Soteriology is concerned with the theology of salvation (Young, 1990), the restoration of the sinner to divine favour and communion with God (Berkhof, 1996, p. 415). The term comes from the Greek words σῴζω (save, deliver) and σωτηρία (salvation, deliverance); their major use in this discipline is to denote the salvific work of God on behalf of man (Chafer, 1922, p. 1). When thus employed, ‘salvation’ gathers into a single concept at least twelve doctrines: “redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, conviction, repentance, faith, regeneration, forgiveness, justification, sanctification, preservation, and glorification” (Chafer, 1976, p. 5). Salvation is also commonly divided in three aspects, or “tenses” (p. 6): (a) believers were saved from the penalty of sin (Ro 8:1) and given eternal life (Jn 5:24); they were justified (Ro 5:1), redeemed (Eph 1:7), regenerated (Tit 3:5), reconciled (2 Cor 5:18); (b) believers are being saved from the power of sin (Gal 5:16) through divine preservation (2 Th 2:13), forgiveness (1 Jn 1:9), and sanctification (Heb 10:14); (c) believers will be saved from the very presence of sin through glorification (Phil 3:20-21).
However, whilst Christian theology emphasises the spiritual aspect of salvation over a more prominent temporal aspect found in the Old Testament (Young, 1990, p. 644), the New Testament (NT) usage of the word ‘salvation’ is not at all different from the Old Testament (OT) one (Chafer, 1976, p. 5), as the Greek words σῴζω and σωτηρία express a wide range of human experiences (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, & Gingrich, 2000). In fact, most of their NT occurrences are not soteriological, but refer to deliverance from death and illness (most common), from God’s temporal wrath, from future tribulation, or from false teachings (Wilkin, 2012). Other meanings are ‘spiritual health’ (Wilkin, 2020) or eschatological salvation, i.e., deliverance of believers from the present order into the Messianic Kingdom at the Second Advent (Smelley, 2015).
It is important to bear all this in mind as we approach the question at hand: what contribution does Hebrews make to the soteriology of the New Testament? Though mainly a pastoral document (Allen, 2010, p. 11), the book of Hebrews does possess a soteriological emphasis (Trotter, 1997). It is usually the so-called ‘warning passages’ that are at the heart of debates (Fruchtenbaum, 2005, p. 13), largely due to the book touching on the concepts of faith and salvation. When these two concepts are mentioned in relation to one another, it is usually assumed that the text must be speaking of deliverance from eternal condemnation. However, this cannot be corroborated exegetically (Wilkin, 2012). In fact, confusion around the soteriological implications of Hebrews usually arises from conflating different kinds of salvation as well as different tenses of salvation.
Hebrews is uniquely positioned to bring much clarity to soteriological debates, by providing (a) continuity between the testaments, (b) details about the complete work of Christ, and (c) a clear distinction between the elements of the doctrine of salvation as well as the tenses of salvation.
We shall first look at the Melchizedekian priesthood and its relationship with the Levitical system (Emadi, 2019), so as to provide unique insights in the roles of priesthood, sacrifices, and forgiveness in the salvific work of Christ.
We shall then turn to the parallels drawn with the Exodus generation and the Kadesh-Barnea events (Woods, 2006), so as to unearth a powerful tool that aids the correct understanding of the soteriologically-relevant statements of the book.
Subsequently, we shall review the ‘warning passages’ with a twofold purpose: (a) apply the aforementioned contributions to exegesis; (b) uncover more language used consistently and coherently between OT and NT.
Finally, we shall wield the light of Hebrews to demystify a sample of NT passages sometimes considered ‘soteriologically obscure’.
Priesthood, sacrifices, and forgiveness
A unique contribution of Hebrews is the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ, which replaces the Levitical one, especially the Aaronic high priesthood (7:1-28). Some deem it fundamental to the messianic hope and essential to all aspects of the saving work of Christ (Emadi, 2019, p. 58); a soteriological necessity (p. 74). After all, Christ’s priestly sacrifice was necessary to inaugurate the very covenant (8:1-13) that accomplished salvation from eternal punishment for every human in history. Christ is now the sole mediator of the New Covenant (9:15-28) and his sacrifice is both effectual and all-sufficient (10:1-18); all sacrifices are fulfilled in him.
