3/9/10

Threat and Relief: Too Close for Comfort?

This past Sunday I preached from Hebrews 4:14-16, and it struck me once again how that, in this epistle especially, the most severe warnings against disobedience and unbelief are often followed by even more profound and comforting expressions of divine grace.

After having warned the Hebrews against failing to “hold fast their confession,” the writer says:

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Now, I realize I have been harping on the fact that, when dealing with the warnings of Hebrews, we need to give them their due force and be willing to actually warn our baptized, Christ-professing hearers against the kind of disobedience and faithlessness that will spell the same doom for them as it did for the Israelites who died in the wilderness. And I maintain that position and don’t back away from it one bit. At the same time, though, we must remember that these NT letters weren’t originally read in the manner in which we preach them (a few verses at a time with a seven-day break). This means that, in the ears of its original audience, the warning against failing to enter rest was immediately followed by the passage about Jesus being our High Priest whose sympathy results in bold confidence to draw near to God’s gracious throne, and the warning in ch. 6 about the impossibility of renewal for those who turn away from grace was immediately followed by the assurance that better things are confidently expected of the Hebrews, who have “strong consolation” from Christ, the anchor of their souls.

While such an emphasis can certainly lead to the charge of blunting the sharp edges of Scripture’s warnings, the fact remains that the writer of Hebrews himself lays himself open to the very same charge. Are we wiser (or edgier) than he?
Posted by Jason Stellman at 11:45 PM
Labels: ,

12 comments:

  1. Jason said
    While such an emphasis can certainly lead to the charge of blunting the sharp edges of Scripture’s warnings, the fact remains that the writer of Hebrews himself lays himself open to the very same charge. Are we wiser (or edgier) than he?

    Obviously they are in the text and should be taught. We should also not shy away from showing the forest along with the trees so we do not purely receive revelation on an atomistic level. However all harmonizing of the broad range of texts must only harmonize what scripture harmonized, and not just to blunt the teachings which go against our particular confession or level of understanding. But all this points again to the sore lack of authority and agreement within Protestantism.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Let me follow up by saying I would rather have a "sore lack of authority and agreement" and strive together for unity under the banners of sola scriptura and the gospel, than have a forced unity under false pretenses.

    But back to the topic I dont think we can go wrong in our preaching and teaching if we follow in the form and content of the NT writers.
    ReplyDelete
  3. But all this points again to the sore lack of authority and agreement within Protestantism.

    It isn’t immediately clear to me how pointing out that Hebrews simultaneously contains both warnings and consolations means there is a sore lack of authority and agreement within Protestantism. What relation does one thing have to do with another? Wouldn’t ecclesial disarray actually point a sore lack of authority and agreement within Protestantism? But we have things like the Three Forms of (ahem) Unity and the Westminster (ahem) Standards. I realize these don’t rise to the satisfaction of some (Rome), but does it count for anything that it causes others (Münster) to charge us with authoritarianism?
    ReplyDelete
  4. Tom,

    Please know that I labor under no false assumption that "as long as you stick to verse-by-verse expositions you'll be 'harmonizing what the Bible is harmonizing.'"

    In my Calvary Chapel days I'd listen to Chuck Smith preach through the whole Bible a chapter at a time, and I heard plenty of messages about the rapture and almost none of the Trinity.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Zrim said...

    Wouldn’t ecclesial disarray actually point a sore lack of authority and agreement within Protestantism? But we have things like the Three Forms of (ahem) Unity and the Westminster (ahem) Standards

    So the The forms of unity and WCF unite? (ahem)

    which unification do you fall under?
    APC, ARPC,CRC,CRCNA,EPC,ERPC,FRCNA,FPCNA,HNRC,OPC,PCA,PCUSA,BPC,RCA,PRCA,RCUSA, RPNA,URC (ahem)
    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason,

    My point exactly the fallacy of verse by verse teaching in and of itself is touted as the end all in biblical exposition when all it usually does is rend asumder what God has joined.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon (boy, you sure seem to be on a lot of blogs),

    I’m a disgruntled member of the CRC. I know it helps your point, but, just so you know, the CRCNA is the same thing as the CRC. And I know only Catholics know what real catholicity is, but I like to think of my disgruntled membership like a less-than-ideal marriage: my spouse may be a source of embarrassment and frustration and anger, but she hasn’t adulterated quite yet. Many fellow P&R like to carelessly speak as if she has, but I still hear the gospel clearly proclaimed where I’m at. And for better or worse, I like to also think there’s some piety in remaining loyal to a faithful if misguided wife. Could it be that a better unity is forged in such difficulty instead of fabricated in the midst of falsehood?

    There’s good reason the Bible employs marital analogies.
    ReplyDelete
  8. church of the anonMar 10, 2010 11:47 AM
    Which other blogs am I on? This is the first in a long time. Iam anonymous becuase I dont have a membership or whatever on this blog. Anyhow. Being faithful to the body of Christ is commendable.

    Jason said
    Are we wiser (or edgier) than he?

    I don't know, are we? Who is we? I guess it's up to you as the head Pastor of your church to determine. Let us know what you come up with. Not trying to be caustic or sarcastic but I guess the final answer to all of this is that you do what you think the Bible says. Since in protestantism there is no authority other than the bible, may the best interpreter prevail. At best one can say they subscribe to a confession of faith, but that falls under the same dilemna and even compounds the diversity of opinions as all the reformed bodies testify to. Oh well Iam sure there are several answers to this as well. Ultimately we protestants are all the sole arbiters and truth processors no matter how much we deny it, some of us may have similar conclusions and we join together in that but ultimately it is us, our opinion and the bible alone.
    ReplyDelete
  9. COTA,

    "We" meaning we Christians who try to understand the Bible.

    BTW, you may want to work on your whole "not trying to be sarcastic or caustic" vibe.

    PS - Use the drop-down menu and select Name/URL. When people post anaonymously it gets confusing. Thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Weird. Still can't comment with firefox. No problems with IE though.

    As to the post, amen (not to be confused with ahem).
    ReplyDelete
  11. While such an emphasis can certainly lead to the charge of blunting the sharp edges of Scripture’s warnings, the fact remains that the writer of Hebrews himself lays himself open to the very same charge.

    Maybe the two things are woven together so closely because it is believers (and only believers) who will respond to both the warnings and the encouragement: the first response being a healthy fear of God and consciousness of sin, and the second a hearty fleeing to Christ. The second part doesn't "blunt" the edge of the first: the second is the refuge of the faithful who take the first part seriously.
    ReplyDelete
  12. The edges are plenty sharp even still, precisely because, from our earthly perspective, we can't map out with absolute certainty who will persevere until the end. No, you're not so saved that you couldn't go to hell if you tried. Please, I implore you, don't try.

    The author still presses the uncomfortable questions to everybody equally: "Are we—or are some within our Christian fellowship—in danger of turning our backs on the faith, and joining in the general tendency to sneer at the gospel and the church? Are we lining up with those who hold firm to their original faith and hope, or with those who, like Peter by the charcoal fire, are ready to deny that they have anything to do with Jesus?" (Wright, Hebrews for Everyone, p. 60).

    What he writes before this I'll save until you get to Heb 6.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)