How do we reconcile that with 6:4-6? Were they not originally true believers, or did they not truly apostasize/"fall away"/"turn away"? The explanation might be (1) that the repentant ones were disobedient but not ultimately apostate, (2) that they had previously been false believers who following an apparent apostasy have now come to true faith, or (3) that although it is unusual and difficult, there actually IS a possibility of some ultimately apostate person being "brought back to repentance", but the point of Hebrews is that no one should lightly plan on it but, rather, be warned away from such a perilous course.

10:19-39
The continual deliberate sinning of 10:26 appears to be one of three possibilities: a case of false conversion, such as in 3:7-4:13 or in James's "faith without works", contrasting with the true faith of 10:22-24, OR, alternatively, perhaps 10:26-31 describes the ultimate apostasizer of 6:4-7, OR, alternatively, perhaps what is described is the severe TEMPORAL discipline of God turning sinful believers aside from the eternal punishment which would otherwise result from ultimate apostasy. Perhaps all three dangers are included within this one text. Added is the warning against separating from fellowship, coupled with an exhortation for the Christian community to counteract the dangers by their encouragement.

12:14-29
This passage warns against unholiness. Joyful and gracious aspects of the gospel must not dull us to the moral imperatives of God, and the dangers of sin. We must worship God acceptably, which is to say with reverence, awe, and fear of His consuming holiness. I see this passage as a continuation and conclusion of one unit along with 10:19-39 with the intervening emphasis of faith and a God focus that welcomes discipline. With this interpretation, 10:19-12:29 bring to conclusion the introductory warning of 2:1-4 that took two distinct specific focuses in 3:7-4:13 and in 5:11-6:12 with the addition of the new distinct possibility in 12:5-13.

Overall
It isn't necessary or correct to require that all of the above warning passages address the same single variety of spiritual ill. The commentators that I have read, including the four in this book, have each concluded that all the warning passages ARE supposed to be taken together in addressing the same ill, and then argued about whether or not the ill is false conversion, ultimate apostasy, or non-ultimate sin/error. I disagree with this approach. It's more likely that differing commentators with their different understandings of the spiritual illness(es) in question may ALL be right in reference to one or more of the Hebrews warnings. I see Hebrews warning of many dangers, including outright rejection of the gospel before the new birth, outright rejection of the gospel after the new birth, presumptive sinning, lackadaisical spiritual life, compromise in the face of opposition, doubts, lack of genuineness, discouragement, and apathy. There are even more dangers than that, if we include the testimony not just of Hebrews but of all scripture. The only common-denominator, the CURE-ALL, is vital and ongoing faith/obedience in Jesus Christ!

Send me your comments and suggestions for additional reading!

Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews; Bateman, Herbert W., IV, General Editor, Kregel Publications; Grand Rapids, MI; 480 pp.

The four views presented in this volume were originally papers that were read for the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in 2004. As such, they were already some of the most read items among evangelicals before the book was published. The introduction, conclusion, and replies constitute what are new in this book. As papers read before particular sessions of the professional ETS society, the level of scholarship was expected to be high, as were the arguments for the criticisms of each other's works. This book makes these papers available for the general public, as well as a wider academic and scholarly audience.

The editor, Bateman, used sixty-two pages of introduction to set the table for the rest of the volume, to introduce and delimit the argument. Since, however, the four position papers were written and introduced at the 2004 ETS, his introduction was more retrospective than introductive. He did give questions for the reader to be aware of while reading the various authors. Writing an introduction post hoc without giving away the authors' positions and counter arguments must have been a difficult job.

Because this book has four criticising authors, a writing general editor, and another author who wrote a conclusion, a single smooth review that progressed from point to point was not possible. Rather six reviews (four for the presenting writers, and one each for the introduction and conclusion) were necessary.

Putting last things first, there are three pages of "Author Index," which give each page (pp 446-449), and even the footnote number, in which an author is cited. There is a two page "Greek Word Index," again citing the page and footnote where those words appear (pp 450-451); a twenty page "Scripture Index," which included three pages that are not Scripture, but Apocryphal, Greek and Roman Sources, Josephus, Philo, and Qumran sources (pp 452-472); and finally, a three page "Subject Index," (pp 473-478). Using these resources, the reader should be able to locate almost anything referenced in the volume. Scholarship should always be falsifiable.