An interesting aspect is that Christ’s depiction as the priest-king seem to fulfil God’s original design for humanity (p. 73), as it can be shown that Adam’s original mission was to cover the role of viceroy of the world (Vlach, 2017; cf. Heb 2:5-9; Ps 8), and that “Messiah’s Melchizedekian priesthood is an expression of the office of priest-king originally given to Adam at creation” (Emadi, 2019, p. 58).
When properly understood in relation to the Levitical priesthood, the priesthood of Christ clarifies the concepts of sacrifice and forgiveness due to semantical continuity between the testaments. The Levitical sacrifices “enabled the covenant community, despite the human proneness to sin, to maintain fellowship with the holy God” (Hartley, 1992, p. 18). This is interesting, because the NT[1] presents the propitiatory nature of Christ’s sacrifice as a fulfilment of the paschal sacrifice (Hoskins, 2009), which is not part of the Levitical system. Yet, it is the very sacrifice that secures redemption to all who believe, just as Israel was redeemed from Egypt and later given the Law to become a sanctified kingdom of priests who would mediate God to the nations (Ex 19:6). Thus, the Levitical system was an intercessory system between Israel and God. This is evidenced in Hebrews 7:25; when interpreting this, many make the leap from “drawing near” (NASB95) to “persevere in faith”, implying that Christ can only save “completely” (NET) and “forever” (NASB95) those who actively draw near to Christ (Colijn, 1996). Yet, that is precisely what the author is not saying, as it would be theologically inaccurate to claim that soteriological salvation depends on Christ’s ongoing intercession (Tanner, 2010, p. 1060). The sin debt was paid in full on the cross (Jn 19:30); it is the past tense of salvation. In the Levitical system, the priest’s intercessory work facilitated the ongoing relationship with God, not the justification of the believers. Christ fulfils the entire Levitical system, and those who draw near to Him benefit from the entire system in faith. This is supported by the Greek for “draw near” (προσέρχομαι), also used in 4:16 as an invitation to come to God because of one’s weaknesses (4:15), and not for personal salvation (p. 1060). It is likely the author has eschatological salvation in mind (cf. 9:28).
However, this is not to say that the once-for-all sacrifice for the removal of sin is not in view in Hebrews. It is, however, presented as the blood sacrifice necessary to inaugurate the New Covenant (9:22, 26) that achieves the once-for-all-times perfection of believers (10:14).
Regarding forgiveness, the use of the word in the epistle might have an eternal dimension to it (8:12; 10:17-18). Nevertheless, in a Jewish worldview, forgiveness is more often reminiscent of ensuring good fellowship between parties (Dyer, 2001). It is indeed the case with some occurrences of the word ‘sacrifice’ in the epistle (e.g., 10:26), used to imply relational forgiveness. Under the New Covenant, all it takes is to draw near to Christ the High Priest (Bryant, 2001; cf. 1 Jn 1:9), in whom all sacrifices are fulfilled.
To conclude, the doctrine of Melchizedekian priesthood and its relationship with the Levitical priesthood has non-negligible repercussions on how one reads passages about sacrifice and forgiveness both in Hebrews and in other sections of the NT.
Exodus generation and Kadesh-Barnea
Many scholars have granted that the author of Hebrews uses the Exodus generation, with emphasis on the Kadesh-Barnea rebellion (Nu 13-14), as backbone to his sermon (Allen, 2010; Tanner, 2010; Woods, 2006). This paradigm provides some crucial insights that are especially important when exegeting the so-called warning passages.
First, the spiritual status of the Exodus generation. Several lines of evidence support their redeemed status (Woods, 2006, p. 45). God refers to them as firstborn sons (Ex 4:22-23). They worship God (Ex 15; 33:10). They “believed in the Lord” (Ex 14:31); Allen (2010) observes how this verse is virtually identical semantically to Genesis 15:6, used in Romans 4:3 as an example of Abraham’s justification.
