A Proposed Interpretation of Hebrews 9:15-22

“15Therefore He is the mediator of the New Covenant, so that those called for an eternal inheritance might receive the promise, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16For where there is a covenant, it is necessary for the one making the covenant to proffer a death. 17For a covenant is secured by deaths, since it is never strong whilst the one making the covenant is alive.

         18Therefore not even the first covenant was established apart from blood. 19For after all the commandments had been spoken in accord with the Law by Moses to all the people, he, taking the blood of young-bulls and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkled both the book and all the people. 20He did this saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21And both the tent and all the vessels used for ministering were likewise sprinkled with blood. 22Now it is almost the case that under the law everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”


The majority—if not all—of commentators understand a shift in these verses from the ‘covenants’ to the more specific form of a covenant known as a will (both the same word, διαθηκη, diathēkē). The problem, as I see it, is that the meticulous argumentation the author of Hebrews uses falls apart on this translation—the parallels drawn are purely verbal (a death occurs in both cases), not conceptual. Yet, there is another way to translate this verse. I suggest that the author is presupposing what he has established and what the OT and NT teach, that covenants require priestly sacrifices to cover the transgressions of their sinful participants (v. 15, 22): only if the sin problem is dealt with can the covenant be valid.

Why then is a death required to make the covenant secure? Because the sinful transgressions of the one side making the covenant require redemption. It is not that “wherever there is a will, the death of the one making it needs to be demonstrated”: the idea that we receive our inheritance because of a will, contingent upon the death of the one making the will, is not found elsewhere in Hebrews or in the Bible—our inheritance does not rest in the death of the one from whom we receive it but in Jesus Christ’s receiving of the inheritance through perfect obedience and our participation in His inheritance.

A better interpretation is to read διαθηκη (diathēkē) as ‘covenant’ and understand the genitive του διαθεμενου (tou diathemenou, “of the one making it”) not with θανατοv (thanaton, “death”) but αναγκη (anankē, “necessity”): where there is a covenant, “where there is a covenant, it is necessary for the one making the covenant to proffer a death.” That is, the one making a covenant needs to provide a sacrifice. Why? because “a covenant is secured by deaths”: notice the plural, the one making a will cannot die multiple times, but one making a covenant can slaughter many animals (v. 19). Why do we need the deaths of animals, or in this case Christ? Because “[the covenant] is never strong while the one making the covenant is alive”: if it was a covenant between God and God this would not be true, but in the case of finite and sinful men and women, every moment the human partner is alive, the covenant is in jeopardy! Any sin could snap the covenant, so it needs a sacrifice so that no matter the mistakes they make in their life, the covenant is upheld.

The logic then makes sense: why is a death necessary? because finite men and women necessitate it. Why can we, then, receive the promise? Because Jesus has died once for all time securing for us the forgiveness of sins and redeeming transgressions so that the New Covenant would be valid and secure in the place of the old.

Towards a Biblical Theology of Imputation: a Consideration of an Old Testament Root for Christ’s Imputed Righteousness in Romans

In this paper, it is argued that Paul teaches imputed righteousness in Romans and that this doctrine has its roots in the Biblical storyline invoked by Paul in the introduction of the letter. Genesis 15:6 is discussed as the primary Old Testament text that anticipates imputation, but Habakkuk 2:4 is referenced as an essential step in the progressive revelation of the doctrine.

It can be read at Academia.edu

A Review of Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism

In this concise volume, Grudem has provided a tremendous resource for those who are looking for Biblical answers in the Gender role debate. With stellar scholarship, Grudem answers many claims made by Egalitarians with sound biblical exegesis, biblical language skills, and astute logic. If your an Egalitarian and don’t have time to read Grudem’s larger volume, read this. If your are a Complimentarian, read this!If you are undecided, definitely read this. The issue of gender roles is relevant to both daily life in the Body and our hermeneutic.

His discussion of 1 Timothy 2:12 is especially useful, with both solid exegesis in context and a discussion of the word “to exercise authority” αυθενtεω (authenteo, to exercise authority).



A Review of Leading The Team-Based Church by George Cladis

Have you ever read a book and found a really blatant error on the first few pages, then found yourself turned off from the rest of the book and getting nothing out of it? This unfortunately happens to me a lot, it’s a tendency I have to fight a lot. This was largely my experience with reading the book Leading the Team-Based Church by George Cladis. Unfortunately in this book the error wasn’t a menial point that I was nit-picking, it wasn’t a statement that had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the thesis of the book; it was the entire spine of the book.

In this book Cladis writes about team-based church ministry from his experience as a Presbyterian minister. Throughout the book he explains what team-based ministry looks like and attempts to show the accuracy of his thesis, that “Team-based ministry is the most effective model for leading and organizing Christian ministry for the twenty-first century” (xi). On page one he writes; “The concepts and techniques for building effective church teams must first have a biblical and theological model that gives spiritual direction to team formation. Chapter One provides such a model and gives the theological grounding for everything that follows. It is the linchpin for the whole book” (1). It is this linchpin, the first chapter—his “theological” model—that undermines the entire book.

