vs 13
Now, before you think this verse is all about moving to the country, you have to read it in context. This author has consistently been quite picturesque in his metaphors. This is just another metaphor. It is about bearing the shame of Christ, not about leaving cities.
vs 14
And this is the reason why - because we look forward to a city (a life) in heaven. We can't build a life down here. What's the point? We will only die anyway, and in doing so we will have turned our backs on our Lord for the sake of making our short lives comfortable. Instead, we have to weather the pain and suffering of being a servant of Christ, and that then means we are building for ourselves a life in heaven.
Ok, that's the theory. How do we do it?
vs 15
This author suggests a fine way. The "sacrifice of praise", he calls it. Professing faith in Christ. We have to remember that they lived at a time where to stand up and be counted was a painful thing. It had severe ramifications regarding your position according to the government, your employer, and your family. Would it have such implications for you? What if you spoke up more? What if you offered a bit more "sacrifice of praise"?
vs 16
Other sacrifices included here that we are "not to forget", as if we do forget to do them. Which of course we do. I do, anyway. How hard can it be to remember that, as a Christian, we have to do good for people and share with them? And yet we can forget that.
vs 17
I think this is meaning church leaders. But it could mean just leaders generally. I think the word "rulers" would be used to talk about governing bodies though. Anyway, the point of Christians is not to frustrate leaders, but to have confidence in them and submit to their authority. We've pretty much forgotten that church leaders have authority. I am struggling with the "have confidence" bit, but I think I'm getting better.
vs 18
I'm guessing this praying is in the context of this author being some sort of leader.
vs 19
This bit sounds so Pauline. But so much of the letter hasn't.
vs 20
This verse is entirely descriptive. God is the God of peace. His action described was bringing Christ back from the dead. He did this, confusingly, through the blood of the eternal convenant. I don't know what that means. I mean, I know what the blood of the eternal covenant is - that's Christ's blood. But how did he bring Christ back to life through that blood? I don't get that bit.
And Jesus is the great shepherd of sheep, an enduring image that we all know.
vs 21
This prayer is all about equipping to do God's will, and then hoping that God's will is done to his satisfaction. And the only way to do God's will and to do it well is through Christ. We can't please God on our own.
vs 22
Ha. Ha ha ha. I always like this verse.
vs 23
This too sounds Pauline. But everyone loves Timothy, so why couldn't someone else write about him like this? Paul could have even gone further and said, "My dear son, whom I love like a son" or something. But at least we know by this that we're still in central orthodox Christian circles here - no craziness in this book.
vs 24
So we can assume this was written from Italy. Paul went there, but of course he might have died there too. Why Italy and not Rome? I just have to give the KJV here "Those of Italy salute you." Awesome.
vs 25
Indeed.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Hebrews chapter 13
vs 1
The more I think about this relationship that Christians have, the more I think that blood family gets in the way of us accepting it and living it out, especially when that blood family also believes. When you've been excommunicated from your family because you believe and they don't, it's easy to concentrate on the Christian family that loves you. But when you have a blood family who are also Christian family, then there is a danger in overvaluing them, rather than remembering that the blood link is actually only temporal.
vs 2
Lot is the only biblical example I can think of who might not have known he was showing hospitality to angels. But the way this is worded makes it sound like this had been a more recent activity.
So will angels come and knock on our doors now? Well, probably not, if we're not prepared to be hospitable, because our culture doesn't require it so much. Thankfully, church culture still retains a hospitality that welcomes strangers. I hope that remains forever.
vs 3
For those in prison or suffering, being in prison or suffering is very important to them. We need to remember that, and to treat them accordingly. Prison, for example, - they're out of sight, so it's easy for them to become out of mind. But the prison is never out of sight for them.
vs 4
Sexual immorality is one of the top 5 things harped on in the New Testament, I reckon (I haven't counted). I wonder if it was one of the top 5 things that was struggled with too, or whether it was one of the easy things to pick on, as it often is now.
Regardless, it's importance is obvious. Sexual purity is one of those things that marks Christians out as holy.
vs 5
Greed and the love of money get mentioned quite a bit too. Surely this has compounded with our invention of corporations, stocks, and capitalism? The warning about money is the same as it almost always is - our reliance should be on God.
vs 6
If only it was so easy to have this attitude. This attitude acknowledges and accepts that human beings will be out to get you because of your holiness. And then it devalues any negative thing they could throw at you, valuing only what God, Christ and the Spirit can do in our lives.
vs 7
It's a shame if you didn't have great leaders that lived strong lives. But in the more likely event that you did, how often do you reflect on them, on their ability to live a life worthy of your emulation?
vs 8
The ultimate leader never changed, and never will. How worthy is he of your emulation?
vs 9
Grace is not a strange teaching. Anything else that seeks to take its place is. Because if you accept the teachings of the Bible regarding the ultimate futulity and inability of humankind to better its own spiritual circumstance, then you will accept that there is nothing but God's grace that will help.
vs 10
This would be the divine altar, perhaps, or is it the table fellowship of the breaking of bread? I actually like the second one better - the idea that our communion is of so much more value than the tabernacle, that a priest would not be allowed to eat of it (if he had not accepted Christ) really paints a picture of the value of the ritual that we have.
vs 11
Okay. I'll take that as read.
vs 12
Interesting analogy. Did the blood come inside the city? We'll find out tomorrow!
The more I think about this relationship that Christians have, the more I think that blood family gets in the way of us accepting it and living it out, especially when that blood family also believes. When you've been excommunicated from your family because you believe and they don't, it's easy to concentrate on the Christian family that loves you. But when you have a blood family who are also Christian family, then there is a danger in overvaluing them, rather than remembering that the blood link is actually only temporal.
vs 2
Lot is the only biblical example I can think of who might not have known he was showing hospitality to angels. But the way this is worded makes it sound like this had been a more recent activity.
So will angels come and knock on our doors now? Well, probably not, if we're not prepared to be hospitable, because our culture doesn't require it so much. Thankfully, church culture still retains a hospitality that welcomes strangers. I hope that remains forever.
vs 3
For those in prison or suffering, being in prison or suffering is very important to them. We need to remember that, and to treat them accordingly. Prison, for example, - they're out of sight, so it's easy for them to become out of mind. But the prison is never out of sight for them.
vs 4
Sexual immorality is one of the top 5 things harped on in the New Testament, I reckon (I haven't counted). I wonder if it was one of the top 5 things that was struggled with too, or whether it was one of the easy things to pick on, as it often is now.
Regardless, it's importance is obvious. Sexual purity is one of those things that marks Christians out as holy.
vs 5
Greed and the love of money get mentioned quite a bit too. Surely this has compounded with our invention of corporations, stocks, and capitalism? The warning about money is the same as it almost always is - our reliance should be on God.
vs 6
If only it was so easy to have this attitude. This attitude acknowledges and accepts that human beings will be out to get you because of your holiness. And then it devalues any negative thing they could throw at you, valuing only what God, Christ and the Spirit can do in our lives.
vs 7
It's a shame if you didn't have great leaders that lived strong lives. But in the more likely event that you did, how often do you reflect on them, on their ability to live a life worthy of your emulation?
vs 8
The ultimate leader never changed, and never will. How worthy is he of your emulation?
vs 9
Grace is not a strange teaching. Anything else that seeks to take its place is. Because if you accept the teachings of the Bible regarding the ultimate futulity and inability of humankind to better its own spiritual circumstance, then you will accept that there is nothing but God's grace that will help.
vs 10
This would be the divine altar, perhaps, or is it the table fellowship of the breaking of bread? I actually like the second one better - the idea that our communion is of so much more value than the tabernacle, that a priest would not be allowed to eat of it (if he had not accepted Christ) really paints a picture of the value of the ritual that we have.
vs 11
Okay. I'll take that as read.
vs 12
Interesting analogy. Did the blood come inside the city? We'll find out tomorrow!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Hebrews chapter 12
vs 21
It has to be pretty scary if Moses is scared by it.
vs 22
This is substantially better than coming to a flaming mountain. This is the dwelling place of God - an eternal dwelling place, not just a place where he reveals himself. This is where God actually lives.
vs 23
It's also where the church will live. I assume the thing about the spirits of the righteous is to do with martyrs or something? Why they exist as spirits is beyond me. It is possible, I guess, that this is talking about them that way because the resurrection has not yet taken place - that would sort of line up with the picture in Revelation (which I assume hasn't been written yet though).
vs 24
Well, most blood would speak a better word than Abel's, you would think. But perhaps the idea is that Abel's blood spoke against Cain (and sin) because of his murder. Christ's blood could just as easily call out against us because of his own unjust death. But it doesn't, because his blood speaks of life and peace and reconciliation. Much better message.
vs 25
Who is he who speaks? God. Possibly in terms of Christ and his blood, as in the last verse. Who are they who refused him? Israel, I think. Or pretty much anyone. I say Israel because of the quote of Haggai in the next verse. The idea, perhaps, is that God came to earth (on the mountain, or even through the words of the prophet) and gave his warnings. Jesus did this too, sure. But Israel was kinda trapped here on earth. They built their heaven out of a tent.
But our warning comes from heaven, because we have ascended into heaven, we have come to the holy Zion, as it said a few verses ago.
vs 26
So we see that the voice is going to now be all-encompassing. It will be an end of days voice, a Day of the Lord voice.
vs 27
While I was focused on the voice going through earth and also heaven, the author was focused more on the "once more" - the idea that it will be one last time. That which can be shaken will be shaken - only what cannot be shaken will stand.
vs 28
When it says we are receiving a kingdom, I don't think it means as kings. I think it's like receiving a suburb to live in, not to rule over.
Our response to this is to be grateful, and to worship God (pretty much what we will do in the kingdom we receive to live in).
vs 29
It would seem he consumes all that can be shaken, and it is only what stands - Christ, and his work and hence us because we are part of it - that is not consumed. Our sinful natures will be consumed, though, along with our sinful works. Hence the reverence and awe.
It has to be pretty scary if Moses is scared by it.
vs 22
This is substantially better than coming to a flaming mountain. This is the dwelling place of God - an eternal dwelling place, not just a place where he reveals himself. This is where God actually lives.
vs 23
It's also where the church will live. I assume the thing about the spirits of the righteous is to do with martyrs or something? Why they exist as spirits is beyond me. It is possible, I guess, that this is talking about them that way because the resurrection has not yet taken place - that would sort of line up with the picture in Revelation (which I assume hasn't been written yet though).
vs 24
Well, most blood would speak a better word than Abel's, you would think. But perhaps the idea is that Abel's blood spoke against Cain (and sin) because of his murder. Christ's blood could just as easily call out against us because of his own unjust death. But it doesn't, because his blood speaks of life and peace and reconciliation. Much better message.
vs 25
Who is he who speaks? God. Possibly in terms of Christ and his blood, as in the last verse. Who are they who refused him? Israel, I think. Or pretty much anyone. I say Israel because of the quote of Haggai in the next verse. The idea, perhaps, is that God came to earth (on the mountain, or even through the words of the prophet) and gave his warnings. Jesus did this too, sure. But Israel was kinda trapped here on earth. They built their heaven out of a tent.
But our warning comes from heaven, because we have ascended into heaven, we have come to the holy Zion, as it said a few verses ago.
vs 26
So we see that the voice is going to now be all-encompassing. It will be an end of days voice, a Day of the Lord voice.
vs 27
While I was focused on the voice going through earth and also heaven, the author was focused more on the "once more" - the idea that it will be one last time. That which can be shaken will be shaken - only what cannot be shaken will stand.
vs 28
When it says we are receiving a kingdom, I don't think it means as kings. I think it's like receiving a suburb to live in, not to rule over.
Our response to this is to be grateful, and to worship God (pretty much what we will do in the kingdom we receive to live in).
vs 29
It would seem he consumes all that can be shaken, and it is only what stands - Christ, and his work and hence us because we are part of it - that is not consumed. Our sinful natures will be consumed, though, along with our sinful works. Hence the reverence and awe.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Hebrews chapter 12
vs 11
Discipline is meant to be unpleasant. It involves negative reinforcement. Anyone who says anything else denies a key theological concept. The acceptance of negative reinforcement as a legitimate tool of discipline is not only necessary for bringing up children - it is necessary for us understanding in part why God allows really crappy things to happen in our lives. Demonize negative reinforcement, and you lose this principle. So please, for the sake of theology, hit your children. Hard.
Because this next generation of softly-raised kids are not going to be trained in righteousness and peace. Well, that's not actually true. I think it's God's discipline that trains in righteousness and peace, not necessarily a parent's discipline. So God will hit your children hard. If you keep caring for them as if they're a little god idol, then God will hit them with asthma, allergies, cancer and all other sorts of righteousness inducing discipline. You have been warned.
vs 12
Have we left the discipline stage yet, or was having weak knees something worthy of a beating in AD60?
I'm assuming this is not to be taken literally, but then the next verse is quite strange.
vs 13
Let's assume this isn't literal. I think the author here is actually using disability as a metaphor for the weak lives of the readers, who need to be healed in their spiritual life. In saying that, I'm not denying that the Bible is full (well, mostly around Jesus) of stories of the lame being able to be healed. But I don't think that healing the lame was an inbuilt part of church structure. Plus, I don't recall Jesus telling the lame to strengthen their knees - he just healed them. I also think that verse 12 is generally to all readers, not only to disabled people, so in that way the author cleverly uses disability, and it's healing (a pretty uniquely Christian thing at the time, I'm guessing) as a picture of the Christian life.
vs 14
Without "our" holiness. God is not about relevation in miracles and in clouds that are in the shape of Jesus. He reveals himself through the holiness of his disciples.
This verse says two things. One, we are meant to be focused on other people seeing God - that is a mission focus. Second, it is done through a holy life. Wow, do I suck at that.
vs 15
How does one "fall short" of the grace of God? That sort of makes it sound like you have to climb halfway up the mountain, and then grace gets you the rest of the way. We all know that's patently untrue, and that the worst piece of human filth can get straight into heaven from whatever position they find themselves in, thanks to grace.
That's because this verse is not about non-Christians. It's about Christians, and as such we've got to make sure we're living up to the grace we've been given.
Bitterness, I'm guessing in the context of discipline from God, and hence crappy life situations, is apparently a problem in the church. Unsurprisingly, well, to me anyway. But bitterness is not something that should characterise the Christian life, despite how often it might. Because even a crappy life is apparently worth being thankful for. Probably it's those people whose lives just aren't working out nicely that really bitch, like me. People with terminal diseases and such always seem to have some sort of zen about it. I wonder if, in secret, they curse God bitterly for the pain and suffering, of if it is always just their relatives, whom you inevitably meet when you're trying to reach out with the gospel?
vs 16
Sexual immorality and and godlessness seem to be the problems that the author is addressing at this point. Sexual immorality apparently speaks for itself, but godlessness needs an explaination, so that we know it's about selling out your inheritance.
vs 17
This is yet another warning in Hebrews to not let your Christian inheritance be lost forever, because once lost it is not attainable again. Scary stuff. Also confusing. It's interesting that such a person is called 'godless'. I mean, the simple answer to this quandary would be to say, "Well, sure, if you stop believing in God or accepting God, then you can't be saved. But if you stop being godless then you can be saved once more." Sort of like how some people talk about the sin against the Holy Spirit. It just doesn't seem to fit the language though. It seems a bit too much of a truism.
vs 18
Allusions to Israel's history.
vs 19
Again, still the same allusion to the revelation of God on Mount Sinai. Or was it Horeb?
vs 20
That is holiness to the max. Mega holy.
Discipline is meant to be unpleasant. It involves negative reinforcement. Anyone who says anything else denies a key theological concept. The acceptance of negative reinforcement as a legitimate tool of discipline is not only necessary for bringing up children - it is necessary for us understanding in part why God allows really crappy things to happen in our lives. Demonize negative reinforcement, and you lose this principle. So please, for the sake of theology, hit your children. Hard.
Because this next generation of softly-raised kids are not going to be trained in righteousness and peace. Well, that's not actually true. I think it's God's discipline that trains in righteousness and peace, not necessarily a parent's discipline. So God will hit your children hard. If you keep caring for them as if they're a little god idol, then God will hit them with asthma, allergies, cancer and all other sorts of righteousness inducing discipline. You have been warned.
vs 12
Have we left the discipline stage yet, or was having weak knees something worthy of a beating in AD60?
I'm assuming this is not to be taken literally, but then the next verse is quite strange.
vs 13
Let's assume this isn't literal. I think the author here is actually using disability as a metaphor for the weak lives of the readers, who need to be healed in their spiritual life. In saying that, I'm not denying that the Bible is full (well, mostly around Jesus) of stories of the lame being able to be healed. But I don't think that healing the lame was an inbuilt part of church structure. Plus, I don't recall Jesus telling the lame to strengthen their knees - he just healed them. I also think that verse 12 is generally to all readers, not only to disabled people, so in that way the author cleverly uses disability, and it's healing (a pretty uniquely Christian thing at the time, I'm guessing) as a picture of the Christian life.
vs 14
Without "our" holiness. God is not about relevation in miracles and in clouds that are in the shape of Jesus. He reveals himself through the holiness of his disciples.
This verse says two things. One, we are meant to be focused on other people seeing God - that is a mission focus. Second, it is done through a holy life. Wow, do I suck at that.
vs 15
How does one "fall short" of the grace of God? That sort of makes it sound like you have to climb halfway up the mountain, and then grace gets you the rest of the way. We all know that's patently untrue, and that the worst piece of human filth can get straight into heaven from whatever position they find themselves in, thanks to grace.