In his introduction to the book, Bateman used extensive footnotes. Reading the footnotes as they were written disrupted the reading of the text for four reasons. First, some of the footnotes ran more than three fourths of a page; and one footnote in particular took over a full page by itself. This footnote only had normal text on the page because the printer forced the footnote to break over two separate pages.

Second, the footnotes contained arguments and data that would have been better served in the main text of the introduction. Footnotes are good for sending the reader to the sources of information cited, and for short comments. Developments of the main argument worthy of longer treatments should appear in the body of the work and not in footnotes because some readers may simply blow past the footnotes and miss the content presented there. Even in scholarly writing, footnotes are nothing more than necessary interruptions to the text. Footnotes could just as easily be made into endnotes as a stylistic choice. If turning to the end of a book to read the endnotes (or chapter notes) would interrupt the flow of reading, and loss of continuity, then the footnote should be rewritten into the main body of the text.

Third, footnotes should be kept to information which cannot be addressed in the main body. These are necessary asides, and not primary developments of the material presented or merely interesting ideas. These might be definitions, sources, or short translations. Any information more than this should be developed in the text.

Fourth, and finally, the font used in the footnotes was significantly smaller, and the line spacing was set much closer as compared to the main body. These two things make the text cramped and difficult to read. If the editor intended the footnotes to be helpful, then he hurt his purpose in that endeavour with the content, font, and format of the footnoting even though this is a scholarly work. All four of these difficulties with footnotes were found throughout the book.

Bateman's use of Greek text interspersed in his personal translation of the Scripture was unusual. Rather than giving lexical meaning to the Greek words used, he placed Koine Greek words in parenthesis to show the development of the biblical authors' logic within the pericopes. ã'ñ, ä', and ï'í were often the marks of logical progression; êáô'÷ùìåí and '÷ïíôåò (pg 68), among many other examples, were used to emphasize the meaning of the development of the pericope, and sometimes of his ideas as well.

If the three most important things in real estate are location, location, and location, then the three most important things in exegesis are context, context, and context. Thus the pericopes on the warning passages are subject to interpretation, some authors include larger passages while others delimit them to smaller groups of verses. The passages selected for these works were Hebrews 2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; and 12:14-19 (pg 27).

The entire introduction could have been simpler and more direct if Dr. Bateman had simply set the table by defining the pericopes in view, and questions to keep in mind while reading the text, and had he allowed the writers to develop the text in their works. If the purpose was as stated on the back cover of the book to provide "a definitive resource for readers both in the academy and the local church," then the book is in need of further simplification, unless by "local church" was meant seminary trained clergy, and not interested laymen and good Bible students. Typically, each of the authors addressed the questions of the warning passages of Hebrew within their own faith world view, i.e., the Calvinist took a Reformed view, and the Armenian worked within that system. None of the writers were convinced by the arguments of his colleagues, even though they were respectful and complimentary of each other's work; it's almost as though someone had told them to play nice with each other or they could not play in the sandbox. In the end, the book provided no conclusions and no confirmed answers, but the reader must decide for them self.

Timothy Mills
[...]
Pastor, Whitton Baptist Church
Tyronza, AR
Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary Alum (2000)

The first warning about this book and this particular edition is that some pages toward the end are missing from the printing. I couldn't figure out how exactly to let Amazon know. Maybe someone lurking out there can let me know.

Pages 386-387, 390-391, 394-395, 398-399, 402-403, 406-407, 410-411 and 414-415 are blank pages.

Since the authors were able to make their points before the disappearing page act began, I guess I'm not disappointed enough to get another copy.

However, that being said, the views presented are biblical supported and cordially debated. I've always enjoyed the "Views" style of format for these important biblical issues and this book is no exception.

Why only 3 stars? The other two are floating out there somewhere in the ether along with those missing pages.