Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Faith, Continued
Again, today has so much that could be said, but it already says it well enough in so many ways.  Lest they be passed over, here's some information about the people/events that weren't specifically named in the passage, starting in verse 32:

 " •      Gideon, one of Israel’s judges, was known for conquering the Midianite army with only three hundred men who were armed with trumpets and jars (Judges 6:11–8:35).

  •      Barak served with Deborah (another judge of Israel) in conquering the army of General Sisera from Hazor (Judges 4:4–23).

  •      Samson, another judge, was a mighty warrior against God’s enemies, the Philistines (Judges 13–16).

  •      Jephthah, still another judge, delivered Israel from the Ammonites (Judges 11:1–33).

  •      David, the beloved king of Israel and a great warrior, brought peace to Israel, defeating all of his enemies.

  •      Samuel, the last judge of Israel, was a very wise leader. He also was a prophet. Samuel, along with all the prophets, served God selflessly as they conveyed God’s words to an often rebellious people.

  •      They conquered kingdoms. Throughout their years in the Promised Land, the Israelites had great leaders who brought victory against their enemies. People such as Joshua, all of the judges, and King David were great warriors.

  •      They administered justice. Many of the judges, as well as leaders such as Nehemiah, administered justice to the people.

  •      They gained what was promised. Some people actually did see the fulfillment of some of God’s promises, such as possession of the Promised Land.

  •      They shut the mouths of lions. Daniel was saved from the mouths of lions (Daniel 6). This statement could also refer to Samson (Judges 14:6) or to David (1 Samuel 17:34–35).

  •      They quenched the fury of the flames. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were kept from harm in the furious flames of a fiery furnace (Daniel 3).

  •      They escaped the edge of the sword. Elijah (1 Kings 19:2–8) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:19, 26) had this experience.

  •      Their weakness was turned to strength. Hezekiah was one who regained strength after sickness (2 Kings 20).

  •      They became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. This refers to Joshua, many of Israel’s judges, and King David.

  •      mocked—like Elisha (2 Kings 2:23–25), Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:19; 4:1), and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18:12)

  •      cut open with whips—like Jeremiah (Jeremiah 37:15)

  •      chained in dungeons—like Joseph (Genesis 40:15), Samson (Judges 16:21), Micaiah (1 Kings 22:26–27), Hanani (2 Chronicles 16:10), and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 37:16; 38:6).

  •           They were stoned—like Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20–21); according to Jerome, Jeremiah was stoned at the hands of Jewish Egyptians because he denounced their idolatry.

  •      They were sawed in two—like Isaiah, presumably. Although we do not know for sure, tradition (from the apocryphal book, The Ascension of Isaiah, chapters 1–5) says that the prophet Isaiah was sawed in half at the command of King Manasseh because Isaiah had predicted the destruction of the temple. Isaiah had at first escaped and hid in the trunk of a tree while in the hill country. Manassah supposedly had the tree sawed in half with Isaiah in it.

  •      They were put to death by the sword—although some prophets did escape death by the sword, others did not (see 1 Kings 19:10)." [1]

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Faith
In today's reading we dip into what is often called "the faith chapter" or "the hall of faith".  Many see this as a kind of hall of fame for great faith heroes.  I would urge you to exercise a lot of caution in thinking that way.  There's so much here to encourage us and talk about, but I'll keep it to a simple challenge about being "ordinary heroes":

    "How would you and I live today if we believed absolutely that God existed and loved us completely and had a destination for us that made all the world pale by just one square foot of its turf? How would we live if we believed that God cared about our every action and every concern and wished to reward us magnanimously for our faith? How would you and I live in the face of opposition if we believed in God, really believed as if our whole lives depended on him and his? You say, “But I do; I do believe absolutely. I believe with all I am and all I have.”
    Then how would you live differently if you did not believe? Would there be much difference? This is a critical question. If all I am and have and do differs little from my unbelieving neighbor, then I have embraced his world and his values and fool myself by saying I am living for another world and kingdom values. My life must be radically different in what I embrace—the values of a heavenly kingdom. When I live “by faith,” I then will be one to whom God can bear witness and one who bears witness to God in such a way that others will be stimulated to faith. My life will portray that “faith works!” Then I will be a “hero” in the best sense of the word, for I will live a life that helps others and honors Another. Then I will be extraordinary, having chosen a narrow path.
    This is not the provenance of “super Christians,” however. Do not check the “Not Applicable” box yet. As Christians we are extraordinary because of what God has done in the midst of and in spite of our spiritual dullness." [1] (emphasis mine)

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Willful Sins
On verse 26 today:

"The author may have in mind Num 15:27–31 where sacrifice is available for unintentional sins, but for “high-handed” sins no sacrifice is available...One thing is clear: under the Mosaic covenant, the penalty for willful sin was physical death. In Numbers 15, soteriology is not the issue. The issue is what happens when one violated the Mosaic covenant. For example, in Num 15:32–36, a man found picking up sticks on the Sabbath day was in violation of the Mosaic law. The penalty for such was severe according to Exod 31:14–15: the person was to be “cut off,” where the clear meaning is “put to death.” That this scenario from the Old Testament is in the author’s mind in Heb 10:26 is confirmed by his statement in 10:28 that one who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy “on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Gleason sums up the meaning of the author of Hebrews:

  Far from a public repudiation of belief in Christ, the sin in view denotes any deliberate act of covenant unfaithfulness, including in the Old Testament context even the seemingly harmless act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The gravity of the sin is determined by the defiant attitude with which it is committed. However, the penalty is not eternal damnation but rather physical punishment resulting in death.

In comparison, the author of Hebrews states that willful sin committed after conversion creates a situation where there is no sacrifice for sins available just as there was none available in the Old Testament for willful disobedience to God under the Mosaic covenant. The point is that new covenant believers cannot presume upon the salvation brought to them in Christ to cause God to overlook their willful disobedience." [1] (emphasis mine)

So basically, this passage isn't talking about sin in general after salvation, but very willful, "I'm doing this as defiantly as a can because I hate you" -type sinning.  Definitely another hard warning passage today - questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Sacrifice Can't Remove Sin   
Today's passage really gets to the heart of the OT system, the one that the writer of Hebrews is urging the people to abandon.  This passage said that sacrifice couldn't take away sin, so what did the sacrifices do?

    "The law’s sacrificial system, rather than delivering worshipers from guilt, actually has the effect of reminding them of their sinfulness and, thus, their constant separation from God (v. 3). Why is this the case under the older covenant? Because the sacrifices of that system—“the blood of bulls and goats”—do not have the ability to remove sins (v. 4). The author already has made the point that the old sacrifices could “sanctify” or “purify” (9:13, 23) people, but here, significantly, he uses “take away” or “remove” (aphaireo), a word used with reference to sin only one other place in the New Testament. At Romans 11:26–27 Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah saying, “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away [a form of aphaireo] their sins.”
    In Hebrews 10:4, as in the Romans passage, the idea of “removing” sin speaks of the burden sin placed on the worshiper’s conscience being lifted in a decisive, perpetually effective cleansing, which establishes one’s status before God. This is what the old covenant sacrifices were unable to do, which is why sin remained a separator, a perennial, detrimental force disallowing a permanently right relationship between God and his people." [1] (emphasis mine)

Just a few more thoughts from me on this topic: check out the next group of verses.  It says "Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired..."  If God doesn't desire these things, why were the people to offer them?  The OT has a number of statements that are similar to this one, which seems weird because God tells them to sacrifice, right?  I believe that those who truly understood the OT sacrificial system understood this fact.  Of course there were plenty of people that just sacrificed because it was the thing to do - they had no real understanding of it.  That's not what God desires.  "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6, ESV)  I think that those that understood the system knew that it was not actually the SACRIFICE that cleansed them, but GOD.  God said "If you want to be cleansed, do ______".  Those that did it out of duty focused on the ______, while those that understood the truth realized that ultimately it is God and His promise that cleanses and removes sin.  They understood that God doesn't want sacrifices, but for people to know Him.  He wants love, not simply duty. 

This is vitally important because it means that God has never truly changed the system of salvation.  It was God and His promise that removed sin before, and it is God and His promise through the sacrifice of Jesus that removes sin now.  Christ has come in full revelation, so these "shadows" of true forgiveness don't make sense anymore - they have become obsolete.

But don't think that this is just for the OT - it has a lot of application for today.  Relationship with God and forgiveness of sin has nothing to do with our "sacrifices" (money, service, time, etc.)  Just as before, God desires love and knowledge of Him, not these trifles.  These "sacrifices" only make sense when we do them out of love and gratitude, not because we think we should or because we'll be "good" with God if we do. 

Only Jesus makes us good with God, and that's what makes Him so much greater than these other things in Hebrews!

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

OT Terms
Today's passage refers to a lot of OT things.  As we haven't yet done "OT in a Year", here's some help in understanding what the writer of Hebrews is talking about:

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

More Melchizedek
A continuation today of the comparison of Jesus and Melchizedek.   It moves on to showing how Jesus is better than the other priesthood, but that's pretty self explanatory.  Here's more on the first comparison:

"Which of the priests of Aaron lived forever? None. Thus no priest in all of Israel’s history was “a priest forever.” Old Testament priests were vital to the spiritual life of Israel, but they were imperfect and temporary. Only one priest could fulfill God’s plan. The writer explained that this “other priest” came from “another tribe.”

