Discipleship and Evangelism: What God has joined, let no man separate

I’ve often heard people divide what the church does into categories like worship, evangelism, discipleship, fellowship, etc.  Some speak of these things as if they were totally distinct categories with well-defined borders.  I’m not so sure that is the case of most of those categories (Is there no worship when we evangelize?  Is there no fellowship when discipleship is happening?), but I’m certain we’ve often made too sharp of a distinction in the way we sometimes distinguish discipleship and evangelism.

It appears that some of us have too narrow a view of discipleship and evangelism.   Those who view evangelism as “reaching out” and “discipleship” as “growing within” have a point, I guess.  Yet if we define evangelism as “proclaiming the gospel” and discipleship as “learning from Jesus” then in a way discipleship is evangelism and evangelism is discipleship. 

Think about it this way . . .  what’s the “go to” verse for doing “evangelism” (at least on a global scale)?  Matthew 28:18-20 seems to be prominent in this regard.  But what does this passage actually say?

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”  (NIV)

Here is it obvious that “discipleship” is linked to “evangelism.”

Now think about what Paul says to the church in Rome in Romans 1:15.

So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (ESV)

If evangelism is “proclaiming the gospel”, then Paul was going to evangelize the Roman church as well as those who did not know Christ (Romans 15:20) because the Roman church seems to be included in the “you” of the statement, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.”  This point fits with all of Paul’s other epistles as well.  He doesn’t leave the gospel behind in any of these letters, but continues to proclaim the good news as he seeks to see the church “discipled” (although he never uses this term) in the ways of the Lord. 

The point is this: perhaps discipleship and evangelism, defined simply as above, are more connected than we sometimes think.  It appears that biblically speaking, the Church needs to “disciple” those who are being “evangelized” as well as “evangelize” those who are being “discipled.”

Jesus: Author? Pioneer? Founder? of Faith

Hebrews 12:2 describes Jesus as ton thj pistewj archgon kai.teleiwthn which has traditionally been rendered something along the lines of ”the author and finisher of our faith.”

We should note the “our” in this translation does not correspond to anything explicit in the Greek text.  Thus the “our” must be inferred.  While this inference isn’t terrible, I think it is mistaken on the basis of what the phrase as a whole means. 

As we look at the phrase as a whole, some bible students are convinced that “author” and “finisher” (0r perhaps, “perfecter”) are the best translations since teleiwthn as “finisher” seems to require archgon to be “author.”   More recent scholarship and translations have rendered archgon differently.  Some opt for “founder” (see ESV).  Others opt for “pioneer” (see NRSV).

“Founder” is not that far removed from “author”, although it provides some distinct nuances.  “Pioneer” is good in that it connects to what the author of Hebrews says in 6:20 . . . that Jesus is our forerunner.  The idea is that Jesus “runs ahead” of his followers leading them into glory (2:10).

When I wrote my ThM thesis at Duke, I believed “pioneer” was the best translation.  Yet since that time I’ve become more convinced that William Lane was right to render archgon as “champion.”  

As I’ve pondered this issue over the last several years, thinking through the argument and theology of Hebrews again and again, “champion” has made more and more sense  to me.  I agree fully with this quote from Lane’s Commentary on Hebrews . . .

The dense expression . . . is extraordinarily concise and resists facile translation. It must be given precision in the light of the larger developments in Hebrews.

Lane’s own translation of the phrase in 12:2 is as follows . . .

. . . Jesus, the champion in the exercise of faith and the one who brought faith to complete expression . . .

Putting the two terms together seems to work better than seeing the phrase as explaining two opposite pictures of what Jesus does (he is the “author” or th”pioneer” and the “finisher”).  This nuance may be there, but it seems that when we read the terms as working together to get a similar point across, the result is squarely in touch with the race metaphor of 12:1 and the fact that Jesus has finished the race of our salvation on our behalf.   Because he finished the race (so to speak) he is the first . . . not only in the sense of pioneering, but in the sense of “winning.”   While it is true “author” seems to fit the connection with “finisher,” and “pioneer” seems to fit the forerunner langauge in 6:20, the emphasis of the whole of this “sermonic epistle” and the context of Hebrews 12 itself leads me to believe the “champion” nuance is best. 

