Review of "Real Marriage"

Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together. By Mark and Grace Driscoll. Thomas Nelson, 2012.

In only its third week of publication, Mark and Grace Driscoll’s Real Marriage has already stirred an enormous amount of controversy in the evangelical world. Reviews and responses continue to flood the blogosphere, to the extent that even non-Christian publications have taken interest in the controversy (see, for example, CNN’s recent interview of Mark Driscoll). Curious as to what all of the hubbub was about, I decided to evaluate the book for myself.

Initially, I was pleasantly surprised by the book’s contents. The first half of the book offers many helpful pieces of advice and instruction for married couples. In fact, the Driscoll's chapter on marriage as friendship (chapter 2) is worth the price of the book. What I saw when I turned my attention to the second half of the book, however, was far less satisfying. While there are definitely some redeeming elements of this section (particularly the Driscoll’s case against pornography), there are a number of causes of concern as well. I will elaborate more on the pros and cons of Real Marriage presently, along with a brief synopsis of the book.

Real Marriage is divided into three sections: Marriage, Sex, and The Last Day. Because of the last section’s minimal size, this review is going to focus on only the first two parts of the book. The first portion, perhaps the most beneficial part of the book, discusses what life together looks like (or should look like) for a Christian married couple. While there are a number of aspects I could highlight here (and a few minor quibbles), let me mention two. First, I found chapter 2—“Friend with Benefits”—particularly noteworthy. The Driscolls offer a unique take on marriage as a relationship between two lifelong friends. As they point out, this is an oft-neglected theme in marriage manuals. The chapter begins with a sketch of Martin and Katherine von Bora Luther’s relationship, a fun and captivating couple that embody what friendship looks like in the context of marriage. The Driscolls then discuss what it means to be F-R-I-E-N-D-S in marriage: it means being fruitful in good works for God’s glory, reciprocal in conveying love, intimate, needed, devoted to each other, and sanctifying. The Driscolls rightly point out that the best application of all of the Bible’s teaching on friendship is the marriage relationship.

A second strength I want to mention is the Driscoll’s strong commitment to complementarianism. Chapters three and four—“Men and Marriage” and “The Respectful Wife”—respectively call Christian husbands to love and lead their wives and urge wives to respect and submit to their husbands. Rather than taking their cues from culture, the Driscoll’s develop their understanding of the distinct and unique roles of the husband and wife from Scripture. Mark pulls no punches with men as he challenges them to sacrificially serve their wives and put them before themselves. Men in our culture, he says, have refused to grow up and are more akin to boys than to men. “Today adolescence starts somewhere in the teen years and, in many cases, continues indefinitely” (42). But the Scripture calls upon husbands to “act like men” (1 Cor. 16:13) and to “put away childish things” (1 Cor. 13:11). Some practical ways that Christian men can do this is by getting involved in a Bible teaching church, leading their wives theologically, and initiating and facilitating family worship at home. These are just a few of the ways godly men can lead their wives well, but they are definitely good places to start.

Grace Driscoll also takes a no holds barred approach in addressing Christian wives. She argues that the role of the wife is fundamentally carried out with an attitude of respect towards her husband. Godly women need to “see that [they] respect [their] husbands” (Eph. 5:33). This means not only outwardly manifesting a respectful demeanor, but also cultivating an inward heart of respect and submission for their husbands as their God ordained authority.

The Driscolls are at their best in the first section of this book. I am genuinely convinced (and pray) that God will use their words to convict, challenge, and encourage many husbands and wives to fulfill the roles that God has called them to. I wish I could stop my review here and end on a positive note. Unfortunately, the second section of the book prevents me from doing so. Although I certainly do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (as there are some beneficial elements in part two), the downsides of the second section significantly taint the rest of the book.

