“In Truth, God Knows”

There’s a well-known statement that Origen made concerning the authorship of Hebrews. It’s quoted in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (6.25.14). Origen said, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.” Lots of scholars point to this statement as early evidence that Christians have always been uncertain about who wrote Hebrews.

But David Alan Black and some others argue that Origen is here only referring to the amanuensis (secretary); that is, the person who penned the epistle, rather than the actual author who dictated it (see Rom. 16:22).

In response to this argument, David Allen has this to say:

“Writers such as J. Hug, S. Davidson, and D. Black—who argued that Origen’s statement ‘as to who wrote the epistle’ referred to the one who wrote it down for Paul, that is, who functioned as his amanuensis or translator—find themselves swimming upstream against the context and usage of the Greek ho grapsas” (Hebrews, NAC, p. 32).

As for swimming upstream against the context, here’s the fuller context of Origen’s statement:

“If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote [ho grapsas] the epistle, in truth, God knows.”

It seems to me that, in Origen’s view, Hebrews is just as much the words of Paul as the Sermon on the Mount is the words of Jesus. It’s true that Jesus was not the one who wrote down the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew did. But if I want to quote a statement from the Sermon on the Mount, I’m typically going to preface it with “Jesus said” rather than “Matthew said,” even though I recognize that Matthew was the one who actually wrote the words down.

I’ve transcribed sermons and lectures before. And one of the things you learn as you transcribe is that when spoken words are being turned into written words, there will inevitably be times when you have to smooth out the language. And many times the decisions I make as a transcriber will reflect my own writing style. But when I’m all done transcribing, I won’t have something that I can call my own work. Because it’s not my own work; it’s the work of the preacher or teacher.

Which is why Origen says that anyone who holds Hebrews to be from Paul should be commended — because he viewed the epistle/sermon as ultimately Paul’s work. Though in this case, maybe it’s better to say that Hebrews was not so much the work of an amanuensis, but rather a transcriber. Perhaps the person took notes as he heard Paul’s sermon preached and then later filled out the notes into a complete written sermon.

Now, understand that we’re still only talking about Origen’s view. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with his assessment; I’m just trying to understand his view as he actually expresses it. And in my judgment, Origen held that Hebrews was far more Pauline than most scholars would have us think. Origen would have been entirely comfortable prefacing a quotation from Hebrews with “Paul said,” and in fact, he does this himself on multiple occasions. See the long list of examples in Black’s short book, The Authorship of Hebrews.

As for swimming upstream against ho grapsas (the words “who wrote”), consider that Tertius described his own work as an amanuensis using the exact same words: “I Tertius, who wrote [ho grapsas] this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom. 16:22).

Allen writes:

“Mitchell noted the many places in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History where the Greek verb graphō (‘to write’) ‘refers both to authorship and to actual penning’ and thus concluded ‘Black’s distinction between author and amanuensis cannot be maintained in light of this evidence’” (Hebrews, NAC, p. 32).

But there are a number of problems with that. First off, Eusebius is quoting a statement made by Origen. So what matters is how Origen uses graphō; not how Eusebius uses it.

Second, for what it’s worth, there is a place where Eusebius talks about the amanuenses of Origen, and he describes them as being skilled in kalligraphein (“elegant writing”), a word clearly related to graphō.

But aside from that single instance, I’m not aware of any other place where Eusebius even mentions the task of an amanuensis. In which case, Mitchell’s argument turns out to be based on a remarkably unfair standard. If you never talk about what an amanuensis does, then of course you’re not going to use graphō to describe the task of an amanuensis.

But what term would Eusebius have been expected to use in describing what an amanuensis does? It seems reasonable enough to assume that he would have been perfectly comfortable using the same word that Tertius used in Romans 16:22, namely graphō. Why not?

Against a Pauline Hebrews

The HCSB Study Bible articulates some standard arguments against the Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

“The text of Hebrews does not identify its author. What we do know is that the author was a second-generation Christian, for he said he received the confirmed message of Christ from ‘those who heard’ Jesus Himself (2:3). Because Paul claimed his gospel was revealed directly by the Lord (1Co 15:8; Gl 1:12), it is doubtful that he was the author of Hebrews.”