Second, the nature of their sin at Kadesh-Barnea. Of the twelve spies sent to survey Canaan, only Joshua and Caleb believed Israel could conquer the land with God’s help. The people, instead, sided with the remaining spies and rebelled; this time Israel reached a point of no return, and God judged them (Fruchtenbaum, 2005, p. 43). Though their sin was unbelief, it is paramount to note that it “was a faith issue of their mission, not of their justification” (Tanner, 2010, p. 1043), i.e., they did not believe God would grant them entrance into Canaan.
Third, the nature of their judgement. The punishment for their rebellion was for anyone above the age of twenty—except Joshua and Caleb—to never enter the promised land but die in the wilderness. It was a temporal punishment, not loss of eternal life. In fact, the people repented and God forgave their sin, but judgement remained on them (Nu 14:20), as it was irrevocable (Fruchtenbaum, 2005, p. 43).
What we learn is that: (a) unbelief is not exclusively connected to lack of justification; (b) justified believers can fail to believe God regarding other promises and fall into grave sin because of it; (c) repentance is relational like forgiveness (Anderson, 1998; Wilkin, 1998), thus about restoring fellowship with the God one already has a relationship with through faith (Ross, 1988; Zink, 1964); (d) repentance and forgiveness do not guarantee escape from temporal judgement; (e) Canaan is not a type of heaven (Vlach, 2017), despite what many scholars have taught (Colijn, 1996; Fairbairn, 1852; McKnight, 1992; Stewart, 2010). If it were, “then Moses is not a citizen in heaven, since He died before entering Canaan” (Woods, 2006, p. 48); that is improbable, given Moses appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:3).
The warning passages
In order to work through these passages (2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:12-29), we have chosen an ‘exegetical anchor’: confirming eternal security as a corollary contribution of the book Hebrews. Essentially, the exegetical process shall be hinged on a specific kind (from eternal punishment) and a specific tense (past) of salvation,[2] so to avoid the ‘conflation problem’ mentioned in the introduction.
The audience
Like the Exodus generation, the readers of the epistle are believers (Fruchtenbaum, 2005, p. 4; cf. Heb 3:1; 3:12; 10:10, 14, 29). The author—who knows them personally (13:19, 23)—identifies his own spiritual status with theirs (1:2; 2:1). Probably Jewish converts, the content is such to lend substantial credence to the theory of converted Jewish priests (Allen, 2010, p. 70). They are also immature (5:11-14) and wavering in their faith because of persecution (10:32-38) that is tempting them back into Judaism (p. 79). The audience never changes throughout, including all the warning passages (Fruchtenbaum, 2005).
The structure
McKnight (1992) formalises the structure of these passages as all sharing three components in the same order: exhortation, sin, consequences (p. 29). Interestingly, the same three components can be observed in the history of the Exodus generation: (a) they were promised a land to conquer (Lv 20:24) and were exhorted to believe God’s promise several times; (b) they sinned by disbelieving that promise and rebelling; (c) they were judged with physical death prior to enter the land.
First warning
The author builds on top of the christological argument laid out in 1:1-14 (Thompson, 2008, p. 56), and exhorts the Hebrews (2:1) to pay much attention (προσέχειν) lest they drift away (παραρυῶμεν).Thompson (2008, p. 50) points out the nautical nature of the Greek terms above: ‘fasten the anchor so to keep the ship towards port, lest it drifts away’ (Allen, 2010, p. 191); the imagery suggests the sin in view is a slow but gradual departure from the truth spoken in Christ (1:2). This drifting away is equated with neglecting (ἀμελέω, to be unconcerned, to become apathetic) “so great a salvation” (2:3).