Let me start with the highlights first. Chapter six makes a good case for viewing sex as a gift from God to be used in the confines of marriage for pleasure, procreation, oneness, knowledge, protection, and comfort. Such a perception is a refreshing contrast to the unbiblical views offered by some who serve sex as a god and others who avoid it because they think it is gross. The Driscolls say, “Sex is a powerful gift that God gives to married couples. Furthermore, it provides…good and glorious benefits” (118).

Chapters seven and eight are stunningly candid chapters. The Driscolls write from personal experience about the pain and difficulty that can come from sexual abuse and pornography. Through their testimonies—displaying at once the horrors of sin and the magnificence of the Gospel—they warn readers about the dangers of sexual sin. Grace provides comfort and direction for those readers who may have been (or are currently) the victims of sexual assault. She also gives practical advice to parents on how to protect their children from sexual predators. Her words are spoken with frankness but tenderness, and end with a Christ focused perspective.

Adding to Grace’s counsel, Mark addresses the issue of pornography in a gripping way. He provides cutting edge research on the effects of pornography on the male brain, as well as exposes the detrimental fallout that pornography has had on both those inside and outside of the industry. Although at times he is too unguarded with the level of detail he gives, he definitely gets his point across about the dangers of pornography. The Driscolls admit, “We have sought to sand the varnish off porn and sinful lust so as to see it for what it truly is—a horrific evil with no redeeming value.” But they quickly add, “As horrific as these evils are, people enslaved by them are not beyond the redeeming grace of God made available through Jesus Christ” (152).

For the sake of time, let me jump over chapter nine (which is a fine chapter that uses the book of Song of Solomon to encourage couples to selflessly serve one another) and move into discussing chapter ten (which is a less satisfying look at what is and isn’t permissible in a married couple’s sexual relationship). After reading chapter ten, I was not at all surprised by the various negative and critical responses that have been issued against this chapter. The Driscolls, despite their honest attempt to bring the Word of God to bear on a difficult topic, cross the line at a number of points in their discussion.

First of all, their lack of discretion throughout this chapter (as well as other chapters) is glaring. The Driscolls discuss many things in a public forum (i.e. a published book) that are better suited for a more private setting (i.e. a pastoral counseling situation). In my estimation, Driscoll oversteps his bounds as a pastor. He is not America’s pastor. He should not provide sensitive counsel to Christians not specifically under his pastoral care. Moreover, the kind of advice he gives should be delivered with discretion and dignity. Some information (especially very detailed sexual counsel) could be a cause of stumbling to readers. Other pieces of information are simply unnecessary. Either way, the subject matter the Driscolls deal with requires a certain level of pastoral sensitivity and maturity that is lacking in their book.

A second area of concern worth mentioning is the Driscoll’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:12 which says, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” The Driscolls claim that this verse provides a rubric for dealing with any kind of sexual question in marriage. But it is doubtful that they have accurately understood the intention of Scripture here. For starters, rather than being the Apostle Paul’s statement, it is more likely that the phrase “all things are lawful for me” was actually what sinful members of the Corinthian congregation uttered to justify their sin. A mere perusal of standard commentaries of this verse will amply verify this. Secondly, even granting the Driscolls their interpretation, they still leave out critical pieces of information that Paul supplies. For instance, Paul did not just reduce his counsel on non-moral issues (the “gray areas” of Scripture) to three simple principles, as the Driscolls do. Not only did Paul ask whether or not something was lawful, helpful, or enslaving, but he also asked a more fundamental question of whether it glorified God (1 Cor. 6:20). Thirdly, some of the sexual acts the Driscolls discuss are not even conceivably “gray areas” at all. Their discussion of anal sex, for example, does not consider the Apostle’s Paul teaching in Romans 1:18-32 that suggests that such an action is “unnatural.” While I certainly understand that Paul has in mind the actions of homosexuals, his whole reasoning behind his argument—that God has designed sex to be performed in a certain way—definitely applies to the marital relationship. More could be said here, but what I have mentioned is sufficient to demonstrate the problematic nature of the Driscolls discussion.

