I again have the opportunity to post another review on Credo Magazine's website. This time I will review Dr. David Allen's new commentary on Hebrews. David Allen is the Professor of Preaching and Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Below is a copy of my review.
Hebrews. New American Commentary 35. By David L. Allen. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010.
By Lucas Bradburn
Amidst the influx of interest in the book of Hebrews in recent years comes David Allen’s Hebrews in the New American Commentary series. Allen’s commentary on Hebrews is chocked full of insights. Although not without its faults, Allen’s commentary excels on at least two counts: in it’s discussion of the historical background and in it’s theological applications.
Borne out of years of careful investigation, the introductory chapters to Allen’s commentary are perhaps the best of the book. Sifting through years of scholarly opinion, he carefully lays out a case for the Lukan authorship of the book, though such a claim is not without debate today. Along the way, Allen suggests that Hebrews was most likely penned prior to A.D. 70 and was addressed to a group of former Jewish priests residing in Antioch (see 23-79). While Allen approaches the issues with confidence, he also does so with humility. Allen gives due consideration to the judgments of commentators who have preceded him (both ancient and modern), but he is not afraid to state his disagreements with them. Such disagreements, however, are well articulated and reveal Allen’s expertise in dealing with the issues involved.
Another strength of Allen’s commentary is its theological nature. While Allen spends an ample amount of time exegeting the text of Hebrews, he also provides careful theological analysis of each section he treats and sets the book of Hebrews into a doctrinal framework. As I moved through Allen’s exegetical work I found myself wondering if he would address specific theological issues that surrounded texts he was dealing with. In almost every case he brought up issues I had hoped he would and he made clear his theological convictions, many of which I am in full agreement with.
Several examples could be cited here, but let me briefly mention a few that stood out. First, Allen highlights the implications of Hebrews 2:1-4 on the debate between cessationists and non-cessationists. Although he admits that the passage does not specifically address this issue (nor does it definitively settle the debate), he rightly notes, “The implication of this [passage] would be that the sign gifts lasted only as long as the eyewitnesses—meaning the apostles and perhaps others who heard the Lord—lived” (198). He clarifies his statement when he writes, “The text seems to imply that once the eyewitnesses died the miraculous gifts ceased” (199). Allen’s point here is well taken and certainly should not go unnoticed by those who hold that the miraculous gifts have not ceased.
Second, Allen correctly defends the concept of substitutionary atonement from Hebrews 2:17. He briefly but ably defends the translation of hilaskomai as “to make propitiation” against the translation “to make expiation.” Allen says, “Evangelical theology insists on taking hilaskomai in the sense of ‘propitiation’ because that is the meaning of the word and that is the heart of the doctrine of the atonement” (225).
Third, Allen rightly argues that Jesus Christ was impeccable based on Hebrews 4:15. He does recognize, of course, that “Whether Jesus could or could not have sinned, the fact is he did not sin according to Heb 4:15,” and this is the author’s main point. However, Allen goes on to say, “The preponderance of evidence seems to tilt the scales in favor of the impeccability position” (312). On this I am in full agreement with him. More examples could be given, but the sampling above upholds my analysis that Allen’s theological applications are often right on and well argued.
Despite the overall usefulness of Allen’s commentary, there are at least two weaknesses (in my opinion) that are worth mentioning. First, I take exception to Allen’s interpretation of Hebrews 2:9. He claims that this verse “points to the universal nature of the atonement: Christ died for the sins of all people” (212). Although his discussion is thorough, it is curious that he neglects to address the observation made by many Reformed commentators that the term translated by the NIV as “everyone” (pantos) is paralleled (and most likely defined by) other words in the same context that narrows its referent. For instance, along with identifying Christ’s death as being on behalf of “everyone” (v. 9), the writer of Hebrews also mentions that it was for “many sons” (v. 10), “those who are made holy” (v. 11), “brothers” (v. 11-12), “the children God has given [Jesus]” (v. 14), “Abraham’s descendants” (v. 16), and “the people” (v. 17). It seems to me that these other designations should influence one’s understanding of the word “everyone.” In this case, it seems better to understand the word in reference to all those whom God has chosen to be saved (i.e. the elect) rather than to all people of all time. In my understanding, then, this verse supports a limited, rather than a universal atonement.
Second, Allen’s interpretation of the warning passages faces several difficulties. Allen adopts what he calls the “Loss of Rewards” view of these texts. As he explains it, “Essentially, this view interprets the group in Heb 6:4-6 [and in the other warning passages] as genuine believers who ‘fall away’ in the sense of willful disobedience to God. They do not commit apostasy in the traditional theological sense of the term. They do not finally deny Christ. They do fail to press on to maturity by virtue of direct disobedience to God’s will and word. The judgment that these believers incur does not involve loss of salvation. Their judgment is more accurately designated ‘discipline,’ which involves both a temporal and an eschatological aspect. It is not final judgment in the sense of eternal loss…These are genuine believers who are in danger of forfeiting some new covenant blessings in this life as well as rewards at the Judgment seat of Christ” (377).