 Such a translation clearly demonstrates Jesus as the epic hero.  He demonstrated faith, faithfulness, and endurance to bring salvation to all who would fix their eyes on him.  And because of this he serves as our ultimate encouragement and supreme example of faith. 

 

 

Implicit Christology in Luke 13:17?

Could the allusion to Isaiah 45:16 (LXX) in Luke 13:17 provide an implicit statement of Luke’s Christology?  The phrase pa,ntej oi` avntikei,menoi auvtw/ (all who were opposed to him), which is shared by both the LXX translation of Isaiah and Luke, points to the shaming of opponents.  It is true that Isaiah uses the verb aivscu,nw while Luke uses kataiscu,nw, yet any difference in meaning is minimal.  In Isaiah the dative masculine personal pronoun certainly refers to o` qeo.j tou/ Israhl swth,r (the God of Israel, Savior), while in Luke the referent is Jesus as the opposed one. 

I don’t want to make hasty conclusions, but Luke’s use of this phrase, coupled with the fact that Jesus is explicitly called swth,r  in Luke’s Gospel (2:11), is highly suggestive.  Earlier in Luke’s narrative, another Sabbath incident causes Jesus to proclaim, ku,rio,j evstin tou/ sabba,tou o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath).  Luke’s use of  ku,rio,j (Lord) in 13:15 recalls that statement of authority, which is vividly demonstrated by the power he displays to declare deliverance to the crippled woman. 

Could it be that Luke also had in mind the next verse in the LXX (Isaiah 45:17) which states, Israhl sw,|zetai u`po. kuri,ou swthri,an aivw,nion ouvk aivscunqh,sontai ouvde. mh. evntrapw/sin e[wj tou/ aivw/noj (Israel is saved by the Lord with a salvation of the age: they shall not be ashamed nor confounded unto the age)?  If so, Luke is making a subtle point about who he believes Jesus to be.

One of my favorite Calvin quotes

“By nature I love brevity.”
John Calvin on page 685 of his 1,521 page work, Institutes of the Christian Religion.

My 5 “De-Christian” Doctrines

I encountered an interesting challenge last week on T.C. Robinson’s blog.  The gist of the challenge was to list 5 doctrines taught within the church that I believe to be deeply de-Christian.

One may ask . . . what does de-Christian mean?  The prefix “de-” can mean:    

1) “down” or ”away”

2) completely

3) removal or reversal

Based on the answers I’ve seen given by others concerning this challenge, I’m going to assume the meaning intended is more about “moving away from Christianity” or the “reversal of Christianity” than a doctrine being “completely Christian.”

So here’s my list (with some explanatory comments) concerning what I have seen taught (sometimes implicitly) in the church that moves away from, or is the reversal of, biblical faith (there are other things I could mention, but the challenge was for 5 . . . and these are 5 of the ones I think are easy to overlook). 

1)      The “god” we worship is a generic god.

I realize no one really uses this language about God in any explicit teaching, but the message may be implicit nonetheless.  Christians believe the Scriptures teach us that God is Triune.  The one true God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Yet sometimes this doctrine is basically relegated to theology classes (if we have them), Trinity Sunday (if we  celebrate such a day), or when we sing “Holy, Holy, Holy” (if we sing this hymn).  Thus when we attend worship services, we sometimes hear generic “god-talk” rather than a robust Trinitarian understanding of who God is.  When this happens, sermons are preached in which the name of Jesus is never mentioned, let alone the Holy Spirit.  Songs and prayers address a “generic” God, without so much a mention of Father, Son, and Spirit.  If God is Triune, then why would we speak as if he is not?     

2) Theology and practice are completely two separate entities.