I have not given a comprehensive evaluation of this book, nor have I needed to. Many other reviewers beat me to the punch, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of Real Marriage in a much fuller and much more eloquent fashion. Some readers of the Driscoll’s book will be in substantial agreement with it (finding it to be very helpful), while others will be greatly put off by it (finding it to be harmful). For myself, I think that there is a lot of commendable material in this book, but also a lot of disagreeable aspects. Overall, my advice to those who pick up this book is to it read with discernment and caution.

By the way, there have been a number of reviews that I have found insightful. Here are two superior ones that I found particularly helpful:

Jeremy Pierre's Review in the January issue of Credo Magazine.

Denny Burk's Review posted on his blog.

Top Ten Books Ever Read

I was recently asked for a list of the top books I have ever read. It did not take me long to compile a list. Out of the hundreds of books I have read over the years, there have been some that have made a particular impression on me more than others. Although I am young and still have many more years of reading to do, the following list encompasses the best books I have read up to this point in my life.

1. The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin.

Standing at the top of my list is an influential and profound classic by one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church. I have been reading through Calvin’s Institutes this past year and I am absolutely amazed at the profundity of his insight into the biblical text and the precision of his theological formulation. On top of this, I have found Calvin’s tome to be devotional and edifying. There is no wonder in my mind why The Institutes makes so many modern theologians’ top ten lists. I really cannot say enough about it. Highly, highly recommended.

2. Redemption: Accomplished and Applied by John Murray.

This book helped me formulate a biblical perspective of salvation. It presents one of the best (and convincing!) treatments of the doctrine of definite atonement that I have ever read. No Christian should go through life without reading this book at least once.

3. Saved by Grace by Anthony Hoekema.

After I first read this book by Hoekema, I was absolutely stunned that I had never heard of it before. It was that good! Similar to Murray’s book in content, it convincingly offers a systematic treatment of soteriology in brief compass.

4. Knowing God by J.I. Packer.

My theology professor in college assigned this book to his students every year. He informed us that when we came to the last page of this book we would be utterly disappointed that we were finished with it! After reading this book twice since then, I can testify to the truthfulness of that sentiment. Packer’s book is concise, clear, and extremely deep. No believer can afford to miss out on this one!

5. The Cross of Christ by John Stott.

In light of Stott’s death this past year, it is fitting that his weighty book makes my list. I found his book to be extremely helpful in centering my mind on the core of the Christian message—the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no doubt in my mind that Stott’s book will go down in the annals of church history.

6. The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur.

What can I say about this book? MacArthur’s work had a profound impact on my life when I first read it. He crystalizes what it means to truly believe in Jesus Christ. All of his books on the Gospel since then—The Gospel According the Apostles, Hard to Believe, and Slave, among others—have reemphasized this same theme. Anyone who desires to know what salvation is all about—an active and submissive trust in the Lord Jesus Christ—should read this now classic work.

7. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry by G.K. Beale

Although this book is fairly recent (being written in 2008), I include it here because it was somewhat paradigm shifting for me. It was my first introduction to the discipline of biblical theology and really advanced a compelling thesis. Since reading it, I have never read the Bible (particularly its statements on idolatry) the same.

8. The Duties of Parents by J.C. Ryle

Since becoming a father almost two years ago, I have read several parenting books. None of them have been as penetrating as J.C. Ryle’s classic. In fact, I would say that many of the modern parenting books have simply rehashed and reproduced the substance of Ryle’s book. Every Christian parent needs to read this book. It is a book you can read in one sitting and it will shape your understanding of the role of a parent more than any other book.

9. Paradise Restored by David Chilton

I need to qualify this book right from the get-go lest I be mistaken for a Reconstructionist. I greatly disagree with many of Chilton’s other works—especially those on theonomy—and I do not see eye to eye with him on everything. I include this book, however, because it had an unusual impact on my life when I was younger. I first read this book after high school and it shook the foundations of my dispensationalism (the reverberations of which are still in effect!). Chilton writes from a partial-preterist/postmillennial perspective (which I entertained for a number of years after reading it). Although I disagree with him now, I still look back on this book as formative and influential.

