Survey of Biblical Theology - Lesson 22

 

 

So, we've come to the place in the course where we're going to investigate Hebrews. Of course, we're not doing all the New Testament here just because of time. We can't cover everything, but Hebrews is a very beautiful letter. 

We don't know who wrote Hebrews. I agree with Origen. Origen says, who wrote Hebrews, God only knows. 

But I think it is an inspired book and beautifully written. So, we'll look at some of these themes very quickly. In Hebrews, we have the definitive and final revelation in the Son. 

You know, this whole theme of fulfillment. You know, we see in these first two verses of the letter, long ago, God spoke to our ancestors by the prophets at different times and in different ways. There's the Old Covenant, the Old Testament that we talked about. 

But in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. So, we're in the last days. The New Age has arrived. 

God has fulfilled His covenant. And often we see in Hebrews a reference to the New Covenant being realized in Christ. Christ is the Davidic Son. 

He rules the world as the true David. So, again, that fulfills the covenant with David. But He's also the true Adam, Hebrews chapter 2, the true human being. 

He fulfills what Adam failed to do as the obedient son. And as well, He's the divine priest-king. In fact, Hebrews argues that Jesus is our Melchizedekian priest who brings final atonement for sins as the divine priest-king. 

I don't believe Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. I believe there's a typological relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus. That Melchizedek, I think, was a real person. 

When he says he didn't have a father or mother, I don't think he's speaking literally. I think he's saying, look, here's a person who is a priest and their genealogy is not recorded. So, this priesthood did not depend upon a genealogical relationship. 

So, Jesus isn't a Levitical priest. He's not in that Levitical Aaronic line. He doesn't have to have a particular priestly genealogy. 

Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek in that there's no genealogy associated with that priesthood. And Jesus is a greater priest because he's a permanent priest. All the other priests die. 

But Hebrews emphasizes this priest remains forever. He's one priest. And he points out in chapter 7, there's an oath with the Melchizedekian priesthood. 

And there's not an oath with the Levitical priesthood. And then, perhaps most important, the sacrifice is one definitive, final, effective sacrifice. That's chapters 9 and 10. 

The animal sacrifices versus the sacrifice of the God-man. Clearly, the sacrifice of Christ is superior. Repeated sacrifices of animals, one definitive sacrifice from Jesus Christ. 

A sacrifice of bulls and goats with blood brought into the tabernacle. Jesus goes into the very presence of God. So, one definitive, final, effective sacrifice.

He has cleansed your sins, Hebrews says. He has cleansed your conscience. Why, says Hebrew, why would you go back? Because this is what the readers were tempted to do, I believe. 

Why would you go back to the Levitical cult and the sacrifices, the author says, when you have such a great priest-king as Jesus? Hebrews is also marked by typology. And very interesting, you have vertical typology. So, the earthly practices correspond to the heavenly, right? So, he argues, in a way we don't see really in other places, you have that earthly tabernacle, but that points to a heavenly tabernacle, a heavenly reality. 

Now, I don't believe there's a literal heavenly tabernacle, physical tabernacle in heaven, but I think the earthly tabernacle is a shadow pointing to God's very presence. Because what does the tabernacle signify? It signifies God's presence. So, he's saying what you see on earth points to something in heaven.

And then we see typology in the priesthood, right? The Levitical priesthood and Jesus' Melchizedekian priesthood. So, the typology is vertical, but it's also linear, right? What I mean by linear, it's also historical, because you have the old, the Levitical came first, then Jesus. So, it's both linear, you have first the old, then the new, and it's also vertical. 

So, that's interesting, right? You see that with the priesthood, the Levitical priesthood, then comes Jesus. See it with the kingship, David, Jesus, right? See it with the tabernacle, then Jesus, the sacrifices, and so forth and so on. You see it with the rest. 

The rest is the rest they have in the land under Joshua, but then there's the heavenly rest in Jesus, but it's also vertical. So, he's doing both things at the same time. Very, very interesting. 

Sabbath too, right? Sabbath, Sabbath rest in Jesus. So, Hebrew's view of typology is rooted in history. It fits with promise and fulfillment. 

And we see that escalation, which we've noticed throughout with typology. What do I mean by escalation? The fulfillment is always greater than the time. Jesus' sacrifice is greater than animal sacrifices. 

Jesus' priesthood is greater than the Levitical priesthood. Jesus' kingship is greater than the kingship of David. Jesus' rest is greater than the rest Joshua gave. 

So, that's what we mean by escalation. Some people have seen this vertical as kind of deriving from Plato. If you're familiar with Plato's philosophy of the forms and the archetypes, if you know Platonic philosophy, you have chairs on earth and then you have the perfect form and the archetype of the chair.

But I agree with scholars. That's really a completely different worldview. There's some similarities. 

I don't think it's right to say this is really Platonic at the end of the day. There are some correspondences, but I don't think it's exactly the same thing. So, that's quick. 

I'm warning you in Hebrews because I have a different read of the warning passages and I think and trust it will be helpful. So, here we go. Hebrews is a sermon. 

Let's leave the Greek in there. Hebrews 13 22. Brothers and sisters, I urge you to receive this message of exhortation. 