That's because this verse is not about non-Christians. It's about Christians, and as such we've got to make sure we're living up to the grace we've been given.
Bitterness, I'm guessing in the context of discipline from God, and hence crappy life situations, is apparently a problem in the church. Unsurprisingly, well, to me anyway. But bitterness is not something that should characterise the Christian life, despite how often it might. Because even a crappy life is apparently worth being thankful for. Probably it's those people whose lives just aren't working out nicely that really bitch, like me. People with terminal diseases and such always seem to have some sort of zen about it. I wonder if, in secret, they curse God bitterly for the pain and suffering, of if it is always just their relatives, whom you inevitably meet when you're trying to reach out with the gospel?
vs 16
Sexual immorality and and godlessness seem to be the problems that the author is addressing at this point. Sexual immorality apparently speaks for itself, but godlessness needs an explaination, so that we know it's about selling out your inheritance.
vs 17
This is yet another warning in Hebrews to not let your Christian inheritance be lost forever, because once lost it is not attainable again. Scary stuff. Also confusing. It's interesting that such a person is called 'godless'. I mean, the simple answer to this quandary would be to say, "Well, sure, if you stop believing in God or accepting God, then you can't be saved. But if you stop being godless then you can be saved once more." Sort of like how some people talk about the sin against the Holy Spirit. It just doesn't seem to fit the language though. It seems a bit too much of a truism.
vs 18
Allusions to Israel's history.
vs 19
Again, still the same allusion to the revelation of God on Mount Sinai. Or was it Horeb?
vs 20
That is holiness to the max. Mega holy.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Hebrews chapter 12
vs 1
The reasoning behind throwing off what hinders us and entangles us is the "cloud of witnesses" just alluded to in chapter 11. With that in mind, we can see that this is a call to faith and hope - so it must be sin that entangles us, trapping us from pushing on in hope. Everything that hinders is probably also sin, but might not be - it could be all those things that we keep saying "aren't sinful by themselves" but that do just get in the way because they're not focused on God.
Instead of being entangled, we should be running with perseverance.
vs 2
This, then is to be the model of the Christian life. I much prefer the word 'pioneer' to author. Author just means wrote it. Pioneer means did it first. And Jesus is given the primacy, even temporally, through his life and death. Probably because he was the first one to be resurrected. we won't all be called to go to the cross. But whatever we are called to, will we endure it?
vs 3
That's one of the biggest challenges we face in the western world - so much distraction and entanglement that we grow weary or lose heart. Funny that, through lack of considerable opposition that was faced in the past, we lose heart and grow weary. We grow weary of the soft times. Perhaps we should try and make our lives a little harder.
vs 4
That's almost a comfort to me. Because I've never had to shed blood for being a Christian.
vs 5-6
To us, discipline often means correction for something done wrong. I wonder if there isn't a more pro-active meaning too - that of teaching discipline of life. A positive sort of attitude, if you know what I mean. Is suffering always a chastening? No, Job proves that. But it might be a disciplining, a reminder to focus.
vs 7
Hardship isn't necessarily punishment. After all, a carpenter teaching his son to build will not punish him for hitting himself on the thumb with a hammer - the hardship of a sore thumb is punishment enough. But he will be there to offer words of discipline, "Now you know not to put your thumb there."
vs 8
But hang on - what about all of those illegitimate children of God, those that have not been adopted into the family? They still seem to suffer the same hardships as the righteous.
vs 9
Of course, this is a generalisation, but if you assume that the discipline was done properly, then it is a truism. People who bash their children are not disciplining them, they are assaulting them, and hence don't deserve respect. Sometimes we might feel God is being heavy handed, but since he's perfect, it's hard to criticise his methods. Sometimes threats work with kids - sometimes you have to go through with them so they know you're not messing around.
And that's the thing - if we question God's discipline, even though he's perfect, then we are doing the opposite of what this verse tells us - we are not submitting to his discipline.
vs 10
This verse even allows for the fact that parents can get it wrong. They do what they think is best, but still sometimes stuff up. We might think God has made a mistake, but then that's obviously wrong. He is God after all. If we were to submit to his every discipline, we would be holier than we are. That's a sobering thought.
The reasoning behind throwing off what hinders us and entangles us is the "cloud of witnesses" just alluded to in chapter 11. With that in mind, we can see that this is a call to faith and hope - so it must be sin that entangles us, trapping us from pushing on in hope. Everything that hinders is probably also sin, but might not be - it could be all those things that we keep saying "aren't sinful by themselves" but that do just get in the way because they're not focused on God.
Instead of being entangled, we should be running with perseverance.
vs 2
This, then is to be the model of the Christian life. I much prefer the word 'pioneer' to author. Author just means wrote it. Pioneer means did it first. And Jesus is given the primacy, even temporally, through his life and death. Probably because he was the first one to be resurrected. we won't all be called to go to the cross. But whatever we are called to, will we endure it?
vs 3
That's one of the biggest challenges we face in the western world - so much distraction and entanglement that we grow weary or lose heart. Funny that, through lack of considerable opposition that was faced in the past, we lose heart and grow weary. We grow weary of the soft times. Perhaps we should try and make our lives a little harder.
vs 4
That's almost a comfort to me. Because I've never had to shed blood for being a Christian.
vs 5-6
To us, discipline often means correction for something done wrong. I wonder if there isn't a more pro-active meaning too - that of teaching discipline of life. A positive sort of attitude, if you know what I mean. Is suffering always a chastening? No, Job proves that. But it might be a disciplining, a reminder to focus.
vs 7
Hardship isn't necessarily punishment. After all, a carpenter teaching his son to build will not punish him for hitting himself on the thumb with a hammer - the hardship of a sore thumb is punishment enough. But he will be there to offer words of discipline, "Now you know not to put your thumb there."
vs 8
But hang on - what about all of those illegitimate children of God, those that have not been adopted into the family? They still seem to suffer the same hardships as the righteous.
vs 9
Of course, this is a generalisation, but if you assume that the discipline was done properly, then it is a truism. People who bash their children are not disciplining them, they are assaulting them, and hence don't deserve respect. Sometimes we might feel God is being heavy handed, but since he's perfect, it's hard to criticise his methods. Sometimes threats work with kids - sometimes you have to go through with them so they know you're not messing around.
And that's the thing - if we question God's discipline, even though he's perfect, then we are doing the opposite of what this verse tells us - we are not submitting to his discipline.
vs 10
This verse even allows for the fact that parents can get it wrong. They do what they think is best, but still sometimes stuff up. We might think God has made a mistake, but then that's obviously wrong. He is God after all. If we were to submit to his every discipline, we would be holier than we are. That's a sobering thought.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Hebrews chapter 11
vs 31
I like disobedient more than unbelieving. The story tends to indicate That the Caananites did in fact believe that God was with Israel, and so it was their disobedience to God, their wickedness, that made them ripe for punishment.
vs 32
No time to talk about David! I am surprised that Gideon is in this list, as one of the people who could be pointed to as the most faithless hero of the Bible.
vs 33-37
I don't really know what to say about all these different things. There are actions of faith in what we might call everyday benal activities (like administering justice). There are miraculous things like receiving the dead back to life. Then there are a large number of what you might call persecutions, like being sawed in two (Was that Isaiah? It's not biblical, it's just a Jewish tradition that one of the prophets was sawn in two, I don't remember who it was. No reason to not believe it though.) They may well all be attributable to one person or another (the raising of the dead is likely a reference to Elijah, for example).
The point being that the common factor amongst all these things is faith. But please note that this is a particularly Jewish argument. A humanist, a satanist, or a vegetarian could name their own heroes and say, "The one common factor between all these great achievements is that they believed in the furtherance of humanity, the power of the devil and they all ate vegetables." So there's no point saying "Look at all the things people with faith can do," because people without faith have done almost all these things too.
I think it does illustrate two things, though. One, these people, many of whom were otherwise not special, were able to accomplish things because of faith. Sure, some of them were very special (Samson is an obvious example, although perhaps not of faith, but he is in the list). The second one is discussed further down, but I will basically put as they all shared a common purpose in serving God, in one way or another.
vs 38
The bit I wanted to focus on was "The world was not worthy of them" - a bit of editorial in an otherwise historical list of happenings. And this idea of world unworthiness is really where this list is headed - that the focus of the faithful is on something other than this world.
vs 39
I will just quickly point out that vs 33 does in fact say, "Gained what was promised," so I think we need to realise that that probably means someone gained some specific promise of God, rather than the more general promise of God of the eternal relationship in heaven. Now there are so many questions you can ask here - what about Enoch? Does this mean that all these people are still asleep waiting for the second coming to get itself over with so they can get into heaven? I think we have to read it a little less individually. Abraham has yet to see the fulfilment of all the world being blessed through him. Moses has yet to see God's people be given rest. David has yet to see his son crowned King over God's people for eternity. The promises they worked forward towards were for all of God's people, not just themselves (David's is a bit of a misnomer, but God still uses it as a promise for the people).
When heaven breaks open and a flood of Christians enter, we'll know what it's about.
vs 40
We live on the flip side of Jesus' first coming. But we all will together have lives on the flip side of Jesus' second coming. Except for a handful of people, perhaps, depending on your rapture beliefs. We're all equally waiting for it. Even people like Enoch, because the promise is about more than just one or two individuals who might be in heaven - it's about seeing the whole thing come to fruition.
I like disobedient more than unbelieving. The story tends to indicate That the Caananites did in fact believe that God was with Israel, and so it was their disobedience to God, their wickedness, that made them ripe for punishment.
vs 32
No time to talk about David! I am surprised that Gideon is in this list, as one of the people who could be pointed to as the most faithless hero of the Bible.
vs 33-37
I don't really know what to say about all these different things. There are actions of faith in what we might call everyday benal activities (like administering justice). There are miraculous things like receiving the dead back to life. Then there are a large number of what you might call persecutions, like being sawed in two (Was that Isaiah? It's not biblical, it's just a Jewish tradition that one of the prophets was sawn in two, I don't remember who it was. No reason to not believe it though.) They may well all be attributable to one person or another (the raising of the dead is likely a reference to Elijah, for example).
The point being that the common factor amongst all these things is faith. But please note that this is a particularly Jewish argument. A humanist, a satanist, or a vegetarian could name their own heroes and say, "The one common factor between all these great achievements is that they believed in the furtherance of humanity, the power of the devil and they all ate vegetables." So there's no point saying "Look at all the things people with faith can do," because people without faith have done almost all these things too.
I think it does illustrate two things, though. One, these people, many of whom were otherwise not special, were able to accomplish things because of faith. Sure, some of them were very special (Samson is an obvious example, although perhaps not of faith, but he is in the list). The second one is discussed further down, but I will basically put as they all shared a common purpose in serving God, in one way or another.
vs 38
The bit I wanted to focus on was "The world was not worthy of them" - a bit of editorial in an otherwise historical list of happenings. And this idea of world unworthiness is really where this list is headed - that the focus of the faithful is on something other than this world.
vs 39
I will just quickly point out that vs 33 does in fact say, "Gained what was promised," so I think we need to realise that that probably means someone gained some specific promise of God, rather than the more general promise of God of the eternal relationship in heaven. Now there are so many questions you can ask here - what about Enoch? Does this mean that all these people are still asleep waiting for the second coming to get itself over with so they can get into heaven? I think we have to read it a little less individually. Abraham has yet to see the fulfilment of all the world being blessed through him. Moses has yet to see God's people be given rest. David has yet to see his son crowned King over God's people for eternity. The promises they worked forward towards were for all of God's people, not just themselves (David's is a bit of a misnomer, but God still uses it as a promise for the people).
When heaven breaks open and a flood of Christians enter, we'll know what it's about.
vs 40
We live on the flip side of Jesus' first coming. But we all will together have lives on the flip side of Jesus' second coming. Except for a handful of people, perhaps, depending on your rapture beliefs. We're all equally waiting for it. Even people like Enoch, because the promise is about more than just one or two individuals who might be in heaven - it's about seeing the whole thing come to fruition.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Hebrews chapter 11
vs 21
I guess leaning on your staff might be an idiom for old age. I'm not actually sure why the blessing of Joseph's sons is an act of faith. Is this really the thing we remember Jacob for in regards to faithfulness? Perhaps it is. He's not exactly a model citizen otherwise. Perhaps this is about Jacob accepting God's plan at the end of his time, and so blessing these two boys to show that his blessings will continue past his own children.
vs 22
Now this is a much more easily seen faith position. Joseph trusted God that the exodus would come. Why he wanted his bones moved, well, that's a bit more iffy. But I guess it was because he wanted to be buried with his father.
vs 23
While I am sure that every parent thinks their child is no ordinary child, it's interesting to think that Moses was special in and of himself. That is, Moses was a great man, and even as a child, according to Scripture, this was obvious.
When you think about it, the king's edict must have been pretty scary, because if people were choosing to obey it rather than face the consequences - I mean, you would have to be hella scared to throw your kids into the Nile.
vs 24
Even though it marked him out as a Jew - the slave race in Egypt at the time.
vs 25
I don't know what "pleasures of sin" means. Does this indicate that the people of Pharoah's court were all alcoholic, chain-smoking, whoremongering gamblers? Or does it simply mean sin in that they were not following God' desires for his people? "Pleasures of sin" really does seem to indicate the former, hence the pleasures. Or it could just mean richness and the dispassionate detachment that comes from it.
vs 26
Of course, he didn't know who Christ was, but you get the idea. Moses did talk about a prophet to come who would be better than him, so he obviously saw something on the cards.
The mention of treasures, though, perhaps lends creedence to the aloof rich idea of pleasures of sin.
vs 27
I don't know about you, but sometimes I think I forget just how difficult some of the things people in the bible have done would have been to do. You sort of get into this mode of thinking, "Yeah, well if God spoke to me through a burning bush, then I'd do that stuff too." But that's bollocks. I know I for one read stuff in the Bible, which I consider to be God speaking to me, and that doesn't make it any easier for me to obey it. And I'm not even considering having a king be angry at me for doing it.
vs 28
Which, when you think about it, is a kind of weird thing to be told to do. But hey, when God says jump, you don't question the why. If he told you to walk funny for a day, it's obviously some part of his master plan.
I think our problem today is far less with being asked to do weird things, but discovering what God is telling us about doing normal things.
vs 29
Regardless of how you think the Red Sea thing happened, it had to be dangerous, because the Egyptians drowned. So it was a dangerous thing they were being asked to do.
vs 30
Again, do something weird, and something cool happens. I remember hearing someone once say something about taking risks for God. That's what this is. Waitara church probably took a risk running those conversational English classes. That's not even a crazy thing to do. Hopefully the building work at St Ives is a risk we're taking for God, and it will pay similar dividends. That would be nice.
I guess leaning on your staff might be an idiom for old age. I'm not actually sure why the blessing of Joseph's sons is an act of faith. Is this really the thing we remember Jacob for in regards to faithfulness? Perhaps it is. He's not exactly a model citizen otherwise. Perhaps this is about Jacob accepting God's plan at the end of his time, and so blessing these two boys to show that his blessings will continue past his own children.
vs 22
Now this is a much more easily seen faith position. Joseph trusted God that the exodus would come. Why he wanted his bones moved, well, that's a bit more iffy. But I guess it was because he wanted to be buried with his father.
vs 23
While I am sure that every parent thinks their child is no ordinary child, it's interesting to think that Moses was special in and of himself. That is, Moses was a great man, and even as a child, according to Scripture, this was obvious.
When you think about it, the king's edict must have been pretty scary, because if people were choosing to obey it rather than face the consequences - I mean, you would have to be hella scared to throw your kids into the Nile.
vs 24
Even though it marked him out as a Jew - the slave race in Egypt at the time.
vs 25
I don't know what "pleasures of sin" means. Does this indicate that the people of Pharoah's court were all alcoholic, chain-smoking, whoremongering gamblers? Or does it simply mean sin in that they were not following God' desires for his people? "Pleasures of sin" really does seem to indicate the former, hence the pleasures. Or it could just mean richness and the dispassionate detachment that comes from it.
vs 26
Of course, he didn't know who Christ was, but you get the idea. Moses did talk about a prophet to come who would be better than him, so he obviously saw something on the cards.
The mention of treasures, though, perhaps lends creedence to the aloof rich idea of pleasures of sin.
vs 27
I don't know about you, but sometimes I think I forget just how difficult some of the things people in the bible have done would have been to do. You sort of get into this mode of thinking, "Yeah, well if God spoke to me through a burning bush, then I'd do that stuff too." But that's bollocks. I know I for one read stuff in the Bible, which I consider to be God speaking to me, and that doesn't make it any easier for me to obey it. And I'm not even considering having a king be angry at me for doing it.
vs 28
Which, when you think about it, is a kind of weird thing to be told to do. But hey, when God says jump, you don't question the why. If he told you to walk funny for a day, it's obviously some part of his master plan.
I think our problem today is far less with being asked to do weird things, but discovering what God is telling us about doing normal things.
vs 29
Regardless of how you think the Red Sea thing happened, it had to be dangerous, because the Egyptians drowned. So it was a dangerous thing they were being asked to do.
vs 30
Again, do something weird, and something cool happens. I remember hearing someone once say something about taking risks for God. That's what this is. Waitara church probably took a risk running those conversational English classes. That's not even a crazy thing to do. Hopefully the building work at St Ives is a risk we're taking for God, and it will pay similar dividends. That would be nice.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Hebrews chapter 11
vs 11
Don't think I'm being a stodgy old man by accepting the NIV over the T, but the truth is the alternative text really does make more sense in the view of the evidence given in the Old Testament. Having said that, we know of plenty of OT things that get "cleared up" in the NT, so there's no reason this couldn't be one of them. The only thing is we're given two options.
