1:1- see on 1
Thess. 1:2.
The Lord was “the word made flesh"; having spoken to us through the words of the prophets, God now speaks to us in His Son (Heb. 1:1,2 RV). His revelation in that sense hasn’t finished; it is ongoing. Right now, the Lord Jesus speaks with a voice like many waters and a sword of flame- according to John’s vision of the Lord’s post-resurrection glory.
In the first century, you usually began a letter with a preface, saying who you were and to whom you were writing. The letter to the Hebrews has a preface which speaks simply of the greatness of Christ (Heb. 1:1-3). The higher critics speak of how the preface has been lost or got detached. But no, the form of Heb. 1:1-3 is indeed that of a preface. The point is that the greatness of Christ, of which the letter speaks, is so great as to push both the author and audience into irrelevancy and obscurity. It’s significant that the New Testament writers speak so frequently of Jesus as simply “the Lord”. Apparently, this would’ve been strange to first century ears. Kings and pagan gods always had their personal name added to the title ‘the Lord’- e.g. ‘the Lord Sarapis’. To just speak of “the Lord” was unheard of. The way the New Testament speaks like this indicates the utter primacy of the Lord Jesus in the minds of believers, and the familiarity they had with speaking about Him in such exalted terms.
1:2
Heb.
1:2 is another passage misunderstood to believe that Jesus created the earth.
It could be argued that the prologue to Hebrews is based upon the prologue to
John's Gospel. The same ideas recur- the Word of God from the beginning come to
expression in Christ, "all things", glory, etc. Note the similarity
between "apart from him not one thing came into being" (Jn. 1:3) and
Heb. 2:8, "not one thing is not left put under him".
Jn. 1:3 stated that "all things" were created by the Word, i.e. the
logos / intention which God had of the Messiah. Heb. 1:2 clarifies this
(because of misunderstandings in the early church?) to define the "all
things" as all the ages of human history. These were framed by God with
Christ in mind. Later in Hebrews we meet the same idea- Heb. 11:3 speaks of how
the ages were framed and then goes on to give examples of Old Testament
characters who displayed their faith and understanding of the future Messiah.
It
should be noted that the 'ages' which Christ was to be involved in creating
refer to "the world to come"- for Heb. 2:5 says that this passage is
speaking about "the world to come". Heb. 9:26 adds indirect support
by commenting that Christ died at the end of "the (singular) age";
the ages to come are the eternity of God's Kingdom which is made possible through His work. Thus the
idea is not that He created the world, but rather that through His work, the
ages /to come/ were made possible through Him. And therefore those ages before
Him find their meaning in the context of He who was to come and open the way to
eternal ages.
We
read of “the Son… by whom [Gk. dia] He [God] also made the worlds
[Gk. aion]”. A
quick look at Strong's concordance or an online Bible seems to me conclusive. 'Dia'
can mean ‘for whom / for the sake of / on
account of'. It doesn’t always
mean that, as it’s a word of wide usage- but it very often does mean ‘on
account of’ and actually frequently it cannot
mean ‘by’. There are stacks of examples:
-
In a creation context, we read that all things were created dia, for the sake
of, God’s pleasure (Rev. 4:11). Significantly, when 2 Pet. 3:5 speaks of how
the world was created “by”
the word of God, the word dia
isn’t used- instead hoti,
signifying ‘causation through’. This isn’t the word used in Heb. 1:2 about the
creation of the aion
on account of, dia,
the Son. Eve was created dia
Adam- she wasn’t created by
Adam, but for the sake of
Adam (1 Cor. 11:9). 1 Cor. 8:6 draws a helpful distinction between ek
[out of whom] and dia-
all things are ek
God, but dia,
on account of, Christ (1 Cor. 8:6).
-
The context of Heb. 1:2 features many examples of where dia clearly means
‘for the sake of’ rather than ‘by’. Just a little later we read in Heb. 1:14 of
how the Angels are “ministering spirits” who minister dia, for the sake
of, the believers.
-
Because of [dia]
Christ’s righteousness, God exalted Him (Heb. 1:9).
-
The Mosaic law was “disannulled” dia “the weakness
and unprofitableness thereof” (Heb. 7:18). The weakness of the law didn’t
disannul the law; the law was disannulled by God for the sake of the fact it was so weak.
-
Levi paid tithes dia
Abraham (Heb. 7:9), not by
Abraham, but for the sake
of the fact he was a descendant of Abraham.
-
Jesus was not an Angel dia
the suffering of death (Heb. 2:9). Clearly here the word means ‘for the sake
of’ rather than ‘by’. Jesus was born a man for
the reason that He could die. He was not an Angel who was then made
‘not an Angel’ by
the fact of death. That makes no sense.
-
Scripture was written dia us- not by us, but ‘for our
sakes’ (1 Cor. 9:10)
-
The martyrs were executed dia,
for the sake of, their witness to Jesus (Rev. 20:4)
-
Israel today are loved by God dia the Jewish fathers (Rom. 11:28)- clearly the word here means ‘for the sake of’ and not
‘by’.
-
Cold and wet people made a fire dia, for the sake of, because of,
the rain and cold (Acts 28:2). They didn’t make a fire ‘by’ the rain and cold.
-
Timothy was circumcised dia,
for the sake of, the critically minded Jews (Acts 16:3). He was not circumcised
by them.
-
When the voice came from Heaven, Jesus commented that the voice came not dia
me, but dia
the disciples (Jn. 12:30). Clearly dia here means
‘for the sake of’ and not ‘by’.
-
“Dia
the people that stand by I said it” (Jn. 11:42)- Jesus
said ‘it’ for the sake of the bystanders; He didn’t speak ‘by’ them.
-
The authorities couldn’t punish the apostles dia
the people’s support for them- clearly dia here means
‘for the sake of’ and not ‘by’.
-
Paul wrote dia
many tears (2 Cor. 2:4). He didn’t write literally by or with those
tears, but for the sake of his tears and grief for Corinth, he wrote to them.
-
“By reason of” (Gk. dia)
false teachers, the truth is badly spoken of (2 Pet. 2:2)
- We
labour dia,
for the sake of, the Lord’s name (Rev. 2:3). We believe dia Christ- not
that He creates faith in us in an arbitrary way or forces us to believe; we
believe for the sake of
what we have seen and known in Christ (1 Pet. 1:21). Likewise we experience the
birth of faith within us “dia
the resurrection of Jesus” (1 Pet. 1:3). This doesn’t mean that when Christ
rose, He created us as believers without any choice on our part. Rather, for the sake of [dia]
Christ’s resurrection, generations of believers have come to faith and hope
whenever they have encountered and believed in the fact of His resurrection..
Thus Jesus was raised dia
our justification (Rom. 4:25). He was not raised by our justification, but for the sake of it.
-
Christ was manifested “for [dia] you” (1 Pet. 1:20)- He was not manifested by
us in a causative sense, but was manifested for our sakes.
-
“Wherefore”- dia,
for the sake of, Diotrephes’ behaviour, John would discipline him (3 Jn. 10).
To read dia
as ‘by’ here makes no sense.
-
“For the truth’s sake”- dia
aletheia
(2 Jn. 2); “for righteousness sake”, dia dikaiosune
(1 Pet. 3:14)
-
Those who are “of the world” dia, “therefore”, for this reason,
speak in a worldly way (1 Jn. 4:5). Because we are “not of the world”, dia,
“therefore”, the world doesn’t accept us (1 Jn. 3:1). Persecution arises dia
the word of God- for the sake of the word (Mt. 13:21). It’s not persecution of
us by the word
of God. Likewise men will hate us, not by
Christ, but for the sake
of (dia)
Christ (Mk. 13:13).
-
There was a division “because of” (dia) Jesus (Jn.
7:43).
-
“They could not… bring him in because of (dia) the
multitude” (Lk. 5:19). They didn’t aim on bringing the man in by the multitude.
-
‘For the sake [dia]
of the elect’, and not by
the elect, the days will be shortened (Mk. 13:20).
-
Herod bound John dia
Herodias- clearly, ‘for the sake of’ rather than ‘by’. It was not Herodias who
did the binding. It was Herod.
-
A ship waited on Jesus dia
the crowd pushing on Him (Mk. 3:9)- clearly ‘because
of’ and not ‘by’.
-
“The Sabbath was made dia
[for] man” (Mk. 2:24). It wasn’t man who made the Sabbath; it was made for the
sake of man.
Then, aion, [AV
"worlds"] is a plural- if this verse means 'Jesus created the earth',
then, did He create multiple, plural 'earths'? That the word means 'the ages'
or ‘an age’ is again clear from seeing how else 'aion' is used. In almost every case where
the word aion
occurs in the New Testament, it doesn’t mean ‘the physical planet earth’, but
rather an age or situation on the earth, rather than the physical planet. In
Eph. 2:7 we read of “the ages to come”- and it is the word aion again. The church
will glorify Jesus “throughout all generations”, and this is paralleled with
the phrase ‘the aion
of the aions’
[Eph. 3:21- AV “world without end”; the same parallel occurs in Col. 1:26, “hid
from aions
and from generations”]. Clearly aion
refers to periods of time rather than a physical planet. Just a few
verses after Heb. 1:2, we read that the son will reign ‘for the aions
and the aions’,
or in English “for ever and ever” (Heb. 1:8). Surely
the combined message is that the previous ages / aions existed
only for the sake of Christ, and He will rule over all future aions.
There is the aion
to come [AV “the world to come”, Heb. 6:5], and Christ will be a priest “for ever” [Gk. ‘for the aion’,
Heb. 5:6]. The aion
to come is the eternity of God’s Kingdom. It will be, in somewhat hyperbolic
language, an eternity of eternities. Later in Hebrews we read that Jesus made
His sacrifice for sin “in the end of the world / aion” (Heb. 9:26). If an aion ended at the death
of Jesus, then clearly the word doesn’t refer to the physical planet- but
rather to the age which then ended. The Hebrew writer clinches this view of aion in Heb. 11:3, where
he prefaces his outline of Bible history from Abel to the restoration from
Babylon by saying that the ages / aion
are framed by the word of God. Response by faith to God’s word,
seeing the invisible with the eye of faith, occurred amongst the faithful in
every aion.
The aion [AV
“worlds”] were framed by the word of God.
Consider
other uses of the word aion
where clearly it refers to the ages and not to a literal planet:
-
“The cares of this world” (Mk. 4:19)
-
The prophets which have been “since the world began” (Lk. 1:70). There were no
prophets standing there at creation. The context clearly refers to the prophets
of the Old Testament Scriptures.
-
“The children of this world” (Lk. 16:8)
-
“Be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2)
-
“The wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 2:6; 1 Cor. 3:18), “the princes of this
world” (1 Cor. 2:8)
-
“This present evil world” (Gal. 1:4)- there’s nothing
evil about the physical planet, the reference is clearly to the world-system.
-
“The darkness of this world” (Eph. 6:12)
-
Loving “this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10) is wrong, Paul says. Surely he wasn’t
referring to the literal planet.
The
whole of history, with all its ages, and all that is to come, exists solely for
the sake of Christ. He is the One who gives meaning to history. Further, if
this verse means 'Jesus created the earth', then OK,
question: Genesis and many other passages say God created. If this says Jesus was the
actual creator, then is Jesus directly equal to God?
Also, if Heb 1:2 is saying that Jesus
is the creator of earth, the One through whom God did the job, then, why do we have to wait
until Hebrews to know that? There's no indication in Genesis or even in the whole Old Testament nor in the teaching of Jesus
that Jesus was the creator of earth on God's behalf. That's my problem with the
pre-existence idea- it's nowhere in the Old Testament. So would believers have
been held in ignorance of this fact for 4000 years? If so, then, is it so
important to covenant relationship with God? I am sure David,
Abraham etc. believed that God
and not Messiah
created the earth. If they'd have been asked: 'Did Messiah create the
earth, or God? Does Messiah now exist?', they'd
have answered 'No' both times. Surely?
It is
often commented that a few verses later, Heb. 1:10 appears to quote words about
God (from Ps. 102:25) and apply them to Jesus. To take a Psalm or Bible passage
and apply it to someone on earth, even a normal human, was quite common in
first century literature (1). It's rather like we may quote a well known phrase
from Shakespeare or a currently popular movie, and apply it to someone. It
doesn't mean that that person is to be equated with Romeo, Juliet, Othello,
Hamlet, Macbeth etc. By quoting the words about them, we're saying there are
similarities between the two people or situations; we're not claiming they're
identical. And seeing that the Son of God was functioning for His Father, it's
not surprising that words about God will be quoted about the Lord Jesus.
Footnote: Dia + Genitive
It
is argued by trinitarians that dia + the
genitive, as we have in Heb. 1:2, means that the ages were made by the
instrumentality of Christ. But dia + genitive doesn't only mean 'by
whose instrumentality'. Moulton, The
Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised
, p. 90 explains the uses of dia with
genitive:
"1. With a genitive, through
a. Used of place or medium through
b. Used of time, during in the course of; through
c. Used of immediate agency, causation, instrumentality, by means of,
by; of means or manner, through, by, with
d. Used of state or condition, in a state of".
Meaning
(b) appears relevant to Heb. 1:2 because it is dia Christ that the aions (a time reference) were created. This would require
us to read in an ellipsis: "Through the (period of the ministry of) the
Son, God framed the ages". Or, "Through(out)
the Son, God framed the ages", i.e. all God's purpose throughout the ages
was framed with Christ in mind. Acts 3:18 uses dia + genitive to
explain how God had spoken of Christ "by" or throughout the period of
all His "holy prophets".
Notes
(1)
Oscar Cullmann, The Christology Of The New Testament
(London: SCM, 1971) p. 234.
1:3 It is a majestic, glorious theme of the Bible that God is revealed as a real being. It is also a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God. If God is not a real being, then it is impossible for Him to have a Son who was the “image of His person” (Heb. 1:3). The Greek word actually means His “substance” (RV). Further, it becomes difficult to develop a personal, living relationship with ‘God’, if ‘God’ is just a concept in our mind. It is tragic that the majority of religions have this unreal, intangible conception of God.
Nearly all the titles of Christ used in the letter to the Hebrews are taken from Philo or the Jewish book of Wisdom. The writer to the Hebrews is seeking to apply them in their correct and true sense to the Lord Jesus. This explains why some titles are used which can easily be misunderstood by those not appreciating this background. For example, Philo speaks of “the impress of God’s seal”, and Hebrews applies this to the Lord Jesus. The phrase has been misinterpreted by Trinitarians as meaning that Jesus is therefore God; but this wasn’t at all the idea behind the title in Philo’s writings, and neither was it when the letter to the Hebrews took up the phrase and applied it to Jesus. This sort of thing goes on far more often than we might think in the Bible- existing theological ideas are re-cast and re-presented in their correct light, especially with reference to the Lord Jesus. Arthur Gibson notes that “there is an important second level within religious language: it is a reflection upon, a criticism of, a correction of, or a more general formulation of, expressions which previously occur”.
3 Enoch [also known as The Hebrew Book Of Enoch] spoke much of an Angel called Metatron, "the prince of the presence", "the lesser Yahweh", who appeared as Yahweh to Moses in Ex. 23:21, sat on "the throne of glory" etc (3 Enoch 10-14). Early Jewish Christianity appears to have mistakenly reapplied these ideas to Jesus, resulting in the idea the first of all Jesus was an Angel, and then coming to full term in the doctrine of the Trinity. J. Danielou devotes the whole fourth chapter of his survey of the development of Christian doctrine to the study of how Jewish views of Angels actually led on to the Trinity. Paul's style was not to baldly state that everything believed in by the Jews was wrong; he recognized that the very nature of apostasy is in the mixing of the true and the false. He speaks of how Jesus truly has been exalted and sits at God's right hand (Rom. 8:34) and has been given God's Name, as the Angel was in Exodus (Phil. 2:9-11); but his whole point is that whilst that may indeed be common ground with the Jewish ideas, the truth is that Jesus is not an Angel. He came into physical existence through Mary ("made / born of a woman", Gal. 4:4), and as the begotten Son of God has been exalted above than any Angel. The language of Heb. 1:3-6 clearly alludes to the Metatron myth and deconstructs it in very clear terms. For Jesus is described as "being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image / pattern of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son? And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him".
1:5 James Dunn quotes Tertullian, Justin, Epiphanius and Clement as all believing that the Lord Jesus was an Angel: "so too Jewish Christians of the second and third centuries specifically affirmed that Christ was an angel or archangel... Justin's identification of the angel of Yahweh with the [supposedly] pre-existent Christ". It was this Jewish obsession with Angels, and the desire to make Jesus understandable as an Angel, which led to the idea that He personally pre-existed and was not quite human. And hence the specific and repeated emphasis of the New Testament that the Lord was not an Angel but because He was a man and not an Angel He has been exalted far above Angels (Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:16; 2:8-10; Heb. 1; 1 Pet. 1:12; 3:22; Rev. 5:11-14). It's the same with the idea of Melchizedek, whom the Qumran community and writings understood as an Archangel. The commentary upon Melchizedek in Hebrews stresses that he was a man ("consider how great this man was...", Heb. 7:4)- therefore not an Angel. He was a foreshadowing of Christ, and not Christ Himself. It would appear that the commentary upon Melchizedek in Hebrews is actually full of indirect references to the Qumran claims about Melchizedek being an Angel and somehow being the Messiah. Sadly, too many trinitarians today have made the same mistake as the Jews- arguing that Melchizedek was somehow Jesus personally. The Jews of Qumran were quite obsessed with Angels- they also suggested that Gabriel was somehow the pre-existent Messiah. Bearing that in mind, it would appear that the descriptions of the Angel Gabriel announcing the conception and birth of Jesus are almost purposefully designed to show that Gabriel and Jesus are not the same but are two quite different persons (Mt. 1:20,24; 2:13,19; Lk. 1:11,19,26-38; 2:9).
Hebrews 1 can be a passage which appears to provide perhaps
the strongest support for both the ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is not God’
schools. Meditating upon this one morning, I suddenly grasped what was going
on. The writer is in fact purposefully juxtaposing the language of Christ’s
humanity and subjection to the Father, with statements and quotations which
apply the language of God to Jesus. But the emphasis is so repeatedly upon the
fact that God did this to Jesus. God gave Jesus all this glory. Consider the
evidence: It is God who begat Jesus (Heb. 1:5), God who told the Angels to
worship Jesus (Heb. 1:6), it was “God, even your God” who anointed Jesus, i.e.
made Him Christ, the anointed one (Heb. 1:9); it was God who made Jesus sit at
His right hand, and makes the enemies of His Son come into subjection (Heb.
1:13); it was God who made / created Jesus, God who crowned Jesus, God who set
Jesus over creation (Heb. 2:7), God who put all in subjection under Jesus (Heb.
2:8). And yet interspersed between all this emphasis- for that’s what it is-
upon the superiority of the Father over the Son… we find Jesus addressed as
“God” (Heb. 1:8), and having Old Testament passages about God applied to Him
(Heb. 1:5,6). The juxtaposition is purposeful. It is to bring out how the
highly exalted position of Jesus was in fact granted to Him by ‘his God’, the
Father, who remains the single source and giver of all exaltation, and who, to
use the Lord’s very own words, “is greater than [Christ]” (Jn. 14:28).
1:9 Loved and exalted above his brethren is a
Joseph allusion.
1:10 see on
Ps. 102:26.
1:12 Heb.1:12
speaks of the natural creation as a vesture which will be folded up and
put away. Job likewise speaks of the natural creation as "the outer
fringes" of God's garments. If God clothes Himself with them, they must to
some degree be connected with Him personally, rather than being irrelevant to
God's self revelation to man.
1:14 sent
forth- See on Is. 37:36; Ex. 7:4.
2:1 The more we believe that we really have been redeemed, the more evident it becomes that this Saviour God demands our whole and total devotion. Let us take heed to the exhortation of Heb. 2:1,3: If we “neglect so great salvation”, we will have ‘drifted away’ (RV) from the solid assurances which are in the Gospel we first heard. Clearly, it is a temptation to drift away from those assurances, even if we ‘hold’ to the doctrinal propositions of the Gospel in theory. The wonderful reality of it all for us can so easily drift away. But; we will be there!
We all have a tendency to "drift away" from "the things which we have heard [in the preaching of the Gospel to us]" (Heb. 2:1 RV). And yet it is quite possible that someone schooled in true doctrine will never forget those doctrines, even if they live a worldly life. We drift away from the doctrines in the sense that we cease to let them influence our lives. This is why we constantly need to undertake a study such as this- to remind ourselves of how basic doctrine elicits a response in practical life. The 'false teachers' of New Testament times weren't simply misunderstanding the Bible, making innocent theological errors- they were (according to the context of the passages which speak about them) advocating on this basis a wrong way of life. This theme of false teaching being associated with false behaviour is to be found in the Old Testament- for the false prophets in Jeremiah's time were condemned for how they were sexually immoral, not just for incorrect theology (Jer. 29:23).
2:3- see on Acts 1:1.
Heb. 2:3 "that great
salvation" = "A great deliverance" (Gen. 45:7).
The rejected will have a desire to escape but having no place to run (Heb. 2:3, quoting Is. 20:6 concerning the inability of men to escape from the approach of the invincible Assyrian army). Rev. 20:11 likewise speaks of the rejected 'heavens and earth' fleeing from the Lamb's throne and finding no place to go. Before the whirlwind of God's judgment, the false shepherds of Israel "shall have no way to flee, nor the principal of the flock to escape" (Jer. 25:35). The rejected will see that the Lord is coming against them with an army much stronger than theirs, and they have missed the chance to make peace (Lk. 14:31). They will be like the Egyptians suffering God's judgments in the Red Sea, wanting to flee but having no realistic place to run to. Uzziah hasting to go out from the presence of the Lord after he was judged for his sin was a foretaste of this (2 Chron. 26:20).
“Such great
salvation" (Heb. 2:3) might imply that a lesser salvation could have been
achieved by Christ, but He achieved the greatest possible. "He is able
also to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by him" (Heb. 7:25) may be saying
the same thing. Indeed, the excellence
of our salvation in Christ is a major NT theme. It was typified by the way
Esther interceded for Israel; she could have simply asked for her own life to
be spared, but she asked for that of all Israel. And further, she has the
courage (and we sense her reticence, how difficult it was for her) to ask the
King yet another favour- that the Jews be allowed to slay their enemies
for one more day, and also to hang Haman's sons (Es. 9:12). She was achieving
the maximum possible redemption for Israel rather than the minimum. Paul again
seems to comment on this theme when he speaks of how Christ became obedient, "even to the death of the
cross" (Phil. 2:8), as if perhaps some kind of salvation could have been
achieved without the death of
the cross. Perhaps there was no theological necessity for Christ to
die such a
painful death; if so, doubtless this was in His mind in His agony in the
garden. “If it
be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Mt. 26:39) may not simply mean
'If it's possible, may I not have to die'. The Lord could have meant: 'If it- some unrecorded
possible alternative to the cross- is really
possible, then let this
cup pass'- as if to say 'If option A is possible, then let the cup of option B
pass from me'. But He overrode this with a desire to be submissive to the
Father's preferred will- which was for us to have a part in the greatest, most
surpassing salvation, which required the death of the cross.
2:6 Heb.
2:6 says that God is mindful of man because He visits him- which He does
through His Angels (visiting is Angelic language). Thus God is mindful
(literally mind-full!) of us because of the Angels "visiting" us with
trials and observation "every moment" (Job 7:18). However, in the
same way that for such thoughts to be powerful with God they have to go through
Christ, so they also have to be presented to Him by the Angels. See on Is. 6:7.
Heb. 2:6-9 is an
example of the inspired writer using expected reader response and expectations
in order to make a point. Having spoken of how the world to come will be given
to redeemed human beings and not to Angels, the writer goes on to quote from
the Psalms to prove that point: "Now it was not to angels that God
subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified
somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man,
that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection
under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left
nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in
subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than
the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering
of death". We begin reading the quotation assuming it's talking about
humanity generally; but as it goes on, we realize it's talking about the
pre-eminent Son of Man, i.e. the Lord Jesus. Notice how He is called
"Jesus", with no 'Lord' or 'Christ' added on. The point of it all is
to make us perceive how totally identified is Jesus with humanity as a whole; a
passage which speaks in its context of humanity generally is allowed to quite
naturally flow on in meaning to apply to the Lord Jesus personally. It's a
majestic, powerful way of making the point- that the Lord Jesus was truly one
of us.
2:7-11 Heb.
2:7,11- see on Ps. 8:5,6.
2:9- see on
Rom. 3:19; Phil. 2:8.