It's the word of exhortation. We see those exact words in Acts 13 15. Paul is invited to give a sermon. 

He says, brothers, if you have any, any word of encouragement, exhortation. In other words, the head of the synagogue is saying, Paul, do you have a sermon for us? Indeed, Paul's always got a sermon in his back pocket, right? He pulls it out and away he goes. So, I think it's important to recognize Hebrews as a sermon because most people when they read Hebrews, it's kind of foreign to us.

None of us are tempted to go back to the Levitical priesthood, right? It doesn't even exist. We couldn't go back to it even if we wanted to. And then it's very theological. 

So, we say, well, what's going on here? But remember, it's a sermon. And by the way, somebody just told me they read it out loud. And I think it can be read from 45 minutes to an hour. 

Isn't that interesting? You know, you think 13 chapters, it would take longer. I've not done it. But that's not that long of a sermon, right? Especially in the ancient world. 

I know some churches. I know a preacher who preached recently 70 minutes. That's a long sermon, longer than I want to hear actually. 

But there you go. So, we have a sermon, but the sermon is practical, right? The sermon is practical. And the sermon, the point of the sermon and the point of the whole book is don't fall away. 

That's what Hebrews is about. Keep clinging to Jesus. That's what the warnings are all about. 

So, the theology of the book is all the foundation for the warnings. And what is the theology? Jesus is better than Moses. That's a word he likes to use, the word better. 

He's better than Joshua. He's better than Aaron. He's a better priest.

You have a better covenant. You have a better sacrifice. We just talked about some of those things. 

Well, why would you leave Jesus, right? He's better. You want to go back to Moses? These people were all anticipating Jesus. You want to go back to the Levitical priest? Jesus is a better priest. 

You want to go back to the old covenant? We have a new covenant. The fulfillment has come. The author is saying this doesn't make any sense.

So, here's what I want to say. All the theology of the book serves the warnings. When he's giving the theology, he always has the pastoral application in mind.

So, that brings us to the warnings. The warnings could be divided at certain places, but I put them at 2, 1 through 4. The first warning, 3, 7 through 4, 13. That's quite a bit longer. 

The second one, 5, 11 through 6, 12. The third one, 10, 26 through 31. The fourth one, that's the hardest one to decide. 

I could expand that one out. You could almost expand that one out to a lot more verses, but it really doesn't matter exactly where it begins and ends. Clearly, we have a warning and then 12, 25 through 29. 

Five warnings. They punctuate the book. So, this is a sermon. 

The main point is don't fall away. How do the warnings function? They keep reminding the readers. This is why I'm writing all this theology. 

In other words, they keep reminding the readers why he wrote the letter, right? He keeps reminding the readers, this is what I want you to do or not do because don't forget why I'm writing. A good preacher does that, right? They restate their main point. Often, he gets back to it five times.

Now, here's a very important point I want to make. These warnings ought to be interpreted synoptically. They're to be seen together. 

They mutually interpret one another. What do I mean by that? Scott McKnight pointed this out in an article. Scott doesn't agree with me on how to interpret these, but Scott wrote an article years ago on these warning passages, and I think this is the greatest insight of his argument, and it's this. 

He said too many people, they take chapter six out, the warning there, because that's the one they know so well, and they interpret that apart from the other passages. But all the warning passages should be interpreted together, and they should all be interpreted as saying the same thing because he has one point. Therefore, all the warning passages mutually interpret one another.

Chapter 12 helps us interpret chapter five and six. Chapter 10 helps us interpret chapter four and three, so forth and so on. So, I think that is a great insight, and it is often violated, and it is absolutely crucial to my understanding of these passages. 

They're interpreted together. It's like a kaleidoscope. You know what a kaleidoscope is. 

You shake the kaleidoscope, and you get a different picture every time, but it's the same materials in the kaleidoscope. So, that's what he does. He shakes the kaleidoscope. 

He puts it in little different words, but you put it in little different words to arouse the readers to respond. Okay. What are the different views of the warnings? Here we go. 

Here's some views. We have the Arminian view. You know, these titles aren't the best because there are Arminians before Arminius, right? So, these are words that we use today. 

The main thing is what these views mean. The Arminian view is the warnings are addressed to believers. The warnings are about salvation. 

Believers can fall away. Therefore, they can apostatize, and they can lose their salvation. This view is made very eloquently by Scott McKnight and in a book by I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God. 

So, I am not an Arminian, but I want to say these authors make an excellent case for this view. I also want to say this view is possible. This is a possible reading of the text. 

Or another way to put it, this view is within the circle of orthodox Christian belief. So, I have great respect for this view. This view takes seriously the warnings. 

I like that. If you fall away, you will be damned. Actually, I agree with that statement. 

I'll say more about that later. So, what Marshall says is, look, most people don't commit apostasy, but it is possible and it does happen. So, I think that view is a very consistent reading of the text and very interesting. 

Here's another view called the free grace view. I don't like this title either because I believe in free grace. I don't think free grace just belongs to this view, but a lot of people call it this. 

So, this view agrees the warnings are addressed to believers. Same with that one, right? But it's not about salvation. It's about losing rewards. 