Either way, the child-bearing of Sarah and Abraham is an act of faith due to their great ages. I will point out that, although this is an action, having a child (especially past age) is more of a passive action. There's only so much you can do to ensure you have a child. In the case of Abraham and Sarah, it really is a miraculous event. So now we get into that Gospel territory of miracles happening to those with faith.
I'm not going to go there though, because it's only really glossed over. Everything we can say about it, I think, is really going to be a coveted theological issue more than a biblical interpretation issue. That doesn't mean it's not interesting, but I just don't know how much I can add to such a conversation.
Of course, if I can't add anything to this conversation, why am I bothering to write?
vs 12
This shows that when God is faithful, he is faithful in a big way. But since the passage is about faith of people, it is also giving some credit to Abraham and Sarah. If they weren't faithful, the nation of Israel may have never been. I don't like statements like that, but you get my drift. Because they were faithful, Israel existed.
vs 13
Now here we get down to the brass tacks of the point of faith that is being discussed here. The faith of all these people mentioned is a forward-looking faith. Hence the link to hope I was talking about. They look forward to the things promised to them, even though in life they never received them. And yet their lives were shaped, changed, altered, different because of this fact.
vs 14
Christians should be visible by their attitude to this world, and to heaven.
vs 15
How deep a chord does that strike with you? It's strong with me. We are meant to leave this world behind now, in as much as we live in it. But how often do I turn around and go back? How often do I look heavenward, and yet think, "But this world has so much to offer" and so turn around and walk the opposite direction down the road? That is not a picture of the Christian life.
vs 16
The faith - that is, assurance of the hoped for and yet unseen - that there exists for us a heavenly dwelling, and the resultant life change is what makes God not ashamed to call himself our God. I wonder how often God cringes when he is called my God.
vs 17
Would we ever be prepared to put the promise of God on the chopping block for the sake of faith? Not that I've had any promised children, but I've seen the knife fall on several of the promises God made me. God called me to go into politics at university. I had several opportunities to be involved in political campaigns.
Then God gave me a wonderful job working for AMT. It was a true blessing at the time, because it pulled me out of working at a service station, and it thrust me into the heart of Christian mission, gave me interesting and challenging work to do, and helped me to develop administrative skills.
But then I felt God's call to the CDP and to politics again. It seemed like the right time, and the right direction, but it meant putting a knife to my work with AMT.
Now, I feel as if the knife has been put to my political aspirations. But what could I do? I was challenged to it by God's Word as I prepared that sermon on work. I had to practice what I preached.
God gave me the opportunity to study theology at a tertiary level. I was so thankful for it. It has been so important to me. But circumstances again have changed, and instead of finishing with a Masters, I'm possibly graduating at the end of semester, if I manage to pass Hebrew, with just a Grad Dip. For now, and the foreseeable future, the door to theological study has closed to me.
So now, here I am. Making a decision to study teaching. I haven't started the course yet. I've had God's knife put to politics twice, to mission support work, and to theological study. The thing is, I've had faith that all of these things belong to God. I just haven't felt that way about teaching yet. May God inspire me as to his plan there. Because otherwise, it just feels like a career decision in order to support me and Penny. Yes, I know, verse exposition ended a while ago. But really, as the theological train departs from my station for a while, what more do I have to add but personal experience?
vs 18
Abraham had an exact promise from God on this issue. I can't say I've ever received such a promise - that is, a promise with an end point. Well, that's not true, I've received one. The same one all Christians have received. Shouldn't that be enough? The thing is, I don't think we're ever going to be called to put our salvation on the altar of sacrifice. Or are we? Is that what happens every time we get called back from thinking our salvation has something to do with how good we are, or how much we know?
No, it's not really the same. I know what it is like. It's like putting our own lives on the altar, being prepared to sacrifice that which God has saved for his sake. And we are called to do that. He or she who loses their life for the gospel shall save it. There's no reason doing that shouldn't be as tearful an experience as sacrificing your son. Perhaps the reason we're not quite as tearful about it is because we don't do it, because it hurts.
vs 19
Of all the things I've put to the knife for God (I haven't even mentioned all the other things that I could from when I actually became a Christian - perhaps I consider them as nothing, like Paul? Some of them I do), I think what I don't have faith in is that God can resurrect them like he could Isaac, or Christ. Isaac never actually died, but Christ did. Both had their lives returned to them, in a way. Where is my faith that God can do that with anything he has promised me, or called me to? That's the sort of faith you expect from missionaries who have really hard people to reach out to.
vs 20
Although he wasn't totally sure what he was doing, once it had happened, he stuck by it. Perhaps this verse is saying that Isaac saw God's hand in Jacob getting the blessing, and so he didn't want to mess with it. Isaac, after all, had an older brother who was not blessed.
Don't think I'm being a stodgy old man by accepting the NIV over the T, but the truth is the alternative text really does make more sense in the view of the evidence given in the Old Testament. Having said that, we know of plenty of OT things that get "cleared up" in the NT, so there's no reason this couldn't be one of them. The only thing is we're given two options.
Either way, the child-bearing of Sarah and Abraham is an act of faith due to their great ages. I will point out that, although this is an action, having a child (especially past age) is more of a passive action. There's only so much you can do to ensure you have a child. In the case of Abraham and Sarah, it really is a miraculous event. So now we get into that Gospel territory of miracles happening to those with faith.
I'm not going to go there though, because it's only really glossed over. Everything we can say about it, I think, is really going to be a coveted theological issue more than a biblical interpretation issue. That doesn't mean it's not interesting, but I just don't know how much I can add to such a conversation.
Of course, if I can't add anything to this conversation, why am I bothering to write?
vs 12
This shows that when God is faithful, he is faithful in a big way. But since the passage is about faith of people, it is also giving some credit to Abraham and Sarah. If they weren't faithful, the nation of Israel may have never been. I don't like statements like that, but you get my drift. Because they were faithful, Israel existed.
vs 13
Now here we get down to the brass tacks of the point of faith that is being discussed here. The faith of all these people mentioned is a forward-looking faith. Hence the link to hope I was talking about. They look forward to the things promised to them, even though in life they never received them. And yet their lives were shaped, changed, altered, different because of this fact.
vs 14
Christians should be visible by their attitude to this world, and to heaven.
vs 15
How deep a chord does that strike with you? It's strong with me. We are meant to leave this world behind now, in as much as we live in it. But how often do I turn around and go back? How often do I look heavenward, and yet think, "But this world has so much to offer" and so turn around and walk the opposite direction down the road? That is not a picture of the Christian life.
vs 16
The faith - that is, assurance of the hoped for and yet unseen - that there exists for us a heavenly dwelling, and the resultant life change is what makes God not ashamed to call himself our God. I wonder how often God cringes when he is called my God.
vs 17
Would we ever be prepared to put the promise of God on the chopping block for the sake of faith? Not that I've had any promised children, but I've seen the knife fall on several of the promises God made me. God called me to go into politics at university. I had several opportunities to be involved in political campaigns.
Then God gave me a wonderful job working for AMT. It was a true blessing at the time, because it pulled me out of working at a service station, and it thrust me into the heart of Christian mission, gave me interesting and challenging work to do, and helped me to develop administrative skills.
But then I felt God's call to the CDP and to politics again. It seemed like the right time, and the right direction, but it meant putting a knife to my work with AMT.
Now, I feel as if the knife has been put to my political aspirations. But what could I do? I was challenged to it by God's Word as I prepared that sermon on work. I had to practice what I preached.
God gave me the opportunity to study theology at a tertiary level. I was so thankful for it. It has been so important to me. But circumstances again have changed, and instead of finishing with a Masters, I'm possibly graduating at the end of semester, if I manage to pass Hebrew, with just a Grad Dip. For now, and the foreseeable future, the door to theological study has closed to me.
So now, here I am. Making a decision to study teaching. I haven't started the course yet. I've had God's knife put to politics twice, to mission support work, and to theological study. The thing is, I've had faith that all of these things belong to God. I just haven't felt that way about teaching yet. May God inspire me as to his plan there. Because otherwise, it just feels like a career decision in order to support me and Penny. Yes, I know, verse exposition ended a while ago. But really, as the theological train departs from my station for a while, what more do I have to add but personal experience?
vs 18
Abraham had an exact promise from God on this issue. I can't say I've ever received such a promise - that is, a promise with an end point. Well, that's not true, I've received one. The same one all Christians have received. Shouldn't that be enough? The thing is, I don't think we're ever going to be called to put our salvation on the altar of sacrifice. Or are we? Is that what happens every time we get called back from thinking our salvation has something to do with how good we are, or how much we know?
No, it's not really the same. I know what it is like. It's like putting our own lives on the altar, being prepared to sacrifice that which God has saved for his sake. And we are called to do that. He or she who loses their life for the gospel shall save it. There's no reason doing that shouldn't be as tearful an experience as sacrificing your son. Perhaps the reason we're not quite as tearful about it is because we don't do it, because it hurts.
vs 19
Of all the things I've put to the knife for God (I haven't even mentioned all the other things that I could from when I actually became a Christian - perhaps I consider them as nothing, like Paul? Some of them I do), I think what I don't have faith in is that God can resurrect them like he could Isaac, or Christ. Isaac never actually died, but Christ did. Both had their lives returned to them, in a way. Where is my faith that God can do that with anything he has promised me, or called me to? That's the sort of faith you expect from missionaries who have really hard people to reach out to.
vs 20
Although he wasn't totally sure what he was doing, once it had happened, he stuck by it. Perhaps this verse is saying that Isaac saw God's hand in Jacob getting the blessing, and so he didn't want to mess with it. Isaac, after all, had an older brother who was not blessed.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Hebrews chapter 11
vs 1
This is one of those verses that I don't have to alt-tab back to. Everyone knows this verse, right? The TNIV didn't mess with it, and that makes me realise how difficult it must be for people who have memorised large parts of the KJV to pick up another bible. Not that that makes up for creating silly hypotheses about the nature of translation.
Anyway, back to Hebrews 11:1. Here we have what we might call a definition of faith. The problem is that the way this author uses the word is different to how others use it in the NT. Read the definition there again. You will see that part of the definition of faith here uses the word 'hope' in the way that most English speakers use it, as in "I hope it doesn't rain" - meaning a complete lack of control or understanding of a situation's conclusion. "I hope" means "I can neither control this situation into occuring the way I desire, nor can I come to a firm conclusion about whether it will or not." It is an expression of a desire that may not be fulfilled.
That, surely, is not a description of Christian hope when Paul talks of faith, hope and love? When Paul talks of "the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" is that a desire that we can't come to a firm conclusion about? I think not.
Don't get me wrong - Paul uses "hope" in the typical non-spiritual way too. But the point I'm making is that when Paul uses the term "hope" spiritually, he says things like "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." Hope then becomes what is perhaps better described as an as yet unfulfilled assurance.
Now compare that with Hebrews. It would seem to me that, if we had another word for the non-spiritual hope and substituted it for the word "hope" in Hebrews 11:1, we would have a definition of hope, rather than faith, in the Pauline sense. For Paul, faith tends to be an obedient trust in God. Abraham's belief (that was credited to him as righteousness) Paul calls faith. This is one of the many arguments that people use to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews. But it also means we've got to be careful when we read between authors in the New Testament, because the words they use may not all mean the same things.
vs 2
Now here's the confusing bit - the author now goes on to describe a bunch of things that I think Paul would describe as being done "by faith"- such as Abraham's actions. Does this mean that we've changed definition of faith back to a Pauline one - a faith of trust rather than a hope of certainty? Well, truth be told they probably are mixing a bit here, but I think the author stays on message more or less.
This is where the TNIV header becomes useful - it's talking about faith (Pauline hope) in action. The thing is, how can we see such an understanding of a future assurance in someone's life? Through how they act.
vs 3
See, this seems a lot more like Pauline faith as opposed to hope, because it's talking about a past event. But for this author's definition it works - the creation of the word was something we did not see, yet we are certain that the Lord did it.
vs 4
So how does Abel's sacrifice show a certainty in the unseen? Truth be told, it's hard to know beyond the obvious, that God can't be seen. We can suppose that he was certain of God's desire for a better sacrifice and so gave one, perhaps because he knew that these earthly things would pass away, so why not offer them to God? The story of Abel does still speak, but it's a little muffled by time.
vs 5
We'd gloss over Enoch if he wasn't mentioned here in Hebrews, I bet.
vs 6
Here we have another implied definition of faith, and this one seems much more Pauline. However, it doesn't break the definition - Enoch apparently couldn't see God any more than we can. So it is a certainty in the unseen. More than that, though - we have to believe God that he wants to reward us, and he wants us to seek him. That means believing God's word as well as in God generally.
vs 7
The more we go through these verses, the more we see I think the overlapping nature of faith and hope in their more common spiritual definitions.
vs 8
This looks a lot more like obedient trust, but it contains a taste of the unseen - where's he going? Who knows?
vs 9
Here we see someone who lived his whole life in accordance with a hope that was never realised in his lifetime. But Abraham was so certain that God would look after his side of the bargain that he was pepared to let his entire life be shaped by what had been promised, even if it meant living in tents, and his offspring doing the same.
vs 10
This here is where the hope starts to come in. We see an eternal hope being read into Abraham - for an eternal city built by God.
This is one of those verses that I don't have to alt-tab back to. Everyone knows this verse, right? The TNIV didn't mess with it, and that makes me realise how difficult it must be for people who have memorised large parts of the KJV to pick up another bible. Not that that makes up for creating silly hypotheses about the nature of translation.
Anyway, back to Hebrews 11:1. Here we have what we might call a definition of faith. The problem is that the way this author uses the word is different to how others use it in the NT. Read the definition there again. You will see that part of the definition of faith here uses the word 'hope' in the way that most English speakers use it, as in "I hope it doesn't rain" - meaning a complete lack of control or understanding of a situation's conclusion. "I hope" means "I can neither control this situation into occuring the way I desire, nor can I come to a firm conclusion about whether it will or not." It is an expression of a desire that may not be fulfilled.
That, surely, is not a description of Christian hope when Paul talks of faith, hope and love? When Paul talks of "the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" is that a desire that we can't come to a firm conclusion about? I think not.
Don't get me wrong - Paul uses "hope" in the typical non-spiritual way too. But the point I'm making is that when Paul uses the term "hope" spiritually, he says things like "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." Hope then becomes what is perhaps better described as an as yet unfulfilled assurance.
Now compare that with Hebrews. It would seem to me that, if we had another word for the non-spiritual hope and substituted it for the word "hope" in Hebrews 11:1, we would have a definition of hope, rather than faith, in the Pauline sense. For Paul, faith tends to be an obedient trust in God. Abraham's belief (that was credited to him as righteousness) Paul calls faith. This is one of the many arguments that people use to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews. But it also means we've got to be careful when we read between authors in the New Testament, because the words they use may not all mean the same things.
vs 2
Now here's the confusing bit - the author now goes on to describe a bunch of things that I think Paul would describe as being done "by faith"- such as Abraham's actions. Does this mean that we've changed definition of faith back to a Pauline one - a faith of trust rather than a hope of certainty? Well, truth be told they probably are mixing a bit here, but I think the author stays on message more or less.
This is where the TNIV header becomes useful - it's talking about faith (Pauline hope) in action. The thing is, how can we see such an understanding of a future assurance in someone's life? Through how they act.
vs 3
See, this seems a lot more like Pauline faith as opposed to hope, because it's talking about a past event. But for this author's definition it works - the creation of the word was something we did not see, yet we are certain that the Lord did it.
vs 4
So how does Abel's sacrifice show a certainty in the unseen? Truth be told, it's hard to know beyond the obvious, that God can't be seen. We can suppose that he was certain of God's desire for a better sacrifice and so gave one, perhaps because he knew that these earthly things would pass away, so why not offer them to God? The story of Abel does still speak, but it's a little muffled by time.
vs 5
We'd gloss over Enoch if he wasn't mentioned here in Hebrews, I bet.
vs 6
Here we have another implied definition of faith, and this one seems much more Pauline. However, it doesn't break the definition - Enoch apparently couldn't see God any more than we can. So it is a certainty in the unseen. More than that, though - we have to believe God that he wants to reward us, and he wants us to seek him. That means believing God's word as well as in God generally.
vs 7
The more we go through these verses, the more we see I think the overlapping nature of faith and hope in their more common spiritual definitions.
vs 8
This looks a lot more like obedient trust, but it contains a taste of the unseen - where's he going? Who knows?
vs 9
Here we see someone who lived his whole life in accordance with a hope that was never realised in his lifetime. But Abraham was so certain that God would look after his side of the bargain that he was pepared to let his entire life be shaped by what had been promised, even if it meant living in tents, and his offspring doing the same.
vs 10
This here is where the hope starts to come in. We see an eternal hope being read into Abraham - for an eternal city built by God.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Hebrews chapter 10
vs 32
Well, apparently the readers of this letter did. I don't think we can say that this happens to everyone who "receives the light".
vs 33
Public insult happens pretty often in Australia for Christians. It's fairly low level, but basically the more you ramp the Christianness, the more the public insult will happen.
vs 34
These two things do not happen. I cannot think, off the top of my head, of something Christians in Australia could do that would involve their imprisonment or the confiscation of their property for the sake of being Christians and acting in a Christian manner.