One error I see on many fronts in the church is the tendency to separate theology and practice.  This happens in two different ways.  First, it happens when people believe the lie that theology is something dry, dusty, and impractical.  An emphasis is placed on what we do over doctrine.  In some cases, doctrine is seen as a bad thing.  Second, the tendency to separate doctrine and practice comes from well-meaning people who love doctrine.  These folks see doctrine as an end in itself.  In the worst cases, knowing doctrine is really what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

Over against these two extreme views, the Scriptures teach that our theology/doctrine (what we believe) and our practice (what we do) should never be divorced.  In fact, what we believe (our theology and doctrine) shapes what we do (our practice), and our practices themselves are, in a sense, our theology and doctrine (see, for example this post). 

As an aside, what I find humorous about those who say doctrine is not important is that the very statement “doctrine is not important” is part of their doctrine which they believe is important. 

3) The ultimate hope of the Christian is to die and go to heaven.

I’ll quote two authors to get the substance of this point across . . .

First, Ben Witherington from his book, Imminent Domain: The Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration . . .

It is never adequate theology to say, “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through” as if heaven were all that really mattered.  To the contrary, the New Testament suggests just the opposite.  Heaven is simply a place through which believers pass between the time they die and when they are raised from the dead.

Second, N.T. Wright from his book, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church . . .

We should recall in particular that the use of the word heaven to denote the ultimate goal of the redeemed, though of course hugely popularized by medieval and subsequent piety, is severely misleading and does not begin to do justice to the Christian hope.  I am repeatedly frustrated by how hard it is to get this point through the thick wall of traditional thought and language that most Christians put up.  the ultimate destination is (once more) not “going to heaven when you die” but being bodily raised into the transformed, glorious likeness of Jesus Christ. (The point of all this is not, of course, merely our own happy future, important though that is, but the glory of God as we come fully to reflect his image.) Thus, if we want to speak of ”going to heaven when we die,” we should be clear that this represents the first, and far less important, stage of a two-stage process.  Resurrection isn’t life after death; it is life after life after death. 

4)      Defining worship as singing or a service.

This one may be more implicit than explicit, but it is a real problem in some churches.  Sometimes people unwittingly relegate the worship of the Triune God to the time of singing during a service.  They say things such as “The worship during the service was really good today” which when translated means, “The music was really good today, I was really focused on worshipping God when we were singing.” What about the other parts of the service?  Don’t we worship when we listen to the sermon, or when we pray, or when we give tithes and offerings?  Some people understand that since we call it a “worship service” everything we doin that service is an act of worship, not simply the singing.  Yet even this view doesn’t go far enough.  Romans 12:1 indicates that everything we do is in some sense an act of worship.  Every moment we are pulled to worship something.  Do we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to the Triune God of our salvation, or do we offer ourselves to the idols of our own heart?  Christian worship entails all of life.  If we miss this point, we miss what it means to worship in spirit and truth. 

5) The real problem with the world is “those folks out there.”

There is a fairly popular form of preaching that looks around at our society and points out the sins of our age.  While there may be some legitimacy to that kind of preaching, the problem I have is when that is all that is preached.  The underlying message of such preaching may be, “Watch out for these people!  You guys are OK, but be careful of everybody else.”  This type of preaching seems too close to the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector (Luke 18:10-14).  It’s way too easy to see the sins of everybody else and not see the sinful tendencies of our own hearts.  There is a quote, commonly attributed to Leo Tolstoy, that fits this mindset . . .

Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself.

Interestingly enough, the very act of pointing out errors in the teaching of the church at large (as I’m doing in this post) can be a symptom of this very problem.  It’s easy to see the doctrines I see as ”deeply de-Christian” when they are taught by those “out there,” but what about those “deeply de-Christian” ideas and habits of my own heart for which I need to repent?  Doesn’t Jesus say to take the log out of my own eye before I try to remove the speck in someone else’s eye?

May God give me the grace to see that I am what’s wrong with the world, that Christ is my only hope of peace and pardon, and that I need to be transformed by his Spirit to reflect his glory and character more fully.