  •      He is like Melchizedek and has a priesthood in the order of Melchizedek—as described in 7:1–10. By being in the order of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ was both priest and king. Some Jews of Jesus’ day (particularly those at Qumran) were anticipating two messiahs, one priestly and one kingly. Jesus was both.
  •      He became a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry. As Melchizedek was a Gentile priest, so Jesus did not fit the pattern. As described in 7:13–14, Jesus was not born into the tribe of Levi, but the tribe of Judah.
  •      He became a priest on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. Because there is no record in Scripture of Melchizedek’s death, it is as if he never died. So with Jesus—death could not master him. He died, but he rose never to die again. As a result, he will never cease his priestly ministry.
  •      He fulfills the qualification of being a priest forever. The one who never dies has become the final High Priest, and his sacrifice has forever settled the breach that human sin created between almighty God and sinful humanity. Christ is immortal, fulfilling the prophecy of Psalm 110:4. The old priesthood was incomplete and is now abolished.

How important is the Resurrection to Christian teaching? Paul wrote that if Christ is not raised, Christian faith is useless and futile (1 Corinthians 15:14, 18). The author of Hebrews wrote that if Jesus died and is still dead, then all is lost. Aaron’s priestly clan is all dead. But the good news is that Jesus was raised—he is “a priest forever,” serving on our behalf. We can place our confidence in him." [1]

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Jesus as Priest
Today's passage starts to move into a slightly different area.  Hebrews started out by showing how Jesus was the superior Revelation and Son, and in this passage the writer starts to show us how Jesus is superior to the previous priests.  He speaks a lot about Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-24) here and again the thinking is a little complex and more Jewish in it's reasoning than our Western minds are used to.  Here's an extended quote to help explain:

    "The author begins to describe the priesthood of Jesus by illustrating how Jesus was a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest. Having already mentioned Melchizedek in passing (5:6, 10; 6:20), the author now returns to discuss him at length. In this discussion, the author shows that the Levitical priesthood, very familiar to Jewish readers, has been replaced by a new order of priests who were foreshadowed and characterized by Melchizedek.
    Melchizedek was king of the city of Salem and also a priest of God Most High. This description of Melchizedek comes from Genesis 14:18–20. He seems to have been an extraordinary man who served his people in both the offices of priest and king. While this was not that unusual in ancient times, it was unusual among God’s people. Not even King David served in both roles. In fact, God punished other kings who attempted to do both. When Saul offered sacrifices, God rejected him as king (1 Samuel 13). When Uzziah offered incense at the temple, God punished him (2 Chronicles 26). “Salem” may later have become the city of Jerusalem. Melchizedek, however, served as the king and priest. The appellation “God Most High” means that Melchizedek worshiped the one true God. Genesis 14:18–20 uses the term “God Most High” three times in three verses. (For more uses of the name, see Psalm 57:2; 78:35, 56; Daniel 3:26; 4:2, 24–25, 34; 5:18, 21; 7:18, 25; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; Acts 16:17.)
    This passage refers to the time when Abraham was returning home after winning a great battle against many kings. Four kings in Abraham’s region had united and had conquered Sodom and other neighboring cities (Genesis 14:1–11). Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family lived in Sodom. When Abraham heard that Lot and his family had been captured, Abraham mobilized 318 men for battle. With a surprise attack, Abraham and his tiny band of men liberated Lot and the others who had been captured (Genesis 14:12–16).
    After defeating the four kings, Abraham became the greatest power in the land, and Melchizedek met him and blessed him. Then Abraham took a tenth of all he had won in the battle and gave it to Melchizedek because Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High. By giving the tithe to Melchizedek, Abraham was giving the gift to God’s representative. Although these two men were strangers to each other, they shared a most important characteristic: Both worshiped and served the one God who made heaven and earth. This was a great moment of triumph for Abraham. He had just defeated an army and had freed a large group of captives. If he had any doubt in his mind about who had gained the victory, Melchizedek set the record straight by reminding Abraham, “Blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand” (Genesis 14:20 NIV). Abraham recognized that he and this man worshiped the same God.
    The original readers of Hebrews would have known that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham because he was able to receive tithes and give a blessing (see 7:7). This argument may not carry the same logical forcefulness for readers today as it did then, but these early Jewish believers understood the argument...
    ...To bolster the argument, the author of Hebrews used what is not said in Genesis 14 as much or more as what is said. The Bible does not provide a genealogy for Melchizedek nor a record of his death. While the Bible does not supply details of Melchizedek’s life, most likely Melchizedek was a human king and priest who really did have parents, and thus was born and eventually died. Jewish theology and typology, however, is built only on what the Bible text says. Because in the Bible text there is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors, it is as though he didn’t have any. Because the text records no beginning or end to his life, it is as though Melchizedek never was born or died.
While some have taken this to mean that Melchizedek was an angel or a preincarnate appearance of Christ, the text does not support this. Rather, the contrast is being made between Melchizedek and Aaron’s priestly line, which depended entirely on genealogy. Priests in Aaron’s family succeeded upon the death of the prior priest, making the date of death extremely important. None of the apparatus of the Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 39) applied to Melchizedek, except God’s appointment. In this way, Melchizedek foreshadows Jesus, God’s special emissary.
    Melchizedek did not become a priest because his father handed down the priesthood to him. The contrast with Aaron’s priesthood is clear. The lineage of priests was very important. Priests who could not prove their lineage were excluded from service (see Nehemiah 7:64).
With no record of beginning or end, Melchizedek remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God (see also Psalm 110:4). Hebrews doesn’t say that Jesus resembled Melchizedek, but that Melchizedek resembled Jesus. Melchizedek was a real man, a servant of God, whose history is recorded in the book of Genesis in such a way as to make him resemble the one who would come and fulfill completely the offices of priest and king, and who would truly be “a priest forever.”" [1]