The “word spoken through the angels” (2:2) refers to the Law (Tanner, 2010, p. 1037; cf. Acts 7:38; Gal 3:19), which prescribed a system of blessings (rewards) and curses (penalties) (Lv 26:1–46; Dt 28:15–68) as a form of behavioural retribution. Therefore, the Hebrews are being reminded that just asunder the Law disobedience was met with just recompense (μισθαποδοσία), so their drifting away under the New Covenant will have even direr consequences.
The nature of the penalties (curses) under the Law was temporal, not spiritual. Likewise, their penalty would have been death in the coming AD 70 judgement (Fruchtenbaum, 2005, p. 29) and loss of inheritance in the future kingdom (Tanner, 2010). The former finds support in Hebrews 12:5-11. The latter is echoed in 2 Timothy 2:12. After all, “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Co 6:9a). This becomes obvious when we realise that “Old Testament terms for heir, inheritance, do not necessarily bear the special sense of hereditary succession” (Craston, 1984, p. 561)but are likely to imply meritorious work (Dillow, 2017). The nature of the ‘salvation’ that believers inherit (1:14) must be determined by the context: it is not soteriological salvation, but eschatological salvation associated with the second advent, as evidenced by the use of ‘salvation’ in 9:28 and the explicit mention of “the world to come” in 2:5 (Tanner, 2010, p. 1036-37); it speaks of the believers’ “participation with the Son in his kingdom as his ‘fellows’ (or partakers, companions, partners)” (Smelley, 2015, p. 37).
Second warning
The writer starts his exhortation by quoting (3:7-11) “The Provocation” from Psalm 95 (Fruchtenbaum, 2005, p. 43), which provides a commentary on the events of Kadesh-Barnea (Tanner, 2010, p. 1043). The emphasis is on the condition of the hearts, which got hardened (3:8) and went astray (3:10) in unbelief, thus not entering God’s rest (3:11). The Hebrews are invited not to commit the same sin of “unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God” (3:12) by encouraging one another in order to avoid a hardened heart (3:13). Then the exhortation continues, inviting the Hebrews to strive to enter the rest (3:14-4:11), lest they be judged instead as a consequence (4:12-13). Since Jesus is greater than Moses (3:3-6), the penalty for rebelling would have been worse than Israel’s punishment at Kadesh-Barnea, which Psalm 95 calls “entering God’s rest” (3:11), as the promised land was referred to as God’s resting place (Tanner, 2010, p. 1043). Thus, the rest for the Hebrews is whether they will enter the Messianic Kingdom as partners (partakers, μέτοχος)[3] of Christ (3:14) by enduring in faith. The messianic nature of God’s rest is confirmed by three lines of evidence: (a) the Israelites did not receive full rest in Canaan (4:8; cf. Is 11:10); (b) the rest is still future (4:1); (c) this rest is conditioned upon faithfulness (3:14) and diligence (4:11), and can be lost because of disobedience (4:6, 11), so it cannot be eternal life, which is attained permanently with an act of faith (Jn 5:24; Bing, 1996), and is therefore a present possession of the believer (1 Jn 5:13; Hiebert, 1990).
Third warning
The author wants to teach the Hebrews about the Melchizedekian priesthood (5:1-10), but his audience is too immature to comprehend (5:11). He exhorts them to move from basic teachings onto maturity (6:1-3). The exhortation continues after the warning (6:4-6), and the Hebrews are reminded they can inherit the promise through persevering faith and patience. This is the inheritance of the believer in the coming kingdom (Blomberg, 1992), not soteriological salvation (which does not require meritorious behaviour).