Quote from Oswald Chambers

A brief quote worth pondering . . .

The greatest competitor of devotion to Jesus is service to him.

 

Talkin’ ’bout my generation?

All three Synoptic Gospel writers cite Jesus saying something like this . . . “Amen, I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32).  This verse tends to be a problem for many commentators, and there have been various ways of dealing with it.  Some of the options offered have been . . .

1) Jesus was mistaken (Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus).

2) The phrase “this generation” should be understood in some other way than in a straightforward, literal reading.  Various suggestions along these lines are:

a) “this generation” refers to people who are evil and resistant to God’s prophets (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke).

b) “this generation” refers to the “generation” of witnesses making disciples of all nations (Elizabeth Achtemeier, “Luke 21:25-36″ in Interpretation  48 Oct 1994).

c) “this generation” refers to Jewish people.

d) “this generation” refers to all humanity.

e) “this generation” refers to the generation that sees the end-time signs (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke).

3) The phrase “until all these things have taken place” could be understood to refer to aspects of the discourse other than the Second Advent.

4) The Son of Man coming in a cloud (referenced earlier in the Synoptics than the statement in question) could be understood in another way (for example, see this post).

5) Richard Pratt argues that prophecy (in Jewish terms) was not usually meant to give a prediction of the future with 100% accuracy, but was given to provoke God’s people to action.  As an example Pratt cites that Jonah predicted, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown,” but because of the repentance of the Ninevites, God held back judgment.  Thus Pratt suggests that it may be possible that Jesus’ words should be seen as a means to stir up repentance, which in turn would delay his coming beyond his current generation (Richard Pratt, “Historical Contingencies and biblical predictions” in J.I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds. The Way of Wisdom: Essays in honor of Bruce K. Waltke).

Personally, I think only #’s 3-5 above are viable options.  I especially can’t agree with Schweitzer that Jesus was mistaken.  In my understanding such a view would undermine what Scripture teaches about Jesus as a whole.  As you might guess by checking out the link above, I lean toward #4.  Yet I’m open to the other views (#3 and #5) as possibilities. 

I would welcome any thoughts by others who have considered these issues.

Grasping the Fullness of the Gospel

I’ve been re-reading Harry Reeder’s book, From Embers to a Flame: How God Can Revitalize Your Church, and once again I’ve found it very encouraging.  One of the more encouraging things about the book is Reeder’s exposition of the gospel of our salvation.  Rather than relegating the gospel to only one aspect of salvation, he relates the gospel to salvation as a whole.  In fact, he basically structures the good news of our salvation on the ordo salutis (the order of salvation).  While I would probably structure my own presentation of the gospel message differently (for one, I would make the centrality of the kingdom more explicit), I find his presentation refreshing, encouraging, and joy inducing.  Thus I present the outline of his presentation (omitting his further explanatory comments for the sake of space) for the edification of all who might read this post.

Reeder’s introductory statement:

The gospel tells us about all the facets of God’s salvation.  To be preachers of the gospel, therefore, we must remember and proclaim all of them . . . God’s gracious salvation includes all the following elements:

1) Salvation from the persuasion of sin – effectual calling.

2) Salvation from the power of sin – regeneration.

3) Salvation from the penalty of sin – justification.

4) Salvation from the position of sin – adoption.

5) Salvation from the practice of sin – sanctification.

6) Salvation from the presence of sin – glorification.

One further comment . . .

Note how this view of salvation is not simply about the past.  It does deal with what God has done for believers in the past (effectual calling, regeneration, justification, adoption) but it also looks to what God is doing in the present (sanctification) and also what God will do in the future (glorification).  This demonstrates the gospel of our salvation as a message of grace from start to finish.  There is no point along the way of our sojourn in which God is not active.  Soli Deo gloria!

Some Thoughts on Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes (Hebrew name: Qoheleth, but for simplicity sake, I’ll use “Qoheleth” to refer to author and “Ecclesiastes” to refer to the book itself)  is one of my favorite books of the OT.  Here are some thoughts on how I approach interpreting the book.