That’s a worthwhile argument, but I think it’s far from decisive. Hebrews 2:3 reads, “It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard.” The first clause refers to Jesus’s preaching of the gospel during his earthly ministry with the original twelve disciples (i.e. “those who heard”). The word translated “attested” is actually rendered as “confirmed” in most English translations. The idea is that “those who heard” had “confirmed” this writer’s message – which sounds a whole lot like Paul’s interaction with Peter, James, and John as described in Galatians:

“And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:9).

And again, the HCSB Study Bible:

“The author was familiar with Timothy, but he referred to him as ‘our brother’ (13:23), rather than as ‘my true son in the faith,’ as Paul did (1Tm 1:2).”

This, on the other hand, is a terrible argument. You would expect Paul to use more affectionate language when writing directly to Timothy than when writing to others about Timothy. Besides, Paul refers to Timothy as “our brother” in multiple other letters (2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1:1). Consider also Romans 16:21, where Paul refers to Timothy simply as “my fellow worker.” Does all this count as evidence that Paul wasn’t the author of these letters, since he didn’t use a more affectionate designation for Timothy? Of course not.

Augustine on 1 Timothy 2:4

A brief postscript to my previous post on 1 Timothy 2:4. There I said that Augustine held to the third view, which is true. But it turns out that he actually articulated both the third view and the second view.

Here’s Augustine articulating the third view:

“Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will. . . . And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: ‘The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:’ not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him.”

But right after this, Augustine goes on to articulate the second view:

“Or, it is said, ‘Who will have all men to be saved;’ not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will . . ., but that we are to understand by ‘all men,’ the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men.”

So Augustine seems to have held that both these interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4 were reasonable options. The quotes are from The Enchiridion, ch. 103.

All People

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

This passage is often wielded against a Calvinistic understanding of election and regeneration. So I figured it would be good to write out some thoughts on it. To my knowledge, this passage, and specifically God’s desire for “all people to be saved” has historically been understood in basically three ways.

1. “All people” refers to every individual human being. 

2. “All people” refers to all kinds of human beings. 

3. “God desires all people to be saved” means that everyone who is saved, is saved because God desires them to be so.

Which of these three views do I hold personally? For a long time now, I’ve vacillated between the first and second. I think the first view has the appeal of being the most natural reading. The second view, while not quite as natural, is still entirely reasonable, and makes for less theological tension. The third view is interesting (and Augustine held to it, just saying), but it’s contextually cumbersome.

Let’s start with the third view and work backwards. When Jesus healed a deaf man in Mark 7, the crowd responded by saying, “He has done all things well” (Mark 7:37). They did not mean that Jesus had actually done all things, period. The point was that everything Jesus did do, he did well. Consider a further example of another Greek writer, Clement of Rome, using a similar way of speaking:

“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men.”

Clement does not intend to say that God has actually justified every human being. In context, what he’s saying is that everyone who has ever been justified was justified in the same way, namely by faith. So even though Clement says that “God has justified all men,” he’s actually only talking about the people that God has, in fact, justified.

A similar thing could be going on in 1 Timothy 2:4. It might be that the point is not to say that God desires the salvation of every human being in some potential sense, but rather that everyone who is actually saved is only saved because God desired it to be so. No one has ever been saved without God desiring them to be saved. He desires the salvation of all people – that is, all people who are actually saved.

Now, I don’t anticipate that this interpretation will gain much of a following. And while I do think it’s at least linguistically feasible, and thus not as absurd as some people might immediately think, I don’t think it fits well with the point Paul is making in the passage. But since this was the way Augustine interpreted the verse, I figured it was at least worth an honorable mention.

Let me now try and defend the reasonableness of the second view, that “all people” refers not to every single human being, but to all kinds of people. The Greek word for “all” is pas. Consider a few examples of this word being used in Scripture.