The Greek
words charis [grace] and choris
[apart] differ by one very small squiggle. This is why there’s an alternative
reading of Heb. 2:9: “So that apart from God [choris
theou] he [Jesus] tasted death for us”. This
would then be a clear reference to the way that the Lord Jesus felt apart from
God at His very end. Not that He was, but if He felt like that, then this was in practice the experience which He had. Thus
even when we feel apart from God- the Lord Jesus knows even that feeling.
Heb. 2:9 seems to describe Christ in His time of dying as
“crowned with glory and honour".
The physical sufferings of the cross were an especial cause of spiritual temptation to the Lord; just as physical pain, illness, weakness etc. are specific causes of our temptations to sin. Heb. 2:9 defines the Lord's 'sufferings' as specifically "the suffering of death", the sufferings associated with His time of dying. Heb. 2:18 RVmg. then goes on to say: "For having been himself tempted in that wherein he suffered". The sufferings of death were therefore an especial source of temptation for Him. Truly did He learn obedience to the Father specifically through the process of His death (Heb. 5:8). Let's seek to remember this when we or those close to us face physical weakness, illness and pain of whatever sort.
By God’s grace, the Lord tasted death for (Gk. huper) every man, as our representative: “in tasting death he should stand for all" (Heb. 2:9 NEB). In His death He experienced the essence of the life-struggle and death of every man. The fact the Lord did this for us means that we respond for Him. “To you it is given in the behalf of (Gk. huper) Christ, not only to believe on Him [in theory], but to suffer for his sake (Gk. huper)" (Phil. 1:29). He suffered for us as our representative, and we suffer for Him in response. This was and is the two-way imperative of the fact the Lord was our representative. He died for all that we should die to self and live for Him (2 Cor. 5:14,15). “His own self bare our sins [as our representative] in his own body [note the link “our sins" and “his own body"] that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness" (1 Pet. 2:24,25). We died with Him, there on His cross; and so His resurrection life is now ours. He is totally active for us now; His life now is for us, and as we live His life, we should be 100% for Him in our living. He gave His life for us, and we must lay down our lives for Him (1 Jn. 3:16).
2:10 The Lord Jesus alone could say, with full meaning, “I
am”. Who He appeared to be, was who He essentially was.
He alone achieved a completely integrated, real self. He was what Paul called
the “perfect man”, the completed, integrated person (Eph. 4:13). But He had to
work on this. Hebrews always speaks of Him as “perfected”, as a verb (Heb.
2:10; 5:9; 7:28)- never with the adjective ‘perfect’.
Apart from being a major problem for Trinitarian views, this simple fact sets
Him up as our
pattern, whom the Father seeks like
wise ‘to perfect’. Yet the path the Lord had to take to achieve this was
hard indeed.
2:11- see
on Heb. 11:26.
The very
fact Christ calls us brethren in Mt. 12:50 the Hebrew writer saw as proof of
Christ's humanity (= Heb. 2:11).
2:12- see
on Mt. 28:10.
2:13 Isaiah is a confirmed type of
Christ, and his school of prophets typical of the saints. "I (Isaiah)
and the children (prophets - Is. 8:16) whom the Lord hath given me" (Is.
8:18) is quoted in Heb. 2:13 as referring to Christ and His brethren. Other
instances of Isaiah being a type of Christ can be found by comparing Is. 6:10
with John 12:39-41 and by appreciating that "The spirit of the Lord God is
upon me... to preach good tidings... to comfort all that mourn" (e.g.
Hezekiah) is primarily concerning Isaiah's message of hope to Israel during the
Assyrian invasions, although it is quoted concerning Jesus (Is. 61:1,2 cp. Luke 4:18). Is. 8:16-18 could be taken as Isaiah saying that he had decided not to
teach his school of prophets any longer, but rather to just personally focus
upon his own relationship with God: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law
among my disciples. And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth
his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him". The next verse
is however quoted in Heb. 2:13 about the Lord Jesus and His brethren being of
the same nature: "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me
are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts". The
Hebrew writer therefore understood this statement to reflect an intense unity
between Isaiah and his "children", be they his literal children
[Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz] or his spiritual
children. It seems to me that Immanuel could've been some kind of Messiah figure-
but for whatever reason, he didn't live up to it and the prophecy was therefore
given a greater application to the Lord Jesus. Likewise, the
"children" Isaiah refers to in Is. 8:18
became the faithful children in Christ under the new covenant, according to how
Heb. 2:13 quotes it.
2:14- see
on Gal. 1:4; Rev. 20:5.
“Him
that had the power of death, that is the Devil” (Heb. 2:14) may refer to the
fact that “the sting (power) of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the (Jewish)
Law” (1 Cor.15:56; see also Rom. 4:15; 5:13;7:8, where
‘the Law’ that gives power to sin is clearly the Jewish law). Bearing in mind
that the ‘Devil’ often refers to sin and the flesh, it seems significant that
‘the flesh’ and ‘sin’ are often associated with the Mosaic Law. The whole
passage in Heb. 2:14 can be read with reference to the Jewish Law being ‘taken
out of the way’ by the death of Jesus [A.V. “destroy him that hath the power of
death”]. The Devil kept men in bondage, just as the Law did (Gal. 4:9; 5:1;
Acts 15:10; Rom. 7:6–11). The Law was an ‘accuser’ (Rom. 2:19,20;
7:7) just as the Devil is.
Hebrews 2:14 states
that the Devil was destroyed by Christ’s death.
The Greek for ‘destroy’ is translated ‘abolish’ in Ephesians 2:15: “Having abolished
[Darby: ‘annulled’] in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances”. This would equate the Devil with the enmity, or
fleshly mind (Rom. 8:7) generated by the Mosaic Law; remember that Hebrews was
written mainly to Jewish believers. The Law itself was perfect, in itself it
was not the minister of sin, but the effect it had on
man was to stimulate the ‘Devil’ within man because of our disobedience. “The
strength of sin is the Law” (1 Cor.15:56). “Sin taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me (Rom. 7:8,11).
Hence “the wages of sin (stimulated by the Law) is death” (Rom. 6:23). It is
quite possible that the “sin” in Romans 6, which we should not keep serving,
may have some reference to the Mosaic Law. It is probable that the Judaizers
were by far the biggest source of false teaching in the early church. The
assumption that Paul is battling Gnosticism is an anachronism, because the
Gnostic heresies developed some time later. It would be true to say that
incipient Gnostic ideas were presented by the Judaizers in the form of saying that sin was not to be taken
too seriously because the Law provided set formulae for getting round it. The
Law produced an outward showing in the “flesh”, not least in the sign of
circumcision (Rom. 2:28).
This passage places extraordinary emphasis upon the fact that Jesus had human nature: “He also himself likewise” partook of it (Heb. 2:14). This phrase uses three words all with the same meaning, just to drive the point home. He partook “of the same” nature; the record could have said ‘he partook of it too’, but it stresses, “he partook of the same”.
The Lord partook in our nature, and we are made partakers in
Him (Heb. 2:14 cp. 3:14; 12:10; 2 Cor. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:13). There are several
examples where there is an ambiguity in the Hebrew text which reflects the
suggestion of mutuality. Take Gen. 18:22:”Abraham stood yet before the Lord”.
And yet, as witnessed by several translations, this can just as well mean “The
Lord stood yet before Abraham”.
2:15- see
on Heb. 5:7.
Christ
openly shewed his ability to destroy the power of sin, on account of which we
lived in fear of death, " all (our) lifetime subject to bondage"
(Heb. 2:15)- clear reference back to Israel in Egypt. The passage in
Hebrews 2 says that Christ can deliver us from such bondage because he is our
representative, our brother, of our nature, not ashamed of his connection with
us (2:11). Reasoning back from this, we can see that Moses' ability to redeem
Israel from Egypt, his appropriacy for the task, was
because he had openly declared that he was one of them. Yet the wonder of that
was lost on them. And if we are not careful, the wonder of the fact that Christ
had our nature, that he was our representative and is therefore mighty
to save, can be lost on us too. The thrill of these first principles should
ever remain with us.
All the
Judges in some way prefigured the Lord; for they were "saviours"
raised up to deliver God's weak and failing people in pure grace, when
according to God's own word, they should have received the due punishment of
rejection (Neh. 9:27,28). He who delivered "them who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb.
2:15) was typified by all those earlier deliverers of God's people from bondage
(cp. Mt. 1:21). The "great salvation" of Heb. 2:3 which the Lord
achieved was foreshadowed by the great deliverance wrought by Samson (15:18).
The fear of death grips our society more than we like to admit. The Swiss psychologist Paul Tournier observed the huge “number of people who dream that they are locked in, that everywhere they come up against iron-bound and padlocked doors, that they absolutely must escape, and yet there is no way out”. This is the state of the nation, this is how we naturally are, this is the audience to which we preach. And we preach a freedom from that fear. Because the Lord Jesus was of our human nature- and here perhaps more than anywhere else we see the crucial practical importance of doctrine- we are freed from the ranks of all those who through fear of death live their lives in bondage (Heb. 2:15). For He died for us, as our representative. How true are those inspired words. “To release them who through fear / phobos of death were all their living-time subject to slavery” (Gk.). Nearly all the great psychologists concluded that the mystery of death obsesses humanity; and in the last analysis, all anxiety is reduced to anxiety about death. You can see it for yourself, in how death, or real, deep discussion of it, is a taboo subject; how people will make jokes about it in reflection of their fear of seriously discussing it. People, even doctors, don’t quite know what to say to the dying. There can be floods of stories and chit-chat… all carefully avoiding any possible allusion to death. This fear of death, in which the unredeemed billions of humanity have been in bondage, explains the fear of old age, the unwillingness to accept our age for what it is, our bodies for how and what they are, or are becoming. I’m not saying of course that the emotion of fear or anxiety is totally removed from our lives by faith. The Lord Jesus in Gethsemane is proof enough that these emotions are an integral part of being human, and it’s no sin to have them. I’m talking of fear in it’s destructive sense, the fear of death which is rooted in a lack of hope. There's a passage in Hamlet which speaks of not so much fearing death as "the dread of something after death" (some of the sentiments in Job 18 are similar). And modern psychoanalytical studies have confirmed this. A large part of the fear of death is the fear of what follows. For those in Christ, whilst like their Lord they may naturally fear the process of death, their future is secured; they know that death is unconsciousness and will end ultimately in a bodily resurrection at the Lord's return, after which they will share in His eternal life. For them, "the fear of death" in its ultimate form has been removed (Heb. 2:14-18).
2:16 Angels
cannot die: “Death... does not lay hold of angels” (Heb. 2:16 Diaglott margin).
If Angels could sin, then those who are found worthy of reward at Christ’s
return will also still be able to sin. And seeing that sin brings death (Rom.
6:23), they will therefore not have eternal life; if we have a possibility of sinning, we have the capability of dying. Thus to say Angels
can sin makes God’s promise of eternal life meaningless, seeing that our reward
is to share the nature of the Angels. Heb. 2:16–18 repays closer reflection in
this context of Angels and possibility to sin. It speaks of the reasons why the
Lord Jesus had to be of human nature: “For verily he took not on him the nature
of angels; but he took on him the [nature of the] seed of Abraham. Wherefore in
all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he
himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are
tempted”. Exactly because the Lord Jesus had to be tempted to sin, He
did not have Angelic nature but human nature. His mission was to save humanity
from human sin, not the Angels. So, He had to have human nature so that He
could be tempted to sin; and the Hebrew writer labours the point that therefore
He did not have Angels’ nature. Which, by inference, is not
able to be tempted to sin. Note again how the Bible speaks of “Angels”
as if there is only one category of Angel – obedient Heavenly beings.
2:17- see
on Lk. 24:6; Jn. 19:13.
Moses'
persecution by Pharaoh enabled him to enter into the feelings of Israel in the
slave camps; and as they fled from Pharaoh towards the Red Sea, Moses would
have recalled his own flight from Pharaoh to Midian.
The whole epistle to the Hebrews is shot through with allusions to Moses.
"In all things it behoved him to be made like
unto his brethren" (Heb. 2:17) is alluding to Dt. 18:18: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among
their brethren like unto thee (Moses)". The brethren of Christ
are here paralleled with Moses; as if Moses really is representative of not
only natural Israel, but spiritual too- as well as Moses being a type of
Christ. For this reason he is such a clear pattern for us, and we are invited
so often to identify ourselves with him by copying his example. Moses was made
like his brethren through his similar experiences, as Christ was
progressively made like us by his life of temptation.
3:1 Concentration on the sacrifice of
the Lord Jesus is something which the Hebrew writer so often encourages,
in his efforts to encourage the Hebrew believers. After perhaps 25 years of
believing (they were probably converted at Pentecost), they were starting to
get bored with God's Truth; the will to keep on keeping on was no longer what
it was. But because of the cross, because He
paid dearly for you, because He is now thereby our matchless
mediator: hold on, hold fast, therefore
(a watchword of Hebrews) endure to the end (Heb. 3:1,6;
4:14; 10:21,23). For that great salvation will surely be realized one day. So,
concentrate personally
on the fact that He hung there for you, honour your solemn duty to at least try
to reconstruct the agony of His body and soul.
3:5 If
Moses' God is to be ours in truth in the daily round of life, we must rise up
to the dedication of Moses; as he was a faithful steward, thoroughly dedicated
to God's ecclesia (Heb. 3:5), so we are invited follow his example (1 Cor. 4:2;
Mt. 24:45).
3:7 Repeatedly, the implication of God as humanity’s creator
is stressed – we are therefore His
– not the Devil’s: “Know that Jehovah, he is God: it is he that
hath made us, and we are his; We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture”
(Ps. 100:3 ASV); “He is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the
sheep of his hand” (Ps. 95:7 ASV – quoted in Hebrews 3:7 as applicable to the
Christian church). Humanity is God’s, as is the whole of His creation – this
was the message taught to Job in the final chapters of the book, and the theme
of so many of the Psalms.
3:9-11
Hebrews 3:9-11 implies that God changed His mind about letting Israel enter the
land: "your fathers tempted Me, and saw My works
forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation... So I sware in My wrath, they shall not
enter into My rest". Or as Num. 14:34 (A. V. mg. )
says "ye shall bear your iniquity, even forty years, and ye shall know the
altering of My purpose". These were the words of the Angel to Moses. We
know that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13-15); therefore the passage in
Hebrews referring to God being tempted and therefore swearing that they would
not enter the land must be concerning the Angel which led them; and similarly
the altering of purpose which this involved was the altering of the Angel's
plans, not those of God Himself.
3:13- see
on 1 Cor. 10:21.
3:17 The thoughts of the condemned generation in
the wilderness would have gone back to Egypt and their Passover deliverance, to
the glorious experience of the Red Sea crossing. It would have been hard to
accept that it had all been in vain for them. But the rejected of the new
Israel will likewise reason concerning their baptism and apparent salvation
from the world. Significantly Dt. 2:1 records that after their rejection at the
borders of Canaan, "we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by
the way of the Red Sea". This would have reminded them of what had
happened there- as the thoughts of the rejected will return to their spiritual
beginnings at baptism? Likewise, God's messages of rejection and condemnation
to Israel frequently reminded them of their spiritual beginnings in the events
of the Exodus (e.g. Ez. 16,20; Am. 2:10). Heb. 3:17
RVmg speaks of their “limbs [which] fell in the wilderness”- the picture is of
condemned men staggering on through the desert, discarded limbs wasted by some
terrible and progressive disease. This is the picture of the condemned. Israel wandering in the wilderness until their carcasses lay
strewn over the scrubland of Sinai connects with Cain also being a wanderer
after his rejection. He was made a "fugitive", from a Hebrew root
meaning to shake, to totter, to reel. He was to wander, shaking with fear,
reeling. The word is also rendered 'to bemoan'. It's an awful scene: bemoaning
his lot, shaking, wandering, reeling, nowhere. The
same image is found in Prov. 14:32: “The wicked is driven away [Heb. to totter,
be chased] in his wickedness”.
God grieved over the carcasses of those wretched men whom He
slew in the wilderness for their thankless rebellions against Him their saviour
(Heb. 3:17). The apostle makes the point: “With whom was He
grieved?". Answer: with the wicked whom He slew! A human God or a proud
God would never grieve over His victory over His enemies. Even
in the fickleness of Israel's repentance, knowing their future, knowing what
they would subject His Son to, "His soul was grieved for the misery of
Israel" (Jud. 10:16). He delays the second coming because He waits
and hopes for repentance and spiritual growth from us. But He praises the
faithful for patiently waiting for Him (Is. 30:18; Ps. 37:7). Here we see the
humility of God's grace.
3:19- see
on Jn. 3:3.
4:1 “Let us therefore fear, lest, a
promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come
short of it. For unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them"
(Heb.4:1,2). As in Rom.11, there is the command to
fear because of the real possibility of our being like natural
An element of fear is not wrong in itself. Israel in the
wilderness had the pillar of fire to remind them of God's close presence, and
to thereby motivate them not to sin: "His fear (will) be before your
faces, that ye sin not" (Ex. 20:20). Notice how Isaac's guardian angel is
described as "the fear" in Gen. 31:42,53 cp.
48:15,16. The trumpet blasts which our call to judgment is likened to are based
upon the Old Testament blowing of trumpets to mark "the day(s) of your
gladness... your solemn days... the beginnings of your months" and also
whenever the camp was to move onwards (Num. 10:10). This same mixture of
emotions will fill us when we receive the call; a sense of solemnity, but also
of gladness at a new beginning, a moving on towards the promised
land.
4:2- see on
Jn. 15:27.
4:3-
see on 2 Cor. 4:6.
4:8 -see on
Josh. 22:4.
4:11 "We which have believed do enter into rest... for he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His" on the Sabbath (4:3,10). Thus those who no longer relied on the works of the Law but on faith were living in the spirit of the Sabbath- they had in some sense entered the rest. But despite their reliance on faith, works were still necessary: "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God... let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall." (4:9,11). This is a perfect cameo of the whole situation; in prospect we are in the Kingdom, but have a very real possibility of falling from grace, and still need to labour for the final entry into that Kingdom.
4:12 Jesus is right now "quick to discern the thoughts and intents of [our hearts]" in mediating for us (Heb. 4:12 RV). But this is how He was in His mortal life here- for then He was "of quick understanding" too (Is. 11:3). He would have had a way of seeing through to the essence of a person or situation with awesome speed- and this must have made human life very irritating for Him at times. But who He was then is who He is now. It's the same Jesus who intercedes for us in sensitivity and compassion. See on Heb. 4:15.
4:13 We must see the urgency of our position as sinners; we are condemned now and yet we can repent; but not then. Heb. 4:13 makes the point that we right now are “naked” before the eyes of Him to whom we right now give account [logos]. We will give that logos in the last day (Rom. 14:11,12); yet before the Word of God, as it is in both Scripture and in the person of the Lord Jesus, we face our judgment today, in essence. And we are pronounced “naked” before Him. Yet therefore, in this day of opportunity, we can come boldly before the throne because we have “such an High Priest”, as Heb. 4:16 continues. Lot suffered in the condemnation of Sodom when the neighbouring kings invaded (Gen. 14:12)- he was in the same situation as those who were warned to come out of Babylon lest they be consumed in her plagues. So he went through a condemnation process in this life- but later learnt his lesson and will be saved in the end.
4:14 He endured our nature and temptations so that He might be an empathetic High Priest (consider the implications of Heb. 2:10,17; 4:14,15; 5:1,2); Christ was fully consecrated as High Priest after His death, and it was then that He began to be the sympathetic, understanding High Priest which the Hebrew letter speaks of. The fact that Christ knows so thoroughly our feelings here and now, especially our struggles for personal righteousness, should of itself encourage our awareness of and relationship with Him.
The continuity between the mortal, human Jesus and the
exalted Lord of all which He became on His ascension is brought out quite artlessly
in Heb. 4:14: “Our great high priest, who has passed through the heavens”. The
picture is of “this same Jesus”, the man on earth, passing through all heavens
to ‘arrive’ at the throne of God Himself to mediate for us there. His ascension
to Heaven was viewed physically like this by the disciples, and is expressed
here in that kind of language of physical ascent, to bring home to us the
continuity between the man Jesus on earth, and the exalted Lord now in Heaven
itself. The same Jesus who once experienced temptation can thereby strengthen
us in our temptations. We need to realize that nobody can be tempted by that
which holds no appeal; the Lord Jesus must have seen and reflected upon sin as
a possible course of action, even though He never took it. And for the same
reason, several New Testament passages (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:5) call the exalted Lord
Jesus a “man”- even now. Let’s not see these passages merely as theological
problems for trinitarians. The wonder of it all is
that Jesus after His glorification is still in some sense human. He as “the
pioneer of our faith” shows us the path to glory, a glory that doesn’t involve
us becoming somehow superhuman and unreal.
4:15 Note carefully the tense used in Heb. 4:15:
"We have not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities". It doesn't say 'which could
not have been touched...', but rather "which cannot
[present tense] be touched". It's as if He is now touched with the
feeling of our infirmities. Which opens a fascinating window
into what having God's nature is all about. When we by grace come to
share it, it's not just that we will dimly remember what it was like to be
human. We will somehow still be able to be touched by those feelings, in
sympathy with those who still have that nature during the Millennial
reign. The only other time the Spirit uses the Greek word translated "touched
with the feeling..." is in Heb. 10:34, where we read of how the Hebrew Christians
"had compassion of me", the writer of the letter. The link, within
the same letter, is surely to reflect how they had been so compelled by their
Lord's fellow feelings toward them, His fellow feeling for them right now, that
they in turn came to feel like this for their suffering brother. A related word
is found in 1 Pet. 3:8: "Having compassion one of another, love as
brethren". The wonder of the fact that Jesus feels for us, that He can
enter into our feelings, should result in our seeing to get inside the feelings
of others, empathizing with them, feeling for them and with them. It's this feature of the Lord Jesus which enables Him to be
such a matchless mediator. Stephen saw Him standing at the right hand of
the throne in Heaven, when usually, Hebrews stresses, He
sits. The Lord was and is so passionately, compassionately, caught up in
the needs of His brethren that this is how He mediates for us. And it's the
same Jesus, who walked round Galilee with a heart of compassion for kids, for
the mentally sick, for oppressed and abused women...even for the hard hearted
Pharisees whom He would fain have gathered under His loving wings, such was His
desire for others' salvation.
Jesus,
depsite the moral splendour of Divine nature, is
still able to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities as He
intercedes for the forgiveness of our sins (Heb.4:15).
Coming boldly before the throne of grace in prayer is again
judgment seat language (Heb. 4:15). Our attitude to God in prayer now will be
our attitude to Him at the judgment; we are 'bold / confident' before Him now,
and we can be 'bold' then (1 Jn. 2:28). Before the throne of grace we find
grace to help (Heb. 4:16); whereas we will “find” [s.w.]
mercy in the day of judgment (2 Tim.1:18). Each time we receive grace to help
before the throne, we are anticipating the judgment day
scenario.
4:16 - see
on 2 Sam. 7:27.
Lk. 1:30 =
Heb. 4:16. When you ask for forgiveness, be like Mary in her spiritual ambition
in asking to be the mother of Messiah.
The Lord Jesus is prophetically described as He “that hath
boldness to approach unto me” (Jer. 30:21 RV). This is applied to us, who
boldly approach the Father in prayer likewise (Heb. 4:16). We are bidden to draw
near to the Father in prayer just as the Son drew near (Heb. 4:15,16). He wishes us to share in the loving relationship which
there was between Him and His Father, and prayer is crucial to this. Hebrews so
often uses the word "therefore"; because
of the facts of the atonement, we can therefore come boldly before God's throne
in prayer, with a true heart and clear conscience (Heb. 4:16). This
"boldness" which the atonement has enabled will be reflected in our
being 'bold' in our witness (2 Cor. 3:12; 7:4); our experience of imputed
righteousness will lead us to have a confidence exuding through our whole
being. This is surely why 'boldness' was such a characteristic and watchword of
the early church (Acts 4:13,29,31; Eph. 3:12; Phil.
1:20; 1 Tim. 3:13; Heb. 10:19; 1 Jn. 4:17).
Hebrews so often uses the word "therefore"; because of the facts of the atonement, we can therefore come boldly before God's throne in prayer, with a true heart and clear conscience (Heb. 4:16). This "boldness" which the atonement has enabled will be reflected in our being 'bold' in our witness (2 Cor. 3:12; 7:4); our experience of imputed righteousness will lead us to have a confidence exuding through our whole being. This is surely why 'boldness' was such a characteristic and watchword of the early church (Acts 4:13,29,31; Eph. 3:12; Phil. 1:20; 1 Tim. 3:13; Heb. 10:19; 1 Jn. 4:17). Stephen truly believed that the Lord Jesus stood as his representative and his advocate before the throne of grace.