They do, however, happen in other countries still, so we can't be blind to them.
vs 35
The point is that these readers have been through these things, and through them their faith did not waver. Is it now, when they aren't happening, that they are using the time to reflect and wonder whether they really have made the right decision? I can't be sure, but it does seem like those other things are in the past tense.
vs 36
The idea of persevering through suffering is one thing. But persevering through quietness, through stagnancy, is quite another. It would seem that that could be what the author is warning against here - that it is in the quiet, stagnant times that we need to persevere the most.
vs 37
In two places in the OT (probably one copied from the other, if I recall) it's a great little verse to remind us that "will not delay" can simply add a few thousand more years.
vs 38
Here is just Habbakuk this time, and boy is it more of a kick in the teeth. God takes pleasure in the righteous who live by faith (very Romans), and not in those who shrink away from the righteous Christian life. Nasty. Powerful stuff.
vs 39
You almost expect an "if" there, but the author, even after all his warnings to this point, is convinced that his audience are in fact saved, and will continue to persevere. He's being more encouraging than disciplinary overall.
Well, apparently the readers of this letter did. I don't think we can say that this happens to everyone who "receives the light".
vs 33
Public insult happens pretty often in Australia for Christians. It's fairly low level, but basically the more you ramp the Christianness, the more the public insult will happen.
vs 34
These two things do not happen. I cannot think, off the top of my head, of something Christians in Australia could do that would involve their imprisonment or the confiscation of their property for the sake of being Christians and acting in a Christian manner.
They do, however, happen in other countries still, so we can't be blind to them.
vs 35
The point is that these readers have been through these things, and through them their faith did not waver. Is it now, when they aren't happening, that they are using the time to reflect and wonder whether they really have made the right decision? I can't be sure, but it does seem like those other things are in the past tense.
vs 36
The idea of persevering through suffering is one thing. But persevering through quietness, through stagnancy, is quite another. It would seem that that could be what the author is warning against here - that it is in the quiet, stagnant times that we need to persevere the most.
vs 37
In two places in the OT (probably one copied from the other, if I recall) it's a great little verse to remind us that "will not delay" can simply add a few thousand more years.
vs 38
Here is just Habbakuk this time, and boy is it more of a kick in the teeth. God takes pleasure in the righteous who live by faith (very Romans), and not in those who shrink away from the righteous Christian life. Nasty. Powerful stuff.
vs 39
You almost expect an "if" there, but the author, even after all his warnings to this point, is convinced that his audience are in fact saved, and will continue to persevere. He's being more encouraging than disciplinary overall.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Hebrews chapter 10
vs 21
He really is a great priest. That has been proven over some passages now.
vs 22
Again, here is the salve to conscience mentioned! I'm not sure whether the gerundial words are meant to be past tense or not. Like, do we come near to God because of these things, or for these things? I think it's for.
vs 23
Since, if we understand our hope correctly, it relies on us not a jot, then what's happening with us shouldn't swerve it. It should only be a change in God that swerves it, and that never happens. Life situations might suck, but that doesn't change who God is.
vs 24
This is a big deal. There is a communal aspect to God's promises. It's about more than just us individually. We are a community, and our salvation and relationship with God effects us communally.
vs 25
Why did they give up meeting? I can't say. What I can say is that meeting together is a flow-on effect of salvation. If you're not doing it, then you've got to ask, "How much of a Christian am I if the Spirit isn't leading me to meet together with other Christians?"
vs 26
Now the thing is, this can't mean what it on face says it means. Why? Because 1 John tell us that God covers our sins and that we are forgiven our sins when we do sin. Not to mention Paul talking about all those Christians in churches like Corinth who are doing wrong, and should stop. Perhaps this is where the idea of the last rites came from - that you need to confess at the end so that your sins are forgiven and you're right with God, because otherwise no sacrifice for sin is left? Who knows. Not me.
Okay, so we know what this can't mean - so what does it mean? Wesley was of the opinion that Christians could live without deliberately sinning against God. That's not true of my life. Does that make me not really a Christian? It's certainly very challenging. But I can't see that as plausible - that God only offers salvation once, and then if you fall after that, you're toast.
So perhaps it means that if you hear the truth, but you keep deliberately denying it, then there's no way you can be saved. After all, it says "knowledge of the truth". Think about this in the situation of a Jew who has been told about Christ. If you reject that truth, even though you've been told it, then there's really nothing more that can be done for you until you accept it. I don't really think that goes all the way to explaining it, but it's an option I suppose.
vs 27
After all, this is what happens to enemies of God, not his family. So surely those who are in the position of v26 are those who are enemies of God. Still feel uneasy there though.
vs 28
Okay.
vs 29
For us who recognise Christ as the Son of God to be called those who trample it underfoot because of a transgression seems illogical. But for those who deny his Godhood it sounds plausible. However, this letter is written to Christians, so surely it's meant to be a warning? Argh, what difficulties!
vs 30-31
I couldn't leave vs31 on its own. There it is, in black and white in vs 30 - this is talking about God's own people. So this is about us. It is about us sinning after we have knowledge of the truth. So what hope is there for us? Am I now forsaken? Surely not! But I keep coming back to vs26 and being scared by it. What can it mean, if not what it says, especially in light of vs 30? Is our spiritual life really such a rollercoaster of saved/not saved Shrodinger's improbability? It can't be. So then can we ignore this verse? Of course not. So I'm left back where I was at the beginning, I'm afraid - I think that if we as Christians turn our backs on God, then there is nothing that can be done for us. But surely we can turn to face him again. That is kind of backed up by these verses, but nothing fits perfectly.
He really is a great priest. That has been proven over some passages now.
vs 22
Again, here is the salve to conscience mentioned! I'm not sure whether the gerundial words are meant to be past tense or not. Like, do we come near to God because of these things, or for these things? I think it's for.
vs 23
Since, if we understand our hope correctly, it relies on us not a jot, then what's happening with us shouldn't swerve it. It should only be a change in God that swerves it, and that never happens. Life situations might suck, but that doesn't change who God is.
vs 24
This is a big deal. There is a communal aspect to God's promises. It's about more than just us individually. We are a community, and our salvation and relationship with God effects us communally.
vs 25
Why did they give up meeting? I can't say. What I can say is that meeting together is a flow-on effect of salvation. If you're not doing it, then you've got to ask, "How much of a Christian am I if the Spirit isn't leading me to meet together with other Christians?"
vs 26
Now the thing is, this can't mean what it on face says it means. Why? Because 1 John tell us that God covers our sins and that we are forgiven our sins when we do sin. Not to mention Paul talking about all those Christians in churches like Corinth who are doing wrong, and should stop. Perhaps this is where the idea of the last rites came from - that you need to confess at the end so that your sins are forgiven and you're right with God, because otherwise no sacrifice for sin is left? Who knows. Not me.
Okay, so we know what this can't mean - so what does it mean? Wesley was of the opinion that Christians could live without deliberately sinning against God. That's not true of my life. Does that make me not really a Christian? It's certainly very challenging. But I can't see that as plausible - that God only offers salvation once, and then if you fall after that, you're toast.
So perhaps it means that if you hear the truth, but you keep deliberately denying it, then there's no way you can be saved. After all, it says "knowledge of the truth". Think about this in the situation of a Jew who has been told about Christ. If you reject that truth, even though you've been told it, then there's really nothing more that can be done for you until you accept it. I don't really think that goes all the way to explaining it, but it's an option I suppose.
vs 27
After all, this is what happens to enemies of God, not his family. So surely those who are in the position of v26 are those who are enemies of God. Still feel uneasy there though.
vs 28
Okay.
vs 29
For us who recognise Christ as the Son of God to be called those who trample it underfoot because of a transgression seems illogical. But for those who deny his Godhood it sounds plausible. However, this letter is written to Christians, so surely it's meant to be a warning? Argh, what difficulties!
vs 30-31
I couldn't leave vs31 on its own. There it is, in black and white in vs 30 - this is talking about God's own people. So this is about us. It is about us sinning after we have knowledge of the truth. So what hope is there for us? Am I now forsaken? Surely not! But I keep coming back to vs26 and being scared by it. What can it mean, if not what it says, especially in light of vs 30? Is our spiritual life really such a rollercoaster of saved/not saved Shrodinger's improbability? It can't be. So then can we ignore this verse? Of course not. So I'm left back where I was at the beginning, I'm afraid - I think that if we as Christians turn our backs on God, then there is nothing that can be done for us. But surely we can turn to face him again. That is kind of backed up by these verses, but nothing fits perfectly.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Hebrews chapter 10
vs 11
Stop me if you've heard this one. Seriously, talk about repetition. Important point, obviously.
vs 12
It's just a different level of awesome - those priests do it every day and nothing happens. He does it once, and bam! Right hand of God.
vs 13
And we wait for this too. In fact, we probably wait in a more real sense than he does, what with God being atemporal and all.
vs 14
Now if that doesn't just totally stomp on your brain, I don't know what will. We are perfect, but we are being made holy? You'd sort of expect it to be the other way around. But no. So we are in fact perfect - assuming that is as a status. But we are being made holy, different, becoming set apart.
Interesting.
vs 15
One quite interesting thing here is that the Holy Spirit is given the glory for this passage. So this is pointing out that the OT was inspired by the same Holy Spirit that we would say inspired the authors of the NT.
vs 16
The new covenant, through which we are perfect and by which we are being made holy, does so, I suppose, by writing the law on our hearts and minds. Internalising the Law of God somehow makes us better than following external ritual.
vs 17
Forgiveness comes to, and that for things that we have done against this same law.
vs 18
And now we see why that is important - forgiveness is more powerful than sacrifice. Or should I say that the most powerful sacrifice only needs to be made once.
vs 19
The powerful sacrifice is what lets us enter where no-one was confident to enter.
vs 20
Now this could get complicated. But let's just say that it's a metaphor where we enter through the body Jesus sacrificed, rather than some weird culty thing.
Stop me if you've heard this one. Seriously, talk about repetition. Important point, obviously.
vs 12
It's just a different level of awesome - those priests do it every day and nothing happens. He does it once, and bam! Right hand of God.
vs 13
And we wait for this too. In fact, we probably wait in a more real sense than he does, what with God being atemporal and all.
vs 14
Now if that doesn't just totally stomp on your brain, I don't know what will. We are perfect, but we are being made holy? You'd sort of expect it to be the other way around. But no. So we are in fact perfect - assuming that is as a status. But we are being made holy, different, becoming set apart.
Interesting.
vs 15
One quite interesting thing here is that the Holy Spirit is given the glory for this passage. So this is pointing out that the OT was inspired by the same Holy Spirit that we would say inspired the authors of the NT.
vs 16
The new covenant, through which we are perfect and by which we are being made holy, does so, I suppose, by writing the law on our hearts and minds. Internalising the Law of God somehow makes us better than following external ritual.
vs 17
Forgiveness comes to, and that for things that we have done against this same law.
vs 18
And now we see why that is important - forgiveness is more powerful than sacrifice. Or should I say that the most powerful sacrifice only needs to be made once.
vs 19
The powerful sacrifice is what lets us enter where no-one was confident to enter.
vs 20
Now this could get complicated. But let's just say that it's a metaphor where we enter through the body Jesus sacrificed, rather than some weird culty thing.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Hebrews chapter 10
vs 1
We continue on with our poking of the Law and its inadequacies. The sacrifices under the law had no power to make people perfect. The actual realities of the Law are found elsewhere - not in the Law itself.
vs 2
It's interesting that this is at least the second time the author has spoken about feeling guilty for sin, or not feeling guilty. There seems to be an importance for not feeling guilty. I wonder if non-Christians feel guilty? Or is this only because the Jews would judge themselves by the Law, find themselves wanting, then feel guilty?
The cleansing can't really be much better measured, except perhaps that those cleansed go straight ahead and sin again.
vs 3
No wonder you never stop feeling guilty for sin - you constantly watch animals get mangled for it!
vs 4
There's a stark, clear statement. It's obvious fact, but sometimes people need obvious fact pointed out.
vs 5-7
I would say more about these verses other than they are from Psalm 10:7 and apparently are more accurately reflected in the Septuagint than the Masoretic text, but the author is about to exposit them - for the purposes of their current argument, at any rate.
vs 8
God doesn't desire sacrifices per se. He does desire obedience - so when he says "Make sacrifices", sacrificing to him is something done out of obedience.
vs 9
So firstly he makes the statement about the inadequacy of the sacrifices and how they do not sate God's desire. Then he offers himself up to become an acceptable sacrifice to God.
vs 10
It was the will of Christ, willing to be acceptable to God, and to be sacrificed for his plan, that brought us to God. It was willing - most likely unlike the animals who went before him.
We continue on with our poking of the Law and its inadequacies. The sacrifices under the law had no power to make people perfect. The actual realities of the Law are found elsewhere - not in the Law itself.
vs 2
It's interesting that this is at least the second time the author has spoken about feeling guilty for sin, or not feeling guilty. There seems to be an importance for not feeling guilty. I wonder if non-Christians feel guilty? Or is this only because the Jews would judge themselves by the Law, find themselves wanting, then feel guilty?
The cleansing can't really be much better measured, except perhaps that those cleansed go straight ahead and sin again.
vs 3
No wonder you never stop feeling guilty for sin - you constantly watch animals get mangled for it!
vs 4
There's a stark, clear statement. It's obvious fact, but sometimes people need obvious fact pointed out.
vs 5-7
I would say more about these verses other than they are from Psalm 10:7 and apparently are more accurately reflected in the Septuagint than the Masoretic text, but the author is about to exposit them - for the purposes of their current argument, at any rate.
vs 8
God doesn't desire sacrifices per se. He does desire obedience - so when he says "Make sacrifices", sacrificing to him is something done out of obedience.
vs 9
So firstly he makes the statement about the inadequacy of the sacrifices and how they do not sate God's desire. Then he offers himself up to become an acceptable sacrifice to God.
vs 10
It was the will of Christ, willing to be acceptable to God, and to be sacrificed for his plan, that brought us to God. It was willing - most likely unlike the animals who went before him.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Hebrews chapter 9
vs 19
So there is the blood sealing that covenant. Unfortunately for the sacrificial animal population, it didn't end there.
vs 20
The idea being that all covenants have blood, and so here's the blood for this one.
vs 21
Because blood "cleans" things. And this is how we know they aren't talking about sanitation, because washing stuff in blood does not make it less likely to attract germs! When will people listen!
vs 22
It gets quoted a lot, but it's a long and bloody fact of God's history that forgiveness only comes through blood. It's good, then, to know that this is not just because God is a bloodthirsty bastard, but because he wanted all that stuff to point towards a sacrifice that actually needed to be made later on, so we'd recognise it.
vs 23
Copy, metaphor, reproduction - the point being that they had to speak the right message. So all that blood had a message for Israel - forgiveness and covenant are costly.
vs 24
Because Jesus is not the copy, he is not the reflection - he is the real deal. And the real deal, by the way, is heaven. I think that may have been mentioned before.
vs 25
That would just be stupid. You can't have God incarnating every year in some constant painful process. Well, I mean, you could, but then that would certainly remove a bit of his powerfulness, wouldn't it? Not being able to deal with the problem once and for all.
vs 26
When you're 2000 years away, language like "culmination of the ages" loses a bit of it's sting. I will freely admit that. I don't expect Jesus to waltz up any time soon. I have theological reasons for that, though, not just lack of expectation reasons.
But really, assuming that everything else in history stayed the same except that Jesus didn't come when he did (which is pretty much impossible, I know, but assume there was some other force that did what Christianity did), when would have been a better time for Christ to return? It was only 30 years before the temple would be destroyed, and it has never been rebuilt since. How could the Messiah return without a working temple to refer to?
vs 27
Ahhh, the third box from Two Ways To Live, and the most disappointing of the verses too. It really is just the beginning of an idea - to build so much theology into it, I don't know. It's true - people die once and face judgment. But it's really only said in the context of a bigger picture. That doesn't make it any less true, of course.
vs 28
People only die once, so the sacrifice for the punishment of sin only needed to be made once too. And that clears up the reason for Christ's return - he won't be coming back like the High Priest to the holy place. He'll be coming back to take his sheep home. To finalise the salvation contract. I can't wait. but I know I have to.
So there is the blood sealing that covenant. Unfortunately for the sacrificial animal population, it didn't end there.
vs 20
The idea being that all covenants have blood, and so here's the blood for this one.
vs 21
Because blood "cleans" things. And this is how we know they aren't talking about sanitation, because washing stuff in blood does not make it less likely to attract germs! When will people listen!
vs 22
It gets quoted a lot, but it's a long and bloody fact of God's history that forgiveness only comes through blood. It's good, then, to know that this is not just because God is a bloodthirsty bastard, but because he wanted all that stuff to point towards a sacrifice that actually needed to be made later on, so we'd recognise it.
vs 23
Copy, metaphor, reproduction - the point being that they had to speak the right message. So all that blood had a message for Israel - forgiveness and covenant are costly.
vs 24
Because Jesus is not the copy, he is not the reflection - he is the real deal. And the real deal, by the way, is heaven. I think that may have been mentioned before.
vs 25
That would just be stupid. You can't have God incarnating every year in some constant painful process. Well, I mean, you could, but then that would certainly remove a bit of his powerfulness, wouldn't it? Not being able to deal with the problem once and for all.
vs 26
When you're 2000 years away, language like "culmination of the ages" loses a bit of it's sting. I will freely admit that. I don't expect Jesus to waltz up any time soon. I have theological reasons for that, though, not just lack of expectation reasons.