Jesus says to the apostles, “You will be hated by all [pas] for my name’s sake” (Matt. 10:22). Now, since Jesus used the word all, does that mean we’re supposed to think that every human being would hate the apostles? Of course not. There were thousands of people who did not hate the apostles and their message. The most sensible way to understand Jesus here is that he’s referring to all kinds of people. Whatever tribe, tongue, or nation that the apostles would come in contact with, they could count on facing opposition. They would be hated by all – which is to say, all kinds. And Jesus doesn’t have to specify the word “kinds” because it’s simply inherent to one of the ways pas can be used.

In Acts 22:15, Ananias says to Paul, “You will be God’s witness to all people of what you have seen and heard.” I don’t think Ananias was trying to say that Paul would be a witness to every human being. Here it’s far more natural to understand the word “all” in a general sense. Paul would be a witness to all kinds of people. He would be the apostle to all Gentile nations.

Consider also that in 1 Timothy 6:10 (“The love of money is the root of all [pas] evil”), many English translations render pas as “all kinds.” This is simply a reasonable way that the word pas can be faithfully translated.

So given these things, it’s very possible that this is the sense in which “all” should be understood in 1 Timothy 2:1-4. In which case, Paul is calling Timothy, in verse 1, to pray for all kinds of people. This would fit naturally with verse 2, where Paul goes on to specify particular classifications: “for kings and all who are in high positions.” And I see no reason not to assume that the “all people” of verse 1 is the same “all people” of verse 4. So likewise, the point of verse 4 would be that God desires the salvation of all kinds of people. People from every walk of life, every social class. Every tribe, tongue, and nation. God does not discriminate between Jew and Gentile, or between kings and commoners.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the first view is actually correct, that God desires the salvation of every individual human being. Would this undermine a strong Calvinistic understanding of election and regeneration? I don’t think so. John Piper has written a pretty careful article in which he argues that God’s choice of only some people for salvation is not inconsistent with his desire for all human beings to be saved. And he backs up his case with numerous lines of biblical evidence. I commend that article to you.

Moreover, consider a statement that Paul himself makes in his next letter to Timothy:

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

Here we see that the way in which people come to a knowledge of the truth is by God’s granting them repentance, which is being clearly presented as something that God may or may not choose to do. So even if we affirm that God desires every human being to come to a knowledge of the truth (as in 1 Tim. 2:4), we’ve still got to reckon with the fact that God does not always grant what is necessary in order for people to come to that knowledge. No one’s escaping this mystery.

Panta ta Ethne

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations [panta ta ethne], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

In order to better understand the Great Commission, John Piper endeavors to list and discuss every NT occurrence of the Greek phrase panta ta ethne – “all the nations” (Let the Nations be Glad, pp. 186-89).

But while Piper claims to include every occurrence of the phrase, for some reason he leaves out Romans 16:26, which incidentally uses panta ta ethne in a way that undercuts his understanding of the Great Commission as a perpetual mandate for all Christians.

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages, but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations [panta ta ethne]” (Rom. 16:25-26).

Not that he left this one out intentionally or anything. I’m just saying.

Salvation On Its Way

Charles Spurgeon gave this memorable summary of definite (i.e. limited) atonement:

“We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.”

Contrarily, advocates of general atonement argue that Christ’s death, strictly considered, did not actually save anyone. Rather, his death simply made all men savable. At this point, definite atonement advocates may struggle with how best to tease these things out. After all, what about our conversion in the here and now? Is the new birth somehow unnecessary if Christ’s death and resurrection effectively saved us?

I think the trouble arises because of our common tendency to speak of salvation monolithically. That is, we talk like salvation only means one thing, as if once you’re saved, you’re saved in every sense of the word. But I don’t think this is the way God wants us to think about salvation. Because in Scripture, salvation is spoken of not only with respect to the past and present (Rom. 8:24; 1 Cor. 1:18), but also with respect to the future:

“Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Heb. 9:28).

“. . . kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:4-5).

So right now, at this moment on January 29, 2015, I am indeed saved. And yet, at the same time, I’m not yet saved in the fullest sense of the word; because the Bible tells me Jesus is bringing more. I am saved, and I will be saved. There is no discrepancy here if we’re thinking biblically.

Now given that Scripture itself sets up this “already/not yet” category, I don’t have a problem rewinding the progression back a step and applying it to our original question. Did Christ’s death on the cross actually save anyone? Yes, it did.