The sin (6:6a) they are in danger of committing is to fall away (παραπεσοντασ). Contrary to the commonly assumed meaning, the word is never used to mean ‘apostasy’ in Classical or Koine Greek, and most often means ‘to transgress’ in the LXX (Allen, 2010, p. 359-60). Its semantical relationship with πίπτω (4:11) and ἀποστῆναι (3:12) aids the conclusion that a denial of Christ is not in view. Like the rebellion (‘falling away’) at Kadesh-Barnea, the Hebrews are at risk of rebelling and falling back into Judaism (Fruchtenbaum, 2005), moving beyond repentance. From the Kadesh-Barnea events, we learnt that repentance is not a condition for salvation to eternal life (Wilkin, 1989; Anderson, 2017). In context, it is about the possibility of averting judgement. The only way to escape these consequences would be to run to Christ, in whom all Levitical sacrifices are fulfilled and repentance is guaranteed. Should they fail and go back to the Levitical system, it would be like crucifying Christ again, which is an impossibility, hence the irrevocability of the judgement. The nature of the judgement is made clear by the illustration in 6:7-8, where the ground represents the believer: if it bears thorns instead of fruits, then it gets cursed and burned. In keeping with the Kadesh-Barnea paradigm, this implies both a temporal judgement (physical death) and the judgement of the Bema (1 Co 3:10-15); in both instances, eternal life is not at stake (Dowlen, 2020).
Fourth warning
As of 10:1-18, the author has announced the superiority of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice with the respect to the Levitical system. He then exhorts the Hebrews to draw near to Christ, to encourage one another, and to not forsake the gathering. Then the warning comes, where the sin is enunciated as ‘wilful’ sin (10:26). The consequence is a judgement worse than death (10:28-31). Understanding the ‘wilful sin’ is important to comprehend what is meant by “there no longer remains a sacrifice”. We already have a pattern established in the previous warning, where the final rebellion would have left the Hebrews without a sacrifice able to restore them to repentance. We take that as additional reason to favour the ‘specific sin’ view over the ‘continuance of sin’ view, and subscribe to the idea that the author is alluding to Numbers 15:22-31, because of the adverb ἑκουσίως (wilfully) used in Hebrews 10:26. Under the Mosaic Law, an individual intentional sin (Nu 15:30-31) known as “sin of a high hand” would be punished with expulsion from the community and death (Tanner, 2010, p. 1031). No sacrifice could deflect judgement: “[a]nyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy” (10:28 NASB95). Therefore, in 10:29 we find the new “sin of a high hand”: abandoning the “confession of our hope” (10:23). Its punishment is worse than death: in keeping with Kadesh-Barnea paradigm, the remainder of the chapter suggests it is not loss of eternal life or hell (Tanner, 2006), but physical death plus loss of rewards and status in the Messianic Kingdom (Fruchtenbaum, 2005).
Fifth warning
The Hebrews are reminded that discipline is a sign of sonship (12:4-11), and are exhorted to fulfil their obligations towards weaker members of the assembly (12:12-13). They are further exhorted to pursue peace and sanctification, “without which no one will see the Lord” (NASB95), a text usually used to support the view that salvation is a journey to complete (McKnight, 1992). Some have argued that it is eschatological sanctification (Tanner, 2010). We agree with Lane (1985) that it is progressive sanctification: the Hebrews are being exhorted to pursue holiness so that others can see the Lord in them (p. 167; cf. Jn 13:35). After the comparison between covenants (12:18-24), the Hebrews are warned against the sin they might commit, i.e. to “refuse Him”. The reason is always the same: if those under the old order of things were judged for not listening to God who spoke on earth, harsher consequencesawait those who refuse to listen to God who now speaks from heaven. The form of the argument in 12:25 parallels that of Hebrews 2:1–3, “which further serves to link all the warning passages together as expressing the same theme” (Allen, 2010, p. 596). The harsher punishment is thus consistent with the previous passages: physical death, and loss of status and privileges in the coming unshakable kingdom (12:28-29).
Final remarks
As the writer mentally retraces the steps of the Exodus generation, he intertwines doctrinal exposition with hortatory sections that always include a warning. The five warnings are masterfully phrased differently each time, to reflect the immediately preceding doctrinal section; but at their core they deliver the same message: do not fall away, remain faithful in the midst of persecution, and you will avert judgement and earn your status in the Messianic Kingdom.
Understanding other NT passages
Let us now see how what we have learnt helps demystifying a sample of three NT passages.