10. The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink

I had a professor in college tell me that this book made him a Calvinist overnight. After reading it, I can see why. Pink’s approach to God’s sovereignty is thoroughly biblical and organized in such a way that makes it difficult to deny God’s exhaustive, intricate, detailed, and all-encompassing sovereignty in all things—including the salvation of some and the damnation of others. If someone asks me for a good introduction to the doctrines of sovereign grace, I usually first recommend this book by Pink.

What are your favorite, most impacting books?

Fred Lybrand responds to my review

My recent review of Dr. Fred Lybrand's Back to Faith has been posted over on Fred's website. You can see it here. He is planning on posting a series of articles that respond to some of the objections I made in my review. His comment thread has also been lively, as others have responded to some of my comments.

I am glad to spark some conversation over these things and look forward to Lybrand's replies. I am also eager to defend the truth of the Reformed understanding of salvation, including Lordship salvation. In the coming days, I may also offer responses to some of the discussions that take place over at his blog. My prayer is that Christ will be honored through brotherly exchange and that the truth of the Word of God will be upheld.

Review of Fred Lybrand's "Back to Faith"

Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence. By Fred R. Lybrand. Xulon Press, 2009.

Thirty or so years after the “Lordship salvation” controversy overtook the evangelical world, the debate still continues. While the issue no longer is at the center of theological conversation, the two sides in the debate—typically identified as “Lordship salvation” and “free grace theology”—continue to produce books. Representing the free grace camp, Fred R. Lybrand has recently contributed to the discussion with his book entitled Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence. Right off the bat Lyband’s readers are prepared for the book’s thesis through his provocative dedication to both John MacArthur and Zane Hodges, veteran players in the lordship debate. It quickly becomes apparent which person had the greater influence upon Lybrand.

The purpose of Lybrand’s book is to call his readers back to an understanding of the Gospel that is free from any inconsistencies. While many evangelical Christians hold firmly to the doctrine of sola fide—believing that salvation is granted by grace alone through faith alone—they also unconsciously undermine the power of this doctrine by maintaining that good works should necessarily and inevitably flow from faith. This incongruity is concisely seen in the popular cliché, coined during the Reformation, “it is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.” Although it is trite, Lybrand argues that this cliché is not true. He explains,

Does faith guarantee works? In the final analysis the best we may be able to say with certainty is, ‘God alone knows.’ However, there is a strong case to be made for the possibility that works are not guaranteed in the life of the believer, and so may be described as ‘normal but not necessary.’ If this distinction is not kept in mind and the cliché is given too much room, then…works inevitably invade the gospel of ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ and works will undermine assurance because of the confidence rested on them (from the preface, x).

Lybrand subjects the cliché—and the theology that stands behind it—to a rigorous critique. While he does point out the logical, theological, and practical problems inherent in the cliché, his most incisive critique comes at the level of the exegetical. He writes, “The cliché, ‘it is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone, is incessantly promoted on the basis of one supreme passage: James 2:14-26” (63). Lybrand attempts to show that despite the popular approaches to this passage—especially those perpetuated by the Reformed tradition—the central message of this passage does not support the theological assumptions codified by the cliché. Lybrand explains,

James is concerned with dead faith; however this faith is a true faith that can die, rather than a false faith that never existed…James is addressing brethren and beloved brethren (James 2:5) and establishing concern for dead faith. Therefore, James 2:13 speaks of ‘judgment being without mercy’ as directed, not to the lost or unsaved which occurs at the Great White Throne of Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15), but rather at the Bema Seat judgment where believers are evaluated according to their works (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:9-10)” (101).

Thus, contrary to popular opinion, James has in mind very temporal, rather than eternal matters in this text. Viewed in this light, the cliché has very little to stand upon. Indeed, Lybrand notes, “The cliché…lives or dies by James 2” (108).