1) My starting place is that Ecclesiastes is part of the canon of Scripture.  Thus the teaching of the book should (in some way) be in line with the theology of the rest of Scripture.

2) One should read Ecclesiastes with the end (12:9-14) clearly in mind.

3) Along those lines, I don’t think 12:13-14 contradicts the basic premise of the book as a whole (as many current scholars do). 

 4) Ecclesiastes is part “philosophical” autobiography, part instruction using proverbial wisdom, and part poetic musings.  Given this mixture, I think one should be careful about reading too much into certain statements made in the book.  In other words, I don’t think we should press proverbial or poetic statements further than they were intended. 

5) As I read the book, I try to take note of the various repetitions throughout the book . . . and not just the familiar or obvious ones (such as hábël (I’ll get to what I think this word means in a moment), “chasing after the wind,” “under the sun” {equivalent to “under heaven” and “on earth”}, “negative” words, such as “grievous,” “evil,” “misfortune,” “wearisome,” “pain,” “sorrow,” “grief,” etc.).  Here are some others to take into consideration:

Work words: work, labor, toil, “what is done,” burden (literally, “task”), chasing (literally, “striving”), accomplish, achieve, etc.

Profit words: profit, gain, advantage, achievement, etc.

“Enjoy life” passages: 2:24-25; 3:22; 5:18-20; 8:15; 9:7-9; 11:7-10

Ignorance (especially of God’s ways and the future): 2:19; 3:21-22; 6:12; 7:14; 8:1, 7, 17; 9:1; 10:14; 11:5.

God’s judgment: 3:15, 17; 11:9; 12:14.

6) I understand the nuances of the most infamous of these repeated words –  hábël (literally, “breath”) – differently than the rendering of most translations.  Particularly bad, imho, is the NIV which renders hábël as “meaningless.”  While I think the focus of some other translations are a little better (hábël = “vanity”), I still find them wanting. 

My own take is this . . .

The main theme of Ecclesiastes is that life under the sun is hábël – which I think is better rendered “like a breath.”  How is life under the sun like a breath?

a) a breath is only for a moment . . .  it is fleeting.  Many things in life are fleeting (just like breath is).

b) a breath is insubstantial, intangible . . . it cannot be grasped (or at least it cannot be held long) . . . it is sometimes used as a metaphor for idols since they are “nothing.”  Many things in life cannot be grasped.                 

i) our earthly toil is in many ways profitless (like trying to hold on to a breath)

ii) there are aspects of life that are impossible to understand in any complete way (they are “hard to grasp” mentally).

 7) Theologically speaking, much of the negativity in Ecclesiastes can be understood as a reflection on the work and place of human beings living under God’s curse in a fallen world (Gen 3).

So I see that the overarching purpose of Ecclesiastes is to explain that life “under the sun” is in many ways like a breath (fleeting and impossible to grasp).  Life in this fallen world cannot bring about lasting satisfaction.  Thus, as God’s people, we should revere and obey God while enjoying the present gifts of grace He has given us.

Some of Qoheleth’s subpoints along these lines . . .

1) All our striving does not bring lasting gain to ourselves.

 2) Wisdom is beneficial, but even wisdom (as possessed by humans) has its limits.

 3) Death is the great equalizer.

4) No one can know or control what will happen in the future.

5) No one can fully understand God’s ways.

6) Even though we may not understand our world, everything is ordered by God.

7) Enjoy the little pleasures in life when you can because this is a gift from God.

 8) Our ultimate duty to God is reverence and obedience.

I would be remiss if I did not conclude this post with some thoughts on how Ecclesiastes points to Jesus.  Jesus says in Luke 24:44 . . .

These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you– that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.

If we understand Jesus to say that all the OT is in some way about him, we should read Ecclesiastes with this truth in mind.

So here are some thoughts . . .