Acts 2:37-38
Part of the apostle Peter’s sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41), it is usually interpreted as a soteriological passage (Compton, 1999). However, the crowd does not ask “what must [we] do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30-31), but simply “what shall we do?”. Peter answers them to repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of their sins. Now, let us remember that: (a) the audience is Jewish; (b) repentance and forgiveness are relational. This alone tells us the crowd is not asking how to get saved (soteriologically). The larger context (Acts 1:1-2:47) reveals that the crowd is being preached the good news of the kingdom (Myers, 2006), the same core message of the book of Matthew (Derickson, 2006), and not the good news of eternal life. Therefore, what happened in verse 37 is that a group of Jews, likely already believers under the Old Covenant (cf. John 10), finally came to believe Jesus was the Messiah. Having realised their sin (of previously rejecting him and supporting his crucifixion, cf. Acts 2:23), they wanted to be forgiven and restored to fellowship with God (Hodges, 2003). Under the New Covenant, drawing to Christ in repentance is the way to do that. The gift of the Spirit marks the transition of believers from the old to the new covenant (Viola, 2017, p. 351-53).
Matthew 24:13
This is often used to prove that a believer is only saved if they persevere till the end of life. As stated in our introduction, and as confirmed by Hebrews in various sections (2:1-4, 7:25, etc.), the word ‘saved’ is used non-soteriologically most of the time. In context, it is addressing a Jewish audience and referring to salvation from the physical judgements of the Great Tribulation, so as to enter the Messianic Kingdom alive (Mt 24:40).
Luke 13:1-5
Once again, repentance is relational. More than that, it can be for all men, whether believers or unbelievers (Anderson, 1998). With these truths in mind, we quickly discover that the warnings in verses 3 and 5 are not soteriological. Verse 1 sets the context with physical death, and what Christ implies is that persevering unrepentantly in sinful actions leads to the same kind of death (‘likewise perish’).
Conclusions
Having a correct understanding of Hebrews is life-changing for the exegete. Let us consider for a moment the four more traditional views of Hebrews 6:4-6: Arminian, Reformed, Means of Salvation, Hypothetical (Tanner, 2017).[4] They are all trying to reconcile an incongruence that is not there: nobody is being threatened with loss of eternal life or with having their profession of faith questioned. These passages reveal how faith does not just relate to justification, how salvation is not always about eternal life, how the language of inheritance speaks of rewards and not salvation, and how repentance and forgiveness are relational in nature and not a synonymous of or condition for salvation.
Hebrews bridges the semantic continuity between Old Testament and New Testament (Dillow, 2018, p. 71). It uses language that draws on ancient Israel’s journey out of Egypt and towards the promised land, which was a reward, an inheritance obtained by works, obedience, perseverance, faithfulness (p. 60). Its Jewish flavour casts a clear light on how such language is also used throughout the NT: it becomes apparent that NT authors were careful to distinguish both types and tenses of salvation, avoiding the conflation fallacy many scholars commit today. For instance, Colijn (1996) clearly treats eschatological salvation and soteriological salvation as one and the same in Hebrews (p. 574): “final salvation must await the return of Christ” as salvation is a “pilgrimage of faith” with destination “the heavenly sanctuary” (Colijn, p. 576). Through a parallel with the Exodus generation, she echoes Gelardini (2019) and McKnight (1992) in saying that the reception of the promised life is conditional upon persevering obedience (Colijn, p. 584), thus making the common error of seeing Canaan as a type of heaven, when it really is a type of the Messianic Kingdom with its rewards (Dillow, 2017). Like Stewart (2010), Colijn holds to the ‘already/not-yet’ view of an inaugurated and not yet consummated kingdom, confirming their confusion as they conflate the gospel of the kingdom with the gospel of grace (Myers, 2006).
When it comes to eternal life, there are only two views: we either possess it now and forever, or we will possess it eventually (Kauffman & Shaughnessy, 2017). Our work shows that the correct employment of the unique contributions of Hebrews uncovers a salvation that is final instead of a ‘final salvation’. Christ’s sacrifice is soteriologically conclusive and complete (Montefiore, 1964, p. 170), and continued human response to secure final salvation is not required (Fanning, 2007, p. 140-142).