What can be made of Lybrand’s thesis? Before offering a brief response to his arguments, I want to first note a few positive aspects of his book. First, although his work stands in line with typical free grace material, it does offer a fresh and extensive exegetical section on James 2:14-26. Out of all of the free grace treatments I have read, Lybrand’s is one of the most formidable. Secondly, Lybrand does a good job keeping his thesis in mind throughout the book. He does not chase rabbit trails, but sticks tightly to his arguments pertaining to the cliché. A last strength I will mention is that Lybrand evinces a definite zeal for the Gospel. Although I do not agree with his conclusions, I am so grateful for his concern and sensitivity to proclaiming a clear, biblical Gospel message. His passionate love for the doctrine of sola fide is evident all throughout the book and I am confident that readers will be challenged by the appeals he offers.

Having stated the strengths of the book, let me now turn to the weaknesses. As I see it, Lybrand’s book suffers from a number of significant problems. Space prevents me from adequately responding to his accusations that the cliché—and the theology that undergirds it—is logically, theologically, and pragmatically invalid. In my estimation, Lybrand fails to convince in all three of these areas. But, then again, these are not his most powerful objections to the theology of the cliché. It is his exegetical critiques—centered mainly on James 2:14-26—that have the most teeth. These teeth, though, are crooked and in dire need of straightening.

In response to Lybrand’s exegetical objections, I offer the following brief defense of James 2:14-26. If what Lybrand said about the cliché is true—that it “lives or dies by James 2”—then by defending the Reformed interpretation of James 2 I will both vindicate the theology of the cliché and undermine Lybrand’s thesis with one fell swoop. To that end, I offer the ensuing four exegetical arguments

First, a bird’s eye view of James 2:14-26 suggests that it concerns something other than temporal salvation. The collective terms used by James throughout this passage such as “faith,” “save,” “works,” and “justify” are found in other NT texts that clearly deal with salvific issues. For instance, Romans 4:1-5:11 is a section of Scripture in which similar terms are found—“works” (4:1), “justified” (4:1; 5:1), “faith” (5:1), and “saved” (5:9-10). On top of this, both sections use Abraham as an example of faith and reference the same OT text for support (Gen. 15:6). These parallels suggest that James 2:14-23 has similar concerns in mind—issues relating to eternal salvation.

Secondly, both the immediate and wider contexts of James 2:14-26 lead to this conclusion as well. The passage is sandwiched between two statements concerning the judgment (2:13; 3:1). While it is possible that these may refer to the bema seat judgment in which Christians will be rewarded, it seems better to take these as a reference to the judgment unbelievers will undergo. James suggests that his readers can avoid this judgment if they have the right kind of faith: “can that faith save him?” (2:14). Save him from what? Since this follows on the heels of 2:13, it seems that true faith delivers a person from some kind of judgment. Because Paul declares that all believers must appear before the judgment (bema) seat (2 Cor. 5:10), there is no way that James can have this particular judgment in mind since he clearly indicates that those who have faith will be delivered from this tribunal.

Thirdly, the word “save” (sozo) is used five times by James (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15; 5:20). Although Lybrand claims “each reference deals with temporal deliverance and not salvation from hell to heaven” (79), a closer reading of the data yields a different statistic. In my reading, at least four out of five times James uses the term “save” in reference to eternal salvation. In James 1:21 he says, “…in humility receive the implanted word which is able to save your souls.” When this verse is viewed next to 1:18, it becomes clear that the same word that brings about a believer’s regeneration also results in his salvation. In 4:12, the word “save” has even clearer connotations: “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy.” It is hard to see this in reference to anything other than eternal salvation. James also seems to use the word “save” in a similar way in 5:20 when he writes, “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” These references demonstrate, at the very least, that Lybrand’s claim is not as cut and dry as it appears to be. Of course, even if James used the word “save” in a temporal sense in every text outside of 2:14, he still could have used the term in its technical salvific sense in 2:14. But a brief survey of his work does seem to yield the conclusion that the majority of the uses of “save” in James refer to eternal salvation. Before moving on from this point, it is worth mentioning that Moo notes that “of the 30 occurrences of ‘save’ outside of James in the NT epistles, 29 clearly refer to eschatological deliverance, the possible exception being Heb. 5:7” (The Letter of James, 124).