Really appreciating that Christ is our personal High Priest
to offer our prayers powerfully to God, should inspire us to regularly pray in
faith.
5:2 Heb.
5:2 describes those in sin whom the Lord saved as “out of the way”. The same
idea is found in Lk. 11:6 AVmg., where the man “out of
his way” comes knocking on the Lord’s door. The image of the shut door is that
of rejection; but here the door is opened, and the man given “as much as he
needs” of forgiveness and acceptance.
The Lord Jesus has compassion upon those who are ignorant of
His Gospel, just as He does upon those who fall out of the way to life (Heb.
5:2, alluding to Christ as the good Samaritan who comes to stricken men). It is
He who brings men to faith in God (1 Pet. 1:21; 3:18), revealing the Father to
men (Lk. 10:22; Jn. 14:21), calling and inviting them to the Kingdom (1 Pet.
5:10; Rev. 22:17), going out into the market place and calling labourers (Mt.
20:3-7), almost compelling
men to come in to the ecclesia (Mt. 22:8-10), receiving them when they are
baptized (Rom. 15:7). He is the sower who sows the word in men's hearts,
working night and day in the tending of the seed after it has take root (Mk.
4:27); the one who lights the candle in men's spirituality so that it might
give light to others (Mk. 4:21). He permits and sometimes blocks preaching (1
Cor. 16:7,4,19; 2 Cor. 2:12; Phil. 2:24; 1 Thess.
3:11).
5:5- see on
Rom. 8:26.
5:6 The
Hebrew writer alludes to and subverts the defiant language of the Maccabees in
repeatedly describing Christ as "priest for ever"
(Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7:3,17,21)- when this was the term applied to Simon Maccabaeus
in 1 Macc 14:41. See on Lk. 20:25.
5:7 Heb.
5:7 comments that Christ prayed "with
strong crying and tears". These words are certainly to be connected with
Rom. 8:26, which speaks of Christ making intercession
for us now with "groanings which cannot be uttered". One might
think from Heb. 5:7 that the Lord Jesus made quite a noise whilst hanging on
the cross. But Rom. 8:26 says that his groaning is so intense that it cannot be
audibly uttered; the physicality of sound would not do justice to the intensity
of mental striving. No doubt the Lord Jesus was praying silently, or at best
quietly, as he hung there. The point is that the same agonizing depth of prayer
which the Lord achieved on the cross for us is what he now goes through as he
intercedes for us with the Father.
Heb. 5:7 describes Christ on the cross as a priest offering up a guilt offering for our sins of ignorance. He did this, we are told, through "prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears". This must surely be a reference to "Father forgive them". Those were said with a real passion, with strong crying, with tears as He appreciated the extent of our sinfulness and offence of God. There is a connection between these words and those of Rom. 8:26,27, which describes Christ as our High Priest making intercession for us "with groanings". "Groanings" is surely the language of suffering and crucifixion. It is as if our Lord goes through it all again when He prays for our forgiveness, He has the same passion for us now as He did then. Think of how on the cross He had that overwhelming desire for our forgiveness despite His own physical pain. That same level of desire is with Him now. Surely we can respond by confessing our sins, by getting down to realistic self-examination, by rallying our faith to truly appreciate His mediation and the forgiveness that has been achieved, to believe that all our sins, past and future, have been conquered, and to therefore rise up to the challenge of doing all we can to live a life which is appropriate to such great salvation. See on Lk. 23:34.
Oscar Cullmann translates Heb. 5:7: "He was heard in his fear (anxiety)". That very human anxiety about death is reflected in the way He urges Judas to get over and done the betrayal process "quickly" (Jn. 13:28); He was "straitened until it be accomplished" (Lk. 12:50). He prayed to God just as we would when gripped by the fear of impending death. And He was heard. No wonder He is able therefore and thereby to comfort and save us, who lived all our lives in the same fear of death which He had (Heb. 2:15). This repetition of the 'fear of death' theme in Hebrews is surely significant- the Lord Jesus had the same fear of death as we do, and He prayed in desperation to God just as we do. And because He overcame, He is able to support us when we in our turn pray in our "time of need"- for He likewise had the very same "time of need" as we have, when He was in Gethsemane (Heb. 4:16). Death was "the last enemy" for the Lord Jesus just as it is for all humanity (1 Cor. 15:26). Reflection on these things not only emphasizes the humanity of the Lord Jesus, but also indicates He had no belief whatsoever in an 'immortal soul' consciously surviving death.
5:8 He had a quite genuine "fear of death" (Heb. 5:8). This "fear of death" within the Lord Jesus provides a profound insight into His so genuine humanity. We fear death because our human life is our greatest and most personal possession... and it was just the same with the Lord Jesus. Note that when seeking here to exemplify Christ's humanity, the writer to the Hebrews chooses His fear of death in Gethsemane as the epitome of His humanity.
In the commentary on Melchizedek in Hebrews; the writer admitted he was going
deep, speaking of things which could only be grasped by very mature believers
(Heb. 5:10,11,14). It is therefore not wise to base
fundamental doctrine on the teaching of such verses; nor should the Melchizedek
passages loom large in the minds of those who are still coming to learn the
basic doctrines of Scripture. “This Melchizedek, King of Salem (Jerusalem),
priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of
the kings, and blessed him” is spoken of as being “without father, without
mother, without descent (genealogy), having neither beginning of days, nor end
of life; but made like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:1,3). From this it is
argued by some that Jesus literally existed before his birth, and therefore had
no human parents. Jesus has a Father (God) and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy
(see Mt. 1, Lk. 3 and cp. Jn. 7:27). ‘Melchizedek’ therefore cannot refer to
him personally. Besides, Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3); he
was not Jesus himself, but had certain similarities with him which
are being used by the writer for teaching purposes. “After the similitude of
Melchizedek there ariseth another priest”, Jesus
(Heb. 7:15), who was ordained a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb.
5:5,6). The language of Hebrews about Melchizedek just
cannot be taken literally. If Melchizedek literally had no father or mother,
then the only person he could have been was God Himself; He is the only person
with no beginning (1 Tim. 6:16; Ps. 90:2). But this is vetoed by Heb. 7:4:
“Consider how great this man was”, and also by the fact that he was seen by men
(which God cannot be) and offered sacrifices to God. If he is called a man,
then he must have had literal parents. His being “without father, without
mother, without descent” must therefore refer to the fact that his pedigree and
parents are not recorded. Queen Esther’s parents are not recorded, and so her
background is described in a similar way. Mordecai “brought up...Esther, his
uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother...whom Mordecai, when
her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). The
author of Hebrews was clearly writing as a Jew to Jews, and as such he uses the
Rabbinic way of reasoning and writing at times. There
was a Rabbinic principle that "what is not in the text, is not" (1)- and it seems that this is the principle of exposition
being used to arrive at the statement that Melchizedek was "without
father". Seeing no father is mentioned in the Genesis text, therefore he
was "without father"- but this doesn't mean he actually didn't have a
father. It's not recorded, and therefore, according to that Rabbinic
principle, he effectively didn't have one.
The
book of Genesis usually goes to great lengths to introduce the family
backgrounds of all the characters which it presents to us. But Melchizedek
appears on the scene unannounced, with no record of his parents, and vanishes
from the account with equal abruptness. Yet there can be no doubt that he was
worthy of very great respect; even great Abraham paid tithes to him, and was
blessed by him, clearly showing Melchizedek’s superiority over Abraham (Heb.
7:2,7). The writer is not just doing mental gymnastics
with Scripture. There was a very real problem in the first century which the
Melchizedek argument could solve. The Jews were reasoning: ‘You
Christians tell us that this Jesus can now be our high priest, offering our
prayers and works to God. But a priest has to have a known genealogy, proving
he is from the tribe of Levi. And anyway, you yourselves admit Jesus was from
the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). Sorry, to us Abraham is our supreme leader and
example (Jn. 8:33,39), and we won’t respect this
Jesus’. To which the reply is: ‘But remember Melchizedek. The Genesis record is
framed to show that such a great priest did not have any genealogy; and Messiah
is to be both a king and a priest, whose priesthood is after the pattern of
Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6 cp. Ps. 110:4). Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek, so
you should switch your emphasis from Abraham to Jesus, and stop trying to make
the question of genealogies so important (see 1 Tim. 1:4). If you meditate on
how much Melchizedek is a type of Jesus (i.e. the details of his life pointed
forward to him), then you would have a greater understanding of the work of
Christ’. And we can take that lesson to
ourselves.
Notes
(1) See
James Dunn, Christology In The Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980)
p. 276 note 59.
5:11 As the
Hebrew writer spoke and wrote to brethren who were not as spiritually mature as
they ought to be for their time in Christ, he saw the similarity between
himself and the Lord Jesus talking to the crowds, those crowds of very human
people who at that time comprised God's ecclesia (Mt. 13:15 = Heb. 5:11).
The Hebrews failed to break into this upward spiral because
they were "dull of hearing" the word (Heb. 5:11). The Greek word for
"dull" implies 'lazy', and yet comes from the same root as the Greek
for 'bastard' ('nothros'
cp. 'nothos').
Thus because they were not being properly born again by the word of the Gospel
they were unable, in subsequent spiritual life, to receive the real power of
the word.
5:12 The writer laments that some for the time they had been baptized ought to be teachers, but themselves needed to re-learn basic doctrine (Heb. 5:12). He understood that we all inevitably teach the Gospel to others over time, if we are spiritually healthy. It may well be that we have children, and it is our duty to bring them up in the knowledge of the Gospel. In this sense, therefore, every brother or sister will become a spiritual father or mother to someone; what we have written above ought to apply to all of us eventually.
The phrase "first principles of the oracles of
God" (Heb. 5:12)) is better rendered in the RV mg. "the beginning of
the oracles…". The truth we learn and teach
before baptism is but a springboard so much further. The writer seems to
perceive the tendency to forever be digging up the foundations to make sure
they are still there; for he says: "Wherefore let us cease to speak of the
first principles of Christ, and press on…" (Heb. 6:1
RV). Sadly, as he goes on to say, he does have to speak to those
particular readers of those basics again, but in a healthy spiritual life this
shouldn't be the case. They should have used those basic doctrines to lead them
further in following the example of He who was also
"made perfect", who reached 'perfection'. As He was
"made perfect" (5:9), so we should strive to go on unto a like
'perfection' (5:14; 6:1). The inspired writer doesn't balk at the height
of this calling, unattained as it has been by us all. But it is the lofty
height towards which the power of the Gospel can propel us. See on Heb. 6:1.
5:12-14 “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food” (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14) surely alludes to Jn. 16:12, although it doesn’t verbally quote it: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”.
5:13 It's evident to me, from the very way the Bible is written, that an understanding of it's deeper parts depends upon a correct understanding of the basic doctrines. The milk of the word leads on to the meat; Heb. 5:13,14 implies you can only understand the meat if for some time you have been properly feeding on the milk. This means that those who don't understand the basic doctrines of the true Gospel can't really understand the meat of the word.
5:14 If we stay as babes, taking only milk, we will be unable to discern good and evil (Heb. 5). The idea is that as a baby will put anything in its mouth, so does the immature convert. Those who don’t mature on from the milk of the word run the risk of poisoning their spirituality. The drive to maturity isn’t optional; if we lack it, our spiritual health will suffer. And by contrast, the more we grow, the more we will be able to discern what is harmful and what is nutritious.
6:1 We must not see the learning of the basic doctrines and baptism as an end rather than a beginning. It is a tragedy if a man dies knowing and appreciating little more than he did at his baptism. Sunday School Christianity isn't the stuff of the Kingdom of God. We must go on unto perfection. "Let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto full growth" (Heb. 6:1 RV). It almost implies that the Hebrews were so busy talking about the first principles that they had omitted to use them as the springboard to growth. See on Heb. 5:12.
6:5 The Spirit of God is God in action, God showing His power, and yet in its expression it articulates the inner mind and characteristics of God. Thus tasting the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit was tasting God’s word, in that the miracles expressed the essential truths of God’s inner spirit as expressed in His word (Heb. 6:4,5). The miraculous gifts expressed God’s will (Heb. 2:3), as His word does. God is His Spirit in the sense that all He does and speaks is an expression of His essential spirit.
6:6- see on Mk. 15:15; 1 Jn. 2:28.
Open shame In the Lord's death we see the heart that bleeds, bared before our eyes in the cross. It is written of Him in His time of dying that He "poured out his soul unto death" (Is. 53:12). The Hebrew translated "poured out" means to make naked- it is rendered as "make thyself naked" in Lam. 4:21 (see too Lev. 20:18,19; Is. 3:17). The Lord' sensitivity was what led Him to His death- He made His soul naked, bare and sensitive, until the stress almost killed Him quite apart from the physical torture. To be sensitive to others makes us open and at risk ourselves. A heart that bleeds really bleeds and hurts within itself. And this was the essence of the cross. It seems to me that the Lord was crucified naked- hence those who turn away put Him to “an open [Gk. ‘naked’] shame”. In being sensitive to others, we make ourselves naked. The heart that bleeds is itself in great risk of hurt and pain.
6:7 The land which has drunk in the rain gives forth “herbs meet for them by whom it is tended” (Heb. 6:7 RV). The parallel is intended with "those who have tasted the good word of God" (Heb. 6:5). If the land represents those who respond to the Gospel, as in the sower parable, who are those who tend it? Surely the preachers and pastoral carers. They benefit, they are encouraged, by those whom they have cared for and converted. I've seen this so very often- one goes to exhort, and comes back home exhorted. But this is all part of the intended upward spiral in functional ecclesial life.
The husbandman produces fruit which is appropriate to his labours, and so our eternal future and being will be a reflection of our labours now (Heb. 6:7). Not that salvation depends upon our works: it is the free, gracious gift of God. But the nature of our eternity will be a reflection of our present efforts.
We are to be the ground that drinks in the rain of God’s word, and yet also the husbandmen who bring forth the fruit to God’s glory; and yet the ground brings forth fruit appropriate to those who have worked on it (Heb. 6:7). Does this not suggest that we each bring forth a unique and personally appropriate form of spiritual fruit?
6:8 At the time of Christ's coming,
there will be tares actively growing in the ecclesia. Those tares
are the "thorns and briers" of Heb. 6:8, who are "rejected...
nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned"; the 'thorns' who crucify
Christ again (2 Sam. 23:6,7; Heb. 6:6-8). Yet we will,
in some sense, rub shoulders with this category if we are in the latter day
ecclesia (Mt. 13:27-30). In the last days, the true Christian community simply
won't be (isn't?) the spiritually safe place, where error is impossible, which
we may have felt it to be in the past. The man of sin, the wicked one, will sit
in the very temple of God, the ecclesia.
The "end" of the rejected is to be later "burnt" (Heb. 6:8), as if rejection occurs in the mind of God now, but will articulate the punishment later, at the judgment.
6:10 Giving a
cup of cold water to the little ones had nothing to doesn’t necessarily refer
to sticking banknotes in a collection for Oxfam. The Hebrew writer took it as
referring to our love for Christ's little ones, within the ecclesia (Mt. 10:42
= Heb. 6:10). And the context in the Gospels says the same.
6:12 Conversion means a life of belief in the Gospel. Faith works through love; it naturally, by its very nature, propels action. John's letters link faith and love, as if to show that the two are inextricably linked. Having real faith means that we are not "slothful" (Heb. 6:12); the clawing laziness of our natures will be brushed aside by the imperative to action which faith gives. And in 'the truth', the propositions of 'the one faith', we have the motivating power which no other religion can offer. I call the basic doctrines of the Gospel an "imperative" to action in that they demand action / response from us by implication, rather than for what they specifically in so many words set before us as 'requirements'.
6:18 Consider the curse upon Levi- that the members of this tribe were to be scattered in Israel (Gen. 49:7). However, this resulted in the cities of the Levites being scattered throughout the land, thus providing accessible cities of refuge to all who wished to escape the consequences of sin. Those cities were evidently symbolic of the refuge we have in Christ (Heb. 6:18). Again and again, the curses and consequences of human sin are used by the Father to mediate blessing.
6:20 The juxtaposition of the Lord’s humanity and His exaltation is what is so unique about Him. And it’s what is so hard for people to accept, because it demands so much faith in a man, that He could be really so God-like. The juxtaposition of ideas is seen in Hebrews so powerfully. Here alone in the New Testament is His simple, human name “Jesus” used so baldly- not ‘Jesus Christ’, ‘the Lord Jesus’, just plain ‘Jesus’ (Heb. 2:9; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20; 7:22; 10:19; 12:2,24; 13:12). And yet it’s Hebrews that emphasizes how He can be called ‘God’, and is the full and express image of God Himself. I observe that in each of the ten places where Hebrews uses the name ‘Jesus’, it is as it were used as a climax of adoration and respect. For example: “… whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus” (Heb. 6:20). “But you are come unto… unto… to… to… to… to… and to Jesus the mediator” (Heb. 12:22-24). The bald title ‘Jesus’, one of the most common male names in first century Palestine, as common as Dave or Steve or John in the UK today, speaking as it did of the Lord’s utter humanity, is therefore used as a climax of honour for Him. The honour due to Him is exactly due to the fact of His humanity.
He is like the boy who brings the ship's line to shore (AV "forerunner", Heb. 6:20), and then guides the ship to dock.
7:3 Without doubt God frames the Biblical record in order to highlight certain facts. Thus there is a marked lack of information concerning the father and mother of Melchizedek in Genesis. The Spirit in Hebrews comments that he was “Without father, without mother… having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3). Now this is not literally true. God is providing us with an interpretation of how He worded the account in Genesis, making the point that Melchizedek typified Christ. But although we are not to read Hebrews 7:3 at face value, there is no explicit indication to this effect. The objection that the New Testament does not warn us against reading the ‘casting out of demons’ language literally is therefore not valid. Hebrews 7:3 is one of many examples of where it is imperative to understand the way in which God is using language if we are to correctly understand His word, but there is no explicit warning about this in Hebrews 7:3!
7:4- see on Heb. 1:5.
7:12 The whole Law of Moses is described as an
everlasting covenant (Isa. 24:5; Deut. 29:29), but it has now been done away
(Heb. 8:13). The feasts of Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting
statute unto you” (Lev. 16:34; Ex. 12:14); but now the Mosaic feasts have been
done away in Christ (Col. 2:14-17; 1 Cor. 5:7). The Levitical priesthood was
“the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Ex. 40:15; Num. 25:13), but “the
priesthood being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a
change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). There was an “everlasting covenant”
between God and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (Lev. 24:8).
This “everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled.
But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in 2 Samuel 23:5 concerning
how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word olahm, which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”,
“everlasting” in the Old Testament? James Strong defines olahm
as literally meaning “the finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically
eternity”. It was God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated
Sabbath law were to continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this
meant a finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it;
therefore he was told that the Law would last for ever
in the sense of “practically eternity”. For all of us, the spectre of ultimate
infinity is impossible to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about
God’s eternity and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we
pause to really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools
and linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or Greek
word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know that death
has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we
have the hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity
very much from a human viewpoint.
7:19 By having this hope, we find
strength against materialism and "draw nigh to God" (Heb. 7:19); and
the Hebrew readership would have understood this as meaning 'drawing nigh in
priestly service' (cp. Ex. 19:22). The Hope we have compels us to God's
service. And that same Hope inspires us to repentance, too. For if He is soon
to return, what manner of persons ought we to be? And so Mt.
10:7 and Mk. 6:12 parallel preaching the soon coming of the Kingdom with
preaching repentance.
7:25- see
on Heb. 2:3.
The risen and exalted Lord is spoken of as being shamed, being crucified afresh, as agonizing in prayer for us just as He did on the cross (Rom. 8:24 cp. Heb. 5:7-9). On the cross, He made intercession for us (Is. 53:11,12); but now He ever liveth to make such intercession (Heb. 7:25). There He bore our sins; and yet now He still bears our sins (Is. 53:4-6. 11). The fact that the Lord "ever liveth to make intercession" for us (Heb. 7:25) is an allusion back to Is. 53:12, which prophecies that on the cross, Christ would make intercession for the transgressors. His prayer for us then, that we would all be forgiven (and see the prophecies of this in Psalms 22,69 etc.) was therefore His intercession for our salvation. His whole death was His prayer / intercession for us. But it was of His own freewill; He was not relaying our words then. And His intercession for us on the cross is the pattern of His intercession for us now. This is- or ought to be- a humbling thought.
He made one mediatory offering for all time (Heb. 5:7; 7:27); therefore He has nothing to offer now. The High Priest going into the Holiest is also a type of Christ entering Heaven. He is in a sense permanently in the Holiest, He bears our names always before Yahweh; He ever lives, all the time, to make intercession for us, all the time (Heb. 7:25).
The risen and exalted Lord is spoken of as being shamed,
being crucified afresh, as agonizing in prayer for us just as He did on the
cross (Rom. 8:24 cp. Heb. 5:7-9). On the cross, He made intercession for us
(Is. 53:11,12); but now He ever liveth
to make such intercession (Heb. 7:25). There He bore our sins; and yet now He
still bears our sins (Is. 53:4-6. 11). Somehow, the cross is still there.
7:26 If the Son of God Himself prayed in such simple terms, surely we ought to likewise. He was and is “harmless” (Heb. 7:26) in His priestly mediation; the same word is translated “simple” in Rom. 16:8. He was an intellectual beyond compare, morally and dialectically He defeated the most cunning cross-questioning of His day; and yet He was a working man surrounded by masses of daily problems. But He was and is “simple” in the sense of single-mindedly committed to His priestly work. We are on earth and God is in Heaven, and therefore our words should be few (Ecc. 5:2). Not few in the sense that we don’t pray for very long, but few in terms of their simplicity and directness. The Lord warned us against the complicated prayer forms of the Pharisees; and asked us to mean our words of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ rather than use more sophisticated assurances. The heart is deceitful and so wicked we cannot plumb its depths (Jer. 17:9); and yet the pure in heart are blessed. This must surely mean that the “pure” in heart are those who despite the intrinsic self-deception of the human heart, are nonetheless “pure” or single hearted in their prayer and motives and desire to serve God.
He was and is "harmless" (Heb. 7:26) in His priestly mediation; the same word is translated "simple" in Rom. 16:8. He was an intellectual beyond compare, morally and dialectically He defeated the most cunning cross-questioning of His day; and yet He was a working man surrounded by masses of daily problems. But He was and is "simple" in the sense of single-mindedly committed to His priestly work.
Jesus was in His life "separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). The Greek word very definitely means 'to actively depart from'- it's used about a partner walking out of a marriage. Yet the Lord is always pictured as mixing with sinners, to the extent that they felt they could come to Him easily, and actually liked to do this. So how was He "separate" from them in the way the Hebrew writer understood? Here again we see one of the profoundest paradoxes in this supremest of personalities. He was with sinners, then and now; His solidarity with us, the roughest and the most obvious and the subtlest of us, is what attracts us to Him. And yet He is somehow totally separate from us; and it is this in itself which brings us to Him.
8:2 There is great emphasis in Ex. 26 that the tabernacle was "one", joined together in such a way that taught the lesson of unity. The spiritual tabernacle, the believers, was "pitched" by the Lord- translating a Greek word which suggests 'crucifixion' (Heb. 8:2). Through the cross, the one, united tabernacle was pitched. To tear down that structure by disuniting the body is to undo the work of the cross.
8:4 Because His mediation was a one-off act, Christ would not be a priest if He were now on earth (Heb. 8:4). He is given the title of priest, as He is given the title "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5), even though He is not now a man.
8:10 The New Covenant which is to be made with Israel on
Christ's return has now been made with us in this life (Heb.8:10 cp. v.13).
8:11 If we know God in an experiential sense (and not just knowing theological theory about Him), we know that our sins are forgiven. We preach to others "Know the Lord!", exactly because "I will be merciful to their iniquities" (Heb. 8:11,12). It is our knowledge of God's mercy to us which empowers us to confidently seek to share with others our knowledge, our relationship, our experience with God. Forgiveness inspires the preacher; and yet the offer of forgiveness is what inspires the listener to respond. God appeals for Israel to respond by pointing out that in prospect, He has already forgiven them: “I have [already] blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions... [therefore] return unto me; for I have redeemed thee” (Is. 44:22). Likewise Elijah wanted Israel to know that God had already in prospect turned their hearts back to Him (1 Kings 18:37). We preach the cross of Christ, and that through that forgiveness has been enabled for all men; but they need to respond by repentance in order to access it. Hence the tragedy of human lack of response; so much has been enabled, the world has been reconciled, but all this is in vain if they will not respond.