As I said, the reasoning isn't as "western" as we would like, but do you follow what he's doing here?  If not, comment or question below!

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

A Difficult Passage
Today's reading features what I would consider to be one of the most difficult and contentious passages in the whole of the Bible.  As I mentioned a few days ago, Hebrews contains five "warning passages" which are lumped in groups of verses in different ways.  One way that gets to the heart of each warning is this:

1.  Hebrews 2:1-4
2.  Hebrews 4:12-13
3.  Hebrews 6:4-8
4.  Hebrews 10:26-31
5.  Hebrews 12:25-29

These passages are interesting and important in that Hebrews is a book that is written to Jewish believers, yet this passages are very sharp and exhort them not to forsake salvation.  As I said, this passages have evoked many a bitter debate about the nature of salvation between those who believe that it is possible to lose salvation and those (like me) that believe it is not possible to lose true salvation.  There are a lot of reasons that I hold the belief that it isn't possible to lose salvation, but in a nutshell I would say this:  our salvation is by God's grace alone apart from our works and depends wholly on God for it's beginning and completion.  I believe that God is powerful enough to protect and keep those that He calls to salvation.  I DO, however, also believe that there are a lot of people out there who think they have salvation and/or appear to have salvation.  This would be the point of Jesus' parable of the wheat an and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43). I feel that conceptually and Biblically this is the best way to understand the nature of salvation.  Of course that are many that would disagree with me who have good reasons for doing so, but this is a pretty vital issue that Christians (particularly pastors!) need to take a stance on because it's pretty foundational to how one understands many passages of the Bible.

These warning passages in Hebrews, particularly today's, pose a challenge for people who believe what I do.  There are many passages that talk about God's power of salvation, but these passages also seem to indicate that it possible to lose it.  This is a big issue:  Why the warning passages at all?  If one can't lose salvation, why even suggest that it's possible? 

Thomas Schreiner has done some really good work on this issue, and I'll attach his paper below.  It's pretty long and dense, but if you're really interested in this you MUST read it.  His basic conclusion is that the warnings are serious, not idle threats: if you were to forsake God as these passages declare, these things would be true of you. BUT - true believers are kept by God's power from doing so.  Summary:  this are serious threats about what would happen to true believers who commit apostasy, but God prevents that from happening.  Does that mean we shouldn't be wary and take this warnings to heart?  NO!!!!  Of course we should.  Now we're entering the area of free will vs. God's sovereignty, and we don't have time to deal wit that here.  Suffice to say that no matter what, we must act like we have free will - we can't just sit around waiting for God to bring food and life to us.  But that's another topic.

Again, if you're interested, please check out this paper.  This is pretty complex topic, but also very important. I definitely lean very heavily toward Schreiner's view because it is very faithful to the meaning of the text, as well as preserving what I think is the Biblical view of the nature of salvation.  If you have any questions, hit me up in the comment area.