In the first chapter he outlines his biblical case for the model of team-based leadership; it is based on the word Perichoresis. This is a Greek word used by the early church father John of Damascus to describe the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. Cladis explains that this word literally means “circle-dance” and describes a dynamic relationship between the Trinity that “implies intimacy, equality, unity yet distinction, and love” (4). This model of relationship is the foundation for Cladis’ model; a model based of a loving, leveled (in the sense of authority), covenanting, and equal team. This model right here, the Perichoresis model for team leadership, is where the problems arise. Cladis writes in the introduction to part one that a model for effective leadership must have a biblical and theological framework to give direction to team formation (1). This was a very promising start for me as I read the book, but from the first chapter I was turned off from the content of the book because of, what I believe, to be a failure to meet this criterion. Cladis does not cite any Scripture to support the ideas he presents in the first chapter. He presents the idea of Perichoresis used by John of Damascus as an accurate description of the Trinity without looking to Scripture to confirm this. He cites only two Scriptures in this chapter (at least in his explanation of Perichoresis).

He claims that 1 Cor. 12-14 supports the perichoretic idea of a flattened structure for church (i.e. no hierarchy) (pg. 5). This Scripture is not talking about hierarchies at all; what 1 Cor. 12-14 is saying is that we are all equal in worth and value to the Church. As believers each of us has been gifted in such a way to be unique and invaluable ministers in the Church; we are not to envy each other’s gifts because we each have been gifted in a unique way solely on the basis of the Spirit’s sovereign will (1 Cor. 12:11, 14-20). We are each invaluable for ministry, but this does not mean that there is no hierarchy of leadership or authority (not value) in the Church. The second Scripture is from Matthew 28, all Cladis is using this verse for is to make a point that the Trinity is central to Christian worship, creeds, and benedictions; therefore it must make a great theological model for leadership in the Church (4-5). For all the weight that Cladis puts on the word “Perichoresis,” building his model on the supposed etymological meaning of this word, it is interesting to note that it does not actually occur once in the Greek of the Bible.

It’s not just that Perichoresis is not found in Scripture, for we use the word “Trinity” to describe our sovereign and glorious LORD and it is not found in Scripture either. The problem would enter the picture if we started to make arguments and points from the inherent meaning of the word “Trinity” and not from the Scriptures and theological truth that we are describing by using the word “Trinity. It’s not just that Cladis builds his model off of a theological model nowhere found in Scripture, but that his model also seems to misrepresent the historical meaning of perichoresis and draws meaning out of it that seems to be, frankly, inconsistent with the Scriptural description of the Trinity. One of the first warning bells that went off in my head is when Cladis writes “Perichoresis means literally “circle dance”” and then goes on to explain how he this “literal” meaning comes from the constituent parts of this word; the Greek words χορευω (choreuō, to dance)[1] and περι (peri, which is a preposition which could mean many things in many contexts, but often “around”).[2] What he is doing here is defining the word according to its etymology, which is dangerous and often considered and exegetical fallacy (the Root Fallacy).[3] The problem is that often words acquire a meaning radically different from their constituent parts. Let’s look at an example in English; if we were to look at the word “butterfly” etymologically we would conclude that a butter-fly was a fly made out of butter, a fly that ate butter, or something equally ridiculous that has nothing to do with the actual nature of the creature it describes. To make matters worse, if we were to take an etymological route (which can sometimes be valid if it sheds light on the primary method for determining meaning, which is the use of a word in context) Περιχώρησις (perichōrēsis) is probably not derived from χoρεύω and περι but περι and χωρέω (chōreō, which means “contain, have room”).[4] Even if it was derived from χορεύω the historical usage of his word departs radically from the meaning that Cladis (echoing Guthrie) is attributing to it. John of Damascus’ use of this word is in reference to the interpenetration of the different members of the Trinity as described in John 14:11 (“I am in the Father and the Father is in me”). It was used to describe a relationship testified to in Scripture that was not truly understand, and still isn’t today. [5] I mentioned that Cladis’ model is also inconsistent with what the few things that Scripture actually has to say on the interpersonal relationship within the Trinity, let’s look at that now.