Finally, the book of Hebrews would seem to strongly suggest that apostasy (though the word ἀποστασία is never used) is the departure from the practice of faith with no repercussions on eternal life; in general, the matter of apostasy may have been overstated over the centuries (Woods, 2018).
Bibliography
Allen, D. L. (2010). Hebrews. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group.
Anderson, D. R. (1998). Repentance is for All Men. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 11(1), 3-20.
Anderson, D. R. (2017). The Role of Repentance in Salvation. In F. Chay, A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance. The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press.
Bauer, W., Danker, F., Arndt, W., & Gingrich, F. (2000). A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Berkhof, L. (1996). Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
Bing, C. C. (1996). The Condition For Salvation In John’s Gospel. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 25-36.
Blomberg, C. L. (1992). Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 35(2), 159-172.
Bryant, B. (2001). Confession Of Sins In The Spirit-Filled Life. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 14(2), 53-62.
Chafer, L. S. (1922). Salvation. Philadelphia, PA: Sunday School Times Company.
Chafer, L. S. (1976). Soteriology. In L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Vol. 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Colijn, B. B. (1996). “Let Us Approach”: Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 39(4), 576-586.
Compton, R. B. (1999). Water Baptism And The Forgiveness Of Sins In Acts 2:38. Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 04(1), 3-32.
Craston, R. C. (1984). Inheritance. In W. A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Derickson, G. W. (2006). Matthew’s Chiastic Structure and Its Dispensational Implications. Bibliotheca Sacra, 163(652), 423-437.
Dillow, J. (2017). The Doctrine of Rewards. In F. Chay, A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance. The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press.
Dillow, J. (2018). Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings, 4th ed. The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press.
Dowlen, K. (2020). The Judgment Seat Of Christ. Journal of Dispensational Theology, 24(68), 27-35.
Dyer, S. D. (2001). The Salvation of Believing Israelites prior to the Incarnation of Christ. (43-55, Ed.) Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 14(1).
Emadi, M. (2019). You Are Priest Forever: Psalm 110 And The Melchizedekian Priesthood Of Christ. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 23(1), 57-79.
Fairbairn, P. (1852). The Typology of Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Daniels & Smith.
Fanning, B. M. (2007). Classical Reformed Response. In H. W. Bateman IV, Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (pp. 129-143). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2005). The Messianic Jewish Epistles: Hebrews, James, First Peter, Second Peter, Jude (1st ed.). Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries.
Gamble, R. C. (2017). The Very Gate Of Paradise To Me: The Development Of Protestantism’s Teaching On Justification. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal, 28-42.
Gelardini, G. (2019). Faith in Hebrews and Its Relationship to Soteriology: An Interpretation in the Context of the Concept of Fides in Roman Culture. In J. C. Laansma, G. H. Guthrie, & C. L. Westfall, So Great A Salvation: A Dialogue on the Atonement in Hebrews (The Library of New Testament Studies, 516). London, England: T & T Clark.
Hartley, J. E. (1992). Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 4: Leviticus. Dallas, TX: Word.
Hiebert, D. E. (1990). An Expositional Study of 1 John Part 10: An Exposition of 1 John 5:13-21. Bibliotheca Sacra, 146(587), 309-328.
Hodges, Z. C. (2003). Harmony With God Part 3 of 3. Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 09(1), 18-41.
Hoskins, P. M. (2009). Deliverance From Death By The True Passover Lamb: A Significant Aspect Of The Fulfillment Of The Passover In The Gospel Of John. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 52(2), 285-299.
Kambas, M. O. (2006). Greek-English English-Greek Dictionary. New York, NY: Hippocrene Books.
Kauffman, T. F., & Shaughnessy, T. (2017). John Piper on Final Justification by Works. The Trinity Review, 345, pp. 1-14.