“. . . having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14).

“Those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15).

When Jesus died, my sin debt was cancelled. When Jesus died, I was redeemed. So it’s hardly a stretch to say, with Spurgeon, that when Jesus died, I was saved. But even so, I had yet to be saved in a more complete sense. My salvation had been secured by Christ’s work, but I still needed to be converted. I still needed to be born again and brought from death to life on September 1, 1996. Once that happened, I was saved in a fuller and more realized sense. And even today, I understand that I’m still not yet saved in the fullest and most realized sense. That final salvation, though secure, is still on its way.

Ironlinks 1.24.2014

C. S. Lewis On The KJV | Mark Ward

“God did not generally inspire the apostles to choose an elevated form of Greek, so an elevated form of English is not a truly accurate translation of the New Testament. God spoke in the respectable language of the contemporary common man, and so should Bible translations.”

Supreme Court to Hear Marriage Challenge: How Should Christians Respond? | Andrew Walker

“What should we do in the meantime? Continue to assault the foundations of the Sexual Revolution, love your neighbor who may strongly disagree, build strong families, vote, get connected to a local church, worship weekly, and remember that Jesus, not Justice Kennedy, sits at the right hand of the Father. Remember also that a church in exile is never a church in retreat.”

A Hint of Thermidorian Reaction? | Carl Trueman

“This highlights an ongoing acrimonious debate over the status of transgender women which is dividing the feminist movement. It is also proof of the old saying: The revolution devours her own children.”

To Parents: Keep Reading Out Loud | Mark Bauerlein

“A child can understand words read aloud more easily than words in a book. A parent’s voice adds tone, cadence, volume, and other non-verbal markers of meaning, elements a child has to create on his own when he reads. This means that a child can understand a more advanced book with more sophisticated words and ideas if he hears it.”

How incest exposes the emptiness of “marriage equality” | Denny Burk

“This story about incest exposes the fact that consent alone is not enough to ground a sexual ethic. Nor is it sufficient to define who should be allowed to marry. It also shows that when proponents for ‘marriage equality’ say that any two people who love each other ought to have the right to marry, they don’t really mean it. The possibility of state-sanctioned incest proves that.”

Lost knowledge | Steve Hays

“So even though a modern reader finds the relationship between [Matthew and Luke’s] respective genealogies puzzling, that doesn’t mean one or both are wrong. Rather, that means we are missing something that was clear to Matthew, Luke, and the intended audience. A bit of inside knowledge that was lost over time.”

One of the Clearest (and Earliest) Summaries of Early Christian Beliefs | Michael Kruger

“This is a surprisingly thorough and wide-ranging summary of core Christian doctrines at a very early point in the life of the church.  And it was this form of Christianity that was publicly presented to the Emperor. Once again, we can see that core Christian beliefs were not latecomers that were invented in the fourth century (or later), but appear to have been in place from the very beginning.”

Are You High? High Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Won’t End Debate | Mollie Hemingway

“But hoo boy is it going to be a surprise to the New York Times and its readers when they learn that there is a fundamental conflict between Americans about what marriage is, how it’s defined, what its limits are, and what its aims are. And we haven’t even gotten to the part where people start thinking deeply about the issue.”

The Prodigal and the Cross | Peter Leithart

“The Prodigal Son parable (Luke 15) has been a favorite of liberal theologians for a couple of centuries. It seems to be a parable designed for liberal sensibilities: An indulgent, accepting Father; forgiveness extended without a cross; a surly older brother who might represent the ‘conservative’ face of religion who demands reciprocity and fairness.”

9 Myths About Abortion Rights and Roe v. Wade | Kevin DeYoung

“The fact is that abortion was rare well into the nineteenth century. Almost all abortion methods before then were ineffective or potentially dangerous to the mother. True, unwanted children were still terminated, but this was done by killing newly born children. If abortion is to be considered a common practice throughout history, the method was infanticide or abandonment.”

A few thoughts about “American Sniper” | Denny Burk

“In other words, there really is good and evil in the world, and that fact comes out clearly in the movie. You end up loving Chris Kyle because he looked that evil in the face and charged toward it without flinching. He was an unabashed patriot.”