And this view says you can never lose your salvation, but you can lose your rewards. So, this view became popular through Zane Hodges who taught at Dallas Seminary, Robert Wilkin, recently the famous preacher Charles Stanley died. Charles held this view. 

If you look at Andy Stanley's ministry today, some of the things Andy says, it fits very much with what his father taught on this matter. R.T. Kendall holds this view. I don't know if he's still alive, perhaps not. 

R.T. Kendall was one of the successors in Westminster Chapel to Martin Lloyd-Jones. So, he had a prominent ministry. David Allen in the New American commentary holds this view in his commentary on Hebrews. 

So, that's a very interesting view. You will find out that I think this is the worst view. I think this view is a very weak view, but we'll talk about that. 

Then the next view could be called the test of genuineness view, TOG, or the almost salvation view. In this view, the warnings are addressed, especially in Hebrews 6, to those who are almost believers. So, they're not quite believers. 

They're close, close, close. Yes, they're about salvation, but the people who fall away never had salvation. So, that view is very popular in reform circles. 

That's what John Calvin thought. That's what John Owen believed. Roger Nicole today, Wayne Grudem, Don Carson, John Piper, my president, R. Albert Moeller believes this view.

So, that's a very, very common view as well. And then, he's not the only one who holds this view, but the covenantal view, Doug Wilson, if you've heard of him in Moscow, Idaho, holds this view. I mention him because he's written more about it. 

The warnings are addressed to covenant members. It's about salvation, and you can lose your covenant status. So, what Wilson says is, no one who's elect can lose salvation, but some of those who are not elect are members of the covenant, and those people can lose their salvation. 

So, that's a very interesting read. Now, I'm going to talk about the text, and I'm going to say who's addressed, right? That's my question. Who are the warnings to? So, that's the first question, right? What are they being warned against? That's the second question. 

What happens if they don't keep the warning, right? And then, I'll talk about how we should read these warnings. So, you know, we're back to doing donkey work. Who are the warnings addressed to? Well, he says, we. 

So, remember, I'm putting all the warnings together. So, we have a lot of verses, chapter 2, chapter 3, chapter 4, chapter 10, chapter 12. Let us fear, for if we go on sinning, much less will we escape if we reject and we warn from heaven. 

So, the author includes himself in the warning, right? You and we. But then, he addresses the brothers, brothers and sisters, the readers, and then he often says you. So, the most natural way of taking that is the warning is addressed to believers. 

However, the controversy arises here. What about those who've once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the Word of God, and tasted the powers of the age to come? Remember, everybody thinks, well, maybe I shouldn't say everybody, Arminians, free grace believe they're believers, Testagenus believes they're almost believers, Covenant, they're Covenant members. I'm arguing, along with the Arminians and the free grace people, they're truly believers. 

When he says once you've been enlightened, the almost Christian view says, well, you've come really close. These ideas really appeal to you. But I think a more natural way of taking it and in line with the yous and the wes and the brothers is that it refers to salvation.

Look at 1032. But recall the former days when after you were enlightened, same word, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings. I think the most natural way of reading 1032 is recall the early days after you were enlightened and converted, you went through some hard times and you did great. 

I think it's difficult to believe that 1032 means recall the former days when after you are almost a Christian. That's what the other view says. That seems hard to believe to me. 

So secondly, you tasted the heavenly gift. The almost Christian view says you sipped it. You didn't ingest it. 

And of course, the word taste might have that idea. You go into an ice cream shop and take a taste of something. But typically the word taste, I didn't give you all the examples. 

The word taste in the New Testament is almost always used, not of sipping. There's one or two times where it means that. But it usually means taking something all the way down, ingesting it. 

And Hebrews uses that word in Hebrews 2, 9 of Jesus, that Jesus might taste death for everyone. Does he mean he sipped it? Did Jesus just sip death? But he kind of escaped it. I'll have a sip of death. 

No, thank you. I'll take another flavor, please. No, Jesus fully experienced death.

So I think tasting the heavenly gift means you were saved. What's the heavenly gift? I think it's salvation. Your share is in the Holy Spirit. 

The almost Christian view says, well, you know, you've got some spiritual gifts and experiences with the Spirit, but you're not. You haven't truly received them. But elsewhere, these words for sharing, verb and noun and adjective, I think shows a more powerful meaning. 

He speaks of being sharers of a heavenly calling. You mean, but not really? Right? Because that's what the almost Christian view is saying. You shared in the Holy Spirit. 

Well, you know, you kind of played around with the heavenly calling, but it's not really yours. I don't think that's what he means, right? We become sharers of Christ if we hold our first confidence firm to the end. But does it, I mean, it must mean truly sharers of Christ. 

All children have shared in discipline, but does it mean not really? Right? You've almost shared in discipline, kind of, a little bit. I don't think he means that. Everyone who shares and partakes of milk, well, I think he means you've really taken the milk. 

Jesus shares flesh and blood, but not really, just kind of, almost. So, you know, I just don't think those readings are convincing. I think it's most natural to say, hey, this is the sign you're a Christian.

What's the sign of a Christian? You've got the Holy Spirit. Paul says in Romans 8, how do you know you're a Christian? You've got the Spirit. And we've already looked at the word tasted. 