Lane, W. L. (1985). Hebrews: A Call to Commitment. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
McKnight, S. (1992). The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions McKnight, S. (1992). The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions. Trinity Journal, 13(1), 20-59.
Montefiore, H. (1964). A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York City, NY: Harper & Row.
Myers, J. D. (2006). The Gospel is More than “Faith Alone in Christ Alone.”. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 19(37), 50-56.
Ross, A. P. (1988). The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Discontinuity. In J. S. Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson. Jr. . Westchester, IL: Crossway.
Smelley, H. (2015). Better with Jesus: A Mission 119 Guide to Hebrews. Houston, TX: H. Smelley.
Stewart, A. (2010). Cosmology, Eschatology, and Soteriology in Hebrews: A Synthetic Analysis. Bulletin for Biblical Research,, 20(1-4), 545-560.
Tanner, J. P. (2006). For Whom Does Hebrews 10:26–31 Teach A “Punishment Worse Than Death”? Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 19(37), 57-77.
Tanner, J. P. (2010). The Epistle to the Hebrews. In R. N. Wilkin, The Grace New Testament Commentary.Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.
Tanner, J. P. (2017). Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Question of Christian Perseverance: A Case for Christian Rebellion Met by Temporal Judgment and Loss of Reward. In F. Chay, & F. Chay (Ed.), A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance. The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press.
Thompson, J. W. (2008). Hebrews. In M. C. Parsons, & C. H. Talbert, Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.
Trotter, A. H. (1997). Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Viola, F. (2017). Rethinking the Spirit. In F. Viola, There Must be More (pp. 347-382). Ocala, FL: Present Testimony Ministry.
Vlach, M. J. (2016). Israel’s Repentance and the Kingdom of God. The Master’s Seminary Journal, 27(1), 161-186.
Vlach, M. J. (2017). He Will Reign Forever: A Biblical Theology of the Kingdom of God. Silverton, OR: Lampion Press.
Walker, W. H. (1903). What Is The Forgiveness Of Sins? Bibliotheca Sacra, 60(237), 158-170.
Wilkin, R. N. (1989). Repentance And Salvation Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance In the Old Testament. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 02(1), 13-26.
Wilkin, R. N. (1998). Does Your Mind Need Changing? Repentance Reconsidered. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 11(1), 35-46.
Wilkin, R. N. (2012). The ten most misunderstood words in the Bible. Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.
Wilkin, R. N. (2020). Salvation As Spiritual Health In 1 Corinthians. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 33(65), 18., 33(65), 18-34.
Woods, A. M. (2006). The Paradigm of Kadesh Barnea as a Solution to the Problem of Hebrews 6:4–6. Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 12(1), 44-70.
Woods, A. M. (2018). The Falling Away: Spiritual Departure of Physical Rapture?: A Second Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Taos, NM: Dispensational Publishing House.
Young, F. (1990). Soteriology. In R. J. Coggins, & J. L. Houlden, A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation.London, England: SCM Press.
Zink, J. K. (1964). Salvation in the Old Testament: A Central Theme. Encounter, 25(4), 405-414.
This is part of my KEDS essays in fulfilment of the requirements for the module “Letter to the Hebrews”. Original title of the assignment: “What contribution does Hebrews make to the soteriology of the New Testament?“
[1] In the Gospel of John, which is normative for the message of eternal life (Jn 20:30-31), and affirms that the only condition for attaining eternal life is faith in Christ (Bing, 1996).
[2] Sometimes referred to as ‘forensic justification’ (Gamble, 2017).
[3] The Greek word literally means to “share/participate in” (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, & Gingrich, 2000); in modern Greek, it is commonly used for “shareholder” (Kambas, 2006, p. 112), which lends credence to the doctrine of rewards and the idea that believers will have different statuses in the Messianic Kingdom based on their works and ongoing faithfulness (Dillow, 2017).
[4] From what we learnt about the common underlying theme of the warning passages, we can safely assume these views would be similar for the other warnings.
Leave a Reply to Mark A DelSignore Cancel reply