A final point to make in regards to James 2:14-26 is that there seem to be direct parallels between Jesus’ teaching and James’ writing. Of particular importance are the similarities between the parable of the sheep and the goats recorded in Matt. 25:31-46 and James 2:14-26. In both accounts, the illustration is used of a person who is lacking in sufficient clothing (Matt. 25:36, 43; Js. 2:15-16). In the parable, those who did not help the person in need wind up in “eternal punishment” (v. 46), and in James’ account those who fail to meet the practical needs of the destitute are said to have a “dead” faith (v. 17). It is hard not to see the connection between these two passages. What Jesus recognized in the “goats” is the same thing James recognized in those with “dead faith.” Surely the judgment the goats were in danger of is the same judgment those with dead faith were in danger of.

There is no doubt that Lybrand and his free grace counterparts will fail to be impressed by these arguments. It is telling, though, that the vast majority of Christian commentators—from the patristic era to the present—have been persuaded by the evidence presented above, as a perusal of the literature on James will amply demonstrate. Indeed, as far as I can tell, no one outside of the free grace camp understands James 2:14-26 the way Lybrand does.

One can certainly appreciate Lybrand’s concern for the Gospel of grace and his zeal to defend the doctrine of sola fide. In the end, though, it seems to me that his understanding of this doctrine is diminished. Lybrand’s thesis notwithstanding, the historical and biblical doctrine of sola fide is accurately represented in the cliché, “it is therefore faith alone which justifies, but the faith that justifies in never alone.”

I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Lybrand for a gracious and generous review copy of his book.

Update

It is has been a while since I posted. I am just finishing up my fall semester at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and it kept me extremely busy. I am very glad for all that I learned this semester. My Puritanism class was excellent and I learned to appreciate the body of literature they left behind and continue to pursue their literature. I wrote a paper for that class on "the Father of Puritanism," William Perkins and attempted to show how his theology is very much in line with John Calvin's. Some scholars have suggested that there is a great chasm separating Puritan theology from Calvin's theology, but I think the historical record indicates the exact opposite. The true heirs of Calvin's teaching were the Puritans and those in the Reformed tradition.

I also learned much from my class on leadership with Dr. R. Albert Mohler. He shared many personal stories from his time here at Southern and all of them were fascinating. He also gave many practical insights applicable to the ministry of Christian leadership. I know I will be fishing out of the stream of his thought for years to come.

As the winter approaches, my family and I look forward to the holidays. Lord willing we will be making a trip up to Oregon in December to spend the Christmas with my parents. I will also be writing a few reviews for Credo Magazine. I am reviewing and briefly responding to a free grace book written by Fred Lybrand (who, incidentally, I actually had the pleasure of interacting with via email). I also am slated to review a book by Dr. David Jeremiah entitled "I Never Though I'd See the Day." I have always had the utmost respect for Dr. Jeremiah and, though I do disagree with him at times, am happy to review his book.

Other than that, I will provide another update soon. Be looking for my reviews!

Peter O'Brien's "The Letter to the Hebrews": A Review

I have been really captivated by the book of Hebrews as of late. This fascination has led me to review two recent commentaries on the epistle. I previously posted a review of David Allen's commentary that I did for Credo Magazine. In this post, I want to make available a review that I did on P.T. O'Brien's commentary on Hebrews (which will also be posted on Credo Mag's website). Hope you enjoy!