You've tasted the goodness of the word of God. You've experienced the gospel. You've tasted the powers. 

You've experienced the powers of the age to come. So, my answer is, who's addressed? Christians. So, I agree with the Armenians and the free grace. 

What's the warning? The warning is, don't fall away. It's described different ways. All these different ways are describing falling away. 

You could drift away. You could be like a ship in the harbor. You didn't put your anchor down and you slowly drift out to sea. 

You can neglect your salvation. So, that's one way of putting it. But another way of putting it, chapter 3 and 4, you could harden your hearts. 

Your heart could become, he says, don't become hard towards God. Here he describes that as an evil heart. What's an evil heart? Fitting with one of the major themes of this course, a heart of unbelief. 

A hard heart is also a heart of unbelief, isn't it? That drifts away. They were unable to enter because of what? Unbelief. So, that's another.

It's drifting away, neglecting, hardening, not believing, but also disobeying. We've seen in this course, right? All disobedience flows from unbelief. Or you could become sluggish. 

That's an interesting way of describing it. Or he uses the word fall away. By the way, that's just the word apostasy. 

The word apostasy really means fall away. He talks about neglecting to meet together. They're not meeting with other Christians anymore. 

They've abandoned the Christian community. Now, another way of describing it, of sinning deliberately. Now, he's not talking about any particular sin. 

He's talking about deliberate. He's talking about deliberate sin, right? Spurning God's son, profaning the blood of the covenant, outraging the spirit of grace. So, I would say you put all these together. 

And here's one of my problems with the free grace view. What's being warned against here is not just abandoning rewards, but salvation itself. You're refusing to believe anymore. 

You're hardening your heart. You're falling away. You're, that word spurn, actually in Greek, you're trampling on Jesus. 

You're considering the blood of the covenant as unclean. You're outraging the spirit. So, the free grace people are the only interpreters. 

And they're the only ones who think this sin is not apostasy. And by the way, this movement is very recent, really came up, started in the 20th century. Throughout the history of the church, all the rest have interpreted this as referring to apostasy.

And I think that's clearly what's going on. So, what are the consequences? I'm arguing the consequences. So, the warning is addressed to believers.

The danger is apostasy, falling away. What's the consequence? Hell. That's the consequence.

How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? And the answer is we won't. We won't. We won't escape. 

Not just losing your rewards. Here's the problem, the free grace view again. Salvation. 

Again, every view agrees that it's the final judgment except for the free grace view. They just stand alone. And I don't think it's convincing. 

Israel. So, Israel couldn't enter the promised land because of unbelief. And then he says, do you want to enter the heavenly rest? Well, that's heaven, right? That's eternal life. 

So, that's what he's talking about. Do you want to enter the heavenly rest? The Sabbath rest? But that's clearly talking about eternal life. And he says those who fall away can't be restored to repentance.

But repentance is about when you become a Christian, right? He says you're near a curse in 6-7. I don't think that means, but you're not going to be cursed. I think he means you guys are coming near in time to your curse, you see? The end is burning. 

He says, I feel assured of better things that relate to salvation, but what's the worst things if you fall away? Damnation. I'm assured of better things about you related to salvation, but I'm worried about where you're going. He says, if you forsake Christ, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. 

Well, there's no sacrifice. There's no forgiveness, right? Now, I mean, this makes perfect sense, right? He's not saying anything shocking. This is the blasphemy against the Spirit. 

If you renounce Christ's sacrifice, of course you can't be forgiven. I get emails about this often. And usually I tell the person, you need to talk to a pastor and a counselor because someone's like, I had a bad thought in my mind, or I said something that I thought was really bad, or I did something bad, and now I think I'm going to hell. 

But now these are people who, he's talking about renouncing Christ. He's not talking about, did I do something and now I'm going to hell, right? People torment themselves in the conscience about that, but that's not what Hebrews is talking about at all. And most of us who've had experience with this, almost everybody who comes to us with that concern, they're fine. 

They belong to God. They're worried about something that Hebrews is talking about, rejecting the gospel, going back to Judaism, making a choice, rejecting Jesus. And he just says, well, obviously if you reject Jesus, you won't be forgiven. 

There's a fearful expectation of judgment. That's the final judgment. There's a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Yeah. It's not just about losing your reward, right? He says, vengeance is mine. I will repay.

It's a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the living God. There's a reason that the church throughout history has interpreted this to refer to the final judgment. This language is very strong, but we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed. 

That's the typical word for final judgment in Paul, but those who have faith and preserve their souls, we're not going to be destroyed in the judgment. We're going to be saved. And then he says, we won't escape again in 1225.

Our God is a consuming fire. So I believe these warnings are to believers. The sin is apostasy, falling away. 

And if you commit it, you'll go to hell. So, but I'm not an Arminian. I'm not a free grace person. 

I believe instead I am reformed. My theology affects my readings, of course. And I would say everybody's theology affects their readings.

I hope I'm reading this faithfully. Many people, I've taught this many times, many people disagree with me and you make up your own mind. That's what we're all supposed to do, right? We all read the Bible for ourselves and we do the best we can. 

But my argument is this, the warnings are directed to believers and no true believer ever falls away. All true believers heed the warnings every time. Therefore, no true believer is lost. 