But really, assuming that everything else in history stayed the same except that Jesus didn't come when he did (which is pretty much impossible, I know, but assume there was some other force that did what Christianity did), when would have been a better time for Christ to return? It was only 30 years before the temple would be destroyed, and it has never been rebuilt since. How could the Messiah return without a working temple to refer to?
vs 27
Ahhh, the third box from Two Ways To Live, and the most disappointing of the verses too. It really is just the beginning of an idea - to build so much theology into it, I don't know. It's true - people die once and face judgment. But it's really only said in the context of a bigger picture. That doesn't make it any less true, of course.
vs 28
People only die once, so the sacrifice for the punishment of sin only needed to be made once too. And that clears up the reason for Christ's return - he won't be coming back like the High Priest to the holy place. He'll be coming back to take his sheep home. To finalise the salvation contract. I can't wait. but I know I have to.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Hebrews chapter 9
vs 11
So now we start our comparisons of the earthly tabernacle and Christ. I'm sure we can learn a lot from this, but as I've said before, the author is mainly trying to pull on the strings of Jews.
So Christ entered a tabernacle as a high priest. But it wasn't the one on earth (ie the temple of his time). It was, it would seem, a more perfect tabernacle.
vs 12
The method of his entrance was by blood sacrifice, but it was not that of goats and calves, it was his own. So obviously we're talking about his death, and hence this is most likely to be a spiritual metaphorical understanding of Christ's sacrificial death. He didn't walk into the tabernacle.
vs 13
Not even physically clean, just ceremonially clean. Representing cleanness.
vs 14
Christ's sacrifice then actually cleans us. Again, not physically, but it's not just a metaphor for being clean either. It's an actual stripping away of the marks left on us by our sinful acts. It might not be visible, but it's real. Better than something visible that is powerless.
vs 15
It is precisely because Christ is the sacrifice that he is able to mediate for us now as a high priest. Interesting, that, because it means that he has to enter the tabernacle to make the sacrifice, and leaves it being the high priest. But then, how did he get in? Oh no, the metaphor is crumbling around us! Will our faiths be shipwrecked?
Of course not. Christians live with paradox. This is a tiny and probably reconcileable one that is of such unimportance that we can just move on. After all, it's just a metaphor.
The big point here being that Christ mediates for us, and so now we have access to the internal inheritance.
vs 16
Of course. Makes sense. You can't inherit your father's land while he's out at the shops.
vs 17
A useful point to make at this juncture is one that the TNIV makes in its margin notes - that the word for "will" is the same as the word for "covenant". The suggestion being, then, that even covenants require death to take effect. Hence the sacrifices under the old system?
vs 18
See!!
So now we start our comparisons of the earthly tabernacle and Christ. I'm sure we can learn a lot from this, but as I've said before, the author is mainly trying to pull on the strings of Jews.
So Christ entered a tabernacle as a high priest. But it wasn't the one on earth (ie the temple of his time). It was, it would seem, a more perfect tabernacle.
vs 12
The method of his entrance was by blood sacrifice, but it was not that of goats and calves, it was his own. So obviously we're talking about his death, and hence this is most likely to be a spiritual metaphorical understanding of Christ's sacrificial death. He didn't walk into the tabernacle.
vs 13
Not even physically clean, just ceremonially clean. Representing cleanness.
vs 14
Christ's sacrifice then actually cleans us. Again, not physically, but it's not just a metaphor for being clean either. It's an actual stripping away of the marks left on us by our sinful acts. It might not be visible, but it's real. Better than something visible that is powerless.
vs 15
It is precisely because Christ is the sacrifice that he is able to mediate for us now as a high priest. Interesting, that, because it means that he has to enter the tabernacle to make the sacrifice, and leaves it being the high priest. But then, how did he get in? Oh no, the metaphor is crumbling around us! Will our faiths be shipwrecked?
Of course not. Christians live with paradox. This is a tiny and probably reconcileable one that is of such unimportance that we can just move on. After all, it's just a metaphor.
The big point here being that Christ mediates for us, and so now we have access to the internal inheritance.
vs 16
Of course. Makes sense. You can't inherit your father's land while he's out at the shops.
vs 17
A useful point to make at this juncture is one that the TNIV makes in its margin notes - that the word for "will" is the same as the word for "covenant". The suggestion being, then, that even covenants require death to take effect. Hence the sacrifices under the old system?
vs 18
See!!
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Hebrews chapter 9
vs 1
That tent in the middle of the tent, as you know. I'm not quite sure how I'd define worship in this verse. It's talking about the regulation in the law, so I guess it means "the prescribed way of honouring God".
vs 2
Welcome to the NT guided tour of the tabernacle. To the left, you will see the big candelabra. To the right, you will see some Jewish Christians to whom this is immensely interesting and who have never seen the tabernacle, but who will know its layout by rote.
vs 3-4
The tour continues, into a place which it can be assured none of the readers ever went into, even in the temple. Yet everyone knows what's being talked about, so important is this place to Jewish ritual.
vs 5
You've already spent five verses on the details - why not continue? What was the point of those verses at all? Perhaps if you were explaining it to gentile Christians it would make more sense. But there's not enough detail here to explain it. Instead, there's just a cursory tour, and then it's cut short here. Obviously only useful for Jewish Christians, and even then the use seems questionable.
vs 6
Now a few priests actually were converted, we are told, so all this could be confirmed. But it doesn't need to be. You get the feeling that all these verses are just setting context for a point coming later.
vs 7
Most of these points have been made already - the need for blood to pay for sin, the fact that the high priest had to atone for his own sin. I'm not sure if the once a year thing has been said before. A new spin is put in - that the sins atoned for are only those done in ignorance. This could well be because there is another, specific offering, for those who have sinned knowingly and repent.
vs 8
The first tabernacle stopped functioning long before this letter was written - possibly this is meant to be talking about the whole sacrificial process in general. But then, this letter can't mean that unless it was written after AD70 when the temple was destroyed. I wonder...
vs 9
Now here's the rub - I would have thought that the sacrifices would have no power to forgive sin, but at least might have put a balm on the conscience of the one giving the sacrifice. So what, is the author here pointing out that the sacrificial system was so flawed that it doesn't even do that?
vs 10
The coming times - as we saw in the quote from Jeremiah - will not rely on externals, but on the law being internal. This is the new order, and it comes to replace the old order. But all this has already been said. Where do we move on to from here?
That tent in the middle of the tent, as you know. I'm not quite sure how I'd define worship in this verse. It's talking about the regulation in the law, so I guess it means "the prescribed way of honouring God".
vs 2
Welcome to the NT guided tour of the tabernacle. To the left, you will see the big candelabra. To the right, you will see some Jewish Christians to whom this is immensely interesting and who have never seen the tabernacle, but who will know its layout by rote.
vs 3-4
The tour continues, into a place which it can be assured none of the readers ever went into, even in the temple. Yet everyone knows what's being talked about, so important is this place to Jewish ritual.
vs 5
You've already spent five verses on the details - why not continue? What was the point of those verses at all? Perhaps if you were explaining it to gentile Christians it would make more sense. But there's not enough detail here to explain it. Instead, there's just a cursory tour, and then it's cut short here. Obviously only useful for Jewish Christians, and even then the use seems questionable.
vs 6
Now a few priests actually were converted, we are told, so all this could be confirmed. But it doesn't need to be. You get the feeling that all these verses are just setting context for a point coming later.
vs 7
Most of these points have been made already - the need for blood to pay for sin, the fact that the high priest had to atone for his own sin. I'm not sure if the once a year thing has been said before. A new spin is put in - that the sins atoned for are only those done in ignorance. This could well be because there is another, specific offering, for those who have sinned knowingly and repent.
vs 8
The first tabernacle stopped functioning long before this letter was written - possibly this is meant to be talking about the whole sacrificial process in general. But then, this letter can't mean that unless it was written after AD70 when the temple was destroyed. I wonder...
vs 9
Now here's the rub - I would have thought that the sacrifices would have no power to forgive sin, but at least might have put a balm on the conscience of the one giving the sacrifice. So what, is the author here pointing out that the sacrificial system was so flawed that it doesn't even do that?
vs 10
The coming times - as we saw in the quote from Jeremiah - will not rely on externals, but on the law being internal. This is the new order, and it comes to replace the old order. But all this has already been said. Where do we move on to from here?
Monday, December 01, 2008
Hebrews chapter 8
vs 1
It's good to know that this wasn't all just pointless speculating on theological hypotheses.
vs 2
And with that, we get our almost seamless transition between Melchi and the tabernacle. Thrilling stuff.
Oh, and no, I don't think the "true tabernacle" is actually a tabernacle.
vs 3
Following the model of the earthly? That's what the language suggests, but surely we would think that God designed the tabernacle to describe symbolically the work of the coming messiah?
vs 4
This is an important distinction - it's not just an addition to the legal/priestly services, which are actually adequately taken up by human priests (because they are not powerful to dethrone sin).
vs 5
This makes it sound more and more like there's a big tent in heaven. Pardon me if I don't think that's exactly what the author is saying. But if that's not what he's saying, then why make the point from Exodus 25:40? Surely he means "Make it exactly as I describe so that it most accurately symbolises heaven and the redeemer relationship". Watch me not prove that though.
vs 6
This verse really does create a formal, quite stark, distinction between the covenants. It's more than just a realisation or fulfilment of the old covenant. It is a fulfiment and then replacement of the old with the new.
vs 7
Exactly!
vs 8
Note that the fault was not with the covenant, it was with the people. Now, some design types may say that if you design something without end users in mind, then it is a failure if they then can't use it. But we have to remember that the old (mosaic) covenant was created with sinful humans in mind! Why else have sin offerings, except that you are designing a system for a sinful people.
And now, for the next few verses, we look at Jeremiah, through whom God promised this - probably the only good news in Jeremiah. That good news starts here with the promise of a new covenant. Is that good news when you're already under a covenant? By the time you get to Jeremiah it's damn good news, because the old covenant has sucked the big one for a while by then.
vs 9
Succinctly, this verse gives the reason why there will be differences. The main reason is that God's people simply didn't follow the old one (hence their fault) and so God turned away from them. That's not what God wants from a covenant relationship with people, so it's gotta be changed.
vs 10
The God-People relationship had already been established, but this promise is new - writing the laws on their hearts. Note that laws governing behaviour don't go away. These are still going to be part of the new covenant. But now, they will be written on the heart. This is no doubt a relief to all those who had trouble following them (or remembering them) in the first place, but it would cause a stir in the priest's union :P
This does raise just a little speculation - is the new covenant an eternal covenant? We believe so. At least I think we do. If so, does that mean that the laws written on our hearts will be perfected when we're in heaven? If so, that surely assumes that we're going to be doing more in heaven than just bowing on our knees every second of the day. I think about these things sometimes.
vs 11
Of course, the challenge to us is to be teaching our neighbours to know the Lord... but just imagine, in the future in heaven, no more door-knocking!
vs 12
Now here we see the confusion of an eternal covenant that starts within a temporal timeframe. We're forgiven now, but of course the covenant doesn't end with the end of this timeline.
vs 13
Of course we all know that this works much better in theory than practice. I mean, just try and convince a government department to upgrade their computer systems and you'll see what I mean.
It's good to know that this wasn't all just pointless speculating on theological hypotheses.
vs 2
And with that, we get our almost seamless transition between Melchi and the tabernacle. Thrilling stuff.
Oh, and no, I don't think the "true tabernacle" is actually a tabernacle.
vs 3
Following the model of the earthly? That's what the language suggests, but surely we would think that God designed the tabernacle to describe symbolically the work of the coming messiah?
vs 4
This is an important distinction - it's not just an addition to the legal/priestly services, which are actually adequately taken up by human priests (because they are not powerful to dethrone sin).
vs 5
This makes it sound more and more like there's a big tent in heaven. Pardon me if I don't think that's exactly what the author is saying. But if that's not what he's saying, then why make the point from Exodus 25:40? Surely he means "Make it exactly as I describe so that it most accurately symbolises heaven and the redeemer relationship". Watch me not prove that though.
vs 6
This verse really does create a formal, quite stark, distinction between the covenants. It's more than just a realisation or fulfilment of the old covenant. It is a fulfiment and then replacement of the old with the new.
vs 7
Exactly!
vs 8
Note that the fault was not with the covenant, it was with the people. Now, some design types may say that if you design something without end users in mind, then it is a failure if they then can't use it. But we have to remember that the old (mosaic) covenant was created with sinful humans in mind! Why else have sin offerings, except that you are designing a system for a sinful people.
And now, for the next few verses, we look at Jeremiah, through whom God promised this - probably the only good news in Jeremiah. That good news starts here with the promise of a new covenant. Is that good news when you're already under a covenant? By the time you get to Jeremiah it's damn good news, because the old covenant has sucked the big one for a while by then.
vs 9
Succinctly, this verse gives the reason why there will be differences. The main reason is that God's people simply didn't follow the old one (hence their fault) and so God turned away from them. That's not what God wants from a covenant relationship with people, so it's gotta be changed.
vs 10
The God-People relationship had already been established, but this promise is new - writing the laws on their hearts. Note that laws governing behaviour don't go away. These are still going to be part of the new covenant. But now, they will be written on the heart. This is no doubt a relief to all those who had trouble following them (or remembering them) in the first place, but it would cause a stir in the priest's union :P
This does raise just a little speculation - is the new covenant an eternal covenant? We believe so. At least I think we do. If so, does that mean that the laws written on our hearts will be perfected when we're in heaven? If so, that surely assumes that we're going to be doing more in heaven than just bowing on our knees every second of the day. I think about these things sometimes.
vs 11
Of course, the challenge to us is to be teaching our neighbours to know the Lord... but just imagine, in the future in heaven, no more door-knocking!
vs 12
Now here we see the confusion of an eternal covenant that starts within a temporal timeframe. We're forgiven now, but of course the covenant doesn't end with the end of this timeline.
vs 13
Of course we all know that this works much better in theory than practice. I mean, just try and convince a government department to upgrade their computer systems and you'll see what I mean.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Hebrews chapter 7
vs 19
You might be tempted to call the last verse hyperbole, and that is probably a reasonable assessment. It's like when Jesus says that people have to hate their families to be his followers. It's comparitive.
It is true that when you compare the Law, which makes nothing perfect, to the new hope of Christ, which draws us near to God, then it does seem pretty weak and feeble. Again, comparitive.
vs 20
That's interesting, for sure! You think of Eli's sons and Samuel's sons and some of the other various priests that caused trouble - they inherited a priesthood, but they didn't even take an oath for it like a Nazarite. Inhereted jobs is inherently a bad idea. In leadership it produces stability to an extent, but ultimately it's not a fruitful or logical move to make. In family work it produces normally at least one son who can do the job well.
vs 21
So again, Jesus is different, in that God swore an oath to make his eternal priesthood.
vs 22
So this new covenant that Jesus brings is sealed by God's own oath. To be fair, God sealed the covenant for the original priesthood too, but the difference is that that covenant was with Israel overall, and so it was inevitably going to include bad priests. This one is with the new priesthood, whose new high priest is the priest forever.
vs 23
It seems the next difference we will look at is the number of high priests. Humans die, so they need to be replaced.
vs 24
Of course, he did die, but that was like a long weekend off more than requiring a replacement.
vs 25
So the eternal nature of the priest means that he has an eternal role in salvation. It's an interesting idea. The theological development in this book is just awesome.
vs 26
All of those are focusing on things that a regular high priest can never be. So we've looked at his humanity, but now we see the glory of having God, in Christ, as our High Priest. He is, of course, perfect for the job. Interestingly, the things that make him so are to do almost exclusively with his holiness. It's all about separation and purity. Do we focus on that enough?
vs 27
The similarities of the sacrifice to the old covenant are only all the more in sharp relief when you compare these differences. A sacrifice of self, rather than animal. No need for sacrificing for his own sins. A one of sacrifice that covers sin forever in a way that human sacrifices of animals never could - it could only further highlight the bloody cost of sin.
This is a pinnacle of our faith - but it's based on the Jewish system. This idea frames such a big part of our soteriology, and so we go and beat people over the head with it. Now to a Jew, they're more likely to go "Wow!" - but to Jews still do animal sacrifices? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. So even then it might not be a super powerful statement, although I guess they're more likely to know their history.
My point is not that we should drop this idea from our soteriology - crazy talk! It is foundational, it is necessary, and it is awesome! But perhaps we should reconsider its usefulness as a picture for evangelism.
vs 28
That is a very good final summary verse. I don't know really what I can say about it, so I won't say anything. You can feel in the language, though, the urging to pull Jews away from their law-iness. Especially Jewish Christians who may have been straying back towards the law.
You might be tempted to call the last verse hyperbole, and that is probably a reasonable assessment. It's like when Jesus says that people have to hate their families to be his followers. It's comparitive.