In addition to prayer, let's simply make spiritual conversation with our brethren, overcoming our natural reserve to talk about spiritual things. All in the new covenant should be teaching every man his neighbour and brother, saying "Know the Lord" (Heb. 8:11).
Being His nation and being a priest are connected. Israel were to teach every man his neighbour and brother, saying, Know the Lord (Heb. 8:11). God therefore saw all Israel as represented by the priests (Hos. 4:9; Is. 24:2; Jer. 5:31; 8:10); He says in Hag. 2:12-14 that He saw all Israel as defiled priests. Hos. 4:1,6, in a passage directed to all Israel rather than just the priests (cp. 5:1), warns the whole nation that they can no longer be God's priest, because of their sins. There are many hints throughout the Old Testament that God encouraged all His people to behave like priests. The early chapters of Proverbs exhort the average Israelite to love God's Law, study it, talk about it to their neighbours and children... all of which was priestly behaviour. They were all to be priests, in essence. The language of the priesthood is applied in those chapters to the normal, Bible-loving Israelite. For example, "the priests lips should keep knowledge" (Mal. 2:7); but the average Israelite was encouraged to study the Law for himself, “that thy lips may keep knowledge" (Prov. 5:2).
As part of the priesthood, our duty is to all teach or communicate
the word of God to each other. It was God's intention that natural Israel
should obey the spirit of this, so that they would "teach every man his
neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord" (Heb. 8:11).
That was how God intended Israel of old to fulfil this idea of being a priestly
nation.
8:13- see
on Ps. 102:26.
9:7- see on
Jn. 12:24.
9:14 The cross is attainable for us, as it was for Paul. Christ offered Himself on the cross "through the eternal spirit" (Heb. 9:14). I understand by this that it was the Spirit of God, understanding from His word what God really wanted, what He is really like and thereby demands of us, which led the Lord Jesus to the cross. And why the odd phrase "the eternal spirit"? Surely to show that this same Spirit operates today, and if we follow it, will lead us likewise to the same death of the cross. These things are challenging to the very core of our being, the very fabric of our self-understanding. We who cower in the dentist's chair, who fear and avoid pain, who would sooner die than have a surgery without anasthetic... are called to die with Jesus, the death of the cross. God was manifested in the flesh of Christ, but now Christ is living "in the Spirit", thus justifying God's righteousness (1 Tim. 3:16). He was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by (on account of) the Spirit", the Spirit-man within Him (1 Pet. 3:18). Thus Christ's sacrifice was acceptable by reason of his "eternal Spirit" (Heb. 9:14); his perfect spiritual character was what enabled his physical blood and death to win our salvation. His resurrection was due to his "spirit of holiness" (Rom. 1:4). We can only relate to Him now as a spiritual being. We can not now know Him after the flesh. Now his mortal flesh has been destroyed, He is "the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18 R.V.); He is called "the Spirit" in Revelation because the spiritual character He developed in his mortal life is now what He is.
The Greek word translated “conscience”, sun-eidesis, means literally a co-perception. It implies that there are two types of perception within the believer- human perception, and spiritual self perception. The conscience that is cleansed in Christ, that is at peace, will be a conscience that keeps those two perceptions, of the real self and of the persona, in harmony. What we know and perceive humanly, is in harmony with we spiritually perceive. Our conscience, our co-perception, our real self, makes sense of the human perceptions and interprets them in a spiritual way. So, a young man sees an attractive girl. His human perception signals certain things to his brain- to lust, covet, etc. But his co-perception, his conscience, his real self, handles all that, and sees the girl’s beauty for just simply what it is- beauty. Job before his ‘conversion’ paralleled his eye and his ear: “Mine eye hath seen all this, mine ear hath heard and understood it” (Job 13:1). He was so sure that what he heard was what he saw; he was sure that his perceptions were operating correctly. But later, he comes to see a difference between his eye and his ear. He says that he had only heard of God by the ear; but only now, he says, “mine eye seeth thee” (Job 42:5). He had heard words, but, he realized, he’d not properly ‘seen’ or perceived. Finally, he had a properly functioning ‘conscience’, a co-perception. What he saw, was what he really heard.
Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (Jn. 12:48), not how far we have lived according to our conscience. It’s therefore unreliable (1 Cor. 4:4). And yet there is Bible teaching concerning the need to live in accordance with our 'conscience', and the joy which is possible for the believer who has a clear conscience (e.g. Acts 24:16; Rom. 14:18-22; 2 Cor. 1:12; 1 Jn. 3:21). This must mean, in the context, the conscience which God's word has developed in us- it cannot refer to 'conscience' in the sense of our natural, inbuilt sense of right and wrong; because according to the Bible, this is hopelessly flawed. The fact the "conscience" is "cleansed" by Christ's sacrifice (Heb. 9:14; 10:22) proves that the Biblical 'conscience' is not the natural sense of right and wrong within our nature; for our nature can never be 'purged' or 'cleansed', the believer will always have those promptings within him to do wrong. The cleansed, purged conscience refers to the new man that is created within the believer at baptism. This new 'conscience' is not just a sense of guilt which is invoked on account of not living an obedient life; it is also a conscience which positively compels us to do something, not just threatens us with a pang of guilt if we commit a sin.
We have a conscience which in God's
eyes is cleansed of sin, knowing that our sin has been overcome once and for
all, and that we have access to this through baptism. Our hearts were purified
by that faith (Acts 15:9); we were cleansed from the conscience of sins (Heb.
9:14); all things became pure to us (Tit. 1:15; Rom. 14:20). This is a good
conscience, Biblically defined. When Paul said he had a pure conscience before
God, they smote him for blasphemy (Acts 23:1,2); there
is an association between a clear conscience and perfection (Heb. 9:9; 10:14).
A clear conscience therefore means an awareness that
in God's eyes, we have no sin. Thus Paul's conscience could tell him that he
was living a life which was a response to his experience of God's grace /
forgiveness (2 Cor. 1:12). The conscience works not only negatively; it insists
that we do certain things. It may even be that the goads against which
Paul was kicking before his conversion were not the pricks of bad conscience,
but rather the positive directions from God that he ought to be
giving his life to the service of His Son. Whilst we may still have twinges of
guilt, and sins to confess, from God's viewpoint the slate is clean, and has
been since our baptism. It is impossible to believe this without some kind of
response. We are purged in our conscience so that we might serve the living God
(Heb. 9:14).
9:15 It must be remembered that the High Priest of the Old Covenant did not offer up the prayers of the people. Yahweh's ears were ever open to the cry of the individual Israelite, without an intercessor. Moses mediated the Old Covenant in the sense that he obtained it and relayed it to Israel; his mediation was a one-off act. This is the basis of the NT passages concerning the mediation of the New Covenant through Christ; He did this through His death and resurrection (Gal. 3:19,20; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). Christ was the mediator of the new covenant so that the sins committed under the old covenant could be forgiven (Heb. 9:15); thus His mediation is not in the relaying of our words to God, but in the sealing of the new covenant through His own blood. The mediation between God and man by the Lord is paralleled with His giving Himself as a ransom on the cross (1 Tim. 2:5,6). This is the sense in which He is the mediator of the new covenant; He mediated it once, not in an ongoing sense.
Of course in real time there is a gap between the Lord's resurrection and our own. To God, this gap is unimportant, in some sense it doesn't even exist. And to the eye of faith at a believers' funeral too. This explains why Paul so often speaks of the resurrection as meaning the whole process of resurrection, judgment and glorification (e.g. Rom. 8:11), and why he speaks of the dead being resurrected incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:42-44,52), and writing as if they presently exist (e.g. Heb. 9:15 "are called" rather than 'were called'). Indeed, the NT speaks of the whole resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus as if it were one event- even though there was a gap between them (Acts 2:32,33; 5:30,31; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:21,22); and the Lord Himself speaks of how Messiah would suffer and enter into glory (Lk. 24:26), apparently skipping over the mechanics of the resurrection.
9:16 The death of the covenant victim was to act as a warning for what would happen to those who broke the covenant. Thus "The men who transgressed my covenant… I will make like the calf which they cut in two" (Jer. 34:18 RSV). In the account of a Babylonian covenant it was written: "This head is not just the head of the goat… it is the head of Mati'ilu… If Mati'ilu breaks the oath, then as the head of this goat is cut off… so shall the head of Mati'ilu be cut off". Thus the dead animal was seen as a representative of the person who entered the covenant. The death of our Lord, therefore, serves as a reminder to us of the end for sin. We either put sin to death, or we must be put to death for it. Gal. 3:15; Heb. 9:16 and other passages liken the blood of Christ to a covenant; and yet the Greek word used means definitely the last will and testament of a dead man. His blood is therefore an imperative to us to do something; it is His will to us, which we must execute. Thus His death, His blood, which is also a symbol of His life, becomes the imperative to us for our lives and living in this world. Note how blood is a symbol of both life and also death (Gen. 37:26; Num. 35:19,33; Lev. 20:9). Both His death and His life form a covenant / testament / will for us to obey- in both baptism and then in living out the death and life in our daily experience. We cannot be passive to it.
9:19 Heb. 9:19 brings out the link between blood and
law-giving; the people were sprinkled with blood as they heard the Law read to
them. The new covenant in Christ’s blood results in the laws
of God being written on our hearts, in our consciences (Heb. 8:10). Then
Heb. 10:14-16 goes on to say the placing of the laws on our hearts in this way
is in fact a “witness" to how His blood sanctifies us. We can’t be passive
to His sacrifice; the conscience elicited by it, the writing on our hearts, is
what propels us forward to live a sanctified life.
9:20 At the
breaking of bread, it's as if Christ is sprinkling us with His blood, it's as
if we are Israel assembled together, re-entering the covenant each time we
break bread. No wonder we are asked to assemble ourselves together (as far as
possible) to remember Christ (Mt. 26:28 = Heb. 9:20). We have elsewhere made
the point that Hebrews is full of appropriate material for a breaking of bread
exhortation, which we believe it to have originally been.
Far back in Mosaic ritual, the voice of command was
associated with the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat; the blood of the lamb
was a command to respond (Ex. 25:22). Heb. 9:20 RV speaks of “the blood of the
covenant which God commanded"; the book of the law was sprinkled with that
blood to show the connection between the blood and the book. To eat His flesh
and blood (in evident anticipation of His coming sacrifice and the memorial
meeting) was to eat Him
and His words (Jn. 6:53,54,63). His words were all
epitomized in His offered flesh and blood. In His death and sacrifice (which
"the blood of Jesus" represent), we see His very essence: He Himself.
On the stake He poured out His soul unto death (Is. 53:12), and yet in His life
He poured out His soul too (Ps. 42:4). The cross was an epitome of who He
really had been for those 33 years. To know Christ is to know His cross (Is.
53:11). See on Heb. 12:25.
9:23 It seems that Christ's sacrifice benefited the Angels. Heb.
9:23 is a key: "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in
the Heavens should be purified" (with blood). The tabernacle and Most Holy
were the "pattern showed to (Moses) in the mount" (Heb. 8:5) when he
was given the details of the tabernacle (cp. Ex. 25:9; 1 Chron. 28:12 etc).
These had to be purified by the sprinkling of blood; "but the heavenly
things themselves with better sacrifices than these". The "blood of
bulls and goats" could purify the tabernacle, but that was a replica of
Heaven itself, as well as of the spiritual "heavenlies" of Christian
believers. "For Christ is not entered into the holy
places made with hands (the tabernacle- "the patterns of things in the
Heavens" of v. 23), but into Heaven itself" (v. 24). Thus
there is a parallelism between verses 23 and 24:
|
v. 23 |
v. 24 |
|
The patterns of things in |
The holy places made with hands |
|
the Heavens |
the tabernacle |
|
The Heavenly things themselves |
Heaven itself. . . us |
Is this
talking about the "Angels that sinned"? See on Jude 6. Notice the
stress of v. 24: Christ is "entered into Heaven itself". He did not only enter the spiritual Heavenlies on His
resurrection, but "Heaven itself". Thus "Heaven itself" was
cleansed by His blood. This interpretation would fit the context of Hebrews,
where one of the major themes is the superiority of Christ over the Angels. The
fact that they were cleansed by Christ's sacrifice is surely another proof of
this. The Angels knowing "good and evil" (Gen. 3:22) implies they had
been on probation previously like us; thus they may have sinned like we do, and
yet been forgiven through some system of reconciliation. Such a system would
have been similar to the Law of Moses- the system would have depended on
pointing forward to the sacrifice of Christ, as it is only through Him that sin
can be overcome. Thus as Christ's death was "for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament" (Heb. 9:15), so it was
also for the redemption of the Angels' transgressions committed during their
probations. Therefore the Angels were not actually 'in sin' at the time of
Christ, because their sins were forgiven in the same way as those of people who
lived before Christ. The "Angels that sinned" would have been those
who "continued in sin" and were condemned, or who committed a
particularly sinful act. In the same way, the unworthy in our dispensation are
called "sinners" (Is. 65:20; 1 Peter 4:18), although in a sense we
are all "sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:19).
The tabernacle, upon which the temple was based, was a
pattern, or reflection, of things in Heaven itself (Heb. 9:23), i.e. "the
temple which is in heaven" (Rev. 14:17). The structure and
furniture of the tabernacle was an "example and shadow of heavenly
things" (Heb. 8:5); "the holy places
made with hands... are the figures of the true... the true tabernacle, which
the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 9:24; 8:2). For
this reason we read in Revelation about the Jewish feasts being kept in Heaven;
of a heavenly incense altar, holy place, most holy place, incense etc., with
the Angels acting as the priests. Thus Priests and Angels are both
called 'Elohim'. There was a clear understanding by many Jews that the layout
of the tabernacle on earth was a direct reflection of the physical organization
in Heaven
9:24 It is stressed in Heb. 9:24; 8:2 that this Heavenly temple was made by God not by human hands. The Kingdom of Christ is symbolized as a stone cut without hands (Dan. 2:44). Likewise Abraham looked forward to the Kingdom in terms of a city "whose builder and maker is God"; and God, we are told, has prepared that city for Abraham and his seed (Heb. 11:10,16). The coming down of that city/temple from Heaven in Revelation 21:3 is the fulfilment of Abraham's hope. The city/temple from Heaven has foundations (Revelation 21:14), just as Abraham expected (Heb. 11:10).
The language of Romans 8 about His intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered is to be connected with Hebrews 5 speaking of the Lord groaning with strong crying and tears on the cross. The point being that the intensity of His prayer there, struggling for every breath, is the same essential intensity with which He mediates for us now. He died “for us”, and yet right now He appears “before the face of God for us” (Heb. 9:24 RV). Thus there is a connection between His death and His ongoing mediation “for us”. We must struggle with Him, framing and offering our words in the full realization of the agonizing effort He is willing to make to intercede.
Romans is full of legal language, of interceding, pleading, finding a favourable verdict etc., and refers this to the judgment and also to the cross. But Romans 8 uses these very ideas in relation to prayer, for in coming before the throne of grace now on account of the Lord's sacrifice, we come in essence before judgment. Coming before the throne of God in prayer (Heb. 9:24; Ps. 17:1,2) is the language of the judgment seat. If we become before His throne and are accepted, it follows that this is a foretaste of the outcome of the judgment for us, were we to be judged at that time. Our boldness before the Father in prayer will be the same attitude we have to Him at the judgment throne (1 Jn. 2:28; 3:21; 4:17; 5:14 all use the same Greek word).
Christ is in Heaven, "to appear in the presence of God for us" (Heb. 9:24), the Greek translated "appear" meaning to exhibit openly. We are openly exhibited to God by the Lord Jesus, he reveals our inner spirit, our essential desires, to the Father.
9:25 Heb. 9:24,25 speaks of the Lord’s sacrifice as occurring in the Heavenly sanctuary, Heaven itself- as if the cross is an eternally repeated redemptive act.
9:26 On the cross, the Lord Jesus was ‘manifested’, shown as
He really and essentially is (Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:19,20;
1 Jn. 3:5,8; 1 Tim. 3:16). But the same word is also used about the final
manifesting of the Lord Jesus at His return (Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 5:4; 1 Jn. 2:28;
3:2). This explains the link between the cross and His return; who He was then will be who He will be when He comes in
judgment. There He endured the spitting and hatred of men in order to save
them. And the same gracious spirit will be extended to all His true people,
whatever their inadequacies.
9:27 after
this- see on Dt. 29:21.
9:28 If we understand something of
the ‘mechanics’ of the atonement, and grasp something of the fact that they
were outworked in a real, historical man, we will see that the final
realization of the redemption achieved at the cross will be when Christ comes
back. Having expounded the Lord’s cross for several chapters, Paul concludes:
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look
for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb.
9:28). Here we see two fundamental first principles linked: If we understand
something of the atonement, we will earnestly look for the second coming, when
the redemption achieved on the cross will be brought unto us (cp. 1 Pet. 1:13).
An enthusiasm for the second coming, spurred by a realization that the bringing
of salvation then is an outworking of the cross, will lead to a loose hold on
the things of this life.
Heb. 9:28 speaks of the faithful as waiting for Christ to
"appear without sin unto salvation". This alludes to a humbled,
repentant Israel on the Day of Atonement, having confessed their sins and
afflicted their souls through fasting, waiting for their High Priest to appear
and pronounce upon them the blessing of forgiveness. The Spirit is using this
as a type of us expecting the second coming of our Lord; the motivation for our
enthusiasm should be our earnest need of ultimate forgiveness and
reconciliation with God. David likewise speaks of waiting and watching for the
Lord in the context of asking for forgiveness (Ps. 130:5,6).
10:1 Heb.
10:18,26 states that Christ only made one sacrifice for sin, implying that the
sins of those in Christ were atoned for at one moment in time. He will not make
another sin offering each time we sin, and therefore we should not sin
wilfully, because that assumes that he will once again sacrifice for sin. Thus
we will be crucifying Christ afresh (Heb. 6:6). The sacrifice of Christ can
make us perfect in God's sight, so that "once purged" we should have
"no more conscience of sins" (Heb. 10:1,2).
This does not refer to "conscience" as the guilty streak within us.
Our spiritual man ought to have no more guilt for our sins, which are now
forgiven. But if we allow sin to be the governing principle in our lives, we
can no longer be reckoned as sinless (Rom. 6:12; 1 Jn. 3:8).
10:17 We need to meditate upon that lifeless body. "A covenant is of force over dead [victims or sacrifices]... it is never held to be of force while he who is the appointed [sacrifice] is alive" (Heb. 10:17 Bullinger). Over that body the personal covenant to each of us (Gen. 17:7) came into real, living operation.
The Lord Jesus made one
sacrifice for all sins for all time, and therefore we don't need to offer any
more sacrifices or use a human priesthood; we are already totally forgiven of
all our sins. Sin was completely overcome by the Lord's victory; "For by
one offering he hath perfected for ever (in their conscience) them that are
sanctified" (Heb. 10:14 cp. 9:9). "Their sins and iniquities [there
seems no hint that this only refers to pre-baptismal sins] will I remember no
more" (Heb. 10:17). If we sin wilfully after knowing this, there is no
more sacrifice for sins- because that sacrifice was only ever made once (Heb.
10:26). At our baptism, our conscience was cleansed of all sin. There is
further evidence, apart from the reasoning of Hebrews, that
all our sins, past and future, were forgiven at Calvary:
- On the cross, sin was ended,
iniquity reconciled, everlasting righteousness brought in (Dan. 9:24). One sin
offering was made for all time.
-We must forgive one another even as
God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us (Eph. 4:32); not waiting for our
brother to repent before we forgive him, but forgiving in advance, in prospect,
even as we were forgiven. This takes this issue out of the realms of theology
into the painfully practical.
- Our sins were / are forgiven by
the blood of Christ- not by our repentance or words of prayer. "God's
forgiveness is not just a wiping clean of the slate [from hour to hour]...if it
were, prayer would be immoral- a mere incantation to
bring about a magical result: and we need to be continually wary of the pagan
conception which would reduce it to such a level". These words are so
true. Whenever a twinge of guilt arises, we rush off a quick
prayer for forgiveness- and then, at the end of the day or the week, we are
left with a doubt as to whether our spirituality is valid or not. If
this is our experience, we are all too similar to Israel of old; offering the
sin offering (cp. praying for forgiveness), feeling guilty, coming to the day
of Atonement (cp. the breaking of bread), still feeling guilty, realizing that
as the sin offering couldn't cleanse sin, neither could the sacrifice at that
feast, offering more sin offerings... It can become the ritual of a bad
conscience, stumbling on because there seems no other way to go. But our sins
(yes, yours, that snap at your wife, that curse as you spilt your coffee)
really were forgiven through the Lord's work on the cross; we really do have
access to this through really believing it- and therefore expressing our
faith in baptism. Our prayerful response to failure should be to confess it (1
Jn. 1:9), and also profess our faith in the redemption already achieved for
us.
All our sins were forgiven when the Lord died for us; both past
and future. By baptism we identify ourselves with this work, and we are thereby
in a position where we have "no more conscience of sins" (Heb. 10:2,22), knowing that all is forgiven, and only if we fall from
grace will this become untrue. Thus YLT speaks of "the
conscience" in the NT, as if it is something specific which we have,
rather than an occasional twinge of guilt. We have this Biblical conscience
"toward God"; this is how He sees us (Acts 23:1; 24:16; 1 Pet. 2:19;
3:21). Thus we may have a guilty feeling about something, we may doubt our
salvation, but our conscience in God's eyes is pure; we are still cleansed in
the Lord Jesus Christ. Because we have a clear conscience, God will punish
those who persecute us (1 Pet. 3:16 RSV). 1 Pet. 3:21 teaches that baptism
saves us not because in itself it means that we are free from the deeds of the
flesh ("putting away the filth of the flesh" uses words which
elsewhere carry this connotation), but because it gives us a good conscience in
God's eyes- according to the Biblical definition of conscience.
10:19 In the light of ten
chapters of detailed exposition of the meaning of the blood of Christ, therefore
let us..., the writer triumphantly drives home (Heb. 10:19-25). And he
speaks of how we must transform our lives:
- Let us enter boldly "into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus". This is only possible through a deep
knowledge of sin forgiven. Our prayer life should be a positive and upbuilding experience: "Let us draw near with a true
heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience". Reflection on the atonement, believing it all, will result in
a positive and unashamed faith.
- "Let us hold fast... without
wavering". If the belief of the cross is imprinted upon our minds,
reflected upon not for a few fleeting minutes on Sundays but often throughout
each day, we won't waver. The natural tendency to blow hot and cold in our
spiritual endeavours will be vanquished beneath an unceasing wonder at what was
achieved. It is only sustained reflection upon the cross which can, in an
almost mystical way, impart an unceasing verve of inspiration.
- "Let us consider one another
to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together...but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day
approaching". Again the doctrine of the atonement and that of the second
coming are linked. As we realize more and more clearly that very soon the final
outworking of the cross will be achieved in the actual physical granting of
redemption to us, so we will be inspired to more and more earnestly seek the
welfare of our brethren. If we believe in the atonement, we will naturally seek
to break bread. Whether it means summoning the courage to meet with those we
naturally would rather not meet with, bringing the wine to the meeting, we will
be motivated to rise up and serve in these ways by the eternal and personal
truth of the cross.
As the blood of the ram had to be
put on the ear, thumb and toe (Lev. 8:23), so the blood of Christ's atonement
should transform and affect every aspect of our lives; our hearing [i.e. our
perception], our doing and walking...
The smell of the incense passed through the veil, and into the Most Holy Place, where the presence of God Himself was symbolized as being over the blood-stained cover of the ark. The simple wonder of it all is that the words of our prayers really can penetrate to Heaven itself. And in Christ, the veil itself has been done away, and we can with boldness enter into that Most Holy Place and personally have direct fellowship with God (Heb. 9:7-13; 10:19). Our heart can touch the heart of God. It's a priceless wonder to know and experience this.
Under the Law, the provision for Nazariteship
encouraged the average Israelite to enter into the spirit of the High Priest by
imposing some of the regulations governing his behaviour upon them. All Israel were bidden
make fringes of blue, in conscious imitation of the High Priest to whose spirit
they all were intended to attain (Num. 15:38). But we are bidden now "come
boldly unto the throne of grace (cp. the mercy seat in the Most Holy)...
boldness to enter into the holiest" (Heb. 4:16; 10:19): to do what only
the High Priest could do under the Old Covenant. This must have been a huge
challenge for the Jewish believers to rise up to. The context of Heb. 10
encourages us to enter the Holiest and "consider one another". The
High Priest entered the Holiest in order to make atonement for Israel, not just
to bask in the fact he was allowed in there. And so with us.