The Letter to the Hebrews. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. By Peter T. O’Brien. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

For the past several years I have made it my goal to collect the best commentaries on each book of the Bible. As would be expected, the top rated ones are usually also the oldest and most proven. Occasionally, though, a recent commentary will come along that has all the features and qualities that mark older exegetical works. While it may be too early to tell, I anticipate that P.T. O’Brien’s recent commentary on Hebrews will one day take its stand alongside these other valuable and time-tested resources.

The Letter to the Hebrews is O’Brien’s latest contribution to the ongoing discussion of the fascinating and mysterious epistle of Hebrews. Far from being a redundant voice in a chorus of commentators, though, O’Brien’s work sounds forth a different note that puts the magnificence of the book of Hebrews on display. What makes O’Brien’s treatment stand head and shoulders above the rest can be discussed under two main headings. First, O’Brien presents his comments in a logical and organized manner. Second, his interpretations are textually derived and theologically grounded.

The lay out of O’Brien’s commentary makes it an accessible guide through the book of Hebrews. Some commentaries have so much technical detail and an overabundance of information that readers can easily get lost in them. Other commentaries fail to clearly distinguish between one verse and another, making them less dependable to busy pastors and teachers who often need quick guidance. Still others excel in terms of their readability but fail in terms of providing helpful exegetical and theological information.

Not so with O’Brien’s commentary. His work is organized and it is structured around a logical and clearly defined outline. O’Brien’s comments are thorough, but not overly technical or verbose. It is clear when his discussion is finished and when he has moved on to another topic or point. Moreover, he covers each verse of Hebrews in a sequential way, which allows readers to easily locate his comments on any given reference. On top of this, O’Brien’s explanations are also unusually lucid; never was I left scratching my head after reading his interpretations.

Out of the many positive elements of The Letter to the Hebrews, I was most pleased with O’Brien’s consistently careful handling of the text of Hebrews. Time and again, I found myself in substantial agreement with his interpretations. To cite but one example, I found his understanding of the warning passages to be well reasoned and exegetically sound. O’Brien rightly argues that these passages warn against the perils of apostasy and the sure judgment that awaits those who “fall away from the living God” (3:12). In line with classic Reformed exegetes, he holds that those who heed the warnings and persevere show themselves to be true believers, while those who reject the exhortations and fall away reveal that they never truly possessed saving faith to begin with.

Although I take a slightly different approach to these passages than he does, I sympathize with the Reformed perspective of the warning passages. Not only does it have a long historical pedigree, it makes good sense of the warnings and also harmonizes well with the clear New Testament teaching of both the preservation and perseverance of the saints. O’Brien’s comments on Hebrews 3:14 are representative of the way he views the warning passages: “The author [of Hebrews] is aware…that there is a transitory or spurious faith that does not persevere. Accordingly, [his reader’s] being sharers in Christ is dependent on their holding fast to the end…such perseverance will demonstrate that their faith is genuine” (151-2).

O’Brien also does a superior job explaining how the writer of Hebrews uses and interprets Old Testament texts. In several places, O’Brien’s expertise is showcased. His background information on the concept of “rest” (Heb. 4) is insightful and allows him to properly identify the way the writer of Hebrews uses this term as a picture of salvation. Other instances that show O’Brien’s adept understanding of the OT are his discussions of Melchizedek and the New Covenant. He avoids falling into the various traps surrounding typology and he does not erroneously suggest, as some commentators do, that the New Testament writers misuse the Old Testament. Rather, the NT authors simply develop themes and ideas that are inherent to the OT but are often overlooked by casual readers. O’Brien does a great job bringing this out and his method serves as a model of how to apply biblical theology to biblical study.

Overall, O’Brien’s exegesis is balanced and his theological conclusions are not excessive. I am confident that readers of differing theological backgrounds can all benefit from his excellent work. In many ways, O’Brien is an ideal exegete. He judiciously approaches the text of Hebrews and he presents his conclusions with grace. I highly recommend The Letter to the Hebrews as a resource beneficial to both scholars and students.

Review of David Allen's "Hebrews"

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.