The warnings are the means by which believers are kept and they're always kept. Okay. But then I got to explain some things, right? So the warnings are to believers regarding eternal punishment, but true believers will never fall away. 

First of all, so many people, when they read Hebrews, they want to turn warnings into declarations, but warnings are not declarations. They're warnings. We have to pay attention to the linguistic literary function of warnings.

Warnings are not retrospective. If I say to you, do not drive 120 miles per hour on the way home, that's a warning, but not a declaration because you haven't done that yet, right? I'm not looking back retrospectively and saying, why did you drive 120 miles an hour and get in that wreck? I'm warning you in advance. I say to my wife, cause she's had a bike accident when she goes on the bike, be sure and wear a helmet, but that's a warning, right? So warnings are not meant to be declarations. 

That'll come up again. So if you drink poison, you will die. That's a warning, a condition, not a declaration. 

You haven't died yet. So many people read the warnings in Hebrews as if the readers have fallen away. No, they haven't. 

He is not making any declarations about the readers. He's warning them. It's a pastoral work. 

So the warnings do not rebuke the readers for falling away. I've heard sermons on Hebrews where people are rebuked based on Hebrews, but this is not a rebuke. It's a loving warning, right? Warnings are loving. 

They can be strong, but it's still a warning. It's urging readers not to fall away. Keep trusting Christ. 

Keep drinking from the fountain of living water. It's like meeting with a marriage counselor, right? And your marriage is struggling, but you're not divorced. And the marriage counselor is saying stay together. 

He's not saying the marriage counselor is insane. Why is your marriage? Why are you divorced? You're not divorced yet, right? You're staying together. So just the function of warnings. 

That's a big part of my understanding. Are the warnings, this is the objection I always get. It's probably your objection. 

Are the warnings drained of significance if the consequence, damnation, can't be realized, right? I mean, this is the fundamental objection. What do you mean? What do you mean? The consequence never happens? Then you don't need the warning. That's the silliest thing I ever heard, right? So if you're not going to drink the poison, why do I have to warn you? But my response to that is actually that very objection fails to recognize and believe what I believe about the warnings. 

And that is that God uses the warnings as a means. The minute somebody says that, they're denying that the warnings are a means. The minute somebody says that, they're saying the warnings aren't needed. 

But that's just my point. The warnings are the means. They're the means God uses. 

Because see that cup there has water in it and it's poisonous, but you don't know. But once I tell you don't drink it, you're not going to do it. So my warning becomes the means that prevents you from doing it.

What about those who do fall away, people say? What about them? Aren't there people who fall away? Absolutely. Absolutely. I'll come back to that. 

But remember, the warnings are prospective. They're looking into the future. They're not retrospective looking back. 

There are texts in the New Testament that are retrospective. You want to hear one? They went out from us. That's retrospective, past. 

They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they were of us, they would have remained with us, but they went out in order that it might be plain that they all are not of us. So the reason they abandoned us, it's because they were not of us. 

That's a retrospective. That's the armchair reflection after the race. My daughter ran cross country and track in high school and college. 

And in high school, especially college, she ran far away. I couldn't go much, but her coach in the cross country meets would meet her at key junctions in the race. And he'd tell her, you went out too fast, slow down, or you need to speed up. 

Or he'd just say, you're doing great. Keep going. Keep it up.

Keep it up. Keep up what you're doing. That's what the author of Hebrews is doing. 

They're in a race and he's saying, keep going. Hebrews 11, the great chapter of faith. How does that chapter function? That's what it means to keep the warnings. 

How do you keep the warnings? It's not a call to works. You keep the warnings by trusting God. And he says, look at all those people who've run the race before you. 

How did they do it? They trusted God. You keep doing that. You keep doing what they're doing. 

They did. They did it. They had a lot of problems. 

Some of those people, right? They did it. You can do it. You can make it. 

They made it. You can make it. Of course, of course, the author knew that some of the congregations didn't belong to God.

But here's the question. Of course, some fall away. Of course. 

But the question is exegetical. So I come back to this, right? When he talks about, so here's the specific question. When he talks about those who've been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God, and tasted the powers of the age to come.

Who are these people? Yes, of course, there's people in the congregation that aren't truly Christians. But who's he warning here? Is he describing Christians or not? That's the difference. Of course, I believe people fall away in a sense who claim, appeared to be Christians. 

Of course, we all believe that. But I'm asking a different question. Who are these warnings addressed to in chapter six specifically? And I'm saying exegetically, it doesn't work to say those aren't Christians. 

But of course, I agree in a wider frame of reference, probably some of those in the community weren't this. But when he says this, I'm saying that those are Christians. And how do the warnings work for them? And the warnings, I'm arguing, are the means that keep them to the end. 

So the warnings stimulate the believers to keep trusting. Those who don't heed the warnings, of course, they're not part of Christ's life. They went out from us, but they were not of us. 

For if they were of us, they would have remained with us. So those are retrospective. But this book is not retrospective. 

He's not looking at what happened in the past. He's looking into the future. So that's just a different issue. 

Because the writer, the warning is general. He doesn't know who's part of Christ's flock. But my point is, he's addressing specifically in chapter six, Christians. 