The marvellous fellowship with the Father which we are permitted in Christ, the
entry into the Holiest, is not just for the sake of it; it is so we can do
something for others. I am not suggesting, of course, that in any way we
replace the one and only High Priest, the Lord Jesus. But because we are in Him we therefore in
some ways share His honours and His work. The idea of eating the bread of the
sacrifices would likewise have appeared strange in a first century context: it
was as if the whole brotherhood (and sisterhood) were
being invited to see themselves as priests. But in His last message, the Lord
went further: He promised that those who overcome will eat of the hidden manna,
concealed in the Most Holy: as if to say that we will ultimately rise up to and
exceed the glory of the High Priests who saw that bread once a year. See on Jn.
10:9.
10:20- see
on Dt. 32:36.
The Lord Jesus inaugurated the “new and living way” for us dia, on account of, “his flesh” (Heb. 10:20). It was exactly because of “the flesh” of the Lord’s humanity that He opened up a new way of life for us. Because He was so credibly and genuinely human, and yet perfect, the way of His life becomes compellingly the way we are to take. Once we grasp this, we can better understand the anathema which John calls down upon those who deny that Jesus was “in the flesh” (2 Jn. 7-9).
We are cleansed by an ever 'freshly slain' sacrifice (Heb. 10:20 Gk.). The cross is ongoing.
On one level, the atonement can be logically explained. On another, it cannot be. The veil, an eloquent symbol of the flesh of Jesus, was made of mixed fibres, something which was otherwise forbidden under the Law. This perhaps reflected how the Lord’s nature and the atonement God wrought through Him was and is in some ways contradictory, to human eyes.
Through His death, the veil was torn open, so that we might enter into the Holiest “by the blood of Jesus, by the way which He dedicated for us... through the veil, that is to say [the sacrificing of] his flesh" (Heb. 10:19-22 Gk.). This assumes that the followers of Jesus are already in the position of the High Priest standing in the Holy Place, but through what He opened through the cross, each of us must now go through into the Most Holy. And what was the purpose of the High Priest’s entry? To obtain forgiveness for others, to mediate for them, just as Jesus did on the cross. His cross compels us to not merely passively contemplate our own salvation, but to go deeper into the very presence of God in our ministry for others. Yet the High Priest had to cleanse himself meticulously; access had been limited to the Most Holy as a result of inadequate preparation by some in the past (Lev. 16:1,2). The Lord’s death opened up the veil, for us to pass through with the utmost effort made by us in personal sanctification, in order to further God’s glory in the salvation of others. We cannot simply refuse to enter, turn away from the torn veil. To do so is to turn away from what the cross has achieved, and to place ourselves outside its scope. We must go forward, go onwards into the presence of God to replicate in essence the Saviour’s work, with the awed and humble spirit of the High Priest entering the Holiest on the day of atonement. He would surely have carefully analyzed his motives, as to why he was passing through that veil, and whether he was sufficiently personally sanctified for the work he was doing. He would have been comforted by knowing that his motives were solely for the glorification of his God in the redemption for his people which he was seeking to obtain.
10:22 There is a clear NT theme: that the believer always has a good conscience (Acts 23:1; 24:16; Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:5,19; 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 9:14; 10:22; 13:18; 1 Pet. 3:16); this clear conscience is a gift from the time of baptism (Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet. 3:21; Heb. 9:14 cp. 6:1; Rom. 6:17). If a believer loses that good conscience, he has fallen from grace. Those who leave the faith have a conscience which is wounded (1 Cor. 8:12), defiled (1 Cor. 8:7; Tit. 1:15), seared (1 Tim. 4:2). It's hard to find a consistent Biblical definition of conscience. "Conscience" in the Biblical sense often refers to how God sees our conscience, rather than how we feel it. Therefore only rarely does the Spirit speak as if "conscience" is something which is good one moment, and bad the next; it is something which we have on a permanent basis. Thus to say “I watched TV last night with a good conscience, but I had a bad conscience that I didn't give out any tracts today" isn't really using "conscience" in its Biblical sense. Paul repeatedly emphasizes that he has always had a good conscience (presumably, from the time of his baptism, when he stopped kicking against the goads, Acts 9:5).
The good conscience is Biblically defined in Hebrews 9, 10.
Here the writer is basing his argument on how those under the Old Covenant
still had a guilty conscience after their sacrifices, because the blood of
animals could not take away sin; the yearly Day of Atonement required them to
confess their sins once again. Their conscience was not made perfect (Heb.
9:9). In his overpowering way, the writer drives his logic home: not only is
our conscience cleansed by the one sacrifice of Christ, but we are in a more
exalted position than the OT worshippers; we are in the very position of the
High Priest who on that Day of Atonement entered the Most Holy; we can enter the Holiest
with boldness (cp.
the nervousness of the Priest) because our consciences are cleansed with
Christ's blood. And because of this, "let us draw near" (Heb. 10:22),
the language the LXX uses about the priestly serving of God; now we can
do the priestly work, because our consciences are cleansed. We are not like the
OT believers, who had a bad conscience because of their sins and needed to
offer an annual sacrifice for them, as a result of their conscience. We, by
contrast, have no more conscience of sins. According to this Biblical
definition of conscience, the conscience is cleansed, and we partake of that
cleansing by baptism. At and in that sacrament, we make a pledge to keep that
good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21 NIV); perhaps we need to point this out more to
baptism candidates. We are once and for all forgiven. Our emphasis must be on
confession of failure, not feeling guilty and rushing off a quick prayer, as if
this will get us forgiveness. We have been cleansed and covered,
we are in the new covenant of grace. Only by breaking out of this can we lose
the gracious position in which we stand: we have a conscience which is free of
guilt, if we truly believe in the power of the cross and our relationship to it
through baptism.
10:23 We continue professing / confessing our hope “that it waver
not” (Heb. 10:23 RV). It doesn’t waver for us, exactly because we preach it.
10:24- see on Acts 15:39.
Our preaching to others isn’t a cold-hearted witness, or a theological debate; it is a seeking of glory to the Father; we exhort one another, considering how we may provoke to love (Heb. 10:24). But let me ask: do you consider how you might encourage your brethren, or those in the world around you; what words to say, what to do or not to do…?
In the cross, we see self-humbling that we might be exalted. And we respond by likewise humbling ourselves, that others may be exalted. In practice this means guiding our words and example so that others are exalted, not speaking of our own achievements, considering each other as to how we may provoke them to righteousness (Heb. 10:24; earlier in 3:1 the writer speaks of considering the Lord Jesus, and this leads on to considering each other).
10:25 Gathered
around the slain lamb, the memorial of their salvation, in their various homes,
the command was clear: "None of you shall go out at the door of his
house until the morning" (Ex. 12:22). This is surely an
eloquent picture of the ecclesia of the last days, highlighting the urgent need
to remain within the ecclesia, and to centre our fellowship around
our Passover Lamb. The importance of physically meeting together in
the last days, particularly to share the emblems of our Lord's death, is
stressed in Heb. 10:25.
“Not
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting
one another... the more, as ye see the day approaching" - both of AD70 and
the second coming. A laid back attitude to attending meetings designed for
spiritual upbuilding was a problem then- and why is
it that such events seem to have a decreasing attraction today? The immediate
context of Heb.10:25 in the first century would be of the believers being
ashamed to publicly associate themselves with their persecuted brethren for
fear of reprisals. Paul went through the same, just a few months before AD70 (2
Tim. 4:16). Will this also be the position in the very last days?
Not assembling ourselves together is
of course not a good thing. If we love our brethren, we will seek to be
physically with them. There can be no doubt that we must struggle with our
natural selfishness, our desire to go it alone. But is this actually what Heb.
10:25 is talking about? A glance at the context shows
that forsaking the assembly is paralleled with the wilful sin which shall
exclude us from God’s salvation:
|
Let us hold fast the profession of
our faith |
Without wavering [going back to
Judaism, according to the context in Hebrews] |
|
Let us consider one another to
provoke unto love |
Not forsaking the
assembly-of-ourselves |
|
Exhorting one another |
Unlike the “some" who,
according to how Hebrews uses that Greek word, have turned away from
Christianity |
|
Wilful sin, with no more access to
the Lord’s sacrifice |
|
|
Certain condemnation- “a certain
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation" |
|
|
Despising the Law |
|
|
Treading under
foot the Son of God and reviling the blood of the covenant- what had
to be done by Christians who ‘repented’ of their conversion and returned to
the synagogue, the sort of blasphemy that Saul was making Christian converts
commit. |
Now are those awful things in the
right hand column above really a description of someone who fervently believes
in the Lord Jesus, but for whatever reason, doesn’t ‘make it out to meeting’ on
Sundays? Those terms seem to speak about a wilful rejection of the Lord Jesus.
And this of course is the very background against which Hebrews was written. It
was a letter to Hebrew Christians who were beginning to bow to Jewish pressure
and renounce their faith in Christ, and return to Judaism. “The assembling of
ourselves together" can actually be read as a noun- not a verb. Those who ‘forsook’ ‘the assembly together of us’ would then refer
to those who totally rejected Christianity. The same word
“forsaking" occurs in 2 Pet. 2:15, also in a Jewish context, about those
who “forsake the right way". So I suggest that forsaking the assembly
refers more to turning away from Christ and returning to apostasy, than to
simply not turning up at church as often as we might. The writer laments that
“some" were indeed forsaking the assembly (Heb. 10:25). But that Greek
word translated “some" recurs in Hebrews to describe those “some" who
had forsaken the ecclesia and turned back to Judaism: “Take heed… lest there be
in some [AV “any"] of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing
from the living God" (and returning to Judaism- Heb. 3:12)… lest some
[AV “any"] of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Heb.
3:13)… for some, when they had heard, did provoke [referring to the
earlier Hebrews in the wilderness who turned away from the hope of the Kingdom-
Heb. 3:16]… some of you should seem to fail [like the condemned Hebrews
in the wilderness- Heb. 4:1]… lest some fall after the same example of
unbelief" (Heb. 4:11). In fact, right after the reference to the “some"
who forsake the assembly, Heb. 10:28 speaks of “some [AV “he"- but
the same Greek word in all these places for “some"] that despised Moses’
law". Clearly, those Hebrews in the wilderness
who turned away from the spirit of Christ in Moses and the hope of the Kingdom,
are being held up as warnings to that same “some" in the first century
Hebrew ecclesia who were turning back from the Hope of the Kingdom. Now let me
get it right. I’m not in any way saying that we needn’t bother about our
ecclesial attendance. Far from it! But I also feel it’s not right to insist
that if someone doesn’t attend an ecclesia, for whatever reason, they are
therefore guilty of the wilful sin and certain fiery condemnation of which
Hebrews 10 speaks for those who forsake the assembly. In fact, the passage has
almost been abused like that- as if to say: ‘If you don’t turn up on Sunday, if
you quit meeting with us, then, you’ve quit on God and His Son’. This simply
isn’t the case.
10:26 “The knowledge of the
truth” in Heb. 10:26 refers in the context to the knowledge of forgiveness and
salvation; it’s parallel to the “knowledge of salvation” (Lk. 1:77). The
“truth” is the ultimate, surpassing reality- that we are saved, by grace, and
can look forward to that great salvation being revealed at the last day. As an
aside, it seems to me that for all our dysfunction, there's a desire in us to
repent, to know the truth and let the truth come out. Psychologically, it's
reflected in the way that we all have of telling clumsy lies at times, wanting
to be found out as it were... because there's something in us which wants to be
truthful, needs to come to confession and repentance. It's why the Catholic church's idea of voluntary sessions of confession is
actually popular.
10:29-
see on Mk. 15:15; Heb. 12:17.
10:30 David
asks God to judge him now (Ps. 26:1; 35:24; 43:1; 54:1). He wasn't so
afraid of the future judgment; He knew that it will only be the
pronouncement of how we have now lived. He had a good conscience, and so He
asked God to show how He felt about him right now. "The Lord shall judge
the people [at the last day; this is quoted in this connection in Heb. 10:30]:
judge me [i.e. now], O Lord, according to my righteousness" (Ps. 7:8).
10:31
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"
(Heb. 10:31) may well refer to this Angelic punishment, as the hands of God is
Angelic language, and "the living God" may well carry the idea in
Hebrew of 'God of the living ones', i. e. the Angel-cherubim.
What is written about the toughness of God’s condemnation
may seem awful. But actually, the condemnation and judgment of God is far
softer than that of man. It was men who created the concept of eternal torment,
not God. It was men who created Auschwitz and similar perversions of
‘judgment’. It is truly written in the context of God’s final condemnation that
it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31).
But David said that he would prefer to fall into the hands of God rather than
into the hands of man (2 Sam. 24:14). To fall into the hands of God is thus a
figure for judgment / condemnation by Him. Fearful as it is, as the Hebrew
writer says, it is actually far milder than the judgment of men. This is how
cruel our judgment of others can be; this is how awful is
human condemnation of each other. It is worse that God’s. No wonder that
the Lord established “Judge not…” as a foundation principle for His true
people.
10:32 “Call
to remembrance the [persecutions of the] former days..." because these
were to recur in the period around AD70. The subsequent list of the faithful in Heb.11
focuses on those who were persecuted for their faith but endured- to prepare
the readers for the last days of tribulation. This recalls the oft repeated
theme of Peter's letters: "Stir up your minds... remember"
(e.g. 2 Pet.1:12-15; 3:11).
10:34- see
on Mt. 5:7; Heb. 4:15.
The early Christians “joyfully accepted the plundering of
[their] property” by the state (Heb. 10:34). There was a joy felt amongst them
because of their loss. This is a totally counter-instinctive feeling- to be joyful because you lost
or gave away ‘possessions’. The Philippians likewise gave out of a deep joy at giving away; the
abundance of their joy resulted in their liberality (2 Cor. 8:2). And let’s not
think that the early church were necessarily all dirt poor. The Christians of
Heb. 10:34 had property which was plundered- and still they gave support to the
poor saints in Palestine (Heb. 6:20).
The more we grasp that it really is God’s will that we will
be there, the more strength we will have to resist seeking for material things
in this life. By being sure that we will be there, the Kingdom becomes our
treasure, where our heart is, rather than any material treasure in this life
(Lk. 9:34). The RV of Heb. 10:34,35 brings out well
the same theme: "Ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing
that ye have your own selves for a better possession"
(RVmg). Who we ourselves will be turned into is our better possession, "a
better possession and an abiding one" (RV). And this compensates for the
loss of material possessions
in this life. Therefore the writer urges them to not cast away their confidence
in the receipt of this reward at the Lord's return (:35). The more humbly
confident we are in receiving the Kingdom, the less the loss of possessions now
will mean to us. Hebrews also associates the hope of the Kingdom with the
characteristic of patience in the small things of this life. Hence Job, when he
lost his hope, could exclaim: "What is mine end, that I should be
patient?" (Job 6:11 RV).
10:34-36 “Ye
took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions,
knowing that ye have your own selves for a better possession" (RVmg). Who we ourselves
will be turned into is our better possession, "a better possession and an
abiding one" (RV). And this compensates for the loss of material possessions in this
life. Therefore the writer urges them to not cast away their confidence in the
receipt of this reward at the Lord's return (:35). The more humbly confident we
are in receiving the Kingdom, the less the loss of possessions now will mean to
us. But notice that prayer for the coming of the Kingdom is parallel with
praying that God's will may be done. The Kingdom of God is not only a future
issue. The principles of the Kingdom will be worked out in our lives, they will
'come' into our own daily experience, in so far as we
seek to do the Father's will. God's will ultimately will be done anyway- but
surely the Lord wished us to pray that in our
lives, that will would be done, that we will be ready
servants of all the Kingdom principles which the Lord taught in His parables of
the Kingdom. Every other reference to the will of God being done in the NT
refers to the obedient life of the believer right now (Mt. 26:42; Acts 21:14;
Eph.5:17).
10:35 We must not cast away our confidence, which has great
recompense of reward- and the writer uses these words about Moses, bidding us
follow his example (Heb. 10:35; 11:26).
10:37- see
on Eph. 3:8.
Heb. 11:1,2 defines faith as the ability to believe
that the world was created by the word of God
(through the Angels) so that the things which we now see were not created out
of matter which previously existed. One of the most fundamental laws of science
and of the human understanding of the world is that matter cannot be created or
destroyed. Yet Hebrews 11 shows us that faith flatly contradicts this- God
(through His Angels) did create matter. And so in every aspect of life the same
challenge comes to us, that God through the Angels is greater than the natural
'laws' which we can imagine control ultimate reality.
10:39- see
on Mt. 27:5.
11:4 Heb.
11:4 speaks of God bearing witness, giving a verbal testimony, to Abel’s
sacrifice, and that through that witness Abel is as it were still speaking to
us, in that to this day God is still speaking / testifying to that acceptable
act of service performed by Abel. Abel, through the account of him in
Scripture, "is yet spoken of" (Heb. 11:4 AVmg.). Isaiah was
prophesying directly to the hypocrites of the first century, according to the
Lord in Mk. 7:6 RV. God says that He 'watches over my word to perform it' (Jer.
1:12 RV). Thus God didn't just write the Bible as we write words, and forget
it. He remains actively aware of all His words and consciously fulfils them.
This is another window into the way in which the word of God can be described
as a living word. There is an active quality to the words we read on the India
paper of our Bibles.
Who
we are is in reality our judgment. After death, our works "follow us"
to judgment (Rev. 14:13). According to Jewish thought, men's actions followed
them as witnesses before the court of God, and this is the idea being picked up
here. There is a great emphasis in Hebrews 11 on the way that each man has a
"witness", "testimony" or "report" as a result of
his life (Heb. 11:4,5,14,39). Because of this the dead are still spoken for, in
that God keeps and knows that testimony, and it speaks for them (Heb. 11:4 AV
mg.).
11:6 When
we read that Enoch “had witness borne to him that he had been well pleasing
unto God” (Heb. 11:6 RV), this is courtroom language. Could it not be that his
representative / guardian Angel in the court of Heaven had made this testimony
to God Almighty?
There are a few NT references to the Yahweh Name. One of
them is in Heb. 11:6: he who comes to God must first [most importantly] believe
that He is [a
reference to He who is who He is, and will be who He will be], and that
therefore, as an intrinsic part of who He is, He is a rewarder of His people. Surely the
point is that it's not just knowing the Name
theoretically, it is to believe it- that He who is, really is in our lives. Who God
is, i.e. His
Name, is an imperative to be like Him. If we are His sons and daughters, who He
is becomes quite naturally the law of our being. Thus we should love our
enemies, because God makes His
sun [cp. 'our' goodness] to rise on both His friends and enemies. As we reflect
on the massive power that every moment works to move the sun and earth around
each other, so every moment we have an imperative to love. This is why belief
in God cannot be merely an intellectual act occurring within certain brain
cells. Belief means action in some way. Belief and the act of baptism are necessary for
salvation; but some NT passages speak as if faith alone saves. This is
reconciled by understanding that faith, true faith, includes works. James
reasons that there is no distinction between true faith and works. They are
part of the same nexus. Thus when we read in the NT of belief in Christ, the
normal construction with a dative case was dropped and instead a preposition is
used with the verb- belief into
Christ is the idea, with implied reference to baptism into Him and an active
life in Him as
a result of our belief. To be brethren in Christ is not to just believe Christ
or God, but to believe into
them in practice. R.T. Lovelock comments: "The NT writers felt the
importance of this utter trust in God so strongly, that they originated a new
construction in their language to emphasise the concept and force it upon the
attention of their readers".
11:7 Heb. 11:1,7 stresses how much Noah really believed God's prophecy about the nature of the flood; he was " moved with fear" by these predictions. The physical world around us is going to be changed beyond recognition; this ought to make it easier for us to come to terms with the fact that all aspects of our surrounding world will likewise pass away.
Noah's response was to prepare "an ark to the saving of his house... and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" (Heb. 11:7). We know that the ark represents Christ. Noah's response was not to smugly reflect how that soon he would be vindicated for his separation from the world, i.e. for his own personal righteousness. Instead he took seriously God's warning that sinners were to soon be destroyed. Noah was, of course, a sinner as we all are. He therefore must have cried out to God in faith, asking for God to count him as if he were righteous, so that he would be saved from the coming judgments against sin. This is how he had righteousness imputed to him. He showed his faith that God really had justified him by doing something physical- his faith led to the 'works' of building the ark; as our faith likewise leads us to baptism into Christ.
Noah's very example was a condemnation of his world (Heb.
11:7); the very existence of believing Gentiles judges the Jews as condemned
(Rom. 2:27); and the very existence of the repentant Ninevites condemned first century
Israel (Mt. 12:41). The faithful preaching of the Corinthians would judge an
unbeliever (1 Cor. 14:24). Noah's very act of righteousness in building the ark
condemned / judged those who saw it and didn't respond (Heb. 11:7). The fact
the Pharisees' children cast out demons condemned the Pharisees (Mt. 12:27).
This is why the rejected will be shamed before the accepted; they will bow in
shame at their feet (Rev. 3:9; 16:15). Perhaps it is in this sense that
"we shall judge angels" (1 Cor. 6:3)- rejected
ecclesial elders, cp. the angels of the churches in Rev. 2,3? The point is, men's behaviour and conduct judges others because of the
contrast it throws upon them. And this was supremely true of the Lord. No
wonder in the naked shame and glory of the cross lay
the supreme "judgment of this world"
11:8- see
on Gen. 12:4
Heb. 11:8
(Gk.) implies that as soon as God called Abram, he got up and left Ur.
But a closer examination of the record indicates that this wasn't absolutely
the case. It is stressed that both Abram and Sarai
left Ur because "Terah took Abram his
son... and Sarai his daughter in law" (Gen.
11:31). Abram had been called to leave Ur and go into Canaan. But instead he
followed his father to Haran, and lived there (for some years, it seems) until
his father died, and then he responded to his earlier call to journey towards
Canaan. The Genesis record certainly reads as if Abram was dominated by his
father and family, and this militated against an immediate response to the call
he received to leave Ur and journey to Canaan. At best his father's decision
enabled him to obey the command to leave Ur without having to break with his
family. And yet, according to Heb. 11:8, Abram immediately responded, as an act
of faith. But it was a moment of faith.
For some
unrevealed reason, perhaps the invasion of the area by hostile tribes, the
workings of providence made Terah take the
decision to leave Ur. Because 'Canaan' would have been relatively unheard of
(Abram "went out, not knowing whither he went", Heb. 11:8) and
uncivilized compared to Ur, it is possible to speculate that Abram had told Terah about the promise he had received. Terah then may have decided that such a promise ought to
involve him as Abram's father, and decided to go with Abram. Terah must have had a very high level of motivation to
leave cosmopolitan Ur for uncivilized Canaan. "Terah
took Abram" certainly implies that some unrecorded circumstances
took the decision out of Abram's hands; he had to leave his own country,
because his father had ordered a mass emigration of the family. How hard it
must have been for Abram to make sense of all this! He had been told to leave
his family and country, and travel to a land God would show him. At that point
in time, he was unaware that that country would be Canaan. How God would lead
him was unexplained. But he believed God, and "when he was called
to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance,
obeyed" (Heb. 11:8). Therefore when his father announced that they were emigrating to Canaan, Abram would have realized that this
was the call from God to get up and leave. Unlike the rest of Terah's unrecorded family, who would have mocked such a
crazy plan, Abram willingly submitted. But how was he to leave his kindred and
father's house? For they were coming with him! Indeed, Terah
"took Abram" . Thus Abram had faith in God's
promise, yet may have balked at the command to leave his country and family.
Providentially arranged circumstances then resulted in his aging father taking
him, implying some degree of compulsion, and leading him out of his native
country. Whilst not fully understanding how he could leave his father's
household whilst they looked set to be accompanying him on this journey to a
strange land, he went ahead in faith. It is emphasized that God
"brought out" (s.w. to lead, pluck or pull out) Abram from Ur
(Neh.9:7; Gen.15:6,7). The calling came through
Abram's hearing of the word of promise, and providentially arranged
circumstances encouraging his faithful response to it.
11:11 This personal nature of the promises resulted in a mutuality
between God and the patriarchs, as it can between Him and all Abraham's seed.
God’s present judgment of us is actually related to how we ‘judge’ God to be.
There’s a mutuality between God and man in this
business of present judgment. This theme is played on throughout Hebrews 11.
Sarah “judged” God as faithful, and He ‘judged’ her as faithful (Heb. 11:11).
As Abraham “was offering up Isaac” (RV), with the knife raised, he was “accounting”
God to be capable of performing a resurrection, just as Moses quit the riches
of Egypt, “accounting the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures of
Egypt” (Heb. 11:17,19,26 RV). And yet God ‘accounts’
us to be faithful, imputing righteousness to us. Through these acts and
attitudes of faith, “these… had witness borne to them through their faith”
(Heb. 11:39 RV). It was as if their lives were lived in the courtroom, with
their actions a constant presentation of evidence to the judge of all the earth.