It is true that when you compare the Law, which makes nothing perfect, to the new hope of Christ, which draws us near to God, then it does seem pretty weak and feeble. Again, comparitive.
vs 20
That's interesting, for sure! You think of Eli's sons and Samuel's sons and some of the other various priests that caused trouble - they inherited a priesthood, but they didn't even take an oath for it like a Nazarite. Inhereted jobs is inherently a bad idea. In leadership it produces stability to an extent, but ultimately it's not a fruitful or logical move to make. In family work it produces normally at least one son who can do the job well.
vs 21
So again, Jesus is different, in that God swore an oath to make his eternal priesthood.
vs 22
So this new covenant that Jesus brings is sealed by God's own oath. To be fair, God sealed the covenant for the original priesthood too, but the difference is that that covenant was with Israel overall, and so it was inevitably going to include bad priests. This one is with the new priesthood, whose new high priest is the priest forever.
vs 23
It seems the next difference we will look at is the number of high priests. Humans die, so they need to be replaced.
vs 24
Of course, he did die, but that was like a long weekend off more than requiring a replacement.
vs 25
So the eternal nature of the priest means that he has an eternal role in salvation. It's an interesting idea. The theological development in this book is just awesome.
vs 26
All of those are focusing on things that a regular high priest can never be. So we've looked at his humanity, but now we see the glory of having God, in Christ, as our High Priest. He is, of course, perfect for the job. Interestingly, the things that make him so are to do almost exclusively with his holiness. It's all about separation and purity. Do we focus on that enough?
vs 27
The similarities of the sacrifice to the old covenant are only all the more in sharp relief when you compare these differences. A sacrifice of self, rather than animal. No need for sacrificing for his own sins. A one of sacrifice that covers sin forever in a way that human sacrifices of animals never could - it could only further highlight the bloody cost of sin.
This is a pinnacle of our faith - but it's based on the Jewish system. This idea frames such a big part of our soteriology, and so we go and beat people over the head with it. Now to a Jew, they're more likely to go "Wow!" - but to Jews still do animal sacrifices? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. So even then it might not be a super powerful statement, although I guess they're more likely to know their history.
My point is not that we should drop this idea from our soteriology - crazy talk! It is foundational, it is necessary, and it is awesome! But perhaps we should reconsider its usefulness as a picture for evangelism.
vs 28
That is a very good final summary verse. I don't know really what I can say about it, so I won't say anything. You can feel in the language, though, the urging to pull Jews away from their law-iness. Especially Jewish Christians who may have been straying back towards the law.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Hebrews chapter 7
vs 10
Thankfully, Jesus was born of a virgin, otherwise people would be talking about how David had Jesus in his body when he did things. We can be spared that.
This verse really does show the power of familial and ancestral links, and the importance of history, to these people. We would never think of this. We would not consider the effect of an action of our ancestors in such a way. And in fact, on a more negative note, it could be argued that such thinking has been used historically to perpetuate slavery and class distinctions through bloodlines. That's what aristocracy became all about.
vs 11
The idea that if there is something yet to come, that the present thing obviously isn't built for eternity, is a very interesting notion. It's a mixture of comforting and disturbing. Comforting because we know we have a perfect model to look forward to. Disturbing because we're working in an imperfect one. Thankfully, our church culture (I mean locally) doesn't tend to equate church with salvation or covenant relationship, whereas the Jewish culture (not necessarily the Law itself!) did do that with the Law and the priesthood.
vs 12
I take it they mean from Aaron to Melchizedek, not from high priest to high priest.
vs 13
Because Levi was the tribe designated to serve at the altar.
vs 14
Or any other tribe, I would imagine.
It's an interesting verse to show that this stuff about tribes and ancestry is important to Jews. Gentiles obviously don't care what family of Israel Jesus was born into.
vs 15
Like, say, Jesus.
vs 16-17
I'm guessing the focus here is on the term "forever". Jesus' life may have been taken from him, but it wasn't destroyed. If you are resurrected, you are indeed indestructible. Humanity are an eternal race, really. Unless you're an annihilationist, then the fact is that even those who go to hell stay there forever. Interesting thought.
vs 18
That being the old law, which we have already read earlier is not to be used for eternity.
Thankfully, Jesus was born of a virgin, otherwise people would be talking about how David had Jesus in his body when he did things. We can be spared that.
This verse really does show the power of familial and ancestral links, and the importance of history, to these people. We would never think of this. We would not consider the effect of an action of our ancestors in such a way. And in fact, on a more negative note, it could be argued that such thinking has been used historically to perpetuate slavery and class distinctions through bloodlines. That's what aristocracy became all about.
vs 11
The idea that if there is something yet to come, that the present thing obviously isn't built for eternity, is a very interesting notion. It's a mixture of comforting and disturbing. Comforting because we know we have a perfect model to look forward to. Disturbing because we're working in an imperfect one. Thankfully, our church culture (I mean locally) doesn't tend to equate church with salvation or covenant relationship, whereas the Jewish culture (not necessarily the Law itself!) did do that with the Law and the priesthood.
vs 12
I take it they mean from Aaron to Melchizedek, not from high priest to high priest.
vs 13
Because Levi was the tribe designated to serve at the altar.
vs 14
Or any other tribe, I would imagine.
It's an interesting verse to show that this stuff about tribes and ancestry is important to Jews. Gentiles obviously don't care what family of Israel Jesus was born into.
vs 15
Like, say, Jesus.
vs 16-17
I'm guessing the focus here is on the term "forever". Jesus' life may have been taken from him, but it wasn't destroyed. If you are resurrected, you are indeed indestructible. Humanity are an eternal race, really. Unless you're an annihilationist, then the fact is that even those who go to hell stay there forever. Interesting thought.
vs 18
That being the old law, which we have already read earlier is not to be used for eternity.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Hebrews chapter 7
For such an imposing book, this is the first chapter that's been more than 20 verses.
vs 1
This is just historical stuff. All laid out in the Genesis account. Nothing to see here.
vs 2
Those sound like fairly messianic titles, so that's kinda cool. Surely they meant something when Genesis was written too. The fact is that Genesis has a lot of stuff written in this mystic sort of style, where people's names mean things and such.
vs 3
Now I've got to say that this is not based on meaningless gibber. The genealogies are taken seriously by the Jews obviously, and not just for showing a record of family line - they represent a line of life and death, continuing death after Adam, in fact. Hence the importance of Enoch, who lives but does not die. Melchizedek neither is born nor dies. The author says this resembles the Son of God, but who it really resembles is God.
vs 4
Well, if he's God or the Son of God, then it only stands to reason. Why does Abraham give him the 10%? As a show that he believes Melchizedek is really a priest of God Most High?
vs 5
Now we see the beginnings of a rabbinic argument. It looks at the tithe - a tenth of everything paid to the Levites to (among other things) support them in their ministry between Israel and God.
vs 6
The point being that Melchi is not a Levite - that his priesthood is of a different order. His own order.
vs 7
Which is kinda humbling, really. I always say "God bless you" - and I guess that's the right thing to say, because the greater blesses the lesser. But my own blessing should only really be on those lesser than me. Do I really want to claim that over anyone?
vs 8
Declared seems like too long a bow - inferred via rabinnical argument, perhaps.
vs 9
I guess one might say that. Certainly we don't see things that way, but then we don't draw up long genealogies either. I don't even know my grandfathers' names, although in that I am probably a little ahead of my time. Certainly I know nothing about their fathers, and who knows anything of their fathers before them?
The thing is, though, that they did say things like that, so for them it's important. I mean, I guess my future kids paid for my shoes, because they were still in my body at the time. That's less meaningful, though - although they will inherit my shoes.
vs 1
This is just historical stuff. All laid out in the Genesis account. Nothing to see here.
vs 2
Those sound like fairly messianic titles, so that's kinda cool. Surely they meant something when Genesis was written too. The fact is that Genesis has a lot of stuff written in this mystic sort of style, where people's names mean things and such.
vs 3
Now I've got to say that this is not based on meaningless gibber. The genealogies are taken seriously by the Jews obviously, and not just for showing a record of family line - they represent a line of life and death, continuing death after Adam, in fact. Hence the importance of Enoch, who lives but does not die. Melchizedek neither is born nor dies. The author says this resembles the Son of God, but who it really resembles is God.
vs 4
Well, if he's God or the Son of God, then it only stands to reason. Why does Abraham give him the 10%? As a show that he believes Melchizedek is really a priest of God Most High?
vs 5
Now we see the beginnings of a rabbinic argument. It looks at the tithe - a tenth of everything paid to the Levites to (among other things) support them in their ministry between Israel and God.
vs 6
The point being that Melchi is not a Levite - that his priesthood is of a different order. His own order.
vs 7
Which is kinda humbling, really. I always say "God bless you" - and I guess that's the right thing to say, because the greater blesses the lesser. But my own blessing should only really be on those lesser than me. Do I really want to claim that over anyone?
vs 8
Declared seems like too long a bow - inferred via rabinnical argument, perhaps.
vs 9
I guess one might say that. Certainly we don't see things that way, but then we don't draw up long genealogies either. I don't even know my grandfathers' names, although in that I am probably a little ahead of my time. Certainly I know nothing about their fathers, and who knows anything of their fathers before them?
The thing is, though, that they did say things like that, so for them it's important. I mean, I guess my future kids paid for my shoes, because they were still in my body at the time. That's less meaningful, though - although they will inherit my shoes.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Hebrews chapter 6
vs 11
The purpose for these works is assurance of hope. We as humans aren't assured just by the promises of God, I guess. We need to see something concrete we can hang our hopes on, and so that becomes good stuff we do for other people by the power of the Spirit. Of course, if we're not really doing those things, what happens to our hope then?
vs 12
Patience in this case, then, doesn't mean waiting with your arms folded and humming a tune. It means getting busy so that the time goes past faster. Or that sort of thing. My point is it's a busy, active patience.
vs 13
It would seem to me that we're going on to a new idea here. The thread seems to have been somewhat broken.
So now we're looking at Abraham, and God's promise. Although we're told not to make oaths in the NT, it was done regularly in the OT, even by God. And so God swears it on himself, because who else is going to hold him to it?
vs 14
This was the promise to Abraham - one about blessing and descendants. I'm sure this is going somewhere.
vs 15
Ahh, so the point is that Abraham had to wait, a long time, to see that promise fulfilled. Got it.
vs 16
Now we get a lesson in oaths. Considering that the people reading this would have known much better than us what an oath is, it's surprising that it still gets explained so openly. Perhaps this really does mean that when they don't explain something in detail, they simply don't know!
vs 17
That confirmation is important. It shows that God is serious. I mean, God's not going to lie, so it's not important for him to keep his promise. But it's important for us, because it shows the importance of the promise.
vs 18
I realise only now that this verse is really only promising that God cannot lie about these things. I'm not sure what the two things are - the two portions of the promise, blessings and descendants? It must be, because it is beause of these promises that we are able to come to him for hope and to be encouraged. The description of fleeing to him is an interesting one - it's like we are refugees fleeing war.
vs 19
Hope is secure, an important part of the evangelical faith, and an interesting foil to the earlier point about falling away.
vs 20
Hope becomes personified, and enters the sanctuary in ther way a priestly representative would. It makes the point that Jesus has been there already. Perhaps Jesus is the personification of our hope. I would say that makes more sense, but this language is awfully vague.
And now, finally, we have come back around full circle, and we will begin to learn again about Melchizidek.
The purpose for these works is assurance of hope. We as humans aren't assured just by the promises of God, I guess. We need to see something concrete we can hang our hopes on, and so that becomes good stuff we do for other people by the power of the Spirit. Of course, if we're not really doing those things, what happens to our hope then?
vs 12
Patience in this case, then, doesn't mean waiting with your arms folded and humming a tune. It means getting busy so that the time goes past faster. Or that sort of thing. My point is it's a busy, active patience.
vs 13
It would seem to me that we're going on to a new idea here. The thread seems to have been somewhat broken.
So now we're looking at Abraham, and God's promise. Although we're told not to make oaths in the NT, it was done regularly in the OT, even by God. And so God swears it on himself, because who else is going to hold him to it?
vs 14
This was the promise to Abraham - one about blessing and descendants. I'm sure this is going somewhere.
vs 15
Ahh, so the point is that Abraham had to wait, a long time, to see that promise fulfilled. Got it.
vs 16
Now we get a lesson in oaths. Considering that the people reading this would have known much better than us what an oath is, it's surprising that it still gets explained so openly. Perhaps this really does mean that when they don't explain something in detail, they simply don't know!
vs 17
That confirmation is important. It shows that God is serious. I mean, God's not going to lie, so it's not important for him to keep his promise. But it's important for us, because it shows the importance of the promise.
vs 18
I realise only now that this verse is really only promising that God cannot lie about these things. I'm not sure what the two things are - the two portions of the promise, blessings and descendants? It must be, because it is beause of these promises that we are able to come to him for hope and to be encouraged. The description of fleeing to him is an interesting one - it's like we are refugees fleeing war.
vs 19
Hope is secure, an important part of the evangelical faith, and an interesting foil to the earlier point about falling away.
vs 20
Hope becomes personified, and enters the sanctuary in ther way a priestly representative would. It makes the point that Jesus has been there already. Perhaps Jesus is the personification of our hope. I would say that makes more sense, but this language is awfully vague.
And now, finally, we have come back around full circle, and we will begin to learn again about Melchizidek.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Hebrews chapter 6
vs 1
I wonder if "useless rituals" is an alternate manuscript or a translation of an idiomatic phrase.
The interesting thing being that we will get back to Melchi, but for the moment we've gone off on this tangent about maturity.
So for the moment, he wants to go past these simple foundational things to the faith. This list starts off normal here -we think "Ahh, yes. Repentance and faith, the cornerstones of our beliefs."
vs 2
Cleansing rites? That confused me. It means baptism, or at least that's what most other translations say. Assuming that it means baptism, then we have resurrection and eternal judgment, which are all part of the typical church teaching in one form or another. Then we have "laying on of hands". Forgive me for not recognising which part of the "foundational" part of my faith this is linked with.
vs 3
The author is keen to move past this stuff and teach something deeper. Not because it's not important, but because maturity demands building on a foundation, not just pitching a tent on it.
vs 4-5
So the question here is whether these things are all the same, or whether this is a progressive thing. That is, is it an and or an or - do you need to have been enlightened, then tasted the heavenly gift, then shared in the Spirit, then tasted the goodness of the word, and then fall away? Or are all of these things more or less the same? I get the feeling of the latter. But why say four things? Perhaps three is the new four - for emphasis.
vs 6
If you consider what the author compares these actions to - that is, crucifying Christ again - it makes me think that all the different things describe a situation or position. That is, I don't think they describe a to-do list in order to recrucify Christ.
Of course, the question everyone wants to know is can a Christian fall away. The answer given by Sydney Anglicans is "Don't", which is not very intellectually satisfying. But my question is what is really meant by falling away here? The language is so vague. Sure, you can say that it means "Someone who had faith", but why not just say that? Why go on about tasting and sharing. A taste doesn't sound too serious to me, see. But sharing the Holy Spirit sounds mega serious. I guess that we can only taste the heavenly gift and the powers of the coming age, because we will only see them in wholeness at the end. Can that be said of the Word of God too? Possibly.
My understanding is that people don't just get a mixed sampler of the Holy Spirit - you either have it and are one of God's people, or you don't, and you aren't. So then that does sound like it's overall pretty serious. But that still doesn't answer what "fall away" means. I can tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean "sin", because John makes it clear in his epistles that Christians still sin and are forgiven. Does it mean deny salvation, deny Christ's sufficiency? The kind of falling back into reliance on ritual and history and Law? That seems to fit, but I'll keep my options open, because how is that different to other sin?
Perhaps the idea is that if you think your falling away is really a step forward, then from that position you can't accept repentance or the sacrifice of Christ. But then that doesn't really seem to be the message here. The language seems so final. Difficult.
vs 7-8
This is obviously not about farming - it's a picture of what has just been talked about. So that means that this "falling away" business is at least somewhat to do with fruit. There has to be something to show for your faith. If there's no fruit, then you're useless, and then it's burning time.
vs 9
Well, that's nice. So this was a little warning, but really the author doesn't think his audience is in that dire a straits yet.
vs 10
And this verse, see, is about fruit. So as far as the author is concerned, he can see the fruit of their salvation, and therefore doesn't think that they're in for the inability to return fall. So this subject of falling was important enough to get a mention, but not really so important as to spend time and clarify. Perhaps the author didn't know any better than us anyway.
I wonder if "useless rituals" is an alternate manuscript or a translation of an idiomatic phrase.
The interesting thing being that we will get back to Melchi, but for the moment we've gone off on this tangent about maturity.
So for the moment, he wants to go past these simple foundational things to the faith. This list starts off normal here -we think "Ahh, yes. Repentance and faith, the cornerstones of our beliefs."
vs 2
Cleansing rites? That confused me. It means baptism, or at least that's what most other translations say. Assuming that it means baptism, then we have resurrection and eternal judgment, which are all part of the typical church teaching in one form or another. Then we have "laying on of hands". Forgive me for not recognising which part of the "foundational" part of my faith this is linked with.
vs 3
The author is keen to move past this stuff and teach something deeper. Not because it's not important, but because maturity demands building on a foundation, not just pitching a tent on it.
vs 4-5
So the question here is whether these things are all the same, or whether this is a progressive thing. That is, is it an and or an or - do you need to have been enlightened, then tasted the heavenly gift, then shared in the Spirit, then tasted the goodness of the word, and then fall away? Or are all of these things more or less the same? I get the feeling of the latter. But why say four things? Perhaps three is the new four - for emphasis.
vs 6
If you consider what the author compares these actions to - that is, crucifying Christ again - it makes me think that all the different things describe a situation or position. That is, I don't think they describe a to-do list in order to recrucify Christ.