However, there is an inconsistency in Allen’s argument. The problem becomes apparent when Allen seeks to determine the identity of the audience being addressed in the warning sections. Especially when dealing with Hebrews 6, Allen appeals to the language used in the text and argues that the terms, when taken at face value, clearly indicate that believers are being described. He asks, “How can it be conceivable that such descriptive phrases as enlightenment, experience of the heavenly gift of salvation, full sharing in the Holy Spirit, sharing in the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, do not have believers as their referent?” (353). Considering Allen’s method of argumentation here, it is surprising that he does not also think it inconceivable that the writer could speak of those who “are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (v. 6), people who are “worthless” and “in danger of being cursed,” and who in the “end…will be burned” (v. 8) and yet somehow is not talking about their judgment in hell. How can Allen appeal to the clarity of the text when arguing that believers are addressed here and then ignore such clarity when discussing what kind of threat is in view? Interestingly, out of the five major views of this passage, it is only the loss of rewards interpretation that denies that eternal judgment is in view. If the text is to be taken at face value when determining who is being addressed—believers—then it should also be taken at face value when determining what is being threatened—eternal judgment.
It is not just Hebrews 6 that points in this direction, but the other warning passages as well. The writer heightens the severity of his language in Hebrews 10 when he talks about “a fearful expectation of judgment and of a raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (v. 27) and of a much more severe punishment (v. 29) that awaits those who have “trampled the Son of God under foot,” “treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified,” and “insulted the Spirit of grace” (v. 29). Could such language be legitimately confused with anything other than a description of the eternal hell that awaits those who apostatize?
This, then, turns out to be the real problem with Allen’s view in particular and the loss of rewards view in general: it fails to do justice to the severity of the language used in the warning passages. A straightforward reading of the warning passages, in my judgment, yields the conclusion that believers are being warned, and what they are warned about is the eternal danger that comes if they apostatize.
In saying this, however, I do not give way to the Arminian interpretation of these passages and suggest that a genuine believer can apostatize and be eternally lost. Indeed, as Allen rightly notes, “The key weakness [of the loss of salvation view] from the standpoint of the New Testament is the difficulty of explaining the plethora of passages that affirm the eternal security of the believer” (371). Rather, this leaves us with only one valid interpretive option: the means of salvation view. This is the only view, in my estimation, that takes the warning passages at face value and squares them with the clear New Testament teaching of the perseverance of the saints.
The warning passages in Hebrews—and all the warning passages in the entire Bible for that matter—are the divinely ordained means by which God preserves His elect people and causes them to persevere in faith and holiness. Allen, while giving a thorough presentation of this view (along with the other four major views of these passages), rejects the means of salvation interpretation for several reasons (see 374-376).
First, he objects to this view (and to the three other major views) on the grounds that it interprets the word perapesontas in Hebrews 6:6 as a reference to apostasy. As I have attempted to show above, however, it is clear from the context of not only Hebrews 6 but also all of the warning passages that apostasy was the very thing the writer of Hebrews was warning these believers against. If Allen wants to deny that perapesontas refers to apostasy then he should also deny that the descriptive terms in Heb. 6:4-5 refer to genuine believers.
Second, Allen objects to the means of salvation view because it “appears [to make] final justification await…the completion of a life of perseverance” (374). In response, this objection fails to consider that there seems to be an “already/not yet” paradigm intrinsic to the doctrine of justification by faith in Scripture. Romans 2:6-13 and Galatians 5:5 both point in this direction.
A third problem with the means view, according to Allen, is that it appears to make the warnings of Scripture superfluous. In the words of Jody Dillow, “Is it not ridiculous to say that men can be alarmed by warnings if they have already been consoled by the promise that they are secure? How can they be alarmed about something which could never happen to them?” (376). In other words, if true believers are eternally secure and can never fall away, how can these passages genuinely warn them about the dangers of apostasy?
A couple of things can be said in response to this objection. First, the concept suggested by the means view—that God uses conditional means to bring about certain ends—is consistent with the pattern found elsewhere in Scripture. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 10:12 Paul warns the Corinthians about the dangers of falling and then in the next verse assures them that God’s faithfulness will keep them from falling. There does not seem to be any inconsistency in Paul’s mind between issuing a warning while simultaneously offering an assurance (for other examples of this scriptural precedent, see Thomas Schreiner’s excellent article “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and Proposal, especially pages 55-57).
Second, the reason the warnings in Scripture are effective, even when believers know that their salvation is secure, is because God sovereignly causes true believers to respond rightly to the warnings. That is to say, the warning passages—like Scripture—“work effectively in the hearts of those who believe” (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13). God not only works in the warnings (using them as means) but He also works in believers (causing them to respond to the warnings). So in this sense, the warnings, far from being superfluous, are absolutely essential. No true believer will respond flippantly to the warnings as suggested by Allen. A true believer, while he knows that his salvation is secure, also knows that the warnings must be obeyed in order to be saved. While Allen may not be comfortable with this tension, it corresponds well with the other “tensions” of Scripture (i.e. divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the two natures of Christ, the divine-human character of Scripture, etc.). The means of salvation view is the only interpretation that takes both the warnings and assurances of Scripture at face value. From an exegetical standpoint, then, the means view by far has the most going for it.
Before concluding, let me say that while I disagree with Allen’s handling of the warning passages in Hebrews, I am glad that he does not allow his interpretation to override the Bible’s clear teaching elsewhere (e.g. 1 John 2:19, among others) that true believers will inevitably bear fruit and continue trusting in Christ to the end. Allen favorably quotes D.A. Carson as writing, “genuine faith, by definition, perseveres; where there is no perseverance, by definition the faith cannot be genuine.” He adds, “People who call themselves Christians and yet sin without regret or desire to change show that they have never been genuinely converted” (389).
Overall Allen’s commentary is well researched and detailed in its examination of the book of Hebrews. It has much to offer both the seasoned expositor and the beginning student. Although I do recommend this volume for the perspective it offers and the information it provides, I do not do so without the qualification of the disagreements I outlined in this review.
No comments:
Post a Comment