Our judgment of God to be faithful thus becomes His judgment of us to be
faithful.
God’s present judgment of us is actually related to how we ‘judge’ God to be. There’s a mutuality between God and man in this business of present judgment. This theme is played on throughout Hebrews 11. Sarah “judged” God as faithful, and He ‘judged’ her as faithful (Heb. 11:11). As Abraham “was offering up Isaac” (RV), with the knife raised, he was “accounting” God to be capable of performing a resurrection, just as Moses quit the riches of Egypt, “accounting the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures of Egypt” (Heb. 11:17,19,26 RV). And yet God ‘accounts’ us to be faithful, imputing righteousness to us. Through these acts and attitudes of faith, “these… had witness borne to them through their faith” (Heb. 11:39 RV). It was as if their lives were lived in the courtroom, with their actions a constant presentation of evidence to the judge of all the earth. Our judgment of God to be faithful thus becomes His judgment of us to be faithful.
"Through faith even Sarah
herself received strength to conceive seed" (Heb. 11:11 RV). "Even
Sarah herself" is clearly making a point, holding up a flashing light over
this particular example. There is every reason to think, from the Genesis
record, that Sarah not only lacked faith in the promises, but also had a
bitter, unspiritual mind. The account alludes back to Eve's beguiling of Adam
when it records how "Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai"
(Gen. 16:2) in acquiescing to her plan to give her a seed through Abram
marrying his slave girl. The whole thing between Sarah and Abraham seems wrong
on at least two counts: firstly it reflects a lack of faith in the promise; and
secondly it flouts God's ideal standards of marriage. Sarai
seems to have recognized the error when she bitterly comments to Abram:
"My wrong be upon thee" (16:5). Her comment
that "the Lord hath restrained me from bearing" (16:2) would suggest
that she thought she hadn't been chosen to bear the promised seed. Yet because
of her faith, says Heb. 11:11, she received strength to bear that seed.
Hagar was so persecuted by Sarah that she "fled from her face"
(16:6). God's attitude to Hagar seems to reflect a certain amount of sympathy
for the harsh way in which Sarah had dealt with her. These years of bitterness
and lack of faith came to the surface when Sarah overheard the Angel assuring
Abraham that Sarah really would have a son. She mockingly laughed at the
promise, deep within herself (18:15). Yet according to Heb. 11:11, she rallied
her faith and believed. But as soon as Isaac was born, her bitterness flew to
the surface again when she was Ishmael mocking. In what can only be described
as unrestrained anger, she ordered Hagar and Ishmael out into the scorching
desert, to a certain death (humanly speaking). Again, one can sense the
sympathy of God for Hagar at this time. And so wedged in between incidents
which belied a deep bitterness, lack of faith and pride (after Isaac was born),
the Spirit in Heb. 11:11 discerns her faith; on account of which, Heb. 11:12
implies ("therefore"), the whole purpose of God in Christ could go
forward. See on Gal. 4:30.
11:11,12 Because of Sarah’s faith, “therefore sprang there...so
many as the stars of the sky in multitude” (Heb. 11:11,12). Those promises to
Abraham had their fulfilment, but conditional on
Abraham and Sarah’s faith. Gen. 18:18-20 says that the fulfilment
of the promises was conditional on Abraham teaching his children / seed the
ways of God. Those promises / prophesies were “sure” in the sense that God’s
side of it was. Rom. 4:18 likewise comments that Abraham became “the father of many nations” precisely because he believed in this hope.
Yet the promise / prophecy that he would be a father of many nations could
sound as if it would have happened anyway, whatever. But it was actually
conditional upon Abraham’s faith. And he is our great example exactly because
he had the possibility and option of not
believing in the hope he had been offered.
11:12 According
to Heb. 11:12, God’s promises to Abraham were fulfilled on account of his
faith; God in some way allowed Himself to be potentially limited by Abraham’s
faith. Indeed, the promised world-wide blessing of all nations was promised
only “because thou hast obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:16,18).
In this sense the covenants of salvation were partly due to another man
[Abraham] being faithful [although above all our salvation was due to the Lord
Jesus]. In this sense he is the “father” of the faithful.
11:13 Heb. 11:13 teaches that all the faithful went through the same process: persuaded - embraced - confessed to the world around them. Confessing was part of the natural response to belief of the promises. Hearing God's word in faith is associated with declaring it (Jer. 9:12).
When we read that the faithful ‘saw’ the promises although
they didn’t receive them, we are surely meant to understand that they ‘saw’ the
fulfilment of
the promises (Heb. 11:13). ‘The promises’ are so sure of fulfilment that the
phrase is put by metonymy for ‘the fulfilment of the promises’. And because of
their utter certainty, we are to be strangers and pilgrims, and unworldly (Heb.
11:13,14). There is therefore an obvious link between
doctrine and practice. A doctrine believed leads to us coming out of this
tangled world. Likewise 1 Jn. 5:5 teaches that we overcome the world by
believing an idea- that Jesus is the Son of God [as promised to Abraham and
David].
11:13-16 Heb. 11:13-16 contains some radical demands in a first century context- to see the true city, when Rome was the city to be identified with; to be a non-citizen of any earthly state… how hard would that have been for Roman citizens to read, hear, and say ‘Amen’ to!
11:15 Abraham was called to leave Ur and travel to Canaan,
the land promised to him. If his heart had remained in his native land, God
would have worked in his life to make it possible for him to return to it, and
thereby reject God's covenant with him. The fact Abraham wasn't given this
opportunity indicates his faith (Heb. 11:15). This shows that God gives us the
opportunity to renounce our faith if that is what we want in our hearts (cp.
Balaam).
11:16 not
ashamed- see on Is. 44:5.
Right now, God is ashamed or not ashamed of us, according to our separation from the spirit of this world (Heb. 11:16); and yet His not being ashamed of us will also be apparent at the final judgment. We have our judgment now, from His point of view.
11:17-
see on Heb. 11:11.
11:19 Abraham
'accounted' that God was able to raise Isaac (Heb. 11:19); his faith involved
an intellectual process. Israel were to hear /
understand “the statutes and judgments… that ye may learn them, and keep, and
do them” (Dt. 5:1). Understanding is related to obedience. See on Rom. 10:10.
11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to
come" (11:20). Yet the record of this in Gen. 27 doesn't paint Isaac in a
very positive light. “Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob"
(Gen. 25:28). The AVmg. seems
to bring out Isaac's superficiality: "Isaac loved Esau, because venison
was in his mouth". This seems to connect with the way Esau threw away his
birthright for the sake of food in his mouth. Esau was evidently of the flesh,
whilst Jacob had at least some potential spirituality. Yet Isaac preferred
Esau. He chose to live in Gerar (Gen. 26:6), right on
the border of Egypt- as close as he could get to the world, without crossing
the line. And he thought nothing of denying his marriage to Rebekah,
just to save his own skin (Gen. 26:7). So it seems Isaac had some marriage
problems; the record speaks of "Esau his son" and "Jacob (Rebekah's) son" (Gen. 27:5,6).
The way Jacob gave Isaac wine "and he drank" just before giving the
blessings is another hint at some unspirituality (Gen. 27:25). Isaac seems not
to have accepted the Divine prophecy concerning his sons: “the elder shall
serve the younger" (Gen. 25:23), seeing that it was his intention to give
Esau the blessings of the firstborn, and thinking that he was speaking to Esau,
he gave him the blessing of his younger brothers (i.e. Jacob) serving him (Gen.
27:29 cp. 15). Isaac didn't accept the sale of the birthright, and yet God did
(Heb. 12:16,17). And
yet, and this is my point, Isaac's blessing of the two boys is
described as an act of faith; even though it was done with an element of
disbelief in God's word of prophecy concerning the elder serving the younger,
and perhaps under the influence of alcohol, and even though at the time Isaac
thought he was blessing Esau when in fact it was Jacob. Yet according to Heb.
11:20, this blessing of Esau and
Jacob (therefore Hebrews doesn't refer to the later blessing) was done with
faith; at that very point
in time, Isaac had faith. So God's piercing eye saw through Isaac's
liking for the good life, through Isaac's unspiritual liking for Esau, through
his marriage problem, through his lack of faith that the elder must serve the
younger, and discerned that there was some faith in that man Isaac; and then
holds this up as a stimulant for our faith, centuries later! Not only should we
be exhorted to see the good side in our present brethren; but we can take
comfort that this God is our God, and views our Christian hypocrisy in the same
way as He viewed theirs.
11:21 It
may be that Jacob considered Joseph to be the special Messianic seed (which he
was, in type), and this would explain why Heb. 11:21 adds the detail that at
the end of his life, as he was dying on his bed, Jacob showed his faith (i.e.
his faith in Christ, which is the theme of Heb. 11) by worshipping Joseph,
propping himself up on the bed head with his last energy to do it (Gk.). He
clearly saw in him a type of his future redeemer. He finally accepted the truth
of Joseph's dream: that Jacob must bow down to his greater son- although he
reached this humility, this bowing before the spirit of Christ, in his very
last breath. It seems probable that meditation on Joseph's experience was what
brought Jacob to Christ; he had managed to scheme and plot his way out of every
other crisis, but the loss of Joseph brought him to his knees helpless.
11:24- see
on Acts 7:35
"When
Moses was grown, he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their
burdens... when he was full forty years old it came into his heart to visit
his brethren... by faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be
called the son of Pharaoh's daughter" (Ex. 2:11; Acts 7:23; Heb. 11:24).
The implication seems to be that Moses reached a certain point of maturity, of
readiness, and then he went to his brethren.
" ...[Moses] refused to be called the
son of Pharaoh... choosing
rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy
the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward"
(Heb. 11:24-28). Moses could have been the next Pharaoh; according to Josephus,
he was the commander of the Egyptian army. But he walked away from the
possibility of being the riches man on earth, he "refused" it,
because he valued "the reproach of Christ" and the recompense of the
Kingdom to be greater
riches. Yet what did he know about the sufferings of Christ? Presumably he had
worked out from the promises of the seed in Eden and to the fathers that the
future Saviour must be reproached and rejected; and he saw that his own life
experience could have a close association with that of this unknown future
Saviour who would surely come. And therefore, it seems, Moses counted the
honour and wonder of this greater that the riches of Egypt. Both Paul and Moses
rejected mammon for things which are abstract and intellectual (in the strict
sense): the excellency
of the understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ and His cross, and the Kingdom
this would enable. Living when we do, with perhaps a greater knowledge of the
Lord's victory and excellency, our motivation ought to
be even stronger.
11:24,25
"(Moses) refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; having
chosen rather (Gk.) to suffer affliction with the people of God" (Heb.
11:24,25) suggests that there was a struggle within the mind of Moses, between
the reproach of Christ and the approbation of this world, and he then
decisively came down on the right side. If we are truly saints, called out ones
after the pattern of Moses, this struggle between present worldly advantage and
the hope of the Kingdom must surely be seen in our minds. For this reason Moses
is held up so highly as our example and pattern. He "
forsook" Egypt uses the same word translated " leaving"
when we read of a man leaving his parents to be joined to a wife, or of the
shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to find the lost one.
11:24-26 At age 40, Moses came to a crisis. He had a choice between
the riches of Egypt, the pleasures of sin for a season, and choosing rather to
suffer affliction with God's people and thereby fellowship the reproach of
Christ (Heb. 11:24-26). He probably had the chance to become the next Pharaoh,
as the son of Pharaoh's daughter; but he consciously refused this, as a pure
act of the will, as an expression of faith in the future recompense of the
Kingdom. There are a number of passages which
invite us to follow Moses' example in this. Paul was motivated in his rejection
of worldly advantage by Moses' inspiration. And
as in all things, he is our example, that we might follow Christ, who also
turned down the very real possibility of temporal rulership of the world- for
the sake of living the life of the cross, and thereby securing our
redemption. Even within Hebrews, the description of Moses' rejection of
Egypt for the sake of Christ is shown to be our example: "Esteeming the reproach
of Christ greater riches than the treasures (i.e. Pharaoh's treasures,
which he could have had if he succeeded as Pharaoh) in Egypt... let us go forth
therefore unto (Jesus) without the camp, bearing his reproach"
(Heb. 11:26; 13:13). We should be even eager to bear 'reproach for the name of
Christ' as Moses did (1 Pet. 4:14), knowing it is a surety of our sharing his
resurrection. For Moses, "the reproach of Christ" was his having "respect unto the recompense of the
reward" . He therefore must have understood in some detail that there
would be a future Saviour, who would enable the eternal Kingdom promised to
Abraham through his bearing the reproach of this world. Such was Moses'
appreciation of this that it motivated him to reject Egypt. His motivation,
therefore, was based upon a fine reflection upon the promises to Abraham and
other oblique prophecies of the suffering Messiah contained in the book of
Genesis. Moses knew he could have a share in the sufferings of the future saviour and thereby share his reward, because he saw the
implication that Messiah would be our representative. Yet those promises are
the very things which Christians now say they are bored of hearing every few
weeks on a Sunday evening. No wonder we lack Moses' desire to share Christ's
reproach, and thereby reject the attractions of this world. The way Moses had
"respect unto the recompense of the reward" is our example; for
again, even within Hebrews, we are exhorted: "Cast not away therefore your
confidence, which hath great recompense of reward" (Heb. 11:26;
10:35). The Greek for " respect" means to look away from all else;
indicating how single-mindedly and intensely did Moses look ahead to the
Kingdom; the knowledge of which was, in terms of number of words, scant indeed.
All he had was the covenants of promise.
11:26- see
on 10:35; Phil. 3:8.
Moses
fought with the temptation to just observe from a distance, but then he came
out into the open, declaring that he was a Hebrew, rejecting his kind Egyptian
foster mother, openly declaring that he was not really her son, as both she and
he had claimed for 40 years. He would have borne the shame of all this,
"the reproach of Christ" (Heb. 11:26). But he was not ashamed to call
Israel his brethren, as Christ is not ashamed of us (Heb. 2:11- one of many
allusions to Moses in Hebrews). All this suggests that like Moses, our Lord
came to a point where he "came down" from obscurity to begin his work
of deliverance. The references to 'coming down' in John's Gospel allude to this
It is
possible that Moses appreciated that he was a type of Christ the future
Messiah; he considered "the reproach of Christ" enough to motivate
him to reject the attractions of Egypt (Heb. 11:26); he knew he was sharing the
sufferings of the future, ultimate saviour, and the
wonder of that alone was enough to motivate him to leave the attractions of
this world- even the possibility of being the next Pharaoh, the most powerful
man on earth. The similarities between Jesus and Moses are too many to sensibly
tabulate. There is ample opportunity to enter deeply into the attitude of Moses
towards Israel, and it is this which perhaps most valuably deepens our appreciation
of the love of Christ for us, and of our own liability
to failure after the pattern of Israel.
Moses reached a similar height, being one of the foremost
Old Testament examples of selflessness. He was willing to give both his
physical and eternal
life for the salvation of Israel (Ex. 32:29-32), that God's Name might be
upheld. He so loved and respected God's character, His personality (all bound
up in His Name) that he was willing to forego all personal blessings, even life
itself, just because of the wonder of God. A less spiritually mature Moses had
been motivated 40 years earlier by his respect of the recompense of the reward
(Heb. 11:26). But now his motive is the glory of God's Name. Personal
possession of the Kingdom is
held up as a motivator in our lives; but surely, like Moses, we ought to
progress towards a desire to see the achievement of God's glory, rather than
being obsessed with personally finding our place in the political Kingdom
11:27 "By faith (Moses) forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the King" (Heb. 11:27). But Moses did flee Egypt, because he feared the wrath of the King (Ex. 2:14,15). It seems that Moses had at best a mixture of motives, or motives that changed over time; yet God sees through his human fear, and discerns an element of calm faith within Moses as he left Egypt. In similar vein, at the time of the burning bush, Moses seems to have forgotten God's covenant name, he didn't immediately take off his shoes in respect as he should have done, and it seems he feared to come close to God due to a bad conscience, and he resisted God's invitation for him to go forth and do His work (Ex. 3:5-7,10,11,18; 4:1,10-14). And yet at this very time, the New Testament says that Moses showed faith in the way he perceived God (Lk. 20:37). But it was a momentary faith, valid all the same. Moses fled from Egypt, not fearing the wrath of Pharaoh; he went in faith (Heb. 11:27). But the Exodus record explains that actually he couldn't keep this level of faith, and fled in fear (Ex. 2:14,15).
Hupomone is
generally translated "patience" or "endurance"; the idea is
of the staying power that keeps a man going to the end. The meaning of hupomone grows as we experience
more trials (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3). We find that the longer we endure in the Truth,
the more we can echo the words of Peter, when the Lord asked him (surely with a
lump in His throat) if he was going to turn back: "Lord, to whom shall we
go?" (Jn. 6:68). There is no third road in the daily decisions we face.
Over the months and years, hupomone becomes
part of our essential character; keeping on keeping on is what life comes to be
all about, no matter what short term blows and long term frustrations we face.
The longer we endure, the stronger that force is, although we may not feel it.
Moses is described as having it at the time he fled from Egypt (Heb. 11:27),
even though in the short term his faith failed him at the time and he fled in
fear (Ex. 2:14,15). Yet God counted him as having that
basic ability to endure, even to endure through his own failure and weakness. This is what God looks
at, rather than our day-to-day acts of sin and righteousness. See on Heb.
12:28.
Moses
forsook the possibilities of Egypt not just for the reproach of Christ"; he was
also motivated by the fact that "he endured (Gk. was vigorous), as seeing
him who is invisible" (Heb. 11:27). It was as if he had seen the
invisible God, as he later asked to. When the disciples asked to see God,
Christ said that the manifestation of His character which they had seen in him
was the same thing (Jn. 14:8). Our experience of seeing the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ, with unveiled face like Moses, ought to be a wondrous
experience. When Moses asked to physically see God, the Angel proclaimed the
characteristics of God before him. So when we read of Moses as it were
seeing God at the time he decided to forsake Egypt, this must mean that he so
appreciated God's Name and character, he so had faith in the future Kingdom
which this great Name and character promise, that he left Egypt. The Lord Jesus
fed for strength on the majesty of the Name of Yahweh (Mic. 5:4).
Therefore an appreciation of the Name of Yahweh is what will motivate us to
forsake the attractions of this temporal world. This does not mean, of course,
that simply pronouncing than Name in our prayers and readings is enough. We must develop an appreciation of God's
righteousness, so that we read of His demonstration of grace, of mercy, of
truth, of judgement for sin, and love it, revel in it, respect it. As Paul
says, if we behold the glory of the Lord as Moses did, we will by that very
fact be changed into the same image of that glory (2 Cor. 3:18). Yet such an
appreciation needs constant feeding and development. It is tragic, absolutely
tragic, that over the next 40 years Moses lost this height of appreciation,
until at the burning bush he seems to have almost completely lost his
appreciation of the Name. Whatever spiritual heights we may reach is no
guarantee that we must inevitably stay there.
Several Old Testament anticipations of the crucifixion
involve a time of great darkness when God Himself 'came down', in a way
reminiscent of the theophany on Sinai. There God Himself in person in some form
'came down' to earth. Moses saw His back parts, but not His face; for no man
can see the face of God and live. He saw the face of the Angel and spoke to him
as a man speaks with his friend. Moses seeing the back parts of God could even
mean that God Himself came down to earth. If He did this at the institution of
the Old Covenant: how much more at the death of His very own Son? The reference
in Heb. 11:27 to Moses as having endured seeing the invisible may lend support
to this idea that Moses did in fact see the God who cannot be seen by men. I
submit that He was there, almost physically, at the cross. The blood of the
covenant was shed before Him, in His presence, just as countless sacrifices in
the tabernacle had foreshadowed for centuries beforehand. See on Jn. 19:19.
11:28- see
on 1 Cor. 10:10.
Israel's
deliverance through the Red Sea seems to be attributed to Moses' faith (Heb.
11:28,29; Acts 7:36,38). Yet in the actual record,
Moses seems to have shared Israel's cry of fear, and was rebuked for this by
God (Ex. 14:15,13,10). Yet in the midst of that
rebuke, we learn from the New Testament, God perceived the faith latent within
Moses, beneath that human fear and panic. we
can as it were do the work of the Saviour Himself, if we truly live as in Him.
In this spirit, Moses’
faith in keeping the Passover led to Israel’s
salvation, they left Egypt by
him (Heb. 3:16; 11:28); and when Aaron deserved death, he was
redeemed by Moses’ prayer on his behalf (Dt. 9:20). Israel were intensely disobedient to God
from the time of their exodus from Egypt, even before their deliverance from
the Red Sea (Dt. 9:24 = Ex. 20:5,6). Only because of
Moses’ faithful keeping of the Passover did the Angel which destroyed the
(Egyptian and Hebrew- see on 1 Cor. 10:10) firstborn not destroy the whole of Israel as God
had initially planned (Heb. 11:28).
We can as it were do the work of the Saviour Himself, if we
truly live as in Him. In this spirit, Moses'
faith in keeping the Passover led to Israel's
salvation, they left Egypt by
him (Heb. 3:16; 11:28); and when Aaron deserved death, he was redeemed
by Moses' prayer on his behalf (Dt. 9:20).
11:28,29 “By faith he kept the passover,
and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch
them (Israel). By faith they (Israel) passed through the Red Sea".
Yet at this time Israel were weak in faith, they passed through the Red Sea
cuddling the idols of Egypt, from the day God knew them they were rebellious
against Him; so runs the refrain of the prophets. It seems that due to Moses'
faith Israel were saved by the Passover lamb, through his faith they passed
through the Red Sea; his faith was so great, his desire for their salvation so
strong, that God counted it to the rest of Israel. Thus "he (Moses, in the
context) brought them (Israel) out" of Egypt (Acts 7:36,38).
This points forward to Christ's redemption of us, and also indicates how
quickly Moses' faith rallied. And yet just prior to crossing the Sea, God
rebuked Moses: "Wherefore criest thou unto
me?" - even though Moses calmly exhorted the
people to have faith (Ex. 14:15 cp. 13). Yet by faith he brought them through
the Red Sea. Therefore as with his first exit from Egypt (he feared the wrath
of the King, and then he didn't), his faith wavered, but came down on the right
side.
11:30 Heb.
11:30, “by faith the walls of Jericho fell down …”.
Whose faith? What faith? Was Joshua-Jesus' faith counted to the people? Or was
their very weak, hope-for-the-best faith all the same accepted as faith by
God's grace?
11:31- see
on Josh. 2:1; Josh. 2:12.
There are times when circumstances do change the appropriacy of behaviour which in more normal life we
should practice. Take lying as an example. To lie is wrong. We should be
truthful. Of course. But think of Rahab. She lied- and her lie and acts of deception are quoted in
the New Testament as acts of faith! Further, Rahab implied that the Israelite
spies were her clients- "there came men unto me" (Josh. 2:4) appears
to be a euphemism- and she gave the impression that of course, as they were
merely passing clients, how did she know nor care who they were nor where they
went? Her male interrogators would've found it hard to press her further for
information after she said that. So she not only lied but she gave the
impression that the messengers of the Kingdom of God were immoral- in order to
protect both them and her. Of course the way she left a red cord hanging from
her window, as if almost inviting people to imagine the spies had been let down
over the wall from her home on the wall, was a tremendous act of faith and
witness by her, but she presumably kept to her story that they were her
anonymous clients. For she was still living in her home when
the city was taken. Her witness was thus an indirect one to those who
wished to perceive it, but it was made within the context of a major series of
untruths. The Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians- and were blessed for it.
And we could give other examples. If we probe further, and ask WHY such lies
were acceptable and even required, we find that often those lies were connected
with saving life. To do anything that would cause the loss of human life when
it is in our power to save it is dangerously close to murder.
11:32 The idea of binding the strong man must surely look back to Samson. The language can't just be accidentally similar (cp. Jud. 16:21). This means that the Lord saw Samson as the very epitome of Satan, even though ultimately he was a man of faith (Heb. 11:32). Thus the Spirit doesn't forget a man's weakness, even though ultimately he may be counted righteous.
The incomplete faith of men like Baruch was graciously
counted as full faith by later inspiration (Jud. 4:8,9
cp. Heb. 11:32).
11:32-34
Samson killed a lion, escaped fire and killed many Philistines by his faith (Heb.