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Today, Enter His Rest
Today's reading is simple in some ways, but very complex in others.  The concepts here are pretty basic to the Christian life:

-Respond to God
-Rely on God's grace

The difficulty and complexity comes with how this is communicated.  As this is a letter to Jewish Christians, the writer of Hebrews is trying to communicate these ideas in ways that will be very meaningful to Jews and tie the New back with content from the old.  The writer does so by quoting liberally from Psalm 95.  Take a minute to read it - especially the second half, which is where the author quotes from.  As with many OT quotes in the NT we need to do some work to figure out how the author is using the OT.  Sometimes it's as easy as "Here is a prophecy that is fulfilled", but often the reason and function of the quote is much more complex than that.  This is one of those cases.  So how is the author using Psalm 95? Read through this slowly to make sure you follow the line of thinking/explanation:

"This ancient expositor’s reasoning goes as follows:
          •      David lived long after the original receptors of God’s promise of rest (v. 7).
          •      God, through David, again issued an implied promise through Psalm 95 that the people of God may enter his rest by not following the pattern of disobedience found in the desert story (v. 7).
          •      God gave this promise of rest through the psalmist because the physical entrance into the land under the leadership of Joshua did not fulfill the original promise (v. 8).
          •      The universally relevant Word of God, issued in the form of Psalm 95, shows that a Sabbath rest still exists for the people of God, who are under obligation to “hear his voice” in the time frame of “Today” (v. 9).
          •      Verse 10 concludes this portion of the author’s exposition by reflecting on the interpretive relevance of Genesis 2 for the Psalm 95 text: The essence of entering God’s rest means resting from one’s own work just as God did on the seventh day." [1]

The reasoning here is a little dense - the commentator is explaining A LOT in a very concise way, but I think he does an amazing job if you read it slowly and follow his explanation closely.  Basically it amounts to this:

Today, if you hear his voice, don't harden your hearts. ("Today" is everyday!  When I wake up tomorrow, this command will be just as valid because then that will be called "today" as well.)  By not hardening your heart, you can enter into God's rest.  But what IS God's rest?  Verse 10: "...for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his." (emphasis mine)

To hear God's voice today is to rest from our striving and works and to rest in the grace of God.  What is true "Sabbath rest"?  It is to lay down one's work to enter into the grace and rest of God. 

Rest in that thought today.

Questions?  Comments?

Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

An Illustration of the Purpose of Hebrews
As I mentioned in yesterday's post, Hebrews is a bridge-building book.  At the point that it was written, there were a lot of Jewish Christians that were worshiping Jesus, but were still continuing to observe all of the feasts, fasts, and other religious rituals of Judaism, albeit with a new focus upon Jesus as the Messiah.

The book of Hebrews really seeks to change that in a lot of ways.  As we've seen so far and will continue to see, it makes that case that Christ is greater than the previous revelation by angels and, in starting in chapter 3 today, Moses.  Hebrews makes the case that this new revelation concerning Jesus changes things significantly, and so worship and life must change.

Here's what I've found to be a helpful illustration about what Hebrews is trying to get across.  For a number of years, I had a 5th generation ipod.

It was great, and at the time, top-of-the line.  But, as unfortunately happens very quickly in our tech-centered world, this iPod became obsolete.  Let's imagine that I still had this iPod and held on to it because I refused to try anything new.  Let's also imagine that someone were to come to me and offer me a brand new latest-generation iPod touch to replace it.  I respond to them,

"I can't get new iPod touch - I don't have the instruction manual for it.  I only have an instruction manual for my 5th generation iPod.  I'd never be able to operate it." 

That would be a silly and stupid response.  Refusing to get a new iPod simply because you don't have an instruction manual for it is ridiculous!  Just get a new manual for the new version and the problem is solved!

This, in a rough way, is what Hebrews seeks to address.  There was the iPod (the old covenant made with Moses) with it's old instruction manual (the Law).  Many Jewish Christians weren't necessarily seeking salvation from the Law, but it was all they had ever known.  They had a new iPod touch (salvation and the new covenant through Jesus), but were still using the old manual (the Law).  This is a major problem.  The old manual can't really tell you much about how to operate the new technology - the Law can't really tell you much about how to live life with Jesus as Lord.  Some of the basics may be there, but things are radically new and different.  Hebrews proposes an abandonment of the old manual of the observance of the Law for new life and worship in Christ.  Why?  Because He is greater than the previous things in every way.  Most of Hebrews is spent explaining how much greater He is.  The Law is no longer sufficient, so things must change.

Obviously there are a lot of details and ins-and-outs of this new covenant with Jesus, and Hebrews doesn't even necessarily explain them all - it simply makes the case that the Law isn't big enough to contain the whole of life in Christ.  This illustration isn't perfect of course,  buy I hope it helps you to understand a little better what the writer of Hebrews is trying to accomplish in this book.

Questions?  Comments?