Of course, the question everyone wants to know is can a Christian fall away. The answer given by Sydney Anglicans is "Don't", which is not very intellectually satisfying. But my question is what is really meant by falling away here? The language is so vague. Sure, you can say that it means "Someone who had faith", but why not just say that? Why go on about tasting and sharing. A taste doesn't sound too serious to me, see. But sharing the Holy Spirit sounds mega serious. I guess that we can only taste the heavenly gift and the powers of the coming age, because we will only see them in wholeness at the end. Can that be said of the Word of God too? Possibly.
My understanding is that people don't just get a mixed sampler of the Holy Spirit - you either have it and are one of God's people, or you don't, and you aren't. So then that does sound like it's overall pretty serious. But that still doesn't answer what "fall away" means. I can tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean "sin", because John makes it clear in his epistles that Christians still sin and are forgiven. Does it mean deny salvation, deny Christ's sufficiency? The kind of falling back into reliance on ritual and history and Law? That seems to fit, but I'll keep my options open, because how is that different to other sin?
Perhaps the idea is that if you think your falling away is really a step forward, then from that position you can't accept repentance or the sacrifice of Christ. But then that doesn't really seem to be the message here. The language seems so final. Difficult.
vs 7-8
This is obviously not about farming - it's a picture of what has just been talked about. So that means that this "falling away" business is at least somewhat to do with fruit. There has to be something to show for your faith. If there's no fruit, then you're useless, and then it's burning time.
vs 9
Well, that's nice. So this was a little warning, but really the author doesn't think his audience is in that dire a straits yet.
vs 10
And this verse, see, is about fruit. So as far as the author is concerned, he can see the fruit of their salvation, and therefore doesn't think that they're in for the inability to return fall. So this subject of falling was important enough to get a mention, but not really so important as to spend time and clarify. Perhaps the author didn't know any better than us anyway.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Hebrews chapter 5
vs 8
The idea this verse nibbles at is that Christ learned obedience to God, and that through suffering. Now, here's the thing - Christ cannot have been disobedient to God, ever, and yet retain his title as "sinless perfect guy". And if he had to learn obedience through suffering, then does that not mean that there was a stage where his obedience was something less than perfect obedience?
Of course, this assumes that the suffering that taught obedience was that of the cross rather than, say, that of coming to earth as a man in the first place. The fact is that human life is fraught with suffering. But then, we get told that God is hurt by the disobedience and hate towards him of his creations - isn't that suffering?
Calvin says that Christ was always obedient, but that he 'learned obedience' in that he experienced the ultimate obedience - that of death for the sake of the Father's will. It's not without its problems, but it's a fair solution.
vs 9
Then we hit another speed bump at the "made perfect" - almost the exact same problem. Some say it is the salvation that is being made perfect, some say that it should be retranslated as "sanctified" - the idea that Christ is being anointed into his role as high priest through the suffering - or that the suffering is being made perfect, that is, complete.
Again, an atemporal view of Christ softens the blow here a bit if you want to read it as "Christ was made perfect". Not sure how orthodox that would be, though.
What you do have to cope with is that it is Christ that becomes the source of salvation. Nothing else.
vs 10
And from here, we expect a lesson on why Melchi is so important. Do we get it though?
Not quite. Instead, we get something telling us that...
vs 11
I really like the TNIV here. The suggestion that it is not just a hearing problem or a learning disability, but a hardness of heart that prevents understanding. That the author has mentioned Melchi at all obviously means that the readers would have some understanding of what he means by this link. So that tells us something about the audience, if nothing else.
But we're about to learn a lot more about them.
vs 12
They've somehow lost their way. It is not that they aren't mature believers in age - that's why they should be teachers. But they are not mature in their understanding. They got a certain way, and stopped, or they got a certain way then retreated back to the old ways of judaism.
Obviously, for a teacher, this is not an ideal outcome.
vs 13
So you see the mature teaching, in the author's opinion, is that about righteousness. So an infant might know about salvation, but the mature Christian is the one who understands the teaching about righteousness. In this case, at least. I would probably accept that as a fairly universal principle.
vs 14
Now we get a bit of a mix in the metaphor here. It would seem that the mature are the ones that are able to learn righteousness, but it also seems that their maturity comes from judging right and wrong - which some might call righteousness. It might be a bit like a brick wall - you build the bricks on top of more bricks, and so you build righteousness on top of righteousness. But you've got to start somewhere, and it can't be by drinking milk. Now there's a mixed metaphor.
The idea this verse nibbles at is that Christ learned obedience to God, and that through suffering. Now, here's the thing - Christ cannot have been disobedient to God, ever, and yet retain his title as "sinless perfect guy". And if he had to learn obedience through suffering, then does that not mean that there was a stage where his obedience was something less than perfect obedience?
Of course, this assumes that the suffering that taught obedience was that of the cross rather than, say, that of coming to earth as a man in the first place. The fact is that human life is fraught with suffering. But then, we get told that God is hurt by the disobedience and hate towards him of his creations - isn't that suffering?
Calvin says that Christ was always obedient, but that he 'learned obedience' in that he experienced the ultimate obedience - that of death for the sake of the Father's will. It's not without its problems, but it's a fair solution.
vs 9
Then we hit another speed bump at the "made perfect" - almost the exact same problem. Some say it is the salvation that is being made perfect, some say that it should be retranslated as "sanctified" - the idea that Christ is being anointed into his role as high priest through the suffering - or that the suffering is being made perfect, that is, complete.
Again, an atemporal view of Christ softens the blow here a bit if you want to read it as "Christ was made perfect". Not sure how orthodox that would be, though.
What you do have to cope with is that it is Christ that becomes the source of salvation. Nothing else.
vs 10
And from here, we expect a lesson on why Melchi is so important. Do we get it though?
Not quite. Instead, we get something telling us that...
vs 11
I really like the TNIV here. The suggestion that it is not just a hearing problem or a learning disability, but a hardness of heart that prevents understanding. That the author has mentioned Melchi at all obviously means that the readers would have some understanding of what he means by this link. So that tells us something about the audience, if nothing else.
But we're about to learn a lot more about them.
vs 12
They've somehow lost their way. It is not that they aren't mature believers in age - that's why they should be teachers. But they are not mature in their understanding. They got a certain way, and stopped, or they got a certain way then retreated back to the old ways of judaism.
Obviously, for a teacher, this is not an ideal outcome.
vs 13
So you see the mature teaching, in the author's opinion, is that about righteousness. So an infant might know about salvation, but the mature Christian is the one who understands the teaching about righteousness. In this case, at least. I would probably accept that as a fairly universal principle.
vs 14
Now we get a bit of a mix in the metaphor here. It would seem that the mature are the ones that are able to learn righteousness, but it also seems that their maturity comes from judging right and wrong - which some might call righteousness. It might be a bit like a brick wall - you build the bricks on top of more bricks, and so you build righteousness on top of righteousness. But you've got to start somewhere, and it can't be by drinking milk. Now there's a mixed metaphor.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Hebrews chapter 5
vs 1
Wow, when you put it so succintly, you wonder how anyone could think Jesus is not the great high priest. From among people, represents to God, sacrifices for sin.
vs 2
It's funny to think of it this way. I don't know about you, but - possibly through a mix of social experience of religious hierarchy and reading the Law of the OT - the high priest never hit me as a sympathetic and gentle position. But he didn't write the laws. His job was to be understanding of the inadequacies of the people and to make amends.
vs 3
I have this feeling that, as a kingdom of priests, Christians have this problem - that we get all high and mighty about how righteous we are, and how we don't seem to struggle with all the sins that we've labelled as really bad. So we end up being judgmental of sinners instead of compassionate and understanding.
vs 4
Who would want it? The more accountable a position of authority, generally the less attractive. Imagine the importance of this position.
Then realise that we are all priests. Oh dear.
vs 5
Of course, this verse won't convince people that want to believe that Jesus was some sort of revolutionary seeking to make a name for himself. But those with faith can be assured here that Christ was not self seeking, but was in a way called to the position by nature of his interitance.
vs 6
Now we start on the comparisons with this mysterious character. The name means King of Righteousness. It's incredible how these people who turn up for bit parts in the Bible end up taking on so much importance. No greater, I reckon, than Melchizedek (or Melchi as we call him). Melchizedek was a king and a priest. There are a bunch of reasons people say he's important. Let's see what the author of Hebrews says.
vs 7
Was he not heard because he is God's Son? Would Jesus have ceased being the Son if he had not lived in reverent submission? The verses following will clear this up for us... tomorrow.
Wow, when you put it so succintly, you wonder how anyone could think Jesus is not the great high priest. From among people, represents to God, sacrifices for sin.
vs 2
It's funny to think of it this way. I don't know about you, but - possibly through a mix of social experience of religious hierarchy and reading the Law of the OT - the high priest never hit me as a sympathetic and gentle position. But he didn't write the laws. His job was to be understanding of the inadequacies of the people and to make amends.
vs 3
I have this feeling that, as a kingdom of priests, Christians have this problem - that we get all high and mighty about how righteous we are, and how we don't seem to struggle with all the sins that we've labelled as really bad. So we end up being judgmental of sinners instead of compassionate and understanding.
vs 4
Who would want it? The more accountable a position of authority, generally the less attractive. Imagine the importance of this position.
Then realise that we are all priests. Oh dear.
vs 5
Of course, this verse won't convince people that want to believe that Jesus was some sort of revolutionary seeking to make a name for himself. But those with faith can be assured here that Christ was not self seeking, but was in a way called to the position by nature of his interitance.
vs 6
Now we start on the comparisons with this mysterious character. The name means King of Righteousness. It's incredible how these people who turn up for bit parts in the Bible end up taking on so much importance. No greater, I reckon, than Melchizedek (or Melchi as we call him). Melchizedek was a king and a priest. There are a bunch of reasons people say he's important. Let's see what the author of Hebrews says.
vs 7
Was he not heard because he is God's Son? Would Jesus have ceased being the Son if he had not lived in reverent submission? The verses following will clear this up for us... tomorrow.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Hebrews chapter 4
vs 9
This really gives a full meaning to the idea that the OT exists as an example for the spiritual reality - the rest promised to Israel is only an example of the true rest offered to all through Christ.
vs 10
The end of God's plan is for us all to have rest. Work was given to humanity to do, but is not the ultimate goal of God. The ultimate goal is rest. Work itself wasn't a curse (though it did become cursed) - work was given to man in the garden before the fall. But it's also not eternal, it would seem.
vs 11
I wonder if this is a broad link to the idea of life being work. The allusion here is to the wanderings in the desert - if they had strived harder to enter the Promised Land, instead of whinging, they may have made it to their promised rest after the travel. Is the spiritual life a life of work in order to enter a heavenly rest? Well, not really. I mean, it is, but in the end, that's not what gets you into the rest. It's faith.
vs 12
This does not make obedience worthless. Faith and obedience go hand in hand. And so God's Word exists so that we may obey it. And it is by the Word that we will be judged.
vs 13
If you think you can escape God's judgment - it's just not going to happen. He sees all, and not just externally. The Word separates out even the heart, and therefore all is laid bare.
vs 14
No high priest ever went into heaven to go and talk to God. God had to create a little sanctuary on earth so that the high priest could pretend. Again, a reflection of Christ, but Christ did the real thing.
And notice the author's focus on application of these theological truths. It's not just telling us that Christ is the ultimate high priest. So what? So hold firmly to your faith, that's what.
vs 15
Who else but God gets both sides of the coin? We get a high priest who is human in every way, and therefore can sympathise with us in a way that would otherwise not be possible, even for God. And yet, he is able to maintain his holiness by being without sin.
See, even God does not agree that you need to experience something directly to be sympathetic. God went as far as to experience temptation, but not sin. A counsellor doesn't need to experience heroin addiction to help heroin addicts. We've got to be careful there.
vs 16
God has gone through all this to make himself more approachable, so therefore we should approach. That's his goal, and it's so beneficial to us. Why not do it!
This really gives a full meaning to the idea that the OT exists as an example for the spiritual reality - the rest promised to Israel is only an example of the true rest offered to all through Christ.
vs 10
The end of God's plan is for us all to have rest. Work was given to humanity to do, but is not the ultimate goal of God. The ultimate goal is rest. Work itself wasn't a curse (though it did become cursed) - work was given to man in the garden before the fall. But it's also not eternal, it would seem.
vs 11
I wonder if this is a broad link to the idea of life being work. The allusion here is to the wanderings in the desert - if they had strived harder to enter the Promised Land, instead of whinging, they may have made it to their promised rest after the travel. Is the spiritual life a life of work in order to enter a heavenly rest? Well, not really. I mean, it is, but in the end, that's not what gets you into the rest. It's faith.
vs 12
This does not make obedience worthless. Faith and obedience go hand in hand. And so God's Word exists so that we may obey it. And it is by the Word that we will be judged.
vs 13
If you think you can escape God's judgment - it's just not going to happen. He sees all, and not just externally. The Word separates out even the heart, and therefore all is laid bare.
vs 14
No high priest ever went into heaven to go and talk to God. God had to create a little sanctuary on earth so that the high priest could pretend. Again, a reflection of Christ, but Christ did the real thing.
And notice the author's focus on application of these theological truths. It's not just telling us that Christ is the ultimate high priest. So what? So hold firmly to your faith, that's what.
vs 15
Who else but God gets both sides of the coin? We get a high priest who is human in every way, and therefore can sympathise with us in a way that would otherwise not be possible, even for God. And yet, he is able to maintain his holiness by being without sin.
See, even God does not agree that you need to experience something directly to be sympathetic. God went as far as to experience temptation, but not sin. A counsellor doesn't need to experience heroin addiction to help heroin addicts. We've got to be careful there.
vs 16
God has gone through all this to make himself more approachable, so therefore we should approach. That's his goal, and it's so beneficial to us. Why not do it!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Hebrews chapter 4
vs 1
That's exactly what happened to the Israelites. They fell short. They fell in the desert, and never entered his rest - the rest he promised they would find in the promised land.
vs 2
The TNIV takes a slightly different path here, but the overall ending comes out the same. Notice we heard the gospel, and so did they. Remember that! The gospel is more than just Jesus, Love, Bible. It's about promises and relationship with God. For us it is valuable, for them it is not. It's valuable for us if we don't fall short of it. They did fall short in their faith, so the gospel became worthless to them.
vs 3
We get a few ideas coagulating in this verse. Firstly, the faithful do enter that rest. Secondly, God's anger still stands on them (the unfaithful), who will never enter his rest. Thirdly, we start talking about what rest is, specifically God's rest. It began after his work of creation.
vs 4
Somewhere! The author is either being very modest, or he can't even remember the book of Genesis. We put so much stock in the Genesis account - the author of Hebrews can't even remember where it was.
vs 5
So we have these two things at work - God's rest, and God's promise to the unfaithful.
vs 6
So some haven't entered yet who will, and those who are disobedient still won't. Something will be built on these statements.
vs 7
We come full circle back to the psalm. There is no problem with God's promise that those who are unfaithful will never enter his rest. Because unfaithfulness doesn't need to stick to you like glue. It can happily be washed away by God, and then you're free to enter the rest.
vs 8
The promised land, then, while being a land of rest for a little while (although to be honest I don't know when that is true - during David's reign they fought, during Solomon's reign they were enslaved for public works) was not the promised rest of God. That is an eternal rest.
That's exactly what happened to the Israelites. They fell short. They fell in the desert, and never entered his rest - the rest he promised they would find in the promised land.
vs 2
The TNIV takes a slightly different path here, but the overall ending comes out the same. Notice we heard the gospel, and so did they. Remember that! The gospel is more than just Jesus, Love, Bible. It's about promises and relationship with God. For us it is valuable, for them it is not. It's valuable for us if we don't fall short of it. They did fall short in their faith, so the gospel became worthless to them.
vs 3
We get a few ideas coagulating in this verse. Firstly, the faithful do enter that rest. Secondly, God's anger still stands on them (the unfaithful), who will never enter his rest. Thirdly, we start talking about what rest is, specifically God's rest. It began after his work of creation.
vs 4
Somewhere! The author is either being very modest, or he can't even remember the book of Genesis. We put so much stock in the Genesis account - the author of Hebrews can't even remember where it was.
vs 5
So we have these two things at work - God's rest, and God's promise to the unfaithful.
vs 6
So some haven't entered yet who will, and those who are disobedient still won't. Something will be built on these statements.
vs 7
We come full circle back to the psalm. There is no problem with God's promise that those who are unfaithful will never enter his rest. Because unfaithfulness doesn't need to stick to you like glue. It can happily be washed away by God, and then you're free to enter the rest.
vs 8
The promised land, then, while being a land of rest for a little while (although to be honest I don't know when that is true - during David's reign they fought, during Solomon's reign they were enslaved for public works) was not the promised rest of God. That is an eternal rest.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Hebrews chapter 3
vs 12
Does this mean that the Hebrews to who this letter was written are dropping their spirituality altogether, or their faith in God in particular? I don't know about that. I mean, perhaps they were. But I can't imagine post-exilic Jews going back to idol worship in any great way. And there weren't really many other options.
I think more likely he talks about turning away from God as not taking Jesus to his full account. That seems to be what is being addressed in the surrounding ideas, anyway.
vs 13
I nice, poetic little concept, that as long as today is today you should be encouraging one another in your faith. However, I don't think it's unique to the Bible - I believe the author of Hebrews got the idea from The Littlest Hobo. Hey, everybody else has their crackpot theories.