And he believes the warning will be effective. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things, things that belong to salvation. The author believes, I would say, that the warnings will be effective in the lives of the elect. 

Now, I'm going to close this part by reading two people who hold this view of the warnings. And the first is Hermann Bavink. So I'm going to read these slowly and make some comments. 

But Hermann Bavink, if you don't know who he is, he's a reformed theologian. He's written a four volume systematic that has recently been translated. If you're keeping track of things, Bavink is very popular right now. 

Lots of people are reading him. He's a great writer. Wrote in the 1800s, early 1900s. 

Now the first quote is very theological and technical. And Bavink is a theologian. And then the next comes from Charles Spurgeon. 

So some people say to me, did anybody ever hold your view? And I said, well, Sir Charles did. He's not inspired, but it makes me feel better when people say your view is a little crazy. So anyway, let's hear Bavink. 

Now the question with respect to this doctrine of perseverance, whether believers will make it to the end, the question is not whether those who have obtained a true saving faith could not have left it themselves, lose it again by their own fault and sins. You see what he means by that? In other words, on our own, would we fall away? Bavink's saying, of course. The question isn't whether we would leave. 

Of course we would on our own. Nor is the question whether sometimes all the activity, boldness and comfort of faith actually ceases and faith itself goes into hiding under the cares of life and the delights of this world. In other words, Bavink says, yeah, do we sometimes, does sometimes our faith sink very low and our spiritual life can be very low? He goes, of course, yes, of course. 

That's not the question. That happens. The question and perseverance is whether God upholds, continues and completes the work of grace he has begun, right? Philippians 1.6, he who began the good work will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus. 

The question is whether the faith that God begot in us, whether he completes it. He says, that's the question. Or the question is whether he sometimes permits that work of grace to be totally ruined by the power of sin. 

So sometimes does God begin that good work and then it's ruined? That's the Arminian view, right? You're saved, but then it's lost. Bavink thinks that all those who are saved persevere to the end. Perseverance is a gift of God. 

He watches over it and sees to it that the work of grace is continued and completed. All those whom God has called, he will justify it, right? We didn't talk about this in Romans, right? But those whom God has foreknew and predestined and called and justified, Romans 8, 28 and 29 and 30, he'll glorify. So that's what he says. 

God sees that the work of grace is continued and completed. But now this next part, I think, is absolutely brilliant because that's divine sovereignty, right? But here comes human responsibility. He does not, however, do this apart from believers, but through them.

In regeneration and faith, he grants a grace that as such bears an inadmissible character. In other words, the grace can't be revoked in our lives. He grants a life that is by nature eternal.

So this eternal life, it can't be taken away. He bestows the benefits of calling, really thinking of Romans 8 here, right? Of calling, justification and glorification that are mutually and unbreakably interconnected. William Perkins, the great Puritan, called it the golden chain, right? That chain can't be broken. 

Those who are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, will be glorified. But what about the warnings? What about those strong warnings? And by the way, there's a lot of others in the Bible I could show you, right? It's not just in Hebrews. So Boving says, well, do those warnings make us think that believers could fall away? Because these warnings are about heaven and hell.

So now he's going to speak to the issue we're talking about. And Boving in his book has been talking about the warnings, right? Because he says, all the above mentioned admonitions and threats in the scripture. All the above mentioned admonitions and threats, because Boving's been talking about those warnings, that scripture addresses the believers. 

Therefore, do not prove a thing against the doctrine of perseverance. God warns us, if you fall away, you'll be damned. But Boving says, no problem. 

That doesn't cancel out the fact that we're going to make it. And here's what he says. I like it. 

He agrees with me, right? They are rather the way in which God himself confirms his promise and gift through believers. They are the means, that's my emphasis, they are the means by which perseverance in life is realized. After all, perseverance is also not coercive, but as a gift of God. 

Oh, I got to read a couple passages after this. I forgot to read. I forgot to read these passages. 

I'll do it. After all, perseverance is also not coercive, but as a gift of God impacts humans in a spiritual manner. We're not robots. 

You know, God's sovereign, but we're not robots. That's what he's saying. God changes us. 

It is precisely God's will by admonition and warning morally to lead believers to heavenly blessedness and by the grace of the Holy Spirit to prompt them willingly to persevere in faith and love. God uses these admonitions to cause us to follow him. So I love this so much. 

It is therefore completely mistaken to reason from the admonitions and warnings of Holy Scripture to the possibility of a total loss of grace. That's what our Arminian beloved and Arminian brothers and sisters believe. But I agree with Bob Inc. 

It's completely mistaken. This conclusion is illegitimate as when in the case of Christ, people infer from his temptation that he was able to sin. The certainty of the outcome does not render the means superfluous. 

Superfluous means besides the point, right? The outcome does not mean the means don't matter, but is inseparably connected with them in the decree of God. Paul knew with certainty in the case of the shipwreck, no one would lose his life. Yet he declares, unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved. 

And that's the passage I forgot to read. So here we go. Because here's an example in the Bible, which I should have given you before I read Bob Inc., but I forgot to read it. 

The shipwreck seen in Acts 20. So fascinating, right? So there's a big storm. Paul's a prisoner on the ship. 