Cladis sees in this perichōrētic relationship an implication of complete leveling in any seemingly hierarchical structure of roles within Trinity. It is true that within the Trinity each Person is completely equal in value and deity, but Scriptures teaches a difference in roles. Throughout the NT it is always the Father who “initiates and commissions” while the Son carries out the “commission” and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. These relationships stretch beyond a simple economic relationship between creation and the Trinity to the eternal relationship of the members of the Trinity. Within Scripture there seems to be a pretty clear teaching that there is functional (not ontological [which leads to Arianism or a similar heresy]) subordination within the Trinity (John 14:28; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:28). The Son submits to the will of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from both of them; we neglect this truth then many of Jesus’ words about His relationship with God the Father would lead to the conclusion of an ontological difference. Some have suggested that Christ took on a subordinate role only in the incarnation, but this doesn’t do full justice to the texts involved (that being said, in the incarnation His functional role did change, Philippians 2:8 says that He emptied Himself and took on the very nature [role] of a servant; but his does not imply that there was not subordination before the incarnation).[6] There are also clear Scriptures that talk of functional distinction between believers (even though we are all equal in value, Gal. 3:23-29). Some of these include the leadership roles of the elders, deacons, and apostles (e.g. 1 Timothy 2-3) as well as the instructions for wives to submit to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (Ephesians 5:21-30).

There are simply no biblical, theological, or historical grounds for Cladis model and this eviscerates the spine of his book, the part that he himself calls the “linchpin” (1). This trend of building models for relationships and ecclesiological structures out of what is perceived to be the interworking of the Trinitarian relationship has been common in the last 20 or so years. These “Social Trinitarian” models are unfortunate because they divert studies from what Scripture actually has to say about both these relationships and the Trinity to flimsy models built from extreme stretches of supposed implications in Scripture.[7] This made it really hard for me to accept a model based off of this understanding of the Trinity.

Despite all of this, I did learn a little bit from reading this book that will help me in my future. First, reading this book helped me see how my ideas of church ministry were based on bringing myself glory and fame and not building a healthy church that glorifies God. This was a sobering realization and has given me a lot to pray and think about recently. I also found a quote on page 98, about the realization that Eph. 4 teaches the equipping of others for their ministry and not looking at them as team members for my work of ministry, to be very applicable to my thought process and any future ministry I may be involved with. I struggled a lot with this book, but God used it to show me a major weakness in my thinking and hopefully with His help I can work through it and come back to a Christ-, and not self-, centered understanding of ministry.

This book gets a rating of 1/5

Cladis loses one star for the fact that his entire supposedly “theological” and “biblical” model (1-2) is lacking any good exegetical or even historical evidence.

Actually, he loses the next two stars for the same reason; he fails to meet his thesis and support is model.

Lastly, he loses a star because even beyond this failure to provide a sufficient foundation for his model the book was very dry and lacked any profound or even enlightening tips on church structure, leadership, or teams that are not found in other books where they are presented and defended in a much more satisfactory way.




Balswick, Jack O. The Family: a Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Home. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007.

Carson, D. A. Exegetical fallacies. Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster ; Baker Books, 1996.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology : an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press ; Zondervan, 1994.

Kilby, Karen. “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity.” New Blackfriars (October 2000). http://theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/papers/Kilby_TrinNBnew.pdf.

Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Amen House, London: Oxford University Press, 1961. http://www.scribd.com/doc/52903581/G-W-H-LAMPE-A-Patristic-Greek-Lexicon.

Lewis, Gordon Russell, and Bruce A Demarest. Integrative theology : historical, biblical, systematic, apologetic, practical : three volumes in one. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, and J.M. Whiton. A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. Harper & brothers, 1890. http://books.google.ca/books?id=yvQYAAAAYAAJ (accessed April 28, 2013).

Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament). Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, Carl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm, and Christian Gottlob Wilke. Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance numbers. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003.

[1]H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and J.M. Whiton, A Lexicon Abridged from Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Harper & brothers, 1890), 786, http://books.google.ca/books?id=yvQYAAAAYAAJ (accessed April 28, 2013).

[2] Joseph Henry Thayer, Carl Ludwig Wilibald Grimm, and Christian Gottlob Wilke, Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance numbers (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 501–502.

[3] D. A Carson, Exegetical fallacies (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster ; Baker Books, 1996), 28–33.

[4] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), χωρέω.

[5] T.F. Torrance, Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Bloomsbury, 2001), 169–170, http://books.google.ca/books?id=TFUYu5c7a8QC.;; G. W. H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Amen House, London: Oxford University Press, 1961), περιχώρησις, http://www.scribd.com/doc/52903581/G-W-H-LAMPE-A-Patristic-Greek-Lexicon.; Karen Kilby, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,” New Blackfriars (October 2000): 9–10, http://theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/papers/Kilby_TrinNBnew.pdf.

[6] Gordon Russell Lewis and Bruce A Demarest, Integrative theology : historical, biblical, systematic, apologetic, practical : three volumes in one (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 275–277. (cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology : an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press ; Zondervan, 1994), 249.)

[7] Kilby, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity.” For another example of this tendency see the unfortunately unhelpful (in many key areas) textbook by the Balswicks; Jack O. Balswick, The Family: a Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Home, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007).