Anyway, the author ultimately puts this loss of faith to a hardening of the heart through the deceitfulness of sin. Although that's a fairly wide-angle opinion, it probably makes it true. The Bible is full of such statements - have we as a modern civilisation become more interested in the minutae and lost the desire for the big picture ?
vs 14
This is an interesting idea - the idea that you can only "come to Christ" once, which is hinted at by the word "original" (or "at first" in the NIV). Automatically, I can feel my evanglical spidey senses tingling at the idea. They come up with all sorts of excuses as to what this really means.
Something new came to me this morning, though. We read the language as "falling away" language - that is, that people stop believing in Christ, fall away from their faith. But if you were to apply this idea to those who "move past" Christ - those who see Christ as a stepping stone to "true spirituality" like gnostics, it doesn't sound nearly as bad. Then it becomes about "getting back to your roots" of faith in Christ alone, and not piling up other stuff next to him or after him.
I don't know that that's exactly what's going on - perhaps there was a "new Jewish spirituality" that saw Jesus as a strong teacher, but which they felt eventually just honed your Judaism, rather than focussing on Christ as Christ.
vs 15
Here's the kicker - if you read this at surface value, it sounds like an altar call, where in reality, the letter of Hebrews isn't written to people in synagogues asking them to become Christian, but to Hebrew Christians who are struggling. It's Christians who are not to harden their hearts to Christ.
vs 16
Ie it wasn't the Philistines or Egypt themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, you can make arguments that both of these (as well as many other gentile civilisations) heard the voice of God in some way or another. But this is specific for two reasons - firstly, it's probably in reference to the verse, and secondly, it's being specific to the Jewish transgression in the desert. They are The people who heard and rebelled, if you like.
vs 17
With relationship comes responsibility. It's just as true of family relationships as it is of vassal covenants.
vs 18
Again, referring specifically to the verse quoted above. But also making the very interesting point that you can't be promised "You will not enter my rest" unless you were going to in the first place. God has never said, "The earth will never enter my rest" or "all the peoples of the earth will never enter my rest" - that's not what the Bible is about at all. No, it was Israel who was promised that rest, and is now denied it through their rebellion and hard-heartedness.
vs 19
They didn't stop believing in God, per se. Well, actually, some of them might have. Certainly they stopped believing that he was acting in a sovereign way that they should respect.
Does this mean that the Hebrews to who this letter was written are dropping their spirituality altogether, or their faith in God in particular? I don't know about that. I mean, perhaps they were. But I can't imagine post-exilic Jews going back to idol worship in any great way. And there weren't really many other options.
I think more likely he talks about turning away from God as not taking Jesus to his full account. That seems to be what is being addressed in the surrounding ideas, anyway.
vs 13
I nice, poetic little concept, that as long as today is today you should be encouraging one another in your faith. However, I don't think it's unique to the Bible - I believe the author of Hebrews got the idea from The Littlest Hobo. Hey, everybody else has their crackpot theories.
Anyway, the author ultimately puts this loss of faith to a hardening of the heart through the deceitfulness of sin. Although that's a fairly wide-angle opinion, it probably makes it true. The Bible is full of such statements - have we as a modern civilisation become more interested in the minutae and lost the desire for the big picture ?
vs 14
This is an interesting idea - the idea that you can only "come to Christ" once, which is hinted at by the word "original" (or "at first" in the NIV). Automatically, I can feel my evanglical spidey senses tingling at the idea. They come up with all sorts of excuses as to what this really means.
Something new came to me this morning, though. We read the language as "falling away" language - that is, that people stop believing in Christ, fall away from their faith. But if you were to apply this idea to those who "move past" Christ - those who see Christ as a stepping stone to "true spirituality" like gnostics, it doesn't sound nearly as bad. Then it becomes about "getting back to your roots" of faith in Christ alone, and not piling up other stuff next to him or after him.
I don't know that that's exactly what's going on - perhaps there was a "new Jewish spirituality" that saw Jesus as a strong teacher, but which they felt eventually just honed your Judaism, rather than focussing on Christ as Christ.
vs 15
Here's the kicker - if you read this at surface value, it sounds like an altar call, where in reality, the letter of Hebrews isn't written to people in synagogues asking them to become Christian, but to Hebrew Christians who are struggling. It's Christians who are not to harden their hearts to Christ.
vs 16
Ie it wasn't the Philistines or Egypt themselves. Now, don't get me wrong, you can make arguments that both of these (as well as many other gentile civilisations) heard the voice of God in some way or another. But this is specific for two reasons - firstly, it's probably in reference to the verse, and secondly, it's being specific to the Jewish transgression in the desert. They are The people who heard and rebelled, if you like.
vs 17
With relationship comes responsibility. It's just as true of family relationships as it is of vassal covenants.
vs 18
Again, referring specifically to the verse quoted above. But also making the very interesting point that you can't be promised "You will not enter my rest" unless you were going to in the first place. God has never said, "The earth will never enter my rest" or "all the peoples of the earth will never enter my rest" - that's not what the Bible is about at all. No, it was Israel who was promised that rest, and is now denied it through their rebellion and hard-heartedness.
vs 19
They didn't stop believing in God, per se. Well, actually, some of them might have. Certainly they stopped believing that he was acting in a sovereign way that they should respect.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Hebrews Chapter 3
vs 1
It's not that they didn't necessarily accept Jesus, but the call here is to focus on him, because he is the apostle (the one who was sent with the message) and is also the high priest (who mediates between people and God).
vs 2
Moses was pretty faithful, if a bit of a whinger and certainly not perfect. So Jesus was at least as good as him.
vs 3
So Moses is a house? Is the inference here that everything Moses had was built on him by Christ, even though Christ comes after temporally? I don't think that's too long a bow.
vs 4
And this backs me up.
vs 5
TNIV and NASB put the first part of this verse as a quote from Numbers 12:7.
The idea that Moses was faithful to what was yet to come really is a temporal spin. Is the inference that Moses had revealed to him more than what is given in the pentateuch?
vs 6
The comparison here is that Moses was a servant, but Christ is the Son. Now for the kicker - the church is the house!
vs 7-11
The thing to notice here is that it is the Holy Spirit that is given this voice - and so strengthening the idea that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit working in the writers. Of course, the Psalm is speaking the words of God directly, so it's not water tight.
Psalm 95, this is. And it builds up as a foundation for many points that are yet to be made. The word "today" will be focused on as the time to come to God, rather than going from God as the Israelites did. The other main point is that of rest, and what is meant by rest in the long view of the Bible.
It's not that they didn't necessarily accept Jesus, but the call here is to focus on him, because he is the apostle (the one who was sent with the message) and is also the high priest (who mediates between people and God).
vs 2
Moses was pretty faithful, if a bit of a whinger and certainly not perfect. So Jesus was at least as good as him.
vs 3
So Moses is a house? Is the inference here that everything Moses had was built on him by Christ, even though Christ comes after temporally? I don't think that's too long a bow.
vs 4
And this backs me up.
vs 5
TNIV and NASB put the first part of this verse as a quote from Numbers 12:7.
The idea that Moses was faithful to what was yet to come really is a temporal spin. Is the inference that Moses had revealed to him more than what is given in the pentateuch?
vs 6
The comparison here is that Moses was a servant, but Christ is the Son. Now for the kicker - the church is the house!
vs 7-11
The thing to notice here is that it is the Holy Spirit that is given this voice - and so strengthening the idea that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit working in the writers. Of course, the Psalm is speaking the words of God directly, so it's not water tight.
Psalm 95, this is. And it builds up as a foundation for many points that are yet to be made. The word "today" will be focused on as the time to come to God, rather than going from God as the Israelites did. The other main point is that of rest, and what is meant by rest in the long view of the Bible.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Hebrews Chapter 2
vs 10
The TNIV here uses the word 'pioneer'. I like it. Having said that, the KJV says 'captain', which is also cool.
So, this verse brings up a lot of questions. Firstly, why is it fitting? It doesn't say - not that I can see. Not here, anyway.
But that's dodging the real question - the verse doesn't say that it will make the sufferings perfect, or the salvation perfect. No, it will specifically make their author perfect. Jesus, according to this verse, is made perfect through his sufferings.
Now, for those of us who accept a temporal/atemporal paradox, this poses no problems - Jesus, existing as an atemporal being, has always been perfect. That his perfection was initiated at any given point on the temporal timeline doesn't affect that.
If you don't truck with such explanations, I hope you don't get too confused by this verse.
vs 11
This is a very comforting verse. We are of the same family as Christ, because of his work. Not only does he accept us as family, he does it without shame - we do not cause shame to God by being saved.
vs 12
Of course, David in his psalm is talking about Israel. But then, it's not a huge hop, skip and jump to take the people of God and Jesus as a similar relationship.
vs 13
I honestly don't get the relevance of Isaiah 8:17. It just doesn't seem to fit. I know it's what is in Isaiah right before the next quote, but that doesn't seem a good reason to throw it in.
The next quote seems far more relevant, with another familial relationship. This time the relationship is children, not brothers and sisters. A mixed metaphor, but hey, it still means being in the family.
vs 14
This is of course one of the key points of our faith - that God became man, took on flesh, for our sake. It was this indwelling in humanity that God chose to work his salvation plan. Only God could think of a way to use death to beat death. That's pretty awesome.
It's an interesting statement to make, that the devil has the power over death. Did God give him that power so that he could take it away again? I guess so.
vs 15
Which is everybody.
vs 16
Here's a novel idea. I wonder, if the reference to angels here, after that of death, is one that suggests that angels are not normally mortal? I guess it could. It could at least infer it or assume it. But the main point seems to be, now, that Christ came in form of humanity to save man - not as an angel.
vs 17
Note that the merciful and faithful nature which comes from the incarnation is for better service of God first and foremost. That says something, to me anyway - that the servant of God must be merciful and faithful.
But it is also for the sake of the atonement.
vs 18
I'm not quite sure about the suffering of Christ during his temptation, but it seems that suffering is what allows Christ's experiences to help others. I wonder if we think of suffering that way? After all, it was suffering and death that allows atonement.
The TNIV here uses the word 'pioneer'. I like it. Having said that, the KJV says 'captain', which is also cool.
So, this verse brings up a lot of questions. Firstly, why is it fitting? It doesn't say - not that I can see. Not here, anyway.
But that's dodging the real question - the verse doesn't say that it will make the sufferings perfect, or the salvation perfect. No, it will specifically make their author perfect. Jesus, according to this verse, is made perfect through his sufferings.
Now, for those of us who accept a temporal/atemporal paradox, this poses no problems - Jesus, existing as an atemporal being, has always been perfect. That his perfection was initiated at any given point on the temporal timeline doesn't affect that.
If you don't truck with such explanations, I hope you don't get too confused by this verse.
vs 11
This is a very comforting verse. We are of the same family as Christ, because of his work. Not only does he accept us as family, he does it without shame - we do not cause shame to God by being saved.
vs 12
Of course, David in his psalm is talking about Israel. But then, it's not a huge hop, skip and jump to take the people of God and Jesus as a similar relationship.
vs 13
I honestly don't get the relevance of Isaiah 8:17. It just doesn't seem to fit. I know it's what is in Isaiah right before the next quote, but that doesn't seem a good reason to throw it in.
The next quote seems far more relevant, with another familial relationship. This time the relationship is children, not brothers and sisters. A mixed metaphor, but hey, it still means being in the family.
vs 14
This is of course one of the key points of our faith - that God became man, took on flesh, for our sake. It was this indwelling in humanity that God chose to work his salvation plan. Only God could think of a way to use death to beat death. That's pretty awesome.
It's an interesting statement to make, that the devil has the power over death. Did God give him that power so that he could take it away again? I guess so.
vs 15
Which is everybody.
vs 16
Here's a novel idea. I wonder, if the reference to angels here, after that of death, is one that suggests that angels are not normally mortal? I guess it could. It could at least infer it or assume it. But the main point seems to be, now, that Christ came in form of humanity to save man - not as an angel.
vs 17
Note that the merciful and faithful nature which comes from the incarnation is for better service of God first and foremost. That says something, to me anyway - that the servant of God must be merciful and faithful.
But it is also for the sake of the atonement.
vs 18
I'm not quite sure about the suffering of Christ during his temptation, but it seems that suffering is what allows Christ's experiences to help others. I wonder if we think of suffering that way? After all, it was suffering and death that allows atonement.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Hebrews Chapter 2
vs 1
This verse is obviously aimed at addressing a problem with people sticking to the faith. This verse is problematic to some people who have issues with the whole assurance of salvation thing. But drifting away is the theme here for the moment.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways? How difficult would it be to be doing very similar religious activities, and to only add a name to a saviour that you were supposedly expecting anyway? More difficult than you think, it seems. Because with Christ came a change of focus - towards salvation and eternal life, towards faith rather than community. I'm not saying that community is not part of Christianity - but Judaism was about being a member of a commuity of faith which existed at least partly through bloodline, and at least partly through following tradition. Instead, Christ was adamant that it was faith that brought you to him, not your ancestry or the pig you didn't eat.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways?
vs 2
Which message are we talking about that was spoken through angels? The author could be talking about the Law, I guess. Angels seem to be fairly busy in the prophets. Hard to say, really. The Christian gospel specifically has its fair share of angels, perhaps they mean the salvation message? I think the Law is more likely, though, because of the mention of punishment. But then, I still have 1 Cor 10 rattling around in my head, so that might cause me to think in that way. If the shoe fits, though...
vs 3
The message of punishment (and punishment itself) seems to have been meted out by angels. But the message of salvation came through Christ. Now it also comes through those who heard it and have passed it on. That's the thing - the Jews were very familiar with the first half of the message - that of violation and punishment. They were also aware of the physical blessings through the land that were spoken of. But the way of salvation is new, coming through Christ. Not that it didn't exist in the OT at all, but it is vocalised now.
vs 4
These were not only accompanying Christ, but also his followers. Paul tells us, interestingly, in 1 Cor 1 that it is Jews that demand miraculous signs, while Greeks seek wisdom. Well, there was plenty of miraculous signs!
vs 5
I assume we're talking about God again now, and we are wrapping up the argument about angels. They aren't the ones who are taking over responsibility of the world. It's Christ. Christ, therefore, is superior.
vs 6-8
We of course recognise Psalm 8 here. There are three footnotes in the TNIV v8, changing "them" to "him", in what I feel was complete overkill of footnotes. Anyway, the point is that this psalm is backing up the statement that the author just made about Christ, not angels, being put over everything. It's a good verse for that. He even goes so far as to point out that we might not see this happening everywhere at this point, but this is just a present condition.
vs 9
What do we see? Jesus - made a little lower than angels (born of a man), and his resurrection shows us his crowning with glory and honour. The idea being, I suppose, that we have seen two out of three, so we should see the third coming in good time, and be expectant.
This verse is obviously aimed at addressing a problem with people sticking to the faith. This verse is problematic to some people who have issues with the whole assurance of salvation thing. But drifting away is the theme here for the moment.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways? How difficult would it be to be doing very similar religious activities, and to only add a name to a saviour that you were supposedly expecting anyway? More difficult than you think, it seems. Because with Christ came a change of focus - towards salvation and eternal life, towards faith rather than community. I'm not saying that community is not part of Christianity - but Judaism was about being a member of a commuity of faith which existed at least partly through bloodline, and at least partly through following tradition. Instead, Christ was adamant that it was faith that brought you to him, not your ancestry or the pig you didn't eat.
I wonder how many Jewish Christians had slipped back into their Jewish ways?
vs 2
Which message are we talking about that was spoken through angels? The author could be talking about the Law, I guess. Angels seem to be fairly busy in the prophets. Hard to say, really. The Christian gospel specifically has its fair share of angels, perhaps they mean the salvation message? I think the Law is more likely, though, because of the mention of punishment. But then, I still have 1 Cor 10 rattling around in my head, so that might cause me to think in that way. If the shoe fits, though...
vs 3
The message of punishment (and punishment itself) seems to have been meted out by angels. But the message of salvation came through Christ. Now it also comes through those who heard it and have passed it on. That's the thing - the Jews were very familiar with the first half of the message - that of violation and punishment. They were also aware of the physical blessings through the land that were spoken of. But the way of salvation is new, coming through Christ. Not that it didn't exist in the OT at all, but it is vocalised now.
vs 4
These were not only accompanying Christ, but also his followers. Paul tells us, interestingly, in 1 Cor 1 that it is Jews that demand miraculous signs, while Greeks seek wisdom. Well, there was plenty of miraculous signs!
vs 5
I assume we're talking about God again now, and we are wrapping up the argument about angels. They aren't the ones who are taking over responsibility of the world. It's Christ. Christ, therefore, is superior.
vs 6-8
We of course recognise Psalm 8 here. There are three footnotes in the TNIV v8, changing "them" to "him", in what I feel was complete overkill of footnotes. Anyway, the point is that this psalm is backing up the statement that the author just made about Christ, not angels, being put over everything. It's a good verse for that. He even goes so far as to point out that we might not see this happening everywhere at this point, but this is just a present condition.
vs 9
What do we see? Jesus - made a little lower than angels (born of a man), and his resurrection shows us his crowning with glory and honour. The idea being, I suppose, that we have seen two out of three, so we should see the third coming in good time, and be expectant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)