I.    Christ is the true “Qoheleth.”

 Qoheleth is the one who assembles the people (in reference to Solomon, primarily this would refer to assembling Israel in worship at the Temple).  Qoheleth is also a wise teacher who gives knowledge to the people.  What he says is “upright and true.”  Qoheleth also gives “hard sayings” that are good for people to think about, but at the same time these words of wisdom can be painful. 

Jesus is the fulfillment of these things.  Jesus truly assembles God’s people in worship through His work as prophet, priest, and king.  He not only speaks wise and true words, He is wisdom (1 Cor 1:30) and He is truth (John 14:6) to us.  He teaches us through His words and by His Spirit (John 14:26).  He shepherds us through various ways, including His truth taught and preached.  Sometimes His words are painful to consider (Matt 10:37-38), but they are good for our souls.    

II.  The whole duty of man is fulfilled by Christ.

According to the end of Ecclesiastes, the whole duty of man is to fear God and obey His commands. 

The gospel is that while we have failed in this duty, Jesus has not . . . and His success in this duty was not only for Himself, but on our behalf.  Christ is our righteousness, our sinless great high priest who was obedient to His Father unto death and who leads us into the presence of the thrice holy God.

III. Final judgment is done by our Savior.

Ecclesiastes reminds us of the coming judgment in which every deed will be exposed for what it is.

Jesus is the only hope for sinners in this judgment, and He is the one who has taken judgment on Himself so that we will no longer be condemned.  At the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10), those who are united to Him have nothing to fear (Rom 8:1-2).        

IV. True gain is found in Christ.

Ecclesiastes demonstrates that gain in this life is like a breath.

The gospel is that true gain is found in Christ.

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.  What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?  Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:34-37)

 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor 15:55-58).

V. Our fallen world experience will end in the new heavens and new earth.

Qoheleth considered life under the sun and found that it is with little to no profit, fleeting, and impossible to understand.  This is because we live in a fallen world.

 The gospel is about how all creation will be transformed into a new heaven and a new earth (2 Peter 2:13).  Sin, death, and pain will be no more and we will know as we are known.   

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.  He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”  He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true” (Revelation 21:1-5).

The “Epistle” to the “Hebrews”?

There are those who argue that the title ”Epistle to the Hebrews” is a grave misnomer because it is not truly an epistle, nor is it probable that it was written for an exclusively Jewish audience.  In the subtitle of his commentary, David DeSilva places the phrase “to the Hebrews” in quotation marks (Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews”), indicating his reticence to agree wholeheartedly with the historic designation.  Bart Ehrman believes the document we call “the Epistle to the Hebrews” is neither an epistle nor written to a Jewish audience.   

While I understand such hesitation among scholars, and even find myself in agreement at times with some of their concerns, I do not think it is best to do away with the historic title.  Here are a few reasons . . .

1) While the majority of “Hebrews” does not resemble an epistle, the last section of chapter 13 is certainly to be read as if tou/logou thj paraklhsewj (literally translated  ”the word of encouragement”) was sent as one.  Yet because the whole of the work seems more like a sermon than an epistle, we could perhaps refer to ”Hebrews” as a “sermonic epistle.”

2) While it is impossible to prove “Hebrews” was sent to an exclusively Jewish community from the document itself (not counting the subscriptions which were added later), it is equally impossible to prove that it was not.  Judicious caution should be exercised before dismissing a longstanding view of the work.

3) The added subscriptions all indicate this document was an epistle sent to “the Hebrews.”  Granted the earliest manuscript we have (P46) is circa 200’s, but this is still evidence that needs to be taken into consideration and not simply dismissed out of hand.  Something from those added subscriptions may be correct.

4) It is more convenient and helpful to use the traditional label than to attempt to create a new one that would be unfamiliar to others.  If we wanted to be safe, we could use the title “The Sermonic Epistle to an Unknown Community by an Unknown Author.”  Such a title may be more accurate to that which we can be certain, but it would also be much more unwieldy.

So until someone produces more certain proof otherwise, I’ll continue to use the title “the Epistle to the Hebrews.”

Now . . . if I could just figure out what to call the “Old Testament!”