11:32-34)- so the Spirit tells us. Yet these things
were all done by him at times when he had at best a partial faith, or was
living out moments of faith. He had a worldly Philistine girlfriend, a sure
grief of mind to his Godly parents, and on his way to the wedding he met and
killed a lion- through faith, Heb. 11 tells us (Jud. 14:1-7). The Philistines
threatened to burn him with fire, unless his capricious paramour of a wife
extracted from him the meaning of his riddle. He told her, due, it seems, to
his human weakness and hopeless sexual weakness. He then killed 30 Philistines
to provide the clothes he owed the Philistines on account of them answering the
riddle (Jud. 14:15-19). It is evident that Samson was weak in many ways at this
time; the Proverbs make many allusions to him, the strong man ruined by the
evil Gentile woman, the one who could take a city but not rule his spirit etc.
And yet underneath all these weaknesses, serious as they were, there was a deep
faith within Samson which Heb. 11 highlights.
11:33 Heb.
11:33 says that the likes of Abraham obtained promises by their faith. Yet the
Old Testament record clearly enough states that the
promises were just given to them by God; they weren't requested by the
patriarchs. Indeed, David was surprised at the promises God chose to make to
him. Conclusion? God read their unspoken, unprayed for desires for Messiah and His Kingdom as
requests for the promises- and responded.
11:34- see
on Jud. 16:28
11:35 The widow woman’s son was resurrected because God heard Elijah’s faithful prayer (1 Kings 17:22); and thus Heb. 11:35 alludes to this incident by saying that through faith- in this case, the faith of Elijah, a third party- women received their dead raised to life. The Centurion’s servant was healed for the sake of his faith; Jairus’ daughter was healed because of his faith (Mk. 5:36). Heb. 11 cites women receiving their dead back to life as an example of faith. Because of the faith and prayers of the women, a third party, their dead loved ones were at times resurrected. Lazarus being raised because of his faithful sisters Martha and Mary is the obvious example we know about, but the Hebrew writer may well have had his mind on unrecorded Old Testament examples too. Our faith in prayer in some sense limits God's ability.
Some were tortured "not accepting redemption" (Heb. 11:35); by
implication they accepted the true redemption of the blood of Christ rather
than the pseudo-redemption offered by this world. Again, the redeeming work of
Christ is what fortifies men against the fake Kingdom and redemption of the
anti-Christ anti-Kingdom of this world.
11:37 John is presented as
a cameo of all the faithful (Heb. 11:37 = Mk. 1:6 and 1 Cor. 15:47 = Jn.
3:31).
11:38 "The children of Israel
made them the dens ('dry river channels') which are in the mountains, and
caves, and strong holds" (Jud. 6:2). Identical language is
found in 1 Sam. 13:6 concerning Israel's pining away when under attack by the
Philistines. There can be no doubt that these incidents are the
focus of Heb. 11:37,38, which describes nameless men
of faith as being "slain with the sword: they wandered about in
sheepskins... being destitute, afflicted, tormented... they wandered in
deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth". The Israelites who fled to the dens and caves in Jud. 6:2
are described as heroes of faith because of what they did (Heb. 11:38). And yet
their domination by the Philistines was a result of their idolatry. They were
idolatrous, and yet some had faith; and it was this faith which was perceived
by God.
11:39- see on Heb.
11:11.
11:40 "They
(dead believers) without us should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11:39,40)- i.e. all the believers are rewarded together,
at the same time. Alternatively this may teach that the number of 'the
believers' is completed only by our development of faith- implying that the
sooner this happens, the sooner the united perfection of the faithful can
occur.
12:1- see
on Rom. 14:8,9.
Heb. 11:1,2 defines faith in absolute terms; as the real mental
vision of the invisible. This doesn't just mean
occasionally achieving a vivid imagination of (e.g.) the future Kingdom, or the
present bodily existence of the Lord Jesus, or other moments of faith and
insight. It means living , hour by hour, with these
things actually existing in our mental vision. Without this faith, the apostle
reasons, we cannot please God. He cites a whole string of Old Testament
examples, and then goes on to say that we too, like them, are surrounded by
this great cloud of faithful examples, and therefore this should inspire us to
the life of faith, as it did them (Heb. 12:1).
Heb. 12:1 could imply that before each of us an
individualized racetrack is set, and we are to run that race having laid aside
every distraction. Ask God to reveal to you His intentions and specific plans
for you.
When the
writer wrote of shedding the
sin which doth so easily beset us (Heb. 12:1), he may have been suggesting that
we each have our own specific weakness to overcome. This is certainly a comfort
to us in our spiritual struggles. We aren't alone in them. They were given to
us. We aren't alone with our nature. The purpose and plan of God for us is
articulated even through the darkest nooks of our very essential being.
Understanding this should make us the more patient with our brethren, whose
evident areas of weakness are not ours.
"For the joy that was set before him" Christ endured the cross (Heb. 12:2). "Set before" can imply a vision, as if Christ saw something in front of Him as He hung on the cross. The spirit of Christ in Ps. 16:11 describes Christ looking forward to fullness of joy in God's Heavenly presence, because "at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore". Christ is now at God's right hand interceding for us. Therefore we suggest that the joy set before Christ in vision as He hung on the cross was the joy of His future mediation for our sins as we repent of them and confess them in prayer.
“For the joy set before Him He endured the cross” (Heb.
12:2) may seem on first reading to mean that He did serve for a reward. Until
we understand that the Greek word anti
translated “for” really means ‘in place of’. With evident reference to the
wilderness temptation to take the Kingdom joys without the cross, the writer is
making the point that instead of the joy that the tempter of His own flesh set
before Him, He endured the cross.
12:4-
see on Col. 2:1.
We must balance ourselves against Him who endured such contradiction, and the more freely confess that we “have not yet resisted unto blood (in our) striving against sin” (Heb. 12:3,4 Gk.). Only by a personal reconstruction and reliving of the cross, and a serious, sustained attempt to live out something of its spirit in our lives, will we come to a recognition of the depth of our own failure, our need for His grace, and an appreciation of what really was done for us. And if we realize all this, we will respond- mightily. As the forgiveness suggested by the sin offering led on to the burnt offering (with its message of dedication), so our desperation leads to our dedication (Lev. 5:7).
"Ye have not yet resisted unto blood (in your) striving against sin" (Heb. 12:4, alluding to His sweat as blood drops) is a call for us to recognize this, and to have the picture of our Lord in Gethsemane as a motivation "lest we be wearied, and faint in (our) minds". The writer is saying: 'You've never got anywhere near that intensity. So don't get tired of the unending mental battle against your natural mind. Consider him there'. We have not yet resisted unto blood in our striving against sin, as the Lord did in Gethsemane (Heb. 12:4 cp. Lk. 22:44); but, the implication is, we ultimately should. We bear about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal body (2 Cor. 6:10)- not just at resurrection, but now. And it is through this that we bear witness to the resurrected Jesus. He can be seen as alive because He lives in us. The disciples in Gethsemane slumbered and slept when the Lord had specifically asked them to struggle on in prayer. A stone's throw from them, the Son of God was involved in a height of spiritual struggle utterly unequalled. And they dozed off in the midst of their half-serious prayers. This incident is alluded to here in a powerful appeal to us: "Consider him that endured [as the kneeling disciples should have watched the distant Lord Jesus as an inspiration to themselves]... lest ye be wearied, and faint in your minds [as they did]. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood [cp. the Lord's sweat as drops of blood], [in your] striving against sin" (Heb. 12:3,4). Time and again Paul alludes, sometimes perhaps even subconsciously, to the record of Gethsemane. He evidently saw in those garden prayers and the disciples' sleepiness a powerful cameo of our every battle and failure; and a strong, urgent plea for us to rise up and catch the fire of real spiritual struggle.
12:5 Heb. 12:5 alludes to the idea of a living word by speaking of an Old Testament passage as 'reasoning' (R.V.) with us. We are a separate people. We have been redeemed from them by the precious blood of Christ. We are spiritual Jews. What God spoke to men like Jacob, He therefore spoke to us (Hos. 12:5; Gen. 28:15 cp. Heb. 12:5,6).
All Scripture is recorded for our learning and comfort (Rom. 15:4). The
exhortation of Prov. 3:11 “speaketh unto you
as unto children...” (Heb. 12:5). Hebrews 3 quotes Psalm 95 as relevant to all readers. The warnings
there for its "today" were also be a warning for the first century
"today", and yet likewise we can still take hold of the past word of
God and relate it to the needs of our "today”. We can fail to personalize
God’s word, in the sense of realizing that it speaks to us personally. Daniel
told Nebuchadnezzar what would happen to him unless he repented; and he
wouldn’t listen. When his judgment came, God told him: “O King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken:
The kingdom is departed from thee” (Dan. 4:31). We have a way of reading and
hearing, and yet not making the crucial connection with ourselves.
12:8 Heb. 12:8: “Jesus Christ the same
yesterday, to day, and for ever”. Paul saw the three
elements of the Yahweh Name supremely manifest in the Lord Jesus. Which is
surely why ‘Jesus’ in the NT becomes the Name above every Name (Phil. 2:9,10; Eph. 1:21); for only ‘Yahweh’ was exalted above every
other name (Neh. 9:5; Ps. 148:13).
It is through the power of the word that we become sons of
God (James 1:18; 1 Pet.1:23); yet Heb.12:8 says that the scourging of our
Heavenly Father is a sure sign that we are His children, showing that the word
and our trials work in tandem to make us sons of God.
12:10 Heb.12:10
shows that our chastening by God is so "that we might be partakers of His
holiness". The ideas of sanctification and holiness are parallel (e.g.
"sanctify yourselves... for I am holy", Lev.11:44). It is the word that
sanctifies (Jn.17:17), thus enabling us to be partakers of God's holiness. The
effects of the word and God's chastening are parallel.
12:11 There is a parallel between the action of the word
upon a man and the effect of trials: "Chastening... yieldeth
the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised
thereby" (Heb.12:11).Yet "the word of righteousness... strong
meat" leads to Bible students "by reason of use (having) their senses
exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb.5:13,14); and the
word abiding in us also yields the fruits of righteousness (Jn.15:4,7).
12:12
Heb.12:12: "Lift up the hands which hang down,
and the feeble knees". Now if Scripture interprets Scripture at all, this
just has to be an allusion back to feeble-kneed Moses,
with his hanging-down hands being held up. And the apostle says: 'You are the
one with feeble knees and hands, represented by Moses in Ex.17!'.
12:13 The unbelieving world is repeatedly characterized as walking
in a crooked path (Lk. 3:5; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15 and often in Proverbs).
Quietly starting every day right is part of our walking in a straight path, following
the way of the cherubim, walking in step with the Spirit (Gal. 5:25); and by
walking in that straight daily path we will not have opportunity to stumble
(Heb. 12:13).
12:15- see
on 1 Jn. 2:28.
12:17 Esau
before Isaac, pleading with him to change his irrevocable rejection, is picked
up in Heb. 12:17 as a type of the rejected at the day of
judgment. The implication is that Jacob at this time symbolized the
saints; yet he was no saint at that time. If Esau's rejection by Isaac
is indeed a picture of the rejection of the goats at the final judgment (Heb.
12:17), Isaac there becomes a hazy prefigurement of
our future judge. And yet the record presents a scene of both father and
rejected son as shaken and helpless, both dearly wishing it could be different
(Gen. 27:33). The sadness of Isaac becomes a figure of the pathos and sadness
of God in rejecting the wicked. Note how the LXX of Gen. 27:38 adds the detail:
"And Isaac said nothing; and Esau wept". We are left to imagine the
thoughts of Isaac's silence. Truly our God takes no pleasure at all in the
death of the wicked (Ez. 33:11).
Esau's great and bitter cry for blessing is quoted in Heb. 12:17 as typical of the attitude of all the rejected. He had earlier shrugged at the implications of selling his birthright, but now his self-rejection was being worked out in practice. The rejected argue back "When saw we thee...?". Surely they wouldn't have bothered doing so, unless they were upset at their rejection, and desiring to see the verdict altered. Israel's passing through the Red Sea is a definite type of baptism, and their largely unsuccessful wilderness journey therefore becomes a pattern of failed Christian lives. Yet when they were told that they were unworthy to enter the land, obvious as it must have been to them, they repented and were willing to make any sacrifice to enter it (Num. 14:40-48). When they disobeyed God's word and fled to Egypt from the Babylonians, they then so wanted to return to their land [cp. the Kingdom]- but it was all too late (Jer. 44:14). Cain is another type of the rejected- instead of going as far away from Divine things as possible after his condemnation, he went to live on the east of Eden- where the cherubim were, guarding the barred entry to God's paradise (Gen. 4:16). The Hebrews were warned not to follow Esau's sinful example (Gen. 27:34), otherwise at the judgment they would experience what he did: "Afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing (cp. our desiring the Abrahamic promises of entry into the Kingdom), he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it with tears" (Heb. 12:17). In view of this, the weeping of the rejected at judgment may be as a result of desperate pleading with the Lord to change his mind. Earlier in Hebrews the point is made that "he that despised Moses' law died without mercy". The phrase "without mercy" is surely included to point out that the condemned would have earnestly pleaded for mercy, after the pattern of Cain, the foolish virgins pleading for entry... The next verse continues: "Of how much sorer punishment... shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the son of God?" (Heb. 10:28,29), indicating that the sad picture of those condemned under the old Covenant, pleading for mercy, will be repeated at the judgment of those under the new Covenant.
12:18 There is a real and living
power in the blood of Christ. We have come “unto a palpable and kindled fire…
unto the voice of words… unto the blood of sprinkling" (Heb. 12:18 RVmg., 19, 24). The blood of Christ is as palpable as fire,
and as real and actually demanding as words booming from Sinai.
12:22- see
on Jud. 5:19,20; Gal. 4:26; Eph. 2:19.
12:23
spirits- See on Dan. 5:23.
Israel’s exodus from Egypt on Passover night was a type of
our exodus from the world at the second coming (Lk. 12:35,36
= Ex. 12:11). The firstborns represent us, the ecclesia of firstborns (Heb.
12:23 Gk.). Perhaps 90% of the firstborns failed to be delivered because they
murmured (see on 1 Cor. 10:10), they allowed themselves to be distracted from
the fundamental basis of their redemption: the blood of the lamb. What
percentage will it be for the new Israel?
Heb. 12:23
written/ enrolled may imply the Angels wrote a book of life for the faithful:
"The general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are enrolled in
Heaven... the spirits of just men made perfect". These "spirits"
are the guardian Angels of the righteous. These Angels enrolled the names of
the responsible at the beginning of the world, but they are capable of removal
from the book. It is as if God informed the Angels of all those they would be
dealing with during human history, and they subsequently have kept a record of
the works of each of them as they guide them through life. Ps. 56:8 may explain
things a bit more: "Thou tellest my wanderings
(through life); put Thou my tears into thy bottle: are they not in Thy
book?", as if to imply that David knew that God had a record of what he
was presently going through "in Thy book" already, but wanted the
Angel to make a special note of it now: "put Thou my tears into Thy bottle", which seems to be equated with
"Thy book".
Only the firstborn was saved at the Passover. We are the church of firstborns (Heb. 12:23 Gk.), a paradox as it stands written. For there can be only one firstborn. A whole community can’t be “firstborns”. But we are, through being in Christ.
The priests weren't part-timers. They gave their lives to God in recognition of the fact that God had saved the lives of the firstborn at the Passover and Red Sea deliverance (Num. 3:12). Our deliverance from the world at baptism was our Red Sea. We have been saved. Those firstborns represent us, the ecclesia of firstborns (Heb. 12:23 Gk.). We are now being led towards that glorious Kingdom, when by rights we ought to be lying dead in that dark Egyptian night. The wonder of it all demands that like the Levites, we give our lives back to God, in service towards His children.
We are come now
“to God the judge of all” (Heb. 12:23); God is now enthroned as judge
(Ps. 93:2; Mt. 5:34 “the heaven is
God’s throne”). We are now inescapably in God’s presence (Ps.
139:2); and ‘God’s presence’ is a phrase used about the final judgment in 2
Thess. 1:9; Jude 24; Rev. 14:10. Hence “God is [now] the judge: he putteth down one and setteth up another” (Ps. 75:7) – all
of which He will also due at the last day (Lk. 14:10). So
“The day of the Lord is coming, but it is even now” (Mic. 7:4 Heb.). God
isn’t passive to human behaviour- right now “To every matter there is a time
and a judgment (LXX krisis)”
(Ecc. 8:6 RVmg.). He perceives our actions right now as critically important.
And this should highlight to us the crucial importance of life and right living
today.
12:24 The blood of Christ speaks a message, better than that of Abel. It is a voice that shakes heaven and earth (Heb. 12:24,26). This is after the pattern of how the commanding voice of Yahweh was heard above the blood sprinkled on “the atonement cover of the ark of the Testimony” (Num. 7:89 NIV). It shows forth, as a voice, God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:25,26 RV). The ark was made of shittim wood- from a root meaning ‘to flog, scourge or pierce’, all replete with reference to the cross. And it was there on that wooden box that Yahweh was declared in the blood sprinkled upon it. Note how there is an association between the blood of atonement and the throne of judgment in 2 Sam. 6:2 and Is. 37:16, as if we see a foretaste of our judgment in the way we respond to the Lord’s outpoured blood for us. The Lord Jesus in His time of death is the “propitiation", or rather ‘the place of propitiation’ for our sins, the blood-sprinkled mercy seat. “There I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat... of all things which I will give thee in commandment" (Ex. 25:20-22). The blood of Christ is therefore to be associated with the commanding voice of God, such is the imperative within it. Rev. 19:13 draws a connection between Christ’s title as “the word of God” and the fact His clothing is characterised by the blood of His cross. Ps. 40:9 describes how the Lord Jesus accomplished God’s will as the ultimate sacrifice, through the death of the cross. That death is foretold by the Lord, in the prophetic perfect, as ‘preaching righteousness to the great congregation’ [LXX ekklesia]. In living out the dying of the man Christ Jesus in our daily lives, we are making the witness of Christ.
12:25 The events of the crucifixion are an epitome of who the Lord most essentially was and is. His soul was made ‘sin’ in that He “poured out His soul unto death" (Is. 53:12). The Hebrew for “poured out" also means to make naked, to stretch out. The Lord bared His soul, who He essentially was, was displayed there for all to see; the wine was His blood which was Him, in the sense that the cross is who the son of God essentially was and is and shall ever be. “This is Jesus" was and is the title over the cross. There, for our redemption, He died (Heb. 9:15), He gave us Himself (1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14), His life (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45), His blood (1 Pet. 1:18,19; Eph. 1:7). His death, His life, His blood, these are all essentially Himself. The blood of Jesus speaks to us as if He personally speaks to us; He is personified as His blood (Heb. 12:24,25). This is the preaching (Gk. the word) of the cross. Paul makes the connection between the voice of Christ’s blood and the earthquake that shook all things at the time of the Old Covenant's inauguration. The voice of that blood can shake all things with the exception of the Kingdom, which cannot be shaken. This is the power of the cross. Human words, platform speaking, magazine articles- all these are so limited, although our communal life is inevitably built around them. See on Jn. 6:51; Heb. 9:20.
12:28 It is our holding fast that
is our acceptable service (Heb. 12:28 mg.); not the occasional heroics of
outstanding acts of obedience. See on Heb. 11:27.
12:29 “Our God is a consuming fire [as
manifested in the AD70 burning of Jerusalem]. Let brotherly love
continue". This would imply that there was a marked lack of brotherly love
in the lead up to AD70- also mentioned in Rev.2:4; Lk.12:45. And with the need
to fight the inevitable apostacy in the body in these last days it is so easy
for an unloving, bitter attitude to develop. Sadly this prophecy is proving far
too true.
13:1-
see on Lk. 12:42.
13:2- see
on Rom. 12:13.
"Be
not forgetful to entertain strangers (i. e. the itinerant spirit gifted
prophets, cp. 2 Jn. 10): for thereby some have entertained Angels
unawares" (Heb. 13:2) refers to preachers being entertained as if they are
Angels- suggesting that in the preaching of the Gospel we are as it were
following where the Angel has gone before?
13:3 If we are truly members of the one body, we will be affected
by the sufferings of others in that body. The fact we are members of the one
body of Jesus should exclude all self-centred feelings, in the sense that if
one other part of the body suffers or rejoices, then we are to be affected by
this. Heb. 13:3 tells us to "remember
them that are in bonds, as bound with them, and them
which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body". We are to
feel as if we are inside the body of our brethren. This is quite something.
There is a purposeful ambiguity here. Whose body? The body of
Jesus, or that of the suffering brother? Effectively, the one is the
other. We can truly place ourselves in the place of others. The only other time
the Greek word translated "remember" occurs is in Heb. 2:3:
"What is man that thou art mindful
of him". Because of the almost senseless mindfulness of God for us down
here on this speck of a planet, dust and water as we are… we must be inspired
to likewise be mindful of our suffering brethren.
13:5- see
on Dt. 31:3; Josh. 1:5.
Heb. 13:5 combines quotes from Gen. 28:15; Josh. 1:5 and Dt.
31:16. Heb. 13:5 doesn’t quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together.
See on Rom. 11:26.
Those Old Testament promises are surely relevant to us: "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said (to you, as well as Joshua), I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Heb. 13:5). Notice once again that it isn't the actual possession of wealth that is condemned, but the way of life that seeks more than what we have been given. This is the real danger of materialism.
“Marriage is honourable in
all... but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" - i.e. they were
within the ecclesia and responsible. This is matched by 1 Pet.3:1-5 warning
that the sisters were increasingly rebelling against their great prototypes of
Eve and Sarah, unwittingly egged on by their unspiritual husbands. So many
other New Testament passages imply a surge of marriage and sex related problems
in the run up to AD70. The ecclesia of Israel was an adulterous generation;
this was their main characteristic (Mt. 16:4). Looking around our sisterhood and
brotherhood today there can be no doubt about the reference of all this to our
last days. Add to this the parallels with Sodom and the times of Noah in this
respect too. No wonder Paul advocated the single life for the last days.
13:7 Elders are especially responsible. They can shut up, or open, the Kingdom to men. They watch “in behalf of” the souls of the ecclesia (Heb. 13:7 RV). Their very examples can influence the flock positively or negatively- for “like priest like people” is a Biblical idea. When the leaders “offered themselves willingly”, so did the people (Jud. 5:2,9).
Respect must be earnt by elders, never demanded. Their way of life is the basis of their authority (Heb. 13:7); in this sense, we have the choice whom to consider as our elders, whom we will respect and follow. Jesus taught as one who had authority, unlike the scribes (Mk. 1:22). Yet the Scribes had authority in terms of their position, and yet they were not respected; and hence they couldn’t teach with authority as Jesus could.
“Remember them that have the rule over you" implies there was a tendency to despise ecclesial elders- also mentioned as a last days problem in 1 Pet.5:5; 2 Pet.2:10 etc. The world's spirit of independence and self-determination seems to have affected the latter day ecclesias too.
13:7- see on 1 Tim. 3:4.
13:8 There will be many "ages" to come, as there
have doubtless been many "ages" of previous creations already (Rom.
1:25; 9:5; Heb. 13:8); but for our "age" alone was the only begotten Son
of God given as a representative of us,
the humans who live in this brief "age". God thus describes Himself
as a first timer falling in love with His people; as a young marries a virgin,
so God marries us (Is. 62:5); Israel were as the lines graven on a man's palm,
with which he was born (Is. 49:16). Thus from absolute eternity, we were the
great "all things" to Almighty God, the God of all, all past and
future creations.
13:9 It's easy to assume that the arguments about "regulations about food" (Heb. 13:9) in the first century hinged about what types of food should be eaten, i.e. whether the Mosaic dietary laws should be observed or not. But the angst about "food" was more passionately about with whom you ate. Peter explains in Acts 11:3 how utterly radical it was for a Jew to eat with a Gentile. Bearing this in mind, the way Jew and Gentile Christians ate together at the Lord's supper would've been a breathtaking witness of unity to the watching world. And yet ultimately, Jew and Gentile parted company and the church divided, laying itself wide open to imbalance and every manner of practical and doctrinal corruption as a result. The problem was that the Jews understood 'eating together' as a sign of agreement, and a sign that you accepted those at your table as morally pure. The Lord's 'table manners' were of course purposefully the opposite of this approach. Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho 47.2-3) mentions how the Jewish Christians would only eat with Gentile Christians on the basis that the Gentiles firstly adopted a Jewish way of life. And this is the nub of the problem- demanding that those at your table are like you, seeing eating together as a sign that the other has accepted your positions about everything. The similarities with parts of the 21st century church are uncanny.