This is one of my favorite stories in the Bible. It's probably one of yours too. Here's another verse I recommend for church business meetings. 

Stand up and say, you men should have followed my advice, right? That is my life verse for church business meetings, right? But I love that, don't you? They're in the midst of the storm because Paul told them not to take the journey. Paul's the prisoner on the ship. What a leader Paul was. 

He was a prisoner. He stands up and says, I told you, I told you not to do this. We shouldn't have gone on this journey, but that's not the main point of this passage. 

He says, now I urge you take courage because there will be no loss of any of your lives, but only of the ship. Every person on the ship is going to live. No loss. 

How do you know that, Paul? You're just making it up. No. Last night, an angel of the God I belong to and serve. 

Hey, don't you love that? A little bit of witness there. I belong to this God. I serve this God. 

The angel of the God I belong to and serve. He stood by me and he said, what'd the angel say? Don't be afraid, Paul. It is necessary for you to appear before Caesar. 

He's on his way to Rome, right? To have a trial before Caesar. And indeed, God has graciously given you all those who are sailing with you. That's the promise.

Every single person is going to make it. So take courage, man, because I believe God that it'll be exactly just the way it was told me. God's promises always come true.

That's it. Now, what would you have done if you got that promise? I'll tell you what I would have done. I would have gone down in the hold of the ship. 

I would have ordered some popcorn, turned on Netflix and said, let's wait for this all to happen. This is great. I don't have to do a thing now. 

You know, that's not what Paul did. Look at what happens. So the storm keeps going.

They're drifting around in the sea. The sailors think they're approaching land. They're taking soundings. 

They're getting closer and closer to the land. Then they're afraid they're going to run on the rocks. They're drinking anchors. 

They're praying for the day to come. I mean, this is a huge storm. They all think they're going to die, right? Then the sailors say, let's get out of here. 

We're going to take the little boat, the little skiff, and we're going to leave these guys. Who cares what happens to these people on the boat? We're out. So some sailors tried to escape from the ship. 

They let down the skiff into the sea, pretending that they were going to put out anchors from the bow, but Paul's watching. And he says to the centurion and soldiers, unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved. There's the warning, right? He's already got the promise. 

But what does Paul say? The warning matters, right? If you let these sailors go, you're going to die. You don't let them go. And then they cut the ropes and the skip goes away.

Paul does not view that warning. Paul doesn't say, well, God already told me we're all going to make it. Who cares if these guys leave? No, no, the warning matters. 

The warning is actually one of the means by which the promise is secured. So you remember the story, all 276 made it, right? The promise is secured. Okay. 

Another example from the Bible, just so you see it as well. There's eschatological debates in this passage. I'm not going to get into that. 

I think my point stands in any case, you know, whether it's the last days or Jerusalem in AD 70 or both, or however you take it, we won't worry about that right now. But if the Lord did not cut those days short, no one would be saved. But he cut those days short for the sake of the elect whom he chose. 

Then if anyone tells you, see, here's the Messiah, see there, don't believe it. If you believe in a lot false Messiah, you're not a Christian, right? If you believe someone else is the Messiah, you know, in 1991, Rabbi Schneerson died. Have you ever heard of Rabbi Schneerson? Probably not. 

He was 91 years old, but the Lubavitchers, a Jewish group believed he was the Messiah. And they actually said he would be raised from the dead. Well, guess what? It didn't happen. 

And he's not the Messiah. So, so there's people around saying, here's the Messiah. The Lubavitchers said, I think it's Rabbi Schneerson.

No, it wasn't him. False Messiah and false prophets will arise and will perform signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, the elect. If you believe in a false Messiah, you're not a Christian. 

And to believe in false prophets, these signs and wonders, wherever you place it in history, they are so significant that they could lead astray the elect if that's possible. But it's not possible, right? Well, it's not possible. Fabulous. 

I guess we don't have to do anything. What's the next thing Jesus said? You must watch. I've told you everything in advance. 

Be on your guard. Jesus promises the elect will never be deceived. He doesn't say, oh, no big deal then. 

He says, you be on your watch. This is important. And that's how this passage ends. 

Watch, be on the alert. In fact, the chapter ends that way. What I say to you, I say to everyone, be on the alert. 

Watch. Well, one more example of the same thing. So what am I saying? There are promises the elect won't be deceived, but we need to watch that we're not deceived.

We need to be on our guard. The warning is a means by which the promise is secured. 2 Thessalonians 3. He says, the Lord is faithful. 

He will strengthen you and guard you from the evil one. I think that's a promise. He's faithful. 

He will strengthen you. He'll guard you from the devil. The devil wants you to fall away. 

He's going to keep you from doing that. But here's another example. We pray, deliver us from the evil one.

The prayer is one of the means God uses to keep us from falling away. We don't say, well, I don't need to pray, deliver me from the evil one, because God's already promised to do that. Sometimes people talk like that, don't they? I don't need to confess my sins anymore. 

They're already all forgiven. Have you ever heard people say that? Well, they're really denying what scripture says. God said he's going to protect me from the evil one. 

Why should I pray that? Because the prayer is one of the means God uses. We're not smarter than God. Well, I close, right? Not everybody agrees with me. 