13:10 In the same way as the Jews were connected with the altar by reason of eating what was upon it, so all who are connected with the Christ-altar (Heb. 13:10) show this by eating of the memorial table. If we deny the breaking of bread to brethren, we are stating that they are outside covenant relationship with God, that they have no part in Israel.
13:12 The Lord died that He might "sanctify" us to God. This is the word used by the LXX to describe the consecration of the priests to service of the body of Israel (Ex. 28:41). If we reject the call to priesthood today, we reject the point of the Lord's saving suffering for us.
13:13- see on Mt. 27:32; Jn. 8:56.
13:13 We may boldly say that we will not be fearful, as Joshua was, because God has addressed to us the very words which He did to Joshua: “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5,6). In this especially, Joshua is our example. When Heb. 13:13 speaks of us going forth outside the camp, perhaps there is a reference to Joshua who dwelt with Moses outside the camp- thus making Joshua symbolic of us all.
We are to go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach, his ‘having it cast in the teeth’ (Gk.; Heb. 13:13). It's as if He is still there, outside the city gates, and we shoulder our crosses and His reproach as He walked the Via Dolorosa, and go out to be crucified next to Him, as we endure being fools for Christ’s sake in our worldly decisions. It's a rather strange idea, at first consideration. But His sufferings are ongoing. The cross is still there- wherever we go, and however far we fall away from Him.
The cross convicts of sin, for we are impelled by it to follow Christ in going forth “without the camp" (Heb. 13:13), following the path of the leper who had to go forth without the camp (Lev. 13:46).
We’d sooner skip over the words of Deuteronomy 23:12-13 than analyze them closely: “Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith”. Yet there can be no doubt that this is one of the source passages for the words of Hebrews 13:13: “Let us go forth therefore unto him (Jesus) without the camp, bearing his reproach”. When the Israelite soldier had a call of nature, he went forth “without the camp”, doubtless with a sense of sheepishness as he carried his spear-cum-spade with him. Everyone knew what he was doing. This commonplace incident is picked up by the Spirit and made relevant to the Jewish Christians going forth from the camp of Israel, carrying with them the obvious reproach of the cross of Christ. Again, we labour the point: this just isn’t the way we use language.
13:14- see on Eph. 2:19.
13:15- see
on 1 Pet. 2:5.
13:15 The peace offering was offered with unleavened cakes as well
(cp. the Passover, a clear type of the memorial meeting). The bitterness of sin
was to be ever remembered, amidst the joy of peace with God. The description of
the peace offering as “the sacrifice of thanksgiving" is alluded to in
Heb. 13:15: "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God"- praise and
thanks for our spiritual peace with God, our forgiveness through His grace.
13:15 True sacrifice is praise of God; thus Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac was "praise" (Gen. 22:5). Israel in their repentance "will account our lips as calves" (Hos. 14:3 LXX, RVmg.), i.e. as sacrifices. The "fruit of the lips" there was repentance. Which is why the Hebrew writer says that we "make confession to his name" with the fruit of our lips (13:15 RV). Continually we should offer this sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15), the thankfulness that wells up from knowing we are forgiven, the joy born of regular, meaningful repentance. And we do this "by" or 'on account of' the sacrifice of Jesus for us, which enables this forgiveness and thereby repentance (Heb. 13:12,15). "Continually" in itself suggests that "praise" does not mean singing or musical expression. This "sacrifice of praise" is a quotation from Jer. 33:11, which describes our offering "the sacrifice of praise... for his mercy" at the beginning of the Kingdom. Praise will [and does] bring forth sacrifice / action. Yet " praise" here is the same Hebrew word translated " thanksgiving" ; and the sacrifice of thanksgiving was the peace offering, a commemoration of our free conscience and the peace of sin forgiven (Lev. 7:12-15). If we seriously confess our sins and believe in forgiveness, we should be experiencing a foretaste of the praise we will be offering at the start of the Kingdom, as we embark upon eternity. Our offering of this sacrifice of praise will be "continual" if we continually maintain a good conscience through the confession of our sins. This is surely a high standard to have placed before us: to continually confess our sins, to continually receive God's mercy, and therefore to live continually in a spirit of grateful praise. The way David praises God so ecstatically for immutable things and principles (e.g. His character) is a great example in this (e.g. Ps. 33:3-5); our tendency is to only seriously praise God when He resolves the unexpected crises of life.
The Name of God of itself elicits repentance. Faced with the wonder of who He is, we can’t be passive to it. We realize and are convicted of our sin sheerly by the reality of who He is, was and shall be. Heb. 13:15 speaks of the fruit of our lips, giving confession to His Name. The “fruit of lips” in Hos. 14:2 RVmg. to which the writer alludes is clearly enough, in the context, the confession of sin. And the context in Heb. 13:12 is that Christ’s blood was shed to sanctify us. That declaration of the Name elicits a confession of sin, albeit in words of praise, to His Name. Mic. 6:9 has the same theme. When the Lord’s voice calls to the city demanding repentance, “the man of wisdom shall see [perceive] thy name”- i.e. repent. We come to know God's Name in practice through the cycles of sin-repentance-forgiveness by God which we all pass through. It is through this process that we come to know the very essence of God's Name. Thus Is. 43:25 LXX: "I am '"I AM", who erases your iniquities". We come to know His Name, that it really is ("I am") all about forgiveness and salvation of sinners. See on Eph. 3:15.
13:16 The letter to the Hebrew Christians describes salvation and the Kingdom with the idea of inheritance. The believers had possessions (Heb. 10:34), had been generous to others (Heb. 6:10), and yet needed the exhortation to "not live for money; be content with what you have" (Heb. 13:5) and to "share what you have with others" (Heb. 13:16). We could surmize that this audience weren't unlike many of us today- not overly wealthy, but sorely tempted to be obsessed by posessions and material advantage. And to them, as to us, the writer emphasizes that salvation in Christ is the ultimate inheritance or posession (Heb. 1:2,4,14, 6:12,17; 9:15; 11:7; 12:17); this is the ultimate "profit" (Heb. 13:17). Hence Esau was quoted as an example- he gave up his inheritance for the sake of a material meal (Heb. 12:15-17). The eternal inheritance which is promised to us in the Gospel, rooted as it is in the promises to the Jewish fathers, should make us not seek for great material inheritance in this present world.
13:17 Elders must give an
account for their flock (Heb. 13:17)- implying that
there will be a 'going through' with them of all in their care. The drunken steward was condemned because he failed to feed
the rest of the household and beat them.
13:18 Heb. 13:18
seems to imply that the more they prayed and the more Paul lived honestly, the
sooner he would be released from prison: “Pray for us: for we are persuaded
that we have a good conscience, desiring to live honestly in all things. And I exhort you the more exceedingly to do this, that I may be
restored to you the sooner” (RV). Thus prayer can hasten things, given
certain preconditions are fulfilled. So it is in our experiences, and so it may
be with the Lord’s return.
It was accepted in Judaism, as well as in many other contemporary religions, that faithful saints [e.g. the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets etc, in Judaism’s case] could intercede for the people. Yet in the New Testament, all believers are urged to intercede for each other, even to the point of seeking to gain forgiveness for others’ sins (1 Thess. 5:25; Heb. 13:18; James 5:15). They were all to do this vital work. The radical nature of this can easily be overlooked by us, reading from this distance.
13:21 We work God’s will, and He works in us (Heb. 13:21 Gk.). There is a mutuality between God and man.
13:22
Hebrews:
Breaking Of Bread Sermon
Introduction
Sometimes
it's best to present the end conclusion and then the evidence. I want to
suggest that the letter to the Hebrews is actually a breaking of bread sermon
first given by Paul to the Jerusalem ecclesia, against a background of Judaist
pressure to return to the Law, and also bearing in mind some specific moral and
doctrinal problems which were in the ecclesia. If you read it through out loud,
the "letter" takes about 45 minutes. The last few verses seem to be
'tacked on' to turn it into a letter. Paul asks them to "suffer the word
of exhortation" (Heb. 13:22), although, he says, it was a brief one. This
would imply that usually "the word of exhortation" was a lot longer.
Remember how Paul exhorted all night at Troas at the breaking of bread (Acts
20:7-9).
There
is evidence that the early breaking of bread service was based upon the
Synagogue Sabbath service. Heb. 13:17,24 speak of
"them that have the rule over you" , the language of the 'ruler of
the synagogue' (cp. Lk. 8:49; 13:14; Acts 18:8). There were weekly portions of
readings which were read, similar to our Bible Companion (1) and
then expounded by the Rabbi and any others who would like to offer a "word
of exhortation" (Acts 13:15). Acts 13:15 is the only other place apart
from Heb. 13:22 that "the word of exhortation" occurs. It is clearly
a synagogue phrase. It is possible that "suffer the word of
exhortation" was also a Synagogue phrase, said at the end of the
'exhortation' on the Sabbath. This suggests that the whole of Hebrews was a
"word of exhortation" at a Sabbath breaking of bread (probably this
was the day the Jewish ecclesias met in Jerusalem), being a commentary on the
readings for that week (perhaps the Melchizedek passages and parts of the Law),
constantly bringing the point round to the death of the Lord Jesus. In this,
Hebrews is an ideal sermon: it continually comes round to the work of Christ.
Hebrews
is also a series of quotations and allusions (over half the sermon is comprised
of these), interspersed with commentary and brief practical exhortation (e.g.
to disfellowship false teachers, 12:15,16), all tied
together around the theme of Christ's sacrifice and our response to it. Our
sermons should be Bible based, after this same pattern. This is surely the way
to construct sermons: re-reading verses from the chapters in the readings,
commenting on them, bringing it all round to the work
of Christ. A recurring theme of the Hebrews sermon is a reminding of the
hearers of the reality of their future reward, made sure by Christ's work (4:9;
5:9; 6:10,19; 9:28; 10:34; 11:40; 12:10). This should
surely be a theme embedded in our sermons: the personal Hope of the Kingdom,
made sure for us by the work of Christ.
Obvious
Relevance
So
much in Hebrews is obviously relevant to the memorial meeting. The wine
represents the blood of the new covenant. That new covenant is repeated in 8:10,11; and the word "covenant" occurs 14 times, and
the parallel "testament" 7 times. The blood of the covenant is
explicitly referred to in 7:22; 8:6; 9:1 and 13:20. 12:24-26 personifies that
blood as a mighty voice speaking to us, manifesting the voice of God, capable
of shaking Heaven and earth. This is truly the power of appeal behind a
consideration of Christ's blood, as symbolised in the wine. There are 22
references to "blood", 4 to “body", 8 to "sacrifice"
i.e. the body of the animal, and 9 to "offering", also a reference to
the body of the animal. The breaking of bread is designed to remember the body
and blood of our Lord's sacrifice. And this is exactly the theme of Hebrews.
Yet at the same time as doing this, Paul was getting over his specific point to
the Jerusalem ecclesia: the utter supremacy of Christ's sacrifice ought to
obviate the need for any other theory of reconciliation to God. If only we
could exhort like this: make the specific points we need to make under the
umbrella of a sustained emphasis on the sacrifice of Christ.
Partakers
Of Christ
1
Cor. 10:17,21 (probably an epistle known to the
Jerusalem ecclesia) speaks of us being partakers of the one bread at the
breaking of bread, partaking of the Lord's table there. The same word is
used in Heb. 3:14 concerning being partakers of Christ, again suggesting
that Hebrews was first spoken in a breaking of bread context. The same word
occurs in Heb. 12:8: we are partakers of Christ's sufferings. We are
Christ's partakers (AV "fellows"; 1:9); Christ partakes
of our nature (2:14). Yet we are only ultimately partakers of Christ if
we hold fast the beginning of our confidence (3:14). All these ideas are
brought together in our partaking of the emblems of Christ at the
memorial meeting. In them, Paul is reasoning, we should see our partaking of
Christ's sufferings as a response to His partaking of our nature, and thereby
our partaking of the promised reward, the "heavenly calling" (3:1).
Oral
Style
The
references to "let us" do this or that are all so appropriate to a
verbal sermon, encouraging the listeners to respond to the work of Christ.
"We see Jesus" (2:9), "Consider... Jesus" (3:1; 7:4; 12:3)
would fit in well to the context of a sermon given with the emblems before the
audience. "Concerning whom in our discourse..." (Heb. 5:11 Diaglott)
would certainly fit in to an oral discourse. “And, so to say…" (Heb. 7:9
RV) is another example. Saying above, Sacrifice and offering…" (Heb. 10:8
RV) sounds as if a scroll is being read and quotation made from passages
“above" in the scroll. "Of the things which we have spoken (RV
we are saying) this is the sum" (8:1) is language more appropriate to a
transcript of an address than to a written composition. "As I may so
say" (7:9) is another such example. "One in a certain place..."
(2:6) is an odd way to write in a formal letter. Yet it fits in if this is a
transcript of a sermon; it's the sort of thing you would say verbally when you
know your audience can't turn up the passage. The word of exhortation contained
in Hebrews was in "few words" (13:22); but this is a bad translation.
Strong defines it as meaning "a short time, for a little while" (2) -
i.e. Paul is saying 'It won't take long in terms of time to hear this, but
consider the points carefully'. Note that the RV speaks of “suffer the
exhortation", unlike AV “the word of exhortation" (Heb. 13:22). One
almost gets the impression that Paul is speaking with great constraints on his
time: "the cherubims... of which we cannot now
speak particularly... what shall I more say? for the time is failing me, running out" (Heb. 9:5;
11:32 Gk.). These sort of comments would surely be
irrelevant in a written letter. But as a transcript of a live sermon, they make
perfect sense. M. R. Vincent in his Word Studies Of The
NT observed in Hebrews "a rhythmical structure of sentences (with)
sonorous compounds", as if what is written had first been spoken.
"Let
us offer the sacrifice of praise to God" (13:15) would be appropriate to
communal praise at a memorial meeting. Likewise "Let us draw near... we
draw nigh... let us come boldly before the throne of grace" (4:16; 7:19)
is appropriate to the congregation coming before God in collective and private
prayer, culminating in the 'drawing nigh' of taking the emblems (cp. the idea
of 'coming to God' in 11:6). The emphasis on the power of Christ as a mediator
(7:25; 9:24) would be appropriate in this context of rallying the
congregation's faith in their prayers and confessions of sin. The encouragement
to "exhort one another daily" (3:13; 10:25) takes on a special
relevance if said at the breaking of bread; Paul would have been implying:
'Don't just listen to me exhorting you today, or a brother doing it once a
week; you must all exhort each other, every day, not just on Shabbat!'.
Self
Examination
There
is another sustained theme in this sermon, in addition to all the stress on our
Lord's sacrifice. It is the repeated warning as to the likelihood of apostasy
(2:1-3; 3:12; 4:1; 6:4-8; 10:26-30,38; 12:15-17,25,27) and the possibility of
abusing the blood of Christ (10:26-30)- exactly after the pattern of 1 Cor.
11:26-30, which explicitly makes this warning in the context of the breaking of
bread. “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye [again, oral style], shall he
be thought worthy, who hath...counted the blood of the covenant... as unholy thing?" (Heb. 11:29) is almost
allusive to 1 Cor. 11:29, warning of drinking damnation to oneself through an
incorrect attitude to the memorial cup. This kind of emphasis in a 45 minute
sermon wouldn't go down well in a Western church. Yet the more we consider the
wonder of the work of Christ, the more we will be driven to consider our own
weakness, and the need to "hold fast" our connection with it. This is
why we should examine ourselves at the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:28).
"Hold on" is another related theme (3:6,14;
4:14; 10:23). And here and there we find brief, specific practical warnings
which were doubtless especially relevant to the initial audience. It's amazing
that Paul got so much in 45 minutes. Yet this is what is possible. Note that
all the exhortations in Hebrews, the comfort, the warnings, are all an outcome
of a consideration of first principles, especially relating to the atonement.
Thus Paul turns the fact that Christ is our representative round to
teach the need for unity amongst us whom He represents (2:11).
"Take
heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief"
(3:12) is very relevant to a call for self-examination in the presence of the
emblems. "Let us" boldly ask for forgiveness (4:16) could be read in
this context too. The reminder that Christ examines us, that we are naked and
opened in His sight, would have encouraged them to be open with him in their
self-examination (4:12). Paul reminds them of their initial conversion (3:6,14;
6:11; 10:22,32), in the same way as the Passover was intended to provoke
national and personal self-examination, looking back to their spiritual
beginnings at the Red Sea (cp. baptism). He encourages them with a reminder
that Christ is such a powerful priest that He can really cleanse our conscience
(9:14; 10:2,22); the blood of the new covenant
can destroy an evil conscience (10:22 cp. 9:20). Therefore, Paul reasons, with
this clear conscience, "let us draw near" - to the emblems, to the
reality of our relationship with God. Again we see a marked emphasis on the
need for self-examination at the breaking of bread.
Having
created this background of self-examination, Paul is able to more easily hand
out explicit rebuke; e.g. "Ye are dull of hearing" (5:11-14; 12:5).
Yet at the same time Paul expressed a very confident view of his audience; e.g.
"We are persuaded better things of you" (6:9; 10:38,39).
This is an important aspect of exhortation; to convey to the brethren and
sisters the fact that we genuinely respect them as brethren and sisters in the
Lord Jesus, with the sure Hope and possibility of salvation.
There
is an emphasis on the good works which a true understanding of the first
principles should bring (4:11; 9:14; 10:24; 12:28). This is exactly in harmony
with the idea presented above: that exposition of first principle doctrine is the
basis for practical exposition. This emphasis on the need for works in response
to the doctrines of the atonement could suggest that Paul expected the
congregation to make resolves at the breaking of bread concerning their future
behaviour. Maybe this is behind his appeal for them to appreciate that Christ
offers our works to God as the priests did the sacrifices in the past (5:1; 8:3,4; 9:9).
Personal
Relevance
The
Hebrews sermon is shot through with internal connections; just as our preaching
sessions should constantly refer back to each other. Paul is trying to get the
brethren and sisters to see that if they respond to his exhortations as they
should, they will be connected in spirit with the faithful heroes of the Old
Testament; they will become connected with " the spirits of just men made
perfect" (12:23). Thus Noah was moved with fear, Paul says (11:7), just as
we should be (4:1); Sarah " judged him faithful
who had promised" (11:11), just as we should (10:23); as Moses bore the
reproach of Christ (11:26), so should we (13:13). The breaking of bread is the
equivalent of the Passover under the Old Covenant; therefore 11:28 highlights
how Moses kept the Passover in faith as to the power of the sprinkled blood of
the lamb. The implication is that if we take the wine with a similar faith in
Christ's blood, we will come become united with the spirit of Moses.
There
are many of these inter-connections within Hebrews. Our "
afflictions" (10:32) uses the same word translated "
suffering" in the context of Christ's sufferings (2:9,10); we are to
" endure" (10:32) as Christ " endured" the shame of the
cross (12:2,3 same word). Through these inter-connections, Paul is trying to
make the sufferings of Christ relevant to them. We may never hope to achieve as
much as Paul did in those 45 minutes. But the principles remain for us to try
to copy. Therefore we should try not to offer unconnected comments on the
readings, we should seek to tie them together under the umbrella of the work of
the Lord Jesus, we should relate His sufferings to those of our brethren and
sisters, we should seek to inspire them with the fact that they are
fellowshipping the hope of the faithful recorded in the Bible records.
A
Pattern For Us
The sermon to the Hebrews becomes more significant for us as we consider its
likely background. In his book The Jewish War, Josephus explains in detail how
the Jews in Palestine revolted against the Romans in AD66-70. Initially,
everything went well for them. The Romans were defeated at the foot of the
temple mount, the legions of Cestius Gallus were
defeated, and the Jewish zealots attributed these successes to God’s rewarding
of their loyalty to the Law. They purified and rededicated the temple, and
appointed a High Priest who was not a collaborator with Rome. The zealots spoke
of the liberation of Israel in strong religious terms; there was a great wave
of enthusiasm for the Law. It seems that Hebrew Christians were caught up in
this revival, and of course all Jews were expected to take up arms and fight.
The exhortation to the Hebrews therefore stressed the passing of the Mosaic
Law, the need to rally around Christ as the true altar and the only true, pure
High Priest (Heb. 4:14; 10:19-25; 13:10). There was the command to move outside
the camp of Israel, i.e. Jerusalem (Heb. 13:13). And the institutions of the
temple, which the Jewish nationalists were so glorifying, are shown to be of no
value compared to the blood of Christ. The references to the temptations of
Jesus (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15) may be references back to the wilderness
temptations, where He faced the same choice that the Jewish Christians had- to
opt for a Kingdom here and now, throwing off the Roman yoke; or to hold fast
our faith in the Kingdom which is surely to come. The speaker / writer to the
Hebrew Christians doesn’t specifically tackle the
issues affecting them in bald terms. He instead sets a masterful example of how
we should approach issues and weaknesses which need our comment. He adopts a
Christ-centred and Biblical approach, demonstrating that he is exactly aware of
the issues which face them, and reasoning from unshakeable principles towards
specific applications of them.
The
Final Appeal
All
good sermons have a strong final appeal and focus on the sacrifice of Christ.
Heb. 12:23 appears grammatically and structurally to be a climax: "Ye are
come unto... the general assembly and church of the firstborn". It is
possible to understand this 'general assembly' as a reference to the combined
ecclesia present at the breaking of bread. Indeed the Orthodox churches use
this verse in this sense in their eucharist
liturgy, rendering it "the festival of the firstborn" (3). Chapter 13
contains a series of brief practical exhortations just before the final appeal
to home in on the body and blood of our Lord. 13:10 then goes on to compare us
to the priests eating the sacrifice on the altar; a picture so appropriate to partaking the emblems at the memorial meeting. 13:11-15 is
surely a fitting climax to the sermon, as the audience prepared to take the
emblems: "The bodies of those beasts...Jesus also, that He might
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered...let us go forth
therefore unto Him, bearing his reproach... by Him therefore let us offer the
sacrifice of praise to God continually (not just at this meeting)" . Notice the emphasis on the body and blood
of Christ, and an appeal for our response in praise rather than further
self-examination. The whole sermon started with God (the very first word in
1:1), and ends with God; reflecting the fact that Christ's work is a
manifestation of God, and is intended to bring us to the Father, and eternally
reconcile us with Him.
Indeed,
a fair case can be made that most of the NT epistles are in fact based upon
sermons read out at the breaking of bread service. Given that most Christians
would have been illiterate, the memorial meeting would have been the logical
time and place to read out the latest letter from Paul or Peter, in any case
(Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Consider how Paul writes to the Corinthians in 1
Cor. 5:3-5 as if he is present with them at their memorial meeting ["ye
being gathered together..."]. Many of the endings and greetings of the
letters have some reference to the memorial meeting. The commands to pray and
kiss each other which conclude some of the letters must be compared to the
information we find in Justin Martyr's description of the early communion
meetings: "When we have ceased from prayer, we salute one another with a
kiss. There is then brought to the president bread and a cup of wine" (Apology
I, 65). The strange ending of 1 Corinthians 16:20-24 is an obvious allusion to
the passage in the Didache, describing the
words spoken at the breaking of bread meetings in the first century: "If
any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema.
Maranatha...Amen". According to the Didache,
the president at the memorial meeting said: " If any man is holy, let him
come; if any be not, let him repent. Maranatha.
Amen". Indeed, it is possible that the book of Revelation is a series of
prophecies initially given at ecclesial gatherings. The whole book is
punctuated by passages of liturgy and worship (4).
Homework
The
evidence provided here that ‘Hebrews’ was a sermon at the breaking of bread is
to me quite strong. As we've said, in an oral culture of illiterate converts,
it is to be expected that the majority of Paul or Peter’s letters would’ve been
read aloud to the assembled congregations when they gathered for worship. There
is reference to a “holy kiss” at the end of some of the letters (Rom. 16:16; 1
Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14). This was understood by
Justin, Tertullian and Hippolytus to be a signal to the hearers that now the
sermon had ended, and they were to kiss each other and begin partaking of the Lord’s supper (5). Whether that’s the case or not, there’s
some major homework here for the enthusiast- to study each of the New Testament
letters as a sermon appropriate to the breaking of bread service.
Notes
(1)
See Joe Hill, 'An Ancient Bible Companion', Tidings, series 1994/5.
(2)
The only other times this construction occurs is in Heb. 2:7,9, where we read
that Christ was for "a little while" (RV mg.) lower than Angels.
(3)
Christos Yannaras, The
Freedom Of Morality (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996) p. 107.
(4)
This idea is developed further in Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Worship (London:
SCM, 1953).
(5)
References provided in Martin Hengel, Studies In The Gospel Of Mark
(London: SCM, 1985) p. 176.
13:23- see on 1 Thess. 2:17.
13:37- see on Mk. 13:37.