Maybe you don't agree with me, but I close with Charles Spurgeon. Bob Ink was very theological. Spurgeon's very pastoral. 

And here we go. Of course, this is a whole sermon. I'm taking out just parts of it.

Spurgeon identified the readers in view in Hebrews 6, as I do as believers. He says, first, then we answer the question, who are the people here spoken of? And then Spurgeon says, if you read Dr. Gill, famous Puritan, Dr. Owen, John Owen, and almost all the eminent Calvinistic writers, then all of them assert that these persons are not Christians. They almost Christian view, right? They say that enough is said here to represent a man who is a Christian externally, close, right? But not enough to give the portrait of a true believer. 

Here comes Spurgeon. Now it strikes me. They would not have said this if they had not had some doctrine to uphold.

For a child reading this passage would say that the persons intended by it must be Christians. If the Holy Spirit intended to describe Christians, I do not see that He could have used more explicit terms than there are here. How can a man be said to be enlightened, and the taste of the heavenly gift, and to be made a partaker of the Holy Ghost without being a child of God? With all deference to these learned doctors, and I admire and love them all, I humbly conceive that they allowed their judgments to be a little warped when they said that. 

And I think I shall be able to show that none but true believers are here described. And then Spurgeon does some exegesis, right? I already did that exegesis, so I skip his exegesis. But then he asks the question, well why the warning? What's the purpose of the warning if you can't fall away? Because he holds my view. 

So here he goes. I've even used some of his illustrations as you see, and I'll probably use one more. But says one, you cannot, you say they cannot fall away.

What's the use of putting this if in? Like a bugbear to frighten children, or like a ghost that can have no existence. Here's Spurgeon's first answer. My learned friend, who art thou that replies against God? If God has put it in, he has put it in for wise reasons, and for excellent purposes. 

Let me show you why. First, O Christian, it is put in to keep thee from falling away. God preserves his children from falling away, but he keeps them by the use of means. 

And one of these, not the only one, is the terrors of the law. Showing them what would happen if they were to fall away. There is a deep precipice. 

What is the best way to keep anyone from going down there? Why to tell them that if he did, he would inevitably be dashed to pieces. I just stop here. A couple years ago, I was on the south rim of the Grand Canyon. 

I conceived in my mind, wouldn't it be fun to jump? Right? Jump, enjoy just floating through the air. But you will not be surprised to learn that I didn't do it, because I thought, what are the consequences? That jump would be fun for a very short time, right? That's what Spurgeon's saying. You can think of jumping over a precipice, but you say, no thank you. 

I don't think I'll do that. In some old castle, there is a deep cellar where there is a vast amount of fixed air and gas, which would kill anybody who went down. What does the guide say? If you go down, you will never come up alive. 

Who thinks of going down? The very fact of the guide telling us what the consequences would be keeps us from it. Our friend puts away from us a cup of arsenic. This is not arsenic. 

He does not want us to drink it, but he says, if you drink it, it will kill you. Does he suppose for a moment that we should drink it? No. He tells us the consequences and he is sure we will not do it. 

So God says, this is so great pastorally, my child, if you fall over this precipice, you will be dashed to pieces. What does the child do? He says, father, keep me. Hold thou me up and I shall be safe.

It leads the believer to greater dependence on God, to a holy fear and caution because he knows that if you were to fall away, he could not be renewed. And he stands far away from that great gulf because he knows that if we were to fall into it, there would be no salvation for him. So that is my understanding. 

The warnings are given. That is the purpose of Hebrews to say, don't go there. If you go there, it will kill you.

So we understand the difference between imputation and transformation. We see the differences in definitions on justification between the new perspective and the standard reform view. My final question actually is, how did the discussion of how we understand Judaism lead to a different understanding of justification? What was the line of reasoning that went from Sanders to Wright? Yeah, that is really an excellent question.

I think it led to a different understanding because the typical reform view is you're justified by faith, not by works. But then when Sanders comes in, Sanders says, well, nobody believed you were justified by works. Well, then what's Paul saying? Sanders' own answer is, well, actually, Paul's just saying you're saved by Jesus, therefore the law is wrong. 

And Sanders actually says, Paul's argument, he's not an evangelical, Paul's argument is inconsistent. Actually, done it right with good motivations. They say, well, Sanders is right. 

So it can't be the traditional reformed answer. You're justified by faith, not by works in terms of merit and works righteousness. That can't be right because that's not what anybody believed. 

So here's another reason. It's the problem with the Jews is they said you have to become Jewish. So they reframed it, I think, in a way.

I'm not trying to speak to motives here because I don't know their motives, but they reframed it in order to say, Paul still makes sense. It can't be the traditional reformed answer. Well, here's another one. 

This one works. But it couldn't be the traditional reform view because Paul would then be arguing against something that didn't exist. Exactly. 

So that's why I'm going to argue, hey, it does exist. You look at the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee is boasting in his works, even though he's a sinner.

So Paul's fundamental argument is, and the New Testament's argument, not surprisingly, is you can't be justified by works because you're a sinner, and therefore boasting is insane. How could you be right before God by your works? How could you merit your works because you sin? Okay, thanks. Yeah, that's good.